Identity and Action 1 Inclusive Identity and the Psychology of Social Change

Substantial work in social psychology has focused on reducing intergroup conflict and promoting positive intergroup attitudes. These interventions to reduce intergroup bias frequently emphasize the importance of inclusiveness and overarching commonalities among groups. However, a strict focus on harmony may sometimes have the unintended consequence of decreasing motivation for social change and collective action for both minority-and majority-group members. The present chapter explores the different ways factors that promote intergroup harmony can reduce or, in some circumstances, enhance motivations for collective action. In particular, the research included in this chapter illustrates – conceptually and empirically – how promoting a focus solely on commonality and harmony can reinforce the status quo in ways that systematically benefit groups already enjoying social advantage. Focusing on harmony can reduce motivations for social change by distracting attention away from group-based inequality (i.e., reducing recognition of unfairness) and influence the way people appraise the efficacy of such action. However, recognizing both commonality and differences between group simultaneously can improve intergroup attitudes, produce positive intergroup motivations for understanding, and enhance willingness of both low and high status groups to take action to achieve equality. New directions identified include recognition of the strategic role of colorblind and multicultural ideologies and the subtle influences of seemingly positive behavior in maintaining the status quo, as well as the potential for creating allies among high-status group members for social change that benefits disadvantaged groups. Identity and Action 3 Inclusive Identity and the Psychology of Social Change Interventions to reduce bias against members of low status groups frequently emphasize the importance of tolerance and inclusiveness (Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Members of socially dominant groups have traditionally been taught to be “colorblind” in their treatment of members of stigmatized groups to promote intergroup harmony. Indeed, such efforts seem well justified, not only because of the possibility of improved attitudes among members of the dominant group but also in terms of the benefits for members of disadvantaged groups. One of the most important human needs is to belong. Feeling excluded creates social pain, which at the level of brain functioning closely resembles the experience of physical pain (Eisenberger, 2012). Chronic feelings of exclusion lead to higher rates of depression and psychological alienation, poorer cognitive functioning, impaired motivation, and poorer physical health. This chapter, however, examines other, less positive consequences of seemingly inclusive policies and perspectives, including perpetuating structural discrimination and preventing societies and organizations from profiting from diversity. The chapter first reviews the roles of social categorization and identity in the development of intergroup relations. Guided by work on the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012), we discuss how emphasizing shared social identity, often in way that completely replaces subgroup identities, can improve intergroup attitudes. After that we discuss the different identity preferences of members of high status and low status groups, their relationship to cultural ideologies such as assimilation, colorblindness, and multiculturalism, and the social factors that influence these preferences. Then, in separate sections, we review how an emphasis on common Identity and Action 4 identity (and colorblindness) or an appreciation for different group identities within the context of common identity (and multiculturalism) affects intergroup attitudes willingness to take action for social change toward equality. We conclude by identifying potential directions for future research. Social Categorization and Inclusive Identity Social categorization forms the basis of the ways people think about themselves and others. When people think of themselves in terms of their group identity, they perceive themselves and other ingroup members in terms of the group prototype – the “cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group” (Hogg & Terry, 2000, p. 123) – and see themselves as interchangeable representatives of that prototype. Group needs and goals take precedence over personal needs and goals, and people automatically evaluate other members of their ingroup more positively, feel psychologically closer to them, trust them more, and are more helpful and generous toward them (see Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010, for a review). These processes motivate additional actions that further distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people’s feelings of esteem are closely tied to their social identities. Because social identity is commonly enhanced by emphasizing the “positive distinctiveness” of one’s group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Abrams & Hogg, 2010), in which they value defining characteristics of their group more than those of other groups. To maintain the positive distinctiveness of their group, people engage in ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation, and they are inclined to compete with and discriminate against other groups to gain or maintain advantage for their group (Insko et al., 2001). Identity and Action 5 Because of the central role of social identity in intergroup relations, interventions to reduce intergroup bias and promote fair treatment of members of low status groups have focused on degrading or altering the ingroup-outgroup distinction psychologically (Miller, 2002). One such approach to reducing intergroup bias, which attempts to harness the tendency of people to think in terms of social categories to reduce bias, is the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012). This framework emphasizes the value of recategorization, the creation of a shared superordinate identity for members of different groups. Central to the Common Ingroup Identity Model is the idea that inducing members of different groups to recategorize themselves as members of the same, all-inclusive ingroup can reduce intergroup bias via cognitive and motivational processes involving ingroup favoritism (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012). Recategorization changes the conceptual representations of the different groups from an “us” versus “them” orientation to a more encompassing, superordinate “we” connection. Creating a common ingroup identity redirects the positive beliefs, feelings, and behaviors that are usually reserved for ingroup members and extends them to former outgroup members. According to the Common Ingroup Identity Model, different types of intergroup interdependence and cognitive, perceptual, linguistic, affective, and environmental factors can either independently or in concert alter individuals’ cognitive representations of the aggregate pool of recategorized individuals. Included among the different factors that can increase the perception of a common ingroup identity are the features specified by Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, such as cooperative interdependence and common fate. For example, inducing members of two different groups to cooperate Identity and Action 6 improves attitudes toward outgroup members and does so, consistent with the Common Ingroup Identity Model, by creating stronger feelings that they are now members of one group rather than members of two groups (Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990). When cooperation is not possible, a common ingroup identity may also be achieved by increasing the salience of existing shared superordinate memberships (e.g., a nation or a company; Mottola, Bachman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1997) or by introducing new elements (e.g., common goals) or perspectives that create new perceptions of common identity (Houlette et al., 2004). Whereas much of the research to date has focused on the benefits of creating a single, common ingroup identity, the development of a common ingroup identity does not necessarily require each group to forsake its original, less inclusive group identity. Depending on their degree of identification with the different categories and contextual factors that make particular identities salient, individuals may activate two or more of their multiple social identities simultaneously (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) or sequentially (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). For example, people can conceive of two groups (e.g., science and art majors) as distinct units within the context of a superordinate social entity (e.g., university students). The Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) relatedly proposes that intergroup contact produces particularly robust improvements in intergroup attitudes when different groups maintain their separate identities but have positive functional relations (e.g., cooperative interdependence). As noted earlier, cooperative interdependence improves intergroup attitudes in part because it helps create a superordinate group identity (Gaertner et al., 1990). Different from the Mutual Identity and Action 7 Intergroup Model, however, the Common Ingroup Identity Model further posits that the superordinate identity component of a dual identity can be established in other ways, such as increasing the salience of overarching entities, as well. From the perspective of the Common Ingroup Identity Model it is the simultaneous salience of separate and superordinate group identities, not the particular mechanism that achieves this, that is important for intergroup bias. Although recategorization, both in terms of substituting separate group identities with a common ingroup identity or creating dual identities, can produce more positive intergroup attitudes (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2009, for