The Perils of Political Correctness: Men's and Women's Responses to Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexist Views (original) (raw)

Detecting and experiencing prejudice: New answers to old questions

This contribution reviews the state of the art of research on the effects of prejudice on its targets. We structure this review around ongoing debates and core questions that have been guiding this field of research and how these are addressed by recent evidence. We address five central themes that have characterized research on the way prejudice emerges in modern societies, and the impact this has on its targets. First, we examine whether members of devalued groups tend to over-or underestimate the extent to which they are targeted by discrimination. Second, we assess the self-protective and harmful effects of perceived discrimination on well-being. Third, we consider whether concealable stigmas are less problematic than visible stigmas. Fourth, we examine whether individual success is helpful or harmful for the disadvantaged group. Finally, as a fifth theme, we review evidence of the social costs of confronting prejudice and highlight the more neglected social benefits of confrontation. The research evidence we present in this way aims to resolve a number of common misunderstandings regarding the presence and implications of prejudice in modern societies.

THREE Detecting and Experiencing Prejudice : New Answers to Old Questions

2015

This contribution reviews the state of the art of research on the effects of prejudice on its targets. We structure this review around ongoing debates and core questions that have been guiding this field of research and how these are addressed by recent evidence. We address five central themes that have characterized research on the way prejudice emerges in modern societies, and the impact this has on its targets. First, we examine whether members of devalued groups tend to overor underestimate the extent to which they are targeted by discrimination. Second, we assess the self-protective and harmful effects of perceived discrimination on well-being. Third, we consider whether concealable stigmas are less problematic than visible stigmas. Fourth, we examine whether individual success is helpful or harmful for the disadvantaged group. Finally, as a fifth theme, we review evidence of the social costs of confronting prejudice and highlight the more neglected social benefits of confronta...

Social Psychology of Prejudice: Historical and Contemporary Issues

The facts we see depend on where we are placed, and the habits of our eyes. (Walter Lippmann, 1922) Social psychological research on stereotyping and prejudice typically takes for granted people's visual perception of race. Observing a person's race is equated with observing that person's physical features. Both perceptions are understood as a straightforward visual process antecedent to stereotyping and prejudice. Thus, the perception of race itself frequently is assumed to be unworthy of social psychological investigation. This chapter develops an alternative, or complementary, account of the relation between stereotyping and prejudice, on the one hand, and the perception of race, on the other. First, we contend that the perception of race should be viewed as a social, rather than simply visual, process. Second, we consider the possibility that the perception of race may follow from, rather than precede, the influence of stereotyping and prejudice. Although ostensibly at odds with the prevailing understanding, our approach in fact builds upon intuitions that are latent in a growing body of contemporary social psychological research. Moreover, our approach is consistent with the historical evolution of social psychology, as it accords ever more importance to the social and cultural sources of human behavior. This chapter is organized as follows. The first part describes the dominant understanding of the relation between the perception of race and the operation of stereotypes and prejudice and briefly discusses some research findings arguably consistent with this understanding. In the second part we elaborate our alternative understanding of the perceptionstereotyping relationship. We discuss research efforts informed by an approach similar to ours and also show that findings ostensibly consistent with the dominant approach might often be re-interpreted to bolster our alternative approach. Finally, in the third part we relate our approach to the historical development of social psychology as a field and to the emerging understanding of race among scholars in other fields. We conclude by identifying the benefits that could result from increased attention to the social influences affecting the perception of race. The Dominant Approach Most social psychological studies of stereotyping and prejudice assume that visual perception precedes social perception. The focus of

Controlling Prejudice and Stereotyping: Antecedents, Mechanisms, and Contexts

2009

With a depressing degree of regularity, national attention in the United States becomes focused on prominent individuals who are caught in the act of making racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced remarks, "jokes," or tirades. Such exposés are frequently paired with adamant assertions by the purveyors of these commentaries that they are not prejudiced people; indeed, they hold themselves to be good people, and they sometimes even seem to experience a sense of surprise at their own behavior, being unsure about the origins of their prejudiced remarks. However, they are quite sure that, whatever the origins of their unsavory comments, they do not reflect any personal endorsement of prejudice or derogatory stereotypes. To judge by the flurry of apologies that typically follow such incidents, it seems reasonable to infer that the people involved would have wished that they could have stopped themselves from making the remarks they made, not only because it landed them in hot water, but presumably also because it threatened their identities as civilized, unbigoted persons. In this chapter we review research on the psychology of controlling prejudice and stereotyping. As a starting point, we discuss the central problem of the automatic activation of prejudice and stereotyping. In other words, we begin by describing what it is that is in need of control. Then, we consider the motivational antecedents of control-the psychological forces that lead people to want to control the prejudice and stereotypes that arise in their own minds. Next, we survey the cognitive mechanisms of self-regulation by which people attempt to control their prejudices, and we evaluate their adequacy for meeting the challenges posed by the operation of automatic or reflexive stereotypes and prejudice. Finally, we consider how these processes play out in a variety of personal, interpersonal, and societal contexts. AutomAtic ActivAtion of StereotypeS And prejudice What are automatic intergroup Biases? In her seminal dissertation research, Devine (1989) argued that intergroup bias can be manifested in two distinct forms: automatic and controlled. Controlled prejudice is produced by conscious, intentional, deliberative mental processes, and has become much less common in contemporary society, at least with respect to many social groups. In contrast, automatic prejudice is produced by the spontaneous activation of mental associations that are not necessarily personally endorsed, but that are ubiquitously found in contemporary society, owing to ongoing cultural representations of RT21230_C006.indd 111 8/4/08 9:03:26 AM AU: Gawronski & Bodenhausen (in press): Please update both here and in your references if now published.

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

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002

The authors studied social norms and prejudice using M. Sherif and C. W. group norm theory of attitudes. In 7 studies (N ϭ 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.

Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Overview

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.

Measures of Stereotyping and Prejudice: Barometers of Bias

Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs, 2014

Social psychologists have measured racial and ethnic bias since the field’s origins (Fiske, 1998), assessing inter- group social distance (Bogardus, 1927) and stereotype contents (Katz & Braly, 1933). More specific measures soon followed. Sparked by the Holocaust, the Authoritarian Personality predicted anti-Semitism and other ethnocentrism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), while surveys after World War II through the present have reported racial and ethnic attitudes (for reviews, see Kinder & Schuman, 2004; Schuman, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985). With the rise of the civil rights movement, racial attitudes became more complicated than self-reports could always detect, so nonverbal indicators became useful (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). Confronting veiled forms of prejudice informed work on policy-oriented symbolic and modern racism (McConahay & Hough, 1976; Sears & Kinder, 1971). Modern forms pick up this thread; each measure best fits its sociocultural period. An earlier version of this volume (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1999) covered these new racisms (Biernat & Crandall, 1999), and another early version covered prior and then-current indicators of authoritarianism and related ethnocentrism con- structs (Christie, 1991; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991). This review focuses on indirect, modern forms of racism and ethnocentrism, as well as other indirect forms of intergroup bias. Nonracial biases have been slower to elicit focused measures. Gender bias research began in earnest only after the 1970’s women’s movement, when gender-role measures emerged (Lenney, 1991). Early sexism measures were direct, assessing overt anti-female biases. Subsequently, measures of ageism, sexual-orientation prejudice, and classism have been even slower to develop, when each reaches public and scientific consciousness. This review covers indirect, modern forms of sexism and ageism.

The Social Roots of Contemporary Prejudice

International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, 2015

Background: Evolutionary theory suggests prejudice may be a result of the evolution of human sociality. In this study, we investigate this claim by integrating theoretical insights of evolutionary theory with the well-established social psychological research on prejudice centering on Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as the main predictors of prejudice. Method: First, we developed two different signaling scales, probing respondents' propensity to signal group commitment in a genuine or deceptive way. We administered a questionnaire consisting of the two signaling measures, RWA, SDO and prejudice measures to 1380 students. Analysis of the data was done using structural equation modeling. Results: Our results indicate that genuine signaling of one's commitment to the in-group is positively associated with RWA, and that deceptively signaling one's commitment to the in-group is positively associated with SDO. Both RWA and SDO are positively related to prejudice. Conclusion: Our study is the first to empirically reveal the pro-social roots of prejudice using classical measurement instruments. The findings give rise to a new array of research questions.