Running head: MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION
This version of the manuscript was accepted by the European Journal of Social Psychology on
1 October, 2018
This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi:
Kende, A., & McGarty, C. A Model for Predicting Prejudice and Stigma Expression by Understanding Target Perceptions: The Effects of Visibility, Politicization, Responsibility, and Entitativity. European Journal of Social Psychology. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2550
A Model for Predicting Prejudice and Stigma Expression by Understanding Target
Perceptions:
The Effects of Visibility, Politicization, Responsibility, and Entitativity
Anna Kende1
Craig McGarty2
1 Department of Social Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary
2 School of Social Sciences and Psychology, Western Sydney University, Australia
Authors’ note
Corresponding author: Anna Kende, Department of Social Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Izabella utca 46, 1064 Budapest, Hungary, email: [email protected]
The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 2
Abstract
The study of hostile orientations toward out-groups is divided between three main domains: a) overt (explicit, old-fashioned, or hostile) prejudice, b) veiled (implicit, modern, aversive, or subtle) prejudice, and c) stigma. To date, there is no systematic account as to which form of hostility is likely to be expressed toward members of particular target groups. We propose a model that integrates the two forms of prejudice and the concept of stigma into a single framework. The contingency model of stigma and prejudice expression (SPEM) postulates that overt or veiled prejudice is a function of an interaction of prevailing perceptions of target groups within their cultural context. There are four major target perceptions that influence prejudice expression through increasing threat perception: visibility, target politicization, responsibility, and entitativity. These target perceptions describe the process and the qualitative conditions that determine the expression of prejudice toward members of different groups and social categories.
Key words: prejudice; prejudice expression; stigma; target perception
MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 3
A Model for Predicting Prejudice and Stigma Expression by Understanding Target
Perceptions:
The Effects of Visibility, Politicization, Responsibility, and Entitativity
“No theory seems by itself to provide a full answer to our fundamental question of why some groups are stigmatized and not others.” (Stangor & Crandall, 2000, p. 66)
“These explanations do not specify why particular groups are targeted for stigma or prejudice” (Phelan, Link, & Dovidio, 2008, p. 363).
In the past 30 years, the study of prejudice has been dominated by theories emphasizing that prejudice is not a unitary phenomenon but is (at least) two different things.
These models distinguish between what has been termed traditional, old-fashioned, blatant, and explicit prejudice on the one hand, and modern, subtle, implicit, symbolic, and aversive prejudice on the other (Banaji & Greenwald, 1994; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986; Glick & Fiske,
1997; Kinder & Sears, 1981; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). To date, there is no systematic account as to which form of hostility is likely to be expressed toward members of particular target groups. Therefore, we propose to establish the conditions of why and when these two forms of prejudice expression are likely to occur. The novelty of our model is that it applies a systematic analysis that allows us to predict when members of various social categories will encounter specific expressions of prejudice.
The two forms of prejudice both represent negative responses to outgroup members, but they differ starkly in their expression (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). We use the term “overt prejudice” throughout this paper to refer to the open and unbridled expression of prejudice, and “veiled prejudice” to refer to the muted negative bias in attitudes and behavior, the expression of which is inhibited as a result of the motivation to respond to minority groups without prejudice (Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). There are clear MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 4 differences between these concepts and we do not seek to provide a unitary explanation of either of them when using the terms overt and veiled prejudice.
Sitting alongside these two forms of prejudice is the related phenomenon of stigmatization (Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984; Link & Phelan, 2001; Stangor & Crandall,
2000). Goffman (1963) used the term “stigma” to refer to attributes that society uses for discrediting the people who bear them, but the term is applied sporadically. The stigma literature tends to analyze intergroup relations defined by individual characteristics, that are, in many cases, not shared by most members of the target’s family or community (see Phelan et al., 2008). These include characteristics such as illness, disability, behavioral deviance, and minority religious and socio-political views. The message from stigma research is that stigmatization depends on who the target is.
In contrast, the force of prejudice research is directed at the characteristics that people share with other members of groups they belong to. Social category memberships that tend to be shared by members of the same family, such as race, social class, mainstream religion, or caste, are the core concerns in prejudice research. Prejudice research is about understanding what makes outgroup members the same as other outgroup members rather than the individual in context contrasted from other individuals (i.e., stigma research).
In summary, there are two main reasons for integrating the stigma and the prejudice literature. Firstly, this combination allows us to incorporate a wider range of intergroup contexts: contexts emerging from individual and from group characteristics. Secondly, it highlights that for a comprehensive understanding of prejudice expression we need to focus on both the prejudiced individual and their targets.
The differences between stigma and prejudice research should not, however, mask what is common to them. Stigma and prejudice are both relational in that they are descriptions of the relations between persons who share an attribute and those who do not. Both stigma MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 5 and prejudice research focus on negative relations that may serve to diminish or exclude targets. These negative relations are not arbitrary or incidental but are intrinsic in the response to targets. The most overtly negative responses tend to arise, we contend, because of challenges that targets pose to particular groups, perceivers, and existing relationships. In simple terms, we are overtly prejudiced towards people we are threatened by, or more correctly, towards people we see as having characteristics that are threatening.
A New Model of Prejudice and Stigma Expression Based on Target Perceptions
In this paper we present a contingency model of stigma and prejudice expression that integrates the two forms of prejudice and stigmatization into a single framework. In the following section we present the basic idea, our general aims in creating a new level of integration, and some core examples from the model.
No existing model specifically predicts which form of prejudice will be expressed toward members of different outgroups when negative intergroup attitudes are present. The core of our solution is that the expression of prejudice and stigma is a function of the varying ways in which those groups are perceived within their cultural context (Abelson, Dasgupta,
Park, & Banaji, 1998; Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Hamilton,
Sherman, & Rodgers, 2004; N. Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2002; McDonald & Crandall,
2015). We term these factors target perceptions (referring here to perceptions of members of other groups). Target perceptions shape and are themselves shaped by prevailing social norms about how members of these groups should be treated. They are shared by many members of society within a particular social and cultural context. Therefore, target perceptions influence both the process of prejudice expression and the conditions of different expressions of prejudice. Perceptions of the target group that create the impression that the target group is a threat to be confronted, or is a problem to be solved, give rise to overt prejudice, other target perceptions tend to give rise to veiled prejudice. MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 6
Despite the broad acceptance of anti-prejudice norms in some societies, the experience of being the target of prejudice differs markedly between groups within those societies. This suggests that there are social conditions that facilitate overt prejudice expression against some groups, and that (old-style) overt prejudice targeted at certain groups can return when the conditions suit it (perhaps as a backlash). Therefore, the importance of understanding the structural conditions and the process of prejudice expression is that negative intergroup attitudes are not always recognized as prejudice by the perpetrator, by the target and by the wider society.
However, distinguishing between these two is important because the differing forms of expressed prejudice have different consequences for their targets not least because they perform different ideological and political functions (see Guimond et al., 2013). Overtly expressed prejudice has stark consequences for the solidification and spread of hostility through its influence on social norms whereby overt prejudice becomes acceptable or even desirable (Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994). Such overt expression of prejudice may be difficult to recognize as a form of prejudice as it can be seen as a proportionate reaction to a threatening outgroup (Durrheim, Quayle, & Dixon, 2015). On the other hand, more subtle behaviours that might never even be called out as prejudice (see van
Dijk, 1992) because of the hidden and creative ways that people express it (Khan & Lambert,
2001), may serve to sustain undercurrents of oppression of marginalized groups. Indeed, the intended effects of expressing prejudice towards a member of that group may be as much about spreading and normalizing the negative treatment of the group as directly harming the victim. Recognizing different expressions of negative intergroup attitudes as prejudice is an essential first step toward prejudice reduction and understanding the experiences of members of different groups in society.
Target perceptions as the process of prejudice expression. The process described MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 7 by our stigma and prejudice expression model (SPEM) is that specific target perceptions can either turn the expression of a negative attitude toward an outgroup into a justifiable reaction or maintain the expectation to appear non-prejudiced (similarly to what Crandall & Eshleman,
2003, describe as the justification-suppression process). In other words, SPEM can explain the process by which the commitment to being non-prejudiced – a socio-cultural response to changing social norms (Kinder & Sears, 1981) – is either upheld or cast aside based on target perceptions. Prejudice is more likely to be expressed in veiled forms when social structure creates a combination of perceptions of the target group that makes explicit or overt prejudice difficult to sustain, justify, or countenance.
All forms of prejudice can be thought of as attempts to maintain prestige and status in relation to some outgroup (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Overt prejudice is the form adopted towards outgroups where the outgroup is perceived to be a clear and present threat to the ingroup, but only where displaying overt prejudice is not itself a risk to the prestige of the ingroup and the mechanisms by which its status is maintained. Although these characteristics are aspects of the social relations between the groups they can be considered, from the vantage of the ingroup, as qualities of the target group.
Target perceptions as conditions of prejudice expression. SPEM uses target perceptions to determine the conditions of different expressions of prejudice. We argue that the level of variability across time and cultural context demands a level of meta-theoretical sophistication that is currently missing in the field. Structural models can be invaluable in specifying the factors that are implicated in the generation of prejudice in specific contexts.
The issue is highlighted in terminology such as “old-fashioned” and “modern” racism to describe the more overt and veiled expressions of prejudice. We wish to take seriously the idea that, not so long ago, there was more old-fashioned racism in countries such as the
United States and less modern racism (see Leach, Peng, & Volckers, 2000). We also have MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 8 good reason to believe, however, that these old-fashioned forms can still be found today and not only within extremist groups, but within members of majority populations where prejudice is morally unacceptable and even unlawful. The 2016 US presidential election campaign, for example, showed that the overt expression of hostile sexism can be readily found in mainstream communications (Crandall, Miller, & White, 2018). It seems, so-called
“old-fashioned” prejudice is a renewed condition of (parts of) the modern world and it is an analytical error to continue to label a phenomenon in a way that places that contemporary phenomenon in the past.
The target perceptions that we are focusing on in this paper are visibility, target politicization, responsibility, and entitativity. Visibility and responsibility appear in research on both prejudice and stigma (see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Goffman, 1963). Visibility depends on whether membership in a social group or a stigmatized attribute can be concealed.
Responsibility signifies controllability beliefs related to a stigmatized characteristic, attributions about membership in a group or about group characteristics. Entitativity and target politicization are specific to the research on prejudice. Entitativity refers to perceptions of gestalt or group-level qualities based on perceptions of ingroup homogeneity and on essential qualities (Campbell, 1958; Hamilton et al., 2004; Rothbart & M. Taylor 1992). By target politicization we refer to a perceived attribute of targets in relation to its political purposes or agenda. The latter two address the fact that targets of prejudice are members of social groups or categories.
The four concepts appear in the model as single dimensions where we distinguish target groups as being high or low on each. Although each of these dimensions is more likely to evoke overt prejudice as a main effect, the model proposes that the effect of each factor is moderated by others as presented in Figure 1. The figure shows how a combination of target perceptions renders either overt or veiled prejudice more likely, either directly as a main MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 9 effect, or as an interactive outcome with another variable. Although, there are causal connections between some of the factors, we focus on the interaction between these factors as they exist at a particular time point.
To take two examples of groups that experience overt prejudice: overweight people and Muslim minorities in Western countries experience overt expression of prejudice, but for reasons based on entirely different processes related to the different target perceptions associated with these groups. Obesity is a visible, but non-politicized stigma that is associated with high responsibility attribution. There is extensive evidence of the overt expression of prejudice toward overweight people (see Crandall, 1994; Ebneter, Latner, & O’Brien, 2011), explained by high perceived responsibility especially in countries where obesity represents a symbolic violation of cultural norms (Crandall et al., 2001). The overt expression of prejudice toward Muslims can be explained differently. Muslim people in Western countries constitute a visible and highly politicized outgroup associated with high perceived entitativity. Prejudice against them is often and increasingly expressed in open and confrontational ways as shown by recent public opinion data (Pew Research, 2016, 2017).
Two examples of groups confronting veiled prejudice are employees with different MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 10
(non-majority) cultural background and the children of undocumented immigrants (in the US context DREAMers, named after the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors legislative proposal). These two groups both experience veiled rather than overt prejudice, but the conditions and the process of prejudice expression is again entirely different for the two groups related to differences in prevalent target perceptions about them. Culturally different employees in diverse but colorblind organizations are a variably visible, non-politicized group with low attribution of responsibility. However, stereotypes still affect work relations, hiring decisions, and careers within these organizations (Brief & Barsky, 2000), but the disregard for cultural diversity conceals the actual prejudicial treatment of members of these groups
(Offermann et al., 2014). DREAMers on the other hand, constitute a non-visible, highly politicized, disadvantaged minority group that are low on entitativity. Although criminalization (Fan, 2013), dehumanization (also evident from the words illegal and alien, see Johnson, 1996), and hate crimes committed against immigrants (Johnson & Ingram, 2012) are common, it is difficult to find evidence of overt prejudice against DREAMers even in fierce online debates about immigration. Low entitativity beliefs of undocumented residents are related to their racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity on the one hand, and the lack of clear boundaries of the social category because of changes in the law, on the other (Marouf, 2012).
In the next section we will outline how and why particular target perceptions affect the expression of prejudice.
Target Perceptions Underlying Stigma and Prejudice Expression
Stigma research offers several influential models that explain the systematic differences in prejudice expression related to different target groups when negative attitudes are present. These integrative theories show that we can identify the number of variables that are sufficient to explain the process of stigmatization of people with different types of stigma.
However, stigma research has some limitations that we will outline below. Therefore, in the MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 11 following section, we reconcile the results of these two research areas and identify the particular target perceptions that have been shown to directly influence prejudice expression.
Although one of the best-known models of stigmatization outlines six dimensions to explain the social rejection of people with some form of stigma (Jones et al. , 1984), more recent theories suggest that three dimensions are sufficient to describe this phenomenon.
Concealability (as a visible stigma affects social interactions by providing a readily available schema), controllability (referring to the lay theories of aetiology, whether the source of the stigma is considered controllable, and whether the person could change the stigma or its social acceptance), and perceived threat are central and sufficient to explain the stigmatization process (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunger, & Lickel, 2000; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998;
Feldman & Crandall, 2007). These three aspects of stigma can increase and justify prejudice
(for meta-analytic evidence in stigma research see Crawford, 1996; Joachim & Acorn, 2000;
Kvaale, Gottdiener, & N. Haslam, 2013; Puhl & Heuer, 2010; Ren, Paetzold, & Colella, 2008;
Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006).
Similar concepts can be found in research on prejudice. Attribution of responsibility
(i.e., controllability) serves to justify the intergroup status quo (Jost & Hunyady, 2005) through just-world beliefs (Lerner, 1980), and beliefs in self-control (see Joffe & Staerklé,
2007). Prejudice against members of visible minorities appear in research on intergroup conflict and contact (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003), and acculturation processes
(Berry & Sabatier, 2010). Stephan and Stephan (2000) point out that social categories can induce threat perceptions.
However, dimensions of stigmatization may be comprehensive when it comes to prejudice formulated about “individual” characteristics (see Phelan et al., 2008), but these theories do not account for either the political aspects of prejudice or the fact that targets are members of groups. According to stereotyping as an explanatory process, meaning should be MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 12 derived from similarities and diffences observed amongst people (McGarty, Yzerbyt, &
Spears, 2002), and therefore categorization and group perception are inherently intertwined.
In order to understand the differences in prejudice expression against different targets, we needed to supplement the dimensions outlined by stigma research with beliefs about the entitativity of target groups.
The concept of entitativity links to the idea that people become targets of prejudice as members of groups. However, groups exist in particular societal and political contexts that connects them to political purposes or agenda. The politicization of targets of prejudice has not received as much attention in social psychology (see Kende, 2016b) as it has in disciplines, such as political science, sociology, and gender studies, that focus on the oppression of particular groups (Rubin, 2009). As the relationship between the target group and the mainstream becomes politicized, groups come to be seen as a rival political force to be suppressed. The extreme, destructive prejudice against Jews in Nazi Germany reflected the politicization of the status and social positions of Jews through the infamous propaganda of
Goebbels and others. Prejudice had been directed towards Jews in Germany for centuries, but it reached its most virulently overt form through the systematic politicization of relations with
Jews (positioning them as a threat to the German state).
To sum up, three concepts, visibility (concealability), responsibility (controllability, origin), and threat (peril, danger) derived from stigma theories, but also recognized in the prejudice literature as sources of identifying targets and justifying the expression of negative attitudes toward them comprise target perceptions that affect prejudice and prejudice expression. Added to that is entitativity and target politicization drawn from the prejudice and intergroup relations literature to highlight the fact that targets of prejudice are members of social groups and categories, and these groups are embedded in a political context.
Threat as the Psychological Antecedent of Prejudice Expression MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 13
As we have seen, threat appears at the center of stigma and prejudice research as the fundamental drive of prejudice and intergroup conflict. When outgroups appear threatening, the overt expression of prejudice against them is seen to be justified (Durrheim et al., 2015).
Target groups can appear threatening or non-threatening based on their prevalent perceptions within a cultural context. Where target perceptions are compatible with a less immediate threat suggesting that the target group can be addressed by sidelining, rather than being confronted, then veiled prejudice can be expected.
However, threat is not a unitary target perception. Even though evolutionary explanations of prejudice suggest that some characteristics are considered universally dangerous and provide a direct link between threat avoidance and stigma, most stigmatized characteristics are subject to great variability within and between cultures and across time
(Stangor & Crandall, 2000). Based on this variability, integrated threat theory suggests that specific intergroup contexts evoke different types of threats (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).
Consequently, the compelling motivation to avoid danger leads to culturally constructed and socially shared perceptions of threat that differ across specific intergroup contexts.
Symbolic threat is about protecting what is normal and establishing, and maintaining the concept of “us” vs. “them”, as it is based on perceived intergroup differences in values, norms, and beliefs (Velasco González, Verkuyten, Weesie, & Poppe, 2008). The separation of groups defined in cultural, ethnic, political, and religious terms, or on the basis of illness, disability, and disfigurement underpin the social order and set the boundaries of normality for the mainstream. Although the separation provides one level of certainty, the existence of these excluded groups also evokes intergroup anxiety and concern about personal threat to mainstream group members. In the absence of realistic or tangible threats, symbolic threat can therefore justify overtly expressed prejudice as much as realistic threats. In sum, perception of target groups as threatening is connected to both evolutionary explanations of danger MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 14 avoidance and socially shared target perceptions, and therefore target perceptions create the conditions of perceiving a group as threatening and consequently explain the overt or veiled expression of prejudice against them.
Evidence for the Specific Target Perceptions of the Model
In the following section we highlight the connection between each target perception and prejudice expression and explain why their endorsement, in connection with particular outgroups, predicts more overt expression of prejudice.
Visibility. Our example for high visibility groups were overweight people and Muslim people in Western countries. Both of these groups experience overt rather than veiled forms of prejudice. In contrast, culturally different employees and DREAMers were presented as low visibility groups experiencing more veiled expressions of prejudice. Interpersonal encounters entail categorization of the other (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Visibility of an attribute that creates the basis of categorization is therefore decisive for the outcome of social interaction (Goffman, 1963, or more recently Everett et al., 2015). The pervasiveness of the influence of some social categories on social interactions, particularly the influence of race, gender, and age, has been argued to be rooted in automatically applying these categories based on prominent visual cues (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).
Beyond the apparent influence of a visible attribute, disclosure influence prejudice expression. The general social expectation about a concealable stigma is that its bearer should keep it concealed. Disclosure of a stigma is often considered inappropriate (Herek, 1996). If the stigmatized characteristic or group membership remains concealed, there is no need to find ways to disguise politically incorrect attitudes (Khan & Lambert, 2001). The example of the US military policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in relation to sexuality (abolished in 2011) and debates on “laïcité” in France (originally marking the separation of church and state, but recently associated with the banning of Islamic headscarves in public institutions) to mask MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 15 cultural differences by a colorblind policy both illustrate this point. These policies were justified, at least in part, by the idea that if minority groups made efforts to conceal identity markers, the majority society would also make an effort to conceal their prejudice, and therefore minority group members would experience less discrimination (Herek, 1996).
Thus, visibility affects prejudice expression in two ways. Firstly, belonging to a visible social group can lead to more open hostility. Secondly, disclosing a concealable stigma or group membership can draw attention to an otherwise invisible group membership and therefore violate the expectation of remaining invisible, posing a symbolic threat to what is considered “normal” (Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Velasco Gonzales et al., 2008).
Target politicization. Our core example for high target politicization were Muslim minorities in Western countries. The issue of immigration has dominated political discourse in Europe since the 2015 refugee crisis that led to an increase in hate crimes and negative intergroup attitudes (Pew Research, 2016, 2017), indicating a direct connection between target politicization and prejudice expression. We also used DREAMers as a highly politicized target group, however in their case, we argue that low entativity beliefs altered the effect of target politicization that we discuss in the following subsection.
Target politicization is a particular form of collective quality (McGarty, 2002), that might also be called meta-politicization. It tends to be associated with reference groups rather than membership groups (e.g., Siegel & Siegel, 1957), with opinion-based groups (Bliuc,
McGarty, Reynolds, & Muntele, 2007) and politicized identities (Simon & Klandermans,
2001). However, it is potentially attributed to any social category, especially where members are believed to engage in identity politics and activism (see Gutmann, 2009).
Although low-status groups are generally seen to be communal rather than agentic (see
Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007), politicized groups are often seen as collectively responsible for their situation and for the actions of its members (Saeed, 2015). For example, stereotypes MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 16 about women in many societies include communal over agentic traits, but stereotypes about feminist women would indicate agentic traits, such as competence and power (DeWall,
Altermatt, & Thompson, 2005).
Groups that are perceived to present a moral threat or value conflicts with the powerful ingroup (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Kinder & Sears, 1981) are not only subject to social marginalization and prejudice, but they also become political targets (Velasco González et al.,
2008) or dissidents (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). As these groups appear threatening, prejudice against them can be justified and expressed overtly. Groups singled out in Trump’s election campaign were more overtly rejected after the election as a result of recognizing the changing social norms on prejudice expression toward these particular politicized outgroups (Crandall et al., 2018).
The stigma literature tends to neglect the concept of target politicization, however,
Herek and Capitanio (1999) showed that differences in the stigmatization of HIV/AIDS infected people and people with other chronic illnesses came from the fact that attitudes toward people with HIV/AIDS were conflated with anti-gay political views. In sum, attributing agency and control to target groups because of a meta-politicization process can increase overt expressions of prejudice toward these groups.
A distinction needs to be made here between attributed and genuine agency of politicized target groups. The bottom-up politicization process of victims of intergroup hostility is about becoming agentic and transforming intergroup relations. Successful movements can achieve social change through agency and power, the consequence of which is that overt expressions of prejudice become socially unexpectable against them. For example, the perception and public treatment of LGBT people have radically changed over time, as shown by the growing number of countries that adopted marriage equalities laws. We cannot say that prejudice against LGBT people disappeared, but they are more likely to be MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 17 expressed in veiled rather than overt forms as a result of changing norms and laws (Hegarty,
2006). Nevertheless, in other social contexts in which less progress has been made in terms of
LGBT rights, the community faces overt expressions of prejudice because they are perceived as a politicized target group – for example because of the visibility of Pride events – but without the substantial achievements in the transformation of social norms to inhibit prejudice expression (for a study of the openly anti-gay movement in Poland, see O’Dwyer, 2012).
These different outcomes of politicization suggest that engagement in intergroup power struggles may lead to more overt expressions of prejudice directly, but eventually acknowledgement of genuine agency can lead to actual change and inhibit the expression of open hostility.
It is important to emphasize that target politicization is not the same as the target becoming a political issue. In the face of the Russian annexation of Crimea both Russian invaders and Ukrainian defenders claimed they were protecting the rights of the Crimean
Tatars (see Chayinska, Minescu, & McGarty, 2017). Asserting that protection has a political cause is different to attributing the pursuit of that cause to the group.
In sum, through the process of target politicization, outgroups come to be perceived as socially, politically, or morally threatening, agentic, and responsible. The consequence is that public discourse about these groups become more openly confrontational and negative, justifying overt expressions of prejudice (e.g., Das, Bushman, Bezemer, Kerkhof, &
Vermeulen, 2009), unless marginalized groups manage to transform the intergroup situation and achieve real social change.
Responsibility. Our core example for the effect of responsibility attribution on prejudice expression was obesity (Crandall, 1994). Controllability beliefs and responsibility attributions can justify prejudice and lead to less inhibited expressions of prejudice (Crandall et al., 2001). Although attribution of responsibility reflects the dynamic of intergroup MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 18 comparison (Pettigrew, 1979), the influence is moderated by the need to maintain a moral self-image, that is, one cannot explicitly blame outgroups for their exclusion (Doosje,
Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998). Thus, in contexts where prejudice is counter- normative, high responsibility attribution for the negative stereotypes associated with their group may contribute to the overt expression of prejudice. Non-responsibility, on the other hand, can inhibit the expression of prejudice. It draws on taboos against unfair social exclusion and the overt expression of prejudice but creates room for veiled prejudice.
Attribution of responsibility in intergroup relations can be connected to essentialist beliefs about the group, that is, the belief in the group’s naturalness (Rothbart & Taylor,
1992). However, the connection between naturalness (genetic or other biological determination) and prejudice is not straightforward. As it is morally unacceptable to blame people for their membership in natural categories, such judgements appear superficial, only
“skin deep” (see Andreychik & Gill, 2015). However, the perceived naturalness of negative stereotypes associated with groups works in an opposite way, and provides justification for outgroup derogation, blatant dehumanization, and moral exclusion (Murray, Aberson,
Blankenship, Barry, & Highfield, 2013), as these groups appear as ‘naturally’ threatening.
According to Andreychik and Gill (2015) the so-called “bio-behavioral essentialism cements a group to any perceived deficiencies” (p. 6). In sum, the overt expression of prejudice is associated with the perceived naturalness of group characteristics, but not with group memberships. This distinction between responsibility for the condition vs responsibility for the circumstances can help explain why belief in biological determination leads to higher racial and lower anti-gay and lesbian prejudice (Herek & Capitanio, 1999).
Entitativity. We used the example of Muslim minorities as a high entitativity group, and DREAMers as a low entitativity group to show its effect on prejudice expression. The process of categorization is inextricably linked to perceptions of entitativity and judgments of MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 19 perceived equivalence (Yzerbyt, Judd, & Corneille, 2004). Entitativity beliefs affect perceptions of threat (Abelson et al., 1998) and lead to perceptions of interchangeability among group members (Hamilton et al., 2004). Myers, Abrams, Rosenthal, and Christian
(2013) found that realistic threat perceptions can function as justifications for discriminatory behaviour and prejudice based on similarity. High entitativity groups are associated with prototypic representations (Brewer & Harasty, 1996) and their members are more likely to be evaluated in terms of global expectancies resulting in overgeneralization. In sum, entitativity beliefs are connected to perceived threat that justifies overt expressions of prejudice, while stereotyping a group that appears less group-like goes directly against non-prejudicial social norms.
However, entitativity perception may be more relevant to social categories, or groups that occupy a physically shared geographical space, or whose members interact with one another, as opposed to stigmatized individuals who are mostly seen as different from those with whom they share a geographical space and interact. Therefore, entitativity beliefs seem irrelevant to prejudice against these types of social groups. For example, persons with mental disorders that predispose them to violence will attract overt prejudice even though they act alone (low entitativity). Nevertheless, strong connections between high entitativity beliefs and prejudice will hold for groups that are rejected on the basis of group characteristics (McGarty et al., 2002). It follows that taking into account target perceptions of entitativity should predict the varying intensity and nature of prejudice toward them.
Conditions of Veiled and Overt Expression of Prejudice
In this section we present specific hypotheses about the conditions under which different prejudice expression will occur. These hypotheses are formulated as different combinations of target perceptions that fit with real-life examples. The purpose of this list is to show that these specific combinations either typically predict more overt or more veiled MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 20 forms of prejudice, and that these combinations can explain the conditions and the process of prejudice expression better than target perceptions as single dimensions. However, whether these specific combination of target perceptions indeed affect prejudice expression and distinguish whether prejudice is expressed in overt or in veiled forms against some groups should be systematically tested in future research.
As we explained, not all combinations create meaningful interactions. For example, entitativity beliefs do not affect prejudice expression for non-politicized target groups. Target politicization entails high perceived responsibility, therefore we do not consider a combination of high target politicization and low responsibility. However, the LGBT movement may be a special case here. Paradoxically, LGBT rights were achieved partially through adopting the argument of Spivak’s (1988) “strategic essentialism”, that is, by changing perceptions of responsibility for one’s sexual orientation and identity. Thus, change was achieved by eliminating the attribution of responsibility for group membership.
Nevertheless, LGBT activists would still be perceived as both highly politicized and highly agentic.
The combinations imply that high entitativity and high responsibility are sufficient conditions for eliciting overt prejudice expression. However, we argue that preceding target perceptions are also important in the psychological processes involved in perceiving targets as highly entitative or responsible. Visibility, for example, occupies the first position in the model because of its automatic and immediate potential to influence intergroup interactions, but both visible and non-visible groups can be targets of overt and veiled prejudice.
Nevertheless, visibility is relevant for prejudice expression because it strongly influences social interactions and has an impact on target politicization (see Wilson, Hugenberg, & Rule,
2017).
We have identified eight key combinations of target perceptions that capture specific MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 21 processes relevant for a number of different intergroup contexts in which prejudice is either expressed overtly or in a veiled form.
1. Non-visible * non-politicized * non-responsible veiled prejudice
We used the example of employees with different cultural background to highlight that prejudice is expressed in veiled rather than overt forms against target groups that are non- visible (or not necessarily visible), non-politicized with low level of responsibility attribution.
However, most of the evidence for low or veiled prejudice against targets with a non-visible, non-politicized, and non-responsible target perception come from the stigma literature related to illnesses (see Feldman & Crandall, 2007), but veiled prejudice can also be expressed towards highly assimilated or integrated ethnic minority groups. The case of resettled
Germans from the territories of the former Soviet Union provide another example to this combination of target perceptions. Being ethnic Germans, they were invisible and not politicized or even recognized as a politically relevant entity. Nevertheless, they were treated and referred to as foreigners by the majority German population and exposed to subtle expressions of prejudice (Zick, Wagner, van Dick, & Petzel, 2001). When prominent footballer Mesut Özil announced his international retirement his statement that "I am German when we win, but I am an immigrant when we lose" (“Mesut Ozil cites”, 2018) makes this point (echoing the words of Albert Einstein, 1919, on his perception as a Jew, a German, or as a citizen of the world depending on the success of his work).
2. Non-visible * non-politicized * responsible overt prejudice
In this combination, we highlight the difference that responsibility attribution makes compared to the cases presented in Combination 1. A large-scale study of mental health professionals’ and lay people’s attitudes toward different forms of mental illnesses (alcohol dependence, major depression, and schizophrenia) showed that explicit bias against people with mental disorders was strongly predicted by blameworthiness while this concept had no MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 22 impact on implicit mental illness biases (Peris, Teachman, & Nosek, 2008). A study of eating disorders (including concealable conditions such as bulimia and binge eating) found the same connection between controllability beliefs and prejudice (Ebneter et al., 2011). These findings suggest that, despite keeping an attribute or group membership concealed, if the person is held responsible for the stigmatized condition, prejudice is likely to be more overtly expressed.
Responsibility attribution functions as a justification for the overt expressions (for an overview see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).
3. Visible * non-politicized * non-responsible veiled prejudice
While there is a parallel with the cases presented in Combination 1, here we focus on the difference that visibility makes to members of these groups. People who are stigmatized on the basis of a visible attribute are more likely to experience prejudice or feel that they have been unfairly treated (Goffman, 1963), than those who conceal their status. However, rejecting people who have not chosen a visibly identifiable stigma is morally unacceptable under egalitarian social norms, so mainstream group members will seek ways to mask their negative attitudes (Crisp, Gelder, Goddard, Meltzer, & Rowlands, 2000).
Physical impairment, for example, affects social interactions by communicating an implicit hierarchy between disabled and non-disabled people that manifests itself not in hostility and antagonism, but for example in paternalistic helping or openly positive behavior
(Deal, 2007). Older workers can have similar experiences. They may be at a disadvantage in various work settings, such as job loss, limited career advancement, and isolation, nevertheless, prejudice toward them is not expressed in the form of open hostility or blatant negative stereotyping (Cox, 1994).
Although gender issues are perceived as highly politicized, women are less likely to appear as a politicized target group, when they are seen to be unthreatening and non-agentic
(Cuddy et al., 2008). Additionally, the low perceived entitativity of the group – connected to MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 23 the high perceived diversity – entails that prejudice is expressed in veiled, rather than overt forms as shown by works on ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1997) or modern sexism
(Swim & Cohen, 1997).
This combination of target perceptions applies to highly integrated visible ethnic or racial minorities. Asian Americans – sometimes referred to as the “model minority” – is a case in point. They experience prejudice and racism both in interpersonal interactions and on a systemic level, but prejudice is expressed in veiled rather than overt forms (see, e.g., Chou
& Feagin, 2015; Kawahara & van Kirk, 2004). Thus, in the absence of perceived responsibility, a visible stigma or minority group membership can affect everyday interactions as well as institutional practices, but prejudice expression is more likely to remain veiled.
4. Visible * non-politicized * responsible overt prejudice
Again, we focus on the difference that responsibility makes – as we have done when comparing Combination 1 and 2 – but this time with visible groups. Our core example for this combination was obesity (e.g., Crandall, 1994; Ebneter et al., 2011). The reason that there is more overt prejudice towards overweight people (or tattooed people) than towards people with a visible illness or congenital disability is because members of the former categories are blamed for their perceptually salient bodies (Crandall, 1994; Martin & Dula, 2010). As we have seen, even if a person chooses not to disclose a stigma, prejudice may still be more overtly expressed toward them in the presence of high perceived responsibility. However, a visible stigma or visible group membership has a more pervasive influence on everyday interactions (Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984). In summary, the visibly marked bodies license overt prejudice if the actions, for example, overeating or getting a tattoo are seen as conscious (agentic) violation of social norms (Crandall, 1994; Kende, 2016a).
5. Non-visible * politicized * low entitativity veiled prejudice
As we move away from non-politicized target groups, we firstly focus on a MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 24 combination that is non-visible and low on entitativity. It has been difficult to generate examples of groups that meet this profile but this has recently changed in the United States with the prominence of undocumented residents – DREAMers – our core example for this combination. The expression of prejudice toward individual members of this group may have been muted by their invisibility, that is, because undocumented residents are not clearly and separately regarded as one category or another, and because they form a low entitativity group. Expression of overt prejudice would increase when political efforts reinforce the distinction between legal vs. undocumented immigrants but would decrease when political efforts are made toward blurring the group’s boundaries through legalization of undocumented residents (see Johnson & Ingram, 2012; Marouf, 2012).
6. Non-visible * politicized * high entitativity overt prejudice
In this combination we focus on the difference that high entitativity makes compared to the example presented in Combination 5. A study by N. Haslam et al. (2002) identified entitativity beliefs as the explanation to individual differences in prejudice toward gay men in comparison with racism and sexism. They argued that “women” and “Blacks” represent natural categories, thus entitativity beliefs are not central in prejudice formation against them.
In comparison, gay men are subject to stigmatization affected by entitativity beliefs about homosexuality, leading to psychologically distinct mechanisms of prejudice based on the attributional patterns of discreetness, immutability, historical stability, and naturalness. A similar conclusion was drawn in a study manipulating entitativity beliefs about gay and lesbian couples identifying higher affective and cognitive bias against them in the high than in the low entitativity condition (Gupta, 2015). The aim of any grassroots organization to draw attention to its members’ existence, make them visible as a group (i.e., increase groupness perceptions), and confront majority groups with their unrecognized problems. The connection between politicization, entitativity and an increase in overtly expressed prejudice was found MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 25 with regard to gay and lesbian people (N. Haslam & Levy, 2006), religious minority groups
(Newheiser, Tausch, Dovidio, & Hewstone, 2009), and citizens of another country in international conflicts (Castano, Sacchi, & Gries, 2003).
“Dissident groups” in the dual process model of Duckitt and Sibley (2007) also represent politicized and threatening targets of prejudice. These groups are not (necessarily) visibly marked, but they are highly politicized and perceived as entitative, and are therefore considered to be threatening to the established social order. The successful repression of such groups by regimes rests on generalized beliefs about threat (through what Ellul, 1965, calls integration propaganda). The influence of this combination of target perceptions can also explain why prejudice against feminist women is stronger and more openly expressed than against women in general (Anastosopoulos & Desmarais, 2015; Cuddy et al., 2008).
7. Visible * politicized * low entitativity veiled prejudice
It is much more common to find examples for politicized target groups that are also visible, as visible outgroups more easily become politically targeted and identified as rivals.
Here, we focus on the difference low entitativity makes to highly politicized, visible target groups. The textbook example of the change in prejudice expression from old-fashioned to modern prejudice is prejudice against African Americans (McConahay, 1983). Research on
African Americans in the US, as well as historical minorities in Britain and other parts of
Western Europe, provide evidence of a decline in overt prejudice (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986;
Stupar, van de Vijver, Te Lindert, & Fontaine, 2014). This decline can be explained by the normative and structural changes that led to counter-stereotypic examples (Plant et al., 2009), and thereby decreased entitativity beliefs about the group. The decrease in entitativity beliefs is connected to racial identity diversification (Augoustinos & De Garis, 2012) the context of which makes the overt expression of prejudice politically incorrect (leading to admonitions of the practice of overt racism that take the form “I know what you mean but you can’t say MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 26 that”).
8. Visible * politicized * high entitativity overt prejudice
Finally, we show that when all three target perceptions are high, we find strong and overtly expressed prejudice. Overtly expressed negative stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination still prevails toward some groups, as for example our core example, the experiences of Muslim people in Western countries suggest. The shared and normative perception of these groups – reinforced by media representations – is uniformly negative, homogenous, agentic, and therefore also threatening (Das et al., 2009; Verkuyten, 2011).
Dominant representations of the groups create norms that free people from the social norms of non-prejudice and justify prejudice expression as rational and proportional reactions to threats. For people with a visible, politicized group membership that is also perceived as highly entitative, intergroup relations are likely to be burdened by a public discourse reinforcing social distance, conflict, and dangerousness, leading to a disregard of egalitarian social norms.
As conflicts deepen, perceptions of outgroup homogeneity and entitativity increase
(Newheiser et al., 2009), the politically targeted group is collectively blamed for the wrong- doings of (radical) members of the group (Saeed, 2015), and threat perceptions also increase
(Doosje, Zimmermann, Küpper, Zick, & Meertens, 2009). As these target perceptions increase, prejudice expression becomes more open and confrontational, while proponents consider them rational and proportional (Meer & Modood, 2009). The result is moral exclusion, blatant dehumanization, and violence towards the target group.
Theories of Prejudice Expression
Having outlined the theoretical assumptions and the specific hypotheses based on
SPEM, in this section we explain how previous theories dealt with the question of prejudice expression and show the ways in which SPEM differs from them. Previous research has MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 27 focused either on the consequences of different expressions of prejudice for intergroup relations, or the normative and political functions of the two forms of prejudice. Leach et al.
(2000), for example, found that old-racism may be diminishing in Western societies and be replaced by more acceptable contemporary attitudes about cultural difference, but they continue to play an important role in predicting intergroup attitudes. In line with this, most research on prejudice expression support the idea that the two forms of prejudice expression are positively correlated and both have negative intergroup consequences (see e.g., Barreto &
Ellemers, 2005; Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995).
We build on and supplement these two approaches by outlining the conditions underlying different expressions of prejudice. This new level of integration helps us to make predictions about how prejudice will be expressed and consequently recognize prejudice in different intergroup contexts. This recognition can contribute to dealing with the attitudinal and behavioral consequences of different expressions of prejudice as well as with their different social and political functions.
Influential models of prejudice expression all suggest that there is a systematic variance in the level of prejudice towards different target groups and in the way prejudice is expressed toward them. However, they do not establish a systematic connection between target perceptions and the expression of prejudice. For example, Crandall and Eshleman’s
(2003) justification suppression model (JSM) explains the connection between genuine prejudice (the typical level of motivated negative cognition toward outgroup members) and prejudice expression as being mediated by suppression factors that inhibit prejudice expression, and justification factors that release the expression of genuine prejudice. The model is concerned with the dynamic process of prejudice expression within the individual, but it is not concerned with the variations in prejudice expression toward specific target groups (i.e., conditions). Therefore, SPEM complements JSM by also describing the specific MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 28 conditions in which these processes take place when we identify the specific target perceptions and their specific combinations that predict different expressions of prejudice when negative intergroup attitudes are present.
Social representations theory focuses on the content of everyday knowledge about the social organization of the world. Durkheim’s (1912/2010) idea about collective representations was reinvigorated in social psychology (Moscovici, 1984, 2011; Moscovici &
Marková, 1998) to explain the process by which scientific knowledge becomes common sense and therefore provides explanations for the social world. Analyses of social representations of particular concepts provide explanations for the emergence of cultural norms that shape attitudes and behaviors (Wagner, 1996). It is for this reason that stereotyping can be dependent on the social representations of particular groups (Bigazzi & Csertő, 2015;
DePierre, Puhl, & Luedicke, 2013; Stupar et al., 2014; Verkuyten & Steenhuis, 2005). It provides an important theoretical resource for understanding differences in prejudice expression toward different target groups. However, the theory does not assume and therefore it does not reveal a stable connection between specific representations and prejudice expression as the SPEM does.
Many theories of social judgment hold that the content of stereotypes is organized along two dimensions. The stereotype content model (SCM: Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu,
2002) identifies warmth and competence as these dimensions (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007).
The theory puts forward the idea that stereotyping and prejudice are based on systematic differences in prevailing perceptions of target groups, and stereotype content affect prejudice expression through its justification function. For example, there is evidence that groups that are perceived as both cold and incompetent are the most likely to be treated with open hostility (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske, Harris, & Cuddy, 2004). Members of groups that occupy mixed positions on the warmth and competence dimensions are treated with ambivalence, and MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 29 prejudice toward them is expressed in veiled forms through for example questionable hiring decisions (Cuddy, Glick, & Benninger, 2011). However, the model does not account for a wide range of outgroup derogation, as it derives stereotypes only from status and competition and disregards their symbolic and visceral components and their social and cultural origins, much of what is acknowledged in the stigma literature (Joffe & Staerklé, 2007). Therefore,
SPEM broadens the scope of conditions for overt and veiled expression of prejudice.
While these theories of prejudice and stigmatization address the question about why some groups are more openly targeted for prejudice in comparison to others, they do not offer a systematic explanation to it. We have supplemented these by identifying the conditions of overt or veiled expression of prejudice and describe the process based on which predictions about prejudice expression toward specific target groups can be made. Furthermore, target perceptions do not simply reflect individual differences in representations, but socially shared understandings about social groups that can be traced in dominant discourses about groups.
Testing SPEM Empirically and Its Potential Applications
We have listed a number of specific intergroup contexts in which overt or veiled expression of prejudice has been empirically identified and connected to the variables of
SPEM. We used this evidence to put forward a hypothesis regarding the influence of target perceptions on prejudice expression. However, SPEM should be empirically tested to show that it can be generalized to other intergroup contexts and used to explain individual differences in prejudice expression. While the effects of all the variables of SPEM cannot be directly tested in a single experiment, there are multiple ways to grasp the generalizability of the effects. Firstly, the effect of the variables on prejudice and prejudice expression can be established by a complex meta-analysis. Although we reviewed a large number of studies to formulate our hypothesis, the model may need to be altered if a large scale meta-analysis does not support the connection between all of the combinations of target perceptions and prejudice MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 30 expression. Secondly, thematic content analysis of archival data from actual interactions for example from social media discussions could provide evidence to the connection between the endorsement of target perceptions and different expressions of prejudice. Here again, the lack of clear evidence for the connection across different intergroup contexts beyond those presented in the paper would limit the generalizability of our model. Thirdly, SPEM could be tested in the form of action research on prejudice reduction, especially by research on intergroup contact. Intergroup contact theory remains the most influential theory of prejudice reduction (Allport, 1954; for a meta-analytic review see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), and insights from SPEM could help tailor prejudice reduction interventions to specific intergroup contexts while its effectivity measured.
Despite existing empirical evidence, differences in effectiveness of contact for different target groups received little attention so far. Our model can help fill this gap if these differences are put to empirical testing. For example, visibility and entitativity beliefs directly influence generalizability (see Brewer & Harasty, 1996; Herek & Capitanio, 1999), target politicization or the lack thereof affects the recognition of structural aspects of prejudice (see
Wright & Lubensky, 2009), while responsibility attribution may influence the efforts to develop positive contact (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Therefore, direct comparison of the effectiveness of contact when outgroups are perceived differently along the dimensions of SPEM could offer an empirical test of the model and consequently inform contact-based interventions.
Empirical validation of the model can lead to informing practices and policy decisions, however it should not define the political aims of interventions (see van Zomeren, 2013). It also needs to be acknowledged that the insights of the model can be used for politically different goals, that is, not just for reducing prejudice but also for mobilizing against disadvantaged groups or pursuing conservative goals of maintaining existing social MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 31 hierarchies. Nevertheless, we can highlight that SPEM has the potential to improve existing models of prejudice reduction and social change intentions.
Recent debates highlighted the importance of taking a broader perspective than individual attitude change as a measure of success in prejudice reduction by also focusing on implications for social change. SPEM suggests that different target perceptions can have considerably different consequences for social change. Social disapproval of prejudice and normative expectations to live in harmony – prevalent in prejudice reduction interventions and integration policies – can have a sedative effect on the mobilization of disadvantaged groups (see e.g., Saguy, Tausch, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2009). Consequently, target perceptions that lead to overt expression of prejudice can fuel direct discrimination and violence, but target perceptions leading to veiled prejudice can become the obstacle for social change through its sedative effect on the mobilization of minority groups.
The same effect can be found in connection with minority social movements. Minority movements are heavily dependent on allies from privileged groups (Thomas, McGarty, &
Mavor, 2010). Successful allyship requires the acknowledgement of intergroup bias by some members of the perpetrator group which can take place more easily in intergroup situations where prejudice appears in overt forms (see Durrheim et al., 2015). Allies of highly politicized target groups can join social change efforts through shared ideologies of opinion- based identities (Curtin & McGarty, 2016) to act on the basis of salient opinions about how to change an unjust intergroup situation (Gee & McGarty, 2013). SPEM can help explain differences in demobilization among disadvantaged groups and ally mobilization across intergroup contexts.
Limitations of SPEM
It is worth reiterating that SPEM is a model of prejudice and stigma expression rather than a theory of prejudice or stigma. We consider prejudice as the negative affective reaction MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 32 to members of groups that emerges in a range of intergroup contexts and that it is connected to basic human needs and cognitive processes. Our conceptualization of prejudice is aligned with approaches as diverse as those of integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000), the dual process model (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007) and social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner,
1979), suggesting that prejudice is derived from multiple sources (e.g., evolutionary competitive pressures, socialization, ideologies, personality, and emergent social norms deriving from subjective and objective conflict). In the current paper we have not sought to explain where prejudice comes from, but, to specify when it will take particular forms. That said, perhaps the most important theoretical consideration which needs to be accounted for is that the combinations should not be taken as reflecting linear processes, or as fully independent factors that produce interaction effects. Prejudice expression is not only the result of a specific constellation of visibility, target politicization, responsibility, and entitativity; it can also rest on reciprocal rather than linear paths between them (for a reversed connection between prejudice and entitativity see Newheiser et al., 2009, and for a two-way connection between responsibility and prejudice, see Crandall, 1994).
Although identifying four complex target perceptions itself may raise concerns about parsimony, there are other relevant concepts related to the shared perceptions of members of other groups that did not emerge from the integrated theories of stigmatization that we supplemented by the specific features of groups studied by prejudice research. We therefore acknowledge that these target perceptions are not the sole factors determining the differences in prejudice expression. For example, beliefs about human nature are relevant target perceptions. Dehumanization occurs as a result of moral exclusion, when people think that considerations of fairness do not apply to some groups or individuals (Opotow, 1990). Moral exclusion and the consequent dehumanization do not correspond with particular target perceptions. However, it is expected to have consequences for a range of target perceptions MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 33 that are integrated in SPEM and vice versa. We propose that there are no conditions where dehumanization leads to overt rather than veiled prejudice without also affecting target perceptions incorporated in SPEM.
Much of the research on prejudice focuses on individual differences, and although
SPEM offers a more general account of the connection between target perceptions and prejudice expression on a social and cultural level, it can still be a strong guide to predicting individual differences in prejudice expression. However, the model itself cannot account for individually different reactions to dominant target perceptions. For example, target politicization may generally evoke overt prejudice, but it may elicit empathy or guilt in others, leading to pro-social attitudes and behavior (Harth, Kessler, & Leach, 2008; Leach, Iyer, &
Pedersen, 2006).
We further acknowledge that, as social norms change over time, target perceptions also change. For example, the level of entitativity beliefs about African Americans may have declined in the US due to powerful counter-stereotypic examples (Plant et al., 2009;
Ramasubramanian, 2011), but recent events, such as the strengthening of white supremacy movements, as well as the Black Lives Matter movement, point to a change in both target politicization and entitativity perceptions.
Finally, different emotional responses to different outgroups are not discussed here, however they are closely related to particular target perceptions. Although it fell outside the scope of this paper to account for the different emotional reactions each pathway represents, a connection between particular emotions and target perceptions can be established. Anger, outrage, fear, anxiety, disgust, contempt, sympathy, and guilt can all be located in the model based on the typical intergroup situations in which they occur (see Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005;
Tapias, Glaser, Keltner, Vasquez, & Wickens, 2007).
Conclusions MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 34
The volume of research on prejudice and stigma is substantial and we cannot hope to do justice to it all here. There are nevertheless clear indications that direct analysis of the connection between perception of target groups and the expression of prejudice is missing from the literature (see quotations at the start of this paper by Phelan et al., 2008; Stangor &
Crandall, 2000). SPEM has the potential to explain existing data and generate predictions about any intergroup context based on both individual differences in the endorsement of target perceptions and dominant cultural representations. Understanding the processes that take place when target perceptions are combined in particular ways can facilitate the recognition of prejudice regardless of how it is expressed. Previous research either focused on the psychological process of prejudice expression or the expression of prejudice and stigma toward specific target groups without systematically establishing the dimensions that determine prejudice expression. The framing of the model is a plea to acknowledge the multiplicity of the experience of social exclusion, and at the same time not to give up on the notion that the systematic variations in the rejection of different social groups can be explained.
Prejudice research is a scientific activity that is itself linked to the political threads of its times. Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis met with the political goals of desegregation and informed its practices (see Pettigrew, 1961). More recently, research on prejudice has been influenced by the critical re-examination of the contact hypothesis. Research on the demobilizing effects of intergroup contact showed that overt and veiled expressions of prejudice have different consequences for social change efforts (see Dixon, Tropp, Durrheim,
& Tredoux, 2010; Saguy et al., 2009). There is also a growing awareness about the different political goals that prejudice reduction efforts can fulfil in terms of achieving social cohesion vs. social change (Wright & Lubensky, 2009). We therefore propose that in order to capture the zeitgeist, social psychology needs a more sophisticated analysis of prejudice and MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 35 especially prejudice expression. It is only within this understanding that we can identify successful prejudice reduction methods, work toward positive intergroup relations, and sensitively relate to the experience of target groups, and thus work more efficiently toward social change. MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 36
References
Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective
other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 243-250.
Allport, G. W. (1954). On the nature of prejudice. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Anastosopoulos, V., & Desmarais, S. (2015). By name or by deed? Identifying the source of
the feminist stigma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 226-242. doi:
10.1111/jasp.12290
Andreychik, M. R., & Gill, M. J. (2015). Do natural kind beliefs about social groups
contribute to prejudice? Distinguishing bio-somatic essentialism from bio-behavioral
essentialism, and both of these from entitativity. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 8, 454-474. doi: 10.1177/1368430214550341
Augoustinos, M., & De Garis, S. (2012). ‘Too black or not black enough’: Social identity
complexity in the political rhetoric of Barack Obama. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 42, 564-577. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1868
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1994). Implicit stereotyping and prejudice. In M. P.
Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium.
(Vol. 7, pp. 55-76) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The perils of political correctness: Men's and women's
responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68,
75-88.
Berry, J. W., & Sabatier, C. (2010). Acculturation, discrimination, and adaptation among
second generation immigrant youth in Montreal and Paris. International Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 34, 191-207. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2009.11.007 MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 37
Bigazzi, S., & Csertő, I. (2015). Minority identity strategies bound by prejudice: Restricted
perspectives of people categorized as Gypsies in Hungary. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology, 26, 189-206, doi: 10.1002/casp.2241
Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994). Condemning and
condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 79, 993–997
Blascovich, J., Mendes, W. B., Hunter, S. B., Lickel, B., Heatherton, T., Kleck, R., Hull, J.
(2000). Stigma, threat, and social interactions. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R.
Hebl & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 307-333). New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Bliuc, A. M., McGarty, C., Reynolds, K., & Muntele, D. (2007). Opinion‐based group
membership as a predictor of commitment to political action. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 37, 19-32.
Brewer, M. B., & Harasty, A. S. (1996). Seeing groups as entities: The role of perceiver
motivation. In E. Richard & E T. Higgins (Eds.) Handbook of motivation and
cognition: The interpersonal context. (pp. 347-370). New York, NY: Guilford Press
Brief, A. P., & Barsky, A. (2000). Establishing a climate for diversity: The inhibition of
prejudiced reactions in the workplace. Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management, 19, 91-129.
Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates
of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14-25.
Castano, E., Sacchi, S., & Gries, P. H. (2003). The perception of the other in international
relations: Evidence for the polarizing effect of entitativity. Political Psychology, 24,
449-468.
Chayinska, M., Minescu, A., & McGarty, C. (2017). Political solidarity through action (and MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 38
inaction): How international relations changed intracultural perceptions in Ukraine.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 20, 396 - 408. doi:
10.1177/1368430216682354
Chou, R. S., & Feagin, J. R. (2015). Myth of the model minority: Asian Americans facing
racism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: a
sociofunctional threat-based approach to" prejudice". Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 88, 770-789.
Cox, T. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.882.
Crandall, C. S., D’Anello, S., Sakalli, N., Lazarus, E., Nejtardt, G. W., & Feather, N. T.
(2001). An attribution-value model of prejudice: Anti-fat attitudes in six nations.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 30-37.
Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression
and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414-446.
Crandall, C. S., Miller, J. M., & White, M. H. (2018). Changing norms following the 2016 US
presidential election: The Trump effect on prejudice. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 9, 186-192 1948550617750735.
Crawford, A. M. (1996). Stigma associated with AIDS: A meta‐ analysis. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 26, 398-416.
Crisp, A. H., Gelder, M. G., Rix, S., Meltzer, H. I., & Rowlands, O. J. (2000). Stigmatisation
of people with mental illnesses. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 4-7. doi:
10.1192/bjp.177.1.4 MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 39
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. M. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, &
G. Lindzey (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology (pp. 504–553). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: behaviors from intergroup
affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631-648.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal
dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61-149.
Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. (2011). The dynamics of warmth and competence
judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 31, 73-98. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2011.10.004
Curtin, N., & McGarty, C. (2016). Expanding on psychological theories of engagement to
understand activism in context(s). Journal of Social Issues, 72, 227-241. doi:
10.1111/josi.12164
Das, E., Bushman, B. J., Bezemer, M. D., Kerkhof, P., & Vermeulen, I. E. (2009). How
terrorism news reports increase prejudice against out-groups: A terror management
account. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 453-459.
Deal, M. (2007). Aversive disablism: Subtle prejudice toward disabled people. Disability &
Society, 22, 93-107.
DePierre, J. A., Puhl, R. M., & Luedicke, J. (2013). A new stigmatized identity? Comparisons
of a “food addict” label with other stigmatized health conditions. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 35, 10-21. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.746148
Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The
regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835-848. doi: MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 40
10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835.
DeWall, C. N., Altermatt, T. W., & Thompson, H. (2005). Understanding the structure of
stereotypes of women: Virtue and agency as dimensions distinguishing female
subgroups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 396-405.
Dixon, J., Tropp, L. R., Durrheim, K., & Tredoux, C. (2010). “Let them eat harmony”
prejudice-reduction strategies and attitudes of historically disadvantaged
groups. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 76-80.
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. (1998). Guilty by association:
When one's group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75, 872-886.
Doosje, B., Zimmermann, A., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Meertens, R. (2009). Terrorist threat
and perceived Islamic support for terrorist attacks as predictors of personal and
institutional out-group discrimination and support for anti-immigration policies–
Evidence from 9 European countries. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 22,
203-233.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: Historical
trends and contemporary approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and
1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315-319.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present,
and the future. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 5-21.
Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years
after Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation
and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113- MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 41
130. doi: 10.1002/per.614
Durkheim, E. (2010 [1912]). The cultural logic of collective representations. In C. Lemert
(Ed.), Social theory: The multicultural readings (pp. 94-103). Philadelphia: Westview
Press.
Durrheim, K., Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2015) The struggle for the nature of ‘prejudice’:
‘Prejudice’ expression as identity performance, Political Psychology, doi:
10.1111/pops.12310
Ebneter, D. S., Latner, J. D., & O’Brien, K. S. (2011). Just world beliefs, causal beliefs, and
acquaintance: Associations with stigma toward eating disorders and obesity.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 618-622. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.029
Einstein, A. (November 28, 1919) What is the theory of relativity, The London Times,
Retrieved from: http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/docpage.cfm?
docpage_id=5438&language=english
Ellul, J. (1965) Propaganda: The formation of men’s attitudes. New York, NY: Knopf
Everett, J. A., Schellhaas, F. M., Earp, B. D., Ando, V., Memarzia, J., Parise, C. V., ... &
Hewstone, M. (2015). Covered in stigma? The impact of differing levels of Islamic
head‐covering on explicit and implicit biases toward Muslim women. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 45, 90-104. doi: 10.1111/jasp.12278
Fan, M. D. (2013). The case for crimmigration reform. North Carolina Law Review, 92, 75-
148.
Feldman, D. B., & Crandall, C. S. (2007). Dimensions of mental illness stigma: What about
mental illness causes social rejection? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,
137-154.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition:
Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83. MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 42
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
Fiske, S. T., Harris, L.T., & Cuddy, A. J. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy
prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-
based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention
and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(pp. 1-74). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Gee, A. & McGarty, C. (2013). Developing cooperative communities to reduce stigma about
mental disorders. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 137–164. doi:
10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01296.x
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism measuring ambivalent sexist
attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Guimond, S., Crisp, R. J., De Oliveira, P., Kamiejski, R., Kteily, N., Kuepper, B., ... & Zick,
A. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting
prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104, 941-958.
Gupta, N. M. (2015) Does entitativity reduce behavioral attentional and evaluative biases
toward homosexual couples?. College of William & Mary Undergraduate Honors
Theses. Paper 187. Retrieved from: http://publish.wm.edu/honorstheses/187
Gutmann, A. (2009). Identity in democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Rodgers, J. S. (2004). Perceiving the groupness of groups: MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 43
Entitativity, homogeneity, essentialism, and stereotypes. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd &
O. Corneille (Eds.) The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability,
entitativity, and essentialism. (pp. 39-60). New York, NY: Psychology Press
Harth, N. S., Kessler, T., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Advantaged group's emotional reactions to
intergroup inequality: The dynamics of pride, guilt, and sympathy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 115-129.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and
implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471-485.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with
prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87-100.
Hegarty, P. (2006). Where’s the sex in sexual prejudice. Lesbian & Gay Psychology
Review, 7, 264-275.
Herek, G. M. (1996). Why tell if you’re not asked? Self-disclosure, intergroup contact, and
heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In G. M. Herek, J. Jobe & R.
Carney (Eds.) Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military, (pp. 197-225). Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice. American
Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1130-1147.
Joachim, G., & Acorn, S. (2000). Stigma of visible and invisible chronic conditions. Journal
of Advanced Nursing, 32, 243-248.
Joffe, H., & Staerklé, C. (2007). The centrality of the self-control ethos in Western aspersions
regarding out-groups: A social representational approach to stereotype content. Culture
& Psychology, 13, 395-418.
Johnson, K. R. (1996). " Aliens" and the US Immigration Laws: The Social and Legal
Construction of Nonpersons. The University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 28, MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 44
263-292.
Johnson, K. R., & Ingram, J. E. C. (2012). Anatomy of a Modern-Day Lynching: The
Relationship Between Hate Crimes Against Latina/os and the Debate over Immigration
Reform. North Carolina Law Review, 91, 1613-1656.
Jones, E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., & Scott, R. (1984). Social stigma:
The psychology of marked relationships. New York, NY: Freeman.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the
production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying
ideologies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265.
Kawahara, D. M., & Van Kirk, J. J. (2004). Asian Americans in the Workplace: Facing
Prejudice and Discrimination in Multiple Contexts. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology
of Prejudice in Hiring: Ethnicity and multiracial identity, Vol. 2 (pp. 39-63). Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers.
Kende, A. (2016a) Moral concerns and the attribution of responsibility in pre-adolescent girls’
understanding of obesity. Psychology & Society, 8, 22-38.
Kende, A. (2016b) Separating social science research on activism from social science as
activism. Journal of Social Issues, 72, 399–412, doi: 10.1111/josi.12172.
Khan, S. R., & Lambert, A. J. (2001). Perceptions of rational discrimination: When do people
attempt to justify race-based prejudice? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 42-
53. doi: 10.1207/S15324834BASP2301_4
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial
threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414-431.
Kvaale, E. P., Haslam, N., & Gottdiener, W. H. (2013). The ‘side effects’ of medicalization:
A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 45
Psychology Review, 33, 782-794. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002
Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about in-group advantage
explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
32, 1232-1245.
Leach, C. W., Peng, T. R., & Volckens, J. (2000). Is racism dead? Comparing (expressive)
means and (structural equation) models. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 449-
465.
Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY:
Plenum Press.
Link, B., & Phelan, J. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363 -
385.
Mesut Ozil cites 'racism and disrespect' as he quits Germany (June 22, 2018) Al Jazeera
Retrieved: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/07/mesut-ozil-cites-racism-disrespect-
quits-germany-180722182842146.html
Marouf, F. E. (2012). Regrouping America: Immigration Policies and the Reduction of
Prejudice. Harvard Latino Law Review, 15, 129-182.
Martin, B. A., & Dula, C. S. (2010). More than skin deep: Perceptions of, and stigma against,
tattoos. College Student Journal, 44, 200-206.
McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination the effects of race,
racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551-558.
McDonald, R. I., & Crandall, C. S. (2015). Social norms and social influence. Current
Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 3, 147-151. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.04.006
McGarty, C. (2002). Stereotype formation as category formation. In C. McGarty, V. Yzerbyt
& R. Spears (Eds.) Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 46
about social groups, (pp. 16-37). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The
formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Meer, N., & Modood, T. (2009). Refutations of racism in the ‘Muslim question’. Patterns of
Prejudice, 43, 335-354.
Moscovici, S. (1984). The phenomenon of social representations. In R. M. Farr & S.
Moscovici (Eds.), Social representations (pp. 3-69). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press
Moscovici, S. (2011). An essay on social representations and ethnic minorities. Social
Science Information, 50, 442-461.
Moscovici, S., & Marková, I. (1998). Presenting social representations: A conversation.
Culture & Psychology, 4, 371-410.
Murray, R. A., Aberson, C. L., Blankenship, K. L., & Barry Highfield, J. J. (2013). Beliefs
that sexual orientation is a choice and motivation to control prejudice moderates method
of disease transmission and sexual orientation effects on reactions to HIV-positive
men. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 272-285.
Myers, C., Abrams, D., Rosenthal, H. E., & Christian, J. (2013). Threat, prejudice, and
stereotyping in the context of Japanese, North Korean, and South Korean intergroup
relations. Current Research in Social Psychology, 20, 76-85. doi: 10.1.1.364.3009
Newheiser, A.-K., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Hewstone, M. (2009). Entitativity and
prejudice: Examining their relationship and the moderating effect of attitude certainty.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 920-926.
O'Dwyer, C. (2012). Does the EU help or hinder gay-rights movements in post-communist
Europe? The case of Poland. East European Politics, 28, 332-352. MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 47
Offermann, L. R., Basford, T. E., Graebner, R., Jaffer, S., De Graaf, S. B., & Kaminsky, S. E.
(2014). See no evil: Color blindness and perceptions of subtle racial discrimination in
the workplace. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 499-507. doi:
10.1037/a0037237
Opotow, S. (1990). Moral exclusion and injustice: an introduction. Journal of Social Issues,
46, 1-20.
Panagopoulos, C. (2006). The polls-trends Arab and Muslim Americans and Islam in the
aftermath of 9/11. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 608-624.
Peris, T. S., Teachman, B. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Implicit and explicit stigma of mental
illness: Links to clinical care. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 196, 752-
760.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1961). Social psychology and desegregation research. American
Psychologist, 16, 105-112
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis
of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57-75.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
Pew Research (2016). Negative views of minorities, refugees common in EU. Retrieved
from: http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/07/11/negative-views-of-minorities-refugees-
common-in-eu/.
Pew Research (2017) Muslims, Jews faced social hostilities in seven-in-ten European
countries in 2015. Retrieved from:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/12/muslims-jews-faced-social- MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 48
hostilities-in-seven-in-ten-european-countries-in-2015/
Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Stigma and prejudice: one animal or two?
Social Science & Medicine, 67, 358-367.
Plant, E. A., Devine, P. G., Cox, W. T., Columb, C., Miller, S. L., Goplen, J., & Peruche, B.
M. (2009). The Obama effect: Decreasing implicit prejudice and stereotyping. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 961-964.
Puhl, R. M., & Heuer, C. A. (2010). Obesity stigma: important considerations for public
health. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1019-1028.
Ramasubramanian, S. (2011). The impact of stereotypical versus counterstereotypical media
exemplars on racial attitudes, causal attributions, and support for affirmative action.
Communication Research, 38 497-516. doi: 10.1177/0093650210384854
Ren, L. R., Paetzold, R. L., & Colella, A. (2008). A meta-analysis of experimental studies on
the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Human Resource Management
Review, 18, 191-203.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and out-group
attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-
353.
Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social
categories as natural kinds? G. R. Semin, Gün & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language,
interaction and social cognition (pp. 11-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications
Rubin, G. (2009). The traffic in women: Notes on the "political economy" of sex. In E. Lewin
(Ed.) Feminist Anthropology (pp. 87-106) Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing
Saeed, A. (2015). Racism and Islamophobia: A personal perspective. Identity Papers: A
Journal of British and Irish studies, 1, 15-31. doi: 10.5920/idp.2015.1115
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony intergroup MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 49
contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114-121.
Siegel, A. E., & Siegel, S. (1957). Reference groups, membership groups, and attitude
change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 360-364.
Simon, B., & Klandermans, B. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological
analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319-331. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.56.4.319
Spivak, G. C. (1988). In other worlds: Essays in cultural politics. New York, N.Y.: Methuen
Stangor, C., & Crandall, C. S. (2000). Threat and the social construction of stigma. In T. F.
Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of
stigma (pp. 62-87). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S.
Oskamp (Ed.) Reducing prejudice and discrimination, (pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum
Stupar, S., van de Vijver, F. J. R., Te Lindert, A., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2014). Multicultural
attitudes mediate the relation between personality and perceived ethnic out-group
distance in the Netherlands. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 38, 24-35.
doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.05.002
Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, Covert, And Subtle Sexism A Comparison
Between the Attitudes Toward Women and Modern Sexism Scales. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 21(1), 103-118.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, C. J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks / Cole.
Tapias, M. P., Glaser, J., Keltner, D., Vasquez, K., & Wickens, T. (2007). Emotion and MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 50
prejudice: Specific emotions toward out-groups. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10, 27-39. doi: 10.1177/1368430207071338
Thomas, E., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. (2010). Social psychology of Making Poverty
History: Motivating anti-poverty action in Australia. Australian Psychologist, 45, 4-15. van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3, 87-118. van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective
action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378-388. doi:
10.1111/spc3.12031
Velasco González, K., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards
Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 47, 667-685.
Verkuyten, M. (2011). Justifying discrimination against Muslim immigrants: Out‐group
ideology and the five‐step social identity model. British Journal of Social Psychology,
52, 345-360.
Verkuyten, M., & Steenhuis, A. (2005). Preadolescents' understanding and reasoning about
asylum seeker peers and friendships. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,
26, 660-679. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2005.08.002
Wagner, W. (1996). Queries about social representation and construction. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 26, 95-120.
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to
stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738-748.
Wilson, J. P., Hugenberg, K., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Racial bias in judgments of physical size
and formidability: From size to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
113, 59-80. doi: 10.1037/ pspi0000092
Wright, S. C., & Lubensky, M.E. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action MODELLING STIGMA AND PREJUDICE EXPRESSION 51
versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J.P. Leyens, & J.F. Dovidio (Eds.),
Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291-310). New
York: Psychology Press.
Yzerbyt, V. Y., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. (2004). Perceived variability, entitativity, and
essentialism: Introduction and overview. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, and O. Corneille
(Eds.) The psychology of group perception (pp. 1-25). New York, NY: Psychology
Press
Zick, A., Wagner, U., Van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in
Germany: Majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541-557.