Included but Invisible? Subtle Bias, Common Identity, and the Darker Side of “We”

Abstract

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.

The Single Factor Fallacy: Implications of Missing Critical Variables from an Analysis of Intergroup Contact Theory1

“…Yet liking your oppressors deters protest. Numerous studies demonstrate that minority members who have experienced the most intergroup contact are in general more reluctant to protest for change (Dixon et al, 2010;Dovidio, Gaertner, Ufkes, Saguy, & Pearson, 2016;Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009;Wright & Lubensky, 2008; for a review see Becker & Tausch, in press).…”

Solidarity Not Homogeneity: Constructing a Superordinate Aboriginal Identity That Protects Subgroup Identities

“…In particular, superordinate identities often threaten subgroup identities, for example, by homogenizing differences between subgroups (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Saguy, ) and reflecting only a narrow range of the diversity of subgroups within the wider category (Wenzel, Mummendey, & Waldzus, ). Indeed, social psychological research has demonstrated that categorizing diverse and sometimes conflicting groups within a superordinate identity can sometimes exacerbate conflict, especially when there are existing power differences between subgroups (Dovidio et al, ; Dovidio, Gaertner, Ufkes, Saguy & Pearson, ). In a number of studies, Hornsey and Hogg () have shown that in contexts where people are categorized exclusively at the level of a superordinate group, they increase their efforts to differentiate their subgroups from each other and show more favoritism toward their own subgroup.…”

Change, Challenge, and Prospects for a Diversity Paradigm in Social Psychology

“…The diversity paradigm, as applied to the U.S. context, for example, must replace normalized Whiteness, abetted by a binary either/or language, with an identity that enables Americanness to be multifaceted and inclusive (Dovidio, Gaertner, Ufkes, Saguy, & Pearson, ). Biculturalism (Chang, Hsu, Shih, & Chen, ; see also Gaither et al., ), dual‐identities (Gaertner et al., ), and intersectional analyses (Cole, ; Rosenthal, ) provide means by which multiple perspectives and understandings can be taken into account at the same time.…”