The present article explores the complex role of collective identities in the development of intergroup biases and disparities, in interventions to improve orientations toward members of other groups, and in inhibiting or facilitating social action. The article revolves around the common ingroup identity model, examining general empirical support but also acknowledging potential limitations and emphasizing new insights and extensions. It proposes that the motivations of majority group members to preserve a system that advantages them and the motivations of minority group members to enhance their status have direct implications for preferred group representations and consequent intergroup relations. In particular, the effects of majority group members' preferences for a common, one-group identity and minority group members' preference for a dual identity (in which differences are acknowledged within the context of a superordinate identity) are considered in terms of intergroup attitudes, recognition of unfair disparities, and support for social action.

No abstract

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.

Positive intergroup contact has been a guiding framework for research on reducing intergroup tension and for interventions aimed at that goal. We propose that beyond improving attitudes toward the out-group, positive contact affects disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of intergroup inequality in ways that can undermine their support for social change toward equality. In Study 1, participants were assigned to either high- or low-power experimental groups and then brought together to discuss either commonalities between the groups or intergroup differences. Commonality-focused contact, relative to difference-focused contact, produced heightened expectations for fair (i.e., egalitarian) out-group behavior among members of disadvantaged groups. These expectations, however, proved unrealistic when compared against the actions of members of the advantaged groups. Participants in Study 2 were Israeli Arabs (a disadvantaged minority) who reported the amount of positive contact they experienced with Jews. More positive intergroup contact was associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair, which in turn predicted decreased support for social change. Implications for social change are considered.

When rational actors believe that their group can achieve its goals through collective action (i.e., when they have strong group efficacy beliefs), they should not participate in it because they expect little benefit from their own participation. Paradoxically, however, research shows that individuals are more likely to participate when their group efficacy beliefs are stronger. In contrast to approaches that explain this paradox by invoking different psychological mechanisms (e.g., group identity, groupbased anger), we provide a novel efficacy-based explanation by introducing the notion of participative efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that one's own actions will "make a difference" to collective efforts aimed at achieving group goals). Three correlational studies supported the construct and predictive validity of participative efficacy beliefs across different samples and contexts. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this notion for the psychology of collective action and social change.

This article discusses how seemingly well-intended policies and interventions to reduce intergroup bias by emphasizing colorblindness through overarching commonalities between groups may, either unintentionally or strategically, inhibit efforts to address group-based inequities. First, we discuss the roots of bias in social categorization process, and how changing the way people think about group memberships from separate groups to members of the same group with shared identity improves intergroup attitudes. Second, we describe the subtle nature of contemporary biases, which can help obscure group-based inequities. Third, we explain how and why majority and minority groups may have different preferences for recategorization and consider the potential consequences of these different perspectives for recognizing and addressing disparity and discrimination. We conclude by considering the policy and structural implications of these processes for achieving more equitable societies, not only in principle but also in practice.

A current debate surrounds the issue of whether prejudice‐reducing interventions such as intergroup contact may reduce resistance to unequal intergroup relations among disadvantaged groups. Addressing this question, this research investigates how positive contact with members of the advantaged group shapes action strategies to cope with disadvantage. Using survey data from a sample of Latino Americans (N = 112), structural equation modeling revealed that friendship contact with Anglo‐Whites was overall negatively associated with interest in collective action. This relation was due to both reduced identification with the disadvantaged group and positive attitudes toward the advantaged group, which predicted reduced anger about inequality. Contact was also positively associated with an individual mobility orientation, a relation which was explained through increased perceived permeability. Individual mobility orientation did not, however, predict reduced motivation for collective action. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings for societal change and novel directions for future research are discussed.

Empathy has received increasing empirical attention in the study of intergroup relations. Much of this research has focused on the potential of interventions that generate empathy for improving intergroup attitudes and reducing intergroup bias. Specifically, this work typically explores how empathy mediates the effects of various manipulations, such as direct instructions to imagine how an outgroup member feels on participants' attitudes toward the outgroup as a whole. In this chapter, we offer complementary perspectives on the role of empathy in intergroup relations. In addition, we examine other potential roles of empathy in intergroup relations, considering the direct impact of intergroup empathy on behavior and how intergroup attitudes can moderate the arousal of empathy and its subsequent intergroup impact.We consider three perspectives on the relations among empathy, intergroup attitudes, and group membership. Our goal is not to test these as corn-Preparation of this chapter was supported by NSF Grant #BCS-0613218 awarded to the first and third authors.