Recategorizing outgroup members as ingroup members diminishes perceived threat.

Evidence

Although most of the research involving the CIIM has examined its direct effect on intergroup bias, it is possible that a common ingroup identity also reduces perceived threat between groups. Once former outgroup members are regarded as ingroup members, there is less reason to perceive them as threatening. For example, a common ingroup identity could focus members’ attention on similarities rather than differences between the groups and thereby decrease the salience of the values and beliefs that are unshared, which should reduce symbolic threat. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 175

Categorization

• XREF: 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; A shared superordinate identity can backfire by fueling subgroup in-group projection. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 176; Equality gains by subordinate groups trigger perceived threat in dominant groups — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 151

Related

• A shared superordinate identity can backfire by fueling subgroup in-group projection. (similarity 0.92)
• Superordinate identities reduce bias and can mitigate perceived threat between groups. (similarity 0.92)
• Recategorization into a common identity can backfire and increase subgroup bias via distinctiveness loss. (similarity 0.90)
• Recategorization can backfire by making subgroups vie to embody the shared identity. (similarity 0.90)
• Recategorizing out-groups within a shared superordinate category can reduce bias without erasing subgroup identities (similarity 0.88)
• Similarity of an outgroup raises bias only among highly identified ingroup members. (similarity 0.88)
• Groups are perceived as more threatening than individuals, so dissolving category boundaries lowers threat. (similarity 0.87)
• Changing how people categorize others can reduce intergroup threat. (similarity 0.86)
• Groups very similar to the ingroup provoke more intergroup bias than dissimilar ones do. (similarity 0.86)
• Group-based identity forces precede realistic and symbolic threat perception (similarity 0.86)
• Threat from similar outgroups drives more bias than threat from dissimilar ones. (similarity 0.86)
• Cross-group friendship and empathy reduce the threat behind intergroup bias. (similarity 0.85)
• Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias (similarity 0.85)
• Common external threats can reduce prejudice among ordinary outgroups (similarity 0.84)
• Broadening the definition of ingroup reduces intergroup bias (similarity 0.83)