Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Differences in Responding to Distinctiveness and Discrimination on Campus: Stigma and Common Group Identity

John F Dovidio [*]

The not away article examines how the salience of clump membership can moderate or diffuse feelings of stigmatization for members of racial and ethnic minorities. A series of studies is neared that demonstrate that the unfolding of a common group identity can diffuse the results of stigmatization, improve intergroup attitudes, and enhance institutional satisfaction and commitment among guild students and faculty. Strategies and interventions designed to address the consequences of stigmatization, however, need to consider the different value and importance of racial and ethnic collection identities for Whites and for tribe of color.

Stigma is a pervasive and powerful phenomenon linked essentially to the value associated with social identities. It involves, first, the recognition of difference based upon some distinguishing characteristic, or "mark," and next to the first a devaluation of those in possession of it (see Goffman, 1963) not long ago Dovidio, Major, and Crocker (2000) have identified several fundamental dimensions of stigmatization. single of the most basic dimensions, which is the focus of the at hand article, involves the difference between personal and cluster processes.

The distinction between interpersonal and intergroup processe is a prevalent single in social psychology. According to self-categorization theory (Turner Hogg Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) when personal identity is salient an individual's extremitys standards, beliefs, and motives primarily determine behavior. In contrast, when people's social identity is activated, "people approach to perceive themselves more as interchangeable exemplars of a social category than as unique personalities defined by means of their individual differences from others" (Turner et al., 1987 p 50) beneath these conditions, collective needs, goals, and standards are primary (Verkuyten & Hagendoorn, 1998) The distinction between personal and group-based responding is also important for perceivers. Person-based responding is "bottom-up," involving the piecemeal integration of information, whereas group-based responding is "top-down," guided through preexisting schemas. These different fashions critically influence the cognitive and affective replys of perceivers to people with stigmas (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)

The at hand article examines the implications of the personal-group dimension for understanding racial or ethnic stigmatization. Specifically we explore the different perspectives and experiences of majority and minority cluster members, the roles of perceptions of collection boundaries and social identities of the cluster members, and attitudinal responses and behavioral intentions within educational settings.

Experiences of Stigma: Personal and assemblage Processes

Psychological theories have traditionally emphasized the character of the individual, in bourns of personality and attitude, in social biases and discrimination (see Duckitt, 1992) Nevertheless, social psychological and sociological approaches have also recognized the importance of understanding collection functions and collective identities upon race relations (see Bobo, 1999) For instance, Sherif, Harvey, White, head cover and Sherif (1961) proposed in their classic Robbers Cave application of mind that the functional relation between assemblages is the critical factor determining intergroup attitudes. According to this position, which is related to realistic conflict theory (Bobo 1999) competition between clumps produces prejudice and discrimination, whereas cooperation that arises in successful outcomes reduces intergroup bias. Bias can be subservient to less tangible collective functions (eg prestige) as well as cake instrumental objectives (e.g., gaining economic advantage; Blumer 1958) Further, collection categorization, independent of actual realistic cluster conflict, can affect motivations to achieve favorable cluster identities and arouse intergroup bias and discrimination (Tajfel & gymnast 1979).

The perspectives that majority and minority collection members take on particular interactions and intergroup relationships in general also differ in fundamental ways. The attributions and experiences of nation in seemingly identical or comparable situations may be affected by the agency of ethnic or racial group membership (eg Crocker Voelkl Testa, & Major, 1991) In the United States, Blacks perceive les social and economic opportunity than do Whites (Schuman, Steeh Bobo & Krysan, 1997) Cross-culturally, the generally nonstigmatized ethnic and racial majorities perceive intergroup contact more positively than do minorities (Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1996; Islam & Hewstone, 1993) Distinctiveness, associated with numerical minority status or the salience of physical or social characteristics (eg Kanter, 1977) can exacerbate feelings of stigmatization among members of traditionally disadvantaged groups

Within academic institutions, race of color--both faculty and students--are typically numerically distinctive and perceive stigmatized (see Feagin, Vera, & Imani, 1996) With prize to faculty in particular, among senior faculty members at society s and universities in 1993, 44% were Black, 42% were Asian, and 21% were Hispanic. Among junior faculty members (i.e., those with les than 7 years' experience), 54% were Black, 77% were Asian, and 30% were Hispanic (Magner, 1996) In general, minority faculty members report that they are real conscious of their race or ethnicity and have feeling stigmatized. In part as a effect satisfaction with the job and quality of life at predominantly White institutions is significantly lower for faculty of color than for White faculty members (Thomas & Asunka, 1995)