DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring Prejudice Toward Aboriginal People: Interviews with White

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring Prejudice Toward Aboriginal People: Interviews with White Exploring Prejudice toward Aboriginal People: Interviews with White Canadian University Students A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Arts Degree in the Department of Psychology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada By Melanie A. Brockman © Melanie A. Brockman, August 2013. All rights reserved. Exploring Prejudice PERMISSION TO USE In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a post-graduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the libraries of this university may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor who supervised my thesis work or, in his absence, by the Head of the Department of Psychology or the Dean of the College of Arts and Science. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis, or parts thereof, for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis, in whole or in part, should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Psychology University of Saskatchewan Arts 154, 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A5 i Exploring Prejudice ABSTRACT Although Aboriginal people in Canada are subject to marginalization and racism, researchers have devoted limited attention to studying White Canadians’ prejudice toward this group. In addition, little qualitative research has been conducted with individuals known to possess prejudiced attitudes. This study addressed these gaps in the literature. A two-part mixed-methods approach was employed. In Phase 1, a questionnaire was administered to 192 non-Aboriginal undergraduate students. Endorsement of old-fashioned prejudice was somewhat low, though a sizeable minority of participants (29%) scored above the midpoint on this measure. The mean score on the modern prejudice measure was above the scale midpoint, and the majority of the sample (61%) scored above the midpoint, suggesting that modern prejudice toward Aboriginal people was fairly prevalent in this sample. Phase 1 participants who scored above the midpoint on one or both prejudice measures and reported a White ethnicity were invited to participate in an interview. Interviews with 13 of these individuals (nine women and four men) were analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. The themes that emerged have provided insight into the ways in which old-fashioned and modern prejudiced attitudes toward Aboriginal people are created and maintained. The socialization process emerged as a key contributor to participants’ attitudes toward Aboriginal people (e.g., internalization of stereotypes about Aboriginal people). Modern prejudiced sentiments mainly revolved around the perceived unfairness of the presumed special treatment of Aboriginal people in Canada. Ambivalence toward Aboriginal people, a core feature of modern prejudice, was also observed. Consistent with the conceptualization of old-fashioned prejudice, some participants implied that Aboriginal people possess inherent inferiorities (e.g., poor work ethic) that are responsible for the social problems they encounter. This was often linked to a perception that Aboriginal people have the choice to advance themselves, but many are content with being financially dependent on the government. It is posited that participants’ apparent surface-level evaluations and understandings of Aboriginal people and social issues demonstrate that increased awareness and education may be needed among the Canadian public (e.g., regarding societal factors that serve to maintain inequality). Limitations of this study along with avenues for future research are also discussed. ii Exploring Prejudice ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This undertaking would not have been possible without the support of several individuals. I would first like to sincerely thank my supervisor, Dr. Todd Morrison, for his guidance and support throughout my graduate studies as well as his professional, respectful, and easy-going approach to working with me. His knowledge and expertise, along with his feedback on my coursework and thesis, has been highly valuable in expanding my skills as a researcher. I am very grateful for the advice I have received from my committee members, Dr. Melanie Morrison and Dr. Louise Alexitch. I really appreciate the positive interactions I have had with them and the time they devoted to my thesis. Dr. Morrison’s expertise in the area of prejudice toward Aboriginal people and Dr. Alexitch’s expertise in the area of survey research were particularly beneficial to me in light of the objectives of this research. I would like to thank the individuals who participated in my study, especially those who devoted time and effort to participating in an interview surrounding a socially sensitive topic. Lastly, I would like to thank my family and friends for their interest and encouragement along the way. I feel very fortunate to have such amazing people in my life. I would especially like to express thanks to my partner Brodie, whose friendship, patience, and support was tremendously instrumental in the completion of my thesis. iii Exploring Prejudice TABLE OF CONTENTS PERMISSION TO USE ................................................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................... viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... ix 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview of Prejudice ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.1.1 Causes and correlates of prejudice ......................................................................................... 3 1.1.2 Types of prejudice ................................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Literature Review of Prejudice toward Indigenous Peoples ............................................................... 8 1.2.1 Australian research ................................................................................................................. 8 1.2.2 American research ................................................................................................................ 11 1.2.3 Canadian research ................................................................................................................ 13 1.2.4 Qualitative research .............................................................................................................. 20 1.3 Measuring Prejudice ......................................................................................................................... 22 1.3.1 Approaches to measurement ................................................................................................. 22 1.3.2 The role of social desirability ............................................................................................... 23 1.4 Purpose and Objectives of this Research .......................................................................................... 24 1.5 Situating Myself in the Research ....................................................................................................... 25 2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................. 25 2.1 Methodological Approach ................................................................................................................ 25 2.2 Methodological Framework .............................................................................................................. 26 2.3 Justification for Data Collection Methods ........................................................................................ 27 2.3.1 Advantages associated with conducting interviews .............................................................. 30 3. PHASE 1: QUESTIONNAIRE STUDY ................................................................................................ 31 3.1 Method .............................................................................................................................................. 31 3.1.1 Participants
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Towards Implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action in Law Schools: a Settler Harm Reduction Ap
    TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THE TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION COMMISSION’S CALLS TO ACTION IN LAW SCHOOLS: A SETTLER HARM REDUCTION APPROACH TO RACIAL STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE AGAINST INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND INDIGENOUS LEGAL ORDERS IN CANADIAN LEGAL EDUCATION SCOTT J. FRANKS A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN LAW OSGOODE HALL LAW SCHOOL YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO August 2020 © Scott J. Franks, 2020 Abstract Many Canadian law schools are in the process of implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Call to Actions #28 and #50. Promising initiatives include mandatory courses, Indigenous cultural competency, and Indigenous law intensives. However, processes of social categorization and racialization subordinate Indigenous peoples and their legal orders in Canadian legal education. These processes present a barrier to the implementation of the Calls. To ethically and respectfully implement these Calls, faculty and administration must reduce racial stereotyping and prejudice against Indigenous peoples and Indigenous legal orders in legal education. I propose that social psychology on racial prejudice and stereotyping may offer non- Indigenous faculty and administration a familiar framework to reduce the harm caused by settler beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors to Indigenous students, professors, and staff, and to Indigenous legal orders. Although social psychology may offer a starting point for settler harm reduction, its application must remain critically oriented towards decolonization. ii Acknowledgments I have a lot of people to acknowledge. This thesis is very much a statement of who I am right now and how that sense of self has been shaped by others.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Effects of Contact on Non-Aboriginal People’S Attitudes Toward Aboriginal People
    CAN CONTACT MAKE A DIFFERENCE?: EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF CONTACT ON NON-ABORIGINAL PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES TOWARD ABORIGINAL PEOPLE A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research For the Degree of Master of Arts In the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon By Erin Lashta Copyright Erin Lashta, April 2015. All rights reserved. Permission to Use In presenting this thesis/dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Postgraduate degree from the University of Saskatchewan, I agree that the Libraries of this University may make it freely available for inspection. I further agree that permission for copying of this thesis/dissertation in any manner, in whole or in part, for scholarly purposes may be granted by the professor or professors who supervised my thesis/dissertation work or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department or the Dean of the College in which my thesis work was done. It is understood that any copying or publication or use of this thesis/dissertation or parts thereof for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. It is also understood that due recognition shall be given to me and to the University of Saskatchewan in any scholarly use which may be made of any material in my thesis/dissertation. Requests for permission to copy or to make other uses of materials in this thesis/dissertation in whole or part should be addressed to: Head of the Department of Political Studies University of Saskatchewan 9 Campus Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5A5 OR Dean College of Graduate Studies and Research University of Saskatchewan 107 Administration Place Saskatoon, Saskatchewan Canada S7N 5A2 i Abstract Utilizing survey data collected through the City Planning and Indigeneity on the Prairies (CPIP) Project in the summer of 2014 this thesis examines what, if any, affect contact between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people has on non-Aboriginal people’s racial attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ambivalent Ageism Scale: Developing and Validating a Scale to Measure Benevolent and Hostile Ageism
    TSpace Research Repository tspace.library.utoronto.ca The Ambivalent Ageism Scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism Lindsey A. Cary, Alison L. Chasteen, & Jessica Remedios Version Accepted Manuscript Citation Cary, L. A., Chasteen, A. L., & Remedios, J. (2017). The ambivalent (published version) ageism scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism. The Gerontologist, 57(2), e27-e36. Publisher’s Statement This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in The Gerontologist following peer review. The version of record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnw118. How to cite TSpace items Always cite the published version, so the author(s) will receive recognition through services that track citation counts, e.g. Scopus. If you need to cite the page number of the author manuscript from TSpace because you cannot access the published version, then cite the TSpace version in addition to the published version using the permanent URI (handle) found on the record page. This article was made openly accessible by U of T Faculty. Please tell us how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Running head: THE AMBIVALENT AGEISM SCALE The Ambivalent Ageism Scale: Developing and validating a scale to measure benevolent and hostile ageism Lindsey A. Cary1, Alison L. Chasteen1, & Jessica Remedios2 The University of Toronto1, Tufts University2 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Lindsey Cary, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Internalization of Sexism: Predictors and Antidotes
    Women’s Internalization of Sexism: Predictors and Antidotes Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) dem Fachbereich Psychologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg vorgelegt von Dipl.-Psych. Julia Christina Becker aus Wipperfürth Marburg/Lahn 2007 Diese Arbeit wurde gefördert durch ein Promotionsstipendium des DFG-Graduiertenkollegs „Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit“ (GRK 884/1-04) an den Universitäten Marburg und Bielefeld. Vom Fachbereich Psychologie der Philipps-Universität Marburg als Dissertation am 24.01.2008 angenommen. Erstgutachter: Prof. Dr. Ulrich Wagner (Philipps-Universität Marburg) Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Sabine Sczesny (Universität Bern) Tag der mündlichen Prüfung am 25.01.2008 2 Table of contents Introduction................................................................................................................. 5 1. Measures of Contemporary Sexism.................................................................... 7 1.1. Modern Sexism and Neosexism................................................................... 7 1.2. Ambivalent Sexism....................................................................................... 9 1.2.1 Ambivalence toward Women .................................................................. 9 1.2.2 Ambivalence toward Men...................................................................... 15 2. Women’s Role in Maintenance of Gender Hegemony: Doing Gender .............. 17 2.1 Prevalence of Doing Gender ......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Processes of Prejudices: Theory, Evidence and Intervention
    Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Abrams, Dominic (2010) Processes of prejudices: Theory, evidence and intervention. Technical report. Equalities and Human Rights Commission DOI Link to record in KAR http://kar.kent.ac.uk/29732/ Document Version Publisher pdf Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 56 Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention Dominic Abrams Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention Dominic Abrams Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent © Equality and Human Rights Commission 2010 First published Spring 2010 ISBN 978 1 84206 270 8 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers.
    [Show full text]
  • Hostility Toward Dominant Culture Individuals and the Perceived Stability of Power Anne Kristine Pihl Gaddis Walden University
    Walden University ScholarWorks Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection 2016 Hostility Toward Dominant Culture Individuals and the Perceived Stability of Power Anne Kristine Pihl Gaddis Walden University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations Part of the Ethnic Studies Commons, and the Social Psychology Commons This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Walden University College of Social and Behavioral Sciences This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by Anne Kristine Pihl Gaddis has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects, and that any and all revisions required by the review committee have been made. Review Committee Dr. Frederica Hendricks-Noble, Committee Chairperson, Psychology Faculty Dr. Robin Oatis-Ballew, Committee Member, Psychology Faculty Dr. Linda Whinghter, University Reviewer, Psychology Faculty Chief Academic Officer Eric Riedel, Ph.D. Walden University 2016 Abstract Hostility Toward Dominant Culture Individuals and the Perceived Stability of Power by Anne Kristine Pihl Gaddis MS, California Coast University, 2009 BS, New Mexico State University, 1998 Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Counseling Psychology Walden University December 2016 Abstract Racism in the United States is persistent and its negative effects are widespread. The social hierarchy in the United States positions White people as the dominant culture and Black people, among other races, as a minority culture.
    [Show full text]
  • Kite & Whitley 3E, Long Toc, P. 1 Long Table of Contents Chapter 1
    Kite & Whitley 3e, Long ToC, p. 1 Long Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introducing the Concepts of Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination Race and Culture Historical Views of Ethnic Groups Cultural Influences on Perceptions of Race and Ethnicity Group Privilege Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Stereotypes Prejudice Discrimination Interpersonal discrimination Organizational discrimination Institutional discrimination Cultural discrimination The Relationships among Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination Targets of Prejudice Racism Gender and Sexual Orientation Age, Ability, and Appearance Classism Religion Theories of Prejudice and Discrimination Scientific Racism Kite & Whitley 3e, Long ToC, p. 2 Psychodynamic Theory Sociocultural Theory Intergroup Relations Theory Cognitive Theory Evolutionary Theory Where Do We Go from Here? Summary Suggested Readings Key Terms Questions for Review and Discussions Chapter 2: How Psychologists Study Prejudice and Discrimination Formulating Hypotheses Measuring Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Reliability and Validity Self-Report Measures Assessing stereotypes Assessing prejudice Assessing behavior Advantages and limitations Unobtrusive Measures Physiological Measures Implicit Cognition Measures Self-Report versus Physiological and Implicit Cognition Measures Using Multiple Measures Kite & Whitley 3e, Long ToC, p. 3 Research Strategies Correlational Studies Survey research The correlation coefficient Correlation and causality Experiments Experimentation and causality Laboratory
    [Show full text]
  • To Download the PDF File
    TARGET RACE AND SHOOTING PERFORMANCE THE INFLUENCE OF TARGET RACE ON SPLIT-SECOND SHOOTING DECISIONS IN SIMULATED SCENARIOS: A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirement of the degree Doctorate of Philosophy by Alyssa Taylor Department of Psychology Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada ©2011 Alyssa Taylor Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-83227-1 Our file Notre rGference ISBN: 978-0-494-83227-1 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduce, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Prejudice As Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures
    Journal of Personalityand SocialPsychology Copyright2000 by the AmericanPsychological Association, Inc. 2000, Vol. 79, No. 5, 763-775 0022-3514/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.763 Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures Peter Glick, Susan T. Fiske, Antonio Mladinic, Jos6 L. Saiz, Dominic Abrams, Barbara Masser, Bolanle Adetoun, Johnstone E. Osagie, Adebowale Akande, Amos Alao, Annetje Brunner, Tineke M. Willemsen, Kettie Chipeta, Benoit Dardenne, Ap Dijksterhuis, Daniel Wigboldus, Thomas Eckes, Iris Six-Materna, Francisca Exp6sito, Miguel Moya, Margaret Foddy, Hyun-Jeong Kim, Mafia Lameiras, Mafia Jos6 Sotelo, Angelica Mucchi-Faina, Myrna Romani, Nuray Sakalh, Bola Udegbe, Mafiko Yamamoto, Miyoko Ui, Mafia Cristina Ferreira, and Wilson L6pez L6pez The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism (HS), but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS.
    [Show full text]
  • Processes of Prejudice: Theory, Evidence and Intervention
    Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 56 Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention Dominic Abrams Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention Dominic Abrams Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent © Equality and Human Rights Commission 2010 First published Spring 2010 ISBN 978 1 84206 270 8 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Contents Page Tables and figures 1 Acknowledgements 2 Executive summary 3 1. Introduction 6 1.1 Context 6 1.2 Structure of the report 7 1.3 Prejudice and good relations 8 2. The social psychology of prejudice 13 2.1 Context of intergroup relations 14 2.2 Bases of prejudice 17 2.3 Manifestations of prejudice 28 2.4 Engagement with prejudice 35 2.5 Prejudice and the different equality strands 45 2.6 Overall summary and conclusions 48 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambivalent Homoprejudice Towards Gay Men
    AMBIVALENT HOMOPREJUDICE TOWARDS GAY MEN Ambivalent Homoprejudice towards Gay Men: Theory Development and Validation Ashley S. Brooks, PhD.1 Russell Luyt, PhD.2 Magdalena Zawisza, PhD.1 Daragh T. McDermott, PhD.1 1Anglia Ruskin University 2 University of Greenwich Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Ashley S. Brooks (email: [email protected]) or Daragh T. McDermott (email: [email protected]) AMBIVALENT HOMOPREJUDICE TOWARDS GAY MEN Abstract Myriad social groups are targets of hostile and benevolent (i.e., ambivalent) prejudice. However, prejudice towards gay men is typically conceptualised as hostile, despite the prevalence of benevolence towards gay men in popular media. This paper aims to compare gay men with other targets of ambivalent prejudice (i.e., women and elderly people), and draw upon the stereotype content and microaggressions literatures in order to develop a theory of ambivalent homoprejudice. The resultant framework, comprising repellent; adversarial; romanticised; and paternalistic homoprejudice was investigated using seven focus groups of heterosexuals and gay men (N = 22) and the findings were consistent with stereotype content theory. Directions for future research into the deleterious effects of ambivalent Homoprejudice and possible empowering interventions are discussed. Key words: Ambivalence, Prejudice, Gay Men, Attitudes, Stereotype Content AMBIVALENT HOMOPREJUDICE TOWARDS GAY MEN “Have you guessed the must-have accessory every woman needs? I’ve got one, so does Linda and Martine, Janet’s got several actually – coming out of her ears, sometimes! What am I talking about? A G.B.F.: A gay best friend.” – Ruth Langsford, Loose Women, ITV Studios (2016) Decades ago, it might have seemed unthinkable that a popular daytime television show such as Loose Women would discuss the topic of homosexuality so openly – let alone in such an admiring manner.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Prejudice: Are Negative Evaluations the Problem and Is Getting Us to Like One Another More the Solution?
    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.
    [Show full text]