Solution
= Solution
\b[The most useful change is often to make a former <Social outgroup>[outgroup] part of an inclusive “we” while preserving a secure subgroup identity; no category arrangement is best independently of context and outcome.] <Prejudice> is an evaluative attitude toward people because of group membership, <stereotypes> concern attributed group characteristics, and <discrimination> concerns treatment. A reduction in liking differences between small laboratory groups is therefore evidence about one component of <prejudice>, not automatically about durable equality in behavior.
<Social categorization> establishes who counts as an <ingroup> or <Social outgroup>[outgroup]. If favorable treatment follows the <ingroup> boundary, changing that boundary can extend favorable treatment to people previously excluded. But <categorization> also supports recognition, continuity and shared experience. Erasing a socially meaningful identity may threaten the very people an <intervention> is intended to include. The best test therefore asks both whether the new representation improves attitudes and whether it preserves enough identity for its benefits to generalize beyond the immediate encounter.
<Decategorization> encourages seeing an interaction partner as a distinctive person rather than merely an <Social outgroup>[outgroup] representative. It can weaken reliance on a <stereotype> and make personal information available. Its weakness is transfer: a liked individual may be treated as an exception while <prejudice> toward the broader <Social outgroup>[outgroup] remains unchanged. It is therefore most convincing when participants later respond more fairly to unfamiliar <Social outgroup>[outgroup] members, not merely when they like the person they just met. Individuation is a useful part of contact, but it need not supply a new inclusive group boundary.
<Recategorization> instead makes a common superordinate category salient. In the <common ingroup identity model>, the former <Social outgroup>[outgroup] is represented as part of a larger <ingroup>. <Samuel L. Gaertner> and colleagues experimentally compared ways of representing interacting participants, including one-group, two-group and individualized arrangements. The results supported a benefit of an inclusive group representation. This is a causal test of a manipulated social arrangement, although the arrangement may change cooperation and expectations together with perceived membership.<Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization by Samuel L. Gaertner and others>[Experimental manipulations of one-group, two-group and individual representations]{ref}
The distinction between labels and social structure matters. Simply giving participants a common name need not change their expectations about how others will treat them. Shared tasks, balanced interaction and a credible common goal can make the inclusive identity psychologically meaningful. Conversely, if the “common” category is implicitly defined by the dominant subgroup's norms, minorities may experience it as an instruction to assimilate. A successful <intervention> must therefore assess whose identity is being recognized, rather than taking average category salience as a sufficient explanation.
<John F. Dovidio> and colleagues extended the experimental evidence beyond evaluations. After forming two three-person groups, they manipulated an inclusive versus separated representation and measured evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. The inclusive arrangement produced more favorable intergroup responses, with perceived group unity statistically accounting for part of the pattern. Helping is a stronger behavioral extension than an attitude rating alone. However, <statistical mediation> does not itself prove that perceived unity was the uniquely causal mediator: the manipulation could change additional processes alongside it.<Extending the benefits of recategorization: evaluations, self-disclosure, and helping by John F. Dovidio and others>[Two three-person groups; evaluations, disclosure, helping and perceived unity]{ref}
<Dual identity> retains the subgroups within the inclusive category. Participants can represent themselves as members of distinct departments within one university, for example. This can combine a shared membership with recognition of meaningful difference. It may also preserve the connection between a positive encounter and the original <Social outgroup>[outgroup], helping the benefit transfer beyond a single partner. The proposal is conditional: constantly emphasizing a hostile division without a credible common category could reinforce the boundary rather than soften it.
<Matthew J. Hornsey> and colleagues tested subgroup and superordinate-category salience in two university-based experiments, with 178 and 135 participants. Bias was lowest when both identities were salient and highest when the superordinate category alone was emphasized. The design is a useful challenge to an unconditional recommendation to erase subgroups. Its theoretical implication is that an inclusive representation can work better when it accommodates distinctiveness. The precise ordering still needs to be evaluated in the population and relationships being studied.<Subgroup relations: a comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction by Matthew J. Hornsey and others>[Experiments 1–2; crossed subgroup and superordinate salience, sample sizes 178 and 135]{ref}
<Crossed categorization> offers another possibility: someone may be an <Social outgroup>[outgroup] member on one dimension but an <ingroup> member on another. This weakens a perfectly aligned “us versus them” division when the shared dimension is valued. It does not guarantee inclusion, because people can prioritize one division or reserve the strongest exclusion for those who share neither membership. Thus the number of visible categories is less important than how they organize expected similarity, belonging and cooperation. Which <categorization> works best must be an empirical question about those relationships.
<Intergroup contact> provides a wider evidential context. <Thomas F. Pettigrew> and colleagues' <meta-analysis> of 515 studies and 713 independent samples found that contact generally related to lower <prejudice>, with supportive conditions such as equal status and cooperation enhancing the relationship. This broadens the evidence beyond a single laboratory manipulation. It does not rank <categorization> strategies directly, and much contact is assessed in observational studies: less prejudiced people may seek it out. Contact can supply an opportunity for category change without establishing that category change alone produced every improvement.<A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory by Thomas F. Pettigrew and others>[Meta-analysis; contact–prejudice association and facilitating conditions]{ref}
A strong comparison would assign otherwise similar cooperative encounters to <decategorization>, common identity and <dual identity> conditions. It would measure perceived inclusion and <identity threat>, then test attitudes and consequential treatment of unfamiliar group members after a delay. Separate subgroup analyses would reveal whether an apparent average benefit concealed a cost to the less powerful subgroup. These measurements make “works best” refer to generalization, persistence and behavior rather than to an immediate favorable rating.
\b[An inclusive identity that preserves legitimate subgroup distinctiveness is a well-supported candidate, especially where <identity threat> would undermine simple assimilation.] <Decategorization> and <crossed categorization> remain useful under appropriate conditions. The evidence favors changing how membership supports inclusion, with cooperative and equitable interaction, rather than expecting a verbal relabeling to remove <prejudice> on its own.