Dual Identity Model

Background: from common ingroup to dual identity

The common ingroup identity model of Gaertner and colleagues (1993) held that recategorizing "us" and "them" into a single superordinate "we" reduces bias. Hornsey and Hogg (2000), however, pointed out that asking people for whom a subgroup identity is important to abandon it and assimilate into the superordinate group can threaten that identity and even increase bias. Dual identity, the representation of "different groups on the same team" that preserves both subgroup and superordinate identities, was therefore proposed as an alternative. The integration strategy in Berry's (1997) acculturation model, which maintains both the heritage and the mainstream culture, reflects the same idea.

Evidence

González and Brown (2006) showed experimentally that when two groups worked together, positive attitude change generalized better from the contact partner to the outgroup as a whole under a dual identity condition that made both subgroup and superordinate group salient. This is because the contact partner is seen as representative of their group yet also as being on the same side. Simon and Klandermans (2001) argued that when immigrants or minorities hold both a subgroup identity and a civic identity in the wider society, a politicized identity forms through which they claim political rights within that society.

Majority–minority differences and limits

Dovidio, Gaertner and Saguy (2007) concluded that majority groups tend to prefer a single common identity while minority groups prefer a dual identity. For majorities, dual identity can feel divisive; for minorities, a single identity can feel like a demand to assimilate. Dovidio and colleagues (2009) also noted a paradox: overemphasizing commonality can make minorities less aware of inequality and less likely to engage in collective action. Ingroup projection, judging the superordinate group's standards by one's own group, is also discussed as a limit of dual identity.

FAQ

What is the dual identity model in simple terms?

The idea that holding two identities at once, such as "I come from X and I am also a member of this society," helps relations between groups.

Is it always better than a single common identity?

Minority groups tend to prefer dual identity and majority groups a common identity, so the effects depend on the situation.

Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26

References

1. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 1–26. The common ingroup identity model that grounds dual identity.
2. Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology, 46(1), 5–34. Acculturation strategies, including integration.
3. Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 143–156. Why erasing subgroup identity backfires.
4. Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. Dual identity as a basis for politicized identity.
5. González, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Dual identities in intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(6), 753–767. Dual identity aids generalization of contact effects.
6. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2007). Another view of "we": Majority and minority group perspectives on a common ingroup identity. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 296–330. Majority and minority groups prefer different identities.
7. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of "we": Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(1), 3–20. Commonality can mute awareness of inequality.