Handbook of Psychology Vol. 5

References 479 Most of these issues are rooted in mire produced by two fea- CONCLUSION tures. First, psychologists are not the only ones who care about prosocial behavior. Most research participants see themselves Over the past 30 years the practical concern to promote as good, kind, caring people, and they want to be seen that way prosocial behavior has led to both a variance-accounted-for by others. Second, although cool, cognitive analysis and in- empirical approach and the application of existing psycho- ference are often involved, theory and research on prosocial logical theories. In addition, existing theory has been chal- behavior focuses on relatively hot, active processes—the lenged and new theoretical perspectives developed by a focus interplay of values, emotions, motives, and behavior. These on anomalous aspects of why people do—and don’t—act processes may not be accessible to cool introspection. prosocially. Research has challenged currently dominant the- ories of social motivation and even of human nature—views To reap a fruitful harvest from the mire that these two that limit the human capacity to care to self-interest. This features create, researchers need to avoid the pitfalls of research has raised the possibility of a multiplicity of social demand characteristics, evaluation apprehension, social de- motives—altruism, collectivism, and principlism, as well as sirability, self-presentation, and reactive measures. Conse- egoism. It also has raised important theoretical questions—as quently, research on prosocial behavior still relies heavily on yet unanswered—about how these motives might be most high-impact deception procedures of the sort made famous effectively orchestrated to increase prosocial behavior. More in the social psychology of the 1960s (Aronson, Brewer, & broadly, research in this area takes exception to the currently Carlsmith, 1985). The currently popular procedure of present- dominant focus in social psychology on cognitive representa- ing research participants with descriptions of hypothetical tion of the social environment and processing of social infor- situations and asking them to report what they would do is of mation, calling for increased attention to motives, emotions, limited use when studying prosocial behavior. Commitment to and values. actual behavior—if not the behavior itself—is almost always required (Lerner, 1987). Rather than relying heavily on self- Research on prosocial behavior provides evidence that in reports, thought listing, or retrospective analysis to reveal me- addition to our all-too-apparent failing and fallibilities, we diating psychological processes, we must often study these humans are, at times, capable of caring, and caring deeply, processes indirectly by designing research that allows the for people and issues other than ourselves. This possibility effect of mediators to be inferred from observable behav- has wide-ranging theoretical implications, suggesting that we ior. Typically, this means one must successfully deceive par- are more social than even our most social theories have led ticipants, run the experiments on each participant individually, us to believe. It also has wide-ranging practical implications, use between-group designs, and so on. Clearly, such research is suggesting untapped resources for social change. At present, difficult. Equally clearly, it requires careful sensitivity to and however, these theoretical and practical implications are protection of the welfare and dignity of participants. only partly realized, providing a pressing—and daunting— agenda. Deeming care and sensitivity insufficient, some universi- ties have instituted a blanket prohibition on the use of high- REFERENCES impact deceptions of the kind needed to address key research questions concerning prosocial behavior. It is ironic that the Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz study of prosocial, ethical behavior is one of the areas to suf- (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 1, fer most from restrictions imposed in response to concerns pp. 267–299). New York: Academic. about research ethics. Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Few would disagree that society could benefit from in- Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. creased prosocial behavior. Rage and hate crimes, terrorist attacks, child and spouse abuse, neglect of the homeless, the Aronson, E., Brewer, M., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimenta- plight of people with AIDS, and the growing disparity be- tion in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), tween rich and poor (and smug callousness toward the latter) The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1. Theory and method provide all-too-frequent reminders of crying need. Given the (3rd ed., pp. 441–486). New York: Random House. societal importance of understanding why people act to ben- efit others, given the apparent necessity of using high-impact Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: deception research to provide this understanding, and given Prentice-Hall. the dangers of obtaining misleading information using other methods, it is not the use of these methods, but rather a blan- Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and ket prohibition of them, that seems unethical. action. In W. M. Kurtines & W. M. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development: Vol. 1. Theory (pp. 45–103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

480 Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Bar-Tal, D. (1982). Sequential development of helping behavior: A moral hypocrisy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, cognitive-learning model. Developmental Review, 2, 101–124. 72, 1335–1348. Bar-Tal, D. (1984). American study of helping behavior: What? Batson, C. D., & Moran, T. (1999). Empathy-induced altruism in a why? and where? In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & Prisoner’s Dilemma. European Journal of Social Psychology, J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development and maintenance of proso- 29, 909–924. cial behavior: International perspectives on positive morality (pp. 5–27). New York: Plenum. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychol- stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal ogy (Vol. 20, pp. 65–122). New York: Academic. of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social- Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Strongman, J. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to one- self without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Batson, C. D., & Ahmad, N. (2001). Empathy-induced altruism in a chology, 77, 525–537. Prisoner’s Dilemma: II. What if the target of empathy has defected? European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 25–36. Batson, C. D., & Weeks, J. L. (1996). Mood effects of unsuccessful helping: Another test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., Yin, J., Bedell, S. J., Johnson, J. W., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 148–157. Templin, C. M., & Whiteside, A. (1999). Two threats to the common good: Self-interested egoism and empathy-induced Berkowitz, L. (1972). Social norms, feelings, and other factors af- altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 3–16. fecting helping and altruism. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 63–108). New York: Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Griffitt, C. A., Barrientos, S., Brandt, Academic. J. R., Sprengelmeyer, P., & Bayly, M. J. (1989). Negative-state relief and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personal- Bersoff, D. M. (1999). Why good people sometimes do bad things: ity and Social Psychology, 56, 922–933. Motivated reasoning and unethical behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 28–39. Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy- Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A criti- altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- cal review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 1–45. ogy, 61, 413–426. Brown, J. D., & Smart, S. A. (1991). The self and social conduct: Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Todd, R. M., Brummett, B. H., Shaw, Linking self-representations to prosocial behavior. Journal of L. L., & Aldeguer, C. M. R. (1995). Empathy and the collective Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 368–375. good: Caring for one of the others in a social dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 619–631. Brewer, M. B., & Kramer, R. M. (1986). Choice behavior in social dilemmas: Effects of social identity, group size, and decision Batson, C. D., Bolen, M. H., Cross, J. A., & Neuringer-Benefiel, framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, H. E. (1986). Where is the altruism in the altruistic personality? 543–549. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 212–220. Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and Batson, C. D., Coke, J. S., Jasnoski, M. L., & Hanson, M. (1978). social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. Buying kindness: Effect of an extrinsic incentive for helping on American Psychologist, 30, 1103–1126. perceived altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 86–91. Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic personality: In what contexts is it appar- Batson, C. D., Dyck, J. L., Brandt, J. R., Batson, J. G., Powell, A. L., ent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 450–458. McMaster, M. R., & Griffitt, C. (1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Cialdini, R. B., Baumann, D. J., & Kenrick, D. T. (1981). Insights Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. from sadness: A three-step model of the development of altruism as hedonism. Developmental Review, 1, 207–223. Batson, C. D., Fultz, J., Schoenrade, P. A., & Paduano, A. (1987). Critical self-reflection and self-perceived altruism: When self- Cialdini, R. B., Darby, B. L., & Vincent, J. E. (1973). Transgression reward fails. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, and altruism: A case for hedonism. Journal of Experimental 594–602. Social Psychology, 9, 502–516. Batson, C. D., Klein, T. R., Highberger, L., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus the- Immorality from empathy-induced altruism: When compassion ory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevalua- and justice conflict. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- tion of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), ogy, 68, 1042–1054. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 201– 234). Orlando, FL: Academic. Batson, C. D., Kobrynowicz, D., Dinnerstein, J. L., Kampf, H. C., & Wilson, A. D. (1997). In a very different voice: Unmasking Cialdini, R. B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Arps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A. L. (1987). Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or

References 481 selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Eisenberg, N. (1991). Meta-analytic contributions to the literature ogy, 52, 749–758. on prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 17, 273–282. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior: The case of volunteerism. In M. S. Clark Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. (1987). Empathy and prosocial behavior. (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 119–148). Newbury Park, CA: Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119. Sage. Eisenberg, N., Miller, P. A., Schaller, M., Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emer- Shell, R., & Shea, C. L. (1989). The role of sympathy and altru- gencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and istic personality traits in helping: A re-examination. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 202–214. Personality, 57, 41–67. Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1970). Norms and normative behavior: Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Field studies of social interdependence. In J. Macaulay & CA: Stanford University Press. L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 83–101). New York: Academic. Fisher, J. D., Nadler, A., & Whitcher-Alagna, S. J. (1982). Recipient reactions to aid: A conceptual review and a new theoretical Dawes, R., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1988). Not me or framework. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 27–54. thee but we: The importance of group identity in eliciting coop- eration in dilemma situations: Experimental manipulations. Acta Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Frame- Psychologica, 68, 83–97. work for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723. Dawes, R., van de Kragt, A. J. C., & Orbell, J. M. (1990). Coopera- tion for the benefit of us—not me, or my conscience. In J. J. Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents (J. Riviere, Trans.). Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 97–110). Chicago: London: Hogarth. University of Chicago Press. Gaertner, S. L., & Bickman, L. (1971). Effects of race on the elici- DePaulo, B. M., Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (Eds.). (1983). New direc- tation of helping behavior: The wrong number technique. tions in helping: Vol. 2. Help seeking. New York: Academic. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 218–222. de Waal, F. (1996). Good natured: The origins of rights and wrongs Gibbons, F. X., & Wicklund, R. A. (1982). Self-focused attention in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- and helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- sity Press. chology, 43, 462–474. Dollard, J., & Miller, N. E. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. Gies, M. (1987). Anne Frank remembered: The story of the woman New York: McGraw-Hill. who helped to hide the Frank family. New York: Simon & Schuster. Dovidio, J. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in exper- Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and imental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 361–427). New York: women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Academic. Press. Dovidio, J. F., Allen, J. L., & Schroeder, D. A. (1990). The speci- Gilligan, C., Ward, J. V., & Taylor, J. M. (1988). Mapping the moral ficity of empathy-induced helping: Evidence for altruistic moti- domain: A contribution of women’s thinking to psychological vation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, theory and education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 249–260. Press. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Johnson, J. D. (1999, October). Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New directions in prejudice and prejudice reduction: The role of Garden City, NY: Doubleday/Anchor Books. cognitive representations and affect. Paper presented at the an- nual meeting of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary St. Louis, MO. statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–179. Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Schroeder, D. A., & Greenberg, M. S., & Frisch, D. M. (1972). Effect of intentionality Clark, R. D., III (1991). The arousal/cost-reward model and the on willingness to reciprocate a favor. Journal of Experimental process of intervention: A review of the evidence. In M. S. Clark Social Psychology, 8, 99–111. (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 86–118). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Gruder, C. L., & Cook, T. D. (1971). Sex, dependency, and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 290–294. Eagly, A. H., & Crowley, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Grusec, J. (1991). The socialization of altruism. In M. S. Clark Psychological Bulletin, 100, 283–308. (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 9–33). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Eisenberg, N. (1986). Altruistic emotion, cognition, and behavior. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. York: Wiley. Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Developmental synthesis of affect and cognition and its implications for altruistic motivation. Develop- mental Psychology, 11, 607–622.

482 Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Hoffman, M. L. (1981). Is altruism part of human nature? Journal of Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 121–137. Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Crofts. Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New Latané, B., & Nida, S. A. (1981). Ten years of research on group size York: Harcourt. and helping. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 308–324. Hornstein, H. A. (1982). Promotive tension: Theory and research. In Latané, B., & Rodin, J. A. (1969). A lady in distress: Inhibiting ef- V. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behav- fects of friends and strangers on bystander intervention. Journal ior: Theories and research (pp. 229–248). New York: Academic. of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 189–202. Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton- Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining Century. children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Huston, T. L., & Korte, C. (1976). The responsive bystander: Why Psychology, 28, 129–137. he helps. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues (pp. 269–283). New York: Lerner, M. J. (1970). The desire for justice and reactions to victims. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. In J. Macaulay & L. Berkowitz (Eds.), Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 205–229). New York: Academic. Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972). Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness. Journal of Personality and Social Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delu- Psychology, 21, 344–348. sion. New York: Plenum. Isen, A. M., Shalker, T. E., Clark, M., & Karp, L. (1978). Affect, ac- Lerner, M. J. (1982). The justice motive in human relations and the cessibility of material in memory, and behavior: A cognitive loop? economic model of man: A radical analysis of facts and fictions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1–13. In V. J. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 249–278). New York: Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The Academic. attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219– Lerner, M. J. (1987). Integrating societal and psychological rules of 266). New York: Academic. entitlement: The basic task of each social actor and fundamental problem for the social sciences. Social Justice Research, 1, Kant, I. (1898). Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and other works 107–125. on the theory of ethics (T. K. Abbott, Trans.) (4th ed.). New York: Longmans, Green. (Original work published 1785) Levine, R. V., Martinez, T. S., Brase, G., & Sorenson, K. (1994). Helping in 36 U.S. cities. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- Karylowski, J. (1984). Focus of attention and altruism: Endocentric chology, 67, 69–82. and exocentric sources of altruistic behavior. In E. Staub, D. Bar-Tal, J. Karylowski, & J. Reykowski (Eds.), Development Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoreti- and maintenance of prosocial behavior: International perspec- cal papers. New York: Harper. tives on positive morality (pp. 139–154). New York: Plenum. MacIntyre, A. (1967). Egoism and altruism. In P. Edwards (Ed.), Katz, I., Cohen, S., & Glass, D. (1975). Some determinants of cross- The encyclopedia of philosophy (Vol. 2, pp. 462–466). New racial helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, York: Macmillan. 964–970. MacLean, P. D. (1973). A triune concept of the brain and behavior. Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive- Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. developmental approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral develop- ment and behavior: Theory, research, and social issues Mansbridge, J. J. (1990). Beyond self-interest. Chicago: University (pp. 31–53). New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. of Chicago Press. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, schools. New York: Crown. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Krebs, D. L. (1975). Empathy and altruism. Journal of Personality McDougall, W. (1908). An introduction to social psychology. and Social Psychology, 32, 1134–1146. London: Methuen. Krebs, D. L., & Miller, D. T. (1985). Altruism and aggression. In Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society (posthumous; C. M. G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychol- Morris, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ogy: Vol. 2. Special fields and applications (3rd ed., pp. 1–71). New York: Random House. Miller, D. T. (1999). The norm of self-interest. American Psycholo- gist, 54, 1053–1060. Kurtines, W. M., & Greif, E. B. (1974). The development of moral thought: Review and evaluation of Kohlberg’s approach. Psy- Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1987). Pluralistic ignorance: When chological Bulletin, 81, 453–470. similarity is interpreted as dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 298–305. Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1968). Group inhibition of bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, Miller, D. T., & Ratner, R. K. (1998). The disparity between the 215–221. actual and assumed power of self-interest. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 74, 53–62.

References 483 Nadler, A. (1991). Help-seeking behavior: Psychological costs and Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In instrumental benefits. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 290–311). Newbury, CA: Sage. (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). New York: Academic. Nadler, A., Fisher, J. D., & Ben-Itzhak, S. (1983). With a little help Schwartz, S. H., & Howard, J. (1981). A normative decision-making from my friend: Effect of single or multiple act aid as a function model of altruism. In J. P. Rushton & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), of donor and task characteristics. Journal of Personality and Altruism and helping behavior (pp. 189–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Social Psychology, 44, 310–321. Erlbaum. Oliner, S. P., & Oliner, P. M. (1988). The altruistic personality: Shaw, L. L., Batson, C. D., & Todd, R. M. (1994). Empathy avoid- Rescuers of Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free. ance: Forestalling feeling for another in order to escape the motivational consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without Psychology, 67, 879–887. obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived atti- tude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Shelton, M. L., & Rogers, R. W. (1981). Fear-arousing and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686. empathy-arousing appeals to help: The pathos of persuasion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 11, 366–378. Pearce, P. L., & Amato, P. R. (1980). A taxonomy of helping: A mul- tidimensional scaling analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 43, Smith, K. D., Keating, J. P., & Stotland, E. (1989). Altruism recon- 363–371. sidered: The effect of denying feedback on a victim’s status to empathic witnesses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: ogy, 57, 641–650. Harcourt. Snyder, M. (1993). Basic research and practical problems: The Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: Kegan promise of a “functional” personality and social psychology. Paul. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 251–264. Piliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969). Good Samari- Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social behavior. In tanism: An underground phenomenon. Journal of Personality G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: and Social Psychology, 13, 289–299. Vol. 2. Special fields and applications (3rd ed., pp. 883–948). New York: Random House. Piliavin, J. A., Callero, P. L., & Evans, D. E. (1982). Addiction to altruism?: Opponent-process theory and habitual blood donation. Staub, E. (1974). Helping a distressed person: Social, personality, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1200–1213. and stimulus determinants. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 7, pp. 293–341). New Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H.-W. (1990). Altruism: A review of recent York: Academic. theory and research. American Sociological Review, 16, 27–65. Staub, E. (1989). Individual and societal (group) values in a motiva- Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III tional perspective and their role in benevolence and harmdoing. (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic Press. In N. Eisenberg, J. Reykowski, & E. Staub (Eds.), Social and moral values: Individual and societal perspectives (pp. 45–61). Piliavin, J. A., & Piliavin, I. M. (1972). Effect of blood on reactions Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. to a victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 353–362. Staub, E. (1990). Moral exclusion, personal goal theory, and ex- treme destructiveness. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), 47–64. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stotland, E., Mathews, K. E., Sherman, S. E., Hansson, R. O., & Richardson, B. Z. (1978). Empathy, fantasy, and helping. Reykowski, J. (1982). Motivation of prosocial behavior. In V. J. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Derlega & J. Grzelak (Eds.), Cooperation and helping behavior: Theories and research (pp. 352–375). New York: Academic. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Romer, D., Gruder, C. L., & Lizzardo, T. (1986). A person-situation approach to altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and Tesser, A., Gatewood, R., & Driver, M. S. (1968). Some determi- Social Psychology, 51, 1001–1012. nants of gratitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233–236. Rushton, J. P. (1980). Altruism, socialization and society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Thomas, G. C., Batson, C. D., & Coke, J. S. (1981). Do good samar- itans discourage helpfulness? Self-perceived altruism after expo- Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York: Random House. sure to highly helpful others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 194–200. Schaller, M., & Cialdini, R. B. (1988). The economics of empathic helping: Support for a mood-management motive. Journal of Tolman, E. C. (1923). The nature of instinct. Psychological Bulletin, Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 163–181. 20, 200–218. Schroeder, D. A., Dovidio, J. F., Sibicky, M. E., Matthews, L. L., Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self- & Allen, J. L. (1988). Empathy and helping behavior: Egoism categorization theory. London: Basil Blackwell. or altruism? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 333–353.

484 Altruism and Prosocial Behavior Walker, L. J. (1991). Sex differences in moral reasoning. In W. M. Weyant, J. M. (1978). Effects of mood states, costs, and benefits Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior on helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, and development: Vol. 2. Research (pp. 333–364). Hillsdale, NJ: 1169–1176. Erlbaum. Wilke, H., & Lanzetta, J. T. (1982). The obligation to help: Factors Wallach, M. A., & Wallach, L. (1983). Psychology’s sanction for affecting response to help received. European Journal of Social selfishness: The error of egoism in theory and therapy. San Psychology, 12, 315–319. Francisco: W. H. Freeman. Wilson, J. P. (1976). Motivation, modeling, and altruism: A Person Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions x Situation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 34, 1078–1086. ogy, 25, 151–176. Wispé, L. (1986). The distinction between sympathy and empathy: Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across To call forth a concept, a word is needed. Journal of Personality affective states: The hedonic contingency hypothesis. Journal of and Social Psychology, 50, 314–321. Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034–1048. Wispé, L., & Freshley, H. (1971). Race, sex, and sympathetic Wegner, D. M., & Crano, W. D. (1975). Racial factors in helping helping behavior: The broken bag caper. Journal of Personality behavior: An unobtrusive field experiment. Journal of Personal- and Social Psychology, 17, 59–65. ity and Social Psychology, 32, 901–905. Zahn-Waxler, C., & Radke-Yarrow, M. (1990). The origins of Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model empathic concern. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 107–130. of motivated behavior: An analysis of judgments of help giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200. Zuckerman, M., & Reis, H. T. (1978). Comparison of three models for predicting altruistic behavior. Journal of Personality and West, S. G., Whitney, G., & Schnedler, R. (1975). Helping a Social Psychology, 36, 498–510. motorist in distress: The effects of sex, race, and neighborhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 691–698.

CHAPTER 20 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration JOHN F. DOVIDIO, SAMUEL L. GAERTNER, VICTORIA M. ESSES, AND MARILYNN B. BREWER SOCIAL CONFLICT AND INTEGRATION 485 Challenges to the Decategorization and Recategorization Models 495 INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY 485 Perspectives on Intergroup Relations and Conflict 487 The Mutual Differentiation Model 495 INTERGROUP CONTACT AND THE REDUCTION HARMONY AND INTEGRATION: MAJORITY AND OF BIAS 491 MINORITY PERSPECTIVES 496 Contact and Functional Relations 491 Contact, Categorization, and Identity 492 CONCLUSIONS 498 Decategorization: The Personalization Model 492 Recategorization: The Common In-Group REFERENCES 500 Identity Model 494 SOCIAL CONFLICT AND INTEGRATION INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE IDENTITY Humans are fundamentally social animals. Not only is group Perspectives on social conflict, harmony, and integration have living of obvious contemporary importance (see Spears, reflected a variety of disciplinary orientations. For instance, Oakes, Ellemers, & Haslam, 1997), but also it represents the psychological theories of intergroup attitudes have com- fundamental survival strategy that has likely characterized monly emphasized the role of the individual, in terms of the human species from the beginning (see Simpson & personality and attitude, in social biases and discrimination Kenrick, 1997). The ways in which people understand their (see Duckitt, 1992; Jones, 1997). Traditional psychological group membership thus play a critical role in social conflict theories, such as the work on the authoritarian personality and harmony and in intergroup integration. This chapter (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), examines psychological perspectives on intergroup relations have considered the role of dysfunctional processes in the and their implications for reducing bias and conflict and for overt expression of social biases. More contemporary ap- enhancing social integration. First, we review social psycho- proaches to race relations, such as aversive racism and sym- logical theories on the nature of individual and collective bolic racism perspectives, have considered the contributions identities and their relation to social harmony and conflict. of normal processes (e.g., socialization and social cognition) Then, we examine theoretical perspectives on reducing inter- to the expression of subtle, and often unconscious, biases group bias and promoting social harmony. Next, we explore (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; S. Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; the importance of considering majority and minority perspec- Kovel, 1970; Sears, 1988; Sears & Henry, 2000). In addition, tives on intergroup relations, social conflict, and integration. the role of social norms and standards is emphasized in recent The chapter concludes by considering future directions and reconceptualizations of older measures, such as authoritarian- practical implications. ism. Right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1996, 1998) has been found to be associated with negative attitudes Preparation of this chapter was supported by NIMH Grant MH toward a number of groups, particularly those socially stig- 48721 to the first two authors and an SSHRC Grant to the third matized by society (e.g., Altemeyer, 1996; Esses, Haddock, & author. We gratefully acknowledge the helpful guidance, sugges- Zanna, 1993). tions, and support provided by Mel Lerner and Irv Weiner on earlier versions of the work. Recent approaches to intergroup relations within psychol- ogy have also considered the role of individual differences in 485

486 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration representations of group hierarchy. Social dominance theory From a psychological orientation, Sherif, Harvey, White, (Pratto & Lemieux, 2001; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Hood, and Sherif (1961) similarly proposed that the func- Malle, 1994; see also Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) assumes that tional relations between groups are critical in determining people who are strongly identified with high-status groups intergroup attitudes. According to this position, competition and who see intergroup relations in terms of group competi- between groups produces prejudice and discrimination, tion will be especially prejudiced and discriminatory toward whereas intergroup interdependence and cooperative interac- out-groups. These biases occur spontaneously as a function of tion that result in successful outcomes reduce intergroup bias individual differences in social dominance orientation, in (see also Bobo, 1988; Bobo & Hutchings, 1996; Campbell, contexts in which in-group–out-group distinctions are salient 1965; Sherif, 1966). (Pratto & Shih, 2000). Scales developed to measure social dominance orientation pit the values of group dominance and With respect to the importance of collective identity, equality against each other (see Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & psychological research has emphasized how the salience of Pratto, 1999). People high in social dominance orientation group versus individual identity can influence the way in believe that group hierarchies are inevitable and desirable, which people process social information. In particular, the and they may thus see the world as involving competition operation of group-level processes has been hypothesized to between groups for resources. They endorse items such as, be dynamically distinct from the influence of individual-level “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups” processes. Different modes of functioning are involved, and and “Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.” In- these modes critically influence how people perceive others dividuals high in social dominance orientation believe that and experience their own sense of identity. In terms of per- unequal social outcomes and social hierarchies are appropri- ceptions of others, for example, Brewer (1988) proposed a ate and therefore support an unequal distribution of resources dual process model of impression formation (see also the among groups in ways that usually benefit their own group continuum model; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; see also Fiske, (see Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Levin, & Pratto, 1996). In- Lin, & Neuberg, 1999). The primary distinction in Brewer’s dividuals low in social dominance orientation, in contrast, are model is between two types of processing: person based and generally concerned about the welfare of others and are em- category based. Person-based processing is bottom up and pathic and tolerant of other individuals and groups (Pratto data driven, involving the piecemeal acquisition of informa- et al., 1994). They tend to endorse items such as, “Group tion that begins “at the most concrete level and stops at the equality should be our ideal” and “We would have fewer lowest level of abstraction required by the prevailing pro- problems if we treated people more equally.” cessing objectives” (Brewer, 1988, p. 6). Category-based processing, in contrast, proceeds from global to specific; it is Sociological theories, in contrast, have frequently empha- top-down. In top-down processing, how the external reality is sized the role of large-scale social and structural dynamics in perceived and experienced is influenced by category-based, intergroup relations in general and in race relations in partic- subjective impressions. According to Brewer, category-based ular (Blauner, 1972; Bonacich, 1972; Wilson, 1978). These processing is more likely to occur than is person-based pro- theories have considered the dynamics of race relations cessing because social information is typically organized largely in economic and class-based terms—and often to the around social categories. exclusion of individual influences (see Bobo, 1999). With respect to one’s sense of identity, social identity Despite the existence of such divergent views, both socio- theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and self-categorization theory logical and psychological approaches have converged to rec- (Turner, 1985; see also Onorato & Turner, 2001) view the ognize the importance of understanding the impact of group distinction between personal identity and social identity as a functions and collective identities on race relations (see Bobo, critical one (see Spears, 2001). When personal identity is 1999). In terms of group functions, Blumer (1958a, 1958b, salient, a person’s individual needs, standards, beliefs, and 1965a, 1965b), for instance, offered a sociologically based motives primarily determine behavior. In contrast, when approach focusing on defense of group position, in which social identity is salient, “people come to perceive them- group competition and threat were considered fundamental selves as more interchangeable exemplars of a social cate- processes in the development and maintenance of social bi- gory than as unique personalities defined by their individual ases. With respect to race relations, Blumer (1958a) wrote, differences from others” (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & “Race prejudice is a defensive reaction to such challenging of Wetherell, 1987, p. 50). Under these conditions, collective the sense of group position. . . . As such, race prejudice is a needs, goals, and standards are primary. protective device. It functions, however shortsightedly, to pre- serve the integrity and position of the dominant group” (p. 5). This perspective also proposes that a person defines or cat- egorizes the self along a continuum that ranges at one extreme

Individual and Collective Identity 487 from the self as a separate individual with personal motives, perceptions, and behavior toward in-group versus out-group goals, and achievements to the self as the embodiment of a so- members that can ultimately create a self-fulfilling prophecy. cial collective or group. At the individual level, one’s personal Initial in-group favoritism can also provide a foundation for welfare and goals are most salient and important. At the group embracing more negative intergroup feelings and beliefs that level, the goals and achievements of the group are merged result from intrapersonal, cultural, economic, and political with one’s own (see Brown & Turner, 1981), and the group’s factors. In the next section we describe alternative, and ulti- welfare is paramount. At each extreme, self-interest fully is mately complementary, theoretical approaches to intergroup represented by the pronouns “I” and “We,” respectively. Inter- conflict and integration. group relations begin when people think about themselves as group members rather than solely as distinct individuals. Perspectives on Intergroup Relations and Conflict Illustrating the dynamics of this distinction, Verkuyten and In general, research on social conflict, harmony, and inte- Hagendoorn (1998) found that when individual identity was gration has adopted one of two perspectives, one with an primed, individual differences in authoritarianism were the emphasis on the functional relations between groups and the major predictor of the prejudice of Dutch students toward other on the role of collective identities. Turkish migrants. In contrast, when social identity (i.e., national identity) was made salient, in-group stereotypes Functional Relations Between Groups and standards primarily predicted prejudiced attitudes. Thus, whether personal or collective identity is more salient criti- Theories based on functional relations often point to competi- cally shapes how a person perceives, interprets, evaluates, and tion and consequent perceived threat as a fundamental cause responds to situations and to others (Kawakami & Dion, 1993, of intergroup prejudice and conflict. Realistic group conflict 1995). theory (Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966), for example, posits that perceived group competition for resources produces ef- Although the categorization process may place the person forts to reduce the access of other groups to the resources. This at either extreme of the continuum from personal identity to process was illustrated in classic work by Muzafer Sherif and social identity, people often seek an intermediate point to his colleagues (Sherif et al., 1961). In 1954 Sherif and his col- balance their need to be different from others and their need leagues conducted a field study on intergroup conflict in an to belong and share a sense of similarity to others (Brewer, area adjacent to Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma. In this 1991). This balance enhances one’s feelings of connection study 22 12-year-old boys attending summer camp were ran- to the group and increases group cohesiveness and social domly assigned to two groups (who subsequently named harmony (Hogg, 1996). However, social categorization into themselves Eagles and Rattlers). Over a period of weeks they in-groups and out-groups also lays the foundation for the became aware of the other group’s existence, engaged in a development of intergroup bias or ethnocentrism. In addition, series of competitive activities that generated overt intergroup intergroup relations tend to be less positive than interpersonal conflict, and ultimately participated in a series of cooperative relations. Insko, Schopler, and their colleagues have demon- activities designed to ameliorate conflict and bias. strated a fundamental individual-group discontinuity effect in which groups are greedier and less trustworthy than indi- To permit time for group formation (e.g., norms and a viduals (Insko et al., 2001; Schopler & Insko, 1992). As a leadership structure), the two groups were kept completely consequence, relations between groups tend to be more com- apart for one week. During the second week the investigators petitive and less cooperative than those between individuals. introduced competitive relations between the groups in the In general, then, the social categorization of others and oneself form of repeated competitive athletic activities centering plays a significant role in prejudice and discrimination. around tug-of-war, baseball, and touch football, with the win- ning group receiving prizes. As expected, the introduction of Although social categorization generally leads to inter- competitive activities generated derogatory stereotypes and group bias, the nature of that bias—whether it is based on in- conflict among these groups. These boys, however, did not group favoritism or extends to derogation and negative simply show in-group favoritism as we frequently see in lab- treatment of the out-group—depends on a number of factors, oratory studies. Rather, there was genuine hostility between such as whether the structural relations between groups and these groups. Each group conducted raids on the other’s cab- associated social norms foster and justify hostility or contempt ins that resulted in the destruction and theft of property. (Mummendey & Otten, 2001; Otten & Mummendey, 2000). The boys carried sticks, baseball bats, and socks filled with However, different treatment of in-group versus out-group rocks as potential weapons. Fistfights broke out between members, whether rooted in favoritism for one group or derogation of another, can lead to different expectations,

488 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration members of the groups, and food and garbage fights erupted interaction with other groups (Insko et al., 2001) decreases in the dinning hall. In addition, group members regularly ex- intergroup bias. changed verbal insults (e.g., “ladies first”) and name-calling (e.g., “sissies,” “stinkers,” “pigs,” “bums,” “cheaters,” and Recently, Esses and her colleagues (Esses, Dovidio, “communists”). Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Jackson & Esses, 2000) have integrated work on re- During the third week, Sherif and his colleagues arranged alistic group conflict theory (Campbell, 1965; LeVine & intergroup contact under neutral, noncompetitive condi- Campbell, 1972; Sherif, 1966; see also Bobo, 1988) and tions. These interventions did not calm the ferocity of the social dominance theory (Pratto, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, exchanges, however. Mere intergroup contact was not suffi- 1999) within the framework of the instrumental model of cient to change the nature of the relations between the groups. group conflict. This model proposes that resource stress (the Only after the investigators altered the functional relations perception that access to a desired resource, such as wealth or between the groups by introducing a series of superordinate political power, is limited) and the salience of a potentially goals—ones that could not be achieved without the full competitive out-group lead to perceived group competition cooperation of both groups and which were successfully for resources. Several factors may determine the degree achieved—did the relations between the two groups become of perceived resource stress, with the primary ones including more harmonious. perceived scarcity of resources and individual or group sup- port for an unequal distribution of resources, which is closely Sherif et al. (1961) proposed that functional relations related to social dominance orientation (Pratto et al., 1994). between groups are critical in determining intergroup Moreover, resource stress is likely to lead to perceived group attitudes. When groups are competitively interdependent, the competition when a relevant out-group is present. Some interplay between the actions of each group results in positive groups are more likely to be perceived as competitors than are outcomes for one group and negative outcomes for the other. others. Out-groups that are salient and distinct from one’s Thus, in the attempt to obtain favorable outcomes for them- own group are especially likely to stand out as potential com- selves, the actions of the members of each group are also petitors. However, potential competitors must also be similar realistically perceived to be calculated to frustrate the goals to the in-group on dimensions that make them likely to take of the other group. Therefore, a win-lose, zero-sum competi- resources. That is, they must be interested in similar resources tive relation between groups can initiate mutually negative and in a position to potentially take these resources. feelings and stereotypes toward the members of the other group. In contrast, a cooperatively interdependent relation be- The combination of resource stress and the presence of a tween members of different groups can reduce bias (Worchel, potentially competitive out-group leads to perceived group 1986). competition. Such perceived group competition is likely to take the form of zero-sum beliefs: beliefs that the more the Functional relations do not have to involve explicit compe- other group obtains, the less is available for one’s own group. tition with members of other groups to generate biases. In the There is a perception that any gains that the other group might absence of any direct evidence, people typically presume that make must be at the expense of one’s own group. The model is members of other groups are competitive and will hinder the termed the instrumental model of group conflict because atti- attainment of one’s goals (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993). Moreover, tudes and behaviors toward the competitor out-group are hy- feelings of interdependence on members of one’s own group pothesized to reflect strategic attempts to remove the source of may be sufficient to produce bias. Rabbie’s behavioral interac- competition. Efforts to remove the other group from competi- tion model (see Rabbie & Lodewijkx, 1996; Rabbie & Schot, tion may include out-group derogation, discrimination, and 1990; cf. Bourhis, Turner, & Gagnon, 1997), for example, avoidance of the other group. One may express negative atti- argues that either intragroup cooperation or intergroup com- tudes and attributions about members of the other group in an petition can stimulate intergroup bias. Similarly, L. Gaertner attempt to convince both one’s own group and other groups of and Insko (2000), who unconfounded the effects of catego- the competitors’ lack of worth. Attempts to eliminate the rization and outcome dependence, demonstrated that depen- competition may also entail discrimination and opposition to dence on in-group members could independently generate policies and programs that may benefit the other group. Limit- intergroup bias among men. Perhaps as a consequence of ing the other group’s access to the resources also reduces feelings of outcome dependence, allowing opportunities for competition. Consistent with this model, Esses and her col- greater interaction among in-group members increases in- leagues have found that individuals in Canada and the United tergroup bias (L. Gaertner & Schopler, 1998), whereas in- States perceive greater threat, are more biased against, and are creasing interaction between members of different groups more motivated to exclude immigrant groups that are seen as (S. Gaertner et al., 1999) or even the anticipation of future

Individual and Collective Identity 489 involved in a zero-sum competition for resources with nonim- p. 170). Because of the centrality of the self in social per- migrants (Esses et al., 1998, 2001; Jackson & Esses, 2000). ception (Higgins & Bargh, 1987; Kihlstrom et al., 1988), we propose that social categorization involves most fundamen- Discrimination can serve less tangible collective functions tally a distinction between the group containing the self (the as well as concrete instrumental objectives. Blumer (1958a) in-group) and other groups (the out-groups) between the acknowledged that the processes for establishing group posi- “we’s” and the “they’s” (see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner tion may involve goals such as gaining economic advantage, et al., 1987). This distinction has a profound influence on but they may also be associated with the acquisition of intan- evaluations, cognitions, and behavior. gible resources such as prestige. Taylor (2000), in fact, sug- gested that symbolic, psychological factors are typically Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and, more more important in intergroup bias than are tangible resources. recently, self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985; Turner Theoretical developments in social psychology, stimulated by et al., 1987) address the fundamental process of social catego- social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), further high- rization. From a social categorization perspective, when peo- light the role of group categorization, independent of actual ple or objects are categorized into groups, actual differences realistic group conflict, in motivations to achieve favorable between members of the same category tend to be perceptually group identities (“positive distinctiveness”) and consequently minimized (Tajfel, 1969) and often ignored in making deci- on the arousal of intergroup bias and discrimination. sions or forming impressions. Members of the same category seem to be more similar than they actually are, and more sim- Collective Identity ilar than they were before they were categorized together. In addition, although members of a social category may be dif- Human activity is rooted in interdependence. Group systems ferent in some ways from members of other categories, these involving greater mutual cooperation have substantial sur- differences tend to become exaggerated and overgeneralized. vival advantages for individual group members over those Thus, categorization enhances perceptions of similarities systems without reciprocally positive social relations (Trivers, within groups and differences between groups—emphasizing 1971). However, the decision to cooperate with nonrelatives social difference and group distinctiveness. This process is not (i.e., to expend resources for another’s benefit) is a dilemma of benign because these within- and between-group distortions trust because the ultimate benefit for the provider depends on have a tendency to generalize to additional dimensions (e.g., others’ willingness to reciprocate. Indiscriminate trust and al- character traits) beyond those that differentiated the categories truism that are not reciprocated are not effective survival originally (Allport, 1954, 1958). Furthermore, as the salience strategies. of the categorization increases, the magnitude of these distor- tions also increases (Abrams, 1985; Brewer, 1979; Brewer & Social categorization and group boundaries provide a basis Miller, 1996; Dechamps & Doise, 1978; Dion, 1974; Doise, for achieving the benefits of cooperative interdependence 1978; Skinner & Stephenson, 1981; Turner, 1981, 1985). without the risk of excessive costs. In-group membership is a form of contingent cooperation. By limiting aid to mutually Moreover, in the process of categorizing people into two acknowledged in-group members, total costs and risks of non- different groups, people typically classify themselves into reciprocation can be contained. Thus, in-groups can be de- one of the social categories and out of the other. The insertion fined as bounded communities of mutual trust and obligation of the self into the social categorization process increases the that delimit mutual interdependence and cooperation. The emotional significance of group differences and thus leads to ways in which people understand their group membership further perceptual distortion and to evaluative biases that thus play a critical role in social harmony and conflict. reflect favorably on the in-group (Sumner, 1906), and conse- quently on the self (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Tajfel and Turner Models of category-based processing (Brewer, 1988; see (1979), in their social identity theory, proposed that a person’s also Fiske et al., 1999) assume that “the mere presentation of a need for positive identity may be satisfied by membership in stimulus person activates certain classification processes that prestigious social groups. This need also motivates social occur automatically and without conscious intent. . . . The comparisons that favorably differentiate in-group from out- process is one of ‘placing’ the individual social object along group members, particularly when self-esteem has been chal- well-established stimulus dimensions such as age, gender, lenged (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). For example, Meindl and and skin color” (Brewer, 1988, pp. 5–6). We have further Lerner (1984) found that experiencing an esteem-lowering hypothesized that “a primitive type of categorization may also experience (committing an unintentional transgression) moti- have a high probability of spontaneously occurring, perhaps in vated people to reject an opportunity for equal status contact parallel process. This is the categorization of individuals as between the in-group and an out-group in favor of interaction members of one’s ingroup or not” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1993,

490 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration that implied the more positive status of the in-group. Within In terms of information processing, people retain more social identity theory, successful intergroup discrimination information in a more detailed fashion for in-group members is then presumed to restore, enhance, or elevate one’s self- than for out-group members (Park & Rothbart, 1982), have esteem (see Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). better memory for information about ways in which in-group members are similar and out-group members are dissimilar to As we noted earlier, the social identity perspective (see also the self (Wilder, 1981), and remember less positive informa- self-categorization theory; Turner et al., 1987) also proposes tion about out-group members (Howard & Rothbart, 1980). that a person defines or categorizes the self along a continuum Perhaps because of the greater self-other overlap in represen- that ranges at one extreme from the self as the embodiment tations for people defined as in-group members (E. R. Smith & of a social collective or group to the self as a separate individ- Henry, 1996), people process information about and make ual with personal motives, goals, and achievements. Self- attributions to in-group members more on the basis of self- categorization in terms of collective identity, in turn, increases congruency than they do for out-group members (Gramzow, the likelihood of the development of intergroup biases and Gaertner, & Sedikides, 2001). conflict (Schopler & Insko, 1992). As Sherif et al.’s (1961) initial observations revealed, intergroup relations begin to People are also more generous and forgiving in their expla- sour soon after people categorize others in terms of in-group nations for the behaviors of in-group relative to out-group and out-group members: “Discovery of another group of members. Positive behaviors and successful outcomes are campers brought heightened awareness of ‘us’ and ‘ours’ as more likely to be attributed to internal, stable characteristics contrasted with ‘outsiders’ and ‘intruders,’ [and] an intense (the personality) of in-group than out-group members, desire to compete with the other group in team games” (Sherif whereas negative outcomes are more likely to be ascribed to et al., 1961, p. 95). Thus, social categorization lays the foun- the personalities of out-group members than of in-group mem- dation for intergroup bias and conflict that can lead to, and be bers (Hewstone, 1990; Pettigrew, 1979). Observed behaviors further exacerbated by, competition between these groups. of in-group and out-group members are encoded in memory at different levels of abstraction (Maass, Ceccarelli, & Rudin, Additional research has demonstrated just how powerfully 1996). Undesirable actions of out-group members are en- mere social categorization can influence differential thinking, coded at more abstract levels that presume intentionality and feeling and behaving toward in-group versus out-group mem- dispositional origin (e.g., she is hostile) than identical behav- bers. Upon social categorization of individuals into in-groups iors of in-group members (e.g., she slapped the girl). Desirable and out-groups, people spontaneously experience more posi- actions of out-group members, however, are encoded at more tive affect toward the in-group (Otten & Moskowitz, 2000; concrete levels (e.g., she walked across the street holding Otten & Wentura, 1999). They also favor in-group members the old man’s hand) relative to the same behaviors of in-group directly in terms of evaluations and resource allocations members (e.g., she is helpful). (Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971), as well as indirectly in valuing the products of Language plays another role in intergroup bias through as- their work (Ferguson & Kelley, 1964). In addition, in-group sociations with collective pronouns. Collective pronouns such membership increases the psychological bond and feelings of as “we” or “they” that are used to define people’s in-group or “oneness” that facilitate the arousal of promotive tension or out-group status are frequently paired with stimuli having empathy in response to others’ needs or problems (Hornstein, strong affective connotations. As a consequence, these pro- 1976). In part as a consequence, prosocial behavior is offered nouns may acquire powerful evaluative properties of their more readily to in-group than to out-group members (Dovidio own. These words (we, they) can potentially increase the et al., 1997; Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark, 1981). Peo- availability of positive or negative associations and thereby ple are also more likely to initiate “heroic” action on behalf of influence beliefs about, evaluations of, and behaviors to- an in-group member than another person, for example by di- ward other people—often automatically and unconsciously rectly confronting a transgressor who insults the person (Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman, & Tyler, 1990). (Meindl & Lerner, 1983). Moreover, people are more likely to be cooperative and exercise more personal restraint when The process of social categorization, however, is not com- using endangered common resources when these are shared pletely unalterable. Categories are hierarchically organized, with in-group members than with others (Kramer & Brewer, and higher level categories (e.g., nations) are more inclusive 1984), and they work harder for groups they identify more as of lower level ones (e.g., cities or towns). By modifying a per- their in-group (Worchel, Rothgerber, Day, Hart, & Butemeyer, ceiver’s goals, motives, past experiences, and expectations, as 1998). well as factors within the perceptual field and the situational context more broadly, there is opportunity to alter the level of

Intergroup Contact and the Reduction of Bias 491 category inclusiveness that will be primary in a given situa- the most influential strategies involves creating and structur- tion. Although perceiving people in terms of a social category ing intergroup contact. is easiest and most common in forming impressions, particu- larly during bitter intergroup conflict, appropriate goals, INTERGROUP CONTACT AND THE REDUCTION motivation, and effort can produce more individuated impres- OF BIAS sions of others (Brewer, 1988; Fiske et al., 1999). This mal- leability of the level at which impressions are formed—from For the past 50 years the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954; broad to more specific categories to individuated responses— Amir, 1969; Cook, 1985; Watson, 1947; Williams, 1947; see is important because of its implications for altering the way also Pettigrew, 1998a; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000) has repre- people think about members of other groups, and conse- sented a promising and popular strategy for reducing inter- quently about the nature of intergroup relations. group bias and conflict. This hypothesis proposes that simple contact between groups is not automatically sufficient to im- Although functional and social categorization theories of prove intergroup relations. Rather, for contact between groups intergroup conflict and social harmony suggest different to reduce bias successfully, certain prerequisite features must psychological mechanisms, these approaches may offer be present. These characteristics of contact include equal sta- complementary rather than necessarily competing explana- tus between the groups, cooperative (rather than competitive) tions. For instance, realistic threats and symbolic threats intergroup interaction, opportunities for personal acquain- reflect different hypothesized causes of discrimination, but tance between the members (especially with those whose per- they can operate jointly to motivate discriminatory behavior. sonal characteristics do not support stereotypic expectations), W. Stephan and his colleagues (Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & and supportive norms by authorities within and outside of the Duran, 2000; Stephan & Stephan, 2000; Stephan, Ybarra, contact situation (Cook, 1985; Pettigrew, 1998a). Research in Martinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa, 1998) have found laboratory and field settings generally supports the efficacy of that personal negative stereotypes, realistic group threat, and the list of prerequisite conditions for achieving improved symbolic group threat all predict discrimination against intergroup relations (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000). other groups (e.g., immigrants), and each accounts for a unique portion of the effect. In addition, personal-level Contact and Functional Relations biases and collective biases may also have separate and additive influences. Bobo and his colleagues (see Bobo, Consistent with functional theories of intergroup relations, 1999) have demonstrated that group threat and personal changing the nature of interdependence between members prejudice can contribute independently to discrimination of different groups from perceived competition to coopera- against other groups. The independence of these effects tion significantly improves intergroup attitudes (Blanchard, points to the importance of considering each of these per- Weigel, & Cook, 1975; Cook, 1985; Deutsch & Collins, spectives for a comprehensive understanding of social con- 1951; Green, Adams, & Turner, 1988; Stephan, 1987; flict and integration, while at the same time reinforcing the Weigel, Wiser, & Cook, 1975). Cooperative learning (Slavin, theoretical distinctions among the hypothesized underlying 1985), jigsaw classroom interventions in which students are mechanisms. interdependent on one another in problem-solving exercises (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997), and more comprehensive ap- Given the centrality and spontaneity of the social catego- proaches in schools that involve establishing a cooperative rization of people into in-group and out-group members, and community, resolving conflicts, and internalizing civic values given the important role of functional relations between (e.g., Peacekeepers; Johnson & Johnson, 2000) also support groups in a world of limited resources that depend on differ- the fundamental principles outside of the laboratory. Al- entiation between in-group and out-group members, how can though it is difficult to establish all of these conditions in bias be reduced? Because categorization is a basic process that intergroup contact situations, the formula is effective when is fundamental to prejudice and intergroup conflict, some con- these conditions are met (Cook, 1984; Johnson, Johnson, & temporary work has targeted this process as a place to begin to Maruyama, 1983; Pettigrew, 1998a). improve intergroup relations. This work also considers the functional relations among groups. In the next section we Structurally, however, the contact hypothesis has repre- explore how the forces of categorization may be disarmed or sented a list of loosely connected, diverse conditions rather redirected to promote more positive intergroup attitudes—and than a unifying conceptual framework that explains how these potentially begin to penetrate the barriers to reconciliation among groups with a history of antagonistic relations. One of

492 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration prerequisite features achieve their effects. This is problematic cognitive representations in ways that eliminate one or more because political and socioeconomic circumstances (e.g., real of the basic features of the negative intergroup schema. or perceived competitive, zero-sum outcomes) often preclude Based on the premises of social identity theory, three alterna- introducing these features (e.g., cooperative interdependence, tive models for contact effects have been developed and equal status) into many contact settings. Despite substantial tested in experimental and field settings: decategorization, documentation that intergroup cooperative interaction re- recategorization, and mutual differentiation. duces bias (Allport, 1954; Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Cook, 1985; Deutsch, 1973; Johnson et al., Each of these models can be described in terms of recom- 1983; Sherif et al., 1961; Slavin, 1985; Worchel, 1979), it is mendations for how to structure cognitive representations of not clear how cooperation achieves this effect. One basic situations in which there is contact between the groups, the issue involves the psychological processes that mediate this psychological processes that promote attitude change, and change. the mechanisms by which contact experiences are general- ized to change attitudes toward the out-group as a whole. The classic functional relations perspective by Sherif et al. Each of these strategies targets the social categorization (1961) views cooperative interdependence as a direct media- process as the place to begin to understand and to combat tor of attitudinal and behavioral changes. However, recent intergroup biases. Decategorization encourages members to approaches have extended research on the contact hypothesis deemphasize the original group boundaries and to conceive by attempting to understand the potential common processes of themselves as separate individuals rather than as members and mechanisms that these diverse factors engage to reduce of different groups. Mutual differentiation maintains the orig- bias. Several additional explanations have been proposed inal group boundaries, maintaining perceptions as different (see Brewer & Miller, 1984; Miller & Davidson-Podgorny, groups, but in the context of intergroup cooperation during 1987; Worchel, 1979, 1986). For example, cooperation may which similarities and differences between the memberships induce greater intergroup acceptance as a result of dissonance are recognized and valued. Recategorization encourages the reduction serving to justify this type of interaction with the members of both groups to regard themselves as belonging to other group (Miller & Brewer, 1986). It is also possible that a common, superordinate group—one group that is inclusive cooperation can have positive, reinforcing outcomes. When of both memberships. intergroup contact is favorable and has successful conse- quences, psychological processes that restore cognitive bal- Rather than viewing these as competing positions and argu- ance or reduce dissonance produce more favorable attitudes ing which one is correct, we suggest that these are comple- toward members of the other group and toward the group as mentary approaches and propose that it is more productive to a whole to be consistent with the positive nature of the inter- consider when each strategy is most effective. To the extent action. In addition, the rewarding properties of achieving that it is possible for these strategies, either singly or in concert, success may become associated with members of other to alter perceptions of the “Us versus Them” that are reflected groups (Lott & Lott, 1965), thereby increasing attraction in conflictive intergroup relations, reductions in bias and social (S. Gaertner et al., 1999). Also, cooperative experiences can harmony may be accomplished. Moreover, decategorization reduce intergroup anxiety (Stephan & Stephan, 1984). and recategorization strategies may increase the willingness of group representatives to view the meaning of the intergroup Intergroup contact can also influence how interactants conflict from the other group’s perspective and to offer solu- conceive of the groups and how the members are socially tions that recognize both groups’ needs and concerns. categorized. Cooperative learning and jigsaw classroom inter- ventions (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997), which are designed to in- Decategorization: The Personalization Model crease interdependence between members of different groups and to enhance appreciation for the resources they bring to the The first model is essentially a formalization and elaboration task, may reduce bias in part by altering how interactants con- of the assumptions implicit in Allport’s contact hypothesis ceive of the group boundaries and memberships. In the next (Brewer & Miller, 1984). A primary consequence of salient section we consider how the effects of intergroup contact can in-group–out-group categorization is the deindividuation of be mediated by changes in personal and collective identity. members of the out-group. Social behavior in category-based interactions is characterized by a tendency to treat individual Contact, Categorization, and Identity members of the out-group as undifferentiated representatives of a unified social category, ignoring individual differences From the social categorization perspective, the issue to be within the group. The personalization perspective on the addressed is how intergroup contact can be structured to alter contact situation implies that intergroup interactions should

Intergroup Contact and the Reduction of Bias 493 be structured to reduce the salience of category distinctions individual rather than as a group member). Repeated person- and promote opportunities to get to know out-group mem- alized interactions with a variety of out-group members bers as individual persons, thereby disarming the forces of should over time undermine the value of the category stereo- categorization. type as a source of information about members of that group. Thus, the effects of personalization should generalize to new The conditional specifications of the contact hypothesis situations as well as to heretofore unfamiliar out-group mem- (e.g., cooperative interaction) can be interpreted as features bers. For the benefits of personalization to generalize, how- of the situation that reduce category salience and promote ever, it is of course necessary for the identities of out-group more differentiated and personalized representations of the members to be salient—at least somewhat—during the inter- participants in the contact setting. Interdependence typically action to allow the group stereotype to be weakened. motivates people to focus more on the individual characteris- tics of a person, with whom their outcomes are linked, than Further evidence of the value of personalized interactions more general category representations (Fiske, 2000). Attend- for reducing intergroup bias comes from data on the effects ing to personal characteristics of group members not only of intergroup friendships (Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; provides the opportunity to disconfirm category stereotypes, Pettigrew, 1997; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). For example, but it also breaks down the monolithic perception of the out- across samples in France, Great Britain, the Netherlands, and group as a homogeneous unit (Wilder, 1978). In this scheme, Germany, Europeans with out-group friends were lower the contact situation encourages attention to information at on measures of prejudice, particularly affective prejudice the individual level that replaces category identity as the most (Pettigrew, 1998a). This positive relation did not hold for useful basis for classifying participants. other types of acquaintance relationships in work or residen- tial settings that did not involve formation of close interper- With a more differentiated representation of out-group sonal relationships with members of the out-group. In terms members, there is the recognition that there are different types of the direction of causality, although having more positive of out-group members (e.g., sensitive as well as tough profes- intergroup attitudes can increase the willingness to have sional hockey players), thereby weakening the effects of cross-group friendships, path analyses indicate that the path categorization and the tendency to minimize and ignore dif- from friendship to reduction in prejudice is stronger than the ferences between category members. When personalized in- other way around (Pettigrew, 1998a). teractions occur, in-group and out-group members slide even further toward the individual side of the self as individual ver- Other research reveals three valuable extensions of the per- sus group member continuum. Members “attend to informa- sonalized contact effect. One is evidence that personal friend- tion that replaces category identity as the most useful basis for ships with members of one out-group may lead to tolerance classifying each other” (Brewer & Miller, 1984, p. 288) as toward out-groups in general and reduced nationalistic pride, they engage in personalized interactions. Repeated personal- a process that Pettigrew (1997) refers to as deprovincializa- ized contacts with a variety of out-group members should, tion. Thus, decategorization based on developing cross-group over time, undermine the value and meaningfulness of the friendships that decrease the relative attractiveness of a per- social category stereotype as a source of information about son’s in-group provides increased appreciation of the relative members of that group. This is the process by which contact attractiveness of other out-groups more generally. experiences are expected to generalize—via reducing the salience and meaning of social categorization in the long run A second extension is represented by evidence that contact (Brewer & Miller, 1996). effects may operate indirectly or vicariously. Although interpersonal friendship across group lines leads to reduced A number of studies provide evidence supporting this prejudice, even knowledge that an in-group member has be- perspective on contact effects (Bettencourt, Brewer, Croak, & friended an out-group member has the potential to reduce bias Miller, 1992; Marcus-Newhall, Miller, Holtz, & Brewer, while the salience of group identities remains high for the ob- 1993). Miller, Brewer, and Edwards (1985), for instance, server (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). A demonstrated that a cooperative task that required personal- third extension relates to interpersonal processes involving the ized interaction with members of the out-group resulted not arousal of empathic feelings for an out-group member, which only in more positive attitudes toward out-group members in can increase positive attitudes toward members of that group the cooperative setting but also toward other out-group mem- more widely (Batson et al., 1997). Thus, personalized interac- bers shown on a videotape, compared to cooperative contact tion and interpersonal processes more generally can directly that was task focused rather than person focused. and indirectly increase positive feelings for out-group mem- bers through a variety of processes that can lead to more gen- During personalization, members focus on information eralized types of harmony and integration at the group level. about an out-group member that is relevant to the self (as an

494 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration Recategorization: The Common In-Group and unrealistic for people to identify with humankind? Allport Identity Model proposed that this level of common in-group identification is difficult for most people primarily because there are few sym- The second social categorization model of intergroup contact bols that make this more ephemeral in-group real or concrete. and conflict reduction is also based on the premise that That is, groups such as nations have symbols that include flags, reducing the salience of in-group–out-group category distinc- buildings, and holidays, but at the international level there are tions is key to positive effects. In contrast to the decategoriza- few icons that help serve as anchors for unity and world loy- tion approaches described earlier, however, recategorization alty. Attempts to forge superordinate cooperative alliances, is not designed to reduce or eliminate categorization, but therefore, would more likely engage identification processes if rather to structure a definition of group categorization at a symbols were adopted to affirm the joint venture. higher level of category inclusiveness in ways that reduce intergroup bias and conflict (Allport, 1954, p. 43). Among the antecedent factors proposed by the common in-group identity model are the features of contact situations Allport (1954, 1958) was aware of the benefits of a com- that are necessary for intergroup contact to be successful mon in-group identity, although he regarded it as a catalyst (e.g., interdependence between groups, equal status, equali- rather than as a product of the conditions of contact: tarian norms; Allport, 1954). From this perspective, inter- group cooperative interaction, for example, enhances To be maximally effective, contact and acquaintance programs positive evaluations of out-group members, at least in part, should lead to a sense of equality in social status, should occur in because cooperation transforms members’ representations of ordinary purposeful pursuits, avoid artificiality, and if possible the memberships from “Us” versus “Them” to a more inclu- enjoy the sanction of the community in which they occur. While sive “We.” In a laboratory experiment, S. Gaertner, Mann, it may help somewhat to place members of different ethnic Dovidio, Murrell, and Pomare (1990) directly tested and groups side by side on a job, the gain is greater if these members found strong support for the hypotheses that the relation be- regard themselves as part of a team [italics added]. (Allport, tween intergroup cooperation and enhanced favorable evalu- 1958, p. 489) ations of out-group members was mediated by the extent to which members of both groups perceived themselves as one In contrast, the common in-group identity model (S. group. In addition, the generalizability of this effect was sup- Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993; S. ported by a series of survey studies conducted in natural Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) proposes that group identity can settings across very different intergroup contexts: bankers be a critical mediating factor. According to this model, inter- experiencing corporate mergers, students in a multiethnic group bias and conflict can be reduced by factors that trans- high school, and college students from blended families (see form participants’ representations of memberships from two S. Gaertner, Dovidio, & Bachman, 1996). Moreover, appeals groups to one, more inclusive group. With common in-group that emphasize the common group membership of nonimmi- identity, the cognitive and motivational processes that ini- grants and immigrants have been shown to improve attitudes tially produced in-group favoritism are redirected to benefit toward immigrants and to increase support for immigration the common in-group, including former out-group members. among people in Canada and the United States, and particu- larly among those high in social dominance orientation for Allport’s (1954, 1958) description of widening circles of whom group hierarchy is important (Esses et al., 2001). inclusion, hierarchically organized, depicts a person’s various in-group memberships from one’s family to one’s neighbor- These effects of recategorization on behaviors, such as hood, to one’s city, to one’s nation, to one’s race, to all of helping and self-disclosure (see Dovidio et al., 1997; Nier humankind. Recognizing that racial group identity had et al., 2001), as well as on attitudes, have some extended, become the dominant allegiance among many White racists, practical implications. Recategorization can stimulate inter- Allport questioned the accuracy of the common belief that in- actions among group members in the contact situation that group loyalties always grow weaker the larger their circle of can in turn activate other processes, which subsequently pro- inclusion, which might prevent loyalty to a group more mote more positive intergroup behaviors and attitudes. For inclusive than race. Rather, Allport proposed the potential example, both self-disclosure and helping typically produce value of shifting the level of category inclusiveness from race reciprocity. More intimate self-disclosure by one person to humankind. He recognized that the “clash between the idea normally encourages more intimate disclosure by the other of race and of One World . . . is shaping into an issue that may (Archer & Berg, 1978; Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, well be the most decisive in human history. The important 1993). As we discussed earlier, the work of Miller, Brewer, question is, Can a loyalty to mankind be fashioned before in- and their colleagues (e.g., Brewer & Miller, 1984; Miller terracial warfare breaks out?” (pp. 43–44). But is it too difficult

Intergroup Contact and the Reduction of Bias 495 et al., 1985) has demonstrated that personalized and self- Brewer’s (1991) optimal distinctiveness model of the disclosing interaction can be a significant factor in reducing motives underlying group identification provides one expla- intergroup bias. nation for why category distinctions are difficult to change. The theory postulates that social identity is driven by two op- Considerable cross-cultural evidence also indicates the posing social motives: the need for inclusion and the need for powerful influence of the norm of reciprocity on helping differentiation. Human beings strive to belong to groups that (Schroeder, Penner, Dovidio & Piliavin, 1995). According to transcend their own personal identity, but at the same time this norm, people should help those who have helped them, they need to feel special and distinct from others. In order to and they should not help those who have denied them help satisfy both of these motives simultaneously, individuals for no legitimate reason (Gouldner, 1960). Thus, the devel- seek inclusion in distinctive social groups where the bound- opment of a common in-group identity can motivate inter- aries between those who are members of the in-group cate- personal behaviors between members of initially different gory and those who are excluded can be drawn clearly. On groups that can initiate reciprocal actions and concessions the one hand, highly inclusive superordinate categories do (see Deutsch, 1993; Osgood, 1962). These reciprocal actions not satisfy distinctiveness needs. Thus, inclusive identities, and concessions not only will reduce immediate tensions but which may not be readily accepted, may be limited in their also can produce more harmonious intergroup relations capacity to reduce bias (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b). On beyond the contact situation. the other hand, high degrees of individuation fail to meet needs for belonging and for cognitive simplicity and uncer- Although finely differentiated impressions of out-group tainty reduction (Hogg & Abrams, 1993). These motives are members may not be an automatic consequence of forming a likely to make either personalization or common in-group common in-group identity, these more elaborated, differen- identity temporally unstable solutions to intergroup discrimi- tiated, and personalized impressions can quickly develop nation and prejudice. because the newly formed positivity bias is likely to encourage more open communication (S. Gaertner et al., 1993). The Preexisting social-structural relations between groups may development of a common in-group identity creates a motiva- also create strong forces of resistance to changes in category tional foundation for constructive intergroup relations that can boundaries. Even in the absence of overt conflict, asymmetries act as a catalyst for positive reciprocal interpersonal actions. between social groups in size, power, or status create addi- Thus, the recategorization strategy proposed in our model as tional sources of resistance. When one group is substantially well as decategorization strategies, such as individuating smaller than the other in the contact situation, the minority (Wilder, 1984) and personalizing (Brewer & Miller, 1984) category is especially salient, and minority group members interactions, can potentially operate complementarily and may be particularly reluctant to accept a superordinate cate- sequentially to improve intergroup relations in lasting and gory identity that is dominated by the other group. Another meaningful ways. major challenge is created by preexisting status differences between groups, where members of both high- and low-status Challenges to the Decategorization and groups may be threatened by contact and assimilation Recategorization Models (Mottola, 1996). Although the structural representations of the contact situa- The Mutual Differentiation Model tion advocated by the decategorization (personalization) and recategorization (common in-group identity) models are dif- These challenges to processes of decategorization/recategori- ferent, the two approaches share common assumptions about zation led Hewstone and Brown (1986) to recommend an the need to reduce category differentiation and associated alternative approach to intergroup contact in which coopera- processes. Because both models rely on reducing or eliminat- tive interactions between groups are introduced without ing the salience of intergroup differentiation, they involve degrading the original in-group–out-group categorization. structuring contact in a way that will challenge or threaten More specifically, this model favors encouraging groups existing social identities. However, both cognitive and working together to perceive complementarity by recogniz- motivational factors conspire to create resistance to the dis- ing and valuing mutual assets and weaknesses within the solution of category boundaries or to reestablish category context of an interdependent cooperative task or common, distinctions over time. Although the salience of a common superordinate goals. This strategy allows group members to superordinate identity or personalized representations may maintain their social identities and positive distinctiveness be enhanced in the short run, then, these may be difficult to while avoiding insidious intergroup comparisons. Thus, the maintain across time and social situations.

496 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration mutual intergroup differentiation model does not seek to and the potential for fission and conflict along group lines change the basic category structure of the intergroup contact remain high. situation, but to change the intergroup affect from negative to positive interdependence and evaluation. In addition, theoretical approaches and interventions are often guided by the perspective of the majority group. Indeed, In order to promote positive intergroup experience, because the majority group typically possesses the resources, Hewstone and Brown (1986) recommended that the contact focusing strategies for reducing conflict and enhancing social situation be structured so that members of the respective harmony on the majority group have considerable potential. groups have distinct but complementary roles to contribute to- However, it is not enough, and without considering all of the ward common goals. In this way, both groups can maintain groups involved, these strategies can be counterproductive. positive distinctiveness within a cooperative framework. Intergroup relations need to be understood from the perspec- Evidence in support of this approach comes from the results of tive of each of the groups involved. We consider the issue of an experiment by Brown and Wade (1987) in which work multiple perspectives in the next section. teams composed of students from two different faculties en- gaged in a cooperative effort to produce a two-page magazine HARMONY AND INTEGRATION: MAJORITY AND article. When the representatives of the two groups were as- MINORITY PERSPECTIVES signed separate roles in the team task (one group working on figures and layout, the other working on text), the contact ex- The perspectives that majority and minority group members perience had a more positive effect on intergroup attitudes than take on particular interactions and on intergroup relations in when the two groups were not provided with distinctive roles general may differ in fundamental ways. The attributions and (see also Deschamps & Brown, 1983; Dovidio, Gaertner, & experiences of people in seemingly identical or comparable Validzic, 1998). situations may be affected by ethnic or racial group member- ship (see Crocker & Quinn, 2001). In the United States, Hewstone and Brown (1986) argued that generalization of Blacks perceive less social and economic opportunity than do positive contact experiences is more likely when the contact Whites (Schuman, Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997). Cross- situation is defined as an intergroup situation rather than as an culturally, the generally nonstigmatized ethnic and racial interpersonal interaction. Generalization in this case is direct majorities perceive intergroup contact more positively than rather than requiring additional cognitive links between posi- do minorities (S. Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & tive affect toward individuals and toward representations of the Anastasio, 1996; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Distinctiveness, group as a whole. This position is supported by evidence, re- associated with numerical minority status or the salience of viewed earlier, that cooperative contact with a member of an physical or social characteristics, can exacerbate feelings of out-group leads to more favorable generalized attitudes toward stigmatization among members of traditionally disadvan- the group as a whole when category membership is made taged groups (e.g., Kanter, 1977; Niemann & Dovidio, 1998). salient during contact (e.g., Brown, Vivian, & Hewstone, 1999; van Oudenhoven, Groenewoud, & Hewstone, 1996). More generally, group status has profound implications for the experience of individuals, their motivations and Although in-group–out-group category salience is usually aspirations, and their orientations to members of their own associated with in-group bias and the negative side of inter- group and of other groups. As Ellemers and Barreto (2001) group attitudes, cooperative interdependence is assumed to outlined, responses to the status of one’s group depend on override the negative intergroup schema, particularly if the whether one is a member of a low- or high-status group, the two groups have differentiated, complementary roles to play. importance of the group to the individual (i.e., strength of Because it capitalizes on needs for distinctive social identi- identification), the perceived legitimacy of the status differ- ties, the mutual intergroup differentiation model provides ences, and the prospects for change at the individual or group a solution that is highly stable in terms of the cognitive- level (see also Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998). Wright structural aspects of the intergroup situation. The affective (2001; see also Tajfel & Turner, 1979) further proposed that component of the model, however, is likely to be less stable. people in low-status groups will be motivated to pursue col- Salient intergroup boundaries are associated with mutual dis- lective action on behalf of their group, rather than seek per- trust (Schopler & Insko, 1992), which undermines the poten- sonal mobility, when they identify strongly with the group or tial for cooperative interdependence and mutual liking over when possibilities for individual mobility are limited, when any length of time. By reinforcing perceptions of group dif- intergroup comparisons produce perceptions of disadvantage ferences, this differentiation model risks reinforcing negative and that disadvantage is viewed as illegitimate, and when beliefs about the out-group in the long run; intergroup anxi- ety (Greenland & Brown, 1999; Islam & Hewstone, 1993)

Harmony and Integration: Majority and Minority Perspectives 497 people believe that the intergroup hierarchy can change and concerns regarding the fairness of congressional representa- the in-group has the resources to change it. Although collec- tives than on concerns about whether these policies would in- tive action may have long-term benefits in achieving justice crease or decrease their own well-being. However, for those and equality, in the short-term the conditions that facilitate who had weak identification with being American and primar- collective action may intensify social categorization of mem- ily identified themselves with being White, their position on bers of the in-group and out-groups, temporarily increase affirmative action was determined more strongly by concerns conflict, and reduce the likelihood of harmony or integration regarding the instrumental value of these policies for them- between groups. selves. This pattern of findings suggests that a strong superor- dinate identity (such as being American) allows individuals to Racial and ethnic identities are unlikely to be readily support policies that would benefit members of other racial abandoned because they are frequently fundamental aspects subgroups without giving primary consideration to their own of individuals’ self-concepts and esteem and are often associ- instrumental needs. ated with perceptions of collective injustice. Moreover, when such identities are threatened, for example by attempts to Among minorities, even when racial or ethnic identity is produce a single superordinate identity at the expense of strong, perceptions of a superordinate connection enhance in- one’s racial or ethnic group identity, members of these groups terracial trust and acceptance of authority within an organiza- may respond in ways that reassert the value of the group (e.g., tion. Huo, Smith, Tyler, and Lind (1996) surveyed White, with disassociation from the norms and values of the larger Black, Latino, and Asian employees of a public-sector orga- society; see Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Steele, nization. Identification with the organization (superordinate 1997) and adversely affect social harmony. identity) and racial-ethnic identity (subgroup identity) were independently assessed. Regardless of the strength of racial- In addition, efforts to incorporate minority groups within ethnic identity, respondents who had a strong organizational the context of a superordinate identity may also produce identity perceived that they were treated fairly within the negative responses from the majority group. Mummendey organization, and consequently they had favorable attitudes and Wenzel (1999) argued that because the standards of the toward authority. Huo et al. (1996) concluded that having a superordinate group will primarily reflect those of the major- strong identification with a superordinate group can redirect ity subgroup, the minority out-group will tend to be viewed people from focusing on their personal outcomes to concerns as nonnormative and inferior by those standards, which can about “achieving the greater good and maintaining social sta- exacerbate intergroup bias among majority group members bility” (pp. 44–45), while also maintaining important racial and increase group conflict. In contrast, S. Gaertner and and ethnic identities. Dovidio (2000) have proposed that the simultaneous exis- tence of superordinate and subordinate group representations S. Gaertner et al. (1996) found converging evidence in a (i.e., dual- or multiple-identities) may not only improve inter- survey of students in a multiethnic high school. In particular, group relations (see also Hornsey & Hogg, 2000a, 2000b) but they compared students who identified themselves on the also may contribute to the social adjustment, psychological survey using a dual identity (e.g., indicating they were Korean adaptation, and overall well-being of minority group mem- and American) with those who used only a single subgroup bers (LaFromboise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). Therefore, identity (e.g., Korean). Supportive of the role of a dual iden- identifying the conditions under which a dual identity serves tity, students who described themselves both as Americans to increase or diffuse intergroup conflict is an issue actively and as members of their racial or ethnic group had less bias to- being pursued by contemporary researchers. ward other groups in the school than did those who described themselves only in terms of their subgroup identity. Also, the There is evidence that intergroup benefits of a strong minority students who identified themselves using a dual iden- superordinate identity can be achieved for both majority and tity reported lower levels of intergroup bias in general relative minority group members when the strength of the subordinate to those who used only their ethnic or racial group identity. identity is high, regardless of the strength of subordinate group identities. For example, in a survey study of White adults, H. J. Not only do Whites and racial and ethnic minorities bring Smith and Tyler (1996, Study 1) measured the strengths of different values, identities, and experiences to intergroup con- respondents’ superordinate identity as “American” and also tact situations, but also these different perspectives can shape the strengths of their subordinate identification as “White.” perceptions of and reactions to the nature of the contact. Respondents with a strong American identity, independent of Blumer (1958a) proposed that group status is a fundamental the degree to which they identified with being White, were factor in the extent of and type of threat that different groups more likely to base their support for affirmative action policies experience. Recent surveys reveal, for example, that Blacks that would benefit Blacks and other minorities on relational show higher levels of distrust and greater pessimism about

498 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration intergroup relations than do Whites (Dovidio & Gaertner, of intergroup contact related to stronger superordinate (i.e., 1998; Hochschild, 1995). Majority group members tend to common group) representations, which in turn mediated perceive intergroup interactions as more harmonious and pro- more positive attitudes to their school and other groups at the ductive than do minority group members (S. Gaertner et al., school. In contrast, for minority students, a dual-identity 1996; Islam & Hewstone, 1993; see also the survey of college (integration) representation—but not the one-group represen- students discussed earlier), but they also tend to perceive sub- tation—predicted more positive attitudes toward their school ordinate and minority groups as encroaching on their rights and to other groups. In general, these effects were stronger and prerogatives (Bobo, 1999). In addition, majority and for people higher in racial-ethnic identification, both for minority group members have different preferences for the Whites and minorities. ultimate outcomes of intergroup contact. Whereas minority group members often tend to want to retain their cultural iden- These findings have practical as well as theoretical tity, majority group members may favor the assimilation of implications for reducing intergroup conflict and enhancing minority groups into one single culture (a traditional melting social harmony. Although correlational data should be inter- pot orientation): the dominant culture (e.g., Horenczyk, 1996). preted cautiously, it appears that for both Whites and racial and ethnic minorities, favorable intergroup contact may con- Berry (1984; Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 1992) tribute to their commitment to their institution. However, presented four forms of cultural relations in pluralistic soci- strategies and interventions designed to enhance satisfaction eties that represent the intersection of “yes–no” responses to need to recognize that Whites and minorities may have dif- two relevant questions: (a) Is cultural identity of value, and to ferent ideals and motivations. Because White values and cul- be retained? (b) Are positive relations with the larger society ture have been the traditionally dominant ones in the United of value, and to be sought? These combinations reflect four States, American Whites may see an assimilation model—in adaptation strategies for intergroup relations: (a) integration, which members of other cultural groups are absorbed into when cultural identities are retained and positive relations the mainstream—as the most comfortable and effective with the larger society are sought; (b) separation, when cul- strategy. For racial and ethnic minorities, this model, which tural identities are retained but positive relations with the denies the value of their culture and traditions, may be per- larger society are not sought; (c) assimilation, when cultural ceived not only as less desirable but also as threatening to identities are abandoned and positive relations with the larger their personal and social identity—particularly for people society are desired; and (d) marginalization, when cultural who strongly identify with their group. Thus, efforts to identities are abandoned and are not replaced by positive create a single superordinate identity, though well inten- identification with the larger society. tioned, may threaten one’s social identity, which in turn can intensify intergroup bias and conflict. As Bourhis, Moise, Research in the area of immigration suggests that immi- Perrault, and Sebecal (1997) argued with respect to the grant groups and majority groups have different preferences nature of immigrant and host community relations, conflict for these different types of group relations. Van Oudenhoven, is likely to be minimized and social harmony fostered Prins, and Buunk (1998) found in the Netherlands that Dutch when these groups have consonant acculuration ideals and majority group members preferred an assimilation of minority objectives. groups (in which minority group identity was abandoned and replaced by identification with the dominant Dutch culture), CONCLUSIONS whereas Turkish and Moroccan immigrants most strongly en- dorsed integration (in which they would retain their own cul- In this chapter we have examined the fundamental psycholog- tural identity while also valuing the dominant Dutch culture). ical processes related to intergroup relations, group conflict, social harmony, and intergroup integration. Intergroup bias These preferences also apply to the preferences of Whites and conflict are complex phenomena having historical, cul- and minorities about racial and ethnic group relations in the tural, economic, and psychological roots. In addition, these United States. Dovidio, Gaertner, and Kafati (2000) have are dynamic phenomena that can evolve to different forms found that Whites prefer assimilation most, whereas racial and manifestations over time. A debate about whether a soci- and ethnic minorities favor pluralistic integration. Moreover, etal, institutional, intergroup, or individual level of analysis is these preferred types of intergroup relations for majority and most appropriate, or a concern about which model of bias or minority groups—a one-group representation (assimilation) bias reduction accounts for the most variance, not only may for Whites and dual representation (pluralistic integration) thus be futile but may also distract scholars from a more for racial and ethnic minorities—differentially mediated the consequences of intergroup contact for the different groups. Specifically, for Whites, more positive perceptions

Conclusions 499 fundamental mission: developing a comprehensive model of groups can decrease perceptions of intergroup competition social conflict, harmony, and integration. (S. L. Gaertner et al., 1990). We propose that understanding how structural, social, and Similarly, within the social categorization approach, re- psychological mechanisms jointly shape intergroup relations searchers have posited not only that decategorization, recate- can have both valuable theoretical and practical implications. gorization, and mutual intergroup differentiation processes Theoretically, individual difference (e.g., social dominance can each play a role in the reduction of bias over time orientation; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), functional (e.g., Sherif & (Pettigrew, 1998a), but also that these processes can facilitate Sherif, 1969), and collective identity (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, each other reciprocally (S. L. Gaertner et al., 2000; Hewstone, 1979; Turner et al., 1987) approaches can be viewed as com- 1996). Within an alternating sequence of categorization plementary rather than competing explanations for social con- processes, mutual differentiation may emerge initially to neu- flict and harmony (see Figure 20.1). Conceptually, intergroup tralize threats to original group identities posed by the recate- relations are significantly influenced by structural factors as gorization and decategorization processes. Once established, well as by individual orientations toward intergroup relations mutual differentiation can facilitate the subsequent recogni- (e.g., social dominance orientation; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) tion and acceptance of a salient superordinate identity and and toward group membership (e.g., strength of identifica- recategorization, which would have previously stimulated tion) and by the nature of collective identity. Functional rela- threats to the distinctiveness of group identities (S. Gaertner & tions within and between groups and social identity can Dovidio, 2000). influence perceptions of intra- and intergroup support or threat as well as the nature of group representations (see Figure 20.1). Reductions in perceived threat, increased perceptions of For instance, greater dependence on in-group members can intergroup support, and more inclusive representations (either strengthen the perceived boundaries, fostering representations as a superordinate group or as a dual identity), in turn, can as members of different groups and increasing perceptions of activate group- and individual-level processes that can reduce threat (L. Gaertner & Insko, 2000). Empirically, self-interest, intergroup conflict (see Figure 20.1). These processes may realistic group threat, and identity threat have been shown in- also operate sequentially. For example, once people identify dependently to affect intergroup relations adversely (Bobo, with a common group identity, they may be more trusting of 1999; Esses et al., 1998; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Percep- former out-group members and consequently be willing to en- tions of intergroup threat or support and group representations gage in the type of personalized, self-disclosing interaction can also mutually influence one another. Perceptions of com- that can further promote social harmony (Brewer & Miller, petition or threat increase the salience of different group repre- 1984; Dovidio et al., 1997). Thus, factors related to structural sentations and decrease the salience of superordinate group and functional relations between groups and those associated connections, whereas stronger inclusive representations of the with collective representations (e.g., involving mutual inter- group differentiation, recategorization, and decategorization Figure 20.1 The roles of functional and identity relations in social conflict and integration.

500 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration processes) can operate in a complementary and reciprocal rather than viewing these approaches as competing positions, fashion. we suggest that they often reflect different perspectives on a very large issue. No single position is definitive, but jointly Pragmatically, understanding the nature of bias and conflict they present a relatively comprehensive picture of the multi- can suggest ways in which these forces can be harnessed and faceted nature of intergroup relations. redirected to promote social harmony. Given the different per- spectives, needs, and motivations of majority (high status) and REFERENCES minority (low status) groups, interventions based on these principles need to be considered carefully. Nevertheless, un- Abrams, D. (1985). Focus of attention in minimal intergroup derstanding the multilevel nature of prejudice and discrimina- discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 65–74. tion is an essential step for finding solutions—which may need to be similarly multifaceted. These principles may be Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, applied to reduce social conflict and facilitate the integration R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. of groups as disparate as corporations and stepfamilies (S. Gaertner, Bachman, Dovidio, & Banker, 2001), to im- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: prove race relations in the workplace (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Addison-Wesley. Bachman, 2001) and more generally (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998), and to meet the challenge of managing immigration Allport, G. W. (1958). The nature of prejudice (abridged). Garden successfully—in ways that facilitate the achievement and well- City, NY: Doubleday. being of immigrants and that produce the cooperation and sup- port of residents of the receiving country (Esses et al., 2001). Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In addition, these approaches may be applied integratively to reduce international tensions and improve national rela- Altemeyer, B. (1998). The “other authoritarian personality.” In M. P. tions (Pettigrew, 1998b). Rouhana and Kelman (1994), for Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology example, described the activities and outcomes of a program (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic. of workshops designed to improve Palestinian-Israeli rela- tions and to contribute to peace in the Middle East. These Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychologi- workshops required Palestinian and Israeli participants to cal Bulletin, 71, 319–342. search for solutions that satisfy the needs of both parties. Rouhana and Kelman (1994) explained that this enterprise Archer, R. L., & Berg, J. H. (1978). Disclosure reciprocity and its “can contribute to a creative redefinition of the conflict, to limits: A reactance analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- joint discovery of win-win solutions, and to transformation of chology, 14, 527–540. the relationship between the parties” (p. 160). Conceptually, this orientation changes the structural relations between the Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom. New York: groups from competition to cooperation, facilitates the devel- Longman. opment of mutually differentiated national identities within a common workshop identity, and permits the type of personal- Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). ized interaction that can enhance social harmony. Pettigrew The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. (1998b) proposed that these workshops serve as a setting for direct interaction that provides opportunities for developing Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., coalitions of peace-minded participants across conflict lines. Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. Thus, a strategic and reflective application of basic social- (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a psychological principles can have significant practical bene- stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal fits in situations of long-standing conflict. of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118. In conclusion, the issues related to social conflict, harmony, Berry, J. W. (1984). Cultural relations in plural societies. In N. and integration are complex indeed. As a consequence, ap- Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychol- proaches to understanding these processes need to address the ogy of desegregation (pp. 11–27). Orlando, FL: Academic. issues at different levels of analysis and to consider structural as well as psychological factors. This diversity of perspectives Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). produces a complicated and sometimes apparently inconsis- Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications. Cam- tent picture of the nature of intergroup relations. However, bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bettencourt, B. A., Brewer, M. B., Croak, M. R., & Miller, N. (1992). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup bias: The roles of reward structure and social orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 301–319. Blanchard, F. A., Weigel, R. H., & Cook, S. W. (1975). The effects of relative competence of group members upon interpersonal at- traction in cooperating interracial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 519–530. Blauner, R. (1972). Race oppression in America. New York: Harper & Row.

References 501 Blumer, H. (1958a). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegrega- Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7. tion (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic. Blumer, H. (1958b). Recent research on race relations in the United Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1996), Intergroup relations. Bucking- States of America. International Social Science Bulletin, 10, ham, UK: Open University Press. 403–477. Brown, R. J., & Turner, J. C. (1981). Interpersonal and intergroup Blumer, H. (1965a). Industrialization and race relations. In G. behavior. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior Hunter (Ed.), Industrialization and race relations: A symposium (pp. 33–64). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (pp. 228–229). New York: Oxford University Press. Brown, R. J., Vivian, J., & Hewstone, M. (1999). Changing attitudes Blumer, H. (1965b). The future of the Color Line. In J. C. McKinney through intergroup contact: The effects of group membership & E. T. Thompson (Eds.), The South in continuity and change salience. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 741–764. (pp. 322–336). Durham, NC: Seeman. Brown, R. J., & Wade, G. (1987). Superordinate goals and inter- Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of con- group behavior: The effect of role ambiguity and status on inter- temporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), group attitudes and task performance. European Journal of Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 85–114). New Social Psychology, 17, 131–142. York: Plenum. Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In Bobo, L. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Micro-foundations of D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, a sociological approach to racism and race relations. Journal of pp. 283–311). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Social Issues, 55(3). 445–472. Cook, S. W. (1984). Cooperative interaction in multiethnic contexts. Bobo, L., & Huchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a psychology of desegregation (pp. 291–302). Orlando, FL: multiracial context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951–972. Academic. Bonacich, E. (1972). A theory of ethnic antagonism. American Soci- Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of ological Review, 77, 547–559. school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452–460. Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Crocker, J., & Quinn, D. M. (2001). Psychological consequences of Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychologi- devalued identities. In R. J. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), cal approach. International Journal of Psychology, 32, 369–386. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 238–257). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Bourhis, R. Y., Turner, J. C., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity, and social discrimination. In R. Spears, P. J. Derlega, V. J., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self- Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychol- disclosure. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ogy of stereotyping and group life (pp. 273–295). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Deschamps, J. C., & Brown, R. (1983). Superordinate goals and in- tergroup conflict. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Per- 189–195. ceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Im- plications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Deschamps J. C., & Doise, W. (1978). Crossed-category member- Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. ship in intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation be- tween social groups (pp. 141–158). London: Academic. Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group- based discrimination: Individualistic versus group-level strate- Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of social conflict. New Haven, gies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s CT: Yale University Press. perspective (pp. 243–266). San Diego, CA: Academic. Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world. American Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situa- Psychologist, 48, 510–517. tion: A cognitive motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. (1951). Interracial housing: A psycho- logical evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: Univer- Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression forma- sity of Minnesota Press. tion. In T. S. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition: Vol. 1. A dual process model of impression formation Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social (pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and dif- Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1993). Stereotypes and evaluative ferent at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology intergroup bias. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, Bulletin, 17, 475–482. cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in intergroup perception (pp. 167–193). Orlando, FL: Academic. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contempo- rary prejudice: The causes, consequences, and challenges of aversive racism. In J. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.),

502 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration Confronting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psy- Newbury Park, CA: Sage. chology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Bachman, B. A. (2001). Racial bias Fiske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence in organizations: The role of group processes in its causes and and prejudice: Whence the affect? In D. M. Mackie & D. L. cures. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and re- Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Inter- search (pp. 415–444). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. active processes in group perception (pp. 239–268). New York: Academic. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kafati, G. (2000). Group identity and intergroup relations: The Common In-Group Identity Model. Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2000). Intergroup discrimination in the In S. R. Thye, E. J. Lawler, M. W. Macy, & H. A. Walker (Eds.), minimal group paradigm: Categorization, reciprocation, or fear? Advances in group processes (Vol. 17, pp. 1–34). Stamford, CT: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 77–94. JAI. Gaertner, L., & Schopler, J. (1998). Perceived ingroup entitativity Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Validzic, A. (1998). Intergroup and intergroup bias: An interconnection of self and others. Euro- bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. pean Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 963–980. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 109–120. Gaertner, S. L., Bachman, B. A., Dovidio, J. D., & Banker, B. S. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., (2001). Corporate mergers and stepfamily marriages: Identity, & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of re-categorization: harmony, and commitment. In M. A. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimen- Social identity in organizations (pp. 265–282). Oxford, UK: tal Social Psychology, 33, 401–420. Blackwell. Duckitt, J. (1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analy- Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of sis and integrative framework. American Psychologist, 47, racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, 1182–1193. discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic. Ellemers, N., & Barreto, M. (2001). The impact of relative group Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: status: Affective, perceptual, and behavioral consequences. In R. The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Philadelphia, PA: Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social Psychology Press. psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 324–343). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recat- Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. egorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of (Vol. 4. pp. 1–26). New York: Wiley. Social Issues, 57, 389–412. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., & Bachman, B. A. (1996). Revisiting Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1993). Values, stereotypes, the Contact Hypothesis: The induction of a common ingroup and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. identity. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Mackie & D. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyp- 20(3&4), 271–290. ing: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137–166). San Diego, CA: Academic. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B., Houlette, M., Johnson, K., & McGlynn, E. (2000). Reducing intergroup conflict: From Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup superordinate goals to decategorization, recategorization, and competition and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration: mutual differentiation. Group Dynamics, 4, 98–114. An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699–724. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J., Banker, B., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., & Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing Ferguson, C. K., & Kelley, H. H. (1964). Significant factors in over- intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of evaluation of own groups’ products. Journal of Abnormal and Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 388–402. Social Psychology, 69, 223–228. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Murrell, A. J., & Pomare, Fiske, S. T. (2000). Interdependence and the reduction of prejudice. M. (1990). How does cooperation reduce intergroup bias? Journal In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 692–704. (pp. 115–135). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The Contact Hypothesis: The role of a model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). New York: majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Guilford. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230– 360). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of im- pression formation: From category based to individuating Gouldner, A. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary processes as a function of information, motivation, and attention. statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.

References 503 Gramzow, R. H., Gaertner, L., & Sedikides, C. (2001). Memory for Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000b). Intergroup similarity and in-group and out-group information in a minimal group context: subgroup relations: Some implications for assimilation. Person- The self as an informational base. Journal of Personality and ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 948–958. Social Psychology, 80, 188–205. Hornstein, H. A. (1976). Cruelty and kindness: A new look at Green, C. W., Adams, A. M., & Turner, C. W. (1988). Development aggression and altruism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. and validation of the School Interracial Climate Scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 241–259. Howard, J. M., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization for in- group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Greenland, K., & Brown, R. J. (1999). Categorization and inter- Psychology, 38, 301–310. group anxiety in contact between British and Japanese nationals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 503–521. Huo, Y. J., Smith, H. H., Tyler, T. R., & Lind, A. E. (1996). Superor- dinate identification, subgroup identification, and justice con- Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a cerns: Is separatism the problem. Is assimilation the answer? predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four Psychological Science, 7, 40–45. West European nations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 173–190. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., Finkel, E. J., Brazil, D. M., Cecil, C. L., & Montoya, Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of M. R. (2001). Interindividual-Intergroup discontinuity reduction the literature on intergroup attributions. European Journal of through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal of Person- Social Psychology, 20, 311–335. ality and Social Psychology, 80, 95–111. Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: Social psy- Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as chological interventions to change intergroup relations. In N. predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived outgroup variability Macrae, M. Hewstone, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Foundations of and outgroup attitude: An integrative model. Personality and stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368). New York: Guilford. Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. J. (1986). Contact is not enough: An Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic intergroup perspective on the “Contact Hypothesis.” In M. competition on people’s willingness to help empower immi- Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup grants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–435. encounters (pp. 1–44). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, F. P., & Maruyama, G. (1983). Interde- Higgins, E. T., & Bargh, J. A. (1987). Social cognition and social pendence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 369–425. homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta- analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 52, Hochschild, J. L. (1995). Facing up to the American dream: Race, 5–54. class, and the soul of the nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2000). The three Cs of reducing prejudice and discrimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prej- Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and the small udice and discrimination (pp. 239–268). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. group. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol. 2. Small group processes and interpersonal rela- Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: tions. Understanding group behavior (pp. 227–253). Hillsdale, McGraw-Hill. NJ: Erlbaum. Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self-esteem Basic Books. and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28–47). Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). The impact of salient self- New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf. identities on relative deprivation and action intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 23, 525–540. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1993). Towards a single-process uncertainty-reduction model of social motivation in groups. Kawakami, K., & Dion, K. L. (1995). Social identity and affect as In M. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psy- determinants of collective action. Theory and Psychology, 5, chological perspectives (pp. 173–190). London: Harvester 551–577. Wheatsheaf. Kihlstrom, J. F., Cantor, N., Albright, J. S., Chew, B. R., Klein, S. B., Horenczyk, G. (1996). Migrant identities in conflict: Acculturation & Niedenthal, P. M. (1988). Information processing and the attitudes and perceived acculturation ideologies. In G. Breakwell study of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experi- & E. Lyons (Eds.), Changing European identities: Social psy- mental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 145–180). Orlando, FL: chological analyses of social change (pp. 241–250). Woburn, Academic. MA: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kovel, J. (1970). White racism: A psychohistory. New York: Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000a). Assimilation and diversity: Pantheon. An interactive model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. Kramer, R. M., & Brewer, M. B. (1984). Effects of group identity on resource utilization in a simulated commons dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1044–1057.

504 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H. L. K., & Gerton, J. (1993). Psycho- Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Ward, logical impact of biculturalism: Evidence and theory. Psycholog- C. M., & Rust, M. C. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations ical Bulletin, 114, 395–412. and behavior: The effects of a common group identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 299–316. LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Onorato, R. S., & Turner, J. C. (2001). The “I,” “me,” and the “us”: Wiley. The psychological group and self-concept maintenance and change. In C. Sedikides & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, Lott, A. J., & Lott, B. E. (1965). Group cohesiveness as interper- relational self, collective self (pp. 147–170). Philadelphia, PA: sonal attraction: A review of relationships with antecedent and Psychology Press. consequent variables. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 259–309. Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war or surrender. Urbana: Maass, A., Ceccarelli, R., & Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup University of Illinois Press. bias: Evidence for in-group-protective motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 512–526. Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evalu- ative in-group bias: Affect-based spontaneous trait inference in a Marcus-Newhall, A., Miller, N., Holtz, R., & Brewer, M. B. (1993). minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- Cross-cutting category membership with role assignment: A chology, 36, 77–89. means of reducing intergroup bias. British Journal of Social Psy- chology, 322, 125–146. Otten, S., & Mummendey, A. (2000). Valence-dependent probability of ingroup-favoritism between minimal groups: An integrative Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. J. (1983). The heroic motive: Some view on the positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimina- experimental demonstrations. Journal of Experimental Social tion. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identity processes Psychology, 19, 1–20. (pp. 33–48). London: Sage. Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. J. (1984). Exacerbation of extreme Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in responses to an out-group. Journal of Personality and Social the Minimal Group Paradigm: Evidence from affective priming Psychology, 47, 71–84. tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1049–1071. Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Categorization effects on in- Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homo- group and outgroup perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner geneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the sub- (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 209–230). ordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal Orlando, FL: Academic. of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068. Miller, N., Brewer, M. B., & Edwards, K. (1985). Cooperative in- Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990). teraction in desegregated settings: A laboratory analog. Journal “Us” and “Them”: Social categorization and the process of of Social Issues, 41(3), 63–75. intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475–486. Miller, N., & Davidson-Podgorny, G. (1987). Theoretical models of intergroup relations and the use of cooperative teams as an inter- Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending vention for desegregated settings. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review Allport’s cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social of personality and social psychology: Vol. 9. Group processes Psychology Bulletin, 55, 461–476. and intergroup relations (pp. 41–67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects Mottola, G. (1996). The effects of relative group status on expecta- on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, tions of merger success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 173–185. University of Delaware, Newark. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998a). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review Mullen, B., Brown, R. J., & Smith, C. (1992). Ingroup bias as a of Psychology, 49, 65–85. function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration. Euro- pean Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103–122. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998b). Applying social psychology to interna- tional social issues. Journal of Social Issues, 54(4), 663-675. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (2001). Aversive discrimination. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant preju- psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 112–132). Malden, MA: dice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, Blackwell. 25, 57–76. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2000). Does intergroup contact and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158– (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). 174. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Relationship of solo status, Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Clark, R. D., III. academic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction (1981). Emergency intervention. New York: Academic. of racial/ethnic minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 55–71. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social

References 505 dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimen- Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: tal social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego, CA: Harper & Row. Academic. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., & Pratto, F. (1996). Consensual social domi- Pratto, F., & Lemieux, A. (2001). The psychological ambiguity of nance orientation and its correlates within the hierarchical struc- immigration and its implications for selling immigration policy. ture of American society. International Journal of Intercultural Journal of Social Issues, 57, 413–430. Relations, 20, 385–408. Pratto, F., & Shih, M. (2000). Social dominance orientation and Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup group context in implicit group prejudice. Psychological Sci- theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: ence, 11, 515–518. Cambridge University Press. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Simpson, J. A., & Kenrick, D. T. (Eds.). (1997). Evolutionary social Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. Skinner, M., & Stephenson, G. M. (1981). The effects of intergroup comparisons on the polarization of opinions. Current Psycholog- Rabbie, J. M., & Lodewijkx, H. F. M. (1996). A behavioral ical Research, 1, 49–61. interaction model: Toward an integrative theoretical framework for studying intra- and intergroup dynamics. In E. H. Witte & J. H. Slavin, R. E. (1985) Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory Davis (Eds.), Understanding group behavior: Vol. 2. Small group to desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 45–62. processes and interpersonal relations: Understanding group behavior (pp. 255–294). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An ingroup becomes part of the self: Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychol- Rabbie, J. M., & Schot, J. C. (1990). Group behavior in the minimal ogy Bulletin, 22, 635–642. group paradigm: Fact or fiction? In P. J. D. Drenth, J. A. Sergeant, & R. J. Takens (Eds.), European perspectives in psy- Smith, H. J., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Justice and power: When will chology: Vol. 3. Work and organizational, social and economic, justice concerns encourage the advantaged to support policies cross-cultural (pp. 251–263). New York: Wiley. which redistribute economic resources and the disadvantaged to willingly obey the law? European Journal of Social Psychology, Rouhana, N. N., & Kelman, H. C. (1994). Promoting joint thinking 26, 171–200. in international conflicts: An Israeli-Palestinian continuing workshop. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 157–178. Spears, R. (2001). The interaction between the individual and the collective self: Self-categorization in context. In C. Sedikides & Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social Identity Theory’s self- M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Individual self, relational self, collective esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarifica- self (pp. 171–198). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. tion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 40–62. Spears, R., Oakes, P. J., Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.), Schopler, J., & Insko, C. A. (1992). The discontinuity effect in (1997). The social psychology of stereotyping and group life. interpersonal and intergroup relations: Generality and mediation. Malden, MA: Blackwell. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–151). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, Schroeder, D. A., Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., & Piliavin, J. A. 52, 613–629. (1995). Psychology of helping and altruism: Problems and puz- zles. New York: McGraw-Hill. Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup rela- tions. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psy- Schuman, H., Steeh, C., Bobo, L., & Krysan, M. (1997). Racial at- chology: Vol. 9. Group processes and intergroup relations titudes in America: Trends and interpretations (2nd ed.). Cam- (pp. 13–40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53–84). States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240–249. New York: Plenum. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1984). The role of ignorance in Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2000, July). The theory of symbolic intergroup relations. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups racism after thirty years: A current appraisal. Paper presented at in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 229–257). the annual meeting of the International Society for Political Orlando, FL: Academic. Psychology, Seattle, WA. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan. discrimination (pp. 23–45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C., Schwarzwald, J., & (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave Tur-Kaspa (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants in Spain and experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. Israel: An integrated threat analysis theory. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.

506 Social Conflict, Harmony, and Integration Sumner, W. G. (1906). Folkways. New York: Ginn. Weigel, R. H., Wiser, P. I., & Cook, S. W. (1975). The impact of cooperative learning experiences on cross-ethnic relations and Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 219–244. Issues, 25(4), 79–97. Wilder, D. A. (1978). Reducing intergroup discrimination through Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. F., & Flament, C. (1971). Social individuation of the outgroup. Journal of Personality and Social categorisation and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Psychology, 36, 1361–1374. Social Psychology, 1, 149–177. Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter- and intergroup relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive group conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Brooks/Cole. Wilder, D. A. (1984). Predictions of belief homogeneity and simi- Taylor, M. C. (2000). Social contextual strategies for reducing racial larity following social categorization. British Journal of Social discrimination. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and dis- Psychology, 23, 323–333. crimination (pp. 71–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Williams, R. M., Jr. (1947). The reduction of intergroup tensions. Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. New York: Social Science Research Council. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35–37. Wilson, W. J. (1978). The declining significance of race. Chicago: Turner, J. C. (1981). The experimental social psychology of inter- University of Chicago Press. group behavior. In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 66–101). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Worchel, S. (1979). Cooperation and the reduction of intergroup con- flict: Some determining factors. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 262–273). social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77–122). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Worchel, S. (1986). The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & intergroup relations (pp. 288–304). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self- categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity with groups. van Oudenhoven, J. P., Groenewoud, J. T., & Hewstone, M. (1996). British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389–413. Cooperation, ethnic salience and generalization of interethnic attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 649–661. Wright, S. C. (2001). Strategic collective action: Social psychology and social change. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Black- van Oudenhoven, J. P., Prins, K. S., & Buunk, B. (1998). Attitudes well handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes of minority and majority members towards adaptation of immi- (pp. 409–430). Malden, MA: Blackwell. grants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 995–1013. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). Verkuyten, M., & Hagendoorn, L. (1998). Prejudice and self- The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friend- categorization: The variable role of authoritarianism and in- ships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- group stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, ogy, 73, 73–90. 24, 99–110. Watson, G. (1947). Action for unity. New York: Harper.

CHAPTER 21 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination KENNETH L. DION THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BIGOTRY 508 Attributional Ambiguity Perspectives 525 Authoritarian Personality Theories 508 The Personal-Group Discrimination Discrepancy 527 Just World Theory 510 Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination as Stressors 527 Belief Congruence Theory 510 Stereotype Threat 529 Ambivalence Approaches 512 Relative Deprivation, Perceived Discrimination, Automatic and Controlled Processing 516 Integrative Approaches 520 and Desire for Corrective Action 531 Conclusion 524 Conclusion 531 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE VICTIM OF PREJUDICE A FINAL THOUGHT 532 AND DISCRIMINATION 524 REFERENCES 532 Prejudice (i.e., biased and usually negative attitudes toward certain groups and their members, and (b) the psychology of social groups and their members), racism (a negatively ori- the victim of prejudice and discrimination, which focuses on ented prejudice toward certain groups seen as biologically the psychological correlates and consequences of experienc- different and inferior to one’s own), and discrimination (un- ing or perceiving oneself to be an object or target of preju- fair behavior or unequal treatment accorded others on the dice or discrimination. These two principal themes likewise basis of their group membership or possession of an arbitrary provide the basic organization for this chapter. trait, such as skin color) have been favored topics of research and theorizing for many years by psychologists—especially Research on the psychology of the bigot far exceeds that social and personality psychologists—around the world. Of on the psychology of the victim of prejudice and discrimina- these three concepts, prejudice is perhaps the most central tion. One reason for this differential emphasis undoubtedly and important. Prejudice underlies racism and is also be- stems from the optimistic view that if the psychology of big- lieved to motivate acts of discrimination. Between 1887 and otry could be truly understood, scientifically based remedial 2000, nearly 4,000 papers were published on prejudice in efforts could then be devised and deployed to reduce, if not journals covered by the American Psychological Associa- eliminate, prejudice at its source within the bigot. Yet, even if tion’s electronic database of published psychological litera- we suddenly possessed a magic bullet that instantly turned ture. Since the 1950s, in particular, the pace of psychological bigots into tolerant people, a strong case could be made for a research on prejudice has steadily increased. psychology of the victim. Among other reasons, some of the prejudice and discrimination confronting members of op- Much like prejudice as a topic in international prose and pressed groups comes from structural and institutional forms poetry (Larson, 1971), the psychology of prejudice reflects of racism, sexism, and all other “isms” rather than being two main themes: (a) the psychology of the bigot, which solely due to intolerant and bigoted individuals. The task of seeks to understand why some people are prejudiced toward addressing the social structural bases of prejudice within so- ciety and its institutions is apt to be far more daunting and Preparation of this chapter was made possible by a research grant to difficult than reducing prejudices in individuals with psycho- Kenneth L. Dion and Karen K. Dion from the Social Sciences and logical or other means—a formidable enough challenge in its Humanities Research Council of Canada. own right (see the chapter on reducing prejudice by Dovidio in this volume). 507

508 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination The extant literature on prejudice is also so vast and di- THE PSYCHOLOGY OF BIGOTRY verse that one chapter cannot realistically suffice to capture it all. Accordingly, this chapter’s goal is to survey major Authoritarian Personality Theories perspectives and research foci on the aforementioned two themes underlying the psychology of prejudice at the turn of The Original Theory of the Authoritarian Personality the twenty-first century. The amount of psychological re- search on prejudice has, to some extent, waxed and waned The original theory of the authoritarian personality (OTAP), over the last five decades of the twentieth century. The preju- proposed by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and dice literature has also been characterized by different em- Sanford (1950), was the first comprehensive and systematic phases or waves, such as whether prejudice is conceptualized attempt by psychologists to understand theoretically the roots as a form of psychopathology or is instead viewed as being of prejudice and to link ethnic, racial, religious, and ethno- the product of normal cognitive processes (Duckitt, 1994). centric prejudices to personality. Adopting the research The present chapter focuses on the historical continuity of methodologies of mid-twentieth-century social and clinical key ideas and psychological explanations about prejudice psychology along with a guiding psychoanalytic theoretical over the past several decades and emphasizes links between perspective, Adorno et al. (1950) postulated that the origins classic and contemporary research on prejudice. of the prejudice-prone authoritarian personality stemmed from a particular pattern of childhood influences and parental We begin, then, with the psychology of bigotry. Under this practices (see Brown, 1967, for an excellent in-depth analysis principal theme, the classic perspectives of authoritarian per- of the OTAP). Specifically, the authoritarian personality was sonality, just world, and belief congruence theories are con- the presumed result of an upbringing by parents who, among sidered first. Though proposed in the 1950s and 1960s, these other things, (a) disciplined their child harshly, (b) empha- perspectives are still with us and remain important to our sized duties and obligations instead of affection in child- contemporary understanding of prejudice. For example, by parent relations, (c) made their love dependent on the child’s focusing on beliefs and values, belief congruence theory unquestioning obedience, and (d) were status-oriented by presaged and anticipated more recent theories of racism (con- being ingratiating toward those of higher social status but sidered later under the rubric of ambivalence approaches to contemptuous toward those of lesser social status. prejudice) and also has links to more recent perspectives on prejudice and impression formation. After considering am- According to the OTAP, the child in such a family devel- bivalence approaches, our focus shifts to automatic and con- ops hostility but cannot express it toward the harsh, frustrat- trolled processing approaches to prejudice, especially the ing, but feared parents. This submission leads the child to dissociation model and recent innovations in measuring prej- develop a sense of itself as dependent upon its parents and udice with automatic activation procedures. The final sec- unable to defy their authority. Moreover, the child in an au- tion under the psychology of bigotry highlights integrative thoritarian family presumably deploys an array of defense approaches (viz., social dominance theory, integrated threat mechanisms to deal with the repressed hostility felt toward its theory, and the multicomponent approach to intergroup atti- parents. By identifying with the aggressor and following a tudes), each of which incorporates insights from multiple strategy of “if you can’t beat them, join them,” the child perspectives in seeking to understand prejudice better. comes to idealize its parents and to identify with established authority in general. Repressed hostility and other impulses The psychology of the victim of prejudice and unacceptable to its parents, such as aggression and sex, are discrimination—the second principal theme of this chapter— displaced and projected by the child onto minority and subor- begins with a consideration of attributional ambiguity per- dinate groups as safe, alternative outlets. As a result, the child spectives, focusing on the complex but important issue of in an authoritarian family presumably develops a rigid per- whether and when attributing a rejection or failure to preju- sonality organization characterized by a moralistic attitude dice can buffer one’s sense of well-being and self-esteem. toward unconventional people and practices, prejudice to- Following that, the stressfulness of perceiving oneself to be a ward minority and other out-groups, and a tendency to ideal- target of prejudice or discrimination and the consequences of ize power, status, strength, and toughness but to disdain stereotype threat for task performance, respectively, are con- tenderness, weakness, and self-introspection. sidered. Finally, the relationship of relative deprivation and perceived discrimination to protest and desires to take The OTAP has several implications flowing from the cen- corrective action is considered. I begin, though, with the tral idea that prejudice toward ethnic and racial minorities psychology of bigotry. and other target groups reflects an underlying, deep-seated personality structure in the bigot. First, prejudice should

The Psychology of Bigotry 509 relate to attitudes toward a variety of issues and objects (e.g., refine (see Altemeyer, 1996). Altemeyer defined RWA as the attitudes toward sex, power, and political-economic issues) covariation of three attitudes: (a) authoritarian submission that would otherwise appear unrelated to prejudice and to one (i.e., ready submission to societally established authorities), another because their interrelations reflect deeper, uncon- (b) authoritarian aggression (i.e., aggression sanctioned scious processes and connections. (OTAP’s tenet that preju- by established authorities toward defined targets or social dice is rooted in unconscious processes is clearly echoed in groups), and (c) conventionalism (i.e., adherence to con- contemporary theories of prejudice emphasizing automatic ventions endorsed by societally established authorities). cognitive processing, described later, as an important feature Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996) has extensively documented of individuals’ prejudicial beliefs and their expression.) Sec- RWA’s correlates, often with numerous replications. For ex- ond, the authoritarian personality would be prejudiced to- ample, RWA is concentrated more among politicians of the ward a wide variety of target groups. If an authoritarian right, fundamentalist Protestants, and the poorly educated. person’s prejudice toward one group were somehow blocked, Also, parents outscore their university-age offspring in RWA. it would presumably be expressed, in a process of symptom substitution, toward other groups. Third, if prejudice is in- Altemeyer’s approach to RWA differs from the OTAP in deed deeply rooted in a personality structure, it should be dif- several important regards (Dion, 1990). By contrast to the ficult to change and would require depth-oriented techniques, OTAP’s psychoanalytic perspective, Altemeyer has favored such as psychotherapy and insight, that promote and produce social learning theory as an explanation for the development profound personality change in the bigoted individual. of RWA in individuals, especially Bandura’s versions with their emphases on vicarious learning and self-regulation Adorno et al. (1950) attempted to validate the OTAP, in by cognitive processes. Social learning theory has provided good part, by developing a personality scale, the California Altemeyer with a heuristic framework for explaining the con- F (for fascism) scale, whose items were constructed to tap tribution to RWA of personal experiences in one’s adoles- the right-wing political ideology and belief syndrome that cence, of parents and peers, of university education and they theorized as comprising the authoritarian personality. parenthood, and the paradoxical role of religion in fostering U.S. respondents’ F scale scores correlated positively, as hy- RWA by creating a sense of self-righteousness. Second, pothesized, with their scores on other attitude scales de- whereas the OTAP portrayed authoritarianism as a personal- signed to assess anti-Semitism, negative attitudes toward ity dimension with its developmental roots in infancy and Blacks and other U.S. minority groups, and U.S. ethnocen- early childhood, Altemeyer has viewed RWA as an attitudinal trism. The F scale was subsequently incorporated into nu- orientation that emerges and crystallizes in early adoles- merous studies in the 1950s and 1960s. Though criticized at cence, suggesting that it may be more readily amenable to the time of its initial appearance and later for keying all its change within the individual. items in one direction and not correcting for acquiescence response set, the F scale was still sporadically used by psy- Finally, in addition to documenting its empirical links to chological and survey researchers well up to the 1980s. It re- prejudice, Altemeyer (1988, 1996) has particularly focused mained for Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996), in a trilogy of on the political correlates of RWA. He has shown repeatedly books reflecting often painstaking psychometric research, to that individuals (usually university students) scoring high on demonstrate conclusively the California F scale’s serious in- the RWA scale are reportedly more than willing and ready to adequacies as a measure of proneness to prejudice and to punish others and to infringe upon and curtail their civil refocus the conceptualization of the authoritarian personality rights, especially those who threaten the social order. RWA into a more rigorously defined construct and scale of right- scale scores have also been found to discriminate well be- wing authoritarianism. tween provincial and state legislators in Canada and the United States belonging to right- and left-wing political par- The Theory of Right-Wing Authoritarianism ties. Knowing politicians’ RWA scale scores appears to be a useful piece of information for predicting their attitudes and Altemeyer (1981) persuasively detailed the inadequacies of behaviors. the California F scale, most notably its lack of scale homo- geneity and its saturation with response sets, especially ac- Research by Altemeyer and others indicates that the RWA quiescence. Even more important, however, he created a scale correlates between .30 and .50 with measures of pre- psychometrically and conceptually appropriate scale of judice toward racial and ethnic minorities and ethnocentrism right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) that he has continued to scales. RWA correlates negatively with internal motivation (e.g., personal standards) and positively with external moti- vation (e.g., social or peer pressure) by White people to

510 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination respond without prejudice toward Black people (Plant & conceptually and empirically distinguishable from authori- Devine, 1998). RWA consistently correlates more highly, tarianism. Using factor analyses of questionnaire measures between .5 and .6, with homophobia and negative attitudes from a sample of Canadian university students in Ontario, toward homosexuals. Indeed, Altemeyer (1996) contended Lerner (1978) showed that authoritarianism (as measured by that RWA is the single individual difference variable most Rokeach’s 1960 F scale) and BJW loaded on separate, inde- relevant for predicting attitudes toward homosexuals, espe- pendent factors. Authoritarianism loaded on a xenophobia cially negative ones. factor characterized by high loading for authoritarianism, ad- herence to the Protestant ethic (a belief in the virtues of hard Studies by other investigators have likewise documented work and effort), attitudes toward social changes, and nega- a consistently negative relationship between RWA and tive attitudes toward both minority groups and out-groups attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (e.g., (e.g., Americans). By contrast, the BJW loaded on a win-lose Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Lippa & Arad, 1999; view of the world, in which winners (e.g., Americans) were Whitley, 1999), strongly reinforcing Altemeyer’s conclusion viewed positively, while losers (e.g., Native Indians and in this regard. The negative attitudes toward homosexuals Métis) were negatively appraised. The BJW also correlates by those scoring high in RWA are due to perceived impedi- positively, but only modestly (i.e., between .1 and .3) with ments of homosexuals and homosexuality to one’s values RWA (Lambert, Burroughs, & Chasteen, 1998). (Haddock et al., 1993) or to religiousness. Finally, a recent lexical approach to mapping the structure of social attitudes It is interesting that blaming victims for their ill fate by Saucier (2000) showed that authoritarianism and RWA strengthens the observer’s BJW (see Lerner & Montada, 1998). (along with conservatism and religiousness) defined the first In turn, believing oneself to have been victimized as a target of and largest of three factors in the domain of social attitudes prejudice or discrimination also appears to affect the BJW and beliefs. Clearly, the authoritarianism construct, espe- adversely. Birt and Dion (1987) found that in Toronto, the cially RWA, remains important in psychological research on greater the perceived discrimination against homosexuals as a prejudice and in linking prejudice to individuals’ personality group, the weaker was the BJW among gay and lesbian re- and attitudes. spondents. Thus, just world theory and the BJW have relevance for the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimi- Just World Theory nation as well as the psychology of bigotry. An individual’s belief in a just world (BJW) is another psy- Belief Congruence Theory chological dimension relevant for understanding individuals’ reactions to ethnic and racial minorities and victims of ill for- Rokeach (1960) criticized the OTAP for focusing on right- tune. According to Lerner’s (1980) just world theory, we all wing authoritarianism, contending that authoritarianism need believe, to a varying extent, in a just world where people get not be tied inextricably to either right- or left-wing political what they deserve and also deserve what they get. The BJW views. As an alternative, he proposed the construct of closed- presumably enables us to view our world as a safe, pre- mindedness or dogmatism and developed several Dogmatism dictable place where we can expect to obtain desired rewards Scales in an attempt to measure authoritarianism and to and to avoid unpleasant outcomes. Becoming aware of an assess general authoritarianism of the political left as well innocent victim who does not deserve to suffer, however, as the political right. Unfortunately, his Dogmatism Scales threatens one’s BJW. Individuals go to considerable lengths possess serious psychometric limitations and are relatively to maintain and protect their BJW in the face of contrary little used today. Moreover, if it exists, left-wing authoritari- information. For example, classic experiments by Lerner and anism would involve resisting and opposing conventional his colleagues have demonstrated that when unable to pre- and established authorities (see Altemeyer, 1996, for an inter- vent or compensate for an innocent victim’s suffering, ob- esting discussion of dogmatism and left-wing authoritarian- servers preserved their BJW by derogating the victim and ism and some new prospective scales for measuring these seeing the suffering as deserved (see Lerner, 1980). dimensions). Questionnaire measures of the BJW consistently correlate In the same book on the open and closed mind, however, with the tendency to blame visible victims (e.g., ethnic and Rokeach, Smith, and Evans (1960) also proposed an im- racial minorities, the unemployed, and immigrants and asy- portant perspective on prejudice: belief congruence theory lum seekers) with samples of university and community (BCT). According to BCT, individuals cognitively organize respondents in the United States, Canada, and Europe (see their psychological world along the lines of belief congru- Montada & Lerner, 1998). However, the BJW construct is ence, liking those with similar beliefs and disliking those

The Psychology of Bigotry 511 with dissimilar beliefs. Although the link between attitude more important than race in determining discrimination or similarity and interpersonal attraction had already been well prejudice). They concluded that the weak version of BCT was demonstrated by that point, Rokeach et al.’s provocative clearly supported by the evidence, whereas the strong version contribution was to extent it to the domain of prejudice and to was more problematic (e.g., race effects in the form of in- argue that all forms of prejudice were essentially different group favoritism occur even in the absence of social pressure). forms of belief prejudice. Thus, according to BCT, the racial conflict between Blacks and Whites in the United States is Cox et al. (1996) reported results of three cross-sectional not due to race per se but rather to opposite or conflicting surveys conducted over several decades of Black and White stands on key issues such as affirmative action in em- teenagers sampled from a North Carolina school system who ployment and education. Likewise, the antipathies between had responded to stimulus persons varying in race and belief, English and French in Canada are not due to ethnicity per se, using a belief discrepancy manipulation in which dissimilar but rather to conflict over the issue of Quebec’s role, and the beliefs were ones that respondents themselves had previously place of the French language, within Canada. In other words, attributed to the other race. For White respondents, race ef- racial and ethnic prejudice, as two examples, presumably fects (i.e., preferring their own race to Blacks on social dis- reflect belief prejudice. tance and other attitude measures) steadily declined across three points in time from 1966 to 1993, as did perceived dis- BCT clearly suggests research in which belief is pitted approval of interracial contacts and relationships. The effects against group membership characteristics such as race or eth- of belief similarity affected all of their dependent variables nicity. Rokeach et al. (1960), for example, had samples of and were constant across decades for White respondents. For White university students from northern and southern parts of Black respondents, more complex findings were obtained: the United States rate their desires to be friends with members Specifically, race effects (i.e., in-group preference) did not of pairs of stimulus persons whose races and beliefs, both decline between 1979 and 1993 (the only two time periods race-relevant and -irrelevant, were specified. For example, including Black respondents), and belief similarity primarily Type R pairs varied in race but kept belief constant (e.g., a influenced same-race rather than interracial evaluations. White person who believes in God vs. a Black person who be- lieves in God). Type B pairs kept race constant but varied be- BCT has clear links to contemporary perspectives on im- lief (a Black person who believes in God vs. a Black person pression formation and prejudice. For example, Cox et al. who is an atheist). Type RB pairs varied both race and belief (1996) noted that BCT is very similar to Fiske and Neuberg’s simultaneously. Differences in friendliness ratings for mem- (1990) temporal-continuum model of impression formation. bers of a stimulus person pair were taken as reflecting In the latter model, a perceiver begins with categorical infor- discrimination. A critical comparison suggested by BCT mation (viz., race, ethnicity, sex, age, etc.) about a person involved a choice between an in-group member with dissimi- but proceeds, if time permits and circumstances require, to lar beliefs versus an out-group member with beliefs similar to process individuating information (e.g., beliefs of the stimu- one’s own. For this pair comparison, individuals’ preference lus person). Like Fiske and Neuberg’s model, BCT deals with typically goes to the latter, consistent with BCT. Likewise, the issue of when individuating information (viz., beliefs and Rokeach and Mezei (1966) showed that belief similarity ex- values) about a stimulus person overcomes competing cate- cels race in predicting preferences for work partners among gorical information (viz., group membership) in the impres- employment applicants following actual interpersonal inter- sions we form of others. Likewise, the importance that BCT action and discussion between Black and White participants accords to perceived belief dissimilarity in eliciting prejudice with similar and dissimilar beliefs on an issue. is shared today by terror management theory, a perspective focusing on the psychological consequences of being aware BCT remains as relevant a theory of prejudice in the of, or sensitized to, one’s mortality (Solomon, Greenberg, & twenty-first century as it was in the latter half of the twentieth Pyszczynski, 2000). century, largely due to the research over the past several decades of Insko and his colleagues (e.g., Cox, Smith, & BCT has also been extended to the value domain. Schwartz Insko, 1996; Insko, Nacoste, & Moe, 1983) as well as recent and Struch (1989) proposed that perceptions of value dissim- contributions by Biernat and her colleagues (Biernat, Vescio, ilarities between groups underlie intergroup antagonisms and & Theno, 1996; Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & Crandall, 1996). undercut feelings of shared humanity. Likewise, Biernat, For example, Insko et al. (1983) reviewed the literature and Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996) reported studies in which compared the strong version of BCT (when social pressure is group membership cues (race and sexual orientation, respec- absent, only belief determines racial-ethnic discrimination) tively, in separate studies) were crossed with value violation to a weak version (when social pressure is absent, belief is (e.g., a lazy vs. dependable worker in the race study or a good vs. bad parental example in the sexual orientation study).

512 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination Value similarity had a strong effect on stimulus person ratings theories of aversive racism, symbolic and modern racism, re- in both studies and a stronger effect than group member- sponse amplification, ambivalent sexism, and blatant versus ship characteristics (i.e., whether the stimulus person being subtle prejudice. evaluated was an in-group or out-group member from the per- spective of the respondent). Aversive Racism When only group membership cues are available, per- Dovidio and Gaertner (1986), for example, proposed a the- ceivers infer that an out-group member has dissimilar beliefs, ory of aversive racism, in which they characterized the racial triggering a discriminatory or prejudicial response toward her attitudes of most liberal, White Americans today as a subtler or him, whether the out-group is defined by race or sexual and less obviously bigoted view of Black Americans than the orientation (see Stein, Hardyck, & Smith, 1965; Pilkington & dominative racism (i.e., old-fashioned, “redneck” views of Lydon, 1997). When belief similarity or dissimilarity is White superiority and Black inferiority) of previous genera- crossed with group membership, belief effects (i.e., prefer- tions. According to the aversive racism perspective, preju- ring the individual with similar beliefs to one with dissimilar dice in the United States of the later twentieth century beliefs) are stronger. Race effects, however, usually remain became a subtler, less direct, and perhaps more pernicious evident in interpersonally intimate domains such as eating to- form than before, although dominative racism has not disap- gether, dating, and marriage. Insko et al. (1983; Cox et al., peared altogether. 1996) have suggested that race effects in these particular do- mains reflect perceived disapproval of interracial contact by Aversive racism theory suggests that on one hand, most reference persons such as parents and peers rather than inti- White Americans subscribe strongly to an egalitarian value macy per se. system, inclining them to sympathize with victims of injus- tice, such as Black Americans and other racial minorities, and In sum, as a perspective on prejudice, BCT anticipated the to support policies promoting racial equality. This strong ad- subsequent focus on the importance of values in prejudice, an herence to egalitarianism enables White Americans to regard idea pivotal to ambivalence approaches to prejudice that themselves as being unprejudiced and nondiscriminatory. emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. I now turn to ambivalence This positive component of the ambivalence comprising approaches to prejudice. aversive racism is not assumed, however, to include gen- uinely pro-Black attitudes or sentiments of true friendship Ambivalence Approaches between Whites and Blacks in the United States. Myrdal (1994) was perhaps first to suggest that ambivalence On the other hand, owing to a historically racist culture in underlies White Americans’ attitudes and behaviors toward the United States and certain feelings of negative affect (e.g., Blacks. This idea lay fallow in U.S. psychology until the late uneasiness, disgust, fear, and discomfort, though not neces- 1970s (see Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Pettigrew, 1979). sarily hostility or hate) toward Black Americans, most White By that point, though, it had become increasingly apparent that Americans are assumed to avoid Black-White interracial in- White Americans were less prone to strident racism asserting teractions and to be biased and discriminatory toward Black White superiority, Black inferiority, and racial segregation but Americans in situations in which they can do so without instead inclined toward subtler expressions of racism. Al- appearing to be prejudiced or in which it may be justified though attitude surveys suggested growing racial tolerance under a rationale preserving their erstwhile egalitarian val- among White Americans from the 1960s onward, the evidence ues. Aversive racism is not assumed to be a psychopatho- was much less clear on indirect indicators (e.g., nonverbal be- logical phenomenon but rather to reflect normal cognitive havior and helping behavior) that feelings of White Americans processes and the influence of sociocultural and historical toward Blacks had truly become more tolerant. processes on White Americans. In the last few decades, several groups of researchers Several implications flow from aversive racism theory and concerned with prejudice, racism, and discrimination in the the idea that aversive racists are strongly motivated and vigi- United States have characterized White Americans’ attitudes lant to avoid appearing racially bigoted. First, traditional prej- toward Black Americans in the latter twentieth and early udice measures in the form of standard attitude scales would twenty-first centuries as being ambivalent in nature, that is, presumably be difficult and perhaps of limited use for assess- consisting of both positive and negative elements (see Jones, ing aversive racism, according to Dovidio and Gaertner 1997). They differ, however, in the nature of the positive and (1986). Nevertheless, based on survey research up to the negative elements comprising this ambivalence and other as- 1990s, Dovidio and Gaertner (1991) estimated that perhaps a pects of their models. These ambivalence approaches include fifth of White U.S. citizens were overtly racist. The other 80%

The Psychology of Bigotry 513 of White Americans would presumably be, to varying extent, positive ratings of a Black stimulus person than a White one. ambivalent toward Black Americans. White Americans who Whether egalitarianism promotes tolerance among indi- espouse a political philosophy of liberalism should be espe- viduals in countries other than the United States, however, cially prone to aversive racism (Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & remains to be seen. With White participants from Portugal Crandall, 1996). and Brazil, Vala and Lima (2001) found that activating an egalitarian norm affected perceptions and evaluations of a As noted earlier, a second implication of aversive racism White but not a Black stimulus person. theory is that in situations where discrimination would be blatant and where the appropriate behavior is normative and Although aversive racism theory has an excellent track well-defined, White Americans would be unlikely to discrim- record in predicting a variety of cognitions and behaviors in inate against Black Americans because doing so would con- the social psychological laboratory, documenting the precise tradict their allegedly nonprejudiced, egalitarian ideals and nature of White Americans’ ambivalence toward Blacks self-images. However, in ambiguous situations where the dis- remains a task to be completed. Using recently developed crimination is less blatant or obvious, White Americans automatic processing techniques (described later) to assess should be more likely to be biased against Black Americans nonconscious feelings of antipathy toward Blacks (or other because in that case they can do so without necessarily threat- oppressed group members) in conjunction with standard ening their self-images. This feature of aversive racism value measures to assess egalitarianism and other potentially theory—emphasizing the normative structure of situations as race-relevant values may provide some useful leverage for a moderator variable for predicting when racially ambivalent assessing aversive racism in White participants and for test- White Americans will or will not discriminate against Black ing the theory directly. Americans—is perhaps its most unique and distinctive fea- ture among ambivalence approaches (Biernat, Vescio, Theno, Symbolic and Modern Racism & Crandall, 1996). These predictions have been amply sup- ported in studies of White Americans, mostly college stu- Closely related to aversive racism theory are the constructs of dents, by Dovidio, Gaertner, and their colleagues. symbolic and modern racism that have been suggested by several researchers, such as McConahay (1986) and Sears This supportive research has included studies of helping, (1988; Sears & Funk, 1991). The symbolic and modern social cognition studies measuring reaction times linking the racism constructs originated because standard prejudice words “white” and “black” to positive and negative stereo- scales of the 1950s and 1960s became increasingly problem- type characteristics, studies where pictures of Black and atic for U.S. survey researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, White individuals’ faces are presented as primes (Dovidio & owing to social desirability issues (i.e., the transparency of Gaertner, 1986), research on juridic recommendations of the what they were measuring) and because they failed to predict death penalty in a capital case (Dovidio, Smith, Gershenfeld racially relevant political behavior, such as voting intentions Donnella, & Gaertner, 1997), and personnel selection recom- for capable Black candidates in elections where candidates of mendations in 1989 and 1999 (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000), both races were running and racism likely played a role in the among others. In all of these studies, findings supported aver- outcome (see Kinder & Sears, 1981). sive racism theory and were unaffected by whether the par- ticipants had scored low or high on standard prejudice What did predict voting and support for progressive racial measures, though high scorers on such scales often showed policies were attitude items reflecting an abstract, moral greater bias toward Blacks than did low scorers. tone that Black Americans were violating cherished White American values such as individualism and the Protestant What remains to be demonstrated by aversive racism the- ethic extolling the virtues of individual effort and hard orists is that it is actually the conflict or tension between the work—qualities White Americans often felt were lacking positive element of egalitarianism, or one hand, and negative among Black Americans. Ambivalence, then, arises because feelings toward Blacks, on the other, that constitutes the un- many White Americans want to maintain a nonprejudiced derlying basis of ambivalence for White Americans’ attitudes image even though they privately resent and dislike Blacks and behaviors toward Blacks and is the driving force behind and feel the racial discrimination toward Blacks in the United their discrimination of Blacks in ambiguous situations. States no longer exists. In protecting themselves from the Indeed, egalitarianism is the value that perhaps most strongly appearance of being prejudiced, symbolic or modern racists promotes tolerance and mitigates negative feelings toward justify their negative attitudes and behaviors toward Blacks Blacks by White Americans. Presenting liberal-oriented U.S. by invoking nonprejudiced explanations in the form of university students with an egalitarian message has been American values or ideals. A symbolic or modern racist, for shown by Biernat, Vescio, and Theno (1996) to elicit more

514 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination example, might justify opposition to affirmative action prog- conservatism related not to rejection and prejudice toward rams benefiting Blacks by saying that they violate the value out-group members but rather to greater support for those, of equality by favoring one group over others. whether from the in-group or out-group, who behaved in a manner consistent with politically conservative principles The constructs of symbolic and modern racism are similar (e.g., Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991). to aversive racism. In both cases, the ambivalence arises from negative feelings toward Black people versus core American Although proponents of symbolic and modern racism have values. In both cases, White Americans dislike and avoid not thoroughly explored the presumed link to values, Biernat, racial prejudice but seek indirect ways to manifest their neg- Vescio, and Theno (1996) did so in a series of studies. For ex- ative feelings toward Black Americans. All three racism ample, after completing Rokeach’s Value Survey, White U.S. constructs are interested in predicting interpersonal behavior, undergraduates were asked to rate the extent to which four tar- with symbolic and modern racism being used mainly to pre- get groups, including Black Americans, supported or violated dict political attitudes and behavior, typically in surveys. their values. Whether considering their top value or their Symbolic and modern racism are assumed to emerge from hierarchy of values, Black Americans were perceived as early political socialization and not to be based on personal less supportive of their values than were White Americans; experience, personal competition, or direct, personal, eco- however, there was no difference in perceived violation of val- nomic threats to Whites from Blacks. Unlike aversive racism, ues for these two target groups. Likewise, differences in rat- however, items and scales to assess symbolic and modern ings of White versus Black support and violation of values racism have been constructed by their adherents and have correlated with measures of modern racism as well as pro- and proven very popular in survey and experimental research on anti-Black attitudes, although these correlations were consis- prejudice by psychologists in the late twentieth century. tently modest in magnitude. Consistent with theories of sym- bolic and modern racism, Biernat et al. showed that White McConahay (1986), for example, presented a Modern individuals who scored high on the Protestant work ethic and Racism Scale (MRS) and an Old-Fashioned Racism Scale had their values made salient rated a Black employee less (OFRS), with moderate, positive correlations between the positively than a White employee when they violated the two, and items loading on one or the other factor in ex- work ethic. ploratory factor analyses. Whereas the OFRS was reactive (i.e., White U.S. respondents’ scores were lower when it was Thus, Biernat, Vescio, and Theno’s (1996) research par- administered by a Black experimenter than by a White one), tially supported models of symbolic and modern racism. How- the MRS was nonreactive (at least in the 1980s). Items from ever, if violating core American values is indeed one of the two symbolic or modern racism scales became the standard mea- key components of symbolic and modern racism, one would sure of prejudice toward Blacks in the United States in the expect to find much stronger relationships than they did. 1980s and 1990s and are still frequently used in this regard. Biernat et al. also questioned the assumption that modern- In the twenty-first century, newer scales such as the Blatant symbolic racism is a blending of negative affect toward Blacks and Subtle Prejudice Scales (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) or and core American values, such as individualism. Their analy- the Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto, Sidanius, ses suggested that egalitarianism is a stronger predictor than Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), both of which are discussed later, individualism of intergroup attitudes and that combining neg- are perhaps more apt to become the preferred, “paper-and- ative affect with value measures added little beyond the sepa- pencil” measures of prejudice. rate components in predicting responses to an out-group member in their studies of race and sexual orientation. Sniderman and Tetlock (1986), themselves prominent po- litical psychologists, have strongly criticized the constructs In the ambivalence approach presented next the focus and measurement of symbolic and modern racism. Among shifts to conflict between pro- and anti-Black attitudes linked other things, they criticized symbolic and modern racism for to values as the determinant of positive and negative reac- being unclear as to the causal relation between anti-Black tions to Blacks by White Americans. affect and core American values, for equating political policy preferences (e.g., opposition to busing school children or Ambivalence Amplification affirmative action) with racism itself, and for suggesting that old-fashioned racism no longer existed in the United States. Katz and Hass (1988) contended that most White Americans Sniderman and Tetlock even contended that symbolic racism hold both positive and negative attitudes about Black theory was unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The MRS, Americans that are relatively independent of one another. A they also charged, was confounded with political conser- White American who endorses positive statements about vatism. Sniderman and his colleagues showed that political Blacks on a “Pro-Black scale” is neither more nor less likely

The Psychology of Bigotry 515 to agree with anti-Black statements from a separate “Anti- that are subjectively positive in affective tone from the per- Black scale.” Moreover, for White American respondents, ceiver’s viewpoint and elicit prosocial behaviors (e.g., help- these racial beliefs relate to different and conflicting value ing) or intimacy seeking (e.g., self-disclosure). Benevolent systems. Pro-Black attitudes (e.g., beliefs that Blacks have a sexism reflects a positive attitude toward women and positive disadvantaged position in society) are linked to humanitar- stereotypes about women, although Glick and Fiske do not ian-egalitarian values. By contrast, anti-Black attitudes (e.g., view it as a good thing. Although both HS and BS were orig- beliefs that Black people lack the drive or skills necessary to inally postulated to include three underlying components, improve their socioeconomic position) related to White re- this conjecture was supported only for BS, while HS was spondents’ beliefs in individualism and the Protestant ethic. found to be a unidimensional construct. Katz and his colleagues proposed that when these con- Both HS and BS relate, as one would expect, to other mea- flicting beliefs are salient to a White person holding them and sures of modern sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995) who also becomes aware of the ambivalence, he or she expe- and neo-sexism (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). riences negative arousal and is motivated to reduce this ten- Benevolent sexism, however, relates to subtler forms of sex- sion. Indeed, Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, and Moore (1992) ism than HS, masked as it is in a veil of positive sentiment have demonstrated that White American participants experi- toward women. Glick and Fiske (1996) suggested that among enced negative mood change when their racial ambivalence women, BS reflects a tendency to adopt as one’s own the toward Black people was stimulated by reading a vivid prevalent forms of sexist prejudice in U.S. society. They also description of an ugly racial incident in which gangs of suggested that while modern- and neo-sexism measures young Whites in New York City viciously beat some Black excel in predicting gender-related political attitudes, HS Americans whose car had broken down in their neighbor- and BS scales together (comprising the Ambivalent Sexism hood. This discomfort can be reduced, according to these Inventory, or ASI) would be better at predicting attitudes theorists, by intensifying either the positive or negative com- and behavior in the realm of interpersonal and romantic ponent of the conflicted attitude toward Blacks—an idea relationships between women and men. As well, sexist defining response amplification theory. ambivalence—the combination of scoring high on both BS and HS—is believed to polarize attitudes and behaviors to- Response amplification theory suggests that for ambiva- ward women, in a process like that proposed by Katz, Haas, lent White Americans attitudes and behavior will be more and their colleagues for amplified responses toward Black polarized or amplified toward Black Americans than toward Americans and the physically handicapped as induced by fellow White Americans. Experimental evidence for re- ambivalence. sponse amplification theory, as applied to Black Americans and other socially stigmatized groups such as the handi- Blatant and Subtle Prejudice capped, was presented by Katz and Glass (1979). For exam- ple, White U.S. undergraduates who had been led to believe The preceding ambivalence approaches differ in whether that they had delivered a series of strong shocks to a victim they assume that old-fashioned prejudice still exists or derogated a Black victim more than a White victim, and this whether it is seen to be as potent as its modern or symbolic derogation was a function of the extent of ambivalence as variants. For example, advocates of symbolic and modern reflected by measures of prejudice and sympathy toward racism suggest that it is the more dominant form of prejudice Blacks. Whether racial ambivalence potentiates positive or today. Other ambivalence approaches assume that both forms negative responses depends on the situational context and the are prevalent and require assessment by researchers inter- ambivalent person’s behavioral options. ested in prejudice. For example, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) postulated the existence of both blatant and subtle Ambivalent Sexism prejudice toward out-groups today. They characterized bla- tant prejudice (the traditional form) as “hot, close, and direct” Sexism, like racism, reflects ambivalence. Glick and Fiske and suggested that it consisted of two components: (a) per- (1996) viewed sexism as a multidimensional construct in- ceived threat and rejection of the out-group and (b) avoidance volving ambivalence. They proposed that ambivalent sexism of intimacy (especially sex and marriage). By contrast, subtle comprises two positively correlated components: hostile sex- prejudice (the modern variant) is “cool, distant, and indirect” ism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS). The former consists of and includes three components: (a) defense of traditional hostility, negative attitudes, and negative stereotypes of values, (b) exaggeration of cultural differences, and (c) denial women. By contrast, BS is a set of interrelated sexist attitudes of positive emotional responses toward out-groups. that portray women stereotypically and in restricted roles but

516 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) created separate multi-item prejudiced beliefs and attitudes were unamenable to change, scales for blatant and subtle prejudice toward immigrants as well as that prejudice is an inevitable, unavoidable product and administered them to survey respondents from four of normal cognitive processes. European countries with regard to several different target groups. Across countries, confirmatory factor analyses sug- As an alternative, Devine (1989) proposed a dissociation gested that two-factor models surpassed a one-factor model, model that emphasizes the importance of distinguishing but that a correlated two-factor model and a hierarchical model between automatic versus controlled cognitive processing in which blatant and subtle prejudice were first-order factors and the differentiation of stereotype activation versus per- subsumed under a general second-order factor were equally sonal beliefs. The automatic versus controlled processing dis- viable models to account for the pattern of scale scores. tinction emerged in cognitive psychology during the 1970s and subsequently has become an increasingly important con- An advantage of using both subtle and blatant prejudice struct in social and personality psychology (see Bargh, 1989). scales is that a threefold typology emerged that yielded dif- Automatic processing refers to unintentional, nonconscious ferent patterns of responses to immigrants in Pettigrew and cognitive processing that occurs without effort or intention Meertens’s (1995) research. Respondents who scored low on and is unlimited by cognitive capacity. By contrast, con- both blatant and subtle prejudice scales were called “equali- trolled cognitive processing refers to intentional, effortful, tarians,” a group who were most in favor of maintaining and and goal-directed processing of information that is assumed enhancing immigrants’ rights in their countries and who to be under the person’s awareness and control but subject to presumably have internalized most strongly contemporary limitation by cognitive capacity (e.g., attentional limits). Ap- norms of tolerance in their societies. Respondents scoring plying this distinction to the relationship between stereotyp- high on both scales comprised “bigots,” who were most in ing and prejudice, Devine (1989) suggested that stereotype favor of returning immigrants to their home countries and activation was an automatic process that did not require in- restricting immigrants’ rights and were assumed to have tention, attention, or cognitive capacity on the part of a per- rejected current norms against blatant prejudice. “Subtles” ceiver. Instead, whenever an appropriate cue is present, such were respondents scoring low on blatant prejudice but high as the appearance of a Black person or a symbolic represen- on subtle prejudice and were assumed to have only partially tation of one, a White U.S. perceiver’s stereotype of Black and incompletely internalized norms against blatant preju- people should be activated automatically. dice. On immigration issues, “subtles” adopted a middling, nonprejudicial stance between bigots and equalitarians and Devine (1989) proposed that common socialization expe- required justification for restricting immigrants’ rights. The riences in late-20th-century America have led White people “subtles” category, of course, is the analogue to symbolic, in the U.S. to become equally knowledgeable about the modern, and aversive racism in that these people strive to prevalent and generally negative stereotype of Black people, appear nonprejudiced and are assumed to express their biases regardless of their personal levels of prejudice. As a conse- against immigrants in ways that do not violate current norms quence of this common knowledge, her dissociation model against blatant prejudice. predicted that automatic activation of the stereotype would be equally strong and unavoidable for White U.S. perceivers, Automatic and Controlled Processing regardless of the extent of their personal prejudice toward Blacks. The Dissociation Model Prejudiced and nonprejudiced White persons, however, As noted earlier in discussing ambivalence approaches to were expected in the dissociation model to differ in their per- prejudice, some prejudice researchers (e.g., Crosby et al., sonal beliefs concerning Black people, and this difference in 1980; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986) have suggested that most personal beliefs regarding Blacks should be manifested on White Americans are prejudiced toward Black people and cognitive tasks involving deliberate, controlled cognitive that subtle behaviors that individuals can less readily monitor processing. Specifically, on such a task, nonprejudiced White and censor (e.g., helping, nonverbal behavior, reaction times persons should inhibit and override their negative cultural to briefly presented stimuli) are better gauges of White stereotype of Blacks because it conflicts with their egalitarian Americans’ true racial attitudes. In an influential contribution values and their personal beliefs and to replace the pejorative, to the prejudice literature, Devine (1989) strongly challenged Black stereotype with more positive perceptions and attribu- and countered this view. She claimed that it implied that tions of Black persons. On this latter point, Devine’s (1989) analysis of nonprejudiced perceivers agrees with aversive racism and modern-symbolic racism theories in positing a

The Psychology of Bigotry 517 conflict between core American values, on one hand, and a 80% condition instead of the 20% one), with no difference as desire to avoid appearing prejudiced, on the other. a function of the participants’ level of prejudice. For prejudiced White persons, on the other hand, the cul- From the preceding research, Devine (1989) concluded tural stereotype of Blacks and their personal beliefs about that controlled processing rather than automatic processing them are congruent with one another. Because they do not differentiates the highly prejudiced from their less prejudiced conflict, there would be little need for them to censor their White counterparts. Moreover, White people with egalitarian negative personal beliefs concerning Black people. Thus, ac- ideals employ controlled processing to try to behave and cording to the dissociation model, White persons varying in think in an unprejudiced manner toward Black people. Both prejudice toward Black people should differ on cognitive high- and low-prejudiced White Americans have the same tasks involving controlled processing but not on tasks involv- stereotypic knowledge of Black people and are presumably ing automatic processing. both susceptible to having this stereotypic knowledge that is presumably elicited automatically beneath their awareness. Devine (1989) supported her dissociation model with However, stereotypic and prejudicial responses can be over- three studies, in which the MRS served as the measure used ridden by intentional and flexible controlled processing. to define high versus low levels of prejudice in White par- ticipants. One study demonstrated that on an open-ended Deciding to be unprejudiced is, according to the dissocia- measure, both high- and low-prejudice White participants tion model, a conscious, intentional act of controlled process- listed very similar characteristics, and predominantly nega- ing. Inhibiting and overriding stereotypic and prejudicial tive ones, when asked to describe the cultural stereotype of responses elicited by automatic activation processes and re- Black people—an effect since replicated by other investiga- placing them with more appropriate and positive beliefs to- tors in the United States and the United Kingdom (e.g., ward Blacks and other minorities held by individuals seeking Lepore & Brown, 1997). Another study deployed a con- to be unprejudiced is akin, Devine has argued, to their “break- trolled processing task by giving participants ample time to ing a bad habit.” That is, the White person trying to be un- list alternative labels for “Black Americans” and then asking prejudiced toward Black people must consciously and them to list all of their thoughts in response to this label. deliberately decide to forego prejudicial beliefs and actions Thoughts on this listing task were categorized by judges as (the bad, old habit) and to replace them with new attitudes and being positive beliefs, negative beliefs, or traits. Highly prej- behaviors consistent with an egalitarian outlook (the new, udiced White participants listed negative traits most often, good habit). In essence, Devine’s (1989) dissociation model while less prejudiced ones were more likely to list thoughts suggests that for those seeking to be (or actually being) un- reflecting positive beliefs—uncontroverisal and unsurprising prejudiced, automatic and controlled processes must become results. dissociated from one another, with the good habit of tolerance strengthened at the expense of the bad habit of prejudice. In what has since become a more controversial study, however, Devine (1989) also compared reactions of White Monteith (1993; Monteith, Devine, & Zuwerink, 1993; persons varying in prejudice on an automatic processing task Monteith & Walters, 1998) and her colleagues (Devine & in which participants were subliminally presented with word Monteith, 1999; Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, primes parafoveally (i.e., outside the central visual field) 1991) have explored in depth the self-regulatory processes by while performing a perceptual vigilance task. Word primes which low-prejudice White Americans (i.e., those who score were related to the Black stereotype either 20% or 80% of the low on prejudice measures, such as the MRS) inhibit preju- time and included reference both to the category Blacks and diced responses and maintain egalitarian standards. First, to stereotypic traits for Black Americans (e.g., lazy, poor, op- low-prejudice Whites do indeed have personal beliefs and pressed, etc.). Following this automatic processing task in standards against expressing prejudice toward oppressed which participants had been primed to varying extent with groups, such as Black people and homosexuals, but many of racially relevant stimuli, they read an ambiguous story about the former also acknowledge responding from time to time in a male person of unspecified race performing various as- ways that are more prejudiced than their personal beliefs sertive behaviors and then rendered their impressions of him. would warrant. Second, when they do find themselves As predicted by the dissociation model, impressions of the exhibiting a biased response toward an oppressed group stimulus person were affected by the automatic processing member (i.e., what Monteith and her colleagues term a task in that attributions of hostility were more likely when prejudice-related discrepancy), low-prejudice White primes from the preceding automatic processing task had Americans experience emotional responses in the form of been proportionally more stereotypically oriented (i.e., in the guilt and negative, self-directed affect as well as increased

518 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination self-focus and self-attention, and they subsequently monitor correlated with stereotypic activation on the experimental their behavior more carefully to ensure that it conforms more task when it allowed automatic processing. closely to their personal beliefs. With regard to Devine’s automatic processing findings, Critique of the Dissociation Model Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995) have suggested that the MRS has become a reactive and insensitive measure The dissociation model’s contention that prejudiced and un- of racial prejudice. Consistent with this point, they showed prejudiced perceivers would be equally responsive to priming that the levels of modern racism in White American partici- by an automatic processing task has, however, been recently pants failed to moderate priming effects on a procedure criticized and questioned by several investigators. Lepore and (described later) that was designed to elicit automatic activa- Brown (1997), for example, criticized Devine’s (1989) auto- tion of racial attitudes. matic processing study for including both categorical cues referring to Blacks as a social group and stereotypic traits of Taken together, the preceding critiques of the dissociation Black people among the subliminal primes. As an alternative model have important implications for prejudice and its re- to the dissociation model, Lepore and Brown argued that the duction. According to Lepore and Brown’s (1997) alternative link between the category and the stereotypic features relating perspective, low-prejudice White persons have never estab- to Blacks differentiates White perceivers varying in preju- lished the bad habit of prejudice toward Black people in the dice, with the link being much stronger and more chronically first place or established it much less firmly than their highly accessible for highly prejudiced White persons than for less prejudiced White counterparts. For low-prejudice White per- prejudiced ones. If only categorical cues referring to Blacks sons, the link between the social category, Blacks, and the as a group comprise the subliminal primes on an automatic culturally stereotypic information about them is already weak processing task, one should observe highly prejudiced White and tenuous. Rather than unlearning a bad habit, those inter- persons subsequently forming more negative impressions ested in reducing prejudice in White people presumably need than less prejudiced ones—a result that Lepore and Brown to focus on the highly prejudiced Whites and on weakening (1997, Study 2), in fact, have obtained. the associative strength of the links between the category of Blacks as a social group and negative stereotypic information By contrast, subliminal cues that include stereotypic at- and content about them. tributes along with the categorical label also prime the stereo- typic knowledge of both high- and low-prejudice White Automatic Activation as Prejudice Measures perceivers, which has been shown to be highly similar. Thus, subliminal cues containing both category references and Automatic activation techniques are a means of unobtrusively stereotypic attributes on an automatic processing task would measuring racial and other intergroup attitudes and an alterna- not be expected to reveal differences between White persons tive to traditional attitude scales, which are often compromised varying in prejudice, a prediction that Lepore and Brown by social desirability and transparency regarding the goal of (1997, Study 3) also supported in a conceptual replication of assessing prejudice. Even the MRS has recently been shown to Devine’s (1989) automatic processing study. Null hypothesis be sensitive to social desirability, yielding lower scores from predictions have been rife on the issue of automatic process- White participants when administered by a Black experi- ing effects on impression formation as a function of the menter than by a White one (Fazio et al., 1995, Study 3). From White participants’ prejudice toward Blacks. Predicting their findings in several studies, Fazio et al. (1995) have styled the null hypothesis, however, is problematic because tests of the MRS as a measure of White Americans’ “willingness to such hypotheses often lack sufficient statistical power (see express” negative feelings or opinions about Blacks, one that Cohen, 1992). also confounds racism with political conservatism. Other re- searchers have noted that correlations between old-fashioned Kawakami, Dion, and Dovidio (1998) further reinforced and modern and symbolic racism are higher than would be Lepore and Brown’s conceptual analysis in two ways. They expected if these were truly two separate constructs rather than found that high-prejudice White persons were more respon- different aspects of a single construct (see Dovidio et al., 1997; sive to primes on a single task where automatic and con- Swim et al., 1995). trolled processing could both be experimentally manipulated by varying stimulus onset asynchrony (i.e., the difference in As an alternative, Fazio et al. (1995) proposed a priming time between presentation of the prime and a subsequent, to- paradigm using automatic activation of attitudes from mem- be-responded-to stimulus). Second, individual differences in ory as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes that is stereotype attribution as assessed by a separate measure demonstrably superior to the MRS. The priming procedure consists of multiple trials on a computer in which the prime

The Psychology of Bigotry 519 consists of a symbolic representation of the attitude object, provides the measure of implicit attitudes. Following the ear- such as digitized photos of stimulus persons from one or lier example, a latency shorter for the first combined task than more racial groups. Immediately following the prime, a target for the reverse combined task would suggest a less positive or in the form of a positive or negative evaluative adjective is more negative implicit attitude toward Blacks by a White displayed, and the participant is required to indicate its con- participant. notation as either good or bad by pressing different computer keys. When the prime and target are evaluatively congruent Using the IAT, Greenwald and Banaji (1998) found evi- for the participant, responding should be facilitated as mani- dence that it may reveal the existence of prejudice that is not fested in a faster, more efficient reaction time. By contrast, evident on paper-and-pencil attitude measures such as the when prime and target are evaluatively incongruent with one semantic differential scale. Whereas a majority of a sample of another from the viewpoint of the participant, responding White American participants in one study indicated no should be slowed, as reflected by a longer reaction time. Black-White difference or even a pro-Black preference on paper-and-pencil ratings, all but one had IAT scores indicat- Using this priming procedure, Fazio et al. (1995) showed ing a White preference, presumably a nonconscious one. in several studies that White U.S. university students showed Greenwald and his colleagues have also found modest posi- greater facilitation when negative adjectives were preceded by tive correlations between IAT scores and some “explicit” at- photos of Black people. By contrast, a small sample of Black titude measures such as the feeling thermometer (in which participants showed response facilitation on the priming task social groups are rated on a 100-point thermometer scale) and when photos of Blacks preceded positive adjectives and when a diversity index but not others, especially semantic differen- White photos were preceded by negative adjectives. More- tial scales. IAT scores, they suggested, do not merely reflect over, scores on this unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes had greater familiarity with one’s in-group (e.g., naming prac- predictive validity for a Black experimenter’s ratings of the tices, facial stimuli) compared to an out-group. The IAT pro- participant’s friendliness and interest when interacting with cedure, they also proposed, yields stronger effect sizes and is her, to which MRS scores were unrelated. therefore more sensitive than the priming procedure devised by Fazio et al. (1995) and by other investigators. Along similar lines, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) suggested the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a One would not necessarily expect implicit and explicit related procedure for assessing implicit attitudes, defined as measures of racial attitudes to correlate highly with one behaviors, feelings, or thoughts elicited outside the partici- another. Demonstrating this point, Dovidio, Kawakami, pant’s awareness by automatically activated evaluation Johnson, Johnson, and Howard (1997) showed that the predic- procedures (see Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). The IAT con- tive validity of implicit (i.e., elicited by automatic processing sists of a series of five discrimination tasks, conducted on techniques, such as priming or the IAT) and explicit measures computer, in which the participants differentiate between two of racial attitudes (i.e., elicited by self-report measures such as categories of stimuli by responding as quickly as possible on scales of modern and old-fashioned racism) of White partici- different computer keys. pants toward Black people diverges in a predictable manner. Specifically, implicit prejudice measures predicted sponta- If one were assessing White attitudes toward Black people neous cognitions and behaviors that are not easily monitored with the IAT, the first task would be an initial target-concept but reflect automatic processing, such as performance on a discrimination in which they might be asked to differentiate word-completion task in which answers may be racially tinged between White and Black American first names by pressing or nonverbal behavior such as eye blinking or direct gaze different keys on the computer. The second task is an associ- when interacting with a Black person. By contrast, explicit ated attribute discrimination in which the participant differ- prejudice measures possessed predictive validity for delibera- entiates pleasant from unpleasant words. The third step is the tive thoughts and actions that reflect controlled processing, initial combined task in which the two prior tasks are now su- such as judgments of a Black defendant’s guilt in a juridic perimposed or mapped onto one another, such as using one decision-making task and evaluations. key for individual stimuli that are either White or pleasant and another key for stimuli that are either Black or unpleas- Fazio et al. (1995) had previously obtained a similar pat- ant. In the fourth step, the response keys from the first tern of findings. Their unobtrusive priming measure of preju- task are reversed. The fifth and final step, the reverse com- dice in Whites had predictive validity for rated quality of bined task, reverses the response key contingencies from the interaction with a Black experimenter, whereas explicit mea- third step (e.g., one key for stimuli that are either White or sures predicted deliberative acts such as attractiveness ratings unpleasant or either Black or pleasant. The difference in of photos and evaluations of the fairness of the Rodney King speed of responding to the two combined tasks on the IAT verdict (in which White police officers in Los Angeles were

520 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination exonerated from charges of using excessive force with a of the social structure and at least one subordinate group Black defendant). Both explicit and implicit measures pre- below them (Sidanius, Levin, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1999; dicted attributions of responsibility for the causes of rioting Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In general, dominant group mem- following the Rodney King verdict. Thus, implicit attitude bers disproportionately enjoy society’s goods and benefits measures add an important, new, and separate dimension to (i.e., wealth, status, and power), whereas subordinate group the conceptual and methodological toolbox that psycholo- members suffer a disproportionate share of society’s mis- gists have to assess prejudice. eries and inequities (i.e., poverty, low prestige, and relative powerlessness). To summarize, both automatic and controlled cognitive processing play an important role in the social psychology of In group-based social hierarchies, individual’s stations in bigotry. Racial stimuli presented below or just above the life are determined largely by their membership in socially threshold of awareness operate as primes that influence constructed groups defined by race, gender, age, religion, so- thinking and behavior by White persons toward members of cial class, and so on. Group-based hierarchies are assumed a stereotyped group such as Blacks. If the racial prime to be highly stable, often reflecting consensus as to which includes only reference to the social category, automatic acti- groups are dominant and subordinate, respectively. For ex- vation will activate stronger stereotypes among the more ample, perceived social standing of U.S. ethnic groups in highly prejudiced Whites than among the less prejudiced. If 1964 and later in 1989 correlated almost perfectly across the racial prime includes both categorical reference as well as the quarter century (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT defines stereotypic trait information, differences on dependent mea- three types of social stratification systems: an age system sures (e.g., impression formation) between participants dif- where adults and older individuals command more resources fering in levels of prejudice by Whites will usually no longer and power than the younger, a gender system in which men be apparent. possess greater status and power than women, and an arbi- trary set system in which socially constructed, arbitrarily de- An important development for automatic processing tech- fined categories (e.g., races, occupations, social classes, niques has been their utilization for assessing prejudice, nationalities) enjoy disproportionately more status and power avoiding problems with standard attitude measures of preju- over other socially constructed categories. SDT concentrates dice such as social desirability, and deliberately masking especially on gender and arbitrary set systems of group-based one’s negative feelings toward specific groups. These tech- hierarchy. niques, such as the priming methodology as well as the IAT, will undoubtedly be increasingly utilized to assess individu- Whereas age and gender systems of group hierarchy are als’ nonconscious prejudices, with the resulting measures assumed by SDT to be universal across human societies, being especially helpful in predicting behaviors and cogni- arbitrary set hierarchies differ in several regards. First, they tions toward out-group members that an individual cannot display more definitional fluidity across time period and easily monitor and censor. countries. Sidanius and Pratto (1999), the principal architects of SDT, claimed that arbitrary set hierarchies emerge only in Integrative Approaches societies that produce an economic surplus. Arbitrary set hierarchies tend to be dynastic with social status passing on The rubric of integrative approaches includes perspectives on to one’s children. Finally, arbitrary set hierarchies are pre- prejudice that include the insights of multiple theoretical sumably maintained more by terror, violence, and brutality viewpoints concerning the psychology of bigotry that their than by age- and gender-based hierarchies. advocates have organized into a single, coherent, explanatory framework. By incorporating multiple perspectives, each in- Three basic assumptions of SDT are as follows: (a) Most tegrative approach becomes a broad, comprehensive expla- intergroup conflict and oppression reflect a predisposition nation of prejudice. Social dominance theory, integrated toward forming group-based social hierarchy; (b) social threat theory, and a multicomponent approach to intergroup systems are prone to hierarchy-enhancing (HE) forces attitudes exemplify integrative approaches to prejudice. pushing toward greater inequality, and opposing effects of hierarchy-attenuating (HA) forces toward greater equality; Social Dominance Theory and (c) conflict between HE and HA forces produces rela- tively stable social systems. Social dominance theory (SDT) assumes that societies are structured as group-based social hierarchies, with one or a From these assumptions SDT concerns itself with the small number of dominant or hegemonic groups at the top mechanisms that contribute to group-based social hierarchy and with how hierarchies affect these mechanisms. Behav- ioral asymmetry is one mechanism. The notion of behavioral

The Psychology of Bigotry 521 asymmetry is that the behavioral repertoires of dominant and loaded with Machiavellianism on a dimension defined as subordinate group members differ and that these differences “favoring whatever is immediately beneficial to me and contribute to the hierarchical relationships among these mine, disregarding wider concerns of fairness or morality,” groups. Four types of behavioral asymmetries are asymmetri- which was separate from the factor on which authoritarian- cal in-group bias, systematic out-group favoritism or defer- ism loaded on. ence, self-debilitating behavior, and ideological asymmetry. Focusing on prejudice specifically, Whitley (1999) has Regarding in-group bias (i.e., favoring one’s own group shown that (a) SDO predicted most forms of prejudice toward over other groups), dominants show more than do subordi- Black Americans and homosexuals in a sample of White, het- nates. This asymmetrical in-group bias reinforces the hege- erosexual U.S. university students and (b) SDO also mediated monic group’s dominance over the subordinate group. By gender differences in those prejudices in that sample. Accord- contrast, deference, or out-group favoritism, is more apt to be ing to Sidanius, Pratto, and their colleagues, SDO also shows shown by members of the subordinate group, again reinforc- discriminant validity in being relatively independent of other ing the dominant group’s hegemony. Self-debilitation occurs constructs such as conservatism, interpersonal dominance, when subordinate group members engage in more self- and right-wing authoritarianism, although Altemeyer (1996) defeating and self-destructive behavior, such as criminal ac- reported a moderate, positive correlation between RWA and tivity or drugs, than do dominant group members. Ideological SDO. Consistent with the notion that attitudes toward group asymmetry refers to the idea the antiegalitarian values lead hierarchy reflected in the SDO scale are culturally universal, one to endorse policies and ideologies promoting group- Pratto et al. (2000) showed that with proper translation and based inequality, such as support for the death penalty in the back translation, SDO can be reliably measured cross- United States, which dominant group members endorse more culturally, and its scores related in theoretically predicted strongly than do subordinate group members. ways to sexism, prejudice toward oppressed groups by major- ity group members, and related attitudes (e.g., support for the The degree of group-based social inequality is also influ- military) for samples of respondents in several countries out- enced by support for various legitimizing myths (LMs). side North America, including Israel, Taiwan, and the People’s These are ideologies that provide moral or intellectual justifi- Republic of China (Shanghai), as well as Canada. cations for group-based social hierarchies within all three hi- erarchical systems (age, gender, or arbitrary set). SDT defines Advocates of SDT have suggested that the SDO construct two types of LMs based on whether they facilitate social in- can account for the relationships between conservatism and equality and are HE or facilitate social equality and are HA. racism and between conservatism and antimiscegenation (i.e., Racism, sexism, and ageism exemplify HE-LMs, while fem- a disdain for interracial marriages) in terms of their mutual de- inism, socialism, and universalism are HA-LM examples. pendence on SDO (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Advocates of SDT also believe that individual differences in SDO are de- The psychological aspect of SDT is the construct of social termined by four factors: group status, gender, socialization, dominance orientation (SDO) as assessed by an eponymous and temperament. First, the greater the social status of one’s scale. SDO is a personality dimension defined as an attitude in-group in a given society, the higher is one’s level of SDO. toward intergroup relations reflecting antiegalitarianism and In the United States, for example, White Americans outscore intolerance, at one end, to support for group-based hierarchy Black Americans in SDO. In Israel, Ashkenazi (European an- and the domination of inferior groups by superior groups, at cestry) Jews have higher SDOs than Sephardic (North- the opposite end. A high score on the SDO scale reflects a African or Middle Eastern ancestry) Jews. Second, the single willingness to accept inequalities between and among groups most reliable finding of SDT research is that with a few ex- in society. Items in the SDO scale refer to groups in the ab- ceptions in cultures outside North America (see Pratto et al., stract and thus tap the respondent’s acceptance of intergroup 2000), males outscore females on SDO. Socialization experi- inequalities for whatever group distinctions are salient to the ences, such as education, are also assumed to affect SDO, with respondent in a given sociopolitical or national context. higher educational levels relating inversely to SDO. Finally, higher SDO scores correlate with lower empathy levels and SDO scale scores have been shown to relate to many po- greater aggressivity—temperamental features that are pre- litical attitudes (e.g., political conservatism, nationalism, sumably heritable and that promote out-group prejudice. patriotism), legitimizing ideologies (e.g., racism, sexism, be- lief in fate), social attributions (e.g., internal vs. external at- Advocates of SDT view it as a theoretical perspective tributions for the fate of the poor), HE/HA career choices linking the individual and the social structure together in the (e.g., police officers vs. teachers), and group evaluations (see explanation of prejudice, and one that provides a comprehen- Sidanius et al., 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In Saucier’s sive explanation for the oppression of subordinate groups by (2000, p. 378) study of the structure of social attitudes, SDO

522 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination dominant ones in human societies around the world. As such, (c) intergroup anxiety, and (d) stereotyping (e.g., Stephan & its advocates claim that SDT complements and integrates the- Stephan, 1996; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). Al- ories of prejudice focusing on the individual, such as the though other theories and investigators have emphasized one right-wing authoritarianism theory (see Altemeyer, 1996; or another of these threats, the Stephans and their associates Whitley, 1999), and those focusing on the role of social struc- provide a distinctive twist or interpretation of each threat in ture and elites, such as Marxism, as well as providing a the overall context of ITT. theoretical bridge between these micro and macro levels of analysis. Realistic threats include any perceived threats from an- other group to the welfare, well-being, or survival of one’s in- Proponents of SDT have also noted some differences be- group and its members. Symbolic threats are perceived group tween their perspective and other theories of prejudice and differences in beliefs, values, or norms that may threaten the racism. Sidanius et al. (1999) suggested that symbolic racism in-group’s way of life. Unlike symbolic racism, ITT’s sym- is limited to focusing on racism toward Black Americans in bolic threats apply to a wider array of groups, both dominant one historical and cultural context (viz., the United States and subordinate, and to value differences in general, rather in the late 20th century), whereas SDT claims a much wider than those typifying only U.S. society, such as the Protestant historical and cross-cultural focus as well as a broader sweep ethic. The intergroup anxiety construct derives from prior regarding oppressed groups around the world to which it pre- research by Stephan and Stephan (1985), referring to the neg- sumably applies. In fact, however, some evidence suggests ative emotions occurring when one interacts with members of that U.S.-derived measures of prejudice, especially blatant another group, especially an antagonistic or competitive out- and subtle prejudice, work as well in Europe as they do in the group. Beliefs about the characteristics of groups and the traits United States (Pettigrew et al., 1998). Similarly, while sym- of group members (i.e., stereotypes) constitute yet another bolic and modern racism theories focus on values such as in- threat by creating expectancies about the type of interactions dividualism and the Protestant ethic, SDT instead emphasizes that can be anticipated with out-group members, with negative antiegalitarianism as crucial to prejudice. expectancies reflecting prejudice. Finally, in addition to the four types of threat, ITT also assumes that the history and na- Its proponents also suggest that SDT complements inter- ture of prior contact between groups (e.g., negative, positive, group theories, such as social identity theory (SIT), by taking or mixed) and the status of groups relative to one another also into account the attitudes and behaviors of subordinate group needs to be taken into account for predicting prejudice. members as well as those from the dominant group, focusing on out-group derogation as well as in-group favoritism, and Immigrants are assumed by ITT to elicit all four types of differentiating status and power in intergroup relations. In- threat in members of immigrant-receiving societies, such deed, researchers have profitably used both SDT and SIT (e.g., as the United States, Spain, and Israel. For that reason, atti- Levin & Sidanius, 1999; Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & tudes toward immigrant groups have figured prominently as a Federico, 1998) to yield insights into intergroup processes, criterion of particular interest in ITT research. Using samples such as the relationship between in-group identification and of university students at several locales throughout the United SDO in high-status versus low-status groups in a society. States, Stephan, Ybarra, and Bachman (1999) showed that all Clearly, SDT is presently one of the most prominent and four threats were relevant for predicting prejudice toward promising contemporary theories of prejudice, and the SDO Cubans (in Miami), Mexicans (in New Mexico), and Asians measure is apt to become a scale of choice among those who (in Hawaii), accounting for 50% or more of the variance in at- wish to use an explicit prejudice measure instead of, or along titudes toward each of these different immigrant groups. with, implicit prejudice measures. Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, and Tur-Kaspa (1998) likewise showed that each of the four threats was a Integrated Threat Theory reliable predictor of attitudes held by Spanish university stu- dents toward Moroccan immigrants and by Israeli students Without claiming to incorporate all possible causes of preju- toward Ethiopian and Russian immigrants to Israel. dice, Walter Stephan, Cookie Stephan, and their colleagues have nevertheless proposed that threat is certainly one major Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses by Stephan class of its causes and arguably its principal one. Their inte- et al. (1998) indicated that the four threats comprised a single, grated threat theory (ITT) identifies and combines four major unitary dimension of threat. Schwarzwald and Tur-Kaspa types of threat that they and other investigators have previ- (1997) showed that realistic, symbolic, and interpersonal ously documented as relevant to understanding and pre- threats were significant predictors of Israeli university stu- dicting prejudice: (a) realistic threats, (b) symbolic threats, dents’ attitudes toward Ethiopian and Russian immigrants, whereas individual differences in SDO predicted prejudice

The Psychology of Bigotry 523 toward Ethiopian immigrants only. By exploring women’s Esses and her colleagues use the feeling thermometer as attitudes toward men, Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis, Yamada, their preferred measure of an intergroup attitude as a global and Clason (2000) showed that ITT is useful for target groups evaluation. The goal of MAIA is to predict prejudice and other than immigrants and for attitudes of members of subor- intergroup attitudes, relying mainly on cognitive and affec- dinate or oppressed groups as well as dominant ones. Stephan tive factors as the key predictors. Stereotypes and symbolic et al. found that for women, symbolic threat, intergroup anxi- beliefs constitute MAIA’s cognitive factors. Stereotypes are ety, and negative contact were predictors of negative attitudes beliefs about the characteristics of groups, both those shared toward men; however, contrary to prediction, realistic threats with other perceivers (i.e., a consensual stereotype) and those failed to emerge as a reliable predictor. unique to a given perceiver (a personal stereotype), with per- sonal stereotypes assumed by MAIA researchers to be more Because the preceding research on ITT is correlational in useful to predict prejudice than consensual stereotypes. Sym- nature, it does not and cannot conclusively document that the bolic beliefs are a person’s ideas as to how a social group hin- causal sequence goes only from perceived threat to prejudice ders or facilitates her or his core values and norms. In the and not the other way or in both directions. However, Maio, MAIA the affective component consists of the specific feel- Esses, and Bell (1994) experimentally manipulated perceived ings and emotions evoked by a social group (see also Esses, realistic and symbolic threats and found increased prejudice Haddock, & Zanna, 1994). To assess personal stereotypes, toward immigrants, thus validating at least the proposed symbolic beliefs, and emotions toward one or more groups, causal sequence of threats heightening prejudice that lies at MAIA researchers typically employ open-ended measures in the core of ITT, at least for that target group. which respondents first list their thoughts and feelings toward a specified group and then go over their lists in order to rate Assessment of different types of threat has potential utility the valence of each entry and the percentage of the social for those interested in improving intergroup relations. In stud- group believed to be characterized by it. ies in which attitudes toward more than one target group are assessed from an ITT perspective, one may explore which tar- In their initial studies MAIA researchers explored attitudes get group may deserve more attention in ameliorative efforts among English-Canadian university respondents in Ontario (for an example, see Schwarzwald & Tur-Kaspa, 1997). Simi- toward several social groups: English-Canadians, French- larly, in the aforementioned studies of ITT, some but usually Canadians, Native Indians, Pakistanis, and homosexuals (see not all types of threat emerged as significant predictors, sug- Esses et al., 1993). The MAIA model successfully predicted gesting where change attempts might profitably focus. For ex- attitudes toward the out-groups. Attitudes toward Pakistanis ample, in attitudes of U.S. university students toward Mexican and homosexuals were best predicted by symbolic beliefs, a immigrants, intergroup anxiety has emerged as the most reli- component of intergroup attitudes believed to be impor- able predictor (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Ybarra & Stephan, tant for assessing prejudice toward disliked or unfavorable 1994). ITT is, therefore, especially useful for those interested groups. By contrast, out-groups more favorably regarded by in reducing as well as understanding prejudice (see the chap- the English-Canadian respondents (viz., French-Canadians ter on reducing prejudice by Dovidio in this volume). and Native Indians) were best predicted by emotions. The Multicomponent Approach to Intergroup Attitudes Esses et al. (1993) also showed that RWA is an important moderator of out-group attitudes and their subcomponents. The multicomponent approach to intergroup attitudes English-Canadian respondents scoring high on RWA had (MAIA), proposed by Esses, Haddock, and Zanna (1993; see consistently more negative attitudes toward all four out- also Haddock et al., 1993; Zanna, 1994), is the final example groups, especially the disfavored groups, and symbolic be- of an integrative theoretical approach to be considered. Al- liefs were their single best predictor of attitudes toward though MAIA was derived independently from ITT, the two different groups, including French-Canadians. By contrast, perspectives clearly resemble one another in their mutual em- emotions best predicted the more favorable out-group atti- phases on symbolic beliefs and emotional reactions to out- tudes of those scoring low on RWA. groups as important predictors of prejudice and also in a shared interest in determining if and when stereotypes of These conclusions, particularly regarding homosexuals as out-groups will relate to prejudice toward them. a target group, were further reinforced in two studies by Haddock et al. (1993). Their first study confirmed the more MAIA presumes that an intergroup attitude, like the atti- negative attitude of high RWA scorers toward homosexuals tude concept in general, has several components (viz., evalu- and the importance of symbolic beliefs in predicting preju- ations, cognitions, and affect). An attitude toward a social dice toward homosexuals. Their second study replicated and group is an overall evaluation, either positive or negative. extended these findings by showing that for those scoring

524 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination high on RWA, past experience and perceived value dissimi- To their list of factors promoting prejudice should also be larity were additional factors along with symbolic beliefs that added individual differences in aggressiveness and social were useful in predicting their prejudicial attitude toward dominance orientation, realistic threats, and situational cues homosexuals. that prime and stimulate negative out-group attitudes, both subliminally and supraliminally. In addition, unconscious Because intergroup attitudes can be ambivalent rather processes of the types specified by the OTAP and automatic than uniformly positive or negative, Esses and her colleagues processing approaches to prejudice would also need to be extended their open-ended techniques to assess attitudinal taken into account. On the other hand, humanitarian and egal- ambivalence toward various social groups. In one study, itarian values, internal motivation to avoid prejudice, and Bell, Esses, and Maio (1996) assessed evaluations, stereo- empathy and sympathetic identification with the underdog types, symbolic beliefs, and emotions that a sample of would help to counteract prejudice and its expression. English-Canadian university students in Ontario felt toward Native People, French-Canadians, Canadians, and Oriental This outline for a general theory of prejudice summarizes immigrants. Respondents were more ambivalent toward well the insights of psychology’s best theories for under- Native People than Canadians or Oriental immigrants, with standing prejudice at the dawn of the twenty-first century. It French-Canadians in between. Correlations between average highlights ambiguities that future research might try to re- ambivalence scores and an overall summary evaluation of solve, such as whether egalitarian values promote or counter each group showed that ambivalence was unrelated to atti- prejudice or both, depending on yet other factors. Finally, it is tude toward Native Peoples but negatively related to attitudes perhaps useful as a heuristic device for designing and execut- for the other groups, especially French-Canadians. Because ing studies of prejudice, with an eye to evaluating the relative MAIA takes into account ambivalence in intergroup atti- power of promotive and counteractive factors and assessing tudes, it could also qualify as an ambivalence approach to their unique predictive power and interactions. Illustrating prejudice. just such an approach is the research by Biernat, Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996), which (among other things) in- Conclusion cluded measures of core American values, prejudice scales, supraliminal priming of values, and experimental variations As perhaps the ultimate form of an integrative approach to in value violation by attitude targets representing (in different the psychology of bigotry, one could ask what a general the- studies) variations in race, sexual orientation, and weight ory of prejudice would look like. In reviewing the literature status. on theories of racism and their own research on values and prejudice, Biernat, Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996) out- Having completed a review of prejudice from the perspec- lined just such a general theory of prejudice. A general the- tive of the bigot, I now consider the psychology of prejudice ory, they suggested, should seek to predict or explain from the viewpoint of the victim or target. prejudice by oppressors toward an array of potential target groups, such as Blacks, homosexuals, ethnic groups, women, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE VICTIM OF and so on in the United States and in other countries. They PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION also generated a list of factors that promote prejudice. From racism and belief congruence theories (as well as SDT, ITT, Psychologists have long been interested in the effects of dis- and MAIA, it might be added), these prejudice-promoting crimination on members of oppressed groups. One early ap- factors include negative affect toward Blacks (and other proach to exploring this question was to assess samples of groups), prototypic values such as antiegalitarianism, indi- oppressed individuals on psychological measures as a means vidualism, and the Protestant ethic, the perception that mem- of exploring the impact of oppression. Kardiner and Ovesey bers of groups who are the target of prejudice violate (1951), for example, used psychoanalytic interviews and re- cherished beliefs and values, as well as normative and con- sponses to projective tests such as the thematic apperception textual cues that condone or permit prejudice and discrimina- test (TAT) and the Rorschach to assess the “mark of oppres- tion. Other contributing factors, they noted, would include sion” among Black Americans. Similarly, Karon (1975) com- known correlates of prejudice, such as an authoritarian per- pared samples of White respondents and northern versus sonality (especially RWA) and attributional styles in per- southern Black respondents in the United States on a modi- ceivers that lead them to attribute negative outcomes fied version of the Tomkins-Horn Picture Arrangement Test confronting oppressed people to internal, controllable causes (PAT), a projective test for assessing personality. Although rather than external ones. both studies showed evidence of the stigma of being Black in

The Psychology of the Victim of Prejudice and Discrimination 525 the United States, they did not link it clearly to experiences of prejudice taken as an additional independent variable along discrimination encountered by their respondents. with the experimental variables of alleged sex of the oppo- nents and severity of failure (i.e., an internal analysis). Attributional Ambiguity Perspectives Unsurprisingly, the greater the failure, the lower was the Beginning in the 1970s, research on the psychology of being women’s subsequent self-esteem. However, perceived preju- a victim of prejudice and discrimination changed in several dice moderated this effect and apparently mitigated the im- important ways (see Dion, Earn, & Yee, 1978). First, it shifted pact of severe failure in decreasing women’s self-esteem. toward an experimental approach in which discrimination Specifically, women who experienced severe failure with experiences were manipulated by investigators in the psycho- male opponents and perceived it as reflecting sexist prejudice logical laboratory by creating conditions in which partici- showed higher self-regard than did those who did not see pants from stigmatized groups either could or could not their putative male opponents as prejudiced. Dion (1975) in- attribute a negative outcome to prejudice on the part of others terpreted this finding as suggesting that perceived prejudice (an attributional ambiguity paradigm) or were explicitly or discrimination may not inevitably lower self-esteem in the given the odds that their failure was due to discrimination by victim. Rather, under some circumstances the attribution of allegedly biased judges of their performance (the base rate prejudice may sustain self-esteem by enabling the minority paradigm). Second, these experimentally oriented researchers or subordinate group member to attribute a negative experi- often adopted a viewpoint stressing the attributional ambigu- ence to prejudice by others toward an arbitrary trait (i.e., their ity of being a target of prejudice (see Crocker & Major, 1989; group membership) rather than to their own personal quali- Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Dion, 1975, 1986; Dion & ties as an individual. Earn, 1975; Dion et al., 1978). In an important theoretical statement and elaboration of According to an attributional ambiguity perspective, in- the attributional ambiguity perspective, Crocker and Major stances of encountering prejudice or discrimination are often (1989) reviewed the then-existing literature and outlined sev- ambiguous. For example, Black Americans who encounter a eral ways that members of stigmatized groups could protect rejection from a White American confront an attributional their self-concepts in the face of a negative experience. For dilemma to explain the situation and must decide whether the example, a stigmatized group member could interpret the rejection is due to something about themselves (i.e., a personal negative encounter as due to prejudice or discrimination to- characteristic) or to something about the person rejecting them ward their group. Alternatively, they could protect them- (e.g., a prejudicial bias or a discriminatory reaction against selves from invidious comparisons with privileged majority Blacks). Attributional ambiguity perspectives emphasize that group members by comparing their outcomes to their own in- the type of attributions that a victim of prejudice or discrimi- group rather than to the out-group and by focusing on those nation makes in such a situation (i.e., an internal attribution to dimensions on which their group exceeds the dominant out- the self, an external attribution of perceived prejudice or dis- group. Major and Schmader (1998) have added psychological crimination, or perhaps both) has a psychological impact on disengagement to the list of ways in which stigmatized group the victim’s self-evaluations and affective reactions. members may psychologically insulate and protect them- selves from prejudice and discrimination. Miller and Kaiser Attributions of Prejudice and Self-Esteem (2001a, 2001b) recently outlined the wide variety of re- sponses that those who are discriminated against may employ Dion (1975) provided the first suggestive evidence for a link to protect themselves, drawing from the literature on coping between attributions of prejudice and self-esteem in an ex- and stress as well as attachment theory for insights. periment where university women competed against several opponents in a laboratory setting, who they were led to be- Crocker and Major (1993) qualified the conditions under lieve were either all male or all female; and the women them- which attributing negative outcomes to prejudice could selves were made to fail either mildly or severely. Following buttress one’s self-esteem: namely, when the stigma was experimentally induced failure, the women rated themselves perceived as legitimate, justifiable, or controllable and legit- on positive and negative traits comprising the female stereo- imizing beliefs supported the stigmatized group’s lower type and self-esteem traits and indicated to what extent their status, or when other important beliefs were threatened by at- opponents were biased and prejudiced against them. From tributions of prejudice. Crocker, Cornwell, and Major (1993) this latter measure, women were further categorized into supported this reasoning in a subsequent experiment in which high- versus low-perceived prejudice groups, with perceived obese women were rejected by an attractive male confederate as a potential date. Although the obese women attributed the negative outcome to their weight, they did not attribute it to

526 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination the male rater or to his prejudice. Crocker et al. interpreted are considerably more likely to be targets of prejudice and the lower self-esteem by obese women to the fact that obesity discrimination than are members of other minority or subordi- is widely seen as a controllable stigma, which legitimizes nate groups. Perhaps as a consequence of this greater victim- and justifies prejudice and bias toward the overweight. The ization now and in the past, Black Americans have developed stigma of obesity, however, applies more to White than to through ethnic group socialization the strategy of discounting Black American women (Hebl & Heatherton, 1998). negative (and perhaps positive) feedback from White majority group members and attributing negative feedback to prejudice Crocker, Major, and their colleagues have also conducted as a means of coping and sustaining their self-esteem. experimental tests of the attributional ambiguity perspective with groups that regard prejudice and discrimination to- Some investigators (e.g., Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; ward them as illegitimate. Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, and Major Kobrynowicz & Branscombe, 1997), however, have ques- (1991) focused on sex and race in separate experiments in tioned whether Crocker et al. (1991) actually succeeded in order to explore the potential buffering effects of perceived demonstrating the buffering effects of attributing prejudice prejudice on self-esteem. Their study with White U.S. uni- on self-esteem with their Black participants. Branscombe versity women as participants succeeded in experimentally and Ellemers (1998) have instead suggested that in-group varying their attributions to prejudice on the part of a sexist identification is a necessary mediator between the attribu- man evaluating an essay of theirs negatively; however, the tion of prejudice for experiences of oppression and self- trait measure of global self-esteem failed to yield reliable dif- esteem for Black American men and women as well as ferences as a function of perceived prejudice, though the other minority groups in the United States, such as Native mood measure followed the prediction of a self-protective Americans and Hispanic-Americans. The greater the in- function for attributions of prejudice. group identification, the more likely that attributions of prejudice for experiences of discrimination or oppression Crocker et al. (1991) reported finding evidence for the will be associated with the maintenance and retention of buffering effects of perceived prejudice on self-esteem with high self-esteem. Black American participants who had received either positive or negative interpersonal feedback from a White evaluator. Protective Benefits for Majority Group Members These participants believed that the White evaluator either could see them from another room and was thus aware of their Of course, even members of dominant, hegemonic groups race or could not see them because of a drawn blind and hence can and sometimes do avail themselves of the self-protective was unaware of their race. Black participants who thought benefits of perceiving themselves and their group as being they could be seen by a White evaluator and had attributed the discriminated against, but apparently without the same psy- evaluator’s feedback to prejudice showed less of a pretest- chological dilemma and tradeoff confronting members of posttest difference in self-esteem than when they thought that oppressed groups. Kobrynowicz and Branscombe (1997) ar- the White evaluator could not see them. In other words, in the gued that certain members of structurally privileged groups, condition where prejudice was attributed, Black participants such as White American men whose self-esteem may be low appeared to discount the negative feedback from a White or otherwise vulnerable, may exaggerate estimates of per- evaluator, with the consequence that their self-esteem was left ceived discrimination against their group as a means of bol- unchanged. They also discounted positive feedback when the stering their self-esteem. Consistent with this perspective, a White evaluator could allegedly see them and showed de- sample of White men scoring low in self-esteem were espe- creased self-esteem in that condition. cially prone to perceive themselves and their group as having been discriminated against on the basis of gender. Likewise, The classic book Black Like Me, in which White author Branscombe (1998) showed that asking men to contemplate James Griffin (1961) described his experiences posing as a their group’s disadvantage on the basis of gender led to Black man in the U.S. South of the 1950s, had suggested a higher self-esteem, whereas thinking about their group’s ad- similar process among Black Americans. Recalling an in- vantages produced decreases on group-related well-being. stance of racial discrimination he had experience, he noted, By contrast, women contemplating their group’s disadvan- “The Negro’s only salvation . . . lies in his belief, the old tages scored lower in reported self-esteem. Thus, the self- belief of his fore fathers, that these things are not directed protective effect of attributing one’s failure to discrimination against him personally, but against his race, his pigmentation. is apparently even more evident among dominant majority His mother or aunt or teacher long ago carefully prepared him, group members and has positive benefits for both their self- explaining that ‘. . . they don’t do it to you because you’re esteem and their sense of control. Johnny—they don’t even know you. They do it against your Negro-ness’” (p. 48). In the United States, Black Americans

The Psychology of the Victim of Prejudice and Discrimination 527 The Personal-Group Discrimination Discrepancy the PGDD) should relate highly to a single direct comparison for self (compared to others of one’s group, e.g., a gender Research originally conducted in the tradition of relative de- group) or in-group (compared to a comparison out-group, privation theory has suggested that individuals in subordi- e.g., the other gender group). In fact, standard PGDD scores nate and oppressed groups typically perceive more group correlated only modestly with direct comparisons for self and discrimination than personal discrimination. Specifically, in for group. testing models of egoistic relative deprivation (defined later), Crosby (1982) observed that members of a sample of work- Instead, Postmes et al. (1999) proposed and showed that ing women in Massachusetts believed that they, as individual ratings of personal discrimination and of group discrimina- women, were personally less deprived and discriminated tion are based on two separate judgments: an interpersonal against in terms of income and employment opportunities judgment comparing self and other in-group members for than were women as a group. Crosby (1984) subsequently ratings of personal discrimination and an intergroup judg- attributed the tendency for women to perceive less personal ment comparing one’s in-group to an out-group for ratings than group discrimination to a process of denial of their per- of group discrimination. Consistent with this emphasis on sonal disadvantage. different types of judgment and comparison referents, they also demonstrated that ratings of personal discrimination or This phenomenon has since been observed among ethnic advantage reflect personal, self-serving motives; whereas and racial groups in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere ratings of group discrimination or advantage are influenced and has been labeled the personal-group discrimination dis- by social identity motives and in-group identification. Other crepancy (PGDD; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, researchers’ analyses of the PGDD converge with Postmes 1990; Taylor, Wright, & Porter, 1994). Much like Crosby et al.’s conclusions (Dion & Kawakami, 1996; Kessler, (1982), Taylor et al. (1990) found that Haitian and East Mummendey, & Leisse, 2000; Quinn, Roese, Pennington, & Indian women in Montreal reported more group than per- Olson, 1999). sonal discrimination across four sources of potential discrim- ination (viz., race, culture, status as newcomers to Canada, Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination as Stressors and sex). Dion and Kawakami (1996) likewise found a PGDD across a variety of domains for six ethnic groups in A Stress Model Toronto, three of them visible minorities and the other three White or nonvisible minorities, although the PGDD was con- A number of investigators have independently proposed that sistently stronger among the visible minorities. perceiving oneself to be a target of prejudice or discrimina- tion is a psychosocial stressor. For example, Dion, Dion, and Explanations for the Personal-Group Pak (1992) contended that perceived prejudice or discrimina- Discrimination Discrepancy tion is a social stressor because it elicits cognitive appraisals of threat such that its victims see themselves as being delib- One reason that people from oppressed groups may be reluc- erate targets of negative behavior by one or more out-group tant to claim that they have personally experienced prejudice antagonists and impute stable, malevolent motives and inten- or discrimination is that there are social costs to attributing a tions to them. Moreover, prejudice and discrimination are setback to discrimination. In two studies, Kaiser and Miller often unpredictable stressors, entailing greater adaptational (2001) showed that a Black person who attributed a failing costs for the victim than a predictable or controllable stressor grade on a test to discrimination was perceived by Whites as (see Allison, 1998, for an excellent discussion of other stress being a complainer and was evaluated less positively than models). was a Black person attributing the failure to the low quality of his answers on the test. If perceived prejudice and discrimination are indeed stres- sors, they should produce in individuals various social- Perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of the psychological consequences known to result from stress, PGDD, at present, has been suggested by Postmes, such as negative affect, reported stress, psychological or psy- Branscombe, Spears, and Young (1999). Postmes and his chiatric symptoms, and lowered sense of well-being, as well colleagues argued that the PGDD is not an intentional com- as heightened in-group identification (a frequent response to parison between oneself and one’s group as regards experi- external threat to one’s group). Dion et al.’s stress model of enced discrimination. If the latter were the case, the perceived discrimination has now been amply supported by difference between separate ratings of perceived discrimina- both experimental and correlational studies. In an experiment tion for self and for group (i.e., the standard way of assessing varying perceived prejudice in an attributional ambiguity

528 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination paradigm, Dion and Earn (1975) found that when they made racism leads to heightened psychological and physiological attributions to prejudice for a severe failure, Jewish men stress responses from Black Americans. In this model, con- showed evidence of heightened in-group identification as stitutional, sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral well as a stress response on mood measures: namely, feeling factors are proposed to moderate the relationship between an more aggression, greater sadness, higher anxiety, and height- environmental stimulus and its perception as being racist. ened self-consciousness. Similar, Crocker et al. (1993) found Perceptions of racism are then linked to coping responses, that women, especially obese ones, reported more negative psychological and physiological stress responses, and health moods when they received negative feedback from an attrac- outcomes. tive man as opposed to positive feedback. The links between perceived racism and health outcomes Correlational studies concur strongly with experimental among Black Americans are perhaps the most intriguing and studies in documenting a link between perceived discrimina- important aspect of Clark et al.’s (1999) model. The authors tion and stress. Perceptions of discrimination in Black suggested that racism and its perception (or denial) relate Americans correlate with psychiatric symptoms. Landrine to cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune system re- and Klonoff (1996; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999) developed a sponses by Black Americans. Hypertension among Black reliable 18-item measure of perceived racial discrimination Americans may well be associated, albeit in complex ways, called the Schedule of Racist Events (SRE) and validated it in with experiences of racism and methods of coping with them. two separate studies with samples of Black American com- For example, Krieger (1990) found that Black American munity respondents. In the most recent study with more than women who indicated that they passively accepted racist ex- 500 respondents sampled from middle- and lower-class sec- periences were over four times more likely to report hyper- tions of San Bernardino, California, they found that 96% tension than were those indicating a more active response to reported discrimination in the past year and 98% at some unfair treatment. Moreover, those Black American women time during their lives. For 95% of the respondents, these reporting no instances of unfair treatment were more than 21͞2 discrimination experiences were labeled as stressful. Black times more likely to report hypertension than were those re- American men reported more experiences of discrimination porting one or more experiences of racism. If one assumes than did their female counterparts. In both studies, frequency that Black women reporting no instances were denying or in- of discrimination experiences correlated positively with psy- ternalizing racist experiences, this finding and other studies chiatric symptoms, accounting for about 10% of the variance. (Krieger & Sidney, 1996) suggest that as a coping mecha- In the 1996 study, the frequency of discrimination experi- nism, denial may have unfortunate health correlates or conse- ences was also linked to cigarette smoking. quences for Black Americans. The specific links between perceptions and experiences of racism and hypertension in Other researchers have highlighted the cumulative and Black Americans of both sexes, however, remain to be firmly chronic stressfulness of perceived discrimination among established and better understood. Black Americans. Feagin (1991) emphasized that for Black Americans, even those well ensconced in the middle class, the Like racism, sexism also has pernicious consequences cumulative effect of racist encounters over a lifetime becomes for individuals experiencing and perceiving it. Landrine, potentially more potent than a simple sum of frequency count Klonoff, Gibbs, Manning, and Lund (1995) correlated life- of such experiences might suggest. Branscombe, Schmitt, and time and recent experiences of sexist events from their Harvey (1999) showed the negative effects upon well-being Schedule of Sexist Events (SSE) with scores from anxiety of chronic perceptions of discrimination in Black American and depression scales, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist respondents. Branscombe and her colleagues emphasized that (HSC), and a measure of premenstrual tension syndrome chronic perceptions of discrimination and stable attributions (PMTS). Hierarchical regression analyses were performed in of pervasive prejudice have quite different effects on self- which generic stress measures for life events and hassles esteem and well-being than do attributions to prejudice for a were entered at the first step, followed by lifetime and recent single event, such as is typically explored in laboratory stud- SSE scores in the second step. SSE scores accounted for ad- ies of perceived prejudice or discrimination. ditional variance beyond the generic stress indexes. Sexist discrimination emerged as an especially important and better A Biopsychosocial Model predictor than generic stress for symptoms from the PMTS and HSC measures including premenstrual, somatization, Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams (1999) proposed a obsessive-compulsive, depressive, and total psychiatric biopsychosocial model of racism as a stressor for Black symptoms. Moreover, the ability of SSE scores to predict Americans. Its underlying assumption is that perceived symptoms varied as a function of the U.S. women’s ages and