Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we”.

John F. Dovidio, Samuel L. Gaertner, Elze Gooitzen Ufkes, Tamar Saguy, Adam R. Pearson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

39 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This article discusses how seemingly well-intended policies and interventions to reduce intergroup bias by emphasizing colorblindness through overarching commonalities between groups may, either unintentionally or strategically, inhibit efforts to address group-based inequities. First, we discuss the roots of bias in social categorization process, and how changing the way people think about group memberships from separate groups to members of the same group with shared identity improves intergroup attitudes. Second, we describe the subtle nature of contemporary biases, which can help obscure group-based inequities. Third, we explain how and why majority and minority groups may have different preferences for recategorization and consider the potential consequences of these different perspectives for recognizing and addressing disparity and discrimination. We conclude by considering the policy and structural implications of these processes for achieving more equitable societies, not only in principle but also in practice.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)6-46
JournalSocial issues and policy review
Volume10
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Keywords

  • METIS-313315
  • IR-98231

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Included but invisible? Subtle bias, common identity, and the darker side of “we”.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this