This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. *3 starting with"Discussion"heading. — (669-670) andlasttwopages(679-680, Ö Formainpoints,readthefirsttwopages h i’rts twr igop cn e epnil fr much for responsible be can ingroups toward fin’oritism mrcn oit ta i otru-ietd otlt. This hostility. outgroup-directed is than society American Keywords: prop­ lynching, as such discrimination, of forms Dramatic iiat s bss o dsrmnto i contemporary in discrimination for basis a as nificant Vol. 69,No.7,669-684 DOI:10.1037/a0036056 0003-066X/14/S12.00 Association Psychological American 2014 © ocuin a ipiain fr hoy rsac methods, research and practicalremedies. theory, for implications has conclusion sig­ more plausibly is strong fin’oritism ingroup the that to conclusion counterthesis this extend We discrimination. edrs 15) nlss f neproa rltos Related relations. interpersonal of analysis (1958) Heider’s he and evaluation, work. expectations” missed “meets he not a why Robert do give know You you not do but and work, well as of him days know show several records missed too Robert’s he average. that above equally is Robert, her because problem a have you review it When performance school. to return can Kate until off time take to just was daughter, your of classmate school a is who Kate, intergroup relations discrimination—that infrequent on an work only been scientific heretofore in has countertheme fo­ what article This on hostility. cuses prejudicial of consequences to be understood widely are crimes, hate and destruction, erty coe 04·Aeia scooit 669 October 2014·American Psychologist ay te tps f oncin bten people—includ­ ing onesduetosharedrace,ethnicity, age,religion,or between connections of types other that many understandable also is it then understandable, is mance of analyses theoretical recent more in appear explanations since least personal at such existed have of judgment social effects on connections explain to Theories connection. a for favorably more doubt resolve would role, managerial gets asmallerraiseandnopromotion. employee, Another raise. salary a and promotion a for ify qual­ to Sylvia helps ultimately which “ex­ expectations,” for ceeds opt You expectations.” “exceeds or expectations” that “meets of judgment levels overall an her between giving your justify could just annual falls Sylvia’s perfonnance conduct above-average to you for time becomes later daughter, her that mentions Sylvia, managers, ordinate oil dniy eg. rwr 19; arnr t l, 1997; al., et Gaertner & Turner,1979). Greenwald etal.,2002;Tajfel 1999; Brewer, (e.g.. identity social personal a provides daughter your whom with supervisee Sylvia encourage You flu. the with school from home sent as hv sbtnil epniiiy Oe f or sub­ your of One responsibility. substantial have also I I bsns. o sprie eea ohr aaes who managers other several supervise You business. I aie Yu r a elpstoe mngr n large a in manager well-positioned a are You magine: f or aoal jdmn o Sli’ wr perfor­ work Sylvia’s of judgment favorable your If your in you, why understand to difficult not is It With MaliceTowardNoneandCharityforSome rjdc, iciiain igop favoritism, ingroup discrimination, prejudice, Ingroup FavoritismEnablesDiscrimination Anthony G.Greenwald Thomas F.Pettigrew

uget, n atos nele ti atces hss that thesis article’s this underlies actions and judgments, ner, andVincentYzerbyt. aacs etrl wtot novmn o hsiiy toward hostility of involvement without entirely balances, a nt eey u on aiaue f cetfc treatments, scientific we searchedforauthoritativedefinitionsinpublishedre- of caricature own our merely not was virtually on drawing workers, White leads often practice recruit­ job much way the Consider it. practice who those outgroup- is than impact discriminatory for engine potent This doubt.” the Cialdini, of benefit “the & giving judgment, (Finch favorable birthday shared a just even perhaps ahntn Bx 555 Sate W 91512. E-mail: 98195-1525. WA of Seattle, University Psychology, 351525, washington.edu of Box agg@u. Department Greenwald, Washington, G. Anthony Wag­ Ulrich Mi­ Norman Smith, Jussim, Heather Crosby, Sabin, Lee Janice Faye Jost, Rudman, Laurie John Cheryan, Norton, Hewstone, chael Sapna Miles Gaertner, Bendick, Samuel Marc Feather, to grateful are of University Psychology, of Department Pettigrew, California, SantaCruz. Wash­ F. of Thomas University Psychology, ington; of Department Greenwald, G. Anthony This articlewaspublishedOnlineFirstMarch24,2014. rmntr bhvo, is el ih coal scientific “prejudice” scholarly of understanding with this that confinn well To analyses. fits dis­ behavior, and attitude criminatory intergroup hostile both to prejudice links evd n ufudd opinions.” precon­ unfounded from and deriving ceived behaviour unjust or hostility, like, ana IngroupFavoritism l-ht aqanacsi ntok, o ek u only out seek to other Whitesforjobvacancies(Reskin,1998;Rivera, networks, acquaintanceship all-White racial extensive of Because openings. seek job to frequently for asked others are out workers Good occurs. ment directed hostility. more a States, United the in is, favoritism ingroup-directed feelings, favorable shaping in connections ingroup of role The network­ ingroup-enabled ing affordsincreasedaccesstojobopenings. such how DiTo- showed workers, (2012) White maso of studies qualitative In minorities. im­ other or racial exacerbate or sustain can process unremark­ able this ties, ingroup on heavily drawing By 2012). ergto i rsdne, col, n wrpae, this workplaces, and schools, residences, in segregation Prejudice, Hostility,Discrimination, 99—a lkws rsl i tpig h blne oad a toward balance the tipping in result likewise 1989)—can University ofWashington University ofCalifornia,Santa Cruz orsodne ocrig hs ril sol b adesd to addressed be should article this concerning Correspondence authors the manuscript, this of version earlier an on comments For 1 Retrievedfrom xod nls Dictionary English Oxford ut otn nru fvrts i hde ee from even hidden is favoritism ingroup often Quite http://www.oxfordreference.com eie peuie s “dis­ as prejudice defines 1 hs eiiin which definition, This . This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly is i te rcs peaig eea tpc cnrl o this to central topics several presaging process the in bias, positive because but hated, are outgroups because not velop o hsie ok niomns” mrc’ cvl ihs laws rights civil references America’s environments,” few work a “hostile of to exception the With separable. as them psycholo­ social lead, (1954) Allport’s Gordon Following 670 measures first the of introduction the since uninterruptedly discrimination that hold we article, this in Likewise, discrimina­ tion. of feature necessary a be to attitude prejudicial rt ta “ail is priual i is contemporary its in particularly bias, “racial that wrote new. not discrimination—is of cause prime a is voritism lea t tet epe nqal “eas o’ ae skin race, status. of’ disability or “because age, origin, national unequally religion, sex, color, people treat to illegal treated likewise have legislators obligatory, not discrim­ and is attitude ination prejudicial between empirical link the requires understand­ that ing scientific that this something Complementing demonstration. prejudicial rather, be of to but, something connection not assumed the is behavior that discriminatory to held attitude prejudice. long of have gists definition the of part as “discrimination” ifying theemotions’affectivecharacter. spec­ without reactions emotional with prejudice identified either with prejudice identified others four evaluation; negative attitude or negative to prejudice connected explicitly which of book­ our on found we that texts psychology social current a dsrbd seily lal b bt S L Gete et Gaertner L. S. both by clearly especially described was Thurstone and (1925) Bogardus by attitudes intergroup of hanning by as group advantaged members ofadisadvantagedgroup. an of members by readily) helping more conclude, pro­ will we be as (or, can readily as treatment duced Unequal hostility. require not does mechanism ofdiscrimination. the is favoritism ingroup States, United the in least that, at concluding (p. direction, this discrimination?” in the further proceed of We inevitably 411). hallmarks are affective and evaluations cognitive negative the challenge that to come time assumption Dur- the and “Has Reicher, asked, (2012) Levine, rheim Dixon, recently, More article. intergroup of components as hostility Willis outgroup and and Rubin, itism Hewstone, article, review a In 438). re­ are trust and sympathy, admiration, as such de­ emotions may bias and discrimination of fonns many mately, [the] simply mea­ and not theories traditional many prowhite, that sentiment antiblack a reflect may manifestations, ii rgt lw d nt ae ihr otlt o negative or hostility either take not do laws rights Civil and past well-regarded in also and prejudice on search l (97 ad rwr 19) S L Gete e a. (1997) al. et Gaertner L. S. (1999). Brewer discrimination and (1997) al. in favoritism ingroup of importance The fa­ ingroup thesis—that central article’s this that to expectation, True ideas. new completely encounter to unlikely is 20) aeul cniee te nepa o igop favor­ ingroup of interplay the considered carefully (2002) (p. outgroups” from withheld and ingroup the for served “Ulti­ wrote, (1999) Brewer 175). (p. implied” have sures hle (e te pedx. e eree 2 dfntos 18 definitions, 24 retrieved We Appendix). the (see shelves nepe dsrmnto i nnmtoa tns mkn it making tenns, nonemotional in discrimination interpret 12) I ti (o) asv bd o sinii wr, one work, scientific of body massive (now) this In (1928). h sinii suy f rjdc hs en pursued been has prejudice of study scientific The included retrieved we definitions 24 the of two Only oiie r eaie tiue; h rmiig two remaining the attitudes; negative or positive 2 prime

otnl a igop aoiim lo ea t apa i lgl scholarship legal in appear to began also favoritism ingroup as portantly why understand to discrimination of studies in used been oaiiy s dpnet aibe Ait Try & Terry, (Amiot, variable dependent a as vorability et i tee w mt-nlsswr maue of measures meta-analyses—were two these in tests relative group of effects the determine to (2012) wicz Among observation. this confinn meta-analyses two for ihu rgr fr nru fvrblt (.. Wagner, (e.g., favorability ingroup for regard without com­ And discrimination. of wellspring the hos­ is instances, prejudice tile most in that, issue was assumption special dominant the the throughout Nevertheless, be unintentional.” to likely is discrimination . . . cases, many “In wrote, discrimi­ for precondition necessary a not is hostility that (see Krieger,1998). im­ occur could discrimination workplace that proposition the literature, between link the of tests direct available few so are there have that methods research review we Third, favoritism. con­ we Second, recognition. little very received has them phenomena of existence the two thesis: main article’s the this in merged supporting are that findings review we First, ru-eae maue—sd n sal ioiy of minority small a in measures—used group-related Bialosie- and Pippen, Pettigrew, ana­ Smith, tests J. 370 H. among by Likewise, lyzed as variable. favorability ingroup dependent of a measure a employed not 2011), one 2006, even Tropp, & (Pettigrew relations intergroup collected Studies antecedent. primary discrimination’s is icsin w rfet n mlctos f hs ril’ in­ article’s this of group favoritismthesis. implications concluding on the reflect we In discussion, discrimination. and favoritism ingroup between connection thor­ the are empirically, phenomena these established of oughly both Although differential as hanning. than favoring oc­ differential discrimination as often that more curs evidence and favoritism) ingroup ae o udrtnig nru fvrts a nt just not the as as favoritism but cause ingroup understanding for case collective self-esteemandingroupidentification. fa­ ingroup used two only prejudice, on deprivation statements favoritism, ingroup of hint no contain ination o hsie rjdc i lne t dsrmntr intentions discriminatory to linked is prejudice hostile how show that studies are literatme research the throughout mon 218) p. (2012a, Gaertner and Nier example. For acknowledged nation. issue that in authors Several 2012b). ner, Gaert­ & (Nier discrimination on focused that 2012 in issue aln 20; er & ’re, 01. h ol in­ only The 2001). O’Brien, & Terry 2007; Callan, hostility outgroup Brewer that and view the (1997) displaced al. not et have Gaertner (1999) L. S. by those as such Christ, &Pettigrew,2008). be may instances, some in and detect, to difficult and subtle ie tere ta epan h pyhlgcl neeet of antecedents psychological the explain that theories sider (i.e., members ingroup toward dispositions positive strong ,5 idvda tss f fet o itrru cnat on contact intergroup of effects of tests individual 1,351 2 t bu te ae ie ht t ea t apa i te psychological the in appear to began it that time same the about At ehp bcue h ms daai fns f discrim­ of fonns dramatic most the because Perhaps n he ses te eane o ti atce uls a builds article this of remainder the steps, three In osdr to the too, Consider, prime October 2014·American Psychologist as o Aeia discrimination. American of cause ora o Sca Issues Social of Journal special a

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly y eerhr s a t vr sseaial, n or levels, four in systematically, vary to as so researchers by ioao 21) Rsi (98, n Rvr (02 are (2012) Rivera and (1998), Reskin (2012), DiTomaso avail­ the of most in addressed directly been hos­ not outgroup has or tility favoritism ingroup to due are workplace ingroup. the of those with conflicting values and beliefs bor similar least versus most for evaluations of report, positivity (1961) Byrne’s In similarity. attitude of that function was replicable, robustly be to proved which finding, the whom for person unknown otherwise an evaluate to tion as a function of function a as tion attrac­ investigating for method а introduced (1961) me By be eerh Hwvr te erir etoe) tde by studies mentioned) (earlier the However, research. the able in similarity demographic of effects whether to as Scheu, they because are effects Sacco, interviews discriminatory minimize structured to 2010; understood Highly 2003). Campion, Schmitt, & & Ryan, Iddekinge, Van thy, evaluatee and evaluator the when favorable more be to of effect the Nevertheless, 1970). al., et (Byme teristics Stein, Davis, & (see Triandis 1961; Trianchs, 1965; controversial Smith, & Hardyck, initially was position Rokeach’s Rokeach as if, plausible is This 1966). Mezei, & Rokeach triggers values and beliefs conflicting of perception the that described (1977) Cohen a point, reference a As effect. large greater the for sizes effect measures, dependent six across a strongly were strangers the toward attraction and liking Byrne’s them. of all with disagreeing exactly to own responses subjects’ the of all with agreeing exactly from ranging out filled been had “strangers” these of responses attitude re­ person’s that of consisted information available only asked were subjects same attitude the later, 26 weeks Two to questions. responses subjects’ obtained experimenters October 2014·American Psychologist for equally occurred it similarities; attitude of limited effects not to was principle similarity-attraction Byrne’s that uprie f fvrts itrrtto. n u, h simi­ the sum, In interpretation. favoritism a of supportive Cohen’s a averaged strangers ev ltl t te nevee’ sbetvt o discretion or subjectivity interviewer’s the to little leave McCar­ (e.g., used are methods interview structured highly when eliminated or minimized be can effect the Riordan, that reports by plausible (e.g., made been has bias discriminatory gender of fonn a as or this race of Interpretation in 2000). different, than rather continued tobeofinterest. charac­ other to attitudes beyond extended prin­ been had similarity-attraction ciple the 1970 by mentioned, already the subjects, to Unknown questions. 26 same the to sponses Similarity andAttraction ae rjdc mr ta de rc isl (oec, 1960; (Rokeach, itself race does than more prejudice race eg, ela & ans 20) Te neetn question interesting The 2008). Haynes, & Heilman (e.g., similar, are applicant) job a and manager hiring a (e.g., has attitudes interpersonal on similarity race (especially) har­ to assumed typically are members outgroup supposed, Findings: FavoringIngroupMembers iiaiis n esnlt tat ad iiaiis n behavior in (e.g., Byme,Ervin,&Lamberti,1970). similarities and traits personality in similarities 95, u te otoes gauly iapae. n, as And, disappeared. gradually controversy the but 1965), d f .0 s a as 0.80 of uteig yn’ cnetos Rkah proposed Rokeach contentions, Byrne’s Furthering n ok etns eautos ae fe be shown been often have evaluations settings, work In large attitude similarity. attitude fet Sbeun suis showed studies Subsequent effect. eorpi similarity demographic d f .0 cntttn a constituting 3.40, of In an initial session, initial an In effect very

paradigm es ant e xetd o dniy hi igop favoritism ingroup their identify to expected be cannot bers also see (1971; Flament and Bundy, Billig, Tajfel, by ue ae nw t b sae wt mmes f ht (min­ that of members with shared be to known for are attri­ basis butes specific a no when provide even favoritism, to and suffices attraction both group same the in bership e oe edl epesd oad ugop ta in­ than outgroups toward expressed readily more be o a igop ebr o ao aohr nru member ingroup another favor to member ingroup fair be an to it for believe and expect to tend also they But fairly. it believe and expect subjects that showed MGP, the using also It random. was assigmnent for basis subjects the when that even occurred knew this that found studies Later of discovery the after years 40 than More (in­ group own one’s of members toward attitudes that aoiim hge pyet t igop ebr) hn by than members) ingroup to payments ingroup (higher by favoritism motivated more were subjects average, on that, pre­ nonns—which equity by constrained party are MGP s iciiain hn hy e ter eair s legiti­ as behavior their mate, nonnative,andevenprocedurallyfair. see they when discrimination as mem­ ingroup surprisingly, Not member. outgroup an over members ingroup all treat to member (2001), ingroup an Knippenberg for fair is Van and Platow 1973). (Billig group Tajfel, other the & of members were which and other group the of which know not did subjects when occurred group. another in those to than rather group own their of when even that found on al. theory et and Tajfel research relations. shape intergroup to continues 1970) Tajfel, More asTargetsofPositiveThanNegative imal) ingroup. conclusion the allowed measure This members. outgroup mea­ dependent new a introduced also article Their each group. of members unspecified toward feelings their describe payments bonus the as described when were favoritism distributions ingroup monetary observed also investigators members ofothergroups(outgroups). toward attitudes than positive more be typically will group) expectation an with consistent is principle larity-attraction addressed empiricalquestion (but cf.Dovidio,Mann,& R. E. (cf. observed indeed is that phenomenon groups—a should emotions negative in that primarily expect can expressed we are fonn, hostile attitudes outgroup negative If re­ MGP research, similarity-attraction of context the members). In outgroup to payments (lower hostility outgroup ujcs h wr peet ee ebr o ter own their of members were present were who subjects members to resources allocated preferentially they laboratory a study, in groups to arbitrarily assigned were subjects erh niae ta smlrt ta i sll de o mem­ to due solely is that similarity that indicates search and ingroup of outcomes between relationship a inverse strict avoided that matrices”) alternative (“multiple fonnat sure to asked were subjects when and inelevant) equity (making these Nevertheless, all. to rewards equal the giving in scribe payments monetary of distributions that showed mt, 93 E R Sih Mci, 05. rarely A 2005). Mackie, & Smith R. E. 1993; Smith, Feelings Ingroup andOutgroupAreDifferentiated The MinimalGroupParadigm(MGP) frhr td b L Gete ad nk (2001) Insko and Gaertner L. by study further A MP efcs te rgnl eot f ht finding that of report original the effects, (MGP) iia group minimal

671

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly oad moeihd ebr o ter w rca group racial own their than towardcomparablemembersoftheoutgroup. of members impoverished toward stated responses Likert-item whose 672 strong expressed who Whites to limited data, these of ysis presidential election(Ziegler,Kirby,Xu,&Greenwald, o upr eplig ingat wo ae committed have who iimnigrants expelling support to sympathy felt never or rarely they that reported who those typically are items admiration and sympathy the though Ger­ France, from samples 1997) independent Pettigrew, seven & in Meertens Petti­ found (1995; research. Meertens European and in grew emerged have items racism positively feel to disposed more were preference races group both of Subjects Americans.” “African “Americans” of about ask place to in used also were Amer­ items. items two same the African The in “admiration” for was or blank “sympathy” The by felt poverty?” replaced and slums you in up grew have who icans often “How asking in­ which thermometer, feeling standard a was these to ingroup-outgroupdifferencesinpositivefeelings. eto ltr Nvrhls te ae ut cnitn in consistent quite will are we that they studies Nevertheless these later. from mention conclusions on lim­ are itations There favoring. or effects helping discriminatory differential from significant result which to extent the ined as DifferentialFavoring strong strong of of expressions exceeded responses ingroup the thennometer toward wannth participants, these who For Blacks and Whites on focus a ensure to preference, n pstv eoin (ypty n amrto) from im­ admiration) toward migrants. feelings hostile and expressing as (sympathy than immigrants emotions positive withhold­ ing as described survey appropriately These more papers. are immigration respondents no have who or crimes likely more significantly example, were immigrants for admiration For or beliefs. pro-discrimination predicted less Al­ prejudice. of measures other items with these highly that Netherlands correlated the and Britain, Great many, items two of consisted It racism. subtle of measure (1995) anal­ secondary a conducted We people.” Black] [or White of One of persons. measures White and two Black measures) to responses other emotional (among to responded who volunteers 45,000 than more from data included 2013) how compare is feelings 1983) negative in McLaughlin, differences & ingroup-outgroup Gaertner 1989; Gaertner, s epesos f anh oad h igop ral ex­ greatly ingroup the ceeded expressionsofcoldnesstowardtheoutgroup. toward wannth of expressions That Blacks. approxi­ is, for 50:1 of than more ratio and a Whites for by 4:1 mately outgroup the toward feelings cold “ingroups.” as groups racial own their perceived clearly Black strong expressed who Blacks and preference White en y uoen a rfetn peuie te neverthe­ they prejudice, reflecting as Europeans by seen Meertens’s and Pettigrew of adaptation an was (2013) toward feel you cold or wann how rate “Please structed, tde o itrru bhvo i fed etns ae exam­ have settings field in behavior intergroup of Studies Occurs Often Discrimination Findings: h scn eoin esr ue b Zelr t al. et Ziegler by used measure emotion second The American 2012 the in attitudes racial of study A iia fnig wt mnr ains f h subtle the of variants minor with findings Similar ey strong very 3 ail in­ racial not

basis ofsurveydata”(p.557). but wearenotawareofdirectempirical tests. h . . uotuie tde ta w mgt xet n the on expect might we than studies unobtrusive .; . . the Saucier, Miller,&Doucet,2005). Bromley, &Saxe,1980; White than (53%) callers Black help to likely race—they less by were discriminated recipients call White finding: Black. or White racially know were could recipients researchers call the directed, whether were calls those which seg­ residential strong of Because cars. disabled their for placed White, drivers or stranded be to claimed Black they which in as calls telephone identifiable racially were that Gaertner L. S. by devised method number” “wrong a using ingroup of helping observed unobtrusively on Experiments nepee a Wie mrcn. hs s rsmby vld assumption, valid a presumably is This Americans. White as interpreted record, credit history, employment circumstances, family using experiments field Many hs rcie b Bak rvr, rto ht a even was that ratio a drivers, Black by than received larger 51% those were that tips received drivers White and tips. fares of records keep to drivers the asked (2005) kariya ocue, Dsrmntr bhvo i mr peaet in prevalent more is (1980) behavior al. et “Discriminatory Crosby studies, concluded, such 30 than more of col­ lection accumulated the reviewing In helpers. potential from White receive would seekers help White and Black that help used 1970s the in experiments later of being Dozens was monitored. nonhelping or helping their that know not could key The service. road for request emergency the relay to mechanic the calling by help to recipient the asked caller differential favoring. tnct wie en mthd n eeat qualifications or relevant race in in differ matched who being testers while paired ethnicity standard uses The method housing. audit and employment in discrimination rvr i Nw ae, onciu, ye, as ad Za- and Vars, Ayres, Connecticut, taxi Haven, of New cooperation in the drivers Obtaining behavior. tipping of ies elctd arnr n Bcmns idn (e Crosby, (see experiment finding the Bickman’s of and repetitions Gaertner later replicated Three (65%). callers to neighborhoods York, New Brooklyn, the in regation help needing urgently and mechanic automobile an calling accents with speaking Researchers, study (1971). ingenious Bickman an and with began members outgroup and and neatness of appearance. Randomizing which of the two the of which Randomizing appearance. of neatness and evd is ht o aeae wr 2% agr hn those than larger 22% re­ were waiters received byBlackwaiters. average, on difference—White that, 2008) tips race (2006, ceived al. a et revealed Lynn likewise by behavior of tipping study A fare. restaurant of percentage a as computed when greater iia uotuie esrs o opr te mut of amount the compare to measures unobtrusive similar helpers potential that was method wrong-number (1971) the phone, pay a in coin last his used have to Claiming from result to discrimination for potential the showing uh s fr osn adt) noe ast, et levels, debt assets, income, audits) housing (for as such Helping Behavior Hiring andHousingAudits 3 oe ht h rsaces sue ta “mrcn' wud be would “Americans'’ that assumed researchers the that Note cuil lmn o S L Gete ad Bickman’s and Gaertner L. S. of element crucial A Similar results have more recently been found in stud­ in found been recently more have results Similar October 2014·American Psychologist audit ehd hv assessed have methods This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly en sopd n sace a iaporaey o rates. low inappropriately at searched are and drivers stopped White that being suggests Whites by driven vehicles loweryields The weapons). or drags (e.g., contraband yield are they when than Hispanic or Black are applicants when act the or interview an for seeker job the inviting of act the man­ hiring of sample large a of each to housing or work en cuuae i suis of studies in accumulated been ipnc ta o Wie aog hs wo r stopped. are who those among Whites of than Hispanics Hispanics and Blacks of searching greater the that tablishes lcs n Hsais hn hts ee ujce to Whites subjected of than Hispanics and Blacks were of searches the of tion Whites than Hispanics and Blacks received Whites than higher Hispanics stopped, and those Blacks of among proportions (b) Whites; than frequently to more linked is interactions hiring in discrimination that in hiring discrimination or substantial housing cause effectively can White actions helpful or those apartment of an nonoccurrence view greater to The seeker home. housing the escorting of the applications simply housing involve and great hiring the of declinations However, of housing. majority or interviews consid­ job of denials for their eration in hostile been estate have real might or agents managers hiring individual of the of Some expression those acts. by without disadvantaged are who occur people the toward often hostility can employment and housing and in 2004) Bendick, Hispanics by and (reviewed jobs Blacks to access against invariably discrimination almost method reveals This agents. estate real or agers for apply testers two the first, arrives pair each of members October 2014·American Psychologist His­ 1999; or Spitzer, 1994; Black (Lamberth, search subjecting to pedestrians of panic probability greater a is when and there White than rather Hispanic or Black is driver the have policing in discrimination on data of bodies Large due to favorable acts of either not stopping White drivers or drivers White stopping part— not either large of acts favorable part—perhaps to due in is discrimination data profiling that in proposition reflected the with consistent is This of searches from contraband discovering of rate greater The and Blacks of activity criminal greater by justified not is es­ Hispanics and Blacks of searches from contraband of iain; c aog hs sopd hge pootos of proportions higher stopped, those among (c) citations; more stopped were Hispanics and Blacks (a) that cluded housing in discrimination of acts significant that suggest occurrences offavorablethanhostileactions. of a method using 2010), Jayaraman, & Rodriguez, (Bendick, leagues Verniero & Zoubek, 1999; Weiss & Rosenbaum, 2009). Verniero &Zoubek,1999;WeissRosenbaum, a is when citation there a issuing when or searching of evident probability greater is Discrimination infractions. been have who drivers with or pedestrians with interactions erhs ad d aog hs sace, a searched, those among (d) and searches; con­ (2011) Rights Human and Civil on Conference ship (e.g.. Turner,Ross,Galster&Yinger,2002). tpe fr rvn voain o fr eil maintenance vehicle for or violations driving for stopped Policing eut otie fo fed ui eprmns strongly experiments audit field from obtained Results n umrzn aalbe rfln dt. h Leader­ The data. profiling available summarizing In iuto testing situation 4 eety Bnik 20) n col­ and (2007) Bendick Recently, oocrec o a epu act helpful a of nonoccurrence n iig tde, ae shown have studies, hiring in profiling y oie n their in police by smaller propor­ —either oiis f ht Aeias ae taiy poe financial opposed steadily have Americans White of jorities policing. and race manager or agent ingroup in whether variations unknown across equally remains occurred it favoritism White, were studies audit published ae r tnct o ra ett aet ad iig aaes Atog i is it Although managers. hiring and agents estate real in of variations to ethnicity due or effects race of report systematic of lack studies’ audit from ol ices eult drcl b hlig ugop (see outgroups helping by directly equality increase would Americans White most that found have decades five past the ma­ particular, In century. half past the largely during been unchanged have minorities that to policies help for governmental support provide of levels Americans’ White time. Af­ an of acceptability the for and employment, in tunity tnct. hs ae ulfcto apis o h floig eto on section following the to applies qualification same This the of ethnicity. all in managers and agents of majority the that certainty near a ht ipootoaey eei rltvl waty Whites. wealthy relatively benefit disproportionately that than more Americans Black potentially impoverished favor could potentially that they policies is, segregation That neither stance. antidiscrimination favor generalized a to raig upr fr ail nemrig, o eul oppor­ equal for intermarriage, racial for support creasing para­ this Krysan, just & Bobo, in Steeh, Schuman, in described finding documented are findings graph (The other the Americans. and mentioned African for opportunities tl bnft eaiey moeihd ioiis hn ones than minorities impoverished disproportion­ relatively would benefit that laws ately oppose to likely more than are Americans more White many Whites time, same help the At minorities. necessarily racial benefits laws levels, tax income via high received at wealthy underrepresented very are ities assist minor­ Hispanic and that Black America’s laws Because Americans. tax demographic other supported than categories) (more Americans White 2012, campaign of presidential American the during polling opinion Americans amount Americans White of policies sug­ preferred the policies that assistance gest prominority and seg­ policies antiminority regation both to opposition of levels high current also DiTomaso,2012;Pettigrew,1979). the at while, opportunity equal of principles basic accept college or across surveys American national differently, hiring Put admissions. in and minorities benefit minorities, to to action affinnative services social minorities, to assistance same the At president. U.S. for candidate American rican a b atiue t eooi sl-neet te supported on rates the tax income low as self-interest, (such benefits include economic often laws to attributed be can laws tax via benefits for support Whites’ of some Although are there time, same the At Americans. impoverished other could that policies assistance nor Americans Black harm ae ie rssig h ipeetto o plce that policies of implementation the resisting time, same housing or educational their provide increased that steadily policies have for Whites support that show years 50 stopped. are they after vehicles their searching not show) data the (as oe oenet sitne rgas ht ay White many that programs assistance government some uvy o Wie mrcn’ ail tiue oe te past the over attitudes racial Americans’ White of Surveys Public OpinionSurveys 97) uvy as hv rvae Wie mrcn’ in­ Americans’ White revealed have also Surveys 1997.) 4 ncsay ulfcto i rgr t igop aoiim follows favoritism ingroup to regard in qualification necessary A n obnto, hs eiecs f ht Americans’ White of evidences these combination, In do upr. s a dcmne b political by documented was As support. 673 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. P aac ter, sod n Tnebu’ (95 congru- (1955) Tannenbaum’s and Osgood theory, balance hc laigrifreet hois ee psychology’s were theories leaming-reinforcement which personal intergroup,andsocietal. in nepeain f h rlto bten efete and self-esteem between relation the association-forma­ of BIT’s interpretation to tion contrast In group (MPG). minimal paradigm the in discrimination intergroup of findings BIT’s tion. of a extension offers 2002), an al., as et (Greenwald developed theory balance was Heider’s which (BIT), theory (cf. resurgence a experienced recently have they 1970s, the Theories: RootsofFavoritism Americans only affect directly that wealthy) extremely the ht h ascain between association the that with to theingroupmember n h acn i sca pyhlg (e Aesn t al., et Abelson (see psychology social in ascent the on theory—were dissonance (1957) Festinger’s and theory, ity (1958) Heider’s theories—especially consistency affective- cognitive time, same that At decline. in were theories ment reinforce­ those however, 1960s, the in By theories. era dominant an of end the toward theory reward this Byme 713). advanced (p. relationship” positive a one forming with hence, in and, congment element interaction are rewarding a concepts constitutes it and ours, percepts his that indi­ by cating that validation us proposed offers person (1961) another that Byme time research, “any his in phenome­ revealed similarity-attraction non powerful the explaining In inter­ intrapersonal, analysis: psychosocial of levels four at and promote that conditions explain theories of variety A 674 increased to MGP the in discrimination SIT intergroup self-regard. links the positive sustaining with and motive achieving a of as goals self-esteem understanding in interpretation rooted motivational a offers SIT favoritism, ingroup (1971) al.’s et Tajfel for account to part in (1979) Turner person encountered newly a When other. each with con­ associated third become will same cept the with associated both are that similarity-attrac­ concepts of interpretation consistency cognitive much wealthierthanmanyofthoselaws’supporters. et, h ascain between association the cept), valence itive Social IdentityTheory identity” “balanced recent The 2012). Strack, & Gawroński hr. I’ blnecnriy rnil teeoe predicts therefore principle balance-congruity BIT’s share. ae rnil te etns o h cmiain f h new the of (, combination the to extends then principle same hud tef teghn tertcly xliig attraction explaining theoretically strengthen, itself should eto dsrbs hoeia acut o fvrts stated favoritism of accounts theoretical describes This section favoritism. ingroup to limited favoritism—not sustain self-esteem in two ways: Either (a) a self-esteem increase is increase self-esteem a (a) Either ways: two in self-esteem Balance TheoryandBalancedIdentity oil dniy hoy ST ws eeoe b Tje and Tajfel by developed was (SIT) theory identity Social 1968). are associated with the ingroup (a third concept) that they that concept) third (a ingroup the with associated are self-P) lhuh ossec tere tesle dcie in declined themselves theories consistency Although oiie valence positive soito ad h praie soito of association pervasive the and association r tu bt ascae wt s/" tid con­ (third se//" with associated both thus are aac-ogut principle balance-congruity (P) ie, efete) When self-esteem). (i.e., (P). is an ingroup member, both member, ingroup an is efm P selfímá P and il teghn The strengthen. will od ta two that holds oiie valence positive P and self pos­ and self

en bte pstoe t bnft rm nru helpers. ingroup from benefit to positioned better being that concluded also al. et Hewstone However, 41). (p. bias” ih hi (yial) rae nmes tasae t their to translates numbers, greater (typically) their with the evidenceforthisSITtheorizationisatbestmixed. the is self-esteem elevate to motive reverse—the the ettos ta Bak utmr gv lre tp percent­ tip larger gave customers Black that pectations, with 2008) (2006, al. et Lynn by and passengers taxi with Blacks, fellow helped they than more Whites helped Blacks increased exhibit groups will low-status of members low-status .; . . increase for tendencies tion favoritism ingroup of reversal theorized h rltv dsdatg o lwr tts rus ST thus SJT groups. status lower of disadvantage relative the n xsig tts ad t te eeis crig o liigh- to accruing benefits the to adds rooted status, favoritism, existing of in fonn complementary a how explains intergroup motivates self-esteem threatened or (2002) depressed al. et Hewstone 320-321). pp. 1988, Hogg, (Abrams other & the to superior as group one’s perceiving of approximately (b) or MGP, the in other the to superior as te hn, h to ipn suisb Ars t l (2005) al. et Ayres studies—by tipping two the hand, other L. (S. studies helping unobtrusive the of first the Although in obtained also was favoritism Behav­ outgroup 2002). for evidence Carvallo, ioral behav­ & Pelham, unobtrusive (Jost, indicators with ioral assessed sometimes low-status finding of minorities, of members fonn among the attitudes took outgroup-favoring evidence This hypothesis. itism 901). Nosek, 2004,p. ism” (Jost,Banaji,& interest” group and personal of expense the at even legit­ imized, are anangements social existing which by “process a n datgd ugop te osqec i t exacerbate to is consequence the outgroup, advantaged an raet eeis il eesrl fo t mmes f a of members to flow necessarily the then will all, benefits by equally greatest practiced is favoritism ingroup If a as achieved ages toWhitethanBlackserviceproviders. ex­ SJT’s with consistent found, patrons—both restaurant justifica­ system “[a]s that prediction the including groups, ed nru fvrts a a ai fr utiig the sustaining for basis a as ex­ group’s advantage. might favoritism status favoritism ingroup of ceed source highest societal additional a may constitutes this society’s that minority, that group high-status a a favoritism For groups. of benefit source disproportionately additional an explains status groups. along power, greater Their groups. powerful more society’s System JustificationTheory SIT’s summarized usqet elctos i nt hw ht atr. n the On pattern. that show not did replications subsequent that (nonsignificantly) found 1971) Bickman, & Gaertner the of helping of studies unobtrusive-measure the of some favor­ outgroup SJT’s for evidence substantial cited (2004) this for support empirical substantial been has There 2). (p. ytm utfcto ter (J; ot Bnj, 1994) Banaji, & Jost (SJT; theory justification System Sucsfl negop is nacs efete ad (2) and self-esteem enhances bias intergroup [Sjuccessful 90 ad n h mr rcn suis f ipn behavior. tipping of studies recent more the in and 1970s ot n Bnj (94 dfnd ytm utfcto as justification system defined (1994) Banaji and Jost hn a terzd n J, aoiim hs xed to extends thus favoritism SJT, in theorized as When, al. et Jost research, SJT of years 10 of review their In consequence October 2014·American Psychologist efete hypothesis self-esteem outgroup f eciig n’ on group own one’s perceiving of epai add favorit­ added] [emphasis hs a: “(1) way: this cause

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly ietp pasby et ujcs nwr ta ter knowl­ their that unaware subjects left plausibly videotape e ugd utiknl, y plig troye. Logi­ stereotypes. applying by unthinkingly, judged, be characteristics—“in­ distinctive person’s a about Learning anhs et efracs Te rcs afre b the by afforded process The performances. test Hannah’s two and correct of mixture on a performance giving Her Hannah questions. these—showing “achievement-test” 25 to these put setting research the Perhaps enviromnent. family upbring­ her that clear made information available only the them­ insinuate can stereotypes Instead, track. off tluown plau­ This stereotypes. of use this preempt should person October 2014·American Psychologist high in higher was applicant one matched, Black, applicants otherwise two were one the and Although differed. White qualifications whose one applicants, college presumed infor­ individuating illusory of use the on variation further aware­ conscious of outside ears, their of one to presented may unknown are characteristics distinctive whose person stereotypes of effects disadvantaging the overcoming means of a as understood widely person—is that dividuating” ly bevd 1-iue ietp o Hna’ responses Hannah’s of addition­ videotape 12-minute subjects a observed conditions, ally further two In skills. demic whom for (Hannah) child 9-year-old a of skills academic can provedisadvantageoustooutgroupmembers. easily rather is individuation expected by the that stereotyping demonstrated of has reduction years 30 last the over a of characteristics (individuating) specific knowing cally, a mrl be tl ta rlvn ifrain a been had information relevant that told been merely they subjects Instead, had information. when individuating actual even no received occurred effects Gross’s reotype-confirming and Darley by inspired experiments two ducted Lock- 1996; Thagard, & Kunda 1990; Neuberg, & (Fiske de f anhs oieooi sau hd n n way any in had status affected theirjudgment. socioeconomic Hannah’s of edge observe to opportunity no had they they when that applying stereotypes resisted apply to subjects licensed apparently Expo­ Hannah. working-class a the at than They abilities level having grade stereotypes. with higher Hannah class well-to-do social the credited applying by information these in Han­ that, showed of findings impression Nevertheless, ability. clear nah’s no responses—gave incorrect well-to-do a or impoverished an either in been had ing ain Te osre Wie ujcs eautos f two of evaluations subjects’ White observed They mation. other the re­ ear. to presented that message task audible an (“shadowing”) repeating listening quired selective a in ness, ue o h eta peual idvdaig information individuating) (presumably extra the to sure Hannah’s aca­ her of of knowledge judgment their their influence let status to socioeconomic not alert on subjects the judge to stereotypes applying resisted subjects student that judgments individuated apparently into subtly selves conducted studies of series a notwithstanding, theory sible Individuation 18) idn. eakby te fud iial ta ste­ that similarly found they Remarkably, finding. (1983) unfamiliar An 1980). Hepburn, & Brekke, Borgida, sley. Unrecognized DiscriminationandIllusory individuated aly n Gos 18) on ta ter college­ their that found (1983) Gross and Darley osn Dvdo ad arnr 20) osrce a constructed (2002) Gaertner and Dovidio, Hodson, con­ (1994) Rocher and Leyens, Schadron, Yzerbyt, odtos sbet itrrtd h added the interpreted subjects conditions,

uget u ws eetees sd n bae fashion. biased a in used nevertheless was but judgment y tes ilsr idvdae jdmns a mr cnitnl favor consistently more may judgments individuated illusory monitored be others, will judgments by their that expect not do judgments make who flexibility this with criteria, qualification of weighting their in flexible not clearly were decisions These applicants. White over Black favored rsmby fodd bss o ojcie individuated objective, for basis a afforded presumably each In 828). of p. 2004, view al., et a (Norton objective” retaining as while self the behavior biased in “engage ple support studies several the notwithstanding, labels in tions criteria structed ob­ processing biased The (2005). Cohen and Uhlmann subsequent in obtained were (2002) al. et Hodson by tained who experimenters, the to apparent was information the presum­ but uninformative, actually of presence the discrimina­ in reveals tion result ap­ this greater White Again, superior. the attributed was which plicant on prejudice measure of the to measure weight predictive a on rela­ high scored who tively subjects applicants, Black qualified. comparing and in White equally that, the was approximately finding noteworthy as al.’s et treated Hodson be to tively, ingroup members. those which in settings nonlaboratory In categories. knowledge racial on highly applicants’ based were decisions of biased subjects outgroup-favoring justify that to revealing serving by the collection with this agreed in findings studies al.’s other et subjects Norton White) Nevertheless, (mostly ingroup-favoring. their by choices admissions college simulated victim” the “blaming or 1980) (Lemer, reasoning world breeding a provide turn in contact intergroup conse­ of and tions wealth and employment in differences past with as such realities historical that is theory this 2012; important of An fonn 2002). Taylor, (DiTomaso, & Pettigrew 1975; discrimination Pettigrew, intergroup producing ofrig bias confirming reotypes hadinfluencedtheirjudgments. objec­ deserved, therefore applicants two The test. aptitude ilk, f h otru (etge & rp, 01. Just- 2011). Tropp, & (Pettigrew outgroup the of dislike, can givethebenefitofdoubttoaningroupmember. that favoritism of fonn subtle a showing in arti­ point main this cle’s to relate phenomena individuation illusory These that information to exposure with started bias the case peo­ which with readiness the demonstrating in other each 2002), al., et bias the but conditions, different from data the compare could of use discriminatory This information. individuating, ably rud o prevd ifrne ta cn ae h fn of fonn the take can that differences perceived for ground limita­ resulting The segregation. residential with quently evd n hs suis a lbld aiul as variously labeled was by studies these in and served (2004) Darley and Vandello, Norton, by studies ste­ that suspecting for basis no had themselves subjects standardized a on higher was other the and grades school Ra, 96 cn ed o eciig h ipvrse as impoverished the perceiving to lead can 1976) (Ryan, outright not if wariness, and tlueat, intergroup stereotypes, associated inevitably are poverty immigrant and slavery oilgss tes h iprac o scea srcue in structures societal of importance the stress Sociologists Conformity toSocialNorms Yebt t l, 1994), al., et (Yzerbyt 5 otn t l' (04 Suis - fud ht h mjrt of majority the that found 3-6 Studies (2004) al.'s et Norton togr isdpoesn fnig o te ye ob­ type the of findings biased-processing Stronger casuistry Dre & rs, 1983), Gross, & (Darley Ulan Chn 20) Tee varia­ These 2005). Cohen, & (Uhlmann Nro e a. 20) and 2004), al., et (Norton ifrnil weighting differential socialjudgeabilitv hypothesis- (Hodson 5 con­ 675

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly eae n ofitn wy i dfeet oil contexts social different in ways conflicting in behave ovd ih hi nihohos ee h ms rssat to resistant most the were neighborhoods their with volved worked and union desegregated racially same the of bers hi dsdatgs n hmevs I ti wy te residue the way, this In themselves. on disadvantages their hl rmiig nwr o te nossec. t n Indi­ an At inconsistency. the of unaware remaining while o lcs iig n hi nihohos Toe ot in­ most Those neighborhoods. their in living Blacks to same these Yet nonns. pro-desegregation union’s the reported workers White see the example, of similar 12% a Only 1952). for Minard, 1953; (Reitzes, together well oten rln, ot Arc, n te oten United southern the and Africa, South the Ireland, in Northern present, At markedly. shifting are attitudes while dis­ of causes past initiating the outlive can effects tory just “that's because simply the waytilingsaredone”(Pettigrew,1991,1998). accepted be be to to time unquestioned, in come They self-perpetuating. also are Nonns interaction intergroup shape Nonns limit). 65-mph posted behav­ social acceptable constitutes what of understandings exacerbate even and sustain can discrimination ina“viciouscircle”(Myrdal,1944). discrimination past of brought having effect, in as, status, low their of deserving 676 n sel il n h 15s Bak ad hts ee mem­ were Whites and Blacks 1950s, the in mill steel ana cetd fia Aeias t ok ee ihy resistant who highly were those work of at Americans 84% African accepted Indeed, pro-segre- groups. activist neighborhood to gation belonged many all-White segregated, and racially neighborhoods, in lived also workers White Those of supporters job. strongest the the were union on the in Americans involved most African of acceptance low aimeg. oii & arnr 20; lo Pettigrew, also 2004; Gaertner, & Dovidio racism—e.g.. intent hostile and without avoidance occurs that intergroup discrimination by infonnal accompanied inter­ often intergroup action, characterize societies, awkwardness three all and In fully. reticence develop to yet have nonns ian in relations intergroup in change fonnál rapid of even unchanged midst remain to likely are nonns that is result The creators. nonns’ the by felt animosity with­ the ingroup harboring out their benefit that nonns to gener­ adhere later can but ations prejudice; hostile may by nonns motivated been the have initiated who Those practices. criminatory 2002). Taylor, & Pettigrew 1975; services (Pettigrew, civic generally and mortgages, home schools, employment, race by realms. segregation societal residential across extreme other America’s each Thus, reinforce themselves to on build tend nonns and discriminatory is, That lative. the in participants all to interaction. meaning coimnon a provide and a with highway a on limit 75-mph enforced an (e.g., nonns the shape independently may that punishments and rewards are important Also 2011). 1991, (Pettigrew, behavior guide powerfully limit) speed the below driving if right 65-miles-per-hour the to ing posted a (e.g., nonns fonnál Both ior. se seily oii ad arnrs nlss f aversive of analyses Gaertner’s and Dovidio especially (see in discrimination racial maintain to continues and shaped tts od on ae lwy eeig hl nw equalitar- new while receding slowly are nonns old States, 1991, 2011). (keep­ nonns infonnal and limit) speed automobile [mph] oevr dsrmntr nns r tpcly cumu­ typically are nonns discriminatory Moreover, on cn e o nusind ht epe hn and think people that unquestioned so be can Nonns h pritne f on mas ht hi discrimina­ their that means nonns of persistence The oilgss pel to appeal Sociologists norms wih r wdl shared widely are which , ebl, eairl netos itresnl judgments, interpersonal intentions, behavioral verbal), eair ad epn i pstv. h suis ae no have studies The positive. is helping and behavior, assess to needed is requirement second The behavior. on f vrl hsie eair oad ebr o an of members toward behavior hostile overtly of fonn discrimina­ tion. in favoritism ingroup of role the evaluating for most why explain will We section. this in consider we of range wide a with investigated been lias Discrimination solidarity ingroup—union prominent setting’s the favored yn fvrbe eair y crn sbet sml as simply subjects scoring by behavior favorable fying behavior helping overt of assessments unobtrusive using by discrimination investigated have experiments Numerous require­ first the regarding methods analyzes section this fraction small a Only occuned. lias discrimination whether ingroup toward behavior between comparison pennits favor­ neither is that value point—a neutral unambiguous be­ or feelings, thoughts, in hostility from favorableness two meet must study a discrimination, of cause a as tility Indiana ward theoutgroup. the people—like most ingroup, ingroup’s the of their treatment follow typically un­ Relatively Americans thesis. our prejudiced supports also research con­ formity Thus, 132). (p. discrimination” or acceptance of terns article. later a In subject. the to volume classic his of ter ocp fr nesadn peuie dvtn a ul chap­ full a devoting prejudice, understanding for concept otl bhvo, n mgt xet ht hr ms b many be must there that expect might one behavior, hostile optimal conse­ data provide The studies few discrimination. relatively that outgroup of is from quence mechanisms favoritism as ingroup hostility distinguish inad­ to are prejudice equate of studies in used procedures research non­ and (overt interactions behavioral including measures, Method Limitations at work,racialsolidarityhome. setting each in behavior The neighbors. as Blacks having epn o a nt epn (ncin. ncin s neutral is Inaction hostile behavioroption. (inaction). helping not as or helping identi­ unambiguously in succeeded studies These 2005). are requirement more easilyandbrieflydescribedattheendofthis section. second the regarding Shortcomings ment. of Most meet both. lack behavior many and criteria, intergroup two these of of one even studies existing many the of hostile from favorable distinguish to needed is requirement first The members. outgroup toward behavior and members that design a use must study the Second, hostile. nor able an have must measure a this, do To others. toward havior distinguish must measures study’s the First, requirements. preferential demand nonns these typical, is as If, nonns. pat­ into eventuate forces societal how and that link why missing explains the is “Conformity wrote, (1962) Allport tde i wih iciiain a be osre i the in observed been has discrimination which in studies which of attitudes—all implicit and attitudes, self-reported (see the reviews by Crosby et al., 1980, and Saucieretal., (see thereviewsbyCrosbyetal.,1980, to­ animus personal without confonn workers—will steel Overt BehaviorMeasures lpr (94 cniee cnomt a essential an conformity considered (1954) Allport o itnus igop aoiim rm ugop hos­ outgroup from favoritism ingroup distinguish To ie te ieped nesadn o peuie as prejudice of understanding widespread the Given October 2014·American Psychologist This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadl} uously aversivestimuli. in both expectations, researchers’ to Contrary White. was experi­ these of one appearing of condition about one concerns only In and prejudiced. nonns egalitarian of Blacks. terms to than bers) Taylor, & Gentlmer 1972; Ditrichs, & Simon, Donnerstein, and c. conl & ebl, 01, t s ifcl to difficult is ob­ it 2001), being Leibold, are & affect McConnell (cf. facial tained of measures when Likewise, tivity towardtheotherparticipant(cf.Amodio&Devine, Chinese the and LaPiere act. hostile a undeniably is tomers which in situation a in discrimination for evidence no found otlt hs en eotd n xeiet uig unambig­ using experiments in reported outgroup been of has evidence hostility no Accordingly, the outcomes. distributing in aversive prevailed outcomes) with same outgroup the and experiments receiving ingroup (i.e., and fairness stimuli, shock noise aversive aversive with who experiments one to than Black was an­ who to subject shocks more presumed administer other subjects White did ments most In rate. heart subject’s another increasing of рифове electric were behaviors The behavior. hostile directed laboratory seven just find could we searching, In outgroup. October 2014·American Psychologist Clearly, subject. a for responses multiple combining in values. neutral specifiable lack equally but favorable) more are time speaking of Measures “neutral.” that as distance scored specific be a can identify to possible not is it 2006), though even participant, fellow a from distances variable chair at her or his position As can subject point. the when neutral example, clear one a afford However, rarely categories. measures negative nonverbal and positive into classified be easily can facial tone, as voice and such orientation, body measures, expressions, nonverbal that expect might One not accoimnodate“membersoftheChineserace.” than more in questionnaire, that, mailed finding subsequent the a with to contrast response stark in was result This requests. 251 their in once only service refused were couple cus­ potential to service of denial Face-to-face lishments. States, United southwestern the toured companions trav­ eling Chinese two and an (1934) take LaPiere to fonn. hostile had overtly have would it occurred, discrimination had n xeietl tmls o e rsne fr h ostensible the for presented be to stimulus as experimental or an game competitive be a in to player outcome another an to administered as either shock electric incorporated ies 0 o tee ae salsmns eotd ht hy would they that reported establishments same these of 90% estab­ 251 at accommodations dining and housing seeking oe hcs o hts ie, o rsmd nru mem­ ingroup presumed to administered (i.e., subjects Whites to White shocks studies. more these of conditions Donnerstein, 1979; (Baron, six in administration outgroup- shock involve to unambiguously mea­ appeared using that assessed was sures discrimination which in studies score them so as to identify a neutral point. Problems come Problems point. neutral a identify to as so them score is conversation (more direction in unambiguous similarly posi- greater to unambiguously translates distance smaller Mmedy t l, 92. h sok diitain stud­ administration shock The 1992). al., et (Mummendey Nonverbal BehaviorMeasures 90 Rgr & rnieDn, 91 Wlo & Rogers, & Wilson 1981; Rogers, Prentice-Dunn, & & Prentice-Dunn Rogers 1977; 1980; Rogers, & Griffin 1973; 95 ad vrie os amnsrto i te seventh the in administration noise aversive and 1975) fmu ery il eprmn o peuie also prejudice on experiment field early famous A 6 xeietr itrrtd hs in this interpreted Experimenters be scoredunambiguouslyaspositiveornegative. o fc t fc. hts opsto t hlig ioiis epesd on expressed minorities, helping were to two opposition the Whites’ potential which face. in to Black situations face with “remote” not interactions to compared face-to-face recipients, in help were helpers potential rating separate have to is (1997) al. et Gaertner L. S. by edn? hs iiain a b oecm b poiig the providing by overcome be can limitation This fendant? (say) as obtained is measure dependent the if Furthermore, how But unfavorable. is is sentence sentence longest shortest the the and that favorable clear is it years, 5 of high a to available the whom for defendant convicted a for tence could guests—that Chinese accept to refusal or willingness aver­ that below or above respectively, falls, that payment per-person the to equal payment a allocating of fonn the odtos f h uotuiemaue epn suis eiwd by reviewed studies helping unobtrusive-measure the remote Crosby etal. the in found of helping of rate low conditions the of analog an be may surveys, White when greater was helping al. outgroup-directed et Crosby that measures. found behavior overt (1980) with interestingly compare sures obesity and 2002) innovative Dovidio, on some & based Mannix, 2006). (King, Spiro,Hebl,Singletary,&Turner, discrimination in Foster, demonstrated seen (Hebl, have orientation be that sexual settings can field negative in or studies positive as ambiguously greater somewhat chosen (outgroup) had and they intensity shocks forBlack(ingroup)confederates. to that of revealed product administer measures the duration confederates, to shock Black (ingroup) shocks to intensity than White higher chose experiment eedn’ crusacs te rqetn edreet of either ashorter,equal,orlongersentence. endorsement requesting then circumstances, defendant’s be even might each of some and intended toconveytheopposite. negative, equally as l aco of anchor end dle have that scales of thermometer anchors with as points, neutral aiu snec, ht ee o areet a b as­ be can agreement the of of level endorsement what of sentence, judgment maximum Likert-fonnat 7-point defendant? is a the that to term hostile sentence nor intermediate favorable an neutral—neither identify one can months 6 of low a from is range sentence permissible the If circumstances. mitigating and guilt both indicates evidence measure— intention behavioral a of provides illustration questionnaire mailed another (1934) LaPiere’s level. age of fonn the (positive) takes Favoring then behavior funds. (negative) or disfavoring and points available of average takes behavior Neutral others. to involve payments measures of the distribution when point neutral identifies unambiguous (1971) al. an et Tajfel by introduced procedure The ujc wt ifrain bu a aeae etne o the for sentence average an about information with subject de­ the to unfavorable nor favorable neither be to sumed sen­ jail a recommending of task judgment the Consider frowns nor positive equally as counted be all cannot smiles Self-Report AttitudeMeasures Interpersonal JudgmentMeasures Behavioral IntentionMeasures efrpr attd maue ae aiy osmtd with constmcted easily are measures attitude Self-report 8 7 6 n h cnet f sesn fvrts, eairl neto mea­ intention behavioral favoritism, assessing of context the In un­ behavior intergroup nonverbal characterizing of difficulty The lhuh h Bak ujcs f h Wlo ad oes (1975) Rogers and Wilson the of subjects Black the Although warm neutral. pstv) and (positive) ueu atraie recommended alternative useful A 7 cold ngtv) n a mid­ a and (negative) 8 677 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadl} uget twr igop ebr vru otru mem­ outgroup versus members ingroup toward judgments valenced both to responses classification rapid make jects o ta ohr i dsigihn fvrblt fo unfa- from favorability distinguishing in others than job es T me te eod eurmn a te individual- the at requirement second the meet To bers. ewe-ujcs atr lo ent seset f discrim­ of assessment pennit also factor between-subjects 2001; Banaji, & Nosek (e.g.. sense absolute an in vorability than disfavoringtheoutgroup. and Whites discriminate did they rated contrast, against In they these. discriminate on scales; equally not Blacks negative-trait did on subjects Blacks White that found on f nru fvrts o otru hsiiy s possible is hostility outgroup or favoritism ingroup of fonn mea­ use to is which stated, we that requirement first the tively. the between indifference indicate confidently more points and ingroup an be can which categories, contrasted represent two that names or words, images, to and stimuli word sub­ measures, attitude implicit used widely most the For on (.. a cr ta idcts ete pstv nr neg­ nor positive neither indicates that score a (i.e., point reveal often measures These Fazio, 1998). Schwartz, (e.g., & other McGhee the to than group one to favorability aoy uget n h fn o fvrn te nru rather ingroup the favoring of fonn Meertens, the in judgment & natory Pettigrew several by in countries replicated European (subsequently Western finding strong Blacks). than This higher Whites (rating scales positive-trait on L. S. method, this Using trait. the of absence indicating 678 ingroup- the study and outgroup comparisonrequirement. requirement occasional neutral-point an the than both more meets which for and paradigms paradigm rare group minimal dependent The of met. point also (neutral is requirement measure) first the if only the takes discrimination of whether type of either For detennination subjects. design, individual for not but ination, and a is ingroup outgroup both versus ingroup for which measure in Designs a outgroup. provides subject each study the or that behavior comparing is by discrimination requirement demonstrate second must The point. neutral only considered point this to lias method of analysis Our nega­ equally regarded regarded are are they that groups or both positively that equally mean could which zero groups, Their points. zero neutral having as established not mea­ implicit These Black. and White as such outgroup, tv eauto) Sm ipii maue my o better a do may measures implicit Some evaluation). ative neutral a to relative group either do locate they unambiguously but not groups, two the between separation evaluative cls o pstv ad eaie ris wt te o anchor low the with traits, negative and positive for scales ue gnrt rltv-tiue crs ht ne greater index that scores relative-attitude generate sures arnr n MLuhi (93 ad oii e a. (1989) al. et Dovidio and (1983) McLaughlin and Gaertner tde ta ue nbrsv maue o hlig r the are helping of measures unobtrusive use that studies which in design within-subjects a requires level subject unambiguous an have that judgment or behavior of sures Implicit AttitudeMeasures rrm Genad 20) bt vn hs maue are measures these even but 2009), Greenwald, & Sriram abmas, oel Krė, 96 Greenwald, 1986; Kardės, & Powell Sanbomnatsu, The "SecondRequirement" 95 ad eres Ptirw 19) eel discrimi­ reveals 1997) Pettigrew, & Meertens and 1995, eair Ti puiy ant e xlie sml i tenns in simply explained be cannot paucity This behavior. in r b dtniig hte vros individual-differ- various whether detennining (b) or tion to hostility and favoritism of contributions relative tigate inves­ makes to unnecessary one appear well When might it assumption, hostility. this outgroup-directed of fonn the out- and ingroup-favorable of roles relative dis­ can the that tinguish methods used have prej­ discrimination on and literature udice research voluminous the in studies Few Three ConclusionsAboutMethods Prejudice researchersneedtoadd methodstotheirtoolboxes— the to due be also may findings in imbalance this of of portion fonn the takes often more discrimination is explanation indeed, plausible that, and parsimonious most The tility. of fonn the in discrimination demonstrate to easier parently hostility of fonn the wisdom in prevailing occurs typically the discrimination of that light hostility—an in outgroup observation from unexpected resulting than discrimination favoritism ingroup demonstrated from have studies More other or administration shock unequivocally hostilebehavior. observe that studies in than discrim­ race investigated had studies 30 than more which only in method well-known this of use The 1963). Brock, n ageso va peue) diitain f electric of administration (presumed) via aggression ing involv­ paradigm a because benevolence, hostile experimenters’ of unequivocally assessed that measures dependent eur ete o te w ciei fr eennn whether favorit­ ism oroutgrouphostility. ingroup detennining from resulted for lias criteria discrimination two observed the not of do either aims require These behavior. discriminatory individual in predict differences successfully prejudice of measures ence various discrimina­ whether reduce detennining or increase (a) manipulations experimental questions: other two one address of discrimination of studies Most discrimination. in occurs often most discrimination that us, belief to (but, incorrect) widespread This the of consequence discrimination. a be well producing could in behavior group-hostile Methods UsedinMostStudiesof ucms o nru ad ugop ebr, n () are (c) and members, outgroup and ingroup to of outcomes out- comparison a from provide (b) ingroup-favorable behavior, subject group-hostile distinguish (a) that methods in than ones investigatinghostilebehavior. behavior benign of measures use labo­ that in studies standards ratory research ethical meeting of ease greater some However, hostility. outgroup than favoritism ingroup hos­ differential of fonn the in than favoritism differential ap­ is it reason, whatever For outgroups. toward directed behavior helping of measures unobtrusive discrimination using observe studies to easier in sug­ much be 1980), may al. it et that gests (Crosby helping unobtrusive in ination i suis f ae iciiain drn te ae r in era same the during discrimination, race of studies six & Buss (cf. 1970s and 1960s the in used widely was shocks Discrimination HaveLimitedCapabilities New MethodsAreNeeded Balance ofFindingsWithExistingMethods t s eakbe ht eaiey e suis ae used have studies few relatively that remarkable is It October 2014·American Psychologist

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadl} iwd ee odce i te ntd tts Although States. United the in conducted were viewed voring andhostileresponses. unambigu­ have implicit—that or self-report, behavioral, on esweeepcal i lctos uh s Northern as such locations in elsewhere—especially found intergroup of cause a as hostility outgroup than potent method important most The interactions. of intergroup combination face this meeting to group closest minimal the comes for paradigm procedure matrices alternative ple in i bt edreet o ngtv attds toward attitudes negative of endorsements both in tions transfor­ societal the given questionable now is but time defined have researchers most study, scientific prejudice’s and extensive so is evidence the explana­ If prime discrimination? a of as tion accepted generally already not thesis lso ta igop aoiim nbe discrimination enables White racialdiscriminationintheUnitedStates. favoritism ingroup that con­ our be discrimination, clusion of fonns should other with other countries and countries in investigations those broader Pending in infonnative. highly thesis favoritism the of Tests ingroup discrimination. and hostility histo­ intergroup centuries-old of have ries which Africa, be South will and same Ireland the that assume to premature other is in hold it also nations, may studies these on based conclusions re­ we studies the of most in Second, than discrimination. discrimination racial nomacial in role greater a play may hostility outgroup that conceivable we is studies It race. the involved cited of many First, literature. research available and renters, apartment seekers, home buyers. job potential treatment of to and profiling accorded police of studies audit behavior, experi­ field helping and of field observations minimal unobtrusive paradigms, using of ments similarity-attraction studies and laboratory group including paradigms, empiri­ tins well-established cal for multiple, support from The comes States. conclusion United more the in currently discrimination is favoritism ingroup that conclude We fa­ between distinguishing enable that points neutral ous nonverbal, measures—whether use to is face-to- recommendation investigating to adapted not is but requirements multi­ existing (2001) Insko’s Among and Gaertner fonn. L. methods, standardized laboratory in administer to easy October 2014·American Psychologist discrim­ of studies empirical few methods—very research The discrimination. of fonns hostile in and groups minority reduc­ dramatic produced cumulatively have that mations long a for justified was view That hostile discrimination. in of out- result acts to negative expect they affectively that an attitude group-directed as prejudice understood and of history the throughout that, is part important more parts. previ­ The two has not answer The conclusion? discrimination this at and arrived ously prejudice of students have why decades, few a least at for available been has it of most discrimination” enables favoritism “ingroup the is: is conclusion main Why our by prompted question obvious An hud e eadd s ot togy salse fr Black- for established strongly most as regarded be should second part is that—as explained in this article’s analysis of analysis article’s this in explained that—as is part second Discussion The NatureoftheEvidence w cvas o u cnlso ae eesttd y the by necessitated are conclusion our to caveats Two t h sm tm, h itreig atr f esnlt i ee the ever is personality of factor intervening the time, same the At onay ewe pyhlg ad oilg bt qal to equally but sociology and psychology between boundary professional rivalry and backbiting among social scientists preferring scientists social among backbiting and rivalry professional for reasons good no are There conduct....; human of cause proximal to observeddiscrimination. esncnee epaain ad h ohr oil sciences’ social other the and explanations person-centered a affords fore conflict not do often most Fur­ theories disciplines. various those the of disciplinary each thermore, within the theories of of to sets sides the only different not on applies theories fall of that synergy theories the about tion point towhichwenextturn. occur­ discrimination for evidence comparable no is there is there and pervasive, is positivity ingroup-directed First, oe e eocie wtot eeec t hsiiy That hostility. to reference without would betooradicalaconclusion fromourobservations. reconceived there­ should be prejudice fore that suggest not do We prejudice. discrim­ way, this In groups. advantaged already favoring that welabeledillusoryindividuation). conse­ a as or discrimination) institutional and places, ril ws o ul or ae y salsig he points. this three establishing in by case strategy our build Our to was contributions? conclusion article relative strong a those reach we about can how hostility inadequate, outgroup so relative are and evaluate favoritism to ingroup methods of If contributions question: second a raises aig ugopdrce hsiiy te al ed o eut in result en­ to tend without all they that, hostility, is outgroup-directed gaging processes mental and societal ducing work­ homes, schools, in segregation of self-sustain­ properties the as ing a (such as structures either social occurs of it consequence intent; hostile without discrim­ occurs much ination that claim do we However, discrimination. one approach or Hie other. They can and should be blended in our in outlook. (Allport,1962,p.132) blended be should and can They other. Hie or approach one Multiplicity ofExplanationsforIngroup hostility outgroup relative and the favoritism evaluate ingroup can of that contributions methods used have ination etr tertcl ots o h ga o understanding of there­ favoritism goal ingroup on the focus Our favoritism. to ingroup routes theoretical comple­ multiple, mentary offer they Rather, explanations. their in the explain can levels, societal and individual theories, both multiple that at establish to sought has review This hanning. differential under­ of for bases fonn multiple offer the theories established in Third, frequently and so favoring, differential ring of fonn the in fre­ occurs discrimination quently Second, negativity. of pervasiveness outgroup-directed equivalent an for evidence comparable no nms ht taiinly hs en dfnn faue of feature defining a been intergroup has the traditionally, without that, occur animus often will outcomes inatory processes as (such judgment animus the lack and that similarity-attraction, processes nonns, mental of quence Societal factors . . .; are distal causal factors in group relations . . . .; . . . relations group in factors causal distal are .; . . factors Societal social-structure-centered explanations. observa­ (1962) Allport’s favoritism. ingroup of strength others—a for regard positive of development the standing Favoritism u cnlso aot iiain o rsac methods research of limitations about conclusion Our cinn eoiao i tee discrimination-pro­ these in denominator coimnon A in role no plays prejudice hostile that claim not do We rapprochement mn sca psychology’s social among

679 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly both follow from the potential importance of the conclusion the of importance potential the from follow both in is ih fimtv ato srtge ta am o in­ to aim that strategies action affirmative with sugges­ fits This tion field. playing ingroup-favoritism the level to a suggests also conclusion Our fold. ingroup the within States United apparent the more in even discrimination race is of it acts hostile fonns, that hostile in occur to tinues ed o o itrru attds n bhvo bt on but behavior and attitudes intergroup on not de­ pend that reduction discrimination for opportunities provide has conclusion This members. outgroup hanning from than o patcl plcto, hs eto fcss n h impli­ the on focuses section this application, practical for from 0.030%to0.020%. had crimes hate of victims were who Blacks of percentages n fins o il o vcnis n amtig “legacy” admitting and vacancies job applicants toeliteeducational institutions. fill to friends ing seek­ include which favoritism, ingroup of fonns routine disruption of action’s affirmative in explanation partial a least ob­ (2012) DiTomaso selective Relatedly, and institutions. workplaces educational in groups underrepresented for as or regarded minorities disadvantaged for benefits crease seeking effect in helping, outgroup targeted of policies encompassed ing adopt­ are reduction: discrimination to who approach different quite others of thereby diversity and the boundaries ingroup increase extend which identities, “superordinate” forming of impact discrimination-reducing compiling started (FBI) Investigation of Bureau Federal their to Victims century Action Mob 19th (“4,733 late 1950s the the in in year disappearance per 150 av­ an of data from erage Americans—declined in Black (mostly) evident of kill­ is ings group were decline Lynchings—which lynchings. of concerning indication dramatic the Perhaps most century. past the during declined steadily have con­ discrimination significant societally much Although can less now occur withoutintergrouphostility. that life no potent a has perhaps discrimination intergroup soci­ ety and American contemporary in important, that is The conclusion radical, thus. has it been that claim to always inclined not are we because especially 680 teaching and research for discrim­ implications reduce the to Because programs ination. of design the for discrimi­ and and nation, prejudice about teaching for discrimination, America, present-day members in ingroup helping that, from more is results discrimination conclusion strong Our cations forpractice. elnd bten 9920 ad 0921) y third, a by 2009-2011) and 1999-2001 (between the declined 2010, and 2000 in population in Black U.S. year the per of ages 4,071 of average an from steadily declined evd ht eitne o fimtv ato porm hs at has programs action affirmative to resistance that served possible the emphasized who (2000), Dovidio and Gaertner aa n ae crimes. hate on data usata ipiain fr h cnut f eerh on research of conduct the for implications substantial ore f vdne s uh oe eet I 19, the 1996, In recent: more much is evidence of source compelling second A 1962). Reports”, Tuskegee ‘82, Since Has ThereBeenaDeclineofMalice? Implications 9619 t 272 e ya i 20-01 A percent­ As 2009-2011. in year per 2,762 to 1996-1998 n ead o mlyet iciiain te courts the discrimination, employment to regard In L. S. of approach the to force adds conclusion Our 9 ae rms agtn Bak victims Black targeting crimes Hate ugs itrrttos f a. t s hrfr rlvn t ask to relevant therefore is It law. of interpretations judges’ ht h dfnat opn mgt ae iciiae b alwn a form a allowing by discriminated have might company defendant the that religious or racial whose force work a [s] “produce policy hiring a if that at available are 2011 through view on the conclusions reached by Dixon et al.(2012). view ontheconclusionsreachedbyDixon et they that is opinions two were writtenbythesamefederaljudge. these between contrast the regarding noteworthy anyway, them of some or they, white, are they If themselves. like are who hn fot drce a icesn pstvt twr out­ toward positivity increasing at directed efforts than disadvantaged historically by action political collective that courts the to useful prove may conclusions article’s this allowed decision court federal 2012 a 1998, in writing was adversely were classes protected that in argument the employees disallowed largely plaintiff 1964 of Civil the Act of Rights VII Title of interpretations courts’ federal that favoritism ingroup of potency the of establishment whether r mr cmotbe emn wt ohr ht boes” Especially brokers.” white other with teaming comfortable more people members are team as choose are brokers who .; the . brokers . which] teams [in of “The fraternities brokers: little teams American African involving exclude to choose favoritism could ingroup company-wide of of one.” case the discriminatory in a opinion, not 2012 is The motive The discrimination. intentional this employer, not the is pleases composition gender or nation-origin 1993 or ethnic or The favoritism. ingroup regarding of direction case the in of opinion, change a signals crime. aoiim o rdc sgiiat iciiain r in­ are discrimination significant produce to favoritism and ethnic As discrimination. generate can that favoritism dis­ hostile scientifically, studied been lias prejudice which dis­ of fonns hostile Although attention. scholarly of thy negop tiue. io e a. rcee t conclude to proceeded al. et negative Dixon to attitudes. primarily intergroup discrimination link incorrectly may ead aoiim s the as favoritism regard groups. discrimination ending in efficacious more be might groups deciding thosecases. proceed, to allowed to be appealing generally suits will favoritism discrimination ingroup which in legal future enviromnent a presages decision 2012 the of If theory discrimination. favoritism ingroup an on based proceed, to case a impacted byingroupfavoritismthatbenefitedothers. out pointed (1998) Krieger litigation. via reduce to discrimination efforts affect might discrimination of source a as creasing. for opportunities that plausible even is it settings, work ican Amer­ in represented increasingly become of minorities racial fonns multiple the against constraints there parallel and few States, United are the in prevail discrim­ widely hostile now ination against constraints nonnative legal, environ­ time, and same ethical, work the At hostile tenorism. and slurs, crimes, hate ments, ethnic and fonns, racial many including in exist to in continues period nevertheless crimination the during steadily declined have crimination tre, s e i, y bevn ta cret conceptions current that observing by did, we as started, 9 11 10 nul ons f utpe aeois f ae rms o 1996 for crimes hate of categories multiple of counts Annual y a o cnrs wt te iuto we Krieger when situation the with contrast of way By pooaie eet ril b Dxn t l (2012) al. et Dixon by article recent provocative A n lsn, e ut one ay mrsin ht we that impression any counter must we closing, In See chapter 11 of PettigrewandTropp(2011)foranadditional Seechapter11of 2012 and 1993 in opinions court federal two of contrast The 11 E.E.O.C. October 2014·American Psychologist 10 only v. McReynolds http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate- osldtd evc Systems, Service Consolidated as o dsrmnto wor­ discrimination of cause v. erl Lynch, Merrill concluded declared

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Cohen, J.(1977). the between Continuity (1970). J. Lamberth, & R., C. Ervin, D., Byme, Byme, D.(1961).Interpersonalattractionandattitudesimilarity. T.C.(1963).Repressionand guiltinrelationto Buss, A.H.,&Brock, Brown, R.(1995). Brigham, J.C.(1991). or love Crano, W.D.(1994). Brewer, M.B.,& Ingroup prejudice: of psychology The (1999). B. M. Brewer, Bogardus, E.S.(1925).Measuringsocialdistance. Billig, M.,&Tajfel,H.(1973).Socialcategorizationandsimilarityin Aronson, E.(1988). P.G.(2006).Stereotypingandevaluationin Amodio, D.M.,&Devine, V.J.(2007).Status,equityandsocial D. J.,&Callan, Amiot, C.E.,Terry, Allport, G.W.(1962).Prejudice:Isitsocietalorpersonal? Allport, G.W.(1954). status motivational the on Comments (1988). A. M. Hogg, & D., Abrams, ‘82, Tuskegeereports”.(1962).InR. “4,733 mobactionvictimssince Bendick, M., Rodriguez, R. E., & Jayaraman, S.(2010).Employment Bendick, M.,Rodriguez,R.E.,&Jayaraman, J.,Newcomb,Т.M.,Rosen­ Abelson, R.P.,Aronson,E.,McGuire,W. Baron, R.A.,&Byrne,D.(1974). October 2014·American Psychologist Bendick, M.(2007).Situationtestingforemploymentdiscriminationin June). (2004, M. Bendick, Baron, R.M.,&Graziano,W.G.(1991). Baron, R.A.(1979).Effectsofvictim’spaincues,race,andlevel To insure prejudice: Racial Ayres, I.,Vars,F.E.,&Zakariya,N.(2005). (2012). Akert, R.M. Aronson, E.,Wilson,T.D.,& REFERENCES en ora o Sca Pyhlg, 18, Psychology, Social of Journal pean ora o Anra ad oil scooy 62, Psychology, Social and Abnormal of Journal Psychology, 9, Journal ofSocialPsychology,46, the UnitedStatesofAmerica. testing. h0029836 h0044721 Sociology, 9, Social Issues,18, eec o te oit fr h Pyhlgcl td o Sca Issues, Social of Study Psychological the for Society the of ference (1968). berg, M.J.,&Tannenbaum,P.(Eds.). MA: Allyn & Bacon. MA: Allyn& xeietl td o atato ad ellf cmue dating. computer real-life and attraction of study experimental 350. doi:10.1037/h0043707 aggression. Blackwell. MN: WestGroup. hate? outgroup intergroup behaviour. Rinehart&Winston. TX: Holt, of priorinstigationuponphysicalaggression. Tappan, NJ:Pearson. ed.). Old 652-661. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.652 effects onbehavior. implicit racebias:Evidenceforindependentconstructsandunique 014466606X146015 Wesley. discrimination. intergroup and identity social in self-esteem of Ginzburg, HarperCollins. 0022-4537.00126 (rev. ed.).NewYork,NY:AcademicPress. 16, Psychology, Social and Personality of Washington, DC. rights. civil of psychology social disparities intaxicabtipping. identification duringanintergroupmerger:Alongitudinal study. consistency: Asourcebook. Books. (Reprintedfrom discrimination inupscalerestaurants:Evidencefrom matchedpair 52. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420030103 .2010.04.001 .2420180403 The SocialScienceJournal,47, 100 yearsoflynchings The JournalofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,66, 299-308. 103-114.doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1979.tb00797.x Statistical poweranalysisforthebehavioral sciences Prejudice: Itssocialpsychology. 120-134.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1962.tb02205.x ora o Sca Ise, 55, Issues, Social of Journal The socialanimal Social psychology The natureofprejudice. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,91, European JournalofSocialPsychology,3, The MontgomeryAdvertiser, sn pie-oprsn etn t dvlp a develop to testing paired-comparison Using Chicago,IL:Rand-McNally. Yale LawJournal,114, Horizons Stratégiques,5, Social psychology (p.244).NewYork,NY:Lancer 557-577.doi:10.1348/ ae peetd t h bena con­ biennial the at presented Paper (5th ed.). New York, NY : Freeman. (5thed.).NewYork,NY: Social psychology. (2nd ed.). New York,NY: (2nded.). Social psychology. 802-818.doi:10.1016/j.soscij Reading,MA:Addison- 1-3. o: 10.1002/ejsp doi: 317-334. Journal ofAppliedSocial Theories ofcognitive Journal ofApplied 5-6. o: 10.1037/ doi: 157-165. Oxford,England: Social psychology 2-4. o: 10.1111/ doi: 429-444. (7th ed.). Boston, (7thed.). 1-1. o: 10.1037/ doi: 713-715. 1613-1674. April26,1959) 17-39. Minneapolis, Journal of FortWorth, The 27- British 345-

(8th

Journal Euro­

Feagin, J. R., & Feagin, C. B. (1996). C.B. Feagin, J.R.,& Powell, M.C.,&Kardes,F.R.(1986). Fazio, R.H.,Sanbonmatsu,D.M., Cir.1993). ServiceSystems,989F.2d233 (7th E.E.O.C. v.Consolidated A.B.(2005).Whatistheproblem? Prejudice Eagly, A.H.,&Dickman, Gaertner, S.L.(1989).Resistancetoaffirma­ Do vidio,J.F.,Mann,J.,& S.L.(2004).Aversiveracism.InM.P.Zanna Do vidio,J.F.,&Gaertner, R.(1972). Donnerstein, E.,M.,Simon,S.,&Ditrichs, (1939). Sears, R. E., Mowrer,O.H.,& Dollard, J.,Doob,L.,Miller,N. Durrheim, K.(2012).Beyond Dixon, J.,Levine,M.,Reicher,S.,& hypothesis-confirming biasin Darley, J.M.,&Gross,P.H.(1983).A L.(1980).Recentunobtmsivestudiesof Crosby, F.,Bromley,S.,&Saxe, etnr R W, Tyo, . . 17) Pyia ageso a a function a as aggression Physical (1973). P. S. Taylor, & W., R. Genthner, F.(Eds.).(2012). Gawroński, В.;&Strack, McLaughlin,J.P.(1983).Racialstereotypes:Associ­ Gaertner, S.L.,& S., Rust,M.C.,Nier,J.A., dio,J.F.,Banker,В. Gaertner, S.L.,Dovi (2000). Dovidio,J.F. Gaertner, S.L.,& Bickman,L.(1971).Effectsofrace ontheelicitationof Gaertner, S.L.,& C.A.(2001).Onthemeasurementofsocial Gaertner, L.,&Insko, (1996). L. S. Franzoi, (1990). Acontinuummodelofimpression & Neuberg,S.L. Fiske, S.T., R.B.(1989).Anotherindirecttactic of(self-) Finch, J.F.,&Cialdini, (1957). L. Festinger, DiTomaso, N.(2012). fundamental principleinsocialcognition. power, andsociety Frustration andaggression. Psychological Bulletin,87, Psychology Quarterly,46, tive action:Theimplicationsofaversiveracism.InF.Blanchard& the expressionofintergroupbias. Social Psychology,50, prejudice: Arenegativeevaluationstheproblemandisgettingustolike Social Psychology,27, helping behavior:Thewrongnumbertechnique. mark. Zanna (Ed.), formation fromcategory-basedtoindividuatingprocesses:Influences On theautomaticactivationofattitudes. Oxford, England:Blackwell,doi:10.1002/9780470773963.ch2 (Eds.), L. A.Rudman as anattitude-in-context.InJ.F.Dovidio,P.Glick,& York, NY:Springer-Verlag,doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-9639-07 Crosby (Eds.), (Ed.), doi: 10.1037/h0032597 and ariot. Variables ininterracialaggression:Anonymity,expectedretaliation, 411-425. doi:10.1017/S0140525Xl1002214 one anothermorethesolution? labeling effects. Black andWhitediscriminationprejudice:Aliteraturereview. f ail rjdc ad h rc o te target. the of race the and prejudice racial of Press. ations andascriptionsofpositivenegativecharacteristics. M. Wong(Eds.), Powell, L.Weis,& anti-Blackness? Aversiveracismandpro-Whiteness.InM.Fine,L. Mottola, G.R.,&Ward,C.M.(1997).Doesracismnecessarilymean doi: 10.4135/9781446218617.n9 common ingroupidentitymodel. and SocialPsychology,20, ogy, 31, orientations intheminimalgroupparadigm:Normsasmoderatorsof of informationandmotivationonattentioninterpretation.InM.P. letin, 15, image management:Boosting. ed.). UpperSaddleRiver,NJ:PrenticeHall. without racism. 20-33. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20 San Diego,CA:AcademicPress. Stanford UniversityPress. 1-74). San Diego, С A: AcademicPress. 1-74). SanDiego,С Advances in experimental social psychology Advances inexperimentalsocial On thenatureofprejudice:FiftyyearsafterAUport 143-154.doi:10.1002/ejsp.28 222-232.doi:10.1177/0146167289152009 Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,22, Advances inExperimentalSocialPsychology Affirmative actioninperspective NewYork,NY:RussellSageFoundationFoundation. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,44, (pp.167-178).London,England:Routledge. The Americannon-dilemma:Racialinequality ter o cgiie dissonance. cognitive of theory A oil psychology. Social 229-238.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.2.229 207-210.doi:10.1037/h0034776 23-30.doi:10.2307/3033657 546-563. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.87.3.546 546-563.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.87.3.546 218-222.doi:10.1037/h0031681 NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress. Personality andSocialPsychologyBul­ Behavioral andBrainSciences,35, Philadelphia,PA:PsychologyPress, European JournalofSocialPsychol­ Racial andethnicrelations Off white:Readingsonrace, Reducing intergroupbias:The Journal ofPersonalityand aio, I Bon Bench­ & Brown WI: Madison, Cognitive consistency:A NewYork,NY:Guilford (pp.83-103).New ora o Proaiy and Personality of Journal Journal ofPersonality (Vol. 36, pp. 1-52). (Vol.36,pp. ao lo С A: С Alto, Palo (Vol. 23, pp. (Vol.23, (pp.17-35). 236-245. Social (5th

681

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Lamberth, J.(1994). Lynn, M.,Sturman,Ganley,C.,Adams, E.,Douglas,M.,&McNeil, (1980). Sexste­ N.,&Hepburn,C. Locksley, A.,Borgida,E.,Brekke, Lippa, R.A.(1994). Lemer, M.J.(1980). The LeadershipConferenceonCivilandHumanRights.(2011). LaPiere, R.(1934).Attitudesversusactions. P.(1996).Formingimpressions fromstereotypes, Kunda, Z.,&Thagard, after relations Intergroup Perestroika: rights Civil (1998). H. L. Krieger, S. M.R.,Singletary,S.L.,&Turner, King, E.B.,Spiro,J.R.,Hebl, M.R.(2002).Non-consciousforms Pelham, B.W.,&Carvallo, Jost, J.T., A.(2004).Adecadeofsystem Banaji, M.R.,&Nosek,В. Jost, J.T., (1994).Theroleofstereotypinginsystem- & Banaji,M.R. Jost, J.T., Gaertner, S.L.(2002).Processesinracial Hodson, G.,Dovidio,J.F.,& bias. Intergroup (2002). H. Willis, & M., Rubin, M., Hewstone, appraisal the in Subjectivity (2008). C. M. Haynes, & E., M. Heilman, L.(1998).Measur­ D. E.,&Schwartz,J.K. Greenwald, A.G.,McGhee, M.R.,Rudman,L.A.,Famham,S.D.,Nosek, Greenwald, A.G.,Banaji, Griffin, B. Q., & Rogers, R. W. (1977).Reducinginterracialaggression: Griffin, B.Q.,&Rogers,R. Heider, F.(1958). Dovidio, J.F.(2002).Formal Hebl, M.R.,Foster,J.B.,Mannix,L.M.,& 682 justification theory:Accumulatedevidenceofconsciousanduncon­ justification andtheproductionoffalseconsciousness. eiw f scooy 53, Psychology, of Review Psychology: InterdisciplinaryandApplied,95, traits andbehaviors:Aparallel-constraintsatisfactiontheory. tion. tion Test. reotypes and social judgment. reotypes andsocialjudgment. New York,NY:Plenum,doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5 remediation andbottom-lineconsequencesofinterpersonaldiscrimina­ & Borgida E. In settings. work in bias gender of facilitator A process: NY: Wiley. ing anationalconsensus:TheneedtoendracialprofilinginAmerica. doi: 10.2307/2570339 action. affirmative 9010.91.3.579 (2006). Thestigmaofobesityincustomerservice:Amechanismfor 602. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00505-X status groups. of systemjustification:Implicitandbehavioralpreferencesforhigher 1467-9221.2004.00402.x doi: 10.1111/j. scious bolsteringofthestatusquo. ofconflictinginformation. discrimination: Differentialweighting courtroom ing individualdifferencesinimplicitcognition:TheImplicitAssocia­ stereotypes, self-esteem,andself-concept. theoryofimplicitattitudes, &Mellott,D.S.(2002).Aunified В. A., Inhibiting effectsofvictim’ssufferingandpowertoretaliate. sexual applications. discrimination:Afieldstudyofbiastowardhomo­ and interpersonal 00223980.1977.9915872 stops andarrestsofBlackdrivers/travelersontheNewJerseyTurnpike logical Review,103, extension. J. (2006). chology, 39, Grove, СA:Brooks/Cole. Washington, DC:Author. of SocialPsychology,33, 0146167202287004 sonality andSocialPsychologyBulletin,28, 3-25. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3 1991. 1988 through between ExitsorInterchanges1and3fromtheyears .100901.135109 (Eds.), Fiske T. S. .tbO 1008.x 815-825. doi:10.1177/0146167202289010 10.2307/3481107 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 1480. doi: Journal ofAppliedPsychology,91, Unpublishedreport,TempleUniversity. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,74, Unpublishedmanuscript,CornellUniversity. Consumer racial discrimination in tipping: Areplication and Consumer racialdiscriminationin (pp.127-155).Oxford,England:Blackwell. 821-831.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.821 Journal ofExperimentalSocialPsychology,38, The psychologyofinterpersonalrelations. Introduction tosocialpsychology Revised statisticalanalysisoftheincidenceofpolice The beliefinajustworld:Afundamentaldelusion. Personality andSocialPsychologyBulletin,28, 284-308.doi:10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.284 eod omn es: scooia sine n the in science Psychological sense: common Beyond aiona a Rve, 86, Review, Law California 1-27.doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994 Journal ofPersonalityandSocial Psy­ 7-0. o: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53 doi: 575-604. Political Psychology,25, 579-593.doi:10.1037/0021- Social Forces,13, Psychological Review,109, 460-471.doi:10.1177/ 151-157. doi: 10.1080/ 151-157.doi:10.1080/ (2nd ed.). Pacific (2nded.). British Journal 2113. doi: 1251-1333. NewYork, 1464- 881-919. 230-237. Psycho­ Journal of 586- Restor­ Per­

Annual

Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. M.(2004).Casuistryand Norton, M.I.,Vandello,J.A.,&Darley, Nier, J.A.,&Gaertner,S.L.(Eds.).(2012b).Therealityofcontemporary con­ Nier, J.A.,&Gaertner,S.L.(2012a).Thechallengeofdetecting (2002). D. T. Nelson, Nosek, В. A., & Banaji, M.R.(2001).Thego/no-goassociation task. Nosek, В.A.,&Banaji, Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Gmnert, M., Haeger. G.,Kessler, Mummendey, A.,Simon,B.,Dietze,C.,Gmnert,M.,Haeger. (1952). RacerelationsinthePocahontascoalfield. Minard, R.D. Campion, M.A.(2010).Are McCarthy, J.M.,VanIddekinge,C.H.,& Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. (1995). Subtleandblatantprejudicein Pettigrew, T.F.,&Meertens,R. Myrdal, G.(1944). (1995). Myers, D.G. Pettigrew, T.F.(1997).Issubtleprejudicereallypreju­ Meertens, R.,& Cir.2012). McReynolds v.MerrillLynch,672F.3d482(7th (2001).RelationsamongtheImplicit McConnell, A.R.,&Leibold,J.M. McNeil, C., Adams,E.,Douglas,M.,& Lynn, M.,Sturman,Ganley, ltw M J, Vn npebr, . 20) A oil dniy analysis identity social A (2001). D. Knippenberg, Van & J., M. Platow, R.(2011). Pettigrew, T.F.,&Tropp,L. (2006).Ameta-analytictestofintergroup Pettigrew, T.F.,&Tropp,L. J. Smelser C. (2002).Discrimination.InN. Pettigrew, T.F.,&Taylor,M. Pettigrew, T.F.(2011).Towardsustainablepsychologicalinterventions Pettigrew, T.F.(1998).Prejudiceanddiscriminationonthecollege Pettigrew, T.F.(1991).Normativetheoryinintergrouprelations:Explain­ Pettigrew, T.F.(1979).Racialchangeandsocialpolicy. Pettigrew, T.F.(Ed.).(1975). P.H.(1955).Theprincipleofcongruity Osgood, C.E.,&Tannenbaum, American AcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience,441, Bulletin, 27, temporary formsofdiscrimination. highly structuredjobinterviewsresistanttodemographicsimilarity Social Psychology,28, racial attitudes. for change. New York,NY:Harper&Row. Social Cognition,19, real worldcontexts[Specialissue]. of SocialIssues,8, effects? Western Europe. discrimination innegativeoutcomeallocation. dice? 442. doi:10.1006/jesp.2000.1470 Association Test,discriminatorybehavior,andexplicitmeasuresof extension. J. (2008).Consumerracialdiscriminationintipping:Areplicationand n dsrbtv itrru fairness. intergroup prototypicality distributive ingroup leader and of effects The endorsement: leadership of 751-783. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 contact theory. & P.B.Baltes(Eds.), doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420250106 Fiske (Eds.), campus. InJ.L.Eberhardt&S.T. 3-16. doi:10.1177/097133369100300102 ing bothharmonyandconflict. doi :10.1177/000271627944100109 doi: 10.1037/h0048153 in thepredictionofattitudechange. social categorybias. discrimination intheUnitedStates:Theconsequencesofhiddenbias l/j. 1540-4560.2012.01745.X 220. doi:10.111 Bacon. Row. of intergroupcontact. .2010.01172.x S., . . . Schaferhoff, S.(1992).Categorizationisnotenough:Intergroup S., . behavioral sciences Sage. (Reprintedfromthe The problemandtheresponse 817-831. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.6.817 10.1111/j.l 559-1816.2008.00338.x 10.1111/j.l 179-192. doi:10.1080/10781919.2010.536758 1994, 6(1),1-9). Public OpinionQuarterly,61, Personnel Psychology,63, Journal ofAppliedSocialPsychology,38, Peace andConflict:JournalofPsychology,17, 1508-1519.doi:10.1177/01461672012711011 Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,90, Journal ofExperimentalSocialPsychology,37, An Americandilemma. European JournalofSocialPsychology,25, 29-44. doi: 10.1111/j. 1540-4560.1952.tb01592.x 29-44.doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1952.tb01592.x Psychology (pp.3762-3766).Oxford,England:Pergamon. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,87, 625-666. doi: 10.1521/soco. 19.6.625.20886 625-666.doi:10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886 h pyhlg o prejudice. of psychology The NewYork,NY:PsychologyPress. International encyclopediaforthesocialand 125-144. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-1 125-144.doi:10.1016/0022-1031(92)90035-1 October 2014·American Psychologist Higher EducationExtensionServiceReview, Racial discriminationintheUnitedStates. (pp.263-279).ThousandOaks,CA: (4thed.).NewYork:,NYWorth. Psychology andDevelopingSocieties,3, 325-359. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570 325-359.doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570 Journal ofSocialIssues,68, Journal ofSocialIssues,68(2). 54-71. doi: 10.1086/297786 54-71.doi:10.1086/297786 Psychological Review,62, When groupsmeet:Thedynamics esnlt ad oil Psychology Social and Personality New York, NY: Harper & NewYork,NY:Harper& Journal ofExperimental Confronting racism: otn M: ly & Allyn MA: Boston, 1045-1060.doi: Annals ofthe 114-131. 57-75. 42-55. Journal 207- 435-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Ryan, W.(1976). in factors as belief shared and Race (1966). L. Mezei, & M., Rokeach, (1960). (Ed.). M. Rokeach, anger- and Deindividuation (1981). S. Prentice-Dunn, elite & of W., case R. Rogers, The matching: cultural as Hiring (2012). A. L. Rivera, de­ Past groups: within demography Relational (2000). M. C. Riordan, (1998). F. B. Reskin, versus Union structures: organizational of role The (1953). C. D. Reitzes, deindividuating of Effects (1980). W. R. Rogers, & S., Prentice-Dunn, October 2014·American Psychologist An belief: and Race (1965). B. M. Smith, & A., J. Hardyck, D., D. Stein, (2000). (Ed.). C. Stangor, Association Implicit Brief The (2009). G. A. Greenwald, & N., Sriram, (1999). E. Spitzer, (2012). S. Bialosiewicz, & G., Pippin, F., T. Pettigrew, J., H. Smith, other and hatred, Aggression, (2005). M. D. Mackie, & R., E. Smith, (1995). M. D. Mackie, & R., E. Smith, new Toward emotions: social and identity Social (1993). R. E. Smith, (1985). M. J. Yinger, & E., G. Simpson, (1964). W. C. Backman, & F., P. Secord, (1997). M. Krysan, & L., Bobo, C., Steeh, H., Schuman, helping in Differences (2005). N. Doucet, & T., С. Miller, A., D. An Saucier, (2003). N. Schmitt, & M., A. Ryan, R., C. Scheu, M., J. Sacco, rcie: rpr t te epe f h Sae f e Yr fo the from York New of State the of people the to report A practices: stereotyping and cognition, Affect, eerh n esne ad ua rsucs management resources human and personnel in Research eitd nerca ageso: nakn rgesv racism. regressive Unmasking aggression: interracial mediated firms. service professional (Ed.), Ferris R. G. In directions. new and contradictions, velopments, situation. tension a in neighborhood NY: McGraw-Hill. fie f h Atre General. Attorney Attorney General’sOffice,CivilRightsBureau. the of Office 16(3), Review, Psychology Social and ality AUport after years MA: Blackwell. Fifty prejudice: of nature choice. social Basic Books. Washington, DC:AmericanSociologicalAssociation. deindividuation subjective on models aggression. aggressive and and cues situational f esnlt ad oil scooy 41, Psychology, 3514.41.1.63 Social and Personality of 281-289. doi:10.1037/h0021870 case. shut and open Test. critique. meta-analytic and theoretical A deprivation: Relative (Eds.), Rudman A. L. & Glick, P. Dovidio, F. J. In emotions. Worth. (Eds.), Hamilton L. Academic Press. D. & Mackie M. D. In prejudice. of conceptions in America. ogy Review,9, meta-analysis. A Blacks: and Whites ogy, 88, multi­ demography. A relational interviews: to in approach effects similarity level sex and race of investigation doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1953.tb01259.x (5th ed.).NewYork,NY:Plenum. .56.4.283 .167 Philadelphia, PA:PsychologyPress. 1022. doi: 10.1177/0003122412463213 1022. doi: 1088868311430825 104-113. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.1.104 131-173). Greenwich,CT:JAIPress. xeietl scooy 56, Psychology, Experimental 852-865.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.852 Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. 2-16.doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr09011 Blaming thevictim. cec, 151, Science, h Nw ok iy oie eatets so & frisk” & “stop Department’s Police City York New The ora o Proaiy n Sca Pyhlg, 39, Psychology, Social and Personality of Journal h raiis f fimtv ato i employment. in action affirmative of realities The ora o Proaiy n Sca P yhlg, 1, sychology, P Social and Personality of Journal troye ad rjdc: seta readings. Essential prejudice: and Stereotypes h oe ad lsd mind. closed and open The 6-7. o: 012/cec. 151.3707 10.1126/science. doi: 167-172. mrcn oilgcl Review, Sociological American NewYork,NY:VintageBooks. e Yr, Y Nw ok State York New NY: York, New p. 9-1) Sn ig, A: С Diego, San 297-315). (pp. 8-9. o: 10.1027/1618-3169 doi: 283-294. ora o Sca Ise, 9, Issues, Social of Journal oil psychology. Social esnlt ad oil Psychol­ Social and Personality oil psychology. Social ail n clua minorities cultural and Racial ora o Apid Psychol­ Applied of Journal 37. o: 10.1037/0022- doi: 63-73. 0-3. o: 10.1177/ doi: 203-232. p. 6-7) Malden, 361-376). (pp. e Yr, NY: York, New NwYr, NY: York, New ail attitudes Racial Vl 1, pp. 19, (Vol. e York, New 7 999- 77, Person­ (Appendix follows) 37-44. Journal n the On

Ziegler, S. A., Kirby, T. A., Xu, Κ., &Greenwald,A.G.(2013,January). Ziegler, S.A.,Kirby,T.Xu,Κ., Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005).Constructedcriteria: Redefining Uhlmann, E.L.,&Cohen,G.L. Turner, M. A., Ross, S. L., Galster, G. C., & Yinger, J.(2002). Galster, G.C.,&Yinger, Turner, M.A.,Ross,S.L., andbeliefasdeterminantsof Triandis, H.C.,&Davis,E.(1965).Race Thurstone, L.(1928).Anexperimentalstudyofnationalitypreferences. Triandis, H. C. (1961). A note onRokeach’stheoryofprejudice. Triandis, H.C.(1961).A O’Brien,A.T.(2001).Status,legitimacy,andingroupbias Terry, D.J.,& Sears,D.O.(1994). Taylor, S.E.,Peplau,L.A.,& J.C.(1979).Anintegrativetheoryofintergroup Tajfel, H.,&Turner, P.,&Flament,C.(1971).Social Tajfel, H.,Billig,M.G.,Bundy,R. Tajfel, H.(1982).Socialpsychologyofintergrouprelations. Tajfel, H.(1970).Experimentsinintergroupdiscrimination. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Schadron, G., Leyens, J.-P., & Rocher, S.(1994).Social Yzerbyt, V.Y.,Schadron,G.,Leyens,J.-P.,& R. (1988). Worchel, S.,Cooper,J.,&Goethals,G. Rogers, R.W.(1975).Thefirethistime:Effectsofrace Wilson, L.,& (2009). Weiss, A.,&Rosenbaum,D.P. T.F.(2008).Prejudiceandgroup- Wagner, U.,Christ,O.,&Pettigrew, P.H.(1999). Verniero, P.,&Zoubek, Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W.(1993). Stephan, W.G.,&C. American, 223, judgeability: Theimpactofmeta-informationalcuesontheuse psychology. HDS 2000. Journal ofGeneralPsychology,1, Journal ofAbnormalandSocialPsychology,62, Psychology, 1, Review ofPsychology,33, Personality andSocialPsychology,1975, group Relations,4, target, insult,andpotentialretaliationonBlackaggression. behavioral intentions. New Orleans,LA. nual MeetingoftheSocietyforPersonalityandSocialPsychology, Implicit raceattitudespredictvoteinthe2012presidentialelection. related behaviorinGermany. by theCriminalJusticeInstituteofHarvardLawSchool,December merit tojustifydiscrimination. e717912011-001 ination inmetropolitanhousingmarkets:NationalresultsfromPhaseI 715-725. doi:10.1037/h0022719 in thecontextofanorganizationalmerger. of intergrouprelations conflict. InS.Worchel&W.G.Austin(Eds.), categorization andintergroupbehaviour. Thousand Oaks,СA:Sage. Poster presentedatthePoliticalPsychologyPreconferenceofAn­ doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.48 stereotypes. 0022-3514.32.5.857 and Justice,UniversityofIllinois.Retrievedfrom study: 2008annualreport. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00568.X lps/intm_419.pdf 7-9, 2000,Cambridge,MA.Retrievedfrom sented attheRace,PoliceandCommunityConferencesponsored review teamregardingallegationsofracialprofiling. doi: 10.111l/j.0956-7976.2005.01559.x ed.). EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall. .1928.9918018 .000245 .state.il.us/travelstats/ITSS 2008 Annual Report.pdf .state.il.us/travelstats/ITSS 2008Annual 10.1037/h0043114 Washington,DC:UrbanInstitute,doi:10.1037/ Chicago,IL:Dorsey. Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,66, 149-178.doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420010202 96-102. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican 1170-96 96-102.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican 271-289.doi:10.1177/1368430201004003007 Journal ofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,2, (pp. 33-47). Monterey, С A: Brooks/Cole. (pp.33-47).Monterey,СA: 1-39.doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182 Chicago,IL:CenterforResearchinLaw Journal ofSocialIssues,64(2), Psychological Science,16, 405-425. doi: 10.1080/00221309 405-425.doi:10.1080/00221309 Interim reportofthestatepolice Illinois trafficstopsstatistics Improving intergrouprelations. European JournalofSocial 32,857-864.doi:10.1037/ Group Processes&Inter­ http://www.state.nj.us/ The socialpsychology 184-186.doi: Understanding social Social psychology http://www.dot Paperpre­ 474-480. Scientific Annual Journal of Discrim­ 403-416. The 48-55.

(8th

683 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Allport (1954,p.9) Tajfel (1982,p.3) 684 362) Aronson, Wilson,&Akert(2012,p. (1994,p.216) Taylor, Peplau,&Sears 49) Worchel, Cooper,&Goethals(1988,p. Aronson (1988,p.231) Myers (1995,p.G-10) Backman(1964,p.413) Secord & Simpson & Yinger (1985, p.21) Simpson &Yinger Dollard, Doob,Miller,Mowrer,&Sears Stangor (2000,p.1) 125) Stephan &(1993,p. Eagly & Dickman (2005,p.31) Eagly & 11) Nelson (2002,p. 386) Franzoi (1996,p. (1996,p.504) Feagin & Mackie (1995,p.170) E. R.Smith& 8) Brown (1995,p. 272) Lippa (1994,p. (1994, p.464) Brewer &Crono 304) E. R.Smith(1993,p. p.459) Brigham (1991, 526) Graziano(1991,p. Baron & 218) Byrne(1974,p. Baron & (1939, p.152) Citation Definitions ofPrejudice a socialemotionexperiencedwithrespecttoone'sidentityas a negativeattitudethatisconsideredtobeunjustifiedbyanobserver" an unjustifiednegativeattitudetowardsindividualbasedsolelyonthat a hostileornegativeattitudetowarddistinguishablegroupbasedon an emotional,rigidattitude(apredispositiontorespondacertain a favorableorunfavorablepredispositiontowardanymemberofthe an attitudethatpredisposesapersontothink,perceive,feel,andactin an antipathybaseduponafaultyandinflexiblegeneralization" an antipathy,feltorexpressed,baseduponafaultygeneralization and a positiveornegativeevaluationofsocialgroupanditsmembers" an unjustifiable(andusuallynegative)attitudetowardagroupandits the holdingofderogatorysocialattitudesorcognitivebeliefs, a hostileornegativeattitudetowardpeopleindistinguishablegroup, the relativedevaluationinspecificrolecontextsofmembersa an evaluation(positiveornegative)[and]abiasedperceptionof a group a negativefeelingorattitudetowardthemembersofgroup" a negativeattitudedirectedtowardpeoplesimplybecause theyare negative attitudestowardmembersofsocialgroups" Prejudice referstoaspecialtypeof Race prejudice,accordingtothepresentview,isaformofaggression" negative attitudethatisbasedonanotherperson'smembershipina negative evaluationstowardtheoutgroup" negative affectdirectedtowardallmembersofaspecificsocialcategory" negative evaluationsofsocialgroups" social group" group" directed towardagroupaswholeorindividualmembers ofa of thatgroup" expression ofnegativeaffectorthedisplayhostilediscriminatory group member,withanoutgroupasatarget" generalizations derivedfromfaultyorincompleteinformation" stimulus inacertainway)towardgroupofpeople" category inquestion" toward themembersofsomesocialgroup" favorable orunfavorablewaystowardagroupitsindividual predisposition todiscriminatoryaction" members [involving]stereotypedbeliefs,negativefeelings,anda behaviour towardsmembersofagrouponaccounttheirmembership based particular groupcomparedtoequivalentmembersofothergroups" members ofaspecificsocialgroup" individual's membershipinagroup" members" . basedontherealorimaginedcharacteristicsofgroup" Appendix solely ontheirmembershipinthatgroup" attitude Definition October 2014·American Psychologist —generally anegativeone—