The present article explores the complex role of collective identities in the development of intergroup biases and disparities, in interventions to improve orientations toward members of other groups, and in inhibiting or facilitating social action. The article revolves around the common ingroup identity model, examining general empirical support but also acknowledging potential limitations and emphasizing new insights and extensions. It proposes that the motivations of majority group members to preserve a system that advantages them and the motivations of minority group members to enhance their status have direct implications for preferred group representations and consequent intergroup relations. In particular, the effects of majority group members' preferences for a common, one-group identity and minority group members' preference for a dual identity (in which differences are acknowledged within the context of a superordinate identity) are considered in terms of intergroup attitudes, recognition of unfair disparities, and support for social action.

No abstract

This work investigated how group-based power affects the motivations and preferences that members of advantaged and disadvantaged groups bring to situations of contact. To measure the preferred content of interactions, desires to address particular topics in intergroup contact were assessed for both experimental groups (Study 1) and real groups (Study 2). As predicted, across both studies, the desire to talk about power was greater among members of disadvantaged than of advantaged groups. This difference was mediated by motivation for change in group-based power. Study 2 further demonstrated that more highly identified members of disadvantaged groups wanted to talk about power more. Members of advantaged groups generally preferred to talk about commonalities between the groups more than about group-based power, and this desire was greater with higher levels of identification. However, perceiving that their group's advantage was illegitimate increased the desire of advantaged group members to address power in intergroup interactions.

Positive intergroup contact has been a guiding framework for research on reducing intergroup tension and for interventions aimed at that goal. We propose that beyond improving attitudes toward the out-group, positive contact affects disadvantaged-group members' perceptions of intergroup inequality in ways that can undermine their support for social change toward equality. In Study 1, participants were assigned to either high- or low-power experimental groups and then brought together to discuss either commonalities between the groups or intergroup differences. Commonality-focused contact, relative to difference-focused contact, produced heightened expectations for fair (i.e., egalitarian) out-group behavior among members of disadvantaged groups. These expectations, however, proved unrealistic when compared against the actions of members of the advantaged groups. Participants in Study 2 were Israeli Arabs (a disadvantaged minority) who reported the amount of positive contact they experienced with Jews. More positive intergroup contact was associated with increased perceptions of Jews as fair, which in turn predicted decreased support for social change. Implications for social change are considered.

When rational actors believe that their group can achieve its goals through collective action (i.e., when they have strong group efficacy beliefs), they should not participate in it because they expect little benefit from their own participation. Paradoxically, however, research shows that individuals are more likely to participate when their group efficacy beliefs are stronger. In contrast to approaches that explain this paradox by invoking different psychological mechanisms (e.g., group identity, groupbased anger), we provide a novel efficacy-based explanation by introducing the notion of participative efficacy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that one's own actions will "make a difference" to collective efforts aimed at achieving group goals). Three correlational studies supported the construct and predictive validity of participative efficacy beliefs across different samples and contexts. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of this notion for the psychology of collective action and social change.