A most thought-provoking research paper has come to our attention (Leslie et al., 2020). Though the study described there originated in the US, it is a must-read for New Zealand political leaders and employers generally, but especially for our public service and University administrations – indeed, for anyone who wants a better society and an end to discrimination and bullying in this country.
It comprises a complex statistical study involving review of many (55) relevant research articles (i.e. a meta-analysis) and so I will not go through the purely technical details here. Simply, I will describe the general approach, give the key definitions and present the critical findings. Note that I have not been able to access or review all of the references, but give them anyway for those readers who wish to retrieve them.
Identity-blind Ideologies
Leslie et al. remind us that significant debate remains on whether different diversity ideologies, defined as individuals’ beliefs regarding the importance of demographic differences and how to navigate them, improve intergroup relations within organizations and within the broader society. Their study sought to advance understanding by drawing fine-grained distinctions among diversity ideology types and intergroup-relations outcomes. Accordingly, they conducted meta-analysis of other research studies in order to investigate the effects of three “identity-blind” ideologies:
1. Colorblindness
2. Meritocracy
3. Assimilation.
In addition, they included one “identity-conscious” ideology – Multiculturalism. They examined the impacts of the four ideologies on four indicators of high-quality intergroup relations. These indicators were: Reduced Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotyping and Increased Diversity Policy Support (i.e. positive attitudes toward policies aimed at increasing diversity).
The three distinct identity-blind ideologies can be thought of as follows:
Between-group differences can be minimized by ignoring them (Colorblindness); treating demographic groups equitably (Meritocracy) and having non-dominant groups adopt the practices of the dominant group (Assimilation; e.g., O’Brien & Gilbert, 2013). Of course, researchers acknowledge that intergroup bias takes various forms (i.e. Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination), which are conceptually distinct but only moderately-correlated (Fiske, 1998; Jones et al., 2017).
Leslie et al. defined Prejudice as a negative affect or attitudes toward outgroups (e.g. “Indicate whether you have positive or negative feelings about the following groups”; Badea et al., 2015).
They defined Discrimination as negative behaviours or behavioural intentions toward outgroups (e.g. “If given the opportunity, how willing would you be to have a person from a racial/ethnic group other than your own as a neighbour?”; Rosenthal & Levy, 2012).
They defined Stereotyping as the tendency to associate traits with certain groups and differentiated between negative and neutral forms. Negative stereotyping indicated the association of more negative and fewer positive traits with a demographic group (e.g. “violent”; Velasco González et al., 2008). Neutral stereotyping included general beliefs that groups possess different traits (e.g. “Different ethnic groups often have very different approaches to life”; Wolsko et al., 2006) and associating traits that are not strongly positive or negative with a group (e.g. “family-oriented” and “not career-oriented”; Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015).
Finally, they defined Diversity Policy Support as positive attitudes toward policies aimed at increasing diversity by granting resources to non-dominant groups (e.g. “Automatic U.S. citizenship should be granted to the children of illegal immigrants”; Wolsko et al., 2006).
Identity-Conscious Ideologies
Similar to identity-blind ideologies, identity-conscious ideologies can take different forms; for example, differences can be acknowledged by learning about them, having groups maintain their culture, or valuing differences (Plaut, 2010; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Leslie et al. refer to all of these subtypes as “multiculturalism”, because of the unclear conceptual distinctions between them. Thus, beliefs that emphasize learning about or maintaining differences imply that they are valuable.
The study of Leslie et al. focused on multiculturalism as the identity-conscious ideology of interest, and they defined it to include acknowledging differences by learning about, maintaining or valuing them.
Findings of Interest
The authors focused on reductions in the three forms of intergroup bias - Prejudice (negative affect toward outgroups), Discrimination (negative treatment of outgroups) and Stereotyping (beliefs that groups possess different traits). They also considered impacts on Diversity Policy Support.
Let me quote the essential findings, comment briefly and make a few suggestions, but allow you, the reader, to form your own opinions.
1. Colorblindness in ideology (and most probably also in policy-making) tends to reduce prejudice, stereotyping and perceived need for policy support
2. Multiculturalism is associated with high-quality intergroup relations, reducing prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping and perceived need for policy support or intervention
3. Assimilation has positive impacts on prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, though the impacts are asymmetric in that they appear to be stronger for the dominant groups
4. Meritocracy reduces discrimination and perceived need for policy support or intervention.
For New Zealand perhaps we might conclude that multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, can act against prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, and diminish perceived need for policy support (i.e. need for intervention).
Lessons for our Leaders?
Surely, these findings are of critical importance. Though they comprise the results of studies conducted in another country, perhaps they provide lessons for us here in New Zealand. Let us suggest the following:
1. Recognise ethnic and cultural affiliation but develop policy that is essentially colorblind (i.e. that is formed and directed independently of a person’s background, ethnicity, cultural affiliation or religion) and provide resources and assistance on the basis of need
2. Put aside biculturalism and recognise the multicultural nature of our country
3. Create environments where everyone, especially the worker, is rewarded on merit; for positive contributions to workplaces and to society in a more general sense.
Historically, most discrimination targeted women and minorities but now potentially everyone can stand to be marginalized socially, politically or within the workplace – even white males! Today, we are experiencing a difficult stage in the history of our country – a phase where one’s identity plays far too great a part in perceived social status and in the provision of state-funded assistance in health, education, social policy and other domains; even in the mandates of our universities. This is a phase where we profess to be bicultural when it is patently clear that we are multicultural; where we pretend that the knowledge of scattered communities of centuries ago is the equal of the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the world of the twenty-first century. In this period of our history we contend that the knowledge of those disparate communities of the distant past deserves to be forced on each and every one of our children, and particular socio-cultural values implanted within our schools.
Our research offers practical insights for managing diversity. Given that multiculturalism is most consistently associated with improved intergroup relations, the overall quality of intergroup relations is likely to be highest in settings where most individuals hold a multicultural ideology. Likewise, leaders’ efforts to foster multiculturalism are likely to further improve intergroup relations. Leslie et al., p 463.
Let us hope that our leaders think again about the interests of every New Zealander, irrespective of ethnicity, cultural affiliation, country of origin or religion. Let them confront their own consciences and consider not only the wishes of the majority, but what the evidence tells us about what makes for a truly progressive and just society.
References:
Badea, C., Er-Rafiy, A., Chekroun, P., Legal, J., & Gosling, P. (2015). Ethnic in-group evaluation and adhesion to acculturation ideologies: The case of Moroccan immigrants in France. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015 .01.003
Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 343–359. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0037908 Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000)
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357– 411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, K. P., Sabat, I. E., King, E. B., Ahmad, A., McCausland, T. C., & Chen, T. (2017). Isms and schisms: A meta-analysis of the prejudicediscrimination relationship across racism, sexism and ageism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7, 1076 –1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2187
Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y. S., Beaver, G. R. On Melting Pots and Salad Bowls: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Diversity Ideologies. 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 105, No. 5, 453– 471 ISSN: 0021-9010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446
O’Brien, L. T., & Gilbert, P. N. (2013). Ideology: An invisible yet potent dimension of diversity. In Q. Roberson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of diversity and work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 77–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10478401003676501
Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 215–246. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01022.x
Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0026490
Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667– 685. http://dx.doi .org/10.1348/014466608X284443
Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
Identity-blind Ideologies
Leslie et al. remind us that significant debate remains on whether different diversity ideologies, defined as individuals’ beliefs regarding the importance of demographic differences and how to navigate them, improve intergroup relations within organizations and within the broader society. Their study sought to advance understanding by drawing fine-grained distinctions among diversity ideology types and intergroup-relations outcomes. Accordingly, they conducted meta-analysis of other research studies in order to investigate the effects of three “identity-blind” ideologies:
1. Colorblindness
2. Meritocracy
3. Assimilation.
In addition, they included one “identity-conscious” ideology – Multiculturalism. They examined the impacts of the four ideologies on four indicators of high-quality intergroup relations. These indicators were: Reduced Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotyping and Increased Diversity Policy Support (i.e. positive attitudes toward policies aimed at increasing diversity).
The three distinct identity-blind ideologies can be thought of as follows:
Between-group differences can be minimized by ignoring them (Colorblindness); treating demographic groups equitably (Meritocracy) and having non-dominant groups adopt the practices of the dominant group (Assimilation; e.g., O’Brien & Gilbert, 2013). Of course, researchers acknowledge that intergroup bias takes various forms (i.e. Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination), which are conceptually distinct but only moderately-correlated (Fiske, 1998; Jones et al., 2017).
Leslie et al. defined Prejudice as a negative affect or attitudes toward outgroups (e.g. “Indicate whether you have positive or negative feelings about the following groups”; Badea et al., 2015).
They defined Discrimination as negative behaviours or behavioural intentions toward outgroups (e.g. “If given the opportunity, how willing would you be to have a person from a racial/ethnic group other than your own as a neighbour?”; Rosenthal & Levy, 2012).
They defined Stereotyping as the tendency to associate traits with certain groups and differentiated between negative and neutral forms. Negative stereotyping indicated the association of more negative and fewer positive traits with a demographic group (e.g. “violent”; Velasco González et al., 2008). Neutral stereotyping included general beliefs that groups possess different traits (e.g. “Different ethnic groups often have very different approaches to life”; Wolsko et al., 2006) and associating traits that are not strongly positive or negative with a group (e.g. “family-oriented” and “not career-oriented”; Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015).
Finally, they defined Diversity Policy Support as positive attitudes toward policies aimed at increasing diversity by granting resources to non-dominant groups (e.g. “Automatic U.S. citizenship should be granted to the children of illegal immigrants”; Wolsko et al., 2006).
Identity-Conscious Ideologies
Similar to identity-blind ideologies, identity-conscious ideologies can take different forms; for example, differences can be acknowledged by learning about them, having groups maintain their culture, or valuing differences (Plaut, 2010; Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Leslie et al. refer to all of these subtypes as “multiculturalism”, because of the unclear conceptual distinctions between them. Thus, beliefs that emphasize learning about or maintaining differences imply that they are valuable.
The study of Leslie et al. focused on multiculturalism as the identity-conscious ideology of interest, and they defined it to include acknowledging differences by learning about, maintaining or valuing them.
Findings of Interest
The authors focused on reductions in the three forms of intergroup bias - Prejudice (negative affect toward outgroups), Discrimination (negative treatment of outgroups) and Stereotyping (beliefs that groups possess different traits). They also considered impacts on Diversity Policy Support.
Let me quote the essential findings, comment briefly and make a few suggestions, but allow you, the reader, to form your own opinions.
1. Colorblindness in ideology (and most probably also in policy-making) tends to reduce prejudice, stereotyping and perceived need for policy support
2. Multiculturalism is associated with high-quality intergroup relations, reducing prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping and perceived need for policy support or intervention
3. Assimilation has positive impacts on prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, though the impacts are asymmetric in that they appear to be stronger for the dominant groups
4. Meritocracy reduces discrimination and perceived need for policy support or intervention.
For New Zealand perhaps we might conclude that multiculturalism, rather than biculturalism, can act against prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping, and diminish perceived need for policy support (i.e. need for intervention).
Lessons for our Leaders?
Surely, these findings are of critical importance. Though they comprise the results of studies conducted in another country, perhaps they provide lessons for us here in New Zealand. Let us suggest the following:
1. Recognise ethnic and cultural affiliation but develop policy that is essentially colorblind (i.e. that is formed and directed independently of a person’s background, ethnicity, cultural affiliation or religion) and provide resources and assistance on the basis of need
2. Put aside biculturalism and recognise the multicultural nature of our country
3. Create environments where everyone, especially the worker, is rewarded on merit; for positive contributions to workplaces and to society in a more general sense.
Historically, most discrimination targeted women and minorities but now potentially everyone can stand to be marginalized socially, politically or within the workplace – even white males! Today, we are experiencing a difficult stage in the history of our country – a phase where one’s identity plays far too great a part in perceived social status and in the provision of state-funded assistance in health, education, social policy and other domains; even in the mandates of our universities. This is a phase where we profess to be bicultural when it is patently clear that we are multicultural; where we pretend that the knowledge of scattered communities of centuries ago is the equal of the accumulated knowledge and understanding of the world of the twenty-first century. In this period of our history we contend that the knowledge of those disparate communities of the distant past deserves to be forced on each and every one of our children, and particular socio-cultural values implanted within our schools.
Our research offers practical insights for managing diversity. Given that multiculturalism is most consistently associated with improved intergroup relations, the overall quality of intergroup relations is likely to be highest in settings where most individuals hold a multicultural ideology. Likewise, leaders’ efforts to foster multiculturalism are likely to further improve intergroup relations. Leslie et al., p 463.
Let us hope that our leaders think again about the interests of every New Zealander, irrespective of ethnicity, cultural affiliation, country of origin or religion. Let them confront their own consciences and consider not only the wishes of the majority, but what the evidence tells us about what makes for a truly progressive and just society.
References:
Badea, C., Er-Rafiy, A., Chekroun, P., Legal, J., & Gosling, P. (2015). Ethnic in-group evaluation and adhesion to acculturation ideologies: The case of Moroccan immigrants in France. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 45, 47–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2015 .01.003
Duguid, M. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. (2015). Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 343–359. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/a0037908 Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000)
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357– 411). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Jones, K. P., Sabat, I. E., King, E. B., Ahmad, A., McCausland, T. C., & Chen, T. (2017). Isms and schisms: A meta-analysis of the prejudicediscrimination relationship across racism, sexism and ageism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7, 1076 –1110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2187
Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y. S., Beaver, G. R. On Melting Pots and Salad Bowls: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Diversity Ideologies. 2019 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 105, No. 5, 453– 471 ISSN: 0021-9010 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446
O’Brien, L. T., & Gilbert, P. N. (2013). Ideology: An invisible yet potent dimension of diversity. In Q. Roberson (Ed.), Oxford handbook of diversity and work. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Plaut, V. C. (2010). Diversity science: Why and how difference makes a difference. Psychological Inquiry, 21, 77–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10478401003676501
Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2010). The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 215–246. http://dx.doi .org/10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01022.x
Rosenthal, L., & Levy, S. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0026490
Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667– 685. http://dx.doi .org/10.1348/014466608X284443
Wolsko, C., Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2006). Considering the tower of Babel: Correlates of assimilation and multiculturalism among ethnic minority and majority groups in the United States. Social Justice Research, 19, 277–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-0014-8
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
1 comment:
Should be mandatory reading for Labour, Greens & Maori Party. National too. No mor gaslighting. This research confirms what many NZers have been thinking and feeling. Thank you David Lillis.
Post a Comment