Psychology Prejudice and Stereotyping
by
Theresa Vescio, Kevin Weaver
  • LAST REVIEWED: 08 May 2015
  • LAST MODIFIED: 19 March 2013
  • DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0097

Introduction

Prejudice and stereotyping are biases that work together to create and maintain social inequality. Prejudice refers to the attitudes and feelings—whether positive or negative and whether conscious or non-conscious—that people have about members of other groups. In contrast, stereotypes have traditionally been defined as specific beliefs about a group, such as descriptions of what members of a particular group look like, how they behave, or their abilities. As such, stereotypes are cognitive representations of how members of a group are similar to one another and different from members of other groups. Importantly, people can be aware of cultural stereotypes and have cognitive representations of those beliefs without personally endorsing such stereotypes, without feelings of prejudice, and without awareness that such stereotypes could affect one’s judgment and behavior. Prejudice and stereotyping are generally considered to be the product of adaptive processes that simplify an otherwise complex world so that people can devote more cognitive resources to other tasks. However, despite any cognitively adaptive function they may serve, using these mental shortcuts when making decisions about other individuals can have serious negative ramifications. The horrible mistreatment of particular groups of people in recent history, such as that of Jews, African Americans, women, and homosexuals, has been the major impetus for the study of prejudice and stereotyping. Thus, the original conceptions and experiments were concerned almost entirely with conscious, negative attitudes and explicitly discriminatory actions. However, as the social acceptability of prejudice and stereotypes has changed, the manifestations of prejudice and stereotypes have also changed. In response to these changes, and given that people who reject prejudice and stereotyping can still unwittingly internalize stereotypic representations, the study of prejudice and stereotyping has recently moved to include beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that could be considered positive and not obviously or overtly prejudiced. Importantly, even when prejudice and stereotypes are ostensibly positive (e.g., traditional women are wonderful and adored), they preserve the dominance of powerful groups: they not only limit the opportunities of stereotyped groups but also produce a litany of negative outcomes when those group members defy them. Because of these new conceptions of bias, there have also been methodological adaptations in the study of prejudice and stereotyping that move beyond the conscious attitudes and behaviors of individuals to measure their implicit prejudice and stereotypes as well. This article gives a quick tour through the social psychological study of prejudice and stereotyping to inform the reader about its theoretical background, measurement, and interventions aimed to reduce prejudice.

General Overviews

There are several books and chapters that offer a broad view of the social psychological research on prejudice and stereotyping. There are two texts that are excellent for undergraduates. First, Whitley and Kite 2010 covers the general field of research on stereotyping and prejudice, providing an excellent primer for theory and research on the causes and consequences of prejudice and stereotyping. Second, Stangor 2000 is a collection of key social psychological readings on stereotypes and prejudice. The key readings text is especially useful, as it can be assigned in sections for a general class or used in its entirety for a class specifically on prejudice. Beyond the introductory text and primer for key readings, though potentially unsuitable for undergraduate use, there are three chapters from the Handbook of Social Psychology that are useful for researchers who want to get an understanding of the progression of research and focus of current theory and research. Although there is some overlap in the content of the three handbook chapters, each chapter makes a notably unique contribution that warrants their inclusion. Fiske 1998 provides a history and thorough review of influential perspectives on prejudice and stereotyping. Expanding on Fiske 1998, Yzerbyt and Demoulin 2010 provides an additional in-depth perspective on theories of how groups are created and sustained. Dovidio and Gaertner 2010 focuses on the bases of group-based biases and provides a thorough consideration of theory and research on stereotype change and prejudice reduction. Finally, in addition to the aforementioned chapters, Dovidio, et al. 2005; Dovidio, et al. 2010; and Nelson 2009 are collections of contemporary theory and research on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination that characterize the current state of thinking and are appropriate for graduate students and researchers.

  • Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2010. Intergroup bias. In Handbook of social psychology. 5th ed. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel Todd Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 1084–1121. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Focuses mainly on the psychological foundations of intergroup bias and how to resolve those biases in order to reduce prejudice. There are discussions about the categorization process, explicit versus implicit biases and what mediates and moderates those biases.

    Find this resource:

  • Dovidio, John F., Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman. 2005. On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This collection takes a look back at Gordon Allport’s conceptualizations of prejudice and updates and extends his work with contemporary theories and evidence collected in the fifty years after the publication of On the Nature of Prejudice.

    Find this resource:

  • Dovidio, John F., Miles Hewstone, Peter Glick, and Victoria M. Esses. 2010. The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. London: SAGE

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An edited collection useful for students and researchers that covers the processes, expression, and consequences of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, as well as ways to reduce them at individual and societal levels.

    Find this resource:

  • Fiske, Susan T. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 2. 4th ed. Edited by Daniel Todd Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey, 357–411. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    In this oft-cited chapter, Fiske discusses the definitions of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination along with a brief history of their study and their cognitive and social bases and effects. It is dense with information that is important for those researching prejudice.

    Find this resource:

  • Nelson, Todd D. 2009. Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. New York: Psychology Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An accessible handbook that is useful for researchers who want to get acquainted with recent work on prejudice and stereotyping. It covers theoretical frameworks for the causes of prejudice and stereotyping with attention to the various characteristics of people and situations that interact to produce them.

    Find this resource:

  • Stangor, Charles. 2000. Stereotypes and prejudice: Key readings. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A collection of classic social psychological works pertaining to stereotyping and prejudice, such as Allport’s original work and modern understandings of racism and sexism. This collection is written in a way that’s accessible to an undergraduate audience.

    Find this resource:

  • Whitley, Bernard E., and Mary E. Kite. 2010. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Designed for an undergraduate course, this book covers the formation of stereotypes and how they are applied in the form of prejudice. It has been updated with the latest evidence from the field of social psychology.

    Find this resource:

  • Yzerbyt, Vincent, and Stéphanie Demoulin. 2010. Intergroup relations. In Handbook of social psychology. 5th ed. Edited by Susan T. Fiske, Daniel Todd Gilbert, and Gardner Lindzey, 1024–1083. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Yzerbyt and Demoulin write about the theoretical background of group formation and in their discussion go over what kinds of prejudiced behaviors arise in different situations because of the nature of group formation and social hierarchy.

    Find this resource:

Classic Perspectives on Prejudice

In the decades following World War II, much of the foundational research on prejudice in social psychology was conducted as attempts to understand the atrocities carried out against Jews and other groups in Nazi Germany. Some of the first comprehensive theories tried to understand how members of one group could detest members of another group by focusing on the types of people who were prejudiced. Adorno, et al. 1950 offers theory and research on the authoritarian personality and exemplifies the early focus on attempts to identify the causes and consequences of people who emerged into adulthood with “prejudiced personalities.” Focus, however, rapidly shifted away from attempts to identify what kind of people are capable of prejudice and stereotyping toward attempts to understand what common set of factors underlie people’s tendency to feel prejudice and to stereotype members of other groups. Allport 1954 is a seminal text on the nature of prejudice that pointed to factors common among a cross-section of individuals, such as fundamental group processes, shared ingroup values, and basic cognitive tendencies to categorize people, as playing key roles in creation and maintenance of intergroup prejudice and stereotypes. Likewise, Tajfel 1969 pointed to basic cognitive bases of perception, stereotypes, and intergroup relations. These works provided the foundation for the later works of critical import, including Tajfel and Turner 1979, on social identity theory, and Turner 1985, on self-categorization theory.

  • Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper and Row.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Much of the original work on prejudice focused on particular types of people who are prejudiced, with the authoritarian personality described by Adorno and colleagues being conceived as a major contributor to individual prejudice. Some of the ideas were revived in Altemeyer’s later conceptions of right-wing authoritarianism discussed under Prejudice-related Ideologies.

    Find this resource:

  • Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Allport’s seminal work defined the field and was the inspiration for the development of later theories of prejudice. Though some of the work is antiquated, it is a forward-thinking volume that led to later empirical research on prejudice and fueled movements against prejudice in the mid-century United States and elsewhere.

    Find this resource:

  • Tajfel, Henry. 1969. Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues 25:79–97.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1969.tb00620.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A foundational paper for later theories of group formation and bias. Lays out the cognitive processes of categorization, assimilation, and search for conceptual coherence, which are theorized to lead to the construction of groups and prejudice against people who are not in one’s group.

    Find this resource:

  • Tajfel, Henry, and John C. Turner. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations. Edited by William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel, 33–48. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    In this chapter Tajfel and Turner explain the theory of social identity and how important one’s identity with a group is to how one reacts to other groups in society. Many psychologists use this framework to explain how threats to one’s identity as a group member cause various negative outcomes.

    Find this resource:

  • Turner, John C. 1985. Social categorization and the self concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In Advances in group processes: Theory and research. Vol. 2. Edited by Edward J. Lawler, 77–122. Greenwich, CT: JAI.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Turner’s self-categorization theory builds on social identity theory, explaining the cognitive processes that go on when people categorize themselves into particular groups.

    Find this resource:

“New Racism” Theories of Prejudice

Following the civil rights movement in the United States, and in response to the passage of legislation making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, the expression of old fashion and/or blatant racism became less socially acceptable. Paralleling these changes, public opinion polls in the 1970s showed a striking decrease in white Americans’ willingness to endorse statements that contended the racial inferiority of African Americans. However, other indicators of racial climate continued to point to striking racial inequities and the persistence of both interpersonal and institutional prejudice (for a discussion of interpersonal versus institutional racism, see Henry and Pratto 2010). Scholars in the 1970s and 1980s introduced various contemporary theoretical perspectives, which is referred to here as “New Racism” Theories of Prejudice, including: (1) Sears and McConahay 1973 and its modern/symbolic racism theory (see also McConahay 1986 and Sears and Henry 2005), (2) Gaertner and Dovidio 1986 and its aversive racism theory (see also Dovidio and Gaertner 2004), and (3) Katz and Hass 1988 and its ambivalent racism theory. Common across these theories are the notions that white Americans both (a) were less likely to endorse old-fashioned racial antipathies and actively reject prejudice, noting true sympathy toward African Americans as victims of past injustices but (b) harbor unacknowledged prejudice that (c) result in feelings of ambivalence and (d) cause racial discrimination. More specifically, each “new racism” theory is founded on the notion that white Americans behave in line with internalized negativity when such negativity slips by undetected as racially motivated. Modern/symbolic racism theory then focused on political opposition to candidates and political policies that challenged the status quo when intergroup conflict and personal costs were perceived as justifications for bias. Considering interpersonal interactions, aversive racism theory articulated the conditions in which whites would behave in line with internalized negatively; namely, when there were race-irrelevant factors present on which to justify one’s negativity. Finally, ambivalent racism theory articulated the value bases of conflicting pro- and anti-African American attitudes among white Americans and noted the importance of situational cues in determining whether whites responded positively or negatively toward African Americans. In the late 1980s, Devine 1989 proposed a dual process model of prejudice, which specified some ways in which high- and low-prejudice whites similarly and differentially internalize stereotypes of African Americans, representing a merger of “new racism” theory assumptions with social cognition principles of automaticity.

  • Devine, Patricia G. 1989. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56:5–18.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Posits that an important difference between high-prejudice and low-prejudice individuals is their conscious control of stereotypical thoughts. Stereotypes are automatically activated when in contact with stereotyped people, but low-prejudice people actively inhibit those stereotypes, while high-prejudice people do not.

    Find this resource:

  • Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2004. Aversive racism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 36. Edited by Mark P. Zanna, 1–51. New York: Academic.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A more recent review of the work on aversive racism that gives more evidence in support of the original contentions of the theory.

    Find this resource:

  • Gaertner, Samuel L., and John F. Dovidio. 1986. The aversive form of racism. In Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Edited by John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, 61–89. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes the concept of aversive racism, which contends that the negative feelings of aversive racists conflict with their motivation to be unprejudiced, leading to discomfort and the avoidance of those who inspire those negative feelings.

    Find this resource:

  • Henry, Patrick J., and Felicia Pratto. 2010. Power and racism. In The social psychology of power. Edited by Ana Guinote and Theresa K. Vescio, 341–362. New York: Guilford.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Reviews the literature on interpersonal versus intergroup power and racism to show how power at different levels influences the perpetuation of racism at different levels, including how social institutions reinforce racism by empowering white Americans over black Americans.

    Find this resource:

  • Katz, Irwin, and R. Glen Hass. 1988. Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:893–905.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Details a theory of racial ambivalence similar to symbolic racism, where white Americans’ ideals of independence and hard work lead them to blame black Americans for their lower social status, despite genuine ideological commitments to equality.

    Find this resource:

  • McConahay, John B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Edited by John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, 91–125. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Building on symbolic racism, proposes the concept of modern racism, with a scale that measures how white people feel about the changes in society that have benefited black people rather than stereotypical views directly.

    Find this resource:

  • Sears, David O., and Patrick J. Henry. 2005. Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at symbolic racism. In Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 37. Edited by Mark P. Zanna, 95–150. New York: Academic.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A review of symbolic racism since the early 1970s. Advances the idea that prejudice against blacks by whites in modern America is based on a perceived violation of American values.

    Find this resource:

  • Sears, David O., and John B. McConahay. 1973. The politics of violence: The new urban blacks and the Watts riot. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    The origination of the concept of symbolic racism that other theories of prejudice built on. The authors analyze whites’ opposition to recent political reforms to aid blacks, such as busing, and views of discrimination against blacks.

    Find this resource:

Prejudice Toward Other Groups

Given the history of white-black relations in America, much of the core theory and research on prejudice and stereotyping focuses on whites’ feelings of prejudice toward and stereotypes of African Americans. In many texts, models of white Americans’ prejudice toward and stereotypes of African Americans are presented as core theories of prejudice and stereotypes toward all groups. This can be seen in adaptation of models of racial prejudice to other domains (e.g., modern sexism, ambivalent sexism theory). Importantly, however, the studies of sexism, heterosexism, and ageism have emerged with some similarities and many important distinctions from theory and research on racial prejudice and stereotypes. This section considers relevant contemporary work on sexism, heterosexism, and ageism.

Sexism

Stereotypes pertaining to sex and gender are pervasive and thoroughly ingrained in most cultures throughout the world. After the women’s rights movements in the mid-20th century, laws were passed to prevent discrimination against women, and similar to that of racial discrimination, prejudice against women became less socially acceptable. Like racism, prejudice against women has not been eradicated by these changes; it has simply become more subtle in contemporary society. Unlike racism, however, it is still a more socially acceptable prejudice, with people often endorsing beliefs about innate gender differences. In addition, as Swim, et al. 1995 notes, following the ideas set down by researchers of modern racism (see “New Racism” Theories of Prejudice), “modern sexism” is both more subtle and nuanced, in that those who score highly on measures of modern sexism tend to deny that discrimination still exists. It may be that it is difficult for people to see sexism in the absence of blatant hostilities. However, as Eagly, et al. 1992; Eagly and Karau 2002; and Heilman 2001, considering women’s experiences in the workplace, noted that women continue to experience discrimination and inequity given that valued roles (such as leadership roles) require attributes that women are stereotypically perceived as lacking. In addition, Eagly and Karau 2002 argues that it can be hard for people to see such anti-female biases as resulting from sexism because traditional women are often the recipients of genuine fondness. Glick and Fiske 1996 further explains people’s simultaneous fondness for and disrespect of women when they introduce “ambivalent sexism” theory. According to ambivalent sexism theory, women are the recipients of both benevolent feelings of paternalism and overt hostility, depending on the degree to which they are perceived as fulfilling traditional norms. Rudman and Fairchild 2004 examines the open acts of antipathy and hostility that are directed at gender atypical men and women.

  • Eagly, Alice H., and Steven J. Karau. 2002. Role congruity of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review 109:573–598.

    DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes that prejudice against female leaders is driven by the fact that stereotypes for women are incongruent with the traits that are generally attributed to successful leaders, and when women display the correct behavior for a leader they are also seen as less suitable.

    Find this resource:

  • Eagly, Alice H., Mona G. Makhijani, and Bruce G. Klonsky. 1992. Gender and the evaluation of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 111:3–22.

    DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Explains the circumstances in which people are biased against female leaders. The analysis of 147 studies indicates that women practicing masculine styles of leadership or in male-dominated domains (among other things) are likely to be devalued compared to men.

    Find this resource:

  • Glick, Peter, and Susan T. Fiske. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:491–512.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Theorizes that sexism against women is divided into hostile stereotypes (e.g., women want too much power) and benevolent ones (e.g., that women are pure and fragile). These stereotypes can be held simultaneously or independently. Benevolent stereotypes have higher endorsement due to their nicer nature, but have similar negative consequences.

    Find this resource:

  • Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. The Journal of Social Issues 57:657–674.

    DOI: 10.1111/0022-4537.00234Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A review article arguing that descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes conspire to keep women from advancing in the workplace despite competence, since women are stereotyped to be naturally incompatible with successful work. Violations of these stereotypes are punished.

    Find this resource:

  • Rudman, Laurie A., and Kimberly Fairchild. 2004. Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87:157–176.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Gives evidence in support of the idea that women who deviate from stereotypes are punished for doing so, and since they realize this (and fear it) they act in ways that avoid potential backlash and end up supporting stereotypical views of women.

    Find this resource:

  • Swim, Janet K., Kathryn J. Aiken, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:199–214.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Proposes a modern sexism scale that is similar to modern racism. Finds that contemporary prejudice against women comes in the form of denied discrimination and lack of support for policies to help women.

    Find this resource:

Heterosexism

Compared to racism and sexism, prejudice against gay men and lesbian women has received less attention from social psychologists. Heterosexism refers to default assumptions that heterosexual relations are the norm and the prejudice people feel toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT) people. Herek 1998 is an excellent primer on the issues surrounding prejudices against LGBT people. More specifically, Herek 1988 and Herek 2009 note that traditional notions of gender and family are often cherished components of heterosexual peoples’ self-concepts. Consistent with this notion, Vescio and Biernat 2003 shows that gay men and lesbian women punished to the degree that they are seen as value violating, and Jellison, et al. 2004 shows that endorsement of traditional notions of masculinity are an important factor in straight men’s attitudes about homosexual relationships. Because heterosexism derives from cherished notions of gender and family, prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women is often extreme. For instance, Haddock, et al. 1993 documents that attitudes toward gay men are far more negative than attitudes toward a host of other groups. In addition, LGBT people are targets of more hate crimes than are members of other ethnicities, religions, nations, or gender-based groups.

  • Haddock, Geoffrey, Mark P. Zanna, and Victoria M. Esses. 1993. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:1105–1118.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the content of prejudicial attitudes toward a variety of groups, noting the relative negativity of heterosexist attitudes.

    Find this resource:

  • Herek, Gregory M. 1988. Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research 25:451–477.

    DOI: 10.1080/00224498809551476Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Creates the attitudes toward gay men and lesbians scale and correlates higher scores on the scale to individual differences such as religious and traditional family ideologies.

    Find this resource:

  • Herek, Gregory M. 1998. Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides a thorough review of the various methodologies used to understand the nature of heterosexism and the consequences that such prejudice has for gay men and lesbian women.

    Find this resource:

  • Herek, Gregory M. 2009. Sexual prejudice. In Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Edited by Todd D. Nelson, 439–465. New York: Psychology Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Reviews contemporary theory and research on sexual prejudice, or prejudice toward non-heterosexual people, with focus on the causes and consequences of sexual prejudice.

    Find this resource:

  • Jellison, William A., Allen R. McConnell, and Shira Gabriel. 2004. Implicit and explicit measures of sexual orientation attitudes: Ingroup preferences and related behaviors and beliefs among gay and straight men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30:629–642.

    DOI: 10.1177/0146167203262076Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Assesses both gay and straight men to find that implicit and explicit measures are better correlated for gay men than straight men and that among straight men heterosexual identity and endorsement of male role norms mediate the negative relationship between attitudes about heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

    Find this resource:

  • Vescio, Theresa K., and Monica Biernat. 2003. Family values and antipathy toward gay men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33:833–847.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01927.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Links negative attitudes toward gay men with endorsement and priming of family values. Since these values are relevant to people’s views of the role of homosexuality (and sexuality in general) in society they are used to determine the valence of attitudes toward gay men.

    Find this resource:

Ageism

Though rarely examined in popular media, ageism refers to prejudice against people based on age, and most ageism is generally directed toward aging people. As Hummert, et al. 1994 and Donlon, et al. 2005 show, aging people are stereotypically perceived as warm and loving people who are experiencing cognitive failings. As a result, prejudice toward older people tends to take the form of patronizing behavior, as noted by Cuddy and Fiske 2002, and by North and Fiske 2012. In fact, Kemper 2001 finds that ageism often inspires “elderspeak,” or a form of speech that is patronizing and condescending. Interestingly, people who overhear elderspeak without seeing the person being spoken to often assume that people are speaking to children rather than adults and, as Kemper 2001 shows, elderspeak creates decrements in aging peoples’ ability to follow instructions.

  • Cuddy, Amy J. C., and Susan T. Fiske. 2002. Ageism: Stereotyping and prejudice against older persons. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Summarizes relevant social psychological theory and research on stereotyping, extending attention to the understudied but important role of ageism in person perception and interpersonal interaction.

    Find this resource:

  • Donlon, Margie M., Ori Ashman, and Becca R. Levy. 2005. Re-vision of older television characters: A stereotype-awareness intervention. Journal of Social Issues 61:307–319.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00407.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the stereotypic content of television characters and provides a test of an intervention intended to reduce stereotypical images of and prejudicial attitudes toward older adults.

    Find this resource:

  • Hummert, Mary Lee, Teri A. Garstka, Jaye L. Shaner, and Sharon Strahm. 1994. Stereotypes of the elderly held by young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 49:240–249.

    DOI: 10.1093/geronj/49.5.P240Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Documents the content of stereotypes that young, middle-aged, and elderly people hold of elderly people. This points to the content and subgroups of the stereotypes.

    Find this resource:

  • Kemper, Susan. 2001. Over-accommodations and under-accommodations to aging. In Communication, technology and aging: Opportunities and challenges for the future. Edited by Neil Charness, Denise C. Parks, and Bernhard A. Sabel, 30–46. New York: Springer.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides a review of research documenting the patronizing and condescending way in which people talk to aging adults, with emphasis on the characteristics and the adverse consequences of elderspeak.

    Find this resource:

  • North, Michael S., and Susan T. Fiske. 2012. An inconvenienced youth? Ageism and its potential intergenerational roots. Psychological Bulletin. 138:982–997.

    DOI: 10.1037/a0027843Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Evaluates how ageism may be caused in part by tensions between older and younger populations because of the social obligations to care for the elderly and the inevitable stress on resources that brings.

    Find this resource:

Maintaining the Status Quo

In the 1990 scholarly attention shifted from near-exclusive focus on how members of dominant groups perceive and process information about members of negatively stereotyped groups to questions of how prejudice and stereotypes function to reinforce and maintain the status quo. Within a status-quo-maintaining framework, prejudice and stereotypes differentiate high-status people from low-status people. In her seminal work, Fiske 1993 noted that the tendency to stereotype other people is greater the lower you go in the social status and power hierarchy; powerful people stereotype those who lack power more often than the reverse, either because powerful people are motivated to see low-power people in stereotypic terms and/or powerful people are unmotivated to gather additional information required to individuate low-power others. Whereas Fiske’s 1993 analysis of power relations and stereotypes focused on person perception and interpersonal relations, Sidanius and Pratto 1999 details social dominance theory, which explains the narratives in society that maintain social hierarchies by using stereotypes. Jost and Banaji 1994 and Jost, et al. 2004 cover the evidence for system justification theory, which maintains that all people, including low-status and/or low-power people, are motivated to justify the status quo, and stereotypes and prejudice are a way to satisfy that motivation.

  • Fiske, Susan T. 1993. Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist 48:621–628.

    DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.48.6.621Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Uses real-world examples and experimental data to outline a theory proposing that powerful people stereotype less-powerful people, as they have little reason to individuate them. This stereotyping by the powerful justifies their current positions.

    Find this resource:

  • Jost, John T., and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 1994. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology 33:1–27.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    The foundation for system justification theory. The authors explain their contention that stereotypes serve a special purpose in maintaining current social hierarchies and connect this with Marxist ideas of false consciousness, where low-status and low-power groups believe in the stereotypes that keep them in a state of low power and low status.

    Find this resource:

  • Jost, John T., Mahzarin Banaji, and Brian A. Nosek. 2004. A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology 25:881–919.

    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.xSave Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An overview of system justification theory, this article explains the motivations theorized to lead to system justification, reviews hypotheses derived from the theory, and cites the evidence in support of those hypotheses.

    Find this resource:

  • Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.

    DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139175043Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An overview of social dominance theory, which asserts that hierarchies are a natural result of human group organization and that legitimizing myths, such as stereotypes that fuel prejudice, are accepted by the general population and keep the powerful in their higher place in the hierarchy.

    Find this resource:

Individual Differences in Contemporary Prejudice

Individual differences traditionally have been and continue to be a key part of the research of prejudice and stereotyping. Of course there is no one factor that predicts prejudiced behavior, but this list of beliefs and personality variables has been consistently correlated with the level of individual prejudice and stereotyping. For ease of understanding and reference, this section has split the consideration of individual differences into two conceptually related groups. First, it clusters together individual differences that define ideologies related to prejudice, which include: conservatism, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and religion. Second, it clusters together individualism and collectivism, which represent somewhat opposite ends of a related continuum. Individualism refers to beliefs that reinforce the importance of being an individual, responsible for one’s own actions and not concerned with the actions or conditions of others. By contrast, collectivism refers to beliefs that focus on a collectivistic identity or a shared responsibility to care for one another.

Prejudice-related Ideologies

Building on Adorno, et al. 1950 and its idea of the authoritarian personality (cited under Classic Perspectives on Prejudice), Altemeyer 1981 revives the idea of authoritarianism with the concept of right-wing authoritarianism, which is conceptualized as a personality type where individuals submit to authorities and lead dictatorially (when in power) and is linked with several types of prejudice, including the types of racism and sexism mentioned in other sections. Pratto, et al. 1994 introduces social dominance orientation, a personality variable that is derived from social dominance theory (see Maintaining the Status Quo) and is also predictive of various prejudiced behaviors. Whitley 1999 and Duckitt 2006 explain how social dominance orientation is similar (but also different) from right-wing authoritarianism and its different predictive abilities in comparison with authoritarianism. Regarding conservatism, Skitka, et al. 2002 explains how conservatism may be linked to prejudice because of the conservative tendency not to correct for internal attributions of negative outcomes, and Jost, et al. 2003 explains conservatism as an ideology centered on resistance to change and justification of inequality. Finally, religion is a more complicated predictor, as various views of religion and different religious ideologies can have differential effects on prejudice. Batson, et al. 1993 shows that when religion is conceptualized as a quest for meaning it is predictive of less prejudice, while Hood, et al. 2009 looks at religious fundamentalism, which is predictive of more prejudice.

  • Altemeyer, Bob. 1981. Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: Univ. of Manitoba Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Puts forth the idea that right-wing authoritarians are more likely to exhibit multiple prejudices (e.g., racial, nationalist), favor punishment, and view the world in black-and-white terms.

    Find this resource:

  • Batson, C. Daniel, Patricia Schoenrade, and W. Larry Ventis. 1993. Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Complicates the role of religion in prejudice by finding that while religion generally promotes prejudice, those religious people who believe that religion is a quest for meaning do not have the same levels of prejudice as others.

    Find this resource:

  • Duckitt, John. 2006. Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32:684–696.

    DOI: 10.1177/0146167205284282Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Shows how SDO and RWA can predict prejudice toward outgroups for different reasons. SDO’s connection with prejudice is mediated by competition for status whereas RWA’s connection is mediated by the perceived threat of the outgroup.

    Find this resource:

  • Hood, Ralph W., Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka. 2009. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. New York: Guilford.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    In this newest edition of a key text in the study of religion in psychology, the researchers find that religious fundamentalism predicts higher prejudice.

    Find this resource:

  • Jost, John T., Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway. 2003. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129:339–375.

    DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Argues that political conservatism can be seen as motivated by uncertainty and threat and includes features of authoritarianism, intolerance of ambiguity, needs for closure, and rationalizations of the status quo.

    Find this resource:

  • Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:741–763.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Establishes a personality characteristic that is derived from the importance of dominance in social dominance theory. Those who are high in SDO are more likely to be prejudiced and adhere to other ideologies that support a prejudiced social hierarchy, such as authoritarianism.

    Find this resource:

  • Skitka, Linda J., Elizabeth Mullen, Thomas Griffin, Susan Hutchinson, and Brian Chamberlin. 2002. Dispositions, scripts, or motivated correction? Understanding ideological differences in explanations for social problems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:470–487.

    DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.83.2.470Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Tests for the reasons behind the conservative tendency to attribute needs for help to internal causes and finds that it can best be explained by a lack of motivation to correct for those attributions compared to liberals.

    Find this resource:

  • Whitley, Bernard E., Jr. 1999. Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:126–134.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Finds that RWA and SDO predict prejudice toward different groups. RWA is highly correlated with negative effects and stereotypes for homosexuals, but not for African Americans, whereas SDO is highly correlated with both.

    Find this resource:

Individualism and Collectivism

Social theorists and researchers, as seen in Mirels and Garrett 1971, have noted that individualism and collectivism predict prejudice in opposite ways. Katz and Hass 1988 (see also “New Racism” Theories of Prejudice) argues that the values of individualism and collectivism may be particularly strongly linked to prejudice because of the linkages that those values have to internal and external, or dispositional and situational, attributes for group differences. In general, one can interpret a stereotype as representing either a group’s essential, dispositional characteristics (internal) or the way that society treats a group (external). Individualism is implicated in the former, since the belief that people are individuals, responsible for their actions, and rewarded according to their hard work means that anyone who has not succeeded in society has not worked hard enough and is personally responsible for their place. Collectivism is implicated in the latter, since the belief that people should work together, are responsible for one another, and rewarded for collective effort means that if someone is not succeeding it is the fault of the whole society. Thus the Protestant ethic described in Mirels and Garrett 1971 and individualism in general predict higher prejudice whereas egalitarianism and collectivism predict lower prejudice. Of course, prejudice and stereotyping researchers have long noted the attributional bases of intergroup prejudice. Pettigrew 2001; Johnson, et al. 1984; and Hewstone 1990 detail the errors in attribution that people make when considering the actions of outgroup members, often leading to more dispositional than situational attributions.

  • Hewstone, Miles. 1990. The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology 20:311–335.

    DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2420200404Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This is a narrative review of the literature examining the predictions of the ultimate attribution error, providing evidence supporting the notion that there is a prejudicial pattern of intergroup attributions that justify ingroup favoritism.

    Find this resource:

  • Johnson, Joel T., John B. Jemmott, and Thomas F. Pettigrew. 1984. Causal attribution and dispositional inference: Evidence of inconsistent judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 20:567–585.

    DOI: 10.1016/0022-1031(84)90044-1Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An experimental article demonstrating that the fundamental attribution error is about a failure to adjust traits to take causality into account rather than a misperception of causality itself. Shows that when true causality is made salient, the fundamental attribution error is still present.

    Find this resource:

  • Katz, Irwin, and R. Glen Hass. 1988. Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55:893–905.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides critical tests of ambivalent racism theory, or the notion that Americans endorse core individualist and collectivist values that promote rather than temper whites’ prejudice toward African Americans.

    Find this resource:

  • Mirels, Herbert L., and James B. Garrett. 1971. The protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 36:40–44.

    DOI: 10.1037/h0030477Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This classic work defines and documents the prominence of the protest ethic, noting the importance of the value to support of worldviews and belief systems.

    Find this resource:

  • Pettigrew, Thomas F. 2001. The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. In Intergroup relations: Essential readings. Edited by Michael A. Hogg, and Dominic Abrams, 162–173. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Contends that there is a prejudiced pattern of attributions in which negative outcomes are attributed to the dispositions of outgroup, but not ingroup, members, whereas positive outcomes are explained away via situational influences.

    Find this resource:

Consequences of Prejudice for Members of Stereotyped Groups

Knowledge of social stereotypes is hard to avoid, and the people who are the targets of prejudice are generally aware of the stereotypes of the groups to which they belong and can react to those stereotypes in multiple ways. As Baumeister and Leary 1995 shows, belonging is a core human motive, and when people perceive that they do not belong there are many negative health consequences. When experiencing prejudice, Biernat, et al. 1996 shows that people may self-stereotype, taking on attributes others use to describe their groups. Furthermore, even when people do not internalize stereotypes, they may be vulnerable to stereotype threat, or fears of confirming negative stereotypes of their ingroup in the eyes of others, which Steele and Aronson 1995 and Walton and Cohen 2007 have shown can adversely affect performance. Inzlicht and Schmader 2012 provides an excellent review of the ways in which people are vulnerable in the face of negative stereotypes of their ingroups and the consequences that such stereotype vulnerabilities have for engagement and performance. Importantly, Sue, et al. 2007 provides ample evidence of the costs of stereotypes to the health and well-being of members of negatively stereotyped groups. On a more positive note, however, Crocker and Major 1989 and Branscombe, et al. 1999 have also demonstrated the ways in which stereotyped group members can improve self-esteem and other health outcomes in the face of prejudice.

  • Baumeister, Roy F., and Mark R. Leary. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin 117:497–529.

    DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A review article detailing the evidence for the need to belong. Shows evidence for this fundamental need by way of people’s quick formation of and resistance to changes in attachments, as well as the health consequences of a lack of attachments, along with other examples.

    Find this resource:

  • Biernat, Monica, Theresa K. Vescio, and Michelle L. Green. 1996. Selective self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71:1194–1209.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.71.6.1194Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Demonstrates that people define themselves in terms of the stereotypes of the groups they belong to when their ingroup membership is salient. This work also notes how people may selectively self-stereotype, aligning themselves with positive stereotypes of their ingroup, while distancing from negative aspects of their ingroup stereotype.

    Find this resource:

  • Branscombe, Nyla R., Michael T. Schmitt, and Richard D. Harvey. 1999. Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77:135–149.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.135Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Supports a model of perceived repeated discrimination negatively correlating with well-being overall, but when African Americans more strongly identify with their group, discrimination has a positive correlation with well-being.

    Find this resource:

  • Crocker, Jennifer, and Brenda Major. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review 96:608–630.

    DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    This classic article notes the potential self-esteem maintaining attributions that may be used by members of negatively stereotyped groups who are confronted with negative feedback from potentially prejudiced sources.

    Find this resource:

  • Inzlicht, Michael, and Toni Schmader. 2012. Stereotype threat: Theory, process, and application. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    An edited volume that reviews current theory and evidence regarding the origins and consequences of stereotype threats, including applications of the research to real-world interventions.

    Find this resource:

  • Steele, Claude M., and Joshua Aronson. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69:797–811.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Presents the primary principles and key findings of tests of stereotype threat theory, or the notion that members of negatively stereotyped groups are often confronted with fears of confirming negative stereotypes, which can impede performance on cognitive tasks.

    Find this resource:

  • Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, et al. 2007. Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist 62:271–286.

    DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.62.4.271Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A thorough review of the primary forms of micro-aggressions, or seemingly unintentional forms of stereotype and prejudice-based behavior, with focus on the psychological and health consequences of such acts for members of disadvantaged groups.

    Find this resource:

  • Walton, Gregory M., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2007. A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92:82–96.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    The original article that set forth the notion that members of negatively stereotyped groups often exhibit negative performances when faced with belonging uncertainty, or questions about the degree that they fit in different domains.

    Find this resource:

Methodology

Prejudice and stereotyping have both explicit and implicit factors, which are measured using different methods. Explicit measurements are those which participants are consciously aware of and can report doing. These include self-report scales and behaviors that participants perform, though they may not themselves believe that what they are doing is prejudiced. As mentioned in other sections of this article (particularly “New Racism” Theories of Prejudice), current social norms prohibit many obviously prejudiced actions, and since participants are aware of this they may correct their own thoughts or behaviors to avoid appearing prejudiced if they feel it necessary. This is one reason why most explicit measurements of prejudice, such as the modern sexism scale in Swim, et al. 1995 (see also Sexism) and the modern racism scale in McConahay 1986, do not directly ask participants to rate outgroups positively or negatively, but instead focus on participants’ opinions about how those groups are treated by society. Implicit measurements are measures that tap into processes that are not under participants’ conscious level of awareness. These include observations of nonverbal behaviors and comparisons of time taken to sort stereotype-congruent items together versus stereotype-incongruent items, such as the categorization involved in the implicit association task (IAT). Greenwald, et al. 1998 explains that IATs measure the strength of associations that people have between stereotypical traits and the groups that are stereotyped. Some researchers interpret these IAT scores as representative of personally held prejudices, whereas others contend that IAT scores represent the internalization of social knowledge: in both cases these can be malleable, as demonstrated by Han, et al. 2010. As Correll, et al. 2002 shows, implicit measures often predict important behaviors, such as one’s tendency to pull a gun’s trigger when confronted with an unarmed black man as opposed to an unarmed white man.

  • Correll, Joshua, Bernadette Park, Charles M. Judd, and Bernd Wittenbrink. 2002. The police officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83:1314–1329.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1314Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Develops the shooter task, which puts people in a shooting game where they have to shoot a person only if they have a weapon. Finds that people are more likely to shoot unarmed African Americans than unarmed white European Americans. However, this bias can be overcome through training.

    Find this resource:

  • Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan L. K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1464–1480.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Created the implicit association test, which measures associations that people make between concepts and groups by comparing response latencies between trials to find which associations are made more quickly. The differences in latencies can be used to show if a person has an association between stereotypical traits and people of stereotyped groups.

    Find this resource:

  • Han, H. Anna, Sandor Czellar, Michael A. Olson, and Russell H. Fazio. 2010. Malleability of attitudes or malleability of the IAT? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46:286–298.

    DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.011Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    A recent experiment that finds evidence for context-specific changes in implicit association test results. Questions whether changes in IAT scores can generally be interpreted as changes in attitudes or not and gives advice for setting up tests to avoid context effects.

    Find this resource:

  • McConahay, John B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Edited by John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner, 91–125. Orlando, FL: Academic.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Uses a self-report scale to measure modern racism. Items look at how African Americans are treated in society and whether or not they are unfairly being given advantages.

    Find this resource:

  • Swim, Janet K., Kathryn J. Aiken, Wayne S. Hall, and Barbara A. Hunter. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:199–214.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Uses a self-report scale that is based on ideas from modern racism. Denial of discrimination against women and purported advantages given to women by society are used as indicators of modern sexism.

    Find this resource:

Changing Stereotypes and Reducing Prejudice

Social theorists and researchers long have considered possible prejudice reduction interventions that would ameliorate the adverse societal and interpersonal consequences of intergroup prejudice and stereotypes. In the midst of the 1980s social cognition revolution, works such as Weber and Crocker 1983 primarily focused attention on attempts to change stereotypes of outgroups, assuming that reductions in prejudice would follow. As findings accumulated, however, it became clear that stereotypical images of groups are somewhat resistant to change. Gaertner and Dovidio 2000, however, shows that prejudice can be reduced via recategorization and the redefinition of ingroups. Toward the end of the 1990s, as the social cognition revolution neared its end, researchers turned their attention to the possibility that arousing emotion and motivation may provide a route to prejudice reduction. Now much research shows that the arousal of positive intergroup feelings and friendship ties can effectively reduce intergroup prejudice. Batson, et al. 1997 notes that people could be encouraged to adopt the perspective of outgroup members, resulting in the arousal of empathy and improved intergroup attitudes. Galinsky and Moskowitz 2000 extends these findings, showing that perspective taking also resulted in self-other overlap and reductions in stereotypes. Vescio, et al. 2003 further identifies attributional components to perspective taking that were critical to prejudice reduction interventions, and Todd, et al. 2011 demonstrates that perspective taking inspires approach tendencies that would bring people of different groups together. Importantly, Pettigrew 1997 shows that intergroup friendships motivated empathy arousal and, in turn, prejudice reduction. In addition, intergroup friendship effects are so strong that Wright, et al. 1997 reveals the extended intergroup contact effect, or the finding that in the absence of personal contact prejudice is reduced when people have friends who have intergroup friendships. All of these works point to specific conditions in which intergroup contact would inspire prejudice reduction.

  • Batson, C. Daniel, Marina P. Polycarpou, Eddie Harmon-Jones, et al. 1997. Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72:105–118.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.105Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Extends the empathy altruism hypothesis to examine the possibility that encouraging people to adopt the perspective of an outgroup member in need can lead to empathy arousal and prejudice reduction.

    Find this resource:

  • Gaertner, Samuel L., and John F. Dovidio. 2000. Reducing intergroup bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Presents the Common Ingroup Identity Model, or the notion that ingroups can be reconceptualized and broadened to include various subgroups, which is linked to the creation of superordinate identities and prejudice reduction.

    Find this resource:

  • Galinsky, Adam D., and Gordon B. Moskowitz. 2000. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78:708–724.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the consequences of encouraging people to adopt the perspective of outgroup members for self-other overlap, stereotype activation, and intergroup bias.

    Find this resource:

  • Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1997. Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23:173–185.

    DOI: 10.1177/0146167297232006Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Points to research in different nations showing that those people who have friendships with members of outgroups have less general prejudice toward the groups their friends belong to. Shows that this effect is mediated by empathy.

    Find this resource:

  • Todd, Andrew R., Galen V. Bodenhausen, Jennifer A. Richeson, and Adam D. Galinsky. 2011. Perspective taking combats automoatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100:1027–1042.

    DOI: 10.1037/a0022308Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Shows the various ways in which perspective taking leads to reductions in intergroup bias. In particular, across five experiments, this article shows that perspective taking attenuates automatic interracial biases, increases salience of racial inequalities, and enhances approach motivations. This article also provides a nice review and integration of prior work on perspective taking and prejudice reduction.

    Find this resource:

  • Vescio, Theresa K., Gretchen B. Sechrist, and Matthew P. Paolucci. 2003. Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology 33:455–472.

    DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.163Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Documents that encouraging people to adopt the perspective of outgroup members leads to both increased empathy toward that person and increased tendencies to attribute negative outcomes to situations. It is both the empathy and situational attributions that come together to promote more favorable intergroup attitudes.

    Find this resource:

  • Weber, Reneé, and Jennifer Crocker. 1983. Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45:961–977.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.961Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Examines the viability of competing perspectives on stereotype change, testing the bookkeeping, conversion, and subtyping models. Findings indicate that stereotypes about outgroups tend to be revised when stereotype disconfirming information about others is acquired in manners that are concentrated amounts dispersed across many individuals.

    Find this resource:

  • Wright, Stephen C., Arthur Aron, Tracy McLaughlin-Volpe, and Stacy A. Ropp. 1997. The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:73–90.

    DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.73Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »

    Provides experimental evidence for the extended contact effect, where people become more positive toward an outgroup when they learn that an ingroup member has a close relationship with a member of that outgroup.

    Find this resource:

back to top

Article

Up

Down