J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, Elze G. Ufkes, Tamar Saguy, Adam R. Pearson
{"title":"包括但不可见?微妙的偏见,共同的身份,以及“我们”的阴暗面","authors":"J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, Elze G. Ufkes, Tamar Saguy, Adam R. Pearson","doi":"10.1111/SIPR.12017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":47129,"journal":{"name":"Social Issues and Policy Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"6-46"},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12017","citationCount":"107","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Included but Invisible? Subtle Bias, Common Identity, and the Darker Side of “We”\",\"authors\":\"J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, Elze G. Ufkes, Tamar Saguy, Adam R. Pearson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/SIPR.12017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47129,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"6-46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/SIPR.12017\",\"citationCount\":\"107\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Issues and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12017\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Issues and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/SIPR.12017","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Included but Invisible? Subtle Bias, Common Identity, and the Darker Side of “We”
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.
期刊介绍:
The mission of Social Issues and Policy Review (SIPR) is to provide state of the art and timely theoretical and empirical reviews of topics and programs of research that are directly relevant to understanding and addressing social issues and public policy.Papers will be accessible and relevant to a broad audience and will normally be based on a program of research. Works in SIPR will represent perspectives directly relevant to the psychological study of social issues and public policy. Contributions are expected to be review papers that present a strong scholarly foundation and consider how research and theory can inform social issues and policy or articulate the implication of social issues and public policy for theory and research.