Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Prejudice Stereotyping and Discriminatio
Prejudice Stereotyping and Discriminatio
Prejudice Stereotyping and Discriminatio
ABSTRACT
This chapter has two main objectives: to review influential ideas and findings in the literature and to
outline the organization and content of the volume. The first part of the chapter lays a conceptual and
empirical foundation for other chapters in the volume. Specifically, the chapter defines and distinguishes
the key concepts of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination, highlighting how bias can occur at
individual, institutional, and cultural levels. We also review different theoretical perspectives on these
phenomena, including individual differences, social cognition, functional relations between groups, and
identity concerns. We offer a broad overview of the field, charting how this area has developed over
previous decades and identify emerging trends and future directions. The second part of the chapter
focuses specifically on the coverage of the area in the present volume. It explains the organization of the
book and presents a brief synopsis of the chapters in the volume.
large body of research are widely recognized almost 10 percent of the articles published
in the law (Baldus, Woodworth, & Pulaski, in these mainstream journals study these
1990; Vidmar, 2003), medicine (Institute of phenomena. Moreover, as Figure 1.2 shows,
Medicine, 2003), business (e.g., Brief, Dietz, the trend was similar across journals.
Cohen, et al., 2000), the media, and education Approaches to understanding prejudice,
(e.g., Ben-Ari & Rich, 1997; Hagendoorn & stereotyping, and discrimination have also
Nekuee, 1999). significantly broadened. Early theorists
In recent years, research on prejudice and focused on individual differences, and
stereotyping has rapidly expanded in both associated prejudice with psychopathology
quantity and perspective. With respect to (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,
quantity, even when the term ‘discrimination’ et al., 1950). In the 1970s and 1980s, the
is omitted because of its alternative meaning cognitive revolution in psychology generated
in perception and learning, a PsychInfo search interest in how cognitive processes lead to
for entries with prejudice, stereotypes, or stereotyping and prejudice (e.g., Fiske &
stereotyping in the title reveals a geometric Taylor, 1984); simultaneously European
progression, roughly doubling or tripling researchers focused on how group processes
from each decade to the next, from only and social identities affect bias (e.g.,
29 works in the 1930s to 1,829 from Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Both perspectives
2000 through 2008. Of course, scientific emphasized how normal psychological
information has accelerated generally. Thus, and social processes foster and maintain
we examined the percentage of articles in prejudice and stereotyping. The expansion
which prejudice, stereotypes, or stereotyping has continued in recent years, with new
appeared in the abstract, relative to the total perspectives on how specific emotions,
number of articles published, in four leading nonconscious processes, and fundamental
general-interest journals in social psychology: neural processes contribute to biases.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, In addition to ‘drilling down’ into the
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, nonconscious mind and brain processes, the
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, field has expanded upwards to consider how
and European Journal of Social Psychology. social structure creates and justifies biases,
Figure 1.1 presents the overall trend from which permeate social institutions, such as
1965 to the present. From 1965 through 1984, the legal and health-care systems. In sum,
1–2 percent of the articles in these journals the study of prejudice, stereotyping, and
examined prejudice or stereotypes. Beginning discrimination represents a well-established
in 1985, interest jumped; in recent years, area incorporating traditional and emerging
14
Percent of articles on prejudice,
stereotypes, or stereotyping
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1965– 1970– 1975– 1980– 1985– 1990– 1995– 2000– 2005–
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2008
Figure 1.1 Percent of articles in four leading social psychology journals that use the term
prejudice, stereotypes, or stereotyping in the abstract (data aggregated across journals).
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 5
14 JESP
Percent of articles on prejudice,
stereotypes, or stereotyping
12
EJSP
10
8 JPSP
PSPB
6
0
1965– 1970– 1975– 1980– 1985– 1990– 1995– 2000– 2005–
1969 1974 1979 1984 1989 1994 1999 2004 2008
Figure 1.2 Percent of articles in four leading social psychology journals (Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology – JPSP, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin – PSPB,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology – JESP, and European Journal of Social Psychology
– EJSP) that use the term prejudice, stereotypes, or stereotyping in the abstract.
[sic] is a member of that group’ (p. 9). Most Hutchings, 1996; Campbell, 1965; Sherif,
researchers have continued to define prejudice 1966).
as a negative attitude (i.e., an antipathy). Recent definitions of prejudice bridge the
Psychologists have assumed that, like other individual-level emphasis of psychology and
attitudes, prejudice subjectively organizes the group-level focus of sociology by concen-
people’s environment and orients them to trating on the dynamic nature of prejudice.
objects and people within it. Prejudice also Eagly and Diekman (2005), for example,
serves other psychological functions, such view prejudice as a mechanism that maintains
as enhancing self-esteem (Fein & Spencer, status and role differences between groups.
1997) and providing material advantages But, they also emphasize how individuals’
(Sherif & Sherif, 1969). However, whereas reactions contribute to this process. People
psychologists have focused on prejudice as an who deviate from their group’s traditional role
intrapsychic process (an attitude held by an arouse negative reactions; others who exhibit
individual), sociologists have emphasized its behaviors that reinforce the status quo elicit
group-based functions. Sociological theories positive responses. Consistent with this view,
emphasize large-scale social and structural prejudice toward women has both ‘hostile’
dynamics in intergroup relations, especially and ‘benevolent’ components (Glick & Fiske,
race relations (Blauner, 1972; Bonacich, 1996). Hostile sexism punishes women who
1972). Sociological theories consider the deviate from a traditional subordinate role
dynamics of group relations in economic- and (‘Most women fail to appreciate fully all
class-based terms – often to the exclusion of that men do for them’), whereas benevolent
individual influences (see Bobo, 1999). sexism celebrates women’s supportive, but
Despite divergent views, both psycho- still subordinate, position (‘Women should
logical and sociological approaches have be cherished and protected by men’). This
converged to recognize the importance of perspective reveals that current prejudices
how groups and collective identities affect do not always include only an easily
intergroup relations (see Bobo, 1999; Bobo & identifiable negative view about the target
Tuan, 2006). Blumer (1958a, 1958b, 1965a, group, but may also include more subtle,
1965b), for instance, offered a sociologically but patronizing and also pernicious ‘positive’
based approach focusing on defense of group views.
position, in which group competition is central Because prejudice represents an individual-
to the development and maintenance of social level psychological bias, members of tra-
biases. With respect to race relations, Blumer ditionally disadvantaged groups can also
(1958a) wrote, ‘Race prejudice is a defensive hold prejudices toward advantaged groups
reaction to such challenging of the sense of and their members. Although some research
group position … As such, race prejudice shows that minority-group members some-
is a protective device. It functions, however times accept cultural ideologies that justify
shortsightedly, to preserve the integrity and differences in group position based on the
position of the dominant group’ (p. 5). positive qualities of the advantaged group
From a psychological orientation, in their (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Sidanius &
classic Robbers Cave study, Sherif, Harvey, Pratto, 1999), there is considerable evidence
White, et al. (1961) similarly proposed that that minority-group members also harbor
the functional relations between groups are prejudice toward majority group members.
critical in determining intergroup attitudes. However, much of this prejudice is reactive,
Specifically, they argued that competition reflecting an anticipation of being discrim-
between groups produces prejudice and inated against by majority group members
discrimination, whereas intergroup interde- (Johnson & Lecci, 2003; Monteith & Spicer,
pendence and cooperative interaction that 2000).
leads to successful outcomes reduces inter- These complexities, and others considered
group bias (see also Bobo, 1988; Bobo & throughout the current volume, make it
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 7
difficult to formulate a single, overarching Black person than a White person (e.g., Payne,
definition of prejudice. Nevertheless, we 2001).
suggest the following definition, based on Recent work also explores how social struc-
extensive social-psychological research of the ture affects the specific content of stereotypes.
sort reviewed in this volume: Prejudice is Stereotypes can not only promote discrimi-
an individual-level attitude (whether subjec- nation by systematically influencing percep-
tively positive or negative) toward groups tions, interpretations, and judgments, but they
and their members that creates or main- also arise from and are reinforced by discrim-
tains hierarchical status relations between ination, justifying disparities between groups.
groups. In particular, people infer the characteristics of
groups based on the social roles they occupy
(Hoffman & Hurst, 1990; Eagly & Diekman,
Stereotypes
2005; Jost & Banaji, 1994). As a consequence,
By most historical accounts, Lippmann (1922) people view members of groups with lower
introduced the term ‘stereotype’ to refer socioeconomic status (even if caused by
to the typical picture that comes to mind discrimination) as less competent and/or less
when thinking about a particular social motivated than high-status group members.
group. Whereas early research conceptualized Moreover, minority group members are also
stereotyping as a rather inflexible and faulty socialized to adopt ‘system-justifying ideolo-
thought process, more recent research empha- gies,’ including stereotypic beliefs about their
sizes the functional and dynamic aspects of own group, that rationalize the group’s social
stereotypes as simplifying a complex environ- position (Jost, Banaji, Nosek, et al., 2004).
ment. Stereotypes are cognitive schemas used Although some components of group
by social perceivers to process information stereotypes relate to unique aspects of inter-
about others (Hilton & von Hippel, 1996). group history (e.g., enslavement of Black
Stereotypes not only reflect beliefs about the people in the United States, middle-man
traits characterizing typical group members roles performed by Jews who were excluded
but also contain information about other from other forms of employment since the
qualities such as social roles, the degree to MiddleAges in Europe), systematic principles
which members of the group share specific shape the broader content of stereotypes.
qualities (i.e., within-group homogeneity or The Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy,
variability), and influence emotional reactions Glick, et al. 2002) proposes two fundamental
to group members. Stereotypes imply a sub- dimensions of stereotypes: warmth (associ-
stantial amount of information about people ated with ‘cooperative’ groups and denied to
beyond their immediately apparent surface ‘competitive’ groups) and competence (asso-
qualities and generate expectations about ciated with high-status groups and denied to
group members’ anticipated behavior in new low-status groups). Groups with stereotypes
situations (to this extent they can, ironically, that are similarly high or low on each of
be seen as ‘enriching’; Oakes & Turner, 1990). the two dimensions of warmth and compe-
Yet, of course, stereotypes also constrain. In tence arouse similar emotions. Stereotypically
general, stereotypes produce a readiness to warm and competent groups (e.g., the ingroup,
perceive behaviors or characteristics that are close allies) elicit pride and admiration;
consistent with the stereotype. At the earliest stereotypically warm but incompetent groups
stages of perceptual processing, stereotype- (e.g., housewives, the elderly) produce pity
consistent characteristics are attended to most and sympathy; stereotypically cold but com-
quickly. For instance, because cultural stereo- petent groups (e.g., Asians, Jews) elicit envy
types associate Black people with violent and jealousy; and stereotypically cold and
crime in the United States, White people incompetent groups (e.g., welfare recipients,
are quicker to recognize objects associated poor people) generate disgust, anger, and
with crime (e.g., a gun) when primed with a resentment. This powerful approach helps to
8 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
explain why two quite distinct ethno-religious sociological analysis of the consequences
groups (e.g., the Chinese in Southeast Asian of group proportions such as skewed sex
countries such as Malaysia and Indonesia, ratios which, at the extremes, involve very
and Jews in Europe) are stereotyped in small numbers of the minority group, even
very similar ways (see Bonacich, 1973; a sole individual. When people are tokens,
Hewstone & Ward, 1985). one of relatively few members of their group
Cultural stereotypes tend to persevere in a social context, they feel particularly
for both cognitive and social reasons. vulnerable to being stereotyped by others.
Cognitively, people often discount stereotype- This occurs especially when the individual
discrepant behaviors, attributing them to is the only member of their group (solo
situational factors, while making dispositional status) in the situation. Tokens or solos
(and stereotype-reinforcing) attributions for experience high levels of self-consciousness
stereotype-consistent behaviors (Hewstone, and threat, which reduces their ability to think
1990; Pettigrew, 1979). Socially, people and act effectively (Lord & Saenz, 1985;
behave in ways that elicit stereotype- Sekaquaptewa & Thompson, 2003).
confirming reactions, creating self-fulfilling More recent research has identified the
prophecies. Biased expectancies influence phenomenon of stereotype threat that occurs
how perceivers behave, causing targets, when members of a stereotyped group become
often without full awareness, to conform to aware of negative stereotypes about them,
perceivers’ expectations (e.g., von Baeyer, even when (a) a person holding the stereotype
Sherk, & Zanna, 1981). In addition, language is not present and (b) they personally do not
plays an important role in the transmission endorse the stereotype. Thus, making group
of stereotypes. When communicating, people membership salient can impair performance
focus on the traits viewed as the most informa- by producing anxiety and cognitive preoc-
tive. Because stereotypical traits are distinc- cupation with a negative stereotype (Steele,
tive to a group, people are more likely to use 1997).
them in social discourse than traits perceived In sum, stereotypes represent a set of
as unrelated to group membership. Stereotyp- qualities perceived to reflect the essence of a
ical traits are generally high on communica- group. Stereotypes systematically affect how
bility (viewed as interesting and informative), people perceive, process information about,
contributing to persistent use (Schaller, Con- and respond to, group members. They are
way, & Tanchuk, 2002). A further insight of transmitted through socialization, the media,
social-psychological research on stereotypes and language and discourse. For the present
is that the traits that tend to form their core volume, we define stereotypes as associations
are characterized not only by high central ten- and beliefs about the characteristics and
dency (e.g., the British are very cold), but also attributes of a group and its members that
by low variability (e.g., most British occupy shape how people think about and respond to
the ‘cold’ end of a warm–cold continuum; see the group.
Ford & Stangor, 1992; Judd & Park, 1993).
Whereas psychological research on stereo-
Discrimination
types has traditionally focused on the per-
ceiver, work in sociology, stimulated by In the context of intergroup relations, dis-
Goffman’s (1963) classic book, Stigma: Notes crimination has a pejorative meaning. It
on the Management of Spoiled Identity, implies more than simply distinguishing
has emphasized the experience of targets among social objects, but refers also to
of stereotypes. As psychology has increas- inappropriate and potentially unfair treatment
ingly turned to understanding the effects of individuals due to group membership.
on targets, two influential directions have Discrimination may involve actively negative
emerged: tokenism and stereotype threat. behavior toward a member of a group or,
Kanter (1977a, 1977b) provided a pioneering more subtly, less positive responses than those
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 9
toward an ingroup member in comparable rather than outgroup derogation (see Brewer,
circumstances. According to Allport (1954), 1999, 2001). This raises the question of
discrimination involves denying ‘individuals when ingroup favoritism gives way to dero-
or groups of people equality of treatment gation, hostility, and antagonism against out-
which they may wish’ (p. 51). Jones (1972) groups (e.g., Brewer, 2001, Mummendey &
defined discrimination as ‘those actions Otten, 2001).
designed to maintain own-group characteris- A number of analyses argue that the
tics and favored position at the expense of the constraints normally in place that limit
comparison group’ (p. 4). intergroup bias to ingroup favoritism are
Discrimination is generally understood as lifted when outgroups are associated with
biased behavior, which includes not only stronger emotions (Brewer, 2001, Doosje,
actions that directly harm or disadvantage Branscombe, Spears, et al., 1998; Mackie &
another group, but those that unfairly favor Smith, 1998; Mummendey & Otten, 2001).
one’s own group (creating a relative disadvan- There is ample scope for these emotions in
tage for other groups). Allport (1954) argued the arousal that often characterizes intergroup
that ingroup favoritism plays a fundamental encounters, which can be translated into
role in intergroup relations, taking psycho- emotions such as fear, hatred, or disgust
logical precedence over outgroup antipathy. (Smith, 1993; Stephan & Stephan, 2000), and
He noted that ‘in-groups are psychologically emotions experienced in specific encounters
primary. We live in them, and sometimes, with groups can be an important cause of
for them’ (p. 42), and proposed that ‘there is people’s overall reactions to groups (e.g.,
good reason to believe that this love-prejudice Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993). As part of
is far more basic to human life than is … a shift from exclusive concern with cognition
hate-prejudice. When a person is defending in intergroup bias, Smith (1993) differentiated
a categorical value of his own, he may do milder emotions (e.g., disgust) from stronger
so at the expense of other people’s interests emotions (e.g., contempt, anger) most likely
or safety. Hate prejudice springs from a to be aroused in an intergroup context,
reciprocal love prejudice underneath’ (p. 25). and linked specific emotions, perceptions
In the 50 years since Allport’s observation, of the outgroup, and action tendencies (see
a substantial body of research has confirmed Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). Thus an
that intergroup bias in evaluations (attitudes) outgroup that violates ingroup norms may
and resource allocations (discrimination) elicit disgust and avoidance; an outgroup seen
often involves ingroup favoritism in the as benefiting unjustly (e.g., from government
absence of overtly negative responses to programs) may elicit resentment and actions
outgroups (Brewer, 1979, 1999; Otten & aimed at reducing benefits; and an outgroup
Mummendey, 2000). seen as threatening may elicit fear and
Even though much of the traditional hostile actions. Thus, weaker emotions imply
research on bias has not made the distinction only mild forms of discrimination, such
between ingroup favoritism and outgroup as avoidance, but stronger emotions imply
derogation a central focus, the distinction is stronger forms, such as movement against
crucial, and each of them requires method- the outgroup, and these latter emotions
ological concision and has distinct practical could be used to justify outgroup harm
consequences. Methodologically, to separate that extends beyond ingroup benefit (Brewer,
the two components of ingroup favoritism 2001). This is not, however, to imply that
and outgroup derogation we need to include pro-ingroup biases need not concern us.
an independent assessment of ingroup and They can perpetuate unfair discrimination
outgroup evaluations, and a control condition. by advantaging dominant ingroups, often
Practically, the bias uncovered in much with less personal awareness and recogni-
social-psychological research predominantly tion by others, making them as pernicious
takes the mild form of ingroup favoritism, as discrimination based on anti-outgroup
10 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
(typically assumed to be right and moral) group-based disparities and inequities. Thus,
and long-standing or ritualized practices seem members of a disadvantaged group may
‘normal.’ Furthermore, ideologies – whether develop a ‘false consciousness’ in which they
explicitly prejudicial or obscuring prejudice not only comply with but also endorse cultural
(e.g., by suggesting that if discriminatory values that systematically disadvantage them.
effects are unintended, there is no ‘problem’) – For example, an exclusive emphasis on indi-
justify the ‘way things are done.’ The media vidually oriented meritocracy may obscure
and public discourse also often direct attention cultural and institutional discrimination and
away from potential institutional biases. lead to an over-reliance on individual rather
Because institutional discrimination is not than collective action to address discrimi-
necessarily intentional or dependent on the nation. Thus, the unique power of cultural
overt efforts of individuals, it often must be discrimination resides in its power to shape
inferred from disparate outcomes between how members of different groups interpret
groups traced back to differential policies, and react to group disparities, fostering
even those that might appear to be unrelated to compliance to the status quo without explicit
group membership. These effects may appear intentions, awareness, or active support for
economically (e.g., in loan policies after these group-based disparities.
controlling for differences in qualifying con- Each form of bias – prejudice, stereotypes,
ditions), educationally (e.g., in admission and and discrimination – can occur at the indi-
financial aid policies), in employment (e.g., vidual, institutional, and cultural levels. Fur-
height requirement for employment as a police thermore, these biases are often perpetuated
officer), in the media (e.g., exaggerating the by habitual practices and even formal laws,
association of minority groups with violence and justified by ideologies (some of which
or poverty), in the criminal justice system may obscure the existence of discrimination).
(e.g., group differences in incarceration rates In the next section, we consider the social-
for similar crimes), and in mental and physical psychological assumption that, despite all
health (e.g., social stress or lesser care) (see of the various forms bias may take, some
Feagin, 2006; Institute of Medicine, 2003; basic and fundamental processes generally
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). foster and reinforce stereotypes, prejudice,
Whereas institutional discrimination is and discrimination.
associated with formal laws and policies,
cultural discrimination is deeply embedded
in the fiber of a culture’s history, standards,
BASIC PROCESSES IN PREJUDICE,
and normative ways of behaving. Cultural
discrimination occurs when one group exerts STEREOTYPING, AND
the power to define values for a society. DISCRIMINATION
It involves not only privileging the culture,
heritage, and values of the dominant group, Summarizing the extensive research on
but also imposing this culture on other less social biases with a limited number of
dominant groups. As a consequence, every- themes, Haslam and Dovidio (2010) identified
day activities implicitly communicate group- basic factors that foster and maintain bias:
based bias, passing it to new generations. (a) personality and individual differences,
We thus define cultural discrimination as (b) group conflict, (c) social categorization,
beliefs about the superiority of a dominant and (d) social identity. We review each below.
group’s cultural heritage over those of other
groups, and the expression of such beliefs in
Personality and individual
individual actions or institutional policies.
differences
Under some circumstances, members of a
minority group may adopt system-justifying Responding to the Nazi’s rise to power in
ideologies propagated by the dominant Germany and the subsequent horrors of the
cultural group that distract attention from Holocaust, psychologists initially focused on
12 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
understanding ‘What type of person would model, then, focuses on collective attributions
harbor the kinds of prejudices and stereotypes rather than Freudian psychodynamics.
that would lead to genocide?’ Given its The most influential work within the psy-
prominence in psychological thought at the choanalytic tradition was Adorno, Frenkel-
time, many of the answers relied on Freudian Brunswik, E., Levinson, et al.’s (1950)
psychodynamic theory (see Allport, 1954). research, represented in their classic vol-
These approaches proposed that (a) the ume, The Authoritarian Personality. These
accumulation of psychic energy, due to researchers conducted extensive qualitative
frustration and guilt inevitably produced by and quantitative work on the psychological
society’s restrictions on instinctual drives for substrates of anti-Semitism and susceptibil-
sex and aggression, power intergroup bias and ity to fascistic propaganda. Adorno et al.
hostility; and (b) an individual’s expression of identified patterns of cognition differentiating
prejudice has an important cathartic function prejudiced (authoritarian) individuals from
in releasing pent-up energy and restoring the others who were more tolerant or open-
individual to a state of equilibrium. minded. Specifically, prejudiced individuals
Other approaches adopted elements of psy- exhibited intolerance of ambiguity, rigidity,
chodynamic theory with critical variations. concreteness (poor abstract reasoning), and
In their Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis, over-generalization. Such individuals were
Dollard, Doob, Miller, et al. (1939) presented thus portrayed as seeing the social world in
a drive-reduction model that included Freud’s black-and-white terms – evincing strong and
proposition that drives sought discharge in disdainful rejection of others perceived as
behavior, but characterized aggression as a inferior to themselves and their ingroup.
response to circumstances that interfered with The origins of the authoritarian personality
goal-directed activity, not as an innate drive. were also traced to individuals’ childhood
Dollard et al. in their account of scapegoating, experiences, specifically to hierarchical rela-
further hypothesized that aggression is often tions with punitive parents. In contrast, liber-
displaced onto an innocent target if the true als (non-authoritarians) were believed to be
source of frustration is powerful and poten- the product of a more egalitarian upbringing
tially threatening (see Glick, 2005). Hovland that fostered more cognitive flexibility and
and Sears (1940) argued that historically the rejection of stereotypic representations of
relationship between economic downturns (a others (see Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, et al.,
source of frustration) and the lynchings of 2003). In response to subsequent methodolog-
Black people (1882–1930) in southern states ical and conceptual challenges, ideas about
in the United States provided support for authoritarianism evolved to emphasize the
this account of scapegoating (see also Green, role of social norms and standards, rather
Glaser, & Rich, 1998). than Freudian dynamics. The most current
Both of these accounts of scapegoating conceptualization, Right-Wing Authoritarian-
have been challenged recently. Using the ism (Altemeyer, 1996, 1998), focuses on
Stereotype Content Model perspective, Glick worldviews, and predicts negative attitudes
(2005) argued that successful minorities, toward a variety of groups, particularly those
stereotyped as competent but cold competitors socially rejected by society (e.g., Altemeyer,
(not as weak and vulnerable) are most likely 1996; Esses, Haddock, Zanna, et al., 1993).
to be scapegoated. Only envied minorities Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius &
are viewed as having both the ability Pratto, 1999) represents another recent
(competence) and intent (coldness) to have approach to social biases, containing a
deliberately caused widespread misfortunes focus on individual differences, which has
(e.g., the Nazis blamed the ‘worldwide Jewish similarly eschewed psychodynamic theory.
conspiracy’ for causing Germany’s collapse, This theory focuses on individual differences
citing the Jews’ relative success in banking, in whether people view intergroup relations
industry, the media, and government). This as a competition in which it is appropriate for
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 13
some groups to dominate others. People who group conducted raids on the other’s cabin,
score high in Social Dominance Orientation resulting in property destruction and theft.
endorsing items such as, ‘Some groups of The investigators then altered the functional
people are simply inferior to other groups’ relations between the groups by introducing
and ‘Sometimes other groups must be kept a set of superordinate goals (goals that could
in their place,’ show more prejudice and not successfully be achieved without the full
discrimination toward a range of outgroups. cooperation of both groups). Achieving these
Social Dominance Theory, while including goals together led to more harmonious rela-
an individual differences approach, focuses tions and large reductions in intergroup bias.
on an enduring theme in the study of social Sherif, Harvey, White, et al. (1961)
biases – the degree of competition between proposed that functional relations between
groups. This concern has been an abiding groups strongly influence intergroup attitudes.
theme in understanding intergroup bias. When groups are competitively interdepen-
dent, the success of one group is contingent
on the failure of the other. Thus, each
Group conflict
group’s attempt to obtain favorable outcomes
The early representation of prejudice as for itself is also realistically perceived to
reflecting a dysfunctional personality was frustrate the goals of the other group. Such
highly influential, not least because it fit a win-lose, zero-sum competitive relation
with lay theories that viewed social biases between groups initiates mutually negative
as abnormal, a form of social pathology. feelings and stereotypes toward the members
However, a number of researchers argued of the other group. In contrast, cooperatively
instead that social biases are not restricted interdependent relations between groups (i.e.,
to a small group of people and represent a needing each other to achieve common goals)
group-level phenomenon, and thus developed reduce bias (e.g., Blanchard, Adelman, &
theories focusing on the functional relations Cook, 1975).
between groups. Functional relations do not have to involve
Theories based on functional relations explicit competition to generate biases. In the
often point to competition and consequent absence of any direct evidence, people typi-
perceived threat as fundamental causes of cally presume that members of other groups
intergroup prejudice and conflict. Realistic will act competitively and hinder the attain-
Group Conflict Theory (Campbell, 1965; ment of one’s goals (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993;
Sherif, 1966) posits that perceived group Insko, Schopler, Gaertner, et al., 2001). In
competition for resources leads to efforts addition, individual differences in intergroup
to reduce the access of other groups to perceptions (e.g., Social Dominance Orien-
resources. Classic field work by Muzafer tation) can moderate responses regardless of
Sherif and his colleagues (Sherif, Harvey, the actual functional relations between groups
White, et al., 1961) examined intergroup (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, et al., 2001a). It was
conflict at a boys’ camp adjacent to Robbers also recognized that social biases can serve
Cave State Park in Oklahoma (United States). less tangible or symbolic collective functions
In this study, twenty-two 12-year-old boys such as garnering prestige or social status,
attending summer camp were randomly in addition to instrumental objectives such
assigned to two groups (who subsequently as obtaining economic advantage (Allport
named themselves Eagles and Rattlers). When 1954; Blumer, 1958a). Indeed, it has been
the groups engaged in a series of competitive suggested that symbolic, psychological fac-
activities (a tug-of-war and baseball, and tors are typically more important sources
touch football games), intergroup bias and of intergroup bias than is competition for
conflict quickly developed. Group members tangible resources (Esses, Jackson, Dovidio,
regularly exchanged verbal insults (e.g., et al., 2005). Thus, additional themes in the
‘sissies,’ ‘stinkers,’ and ‘cheaters’), and each study of social bias have focused on the
14 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
as a context-specific response to the position is more salient critically shapes how a person
of one’s group within a particular system of perceives, interprets, evaluates, and responds
intergroup relations. to situations and to others.
Both Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & In summary, whereas the section on Key
Turner, 1979) and the related Self- Concepts emphasized distinctions between
Categorization Theory (Turner, 1985; various forms of social biases, this section
see also Onorato & Turner, 2001) emphasize considered common elements that produce
the distinction between personal and social prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination.
identities (see Spears, 2001). When personal Prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination
identity (the self perceived as an individual) is are complex, multi-determined processes.
salient, a person’s individual needs, standards, Therefore, basic factors related to individual
beliefs, and motives primarily determine differences, group conflict, social categoriza-
behavior. In contrast, when social identity tion, and social identity should not be viewed
(the self perceived as a member of a group) is as competing but rather as complementary
salient, ‘people come to perceive themselves explanations, which can combine and operate
as more interchangeable exemplars of a in different ways under different conditions.
social category than as unique personalities In discussing key concepts and underlying
defined by their individual differences from processes, we have illustrated how appro-
others’ (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, et al., 1987: aches to understanding prejudice, stereotypes,
50). Under these conditions, collective needs, and discrimination have evolved such that
goals, and standards are primary. different facets of social bias and different
This perspective also proposes that a influences have been emphasized at different
person defines or categorizes the self along times. The history of research on bias is
a continuum that ranges from seeing the self explored in more detail in Duckitt’s chapter
as a separate individual with personal motives, in this volume (Chapter 2). In the next
goals, and achievements to viewing the self as section, however, we offer our own historical
an embodiment of a social collective or group. perspective, looking forward as much as back.
At the individual level, one’s personal welfare
and goals are most salient and important. At
the group level, the goals and achievements THE PAST AND THE FUTURE
of the group are merged with one’s own
(see Brown & Turner, 1981), and the group’s Building on Duckitt’s (1992) insightful histor-
welfare is paramount. At one extreme, self ical analysis, Dovidio (2001) identified three
interest is fully represented by the first- general ‘waves’ of scholarship, reflecting
person pronoun ‘I’ and, at the other extreme, different assumptions and paradigms, in the
group interest is fully represented by the social psychological study of social biases.
collective pronoun ‘We.’ Intergroup relations The first wave, from the 1920s through
begin when people think about themselves, the 1950s, portrayed social biases as psy-
and others, as group members rather than as chopathology, with prejudice conceived as
distinct individuals. a kind of social cancer. Research during
Illustrating the dynamics of this distinction, this wave focused first on measuring and
Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) found describing the problem and monitoring any
that when individual identity was primed, changes (e.g., Gilbert, 1951; Katz & Braly,
individual differences in authoritarianism 1933), and then on understanding the source of
strongly predicted Dutch students’ prejudice the problem (e.g., in family relations, feelings
toward Turkish migrants. In contrast, when of personal inadequacies, and psychodynamic
social identity (i.e., national identity) was processes; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, E.,
made salient, ingroup stereotypes and stan- Levinson, et al., 1950). If the problem was
dards primarily predicted prejudiced attitudes. confined to certain ‘diseased’ individuals
Thus, whether personal or collective identity (much as a cancer begins with diseased
16 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
cells), prejudice might be localized and daily (see Hamilton, 1981). To the extent
removed or treated, containing the problem that social categorization was hypothesized
and preserving the health of society as a to be a critical element in this process
whole. Thus, researchers concentrated on (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986), this cognitive,
identifying, through personality and attitude intra-individual perspective complemented
tests such as the authoritarian personality Tajfel’s motivational, group-level approach in
scale, prejudiced individuals so that remedial reinforcing the normality of prejudice.
efforts could be focused on this subset of Together, these orientations helped to divert
the population. This approach also directed the focus away from the question, ‘Who
attention toward a traditional, conservative, is prejudiced?’ – the answer seemed to
and not highly educated segment of the be ‘everyone.’ If prejudice reflects normal
population – a group comfortably (for the cognitive processes and group life, not just
researchers themselves) unlike the academics personal needs and motivations, bias should
studying prejudice. be the norm. Researchers therefore turned to
The second wave of theorizing and research examining bias among the ‘well-intentioned’
began with an opposite assumption: prejudice and to the apparent inconsistencies between
is rooted in normal rather than abnormal self-reported attitudes, which suggested that
processes. Thus, the focus turned to how the vast majority of Westerners were non-
normal processes, such as socialization into prejudiced, and the continued evidence of dis-
prevailing norms, supports and transmits prej- parities and discrimination (e.g., Gaertner &
udice. This approach revealed that changing Dovidio, 1986). The key question therefore
general social norms, not simply targeting became, ‘Is anyone truly not prejudiced?’
interventions toward a subset of ‘abnormal’ Theories of racial ambivalence (Katz, 1981;
individuals, is necessary for combating prej- Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986) and of
udice. The typical focus of social psychology subtle and unintentional types of biases,
in North America on the individual in a such as symbolic racism (Sears, 1988; Sears,
social context was complemented by two Henry, & Kosterman, 2000), modern racism
other approaches in the 1970s. On the one (McConahay, 1986), and aversive racism
hand, at a more macro level, Tajfel’s work (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Kovel, 1970)
(Tajfel & Turner, 1979) persuasively demon- emerged during this period. These theories
strated the important role of social identity, all proposed that changing social norms in
as well as individual identity, in producing the United States (after the Civil Rights
prejudice. Evidence that assigning people to era) had driven racism ‘underground,’ either
temporary groups based on arbitrary criteria because of people’s genuine desire to be
was sufficient to produce ingroup-favoring egalitarian or a simple realization that overt
prejudices (Brewer, 1979; Tajfel, 1970), racism would elicit social disapproval. While
and, when other factors (e.g., competition) the theories disagree on whether racism has
were added, outgroup hostility reinforced the merely become covert or individuals are truly
emerging conception of prejudice as a normal conflicted about their attitudes, all agree that
mechanism. a lifetime of exposure to negative stereotypes
On the other hand, at a more micro fuels the persistence of prejudiced attitudes
level, the development of new theories and that are not readily apparent.
instrumentation for investigating social cog- The third wave of research on prejudice,
nition further emphasized the normality and, beginning in the mid-1990s and characteriz-
some argued, the inevitability of prejudice. ing much current research, emphasizes the
Prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination multidimensional aspect of prejudice and
were conceived as outcomes of normal cog- takes advantage of new technologies to study
nitive processes associated with simplifying processes that earlier theorists hypothesized
and storing the overwhelming quantity and but had no way to measure. For example,
complexity of information people encounter aversive racism, modern racism, and symbolic
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 17
racism – distinctly different theories about (even in the absence of interaction with
contemporary racial prejudice – all assumed Whites), with detrimental consequences (e.g.,
widespread unconscious negative feelings and on academic tests) (Steele, 1997). However,
beliefs by White people toward Black people. the consequences of stigmatization are now
However, it was not until the 1990s that new understood to be more dynamic and complex
conceptual perspectives (e.g., Greenwald & than Allport and his contemporaries assumed
Banaji, 1995) and technologies (e.g., response (see Crocker & Major, 1989; Miller & Myers,
latency procedures; Dovidio & Fazio, 1992; 1998).
Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) What, then, lies ahead? Each chapter in this
emerged, allowing researchers to measure volume specifically addresses this question.
implicit (i.e., automatic and unconscious) Here, we consider the broad picture and
attitudes and beliefs. These new technolo- suggest eight general trends, ranging from the
gies permit the assessment of individual intra-individual (in fact, the intra-cranial) to
differences in implicit, as well as explicit, the societal. The first trend is a more elabo-
racial attitudes and may thus help distinguish rated conception of the neuroscience of bias,
traditional racists, aversive or modern racists, which can help distinguish the underpinnings
and the truly non-prejudiced White people. of different types of bias. Whereas social
These methods also open doors for developing psychology operationalizes ingroup-outgroup
ways to combat subtle forms of prejudice. relations in a variety of different ways
The adaptation of fMRI procedures to study (e.g., sex, race, age, weight), neuroscience
brain processes involved in social phenomena points to fundamental differences in various
promises further links to cognitive neuropsy- forms of categorization. Racial categorization
chological processes and a more compre- relates to structures that have evolved for
hensive, interdisciplinary, and multidimen- sensitivity to novelty or threat (amygdala)
sional understanding of prejudice (Phelps, and neural systems that track coalitions
O’ Connor, Cunningham, et al., 2000). and alliances (Cosmides, Tooby, & Kurzban,
Besides addressing the multidimensional 2003), but sex and age are encoded in other
intrapersonal processes associated with preju- regions of the brain (frontocentral regions).
dice and racism, the current wave of research Thus, although racism and sexism may
more explicitly considers the interpersonal share some similar behavioral dynamics and
and intergroup context. That is, whereas pre- social consequences, social neuroscience data
vious research focused largely on perceivers’ suggest fundamental differences in perception
attitudes and how these attitudes biased their and encoding. Such different neural under-
evaluations, decisions, and behavior, third- pinnings may have critical implications for
wave work considers how targets respond and cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions
adapt, and how prejudice unfolds in interac- (Amodio & Devine, 2006;Amodio, Devine, &
tions between perceivers and targets. Targets Harmon-Jones, 2007).
are no longer viewed as passive victims A second emerging trend is closer attention
of bias, an assumption implicit in Allport’s to understanding how interpersonal inter-
(1954) question, ‘What would happen to your actions relate to larger-scale social biases.
personality if you heard it said over and over As Shelton and Richeson (2006; see also
again that you are lazy and had inferior blood?’ Shelton, Dovidio, Hebl, et al., 2009) have
(p. 42) and explicit in his answer: ‘Group argued, interpersonal interactions between
oppression may destroy the integrity of the members of different groups represent crit-
ego entirely, and reverse its normal pride, ical encounters. Such encounters not only
and create a groveling self-image’ (p. 152). reflect contemporary group relations but
Current work demonstrates that minorities also produce impressions and outcomes
to some extent internalize social biases and that can reinforce or diminish further bias.
implicit stereotypes (Johnson, Trawalter, & Interpersonal interactions between members
Dovidio, 2000), which can become activated of different groups are highly susceptible
18 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
More generally, future research is likely research with adventurous excursions outside
to investigate the effectiveness of other the lab, where members of different groups
strategies for reducing bias. For example, live, work, cooperate and sometimes fight
because of world events, recent attention has with each other. In one example, Pettigrew
turned to considering whether multicultur- (2008) recently called for a greater focus on
alism is effective for promoting intergroup the multi-level nature of intergroup contact
harmony within a nation (e.g., Correll, Park, & where, for example, members of different
Smith, 2008). Similarly, social cognitive groups may inhabit different neighborhoods,
associative training has been harnessed for but come together in common classrooms,
reducing the application of stereotypes (e.g., in different schools. Pettigrew and Tropp’s
Kawakami, Dovidio, & van Kamp, 2007). (2006) meta-analysis of intergroup contact
These strategies take advantage of knowledge included no multi-level studies, yet these
of the sources of prejudice to develop are crucial for practical applications (see
strategies for counteracting such effects. Pettigrew, 2006).
Thus, as knowledge and understanding of Integrating the traditional social psycholog-
the neurological and other bases of prejudice ical emphasis on intra-individual and interper-
accrues, so too should new strategies be sonal processes with macro institutional and
developed and evaluated that target such societal factors that have been the province
processes. of sociology and political science represents a
Two key aspects of this future work on seventh fertile area for future research. Recent
bias reduction constitute independent themes social phenomena, such as unprecedented
in their own right; they can be illustrated with rates of international immigration and the pur-
reference to intergroup contact, but are by no ported clash of eastern and western cultures,
means exclusive to it. A fifth recent trend is highlight the importance of multi-disciplinary
shift from a static to a dynamic approach. approaches to social problems. The com-
At one level this is seen in the relational plexity of these issues speaks to the need
approach taken to intergroup interactions by to adopt truly multidisciplinary approaches
Richeson, Shelton and their colleagues (see that incorporate the different perspectives
Shelton & Richeson, 2006). How one person and methods of fields such as economics,
perceives and interprets an interaction partner political science, sociology, psychology, and
has a direct impact on how that partner anthropology (Esses, Semenya, Stelzl, et al.,
interprets and responds. Thus how behavior 2006). Initiatives in this area will likely
unfolds over time becomes a critical focus. At require greater investment in field research,
another level, static, cross-sectional analyses studying actual groups in extended conflict,
of intergroup relations are no longer seen as than has been the case in recent years in
sufficient to understand what are, essentially, psychology.
dynamic phenomena. To give one example, A final future direction we would like
more than 70 percent of the research on to see unfold is a greater input from
intergroup contact reported in a meta-analysis social psychological research on prejudice,
by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) involved stereotyping, and discrimination to relevant
respondents retrospectively reporting prior or policy. The findings reviewed in the chapters
current levels of contact. This reliance on in this volume have important and multiple
cross-sectional, correlational studies needs to implications for government policy, ranging
be gradually replaced with more complex from increasing the educational aspirations of
longitudinal studies (e.g., Binder, Zagefka, minority youth, to providing equal access to
Brown, et al., 2009; Levin, van Laar, & health care irrespective of ethnic group, to
Sidanius, 2003). promoting effective interventions to improve
A sixth, also methodological, focus, barely social harmony. A case in point is the burning
in its infancy, is for social psychology to com- question of whether residential diversity is
plement its long-held expertise in laboratory associated with reduced levels of trust, as
20 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
in light of current theoretical models of each other and develop social relations that
person perception, social cognition, and both create and justify intergroup bias. The
social categorization. Next, Schaller, Conway, chapter, Social Structure, by Diekman, Eagly,
and Peavy, in their chapter Evolutionary and Johnston examines prejudice as resulting
Processes, identify two kinds of evolutionary from social cognitive elements, such as
processes contributing to bias, one genetic and attitudes and stereotypes, and social structural
the other social that relate to how knowledge elements, such as roles and contexts, and
is selectively transmitted between individuals. they offer an integrative perspective, the
Killen, Richardson, and Kelly then discuss, in role congruity model of prejudice. In the
Developmental Perspectives, how intergroup final chapter of the section, Mass Media,
attitudes emerge, change, and are manifested Mutz and Goldman consider how the ways
throughout development. different groups are portrayed in the media
The next three chapters in the section can influence intergroup attitudes and beliefs.
examine cognitive, affective, and motiva- They outline the contributions and limitations
tional processes in prejudice, stereotyping, of past work on this topic, and point to
and discrimination. In their chapter, Cog- the most promising theoretical frameworks
nitive Processes, Fiske and Russell review for studying media influence on outgroup
social cognitive perspectives on prejudice, attitudes. Thus, this section spans different
stereotyping, and discrimination, focusing levels of analysis for understanding prejudice,
on underlying thought processes that create stereotyping, and discrimination.
and maintain bias. Smith and Mackie follow The third section of the volume is
with a chapter on Affective Processes. The Expression of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and
authors explore ways that incidental affect, Discrimination. This section explores how
affect arising from an interaction, and affect bias is expressed sometimes subtly but other
experienced when they think of themselves times blatantly in attitudes, interpersonal
as a member of a social group influences interactions, and intergroup relations. The
cognitive processes and behavioral reactions. chapter, Attitudes and Intergroup Relations by
Yzerbyt attempts to integrate research on Maio, Haddock, Manstead, and Spears, which
cognitive and affective processes in bias in his begins this section, reviews research on the
chapter; he analyses bias from the perspective content, structure, and function of attitudes
of fundamental integrity concerns to know and in general and their relationship to intergroup
to control, to be connected with others, and to biases. Richeson and Shelton focus on the role
have value. of prejudice in interpersonal interaction. They
The volume then moves from intrapersonal consider how the reciprocal ways stigmatized
processes to a focus on the individual. and non-stigmatized individuals influence
The chapter, Individual Differences, by Son each other in interactions shape intergroup
Hing and Zanna, identifies ideological and perceptions and outcomes. Dancygier and
dispositional influences that shape the degree Green focus on one extreme outcome, Hate
to which different people harbor intergroup Crime. They explore motivational influences
biases. Abrams and Hogg consider the and contextual factors (including political,
roles of identity, personal and collective, historical-cultural, sociological, and eco-
in their chapter, Social Identity and Self- nomic circumstances) that elicit hate crimes.
Categorization. From the perspective of social The next four chapters in the section discuss
identity theory, the authors explain how pre- four different forms of intergroup bias. The
judice, stereotypes, and discrimination arise first three explore well-known ‘-isms’; Glick
and are maintained. The next two chapters, and Rudman focus on sexism; Dovidio,
Group Realities by Leyens and Demoulin and Gaertner, and Kawakami discuss racism;
Intergroup Competition by Esses, Jackson, Hebl, Law, and King consider heterosexism.
and Bennet-AbuAyyash, demonstrate how In the following chapter Wagner, Christ, and
groups influence the way individuals perceive Heitmeyer examine anti-immigration bias.
22 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
Although far from exhaustive, these four and explain how suppression of prejudi-
chapters provide ‘case studies’ illustrating cial biases often backfires. In the chapter,
both common elements and unique aspects of Multiple Identities, Crisp provides a review
discrimination toward different groups. and integration of research into how the
The fourth section of the volume is recognition and use of multiple identities in
Social Impact of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and person perception can encourage reductions
Discrimination. Quinn, Kallen, and Spencer, in intergroup biases. Gaertner, Dovidio, and
in their chapter, Stereotype Threat, review Houlette explore how social categorization,
the general evidence on stereotype threat, which often produces intergroup bias, can
discuss potential underlying processes, and be redirected through recategorization to
consider the role of varying group identities in reduce bias. Tausch and Hewstone present an
stereotype threat outcomes. The chapter, Inter- overview of the vast literature on intergroup
nalized Devaluation and Situational Threat contact, highlighting recent developments in
by Crocker and Garcia examines research the field, and identifying moderating factors
and theory on the idea that prejudice and and mediating mechanisms.
discrimination lower the self-esteem of people Ellemers and van Laar consider individual
with stigmatized identities and these authors mobility, while Wright discusses collective
identify moderating factors. They view the action. Specifically, Ellemers and van Laar
stigmatized as caught between protecting self- argue that individual mobility beliefs and
esteem at the cost of learning, relationships, behaviors tend to reinforce rather than chal-
and/or motivation versus sustaining learning, lenge group-based inequality. Wright, in his
motivation, and relationships at the cost of chapter, Collective Action and Social Change,
self-esteem. Major and Townsend’s chapter, describes four psychological processes that
Coping with Bias, attempts to strike a balance underpin collective action: collective identity,
between acknowledging the negative impact perceived boundary permeability, feelings of
of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination legitimacy/injustice, and collective control
on the lives of the stigmatized and recog- (instability/agency). He concludes the chapter
nizing the multiple strengths and resilience by contrasting the psychology of collective
that stigmatized individuals and groups also action with that of prejudice reduction.
display. The final ‘Commentary’ section of this
The next five chapters in the section volume features a capstone chapter, written
consider the impact of prejudice, stereotyping, by the senior scholar in this field who
and discrimination institutionally, organiza- brings over five decades of experience to this
tionally, and socially. Henry describes the task. This chapter, Looking to the Future,
dynamics of Institutional Bias generally. by Thomas Pettigrew identifies conceptual
Smith, Brief, and Collela study the operation threads that run through the chapters of this
of intergroup bias in organizations, whereas volume and discusses a series of pressing
Schmukler, Rasquiza, Dimmit, and Crosby concerns for future work, including the
examine bias in public policy. The impact of need for more integrative, multi-level, and
intergroup bias on a key area of society, health contextually sensitive analysis.
care, and outcomes, is reviewed by Penner, Taken together, the chapters in this volume
Albrecht, Orom, Coleman, and Underwood. provide a broad overview of classic and
The fifth section of the volume is Com- current research and theory on prejudice,
bating Bias. It contains seven chapters that stereotyping, and discrimination. Each of
present a range of perspectives, conceptual the chapters is integrative and reflective.
and practical, for controlling and eliminating Moreover, and most importantly, they are
prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. collectively generative. The chapters offer
Monteith, Arthur, and Flynn, in their chapter critical analysis and insights that reveal
on Self-Regulation, discuss motivational gaps in what we know about intergroup
factors influencing regulatory inclinations bias and they highlight promising directions
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 23
for future work. They map the extensive attraction in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of
knowledge base on this important issue and Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1021–1030.
provide a blueprint for researchers to pursue Blauner, R. (1972). Race Oppression in America.
individually and collectively, not only to New York: Harper & Row.
better understand the phenomena of prejudice, Blumer, H. (1958a). Race prejudice as a sense of group
stereotyping, and discrimination but also position. Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7.
Blumer, H. (1958b). Recent research on race relations
to develop new techniques for eliminating
in the United States of America. International Social
intergroup bias. Science Bulletin, 10, 403–477.
Blumer, H. (1965a). Industrialization and race relations.
In G. Hunter (Ed.), Industrialization and Race
REFERENCES Relations: A Symposium (pp. 228–229). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Abrams, D. (1985). Focus of attention in minimal Blumer, H. (1965b). The future of the Color Line. In
intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social J. C. McKinney & E. T. Thompson (Eds), The South in
Psychology, 24, 65–74. Continuity and Change (pp. 322–336). Durham, NC:
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Seeman.
Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the
New York: Harper. paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds), Eliminating Racism: Profiles
Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. in Controversy (pp. 85–114). New York: Plenum.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The Authoritarian Specter. Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Microfoundations of a sociological approach to racism
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personal- and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55,
ity. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental 445–472.
Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Bobo, L., & Huchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of
Academic Press. racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory
Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping of group position to a multiracial context. American
and evaluation in implicit race prejudice: Evidence Sociological Review, 61, 951–972.
for independent constructs and unique effects Bobo, L., & Tuan, M. (2006). Prejudice in Politics: Group
on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Position, Public Opinion and the Wisconsin Treaty
Psychology, 91, 652–661. Rights Dispute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Amodio, D.M., Devine, P.G., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007). Press.
A dynamic model of guilt: Implications for motivation Bonacich, E. (1972). A theory of ethnic antagonism.
and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. American Sociological Review, 77, 547–559.
Psychological Science, 18, 524–530. Bonacich, E. (1973). A theory of middleman minorities.
Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., & Pulaski, C. (1990). Equal American Sociological Review, 38, 583–594.
Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legal and Empirical Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal inter-
Analysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. group situation: A cognitive motivational analysis.
Bell, D. W., & Esses, V. M. (1997). Ambivalence and Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.
response amplification toward native peoples. Journal Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice:
of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1063–1084. Ingroup love or outgroup hate? Journal of Social
Ben-Ari, R., & Rich, Y. (Eds) (1997). Enhancing Education Issues, 55, 429–444.
in Heterogeneous Schools: Theory and Application. Brewer, M. B. (2001). Ingroup identification and
Ramat-Gun, Israel: Bar-Illan University Press. intergroup conflict: When does ingroup love become
Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Brown, R., Funke, F., Kessler, T., outgroup hate? In R.E. Ashmore & L. Jussim (Eds),
Mummendey, A., et al. (2009). Does contact reduce Social Identity, Intergroup Conflict, and Conflict
prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longi- Reduction. Rutgers Series on Self and Social Identity,
tudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority (Vol. 3., pp. 17–41). London, England: Oxford
and minority groups in three European countries. University Press.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, Brewer, M. B., & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup
843–856. relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey
Blanchard, F. A., Adelman, L., & Cook, S. W. (Eds), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2,
(1975). Effect of group success upon interpersonal pp. 554–594). New York: McGraw Hill.
24 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the Questions: Meaning, Memory, Attitudes, and Social
contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on Interaction (pp. 204–237). New York: Russell Sage
desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds), Foundation.
Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism.
(pp. 281–302). Orlando FL: Academic Press. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA:
Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern Academic Press.
racism and obedience to authority as explanations for Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003).
employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior The Contact Hypothesis: The past, present, and the
and Human Decision Processes. 81, 72–97. future. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations,
Briggs, X. de S. (2008). On half-blind men and 6, 5–21.
elephants: Understanding greater ethnic diversity and Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka,
responding to good-enough evidence. Housing Policy K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending
Debate, 19, 218–229. the benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-
Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimental
theory of intergroup contact. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Social Psychology, 33, 401–420.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 37, Duckitt, J. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A histor-
pp. 255–343). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. ical analysis and integrative framework. American
Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal Psychologist, 47, 1182–1193.
and intergroup behavior. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles Eagly, A. H., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). What is
(Eds.), Intergroup Behavior (pp. 33–64). Chicago, IL: the problem? Prejudice as an attitude-in-context. In
University of Chicago Press. J. F. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds), On
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport
motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium (pp. 19–35). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
on Motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311). Lincoln: Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Dion, K. L. (Eds)
University of Nebraska Press. (2001b). Immigrants and immigration. Journal of
Correll, J., Park, B., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Colorblind and Social Issues, 57.
multicultural prejudice reduction strategies in high- Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong,
conflict situations. Group Processes and Intergroup T. M. (2001a). The immigration dilemma: The role
Relations, 11, 471–491. of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice,
Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Kurzban, R. (2003). and national identity. Journal of Social Issue, 57,
Perceptions of race. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 389–412.
173–179. Esses, V. M, Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1993).
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of
self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton
Psychological Review. 96, 608–630. (Eds), Affect, Cognition and Stereotyping: Interactive
Dawkins, C. (2008). Reflections on diversity and social Processes in Group Perception (pp. 137–166).
capital: A critique of Robert Putnam’s. ‘E Pluribus San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Hodson, G.
century the 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture’. Housing (2005). Instrumental relations among groups: Group
Policy Debate, 19, 208–217. competition, conflict, and prejudice. In J. F. Dovidio,
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds), On the Nature of
R. R. (1939). Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport (pp. 227–243).
CT: Yale University Press. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, Esses, V. M., Semenya, A. H., Stelzl, M., Dovidio, J. F., &
A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by association: When one’s Hodson, G. (2006). Maximizing social psychological
group has a negative history. Journal of Personality contributions to addressing social issues: The benefits
and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886. of interdisciplinary perspectives. In P. A. M. van
Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary Lange (Ed.), Bridging Social Psychology: Benefits
prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social Issues, of Transdisciplinary Approaches (pp. 403–408).
57, 829–849. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1992). New tech- Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams,
nologies for the direct and indirect assessment of C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as
attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.), Questions About Survey an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 25
fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport (pp. 244–261).
Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism
in social cognition research: Their meaning and uses. Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent
Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Feagin, J. R. (2006). Systemic Racism: A Theory of 70, 491–512.
Oppression. New York: Routledge. Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating Hall.
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Green, D. P., Glaser, J., & Rich, A. (1998). From
73, 31–44. lynching to gay bashing: The elusive connection
Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and between economic conditions and hate crime. Journal
discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 82–92.
(Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. (1995). Implicit social
Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). New York: McGraw-Hill. cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998).
content: Competence and warmth respectively Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition:
follow from perceived status and competition. The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
878–902. Hagendoorn, L., & Nekuee, S. (Eds) (1999). Education
Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative and Racism: A Cross-National Inventory of Positive
interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect?, Effects of Education on Ethnic Tolerance. Aldershot,
In D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds), Affect, UK: Ashgate.
Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup
in Group Perception (pp. 239–268). New York: behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive approach.
Academic Press. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in Stereo-
Fiske, S. T. & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social Cognition. typing and Intergroup Behavior (pp. 333–353).
New York: Random House. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ford, T. E., & Stangor, C. (1992). The role of diagnosticity Hamilton, D. L, & Trolier, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes
in stereotype formation: Perceiving group means and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive
and variances. Journal of Personality and Social approach. In J. F. Dovidio, & S.L. Gaertner (Eds),
Psychology, 63, 356–367. Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (pp. 127–163).
Gabriel, U., Banse, R., & Hug, T. (2007). Predicting public New York: Academic Press.
and private helping behaviour by implicit attitudes Haslam, S. A., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). Prejudice. In
and motivation to control prejudiced reactions. British J. M. Levine, & M. A. Hogg, (Eds), Encyclopedia of
Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 365–382. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations (Vol. 2,
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive pp. 655–660). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds), Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”?
Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism (pp. 61–89). A review of the literature on intergroup attributions.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 311–335.
Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup
Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. bias, Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575–604.
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Hewstone, M., Tausch, N., Voci, A., Kenworthy, J.,
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Hughes, J., & Cairns, E. (2008). Why neighbors kill:
Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., & Ward, C. M. (1997). Does Prior intergroup contact and killing of ethnic outgroup
pro-whiteness necessarily mean anti-blackness? In neighbors. In V. M. Esses, & R. A. Vernon (Eds),
M. Fine, L. Powell, L. Weis, & M. Wong (Eds), Off Explaining the Breakdown of Ethnic Relations: Why
White (pp.167–178). New York: Routledge. Neighbors Kill (pp. 61–91). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Gilbert, G. M. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change Hewstone, M., & Ward, C. (1985). Ethnocentrism and
among college students. Journal of Abnormal and causal attribution in Southeast Asia. Journal of
Social Psychology, 46, 245–254. Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 614–623.
Glick, P. (2005). Choice of scapegoats. In J. F. Dovidio, Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes.
P. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds), On the Nature of Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237–271.
26 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment
Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality of accuracy in social stereotypes. Psychological
and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208. Review, 100, 109–128.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations Kanter, R. M. (1977a). Some effects of proportions on
and group solidarity: Effects of group identification group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token
and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. women. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 965–990.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, Kanter, R. M. (1977b). Men and Women of the
295–309. Corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Stolle, D. & Trappers, A. Karpinski, A., & Hilton, J. L. (2001). Attitudes and the
(2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized trust in Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and
Europe: A cross-national multilevel study. Compar- Social Psychology, 81, 774–788.
ative Political Studies, 42, 198–223. Katz, D., & Braly, K. W. (1933). Racial stereotypes of
Hovland C. I., & Sears, R. R. (1940). Minor 100 college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social
studies of aggression: VI. Correlation of lynchings Psychology, 28, 280–290.
with economic indices. Journal of Psychology, 9, Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A Social-Psychological Perspec-
301–310. tive. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Howard, J. M., Rothbart, M. (1980). Social cate- Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. G. (1986).
gorization for in-group and out-group behavior. Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, In J. F. Dovidio, S. L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice,
301–310. Discrimination, and Racism (pp. 35–59). Orlando, FL:
Hunsberger, B. & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, Academic Press.
meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61, Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., & van Kamp, S.
807–826. (2007). The impact of counterstereotypic training
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., and related correction processes on the application
Kozar, R., Pinter, B., et al. (2001). Interindividual- of stereotypes. Group Processes and Intergroup
intergroup discontinuity reduction through the antic- Relations, 10, 141–158.
ipation of future interaction. Journal of Personality Kovel, J. (1970). White Racism: A Psychohistory.
and Social Psychology, 80, 95–111. New York: Pantheon.
Institute of Medicine (2003). Unequal treatment: Lancee, B., & Dronkers, J. (2008, May). Ethnic diversity
Confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health in neighbourhoods and individual trust of immigrants
care. (B.D. Smedley, A.Y. Stith, & A.R. Nelson, Eds). and natives: A replication of Putnam (2007) in a
Washington, DC: National Academies Press. West European country. Paper presented at the
Johnson, J. D., & Lecci, L. (2003). Assessing anti- International conference on theoretical perspectives
White attitudes and predicting perceived racism: on social cohesion and social capital, Royal Flemish
The Johnson-Lecci scale. Personality and Social Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts.
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 299–312. Brussels, Belgium.
Johnson, J. D., Trawalter, S., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The
Converging interracial consequences of violent rap effects of ingroup and outgroup friendships on ethnic
music on stereotypical attributions of Blacks. Journal attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group
of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 233–251. Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 76–92.
Jones, J. M. (1972). Prejudice and Racism. Reading, Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York:
MA: Addison-Wesley Harcourt, Brace.
Jost, J. T. & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory
in system-justification and the production of false deficits and memory surfeits: Differential cognitive
consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, consequences of tokenism for tokens and observers.
33, 1–27. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade 918–926.
of System Justification Theory: Accumulated evidence Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000).
of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action
quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616.
Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as moti- Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup
vated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative
339–375. approach. Psychological Review, 105, 499–529.
PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 27
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group
and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio, & and out-group members. Journal of Personality and
S. L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, Discrimination, and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068.
Racism (pp. 91–125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of
Miller, C. T., & Myers, A. M. (1998). Compensating automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a
for prejudice: How heavyweight people (and others) weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
control outcomes despite prejudice. In J. K. Swim, & 81, 181–192.
C. Stangor (Eds), Prejudice: The Target’s Perspective. Pearson, A. R., West, T. V., Dovidio, J. F., Powers,
San Diego, CA: Academic Press. S. R., Buck, R., & Henning, R. (2008). The fragility
Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of intergroup relations. Psychological Science, 19,
of Contact Theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 1272–1279.
387–410. Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution
Monteith, M. J., & Spicer, C. V. (2000). Contents and error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of
correlates of Whites’ and Blacks’ racial attitudes. prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 5, 461–476.
125–154. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory.
Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (2001). Aversive Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
discrimination. In R Brown, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds), Pettigrew, T. F. (2006). The advantages of multi-level
Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup approaches. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 615–620.
Processes (pp. 112–132 ). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup
Nickerson, A. M., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Nationality contact theory and research. International Journal of
versus humanity? Personality, identity, and norms in Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199.
relation to attitudes toward asylum seekers. Journal Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. (2006). A meta-analytic test of
of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 796–817. intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and
Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1990). Is limited information Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
processing the cause of social stereotyping? In Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A.,
W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds). European Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., et al.
Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 111–125). (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race
Chichester, UK: Wiley. evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of
Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2001). The “I,” “me,” Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729–738.
and the “us”: The psychological group and self- Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and
concept maintenance and change. In C. Sedikides, & community in the twenty-first century: The 2006
M. B. Brewer (Eds). Individual Self, Relational Self, Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandanavian Political
Collective Self (pp. 147–170). Philadelphia, PA: Studies, 30, 137–174.
Psychology Press. Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes.
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13,
for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-based 80–83.
spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group Schaller, M., Conway, L. G., III, & Tanchuk, T. (2002).
paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Selective pressures on the once and future contents of
36, 77–89. ethnic stereotypes: Effects of the communicability of
Otten, S., & Mummendey, A. (2000). Valence-dependent traits., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
probability of ingroup-favoritism between minimal 82, 861–877.
groups: An integrative view on the positive-negative Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz, &
asymmetry in social discrimination. In D. Capozza, & D. A. Taylor (Eds), Eliminating Racism: Profiles in
R. Brown (Eds). Social Identity Processes (pp. 33–48). Controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum Press.
London: Sage. Sears, D. O., Henry, P. J., Kosterman, R. (2000).
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. Egalitarian values and contemporary racial politics.
(2004). Effects of direct and indirect cross-group In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds),
friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in
in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an America (pp. 75–117). Chicago, IL: University of
anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Chicago Press.
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. (2003). Solo
Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group status, stereotype threat, and performance
homogeneity and levels of social categorization: expectancies: Their effects on women’s performance.
28 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal
68–74. of Social Issues, 25 (4), 79–97.
Shelton, J. N., Dovidio, J. F., Hebl, M., & Richeson, J. A. Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimina-
(2009). Prejudice and intergroup interaction. In tion. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.
S. Demoulin, J-P Leyens, & J. F. Dovidio (Eds). Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory
Intergroup Misunderstandings: Impact of Divergent of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel
Social Realities (pp. 21–38). New York: Psychology (Eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
Press. (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup con- Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-
tact and pluralistic ignorance. Journal of Personality concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior.
and Social Psychology, 88, 91–107. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes
Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2006). Interracial (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
interactions: A relational approach. In M. P. Zanna Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., &
(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the Social
(Vol. 38, pp. 121–181). New York: Academic Press. Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford, U.K.:
Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Trawalter, Basil Blackwell.
S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and
interactions. Psychological Science, 16, 397–402. self-categorization: The variable role of authoritarian-
Sherif, M. (1966). Group Conflict and Cooperation: ism and in-group stereotypes. Personality and Social
Their Social Psychology. London: Routledge and Psychology Bulletin, 24, 99–110.
Kegan Paul. Vidmar, N. (2003). When all of us are victims: Juror
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & prejudice and “terrorist” trials. Chicago-Kent Law
Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Review, 78, 1143.
Cooperation. The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, von Baeyer, C. L., Sherk, D.L., & Zanna, M. P. (1981).
OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Impression management in the job interview: When
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social Psychology. the female applicant meets the male (chauvin-
New York: Harper & Row. ist) interviewer, Personality and Social Psychology
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Bulletin, 7, 45–51.
Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1995). Formal education
New York: Cambridge University Press. and ethnic prejudice, European Journal of Social
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Psychology, 25, 41–56.
Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a
D. M. Mackie, & D. L. Hamilton (Eds), Affect, group: Categorization and intergroup relations.
Cognition, and Stereotyping: Interactive Processes In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive Processes in
in Group Perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego: Stereotyping and Intergroup Behavior (pp. 213–257).
Academic Press. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spears, R. (2001). The interaction between the individual Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications
and the collective self: Self-categorization in context. for creation and reduction of intergroup bias. In
In C. Sedikides, & M. B. Brewer (Eds), Individual L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social
Self, Relational Self, Collective Self (pp. 171–198). Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 291–355). Orlando, FL:
Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Academic Press.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereo- Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). The Reduction of Intergroup
types shape intellectual identity and performance. Tensions. New York: Social Science Research Council.
American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A
Stephan, W., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107,
anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157–175. 101–126.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan C. W. (2000). An integrated Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., &
threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual
Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 23–45). productivity within groups. British Journal of Social
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Psychology, 37, 389–413.
Stolle, D., Soroka, S., & Johnston, R. (2008). When does Zick, A., Pettigrew, T. F., & Wagner, U. (2008). Ethnic
diversity erode trust? Political Studies, 56, 57–75. prejudice and discrimination in Europe. Journal of
Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. Boston, MA: Ginn. Social Issues, 64, 233–251.