Catriona H Stone
email: c.h.stone@gmail.com

Richard J Crisp
email: r.crisp@kent.ac.uk

Superordinate and Subgroup Identifi cation as Predictors of Intergroup Evaluation in Common Ingroup Contexts

Keywords: common ingroup identity, distinctiveness threat, identifi cation

We examined the combined effects of subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation on intergroup evaluations within common ingroup identity contexts. In Studies 1 and 2 we observed a positive correlation between subgroup identifi cation and intergroup bias, and a negative correlation between superordinate identifi cation and bias. In Study 3 we replicated these effects using alternative measures and observed a common path underlying these relationships: the perceived psychological distance between the self and outgroup. In Studies 4 and 5 we replicated this path model and found that the relationship between superordinate identifi cation and intergroup bias was contingent upon making the superordinate identity salient, but this was not the case for subgroup identifi cation. We discuss the fi ndings in the context of theoretical and applied development of the Common Ingroup Identity Model.

The social categorization approach to intergroup confl ict asserts that weakening the salience of intergroup distinctions can reduce intergroup bias, and this basic idea underpins several key models of confl ict resolution. One of the most prominent approaches, the Common Ingroup Identity Model [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model[END_REF], has shown much potential in reducing intergroup confl ict. Subsequent work has found that in some contexts, however, the link between category salience and the reduction in intergroup bias is not so straightforward. In particular, different people may respond to a common ingroup identity in different ways, and motivational factors may determine whether an individual reacts favorably or negatively to such changes in category representation. Previous work has established that subgroup identifi cation may exert a moderating effect on the relationship between categorization and bias in common ingroup contexts (e.g. [START_REF] Crisp | Recategorization and subgroup identifi cation. Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups[END_REF][START_REF] Van Leeuwen | Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identifi cation and ingroup bias[END_REF]. However, there has as yet been little work on the effects of identifi cation with the superordinate group. In this article, we tested the hypothesis that both subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation are critical in understanding the social impact of recategorization and common ingroup identities.

The Common Ingroup Identity Model

The Common Ingroup Identity Model (CIIM) [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model[END_REF][START_REF] Gaertner | The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias[END_REF] advocates the elimination of intergroup boundaries by increasing the salience of an existing common ingroup identity, or introducing factors which facilitate the recategorization of two subgroups into an inclusive identity (see Self-Categorization Theory for an account of the proposed processes: [START_REF] Oakes | The salience of social categories[END_REF][START_REF] Turner | Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory[END_REF].

Laboratory and fi eld research has yielded support for the effectiveness of this technique in reducing subgroup confl ict. Factors such as cooperation (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation[END_REF][START_REF] Gaertner | How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?[END_REF][START_REF] Gaertner | The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias[END_REF], perceptual cues such as similar dress (e.g. [START_REF] Dovidio | Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity and group size[END_REF], contact between groups of equal status [START_REF] Gaertner | The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias[END_REF], institutional norms [START_REF] Gaertner | The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias[END_REF], positive mood [START_REF] Dovidio | Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity and group size[END_REF], shared ingroup/outgroup threat, and taking the perspective of outgroup members [START_REF] Dovidio | Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms[END_REF]) can all create common ingroup identities that include former outgroup members. It is also now well established that an observed increase in positive attitudes toward the outgroup in such contexts is mediated by a shift in the perceiver's cognitive representation of the intergroup context from two groups into one inclusive category (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?[END_REF]. Despite the wealth of evidence supportive of the idea that common ingroup categorization can reduce intergroup bias, some recent work has found that in some contexts recategorization may not reduce and can even increase intergroup bias. Theorists have interpreted these divergent effects as suggestive of motivational processes operating in such contexts (e.g. Hornsey & Hogg, 2000c). We outline these processes below.

Social identity and subgroup distinctiveness

Social Identity Theory (SIT) [START_REF] Tajfel | The social identity theory of intergroup behavior[END_REF] argues that group members have a motivated drive to acquire distinctiveness for their ingroup from the outgroup. Central to SIT is the notion that the evaluation of oneself is partly achieved in terms of the social groups to which perceivers belong. Because one's self-esteem is derived from group memberships (e.g. [START_REF] Crocker | Collective selfesteem and ingroup bias[END_REF] it follows that the attainment of a positive self-evaluation rests upon the ability of individuals to positively differentiate the ingroup from relevant outgroups. A key aspect of this theory is that in order to derive a sense of positive self-esteem from ingroup membership, the ingroup must be viewed as being distinct from other groups [START_REF] Mlicki | Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifi cations of Polish and Dutch students[END_REF]. Distinctive social categorization also clarifi es and defi nes social contexts, reducing uncertainty, and providing a set of prescriptive ingroup norms to guide perceivers' behavior [START_REF] Hogg | Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes[END_REF][START_REF] Hogg | Self-categorization and subjective uncertainty resolution: Cognitive and motivational facets of social identity and group membership[END_REF]. According to SIT then, distinctiveness is highly valued by group members, and they will strive to protect it. There is much evidence in favor of this notion that in conditions that compromise distinctiveness, ingroup favoritism is used as a way of re-attaining positive distinctiveness from the outgroup [START_REF] Brown | The effects of intergroup similarity and goal interdependence on intergroup attitudes and task performance[END_REF][START_REF] Tajfel | Social psychology of intergroup relations[END_REF][START_REF] Turner | Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favoritism[END_REF]. There is, however, one important caveat to this argument. Not all group members will be motivated to achieve, maintain, and protect ingroup distinctivenesspeople will vary in the extent to which such goals are important to them.

Identifi cation and subgroup distinctiveness

In order for the above reactive processes to occur, perceivers must be highly committed to their ingroup. If one does not regard a particular identity as central to their self-defi nition, they are unlikely to use it as a source of self-esteem [START_REF] Branscombe | In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity[END_REF]. Work carried out by Jetten, Spears, andManstead (1996, 2001; see also [START_REF] Roccas | Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations[END_REF] has examined the reactions of individuals that attach little, or much, importance to social categories under conditions of threatened group distinctiveness. Using similarity of group norms as the distinctiveness manipulation, it was found that intergroup similarity (i.e. same group norms) increased bias for individuals highly committed to the ingroup (high identifi ers) compared to those not committed to the ingroup (low identifi ers; Jetten et al., 2001, Study 2). Other research has used psychological distance between groups as the manipulation of intergroup distinctiveness. Jetten et al. (2001, Study 1) dichotomized high and low identifi ers, and manipulated distinctiveness by varying the distribution of group scores following a bogus task, to provide conditions of low distinctiveness and high distinctiveness. In line with predictions, there was no difference in bias between high and low identifi ers in the high distinctiveness condition. However, in the low distinctiveness condition, high identifi ers displayed signifi cantly higher levels of stereotypic differentiation compared to low identifi ers. Overall, this research indicates that when a similar outgroup impinges upon ingroup distinctiveness, high identifi ers will exhibit elevated levels of intergroup bias, whereas bias will be attenuated for low identifi ers (see Jetten & Spears, 2003;Spears, Jetten, &Scheepers, 2002 for reviews, andJetten, Spears, &[START_REF] Jetten | Intergroup distinctiveness and differentiation: A meta-analytic integration[END_REF], for a meta-analysis). This idea is critically important for literature on confl ict reduction, since in the same way that a highly similar outgroup can threaten distinctiveness, so too can the imposition of a superordinate categorization.

Distinctiveness, identifi cation and common ingroup identity contexts

The creation of a common ingroup identity requires that individuals will give up existing subgroup identities and take on a new inclusive identity [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of continuity as the key to postmerger identifi cation[END_REF]. Ingroup identification should thus moderate the effectiveness of a recategorization (Jetten & Spears, 2003, p. 234). Given their lower investment in the ingroup, lower subgroup identifi ers should be relatively willing to take on board the common ingroup identity, leading to reductions in ingroup favoritism consistent with the CIIM. However, a different pattern may be expected for higher identifi ers. Because higher identifi ers defi ne and evaluate themselves to a large extent in terms of that group membership, they should be most motivated to defend the distinctiveness and way of life of the ingroup. The merging of the ingroup and outgroup implied by recategorization should therefore result in a reactive increase in bias, in line with the ideas outlined by SIT above (for a discussion of the integration of SIT and models of bias reduction, see [START_REF] Crisp | Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identifi cation[END_REF]. There is indeed evidence that subgroup identification does moderate responses to recategorization in line with this model. Hornsey and Hogg (2000a) observed increased ingroup favoritism when a superordinate university identity was made, in relative terms, more salient than subgroup faculty identities. They argue that the heightened bias following superordinate categorization was due to a motivated increase in differentiation caused by threatened ingroup distinctiveness. Crisp et al. (2006, Study 4) went on to establish, in a similar context, that these comparatively high levels of bias observed in the superordinate university identity condition were driven specifi cally by high faculty (subgroup) identifi ers.

While it is now clear that subgroup identification can moderate the effects of making a superordinate category salient, little work has been directed toward a second possible moderator in common ingroup contexts-identifi cation with the common ingroup itself. Because recategorization entails a shift from one identity to another, the loss of one's subgroup would be particularly striking if there is no or very little identifi cation with the superordinate category. In this research, we therefore aimed to extend recent work into motivational processes involved in common ingroup contexts by examining not only the effects of subgroup identifi cation, but simultaneously, the moderating role of identifi cation with the superordinate group membership.

Identifi cation at multiple levels of inclusiveness

Some recent literature has begun to examine the link between superordinate identifi cation, subgroup identifi cation, and intergroup bias. In the procedural justice domain, Huo, Smith, and colleagues' research suggests that commitment only to subgroup identities can have potentially aversive consequences for subgroup relations. However, high attachment to superordinate identities might furnish more harmonious intergroup relations despite simultaneous high attachment to the subgroup [START_REF] Huo | Superordinate identifi cation, subgroup identifi cation, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer[END_REF]. Similarly, in their study of a shipyard workforce, [START_REF] Lipponen | Subgroup identifi cation, superordinate identifi cation and intergroup bias between the subgroups[END_REF] found that while subgroup identifi cation was positively related to subgroup bias, superordinate identifi cation was negatively correlated with subgroup bias. Finally, [START_REF] Bizman | Perceived threat and Israeli Jews' evaluations of Russian immigrants: The moderating role of Jewish and Israeli identity[END_REF] looked at subgroup (Israeli) identification, superordinate (Jewish) identifi cation, perceived realistic threat (competition for valued resources), and intergroup bias. They found that higher identifi cation with the Jewish superordinate identity led to lower bias, whereas higher identification with the Israeli subgroup led to increased bias toward Russian Jews (the minority immigrant outgroup). This work suggests a further important caveat to the involvement of identifi cation in common ingroup contexts. Although high subgroup identifi cation may lead to superordinate identities being perceived as threatening (and so lead to increased ingroup favoritism), simultaneously, higher identifi cation with the superordinate group can lead to less bias and a greater willingness to accept the merging of the ingroup and outgroup. 1

This research

We aimed to extend the research reviewed above in several important ways. We build on preliminary studies that have examined both subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation in a new context: national and supranational identities. More importantly, however, we tested a path model of the dual effects of subgroup and superordinate group identification on intergroup bias via psychological distance with the outgroup (Studies 3 to 5). We predicted that subgroup bias will be positively correlated with subgroup identifi cation in common identity contexts but that subgroup bias will be negatively correlated with superordinate group identifi cation, and that both will be mediated by psychological closeness with the outgroup. Because we were interested specifi cally in the combined effects 2 of subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation under conditions of threat (to ingroup distinctiveness), in Studies 1 to 3 we made a recategorized European identity salient for all participants. Then in Study 4, we assessed the effects on pre-and post-recategorization intersubgroup bias and fi nally in Study 5 we tested these assumptions in a between-subjects design.

Study 1

In Study 1 we aimed to provide an initial test of the sub-and superordinate identifi cation model. The target ingroup was 'British', the target outgroup 'French', and 'Europe' was the superordinate group. We predicted that when a shared European (superordinate) identity was made salient, British (subgroup) identifi cation would be positively correlated with bias toward the French, while European (superordinate) identifi cation would be negatively correlated with intergroup bias.

Method

Participants and design Eighty-fi ve British undergraduate students (46 males and 30 females, 3 mean age = 20) participated in return for a small monetary payment.

Procedure Participants were informed that the questionnaire was concerned with national attitudes. The fi rst section measured British identifi cation followed by European identifi cation, using four items (adapted from [START_REF] Jetten | Predicting the paths of peripherals: The interaction of identifi cation and future possibilities[END_REF][START_REF] Jetten | Predicting the paths of peripherals: The interaction of identifi cation and future possibilities[END_REF]Luhtanen &[START_REF] Luhtanen | A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity[END_REF]; 'I identify strongly with other British people', 'Being a British person is an important part of who I am', 'I feel strong ties with other British people', and 'I feel a sense of solidarity with other British people' (α = .927). These items were modifi ed to measure European identifi cation, e.g. 'I identify strongly with other Europeans' (α = .932). Responses on all measures in all studies were anchored from 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) unless otherwise stated.

In the second section, the concept of European integration was made salient, thus invoking the notion of a common ingroup identity. This was achieved by presenting participants with the following paragraph:

We are interested in your opinions toward what some may say is an inescapable merging of Britain into a 'United States of Europe'. Some argue that being 'British' is no longer a meaningful way to describe oneself in a time of closer European integration. Rather, British people should abandon any outdated notions of their special status and instead classify themselves as simply 'European'.

Participants were informed that the research was concerned with 'how national groups work together to solve generic problems that require creativity, intelligence, initiative, and motivation'. They were also told that 'in this particular survey, we are examining peoples' opinions concerning British and French work groups'. Participants then completed measures of ingroup and outgroup evaluation.

Dependent measures

Participants completed measures of inter-subgroup evaluation used in previous research on the CIIM (adapted from Hornsey & Hogg, 2000c). The two items per group were: 'I'd feel good about working within a mainly British team' and 'How strongly would you prefer the leader of an ideal team to be British?' (r (85) = .419, p < .001). These items were reworded to measure French evaluation (r (85) = .405, p < .001). In both cases the two items were averaged to form a single measure of ingroup and outgroup evaluation. Intergroup bias was calculated by subtracting outgroup evaluation from ingroup evaluation.

Results and discussion

Intergroup bias We regressed intergroup bias onto British and European identifi cation. The analysis revealed that subgroup and superordinate identifi cation both signifi cantly predicted bias, with subgroup identifi cation being positively related to bias (β = .43, p < .001) and superordinate group identifi cation being negatively related to bias (β = -.39, p < .001). On entering an interaction term into the multiple regression on a second step, there was no superordinate identification × subordinate identifi cation interaction (β = -.144, p = .728).

We further regressed ingroup evaluation onto British and European identifi cation. Increasing levels of British identifi cation were associated with higher ingroup evaluation (β = .491, p < .005), whereas there was no association between European identifi cation and evaluation of the ingroup (β = -.084, p = .439). We also regressed outgroup evaluation onto British and European identifi cation. Here, we observed no relationship between British identifi cation and outgroup evaluation (β = -.041, p = .705). However, European identifi cation was positively associated with outgroup evaluation (β = .492, p < .005). 4 The positive correlation between subgroup identifi cation and bias is in line with previous research: following recategorization, the higher the level of subgroup identifi cation, the higher the level of intergroup bias (see [START_REF] Crisp | Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identifi cation[END_REF][START_REF] Crisp | Recategorization and subgroup identifi cation. Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups[END_REF][START_REF] Van Leeuwen | Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identifi cation and ingroup bias[END_REF]. However, we found a negative correlation between commitment to the shared European identity and bias. For our British participants then, those who highly identifi ed with being British were more biased against the French after reading a paragraph designed to prime the European superordinate identity. However, simultaneously, those participants who highly identifi ed with being European were less biased against the French after reading a paragraph priming their European identity. These fi ndings illustrate the importance of studying both subgroup and superordinate level identifi cation for predicting intergroup bias in common ingroup contexts.

Study 2

One could argue that our manipulation of superordinate group (European) salience in Study 1 carried some element of value threat (i.e. it did not only imply a loss of distinctiveness, but also that the recategorization had other negative connotations). We felt that the manipulation we chose was appropriate to the context we studied, while at the same time presenting no signifi cant problem for conceptual clarity. It has high face validity because typically, British views toward European integration are invariably laced not only with issues of distinctiveness, but also of evaluation. For example, there is much literature documenting the skepticism of the British toward the EU and European integration (e.g. [START_REF] Medrano | Framing Europe: Attitudes to European integration in Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom[END_REF][START_REF] Rutland | Context effects on Scottish national and European self-categorization: The importance of category accessibility, fragility and relations[END_REF]. More importantly, however, previous research has established that this manipulation has identical effects to less elaborate means of making a superordinate identity salient. In particular, [START_REF] Crisp | Recategorization and subgroup identifi cation. Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups[END_REF] directly compared this manipulation with a simpler version (a single superordinate category label) and found both to have identical effects on evaluations as a function of identifi cation. Similarly, [START_REF] Crisp | Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identifi cation[END_REF] have shown that simple manipulations of similarity (e.g. listing fi ve characteristics that the ingroup and outgroup have in common) also exert the same effects on evaluations as a function of identifi cation as do manipulations that employ the more elaborate method used here. However, to establish that this manipulation would have the same effects as a more basic distinctiveness threat manipulation, Study 2 was carried out using a more basic manipulation of recategorization.

Method

Participants and design Fifty-seven British undergraduate students (8 males and 49 females, mean age = 20) participated in return for a small monetary payment.

Procedure

The procedure was identical to that of Study 1, with the exception of a different manipulation of common ingroup identity salience and alternative dependent measures. Participants were presented with a list of continents, and were simply asked to identify from which they came; Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America, or South America (see Hornsey & Hogg, 2000b, 2000c, for similarly subtle manipulations). The British and European identifi cation scales were reliable and so were therefore averaged to form single indices (αs = .926 and .955 respectively).

Dependent measures Measures of bias were administered using a scale partially adapted from [START_REF] Wright | The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice[END_REF]. Participants were asked to indicate how they felt about both the British and French on dimensions of cold-warm, negative-positive, friendly-hostile (recoded), suspicious-trusting, respect-contempt (recoded), disgust-admiration (ingroup, α = .741, outgroup, α = .650).

Results and discussion

Intergroup bias Intergroup bias was regressed onto British (subgroup) and European (superordinate group) identifi cation. This analysis showed that both subgroup and superordinate identification significantly predicted bias. Subgroup identifi cation was positively related to bias (β = .427, p < .005) while superordinate group identifi cation was negatively related to bias (β = -.387, p < .005). Entering an interaction term into the multiple regression in the second step revealed no superordinate identifi cation × subordinate identifi cation interaction (β = -.168, p = .706).

We also regressed ingroup evaluation onto British and European identifi cation. British identification was positively associated with higher ingroup evaluation (β = .445, p < .005). In contrast, there was no association between European identifi cation and evaluation of the ingroup (β = -.194, p = .123). We observed no relationship between British identification and outgroup evaluation (β = -.130, p = .320). However, European identifi cation was positively associated with outgroup evaluation (β = .359, p = .008).

The aim of this study was to test our hypotheses using a manipulation of superordinate identity salience that, unequivocally, does not threaten the value of the subgroup identity. The fi ndings of this study replicate those obtained in Study 1. This supports our contention that the effects we observed should be attributed to the distinctiveness threat inherent to our manipulation, rather than any associated value threat.

Having established these effects, we moved on to Study 3 to address the principle aim in this research: to test for a common mediator of the subgroup and superordinate identifi cation effects observed.

Study 3

In their formulation of the CIIM, Gaertner and colleagues (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefi ts of recategorization[END_REF] argued that the process underpinning reductions in bias following recategorization decreases the distance between the self and former outgroup members. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefi ts of recategorization[END_REF][START_REF] Gaertner | How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?[END_REF] studies found that both separate individuals and recategorization representations led to lower bias compared to the control 'two-groups' condition but via different mechanisms. An individualized representation decreased bias because ratings of other ingroup members decreased, whereas there was no change in the ratings of former outgroup members. In the recategorization condition, however, ratings of outgroup members increased while evaluations of other ingroup members remained relatively stable. In line with these fi ndings is the notion that intergroup bias is characterized by pro-ingroup attitudes rather than outgroup derogation [START_REF] Brewer | Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis[END_REF].

For example, research has found that prosocial behavior (e.g. [START_REF] Levine | Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior[END_REF] and empathy [START_REF] Hornstein | Cruelty and kindness: A new look at aggression and altruism[END_REF] are offered more readily to ingroup members than to outgroup members. Therefore, when outgroup members become ingroup members in a common ingroup identity, positive attitudes, behaviors, and cognitions associated with proingroup bias become extended toward former outgroup members [START_REF] Levine | Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior[END_REF].

Gaertner and Dovidio argued that this specifi c locus of effect on outgroup evaluations supports the mechanism outlined in their model: that a common ingroup identity brings former outgroup members closer to the self. However, thus far mediational evidence has focused on changes in perceived inter-category structure (i.e. the perception that the intergroup context is defi ned less by two well-defi ned subgroups, but more like one overall superordinate category; [START_REF] Gaertner | How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias?[END_REF]. Little work has, however, directly tested the more specific mediating mechanism outlined by Gaertner and Dovidio-that recategorization improves outgroup evaluations because it brings outgroup members closer to the self: a mediating role of psychological distance between the self and the outgroup. Recently, Dovidio et al. (2004, Study 1) did investigate the issue of merging of the self with an outgroup member via perspectivetaking. They did not fi nd supportive mediational evidence that perspective-taking reduced bias via self-other merging; however, this was not a recategorization context. Related work does, nonetheless, indirectly support the prediction that recognition of common ingroups will decrease bias by decreasing the psychological distance between the self and outgroup. Within the contact literature [START_REF] Wright | The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice[END_REF] provide evidence indicating that extended contact reduces bias via perceived ingroup targetoutgroup target overlap. Specifi cally, they found that if a perceiver believed there to be closeness between an ingroup member and an outgroup member, the outgroup would become, to a certain extent, included as part of the self. This in turn reduces affective and general prejudice, and increases evaluations of the outgroup. Because recategorization is a consequence of contact (and indeed it is this relationship on which the model was built, see [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefi ts of recategorization[END_REF], this suggests that interventions designed to reduce intergroup bias should do so via decreasing the psychological barrier between the self and outgroup members.

The aim of Studies 3, 4, and 5 was therefore to directly test an idea outlined, but as yet untested: that creating a common ingroup identity leads to a reduction in intergroup bias via decreased psychological distance between the self and the outgroup. However, we take these ideas one step further and argue that it is not only the salience of the superordinate group that will determine bias, and psychological closeness to the outgroup. Rather, it is the relative strength of the subgroup and superordinate identity that will determine bias, via the psychological distance between the self and outgroup. Related work suggests that identifi cation may indeed predict psychological closeness under conditions of differential ingroup-outgroup similarity. A role for identifi cation in determining perceived closeness to the ingroup (vis-a-vis the outgroup) under a distinctiveness threat has been identifi ed by [START_REF] Spears | Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identifi cation[END_REF]. They found that under conditions of a distinctiveness threat, high ingroup identifi ers regarded themselves as being typical members of the ingroup, whereas low identifi ers distanced themselves away from the ingroup. On the basis of this previous research we therefore tested the predictions that: (a) with increasing subgroup identifi cation self-to-outgroup similarity would decrease; and (b) with increasing superordinate identifi cation self-to-outgroup similarity would increase. Furthermore, self-to-outgroup closeness would mediate the relationship between both subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation and bias.

Method

Participants and design Seventy British undergraduate students (35 males, 32 females, 5 mean age = 20) participated in exchange for a small monetary payment. As in Studies 1 and 2, the British were used as the ingroup, the French as the outgroup, and Europe as the superordinate group.

Procedure The procedure was identical to that of Study 1, with the addition of measures assessing similarity between the self and outgroup. The British and European identification scales were reliable and so were averaged to form single indices (αs = .934 and .932 respectively).

Dependent measures

We used the same evaluative items as used in Study 1. Items for ingroup evaluation and outgroup evaluation were correlated (r (70) = .450, p < .01, and r (70) = .284, p < .05 respectively) so were collapsed to form single indices. As before, intergroup bias was calculated by subtracting outgroup evaluation from ingroup evaluation. Psychological distance between the self and ingroup and outgroup was assessed by asking participants to rate the extent to which they agreed with the following two items; 'I feel similar to British people' and 'I feel similar to French people'. For half of the sample the order of the questions was reversed to ensure counterbalancing.

Results and discussion

Intergroup bias Preliminary analysis revealed that subgroup (British) and superordinate group (European) identifi cation both signifi cantly predicted bias. British identifi cation was positively related to bias (β = .488, p < .005), whereas European identifi cation was negatively associated with bias (β = -.268, p < .05). On entering an interaction term into the multiple regression on a second step, there was no superordinate identification × subordinate identification interaction (β = -.130, p = .664).

We further regressed ingroup evaluation onto British and European identification. Again, British identification was associated with ingroup evaluation (β = .463, p < .005), whereas there was no association between European identifi cation and evaluation of the ingroup (β = -.002, p = .989). As with ingroup evaluation, we also regressed outgroup evaluation onto British and European identification. Here, we observed no relationship between British identifi cation and outgroup evaluation (β = -.175, p = .116). However, higher European identifi cation was related to higher outgroup evaluation (β = .492, p < .005). These fi ndings replicated those of Studies 1 and 2. Our next aim was to see whether similarity to the outgroup mediated these paths.

Path analysis

We tested three models using AMOS software [START_REF] Arbuckle | AMOS 4 user's reference guide[END_REF]) and compared their relative fi t to ascertain whether our predicted model was the best fi t for the data obtained. Model 1, our predicted model, specified that subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation would have an indirect effect on bias via perceived similarity to the outgroup. Our measure of similarity to the outgroup was derived from subtracting ratings of the psychological distance to the ingroup from ratings of psychological distance to the outgroup. We created this index because we were interested in the extent to which participants, in relative terms, felt more similar to the outgroup than the ingroup. Examining similarity to the outgroup alone may not capture the important comparative nature of intergroup perception in this context, in the same way that measuring only outgroup evaluations without reference to ingroup evaluations may be misleading. For example, if both ingroup and outgroup evaluations rise in concert then there is no reduction in intergroup bias, but if only outgroup evaluations are measured we may mistakenly assume that there was. Thus, consistent with our use of a relative measure of outgroup evaluation (i.e. bias, ingroup minus outgroup evaluations) we also used a relative measure of psychological distance to the outgroup (i.e. similarity to outgroup, self-outgroup similarity minus self-ingroup similarity). We also note that while the common ingroup identity model predicts variation only in terms of similarity to the outgroup, this prediction was made only in contexts where identifi cation is not an issue (i.e. a common identity is predicted only to reduce bias). Our contention is that when perceiver identity motivations are involved then this implies a comparative process involving positioning of oneself relative to the ingroup versus the outgroup (e.g. [START_REF] Crisp | Recategorization and subgroup identifi cation. Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups[END_REF]Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a) hence our focus on a relative measure.

This model can be seen in Figure 1. There was a direct relationship between similarity to the outgroup and bias (β = -.64, p < .001). The more similar the participants felt to the outgroup (relative to the ingroup), the less biased they were. There was also a signifi cant path between both subgroup and superordinate identifi cation and similarity between self and outgroup. As predicted, however, the nature of the relationship differed. Subgroup (British) identifi cation was negatively correlated with similarity to the outgroup (β = -.56, p < .001). In contrast, and as predicted, superordinate identification was positively correlated with relative similarity to the outgroup (β = .35, p < .001). In sum then, both subgroup and superordinate identifi cation had indirect effects on bias through relative similarity between self and outgroup. The more participants identified with their subgroup identity, the less similar they perceived themselves to be with the outgroup, and the more biased they were. The more participants identifi ed with their superordinate group, the more similar they felt to the outgroup relative to the ingroup, and the less biased they were.

In order to empirically establish the validity of this model, we next computed two other models and compared fi t indices. The fi t of the models tested was assessed by using chi-square, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Model 1 (Figure 1) was found to be a good fi t: χ 2 = 3.44, p = .179, CFI = .980, and RMSEA = .102. The fi rst comparison model tested the same paths as outlined in Figure 1, but in addition we tested the direct paths between subgroup and superordinate identification and bias. This model (Model 2) replicated the signifi cant paths observed in Figure 1; however, the additional direct paths tested were nonsignifi cant. With the inclusion of similarity to the outgroup into the equation there was no longer any direct relationship between subgroup identifi cation and bias (β = .204, p = .08), nor between super-ordinate identifi cation and bias (β = .092, p = .368).

The second comparison model tested whether similarity to the outgroup best predicted bias (Model 1) or whether bias best predicted similarity to the outgroup (Model 3). In comparison with Model 1, however, Model 3 was a poor fi t: χ 2 = 16.39, p < .0005, CFI = .799, and RMSEA = .323.

The fi ndings from Study 3 have qualifi ed the basic relationships observed in Studies 1 and 2 in a number of important ways. First, we replicated the basic relationships observed in Studies 1 and 2-subgroup identifi cation was positively related to post-recategorization bias, but superordinate identifi cation was negatively related to post-recategorization bias. Second, comparison of the different path models supported a mediating role for similarity to the outgroup. The model specifying that subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation had their effects on post-recategorization bias via perceived similarity to the outgroup had a much better fi t than either a model specifying the reverse order (bias-similarity) or a model that included direct paths between identifi cation and bias. Importantly, the signifi cant relationships between subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation and bias that were observed in Study 1 and Study 2 became nonsignifi cant in a model that included similarity to the outgroup as mediator.

In Study 4 we aimed to further test this model, using alternative measures of psychological distance, as well as changing some aspects of the cover story and manipulation to further test the generalizability of the effects. One of the potential criticisms of Study 3 is that our measure of psychological distance between the self and ingroup and items referring to ingroup identifi cation may not have been clearly measuring different constructs (indeed, a factor analysis did not show these items to load on distinct factors). To address this we improved our measure of psychological distance in this study. In particular we created a multi-item scale and explicitly tested whether our ingroup identifi cation and similarity measures were statistically distinct constructs.

Importantly, we also included here both a prerecategorization and post-recategorization measure of bias. This latter addition to our basic design allowed us to test whether the relationship between subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation and bias changes as a function of the cognitive salience of the superordinate categorization. In other words, it provides a control condition against which to compare the effects of identifi cation on bias following recategorization. In Studies 1 to 3 we focused specifi cally on the processes and outcomes of superordinate and subgroup identifi cation in recategorized contexts. While this is clearly the most targeted focus for understanding what the effects of recategorization might be, it does not tell us whether things are, in fact, different after recategorization than before.

In Study 4 we therefore sought to directly test the relationships between identifi cation at different levels of the group hierarchy and bias before and after making a common ingroup identity cognitively salient. We contend that in order for intergroup relations to benefi t from high superordinate identifi cation, the relevant common ingroup identity must fi rst be cognitively salient. We thus predicted that the dual and opposing relationships between subgroup and superordinate identifi cation and bias would only operate in common ingroup contexts. Put another way, when only subgroup identities are salient we expect only subgroup identifi cation to predict bias (and for superordinate group identifi cation to exert no moderating effect on bias). However, when a common identity is made salient, although we expect subgroup identifi cation to continue to exert its moderating effect, we will then expect superordinate group identifi cation to also predict bias, and indeed, that high superordinate identification will then help to reduce bias associated with high subgroup identifi cation.

Study 4

Method

Participants and design Sixty-nine female undergraduates (mean age = 19 6 ) participated in exchange for course credits. As with Studies 1 to 3, Britain was the ingroup subgroup, France the outgroup subgroup, and Europe the superordinate recategorization.

Procedure To increase generalizability, we used here an alternative cover story. Participants were informed that the study was a wide-scale questionnaire looking at how media coverage can infl uence emotions, decision-making, and opinions of the general public. Prior to the recategorization manipulation, measures of British (α = .914) and European (α = .908) identifi cation were taken using the scales employed in Studies 1 to 3. Premanipulation measures of bias were administered using the scale employed in Study 2 (ingroup, α = .711, outgroup, α = .660).

Recategorization into a European identity was then introduced by informing participants that:

Europe is currently in a state of political change. Since 1958 the European Union (EU) has been constantly enlarging, and a number of countries have applied to join this ever-growing 'club'. Given that at present, this is an important issue, it is currently receiving extensive media coverage. Please read the following paragraph that recently appeared in a national newspaper.

Participants then read the recategorization manipulation employed in Studies 1 and 3. Following this, participants completed postmanipulation measures of ingroup and outgroup evaluation, again using the General Evaluation Scale of [START_REF] Wright | The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice[END_REF] ingroup α = .678, outgroup α = .685).

New measures of ingroup and outgroup similarity to self were also used, and included the following items: 'I feel similar to British (French) people in general'; 'I feel that I have a lot in common with British (French) people in general'; and 'I feel that I possess attributes that are associated with British (French) people in general' (ingroup α = .89, outgroup α = .91). Participants then completed a feedback form, were thanked and debriefed.

Results and discussion

Construct validity The use of multi-item scales to assess all of our key variables, identifi cation, similarity, and evaluation, allowed us here the opportunity to confi rm the empirical distinctiveness of these constructs. [START_REF] Nunnally | Psychometric theory[END_REF] suggests that when a correlation between two scales is as much as 20 points lower that the average of the within-scale reliabilities of those two scales, the two scales are measuring 'systematic differences in content' (p. 230). Put another way, if between-scale differences outweigh within-scale differences, then the two scales can be considered to be measuring different constructs. We computed this difference for every combination of subgroup identifi cation, ingroup and outgroup similarity, and ingroup and outgroup evaluation. In each case, the correlation between scales was at least 20 points lower than the average of the within-scale reliabilities (ingroup identifi cation vs. ingroup similarity = .20; ingroup similarity vs. ingroup evaluation = .26; ingroup identification vs. ingroup evaluation = .38; ingroup identifi cation vs. outgroup similarity = .77; outgroup similarity vs. outgroup evaluation = .52; ingroup identifi cation vs. outgroup evaluation = .69). As such, we concluded that our measures of ingroup identifi cation, similarity to the ingroup and outgroup, and evaluation of the ingroup and outgroup were all distinct constructs.

Change in bias

We carried out the same regression analysis as in Studies 1 to 3 but with the added within-subjects factor of time (pre-and post-recategorization). Thus, a regression analysis was computed including subgroup, superordinate group identifi cation, and bias at time 1 and time 2.

Overall, this analysis replicated the fi ndings from Studies 1 to 3. There was a signifi cant positive relationship between subgroup (British) identifi cation and bias (β = .435, p = .001), and a significant negative relationship between superordinate group (European) identifi cation and bias (β = -.285, p = .025). Combining pre-and post-bias into a single overall index of bias, without taking account of whether a recategorized superordinate identity was salient or not, therefore yielded effects in line with those we had previously observed. Higher subgroup identifi cation predicted higher bias, higher superordinate identifi cation predicted lower bias.

In order to assess whether identifi cation at subgroup and superordinate levels interacted with time we computed the difference between pre-and post-recategorization bias and regressed this onto the identification indices (this is the same as computing identifi cation × time interactions in a typical analysis of variance design). In addition to the main effects the subgroup identifi cation × time interaction was nonsignificant (β = -.032, p = .807). This refl ected the fact that subgroup identifi cation signifi cantly predicted bias both at time 1 (prerecategorization) (β = .400, p < .01), and also at time 2 (post-recategorization) (β = .398, p < .01). Thus, irrespective of the salience of a superordinate identity, higher subgroup identifi cation predicted higher bias.

There was, however, a signifi cant superordinate identifi cation × time interaction that qualifi ed the main effect of European identification reported above (β = .267, p < .05). This interaction indicated that while superordinate identification did not predict bias prior to making the superordinate (European) identity salient (β = -.160, p = .213), after making the superordinate identity salient superordinate identification did predict bias (β = -.356, p = .006). Finally, on entering an interaction term into the multiple regression on a second step, there was no superordinate identifi cation × subgroup identification × time interaction (β = -.042, p = .953).

Post-recategorization bias

We next carried out an analysis on post-recategorization bias only, which allowed a test of whether we would replicate the basic relationships between identifi cation and bias observed in Studies 1 to 3. Preliminary analysis revealed that subgroup (British) identifi cation was positively correlated with bias (β = .398, p < .01), and that superordinate group (European) identifi cation negatively related to bias (β = -.356, p = .006.) We again regressed ingroup evaluation onto British and European identifi cation. As before, the more respondents identified with their British identity, the higher the evaluation of the ingroup (β = .468, p < .005), whereas there was no association between European identification and evaluation of the ingroup (β = -.110, p = .374). As with ingroup evaluation, we also regressed outgroup evaluation onto British and European identifi cation. British identifi cation was not related to ingroup evaluation (β = -.030, p = .814), whereas a strong European identity was associated with higher outgroup evaluation (β = .340, p = .01).

Path analysis

We tested the same three models as in Study 3. Model 1 specifi es that both superordinate identification and subgroup identifi cation have their effect on post-recategorization bias indirectly via similarity to the outgroup. This analysis replicated the pattern observed in our previous studies (see Figure 2). We again observed a direct relationship between similarity to the outgroup and bias (β = -.46, p < .001). Increased perceived similarity to the outgroup was associated with less bias. Subgroup identifi cation was negatively related to perceived self-outgroup similarity (β = -.61, p < .0001), while superordinate identifi cation was positively related to perceived self-outgroup similarity (β = .50, p < .0001). The model tested in Figure 2 was a good fi t: χ 2 = 2.28, p = .320, CFI = .995, and RMSEA = .045).

We again computed two other models and compared fi t indices. Model 2 included the direct paths between subgroup and super-ordinate identifi cation and bias. This model replicated the signifi cant paths seen in Figure 2, however, the additional direct paths tested were nonsignifi cant. With similarity to the outgroup included, the direct relationships between subgroup identification and bias and between superordinate identifi cation and bias became nonsignifi cant (β = .188, p = .201, and, β = -.186, p = .180).

The second comparison model tested whether similarity to the outgroup best predicted bias (Model 1) or whether bias best predicted similarity to the outgroup (Model 3). In comparison with Model 1, however, Model 3 was a poor fi t: χ 2 = 20.57, p < .0005, CFI = .673, and RMSEA = .370.

In sum, the fi ndings from Study 4 replicated and extended the basic relationships observed in Studies 1 to 3. Subgroup identifi cation was again positively related to post-recategorization bias, but superordinate identifi cation was negatively related to post-recategorization bias. Comparison of the different path models again supported a mediating role for similarity to the outgroup: the signifi cant relationships between subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation and bias that were observed in Studies 1 and 2 became nonsignifi cant in a model that included similarity to the outgroup as mediator. Importantly, this study also revealed that subgroup (British) identifi cation was associated with bias regardless of the salience of the superordinate category. On the other hand, there was an interaction between superordinate identification and the salience of the shared European identity. Higher subgroup identification predicted higher intergroup bias irrespective of a salient superordinate identity. In contrast, higher superordinate group identifi cation predicted lower intergroup bias only in contexts where a common ingroup identity was salient. These fi ndings therefore (a) confi rm the effi cacy of making common ingroup identities salient and (b) qualify this effect: making a common ingroup identity cognitively salient will reduce bias only to the extent that perceivers are committed to, and ascribe meaning to, that common ingroup identity.

Study 5

In this fi nal study we wanted to confi rm the fi ndings from Study 4 using an alternative design and manipulation. Specifi cally, to strengthen the argument that superordinate identification should only predict similarity and bias when that identity is made salient, we used a betweensubjects design (rather than the within-subjects design used in Study 4). We also again used the minimal manipulation of superordinate category salience employed in Study 2 to provide the most stringent test of this hypothesis.

In this experiment participants completed measures of subgroup and superordinate identifi cation in a control condition and prior to the manipulation of superordinate category salience. One may argue that a salience manipulation should not be necessary for chronic superordinate identifi ers, since these individuals should, in theory, consistently and chronically think in terms of their superordinate identity. We argue, however, that while for high subgroup identifi ers the evaluative measures themselves make the intergroup context salient (thus subcategories are inherently salient in the judgment context), high superordinate identifi ers, in this particular context, will tend to express more positive attitudes to the extent that a superordinate context is salient. This is because here we are dealing with a subgroup that appears to have an ambivalent relationship with its superordinate. British participants may in particular be unlikely to think about being European as soon as they think about other member states. Thus while in many cases we might well expect subgroups to immediately think of the superordinate context without explicit prompting, for our British participants it will likely be the case that our manipulation of superordinate category salience will be required to observe the effects we have documented so far. This experiment also gave us an opportunity to avoid measuring bias twice in a short period of time (as in Study 4). While the fi nding of different relationships between identifi cation, similarity, and bias as a function of time in Study 4 suggests the repeated measures design was able to tap variability in intergroup evaluations, one could argue this design allowed the possibility that participants guessed the nature of the experiment and adjusted their evaluations to fi t in with this. Using a between-subjects design in Study 5 avoids these potential demand characteristics.

Method

Participants and design Sixty-five female undergraduates (mean age = 22) participated in exchange for a small monetary payment (£1). As with studies 1 to 4, Britain was the ingroup subgroup, France the outgroup subgroup, and Europe the superordinate recategorization.

Procedure

The procedure was the same as in Study 2 except that here half the participants were assigned to a control condition in which they simply completed the identification, similarity, and evaluation measures, while half completed the identifi cation measures, then a manipulation of superordinate category salience, and fi nally the similarity and evaluation measures. Participants were presented with a list of continents, and were simply asked to identify from which they came: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Europe, Oceania, North America, or South America. Measures of British (α = .887) and European (α = .945) identifi cation were taken using the scales employed in Studies 1 to 4.

Following the identifi cation measures, and in the experimental condition, the manipulation of superordinate category salience, measures of ingroup and outgroup similarity to self were as used in Study 4 and were completed by participants (ingroup α = .900, outgroup α = .914), then the measures of ingroup and outgroup evaluation, again using the General Evaluation Scale of [START_REF] Wright | The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice[END_REF] ingroup α = .597, outgroup α = .640). Here, in contrast to Studies 3 and 4, participants completed the similarity measures before the evaluative measures. Finally, participants completed a feedback form, were thanked and debriefed.

Results and discussion

Construct validity We again used the [START_REF] Nunnally | Psychometric theory[END_REF] test to confi rm the empirical distinctiveness of the constructs tested. We computed this difference for every combination of subgroup identifi cation, ingroup and outgroup similarity, and ingroup and outgroup evaluation. In every case the correlation between scales was 20 points lower than the average of the withinscale reliabilities (ingroup similarity vs. ingroup evaluation = .39; ingroup identification vs. ingroup evaluation = .49; ingroup identifi cation vs. outgroup similarity = .71; outgroup similarity vs. outgroup evaluation = .53; ingroup identifi cation vs. outgroup evaluation = .55) except one, where nonetheless the difference approached .20: ingroup identification vs. ingroup similarity = .17. As such, we concluded that our measures of ingroup identifi cation, similarity to the ingroup and outgroup, and evaluation of the ingroup and outgroup, were all distinct constructs.

Similarity Because participants in this study completed the similarity measures prior to the evaluation measures we report them here fi rst. A moderated regression analysis was computed including categorization conditions, subgroup identification, and superordinate group identification as predictor variables, and similarity to the outgroup (similarity to outgroup minus similarity to ingroup) as the dependent variable.

Overall, there was a significant negative relationship between subgroup (British) identifi cation and similarity to the outgroup (β = -.562, p < .0005), and a signifi cant positive relationship between superordinate group (European) identifi cation and similarity to the outgroup (β = .409, p < .0005). Thus, without taking account of whether a recategorized superordinate identity was salient or not, higher subgroup identifi cation predicted more differentiation from the outgroup (less similarity to the outgroup), while higher superordinate identifi cation predicted higher perceptions of similarity with the outgroup.

In addition to these main effects there was one further effect, the predicted superordinate group identifi cation × categorization condition interaction (β = .675, p = .038). This interaction indicated that while superordinate identifi cation did not predict similarity to the outgroup prior to making the superordinate (European) identity salient (β = .214, p = .228), after making the superordinate identity salient superordinate identifi cation did predict similarity to the outgroup (β = .587, p < .0005). The absence of a subgroup identifi cation × categorization condition interaction (β = -.092, p = .816) indicates that subgroup identifi cation signifi cantly predicted similarity to the outgroup both in the control condition (β = -.547, p = .004), and also in the recategorization condition (β = -.478, p = .001). Thus, irrespective of the salience of a superordinate identity, higher subgroup identifi cation predicted lower similarity to the outgroup. Bias Overall, there was a signifi cant positive relationship between subgroup (British) identifi cation and bias (β = .461, p < .0005), and a signifi cant negative relationship between superordinate group (European) identifi cation and bias (β = -.238, p = .047). Thus, without taking account of whether a recategorized superordinate identity was salient, higher subgroup identifi cation predicted more bias, while higher superordinate identifi cation predicted less bias. There were no other signifi cant effects; the predicted superordinate group identifi cation × categorization condition interaction was not significant (β = -.380, p = .292). However, examination of the relationship between identifi cation and bias in the control and recategorization conditions separately revealed a pattern consistent with that observed for similarity to the outgroup, and that observed in Study 4. While superordinate identifi cation did not predict bias prior to making the superordinate (European) identity salient (β = -.132, p = .476), after making the superordinate identity salient superordinate identifi cation did predict bias (β = -.399, p = .018). Furthermore subgroup identifi cation signifi cantly predicted bias both in the control condition (β = .456, p = .019), and also in the recategorization condition (β = .423, p = .013). So, irrespective of the salience of a superordinate identity, higher subgroup identifi cation predicted higher bias.

Path analysis

We tested the same three models as in our previous studies. Model 1 specifi es that both superordinate identification and subgroup identifi cation have their effect on postrecategorization bias indirectly via similarity to the outgroup. This analysis replicated the pattern observed in our previous studies (see Figure 3). We again observed a direct relationship between similarity to the outgroup and bias (β = -.57, p < .001). Increased perceived similarity to the outgroup was associated with less bias. Subgroup identifi cation was negatively related to perceived self-outgroup similarity (β = -.56, p < .0001), while superordinate identifi cation was positively related to perceived self-outgroup similarity (β = .41, p < .0001). The model tested in Figure 3 was a good fi t: χ 2 = 3.40, p = .183, CFI = .973, and RMSEA = . We again computed two other models and compared fi t indices. Model 2 included the direct paths between subgroup and superordinate identifi cation and bias. This model replicated the signifi cant paths seen in Figure 3, however, the additional direct paths tested were nonsignificant. With similarity to the outgroup included, the direct relationships between subgroup identifi cation and bias approached signifi cance (β = .238 p = .065), and the relationship between superordinate identifi cation and bias was nonsignifi cant (β = -.053, p = .657).

The second comparison model tested whether similarity to the outgroup best predicted bias (Model 1) or whether bias best predicted similarity to the outgroup (Model 3). In comparison with Model 1, however, Model 3 was a poor fi t: χ 2 = 16.08, p < .0005, CFI = .731, and RMSEA = .345. In sum, the fi ndings from Study 5 replicated and extended the basic relationships observed in Studies 1 to 4 using a betweensubjects design. Only when a superordinate common ingroup identity was salient did identifi cation with this superordinate group lead to greater perceived similarity to the outgroup, and less intergroup bias. These fi ndings support the idea that not only the salience of a common ingroup identity, but identifi cation with that identity, is important for achieving maximally effective reductions in intergroup bias.

General discussion

The aim of this research was to extend work on [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model[END_REF][START_REF] Gaertner | The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias[END_REF] Common Ingroup Identity Model to examine whether both subgroup and superordinate group identifi cation predicted attitudes toward the outgroup. These questions were examined in the context of a naturally occurring hierarchy, British and European identity. In Studies 1 to 5 we found that higher British (subgroup) identifi cation was associated with higher bias toward to the outgroup, while higher European identifi cation was associated with lower levels of bias toward the outgroup. In addition Studies 3, 4, and 5 yielded evidence that the psychological distance between the self and outgroup mediated the positive relationship between subgroup identifi cation and bias, and the negative relationship between superordinate identifi cation and bias. Below we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these fi ndings.

Theoretical implications

The social categorization approach has provided a framework which has been used as a basis for the development of a variety of bias-reduction techniques. Central to this strategy is the notion that the cognitive-perceptual processes which facilitate discrimination (i.e. salience of intergroup boundaries) can also provide the solution. The CIIM involves shifting intergroup boundaries to include outgroup members within a new ingroup, leading to reduced intergroup bias. Our fi ndings extend this research by examining the effects of multiple commitments at multiple levels of inclusiveness.

Previously it has been observed that merging an ingroup with an outgroup can be used effectively within minimal groups (e.g. [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefi ts of recategorization[END_REF], but not so effectively within some natural groups (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a). This led to the assumption, drawing also on Jetten's work concerning reduced intergroup distinctiveness (e.g. Jetten & Spears, 2003), that commitment to the ingroup would moderate the effectiveness of attempts to recategorize ingroup and outgroup into a common ingroup identity. Recent evidence suggests that the ability of this technique to promote outgroup liking is most effective for low ingroup identifi ers, given their comparative willingness to drop the ingroup categorization when it seems to no longer be a meaningful way to defi ne oneself. In contrast, high ingroup identifi ers are the most compelled to protect the group image (e.g. [START_REF] Spears | Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness: The role of group identifi cation[END_REF]. Thus, perceived threat to the continuation of the initial ingroup identity via recategorization would lead to, at best, no effect on bias, or, at worst, an increase in intergroup bias [START_REF] Crisp | Reducing intergroup bias: The moderating role of ingroup identifi cation[END_REF][START_REF] Crisp | Recategorization and subgroup identifi cation. Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups[END_REF]Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a;[START_REF] Roccas | Effects of intergroup similarity on intergroup relations[END_REF][START_REF] Van Leeuwen | Continuing and changing group identities: The effects of merging on social identifi cation and ingroup bias[END_REF]. One could argue that recategorization contexts represent little more than alternative means of manipulating intergroup similarity, something that has been examined in the social identity literature with respect to subgroup identifi cation for some time. There is, however, something quite unique about recategorization contexts that differentiates the type of work reported here from extant work in the social identity domain, and that is that recategorization contexts generally include a superordinate category. As such, there are two layers of identifi cation to examine-not only the predictive value of subgroup identifi cation, but also of superordinate group identifi cation. The latter provides something of a unique context for social identity research, but also has some highly important implications for work on the common ingroup identity model.

One of the key fi ndings of our studies is that although high subgroup identifi cation has a negative impact on intergroup relations following recategorization, superordinate identifi cation has a positive impact. These fi ndings fall nicely in line with research from the immigration/ acculturation literature, which similarly assert that dual identifi cation is a potentially benefi cial strategy for the encouragement of harmonious intergroup attitudes in multicultural societies. Like [START_REF] Huo | Superordinate identifi cation, subgroup identifi cation, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer[END_REF], we found that high identifi cation with a subgroup is not necessarily always a barrier to positive intergroup attitudes. Rather, if there is simultaneous attachment to a superordinate group, the potentially negative effects of subgroup identification can be regulated by the counteractive effects of commitment to the inclusive group (see also [START_REF] Bizman | Perceived threat and Israeli Jews' evaluations of Russian immigrants: The moderating role of Jewish and Israeli identity[END_REF].

Interestingly, in all the studies subgroup identifi cation was related to ingroup evaluation, but unrelated to outgroup evaluation. Conversely, superordinate identification was related to outgroup evaluation but not to ingroup evaluation. This seems to suggest a further insight into the evaluative mechanisms by which recategorization reduces intergroup bias. When successful in its purpose, a common ingroup identity reduces bias by boosting evaluations of the outgroup [START_REF] Gaertner | Reducing intergroup bias: The benefi ts of recategorization[END_REF]; see also [START_REF] Brewer | Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis[END_REF]. The current data indicate that outgroup evaluation in these circumstances is heightened only really for those with an emotional attachment to the overarching category, whereas this is not the case for those with strong affective ties to the ingroup. Furthermore, our fi ndings with respect to the psychological distance between the self and outgroup (relative to the ingroup) offer, to our knowledge, the fi rst direct support for Gaertner and colleagues' assertion that recategorization decreases self-outgroup psychological distance, and that this is responsible for reductions in bias. The fi ndings illustrate that psychological distance to the outgroup is higher for high superordinate group identifi ers and lower for high subgroup identifi ers: the more committed perceivers are to their superordinate group, the more they embrace the outgroup within this common ingroup identity.

In sum, taking into account the relationships between subgroup/superordinate group identifi cation and ingroup/outgroup evaluations, and the role of self-outgroup psychological distance, the data provide strong support for the notion that: (a) recategorization alone would not be suffi cient for the successful attenuation of social confl ict; and (b) the utility of common ingroup identities as potential interventions would be inhibited by a strong subgroup identity, but facilitated by the development of a superordinate identity. Some practical implications of these fi ndings are discussed below.

Pragmatic implications

This research is not only important from a direct confl ict management perspective. Situations in which subgroup identities are nested within more inclusive superordinate groups are widespread. We focused our investigation within the context of national and supranational identities although multiracial groups within education, cultural-ethnic groups within nations, and intraorganizational contexts provide other examples. In this case, developing commitment to a shared European identity within the context of European integration may harness less xenophobic attitudes toward individuals of various member states. This would have a positive infl uence on intergroup attitudes even where patriotism is high, and concerns are directed toward perceived European integration in combination with the loss of national sovereignty. Commitment to common ingroup identities may be able to act as a buffer in times of identity change, especially when group members are faced with the potential dissolution of intercategory boundaries.

However, a further potential caveat is worth mentioning here in order to provide a more comprehensive account of the applicability of superordinate identification to various intergroup contexts. Our analysis so far has focused on subgroups which are similar in status, and the implications of these data might not hold so well to situations where sociostructural asymmetries characterize the nature of intergroup relations. For instance, Arends-Toth and van de [START_REF] Arends-Toth | Multiculturalism and acculturation: Views of Dutch and Turkish-Dutch[END_REF] found that although dual identifi cation has positive consequences for intergroup relations from the perspective of ethnic minorities, majority samples do not hold such favorable attitudes toward dual identifi cation. Instead, they prefer ethnic groups to relinquish their cultural attachments and instead, assimilate into mainstream society. That majority and minority group members have different perspectives can lead to confl ictual relations between the two subgroups, and thus the development of affable relations would be inhibited. Further research would be needed in order to develop a clearer understanding of how positive attitudes between asymmetric subgroups would be best approached.

In conclusion, emerging evidence suggests that motivational factors have a major part to play in triggering and also eradicating intergroup tensions, and thus have important consequences for confl ict reduction. When efforts are made to bring together two groups under a common ingroup identity, attachment to the ingroup can have aversive consequences for intergroup relations. However commitment to the newly formed superordinate group can improve intergroup attitudes. This suggests that motivational processes associated with identifi cation have an integral role to play in creating affable intergroup relations, and invite consideration by current and future models of confl ict resolution.

Notes

1. We make a distinction between different types of 'dual identities'. Previous work has tended to regard commitment to a categorization as being the same thing as making a particular categorization salient. We prefer to make the distinction between 'dual identifi cation' and 'simultaneous categorization' respectively. The former refers to actual internalization of, identifi cation with, and affective ties to those social groups (see [START_REF] Bizman | Perceived threat and Israeli Jews' evaluations of Russian immigrants: The moderating role of Jewish and Israeli identity[END_REF][START_REF] Huo | Superordinate identifi cation, subgroup identifi cation, and justice concerns: Is separatism the problem; is assimilation the answer[END_REF] for relevant studies). The latter refers to the salience of those group identities (see Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a;[START_REF] González | Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identifi cations in intergroup contact[END_REF] for experimental manipulations).

It is important for our discussions later in this article that we are dealing with dual identifi cation, i.e. relative identifi cation with subgroups and common ingroup identities, rather than simultaneous categorization (see also [START_REF] Van Knippenberg | Organizational identity after a merger: Sense of continuity as the key to postmerger identifi cation[END_REF][START_REF] Wittig | Moderators and mediators of prejudice reduction[END_REF] for similar arguments regarding this distinction). 2. When referring to 'combined effects' we are not referring to an interaction in a statistical sense. Rather, the presence of two main effects will have a 'combined effect'. In other words if both superordinate identifi cation and subgroup identifi cation are high, the presence of the former will cancel out increasing levels of bias implied by the latter. 3. Nine participants did not report their gender. 4. The data were also analyzed using a median split approach, in which these results were replicated and there was no interaction between subgroup identifi cation and superordinate category identifi cation. 5. Three participants did not report their gender. 6. Three participants did not report their age.

  .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Path analysis model of the relationship between subgroup identifi cation, superordinate group identifi cation, outgroup similarity, and intergroup bias (Study 3).

  502

  .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. Path analysis model of the relationship between subgroup identifi cation, superordinate group identifi cation, outgroup similarity, and intergroup bias (Study 4).

  .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.

Figure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Path analysis model of the relationship between subgroup identifi cation, superordinate group identifi cation, outgroup similarity, and intergroup bias (Study 5).

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a School of Psychology, University of Birmingham doctoral studentship to C. H. Stone. We thank Mein-woei Suen for his help with data collection.