This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paradox38 (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 13 November 2024 (→Common Ingroup Identity Model: Fleshed out the CIIM section with the CIIM reference.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:15, 13 November 2024 by Paradox38 (talk | contribs) (→Common Ingroup Identity Model: Fleshed out the CIIM section with the CIIM reference.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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 creating or making salient a common ingroup identity that encompasses group identities in the preexisting categorization, thereby making the groups individuals identify with more inclusive. Common ingroup group identities can be built around superordinate goals, perceived shared fate, or preexisting superordinate group identities (Prej, CIIM).
%%insert-toc%%
Mechanism
Common Ingroup Identity Model
Flesh out a brief of this and recategorization's part in it. I'm sure the wiki page for it is a gold mine. Maybe will consume a lower theory section as well.
Common ingroup identity is associated with positive treatment and greater closeness due to ingroup bias, the tendency for individuals to favor members of their ingroup and disfavor members of their outgroup (CIIM). The common ingroup identity model proposes recategorization as a tool to reduce these biases, by broadening the scope of existing identities or encouraging self-categorization into to a more inclusive identity. These inclusive group identities are known as superordinate group identities. Superordinate groups can be defined by 1) common group identity (that may not be salient), such as students of different races sharing an identity based on their school affiliation, 2) by common superordinate goals, such as when different political groups cooperate to pass legislation they both favor, or 3) a perceived shared fate, such as the idea that a town's inhabitants will flourish or fail as a group (Prej, CIIM).
When superordinate group identities are made more salient, groups that share them are encouraged to think more positively of one another as they interact positively to accomplish those goals or within the framework of that superordinate group (Prej, CIIM). As positive interactions occur, the positive feelings they evoke can become generalized to the groups, and generalize more if the initial group identities remain salient alongside the superordinate group identity. This model is predated and supported by Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, which describes how people consider ingroups and outgroups differently and seek positive distinctiveness for their ingroup, as well as self-categorization theory, which states that group membership is mutable and people categorize themselves based on the fit and accessibility of different groups (Hornsey 08). In essence, recategorization can be achieved by increasing the fit and accessibility of the common ingroup identity, and successful recategorization reduces bias due to ingroup bias.
It is hypothesized that certain factors can facilitate the creation of a common ingroup identity (a shared identity under which initially distinct groups consider one another a part of the same "we" group). These factors include groups sharing similar characteristics, interacting cooperatively, and low intergroup differentiation, each of which can be fostered through positive intergroup contact (CIIM).
Intergroup Contact Theory
Under the contact hypothesis, intergroup contact under certain conditions will reduce intergroup prejudice. Initially, Gordon Allport proposed four necessary conditions for this to occur: equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and support of authorities, laws, or customs (Prej). To this, Pettigrew later added a fifth condition: friendship potential, that the contact must provide opportunity for individuals in each group to become friends (Prej, Petti).
Pettigrew (1998) Describes a three-stage sequence from contact to recategorization. First, groups come into contact and experience decategorization. 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. From this first stage, the necessary conditions for positive intergroup contact are relevant: decategorization is inhibited by strongly negative contact or difference in status, each of which which can reinforce group identities and contribute to intergroup hostility. (Petti, Prej, CIIM)
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. (Petti)
In the third stage, after sufficient positive perceptions have been built, categorizations of "we" and "they" can merge into a collective "we" that encompasses both original groups. This final stage is recategorization, and intergroup prejudice is most reduced. This three-stage process does not constitute a pipeline--groups can cease contact at any time, and achieving one stage does not mean that the next stage will be reached. (Petti)
Dual-Identity Recategorization (PRIORITY)
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 (WE, Prej)
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 (WE, Prej). Furthermore, dual-identity recategorization can reinforce intergroup hostility in certain circumstances, instead of reducing it. In conditions where the superordinate identity is perceived a threat to the subgroup identities, rather than a goal, 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)
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)
Common Ingroup Identity Model
Cross Categorization
Multiple Categorization
Social Projection
Ingroup projection model