Decategorization and the reduction of bias in the crossed categorization paradigm

Abstract

Within the crossed categorization paradigm we examined the consequences of cooperative and personalized contact under conditions that promoted attention to unique attributes of team members (decategorization) versus conditions that emphasized their category memberships. As predicted, when the rule for composing teams emphasized one or both of the experimentally induced dimensions of category distinction, ethnocentric bias generalized to members of another team as a function of category similarity. When, instead, the rule emphasized team members' unique attributes, shared ingroup memberships no longer moderated bias towards members of another team. Instead, there was an equivalence pattern in the evaluative ratings of the four targets (in-group/in-group; in-group/outgroup; out-group/in-group; out-group/out-group) of the crossed categorization paradigm.

Personalization and differentiation as moderators of triggered displaced aggression towards out‐group targets

“…Numerous studies (Cozby, 1972;Jourard, 1971, as well as meta-analysis (Collins & Miller, 1994) show a positive relation between self-disclosure and liking for the discloser. In addition, and more pertinent here, self-disclosure can also reduce bias against out-groups (Brewer & Miller, 1984;Ensari & Miller, 2001, 2002in press;Urban & Miller, 1998;Worchel, 1986). In keeping with these effects, we expected self-disclosure to reduce aggression towards a triggering out-group member who self-disclosed to the aggressor.…”

“…Selfdisclosure makes a unique contribution, however, by encouraging the other person to perceive the discloser as trusting. Imbedded in the act of self-disclosure is the implicit message that the discloser trusts the recipient (Steel, 1991;Worthy, Gary, & Kahn, 1969), which in turn, by motivating liking (Collins & Miller, 1994;Halverson & Shore, 1969) and friendship (Cook, 1978;Pettigrew, 1997) toward the discloser, can reduce out-group bias (Ensari & Miller, 2001Miller, 2002).…”

The Benefits of Climate for Inclusion for Gender-Diverse Groups

“…complex perceptions of others, thereby perceiving greater variability among members of other identity groups (Brewer & Miller, 1984, 1988Ensari & Miller, 2006). Personalized contact of this sort has been shown to disconfirm negative stereotypes of out-group members and diminish the in-group/outgroup distinctions that fuel conflict (Ensari & Miller, 2001. In contrast, work on facades of conformity (Hewlin, 2003(Hewlin, , 2009) and surface acting (Hochschild, 1983) suggests that when people constrain their emotions and behaviors in order to construct public representations of themselves that are aligned with desired organizational personas, they suffer from strain and psychologically disengage from their work (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005).…”

Psychological Perspective Theories of Harmony of Ethno-Religious Group Relation

“…A cross category occurs when two people from different categories of social categories meet and then they manage to find at least one common category and make the similarity a means to keep relationships positive [13]. The crossing of social identity categories will help two different groups find a common ground of identities that is then used as a tool to reduce intergroup bias [14]. The crossing category as a potential tool to reduce bias between groups through two components, namely the cognitive component and the motivational component.…”