包括但不可见?微妙的偏见,共同的身份,以及“我们”的阴暗面

IF 7.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Social Issues and Policy Review Pub Date : 2016-01-01 DOI:10.1111/SIPR.12017
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}
引用次数: 107

摘要

本文讨论了看似善意的政策和干预措施,通过强调群体之间的总体共性来减少群体间偏见,可能无意或战略性地抑制了解决群体不平等问题的努力。首先,我们讨论了社会分类过程中偏见的根源,以及人们对群体成员的看法如何从不同的群体转变为具有共同身份的同一群体的成员,从而改善群体间的态度。其次,我们描述了当代偏见的微妙本质,这有助于掩盖基于群体的不平等。第三,我们解释了多数群体和少数群体如何以及为什么会对重新分类有不同的偏好,并考虑了这些不同观点对认识和解决差距和歧视的潜在后果。最后,我们考虑到这些进程不仅在原则上而且在实践中对实现更公平社会的政策和结构影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
22.20
自引率
1.10%
发文量
9
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.
期刊最新文献
A human rights‐based approach to climates injustices at the local, national, and international levels: Program and policy recommendations The connections—and misconnections—between the public and politicians over climate policy: A social psychological perspective Omission as a modern form of bias against Native Peoples: Implications for policies and practices Psychological science and its societal mission during the SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic: The Motivation Barometer as an evidence‐informed policy instrument in Belgium The role of suspect development practices in eyewitness identification accuracy and racial disparities in wrongful conviction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1