The idea of recategorization
According to social identity theory, people tend to favor their own group. Gaertner and colleagues (1989) turned this around: if two groups come to see themselves as one, ingroup favoritism extends to the former outgroup. When two three-person groups were seated together and given a single team name, intergroup bias fell sharply. Gaertner and colleagues (1993) formalized this as the common ingroup identity model, arguing that cooperation, shared goals and common fate reduce bias by transforming the representation from us and them into we. The model also explains why the contact hypothesis works.
Dual identity and subgroups
Gaertner and Dovidio (2000) argued that people need not abandon original group identities and that a dual identity, holding subgroup and superordinate identities together, may be more stable. Hornsey and Hogg (2000) noted that when people feel their subgroup identity is threatened with erasure, they may react by emphasizing distinctiveness. In a merged company or a multicultural society, stressing only that everyone is one can make minority groups feel threatened. A representation of different groups on the same team is therefore recommended in practice.
Critiques and the irony of harmony
Mummendey and Wenzel (1999) argued that through ingroup projection, people treat the superordinate group's standards as their own group's traits, so a shared identity can make other subgroups seem to fall short. Saguy and colleagues (2009) reported an irony of harmony: after commonality-focused contact, members of disadvantaged groups became overly optimistic about equality and less likely to demand change. Dovidio and colleagues (2009) concluded that common identity is effective at improving attitudes but must be weighed against its potential to blunt collective action against inequality.
FAQ
- What is the common ingroup identity model in simple terms?
- When people from different groups come to feel they are on the same team, their attitudes toward one another become friendlier.
- Do people have to give up their original identities?
- No. Holding the original identity and the shared identity together, a dual identity, can reduce backlash and be more stable.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249. Early experiments on recategorization reducing bias.
- Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. The founding statement of the common ingroup identity model.
- Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. The book-length treatment of the model.
- Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156. Argues for preserving subgroup identities within a superordinate group.
- Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(2), 158–174. Introduces ingroup projection as a limit of shared identities.
- Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of "we": Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3–20. Reviews benefits and costs of commonality for social change.
- Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20(1), 114–121. Commonality-focused contact can weaken demands for equality.