Identity and Action 1 Inclusive Identity and the Psychology of Social Change

Substantial work in social psychology has focused on reducing intergroup conflict and promoting positive intergroup attitudes. These interventions to reduce intergroup bias frequently emphasize the importance of inclusiveness and overarching commonalities among groups. However, a strict focus on harmony may sometimes have the unintended consequence of decreasing motivation for social change and collective action for both minority-and majority-group members. The present chapter explores the different ways factors that promote intergroup harmony can reduce or, in some circumstances, enhance motivations for collective action. In particular, the research included in this chapter illustrates – conceptually and empirically – how promoting a focus solely on commonality and harmony can reinforce the status quo in ways that systematically benefit groups already enjoying social advantage. Focusing on harmony can reduce motivations for social change by distracting attention away from group-based inequality (i.e., reducing recognition of unfairness) and influence the way people appraise the efficacy of such action. However, recognizing both commonality and differences between group simultaneously can improve intergroup attitudes, produce positive intergroup motivations for understanding, and enhance willingness of both low and high status groups to take action to achieve equality. New directions identified include recognition of the strategic role of colorblind and multicultural ideologies and the subtle influences of seemingly positive behavior in maintaining the status quo, as well as the potential for creating allies among high-status group members for social change that benefits disadvantaged groups. Identity and Action 3 Inclusive Identity and the Psychology of Social Change Interventions to reduce bias against members of low status groups frequently emphasize the importance of tolerance and inclusiveness (Stephan & Stephan, 2001). Members of socially dominant groups have traditionally been taught to be “colorblind” in their treatment of members of stigmatized groups to promote intergroup harmony. Indeed, such efforts seem well justified, not only because of the possibility of improved attitudes among members of the dominant group but also in terms of the benefits for members of disadvantaged groups. One of the most important human needs is to belong. Feeling excluded creates social pain, which at the level of brain functioning closely resembles the experience of physical pain (Eisenberger, 2012). Chronic feelings of exclusion lead to higher rates of depression and psychological alienation, poorer cognitive functioning, impaired motivation, and poorer physical health. This chapter, however, examines other, less positive consequences of seemingly inclusive policies and perspectives, including perpetuating structural discrimination and preventing societies and organizations from profiting from diversity. The chapter first reviews the roles of social categorization and identity in the development of intergroup relations. Guided by work on the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012), we discuss how emphasizing shared social identity, often in way that completely replaces subgroup identities, can improve intergroup attitudes. After that we discuss the different identity preferences of members of high status and low status groups, their relationship to cultural ideologies such as assimilation, colorblindness, and multiculturalism, and the social factors that influence these preferences. Then, in separate sections, we review how an emphasis on common Identity and Action 4 identity (and colorblindness) or an appreciation for different group identities within the context of common identity (and multiculturalism) affects intergroup attitudes willingness to take action for social change toward equality. We conclude by identifying potential directions for future research. Social Categorization and Inclusive Identity Social categorization forms the basis of the ways people think about themselves and others. When people think of themselves in terms of their group identity, they perceive themselves and other ingroup members in terms of the group prototype – the “cognitive representation of features that describe and prescribe attributes of the group” (Hogg & Terry, 2000, p. 123) – and see themselves as interchangeable representatives of that prototype. Group needs and goals take precedence over personal needs and goals, and people automatically evaluate other members of their ingroup more positively, feel psychologically closer to them, trust them more, and are more helpful and generous toward them (see Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010, for a review). These processes motivate additional actions that further distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup. According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people’s feelings of esteem are closely tied to their social identities. Because social identity is commonly enhanced by emphasizing the “positive distinctiveness” of one’s group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; see also Abrams & Hogg, 2010), in which they value defining characteristics of their group more than those of other groups. To maintain the positive distinctiveness of their group, people engage in ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation, and they are inclined to compete with and discriminate against other groups to gain or maintain advantage for their group (Insko et al., 2001). Identity and Action 5 Because of the central role of social identity in intergroup relations, interventions to reduce intergroup bias and promote fair treatment of members of low status groups have focused on degrading or altering the ingroup-outgroup distinction psychologically (Miller, 2002). One such approach to reducing intergroup bias, which attempts to harness the tendency of people to think in terms of social categories to reduce bias, is the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012). This framework emphasizes the value of recategorization, the creation of a shared superordinate identity for members of different groups. Central to the Common Ingroup Identity Model is the idea that inducing members of different groups to recategorize themselves as members of the same, all-inclusive ingroup can reduce intergroup bias via cognitive and motivational processes involving ingroup favoritism (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000, 2012). Recategorization changes the conceptual representations of the different groups from an “us” versus “them” orientation to a more encompassing, superordinate “we” connection. Creating a common ingroup identity redirects the positive beliefs, feelings, and behaviors that are usually reserved for ingroup members and extends them to former outgroup members. According to the Common Ingroup Identity Model, different types of intergroup interdependence and cognitive, perceptual, linguistic, affective, and environmental factors can either independently or in concert alter individuals’ cognitive representations of the aggregate pool of recategorized individuals. Included among the different factors that can increase the perception of a common ingroup identity are the features specified by Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, such as cooperative interdependence and common fate. For example, inducing members of two different groups to cooperate Identity and Action 6 improves attitudes toward outgroup members and does so, consistent with the Common Ingroup Identity Model, by creating stronger feelings that they are now members of one group rather than members of two groups (Gaertner, Mann, Dovidio, Murrell, & Pomare, 1990). When cooperation is not possible, a common ingroup identity may also be achieved by increasing the salience of existing shared superordinate memberships (e.g., a nation or a company; Mottola, Bachman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 1997) or by introducing new elements (e.g., common goals) or perspectives that create new perceptions of common identity (Houlette et al., 2004). Whereas much of the research to date has focused on the benefits of creating a single, common ingroup identity, the development of a common ingroup identity does not necessarily require each group to forsake its original, less inclusive group identity. Depending on their degree of identification with the different categories and contextual factors that make particular identities salient, individuals may activate two or more of their multiple social identities simultaneously (Roccas & Brewer, 2002) or sequentially (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). For example, people can conceive of two groups (e.g., science and art majors) as distinct units within the context of a superordinate social entity (e.g., university students). The Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) relatedly proposes that intergroup contact produces particularly robust improvements in intergroup attitudes when different groups maintain their separate identities but have positive functional relations (e.g., cooperative interdependence). As noted earlier, cooperative interdependence improves intergroup attitudes in part because it helps create a superordinate group identity (Gaertner et al., 1990). Different from the Mutual Identity and Action 7 Intergroup Model, however, the Common Ingroup Identity Model further posits that the superordinate identity component of a dual identity can be established in other ways, such as increasing the salience of overarching entities, as well. From the perspective of the Common Ingroup Identity Model it is the simultaneous salience of separate and superordinate group identities, not the particular mechanism that achieves this, that is important for intergroup bias. Although recategorization, both in terms of substituting separate group identities with a common ingroup identity or creating dual identities, can produce more positive intergroup attitudes (see Gaertner & Dovidio, 2009, for a review), in the remainder of this chapter we illustrate how there can be a “darker side” of intergroup harmony achieved solely by emphasizing common identity (and related cultural ideologies of colorblindness and assimilation). Recategorization in terms of a dual identity (and the related cultural ideology of multiculturalism), by contrast, can promote positive attitudes and action by members of both high status and low status groups. Moreover, we propose that recategorization in the form of a single common ingroup identity (vs. a dual identity) may be a strategy employed by members of majority group members to reinforce the status quo that benefits their group. Creating a sense of common identity can deflect attention away from group-based disparities, reducing the likelihood that members of high status groups perceive social injustice, and promote a feeling of harmony and optimism that undermines collective action by members of low status groups. In the next two sections we examine (a) differences in preferences of members of high status and low status groups for different representations (one group or dual identity) and associated cultural ideologies (colorblind or multicultural) and (b) how a one group Identity and Action 8 representation and dual identity can both improve attitudes but have different effects on action to achieve social equality. Group Status and Representation Preferences In his classic acculturation framework, Berry (1997; see also Sam & Berry, 2010) presents four forms of cultural relations in pluralistic societies that represent the intersection of "yes no" responses to two relevant questions: (a) Are cultural identity and customs of value to be retained? (b) Are positive relations with the larger society of value, and to be sought? These combinations reflect four adaptation strategies for intergroup relations: (a) integration, when cultural identities are retained and positive relations with the larger society are sought; (b) separatism, when cultural identities are retained but positive relations with the larger society are not sought; (c) assimilation, when cultural identities are abandoned and positive relations with the larger society are desired; and (d) marginalization, when cultural identities are abandoned and are not replaced by positive identification with the larger society. Although this framework has been applied primarily to the ways in which immigrants acclimate to a new society, it can be adapted to apply to intergroup relations between high status and low status groups generally (see Dovidio, Gaertner & Saguy, 2007). Substituting the separate strengths of the subgroup and subordinate group identities for the answers to Berry’s (1997) two questions, the combinations map onto the four main representations considered in the Common Ingroup Identity Model: (a) dual identity (subgroup and superordinate group identities are high, like integration); (b) different groups (subgroup identity is high and superordinate identity is low, like separatism); (c) one group (subgroup identity is low and superordinate group identity is Identity and Action 9 high, like assimilation; and (d) separate individuals (subgroup and superordinate group identities are low, like marginalization). Two of the ideologies that have received the most attention in the study of intergroup relations are assimilation, which involves a form of common identity, and integration in terms of multiculturalism, which reflects a dual identity. Assimilation and multiculturalism have often been considered oppositional ideologies. Assimilation requires minority-group members to conform to dominant values and ideals, often requiring the abandonment of racial or ethnic group values, to achieve full citizenship and be accepted in society. Multicultural integration, by contrast, strives to be inclusive by recognizing, and often celebrating, intergroup differences and their contributions to a common society. Research in the area of immigration suggests that members of the host society (the high status group) and immigrant groups (low status groups) have different preferences for assimilation and multicultural integration. For example, Verkuyten (2006) summarized the results of eight studies of adolescents and young adults in Europe, consistently finding that minority group members supported multiculturalism (integration) more than did majority group members. These preferences also apply to the preferences of Whites and racial and ethnic minorities: In the United States, Whites prefer assimilation, whereas racial and ethnic minorities favor multiculturalism (Ryan, Hunt, Weible, Peterson, & Casas, 2007). Moreover, in intergroup interactions, members of high status and low status groups are motivated to shape the discourse in ways that emphasize their preferred representation. Across two studies, one with laboratory groups varying in control over a Identity and Action 10 valued resource (extra credit for experimental participation) and the other with ethnic groups varying in status in Israel (Ashkenazim, high status; Mizrahim, low status), Saguy, Dovidio, and Pratto (2008) found that whereas members of high status groups preferred discourse that focused virtually exclusively on commonality rather than on group differences, members of low status groups showed equivalently strong preferences for talking about commonality and difference (the two critical elements of a dual identity). Moreover, the effect of group status on desire to talk about differences between the groups was mediated by motivation for changing group positions toward equality. That is, low-status group members’ greater preference to discuss points of difference, relative to that of high-status group members, occurred because they had a greater motivation for a change in the power structure. The strategic nature of these different preferences for members of high status and low status groups is suggested by two other sets of findings that illustrate the dynamic nature of preferred group representations and intergroup ideologies. First, the results from a pair of studied by Saguy and Dovidio (2013) revealed that members of high-status and ethnic majority-group members had a much stronger preference to avoid talking about group differences relative to commonalities (suggesting stronger endorsement of assimilation or colorblindness) when their advantaged status was less secure. Members of a low status group maintained a strong desire to talk about commonalities across conditions but demonstrated a greater preference to talk about group differences, increasing the salience of subgroup identities while simultaneously emphasizing commonality, when hierarchical relations were insecure (i.e., unstable and illegitimate) compared to secure. That is, greater instability of intergroup status relations affected Identity and Action 11 members of high status and low status groups in ways that created even greater divergence in preferences. Second, Hehman et al. (2012) studied the preferences of Whites and Blacks at two public universities in the US, one a state college in which Whites represent the majority (85%) of the student body and one a historically Black college in which Blacks are the majority (76%). This contextual status significantly affected identity preferences. As presented in Table 1, White students showed a much stronger preference for multiculturalism when they were in the institutional minority than in the majority; Black students exhibited stronger of endorsement of assimilation when they were the institutional majority than when they were the minority. In summary, these findings converge to reveal that members of high status groups, who are motivated to maintain the status quo, show a preference for focusing on commonalities to the exclusion of differences and greater support for assimilation over multiculturalism. Members of low status groups, who desire to alter the status quo to improve their group’s hierarchical position, exhibit a greater desire to talk about differences between the groups but, at the same time, to discuss commonalities between the groups and show greater endorsement of multiculturalism compared to assimilation. These different perspectives systematically relate to the status each group occupies in a particular context and the stability of status relations in that context. The Irony of Harmony Thus far we have discussed the different preferences of members of high status (or majority) and low status (or minority) groups for different group representations and ideologies, as well as the conditions and goals that moderate these preferences. In this Identity and Action 12 section, we examine the possibility that, to the degree to that factors that promote common identity (e.g., positive intergroup contact), assimilation, or colorblindness reduce attention to structural inequality as they promote positive attitudes toward members of the outgroup, they may undermine the motivation of both minority and majority group members to engage in action for social change to achieve true equality. This is a potential “irony of harmony.” We describe a set of three studies that explored this issue. The first study experimentally examined the causal effect of a commonality-focused encounter, relative to a difference-focused interaction, on low-status group members’ outgroup attitudes, attention to inequality, and expectations of outgroup fairness, as well as on high-status group members’ intergroup orientations and resource allocation. The second and third studies generalized and extended the findings, specifically with respect to minority groups, by examining the relation of positive intergroup contact to attitudes, perceptions of inequality and outgroup fairness, and support for social change in two naturalistic intergroup contexts. The laboratory study (Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009, Study 1) manipulated power between two randomly assigned groups by giving the high-status group the position of assigning extra course credits to the two groups (see also Saguy et al., 2008). Before the members of the high status group allocated the credits, members of both the high status and low status groups interacted with instructions to focus on either intergroup commonalities or differences. As expected, commonality-focused interaction produced more positive intergroup attitudes for high-status and low-status group members than did difference-focused Identity and Action 13 contact. In addition, for both groups, attention to inequality between groups was lower in the commonality-focused condition. Moreover, members of the low status group expected the high status group to be fairer in allocating the resources and to distribute the credits in a more equitable fashion following commonality-focused, rather than differences-focused, interaction. These effects were mediated by more positive intergroup attitudes and decreased attention to inequity during the interaction. However, when the low-status group members’ expectations were compared to the high status group’s actual allocation, there was a significant discrepancy. As the members of the low status groups anticipated, high status groups were substantially biased against the low status groups in the allocation of credits after differences-focused contact but, unexpectedly from the perspective of low-status group members, high status groups were just as biased in allocating the credits after commonality-focused interaction. The more positive intergroup attitudes of high-status group members in the commonalityfocused, versus differences-focused, condition did not translate into more material support to achieve equality, and the high status groups’ allocation fell significantly below what low status groups anticipated. The other two studies in this set investigated these processes in two different cultural contexts. A study of Arabs in Israel (Saguy et al., 2009, Study 2) examined the statistical associations among friendships with Jews (a type of positive contact that is particularly likely to involve a focus on commonalities), attitudes toward Jews, awareness of inequality, and perceptions of Jews as fair. It further measured Arabs’ support for social change toward equality. Saguy et al. hypothesized that, because less attention to illegitimate aspects in the inequality and beliefs that progress will be made through Identity and Action 14 outgroup fairness can reduce personal motivations for action, such factors would relate to weaker support for social action for change among Arabs. Consistent with the results of the laboratory experiment, more positive contact with Jews was associated with more positive attitudes toward Jews and with reduced awareness of inequality between Jews and Arabs. In addition, improved attitudes were associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair. Moreover, and consistent with our theorizing, both perceptions of Jews as fair and reduced awareness of inequality were associated with reduced support for social change. Thus, through its effects on the way low-status group members viewed social inequality and members of the other group, positive contact was associated with a decrease in support for social change. Results of the study of Muslims in India (see Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, Pratto, & Singh, 2011) replicated these findings. Having more Hindu friends was related to the improved attitudes of Muslims toward Hindus, but it also reduced awareness of inequality between Muslims and Hindus. In addition, these outcomes predicted stronger perceptions of Hindus as fair, which in turn were related to weaker collective action tendencies (measured as intentions to participate in various actions that could improve the position of Muslims in India). The fact that emphasis on commonality or colorblind and assimilation perspectives leads members of minority and majority to attend less to group-based disparities may be particularly problematic for responding to these inequities given the nature of contemporary bias. Subtle Bias, Commonality, and Colorblindness Identity and Action 15 Although blatant forms of prejudice and discrimination still exist and profoundly affect the lives of members of low-status minority groups, pervasive contemporary biases also play a significant role in perpetuating intergroup inequality. Research on the phenomenon of aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), for example, demonstrates the subtlety of contemporary bias. In situations in which right or wrong is clearly defined or the appropriate course of behavior is obvious, people are unlikely to behave in a biased manner; to discriminate in these situations would be obvious and would violate personal egalitarian principles. However, in situations in which right and wrong is not clearly defined or a negative response could be justified on the basis of some factor other than a person’s group membership, bias will be expressed in a subtle manner that insulates the perpetrator from being recognized – by others or even oneself – as representing unfair treatment (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). Although much of the research on aversive racism has focused on White-Black relations in the US, the principles apply to other forms of bias internationally. The subtlety of contemporary bias makes it particularly likely that unfair disadvantage will be overlooked or dismissed when there is a focus on common identity (or, relatedly, assimilation or colorblindness). Focusing on only common identity distracts attention against group-based disparities, even when these disparities are detected by members of low status groups, feelings of common identity can reduce motivation to take action because of greater trust in the system (e.g., Kay et al., 2009). Thus, common identity may particularly undermine collective action by low-status group members and interventions by high status group members on behalf of low status groups when the operation of bias is ambiguous. Identity and Action 16 We (Ufkes, Dovidio, & Tel, 2013) directly tested these hypotheses in two studies, one in the context of Kurds in Europe and racial and the other concerning ethnic minorities in the US. Kurds are an ethnic group of Middle-Eastern origin that have had rapidly increasing immigration rates in Europe, and they are one of the most politically active migrant groups in Europe. Specifically, the first study in this set investigated the possible moderating role of the type of disadvantage (see Van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008, for an overview). We investigated two basic forms of disadvantage identified by Van Zomeren et al. (2008). Structural disadvantage refers to a status quo of inequality. When disadvantage is structural, embedded in the status quo, members of low status groups are susceptible to the effects of system-justifying ideologies and come to believe that their group deserves less favorable outcomes than high status groups (Jost, Pelham, Sheldon, & Ni Sullivan, 2003). By contrast, incidental disadvantage, which involves a suddenly imposed change of the status quo, tends to be highly salient and readily recognized as arbitrary or unfair. In our research, structural disadvantage was represented by reference to general policies denying Kurdish identity in Europe; incidental disadvantage was portrayed by a specific incident representing the denial of Kurdish identity, the banning of a Kurdish television station. Before the manipulation of the type of disadvantage, we measured strength of identification with both the subgroup (Kurds) and the common ingroup (Europe) before the manipulation of disadvantage. As illustrated in Figure 1, as expected, when structural disadvantage – which is open to various interpretations and justifications – is emphasized, Kurdish participants who identified more strongly with Europe (common identity) were less motivated to Identity and Action 17 engage in collective action to achieve equality; when discrimination was incidental and thus clearer, Kurdish participants who identified more strongly with Europe (common identity) were somewhat (but not significantly) more motivated to engage in collective action. We conducted an additional study focusing on the structural disadvantage of racial/ethnic minorities in the US, in which we varied the emphasis on their common (US) identity with Whites, their separate subgroup (racial/ethnic identity), or their dual identity (Black-American or Latino-American identity). We also assessed two key pathways to collective action identified by Van Zomeren et al. (2008): feelings of anger (associated with perceived injustice) and collective efficacy (reflecting beliefs that collective action will produce change). Emphasizing common identity uniquely led to low levels of anger and lower perceptions that collective action by their minority group would effectively accomplish change. Both of these perceptions, in turn, predicted lower motivation to engage in collective action to address structural inequality. Social change toward equality depends not only on the actions of members of low status groups but also involves the support and potential initiative of members of high status groups. Although collective action by low-status group members can achieve significant social change, such action by high-status group members may be even more effective because of the greater resources they possess and the potential of facing less resistance from other majority-group members. Indeed, when members of high status groups recognize that the disadvantage of low status groups is unfair, they are genuinely motivated to restore equity (Saguy et al., 2008, Study 2). Identity and Action 18 However, as we noted earlier, the subtle nature of contemporary bias typically limits their recognition of unfair treatment. Subtle bias is more difficult to detect and respond to than blatant bias even for low status group members (Ellemers & Barreto, 2009), and high status group members are less attuned to cues of subtle discrimination than are low status group members (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). Thus, focusing only on commonalities between groups may decrease the likelihood that high status group members will recognize and respond to injustice, particularly in the form of subtle bias, against minority-group members (see Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012). We (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013) examined this issue in a study in which White participants in the US, varying in levels of prejudice, were exposed to a manipulation that emphasized common-group (American) identity of Blacks and Whites, separate racialgroup memberships, or a control condition that did not emphasize identities. Participants then read a hiring scenario that involved either subtle or blatant discrimination, in which a Black candidate was not offered a job (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). The outcomes of interest were perceptions of discrimination and expressions of willingness to protest on behalf of the applicant who was denied the job. As expected, when the bias witnessed was subtle, White participants for whom common identity was emphasized perceived lower levels of bias than those for whom separate identities were emphasized or those in a control condition, and these perceptions mediated less willingness to protest the negative outcome for Black person who was disadvantaged. By contrast, when discrimination was blatant, emphasizing common identity produced somewhat greater perceptions of bias and somewhat more willingness to engage in collective action. Identity and Action 19 Thus far we have described the problem with a sole emphasis on common identity, and its associated phenomena of assimilation and colorblindness. Creating a sense of commonality can be a seductive strategy for improving intergroup relations. It satisfies the need for social inclusion among members of marginalized groups and reduces their sense of vulnerability when their minority status is salient. From the perspective of high status group members, it relieves feelings of social threat that are associated with changes in the status quo (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Therefore, although commonality may represent a valuable step toward reducing intergroup tensions and improving attitudes, it is not a panacea. However, as explained earlier, the Common Ingroup Identity Model also recognizes the value of a dual identity, in which both superordinate and subgroup identities are simultaneously salient. A dual identity representation aligns with principles of multiculturalism and pluralistic integration. Dual Identity and Motivation for Equality Successfully addressing group-based disparities requires being conscious of subgroup identities. This acknowledgement of identities permits recognition of groupbased disparities and differences, while a common, inclusive identity promotes the positive connection to view differences as complementary resources and unfair disparities as a threat to the integrity of the larger group, motivating both dominant and nondominant group members to restore justice (Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Blader, 2003). From the perspective of members of high status groups, recognition of subgroup identity (as in multiculturalism) conveys greater respect for their group than focusing only on common identity, and thus satisfies a basic need of low-status group members in intergroup relations (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010; Shnabel, Nadler, CanettiIdentity and Action 20 Nisim, & Ullrich, 2008). These feelings of respect, along with the sense of belonging and inclusion conveyed by common ingroup identity, can both improve intergroup attitudes and empower members of low status groups. For example, in a study of racial/ethnic minority-group members in the US, Glasford and Dovidio (2011) found that emphasizing multicultural values within a shared American identity (a dual identity), compared to assimilation within a common American identity, generally elicited more positive attitudes. The condition emphasizing dual identity, relative to common identity, also produced greater willingness to engage in contact while maintaining a strong motivation for social change toward equality. Relative to common identity, dual identity elicited stronger feelings of shared values and optimism about future relations, which mediated greater interest in contact and willingness to engage in action to achieve equality. As discussed earlier, one of the challenges for intergroup relations is that members of high status and low status groups typically prefer different representations and ideologies: Members of high status groups typically prefer a single common identity, colorblindness, and assimilation; members of low status groups generally prefer a dual identity, multiculturalism, and integration. This discordance in preferred identity representation preferences and acculturation ideologies between members of the host society and immigrant groups, in itself, can produce negative intergroup outcomes. According to the Interactive Acculturation Model (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, & Senecal, 1997; Bourhis, Montreuil, Barrette, & Montaruli 2009), immigrants’ adjustment is better and intergroup relations less strained when acculturation ideologies of members of the host society and of immigrants converge (see also Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009; Pfafferott & Brown, 2006; Zagefka & Brown, 2002). Identity and Action 21 Although greater convergence may generally improve attitudes, we propose that whether the convergence in preference is for common or dual identity can further influence the basic motivations experienced in intergroup relations. When there is a mutual focus on dual identity or multiculturalism, group differences are acknowledged and potentially valued. By contrast, a mutual focus on assimilation, or colorblindness, may produce positive attitudes but may lead, motivationally, to complacency with respect to the status quo, because people fail to attend to intergroup distinctiveness and potential disparity (Saguy et al., 2009). Consistent with this idea, Vorauer, Gagnon, and Sasaki (2009), who prompted both members on intergroup dyads to adopt a corresponding ideology, found that a mutual focus on multiculturalism produced greater positive, otherdirected behavior in the intergroup interactions than a mutual focus on colorblindness. Testing the effects on motivation directly, Scheepers, Saguy, Dovidio, and Gaertner (2014) manipulated the preferred acculturation ideology (either assimilation or multiculturalism) of the Dutch participants (Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000) and the expressed endorsement of a one-group or dual-identity perspective of the Moroccan interaction partner (a confederate). We measured Dutch participants’ explicit ratings of the interaction and of the interaction partner, as well as their cardiovascular responses during the interaction. Our psychophysiological index of motivational orientation was based on the Biopsychosocial Model (Blascovich, 2008). Challenge, which is marked by relatively high cardiac performance coupled with low vascular resistance represents an efficient mobilization of energy. People experience challenge when they believe their resources exceed task demands, behaviorally resulting in positive engagement. By contrast, threat, which is marked by relatively low cardiac performance Identity and Action 22 and high vascular resistance represents a negative appraisal and, motivationally, is often associated with avoidance or escape from the situation. As predicted, participants’ attitudes toward their partner were more favorable when the partner expressed a corresponding than a noncorresponding ideology, regardless of whether it emphasized common group identity and colorblindness or a dual identity and multiculturalism. However, the cardiovascular response, representing different motivational orientations differed as a function of the corresponding preference and ideology. As illustrated in Figure 2, while correspondence around assimilation did tend to alleviate threat associate with the default noncorresponding preferences (high status majority for one group and low status minority for dual identity), correspondence in multicultural perspectives aroused a stronger cardiovascular challenge response than did correspondence around assimilation. Thus, although they have the same immediate positive impact on attitudes, a mutual focus on multiculturalism can further facilitate a more constructive intergroup motivation than a focus on assimilation. We further examined the behavioral implications of the differences in motivation of majority-group members as a function of emphasizing that American values represent common identity or dual identity (Banfield & Dovidio, 2013, Experiment 2). White participants first read a newspaper excerpt that emphasized common American identity or a dual identity, which emphasized the value of recognizing both common American identity and separate racial identities, or, in the control condition, did not read a newspaper article. Participants then were presented with a blatant-discrimination hiring situation and indicated the extent to which they perceived discrimination and their willingness to protest the decision not to hire the Black applicant. Identity and Action 23 With respect to racial-majority group members, emphasizing dual identity representations – the importance of different racial and ethnic groups within a common national identity – can facilitate not only greater recognition of bias than does a common ingroup identity (which de-emphasizes subgroup identities and obscures subgroup disparities) but also produce greater motivation to act on behalf of low-status group members. People are particularly sensitive to violations of procedural justice within their own group relative to unfairness across group lines (Blader & Tyler, 2003). As we expected, because of the blatant nature of the bias, participants reported similarly high levels of perceived discrimination across group-identity conditions. However, emphasizing a dual identity, which acknowledges race in a socially-inclusive way, facilitated reported willingness to protest the decision not to hire the Black applicant, compared to the common-identity and control conditions. Thus, whereas common identity when solely emphasized may create a superficial and potentially unstable form of harmony, a truly inclusive form of recategorization – a dual identity that recognizes and values different subgroup identities as an integrated element of a common ingroup identity – can promote positive attitudes and facilitate positive action for equality among high-status, as well as low-status group members. Conclusion Although the motivation to be included is a powerful and inclusiveness does promote intergroup harmony, inclusiveness in itself does not guarantee fair treatment. Creating harmony can be an important step toward achieving equality and justice, alleviating intergroup tensions in ways permit create a foundation for more stable intergroup relations. However, when harmony comes at the expense of acknowledging Identity and Action 24 group difference and disparity it can relax motivations among members both of low status and high status groups to achieve true equality. Because of reduced salience of subgroup identities, low status group members may experience immediate benefits of being able to “pass,” increasing their personal chances of success but at the sacrifice of the psychological buffering effects of subgroup identity (for a review, see Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014), social support, and special support to other members of their subgroup. At the same time, organizations may fail to reap the creative benefits that diversity has to offer (Antonio et al., 2004). Nevertheless, it is possible to achieve mutual recognition both group differences and commonality, as reflected in a dual identity representation of the Common Ingroup Identity Model and consistent with principles of multiculturalism. Endorsement of a dual identity can motivate members of high status groups to perceive the value of the distinctive potential contributions of members of different group and promote understanding and acceptance of difference for common advantage (Migacheva, Tropp, & Crocker, 2011; see also Hahn, Nunes, Park, & Judd, 2014). Key issues relating to a dual identity are not yet fully understood, however. Future research, for example, might further investigate the conditions that facilitate majoritygroup members to adopt a dual-identity or multicultural perspective over their usual preference for common identity and colorblindness. In addition, future research might also help illuminate the conditions under which a dual identity optimally improves intergroup attitudes and promotes action toward equality. Whereas achieving a sense of common ingroup identity consistently improves intergroup attitudes, the effects of having a dual identity are more variable and occasionally relate to more negative intergroup Identity and Action 25 attitudes (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2009). The nature of the relationship between the superordinate and subgroup identities may play a critical role. For instance, past work has found that a dual identification of being both Turkish and German (Turkish-German) predicted collective politicization among Turkish immigrants in Germany, but being simultaneously high on separate measures of German and of Turkish identity did not (Simon & Ruhs, 2008). Furthermore when superordinate and subgroup identities are perceived to be oppositional, more negative intergroup attitudes and more confrontational intergroup actions may result (Simon, Reichert, & Gabrow, 2013). Understanding the personal and social complexities of a dual identity can thus effectively guide new interventions to create allies for equality and to realize the promise that diversity offers. Identity and Action26 ReferencesAbrams, D., & Hogg, M. E. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In J. F.Dovidio, M. Hewston, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), SAGE handbook ofprejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 179–194). London: Sage.Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.Antonio, A. L., Chang, M. J., Hakuta, K., Kenny, D. A., Levin, S., Milem, J. F. (2004).Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. PsychologicalScience, 15, 507–510.Banfield, J. C., & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Whites’ perceptions of discrimination againstBlacks: The influence of common identity. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 49, 833–841.Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected:Divergent goals in interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 99, 248–264.Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: AnInternational Review, 46, 5–34. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). A four-component model of procedural justice:Defining the meaning of a “fair” process. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 29, 747–758.Blascovich, J. (2008). Challenge and threat. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approachand avoidance motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Identity and Action27 Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactiveacculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal ofPsychology, 32, 369–386.Bourhis, R. Y., Montreuil, A., Barrette, G., & Montaruli, E. (2009). Acculturation andimmigrant/host community relations in multicultural settings. In S. Demoulin, J. P.Leyens, and J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstanding: Impact of divergentsocial realities (pp. 39–61). New York: Psychology Press.Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In M. P.Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 37, pp. 255–343).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G.Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 1084–1121). New York:Wiley. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority andminority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review ofSocial Psychology, 18, 296–330. Eisenberger, N. I. (2012). The pain of social disconnection: examining the shared neuralunderpinnings of physical and social pain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13, 421–434. Identity and Action28 Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2009). Collective action in modern times: How modernexpressions of prejudice prevent collective action. Journal of Social Issues, 65,749–768.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio &S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando,FL: Academic Press.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common IngroupIdentity Model. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). A Common Ingroup Identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In. T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook ofprejudice (pp. 489–506). New York: Psychology Press.Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The Common IngroupIdentity Model. In Van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (Eds).Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 439–457). Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, M. (1990). Howdoes cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59, 692–704. Glasford, D. E., & Dovidio, J. F. (2011). E pluribus unum: Dual identity and minoritygroup members' motivation to engage in contact, as well as social change. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1021–1024. Hahn, A., Nunes, A. P., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2014). Diverse and united at the sametime: Social-psychological recommendations for a diverse workforce. In K. M. Identity and Action29 Thomas, V. C. Plaut, & M. Tran (Eds.), Diversity ideologies in organizations. NewYork: Taylor-Francis. (in press)Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Mania, E. W., Guerra, R. Wilson, D. C., &Friel, B. M. (2012). Group status drives majority and minority integrationpreferences. Psychological Science, 23, 46–52.Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes inorganizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140.Houlette, M., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, K. M., Banker, B. S., Riek, B. M., & Dovidio, J. F.(2004). Developing a more inclusive social identity: An elementary schoolintervention. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 35–56.Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., Finkel, E. J.,Brazil, D. M., Cecil, C. L., & Montoya, M. R. (2001). Interindividual-intergroupdiscontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 95–111.Jost, J. T., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of System Justification Theory:Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo.Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.Jost, J. T., Pelham, B. W., Sheldon, O., & Ni Sullivan, B. (2003). Social inequality andthe reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence ofenhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 33, 13–36.Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S.J. (2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct Identity and Action30 evidence for a motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 421–434.Migacheva, K., Trioo, L. R., & Crocker, J. (2011). Focusing beyond the self: Goalorientations and intergroup relations. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett (Eds.), Movingbeyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations (pp. 99–116).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of SocialIssues, 58, 29–44.Mottola, G. R., Bachman, B. A., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1997). How groupsmerge: The effects of merger integration patterns on anticipated commitment to themerged organization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1335–1358.Pfafferott, I., & Brown, R. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minorityadolescents in Germany in the context of society and family. International Journalof Intercultural Relations, 30, 703–717.Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or colorblindness better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20, 444–446.Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. (2002). Social identity complexity. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 6, 88–106. Ryan, C. S., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. F. (2007).Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Blackand White Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. Identity and Action31 Saguy, T., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2012). Intergroup contact can undermine disadvantagedgroup members' attributions to discrimination. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 48, 714–720.Saguy, T. & Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Insecure status relations shape preferences for thecontent of intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39,1030–1042.Saguy, T., Dovidio, J., F. & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in thecontext of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432-445.Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony:Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. PsychologicalScience, 29, 114–121.Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., Pratto, F., & Singh, P. (2011). Tension andharmony in intergroup relations. In R. P. Shaver & C. Mikulincer (Eds.),Understanding and reducing aggression, violence, and their consequences (pp.333–348), Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Salvatore, J., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice.Psychological Science, 18, 810–815.Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals of different culturalbackgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 472–481. Scheepers, D., Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2014). A shared dual identitypromotes cardiovascular challenge response during interethnic interaction. GroupProcesses & Intergroup Relations. (in press) Identity and Action32 Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Postmes, T., & Garcia, A. (2014). The consequencesof perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-antalytic review.Psychological Bulletin. (in press)Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Canetti-Nisim, D., & Ullrich, J. (2008). The role of acceptanceand empowerment from the perspective of the Needs-Based Model. Social Issuesand Policy Review, 2, 159–186.Simon, B., Reichert, F., & Grabow, O. (2013). When dual identity becomes a liability:Identity and political radicalism among migrants. Psychological Science, 24, 251-257.Simon, B., & Ruhs, D. (2008). Identity and politicization among Turkish migrants inGermany: The role of dual identification. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 95, 1354–1366.Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2001). Improving intergroup relations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33– 48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987).Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: