Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup identity

Abstract

This paper reviews evidence pertaining to the Common Ingroup Identity Model for reducing intergroup bias. This model proposes that intergroup bias and conflict can be reduced by factors that transform members cognitive representations of the memberships from two groups to one more inclusive social entity. Theoretically, a common ingroup identity extends or redirects the cognitive and motivational processes that produce positive feelings toward ingroup members to former outgroup members. It is proposed that the prerequisite features specified by the contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954; Cook, 1985), such as equal status between the memberships, cooperative interdependence, opportunity for self-revealing interactions and egalitarian norms, successfully reduce bias, in part, because they help transform members' perceptions of the memberships from “Us” and “Them” to a more inclusive “We”. Evidence from a laboratory experiment, two survey studies involving students attending a multi-ethnic high school and executives who have experienced a corporate merger, and a field experiment involving fans attending a college football game are summarized. In general, across these diverse settings, greater perceptions of a superordinate identity predicted lower levels of intergroup bias toward original outgroup members. In particular, this presentation of our research discusses the promise of exploring the role of a dual identity, in which both sub-group and superordinate group identities exist simultaneously, and how contextual features of the situational context may moderate the relation between the strength of a dual identity and intergroup attitudes.