Categorisation salience and ingroup bias: the buffering role of a multicultural ideology

(Not) part of the team: Racial empathy bias in a South African minimal group study

Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) research suggests that recategorization with an arbitrarily defined group may be sufficient to override empathy biases among salient social categories like race. However, most studies utilizing MGPs do not consider sufficiently the socio-historical contexts of social groups. Here we investigated whether the recategorization of White participants into arbitrarily defined mixed-race teams using a non-competitive MGP would ameliorate racial empathy biases towards ingroup team members in the South African context. Sixty participants rated their empathic and counter-empathic (Schadenfreude, Glückschmerz) responses to ingroup and outgroup team members in physically painful, emotionally distressing, and positive situations. As anticipated, results indicated significant ingroup team biases in empathic and counter-empathic responses. However, mixed-race minimal teams were unable to override ingroup racial empathy biases, which persisted across events. Interestingly, a manipulation highlighting purported political ideological differences between White and Black African team members did not exacerbate racial empathy bias, suggesting that such perceptions were already salient. Across conditions, an internal motivation to respond without prejudice was most strongly associated with empathy for Black African target individuals, regardless of their team status. Together, these results suggest that racial identity continues to provide a salient motivational guide in addition to more arbitrary group memberships, even at an explicit level, for empathic responding in contexts characterized by historical power asymmetry. These data further problematize the continued official use of race-based categories in such contexts.

The AMIGAS Model: Reconciling Prejudice Reduction and Collective Action Approaches Through a Multicultural Commitment in Intergroup Relations

Social psychology’s search for ways to address intergroup inequality has grappled with two approaches that have been considered incompatible: (a) the prejudice reduction approach, that argues that changing individual negative attitudes will undermine the basis for discrimination and lead to intergroup harmony; and (b) the collective action approach, that argues that social protest and activism can improve the position of disadvantaged groups. The problem is that efforts toward prejudice reduction may serve to suppress genuine efforts to change. We propose the Achieving Multicultural Integration of Groups Across Society (AMIGAS) model, in which a multicultural commitment is proposed as a driver of both improved intergroup evaluations and promotion of collective action for reduced inequality, especially in contexts where there are conditions for a respectful intercultural dialogue. The AMIGAS model is a theoretical advance in the field of intergroup relations and a basis for implementing effective egalitarian policies and practices.

Understanding Diversity Ideologies From the Target's Perspective: A Review and Future Directions

We present a review of the diversity ideologies literature from the target's perspective. In particular, we focus on how diversity ideologies—beliefs or organizational practices with regards to how to approach diversity—affect racial minorities' and women's self-perceptions and experiences at work. This review suggests that a diversity aware ideology (i.e., multiculturalism) is more beneficial than a diversity blind ideology (i.e., colorblindness) for racial-ethnic minorities (e.g., better performance outcomes; more psychological engagement, inclusion, and workplace satisfaction; more positive leadership self-perceptions; and reduced perceptions of bias and turnover intentions). In contrast, for women, gender-blindness is associated with more positive outcomes than gender awareness (e.g., enhanced self-confidence, pro-active behaviors and leadership emergence). Importantly, multiculturalism and gender-blindness can both produce negative side effects for racial minorities and women, respectively, which highlights the importance of developing approaches to address the shortcomings of these conventional ideologies. We discuss the implications and offer recommendations for future research.