We examined the influence of the social identity representation of an ethnic majority-group member on physiological responses during interactions with an ethnic minority-group member. Before engaging in a collaborative task with a Moroccan-Dutch confederate, native Dutch participants studied the advantages of a “one-group” representation that emphasizes their common Dutch nationality or a “dual identity” representation that simultaneously emphasizes their different ethnic subgroups and their overarching “Dutch” nationality. During the task, cardiovascular indices of challenge and threat motivational states were measured in accordance with the biopsychosocial model (Blascovich, 2008). We found that a salient dual identity representation led to more benign cardiovascular arousal (i.e., challenge instead of threat), but only when the minority-group interaction partner also expressed preference for a dual identity. Results are discussed in terms of the fruitfulness of a dual-identity approach for improving intergroup relations, and the importance of social identity factors for turning intergroup threat into challenge.
AMS-IMP [Computer software]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Free University.
3.
AntonioA. L.ChangM. J.HakutaK.KennyD. A.LevinS.MilemJ. F. (2004). Effects of racial diversity on complex thinking in college students. Psychological Science, 15, 507–510. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00710.x
4.
BanfieldJ. C.DovidioJ. F. (2013). Whites’ perceptions of discrimination against Blacks: The influence of common identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 833–841.
5.
BergsiekerH. B.SheltonJ. N.RichesonJ. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected: Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 248–264. doi:10.1037/a0018474
6.
BerryJ. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–34. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
7.
BlascovichJ. (2008). Challenge, threat, and health. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. L. (Eds.), Handbook motivation science (pp. 481–493). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8.
BlascovichJ.MendesW. B. (2010). Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 194–227). New York, NY: Wiley.
9.
BlascovichJ.MendesW. B.HunterS. B.LickelB.Kowai-BellN. (2001). Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253–267. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.2.253
10.
BlascovichJ.MendesW. B.SeeryM. D. (2002). Intergroup encounters and threat: A multi-method approach. In MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 89–109). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
11.
BlascovichJ.SeeryM. D.MugridgeC. A. (2004). Predicting athletic performance from cardiovascular indicators of challenge and threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 683–688. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.10.007
12.
BlascovichJ.TomakaJ. (1996). The biopsychosocial model of arousal regulation. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 28, pp. 1–51). New York, NY: Academic Press.
13.
BourhisR. Y.MoiseL. C.PerreaultS.SenecalS. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. doi:10.1080/002075997400629
14.
BourhisR. Y.MontreuilA.BarretteG.MontaruliE. (2009). Acculturation and immigrant/host community relations in multicultural settings. In DemoulinS.LeyensJ. P.DovidioJ. F. (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstanding: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 39–61). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
15.
ByrneD. (1969). Attitudes and attraction. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 36–90). New York, NY: Academic Press.
16.
ByrneD.WongT. J. (1962). Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction, and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 65, 246–253. doi:10.1037/h0047299
17.
CorrellJ.ParkB.SmithJ. A. (2008). Colorblind and multicultural prejudice reduction strategies in high-conflict situations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 471–491. doi:10.1177/1368430208095401
18.
DevosT.BanajiM. R. (2005). American = White?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.447
19.
DiehlM. (1988). Social identity and minimal groups: The effects of interpersonal and intergroup attitudinal similarity on intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 289–300. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1988.tb00833.x
DixonJ.TroppL. R.DurrheimK.TredouxC. (2010). “Let them eat harmony”: Prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76–80. doi:10.1177/0963721410363366
22.
DovidioJ. FGaertnerS. L.KafatiG. (2000). Group identity and intergroup relations: The common in-group identity model. In ThyeS. R.LawlerE. J.MacyM. W.WalkerH. A. (Eds.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1–34). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
23.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2007). Another view of “we”: Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 296–330. doi:10.1080/10463280701726132
24.
DovidioJ. F.GaertnerS. L.SaguyT. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20. doi:10.1177/1088868308326751
25.
DovidioJ. F.SaguyT.GaertnerS. L. (2010). Appreciating the role of the “individual mind” in diversity science: Commonality, harmony, and change. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 108–114. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2010.486071
26.
EssesV. M.DovidioJ. F.JacksonL. M.ArmstrongT. M. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00220
27.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.FredericN. S. (2013). The dark side of heterogeneous ingroup identities: National identification, perceived threat, and prejudice against immigrants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.08.016
28.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
29.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2009). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In. T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 489–506). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.
30.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2012). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 439–457). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
GutiérrezA. S.UnzuetaM. M. (2010). The effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 775–784. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2010.03.010
32.
HalabiS.DovidioJ. F.NadlerA. (2008). When and how do high status group members offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29, 841–858. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00669.x
33.
HehmanE.GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F.ManiaE.GuerraL.WilsonD.FrielB. (2012). Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 46–52. doi:10.1177/0956797611423547
34.
HodsonG.EssesV. M.DovidioJ. F. (2006). Perceptions of threat, national representation, and support for policies and procedures to protect the national group. In KimmelP. R.StoutC. E. (Eds.), Collateral damage: The psychological consequences of America’s war on terrorism (pp. 109–129). Westport, CT: Praeger Press.
35.
KaiserC. R.DruryB. J.MalahyL. W.KingK. M. (2011). Nonverbal asymmetry in interracial interactions: Strongly identified Blacks display friendliness, but Whites respond negatively. Social and Personality Psychological Science, 2, 554–559. doi:10.1177/1948550611401043
36.
KaiserC. R.Pratt-HyattJ. S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 432–445. doi:10.1037/a0012877
37.
LeeT. L.FiskeS. T.GlickP. (2010). Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging correlates, causality in context, and converse causality, and Introduction to the Special Issue. Sex Roles, 62, 395–404. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9747-9
38.
MendesW. B.BlascovichJ.HunterS. B.LickelB.JostJ. T. (2007). Threatened by the unexpected: Physiological responses during social interactions with expectancy-violating partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 698–716. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.698
39.
MendesW. B.BlascovichJ.MajorB.SeeryM. D. (2001). Challenge and threat responses during downward and upward social comparisons. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 477–497. doi:10.1002/ejsp.80
40.
MendesW. B.MajorB.McCoyS.BlascovichJ. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278–291. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278
41.
NadlerA.JazwinskiC.LauS.MillerA. (1980). The cold glow of success: Responses to social rejection as affected by attitude similarity between chosen and rejected individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 279–289. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420100305
42.
PettigrewT. F.MeertensR. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
43.
PfafferottI.BrownR. (2006). Acculturation preferences of majority and minority adolescents in Germany in the context of society and family. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 703–717. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.03.005
44.
PlautV. C.GarnettF. G.BuffardiL. E.Sanchez-BurksJ. (2011). “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites’ reactions to multiculturalism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 337–353. doi:10.1037/a0022832
45.
PlautV. C.ThomasK. M.GorenM. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minorities?Psychological Science, 20, 444–446. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x
46.
RichesonJ. A.NussbaumR. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417–423. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002
47.
RyanC. S.HuntJ. S.WeibleJ. A.PetersonC. R.CasasJ. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. doi:10.1177/1368430207084105
48.
SaguyT.TauschN.DovidioJ. F.PrattoF. (2009). The irony of harmony: Intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114–121. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02261.x.
49.
ScheepersD. (2009). Turning social identity threat into challenge: Status stability and cardiovascular reactivity during intergroup competition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 228–233. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.09.011
50.
SeeryM. D.WeisbuchM.HetenyiM.BlascovichJ. (2010). Cardiovascular measures independently predict performance in a university course. Psychophysiology, 47, 535–539. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2009.00945.x
51.
ShnabelN.NadlerA.UllrichJ.DovidioJ. F.CarmiD. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1021–1030. doi:10.1177/0146167209336610
52.
TipL. K.ZagefkaH.GonzálezR.BrownR.CinnirellaM.NaX. (2012). Is support for multiculturalism threatened by… threat itself?International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 22–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.09.011
53.
Van OudenhovenJ. P.PrinsK. S.BuunkB. P. (1998). Attitudes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(1998110)28:6<995::AID-EJSP908>3.0.CO;2-8
54.
VerkuytenM. (2006). Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 148–184). London, UK: Wiley.
55.
VorauerJ. D.GagnonA.SasakiS. J. (2009). Salient intergroup ideology and intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20, 838–845. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02369.x
56.
VorauerJ. D.SasakiS. J. (2010). In need of liberation or constraint? How intergroup attitudes moderate the behavioral implications of intergroup ideologies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 133–138. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.013
57.
WenzelM.MummendeyA.WaldzusS. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: The ingroup projection model. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 331–372. doi:10.1080/10463280701728302
58.
WolskoC.ParkB.JuddC. M.WittenbrinkB. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.635
59.
ZagefkaH.BrownR. (2002). The relationship between acculturation strategies, relative fit, and intergroup relations: Immigrant–majority relations in Germany. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 171–188. doi:10.1002/ejsp.73
