Intergroup Contact and the Reduction of Bias 495et al., 1985) has demonstrated that personalized and self-
disclosing interaction can be a significant factor in reducing
intergroup bias.
Considerable cross-cultural evidence also indicates the
powerful influence of the norm of reciprocity on helping
(Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio & Piliavin, 1995). According to
this norm, people should help those who have helped them,
and they should not help those who have denied them help
for no legitimate reason (Gouldner, 1960). Thus, the devel-
opment of a common in-group identity can motivate inter-
personal behaviors between members of initially different
groups that can initiate reciprocal actions and concessions
(see Deutsch, 1993; Osgood, 1962). These reciprocal actions
and concessions not only will reduce immediate tensions but
also can produce more harmonious intergroup relations
beyond the contact situation.
Although finely differentiated impressions of out-group
members may not be an automatic consequence of forming a
common in-group identity, these more elaborated, differen-
tiated, and personalized impressions can quickly develop
because the newly formed positivity bias is likely to encourage
more open communication (S. Gaertner et al., 1993). The
development of a common in-group identity creates a motiva-
tional foundation for constructive intergroup relations that can
act as a catalyst for positive reciprocal interpersonal actions.
Thus, the recategorization strategy proposed in our model as
well as decategorization strategies, such as individuating
(Wilder, 1984) and personalizing (Brewer & Miller, 1984)
interactions, can potentially operate complementarily and
sequentially to improve intergroup relations in lasting and
meaningful ways.
Challenges to the Decategorization and
Recategorization Models
Although the structural representations of the contact situa-
tion advocated by the decategorization (personalization) and
recategorization (common in-group identity) models are dif-
ferent, the two approaches share common assumptions about
the need to reduce category differentiation and associated
processes. Because both models rely on reducing or eliminat-
ing the salience of intergroup differentiation, they involve
structuring contact in a way that will challenge or threaten
existing social identities. However, both cognitive and
motivational factors conspire to create resistance to the dis-
solution of category boundaries or to reestablish category
distinctions over time. Although the salience of a common
superordinate identity or personalized representations may
be enhanced in the short run, then, these may be difficult to
maintain across time and social situations.
Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness model of the
motives underlying group identification provides one expla-
nation for why category distinctions are difficult to change.
The theory postulates that social identity is driven by two op-
posing social motives: the need for inclusion and the need for
differentiation. Human beings strive to belong to groups that
transcend their own personal identity, but at the same time
they need to feel special and distinct from others. In order to
satisfy both of these motives simultaneously, individuals
seek inclusion in distinctive social groups where the bound-
aries between those who are members of the in-group cate-
gory and those who are excluded can be drawn clearly. On
the one hand, highly inclusive superordinate categories do
not satisfy distinctiveness needs. Thus, inclusive identities,
which may not be readily accepted, may be limited in their
capacity to reduce bias (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b). On
the other hand, high degrees of individuation fail to meet
needs for belonging and for cognitive simplicity and uncer-
tainty reduction (Hogg & Abrams, 1993). These motives are
likely to make either personalization or common in-group
identity temporally unstable solutions to intergroup discrimi-
nation and prejudice.
Preexisting social-structural relations between groups may
also create strong forces of resistance to changes in category
boundaries. Even in the absence of overt conflict, asymmetries
between social groups in size, power, or status create addi-
tional sources of resistance. When one group is substantially
smaller than the other in the contact situation, the minority
category is especially salient, and minority group members
may be particularly reluctant to accept a superordinate cate-
gory identity that is dominated by the other group. Another
major challenge is created by preexisting status differences
between groups, where members of both high- and low-status
groups may be threatened by contact and assimilation
(Mottola, 1996).The Mutual Differentiation ModelThese challenges to processes of decategorization/recategori-
zation led Hewstone and Brown (1986) to recommend an
alternative approach to intergroup contact in which coopera-
tive interactions between groups are introduced without
degrading the original in-group–out-group categorization.
More specifically, this model favors encouraging groups
working together to perceive complementarity by recogniz-
ing and valuing mutual assets and weaknesses within the
context of an interdependent cooperative task or common,
superordinate goals. This strategy allows group members to
maintain their social identities and positive distinctiveness
while avoiding insidious intergroup comparisons. Thus, the