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

社会心理学中一个由来已久的问题是，为什么在某些情况下，双重身份(即上级身份和次级群体身份)会改善群体间的关系，但在其他情况下，它们会加剧群体间的紧张和冲突。在社会心理学中，共同的群体内认同模型(CIIM)被公认为理解群体间关系的核心组织框架之一。这项拟议的研究考察了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。该研究项目包括将在3个不同机构进行的9个实验实验室和实地研究。这样做使研究人员能够研究多数和少数地位的数字和更广泛的文化概念对表征和偏见的影响。这项研究既有重要的理论意义，也有重要的实践意义。改善集团间关系需要考虑这两个方面。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，并可能导致目前关于同化战略或多元文化战略在促进群体之间和谐关系方面最有效的辩论。事实上，这项研究可以提出建议，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.