Recent real‐world events in which diversity policies and practices have been met with severe backlash can prompt a zero‐sum perception of inclusion efforts. This article offers theory‐based insights for instituting diversity initiatives that can afford inclusion for all—allowing institutions to reap the benefits of diversity efforts while reducing the costs of backlash. Using an inclusion for all framework we highlight three salient, interrelated, sources of backlash tied to dominant group members’ goals and motivations: (1) perceived or actual restriction of independence or autonomy, (2) preference for the status quo and colorblindness, and (3) beliefs that racial and other social equalities have been reached. Throughout, we emphasize an intergroup focus that recognizes the interdependent yet often divergent goals and motivations of marginalized and dominant groups. Mainstream institutions’ (colleges, workplaces) role as a critical site for inclusion interventions is discussed.

No abstract

Psychology is the study of the mind, how it works, and how it affects behavior. In the context of intergroup relations and, specifically, the study of racism, the tight focus on mind and behavior has meant an incomplete understanding of racism and, crucially, an incomplete—and sometimes harmful—accounting of ways to redress it. Here, we put forth and summarize a long-standing but oft-neglected critique that psychology, by neglecting historical and systemic racism, offers incomplete and sometimes harmful solutions to redressing racism. We then discuss four examples of research that, by connecting psychology to history, might lead the way to better solutions. We close by joining others who have suggested that psychology must acknowledge historical and systemic racism and offering guidance for how researchers and psychology as a field might do this.

Research within cultural psychology and intergroup relations represent two, often separate and distinct, approaches to examining social groups—including outcomes and experiences that define and distinguish group membership and its consequences. Often, social group membership (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, and social class) is tied to persistent and pervasive divides—separations that mark the difference in who attends college, stays in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields, and even views personal and societal events (e.g., microaggressions, police‐involved shootings) as involving bias. Addressing such complex and often divisive issues, psychological science has contributed theoretical and applied insights to mitigate social differences and inequalities experienced by historically disadvantaged social groups. The present paper integrates research on cultural psychology and intergroup relations by (a) reviewing empirical findings on sociocultural selves and intergroup contact and (b) considering how merging approaches from these literatures, using a selves in contact framework, can inform and elaborate theoretical perspectives and applications aimed at reducing inequality.

Historical evidence suggests that White Americans’ support for gun rights (i.e., opposition to gun control) is challenged by Black Americans exercising their legal rights to guns (e.g., The Black Panther Party and the Mulford Act of 1967). Here, we examined two empirical questions. First, we tested whether White Americans implicitly racialize gun rights as “White.” In a preregistered study employing a novel IAT, racially resentful White Americans indirectly associated gun rights with White (and not Black) people. Moreover, this association was not primarily based in partisanship. Racial resentment overwhelmed the effect of party identification in explaining this association (Study 1). Given racial resentment typically predicts stronger support for gun rights (Filindra & Kaplan, 2015; O'Brien et al., 2013), we next examined whether Black legal gun ownership undermines gun rights support among racially resentful White Americans across two studies (total N = 773), including a nationally representative sample of White partisans. In both studies, racially resentful White Americans expressed less support for a gun right (i.e., concealed-carry) when informed that Black (vs. White) Americans showed greater utilization of the gun right (Studies 2 and 3). Study 3 provided initial evidence suggesting that the observed reduced support is more closely linked to concerns about identity than security. Overall, these results support that Black legal gun ownership can reduce opposition to gun control among gun rights’ most entrenched advocates.