Superordinate identities reduce in-group bias in the lab but fail at societal scale.

Evidence

From these perspectives, narrow identification with one’s own group can be an obstacle to interracial cooperation among minorities. Consequently, one strategy for increasing cooperation involves offering competing groups a superordinate identity (Sherif, 1966). Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio (1989) found that creating a superordinate identity for two competing teams, by asking participants in both teams to create a unique name for themselves, significantly reduced inter-group bias in later group interaction. This recategorization strategy, however, has not always been effective at the societal scale. For example, the superordinate identity ‘’Democrats” failed to unite a racially fragmented constituency in the 2008 Democratic primary. Indeed, a Gallup poll in March 2008 showed that 28 percent of Clinton supporters and 19 percent of Obama supporters indicated they would vote for Republican candidate John McCain over their fellow democrat in the general election (Newport, 2008). — Chen-Bo Zhong, Adam D. Galinsky, and Miguel M. Unzueta, Negational racial identity and…, 9

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘Democrats’ superordinate-identity failure at societal scale is the exact background tension that found the negational-identity experiment that follows — the We-They Engine central finding these studies motivate. — connects to: Shared superordinate identity is neither necessary nor sufficient for intergroup tolerance — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 800; Superordinate identities reduce bias and can mitigate perceived threat between groups. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 174; Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 564 (+4 more)
• QUESTION: Why did the 2008 primary data show Clinton supporters more loyal than Obama’s (28 vs 19%)? Worth chasing whether that asymmetry itself reflects different negational anchors.
• ADDENDUM: Ties into the We-They Engine thread — recategorization (superordinate identity) is the canonical counter-strategy whose limits this paper exposes.

Broader Connections

• Reframing outgroups as part of a shared superordinate identity reduces bias #corroborates (0.88) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 564
• Dual identity reduces intergroup bias when subgroup identities are recognized and valued #qualifies (0.88) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 577
• Recategorization into a common identity, not cooperation itself, reduces intergroup bias #corroborates (0.86) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 572
• Recognizing subgroup identities within a shared team identity reduces intergroup bias. #qualifies (0.86) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 577
• Superordinate identities reduce bias and can mitigate perceived threat between groups. #corroborates (0.82) — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes, 174
• Status effects on ingroup bias reverse between lab and field settings #qualifies (0.74) — Thomas F. Pettigrew, Intergroup Contact Theory, 10