| Revision as of 18:53, 28 October 2024 editParadox38 (talk | contribs)85 edits →Single and Dual-Identity Recategorization: Began adding to intergroup contact theory.Tag: Visual edit← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:05, 29 October 2024 edit undoParadox38 (talk | contribs)85 edits →Practical Considerations (problems? challenges?): Considerably added to practical considerations and intergroup contact theoryTag: Visual editNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| In social psychology, recategorization is a change to the identity or identities with which an individual or group identifies. When deliberately encouraged, recategorization is |
In social psychology, recategorization is a change to the identity or identities with which an individual or group identifies. When deliberately encouraged, the goal of recategorization is often to reduce bias by making salient a superordinate group identity that encompasses group identities in the preexisting categorization, thereby making the groups individuals identify with more inclusive. Superordinate group identities can be centered on superordinate goals | ||
| broaden the scope of an identity or make a more inclusive identity salient, in order to reduce bias.{{Dashboard.wikiedu.org draft template/about this sandbox}} | |||
| == History == | == History == | ||
| Line 15: | Line 17: | ||
| Ingroup bias is a thing. Increase the size of the ingroup to reduce bias against the outgroups, who are now part of the ingroup. | Ingroup bias is a thing. Increase the size of the ingroup to reduce bias against the outgroups, who are now part of the ingroup. | ||
| Superordinate groups can be defined by common superordinate goals, e.g., a union and a political party cooperating to pass legislation they both favor. They can also be defined by common group identity, such as Black and White students uniting as students of the same school. | |||
| superordinate | |||
| === Intergroup Contact Theory === | === Intergroup Contact Theory === | ||
| (Pettigrew) Describes a three-stage pathway to recategorization. First, groups |
(Pettigrew) Describes a three-stage pathway to recategorization. First, groups come into contact and experience decategorization. According to Pettigrew, there are five ] for this to occur: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities, laws, or customs (initially proposed by Gordon Allport), as well as friendship potential: the contact must provide opportunity for individuals in each group to become friends. This positive contact allows results in the formation of positive impressions of the other group ''as individuals'', reducing the salience of group identities (decategorization); this reduction in group salience further enhances the effect of intergroup contact. However, this first stage is inhibited by strongly negative contact and significant difference in status, each of which which can reinforce group identities and contribute to intergroup hostility. | ||
| In the second stage, positive interpersonal relationships foster positive intergroup perceptions. If group identities become more salient following decategorization, the positive impressions of individuals in the outgroup can generalize to the outgroup as a whole. In a reversal of the first stage, salient group categorization is necessary; without a connection between the individual and the group, impressions of the individual cannot generalize to their group identity. Because group identity is more salient for more normative group members, contact with individuals who are more prototypical of their group increases generalization; however, prototypicality is not a prerequisite of generalization. | |||
| === Dual-Identity Recategorization === | === Dual-Identity Recategorization === | ||
| Line 38: | Line 42: | ||
| Single-identity recategorization requires that an inactivated or new identity replaces an original identity. Identities are acquired over the course of life, and attempts to replace ingrained identities (e.g., race) with ephemeral identities (e.g., employer) can fail, or succeed only temporarily (WE). Lasting single-identity recategorization must overpower categorizations already present, which often have been ingrained over years by systems and social forces that continue to make salient the original categorization and threaten to reverse recategorization efforts. | Single-identity recategorization requires that an inactivated or new identity replaces an original identity. Identities are acquired over the course of life, and attempts to replace ingrained identities (e.g., race) with ephemeral identities (e.g., employer) can fail, or succeed only temporarily (WE). Lasting single-identity recategorization must overpower categorizations already present, which often have been ingrained over years by systems and social forces that continue to make salient the original categorization and threaten to reverse recategorization efforts. | ||
| Dual-identity recategorization alleviates some of these difficulties—namely, the difficulty in supplanting an existing identity—but it still must contend with conditions that reinforce the original categorization and likely conflict with the desired recategorization. Furthermore, dual-identity recategorization can reinforce intergroup hostility in certain circumstances, instead of reducing it. In conditions where the superordinate identity directly relates to the subgroup identities, or in populations where the group hierarchy is contentious or seen as illegitimate, multiple subgroups may see themselves as prototypical of the superordinate group. According to the ingroup projection model, subgroups in these situations project their values and beliefs onto the shared superordinate group, and see themselves as embodying the superordinate group (Mum). Consequently, subgroups evaluate one another according to the attributes they associate with the superordinate group, which are reflections of the values and beliefs they ascribe to their own subgroup. The disparity between the attributes of each subgroup and the attributes assigned to the superordinate group leads to perceptions that the other subgroup is violating the shared group norms, resulting in conflict. Dual-identity recategorization in this circumstance can increase intergroup hostility by way of increasing the salience of the superordinate group identity that exacerbates underlying subgroup differences. | |||
| Even when successful, Identity activations are often temporary. | |||
| Single-identity recategorizations can face great difficulty | |||
| Recategorization is not a cure-all. It can be difficult to recategorize people, especially single single-identity recategorizations must try to overpower categorizations already present, which often have been ingrained over years by systems that continue to make the original categorization salient. | |||
| Multiple-identity recategorization also has the potential to heighten tensions by making the source of intergroup tensions more salient. | |||
| Attaches to ingroup projection model(?) wherein subgroups project their values onto the superordinate group and judge members of that group (both within and beyond their subgroup) by those projected values. This is a means of making your ingroup's values prototypical for and normative of the superordinate group, which has benefits (cite "it's good when your group is prototypical"). | Attaches to ingroup projection model(?) wherein subgroups project their values onto the superordinate group and judge members of that group (both within and beyond their subgroup) by those projected values. This is a means of making your ingroup's values prototypical for and normative of the superordinate group, which has benefits (cite "it's good when your group is prototypical"). | ||
| Line 50: | Line 48: | ||
| (Petti)grew describes recategorization as the final state of a three-stage process which is often uncompleted. | (Petti)grew describes recategorization as the final state of a three-stage process which is often uncompleted. | ||
| Furthermore, reduced ingroup identity has its own effects, including X, Y, and Z. (At least note the reduction in support for collective action, depending on recategorization) | Furthermore, reduced ingroup identity has its own effects, including X, Y, and Z. (At least note the reduction in support for collective action, depending on recategorization) | ||
| == Criticism == | == Criticism == | ||
| Line 68: | Line 66: | ||
| Ingroup projection model | Ingroup projection model | ||
| == References -- When completed, copypaste into Word to check for grammatical errors, then go back and 'linkify' terms that have their own Misplaced Pages articles. == | |||
| == References == | |||
| ] | ] | ||
Revision as of 08:05, 29 October 2024
In social psychology, recategorization is a change to the identity or identities with which an individual or group identifies. When deliberately encouraged, the goal of recategorization is often to reduce bias by making salient a superordinate group identity that encompasses group identities in the preexisting categorization, thereby making the groups individuals identify with more inclusive. Superordinate group identities can be centered on superordinate goals
broaden the scope of an identity or make a more inclusive identity salient, in order to reduce bias.
 | This template is not to be used in article space. This is the sandbox page where you will draft your initial Misplaced Pages contribution. If you're starting a new article, you can develop it here until it's ready to go live. If you're working on improvements to an existing article, copy only one section at a time of the article to this sandbox to work on, and be sure to use an edit summary linking to the article you copied from. Do not copy over the entire article. You can find additional instructions here. Remember to save your work regularly using the "Publish page" button. (It just means 'save'; it will still be in the sandbox.) You can add bold formatting to your additions to differentiate them from existing content. |
History
OG? Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, Dovidio
1998 Pettigrew suggests reformulation into a four stage process,
Mechanism
Self-Categorization Theory
Recategorization changes the salience of group identities. Self-categorization theory says that individuals usually have one category salient at a time, and making one identity salient changes their behavior.
Ingroup bias is a thing. Increase the size of the ingroup to reduce bias against the outgroups, who are now part of the ingroup.
Superordinate groups can be defined by common superordinate goals, e.g., a union and a political party cooperating to pass legislation they both favor. They can also be defined by common group identity, such as Black and White students uniting as students of the same school.
Intergroup Contact Theory
(Pettigrew) Describes a three-stage pathway to recategorization. First, groups come into contact and experience decategorization. According to Pettigrew, there are five necessary conditions for this to occur: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities, laws, or customs (initially proposed by Gordon Allport), as well as friendship potential: the contact must provide opportunity for individuals in each group to become friends. This positive contact allows results in the formation of positive impressions of the other group as individuals, reducing the salience of group identities (decategorization); this reduction in group salience further enhances the effect of intergroup contact. However, this first stage is inhibited by strongly negative contact and significant difference in status, each of which which can reinforce group identities and contribute to intergroup hostility.
In the second stage, positive interpersonal relationships foster positive intergroup perceptions. If group identities become more salient following decategorization, the positive impressions of individuals in the outgroup can generalize to the outgroup as a whole. In a reversal of the first stage, salient group categorization is necessary; without a connection between the individual and the group, impressions of the individual cannot generalize to their group identity. Because group identity is more salient for more normative group members, contact with individuals who are more prototypical of their group increases generalization; however, prototypicality is not a prerequisite of generalization.
Dual-Identity Recategorization
While recategorization necessarily involves a change in salient identities, dual-identity recategorization activates both the original identity and a new identity simultaneously.
This is distinguished from recategorization that results in a single salient identity and a suppressed or replaced original identity, which is referred to as single-identity recategorization (WE).
Recategorization can take Single-identity recategorization
Dual-identity recategorization (or multi-identity recategorization) retains the original identity
Dual identity recategorization functions through cross-categorization or hierarchical(?) categorization. Cross-categorization makes use of identities orthogonal to the identities unrelated to the original categorization, e.g., Black and White students on a college campus recategorizing into Students who go to X College.
hierarchical(?) categorization works by maintaining the groups in the current categorization as subgroups belonging to a superordinate group. An example of this could be fans of different baseball teams uniting as baseball fans, or fans of different sports uniting as sports fans, or members of different political parties uniting as patriots.
Practical Considerations (problems? challenges?)
Single-identity recategorization requires that an inactivated or new identity replaces an original identity. Identities are acquired over the course of life, and attempts to replace ingrained identities (e.g., race) with ephemeral identities (e.g., employer) can fail, or succeed only temporarily (WE). Lasting single-identity recategorization must overpower categorizations already present, which often have been ingrained over years by systems and social forces that continue to make salient the original categorization and threaten to reverse recategorization efforts.
Dual-identity recategorization alleviates some of these difficulties—namely, the difficulty in supplanting an existing identity—but it still must contend with conditions that reinforce the original categorization and likely conflict with the desired recategorization. Furthermore, dual-identity recategorization can reinforce intergroup hostility in certain circumstances, instead of reducing it. In conditions where the superordinate identity directly relates to the subgroup identities, or in populations where the group hierarchy is contentious or seen as illegitimate, multiple subgroups may see themselves as prototypical of the superordinate group. According to the ingroup projection model, subgroups in these situations project their values and beliefs onto the shared superordinate group, and see themselves as embodying the superordinate group (Mum). Consequently, subgroups evaluate one another according to the attributes they associate with the superordinate group, which are reflections of the values and beliefs they ascribe to their own subgroup. The disparity between the attributes of each subgroup and the attributes assigned to the superordinate group leads to perceptions that the other subgroup is violating the shared group norms, resulting in conflict. Dual-identity recategorization in this circumstance can increase intergroup hostility by way of increasing the salience of the superordinate group identity that exacerbates underlying subgroup differences.
Attaches to ingroup projection model(?) wherein subgroups project their values onto the superordinate group and judge members of that group (both within and beyond their subgroup) by those projected values. This is a means of making your ingroup's values prototypical for and normative of the superordinate group, which has benefits (cite "it's good when your group is prototypical").
(Petti)grew describes recategorization as the final state of a three-stage process which is often uncompleted.
Furthermore, reduced ingroup identity has its own effects, including X, Y, and Z. (At least note the reduction in support for collective action, depending on recategorization)
Criticism
Rwandan Recategorization Policy
starting in 1994 Rwanda started passing policies to encourage single-identity recategorization.
Consistent with ingroup projection model(?)
See Also (or incorporate somehow)
Cross Categorization
Multiple Categorization
Social Projection
Ingroup projection model