Harmony and Integration: Majority and Minority Perspectives 497people believe that the intergroup hierarchy can change and
the in-group has the resources to change it. Although collec-
tive action may have long-term benefits in achieving justice
and equality, in the short-term the conditions that facilitate
collective action may intensify social categorization of mem-
bers of the in-group and out-groups, temporarily increase
conflict, and reduce the likelihood of harmony or integration
between groups.
Racial and ethnic identities are unlikely to be readily
abandoned because they are frequently fundamental aspects
of individuals’ self-concepts and esteem and are often associ-
ated with perceptions of collective injustice. Moreover, when
such identities are threatened, for example by attempts to
produce a single superordinate identity at the expense of
one’s racial or ethnic group identity, members of these groups
may respond in ways that reassert the value of the group (e.g.,
with disassociation from the norms and values of the larger
society; see Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Steele,
1997) and adversely affect social harmony.
In addition, efforts to incorporate minority groups within
the context of a superordinate identity may also produce
negative responses from the majority group. Mummendey
and Wenzel (1999) argued that because the standards of the
superordinate group will primarily reflect those of the major-
ity subgroup, the minority out-group will tend to be viewed
as nonnormative and inferior by those standards, which can
exacerbate intergroup bias among majority group members
and increase group conflict. In contrast, S. Gaertner and
Dovidio (2000) have proposed that the simultaneous exis-
tence of superordinate and subordinate group representations
(i.e., dual- or multiple-identities) may not only improve inter-
group relations (see also Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b) but
also may contribute to the social adjustment, psychological
adaptation, and overall well-being of minority group mem-
bers (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Therefore,
identifying the conditions under which a dual identity serves
to increase or diffuse intergroup conflict is an issue actively
being pursued by contemporary researchers.
There is evidence that intergroup benefits of a strong
superordinate identity can be achieved for both majority and
minority group members when the strength of the subordinate
identity is high, regardless of the strength of subordinate group
identities. For example, in a survey study of White adults, H. J.
Smith and Tyler (1996, Study 1) measured the strengths of
respondents’ superordinate identity as “American” and also
the strengths of their subordinate identification as “White.”
Respondents with a strong American identity, independent of
the degree to which they identified with being White, were
more likely to base their support for affirmative action policies
that would benefit Blacks and other minorities on relational
concerns regarding the fairness of congressional representa-
tives than on concerns about whether these policies would in-
crease or decrease their own well-being. However, for those
who had weak identification with being American and primar-
ily identified themselves with being White, their position on
affirmative action was determined more strongly by concerns
regarding the instrumental value of these policies for them-
selves. This pattern of findings suggests that a strong superor-
dinate identity (such as being American) allows individuals to
support policies that would benefit members of other racial
subgroups without giving primary consideration to their own
instrumental needs.
Among minorities, even when racial or ethnic identity is
strong, perceptions of a superordinate connection enhance in-
terracial trust and acceptance of authority within an organiza-
tion. Huo, Smith, Tyler, and Lind (1996) surveyed White,
Black, Latino, and Asian employees of a public-sector orga-
nization. Identification with the organization (superordinate
identity) and racial-ethnic identity (subgroup identity) were
independently assessed. Regardless of the strength of racial-
ethnic identity, respondents who had a strong organizational
identity perceived that they were treated fairly within the
organization, and consequently they had favorable attitudes
toward authority. Huo et al. (1996) concluded that having a
strong identification with a superordinate group can redirect
people from focusing on their personal outcomes to concerns
about “achieving the greater good and maintaining social sta-
bility” (pp. 44–45), while also maintaining important racial
and ethnic identities.
S. Gaertner et al. (1996) found converging evidence in a
survey of students in a multiethnic high school. In particular,
they compared students who identified themselves on the
survey using a dual identity (e.g., indicating they were Korean
and American) with those who used only a single subgroup
identity (e.g., Korean). Supportive of the role of a dual iden-
tity, students who described themselvesbothas Americans
and as members of their racial or ethnic group had less bias to-
ward other groups in the school than did those who described
themselves only in terms of their subgroup identity. Also, the
minority students who identified themselves using a dual iden-
tity reported lower levels of intergroup bias in general relative
to those who used only their ethnic or racial group identity.
Not only do Whites and racial and ethnic minorities bring
different values, identities, and experiences to intergroup con-
tact situations, but also these different perspectives can shape
perceptions of and reactions to the nature of the contact.
Blumer (1958a) proposed that group status is a fundamental
factor in the extent of and type of threat that different groups
experience. Recent surveys reveal, for example, that Blacks
show higher levels of distrust and greater pessimism about