The Common Ingroup Identity Model: A Focus on a Dual Identity

社会心理学中一个经久不衰的问题是，为什么在某些情况下，双重身份（即，高级身份和次级身份）导致群体间关系的改善，但在其他情况下，它们加剧了群体间的紧张关系和冲突。 在社会心理学中，共同群体内认同模型（CIIM）是理解群体间关系的核心组织框架之一。 拟议的研究探讨CIIM，以了解何时以及为什么双重身份将有助于减少或增加群体间的偏见和冲突。 该研究项目包括在3个不同机构进行的9项实验室和实地研究。 总之，这些研究考察了以下四个潜在的调节因素，这些因素可以解释先前研究中获得的双重身份的不一致影响：（a）少数/多数群体地位;（B）亚群体和下属群体身份的领域;（c）不同整合模式对原始群体身份的威胁;以及（d）预期的背景（即，和谐的或有争议的）群体间关系。 重要的是，这项研究将从种族多数和少数民族学生参加特拉华州和康涅狄格大学（其中大多数本科生是白色）和特拉华州州立大学（历史上的黑人大学，其中大多数本科生是非洲裔美国人）的不同角度进行。 这样做使研究人员能够研究数字和更广泛的文化概念的多数和少数民族地位的代表和偏见的影响。 这项研究有许多重要的实际意义，理论上的好处。 例如，研究有可能表明，由于多数群体和少数群体有不同的观点，并拥有不同的融合意识形态（例如，同化主义者或多元文化者），采取有效干预措施，减少群体间偏见和冲突（例如，在教育环境中）需要考虑这些不同的方向。 改善群体间关系需要考虑到这两个方面。 也许更重要的是，这项研究的影响远远超出了社会心理学的范围，并有助于目前的辩论是否同化或多元文化的战略是最有效的促进群体之间的和谐关系。 事实上，这项研究可以建议何时并解释为什么这些整合模式中的每一种都可能对产生和谐的群体间关系特别有效。

An enduring question in social psychology is why in certain situations dual identities (i.e., a super ordinate identity and subgroup identities) lead to improved intergroup relations, but in other situations they heighten intergroup tensions and conflict. Within social psychology, the Common In-group Identity Model (CIIM) is well established as one of the central organizing frameworks for understanding intergroup relationships. The proposed research examines the CIIM in order to understand when and why a dual identity will serve to decrease or increase intergroup bias and conflict. The research project includes nine experimental laboratory and field studies to be conducted at 3 different institutions. Taken together, the studies examine the following four potential moderating factors that may explain the inconsistent effects of dual identity obtained in previous research: (a) minority/majority group status; (b) domain of subgroup and subordinate group identity; (c) threat to original group identity implied by different integration patterns; and (d) anticipated context (i.e., harmonious or contentious) of intergroup relations. Importantly, this research will be conducted from the different perspectives of racial majority and minority group students attending the University of Delaware and the University of Connecticut (where a large majority of undergraduate students are white) and Delaware State University (an historically Black college where a majority of undergraduate students are African American). Doing this enables the researchers to study the effects of numerical and broader cultural conceptions of majority and minority status on representations and bias. This research has as many important practical implications as theoretical benefits. For example, the research has the potential to demonstrate that, because majority and minority groups have different perspectives, and possess different integration ideologies (e.g., assimilationist or multi-cultural), effective interventions to reduce intergroup bias and conflict (e.g., in educational settings) need to consider these different orientations. Improving intergroup relations requires a consideration of both perspectives. Perhaps even more importantly, the implications of this research extend well beyond the scope of social psychology and can contribute to current debates about whether assimilationist or multicultural strategies are most effective at fostering harmonious relations between groups. Indeed, this research can suggest when and explain why each of these integration patterns may be especially effective for producing harmonious intergroup relations.