Identity Adaptiveness: Affect Across Multiple Identities

Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 1999 by Todd L. Pittinsky, Margaret Shih, Nalini Ambady

Todd L. Pittinsky [*]

Most empirical work that examines the effects of stereotypes on targets considers only one of a target's many social identities. This study examined how individuals implicitly affectively orient themselves toward their social identities in situations in which one or another of these identities is relatively adaptive. An adaptive identity is one associated with stereotypes that predict desirable performance in a given context. One hundred and twenty-one Asian American females generated ethnicity- and gender-related memories in contexts in which their gender identity was relatively adaptive, their ethnic identity was relatively adaptive, or neither identity was relatively adaptive. Self-reported affect expressed in these memories was analyzed. In a context in which their ethnic identity was adaptive, participants generated more positive ethnicity-related memories than gender-related memories. In contrast, in a context in which their gender identity was adaptive, participants generated more positive gender-relat ed memories than ethnicity-related memories. When neither identity was adaptive participants expressed similar affect toward both. Similar results were found when blind raters coded memory affect. Findings suggest that stereotypes and different social contexts do not simply result in targets' "identification" or "disidentification" along a single dimension of identity, but rather prompt a reorientation of implicit affect across their multiple identities.

Writing a half century ago, Gordon Allport considered the consequences of being a target of stereotypes and prejudice. As an example Allport referenced the case of a Jew confronted by anti-Semitism: "Since he cannot escape his own group, he thus in a real sense hates himself--or at least the part of himself that is Jewish" (1954, p. 151).

In this quote from his landmark work The Nature of Prejudice, Allport raises two critical issues for the study of stereotyping and prejudice. First, Allport draws attention to the effects of stereotypes on their targets, a perspective that has been somewhat neglected by social psychologists to date. The bulk of research on stereotyping and prejudice has typically focused on the holders of stereotypes rather than on the targets. For example, researchers have tended to focus on how stereotypes bias perceivers' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994; Brewer 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974). More recently social psychologists have begun to examine more closely the experience of being the target of stereotypes and prejudice (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989; Ruggiero & Taylor, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995).

A second critical issue embedded in Allport's observation is the recognition that any given target of a stereotype has a complex and multifaceted self and multiple social identities. Individuals simultaneously belong to many different social identity groups and possess many diverse social identities. Only part of the self is associated with any given stereotype. At different times, and in different situations, different social identities may become salient. Recent research has revealed that the salience of different identities can have a dramatic impact on one's thoughts, feelings, and behavior (e.g., Pittinsky, Shih, & Ambady, 1999; Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999).

The present research examined the consequences of being in social contexts in which stereotypes about a group to which an individual belongs may be salient. Specifically we examined how different contexts, associated with different identities and different stereotypes, influence individuals' implicit affect toward two of their social identities. Our central question was whether, in particular social contexts, individuals implicitly tend to be more positively affectively oriented toward a particular social identity that is more adaptive than toward other social identities. Greenwald & Banaji (1995) have demonstrated that attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994) have critical implicit modes of operation and that implicit measures are particularly important in research on stereotypes and prejudice.

Identity Adaptiveness

Each of an individual's many social identities is linked to a host of stereotypes or common generalizations about members of that particular identity group. Consider, for example, some of the social identities and stereotypes associated with being an Asian American female. Being polite, being hardworking, and being skilled in quantitative domains are three stereotypes often associated with her Asian identity. Being nurturant, being emotional, and being skilled in verbal domains are three stereotypes often associated with her female identity.

Different identities and related stereotypes have considerable influence on behavior. Social contexts can make certain social identities salient to individuals and, often unbeknownst to them, have an impact on their behaviors. In a widely cited study, Steele and Aronson (1995) examined the academic performance of African American students and found that they underperformed on a verbal test when they were placed in a social context that made them vulnerable to negative stereotypes about African Americans' intellectual abilities. However, when African American students were placed in a context that did not make them vulnerable to these stereotypes, but that presented the same academic challenge, they did not underperform. Similar results highlighting the debilitating effects of stereotypes on academic performance have been found for members of other identity groups, including women (Steele, 1997) and Latinos (Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998), in several intellectual domains. Thus, individuals who are the targe ts of stereotypes seem to be quite vulnerable to social contexts that make negative identities and stereotypes salient.