Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias

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.” — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 564

Categorization

• DEFINE: Introduces the Common Ingroup Identity Model and the ‘circles of inclusion’ concept — a clean framework for how group boundaries can be recast at more inclusive levels.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 564
• XREF: connects to: Distinguishing identification dimensions improves prediction of intergroup outcomes — Sonia Roccas and Yechiel Klar and Ido Liviatan, The Paradox of Group-Based Guilt: Modes…, 143; 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; Shared superordinate identity is neither necessary nor sufficient for intergroup tolerance — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 800 (+4 more)