How we categorise: is it best to be colour-blind or acknowledge our differences?
Prejudice and social cognition
Hey all,
Welcome to Human Nature, the illustrated psychology newsletter.
Last time we discussed how contact can function as a method of prejudice reduction. This week we will look at how to best structure contact in order for it to be effective in reducing prejudice.
Today’s topic is categorisation, or the three models of contact.
The three models of contact
We now know that close contact with an outgroup member is an effective way to reduce prejudice. But if in an ideal world we could decide how exactly that contact should go, what should we choose? Would it be more beneficial to get the two people to relate to each other as individuals and disregard their group memberships, or is there an argument to be made for maintaining an awareness of group differences? Or perhaps the best thing to do would be to create a new group identity that unites the two individuals? In order to answer these questions, psychologists have developed and tested three models of contact.
Decategorisation: According to the decategorisation approach, during contact, individuals should focus on each other’s unique characteristics rather than stereotypical information based on group membership (Brewer & Miller, 1984). This would gradually reduce the usefulness of category-based information, thereby reducing prejudiced views of that particular outgroup.
A study by Bettencourt, Brewer, Croak and Miller (1992) tested this theory by getting artificially created groups to work together on a task. In one condition, participants were asked to focus on the other person’s individual characteristics, while in the other condition they were instructed to focus on the task. They found that participants in the individual focus condition showed less ingroup/outgroup bias when allocating rewards.
Recategorisation: The recategorisation approach recommends contact that encourages the formation of a common group identity to change people’s perception from ‘us’ and ‘them’ to ‘we’.
A 1989 study compared the effectiveness of decategorisation and recategorisation as prejudice reduction strategies (Gaertner et al.). The results showed that while both methods were effective, they worked in different ways. While decategorisation reduced bias by decreasing ratings of former ingroup members, recategorisation reduced bias by increasing ratings of former outgroup members.
Categorisation (mutual differentiation): The categorisation model takes a widely different stance to the two previous approaches and suggests that we focus on group-based categories during contact (Hewstone & Brown, 1986). By making group membership salient, it is hoped that the positive results of contact will be generalised more easily to the outgroup as a whole. The researchers recommend that the two parties should cooperate to achieve a common goal and have distinct but complementary roles.
However, is it realistic to expect people to overlook group memberships as the decategorisation model suggests, despite the importance and usefulness of social identities? Similarly, can people really be persuaded to give up their group identities in favour of a superordinate identity (like the English, Scottish and Welsh all agreeing to be grouped under the wider category of ‘British’)? And if we do retain group identities like the categorisation approach suggests, what if a bad contact experience results in people’s negative views being generalised to the whole outgroup?
In order to overcome the limitations of each approach, several models that combine them have been put forward. For example, Pettigrew’s (1998) three-stage longitudinal model suggests starting with decategorisation to reduce contact anxiety, then categorisation to ensure generalisation, and finally recategorisation to further reduce prejudice. Another approach is dual-categosiation (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000), whereby people come together under a superordinate identity while group identities are maintained. While this seems to be beneficial for reducing stress in minority group members (for example, in immigrants), it seems to be less effective for reducing prejudice in members of the majority group (González & Brown, 2006).
Thank you for reading, see you next time.
Sources:
Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters. (Hewstone & Brown, 1986).
Intergroup Contact Theory (Pettigrew, 1998.)
It seems as if no matter how much progress is made on the path towards equality and tolerance, prejudice and discrimination stubbornly persist all across the world. However, in order to combat prejudice, we must first understand how it works. In this series of Human Nature, we explore the mechanisms behind prejudiced thinking and behaviour through the lens of social psychology.