Intra-minority Intergroup Relations - IA de Investigación especializada en el MIT

Intra-minority Intergroup Relations
in the Twenty-First Century

Jennifer A.. Richeson & Maureen A. Craig

Recent projections indicate that by the year
2050, racial minorities will comprise more than
50 percent of the U.S. population.1 That is, dur-
ing the twenty-½rst century, the United States
is expected to transform into what some call a
“majority-minority” nation. Despite this emerg-
ing trend, social psychological research on inter-
group relations has focused almost exclusively
on the attitudes that members of majority, alto-
status groups and members of minority, bajo-
status groups hold toward one another. Less is
known about the psychological dynamics that
affect what we have termed “intra-minority inter-
group” relations: the attitudes that members of
one low-status and/or minority group hold re-
garding, and the behavior they direct toward,
members of a different low-status and/or minor-
ity group.2 Given the projected emergence of a
majority-minority country, we believe that atten-
tion to such intra-minority intergroup relations,
in tandem with research on traditional intergroup
relaciones, is critical to our understanding of racial
dynamics in the twenty-½rst century.

En este ensayo, we consider the broad question of
how members of different racial minority groups
may evaluate one another in a majority-minority
nación. Cómo, por ejemplo, might a majority-minori-
ty nation affect the attitudes that Asian Americans
express toward members of other racial minority
grupos (Por ejemplo, blacks)? We begin with a re-
view of classic social psychological theory regard-

JENNIFER A. RICHESON is the
Weinberg College Board of Visi-
tors Research and Teaching Pro-
fessor in the Department of Psy-
chology at Northwestern Univer-
sity. Her recent publications in-
clude “Predicting Behavior dur-
ing Interracial Interactions: A
Stress and Coping Approach”
(with Sophie Trawalter and J.
Nicole Shelton), Personality and
Social Psychology Review (2009);
and “Solo Status Revisited: Ex-
amining Racial Group Differen-
ces in the Self-Regulatory Con-
sequences of Self-Presenting
as a Racial Solo” (with Sarah E.
Johnson), Revista de experimentación
Social Psychology (2009).

MAUREEN A. CRAIG is a third-
year doctoral student in the social
psychology program at North-
western University. Su investigacion
focuses on the processes involved
with social categorization, stereo-
typing, and group identities.

166

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

ing the role of social identi½cation in
shaping intergroup attitudes and bias.
We then present contemporary theories
from which predictions can be made re-
garding racial minorities’ reactions to a
salient majority-minority nation. Speci½-
cally, we explore two theoretical accounts
that offer relatively competing predic-
tions for how attempts to foster a com-
mon “minority” social category will af-
fect intra-minority intergroup relations.
Próximo, we briefly consider how white
Americans may respond to a majority-
minority nation, en general, and their
coming numerical minority status, en
particular. Drawing from reactions to
Barack Obama’s election as the ½rst
black president of the United States–a
symbolic transformation of America’s
racial hierarchy–we ½nish by discuss-
ing the implications of the country’s
shifting racial demographics for the
A NOSOTROS. racial hierarchy.

Social psychologists have long argued

that human beings are predisposed to
sort people into meaningful categories
y, por lo tanto, do so spontaneously and
with minimum effort or awareness.3
Unlike the categorization of objects,
sin embargo, social categorization involves
a basic distinction between the catego-
ry containing the self (the ingroup)
and other categories (outgroups)–or
between “we” and “they.”4 A wealth
of research has shown that this recog-
nition of different social categories,
even when based on the most minimal
of category distinctions, can influence
social perception, afectar, and behavior,
resulting in the systematic favoring
of the ingroup relative to outgroups.5
Among other things, Social Identity
Teoría (sit) posits that people derive
self-esteem from group memberships
and attempt to enhance their esteem
by perceiving their own group (el

ingroup) more positively than out-
groups.6

These processes stemming from ba-
sic social categorization have impor-
tant implications for intra-minority
intergroup relations. Recent research
building on sit suggests that how mem-
bers of racial minority groups construe
a majority-minority nation will shape
how they respond to it and, como resultado,
how they evaluate members of other
racial minority groups. In the para-
graphs that follow, we review two theo-
retical perspectives–the Common In-
group Identity Model and Social Iden-
tity Threat Theory–that offer compet-
ing predictions for how minorities are
likely to respond to the emergence of
majority-minority status.

The very notion of a majority-minor-

ity nation presupposes that members
of different racial minority groups have
a common category membership (eso
es, as “minorities”) that distinguishes
them from whites. Although such a com-
mon category may be useful for charting
a U.S. population undergoing change,
the implications of such a category for
intra-minority intergroup relations de-
pend, at least in part, on whether mem-
bers of different racial minority groups
think of themselves as members of, and/
or identify with, such a collective. To the
extent that they do, research in social
psychology suggests that the emergence
of a majority-minority nation should
engender positive evaluations among
members of different racial minority
grupos. Speci½cally, the Common In-
group Identity Model (ciim)7 asserts
that categorizing oneself and outgroup
members in terms of a common, super-
ordinate identity leads to more positive
attitudes toward outgroup members
than when individuals think of them-
selves as members of distinct groups.

Jennifer A..
Richeson &
Maureen A.
Craig

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

140 (2) Primavera 2011

167

Intra-
minority
Intergroup
Relaciones
en el
Twenty-
Primero
Century

A common ingroup identity is thought
to improve outgroup attitudes because
those outgroups become included in
individuals’ representation of their in-
group and thus are perceived as connect-
ed to the self. Studies conducted in vari-
ous situations, including a multicultural
high school, an ethnically diverse work-
lugar, and a football game, found that
white individuals expressed more posi-
tive attitudes toward racial minorities
when a common, superordinate iden-
tity was made salient.8

Given the effectiveness of a common
ingroup identity in improving whites’
attitudes toward racial minorities, it cer-
tainly seems possible that making a com-
mon “minority” identity salient could
facilitate positive attitudes among mem-
bers of different racial minority groups.
Research in our lab has begun to study
this possibility. We sought to examine
how exposure to the discrimination that
one’s racial group faces in the United
States affects attitudes toward different
racial minority groups.9 If exposure to
group discrimination triggers a common
ingroup identity, perhaps as “disadvan-
taged minority,” then one can expect
attitudes toward other racial minorities
to be positive compared to when indi-
viduals are not exposed to discrimina-
ción. En efecto, this is the result we have
found. In a series of studies, we asked
americanos asiáticos (Estudios 2 y 3) y
latinos (Estudiar 4) to read about the dis-
crimination faced by their racial groups
in the United States (or to read a control
artículo) then subsequently complete atti-
tude measures regarding blacks, embed-
ded among a number of other items. Re-
sults showed that compared with partic-
ipants in the control condition, participar-
pants in the anti-Asian (or anti-Latino)
racism exposure condition revealed
more positive attitudes toward blacks
on both explicit, self-report measures

(Estudios 2 y 4) as well as a measure
of individuals’ more spontaneous and
automatic racial associations (Estudiar 3).
Además, and consistent with the
ciim, participants exposed to discrimi-
nation against their group rated them-
selves as more similar to blacks than
did control condition participants.10 In
otras palabras, reading about the racial
discrimination that one’s group in par-
ticular faces in the United States seems
to trigger a common ingroup identity
that includes members of other racial
grupos, presumably because these groups
are also thought to be the targets of ra-
cial discrimination. Given this work,
it is certainly plausible that the grow-
ing attention to and awareness of our
emerging majority-minority nation will
similarly engender this type of common
ingroup identity–and thus more posi-
tive intra-minority intergroup relations.

A separate line of research and theory

in social psychology suggests that, bastante
than adopting a common ingroup iden-
tity, members of distinct racial minority
groups may react to the predicted demo-
graphic changes quite differently: name-
ly, as a social identity threat. According
to research on the effects of Social Iden-
tity Threat,11 efforts to categorize at
least some racial minorities as part of
a new majority-minority category may
actually disrupt any sense of common
fate–and, de este modo, positive attitudes–that
those minorities currently have toward
members of different racial minority
grupos. Nyla Branscombe and her col-
leagues articulated four types of threats
to individuals’ social identities, tres
of which are particularly relevant to
the issue of intra-minority intergroup
relations in a majority-minority nation:
categorization threat, distinctiveness
amenaza, and value threat. Aunque el
speci½c routes through which catego-

168

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

rization and distinctiveness threats are
expected to affect intra-minority inter-
group relations differ, each is predicted
to have a negative effect on racial minor-
ities’ attitudes (and behavior) toward
members of other racial minority groups.
Both threats preclude the possibility that
members of different groups will identi-
fy with a common minority ingroup and,
as a consequence, harbor positive atti-
tudes toward other racial minorities.
Value threat, por el contrario, can either un-
dermine or enhance identi½cation with
a common minority ingroup.

Categorization Threat. Individuals expe-
rience categorization threat when they
perceive that outgroup members are
attempting to impose a category label
upon them and treat them accordingly.
This type of threat is thought to occur
in part because individuals believe that
they will be treated more negatively due
to an af½liation with the undesired cate-
gory membership compared with when
they are categorized differently (or as an
individual); but theoretically, it could
also stem from externally imposed cate-
gorization into a group associated with
“positive” stereotypes. In either case,
categorization threat results in individ-
uals distancing themselves from the un-
desired category, perhaps even going so
far as to derogate the category altogeth-
er.12 This type of threat seems particu-
larly likely for members of relatively
high-status racial minority groups: para
ejemplo, East Asian and Indian Ameri-
cans. Such individuals may perceive cat-
egorization into a majority-minority
category particularly threatening inso-
far as it assumes commonality with ra-
cial minority groups that have decided-
ly more negative stereotypical associa-
ciones, a saber, Latino and black Ameri-
cans. Some Latino and Caribbean black
immigrants as well have been shown to
hold negative attitudes toward black

Americans, identify with white Ameri-
cans more than black Americans, y
eschew shared racial categorization with
black Americans.13 This type of catego-
rization threat is particularly common
among more affluent Latinos and Carib-
bean blacks who, in terms of income and
educational attainment, may indeed be
more similar to non-Hispanic whites
than to other racial minorities; sin embargo,
it has also been found among poorer La-
tinos.14 Similarly, recent work suggests
that many Asian-white and Latino-white
biracial individuals are choosing to iden-
tify as white rather than with a racial
minority group.15 Hence, some individ-
uals may reject the common category
implied by the majority-minority con-
cept in favor of af½liation with white
Americans or simply with their distinct
racial (or ethnic) categories. In either
caso, the social identity threat stoked
by attempts to impose a majority-minor-
ity identity upon many racial minority
groups may lead members of those
groups to harbor attitudes toward other
racial minorities that are more negative
than they would have otherwise been.
Distinctiveness Threat. Rather than, o
perhaps in addition to, categorization
amenaza, it is possible that a majority-
minority category may trigger distinc-
tiveness threat among some racial mi-
nority groups. Distinctiveness threat
can occur either when individuals per-
ceive that the boundaries between an
important and self-de½ning social cate-
gory and relevant outgroups are being
blurred16 or when a social category
membership is perceived to be too big
to provide a meaningful basis for self-
de½nition.17 It is not dif½cult to imagine
that a majority-minority category could
propel either type of distinctiveness
amenaza. Primero, the fact that a majority-
minority category, by de½nition, en-
cludes a numerical majority of the U.S.

Jennifer A..
Richeson &
Maureen A.
Craig

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

140 (2) Primavera 2011

169

Intra-
minority
Intergroup
Relaciones
en el
Twenty-
Primero
Century

population may preclude it from provid-
ing a meaningful basis for self-catego-
rization. Marilynn Brewer has argued
that individuals are most likely to iden-
tify with groups that provide a balance
between their needs for af½liation (pro-
tection) and differentiation (distinc-
ción).18 Numerical majority groups are
typically perceived to be insuf½ciently
distinct and, de este modo, tend not to be pri-
mary bases for identity. The emergence
of a majority-minority category, allá-
delantero, may actually undo any common
ingroup minority identi½cation that
members of different racial minority
groups currently hold. En otras palabras,
by virtue of becoming a numerical ma-
jority, racial minority or non-white sta-
tus may no longer provide a psycholog-
ically useful and/or desirable basis for
self-categorization; individuals may
thus begin to dis-identify with it.

A majority-minority nation may also
trigger the other type of distinctiveness
threat in members of racial minority
grupos. Because it includes members of
many different racial and ethnic cate-
gories, it may blur the perceived bound-
aries between these groups, threatening
the distinctiveness of individuals’ differ-
ent racial/ethnic group memberships.
Blacks, Asians, latinos, and Native Amer-
icans may perceive that the common
minority identity undermines the recog-
nition of what is distinct about their ra-
cial/ethnic categories. This type of dis-
tinctiveness threat typically results in
members of one group attempting to dif-
ferentiate themselves from the “threat-
eningly similar” outgroup(s), either by
derogating that group or by emphasiz-
ing characteristics, experiencias, and/
or stereotypes (positive or negative) de
the “threatened” ingroup.19 For exam-
por ejemplo, to the extent that black Americans
experience this form of distinctiveness
threat from attempts to include them in

a majority-minority category, they may
derogate Latinos and emphasize the
unique experiences of blacks in the Unit-
ed States.20 Given that it is the estimat-
ed rise in the number of Latinos that
largely accounts for the projected rapid
increase in the U.S. minority population,21
it is entirely likely that black Americans
–a group that has heretofore been the
prototypical racial minority in the Unit-
ed States–may be particularly likely to
experience this type of distinctiveness
amenaza. En efecto, some early indications
of distinctiveness threat and its negative
repercussions have been found in cities
such as Los Angeles, where Latinos are
now the majority racial group.22

Value Threat. The third form of social
identity threat that is likely to be trig-
gered by a majority-minority nation
is value threat. It stems from individu-
als’ perception that their group is per-
ceived more negatively, either in its com-
petence or morality, relative to other
grupos. Whereas racial minority groups
often face this type of threat, a majority-
minority category may accentuate the
experience of value threat. The majority-
minority concept could easily call atten-
tion to the disparity between numerical
majority/minority status and the power/
prestige disparity between whites and
racial minorities. En otras palabras, el
dawn of a majority-minority society
may well serve to remind members of
racial minority groups of the disparity
between their numerical presence in the
country and their underrepresentation
in high-status, powerful roles in busi-
ness, política, and other spheres.

Unlike categorization and distinctive-
ness threat, sin embargo, the effects of value
threat for intra-minority intergroup re-
lations are less clear. Similar to the pre-
dicted effects of categorization threat,
members of racial minority groups that
are associated with relatively positive

170

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

stereotypes and high-status roles (para
ejemplo, americanos asiáticos, in at least
some domains) are likely to respond to
value threat by dis-identifying with the
common minority group and, tal vez,
derogating members of other racial mi-
nority groups. Alternativamente, value threat
could serve to increase identi½cation
with a common minority category. El
disparity between the numerical majori-
ty status of members of racial minority
groups and their sociocultural status
may serve to galvanize individuals to
work for societal change. Research has
found that perceived discrimination can
increase ingroup identi½cation and co-
hesion.23 Indeed, the studies we carried
afuera (described above), in which Asian
American and Latino participants were
exposed to the discrimination that their
groups face, could be viewed through the
lens of value threat.24 Speci½cally, expo-
sure to group discrimination threatens
the value of one’s group membership
insofar as it is a reminder of the group’s
relatively low sociocultural status (com-
pared with whites). We found consis-
tent evidence that this manipulation in-
creased both Asian Americans’ and Lati-
nos’ perceived similarity to and positivity
toward black Americans. En otras palabras,
the very type of value threat that is likely
to be triggered by a majority-minority
category–that is, the salience of racial
minorities’ persistently low sociocultur-
al status despite their increased popula-
tion–could foster identi½cation with
the common minority category as a
means of enacting societal change.

To the extent that a new majority-
minority category is construed as a
threat to individuals’ racial identities,
it may disrupt a sense of common fate
(if any such fate exists) that members
of different racial minority groups may
currently have; it may even foster inter-
group hostility and negativity. dicho eso,

perceived value threat stemming from
a comparison with a salient outgroup to
a minority category (white Americans)
may serve to increase feelings of com-
monality among members of different
racial minority groups and may encour-
age positive intra-minority intergroup
relaciones. Considered in tandem with
the research on ciim, the social identity
threat framework offers an important
perspective on the psychological dynam-
ics that govern for whom, under what
condiciones, and how the changing racial
dynamics are likely to affect the attitudes
that members of racial minority groups
harbor toward one another, and how this
relates to their ability (and willingness)
to disrupt the current racial hierarchy
in the United States.

Just as racial/ethnic minorities’ reac-

tions to the changing racial demograph-
ics will be shaped by their construal of
what a majority-minority nation means
for their self-concepts, entonces, también, will the
reactions of white Americans. One seem-
ingly important distinction is likely to
be between white Americans who come
to think of themselves as “minorities”
(and/or at risk of becoming in the mi-
nority) and those who do not construe
the changing demographics in this way.
Although whites are projected to be in
the numerical minority relative to all
other non-whites (racial/ethnic minori-
corbatas) por 2050, they will continue to hold
a plurality of the population (46 por ciento):
eso es, white Americans will continue to
be more numerous than any other single
racial group.25 Hence, just as the notion
of a majority-minority nation presuppos-
es some sense of common psychological
identi½cation among members of differ-
ent racial minority groups that may or
may not exist, it also requires that whites
think of themselves as more distinct
from various racial minority groups than

Jennifer A..
Richeson &
Maureen A.
Craig

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

140 (2) Primavera 2011

171

Intra-
minority
Intergroup
Relaciones
en el
Twenty-
Primero
Century

they perceive such groups to be from
one another. En otras palabras, a majority-
minority population is a construction
that need not be reflected in or honored
by white (or racial minority) individuals’
sense of self.

Drawing on Branscombe and col-
leagues’ Social Identity Threat model (como
discutido anteriormente), sin embargo, it is likely that
many white individuals who come to see
themselves as minorities (or potential mi-
norities) will experience value threat.26
For many individuals, the shift from ra-
cial majority to minority is likely to be
experienced as a loss of status and thus
poses a psychological threat to the pres-
tige of their racial group. Recall that re-
search suggests that individuals respond
to value threats by derogating members
of salient outgroups; en este caso, el
likely targets will be members of Ameri-
ca’s current racial/ethnic minority groups.
If whites begin to perceive themselves as
the numerical minority, they may also
begin to categorize themselves racially
(eso es, as white) more explicitly and to
feel a sense of racial solidarity with other
whites. Individuals often identify more
strongly with groups that are perceived
to be under threat (especially groups that
are also perceived to be inescapable).27
Como consecuencia, rather than perceiving
themselves as relatively race-less,28 el
changing demographics may inspire
white Americans to acknowledge that
they do indeed have a racial group mem-
bership and that they should work on
behalf of it.29

It is possible that for at least some
white Americans, such a shift in self-
identi½cation could improve relations
with and attitudes toward other groups;
sin embargo, it is entirely likely that such a
change in identi½cation could result in
greater levels of bias against racial minori-
corbatas (blacks, Asians, latinos, Native Amer-
icans, etcétera). Considerar, por ejemplo,

the reaction of conservative pundit Pat
Buchanan, who declared that the pro-
jected U.S. demographic changes would
result in “the death of the West,” in gen-
eral, and in a “third-world America,” in
particular.30 Negative reactions to the
increase of racial minorities in formerly
predominantly white areas have similar-
ly been found among some whites in af-
fluent, high-achieving school districts
in California, in response to the rising
numbers of Asian American families
y estudiantes. In a Wall Street Journal arti-
cle from 2005, Suein Hwang described
what she termed the “new white flight”:
white families moving their children out
of the public schools as Asian American
students become the majority.31 It is not
dif½cult to imagine similarly negative
reactions to Latino Americans as their
percentage of the population increases
in the United States and as white Amer-
icans attempt to cope with feelings of
marginality in an emerging majority-
minority nation.

The emergence of a majority-minority

country, and how it affects the social
self-concepts of both racial minority
group members and white Americans,
may or may not follow the demographic
shift. Como consecuencia, there is little reason
to believe that the demographic change
will necessarily disrupt the current U.S.
racial hierarchy. Quite the contrary, el
potential rise in feelings of racial para-
noia and/or collective white identity
among white Americans is likely to re-
inforce the racial status quo, if not spark
new efforts to address the speci½c con-
cerns of whites.32 Evidence for the possi-
bility of these outcomes can be gleaned
from reactions to Barack Obama’s cam-
paign for and ultimate election to the
presidency of the United States, a sym-
bolic challenge to the U.S. racial hierar-
chy. Recordar, por ejemplo, Hillary Clinton’s

172

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

The United States is expected to trans-

form into what some call a majority-
minority nation during the twenty-½rst
siglo. En este ensayo, we examined the
likely reactions of racial minorities and
whites to this new majority-minority
nación, with a speci½c focus on a) intra-
minority intergroup relations and b)
whites’ recognition of and reactions to
a white “minority.” Extant social psy-
chological theory and research suggests
that racial minorities may not construe
themselves as having common fate with
other racial minorities and thus may be
particularly unlikely to behave or relate
to one another as if they are part of a
non-white group that holds majority
estado. Como consecuencia, members of differ-
ent racial minority groups may not seek
to claim any additional political power
by virtue of their new “majority” status.
Por el contrario, the research and theory re-
viewed suggests that white Americans
may be particularly likely to think of
themselves as members of (or potential
members of ) an actual or feared white
minority. Whites may experience the ris-
ing numbers of non-white Americans as
an identity threat, resulting in renewed
white racial solidarity and increased,
intensi½ed bias directed toward racial
outgroup members. Given that whites
continue to possess disproportionate
social, económico, and political power in
the United States, such a reaction would
serve to reduce racial equality and crys-
tallize the current racial hierarchy.

appeals to white racial solidarity in the
waning days of her run against Obama
for the Democratic Party’s nomination.
Speci½cally, Clinton claimed in a USA
Today interview, “Sen. Obama’s support
among working, hard-working Ameri-
cans, white Americans, is weakening
again.”33

These and similar episodes that equate
“American” and “white” are likely the
result of unconscious mental associa-
ciones. Research has demonstrated that
most white Americans automatically
associate “American” with the racial
category “white” more so than with the
racial categories “black” or “Asian.”34
A majority-minority country poses a di-
rect challenge to this pernicious equa-
tion of “American = white” and thus
threatens the current racial hierarchy.
De nuevo, reactions to President Obama
may provide insight into what to ex-
pect in response to the predicted racial
demographic changes. Soon after his
election, a very vocal minority of Amer-
icans began to engage in a number of
behaviors seemingly designed to ques-
tion Obama’s legitimacy. Más destacado,
a conspiracy theory that Obama is not
a natural-born citizen of the United
Estados (a requirement to hold the of½ce
of president) gained momentum, gorra-
turing attention in the mainstream me-
dia and garnering support among some
elected of½cials. We saw Obama’s rise
to the position of America’s chief execu-
tive and Commander in Chief met with
resistance in the form of challenges to
his fundamental “Americanness.” It
is not unreasonable to expect that the
“American = white” equation will en-
gender similarly negative reactions to
the country’s demographic shift. En
doblar, such reactions will undermine
efforts to create an equitable, justo, y
racially diverse society.

Jennifer A..
Richeson &
Maureen A.
Craig

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

140 (2) Primavera 2011

173

Intra-
minority
Intergroup
Relaciones
en el
Twenty-
Primero
Century

notas finales
1 A NOSOTROS. Census Bureau, National Population Projections–2008 National Population Pro-
jections: Summary Tables, http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/
summarytables.html (accessed May 11, 2009).
2 But see Lawrence D. Bobo and Devon Johnson, “Racial Attitudes in a Prismatic Metropolis:
Mapping Identity, Stereotypes, Competition, and Views of Af½rmative Action,” in Prismatic
Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles, ed. Lawrence D. Bobo, Melvin L. Oliver, James H. John-
son, Jr., and Abel Valenzuela, Jr. (Nueva York: Russell Sage, 2000).
3 Susan T. Fiske, Monica Lin, and Steven L. Neuberg, “The Continuum Model: Ten Years
Más tarde,” in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology, ed. Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope
(Nueva York: Guilford Press, 1999), 231–254.
4 Henri Tajfel and John C. Tornero, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,"
in Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephen Worchel and William G. austin (Chica-
go: Nelson-Hall, 1986); John C. Tornero, Michael A. Hogg, Penelope J. Oakes, Stephen D.
Reicher, and Margaret S. Wetherell, Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization
Teoría (Oxford, REINO UNIDO.: Basil Blackwell, 1987).
5 Marilynn B. Cervecero, “The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations: Social Categoriza-
ción, Ingroup Bias, and Outgroup Prejudice,” in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Prin-
ciples, 2y ed., ed. Arie W. Kruglanski and E. Tory Higgins (Nueva York: Guilford Press,
2007), 695–715.
6 Tajfel and Turner, “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior,” in Psychology of
Intergroup Relations, ed. Worchel and Austin.
7 Samuel L. Gaertner, John F. dovidio, Phyllis A. Anastasio, Betty A. Bachman, and Mary C.
Rust, “The Common Ingroup Identity Model: Recategorization and the Reduction of Inter-
group Bias,” in European Review of Social Psychology, volumen. 4, ed. Wolfgang Stroebe and Miles
Hewstone (Nueva York: John Wiley & Sons, 1993), 1–26.
8 Samuel L. Gaertner, Mary C. Rust, John F. dovidio, Betty A. Bachman, and Phyllis A.
Anastasio, “The Contact Hypothesis: The Role of a Common Ingroup Identity on Re-
ducing Intergroup Bias,” Small Group Research 25 (1994): 224–249.
9 Maureen A. Craig and Jennifer A. Richeson, “Coalition or Derogation? How Perceived
Discrimination Influences Intraminority Intergroup Relations” (manuscript submitted
for publication, 2010).

10 Ibídem.
11 Nyla R. Branscombe, Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje, “The Context
and Content of Social Identity Threat,” in Social Identity: Context, Commitment, Contenido,
ed. Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje (Oxford, REINO UNIDO.: Blackwell, 1999),
35–58.

12 Naomi Ellemers, Ad van Knippenberg, and Henk Wilke, “The Influence of Permeability
of Group Boundaries and Stability of Group Status on Strategies of Individual Mobility
and Social Change,” British Journal of Social Psychology 29 (1990): 233–246.

13 Paula D. McClain, Niambi M. Carretero, Victoria M. DeFrancesco Soto, Monique L. Lyle,
Jeffrey D. Grynaviski, Shayla C. Nunnally, Tomas J.. Scotto, j. Alan Kendrick, Gerald F.
Lackey, and Kendra Davenport Cotton, “Racial Distancing in a Southern City: Latino Im-
migrants’ Views of Black Americans,” The Journal of Politics 68 (2006): 571–584; Mary C.
Waters, Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities (Cambridge,
Masa.: Prensa de la Universidad de Harvard, 1999).

14 McClain et al., “Racial Distancing in a Southern City.”
15 Jennifer Lee and Frank D. Bean, “Reinventing the Color Line: Immigration and America’s

New Racial/Ethnic Divide,” Social Forces 86 (2) (2007): 561–586.

174

Dédalo, la Revista de la Academia Estadounidense de las Artes & Ciencias

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3

16 Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, “The Context and Content of Social Identity

Threat,” in Social Identity, ed. Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje.

17 Marilynn B. Cervecero, “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time,"

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 (1991): 475–482.

Jennifer A..
Richeson &
Maureen A.
Craig

18 Ibídem.
19 Pawel Mlicki and Naomi Ellemers, “Being Different or Being Better? National Stereotypes
and Identi½cations of Polish and Dutch Students,” European Journal of Social Psychology
26 (1996): 97–114.

20 Albert M. Camarillo, “Going Back to Compton: Real Estate, Racial Politics, and Black-
Brown Relations,” in Doing Race: 21 Essays for the 21st Century, ed. Hazel Rose Markus
and Paula M.L. Moya (Nueva York: W.W. norton, 2010), 274–293.

21 A NOSOTROS. Census Bureau, National Population Projections–2008 National Population Projec-

ciones: Summary Tables.

22 Camarillo, “Going Back to Compton,” in Doing Race, ed. Markus and Moya.
23 Nyla R. Branscombe, Michael T. Schmitt, and Richard D. harvey, “Perceiving Pervasive
Discrimination among African Americans: Implications for Group Identi½cation and
Well-Being,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (1999): 135–149; Kenneth L.
Dion, “Responses to Perceived Discrimination and Relative Deprivation,” in Relative
Deprivation and Social Comparison: The Ontario Symposium, volumen. 4, ed. James M.. Olson,
C. Peter Herman, and Mark P. Zanna (Hillsdale, NUEVA JERSEY.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986), 159–180.

24 Craig and Richeson, “Coalition or Derogation?"
25 A NOSOTROS. Census Bureau, National Population Projections–2008 National Population Projec-

ciones: Summary Tables.

26 Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje, “The Context and Content of Social Identity

Threat,” in Social Identity, ed. Ellemers, Spears, and Doosje.

27 Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey, “Perceiving Pervasive Discrimination among African

Americans.”

28 Eric D. Knowles and Kaiping Peng, “White Selves: Conceptualizing and Measuring a
Dominant-Group Identity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89 (2005): 223–
241; Monica McDermott and Frank L. Samson, “White Racial and Ethnic Identity in
the United States,” Revista Anual de Sociología 31 (2005): 245–261.

29 Brian S. Lowery, Miguel M. Unzueta, Eric D. Knowles, and Phillip A. Goff, “Concern

for the In-Group and Opposition to Af½rmative Action,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psicología 90 (2006): 961–974.

30 Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions

Imperil Our Country and Civilization (Nueva York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2002).

31 Suein Hwang, “The New White Flight,” The Wall Street Journal, Noviembre 19, 2005.
32 McDermott and Samson, “White Racial and Ethnic Identity in the United States.”
33 Kathy Kiely and Jill Lawrence, “Clinton Makes Case for Wide Appeal,” USA Today, Puede 8,
2008; http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-07-clintoninterview
_N.htm (accessed April 30, 2010).

34 Thierry Devos and Mahzarin R. Banaji, “American = White?” Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology 88 (2005): 447–466.

140 (2) Primavera 2011

175

D
oh
w
norte
oh
a
d
mi
d

F
r
oh
metro
h

t
t

pag

:
/
/

d
i
r
mi
C
t
.

metro

i
t
.

mi
d
tu
d
a
mi
d
a
r
t
i
C
mi
–
pag
d

F
/

1
4
0
2
1
6
6
1
8
3
0
0
0
1
d
a
mi
d
_
a
_
0
0
0
8
5
pag
d

b
y
gramo
tu
mi
s
t

oh
norte
0
8
S
mi
pag
mi
metro
b
mi
r
2
0
2
3
Descargar PDF