Rethinking the Link Between Categorization and Prejudice Within the Social Cognition Perspective
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Personality and Social Psychology Review Copyright © 2005 by 2005, Vol. 9, No. 2, 108–130 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rethinking the Link Between Categorization and Prejudice Within the Social Cognition Perspective Bernadette Park and Charles M. Judd Department of Psychology University of Colorado For the past 40 years, social psychological research on stereotyping and prejudice in the United States has been dominated by the social cognition perspective, which has emphasized the important role of basic categorization processes in intergroup dynam- ics. An inadvertent consequence of this approach has been a disproportionate focus on social categorization as a causal factor in intergroup animosity and, accordingly, an emphasis on approaches that minimize category distinctions as the solution to in- tergroup conflict. Though recognizing the crucial function of categorization, we ques- tion existing support for the hypothesis that the perception of strong group differences necessarily results in greater intergroup bias. Given that it is neither feasible nor ulti- mately desirable to imagine that social categories can be eliminated, we suggest that a more useful approach is one that promotes intergroup harmony even while recogniz- ing and valuing the distinctions that define our social world. Over the past four decades work in the areas of ste- (e.g., Allport, Tajfel, Campbell) did not identify reotyping, prejudice, and intergroup relations has categorization per se as the root problem underlying grown at an impressive, if at times overwhelming, rate. hostile intergroup relations. Rather they saw categori- For much of that time, a social cognition perspective zation, and its attendant cognitive processes, as fac- has dominated the work, at least within the United tors in the service of prejudice, serving to rationalize States, with an emphasis on the cognitive determinants and justify intergroup hostility. and consequences of stereotyping processes. Because However, social cognition research during the sub- of this emphasis, social cognition researchers have fo- sequent decades abundantly documented the negative cused on the negative consequences of social categori- consequence of social categorization and the ways in zation. Though enormously productive, this approach which those consequences might lead to biased group has resulted in an often implicit and at times explicit stereotypes. Through this work, there slowly evolved conclusion that, to reduce prejudice and intergroup an implicit assumption that categorization, with its at- conflict, it is necessary to eliminate the grouping of in- tendant negative consequences, would need to be ad- dividuals into social categories. This article is an at- dressed if intergroup hostility was to be reduced. Ac- tempt to examine the evolution of thinking on the rela- cordingly, social cognitive theories of prejudice tion between prejudice and categorization within the reduction became largely based on the assumption that social cognition perspective. breaking down group stereotypes, eliminating cate- Our purposes are partly historical, partly theoreti- gory boundaries, and emphasizing the common hu- cal, and partly empirical. We start by noting that early manity of individuals were necessary to reduce inter- theorists who pointed the way toward the social cog- group bias. nitive revolution by underlining the role of basic cate- We argue that this assumption is problematic in at gorization processes in stereotyping and prejudice least two ways. First, it is supported by almost no em- pirical evidence. Though there is evidence to suggest that categorization under some circumstances may This research was partially supported by National Institute of lead to intergroup discrimination, there is very little ev- Mental Health Grant RO1 MH45049 to Bernadette Park and Charles M. Judd, as well as by a sabbatical award to Bernadette Park from the idence that increasing the strength of category bound- James McKeen Cattell Fund. We thank Myron Rothbart and Joshua aries leads to more hostile intergroup relations. Thus, Correll for their extensive thoughts and comments regarding the empirically, there is little to suggest that weakening ideas in this article, as well as the University of Colorado Stereo- group boundaries is necessary for prejudice reduction. typing and Prejudice laboratory group (CUSP). Second, given the importance of categorization to ba- Requests for reprints should be sent to Bernadette Park or Charles M. Judd, Department of Psychology, 345 UCB, University sic human cognitive functioning, a point documented of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309–0345. E-mail: bpark@ most convincingly by social cognition researchers, it is psych.colorado.edu or [email protected] clear that social categories are a fundamental aspect of 108 CATEGORIZATION AND PREJUDICE social perception and that, therefore, the means for re- was the more fundamental issue. Tajfel stated quite ducing intergroup bias will need to come from some forcefully in numerous publications that stereotypes place other than the elimination or minimization of so- are a consequence, not a cause of prejudice (Tajfel, cial groupings. 1981, 1982). In his 1981 book he noted that stereotypes In the concluding sections of this article, we review do not create “intergroup social situations” and “that, literature that suggests how one might improve inter- on the contrary, as LeVine said, not only origins of ste- group relations even while maintaining the importance reotypes but even their contents cannot be dissociated of category boundaries and indeed valuing the impor- from the prior existence and the special characteristics tant differences that exist among groups in society. Al- of a conflict of interests” (p. 225). though we do not pretend at this point to have a com- In summary, early theorists in the field, though plete solution to the problem, we do believe there are clearly intrigued with the power of social categories, promising approaches that need further elaboration understood that the intense negative sentiments that of- and empirical examination. ten accompany intergroup dynamics were in fact the central problem to be addressed. Though the research- ers who followed these early theorists concurred with Historical Overview the importance of prejudiced sentiments, the focus on cognitive processes, due partly to the larger zeitgeist The early theoretical and empirical work on inter- operating within psychology at the time and to the group relations in social psychology defined prejudice methods that dominated research paradigms, resulted (e.g., unwarranted negative sentiments toward an primarily in work that documented the negative by- outgroup, Allport, 1954) as the primary problem in in- products of categorization processes. This emphasis tergroup relations. The mechanisms thought to pro- resulted in a number of unintended, and to a large ex- duce prejudice were diverse, focusing both on intra- tent, unarticulated consequences. personal and interpersonal (and intergroup) factors. These included realistic group conflicts or competition between groups over scarce resources (Levine & The Cognitive Revolution Campbell, 1972), displaced aggression resulting from frustration (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, With some important exceptions (e.g., social domi- 1939), psychodynamic dramas (Adorno, Frenkel- nance theory, Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; terror manage- Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), and satisfac- ment theory, Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, tion of ego needs, later articulated as the need to estab- 1997; aversive racism, Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), a lish and maintain a positive social identity (Tajfel, more cognitive perspective on intergroup relations 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). In all of this work came to dominate theoretical and empirical work in so- (including Tajfel’s), the key problem was seen to be the cial psychology in the United States during the 1970s strong antipathy (or negative affect) that can exist be- and 1980s. Much of this research grew out of Tajfel’s tween groups and it was this strong antipathy that so- work on the minimal group situation (Tajfel, 1970, cial psychologists defined as the problem to be solved. 1978; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). In this Discrimination was seen as resulting from this intense paradigm, participants are assigned to groups presum- negative affect. Similarly, stereotypes, defined as be- ably on the basis of some minimal difference in prefer- liefs about the negative attributes of outgroup mem- ence (e.g., for painters) or judgment style (e.g., over- bers, were argued to develop in response to the nega- vs. underestimators of dots). In fact, assignment is ran- tive affect, serving to justify the dislike and to support dom. Participants then engage in some evaluatively the animosity. Thus, the problem to be solved was laden behavior, either by expressing their preferences outgroup hate. Eliminating outgroup stereotypes, with- for the groups, or most commonly, by distributing re- out trying to address the underlying negative affect, wards among individuals who belong to one of the two would serve little purpose because a new set of nega- groups. Tajfel showed than, under these most minimal tive stereotypic beliefs would simply be constructed of conditions, respondents show ingroup preferences, (Allport, 1954; Campbell, 1967; Krech & Crutchfield, either by evaluating the ingroup more positively, or by 1948). distributing a greater number of