Running head: THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 1

Intergroup Contexts: Considering the Role of Ethnic Versus Civic Identity

Emily E. Kim

Centennial High School Intern/Mentor GT

Toni Ireland

6 May 2019

Author Note

This research is supported by mentor Dr. Melanie Killen at the University of Maryland

College Park.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Emily E. Kim ℅ Toni

Ireland 4300 Centennial Lane Ellicott City, MD 21042.

Contact: emilyeunsungkim@gmail.com
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 2

Abstract

The present study examines the role of civic and ethnic factors of identity when an individual is

faced with conflict in different social domains. Civic and ethnic identity have long been regarded

as part of dichotomy, however, recent research suggests that this is not the case. Hybrid

individuals have been shown to exhibit ingroup attachment, but still demonstrate outgroup

tolerance. A pilot study was conducted surveying Asian American adolescents ages 13-18 to

evaluate the extent to which ethnic ingroup attachment affects outgroup tolerance and support of

civic values. The questionnaire asked participants to consider three hypothetical scenarios and

decide between choices that would favor the ingroup versus outgroup. The results polled indicate

the importance of fairness when Asian American students make decisions regarding opportunity

and representation of interests, and raise new questions about the factors governing the allocation

of social and academic advantages.

Keywords:​ Ethnic, civic, identity, ingroup attachment, outgroup tolerance

THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 3

Intergroup Contexts: Considering the Role of Ethnicity versus Nationality

Due to the prominence of globalization and industrialization, the flow of goods, ideas,

and people has reached an unprecedented level of complexity. Transnational migration and

indigeneity are issues at the forefront of current events. Yet, at the root of it all lies identity.

Identity has always dictated the ways in which people interact with one another, and now the

world is exploring how identities are changing and being formed. In particular, the notions of a

civic versus ethnic identity are important in defining public opinion and political stability. There

has always been an understood civic-ethnic dichotomy, however, as states diversify, this is being

challenged with the emergence of a hybrid identity: a merging of ethnic and civic factors. The

response to this varies from tolerance to conflict, and it is the reduction of such conflict and

promotion of intergroup cooperation that this paper attempts to address. To do so, the

socialization processes that facilitate the adoption of a group identity and group norms must be

analyzed. A developmental psychology approach together with comparative government

methodology may prove to be revealing. It is paramount to examine intergroup relations in

cross-cultural contexts to determine how ethnic versus civic factors play a role in identity and the

reasoning for decisions, in order to explore how conflict might be minimized and resolution

promoted.

Literature Review

There are a number of studies and articles relevant to the investigation of civic versus

ethnic identity factors. This paper will discuss this literature within the context of its service to

the present study. More specifically, this paper will examine the foundation for group identity

and intergroup conflict, the presence of ethnic and civic factors in identity, and the socialization
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 4

process that may pit one aspect of identity against the other, in which the individual must

determine which aspect of his or her identity takes precedence. This study will incorporate these

concepts into the broader investigation which seeks to examine situations where civic and ethnic

identity may control outcomes of group decision making, and understand when one aspect of

identity supersedes the other.

Group Identity and Intergroup Conflict

Group identity has important influence on the individual. Group norms and values

translate to the individual’s practice of using certain justifications or reasoning to support certain

actions. However, analysis must not only cover the period of time in which these beliefs are

cemented. It must also analyze when these beliefs are initially formed, and how they may or may

not change during the formative years of adolescent development.

Early childhood and adolescence.​ It is known that conceptions of group identity and

consequently, who the ingroup and outgroup is, are formed early on in life. These ideas shaped

in childhood and adolescence have the tendency to become entrenched by adult, and thus,

difficult to change. That is why it is necessary to determine inhibiting factors in the identification

process, as intervention is most effective when socialization and identification is still

developing.. In early childhood, attitudes and an understanding of fairness and morality is

initially formed (Rutland & Killen, 2015). These understandings can and have been investigated.

For instance, when children use moral reasoning to interpret situations, the decisions they make

are often inclusive, and they reject the exclusion of peers if it was solely on the basis of group

membership (McGuire, Manstead, & Rutland, 2017). Yet, when prioritizing reasoning about
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 5

stereotypes or group functioning, children do frequently endorse the exclusion of outgroup

members even if it leads to prejudicial treatment.

Intergroup contexts.​ Group identity, when exercised in intergroup contexts, can be a

cause for conflict. It is known that unique challenges arise more so in intergroup contexts than

they may occur in intragroup contexts (Killen, Hitti, Cooley, and Elenbaas, 2015). Intergroup

relations are examined to understand how identity may or may not be pervasive in dictating and

justifying actions. For example, due to identification with a group, social comparisons are

facilitated which can further exacerbate conflict. When negative outgroup norms are present, this

tends to more ingroup bias. This could mean justifying decisions that provide ingroup advantage

at the expense of the negatively characterized outgroup. However, positive outgroup norms do

not necessarily lead to less ingroup bias (McGuire, Manstead, and Rutland, 2017). Just because

that negative characterization does not exist does not mean that the evaluation of ingroup actions

changes. Additionally, intergroup conflicts are found, via qualitative research and data, to differ

from interpersonal conflicts. One such way is found in how the catalyst for intergroup conflict

tends to be the competition for and the allocation of resources (Liu, 2012). On one level, this

becomes a moral issue. On another level, this competition is a threat to the groups involved.

Identity can be threatened in zero sum terms. From the group’s perspective, the existence of

another group may compromise the legitimacy of their own identity. In situations of conflict,

advantaged groups’ morality is threatened whereas disadvantaged groups’ agency is threatened.

Thus, the aspects of identity that are threatened must be recognized. When threatened aspects of

group identity are restored, cooperation among groups was found to be facilitated. When these
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 6

dimensions of identity are restored, there is a greater willingness to work towards equitable terms

between groups (Shnabel, Ullrich, 2013).

The social reasoning development model.​ A recent study documented the necessity for

children’s interpretation and evaluation of exclusion and inclusion in the context of peer groups

to be evaluated. Specifically, it is important do so using the social reasoning development model,

or the SRD (Killen, Rutland, Rizzo, McGuire, 2018). The SRD model draws on social and

developmental psychology because it is based on both social domain theory and social identity

theory. This framework looks at children’s exclusion decisions as based on psychology,

morality, and group identity. It asserts that children, in intergroup contexts, do not make their

decisions for uniform reasons. Instead, studies have shown that in childhood and by early

adolescence, children are able to coordinate a number of factors in the decision making process

of intergroup peer contexts. These various factors may include moral concerns such as priority

for fair and equal treatment of others, in addition to group concerns like ingroup bias and

stereotypes.

Civic and Ethnic Factors of Identity

This paper has, so far, addressed the general developmental psychology theory that

applies to decisions in contexts of intergroup relations. Yet, it seeks to narrow the scope of this

further in considering two particularly interesting variables: civic and ethnic factors. Civic and

ethnic factors have often regarded as part of a dichotomy, especially with regard to nationalism.

This attributes civic nationalism as more akin to fostering democracy, and labels ethnic

nationalism as destabilizing and decentralizing. Recent studies, however, point to this dichotomy
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 7

as incapable of encompassing the full range of identities a citizen may adopt (Brown, 2000;

Hansen & Hesli, 2010).

Defining civic and ethnic. ​To understand the various arguments for where civic and

ethnic factors fit in, the two terms should first be defined. Civic identity is traditionally defined

as “an inclusive identity that lacks a strong ethnic attachment” (Shulman 2002). Civic nationals

often value group membership and are tolerant toward other ethnic groups that live within the

same state. On the other hand, ethnic nationals “value history, cultural development, and

advocacy of their own group even to the extent of excluding other groups” (Korostelina 2004).

Driven by competition with other social groups, ethnic nationals tend to exhibit more intolerance

toward the outgroup. Ethnicity is important, however, because it serves as “a contextualizing

factor” that exerts influence on how individuals perceive their experiences (Hanslen & Hesli,

2010).

The hybrid identity​. These two aspects of identity are not mutually exclusive. The two

intersect in what has been termed as a hybrid identity. Individuals with a hybrid identity show

strong ingroup attachment. This is the factor the hybrid individual enables when navigating

issues. However, these individuals also show marked outgroup tolerance. This is a unique

merging of civic and ethnic attributes in regard to identity, that significantly impact intergroup

relations, group norms, and justifications. The hybrid identity is one instance of a challenge to

the previously mentioned dichotomy that has been believed to exist. The dichotomy gave

reference to the polarizing effects of ethnic and civic proclivity within the group and the

individual. In that sense, the two factors were pitted against each other. This creates conflict,

each threatening to displace the other as the prioritized circumstance in decision making. The
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 8

conflict is not denied. However, a hybrid identity is found the encompass both civic and ethnic

attributes which changes ingroup and outgroup tendencies. ​A hybrid identity embraces

nationality and exhibits tolerant outgroup views which are conducive to democratization

(Hanslen & Hesli, 2010). This kind of identity preserves the individual’s association with their

subgroup, or ethnic group, without destabilizing the democratic effects of the civic element.

Thus, the hybrid identity is the mediation of conflict based on threatened identities resulting in a

zero sum conundrum. Likewise, it has been found that ​long entrenched conflicts can be resolved

only by a change in national identity, “a change that retains the identity at its core, but no longer

supports the notion that the existence of one identity is the negation of the other” (Kelman,

2001). Hybrid identities, thus, allow the individual to retain ethnic ties while also connecting to

the community at a national level.

Applicability of social and developmental psychology.​ Social and developmental

psychology, as previously expressed through description of the SRD model, is applicable to the

present issue. The component theories provide a perspective that conceptualizes ethnicity and

ethnocentrism versus civic tendencies. Framing this as a domain of study, it allows ethnicity,

race, and nationalism to be considered. This issue is concerned with understanding how the

world is viewed and experienced in terms defined by ethnic and civic nationalism. Beyond

simply defining ethnicity, race, and nationality, social and developmental psychology enables the

examination of the manner in which an individual or group interprets ethnic or civic terms.

Socialization and Conflicting Contexts

Investigating contexts in which ethnic and civic identity may clash is salient, specifically

with regard to hybrid individuals and the emergence of data supporting the hybrid individual’s
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 9

unique ingroup and outgroup attachments. These contexts are present during the socialization

process. There are several important factors that lead to socialization, which are important in

order to comprehend how identity is shaped and assumed. Among these factors are primarily

religion, education, family composition, age, however other factors do exist as well (Rutland &

Killen 2015). There are different domains of identity, and thus there are a number of contributors

to the constitution of an identity overall. Among these domains, it is possible for one to challenge

another (Shnabel, Ullrich, 2013). In these unique contexts, conflict may emerge.

Ethnic ties as destabilizing.​ One contention holds that ethnic identity tends to be

destabilizing. In the sense of favoring democratization, data has shown that this is not always the

case. In Ukraine, the percent of individuals who primarily identified with an ethnic identity did

not correspond directly to voting preferences against democratic reform (Hanslen & Hesli,

2010). Thus, it does not necessarily hold that ethnic identity is in opposition to democratic

tendencies. However, it is worth noting that ethnic identity does have the potential to conflict

with civic identity. Though perhaps not as destabilizing to democracy as once thought, it still

stands that ethnic identity and attachment to the ethnic ingroup may, in certain contexts,

overcome civic identity. ​Ethnic identity is still prevalent and may supersede national identity. ​It

weakens polarized opinions based on ethnic ties, ethnocentrism, and economic deprivation,

which most strongly affects ethnocentrism and ethnic identity. ​This is a situation in which

national identity is important as a moderator, and civic​ identity can function as a moderator of

ethnic identity and its effects (Korostelina, 2004).

Evaluating contextualized conflict. ​There are unique situations in which the ethnic and

civic ties may clash. Certain aspects of identity make the individual more prone to certain actions
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 10

than other. For example, “‘ethnic’ and ‘hybrid’ citizens are actually more likely than ‘civic’

citizens to vote—supporting the idea that mobilization in a political system is facilitated by a

sense of belonging to a relevant identity group” (Hanslen & Hesli, 2010). These contexts take

into account intergroup relations and, likewise, the occurrence of conflict and conflict resolution.

Individuals may gravitate towards one aspect of identity more than the other. They may be a

hybrid individual who bridges the two domains of identity, not only for the purposes of security,

but also to aid in navigating through relations with the outgroup. Research has been conducted

about these terms in Eastern European countries and case studies have been conducted regarding

Southeast Asian countries. However, there is yet to be thorough investigation regarding civic,

ethnic, and hybrid nationals with specific regard to examining the individual within a volatile

stage of identity formation. Since it is noted that identity begins to form early on, the prevalence

of these identities in young children and adolescents should be evaluated, and and understanding

of how they play a role in the individual’s interpretation of ethnicity, race, and nationalism

should be developed.

Conclusion

Conflict is witnessed in everyday life, and an interdisciplinary approach proves useful to

address this by revealing the root of conflict and the contexts in which conflict grows or is

inhibited. Factors of the identification and socialization processes are key in the development of

intergroup perceptions and biases. These perceptions, in turn, are the very notions that govern

intergroup relations and may breed conflict. In order to have potential success at mitigating bias,

the socialization process must be addressed early on. Groups will justify perceptions and actions

with moral reasoning, balancing self-interest and the greater good, and these justifications will
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 11

become stagnant with time. They do, however, stand to be influenced by factors of identity,

notably, ethnicity and nationalism. This introduces a complex context in which ethnic and

national ties come into question, as they are associations that pull an individual towards different

groups. Particularly interesting is the emergence of a hybrid identity, which involved these ethnic

and civic ties, yet varies the individual’s ingroup and outgroup tendencies. This should be further

explored in order to understand situations in which civic identity may overcome ethnic identity,

or vice versa. These contexts are crucial to understanding the current political landscape that has

been attempting to cope with issues of migration and indigeneity both domestically, and abroad,

because it comes down to understanding what determines individual and/or group actions. This

research will help examine the unique conflicts that occur within a diverse body of citizens, and

how they can remedied to increase tolerance and promote cooperation.

Research Methods and Data Collection

Research Method

A questionnaire in a web-based format was used to poll participants, asking for a number

of different responses. This type of measure was chosen because it was the common method used

in almost all studies cited in the present paper. The questionnaire was seventeen questions long,

and was filled out individually by each participant (Appendix A). The researcher did not directly

administer the survey. Asian American students from Centennial High School ranging from age

14-18 were polled. Questions asked for a variety of responses, asking the participant to select

from a number of options, rate a choice on a 5-point Likert scale, and provide written responses

and justifications. These questions were broken down into the following two sections.
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 12

Hypothetical Scenarios. ​Respondents were first asked to consider three hypothetical

scenarios. The first referenced a situation where the respondent was part of the Asian American

club, and had been given control over allotting votes to ethnic minority clubs in order to give

them a say in the Student Government Association. He or she could distribute the votes equally,

give the Asian American club an extra vote, or give the Asian American club a majority of the

votes. This would call for the respondent to weigh their attachment to their own ethnic group

versus a civic attachment to voting rights and equal representation. The next scenario dealt with a

proposed change in admissions to the Gifted/Talented academic program; a shift to teacher

recommendation and quota-based admissions versus standardized testing. Admissions is a

current controversy many adolescents are aware of, and this proposed switch has been said to

hurt Asian Americans, actually leading to less Asian American students being admitted despite

high scores and grades. This scenario asked students to consider a process that attempts to give

all ethnic groups equal opportunity, versus a process that traditionally facilitates Asian American

success. The last scenario concerned an Asian American boy bringing ethnic food for lunch, and

deciding which group to sit with: an all Asian group, all white group, or half Asian half white.

This weighed the respondents’ attachment to their ethnic group and their comfort level with

sharing their culture.

Hypothesized results.​ There were two hypotheses addressing the research question,

which was: In contexts where ethnic and civic aspects of identity conflict, what determines

which aspect supersedes the other in an individual’s reasoning?

H1) Ethnic ingroup attachment will control in Scenarios 1 and 2, because outgroup

tolerance can lead to disadvantaged status for the individual’s ingroup.

THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 13

H2) Ethnic ingroup preference will control in Scenario 3, because individual’s partaking

in cultural actions will feel more comfortable with those who share that culture.

Identity measure. ​The last component of the survey addressed the respondent’s

identification with their ethnic group. This was the last component so as not to prime the

respondent’s mind with considering their ethnicity and how important it is to them before

answering the scenarios. Seven questions made a statement about ingroup attachment and asked

the respondent to rate how much they agreed with that statement on a five-point Likert scale (1

being strongly disagree and 5 being strongly agree). Additionally, the respondent’s ethnicity,

parents’ ethnicity, and languages spoken most frequently at home, school, and with friends were

recorded. This was the extent to which ethnic ingroup attachment was measured.

Results and Data Analysis

Participants

Twenty individuals were surveyed. Gender was a fairly even distribution, 55% female

and 45% male, and age was also fairly even. Participants numerous Asian ethnicities were

surveyed: Chinese, Korean, Indian, and Southeast Asian/Pacific Islander. The majority of

responses came from Chinese and Korean students.

Figure 1
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 14

Figure 2

Results

While there was a diverse group of respondents, there was a surprisingly uniform array of

responses. In regard to the first question, 60% of students answered that the votes should be

distributed equally, 30% said the Asian American Club should get an extra vote, and 10% said

the Asian American Club should get the majority of the votes. Only 40% favored their ethnic

ingroup, which was less than expected. Additionally, almost all justifications referenced fairness

as the deciding factor. Students chose to distribute votes based on what would give each group

equal voting power. Students who chose to allot more votes to the Asian American Club did so

because they believed that since Asians are a large population at Centennial, they should get an

extra vote to proportionally represent the population.

The second scenario also resulted in consensus; 90% said that standardized testing should

be used over recommendations and quotas. Very few referenced the negative impact of a
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 15

different admissions process on Asians, and most, again, justified their response by saying it was

most fair. Even the 10% who chose to change the admissions process did so because they

believed it would be the most fair.

Table 1

Answer Responses Asians specifically are harmed This is most fair

1: 90% 7.14% 92.85%

Testing

2: 10% 100%
Quotas

The last scenario also was answered similarly across the board. Every response selected

the third table. Reasons provided discussed sharing culture with friends of another ethnicity

while feeling supported by the presence of their own ingroup ethnicity. A few responses

emphasized that race should not play a role in Ryan’s decision of who to sit with. Nevertheless,

respondents were asked to consider this and all listed the third table, an even blend of white and

Asian friends, to be the best option for a student bringing ethnic food to lunch.

Last, the average index of ethnic ingroup identification was 3.94, with a range of 2.4.

Most students speak English at home, with friends, and at school, with only about 10%

indicating that he or she speaks a different language among any of those three groups. This

indicates that the majority of respondents were more inclined to value their ingroup identity,

though they are adapted to social norms in each respective environment. Despite this, and despite

varying age, gender, and ethnic background, all answered very similarly to each scenario.

Discussion and Conclusion

Discussion
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 16

Implications. ​Being a pilot study, the general direction of research is broad with the goal

of discovering nuances that can be elaborated on in future study. There are conclusions that can

be drawn from this research to inform future directions. First, fairness has an important role in

governing the decisions of Asian American students as it pertains to the context of social and

academic opportunity. Respondents justified their decisions in the first two scenarios explaining

that equal distribution of votes or standardized test admissions are the most fair, logical option.

These decisions were made despite a high average index of ingroup attachment, 3.94 on a

five-point scale. Thus, fairness, a civic quality, is important to the individual when evaluating the

distribution of opportunities to both the ingroup and outgroup. This disproves H1 since ethnic

ingroup favoritism did not control over protecting the civic ideal of fairness.

In regards to the third scenario, there was consensus that the boy bringing ethnic food to

lunch should sit at the table with half Asians and half whites. This finding has a different

indication: there was a direct or implicit acknowledgement that he should not sit at the all white

table, since no respondent selected this option. This may be precipitated by stereotypical or

experience-based expectations that a homogenous ethnic outgroup will be an environment hostile

to one’s own ethnic groups. This supports H2 because when participating in an activity that was

more ethnic based, bringing cultural food to lunch, the individual tended to favor their ingroup.

However, there was still a tendency for civic reasoning to pervade, as several respondents noted

the potential to share one’s own culture with other ethnic groups as a reason for the boy to sit at a

table with mixed people.

Thus, in the academic domain, or presentation of opportunities for representation, civic

factors pervade in the individual’s allocation decision. However, in the social domain, outgroup
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 17

stereotypes or perceived hostility (not necessarily actual hostility) contribute to the individual’s

decision to favor the ingroup. He or she will not be entirely opposed to the outgroup, but do

exhibit more ingroup attachment and are more comfortable with members of their own ethnic

group.

Limitations. ​There are several limitations on the present study that should be noted.

First, the sample size was very small, and only from Centennial High School. Centennial’s

student body is 34% Asian and 33% white, thus, Asian students are not an ethnic minority as

they may be at other schools. The size of the Asian population was definitely accounted for in

respondents’ answers. Additionally, with such a small sample size, what may appear to be a

majority of opinion might not actually be, especially given the fact that the sample came from a

single high school with a specific set of social norms. This is not a sample that is representative

of the general population of Asian American students. Being a pilot study, much refinement is

necessary. The variables measured are too general to generate specific data trends; this is

accounted for in part by a broad research question and vague methodology. Information gathered

from this pilot study should be used to narrow the research question. The questionnaire can then

be likewise modified to control for certain factors and isolate the desired variables.

Future Directions

One direction that should be considered is polling younger students. With age comes

increased ability to reason and increased complexity of understanding. It would be interesting to

collect data on students in late elementary school or middle school. Identity formation and

socialization are at a more turbulent state in those years, so different trends in answers may

emerge. Another direction being considered for future research is focusing the research question
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 18

to address what adolescents consider when evaluating the fairness of a situation. More

specifically, this would focus on individuals with different ethnic and civic affiliations (i.e. Asian

American), and how they evaluate situations which bring civic values into conflict and could be

resolved to benefit the outgroup at the expense of their own ingroup. This would be more akin to

the first or second scenarios presented in this paper.

Conclusion

This research is important because it addresses a unique population of individuals within

the United States whose ethnic background and citizenship contribute to their identity and

perspective taking during times of conflict. With a political atmosphere that increasingly follows

neorealist theory of putting the national interest first, an individual’s ethnic background can often

come into conflict with their identity as a citizen. Particularly with the influx of immigrants and

refugees, and the prevalence of immigration as an issue, people’s ethnic and civic ties are

important in dictating public opinion about tolerance towards the outgroup. Thus, it is salient to

investigate which aspect of identity takes precedent, and whether someone exhibiting attachment

to their ethnic group is necessarily antithetical to their support of civic nationality. The present

study indicates that individuals with strong ingroup attachment can still exhibit outgroup

tolerance. In situations weighing equal opportunity, respondents chose to make the fair decision

over prioritizing their own ethnic group’s advantage. This data can be the basis for more

extensive research analyzing nationalism with a developmental psychology theoretical

framework. There is immense potential to better understand how citizens with ethnic attachment

view conflict, and how tolerance and resolution can promoted in instances where civic values are

at stake.
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 19

Works Cited

Brubaker, R., Loveman, M., Stamatov, P. (2004). Ethnicity as cognition.​ Theory and Society,​ ​33,​

31-64.

Hansen, H. E., Hesli, V. L. (2010). National identity: civic, ethnic, hybrid, and atomised

individuals. ​Europe-Asia Studies, 61​(1), pp.1-28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09668130802532894

Kelman H. C. The role of national identity in conflict resolution: Experiences from

Israeli-Palestinian problem-solving workshops. (2001) In: In R.D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, &

D. Wilder (Eds.), ​Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (​ pp.

187-212). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

Killen, M., Hitti, A., Cooley, C., & Elenbaas, L. (2015). Morality, development,

and culture. In M. Gelfand, C.Y.Chiu, & Y.Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in

culture and psychology (pp. 161-220). New York: Oxford University Press.

Killen, M., Rutland, A., Rizzo, M. T., McGuire, L. (2018). Intergroup exclusion, moral

judgments, and social cognition. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen, & K. H. Rubin

(Eds.), ​Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups​ (470-484). New York,

NY: Guilford Press.

Korostelina, K. (2004). The Impact of National Identity on Conflict Behavior: Comparative

Analysis of Two Ethnic Minorities in Crimea. International Journal of Comparative

Sociology, 45(3–4), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020715204049594

Liu, J. H. (2012). A Cultural Perspective on Intergroup Relations and Social Identity. Online

Readings in Psychology and Culture, ​5​(3). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1119

THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 20

McGuire, L., Manstead, A. S. R., & Rutland, A. (2017). Group norms, intergroup resource

allocation, and social reasoning among children and adolescents. Developmental

Psychology, 53(12), 2333-2339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000392

Rutland, A., Killen, M. (2015). A developmental science approach to reducing prejudice

and social exclusion: Intergroup processes, social-cognitive development, and moral

reasoning. ​Social Issues and Policy Review, 9, 1​ 21-154.

Shnabel, N., Ullrich, J. (2013). ​Increasing intergroup cooperation toward social change by

restoring advantaged and disadvantaged groups' positive identities. ​Journal of Social and

Political Psychology, 1(​ 1), 217-238.

Shulman, S. (2002). Challenging the Civic/Ethnic and West/East Dichotomies in the Study of

Nationalism, ​Comparative Political Studies, 35​(5).

THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 21

Appendix A

Survey Administered

Please answer each question completely, and to the best of your ability. There are no right or
wrong answers, and this is not a test.
1. Age
Example Scenarios
2. The SGA has decided to give votes to each ethnic minority club, so that each club can
have a voice in helping to make decisions about school policies and social functions. You
are a member of the Asian American Club. You can either decide to: 1) distribute all the
votes equally among all the ethnic minority clubs, 2) give your club an extra vote, or 3)
give your club a majority of the votes.
a. Which would you choose: 1, 2, or 3?
b. Why?
c. How do you think the other clubs would feel about this?
3. The school system is considering a new way to decide how students are admitted to GT
classes. Standardized test scores would no longer be used. Instead, GT class participation
would be based on teacher recommendations and a quota representing equal number of
students from each ethnic group (African-American, Asian, Hispanic and White). The
school system is interested in your perspective. Representing Asians, you can either vote
to: 1) reject this plan, 2) support this plan or 3) request that the quota for Asians are
increased.
a. Which would you choose: 1, 2, or 3?
b. Why?
c. How do you think the other minority groups would feel about this?
4. Ryan is an Asian-American boy in high school. Today, he brought his favorite
homemade Asian food for lunch. He can decide to sit with his group of friends that is all
Asian, his group of friends that is all white, or his group of friends where half are Asian,
and half are white. Ryan is equally close with all his friends.
a. Which group should he sit with and why?
b. How will the other groups feel when they see him sitting there?
Identity Measure
5. The fact that I am Asian American is an important part of my identity.
6. I have a lot in common with the average Asian American student.
7. Asian American people are very similar to each other.
8. I have spent time trying to find out more about my ethnic group, such as its history,
traditions, and customs.
9. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic group.
THE ROLE OF ETHNIC VERSUS CIVIC IDENTITY 22

10. I understand pretty well what my ethnic group membership means to me.
11. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic group.
a. Response scale: (1) Strong disagree (2) Disagree (3) Neutral (4) Agree (5)
Strongly Agree
12. My ethnicity is:
a. Chinese/Chinese American
b. Korean/Korean American
c. Japanese/Japanese American
d. Indian/Indian American
e. Southeast Asian or Asian Pacific American
f. Other: ___________________
13. My father’s ethnicity is:
a. Chinese/Chinese American
b. Korean/Korean American
c. Japanese/Japanese American
d. Indian/Indian American
e. Southeast Asian or Asian Pacific American
f. Other: ___________________
14. My mother’s ethnicity is:
a. Chinese/Chinese American
b. Korean/Korean American
c. Japanese/Japanese American
d. Indian/Indian American
e. Southeast Asian or Asian Pacific American
f. Other: ___________________
15. What language do you most frequently use at home?
16. What language do you most frequently use at school?
17. What language do you most frequently use with friends?