Multiple Identities Model of Collective Inaction: How Belonging to Psychologically Incompatible Groups Reinforces the Status Quo

Previous models of social identification and collective (in)action circumscribe their accounts to individuals' belonging to a single social group. However, an individual may belong to a multiplicity of contextually valued and devalued social groups, some of which are characterized by conflict in terms of stereotypical content and/or incongruence (e.g., being gay and being a man, being a woman and being a leader). We propose an integrative multiple identities model that accounts for self-distancing from negatively valued groups as a means of reconciling stereotypically conflicting and hence psychologically incompatible social identities. Dis-identification with the devalued identity leads to collective inaction on behalf of that group even when such actions could benefit the self and group. We propose that self-distancing occurs among people who internalize stereotypic associations, such as those who endorse conservative political ideology and exhibit other system-justifying tendencies. By considering multiple identities alongside ideological motivations, our integrative model may explain, at least in part, why some individuals belonging to devalued groups refrain from challenging a status quo that harms groups to which they belong.