Cited by 470Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Extending the Benefits of Recategorization: Evaluations, Self-Disclosure, and Helping

Dovidio, John F., Gaertner, Samuel L., Validzic, Ana, Matoka, Kimberly, Johnson, Brenda, Frazier, Stacy·1997·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Abstract

The Common Ingroup Identity Model proposes that if members of different groups conceive of themselves more as a single group rather than as two separate groups, intergroup bias will be reduced through processes involving pro-ingroup favoritism. The present research extended work on this model by investigating the effects of recategorization on intergroup behavior, specifically helping and self-disclosure, as well as evaluations. Participants first worked as members of two three-person groups, and then the two groups interacted under conditions designed to enhance a two-group representation or recategorization with an inclusive one-group representation. As expected, the manipulation of the intergroup contact situation that created stronger impressions of one group reduced intergroup bias in evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping. Furthermore, ratings of the extent to which the six participants felt like one group mediated the reduction in bias, particularly for evaluative bias. Conditions facilitating the generalization of the benefits of recategorization to group members not present and to other groups are considered.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1006/jesp.1997.1327

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Perceptions of common ingroup membership increase psychological bond and feelings of oneness that facilitate perspective taking and the arousal of empathy in response to their needs or problems.

    “Perceptions of common ingroup membership also increase psychological bond and feelings of “oneness” that facilitate perspective taking82 and the arousal of empathy in response to their needs or problems.105–107”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S.
Affiliations
  • Colgate University (US)
  • University of Delaware (US)
  • Indiana University (US)
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-07
Volume
33
Issue
4
Pages
401-420
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2052670515
Cited by
470
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 24
FWCI
17.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
common ingroup identity model, intergroup bias, helping behavior, self-disclosure, intergroup evaluation, in-group favoritism, intergroup contact, group identity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review