Addressing Contemporary Racism: The Common Ingroup Identity Model

Abstract

In the preceding chapter in this volume, we described our research on the dynamics of an unintentional, very subtle, yet pernicious form of racism, that is, aversive racism. In the current chapter, we describe our attempts to examine a strategy intended to motivate people to reduce this form of prejudice: the common ingroup identity model.When we described our findings on aversive racism formally, in papers and presentations, and informally, a common question arose, "What can we do about subtle biases, particularly when we do not know for sure whether we have them?" Like a virus that has mutated, racism may have evolved into different forms that are more difficult not only to recognize but also to combat. Because of its pervasiveness, subtlety, and complexity, the traditional techniques for eliminating bias that emphasized the immorality of prejudice and illegality of discrimination are not effective for combating aversive racism. Aversive racists recognize that prejudice is bad, but they do not recognize that they are prejudiced.One basic argument we have made in our research on aversive racism is that the negative feelings that develop toward other groups may be rooted, in part, in fundamental, normal psychological processes. One such process, identified in the classic work of Tajfel, Allport, and others, is the categorization of people into ingroups and outgroups, "we's" and "they's." People respond systematically more favorably to others whom they perceive to belong to their group than to different groups. Thus, if bias is linked to fundamental, normal psychological processes, such as social categorization, then attempts to ameliorate bias should be directed not at eliminating these processes entirely, which are functional in many ways, but rather at redirecting the forces of ingroup bias to produce more harmonious intergroup relations. By shifting the basis of categorization from race to an alternative dimension, shared by Blacks and Whites who may be interacting, we can potentially alter who is a "we" and who is a "they," undermining a potentially contributing force to aversive racism.As these ideas were developing, we also began to consider the possibility that the discrimination we were observing in our studies of aversive racism may have 111 C. Willis-Esqueda (ed.

The role of professional and team commitments in nurse-physician collaboration

“…Conversely, the more physicians feel they belong to a more inclusive category (care unit), the more they are disposed to collaborate with nurses. This last result is congruent with social identity literature and with the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio ), indicating that a superordinate level of categorisation might dispel the differences between physicians and nurses and, thus, induce physicians to be more favourable toward IPC.…”

The skill paradox: explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants

“…"If members of different groups are induced to conceive of themselves within a single group rather than completely separate groups, attitudes towards former outgroup members will become more positive through the cognitive and motivational processes involving pro-ingroup bias" (Gaertner and Dovidio 2000, p. 46). An emphasis on a single, inclusive group leads to the transformation of original us versus them categorizations into one we identity (Gaertner and Dovidio 2008). Gaertner and Dovidio (2008, p. 116) argued that "supportive norms by authorities" might be sufficient for modifying cognitive representations of the ingroup and developing a common ingroup identity.…”

Non-conscious bias in medical decision making: what can be done to reduce it?

“…40 Another mechanism for reducing implicit forms of bias is to change the way patients are categorised, which can be accomplished by focusing on a shared, common identity. 41 Research finds that, because people belong to a variety of social groups, in the process of forming an impression of a person, the act of triggering one group identity inhibits the activation of other identities and also inhibits the stereotypes associated with the other identities. One strategy for this re-categorisation requires the professional to ask questions about group or other social identities, interests and activities that he or she may share with the patient.…”