492 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration
prerequisite features achieve their effects. This is problematic
because political and socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., real
or perceived competitive, zero-sum outcomes) often preclude
introducing these features (e.g., cooperative interdependence,
equal status) into many contact settings. Despite substantial
documentation that intergroup cooperative interaction re-
duces bias (Allport, 1954; Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes,
& Snapp, 1978; Cook, 1985; Deutsch, 1973; Johnson et al.,
1983; Sherif et al., 1961; Slavin, 1985; Worchel, 1979), it is
not clear how cooperation achieves this effect. One basic
issue involves the psychological processes that mediate this
change.
The classic functional relations perspective by Sherif et al.
(1961) views cooperative interdependence as a direct media-
tor of attitudinal and behavioral changes. However, recent
approaches have extended research on the contact hypothesis
by attempting to understand the potential common processes
and mechanisms that these diverse factors engage to reduce
bias. Several additional explanations have been proposed
(see Brewer & Miller, 1984; Miller & Davidson-Podgorny,
1987; Worchel, 1979, 1986). For example, cooperation may
induce greater intergroup acceptance as a result of dissonance
reduction serving to justify this type of interaction with the
other group (Miller & Brewer, 1986). It is also possible that
cooperation can have positive, reinforcing outcomes. When
intergroup contact is favorable and has successful conse-
quences, psychological processes that restore cognitive bal-
ance or reduce dissonance produce more favorable attitudes
toward members of the other group and toward the group as
a whole to be consistent with the positive nature of the inter-
action. In addition, the rewarding properties of achieving
success may become associated with members of other
groups (Lott & Lott, 1965), thereby increasing attraction
(S. Gaertner et al., 1999). Also, cooperative experiences can
reduce intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1984).
Intergroup contact can also influence how interactants
conceive of the groups and how the members are socially
categorized. Cooperative learning and jigsaw classroom inter-
ventions (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997), which are designed to in-
crease interdependence between members of different groups
and to enhance appreciation for the resources they bring to the
task, may reduce bias in part by altering how interactants con-
ceive of the group boundaries and memberships. In the next
section we consider how the effects of intergroup contact can
be mediated by changes in personal and collective identity.
Contact, Categorization, and Identity
From the social categorization perspective, the issue to be
addressed is how intergroup contact can be structured to alter
cognitive representations in ways that eliminate one or more
of the basic features of the negative intergroup schema.
Based on the premises of social identity theory, three alterna-
tive models for contact effects have been developed and
tested in experimental and field settings: decategorization,
recategorization, and mutual differentiation.
Each of these models can be described in terms of recom-
mendations for how to structure cognitive representations of
situations in which there is contact between the groups, the
psychological processes that promote attitude change, and
the mechanisms by which contact experiences are general-
ized to change attitudes toward the out-group as a whole.
Each of these strategies targets the social categorization
process as the place to begin to understand and to combat
intergroup biases. Decategorizationencourages members to
deemphasize the original group boundaries and to conceive
of themselves as separate individuals rather than as members
of different groups. Mutual differentiationmaintains the orig-
inal group boundaries, maintaining perceptions as different
groups, but in the context of intergroup cooperation during
which similarities and differences between the memberships
are recognized and valued. Recategorizationencourages the
members of both groups to regard themselves as belonging to
a common, superordinate group—one group that is inclusive
of both memberships.
Rather than viewing these as competing positions and argu-
ing which one is correct, we suggest that these are comple-
mentary approaches and propose that it is more productive to
considerwheneach strategy is most effective. To the extent
that it is possible for these strategies, either singly or in concert,
to alter perceptions of the “Us versus Them” that are reflected
in conflictive intergroup relations, reductions in bias and social
harmony may be accomplished. Moreover, decategorization
and recategorization strategies may increase the willingness of
group representatives to view the meaning of the intergroup
conflict from the other group’s perspective and to offer solu-
tions that recognize both groups’ needs and concerns.Decategorization: The Personalization ModelThe first model is essentially a formalization and elaboration
of the assumptions implicit in Allport’s contact hypothesis
(Brewer & Miller, 1984). A primary consequence of salient
in-group–out-group categorization is the deindividuation of
members of the out-group. Social behavior in category-based
interactions is characterized by a tendency to treat individual
members of the out-group as undifferentiated representatives
of a unified social category, ignoring individual differences
within the group. The personalization perspective on the
contact situation implies that intergroup interactions should