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

Abstract

The present article examines how the salience of group membership can moderate or diffuse feelings of stigmatization for members of racial and ethnic minorities. A series of studies is presented that demonstrate that the development of a common group identity can diffuse the effects of stigmatization, improve intergroup attitudes, and enhance institutional satisfaction and commitment among college students and faculty. Strategies and interventions designed to address the effects of stigmatization, however, need to consider the different value and importance of racial and ethnic group identities for Whites and for people 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 on some distinguishing characteristic, or "mark," and second, a devaluation of those in possession of it (see Goffman, 1963). Recently, Dovidio, Major, and Crocker (2000) have identified several fundamental dimensions of

Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their prejudice toward strongly identified minorities?

“…These various approaches share a common assumption that the expression of prejudice can be more fully understood by examining important subcategories within minority groups. Further, these perspectives highlight that where group lines are drawn is always a matter of context-these lines can be expanded (e.g., Blacks and Whites can be broadly categorized as Americans and compared with non-Americans) and constrained (one subgroup of minorities vs. another subgroup) according to the situation, our needs, and salient group differences (Dovidio, Gaertner, Flores Niemann, & Snider, 2001).…”

On the Relationship between Willingness to Communicate and Decultuartion

“…In the other study by Eller and Abrams (2004) As it is mentioned, CIM leads to the learners willing to communicate and according to Dovidio, et al (2001) in recent years; scholars have paid great attention to the integration of the acculturation theory and CIM as the guiding theoretical frameworks in research on host-home cultural relations As Berry, (1997); Wang & Mallinckrodt, (2006); Ward & Kennedy, (1999) stated acculturation is the processes of psychological adjustment (e.g., sense of well-being and self-esteem) and sociocultural adaptation (e.g., communication competence and social networks) in the new environment.…”

Functions of the common ingroup identity model and acculturation strategies in intercultural communication: American host nationals’ communication with Chinese international students

“…The acculturation framework maps out how members of a minority status group (e.g., These two lines of research (i.e., CIIM and the acculturation framework) have also demonstrated similar patterns of findings (e.g., Dovidio et al, 2001). The status difference in preferred identification/adaptation strategy has been observed in both acculturation literature and CIIM.…”

“…Brown (2000) pointed out the difficulty of finding a meaningful superordinate unit (i.e., common ingroup identity) and of implementing a temporally ordered unit in educational or work-place settings. As a solution, intergroup scholars have suggested combining the acculturation framework in CIIM so that meaningful contact conditions based on the majority-minority relations can be investigated more effectively (Brown, 2000;Dovidio, Gaertner, Niemann, & Snider, 2001;.…”

“…Based on CIIM and the acculturation framework as well as the argument to combine these two frameworks (Brown, 2000;Dovidio et al, 2001), four experimental conditions were created representing the four adaptation strategies for the current study. The first experimental condition is assimilation strategy (i.e., one group identification) in which a Chinese international student is described as a part of American culture.…”