Group identity and intergroup relations The common in-group identity model
Abstract
Discrimination is an intergroup as well as an interpersonal phenomenon and is related to fundamental processes associated with social categorization and the development of in-group favoritism. We propose in the Common In-Group Identity Model that by understanding the factors that underlie the development of these inter-group biases, these forces can be redirected to improve intergroup relations. In particular, if members of different groups are induced to recategorize themselves as a superordinate group rather than as two separate groups, intergroup prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination will be reduced through the extension of pro-in-group bias to former out-group members. Moreover, recategorization in the form of a dual identity, in which superordinate and subgroup identities are both salient, can achieve the benefits of a strong superordinate identity without requiring groups to forsake valued ethnic and racial identities. Data reported from laboratory studies, field experiments, and surveys involving a range of different types of groups offer converging evidence in support of the model.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Layered on top of ego-justifying biases are group-justifying biases.
“Layered on top of ego-justifying biases are group-justifying biases99,139,140.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [139]
Emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization.
“emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization281–283, consistent with social identity theory90,92,139.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [139]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 103 · Cited by 130
- Authors
- Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kafati, G.
- ORCID
- Dovidio, John F.
- Venue
- Advances in Group Processes
- Publisher
- Emerald (MCB UP )
- Published
- 2004-05-19
- Pages
- 1-35
- ISSN
- 0882-6145 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2503218297
- Cited by
- 130
- References
- 103
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 18.14
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Advances in group processes (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Hong Kong
- Chinese University of Hong Kong
- National Institute of Mental Health
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
- Keywords
- superordinate identity, intergroup relations, in-group favoritism, social categorization, intergroup discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping, recategorization, dual identity, ethnic identity, racial identity, outgroup members
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