Intergroup Ideologies Research Articles

Salient Multiculturalism Enhances Minority Group Members' Feelings of Power.

The present research examined how messages advocating different intergroup ideologies affect outcomes relevant to minority group members' ability to exert power in exchanges with dominant group members. We expected that salient multiculturalism would have positive implications for minority group members' feelings of power by virtue of highlighting essential contributions they make to society, and that no such empowering effect would be evident for them in connection with alternative ideologies such as color-blindness or for dominant group members. Results across four studies involving different participant populations, operationalizations of ideology, ethnic minority groups, and experimental settings were consistent with these hypotheses and further indicated that the effects of salient multiculturalism on feelings of power had downstream implications for expectations of control in an ostensibly upcoming intergroup interaction and general goal-directed cognition.

The consequences of intergroup ideologies and prejudice control for discrimination and harmony

AbstractIn the present study, we investigated two literature bases by way of a community survey across Australia. We investigated four acculturation orientations (assimilation, multiculturalism, color‐blind, and polyculturalism ideologies) and the motivations to respond without prejudice. We examined what predicted support for Harmony Day as well as explicit discrimination. Multiculturalism, polyculturalism, and internal motivation to respond without prejudice correlated with positive attitudes in both scenarios. External motivation to respond without prejudice was positively correlated with discrimination. Conversely, color‐blind ideology had no effect, and assimilation ideology related positively to explicit discrimination and negatively with Harmony Day. Using a multiple regression analysis, there was a difference in emphasis in different contexts. Our findings provide antiprejudice practitioners with material for discussions which can promote positive intergroup relations.

"In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions": Correction to Vorauer and Sasaki (2011).

"In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions": Correction to Vorauer and Sasaki (2011).

Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations

In a relatively short time span, issues of ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity have become central topics of discussion in various nations. As a result, the role of broad ideologies that frame and structure relations between groups has received increasing attention by social psychologists. Of particular concern has been the role of these intergroup ideologies in promoting intergroup harmony and reducing prejudice. In this article, we appraise the evidence related to three main intergroup ideologies, assimilation, colourblindness, and multiculturalism. We argue that research in this area has paid insufficient attention to the social and political context. Intergroup ideologies have been studied and conceptualised as being located solely within individual minds. We suggest that the potentially vital aspect of these ideologies is that they are sometimes widely shared by members of a social group. Integrating sociological and political analyses, we discuss the fact that intergroup ideologies are institutionalised as policies and that, as such, they often vary across countries and across time. We present a series of studies to illustrate the theoretical implications of studying the shared nature of these intergroup ideologies, providing insights into the question of when and why national policies can shape individuals’ intergroup attitudes and beliefs and improve intergroup relations.

Intergroup Ideology and Environmental Inequality

Three studies showed that social dominance orientation could contribute to environmental inequality through its association with environmental and economic ideologies, pursuit of ingroup interest, and relative indifference toward groups with low economic standing. Study 1 showed that social dominance orientation is correlated with a lack of concern for the natural environment and with the endorsement of free‐market ideology. In Study 2, people higher in social dominance orientation endorsed a polluting industry that hurt a foreign population when the industry benefited their ingroup. Study 3 demonstrated that, given a choice of locations to site an environmentally problematic industry, people higher in social dominance orientation chose to direct the dangerous environmental footprint toward economically vulnerable foreign populations, and this was because of their relative lack of concern for human justice.

He Loves Her, He Loves Her Not

The authors present an integrative account of how attachment insecurities relate to sexism. Two studies showed that attachment avoidance predisposes men to endorse hostile but to reject benevolent sexism (BS), whereas attachment anxiety predisposes men toward ambivalent (both hostile and benevolent) sexism. The authors also tested predicted mediators, finding that men's social dominance orientation (a competitive intergroup ideology) mediated the avoidance to hostile sexism link. In addition, romanticism (an idealized interpersonal ideology) mediated attachment insecurity to BS links: (a) Avoidant men tended to reject romanticism (i.e., were cynical about romance) and, in turn, were likely to reject BS, whereas (b) anxious men tended to endorse romanticism (i.e., were idealistic about romance) and, in turn, likely to endorse BS. The authors conclude that men's sexism stems in part from dispositional attachment working models, both directly and through the interpersonal and intergroup ideologies they generate.

The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults.

Research on intergroup ideologies (colorblindness, multiculturalism) has increased our understanding of intergroup attitudes. This article reports empirical tests of the relation between a newly studied ideology, polyculturalism (ideology focusing on interactions and connections among racial/ethnic groups), and intergroup attitudes. Across four studies (with racially/ethnically diverse U.S. undergraduates, and Black and White American adults), greater endorsement of polyculturalism was related to greater equality beliefs; appreciation for and comfort with diversity; willingness for intergroup contact; and endorsement of liberal immigration and affirmative action policies. Polyculturalism explained unique variance after controlling for colorblindness, multiculturalism, assimilation ideology, social dominance orientation, and right-wing authoritarianism. Implications and future directions of studying polyculturalism are discussed.

Polyculturalism and openness about criticizing one’s culture: Implications for sexual prejudice

Abundant research on the relationship between ideologies and sexual prejudice has not focused on intergroup ideologies such as colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism. In three studies with racially and ethnically diverse college and community samples, endorsement of polyculturalism—an ideology focusing on the interactions, influences, and connections among racial and ethnic groups—was associated with lower sexual prejudice (as measured by affective prejudice toward gay men and lesbians, traditional heterosexism, denial of discrimination against homosexuals, and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians). Polyculturalism’s relationship with lower sexual prejudice was mediated by greater openness to criticizing elements of one’s culture that marginalize some groups. Polyculturalism accounted for unique variance in sexual prejudice even when controlling for colorblindness, multiculturalism, social dominance orientation, ethnic identity, conservatism, as well as race and gender. Colorblindness and multiculturalism were not consistently related to lower sexual prejudice. Future work on intergroup ideologies and sexual prejudice is discussed.

In the worst rather than the best of times: Effects of salient intergroup ideology in threatening intergroup interactions.

Three studies demonstrated that a salient multicultural ideology increases hostile treatment of threatening outgroup interaction partners. The effect of multiculturalism on hostile behavior was evident regardless of whether threat was operationalized in terms of disagreement with an outgroup partner on important social issues (Studies 1 and 3) or rejection by the partner (Study 2). Moreover, the results clearly point to the learning orientation fostered by multiculturalism--as opposed to other factors such as enhanced other-focus, group-level attributions, or focus on differences--as the critical mediator of its effect on hostile behavior under threat. Thus, it appears that multiculturalism enhances the expression of hostility because it prompts individuals to really engage with and attach meaning and importance to threatening behaviors exhibited by outgroup members. The effects of multiculturalism were distinct from those of anti-racism and color-blindness, which set in motion processes that in many respects are directly opposite to those instantiated by multiculturalism. The findings highlight that the behavioral implications of multiculturalism may be quite different in conflictual interactions than they have previously been demonstrated to be in less threatening exchanges.

Thinking About Group Differences: Ideologies and National Identities

Inherarticle“DiversityScience:WhyandHowDif-ference Makes a Difference,” Plaut (this issue) arguesthat social psychology should put a stronger emphasisonsocioculturalnormsthatguidebehaviorandpercep-tion. One such cultural norm is how ethnic and racialdiversity is construed. Plaut discusses colorblind andmulticultural ideologies as distinctly different ways toapproach racial and ethnic diversity, specifically be-cause they put opposite emphases on the importanceof group differences. As a general approach, a color-blind ideology advocates treating everyone the samewithout regard to skin color (i.e., we should not payattention to group differences), whereas multicultural-ism stresses the importance of acknowledging and em-bracing differences among racial and ethnic groups.In discussing the research on both ideologies, Plautdescribes that both ideologies can have negative con-sequences, and various lines of research have shownthat they can sometimes lead to more and sometimesto less harmonious intergroup relations.The current commentary has two primary goals. Insolvingthepuzzleofinconsistentresultsofthetwoide-ologies that Plaut presents, one goal is to offer a moresystematicschemefororganizingracialandinterethnicideologies byconsideringtwodimensions alongwhichsuch ideologies simultaneously vary. The first of thesedimensions focuses on the degree to which an ideologyacknowledges group differences or tries to minimizethem. As just discussed, multiculturalism and color-blind ideologies clearly differ on this dimension. Thesecond dimension for thinking about intergroup ide-ologies is the degree to which they evaluate outgroupmembersrelativelyfavorablyorrelativelyunfavorably.Crossing these two dimensions results in four differentintergroup ideologies. We have laid out these two di-mensions and given labels to the resulting four ideolo-gies in Figure 1. In the first section of this commentary,we elaborate on these four different ideologies, justifyour labels, and explain why we think they help clarifysome of Plaut’s arguments.We think a useful result of this fourfold typologyis that it makes clear the potential downsides of ei-ther acknowledging or minimizing group differences.Plaut goes to some length to make clear many of thenegative consequences of a colorblind ideology, par-ticularly when it bleeds over into its more negativecounterpart: assimilationism. She also acknowledgessome potential downsides to a multicultural ideolog-ical viewpoint. The second goal of our commentaryis to be much more explicit about the conditions un-der which the emphasis on group differences that is atthe core of multiculturalism can also have significantdownsides, when it bleeds over into its more negativecounterpart: separatism and segregation. We wish toargue that one factor that may allow multiculturalismto flourish, rather than to deteriorate into separatism, isone’s construal of the superordinate identity of one’scountry and culture. Making use of both recent socialpsychological thinking (e.g., Mummendey & Wenzel,1999) as well as theory in political science on con-ceptions of national identity (Brubaker, 1989, 1990,1992), we argue that some notions of national iden-tity are much more conducive to multiculturalism thanothers.

In need of liberation or constraint? How intergroup attitudes moderate the behavioral implications of intergroup ideologies

This study examined how behavioral responses to ideologies prompting other- or self-focus during intergroup exchanges depend on what individuals see when they look out at an outgroup interaction partner or in toward themselves. Specifically, we predicted that the outward focus on learning about and from outgroup members encouraged by multiculturalism would benefit lower-prejudice individuals (LPs) but instead amplify the implications of negative perceptions for higher-prejudice individuals (HPs). In contrast, we predicted that the evaluative concerns and self-focus induced by anti-racism would harm LPs’ behavior by leading them to second-guess acting on positive impulses but improve HPs’ behavior by leading them to rein in unfavorable reactions. Results were generally consistent with these predictions. Color-blindness had a negative effect not moderated by prejudice. These results suggest that tailoring the ideology promoted in a specific setting to the particular individuals who will be exposed to it might enhance the effectiveness of intervention efforts.

Salient Intergroup Ideology and Intergroup Interaction

Two experiments examined how rendering different intergroup ideologies salient affects dominant- and minority-group members' behavior during, and experience of, intergroup interactions. We hypothesized that ideologies that encourage an outward focus on appreciating out-group members' distinctive qualities (multiculturalism) would have more positive implications than ideologies that encourage a self-control focus on ignoring social categories and avoiding inappropriate behavior (color blindness and antiracism). As predicted, in both ostensible (Study 1) and actual face-to-face (Study 2) intergroup interactions, the multicultural ideological prompt led dominant- and minority-group members to adopt a more outward focus and hence to direct more positive other-directed comments to an interaction partner who was a member of an out-group. In contrast, the color-blind prompt fostered a prevention orientation in dominant-group members that led them to express negative affect toward their out-group interaction partner. The antiracist prompt had no consistent effects. Implications for efforts to improve intergroup relations are discussed.