Multiculturalism and Colorblindness as Threats to the Self: A Framework for Understanding Dominant and Non-Dominant Group Members’ Responses to Interethnic Ideologies

Collective threat

Two widely studied potential threats of multiculturalism to dominant group members’ collective self-definitions, derived from Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan et al., 2009), are realistic threat and symbolic threat. Realistic threat involves perceptions of threat to the ingroup’s material resources, position in society, or general livelihood and well-being. For dominant group members, reminders of multiculturalism may trigger concerns that their group will incur or is already incurring disadvantages at the expense of outgroups, consistent with relative deprivation theory (see Kite & Whitley, 2016). These zero-sum beliefs (i.e., that more resources for outgroups indicate fewer resources for one’s own group) may be most evident, and racial/ethnic divides in public opinion most pronounced, for concrete policies related to multiculturalism, such as affirmative action programs perceived as specifying quotas based on group membership (Citrin et al., 2001; Haley & Sidanius, 2006). However, perceived threats to dominant group members’ resources can be evoked even when multiculturalism is simply described as an ideology that touts the celebration of diversity. For instance, pro-diversity organizational messages can activate concerns about dominant group members’ status within and hiring prospects at the organization. In two sets of studies, White Americans who read a company recruitment advertisement (Dover et al., 2016) or mission statement (Kaiser et al., 2021) emphasizing the importance of diversity, relative to a control advertisement, subsequently reported greater concerns that the company would discriminate against their racial/ethnic group in favor of minorities. A possible interpretation of these findings is that dominant group members saw the pro-diversity advertisements as jeopardizing their group’s chances of attaining desired resources (i.e., employment; Dover et al., 2016; Kaiser et al., 2021). As another example of the link between multiculturalism and threats to dominant group members’ tangible outcomes, multiculturalism can backfire in high-conflict, zero-sum situations. Specifically, White American students who read a purportedly real campus news article stating that racial/ethnic minority students would receive priority in enrolling for classes initially exhibited more rather than less prejudice after being reminded of multiculturalism, relative to colorblindness. The negative effects of multiculturalism did not persist over time; following a delay, prejudice decreased among those reminded of multiculturalism and increased among those reminded of colorblindness. Nevertheless, this finding suggests that perceptions of realistic threat to material resources may have been at least in part responsible for the short-term effects of multiculturalism on dominant group members’ prejudice (Correll et al., 2008).

Besides threats to material resources, dominant group members may also view multicultural ideologies as posing realistic threats to their group’s overall power or position in society. For example, White Americans tend to see increases in racial equality as losses for their group (Eibach & Keegan, 2006). Although multiculturalism is not the same as promoting equality between groups, a central tenet of multicultural ideology is to acknowledge the contributions of different groups, with a possible implication that no one group’s contributions are superior or inferior to others. Indeed, multiculturalism is considered a hierarchy-attenuating ideology, meaning that it is incompatible with the goal to maintain group-based inequalities (Levin et al., 2012). Dominant group members could thus construe multiculturalism as consistent with racial equality more so than colorblindness, which some researchers have argued glosses over intergroup inequalities (Knowles et al., 2009). Given that, by definition, dominant group members hold an advantaged position in society, the notion that multiculturalism brings about increases in racial equality may engender concerns about other groups usurping the dominant group’s power and status. Similarly, in diverse contexts such as the United States, where racial/ethnic minorities and mixed-race individuals are predicted to outnumber non-Hispanic Whites by the mid-21st century, reminders of multiculturalism elicit perceptions of realistic threat among dominant group members. One potential explanation is that the imminent growth in diversity, especially when combined with explicit recognition of differences between groups, makes the rising power and influence of racial/ethnic minorities in politics, education, and other institutions seem more palpable (Osborn et al., 2020). ¹

Multiculturalism can elicit perceptions of symbolic threat in addition to realistic threat. Symbolic threat, broadly speaking, refers to threats to the ingroup’s cultural values, identity, norms, or way of life (Stephan et al., 2009). Even the mere perception of differences between the ingroup and outgroups can trigger feelings of symbolic threat (Stephan et al., 2015). However, the idea that diversity should be acknowledged and celebrated not only highlights group differences but also represents a possible change to the status quo in which dominant group members’ values have prevailed (Citrin et al., 2001). For some dominant group members, multiculturalism could signal a replacement of “mainstream” cultural values and traditions (e.g., the Protestant Work Ethic which is rooted in Western religious traditions, festivals and holidays focusing on European heritage) with those that represent racial/ethnic minorities or more recent immigrant groups (e.g., Black History Month, Cinco de Mayo, arguments in favor of changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day). Relatedly, multiculturalism could also trigger concerns that the dominant group’s cultural values will no longer be the same as they were in the past (i.e., a threat to identity continuity; Smeekes & Verkuyten, 2015). Indeed, according to cultural inertia theory, dominant group members can be resistant to multicultural ideologies because such ideologies place the onus on their group to accommodate change—that is, to recognize the contributions of other groups instead of assuming that their group’s values and identity are the “default” (Zárate et al., 2019; Zárate & Shaw, 2010). Although the potential replacement of dominant group values may be perceived as jeopardizing the dominant group’s overall position in society and hence as a realistic threat, symbolic threat pertains directly to group values, whereas realistic threat does not. Instead, realistic threat typically involves threats to aspects of the ingroup’s power, status, and resources that are unrelated to values (e.g., economic opportunities, physical safety) (Rios et al., 2018).

In one set of studies that directly tested the effects of multiculturalism on dominant group members’ perceptions of symbolic threat, White American participants were assigned to read a passage about either multiculturalism or colorblindness. Those in the multiculturalism condition perceived higher levels of symbolic threat to White Americans and were less willing to donate to organizations targeted at diversity (e.g., Black Student Union), especially to the extent that their racial/ethnic group was important to their self-definition (Morrison et al., 2010). Furthermore, White Americans tend to see “concrete” forms of multiculturalism that focus on how the ideology could be implemented (e.g., offering foreign languages in schools) as a greater symbolic threat to their national identity than “abstract” forms of multiculturalism that focus on why it is important to appreciate diversity (e.g., learning about cultural differences) (Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014; see also Mahfud et al., 2018). Thus, even if dominant group members support diversity in theory, they may find it more difficult to do so in practice when recognition of other (non-dominant) cultural identities is explicitly called for.

The symbolic threat posed by multiculturalism may involve opposition to specific values as well as to the possibility of cultural change. For example, Alexander (2013) theorized that the backlash against Islamic immigration to Europe stems largely from the perceived threat of Islam to European democracy. Similarly, other researchers have posited that multiculturalism may be perceived as at odds with Western liberal values, which some immigrant groups are thought to not espouse (e.g., a widespread stereotype of Muslims is that they hold antiquated attitudes toward women and gender equality; Ng & Bloemraad, 2015). Multiculturalism may also be considered a threat to classical liberal values, as multiculturalism focuses on collective concerns (e.g., recognition of cultural differences) that seemingly run counter to the individual justice principles (e.g., equal treatment regardless of group membership) endemic to classical liberalism (Gale & Staerklé, 2019). In other words, multiculturalism may feel threatening to dominant group members because acceptance of diversity entails acceptance of values or traditions that they might find unpalatable or incompatible with those of their group.

In addition to realistic and symbolic threat, the third type of collective threat that multiculturalism may trigger for dominant group members is prototypicality threat, or the notion that non-dominant groups will come to be seen as more representative of the superordinate category (e.g., nationality) than dominant groups (Danbold & Huo, 2015, 2022) Unlike symbolic threat, prototypicality threat need not relate specifically to values. Even surface-level characteristics such as skin color, which are irrelevant to group values, may be used to determine who is seen as “belonging” more versus less to the superordinate category (e.g., people tend to associate “American” more closely with “White” than with other groups; Devos & Banaji, 2005). Another distinction between symbolic threat and prototypicality threat is that dominant group members may experience symbolic threat without necessarily perceiving prototypicality threat. Considering the example of Islam posing a threat to Western values introduced above, Europeans may not feel that Muslims will become the prototypical religious group in the European Union (EU); rather, they may simply not want Islamic values promoted alongside “mainstream” European values.

To date, whether multiculturalism elicits the perceptions of prototypicality threat among dominant group members has not been directly tested. However, Danbold and Huo (2015) have demonstrated that White Americans who read about the growing racial/ethnic diversity in the U.S. report greater feelings of prototypicality threat relative to those who read about a diversity-irrelevant topic. Furthermore, being encouraged to think about diversity (vs. unity) is especially threatening to groups that consider themselves prototypical of the superordinate category (Steffens et al., 2017). In the context of multiculturalism, reminders of the importance of appreciating diversity could evoke concerns that other groups will eventually become more prototypical than the dominant group (see Danbold & Huo, 2022). Supporting this possibility, Hahn and colleagues argued that multiculturalism in Germany was met with backlash among native Germans in part because Germany’s increasing diversity was such a marked deviation from the group prototype (Hahn et al., 2010). Although not based on an empirical study, this argument suggests native Germans were concerned that a heightened emphasis on difference would fundamentally change “what it means to be German”—in other words, that multiculturalism triggered feelings of prototypicality threat.

Relational threat

The notion that salient multiculturalism can pose a threat to dominant group members’ relational self-concepts gained traction after the publication of two articles highlighting the link between multiculturalism and feelings of exclusion (Plaut et al., 2011; Stevens et al., 2008). Specifically, White Americans were faster to pair concepts relevant to multiculturalism (e.g., difference, diversity) with exclusion-related words (e.g., exclude, reject), as well as faster to pair concepts relevant to colorblindness (e.g., similarity, color blind) with inclusion-related words (e.g., include, belong), than they were to make the opposite pairings. Racial/ethnic minorities, by contrast, did not show a bias toward associating multiculturalism with exclusion (Plaut et al., 2011). Similar effects have emerged in organizational contexts. For example, in a study conducted at a Dutch company, perceptions that the company espoused colorblindness (but not multiculturalism) predicted greater feelings of inclusion among employees born in the Netherlands, whereas perceptions that the company espoused multiculturalism (but not colorblindness) predicted felt inclusion among employees born in non-Western countries. Thus, multiculturalism was associated with less positive outcomes for Dutch-born employees than was colorblindness, as well as with less positive outcomes for Dutch-born than foreign-born employees (Jansen et al., 2016). In addition, in one of the studies on White Americans’ heightened perceptions of discrimination from pro-diversity organizational messages (Dover et al., 2016, Study 3), the measure of perceived discrimination actually contained an item about the extent to which participants would feel unwelcome in such an organization, suggesting that participants may have anticipated exclusion (Dover et al., 2016; see also Dover et al., 2020). These weaker associations between multiculturalism and inclusion for dominant group members presumably emerge because, at least in Western societies, both dominant and non-dominant group members consider diversity less applicable to Whites than to racial/ethnic minorities (see Unzueta & Binning, 2010). As a result, dominant group members who are reminded of multiculturalism and diversity may find themselves wondering whether and how they fit into such discussions. In other words, they may feel as though their sense of interpersonal belonging is threatened (Plaut et al., 2011; Stevens et al., 2008).

Of note, a recent set of studies suggested that the effects of multicultural messages on White Americans’ threatened feelings of inclusion may depend on how multiculturalism is described. In these studies, multiculturalism broadly defined (i.e., as valuing group differences) did not lead Whites to feel excluded from organizations. In fact, organizational messages only engendered felt exclusion among dominant group members when multiculturalism was explicitly defined as including racial/ethnic minorities but not Whites (Ballinger & Crocker, 2021). Critically, the studies did not contain a condition in which racial/ethnic minorities were mentioned without referencing Whites at all (e.g., “this company values the contributions of diverse groups of people, such as racial/ethnic minorities”). Stating that racial/ethnic minorities’ contributions were valued and not mentioning Whites’ contributions may have been more ecologically valid than directly stating, as in Ballinger and Crocker (2021), that Whites’ contributions were not valued. However, the former description of multiculturalism still may have dampened dominant group members’ sense of inclusion by rendering them “invisible.” Indeed, dominant group members reported weaker feelings of belonging to the organization the less they believed the organization valued their group (Whites) and included their group in its definition of diversity. In other words, not being part of the way that an organization construes “multiculturalism” may pose a relational threat for dominant group members (Ballinger & Crocker, 2021).

Extant research has not yet fully elucidated the sources of dominant group members’ feelings of social exclusion from multiculturalism, beyond direct organizational statements. However, there are a few possibilities worthy of future investigation. First, dominant group members may simply feel out of place in contexts that emphasize multiculturalism. Because diversity is often viewed as less relevant to dominant than non-dominant group members (Unzueta & Binning, 2010), the former may find it harder to relate to others’ multicultural experiences (e.g., participating in traditions tied to one’s heritage). Thus, dominant group members may believe that they cannot contribute effectively to diversity-related initiatives and discussions.

Second, dominant group members may feel they are able to contribute to diversity and that multiculturalism is personally relevant to them, yet they may be concerned that others will discount their perspectives and experiences. Supporting this idea, people without a vested interest in an issue are often reluctant to engage in relevant social action not because they hold a weak position on the issue, but rather because they worry their participation will be viewed with confusion or suspicion (e.g., men not wanting to openly advocate for funding of research on a disease that primarily affects women, and vice versa; Ratner & Miller, 2001). Similarly, dominant group members may associate multiculturalism with exclusion due to beliefs that others will judge them negatively for their involvement in diversity. For example, dominant group members may worry about being perceived as having ulterior motives (e.g., being performative, or interested in gaining social capital rather than the cause itself), or as being unable to truly understand the lived experiences of non-dominant groups. These possible concerns have some basis in reality: non-dominant group members (e.g., Black people) tend to be suspicious of dominant group members’ attempts at allyship (Burns & Granz, 2022), and White academics who research racial/ethnic prejudice are viewed as less knowledgeable, trustworthy, and legitimate than their Black counterparts (Thai et al., 2021). However, whether and to what extent dominant group members harbor such concerns, and feel excluded from multiculturalism as a result, is an open question.

In addition to triggering feelings of exclusion, multiculturalism may sometimes pose a threat to dominant group members’ relational self-concepts by hampering the quality of dyadic interactions with non-dominant group members. For example, during potentially contentious discussions that involve disagreement on important social issues or rejection from the interaction partner, salient multiculturalism can lead dominant group members to exhibit greater hostility toward outgroup interaction partners (Sasaki & Vorauer, 2013; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2011). The reason is that multiculturalism, due to its focus on intergroup differences, prompts people to really consider why their interaction partner disagrees with them and to make sense of the partner’s attitudes and behaviors (Sasaki & Vorauer, 2013; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2011). Though this focus on the interaction partner can be beneficial in non-threatening circumstances (e.g., getting to know the other person without discussing areas of disagreement; Vorauer et al., 2009), it can exacerbate relational threats in situations conducive to conflict (Sasaki & Vorauer, 2013; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2011). When multiculturalism backfires in this way, dominant group members may come to perceive emphasizing differences as detrimental to their relationships with racial/ethnic minorities.

Yet another form of relational threat that dominant group members may experience from multiculturalism involves concerns about how they are perceived by outgroup members. For many dominant group members, the fear of seeming racist in intergroup interactions looms large, especially when discussing topics relevant to racial/ethnic differences. One representative study demonstrated that, during a two-person game that involved guessing a target person’s identity, White Americans were reluctant to mention the target person’s race when paired with a Black partner, even though doing so would have improved game performance (Norton et al., 2006). In other words, the prospect of acknowledging differences between racial/ethnic groups presumably led dominant group members to attempt to appear non-prejudiced, and hence to adopt a suboptimal strategy of “not seeing race” (i.e., color evasion; Neville et al., 2013), in intergroup interactions. Similarly, White Americans who are assigned to discuss race-related issues (e.g., racial profiling) with Black partners report concerns that their partners will think they are racist, and as a result physically distance themselves from their partners, more so than those assigned to discuss issues unrelated to race (e.g., love and relationships) (Goff et al., 2008). Although these studies did not directly manipulate multiculturalism, they underscore the notion that simply mentioning racial/ethnic differences (a central tenet of multicultural ideology) can activate feelings of relational threat among dominant group members. As noted above, however, this may be especially the case in interactions that are or have the potential to become contentious—for instance, when the discussion topic is controversial (see Sasaki & Vorauer, 2013; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2011).

Personal threat

Multiculturalism can be perceived as a threat to dominant group members’ personal self-definitions in at least three ways. First, as explained earlier, pro-diversity organizational messages—which often make multiculturalism salient by highlighting differences between groups—can lead White Americans to believe that their group may be discriminated against (a collective threat) or that they would not feel welcome or valued in the organization (a relational threat) (Dover et al., 2016, 2020). However, this research also shows that pro-diversity messages can elevate dominant group members’ perceptions of personal unfairness—for instance, that their own chances of securing employment at the organization are compromised (Dover et al., 2016). Furthermore, pro-diversity messages can lead to cardiovascular responses consistent with threat among White men (Dover et al., 2016). These findings, taken together, indicate multicultural ideologies can increase dominant group members’ concerns that they themselves (in addition to their racial/ethnic group as a whole) may be treated unfairly (but see Ballinger & Crocker, 2021). Moving forward, it would be informative to examine what, exactly, the perceptions of unfairness entail. If they involve concerns about one’s personal outcomes (e.g., being hired, receiving a promotion or raise), this would be an example of individual-level realistic threat (see Stephan et al., 2009). By contrast, if they involve concerns about the process by which decisions are made (e.g., taking one’s race/ethnicity into account in hiring), this could indicate perceptions of symbolic threat to one’s individual values. In other words, dominant group members may feel that the organization’s decision-making procedures conflict with what they personally believe is fair.

Second, in part because people from all racial/ethnic backgrounds generally view diversity as less relevant to dominant than non-dominant group members (Unzueta & Binning, 2010), dominant group members may consider multiculturalism a threat to their sense of personal uniqueness. In particular, dominant group members may feel that they lack a distinctive cultural heritage, especially when differences between groups are emphasized and this celebration of differences is often interpreted to mean differences between racial/ethnic minority groups (Plaut et al., 2011). Even though many dominant group members self-identify as members of specific ethnic groups (e.g., Irish American, Italian American), by far the most common label used to describe one’s racial/ethnic background is “White” (Martin et al., 1996). Yet being induced to self-identify as “White” (e.g., on a demographic survey with no other relevant options), versus a label with more cultural connotations, such as “European American,” can reduce dominant group members’ support for multicultural ideologies (Morrison & Chung, 2011). Given that the label “White” tends to connote the absence of a meaningful background (Martin et al., 1996), these findings suggest that dominant group members may resist multiculturalism on the grounds that it makes them feel even less unique, relative to other individuals. That is, identifying as “White” may render it more difficult for dominant group members (who are not labeled in terms of their specific ethnic backgrounds) to differentiate themselves from one another when the pressure to recognize differences between non-dominant groups is salient. Indeed, the effects of the “White” label on reduced support for multiculturalism are strongest among dominant group members who have a high motivation for personal uniqueness, and hence who should be most concerned about the potential threat multiculturalism poses to their distinctiveness (Rios & Mackey, 2022).

Third, just as salient multiculturalism can trigger the relational threat of appearing racist in interactions with non-dominant group members, it may also trigger internal concerns about being racist. Although the first set of studies to experimentally manipulate multiculturalism and colorblindness found that multiculturalism reduced racial/ethnic prejudice, it also demonstrated that multiculturalism increased attributions of stereotype-consistent traits to Black targets (Wolsko et al., 2000). More recently, salient multiculturalism has been shown to elicit more positive evaluations of outgroup members with stereotype-consistent characteristics (e.g., a Black man who enjoys hip-hop music and basketball, as opposed to country music and golf; Gutiérrez & Unzueta, 2010). Furthermore, salient multiculturalism heightens beliefs in racial essentialism—in other words, the notion that differences between racial/ethnic groups are innate, unchangeable, and meaningful (Wilton et al., 2019). ² It may be that dominant group members are largely not cognizant of their tendencies to use stereotypes in their evaluations and perceptions of outgroups when reminded of multiculturalism. However, in the event that they are aware of these tendencies, their awareness may engender fears that they themselves are (or may become) racist, a possibility that awaits empirical investigation.

The three forms of personal threat from multiculturalism reviewed here—concerns about fairness, concerns about uniqueness, and concerns about being racist—each involve threats that loom large in many Western societies. Fairness and justice are among the core moral foundations, or dimensions on which judgments of right and wrong are made, in North America and Western Europe (Graham et al., 2013). In addition, the value of being a unique individual is seen in Western advertisements, writings, and personal choices (Kim & Markus, 1999). Finally, dominant group members react defensively to feedback that they may be racially biased, even when the feedback is not made public (Howell et al., 2017). Thus, to the extent that multiculturalism triggers perceptions of threat in any of these three domains, the integrity of dominant group members’ personal self-definitions may be compromised.

Collective threat

Just as salient multiculturalism can be perceived as a threat to dominant group members’ collective selves, some research suggests—albeit indirectly—that salient colorblindness may be viewed as posing a threat to non-dominant group members at the collective level. For instance, when reminded of colorblindness, non-dominant group members may be concerned that their group will have even less power and access to material resources than do dominant group members (see Stephan et al., 2002). In other words, they may see colorblindness as a potential realistic threat. Indeed, despite that the intentions behind colorblindness are often egalitarian and harmony-enhancing (i.e., treating all people as individuals rather than group members, highlighting commonalities between groups), colorblindness can sometimes be used to legitimize existing inequalities in practice. In particular, by claiming that a focus on similarities rather than differences is better for intergroup relations, proponents of colorblindness may overlook the status quo in which some groups remain on the top and others remain on the bottom (Dovidio et al., 2016; Knowles et al., 2009). For non-dominant group members, this could mean that colorblindness affords them little opportunity to improve their group’s position in society, and perhaps even that group-based inequalities—due to their not being addressed—will be exacerbated.

In potential support of the notion that colorblindness may be perceived as a realistic threat to non-dominant group members, Black participants in one study reported feeling less powerful after reading a passage about colorblindness (which primarily focused on the importance of recognizing sameness across groups) than multiculturalism. In addition, although Black participants felt more powerful than White participants in the multiculturalism condition, this difference was eliminated in the colorblindness condition (Vorauer & Quesnel, 2017). Participants responded to the questions about power knowing that they would later interact with someone from a different racial/ethnic background (i.e., a White individual for Black participants). Thus, although the questions pertained to participants’ own feelings of power rather than directly to how much power they felt their group had, group differences in power may also have been salient while participants were answering these questions.

As noted earlier, realistic threat can also involve concerns that one’s group will be discriminated against, and some evidence suggests such concerns can loom large for non-dominant group members in the context of colorblindness. For instance, whereas White Americans tend to anticipate that their group will experience more discrimination at a pro-diversity organization than at a “neutral” organization (i.e., with no references to diversity; Dover et al., 2016), racial/ethnic minorities anticipate more discrimination against their group at a “neutral” relative to pro-diversity organization (Dover et al., 2016). Granted, an organization that does not mention diversity in its promotional materials is not necessarily colorblind. However, a lack of reference to diversity could be interpreted as minimizing racial/ethnic differences, especially among non-dominant group members who often look to such references as cues about whether they would be treated fairly within the organization.

In addition to realistic threat, non-dominant group members may consider colorblindness a symbolic threat to their group’s values, identity, or way of life. However, no studies to date have directly tested the effects of salient colorblindness on non-dominant group members’ perceptions of symbolic threat. The emphasis on similarities inherent in colorblindness could be seen as minimizing not just differences in power and status, but differences in cultural values as well. Although colorblindness is not equivalent to assimilation (i.e., the latter involves explicit pressure on non-dominant group members to adapt to dominant culture; Hahn et al., 2015), colorblindness may still elicit fears that the dominant group’s values will supersede those of non-dominant groups. In other words, non-dominant group members may not perceive highlighting similarities between groups per se as a symbolic threat; rather, they may be concerned that in practice, colorblindness will involve a particular type of “sameness” that contains tacit expectations of assimilation (see Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). For instance, if group differences are deemed so superficial that an organization decides to eliminate references to diversity on its website, or a school eschews celebrations of holidays and events relevant to non-dominant group members (e.g., Black History Month), this could be construed as erasure of non-dominant cultures in favor of the dominant culture.

Even if non-dominant group members do not believe salient colorblindness would result in their cultural identity being outright dismissed, they might perceive colorblindness as a threat to the distinctiveness of their identity (see Branscombe et al., 1999). That is, highlighting similarities between groups may engender concerns that it will become difficult or impossible to differentiate non-dominant groups’ values from those of other groups. ³ For example, suppose that a school in the United States includes both Halloween (a traditional American holiday) and Dia De Los Muertos (a traditional Mexican holiday celebrated by many Americans, including but not limited to those of Mexican descent) on its calendar. However, a philosophy that “we are all the same” may lead to the two holidays being grouped together, and their commonalities (e.g., they each involve spirits and costumes) being overstated, in discussions. Such a construal could be interpreted as losing sight of the unique customs and history that underlie Dia De Los Muertos, relative to other holidays. Although in theory, this could also be true for Halloween, prior research demonstrates that distinctiveness threats are more pronounced among non-dominant group members (who are less able to derive value from their group’s status) than among dominant group members (Turner et al., 1987; see also Mosley & Biernat, 2021). Thus, non-dominant group members should be especially likely to perceive colorblindness as a potential distinctiveness threat.

Unlike realistic and symbolic threats, which are applicable to non-dominant as well as dominant group members, prototypicality threat is less relevant to members of non-dominant than dominant groups. As described earlier, prototypicality threat involves the perception that one’s group will cease to be the standard against which other groups are evaluated (Danbold & Huo, 2015). Dominant group members are, by default, usually considered to embody this prototype and hence should be most vulnerable to prototypicality threat, as non-dominant group members should not feel threatened at the prospect of losing something (i.e., being prototypical) that they did not have in the first place (Danbold & Huo, 2022). However, one exception involves contexts in which non-dominant group members constitute the majority; for example, the prototypical student at historically Black universities is African American, rather than White American. In such rare contexts, multiculturalism may constitute a greater prototypicality threat (and perhaps also a greater realistic and symbolic threat) to non-dominant group members than does colorblindness, as a focus on differences might mean that non-dominant group members will no longer be considered representative of said contexts. Tentatively supporting this possibility, one study demonstrated that both African American students at a historically Black university and White American students at a predominantly White university preferred for their institution to emphasize similarities (rather than differences) across the student body (Hehman et al., 2012). ⁴ The potential implications of sociocultural context for non-dominant group members’ reactions to colorblindness and multiculturalism will be further discussed at the end of this article.

Relational threat

There are two general forms of relational threat that non-dominant group members may perceive from colorblind ideologies. First, salient colorblindness may hamper non-dominant group members’ feelings of belonging in social institutions and organizations. For instance, ethnic minority employees in the Netherlands feel less included in organizations that they perceive as espousing colorblindness (i.e., with a greater emphasis on personal qualifications than cultural background) than in organizations that they perceive as espousing multiculturalism (Jansen et al., 2016). Similarly, in a correlational study of student workgroups, ethnic minority participants distanced themselves more from the group when their group leaders endorsed colorblindness by highlighting similarities among members, whereas they felt more included in the group when their group leaders endorsed multiculturalism by highlighting differences among members (Meeussen et al., 2014). Such feelings of relational threat among non-dominant group members can persist in the long term: A study conducted with middle school students in Belgium found that the more the school’s mission statement incorporated colorblind values (operationalized as both downplaying cultural differences and emphasizing individual talents/characteristics), the lower ethnic minority students’ feelings of belonging were relative to ethnic majority students. This gap in feelings of belonging between minority and majority students was much smaller to the extent that the school’s mission statement incorporated multicultural values (Celeste et al., 2019).

Some studies suggest that salient colorblindness can affect anticipated as well as actual feelings of belonging among non-dominant group members, although these studies point to important boundary conditions of such effects. For instance, African American participants reported less trust and comfort within an organization that promoted colorblindness (relative to multiculturalism) in its recruitment materials, but only when the organization also had a low proportion of racial/ethnic minority employees. That is, the emphasis on sameness in the recruitment materials, coupled with low minority representation, suggested that participants would not feel welcome in the organization (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). In addition, colorblind (compared with multicultural) organizational messages reduce highly identified Asian Americans’ trust and comfort within the organization, whereas colorblind organizational messages increase weakly identified Asian Americans’ trust and comfort within the organization (Kirby et al., 2020). For non-dominant group members whose race/ethnicity is central to their sense of self, the minimization of group differences in an organization may render it more difficult for them to fit in. By contrast, non-dominant group members who see their race/ethnicity as relatively unimportant may prefer for group differences to be downplayed. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that both group representation and racial/ethnic identification can play critical roles in the extent to which salient colorblindness threatens non-dominant group members’ anticipated belonging.

The second form of relational threat that salient colorblindness may pose to non-dominant group members is a diminished quality of social interactions with dominant group members. If group differences are minimized in favor of similarities or are not discussed at all, non-dominant group members may find it difficult to develop meaningful interpersonal connections, due to a central part of their identity being stifled. Indeed, non-dominant group members usually see their race/ethnicity as more fundamental to their self-definition than do dominant group members (McGuire et al., 1978). Supporting the notion that salient colorblind ideologies may hamper the quality of non-dominant group members’ interactions, racial/ethnic minorities in one study exhibited poorer performance on cognitive tasks following an interracial interaction in which their partner had been exposed to a colorblindness passage. In other words, interacting with White individuals who hold beliefs that racial/ethnic differences are less important than similarities can be stressful for non-dominant group members, for whom such differences are much more salient in everyday life (Holoien & Shelton, 2012). Critically, there were no effects of salient colorblindness on White participants’ cognitive task performance, suggesting that White participants perceived colorblindness as less threatening than did their racial/ethnic minority interaction partners. Furthermore, the relationship between White participants’ exposure to colorblindness and racial/ethnic minority participants’ task performance was mediated by third-party ratings of the White participants’ prejudice, which included an item about whether the White participants “devalued the importance of racial issues” (Holoien & Shelton, 2012). Devaluing the importance of racial issues more closely resembles the color evasion form of colorblindness (which tends to predict greater racial/ethnic prejudice) than the aspects of colorblindness designed to promote equality and reduce prejudice (i.e., emphasizing similarities and individual characteristics; see Whitley et al., 2021). Nevertheless, this mediation suggests that non-dominant group members, despite not being directly primed with colorblindness, may have picked up on and felt threatened by their partners’ minimization of group differences during the interaction.

Another example of how downplaying group differences can jeopardize non-dominant group members’ social relationships with dominant group members comes from research on national origin neglect. This research has shown that Americans of Asian and Latino descent experience more negative emotions when their White interaction partners misperceive or neglect to recognize their national origin identity (e.g., ask them about celebrating Cinco de Mayo, a Mexican holiday, when they are from El Salvador; Flores & Huo, 2013). Even though conflating different nationalities is not perfectly analogous to colorblindness, the nature of the threat—feeling as if dominant group members have dismissed one’s heritage in interpersonal interactions—is the same. On the surface, national origin neglect resembles the above-discussed distinctiveness threat, whereby non-dominant group members are concerned that their group’s identity will be seen as interchangeable with other group identities (Branscombe et al., 1999). However, in the case of national origin neglect, the threat is relational at core (i.e., feeling misunderstood by another person) rather than collective (i.e., wanting to preserve the group’s unique values and traditions).

What specific aspects of colorblind ideologies might be construed as threatening to non-dominant group members’ relational self-concepts? The colorblind measures and manipulations discussed in this section involved emphasizing similarities between groups, focusing on individual characteristics (versus group memberships), or a combination (see Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Although emphasizing similarities and focusing on individual characteristics are intended to be inclusive and improve intergroup harmony (Whitley et al., 2021), making these components of colorblindness salient may have the opposite effects among non-dominant group members in practice. For instance, an emphasis on similarities does not necessarily involve overt pressure to adapt to the dominant group, as would be the case with assimilationist ideologies (Hahn et al., 2015). Instead, it entails recognition of similarities over differences (e.g., “first and foremost, we are all human beings”). For members of non-dominant groups, however, a focus on similarities may somewhat ironically engender feelings of exclusion, especially if the source of similarity is an overarching, superordinate category (e.g., “American”) in which the dominant group (i.e., “White”) is considered prototypical (Devos & Banaji, 2005; Dovidio et al., 2016). Here, it is not the idea of a superordinate category itself that is threatening, but rather what a superordinate category might look like in the context of colorblindness—for instance, pressuring non-dominant group members to adopt an identity that historically has excluded them, and perhaps to minimize the importance of their cultural heritage. In other words, to non-dominant group members, the emphasis on similarities inherent in colorblindness may have assimilationist implications (see Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Supporting this possibility, some work has found that non-dominant group members perceive espousing a common group identity as requiring them to adopt the dominant group’s culture (Crisp et al., 2006).

Like emphasizing similarities, focusing on individual characteristics per se may not constitute a relational threat for non-dominant group members. However, this aspect of colorblindness may be perceived as threatening if there is a tacit assumption that the “individual characteristics” should not relate to race/ethnicity. As noted above, non-dominant group members generally consider their race/ethnicity more fundamental to their self-concept than do dominant group members (McGuire et al., 1978). Thus, non-dominant group members may be hard pressed to think of individual characteristics that are irrelevant to their group membership, which in turn may lead to reduced feelings of belonging in social institutions and greater difficulty in interpersonal interactions. For example, a non-dominant group member who identifies as Mexican American could describe themselves as “empathetic” due to their lived experiences with being a target of discrimination and mention “cooking Mexican food” as a hobby. Technically, one’s traits and hobbies are individual characteristics, but in this person’s case, it is difficult if not impossible to disentangle such characteristics from being Mexican American. As a result, they may feel as though potential employers or interaction partners will not value and acknowledge their characteristics as much as those of dominant group members.

Personal threat

Non-dominant group members may see salient colorblindness as threatening not only at the collective and relational levels but also at the personal level. For example, downplaying aspects of one’s self-concept (e.g., when racial/ethnic differences and any related attributes are minimized in a given context) could leave non-dominant group members feeling unable to express certain important elements of their personal identity. Knowledge and expression of the “true self”—that is, those aspects of the self-concept which define who one really is, deep down—are considered critical across cultures (Strohminger et al., 2017). Thus, when people feel inauthentic or disconnected from core aspects of their self-concepts, a sense of personal threat may ensue.

Consistent with this idea is research on the relationship between colorblindness and reduced feelings of authenticity among non-dominant group members. In one set of experiments, highly identified African American participants (i.e., whose ethnicity was central to their self-definition) reported that they were less able to be their “true selves” at a company that emphasized colorblindness (i.e., sameness) than at a company that emphasized multiculturalism (Kirby & Kaiser, 2021). Critically, weakly identified African American participants (i.e., whose ethnicity was less central to their self-definition) reported heightened feelings of authenticity at the colorblind relative to multicultural company. However, because non-dominant group members tend to identify strongly with their ethnicity overall (McGuire et al., 1978), the results of this study suggest that colorblindness may diminish felt authenticity for a significant proportion of non-dominant group members.

Non-dominant group members may also experience lower psychological engagement (i.e., ability and motivation to function at one’s personal best; Kahn, 1990) in response to salient colorblindness. In one relevant study, racial/ethnic minority employees felt less psychologically engaged in the workplace—that is, as though their job was less meaningful and important to them—the more their White American coworkers endorsed colorblindness. By contrast, they felt more psychologically engaged in the workplace to the extent that their White American coworkers endorsed multiculturalism (Plaut et al., 2009). As is the case with much research on interethnic ideologies, some of the “colorblindness” items in this study (e.g., “The organization should encourage racial and ethnic minorities to adapt to mainstream ways”) were closer to assimilation than colorblindness (see Whitley & Webster, 2019). Others, however, did directly assess colorblindness (e.g., “Employees should downplay their racial and ethnic differences”). Furthermore, the Purdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) studies on the negative effects of colorblindness and low racial/ethnic minority representation also contained outcome measures relevant to psychological engagement, such as “I think I would be willing to put in extra effort if my supervisor asked me to.” Thus, at least under some circumstances, colorblindness can indeed compromise non-dominant group members’ psychological engagement.

In addition to diminishing feelings of authenticity and psychological engagement, salient colorblindness may lower non-dominant group members’ self-esteem. As Fryberg and Stephens (2010) noted, one possible consequence of colorblindness for non-dominant group members—particularly those who are also numerical minorities in society—is feelings of invisibility. For example, the notion that racial, ethnic, and cultural differences are less important than similarities may lead to low representation of non-dominant groups in the media and popular culture, to the extent that the dominant group is considered “mainstream.” Such underrepresentation may trigger perceptions among non-dominant group members that their identity has been erased or does not matter in society, which could in turn negatively affect self-evaluations (Fryberg & Stephens, 2010). In potential support of this theorizing, Verkuyten (2009) demonstrated that exposure to a colorblindness passage that touted the importance of individual characteristics (relative to a multiculturalism passage) predicts lower self-esteem among non-dominant group members who identify strongly with their ethnicity. Although Verkuyten (2009) did not show a direct link between salient colorblindness and non-dominant group members’ self-esteem, these findings are suggestive of a link when ethnic identification is high, which is the case for many non-dominant group members (McGuire et al., 1978). Moreover, these findings underscore the possibility that for people whose self-concepts are rooted in their group membership (i.e., highly identified racial/ethnic minorities), a focus on “individual characteristics” may be perceived as threatening. Perhaps, as noted earlier, this is because such a focus tacitly implies that one’s “individual characteristics” can and should be separable from one’s group identity.

Individual differences

Contextual variables

Alternative conceptions of multiculturalism

Polyculturalism

A relatively new addition to the literature on interethnic ideologies is polyculturalism, which emphasizes the importance of recognizing both group differences and the ways in which groups have influenced and interacted with one another over time (Rosenthal & Levy, 2010). Examples of polyculturalism include fusion cuisine and forms of art that integrate elements from two or more cultures (e.g., reggaeton music, Zumba dance). Experimental work has demonstrated that salient polyculturalism, more so than salient multiculturalism or colorblindness, buffers the effects of growing racial/ethnic diversity on dominant group members’ perceptions of realistic intergroup threats (Osborn et al., 2020). Presumably, this is because dominant group members reminded of mutual cultural influences are less likely to see increases in diversity as jeopardizing their group’s position, and more likely to perceive their group as still being an impactful part of society. Polyculturalism also reduces dominant group members’ concerns about retaining the purity of their own and other cultures and hence increases their willingness to engage in culturally mixed experiences (Cho et al., 2017), suggesting that polyculturalism may mitigate the perceptions of symbolic intergroup threat as well. No research has examined the effects of polyculturalism on dominant group members’ perceptions of relational or personal threat. However, it is likely that polyculturalism’s emphasis on mutual group influence and interaction would boost feelings of inclusion among dominant group members by making them feel as though they have something valuable to contribute to diversity-related discussions.

Non-dominant group members’ reactions to polycultural ideologies have been examined in only one study to date. This study demonstrated that racial/ethnic minorities in the United States endorsed polyculturalism more than assimilation, but marginally less than multiculturalism; endorsement of colorblindness was not assessed (Gale et al., 2021). On one hand, the focus on both differences and reciprocal influence between groups could be less threatening and more palatable to non-dominant group members than colorblindness, which minimizes differences altogether. On the other hand, because dominant group members hold disproportionate power in society, non-dominant group members may sometimes feel as though “mutual influence” is not mutual at all. Blending two or more cultures together, when one culture holds more power than the other, also carries with it the risk of cultural appropriation, defined as misuse of a culture’s products by the dominant group (Mosley & Biernat, 2021). It is, therefore, important in implementing polyculturalism to ensure that the cultures under question wield equal amounts of influence throughout discussions of differences, and that non-dominant groups feel as though their culture is well understood rather than simply borrowed or exoticized.

Interculturalism

Another newly introduced interethnic ideology, interculturalism, combines the elements of multiculturalism, colorblindness, and polyculturalism. There are three components of interculturalism: a sense of unity (i.e., emphasis on belonging together rather than keeping group identities separate), identity flexibility (i.e., emphasis on group identities as malleable rather than fixed), and intergroup dialogue (i.e., emphasis on mutual understanding and cooperation) (Verkuyten & Yogeeswaran, 2020). Sense of unity parallels a dual-identity conception of multiculturalism insofar as it involves recognizing similarities as well as differences between groups (Dovidio et al., 2007); whereas identity flexibility and intergroup dialogue resonate with polyculturalism’s focus on cultural mixing and mutual influence (though intergroup dialogue involves prescriptions as to how groups ought to interact, whereas polyculturalism involves descriptions of how groups have historically interacted; Gale et al., 2021). In a recent set of studies, salient interculturalism improved dominant group members’ intergroup attitudes and behaviors relative to a control condition, and the effects of interculturalism were overall no different from those of salient multiculturalism (Yogeeswaran et al., 2021). Thus, it is unclear whether dominant group members consider salient interculturalism (and each of its three components) less threatening than salient multiculturalism, as perceptions of threat were not examined in these studies. The effects of salient interculturalism on non-dominant group members have not yet been investigated. However, given that racial/ethnic minorities in the United States tend to support some forms of interculturalism (e.g., intergroup dialogue) more than others (e.g., identity flexibility) (Gale et al., 2021), non-dominant group members’ reactions to salient interculturalism likely depend on both the context and the way interculturalism is described.

Alternative conceptions of colorblindness

As noted earlier, the present article reviews the effects of two forms of colorblindness aimed at promoting intergroup harmony, at least in principle: a focus on intergroup similarities and a focus on individual characteristics regardless of group membership (Rosenthal & Levy, 2010; see also Whitley & Webster, 2019). However, colorblindness can also involve color evasion (i.e., denial of racial/ethnic differences) and power evasion (i.e., denial of dominant group privilege; Neville et al., 2013). Color evasion overlaps with focusing on similarities in that both seek to minimize the importance of differences between groups. Critically, however, color evasion involves actively suppressing acknowledgment or discussion of these differences (e.g., “I don’t see color”; Neville et al., 2013), rather than simply shifting the focus from differences to similarities. Furthermore, color evasion and power evasion tend to correlate positively with scores on subtle measures of prejudice (Neville et al., 2000), whereas focusing on similarities or individual differences tends to correlate negatively with racial/ethnic prejudice (Kite & Whitley, 2016). As a result, color evasion and power evasion are likely perceived as even more threatening to non-dominant group members than focusing on similarities or individual differences. It may, therefore, be more effective and informative to investigate how to mitigate non-dominant group members’ feelings of threat in response to the aspects of colorblindness explicitly designed to enhance intergroup harmony, as opposed to examining how color evasion and power evasion (which have been shown to predict more negative intergroup outcomes; Neville et al., 2000) affect non-dominant group members. That said, much research on colorblindness conflates different aspects of the ideology—for example, focusing on similarities versus focusing on individual characteristics—and the need to disentangle these aspects will be discussed in the following section.

Disentangling different aspects of multiculturalism and colorblindness

Testing specific types of threat at each level

Cultural and temporal context

As noted earlier, most research on salient multiculturalism and colorblindness has been conducted in Western societies (but see Ng Tseung-Wong et al., 2018). In such societies, colorblindness is often viewed as the “default” ideology that represents the current state of interethnic relations (Kirby et al., 2020), whereas multiculturalism is viewed as a newer ideology that demands the most change from dominant group members (Zárate et al., 2012, 2019). The idea that multiculturalism poses a threat to dominant group members, whereas colorblindness poses a threat to non-dominant group members, can thus have one of two meanings. First, dominant group members may generally find emphasizing differences to be threatening, and non-dominant group members may generally find emphasizing similarities to be threatening. Second, an emphasis on differences or similarities may not be threatening per se; rather, whichever ideology puts the greater onus on the ingroup to change may be seen as the greater threat. These two possibilities are often difficult to tease apart. However, the study on multiculturalism and colorblindness in Mauritius, in which dominant group members (Hindus) reacted more positively to salient multiculturalism than salient colorblindness, provides tentative evidence for the latter possibility. Presumably, multiculturalism allowed Hindus in Mauritius to maintain their unique heritage to a greater extent than did colorblindness, which may have entailed suppressing an identity they were accustomed to openly espousing (Ng Tseung-Wong et al., 2018). As Western societies become more diverse, it will be illuminating to see whether colorblindness remains the “default” ideology, and if not, what this means for dominant and non-dominant group members’ feelings of threat. Yet even if multiculturalism becomes less threatening to dominant group members over time (e.g., if it is seen as more in line with the status quo), the MCaTS model can still be used to understand the sources of threat from other interethnic ideologies, as suggested in the above section on alternatives to multiculturalism and colorblindness.