BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2012) 35, 411–466 doi:10.1017/S0140525X11002214 Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? John Dixon Department of Psychology, Open University, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA, United Kingdom [email protected] http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/staff/people-profile.php?name= John_Dixon Mark Levine Department of Psychology, Exeter University, Exeter, Devon EX4 4SB, United Kingdom [email protected] http://psychology.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=Mark_Levine Steve Reicher School of Psychology, St Andrews University, St Andrews KY16 9JP, United Kingdom [email protected] http://psy.st-andrews.ac.uk/people/lect/sdr.shtml Kevin Durrheim School of Psychology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 3209, South Africa [email protected] http://psychology.ukzn.ac.za/staff.aspx Abstract: For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and “inclusive” (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality? Keywords: contact; collective action; intergroup relations; prejudice; prejudice reduction social change 1. Introduction as well as a conceptual shift. During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, many scholars favoured con- Over the past century, the concept of prejudice has become ceptual frameworks based around notions of group differ- increasingly central to scientific thinking about relations ences, hierarchy, and biological inheritance (e.g., see between groups, marking a profound moral and political, Goldberg 1993; Haller 1971). By rooting the causes of © Cambridge University Press 2012 0140-525X/12 $40.00 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UKZN University of KwaZulu Natal Library, on 26 Oct 2017 at 12:22:51, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at411 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11002214 Dixon et al.: Beyond prejudice ethnic and racial hostility in the supposed characteristics of adjacent social sciences” (Allport 1951, p. 4). The deluge its targets, these scholars upheld the traditional doctrine of continued in subsequent decades, and prejudice rapidly the “well-deserved reputation” (Zawadzki 1948). Between became a fundamental concept within research on inter- the 1920s and 1940s, however, an “abrupt reversal” (Samelson group relations. 1978)occurredinscientific thinking. Rather than crediting it Yet what is prejudice? The modern roots of the term lie to the inherited deficiencies of minorities, social dishar- in the eighteenth century with enlightenment liberalism, mony was attributed increasingly to the bigotry of majority which distinguished opinions based on religious authority group members.1 In the years following the end of World and tradition from opinions based on reason and scientific War II, the concept of prejudice became central to the rationality (Billig 1988). The legacy of this ideological heri- explanation of a range of social problems, including pro- tance has been prominent in modern research, which often blems of discrimination, inequality, ideological extre- treats prejudice as a form of thinking that distorts social mism, and genocide. By the 1950s, prejudice research reality, leading us to judge “a specific person on the basis had “spread like a flood both in social psychology and in of preconceived notions, without bothering to verify our beliefs or examine the merits of our judgements” (Saenger 1953, p. 3). JOHN DIXON is a professor of Social Psychology at the However, prejudice has seldom been treated purely as a Open University in the United Kingdom. He has pub- matter of irrational beliefs. It has also been widely charac- lished extensively around themes of prejudice, inequal- terized as a negative evaluation2 of others made on the ity, and social change. His research has appeared in basis of their group membership (see Table 1). The journals such as American Psychologist, Psychological nature of the relationship between the cognitive and affec- Science, Current Directions in Psychological Science, the Journal of Social Issues, Political Psychology, the tive dimensions of this kind of evaluation has, of course, British Journal of Social Psychology, and the European generated considerable debate. For some researchers, Journal of Social Psychology. He is currently co-editor prejudice should be regarded as an indissoluble combi- (with Jolanda Jetten) of the British Journal of Social Psy- nation of both; for others, emotional antipathy lies at the chology and is co-author (with Kevin Durrheim) of core of the problem, with concepts such as stereotyping Racial Encounter: The Social Psychology of Contact being treated as empirically related but analytically distinct and Desegregation (Routledge). (e.g., see Duckitt 1992, pp. 11–13). Likewise, although most researchers have conceived prejudice as a generic MARK LEVINE is a professor of Social Psychology at the negative response to members of another group, others University of Exeter in the United Kingdom. His have attempted to differentiate emotional subcategories. research explores the impact of group processes in Kramer (1949) was an early advocate of this approach. His pro-social and anti-social behaviour, with a particular fi focus in the role of third parties in regulating aggressive work pre gured recent developments in research on inter- and violent behaviour. He has published in journals such group emotions, evolutionary psychology, and social neuro- as Psychological Science, American Psychologist, science, which has increasingly focused on target-specific Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personal- reactionssuchasfear,anger,anddisgustandontheevol- ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, and British Journal utionary and neurological mechanisms that underpin such of Social Psychology. He is co-editor (with John reactions (e.g., see Cottrell & Neuberg 2005; Harris & Dixon) of the 2012 book Beyond Prejudice: Extend- fl Fiske 2006; Neuberg et al. 2011; Phelps et al. 2000). ing the Social Psychology of Intergroup Con ict, The underlying causes of our negative evaluations of Inequality and Social Change (Cambridge University others have also been subject to considerable debate, and Press). theoretical accounts have shifted over time. Explanations STEPHEN REICHER is a professor of Psychology at the of prejudice have been grounded variously in personality University of St. Andrews, Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, Academician of the Social Sciences, Table 1. Some definitions of prejudice past editor of the British Journal of Social Psychology and scientific consultant to Scientific American Mind. He works on the relationship between social identity “feelings of intergroup hostility” (Allport & Kramer 1946, p. 9) and collective action and covers such topics as crowd be- “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization” haviour, nationalism, leadership, intergroup hatred, and (Allport 1954, p. 10) the psychology of tyranny. His recent books are The “a negative attitude towards members of a minority group” (Levin New Psychology of Leadership (2010, with Alex & Levin 1982, p. 66) Haslam and Michael Platow) and Mad Mobs and Eng- “a negative attitude towards members of socially defined groups” lishmen?: Myths and Realities of the 2011 Riots (2011, with Clifford Stott). (Stephan 1983, p. 417) “the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the KEVIN DURRHEIM is a professor of Psychology at the expression of negative affect or the display of hostile or University of KwaZulu-Natal, where he teaches social discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group on psychology and research methods. He writes on topics account of their membership of that group” (Brown 1995, p. 8) related to racism, segregation, and social change. He “an unjustified, usually negative, attitude directed towards