White Selves: Conceptualizing and Measuring a Dominant-Group Identity.

Abstract

This article addresses the nature and measurement of White racial identity. White identification is conceptualized as an automatic association between the self and the White ingroup; this association is fostered through social exposure to non-Whites and serves to link self- and ingroup evaluations. Four studies validated a measure of White identification against criteria derived from this model. In Study 1, the White Identity Centrality Implicit Association Test (WICIAT) predicted response latencies in a task gauging self-ingroup merging. In Study 2, the WICIAT correlated with census data tapping exposure to non-Whites. In Studies 3 and 4, the WICIAT predicted phenomena associated with the linking of self- and ingroup evaluations: identity-related biases in intergroup categorization (Study 3) and self-evaluative emotional reactions to ingroup transgressions (Study 4). Together, the findings shed light on the antecedents and consequences of White identity, an often-neglected individual difference construct.

Subliminal exposure to faces and racial attitudes: Exposure to Whites makes Whites like Blacks less

“…Social identity and selfcategorization theory would then predict that this heightened ingroup identification would lead to greater ingroup bias, as we found with White-exposed participants (Brewer, 1997). However, when participants completed a racial identification IAT immediately after the exposure task to assess their implicit identification with White versus Blacks (Knowles & Peng, 2005), Whiteexposed and control participants identified equally highly with Whites, F < 1. They also did not respond differently to an explicit measure of White identification, an adaptation of the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992), F(1, 48) = 1.59, p = .21, η p 2 = .03.…”

“…Why did attitudes towards Whites not change? Being White is often experienced as the "norm" or cognitive default (Knowles & Peng, 2005; E. R. Smith & Zárate, 1992;Stroessner, 1996;Zárate & Smith, 1990), and for our participants White was also their ingroup. Given that Whites are both the norm and the ingroup, attitudes towards Whites should be higher in ego involvement and commitment and be based on a broader and more extensive array of knowledge-in short, they should be very strong (Eagly & Chaiken, 1998).…”

Motivation to Control Prejudice Predicts Categorization of Multiracials

“…In-group overexclusion occurs among perceivers who are highly identified with their race group and consequently are motivated to protect their group's boundaries (Castano et al, 2002;Knowles & Peng, 2005). Together, the hypodescent and ingroup overexclusion mechanisms suggest that perceivers' motives play an important role in determining how they categorize multiracial individuals.…”

Hospitals and cultural diversity: social worker experiences and reflections

“…Workers articulated values that resonate with both the AASW's commitment to social justice and human rights and its mandate to demonstrate culturally sensitive interventions (AASW, 2010). Affirming both the importance and social justice imperative of providing culturally appropriate resources so that health care services are accessible (Jovanovic, 2011;Knowles & Peng, 2005), workers were also aware that they held socio-cultural and socio-political positions that impacted on practice interventions. Cognisant of balancing cultural competency with cultural humility, the descriptions of how practice was adjusted to respond to, and incorporate, their patients' cultural beliefs practices and values, suggest the transformative and transferable learning described in the literature as going beyond abstract, static concepts and towards patient-worker negotiated interventions (Grant et al, 2013) and their wish to practise cultural humility.…”