1

Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination: Theoretical and Empirical Overview

John F. Dovidio, Miles Hewstone, Peter Glick, and Victoria M. Esses

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.

Throughout psychology’s history, researchers long history in the disciplines of anthropology have evinced strong interest in understanding and sociology (e.g., Sumner, 1906). However, prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination social psychologists, building on the solid (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Dovidio, 2001; foundations of Gordon Allport’s (1954) mas- Duckitt, 1992; Fiske, 1998), as well as the phe- terly volume, The Nature of Prejudice, have nomenon of intergroup bias more generally developed a systematic and more nuanced (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Inter- analysis of bias and its associated phenom- group bias generally refers to the systematic ena. Interest in prejudice, stereotyping, and tendency to evaluate one’s own membership discrimination is currently shared by allied group (the ingroup) or its members more disciplines such as sociology and political favorably than a non-membership group (the science, and emerging disciplines such as neu- outgroup) or its members. These topics have a roscience. The practical implications of this 4 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC 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 12 10 8 6 4 2 stereotypes, or stereotyping

Percent of articles on prejudice, 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

12 EJSP 10

8 JPSP PSPB 6

4

2 stereotypes, or stereotyping Percent of articles on prejudice, 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.

(often multi-disciplinary) perspectives that associations, and attributions of specific char- have consistently attracted significant empir- acteristics to a group; and (c) discrimination, ical and theoretical attention. biased behavior toward, and treatment of, a This volume provides a comprehensive group or its members. Conceptualizations of summary of the state of research on preju- each of these aspects of bias have evolved dice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Each over time. For example, recent research chapter reviews the history of a specific distinguishing between implicit and explicit topic, critically analyses what the field cognition has greatly affected how theorists understands and does not yet know, and define prejudice and stereotypes. Likewise, identifies promising avenues for further study. concepts of discrimination have gone from As a whole, the volume considers the causes a tight focus on individuals engaging in and consequences of bias toward a range of biased treatment to how institutional policies social groups, theoretical perspectives, and and cultural processes perpetuate disparities applications, summarizing current knowledge between groups. We briefly review the within a single volume that can serve as a key development of each of these central concepts resource for students and scholars. below. This introductory chapter lays the foun- dations for the volume by defining and distinguishing key concepts, identifying basic Prejudice underlying processes, outlining past research, Prejudice is typically conceptualized as an and anticipating future directions, while attitude that, like other attitudes, has a cog- explaining the general organization and con- nitive component (e.g., beliefs about a target tent of the book. group), an affective component (e.g., dislike), and a conative component (e.g., a behavioral predisposition to behave negatively toward KEY CONCEPTS the target group). In his seminal volume, The Nature of Prejudice, Allport (1954) defined The current volume focuses on three forms prejudice as ‘an antipathy based on faulty of social bias toward a group and its mem- and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or bers: (a) prejudice, an attitude reflecting an expressed. It may be directed toward a group overall evaluation of a group; (b) stereotypes, as a whole, or toward an individual because he 6 OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC

[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 orientations (Gaertner, Dovidio, Banker, Schooler, 2000), or reflecting different aspects et al., 1997). of attitudes, such as affective and cognitive For the present volume, we define dis- components (Rudman, 2004). Nevertheless, crimination by an individual as behavior that there is consensus that implicit manifestations creates, maintains, or reinforces advantage for of attitudes and stereotypes exist and reliably some groups and their members over other predict some behaviors, often independently groups and their members. from explicit attitudes and stereotypes. We purposefully avoided reference to intention- ality or personal endorsement in our working Explicit and implicit bias definitions of prejudice and stereotypes to Whereas discrimination can occur toward a accommodate implicit biases. specific member of a group or the group as a whole, stereotypes and prejudice are intrapsy- Institutional and cultural chic phenomena. That is, they occur within discrimination an individual and may vary not only in their transparency to others but also in the level of Although psychologists have historically awareness of the person who harbors stereo- focused on the individual-level processes in types and prejudice. Traditionally, stereotypes intergroup relations, newer research informed and prejudice have been conceived as explicit by approaches from sociology, Black psy- responses – beliefs and attitudes people chology, and cultural psychology illuminate know they hold, subject to deliberate (often how, independent of individual efforts or strategic) control in their expression (Fazio, orientation, institutional and cultural forces Jackson, Dunton, et al., 1995). In contrast maintain and promote intergroup bias and dis- to these explicit, conscious, and deliberative parities. Institutional discrimination, which processes, implicit prejudices and stereotypes may originally stem from individuals’ preju- involve a lack of awareness and unintentional dices and stereotypes, refers to the existence activation. The mere presence of the attitude of institutional policies (e.g., poll taxes, object may activate the associated stereotype immigration policies) that unfairly restrict the and attitude automatically and without the opportunities of particular groups of people. perceiver noticing. These laws and policies foster ideologies Although implicit attitudes and stereotype that justify current practices. Historically, measures are now commonly used (Fazio & for example, White Americans developed Olson, 2003), researchers continue to debate racial ideologies to justify laws that enabled their psychological meaning. Some contend two forms of economic exploitation: slavery that implicit measures of bias primarily of Black people and the seizure of lands represent overlearned and ‘habitual’ cultural from native peoples. Similarly, until relatively associations rather than attitudes (Karpinski & recently, immigration policies in many parts Hilton, 2001). Others argue that implicit and of the world favored White immigrants over explicit measures assess a single attitude immigrants of racial minorities. measured at different points in the process of Although individual prejudice and stereo- expression, with social desirability concerns types may produce actions, such as political more strongly shaping overt expressions support for laws and policies that lead (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, et al., 1995). And to institutional discrimination, institutional still others consider implicit and explicit discrimination can operate independently measures to reflect different components of from individual discrimination. Institutional a system of dual attitudes, with implicit discrimination does not require the active responses often representing ‘older’ attitudes support of individuals, their intention to and stereotypes that have been ‘overwritten’ discriminate, or awareness that institutional by newer, explicit forms of bias or incom- practices have discriminatory effects. Indeed, pletely replaced by individuals who strive people often do not recognize the existence for egalitarian beliefs (Wilson, Lindsey, & of institutional discrimination because laws PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 11

(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-WingAuthoritarian- 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 psychological consequences of seeing others ‘all alike,’ while between-group differences and oneself in terms of group membership. become exaggerated (Abrams, 1985; Turner, 1985). Emotionally, people spontaneously experience more positive affect toward mem- Social categorization bers of their ingroup than toward members A further critical step toward recognition of outgroups (Otten & Moskowitz, 2000), of prejudice as an aspect of normal rather particularly toward ingroup members who are than diseased minds was taken by Allport most prototypical of their group (Hogg & (1954).Allport’s answer to the question, ‘Why Hains, 1996). Cognitively, people retain more do human beings slip so easily into ethnic and more detailed information for ingroup prejudice?’ was that ‘They do so because than for outgroup members (Park & Rothbart, [its] two essential ingredients – erroneous 1982), better remember ways in which generalization and hostility – are natural ingroup members are similar to and outgroup and common capacities of the human mind’ members are dissimilar to the self (Wilder, (p. 17). Central to the first point, Allport 1981), and remember less positive informa- recognized that prejudice relies on people’s tion about outgroup members (Howard & propensity to categorize, reacting to other Rothbart, 1980). people based on their group membership, In terms of behavioral outcomes, people rather than as individuals. He observed that help ingroup members more than outgroup the ‘human mind must think with the aid of members (Dovidio, Gaertner, Validzic, et al., categories,’ and ‘Once formed categories are 1997), and work harder for groups identi- the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot fied as ingroups than outgroups (Worchel, possibly avoid this process. Orderly living Rothgerber, Day, et al., 1998). When ingroup– depends upon it’ (p. 20). outgroup social categorizations, rather than Tajfel (1969), in his highly influential personal identities, are salient, people behave paper on the ‘Cognitive Aspects of Prejudice,’ in a greedier and less trustworthy way toward elaborated on the role social categorization members of other groups than when they plays in intergroup biases. Like Allport, Tajfel respond to others as individuals (Insko, rejected the idea that prejudice and stereo- Schopler, Gaertner, et al., 2001). Thus, typing must be irrational and pathological. although functional relations between groups Instead, he argued that these social biases can further influence the degree to which dis- reflect the importance of people’s group crimination is manifested (Campbell, 1965; memberships and their attempts to understand Sherif, 1966), the process of social categoriza- features of the social world (in particular, the tion itself provides the basis for social biases actions of other groups) that impinge upon to develop and persist. their groups. This analysis opened the door to a ‘cognitive revolution’ that informed the Social identity greater part of social psychological research into prejudice and stereotyping during the While Tajfel’s ideas spawned social cognitive 1970s and 1980s. This approach paved the approaches to stereotyping and prejudice, way for viewing prejudice as an aspect of his own work developed in a somewhat general social cognition. different direction based on the results of Since then, a large body of research has his minimal group studies. In the early demonstrated that social categorization pro- 1970s, Tajfel showed that artificial groups foundly influences social perception, affect, created in the lab, devoid of naturalistic cognition, and behavior. Perceptually, when meaning and a history of functional relations, perceivers categorize people or objects into nevertheless showed at least mild forms groups, they gloss over differences between of prejudice and discrimination. This work members of the same category (Tajfel, 1969), inspired Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & treating members of the same group as Turner, 1979), which characterizes social bias PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 15 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 to communication problems and misunder- replete with examples of interactions between standings. They are fraught with anxiety members of different ethnic and religious over how one is being perceived, making groups coming together in differing circum- them highly cognitively demanding both for stances with different norms, and against majority group members, who often strive to the backdrop of different legal and political behave in an unbiased manner (Dovidio & systems. Gaertner, 2004; Shelton & Richeson, 2005), A fourth focus likely to generate consider- and for minority group members, who are able future research is a variation on an older vigilant for cues of bias (Shelton, Richeson, theme. SinceAllport’s pioneering work, social Salvatore, et al., 2005). These demands can psychology has focused on how to reduce arouse intergroup anxiety and its behavioral bias in the most effective, generalizable, and manifestations (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). enduring way. For over 50 years, intergroup Because many signals of anxiety are also contact theory (Allport, 1954;Williams, 1947; cues for dislike, expectations of rejection see also Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, by members of another group (Shelton & 2003; Pettigrew, 1998) has represented one Richeson, 2005) can lead to misattributions of psychology’s most effective strategies to unfriendliness that exacerbate interpersonal for reducing bias and improving intergroup and, ultimately, intergroup tensions (Pearson, relations. This framework proposes the con- West,Dovidio, et al., 2008).Thus, understand- ditions under which intergroup contact can ing how and why intergroup misunderstand- ameliorate intergroup prejudice and conflict. ings develop during interpersonal interactions Much of the research on this topic has been can complement structural and intergroup devoted to establishing that intergroup contact approaches aimed at alleviating intergroup does indeed reduce bias and to evaluating conflict and achieving stable harmonious the relative importance of the conditions intergroup relations. specified in Contact Theory (see Pettigrew & A third recent trend that is likely to broaden Tropp, 2006). In recent years, however, future research is the internationalization work has moved beyond specifying the of psychology and the resultant focus on conditions that reduce bias to understanding groups other than Whites and Blacks in the underlying processes (e.g., changes in the United States. As a result of these social categorization) by which they work (see broadening horizons, research is increasingly Pettigrew, 1998). A number of empirically- examining such relations as those between supported category-based alternatives have immigrants and members of host nations (e.g., been proposed that involve de-emphasizing Esses, Dovidio, & Dion, 2001b), between group membership and establishing personal- Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland ized relations (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Miller, (e.g., Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, et al., 2002; Wilder, 1986), recategorizing groups 2004), between groups identified on the basis within a common group identity (Gaertner & of religious affiliation (e.g., Hunsberger & Dovidio, 2000), or maintaining distinct group Jackson, 2005), between homosexuals and identities but within the context of positive heterosexuals (Gabriel, Banse, & Hug, 2007), interdependence between groups (Brown & and between ethnic groups other than Hewstone, 2005). Future research will likely Whites and Blacks (e.g., Zick, Pettigrew, & examine more closely the implications of Wagner, 2008). In addition to examining various mediating processes for better under- the applicability of theories developed to standing the conditions under which contact explain relations between Whites and Blacks is more effective (e.g., for mild intergroup (e.g., Bell & Esses, 1997), these expansions tensions versus open hostility) and how provide new understandings of the basis various types of contact and their result- of prejudice, and point to new foci for ing cognitive representations may operate intervention (e.g., Nickerson & Louis, 2008). sequentially, in a complementary fashion, to The continent of Europe, for example, is reduce bias. PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 19

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 claimed by political scientist Robert Putnam ORGANIZATION AND OVERVIEW (2007), and what to do about it. Ensuing OF THE VOLUME debate, drawn from multiple disciplines, has failed to reach agreement on the reliability of The current volume is organized into six the findings (see, for example, Briggs, 2008; discrete sections. The first section, which Dawkins, 2008; Lancee & Dronkers, 2008). contains the present chapter, represents an One reason why Putnam’s main pessimistic overview of the topic. The present chapter finding should be considered premature is that introduced basic concepts that will be referred it largely neglects to measure actual face-to- to across the chapters, summarized the major face contacts between members of different conceptual approaches in this area, and iden- groups, as opposed to merely living in the tified promising directions for further study. same neighbourhood. This is a conflation of The next chapter, Historical Overview by John opportunity for contact and actual contact. Duckitt, describes historical developments, Social psychologists have long appreciated conceptual and empirical, in the study of that living in a street or neighbourhood prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. peopled by members of different ethnic Duckitt emphasizes the interplay between groups does not constitute contact until and society and science. He proposes that these unless there is actual face-to-face interaction paradigmatic transitions did not simply rep- between them (see Hewstone, Tausch, Voci, resent a systematic evolution of knowledge, et al., 2008; see also Hooghe, Reeskens, but rather reflected responses to specific Stolle, et al., 2009; Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, social and historical circumstances. Then 2008). Yet perhaps it was easy to overlook Correll, Judd, Park, and Wittenbrink in their social psychology’s contribution because so chapter, Measuring Stereotypes, Prejudice, little of it dealt with the complexities of and Discrimination, review the methodolog- diversity and intergroup interaction outside ical challenges and tools associated with the laboratory, or at least the campus, research in this area. Beyond describing and in the community, and because social different techniques for studying bias, the psychologists have sometimes been rather authors argue that measurement itself has reluctant to press home the policy impact of fundamentally affected theories of the nature their research. We hope that our discipline and origins of prejudice, stereotypes, and dis- will be more effective in the future, and that crimination. These three chapters combined a volume such as this one will help, as will thus not only review basic issues for studying the recent founding of social psychological prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, journal outlets with an explicit focus on policy but also they illustrate the importance of (e.g., Social Issues and Policy Review). social context for theory and research in The purpose of the current volume is this area. to provide a comprehensive summary of The second main section of this volume theory and research on prejudice, stereotyp- is Basic Processes and Causes of Prejudice, ing, and discrimination that establishes a Stereotyping, and Discrimination. This is the solid foundation for identifying and pursuing largest section of the volume and includes 12 new work on intergroup bias. The scope chapters that explore the origins of different of the volume is broad, and it adopts a forms of bias. The section begins with a multi-level perspective. Still, we acknowl- chapter on processes at the most micro edge the coverage is far from exhaustive. level, neural processes, and ends with macro Nevertheless, the chapters in this volume processes, the influence of mass media. illustrate the landscape of social psycho- In the first chapter of the second section, logical work on intergroup bias, drawing Social Cognitive Neural Processes, Quadflieg, on the expertise of international scholars Mason, and Macrae describe the latest who have made significant contributions to findings from studies on intergroup bias this area. in social cognitive neuroscience, considered PREJUDICE, STEREOTYPING AND DISCRIMINATION 21 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, CollectiveAction 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. to develop new techniques for eliminating Blumer, H. (1958b). Recent research on race relations 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.