Recategorizing out-groups within a shared superordinate category can reduce bias without erasing subgroup identities

Evidence

As a potential solution to the problem of intergroup hostility, discrimination, and prejudice, social psychologists theorize that recategorization of in-group and out-group members within a superordinate category may lead to more harmonious intergroup relations. For example, according to the common in-group identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Gaertner et al., 1993), perceiving out-group members as part of a larger group to which the in-group also belongs can reduce bias because the benefits of in-group favoritism are extended to those out-group members. In other words, intergroup attitudes should shift because people are motivated to perceive members of the in-group positively. Of importance, proponents of the common in-group identity model and others (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2009) argue that recategorization in the form of a dual identity, in which superordinate and subgroup identities are both salient, can reap the benefits of superordinate identity without requiring groups to forsake valued subgroup identities (e.g., racial and ethnic identities). — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 732

Categorization

• XREF: Extends the Allport/complication thread: the common in-group identity model is a concrete mechanism reading for how hostile intergroup attitudes shift, relevant to assimilation debates and the limits of superordinate appeals like ‘we are all Americans.’ — connects to: Recategorization into a common identity can backfire and increase subgroup bias via distinctiveness loss. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 176
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Roderick M. Kramer, Geoffrey J. Leonardelli, Robert W. Livingston, Social Cognition, Social Identity, and…, 732