Content uploaded by Phyllis A Anastasio
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Phyllis A Anastasio on Nov 20, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Intergroup Bias
Abstract
This chapter introduces the common ingroup identity model as a means of reducing intergroup bias. This model proposes that bias can be reduced by factors that transform members' perceptions of group boundaries from “us” and “them” to a more inclusive “we”. From this perspective, several features specified by the contact hypothesis (e.g. co-operative interaction) facilitate more harmonious intergroup interactions, at least in part, because they contribute to the development of a common ingroup identity. In this chapter, we describe laboratory and field studies that are supportive of the model; we also relate the model to earlier work on aversive racism.
... For example, a person can identify as a citizen of Belgrade, and that categorization will, per se, be encompassed by the category of citizens of Serbia. The hierarchical structure of the intermediate categorization is present in the Common ingroup identity model of intergroup bias reduction (Gaertner et al., 1993), which we will discuss in detail in the section about the interventions for the reduction of intergroup bias. Finally, the highest level is the most comprehensive and comprises categorizing oneself as a human being. ...
... Similar to the Crossed-categorization model, the Common ingroup identity model (CIIM; also known as the Re-categorization strategy; Gaertner et al., 1993) starts from the fact individuals belong to multiple social groups. However, CIIM represents multiple social categorizations on the different levels of inclusiveness: typically, it imposes a superordinate category that encompasses both in-and outgroups. ...
... This model takes into account the basic premise of the Social identity approachthat ingroup favoritism is rooted in social categorization itself (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Therefore, the authors of CIIM proposed that imposing a superordinate category, which encompasses both in-and outgroups, should reduce the intergroup bias; in other words, replacing the cognitive representation of two distinct groups with a representation of a single superordinate group should be effective in bias reduction (Gaertner et al., 1993). The initial empirical evidence supports this thesis. ...
In this thesis, we focused on social-identity interventions for intergroup bias reduction, more precisely, on methodological practices used when these interventions are tested. We aimed to systematically review practices of using manipulation and plausibility checks, and then to experimentally test how individual differences shape the relations between intervention and its plausibility, effectiveness, and success.
In the systematic literature review (Study 1), we analyzed the current practices of plausibility and manipulation checks use in experimental studies that test social-identity interventions for intergroup bias reduction. We were interested in the frequency of plausibility and manipulation checks use in these experiments, as well as on the purpose of these checks, i.e., whether they are used as criteria for participants’ exclusion from the analysis of interventions’ effects. The results indicate that the use of manipulation checks is more frequent than the previously observed average in socio-psychological experiments. On the other hand, the use of plausibility checks is extremely rare. Additionally, we observed that these types of checks are rarely used as exclusion criteria.
Then, across four experiments (Study 2), we tested two variations of a dual-identity intervention that originate from the Gateway group paradigm – one framed from the outgroup perspective, and another framed from the ingroup perspective. Here we were particularly focused on differences between the interventions in terms of their plausibility and effectiveness to induce perception of gateway groups’ dual identity, as well as on the relations between individual differences in ideological beliefs, ethnic identification, ethnocultural perspective taking, outgroup threat perception, and outgroup contact on one hand, and plausibility and dual identity perception on the other. The experiments were conducted in three post-conflict contexts: Serbia, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republika Srpska. Our results consistently indicated that plausibility assessment is shaped by individual differences in outgroup threat perception and perspective taking. When it comes to the differences between the interventions, we observed that the effectiveness of outgroup experience intervention, but not ingroup norm intervention, was moderated by plausibility assessment. This effect was especially pronounced in the contexts that were more directly affected by the recent intergroup conflict (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska), compared to the context of Serbia where conflict was present less directly.
Finally, across two experiments (Study 3), we tested whether plausibility shaped the success of the interventions in bias reduction. Consistent to Study 2, we observed that plausibility was important for the success of the outgroup experience intervention, but not the ingroup norm one. Importantly, we observed a backfire effect of the outgroup intervention among the individuals who assessed it as implausible in the context charged with intergroup threat (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina).
We discuss the observed results in the context of social-identity approach to intergroup bias and offer recommendations for further testing application of social-identity interventions.
... In our research, we did not compare the effect of ingroup and outgroup membership labeling against that of universal labeling (i.e., participants know their decision is going to influence everyone in the future, regardless of their group membership). Previous psychological work suggests that the activation of a common superordinate identity improves intergroup relations 57,58 and such a universal labeling may promote intergenerational cooperation that benefits outgroup members without backlash. ...
Issues related to sustainability (e.g., climate change and over-fishing) often manifest themselves as intergenerational social dilemmas, where people are faced with a choice between self-serving, unsustainable behavior and sustainable, personally costly behavior. Extending the previous literature on (non-intergenerational) intergroup cooperation, we tested whether group membership of the future generations influenced sustainable decision-making. In two preregistered studies using the intergenerational sustainability dilemma game, we found that individuals were more likely to make a sustainable (vs. selfish) decision when they believed that their current behavior would benefit future ingroup members, whereas more selfish decisions were made when benefits would accrue to outgroup members. These findings held in both the minimal group (Study 1: N = 1393) and national group (Study 2: Japan vs. China, N = 1781) contexts. The effect of ingroup intergenerational membership on cooperation was mediated by higher felt responsibility for future generations in both minimal and national group contexts. The effect of outgroup membership on intergenerational cooperation was mediated by a reduced sense of reputational concern in the minimal group context and by reduced affinity, legacy motivation, and responsibility for future generations in the nationality context.
... For instance, leaders should exhibit relationship-oriented leadership behaviors when teams have splintered into subgroups due to social categorization processes (Homan et al., 2020). In such cases, where there is low cohesion and potential relationship conflicts, leaders should aim to foster positive relationships and rebuild team unity (Gaertner et al., 1993). When teams actively utilize their diversity from an information/decision-making perspective, this should be amplified and sustained by task-oriented leadership behavior. ...
Workforce diversity and organizational initiatives to leverage its benefits receive increasing attention. Diversity refers to differences between individuals on any attribute, including but not limited to differences in demographic or job-related characteristics or less apparent attributes such as values, attitudes, and personality. Despite diversity’s potential to boost creativity, innovation, and performance, it does not necessarily lead to such beneficial outcomes. Instead, active diversity management is essential to inhibit potential drawbacks associated with the unfavorable social categorization that diversity can instigate. In this chapter, we shed light on the role of leadership in successfully managing diversity. We offer major theoretical perspectives used to explain diversity (management) effects and summarize evidence regarding diversity leadership in the fields of organizational behavior and organizational psychology as a crucial lever for managing diversity within organizations. In so doing, we highlight perspectives and research in Europe and particularly German-speaking countries which have significantly shaped the current understanding of effective diversity management in organizations. As we will show, leaders can directly influence employee behaviors and attitudes regarding diversity. Yet, they can also indirectly support the effectiveness of diversity-management initiatives, such as diversity training.
Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine has generated unprecedent solidarity by the EU. Research has suggested that identification with the EU could positively affect the intention to help Ukrainians. The aim of this research is to make a further contribution in this direction, exploring the effect of identification with the EU on attitude towards welcoming of Ukrainian refugees and favouritism towards them, compared to other refugee groups. Following a social identity perspective, we investigated these attitudes considering the role of egalitarian world-view and degree of separation between Ukraine and the EU, to understand whether they could affect ingroup bias and a double standard in welcoming refugees. The results of a survey ( N = 300) suggest two different psychological processes: (1) identification with the EU stimulates the adoption of egalitarian values which, in turn, foster a positive attitude towards welcoming Ukrainians; (2) the degree of separation between Ukraine and the EU moderates the association between identification and favouritism; that is, participants who score low on this variable tend to show favouritism towards Ukrainian refugees over others. Results are discussed drawing on the theory of social identity and the common ingroup identity model.
Addressing persistent inequalities between advantaged and disadvantaged groups often requires public support for social policies aimed at reducing intergroup disparities. Previous research suggests that interventions emphasizing intergroup helping or similarity-focused contact can increase advantaged group members’ willingness to support social policies benefiting disadvantaged groups. However, the applicability of these interventions outside Western contexts remains underexplored. This study investigated whether exposure to video-based interventions promoting intergroup helping or similarity-focused contact increased policy support among advantaged Turks (N = 259) towards disadvantaged Kurds during the COVID-19 pandemic in Türkiye. Participants, recruited via convenience sampling through social media, were randomly assigned to intergroup-helping, similarity-focused contact, or a neutral control condition. Policy support was measured using scales assessing support for high- and low-cost social policies. ANCOVA analyses indicated that, compared to the control condition, both intergroup helping and similarity-focused interventions significantly increased support for high-cost social policies, while no differences were found for low-cost policies. Within the Turkish context, this finding implies that, despite prevalent ethnic tensions and structural inequalities, interventions emphasizing intergroup helping or similarity-focused contact can equally and effectively foster a common ingroup identity among advantaged group members, enhancing their willingness to endorse costly policies benefiting disadvantaged groups. Nevertheless, results should be interpreted considering potential sampling biases due to the recruitment method. Future research should replicate these findings with more representative samples and explore boundary conditions in different cultural settings.
Research in social psychology and sociology has identified interlocking patterns driving racism in Britain and other white-dominated societies. The first of these is the racialised way in which people, especially those who identify as white, tend to conceive their own national community and therefore to evaluate immigrants and co-citizens. The second is the racialised distribution of power, which fuels perceptions of people of colour as less competent than white people. By linking people of colour to various physical, economic or cultural threats, political and media discourses periodically amplify latent, lower-level racism, transforming negative emotions such as pity and contempt into even more harmful ones such as fear and anger. Cooperative and friendship-inducing intergroup contact can go some way in reversing these processes, but it is frequently obstructed or undermined by racial segregation and negative contact.
This chapter underlines the impact of everyday life on identity dynamics and social cohesion in relation to Europe. While critically discussing previous research on both concepts, we assign particular importance to the Social Identity Theory and socialisation processes in the form of habitualisation. As fans are constantly exposed to Europeanised structures and practices of football (see Chap. 3) in their engagement with the sport, football has the capacity to normalise Europe in the eyes of its citizens. This opens a two-fold route to potentially Europeanising effects on identification processes: (1) a subjective Europeanisation through everyday exposure to European(ised) structures that subconsciously shape identities, including contact via media, and (2) a more active way of Europeanisation of identification and identities through intentional contact with and practices aimed at the European dimension. Both led to in a (re)alignment of interpretation frames, perceptions, and attitudes towards a more European perspective. The part on social cohesion elaborates on three main components—values, identification/belonging, and social relations or social capital. The chapter closes with a summarising overview of the complex interrelations between the concepts of cohesion and identity.
In this chapter, we develop our analytical framework for our analysis by introducing the theoretical concept of the football-identity-cohesion nexus. It elaborates on the interrelations of fandom, European identity, and social cohesion. Starting from there, the selection of countries is justified. In this context, we briefly describe each country and its club football in relation to the research questions. Finally, we describe our tripartite methodology consisting of a quantitative and comparative media analysis, a survey of fans and non-fans, and expert interviews with stakeholders. For each methodological step we also describe its operationalisation.
This article presents and illustrates the argument for an experimental approach to the study of problems to which social science evidence and theory can make a practical contribution. First, following exploratory research to identify potentially weighty influences on the social behavior under consideration, quasi-experiments are conducted to gain further confidence that these influences are of significance. The next step is to recreate the social behavior under laboratory control and study its determinants experimentally. A final step is to study separately the most significant variables in true experiments. These may be conducted in both laboratory and field settings. The process is illustrated with studies of variables involved in involuntary cross-racial contact as they affect race relations and attitude change. The relevance to constructive contributions to the process of school desegregation is discussed.
Organizational Identity presents the classic works on organizational identity alongside more current thinking on the issues. Ranging from theoretical contributions to empirical studies, the readings in this volume address the key issues of organizational identity, and show how these issues have developed through contributions from such diverse fields of study as sociology, psychology, management studies and cultural studies. The readings examine questions such as how organizations understand who they are, why organizations develop a sense of identity and belonging where the boundaries of identity lie and the implications of postmodern and critical theories' challenges to the concept of identity as deeply-rooted and authentic. Includes work by: Stuart Albert, Mats Alvesson, Blake E. Ashforth, Marilynn B. Brewer, George Cheney, Lars Thoger Christensen, C.H. Cooley, Kevin G. Corley, Barbara Czarniawska, Janet M. Dukerich, Jane E. Dutton, Kimberly D. Elsbach, Wendi Gardner, Linda E. Ginzela, Dennis A. Gioia, E. Goffman, Karen Golden-Biddle, Mary Jo Hatch, Roderick M. Kramer, Fred Rael, G.H. Mead, Michael G. Pratt, Anat Rafaeli, Hayagreeva Rao, Majken Schultz, Howard S. Schwartz, Robert I. Sutton, Henri Taijfel, John Turner, David A. Wherren, and Hugh Willmott. Intended to provide easy access to this material for students of organizational identity, it will also be of interest more broadly to students of business, sociology and psychology.
This chapter examines some of the literature demonstrating an impact of affect on social behavior. It will consider the influence of affect on cognition in an attempt to further understand on the way cognitive processes may mediate the effect of feelings on social behavior. The chapter describes the recent works suggesting an influence of positive affect on flexibility in cognitive organization (that is, in the perceived relatedness of ideas) and the implications of this effect for social interaction. The goal of this research is to expand the understanding of social behavior and the factors, such as affect, that influence interaction among people. Another has been to extend the knowledge of affect, both as one of these determinants of social behavior and in its own right. And a third has been to increase the understanding of cognitive processes, especially as they play a role in social interaction. Most recently, cognitive and social psychologists have investigated ways in which affective factors may participate in cognitive processes (not just interrupt them) and have begun to include affect as a factor in more comprehensive models of cognition. The research described in the chapter has focused primarily on feelings rather than intense emotion, because feelings are probably the most frequent affective experiences. The chapter focuses primarily on positive affect.
This chapter presents implications for creations and reduction of intergroup bias. It presents the observation that persons organize their social environment by categorizing themselves and others into groups. Categorization serves two functions, enables to simplify the present social environment and to predict future social behavior. Although reliance on categories is efficient, there is a risk error when using a category based on phenotypic similarities to infer genotypic properties. (Thus, members of a group may share similar opinions on matters relevant to the group but that similarity may not reflect an underlying similarity of motives or dispositions.) Categorizing others into ingroups and outgroups produces a set of consistent and quite logical effects, including assumptions of similarity within and dissimilarity between groups, assumed homogeneity of the outgroup, and overreliance on information that supports these assumptions. Further, categorization leads to intergroup comparisons and ingroup favoritism over outgroups even when no obvious justifications are present for bias.