by Jen Hull

The world is rife with conflict between members of disadvantaged and privileged groups.  To remedy this, past interventions have focused on increasing goodwill shared between members of these two groups by increasing the quantity and quality of their contact with each other. However, a body of previous research has demonstrated that such contact may actually have negative implications for members of disadvantaged groups.

For one thing, research shows that certain types of contact with members of privileged groups can impact the degree to which disadvantaged group members believe in and justify the current social hierarchy; in other words, that increased contact can increase the belief that the world is just, that the social system is “open”, and that meritocracy works. Because of this, when facing discrimination, members of disadvantaged groups have been found to make more internal (“I didn’t get the job because I’m not qualified”) versus external (“I didn’t get the job because of prejudice against my group”) attributions.  This can eventually lead to a reinforcement of social values that maintain the status quo.

A recent study tested the impact of two types of identities, common versus dual identities, on contact and social change. Students were assigned to either condition and were asked to fill out a questionnaire after reading one of two different reports describing “Relations in America”. The common identity condition report was designed to increase the sense of an overarching identity—American (“We are all members of a common group, American.”). The dual identity condition report sought to make both a common (American) and subordinate (racial/ethnic) identity salient (“We are all members of our own racial/ethnic group and a common group, American.”).

Participants who were given the common identity report scored higher on optimism and lower on social change motivation than those in the dual identity condition. Participants in the dual identity condition perceived greater shared American values and reported a greater willingness to engage in contact with whites than those in the common identity condition.

Perhaps of greatest import to practitioners, the dual-identity condition appeared to increase both willingness for contact with whites (seeking intergroup contact) and social change motivation. As the researchers note, “emphasizing a dual identity (multiculturalism) as opposed to a common identity (assimilation) can, at least from the perspective of members of disadvantaged groups, achieve positive social change through two different routes: indirectly via improved relations with advantaged groups and more directly through motivations for social change”.