Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paradox38 (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 29 November 2024 (→Achieving Recategorization: underlined text to remove.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 common ingroup identity that encompasses group identities in the preexisting categorization. This making the groups individuals identify with more inclusive, changing conceptions of an "us" ingroup and a "them" outgroup into a "we" superordinate group, in which all individuals benefit from ingroup bias. Common ingroup group identities can be built around superordinate goals, perceived shared fate, or preexisting superordinate group identities, and are supported by positive intergroup contact.

Recategorization exists in two primary forms: single-identity recategorization, in which groups are recategorized into a single common ingroup identity, and dual-identity recategorization, in which groups maintain their original identities in addition to a common in group identity. Both forms of recategorization can be difficult to implement, and in certain circumstances recategorization efforts can exacerbate intergroup conflicts. Still, recategorization policies have been implemented on a national scale: notably, Rwanda included recategorization policies in its 2003 constitution to replace ethnic identities with a single national identity.

%%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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. To this, Pettigrew later added a fifth condition: friendship potential, that the contact must provide opportunity for individuals in each group to become friends.

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 (a process known as 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 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.

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.

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. In many contexts, dual-identity recategorization is preferable to single-identity recategorization due to the difficulty in overriding and replacing established identities. Certain identities (e.g., racial and national identities) are entrenched over years of life and continuously fortified through interactions that make them salient; dual-identity recategorization is particularly well-suited to situations where the preexisting identities are of this kind.

However, dual-identity recategorization also faces a unique difficulties that can lead to inflame, rather than abate, intergroup tensions (see below).

Add Hierarch and Cross next.

Dual identity recategorization often functions best throughcross-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.

Challenges

The challenges facing recategorization efforts can be broadly categorized as obstacles to achieving recategorization, difficulty in maintaining a recategorized superordinate identity, and unintended consequences to attempted recategorization.

Achieving Recategorization

Achieving 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. Also of concern is identity threat: as the identities that people hold are threatened by deemphasis, people are motivated to emphasize the identities they hold. Identity threat is of particular concern in circumstances where groups are not similarly prototypical of their superordinate identity: as only the group that is more prototypical (and typically, more powerful) has a strong claim to superordinate identity, giving up a distinct identity can be costly and undesirable to less-prototypical groups that would be held to the standards of a superordinate identity that does not reflect their values.

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.

Pettigrew describes recategorization as the final state of a three-stage process that can be halted at any stage and often goes uncompleted.

Maintaining Recategorization

Many of the same factors that make successful recategorization difficult also threaten to reverse the process.

Lasting single-identity recategorization must overpower categorizations already present, which have often been ingrained over years by systems and social forces that continue to make salient the original categorization and threaten to reverse recategorization efforts. Ther

Unintended Consequences

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. 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.

Reducing identification with original group identities has potentially undesirable effects as well. For instance, as collective action is motivated by a perception of inequality between groups, the erasure or reduced salience of group distinctions reduces support for collective action that could otherwise affect an inequitable status quo. (reduced social support? reduced cultural identity?) X, Y, and Z. (At least note the reduction in support for collective action, depending on recategorization)

Either: positive distinctiveness --> I don't want to share a group with you --> heightened bias towards outgroup to maintain positive distinctiveness.

Dual: by highlighting a contested shared identity, inflame intergroup tensions (maybe possible in single-recat too, but here the conflicting groups are retained and made salient as well!)

Applications

Recategorization Policy in Rwanda

In 1994, approximately 800,000 Tutsi, Twa, and moderate Hutu Rwandans were killed in the Rwandan Genocide. In 2003, the Republic of Rwanda adopted language into its constitution prohibiting discrimination and ethnic divisionism; this prohibits the collection of data that recognizes ethnic identity, as well as emphasis on and identification with ethnic identities. The Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa identities are now taught to be inventions of Belgian colonizers, and banyarwanda--"those who come from Rwanda"-- is now the only legally acceptable identity for Rwandan citizens. This enforced single identity, intended to replace all previous identities, is an example of state-sponsored and enforced single-identity recategorization.

While research is limited by the prohibition on disclosing ethnicity in most contexts, one study by Moss found that ethnic groups seem united in support for the unified identity, but have different grievances with the process. Discussing ethnicity is, in most contexts, now a taboo. Participants of both Hutu and Tutsi identities expressed a desire to have more control over the recategorization/unity process.

Recategorization in Zanzibar

Interventions

Use on Executive Boards

See Also

Cross Categorization

Multiple Categorization

Social Projection

References

1. ^ Dovidio, John; Gaertner, Samuel; Saguy, Tamar (2009). "Commonality and the Complexity of "We": Social Attitudes and Social Change". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13 (1): 3–20 – via Sage Journals.
2. ^ Dovidio, John; Glick, Peter; Rudman, Laurie, eds. (January 1, 2005). On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport (1 ed.). Blackwell Publishing. pp. 71–85, 269–289. ISBN 9781405151924.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
3. ^ Gaertner, Samuel; Dovidio, John; Anastasio, Phyllis; Bachman, Betty; Rust, Mary (January 1993). "The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias". European Review of Social Psychology. 4 (1): 1–26 – via ResearchGate.
4. ^ Pettigrew, Thomas (February 1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory". Annual Review of Psychology. 49 (1): 65–85 – via ResearchGate.
5. ^ Moss, Sigrun Marie; Ray Vollhardt, Johanna (November 6, 2015). ""You Can't Give a Syringe with Unity": Rwandan Responses to the Government's Single Recategorization Policies". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 16 (1): 325–359 – via SPSSI.
6. ^ Moss, Sigrun Marie (2014). "Beyond Conflict and Spoilt Identities: How Rwandan Leaders Justify a Single Recategorization Model for Post-Conflict Reconciliation". Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2 (1): 435–449 – via PsychOpen Gold.
7. Hornsey, Matthew (January 14, 2008). "Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2 (1): 204–222 – via Wiley Online Library.
8. ^ Mummendey, Amélie; Wenzel, Michael (1993). "Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: reactions to intergroup difference". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (2): 158–174 – via PubMed.
9. Kamanzi, Anna (October 29, 2021). "A nation without ethnicity: the Rwandan reconciliation model". IWGIA.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
10. ^ Verwey, Cathinca (2021). "Social Identity Recategorization: Comparing National Reconciliation Initiatives in Burundi and Rwanda". Uppsala Universitet. Retrieved November 11, 2024 – via DiVA.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)