Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “PREJUDICE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat.

We propose that social attitudes, and in particular implicit prejudice, bias people's perceptions of the facial emotion displayed by others. To test this hypothesis, we employed a facial emotion change-detection task in which European American participants detected the offset (Study 1) or onset (Study 2) of facial anger in both Black and White targets. Higher implicit (but not explicit) prejudice was associated with a greater readiness to perceive anger in Black faces, but neither explicit nor implicit prejudice predicted anger perceptions regarding similar White faces. This pattern indicates that European Americans high in implicit racial prejudice are biased to perceive threatening affect in Black but not White faces, suggesting that the deleterious effects of stereotypes may take hold extremely early in social interaction.

Affect↗

'They all look alike to me': prejudice and cross-race face recognition.

We investigated whether prejudice level influences the size of the other-race effect (poorer recognition of other-race compared with own-race faces). Previous studies, using self-report measures of prejudice, failed to find a relationship between prejudice and the other-race effect. We used an implicit prejudice measure, developed by Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995), to determine whether implicit prejudice influences the size of the other-race effect. A self-report measure of prejudice, Walker's (1994) Attitudes to Asians Scale, was also included to replicate previous results. A group of 30 high prejudice and 30 low prejudice Caucasian participants, as determined by the self-report measure, were run through a procedure which assesses implicit prejudice and recognition performance at the same time. Neither implicit nor self-reported prejudice level influenced the size of the other-race effect. Unexpectedly, implicit and self-report prejudice influenced (in opposite ways) recognition of own-race faces. The implications of these results for understanding the other-race effect are discussed.

Adolescent↗

A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice.

The authors propose a justification-suppression model (JSM), which characterizes the processes that lead to prejudice expression and the experience of one's own prejudice. They suggest that "genuine" prejudices are not directly expressed but are restrained by beliefs, values, and norms that suppress them. Prejudices are expressed when justifications (e.g., attributions, ideologies, stereotypes) release suppressed prejudices. The same process accounts for which prejudices are accepted into the self-concept The JSM is used to organize the prejudice literature, and many empirical findings are recharacterized as factors affecting suppression or justification, rather than directly affecting genuine prejudice. The authors discuss the implications of the JSM for several topics, including prejudice measurement, ambivalence, and the distinction between prejudice and its expression.

Conflict, Psychological↗

A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice.

Developmental intergroup theory specifies the mechanisms and rules that govern the processes by which children single out groups as targets of stereotyping and prejudice, and by which children learn and construct both the characteristics (i.e., stereotypes) and affective responses (i.e., prejudices) that are associated with these groups in their culture. Specifically, we argue that children have a drive to understand their world, and that this drive is manifested in their tendency to classify natural and non-natural stimuli into categories, and to search the environment for cues about which of the great number of potential bases for categorization are important. The first step in the process of stereotype and prejudice formation is, therefore, the establishment of the psychological salience of some particular set of dimensions. Four factors are hypothesized to affect the establishment of the psychological salience of person attributes: (1) perceptual discriminability of social groups, (2) proportional group size, (3) explicit labeling and use of social groups, and (4) implicit use of social groups. We argue that person characteristics that are perceptually discriminable are more likely than other characteristics to become the basis of stereotyping, but that perceptual discriminability alone is insufficient to trigger psychological salience. Thus, for example, young children's ability to detect race or gender does not mean that these distinctions will inevitably become the bases of stereotypes and prejudice. Instead, for perceptually salient groups to become psychologically salient, one or more additional circumstances must hold, including being characterized by minority status, by adults' use of different labels for different groups, by adults using group divisions functionally, or by segregation. After a particular characteristic that may be used to differentiate among individuals becomes salient, we propose that children who have the ability to sort consistently will then categorize newly encountered individuals along this dimension. The act of categorization then triggers the process of social stereotyping and prejudice formation. Four factors are hypothesized to have an impact on the processes of forming stereotypes and prejudice. These include: (1) essentialism, (2) ingroup bias, (3) explicit attributions to social groups, and (4) group-attribute covariation. As noted throughout this chapter, there has been relatively little developmental work on many of the processes outlined here. Although findings from our own programs of research are consistent with the role of factors we have identified in the theory (e.g., the role of minority status, segregation, labeling and functional use of groups have all been shown to influence children's evaluations and beliefs about social groups), far more extensive research is needed. In addition to testing the reliability and generalizability of past findings to other samples, other research laboratories, and other experimentally manipulated groups, future work must move these theoretical models into the laboratory of the real world. If the tenets of developmental intergroup theory are correct, there would be many implications for social, educational, and legal policies related to social groups. We noted, for example, ways in which race and gender are made psychologically salient (e.g., the use of labels; segregated conditions). Importantly, factors such as these are largely under societal control. That is, institutions and individuals can choose to routinely label and use some particular category within children's environments or not. It is a violation of federal law, for example, for public school teachers to ask the children in their classrooms to line up at the door by race. In contrast, no federal or state law prohibits teachers from organizing their classrooms by sex. Should such laws be enacted? There can also be social controls on various forms of social segregation. Is it within individual children's rights to affiliate only with same-sex or same-race individuals? Is it acceptable for children and adolescents to exclude peers from their games, play, study groups, or other cliques on the basis of gender, race, age, or ethnicity? Finally, social institutions such as schools offer potential opportunities for intervention programs. What, if any, programs should be offered or required? Should curricula explicitly discuss social stereotyping and prejudice? Should children be taught negative information about people with whom they share some characteristic to reduce ingroup favoritism? Our hope is that developmental intergroup theory will ultimately prove valuable not only for understanding the development of social stereotypes and prejudices in children, but also for guiding social interventions that can ultimately prevent the development of stereotypes and prejudices in individuals and society.

Child↗

The contact hypothesis revisited: status bias in the reduction of implicit prejudice in the United States and Lebanon.

Although 50 years of research demonstrate that friendly intergroup contact reduces intergroup prejudice, the findings are based solely on self-reported, explicit prejudice. In two parallel experiments examining intergroup contact and prejudice-between Whites and Blacks in the United States (Experiment 1) and between Christians and Muslims in Lebanon (Experiment 2)-we examined whether intergroup status differences moderate contact effects on implicit prejudice, as well as explicit prejudice. Both experiments replicated the standard effect of contact on explicit prejudice. They also demonstrated that intergroup contact reduces implicit prejudice among low-status groups. In Experiment 1, the implicit prejudice of Blacks toward Whites (but not Whites toward Blacks) was reduced as a function of friendly contact. In Experiment 2, the implicit prejudice of Muslims toward Christians (but not Christians toward Muslims) was reduced as a function of friendly contact.

Adult↗

Social desirability of subtle and blatant prejudice scales.

The present paper analyzes the relation between the measurement of subtle and blatant prejudice proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens in 1995 and the tendency to give socially desirable responses. It also tests whether items that measure subtle prejudice are judged as more socially desirable than those that measure blatant prejudice. Data were obtained from two groups, one of 497 Italian high school students and one of 77 university students. In the first case, the analysis concerns the relation between the prejudice scores and scores on a shortened form of Marlowe and Crowne's Social Desirability Scale. In the second case, we analyzed the social desirability judgments expressed on single items of the Petrigrew and Meertens scales. Analyses indicate that (1) neither Subtle nor Blatant Prejudice scores correlate with the tendency to give socially desirable responses and (2) when the items of the two prejudice scales are placed in order on the social desirability continuum, with very few exceptions the Blatant Prejudice items are situated at the not socially acceptable pole and Subtle Prejudice items at the socially acceptable pole.

Adolescent↗

Case studies of pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation.

This paper presents a number of case studies involving pre- and midtrial prejudice in criminal and civil litigation. The cases reveal deficiencies in the way that prejudicial publicity has been conceptualized and operationalized in many simulation experiments. The studies reveal that potential juror prejudices that concern lawyers and judges involve more than just main effects of mass media. Pre- and midtrial prejudice also involves more general prejudices, gossip and rumor, the assertion of community normative values about justice, and conformity pressures. Four categories of prejudice recognized in American law are described and labeled: interest, specific, generic, and conformity prejudice. The case studies also reveal interesting dynamics involving "minimization" and inconsistency in jurors' self-reports of attitudes which contradict a commonly held judicial view that superficial questioning is sufficient to uncover prejudice. Despite identifying deficiencies in the simulation literature, the paper concludes that experimental research is necessary to provide answers to causal questions that case studies and field research cannot ordinarily provide.

Civil Rights↗

Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: attention, attribution, and individuation.

Three experiments examined the relationship between prejudice and processing of stereotypic information. Higher levels of prejudice were associated with greater attention to and more thorough encoding of stereotype-inconsistent than stereotype-consistent behaviors but only when processing capacity was plentiful (Experiments 1 and 3). High-prejudice participants attributed consistent behaviors to internal factors and inconsistent behaviors to external forces (Experiment 2). Together, these results suggest that high-prejudice people attend carefully to inconsistent behaviors to explain them away but only if they have sufficient resources to do so. Results also showed that low-prejudice but not high-prejudice participants formed individuated impressions by integrating the implications of the target's behaviors (i.e., individuating). High levels of prejudice appear to be associated with biased encoding and judgment processes that may serve to maintain stereotypes.

Adult↗

Prejudice, internalization, and the accessibility of personal standards for responding to gay men.

Heterosexual participants who were very low, moderately low, moderately high and very high in prejudice toward gay men reported their personal standards for responding to gay men (i.e., how they believed they should feel or think in an imagined scenario involving a gay man) via computer. As expected, the standards of very low-prejudice individuals were the least prejudiced, the most internalized (i.e., most important and central to the self), and the most accessible (i.e., reported most quickly). Regression analyses revealed the predicted relation between accessibility and internalization, such that the more internalized the standard the greater its accessibility. A significant quadratic trend for prejudice revealed that accessibility decreases with increasing prejudice, except that at very high levels of prejudice accessibility begins to increase. Implications for prejudice reduction for both low- and high-prejudice individuals are discussed.

Female↗

Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization.

The authors studied social norms and prejudice using M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif's (1953) group norm theory of attitudes. In 7 studies (N = 1,504), social norms were measured and manipulated to examine their effects on prejudice; both normatively proscribed and normatively prescribed forms of prejudice were included. The public expression of prejudice toward 105 social groups was very highly correlated with social approval of that expression. Participants closely adhere to social norms when expressing prejudice, evaluating scenarios of discrimination, and reacting to hostile jokes. The authors reconceptualized the source of motivation to suppress prejudice in terms of identifying with new reference groups and adapting oneself to fit new norms. Suppression scales seem to measure patterns of concern about group norms rather than personal commitments to reducing prejudice; high suppressors are strong norm followers. Compared with low suppressors, high suppressors follow normative rules more closely and are more strongly influenced by shifts in local social norms. There is much value in continuing the study of normative influence and self-adaptation to social norms, particularly in terms of the group norm theory of attitudes.

Analysis of Variance↗

Intergenerational transmission of prejudice, sex role stereotyping, and intolerance.

The attitudes of 111 ninth and eleventh graders and both of their biological parents were independently assessed for prejudice against people with HIV/ AIDS, homosexuals, Blacks, and fat people, as well as for male and female sex role stereotyping. This study corrected for two shortcomings in previous research: neglecting to assess both parents and assessing only a single domain of prejudice. We addressed the intergenerational transmission of prejudice and stereotyping using three competing models: same-sex, parent equivalent, and differential effects. Using multiple regressions in which parents' scores were entered separately, along with control variables, different maternal and paternal influences were detected. Mothers were the primary influence for prejudice regarding HIV/AIDS, fatness, and race, and fathers were the primary influence for male and female stereotyping and prejudice against homosexuals, supporting the differential effects model. We also established that prejudice and stereotyping in specific domains reflected a more general proclivity to be intolerant. In contrast to prejudice and stereotyping in specific domains, fathers and mothers about equally shaped the adolescents' intolerance, supporting the parent equivalent model.

Adolescent↗

Differential relationships between intergroup contact and affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice.

Research on affective dimensions of intergroup relationships suggests that positive effects of intergroup contact can generalize through establishing affective ties with outgroup members. However, research on cognitive dimensions emphasizes that it is often difficult to generalize positive contact outcomes. In this research, the authors examine whether affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice bear different relationships to intergroup contact. Using data from a larger meta-analysis of contact effects, Study 1 demonstrates that affective indicators of prejudice typically yield stronger, inverse contact-prejudice relationships than such cognitive indicators as stereotypes. Study 2 replicates these trends in a survey study using multiple indicators of affective and cognitive dimensions of prejudice. Study 2 also shows significant, inverse relationships between contact and affective prejudice when contact is assessed either as number of outgroup friends or intergroup closeness. Together, these results suggest that affective dimensions of intergroup relationships are especially critical for understanding the nature of contact-prejudice effects.

Adolescent↗

Gender differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: the role of motivation to respond without prejudice.

Research has uncovered consistent gender differences in attitudes toward gay men, with women expressing less prejudice than men (Herek, 2003). Attitudes toward lesbians generally show a similar pattern, but to a weaker extent. The present work demonstrated that motivation to respond without prejudice importantly contributes to these divergent attitudes. Study 1 revealed that women evince higher internal motivation to respond without prejudice (IMS, Plant & Devine, 1998) than do men and that this difference partially mediates the relationship between gender and attitudes toward gay men. The second study replicated this finding and demonstrated that IMS mediates the relationship between gender and attitudes toward lesbians. Study 2 further revealed that gender-role variables contribute to the observed gender differences in motivation to respond without prejudice. These findings provide new insights into the nature of sexual prejudice and for the first time point to possible antecedents of variation in motivation to respond without prejudice.

Adult↗

Henri Tajfel's 'cognitive aspects of prejudice' and the psychology of bigotry.

This paper pays tribute to Tajfel's classic article 'Cognitive aspects of prejudice' and re-examines its central arguments. Tajfel's paper is important for outlining a social cognitive approach to the study of prejudice and also for refuting of what Tajfel called the 'blood-and-guts' approach. Taking Tajfel's proposition that social psychology is not value-free, the current paper examines the moral and political view of 'Cognitive aspects' and also the gaps in its approach to the study of prejudice. It is suggested that this cognitive approach has difficulty in accounting for extreme bigotry, at least without recourse to the motivational themes that the approach seeks to exclude. In particular, there would be limitations in applying this approach in order to understand the Holocaust. Indeed, Tajfel did not attempt to do so, for reasons that are discussed. Tajfel's Social Identity Theory (SIT) has similar limitations. The paper also examines Tajfel's use of the term 'depersonalization', which he described as a 'milder' form of dehumanization of out-groups. Later social identity theorists have tended to use 'depersonalization' differently, shifting their attention to in-groups. Their perspective moves away from understanding the topic of prejudice in the way that can be found in Tajfel's 'Cognitive aspects of prejudice'. Finally, the present paper suggests how extreme prejudice might be studied without returning to the motivational 'blood-and-guts' approach that Tajfel so cogently criticized.

Cognition↗

Anti-Semitic prejudice in adolescence: an Italian study on shared beliefs.

A study was conducted in Bologna and Venice on a sample of 427 subjects to verify whether anti-Semitic prejudice is observed in Italy, if it has direct, violent expression (blatant prejudice), or if it assumes less evident forms (subtle prejudice). The sample was chosen to represent levels of contact with the Jewish community to check the contact hypothesis (Bologna for the no-contact condition and Venice for the contact-condition) in groups of different ages (adolescents, young people, and adults). We predicted a decrease in blatant prejudice by subjects living in contact with Jews, but no differences in subtle prejudice. Also adolescents, more sensitive to polarised choices, could be less tolerant towards Jews. One-way analysis of variance indicated evidence for anti-Semitic prejudice, whose typical expression was a lack of positive emotions towards Jews. In particular, the whole sample denied negative emotions, such as disregard, annoyance, and irritation, and did not report positive emotions, such as attraction or curiosity.

Adolescent↗