Recategorizing group boundaries can expand ingroup identity from us-them to we

Evidence

One recategorization strategy, represented by our own work on the Common Ingroup Identity Model, involves interventions to change people’s conceptions of distinct group memberships to either a single, more inclusive group, or to subgroups within a more inclusive superordinate group (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000). Allport’s (1954/1979, p. 43) “circles of inclusion” diagram nicely depicts the idea that a person’s potential ingroups can vary hierarchically in inclusiveness, for example from one’s family to one’s neighborhood, to one’s city, to one’s nation, to all of humankind. With recategorization, perceptions of group boundaries of “us” and “them” are transformed into a more inclusive “we.” — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 564

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces the Common Ingroup Identity Model and recategorization as conceptual tools.
• XREF: Connects to Allport’s own circles-of-inclusion idea and recalls broader social identity theory (Tajfel). — connects to: Social reproduction sustains individuals through group identity, not just purposive-rational adaptation — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2428; Merely categorizing people into us and them generates in-group favoritism and out-group devaluation; Ingroup-outgroup pairing, not either alone, drives identity shifts — Brandon Randolph-Seng, Darcy A. Reich, and Kenneth G. DeMarree, On the Nonconscious Antecedents of…, 50 (+2 more)