Recategorization interventions founder because people resist merging with threatening out-groups.

Evidence

Multiple categorization approaches are typically thought of as holding particular merit in their potential not only to further advance understanding of but also to improve intergroup relations by creating conditions under which positive out-group attitudes may be promoted. For example, the crossed categorization approach rests upon the premise that crossing two orthogonal categories reduces the salience of any one of these, and may thus lead to more differentiated out-group perceptions (see, e.g., Brewer, 2000, for a review). In addition, the common in-group identity model, and to some extent the dual identity model, holds that recategorization of individuals from two former subgroups to a common, superordinate in-group may also lead to more positive out-group attitudes (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). However, these multiple categorization approaches have some limitations as social interventions. These approaches rely largely on changing or restructuring people’s self-categorizations, and individuals may not wish to share, let alone merge, group membership with groups perceived as a threat; they also hold the risk of depriving individuals of valuable social categories (see, e.g., Brewer & Gaertner, 2001). Moreover, it is difficult to achieve changes in self-categorization, reduce the salience of categories, or get individuals to attend to the multiple category memberships of others in the real world (it is for this reason, perhaps, that most tests of these approaches have been conducted within the laboratory, using either existing or arbitrarily created social categories). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 583

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Allport’s contact hypothesis critique — both hold that restructuring cognition or contact is limited when threat perception blocks the process.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 583