Commonality and the Complexity of “We”: Social Attitudes and Social Change

Abstract

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.

Building National Identity in Newborn Kosovo: Challenges of Integrating National Identity with Ethnic Identity Among Kosovar Albanians and Kosovar Serbs

“…Moreover, for Serbs the common in-group may pose threats to the distinctiveness of their ethnic group. More recent developments in the common in-group identity model have related the importance of emphasising dual identities-an emphasis on the superordinate identity as well as the subgroup identities-especially for minority group members (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009 ). By focusing on dual identities attention is paid to the distinctive features of both groups, but the connection with the former out-group is improved through the common superordinate category.…”

Why and How Does Shared Language Affect Subsidiary Knowledge Inflows? A Social Identity Perspective

“…Although the various identities may not necessarily be incompatible, in a context of power inequalities, such as between non-native and native language speakers (e.g., Peirce, 1995) or representatives from different MNE units (e.g., Vaara, Tienari, Piekkari, & Säntti, 2005), research suggests that members with majority and minority status have different identity preferences. While majority members are motivated to preserve a single collective identity, minority members prefer to maintain their own distinct identity within the overall collective (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009;Mehra et al, 1998). These arguments highlight motivation as another factor for constructing a common identity.…”

“…Increasing the salience of the HQ identity does not necessarily diminish subsidiary managers' local identity (Vora & Kostova, 2007). However, research suggests that group members with minority status, as in the case of subsidiary managers within the wider MNE, often prefer to preserve their own distinct status within the overall collective (Dovidio et al, 2009;Mehra et al, 1998). Hence only if subsidiary managers believe that identification with the superordinate HQ group is rewarding, will they be motivated to acquire the tacit knowledge from HQ necessary to construct a shared HQ identity.…”

Identity and Deprovincialization: Identity Complexity and Inclusiveness Encourage EU-Wide Behavioural Intentions via Reduced Intergroup Concerns and Increased Optimism

“…Within the research tradition of the dual identity and common ingroup identity models (see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009 for a review), Gaertner et al (1996) pointed out that the psychological process of identity integration does not require the representation of smaller, less inclusive identities to be dismissed. Hence, European residents may hold a dual identity structure if they develop an identity representation of being European, as well as maintain their national identity (see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009).…”

“…Hence, European residents may hold a dual identity structure if they develop an identity representation of being European, as well as maintain their national identity (see Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, 2009).…”