Diversity ideologies

Last updated

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. [1] A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. [2] Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity. [3]

Contents

There are two major categories of diversity ideology that are frequently compared and contrasted with each other: colorblindness and multiculturalism. Both ideologies have been shown to have mixed effects on intergroup relations: in general, colorblind ideology is associated with lower stereotyping but greater prejudice, especially implicit prejudice. On the other hand, multicultural ideology is associated with greater stereotyping but reduced prejudice, including both implicit and explicit prejudice. [4] The ideologies are differently accepted by majority and minority groups, and often lead to divergent outcomes for groups depending on their position in the social hierarchy. Besides the two most commonly studied diversity ideologies, there is another emerging ideology termed polyculturalism. Research suggests that polyculturalism has mostly positive implications for intergroup attitudes, but given the novelty of this ideology, further exploration of its full spectrum of effects is needed. [5]

The supporters of diversity ideologies suggest that diversity and equality in the workforce, including at senior level, can increase company profits while providing morale and fairness, as Dr Miranda Brawn, diversity campaigner and founder of The Miranda Brawn Diversity Leadership Foundation have said. [6]

Colorblindness

In a colorblind ideological approach, “prejudice derives from people’s emphasis on superficial and irrelevant group categories (e.g., race), and therefore prejudice can be decreased by de-emphasizing group memberships” (p. 216). [1] Therefore, colorblindness aims to address bias and reduce prejudice by neglecting all differences between social groups and avoiding drawing any distinction between people based on group categorizations. The ideology became prominent during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. It was proposed as a strategy to eliminate blatant racism of Whites against Blacks in America. By explicitly recognizing that race does not and should not matter, colorblindness was intended to treat all races as identical, so that race could no longer be used as a basis to discriminate.

Colorblind ideology derives from classic social psychology research on group categorization. Social identity theory posits that people have a natural tendency to identify with groups based on common social identity, and due to the motivation to maintain positive distinctiveness, people display ingroup favoritism, i.e. giving preferential treatment to ingroup versus outgroup members in evaluations and behaviors. [7] [8] As a result, group categorization and affiliation is associated with the primary source of intergroup conflict, which leads to a lardy body of work studying how changing group boundaries, such as recategorizing or minimizing group membership can help reduce ingroup bias and promote intergroup harmony. This literature reflects the core value of colorblind ideology, i.e. de-emphasizing group memberships in order to improve intergroup attitudes. [9]

Forms

Research has identified two forms of colorblindness, respectively focusing on group similarities and individual uniqueness. [1] With the similarity approach, a common ingroup identity is emphasized, e.g. "We all belong to nation X." By stressing a superordinate identity that everyone across groups belongs to, the salience and importance of intergroup differences is downplayed. With the uniqueness approach, individual differences are emphasized. Each individual is seen as unique and contributes distinct values. When individual identity is underscored as the most valuable, no meaningful comparisons should be made based on group categorizations. However, research suggests that the uniqueness approach may not be effective because focusing on each individual's unique qualities in daily encounters is too cognitively taxing for people and can impair social interactions. [10] At the same time, even if outgroup members' unique values are stressed, people tend to neglect stereotype-inconsistent information and when they do, they tend to categorize these outgroup members as subcategories and thus do not change perceived stereotypes of outgroups. [11] Moreover, critics of colorblind ideology argue that it largely neglects people's need to affiliate and belong, especially for marginalized group members who have greater need to identify with their groups. [12]

Distinction from assimilation

Assimilation refers to the belief that in order to promote intergroup harmony, minority groups should give up their group identities and adopt the dominant mainstream culture. The underlying idea is that if a society is culturally homogeneous, no prejudice could take place. [13] However, this ideology may in itself reflect racism because it assumes the superiority of the majority group's culture while devaluing identities and cultures associated with minority groups. [14]

Assimilation is often compared to colorblindness as an intergroup ideology. Some researchers contend that colorblindness is a similarly racist approach as assimilation because both require minority groups to forgo their group identity and devalue minority groups' meaningful traditions and cultures. [15] On the other hand, other researchers argue that while assimilation promotes a unitary cultural ideal by the dominant standard and requests conformity and submission, colorblindness as a diversity ideology is intended to promote a larger whole with which everyone identifies and to facilitate equal treatment of majority and minority group members. [4]

Research suggests that assimilation as an intergroup ideology is linked to higher social dominance orientation, or the tendency to support social hierarchy and anti-egalitarianism. [16] It is associated with the most negative intergroup consequences, including greater stereotyping, more negative intergroup attitudes, and less support for liberal public policies promoting social equality for majority group members. [17] [18]

Effects

Acceptance by majority and minority groups

Although colorblindness is intended to be a hierarchy-attenuating ideology that promotes equal treatment of all social group members, it is differently accepted by majority and minority group members. Research shows that the adoption of colorblindness by majority groups is associated with external motivation to control prejudice as it serves the purpose of ego protection. When White participants were concerned about appearing biased or faced normative pressure, they were more likely to avoid talking about race or recognizing race differences, suggesting the strategic use of colorblindness to appear egalitarian. [19] Colorblindness can also serve as a tool to defend the status quo by majority groups. [20] When anti-egalitarian White participants were exposed to intergroup threat, they used colorblindness to rationalize inequality and legitimize the racial status quo. From a developmental perspective, children learn to avoid expressing racial prejudice and minimize racial categorization around age 10. [21] [22] On the other hand, minority groups tend to seek more identification with their minority group identities, which is not recognized by the colorblind ideology. Therefore, while White Americans have been shown to be more likely to endorse colorblind ideology, Black Americans are more likely to endorse multicultural ideology where their unique racial identity is acknowledged. [23] [24]

Stereotyping and prejudice

The effects of colorblind ideology on intergroup relations are mixed. In terms of stereotyping and prejudice, colorblindness is associated with decreased stereotyping of minority groups. [25] People who are primed with colorblind ideology favor counterstereotypical minorities over stereotypical minorities. [26] These findings suggest that colorblindness increases people's preference for individuals who display attributes atypical of their social groups and cross the group boundary. The colorblind ideology is also found to suppress expression of explicit prejudice in the short term, especially when intergroup conflict is high and more threat is triggered in the dominant group. However, implicit prejudice against minority groups rebounds at a later time point. [27] The findings suggest that colorblindness may not reliably reduce prejudice, especially implicit prejudice, for sustained period of time.

Intergroup interactions

In terms of intergroup interactions, research suggests that colorblind ideology is associated with worse intergroup attitudes towards minority group members. Colorblindness promotes a prevention orientation in people as it emphasizes not harboring certain perception and performing certain behaviors. Therefore, trying to consciously suppressing bias against outgroups and negativity in intergroup interactions can impair majority group's cognitive ability and executive functions. [28] [29] As a result, inducing majority group members to adopt a colorblind ideology and to ignore racial differences in intergroup interactions, which leads them to consciously exert to appear non-prejudiced, can paradoxically increase their tendency to express more negative attitudes and discriminate against minority groups. Majority group members can exhibit more negative nonverbal behaviors and be perceived as less friendly by their minority interaction partners. [19] Moreover, in some research colorblindness is linked with greater ethnocentrism and in-group favoritism, i.e. favoring ingroup members and perceiving them in more positive light than out-group members. [30] However, there are also some studies finding that colorblindness decreases ethnocentrism. [25]

From minority groups' perspective, evidence suggests that the adoption of colorblind ideology by majority group members also impairs minority performance and their perceived risk of discrimination. As a result, interacting with colorblind majority group members increases minority's cognitive taxation. [31] This set of findings suggest that colorblindness may be more effective to address explicit bias than implicit unintentional bias in intergroup interactions between majority and minority groups.

Sensitivity to racism

Colorblindness is associated with reduced awareness of racism and sensitivity to microaggressions as well as reports of them among majority group members. In the educational setting, research suggests that in schools advocating for colorblind ideology, White teachers who deemed themselves as being fair still discriminated against Black students, giving Black students more severe punishments and favoring White students in class elections. [32] Similarly, children who were exposed to the colorblind ideology were less likely to perceive race-biased behaviors as discriminatory. [21] Therefore, while colorblindness takes the stance of facilitating egalitarianism, it may prevent racism from being recognized and addressed.

Multiculturalism

In a multiculturalism ideology, “prejudice derives from a lack of knowledge of and respect for other groups” and prejudice can be decreased by learning about other groups and appreciating the differences (p. 220). [1] Its focus is on embracing, appreciating and learning about and from differences between social groups in order to promote justice and equality, and to better improve the living conditions of minority group members. In contrast to colorblindness that advocates for neglecting differences and avoiding discussion of group categorization, multiculturalism states that minority groups' unique histories, traditions and pasts should be recognized and appreciated. Therefore, multiculturalism is commonly viewed as the competing ideology directly contrasting with colorblindness. [33]

Forms

Three forms of multiculturalism are identified in social psychology research. [1] First, the "important difference" form focuses on only recognizing that differences between groups exist and understanding the variety of perspectives, experiences and lives of different groups. Second, the "appreciate contributions" form emphasizes also the importance to appreciate each group's unique positive contribution and value to the diverse society. Lastly, the "maintain culture" form, directly in opposition to assimilation ideology, puts emphasis on paying attention to groups', especially newcomers to the society like immigrants, ability to maintain their unique identities and cultures. These forms are not mutually exclusive with each other, and many intergroup researchers study multiculturalism in some combined forms.

Effects

Intergroup attitudes and interactions

Research shows that multiculturalism has positive implications for intergroup attitudes. Individual difference in multiculturalism ideology is related to different intergroup attitudes, such that people who score higher on measure of the ideology and support for multicultural policies are more tolerant of outgroups. [17] Similarly, a meta-analysis of multicultural education programs indicates that multiculturalism as diversity ideology positively influences intergroup attitudes. [34] With regard to prejudice, dominant group members who endorse multiculturalism exhibit less explicit and implicit prejudice towards minority members. [23] [17] Moreover, priming a multiculturalism ideology in majority group members is shown to increase their inclusivity, including increased capability of perspective-taking, [35] more positive perception of minority group members, less ethnocentrism or ingroup bias, and less tendency to discriminate. [30] From minority groups' perspective, because multiculturalism is more aligned with minority groups' need to identify with their unique group identity, minority groups are more likely than majority group members to support multiculturalism. [23] [24] Minority groups' psychological engagement in the workplace increases when working with colleagues who endorse multiculturalistic attitudes, an effect mediated by the perception of reduced intergroup bias. [36]

Stereotyping

However, research has also identified some negative effects associated with multiculturalism. While multiculturalism tends to decrease prejudice, some studies suggest that multiculturalism is associated with stronger stereotyping of minority group member, such that stereotypical minorities are viewed as favorable by White participants than counterstereotypical minorities when they are exposed to multicultural ideology. [23] [25] At the same time, multiculturalism, by putting great emphasis on how groups are distinctively different from each other, may be at risk of promoting greater division between groups and foster a more salient “us” versus “them” mindset. [2] Therefore, the ideology may encourage people to restrict themselves to only their associated group membership rather than cross group boundaries. Some research supports that multiculturalism endorsement is associated with greater beliefs that racial differences are fixed and nonchangeable, which may explain why multiculturalism leads to greater stereotyping [37]

Majority group resistance

Another weakness of multiculturalism is that when intergroup conflict and perceived threat is high, multiculturalism can backfire and promote more hostility towards minority groups among majority group members. [2] The more identified they are with their ingroup, majority group members experience more symbolic threat, and thus endorse multiculturalism less. [38] When White participants perceived greater threat from racial minority groups, they endorsed multiculturalism ideology to a lesser degree, showed less tolerance of outgroups, and expressed more hostility towards their minority interaction partners. [39] [40]

One reason underlying the role of threat in influencing the relationship between multiculturalism and improved intergroup attitudes is that majority groups are likely to perceive multiculturalism as exclusionary to minority groups and feel threatened about their status. Research finds that dominant group members identify with the multiculturalism ideology less than their minority counterparts. White participants were slower to associate multiculturalism with their self-concept than racial minorities, and were faster to pair exclusion with multiculturalism in an implicit association test. However, after being exposed to an "all-inclusive multiculturalism" message that intentionally frames the dominant group as being part of the diversity, the automatic pairing becomes slower. [41]

Comparison with colorblindness

As two major competing diversity ideologies, multiculturalism and colorblindness are frequently studied together to contrast their effects on intergroup interactions and attitudes. In one of the first set of studies directly comparing multiculturalism and colorblindness, researchers found that in the colorblind condition with a message of how intergroup harmony can be achieved by focusing on a superordinate identity and treating every individual as unique, participants were more likely to exhibit prejudice and ethnocentrism but less likely to display stereotyping of minority groups, as compared to the multiculturalism condition with a message stressing how diversity is valuable and group differences should be recognized. [25] Compared to colorblindness, multiculturalism is also associated with greater collective self-esteem, such as identification with and sense of belonging to the ingroup, for minority groups. [17]

In a recent meta-analysis examining the relationship between different diversity ideologies and prejudice, researchers show that assimilation has a positive association with prejudice, multiculturalism has a small negative association with both explicit prejudice and implicit prejudice, and colorblindness has a very small negative correlation with prejudice. Compared to control group, priming a colorblind ideology is associated with lower explicit prejudice and ingroup bias, but with higher implicit bias than multiculturalism. [42] Reviewers have drawn similar conclusions that the multiculturalism ideology has a more positive effect on intergroup relations and attitudes than colorblind ideology. [1] [4] [33] [43]

Polyculturalism

In a polyculturalism ideology, each group's culture is not viewed as standing alone but rather receives influence from other groups’ culture and traditions too. All cultures and people are conceptualized as the products of historical and contemporary interactions among many different groups, and deeply interconnected by intersecting histories. This ideology is developed based on historians' work that recognizes the existence of multiple racial and ethnic groups and focuses on the connected history, past and traditions among groups as well as their mutual influence. For example, historian Robin Kelley underscores interracial shared past by writing, "All of us, and I mean ALL of us, are the inheritors of European, African, Native American, and even Asian pasts, even if we can’t exactly trace our blood lines to all of these continents." [1] Similarly, in this discussion of the historical roots of Kung Fu, historian Vijay Prashad shows that although considered as a uniquely Asian cultural product, Kung Fu has also been greatly influenced by African cultures and evolved as it received influence from multiple cultures in the world. [44] Therefore, polyculturalism pays more attention to the interactions and connections between different racial groups. Unlike assimilation and colorblindness, polyculturalism does not require giving up one's unique social group identity or being assimilated into a dominant culture. Unlike multiculturalism, besides recognizing group differences and preserving the values of each group, polyculturalism moreover focuses on emphasizing the interconnectedness of one group's identity with other groups' identities. [45]

Effects

Intergroup attitudes and endorsement of equality

Social psychology research on polyculturalism has suggested generally positive effects on intergroup attitudes and endorsement of social equality. Polyculturalism is found to be associated with less support for social dominance and hierarchy, greater willingness to make intergroup contact, and greater support for public policies and institutions that promote social equality, such as affirmative action. It is also linked to improved and more positive intergroup attitudes towards minority groups. [46] [47] When dominant group participants endorsed polyculturalism more, they had less negative attitudes towards the LGBTQ community and less sexual prejudice. [48] Moreover, preliminary evidence suggests that majority and minority groups are equally likely to support this ideology. The findings indicate that polyculturalism ideology could lead to greater endorsement of social equality, greater interest in and comfort with diversity and differences, and lower evaluative bias.

Openness to change and foreign ideas

One reason why polyculturalism promotes more positivity in intergroup relations is that polyculturalism can encourage greater willingness to learn about different cultures and open to criticize and change one's own culture. [48] [3] As a downstream consequence, research finds that polyculturalism fosters creativity on problems that emphasizes cultural integration, an effect driven by greater propensity for foreign idea inclusion. Colorblindness, on the other hand, impaired creativity in problem-solving tasks that required associations between cultures. [49]

Potential weaknesses

There are some potential issues associated polyculturalism. Polyculturalism might lead group members to perceive that the cultural traditions and attributes valued by and unique to their respective ingroup as de-emphasized. When people deem their ingroup contribution to these values as greater than outgroups, they can view outgroups as more deviant than interconnected, which could have negative impact on intergroup harmony (see Ingroup Projection Model [50] ). As the study of this ideology is in an early stage, the weaknesses of polyculturalism and how it might incur backlash await further examination.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

The out-group homogeneity effect is the perception of out-group members as more similar to one another than are in-group members, e.g. "they are alike; we are diverse". Perceivers tend to have impressions about the diversity or variability of group members around those central tendencies or typical attributes of those group members. Thus, outgroup stereotypicality judgments are overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. The term "outgroup homogeneity effect", "outgroup homogeneity bias" or "relative outgroup homogeneity" have been explicitly contrasted with "outgroup homogeneity" in general, the latter referring to perceived outgroup variability unrelated to perceptions of the ingroup.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

Social identity is the portion of an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group.

Realistic conflict theory (RCT), also known as realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), is a social psychological model of intergroup conflict. The theory explains how intergroup hostility can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources, and it also offers an explanation for the feelings of prejudice and discrimination toward the outgroup that accompany the intergroup hostility. Groups may be in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as money, political power, military protection, or social status.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

Self-categorization theory is a theory in social psychology that describes the circumstances under which a person will perceive collections of people as a group, as well as the consequences of perceiving people in group terms. Although the theory is often introduced as an explanation of psychological group formation, it is more accurately thought of as general analysis of the functioning of categorization processes in social perception and interaction that speaks to issues of individual identity as much as group phenomena. It was developed by John Turner and colleagues, and along with social identity theory it is a constituent part of the social identity approach. It was in part developed to address questions that arose in response to social identity theory about the mechanistic underpinnings of social identification.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ultimate attribution error</span>

The ultimate attribution error is an attribution error made when making in-group and out-group attributions. The error occurs when attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative and attributions of ingroup behavior are more positive. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality. The Ultimate attribution error is an example of a cognitive bias that shows cross cultural differences, showing up more strongly for individuals in Western cultures than Eastern Cultures.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

The imagined contact hypothesis is an extension of the contact hypothesis, a theoretical proposition centred on the psychology of prejudice and prejudice reduction. It was originally developed by Richard J. Crisp and Rhiannon N. Turner and proposes that the mental simulation, or imagining, of a positive social interaction with an outgroup member can lead to increased positive attitudes, greater desire for social contact, and improved group dynamics. Empirical evidence supporting the imagined contact hypothesis demonstrates its effectiveness at improving explicit and implicit attitudes towards and intergroup relations with a wide variety of stigmatized groups including religious minorities, the mentally ill, ethnic minorities, sexual minorities, and obese individuals. Researchers have identified a number of factors that influence the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis including vividness of the imagery and how typical the imagined outgroup individual is. While some researchers question the effectiveness of the imagined contact hypothesis, empirical evidence does suggest it is effective at improving attitudes towards outgroups.

Intergroup anxiety is the social phenomenon identified by Walter and Cookie Stephan in 1985 that describes the ambiguous feelings of discomfort or anxiety when interacting with members of other groups. Such emotions also constitute intergroup anxiety when one is merely anticipating interaction with members of an outgroup. Expectations that interactions with foreign members of outgroups will result in an aversive experience is believed to be the cause of intergroup anxiety, with an affected individual being anxious or unsure about a number of issues. Methods of reducing intergroup anxiety and stress including facilitating positive intergroup contact.

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

There is a great deal of research on the factors that lead to the formation of prejudiced attitudes and beliefs. There is also a lot of research on the consequences of holding prejudiced beliefs and being the target of such beliefs. It is true that advances have been made in understanding the nature of prejudice. A consensus on how to end prejudice has yet to be established, but there are a number of scientifically examined strategies that have been developed in attempt to solve this social issue.

Integrated threat theory (ITT), also known as intergroup threat theory, is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have "real consequence" for prejudice between groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Group threat theory</span>

Group threat theory, also known as group position theory, is a sociological theory that proposes the larger the size of an outgroup, the more the corresponding ingroup perceives it to threaten its own interests, resulting in the ingroup members having more negative attitudes toward the outgroup. It is based on the work of Herbert Blumer and Hubert M. Blalock Jr. in the 1950s and 1960s, and has since been supported by multiple studies. Other studies have not found support for the theory. Its predictions are contrary to those of the contact hypothesis, which posits that greater proximity between racial/ethnic groups under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

In social psychology, social projection is the psychological process through which an individual expects behaviors or attitudes of others to be similar to their own. Social projection occurs between individuals as well as across ingroup and outgroup contexts in a variety of domains. Research has shown that aspects of social categorization affect the extent to which social projection occurs. Cognitive and motivational approaches have been used to understand the psychological underpinnings of social projection as a phenomenon. Cognitive approaches emphasize social projection as a heuristic, while motivational approaches contextualize social projection as a means to feel connected to others. In contemporary research on social projection, researchers work to further distinguish between the effects of social projection and self-stereotyping on the individual’s perception of others.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Rosenthal, Lisa; Levy, Sheri R. (2010). "The Colorblind, Multicultural, and Polycultural Ideological Approaches to Improving Intergroup Attitudes and Relations". Social Issues and Policy Review. 4 (1): 215–246. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01022.x. ISSN   1751-2409. S2CID   42041040.
  2. 1 2 3 Plaut, Victoria C.; Thomas, Kecia M.; Hurd, Kyneshawau; Romano, Celina A. (2018-05-14). "Do Color Blindness and Multiculturalism Remedy or Foster Discrimination and Racism?". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 27 (3): 200–206. doi: 10.1177/0963721418766068 . ISSN   0963-7214.
  3. 1 2 Cho, Jaee; W. Morris, Michael; Slepian, Michael L.; Tadmor, Carmit T. (2017-03-01). "Choosing fusion: The effects of diversity ideologies on preference for culturally mixed experiences". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 69: 163–171. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2016.06.013. ISSN   0022-1031.
  4. 1 2 3 Sasaki, Stacey J.; Vorauer, Jacquie D. (2013). "Ignoring Versus Exploring Differences Between Groups: Effects of Salient Color-Blindness and Multiculturalism on Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 7 (4): 246–259. doi:10.1111/spc3.12021. ISSN   1751-9004.
  5. ↑ Rosenthal, Lisa; Levy, Sheri R. (2013). "Thinking about Mutual Influences and Connections across Cultures Relates to More Positive Intergroup Attitudes: An Examination of Polyculturalism". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 7 (8): 547–558. doi:10.1111/spc3.12043. ISSN   1751-9004. S2CID   144093250.
  6. ↑ "Why mentoring and diversity works: Dr Miranda Brawn". Brummell. 2019-07-31. Retrieved 2021-12-12.
  7. ↑ Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1979). "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict". In W. G. Austin; S. Worchel (eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. pp. 33–47.
  8. ↑ Tajfel, H.; Turner, J. C. (1986). "The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour". In S. Worchel; W. G. Austin (eds.). Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. pp. 7–24.
  9. ↑ Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles M. (2005-05-01). "Rethinking the Link Between Categorization and Prejudice Within the Social Cognition Perspective". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 9 (2): 108–130. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_2. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   15869378. S2CID   9665222.
  10. ↑ Fiske, S. T.; Lin, M.; Neuberg, S. L. (1999). "The continuum model: Ten years later.". In S. Chaiken; Y. Trope (eds.). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford. pp. 231–254.
  11. ↑ Hewstone, M. (1996). "Contact and categorization: Social psychological Interventions to Change Intergroup Relations.". In C. N. Macrae; C. Stangor; M. Hewstone (eds.). Stereotypes and stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford. pp. 323–368.
  12. ↑ Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L.; Saguy, Tamar (2009). "Commonality and the Complexity of "We": Social Attitudes and Social Change". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13 (1): 3–20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   19144903. S2CID   7754788.
  13. ↑ Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books. pp. 231–254.
  14. ↑ Guimond, Serge; Sablonnière, Roxane de la; Nugier, Armelle (2014-01-01). "Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations". European Review of Social Psychology. 25 (1): 142–188. doi:10.1080/10463283.2014.957578. ISSN   1046-3283. S2CID   143515824.
  15. ↑ Markus, Hazel Rose; Steele, Claude M.; Steele, Dorothy M. (2000). "Colorblindness as a Barrier to Inclusion: Assimilation and Nonimmigrant Minorities". Daedalus. 129 (4): 233–259. ISSN   0011-5266. JSTOR   20027672.
  16. ↑ Levin, Shana; Matthews, Miriam; Guimond, Serge; Sidanius, Jim; Pratto, Felicia; Kteily, Nour; Pitpitan, Eileen V.; Dover, Tessa (2012-01-01). "Assimilation, multiculturalism, and colorblindness: Mediated and moderated relationships between social dominance orientation and prejudice". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (1): 207–212. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.019. ISSN   0022-1031. S2CID   180872.
  17. 1 2 3 4 Wolsko, Christopher; Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles M. (2006-09-01). "Considering the Tower of Babel: Correlates of Assimilation and Multiculturalism among Ethnic Minority and Majority Groups in the United States". Social Justice Research. 19 (3): 277–306. doi:10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8. ISSN   1573-6725. S2CID   145078132.
  18. ↑ Verkuyten, Maykel (2010-03-01). "Assimilation ideology and situational well-being among ethnic minority members" (PDF). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (2): 269–275. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.007. hdl: 11370/636f3bbb-e8d2-4bf3-b7de-fdb3aa010e48 . ISSN   0022-1031.
  19. 1 2 Apfelbaum, Evan P.; Sommers, Samuel R.; Norton, Michael I. (2008). "Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (4): 918–932. doi:10.1037/a0011990. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   18808268.
  20. ↑ Knowles, Eric D.; Lowery, Brian S.; Hogan, Caitlin M.; Chow, Rosalind M. (2009). "On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 96 (4): 857–869. doi:10.1037/a0013595. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   19309207. S2CID   9368135.
  21. 1 2 Apfelbaum, Evan P.; Pauker, Kristin; Ambady, Nalini; Sommers, Samuel R.; Norton, Michael I. (2008). "Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization". Developmental Psychology. 44 (5): 1513–1518. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.418.9493 . doi:10.1037/a0012835. ISSN   1939-0599. PMID   18793083. S2CID   18852717.
  22. ↑ Pearson, Adam R.; Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2009). "The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 3 (3): 314–338. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00183.x . ISSN   1751-9004.
  23. 1 2 3 4 Ryan, Carey S.; Hunt, Jennifer S.; Weible, Joshua A.; Peterson, Charles R.; Casas, Juan F. (2007-10-01). "Multicultural and Colorblind Ideology, Stereotypes, and Ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 10 (4): 617–637. doi:10.1177/1368430207084105. ISSN   1368-4302. S2CID   51933341.
  24. 1 2 Ryan, Carey S.; Casas, Juan F.; Thompson, Bobbi K. (2010). "Interethnic Ideology, Intergroup Perceptions, and Cultural Orientation". Journal of Social Issues. 66 (1): 29–44. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01631.x. ISSN   1540-4560.
  25. 1 2 3 4 Wolsko, Christopher; Park, Bernadette; Judd, Charles M.; Wittenbrink, Bernd (2000). "Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 78 (4): 635–654. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.635. ISSN   1939-1315. PMID   10794371. S2CID   2214354.
  26. ↑ Gutiérrez, Angélica S.; Unzueta, Miguel M. (2010-09-01). "The effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (5): 775–784. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.010. ISSN   0022-1031.
  27. ↑ Correll, Joshua; Park, Bernadette; Allegra Smith, J. (2008-10-01). "Colorblind and Multicultural Prejudice Reduction Strategies in High-Conflict Situations" (PDF). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 11 (4): 471–491. doi:10.1177/1368430208095401. ISSN   1368-4302. S2CID   51938281.
  28. ↑ Trawalter, Sophie; Richeson, Jennifer A. (2006-05-01). "Regulatory focus and executive function after interracial interactions". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 42 (3): 406–412. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.05.008. ISSN   0022-1031.
  29. ↑ Vorauer, Jacquie D. (2006). "An information search model of evaluative concerns in intergroup interaction". Psychological Review. 113 (4): 862–886. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.113.4.862. ISSN   1939-1471. PMID   17014306.
  30. 1 2 Richeson, Jennifer A; Nussbaum, Richard J (2004-05-01). "The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 40 (3): 417–423. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002. ISSN   0022-1031.
  31. ↑ Holoien, Deborah Son; Shelton, J. Nicole (2012-03-01). "You deplete me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness on ethnic minorities". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 48 (2): 562–565. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.010. ISSN   0022-1031. S2CID   16937361.
  32. ↑ Schofield, Janet Ward (1986). "Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective". Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Dovidio, John F., Gaertner, Samuel L. Orlando: Academic Press. ISBN   0-12-221425-0. OCLC   13559866.
  33. 1 2 Rattan, Aneeta; Ambady, Nalini (2013). "Diversity ideologies and intergroup relations: An examination of colorblindness and multiculturalism". European Journal of Social Psychology. 43 (1): 12–21. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1892 . ISSN   1099-0992. S2CID   9259902.
  34. ↑ Stephan, Cookie White (2004). "The Evaluation of Multicultural Education Programs: Techniques and a Meta-Analysis". Education programs for improving intergroup relations : theory, research, and practice . Stephan, Walter G., Vogt, W. Paul. New York: Teachers College Press. pp.  227–242. ISBN   0-8077-4459-X. OCLC   53919533.
  35. ↑ Todd, Andrew R.; Galinsky, Adam D. (2014). "Perspective-Taking as a Strategy for Improving Intergroup Relations: Evidence, Mechanisms, and Qualifications". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 8 (7): 374–387. doi:10.1111/spc3.12116. ISSN   1751-9004.
  36. ↑ Plaut, Victoria C.; Thomas, Kecia M.; Goren, Matt J. (2009-04-01). "Is Multiculturalism or Color Blindness Better for Minorities?". Psychological Science. 20 (4): 444–446. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   19399972. S2CID   28528220.
  37. ↑ Bernardo, Allan B. I.; Salanga, Maria Guadalupe C.; Tjipto, Susana; Hutapea, Bonar; Yeung, Susanna S.; Khan, Aqeel (2016-07-01). "Contrasting Lay Theories of Polyculturalism and Multiculturalism: Associations With Essentialist Beliefs of Race in Six Asian Cultural Groups". Cross-Cultural Research. 50 (3): 231–250. doi:10.1177/1069397116641895. ISSN   1069-3971. S2CID   147942865.
  38. ↑ Verkuyten, M (2009). "Support for multiculturalism and minority rights: The role of national identification and out-group threat" (PDF). Social Justice Research. 22 (1): 31–52. doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0087-7 .
  39. ↑ Davies, P. G.; Steele, C. M.; Markus, H. R. (2008). "A nation challenged: The impact of foreign threat on America's tolerance for diversity". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (2): 308–18. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.308. PMID   18665704. S2CID   12663851.
  40. ↑ Vorauer, J. D.; Sasaki, S. J. (2011). "In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (2): 307–20. doi:10.1037/a0023152. PMID   21381853.
  41. ↑ Plaut, V. C.; Garnett, F. G.; Buffardi, L. E.; Sanchez-Burks, J. (2011). "What about me? Perceptions of exclusion and Whites' reactions to multiculturalism". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 101 (2): 337–53. doi:10.1037/a0022832. PMID   21534702.
  42. ↑ Whitley, Bernard E.; Webster, Gregory D. (2019-08-01). "The Relationships of Intergroup Ideologies to Ethnic Prejudice: A Meta-Analysis". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 23 (3): 207–237. doi:10.1177/1088868318761423. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   29616588. S2CID   4610410.
  43. ↑ Neville, Helen A.; Awad, Germine H.; Brooks, James E.; Flores, Michelle P.; Bluemel, Jamie (2013). "Color-blind racial ideology: Theory, training, and measurement implications in psychology". American Psychologist. 68 (6): 455–466. doi:10.1037/a0033282. ISSN   1935-990X. PMID   24016116.
  44. ↑ Prashad, Vijay. (2001). Everybody was Kung Fu fighting : Afro-Asian connections and the myth of cultural purity. Boston: Beacon Press. ISBN   978-0-8070-5010-1. OCLC   70763732.
  45. ↑ Bernardo, Allan B. I.; Salanga, Maria Guadalupe C.; Tjipto, Susana; Hutapea, Bonar; Yeung, Susanna S.; Khan, Aqeel (2016-04-04). "Contrasting Lay Theories of Polyculturalism and Multiculturalism". Cross-Cultural Research. 50 (3): 231–250. doi:10.1177/1069397116641895. ISSN   1069-3971. S2CID   147942865.
  46. ↑ Rosenthal, Lisa; Levy, Sheri R.; Katser, Margarita; Bazile, Cartney (2015). "Polyculturalism and attitudes toward Muslim Americans". Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology. 21 (4): 535–545. doi:10.1037/pac0000133. ISSN   1532-7949. S2CID   148801241.
  47. ↑ Rosenthal, Lisa; Levy, Sheri R. (2012). "The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults". Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 18 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1037/a0026490. ISSN   1939-0106. PMID   22250894. S2CID   9409353.
  48. 1 2 Rosenthal, Lisa; Levy, Sheri R.; Moss, Ian (2012-03-01). "Polyculturalism and openness about criticizing one's culture: Implications for sexual prejudice". Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. 15 (2): 149–165. doi:10.1177/1368430211412801. ISSN   1368-4302. S2CID   145650240.
  49. ↑ Cho, Jaee; Tadmor, Carmit T.; Morris, Michael W. (2018-08-22). "Are All Diversity Ideologies Creatively Equal? The Diverging Consequences of Colorblindness, Multiculturalism, and Polyculturalism". Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 49 (9): 1376–1401. doi:10.1177/0022022118793528. ISSN   0022-0221. S2CID   150307022.
  50. ↑ Mummendey, Amélie; Wenzel, Michael (1999-05-01). "Social Discrimination and Tolerance in Intergroup Relations: Reactions to Intergroup Difference". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 3 (2): 158–174. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_4. ISSN   1088-8683. PMID   15647144. S2CID   41786779.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.