Recategorization

Last updated
Prior to recategorization, individuals identify with separate and distinct groups. Following recategorization, individuals identify with a united group that encompasses their previous group identities. Recategorization of Orange and Blue.png
Prior to recategorization, individuals identify with separate and distinct groups. Following recategorization, individuals identify with a united group that encompasses their previous group identities.

In social psychology, recategorization is a change in the conceptual representation of a group or groups. [1] [2] [3] When deliberate, recategorization is often encouraged in order to mitigate bias by making salient a common ingroup identity that encompasses the group identities of the preexisting categorization. [4] This common ingroup identity is more inclusive than the preexisting group identities, changing conceptions of an "us" ingroup and a "them" outgroup into a "we" superordinate group, and can result in ingroup bias towards former outgroups and an increase in prosocial behavior. [2] Common ingroup identities can be built around superordinate goals, perceived shared fate, or preexisting superordinate group identities, and are supported by positive intergroup contact. [3] [4]

Contents

Two primary forms of recategorization are recognized: 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 ingroup identity. [2] Both forms of recategorization can be difficult to implement, and in certain circumstances recategorization efforts can exacerbate intergroup conflicts. [2] [5] [6] Still, numerous recategorization interventions have been devised and tested, and 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. [6] [7]

Mechanism

Common ingroup identity model

Sharing a common identity with another person or group 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. [4] 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. [3] [4] Sharing a superordinate group with another is associated with increased prosocial behavior. [8]

When superordinate group identities are made more salient, groups that share them feel more positively towards one another as they interact positively within the framework of a superordinate group or in order to accomplish shared goals or affect a shared fate. [3] Over time, the positive feelings these interactions evoke can become generalized from individuals to groups; these feelings generalize more if the initial group identities remain salient alongside the superordinate group identity. [4] 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. [9] [10] [11] In essence, recategorization can be achieved by increasing the fit and accessibility of the common ingroup identity, and successful recategorization reduces a bias difference between groups by using a superordinate identity to extend ingroup favoritism towards former outgroups.

It is hypothesized that certain factors can facilitate the creation of a common ingroup identity. These factors include similar group characteristics, intergroup cooperation, and low intergroup differentiation, each of which can be fostered through positive intergroup contact. [4]

Intergroup contact theory

The common ingroup identity model, first outlined in 1993, describes how recategorization can mitigate bias; intergroup contact theory, introduced five years later, describes how recategorization can be achieved. [4] [5] 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. [3] To this, Pettigrew later added a fifth condition: friendship potential, that the contact must provide opportunity for individuals in each group to become friends. [3] [5]

Intergroup contact theory describes a three-stage sequence from contact to recategorization. [5] First, groups come into contact and experience decategorization. Positive intergroup contact enables the formation of positive impressions of another group as individuals, reducing the salience of group identities in a process known as decategorization; this reduction in group salience further enhances the effect of intergroup contact. The necessary conditions for positive intergroup contact are relevant from this first stage, as decategorization is inhibited by negative contact and difference in status, each of which can reinforce group identities and contribute to intergroup hostility. [3] [4] [5]

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, high prototypicality is not a prerequisite of generalization. [5]

In the third stage, after sufficient positive perceptions have been built, categorizations of "us" and "them" can merge into a collective "we" that encompasses both original groups. This final stage is recategorization, and at this stage intergroup prejudice is most reduced—by nature, prejudice towards those who share a superordinate group at this stage would be intragroup discrimination. This three-stage process is not always completed—groups can cease contact at any time and achieving one stage does not mean that the next stage will be reached. [5] Still, each stage reduces conflict even when independent of the others and facilitates the achievement of other the later stages. [12]

Alternatively, some degree of recategorization may be achieved when individuals are led to believe that they share immutable traits with an outgroup. [13]

Dual-identity recategorization

While recategorization necessarily involves a shift in salient identities, dual-identity recategorization activates both original identities and a new identity simultaneously. [3] [14] 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. [2] 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. Dual-identity recategorization also facilitates comparison between the subgroups contained by a superordinate group. When this process reveals unjust disparities to the majority subgroup, it can spur the majority subgroup to action to correct what is seen as a moral violation against those who, post-recategorization, are considered ingroup members. [2]

However, dual-identity recategorization also faces a unique difficulties that can inflame, rather than abate, intergroup tensions (see below ). [2] [3] [15] Additionally, in some contexts, it can also be weaker than single-identity recategorization: in a study of European Portuguese and African Portuguese children, African Portuguese children in the single-identity recategorization condition reacted more positively towards European Portuguese children than African Portuguese children in the dual-identity recategorization condition. Members of the African Portuguese minority group preferred a single-identity recategorization that solidified their position as part of a unified Portuguese culture over a dual-identity recategorization that opposed assimilation by emphasizing existing subgroup identities; this may also be the case in other contexts where the integration of groups is relatively recent and assimilation is preferred by each group. [16]

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 of attempted recategorization.

Achieving recategorization

In intergroup contact theory, recategorization is achieved as the final state of a three-stage process that can be halted at any time and often goes uncompleted, and both single- and dual-identity recategorizations can be difficult to fully realize. [5] Achieving single-identity recategorization requires that an inactivated or new identity replaces a preexisting salient 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. [2] Also of concern is identity threat: as the identities that people hold are threatened by deemphasis and reduced positive distinctiveness, people are motivated to emphasize the identities that they hold. [2] [6] 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 the 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. [2] [15]

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. [2] [3]

Maintaining recategorization

Many of the same factors that make it difficult to achieve successful recategorization also threaten to reverse the process. The systems and social forces which ingrained the original categorizations may facilitate their return by continuing to make the original categorizations salient and by disregarding or actively combating identification with a recategorized superordinate identity. [2] As before, dual-identity recategorization has the advantage that the superordinate category introduced or made salient by recategorization does not oppose preexisting identities, but it still may be overcome if it is unsupported while its component subgroup identities are reinforced; in time, it may lose enough salience to become irrelevant.

Unintended consequences

When the positive distinctiveness of a group is threatened by single-identity recategorization, the identity threat felt by high-identifying group members may oppose a superordinate identity enough that they heighten their bias towards outgroups in order to reassert positive distinctiveness; in this way, attempting recategorization may actually increase intergroup bias. However, this reaction is not apparent when recategorization does not reduce the salience of preexisting identities (i.e., in dual-identity recategorization). [17]

While the fact that dual-identity recategorization enables subgroup and superordinate identities to be salient simultaneously is often to its advantage, it can also reinforce intergroup hostility in unique ways. In conditions where the superordinate identity is perceived as a threat 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. [15] 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 subgroups violate shared group norms, resulting in conflict. Dual-identity recategorization in this circumstance can increase intergroup hostility by way of increasing the salience of a contested superordinate group identity that exacerbates underlying subgroup differences while retaining the subgroups themselves. [2] As these tensions arise as a result of conflict between subgroups over a related superordinate group, dual-identity recategorization may be most beneficial (and least likely to backfire) when the superordinate group is unrelated to the preexisting subgroups. [18] For instance, in recategorizing the members of two companies that are merging, it would be best to emphasize a superordinate identity based on support for a local sports team or another focus unrelated to the merger, rather than emphasizing the merged company as the superordinate identity (as that identity is related to the subgroups).

Reducing identification with original group identities, which can occur in both types of recategorization, has potentially undesirable effects as well. 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. [2] Simultaneously, increased identification with a superordinate group can lead to greater bias towards salient outgroups to that identity; if this occurs, recategorization may not actually mitigate bias, but redirect it towards another outgroup. [19]

Applications

Understanding behavior

An important application of recategorization is in understanding how groups combine, change, and come into conflict in the world. To this end, recategorization has been applied to a range of topics including corporate board appointments, [20] foundational studies in social psychology, [12] and attitude shifts in Zanzibari politics. [21]

Bias reduction

Recategorization has long been used to reduce bias and increase group cohesion. [4] Several interventions have been tested or proposed with the goal of reducing bias. Although it is not referred to as such, recategorization policies were included in the 2003 Rwandan constitution in an effort to reduce discrimination following the Rwandan Genocide. [7]

Interventions

Recategorization interventions have shown promise as a means of reducing bias. In studies of schoolchildren, recategorization appeared effective in reducing bias towards a racial outgroup, and intergroup attitudes in children who experienced recategorization remained more positive than attitudes in children who did not experience recategorization at a follow-up three weeks after the intervention. [16] [22] Large-scale interventions through policy changes have also been proposed. [23] However, some studies of recategorization interventions have failed to demonstrate a significant effect on prejudice or discrimination. [24] [25] Other researchers have asserted that it is unrealistic to assume that recategorization can result in a lasting reduction of bias, citing post-genocide Rwanda as a setting where lasting recategorization and stereotype change would be difficult to achieve. [26]

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. [7] 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 ethnic-national identity for many Rwandan citizens. [6] [27] [28] This enforced single identity, intended to replace all previous identities, is an example of state-sponsored and enforced single-identity recategorization. [6] [7]

Discussing and disclosing ethnicity in Rwanda is, in most contexts, now taboo. [28] While research is limited by this prohibition, one study by Moss (2014) found that support for the policy varies, with some Hutu and Tutsi individuals supportive of the unified identity and some rejecting the policy entirely. [6] The most common position was between those extremes, with many Rwandans expressing support for the goals of recategorization policy but criticizing the means by which it is enforced or the breadth of the restrictions on speech. However, many Twa individuals have outright rejected the government's ethnic recategorization, under which they were newly designated as "historically marginalized peoples"—a term one Twa individual referred to as "a word cursed by god." [29] Attempted erasure of the Twa identity and the "historically marginalized peoples" label are both actively resisted and many Twa feel that recategorization policy has led to increased marginalization.

See also

Related Research Articles

Group dynamics is a system of behaviors and psychological processes occurring within a social group, or between social groups. The study of group dynamics can be useful in understanding decision-making behaviour, tracking the spread of diseases in society, creating effective therapy techniques, and following the emergence and popularity of new ideas and technologies. These applications of the field are studied in psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, education, social work, leadership studies, business and managerial studies, as well as communication studies.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, intergroup bias, or in-group preference, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">In-group and out-group</span> Sociological notions

In social psychology and sociology, an in-group is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member. By contrast, an out-group is a social group with which an individual does not identify. People may for example identify with their peer group, family, community, sports team, political party, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or nation. It has been found that the psychological membership of social groups and categories is associated with a wide variety of phenomena.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

In social psychology, superordinate goals are goals that are worth completing but require two or more social groups to cooperatively achieve. The idea was proposed by social psychologist Muzafer Sherif in his experiments on intergroup relations, run in the 1940s and 1950s, as a way of reducing conflict between competing groups. Sherif's idea was to downplay the two separate group identities and encourage the two groups to think of themselves as one larger, superordinate group. This approach has been applied in many contexts to reduce intergroup conflict, including in classrooms and business organizations. However, it has also been critiqued by other social psychologists who have proposed competing theories of intergroup conflict, such as contact theory and social categorization theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), also known as realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Amélie Mummendey</span> German social psychologist (1944–2018)

Amélie Mummendey was a German social psychologist. From 2007 until her death, she was a Vice-Rector for the Graduate Academy at the Friedrich Schiller University Jena.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fiona A. White</span> Australian psychologist

Fiona A. White is an Australian academic. She is a professor of social psychology at the University of Sydney, Australia, and director of the Sydney University Psychology of Intergroup Relations (SUPIR) Lab., and degree coordinator of the Bachelor of Liberal Arts and Science (BLAS). She has been a lead author on four editions of Developmental Psychology: From Infancy to Adulthood. White is known as the developer of the E-contact intervention, a synchronous online tool that has been found to reduce anxiety, prejudice, and stigma.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Intergroup harmony</span>

Intergroup harmony refers to having a positive and harmonious relationship within the group. The characteristic of this concept is that the members within the same group respect each other, and prejudice and conflict are reduced. The main component of this concept would be the members within the same group having equal status and cooperation among the group. This is essential for cultivating intergroup harmony because cooperation and equal status create a condition to reduce bias and enhance mutual understanding within the group. There are several approaches to foster harmony among the group. One of the methods is keeping positive intergroup contact, which helps reduce stereotypes and prejudices. Also, using dual-identity frameworks and electronic contact would be effective in improving relationships and alleviating intergroup anxiety. However, there is a possibility that intergroup harmony brings negative impacts to the group. Harmony may sustain inequalities if there are power imbalances that have not yet been addressed and the intervention did not consider social, political, and cultural contexts. This concept is provided by the Social Identity Theory and Contact Theory and is the theoretical basis for understanding and improving intergroup relations.

References

  1. ↑ Gaertner, Samuel; Jeffrey, Mann; Audrey, Murrell; Dovidio, John (1989). "Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 57 (2): 239–249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239 – via APA PsycNet.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751. PMID   19144903 – via Sage Journals.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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. doi:10.1080/14792779343000004 – via ResearchGate.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pettigrew, Thomas (February 1998). "Intergroup Contact Theory". Annual Review of Psychology . 49 (1): 65–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65. PMID   15012467 – via ResearchGate.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 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. doi:10.1111/asap.12097 – via SPSSI.
  7. 1 2 3 4 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. doi:10.5964/jspp.v2i1.291 – via PsychOpen Gold.
  8. ↑ Dovidio, John; Gaertner, Samuel; Shnabel, Nurit; Saguy, Tamar; Johnson, James (2009). Stürmer, Stefan; Snyder, Mark (eds.). The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior: Group Processes, Intergroup Relations, and Helping. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 191–207 Recategorization and Prosocial Behavior. ISBN   9781405178808.
  9. ↑ Hornsey, Matthew (January 14, 2008). "Social Identity Theory and Self-categorization Theory: A Historical Review". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2 (1): 204–222. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00066.x – via Wiley Online Library.
  10. ↑ Tajfel, Henry; Turner, John (2004). Hatch, Mary Jo; Schultz, Majken (eds.). Organizational Identity: A Reader: An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. Oxford University Press. pp. 56–63. ISBN   978-0199269471.
  11. ↑ Turner, John C.; Reynolds, Katherine J. (2012). Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Kruglanski, Arie W.; Higgins, E. Tory (eds.). Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Self-Categorization Theory. London: SAGE Publications. pp. 399–417. ISBN   9781446249222.
  12. 1 2 Gaertner, Samuel; Dovidio, John; Banker, Brenda; Houlette, Missy; Johnson, Kelly; McGlynn, Elizabeth (2000). "Reducing Intergroup Conflict: From Superordinate Goals to Decategorization, Recategorization, and Mutual Differentiation". Group Dynamics . 4 (1): 98–114. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.4.1.98 – via ResearchGate.
  13. ↑ Fritzlen, Katherine; Phillips, Joy; March, David; Grzanka, Patrick; Olson, Michael (2019). "I Know (What) You Are, But What Am I? The Effect of Recategorization Threat and Perceived Immutability on Prejudice". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 46 (1): 94–108. doi:10.1177/0146167219843932. PMID   31072231 – via ResearchGate.
  14. ↑ Nier, Jason; Gaertner, Samuel; Dovidio, John; Banker, Brenda; Ward, Christine; Rust, Mary (2001). "Changing Interracial Evaluations and Behavior: The Effects of a Common Group Identity". Group Processes and Intergroup Relations . 4 (4): 299–316. doi:10.1177/1368430201004004001 – via Sage Journals.
  15. 1 2 3 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. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4. PMID   15647144 – via PubMed.
  16. 1 2 Guerra, Rita; Rebelo, Margarida; Monteiro, Maria; Gaertner, Samuel (2013). "Translating recategorization strategies into an antibias educational intervention". Journal of Applied Social Psychology . 43 (1): 14–23. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00976.x – via APA PsycNet.
  17. ↑ Crisp, Richard; Stone, Catriona; Hall, Natalie (2006). "Recategorization and Subgroup Identification: Predicting and Preventing Threats From Common Ingroups". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 32 (2): 230–243. doi:10.1177/0146167205280908. PMID   16382084 – via Sage Journals.
  18. ↑ Hall, Natalie; Crisp, Richard (October 2005). "Considering Multiple Criteria for Social Categorization Can Reduce Intergroup Bias". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 31 (10): 1435–1444. doi:10.1177/0146167205276084. PMID   16143674 – via Sage Journals.
  19. ↑ Kessler, Thomas; Mummendey, Amélie (2001). "Is there any scapegoat around? Determinants of intergroup conflicts at different categorization levels". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 81 (6): 1090–1102. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.6.1090 – via APA PsycNet.
  20. ↑ Zhu, David; Shen, Wei; Hillman, Amy (2014). "Recategorization into the In-group: The Appointment of Demographically Different New Directors and Their Subsequent Positions on Corporate Boards". Administrative Science Quarterly . 59 (2): 240–270. doi:10.1177/0001839214530951 – via SAGE Publishing.
  21. ↑ Moss, Sigrun (2016). ""Country First, Politics Later" Reasons for Dual Recategorization in Zanzibari Narratives". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology . 22 (4): 318–328. doi:10.1037/pac0000223 – via ResearchGate.
  22. ↑ Guerra, Rita; Rebelo, Margarida; Monteiro, Maria; Riek, Blake; Mania, Eric; Gaertner, Samuel; Dovidio, John (2010). "How should intergroup contact be structured to reduce bias among majority and minority group children?". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations . 13 (4): 445–460. doi:10.1177/1368430209355651 – via Sage Journals.
  23. ↑ Marouf, Fatma (2012). "Regrouping America: Immigration Policies and the Reduction of Prejudice". Harvard Latino Law Review. 15: 129–182 – via Texas A&M Law Scholarship.
  24. ↑ Sprengholz, Philipp; Betsch, Cornelia; Böhm, Robert (2024). "Experimental testing of three categorization-based interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination against the unvaccinated in the aftermath of COVID-19". Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy . 24 (2): 552–566. doi:10.1111/asap.12386 – via SPSSI.
  25. ↑ Marcus, Justin; Fritzsche, Barbara (2014). "One too many categories: an experimental test on the effectiveness of a dual-identity recategorization intervention on age-based bias". Current Psychology. 33 (4): 578–599. doi:10.1007/s12144-014-9230-9 – via Springer.
  26. ↑ Hewstone, M. (2000). "Contact and categorization: Social psychological interventions to change intergroup relations". Stereotypes and Prejudice: Essential Readings: 394–418.
  27. ↑ Kamanzi, Anna (October 29, 2021). "A nation without ethnicity: the Rwandan reconciliation model". IWGIA.
  28. 1 2 Verwey, Cathinca (2021). "Social Identity Recategorization: Comparing National Reconciliation Initiatives in Burundi and Rwanda". Uppsala Universitet . Retrieved November 11, 2024– via DiVA.
  29. ↑ Collins, Bennett; Laws, Meghan; Ntakirutimana, Richard (2021). "Becoming "Historically Marginalized Peoples": examining Twa perceptions of boundary shifting and re-categorization in post-genocide Rwanda". Ethnic and Racial Studies . 44 (4): 576–594. doi:10.1080/01419870.2020.1767798 – via Taylor & Francis.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.