In this configuration the ingroup viewer watches an outgroup character, but the documentary emphasises a new, common ingroup identity. At the same time, the original ingroup and outgroup identities are kept. The aim is to create a sense of inclusion but also maintain the original identities.

This way the outgroup character is perceived as having a ‘dual identity’, namely an outgroup and a common ingroup. For example, The Masses portrays three Londoners with the following identities: Gabriel is a Black Nigerian Charismatic Christian, Mohammed is a dark-skinned Bangladeshi Muslim, and Micky is a white English football fan.

We see all three doing everyday life routines and attending different types of masses, held by the communities they are utterly devoted to: a Christian mass, a collective Muslim prayer and a football game.

The documentary aims to foster a sense of multiculturalism and reduce prejudice towards minority groups in London. If the ingroup viewer is white, non-Charismatic-Christian and non-Muslim, Gabriel and Mohammed would be outgroup characters. If the viewer also happens to not be a football fan, Micky would be partly an outgroup character, too.

Whatever the social identities of the viewer, the documentary emphasises a common ingroup identity of all three being Londoners, which is visualised and verbalised through their perspectives of being proud Londoners living in Bermondsey. In viewers who are also Londoners, this common identity is evoked in addition to the original ingroup-outgroup identity binaries.

This commonality is further emphasised through match cuts of all three characters engaging in two similar situations:

A) Universal everyday life routines (e.g. drinking, driving, walking):

B) Universal community-bonding ritual of worshipping in a church, mosque and football stadium:

The film’s final scene shows all three characters standing under a bus stop roof and waiting for the bus. This shot beautifully visualises the essence of the common identity model used in the film: the characters are different to each other and the viewer, yet they are part of one community.

Chapter 10 outlines a variety of strategies to emphasise a common ingroup identity, such as common social identity, common community membership, common interests or universal human attributes.

The common identity model works well to mitigate ‘identity threat’ in the viewer. For example, an English viewer who is prejudiced against Nigerians or Black people in the UK may well reject any attempt of a film that only emphasises a common English ingroup. That viewer would feel threatened in their ingroup identity (Englishness).

But, if the character’s original outgroup identity (Nigerianness) is also emphasised, the identity threat is mitigated and the sense of a common ingroup is more acceptable to the viewer.

The common identity model can be very efficient in reducing prejudice, but it also poses the risk of ‘ingroup projection’. This means the viewer regards the character as an exception or outsider to the common ingroup, which may even reinforce social boundaries and prejudice.

Chapter 10 goes into more depth about common ingroup identity and how to prevent identity threat and ingroup projection.

The next and final stigma reduction strategy is the most potent one, yet the most difficult to achieve: individual identity.