Synonyms

Bias; Bigotry; Chauvinism; Intergroup bias; Intolerance of others; Negative attitude toward others

Definition

Prejudice is described as “an unfair negative attitude toward a social group or a member of that group” (Dovidio and Gaertner 1999, p. 101). In the field of social psychology, prejudice and the concepts of stereotypes and discrimination are among the core aspects in the area of group perception. This triad of group perception components is interlinked. For instance, both prejudice and stereotypes can feed into discrimination and vice versa; stereotypes may lead to prejudice; and prejudice may rationalize stereotypes (Brehm et al. 1999).

Introduction

Gordon Allport (1954), through his book The Nature of Prejudice, is recognized as the pioneer proponent who positioned the basics of prejudice. His work in this area is noted as having a lasting influence on both the field of social psychology and the scholars who followed suit because he was the kind of intellectual who was able to present an integrative perspective in studying prejudice (Brotherton 2007). This is reflected in the fact that “Allport did not advocate a single pet theory of prejudice but chose instead to identify and illustrate a variety of perspectives, ranging from macro, or social-structural causes, to micro, or individual causes” (Brotherton 2007, p. 160). Allport was able to see the interlocking processes that define the nuances of prejudice including how processes in thoughts, motives, and the social and cultural contexts combine to understand and explain our biases (Brotherton 2007). Further, Allport’s ideas about prejudice defined one of the unique strains in prejudice scholarship, that is, the assumption that prejudice is unavoidable and, thereby, a phenomenon that is typical and expected in interpersonal and group interactions. In particular, categorizing others as members of either the in-group or out-group is a process that individuals constantly engage in as they perceive others. To quote, “The human mind must think with the aid of categories….Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgement. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it” (Allport 1954, p. 20 cited in Brotherton 2007, p.160).

Brotherton (2007) further maintains another dominant theme in the writings of Allport – that of the utilitarian and pragmatic underpinnings of prejudice. In other words, people become biased for or against a group relative to what they can reap as a consequence of holding a particular attitude toward a group. Accordingly, such rewards can be on the material and/or psychological dimensions. To provide support to this idea, he quotes Allport in his text: “hunger for status is matched by a haunting fear that one’s status may not be secure. The effort to maintain a precarious position can bring with it an almost reflex disparagement of others” (Allport 1954, p.371).

Allport’s Ideas on Prejudice: A Brief Appraisal

However, even as he was renowned for his contributions on this phenomenon, Allport was also criticized for his propositions, one of which is his paradoxical ideas noted in his viewpoints on the nature and role of stereotypes with respect to prejudice:

Allport, is the founder of the cognitive approach to prejudice, which views stereotyping and categorization as normal and inevitable by-products of how people think. Yet he also viewed prejudice as a fundamentally irrational hatred, born of ignorance and the ego-defensive manoeuvres of people with weak personality structures… he implicated stereotypic thinking as a foundation for prejudice….Later, he wrote that ‘stereotypes are “primary rationalizers”…, embracing stereotypes as both causes and consequences of prejudice. (Brotherton 2007, p. 160)

Apart from the inconsistencies in his works, Dovidio et al. (2005) claimed, as reported in the book review of Brotherton (2007), that Allport’s most vital oversight is his limited definition of prejudice which states that prejudice is “an antipathy based on a faulty and inflexible generalization” (Allport 1954, p. 9). By underlining antipathy as the crux of prejudice, the direction of the field veered away from “subtle types of control and exploitation” while narrowing down the notion of prejudice that are manifested as “exclusion and violence” (Brotherton 2007, p. 161).

Forms of Prejudice

People’s unmerited disapproving opinion of other people may be demonstrated in direct, overt ways, on one hand, or in tortuous and restrained tactics, on the other. Following this pattern, prejudice can therefore take the form of an explicit or implicit prejudice with the observation that the former is declining, whereas the latter continues its ubiquity in the populace (Schmalz and Mowatt 2014). This contention therefore has led scholars to theorize on the variety of implicit, subtle prejudice. This form of prejudice includes the ambivalent, aversive, benevolent, and symbolic kinds (Schmalz and Mowatt 2014). The distinction among these kinds of implicit prejudice can be gleaned from the definitions quoted from the article of Schmalz and Mowatt (2014):

Ambivalent prejudice (Katz 1981; Katz and Hass 1988; Whitley and Kite 2010) refers to mixed emotions about a group that stem from contradicting American values….Aversive prejudice (Dovidio 2001; Gaertner and Dovidio 1986; Kovel 1970) proposes that attitudes toward groups different from one’s own can be detected through persistent avoidance, or an aversion to the other groups….Benevolent prejudice refer to the association of apparently positive emotions or attitudes towards a group, but manifests in keeping the members of the group in lower or inferior positions (Whitley and Kite 2010; Glick and Fiske 2003; Plous 2003)….Symbolic prejudice is the tendency to view groups different from one’s own in the abstract; that members of other groups are all the same, and meet stereotypes about the group held by society (Whitley and Kite 2010; McConahay and Hough 1976). (Schmalz and Mowatt 2014, pp. 247–248)

These various configurations of subtle, implicit prejudice are meant to create the façade of forbearance and receptiveness of one group toward another. However, when the mask of pretension has been stripped off, the ulterior thoughts and affect of one group are actually spiteful of the other (Schmalz and Mowatt 2014).

Three Strains of Research on Prejudice

Dovidio (2001) proposes three waves of research in the study of prejudice with racial prejudice as the illustrative case. These waves are distinguished based on their specific leanings and assumptions. The first wave of scholarship invokes the notion of prejudice as “psychopathology.” With this theme at the heart of its arguments, the primary objective of researchers within this realm is to pin down the prejudiced individual. The thrust of research is in “identifying, through personality and attitude tests such as the authoritarian personality scales, who is prejudiced. If it could be determined who was prejudiced and efforts at addressing the problem could be focused on this subset of the population, the rest of society could be expected to function fairly” (Dovidio 2001, p. 831).

The second strain of research endeavors takes a complete turnaround in comparison to the first wave as it opened the premise of prejudice as a “normal process” embedded in every human interaction. Prejudice, just like other social norms, may be internalized through the route of enculturation. Prejudice is therefore ubiquitous and inevitable as we mingle within and without our respective social factions and naturally identify ourselves and others as either a member or not of these groups. As an illustration, Dovidio (2001) notes the work on “minimal intergroup paradigm (Brewer 1979; Tajfel 1970), in which the assignment of people to groups often based on arbitrary criteria was sufficient to produce prejudices in favor of members of one’s own group and sometimes against members of another group, reinforced the emerging conception of prejudice as a normal mechanism for raising self-esteem” (p. 831). The normality of prejudice argues that all people, albeit in varying intensities, are all prejudiced. In addition, this discourse has paved the way for the notion of “subtle and unintentional types of biases” (Dovidio 2001, p. 832).

The third wave of empirical investigations on prejudice has expanded this social construct to include other pieces of the puzzle. The direction of research is veered toward “the multidimensional aspect of prejudice and takes advantage of new technologies to study processes that were earlier hypothesized but not directly measurable” (Dovidio 2001, p. 832). This wave opened the door to studies focusing on implicit attitudes as well as research that includes the perceiver’s attitudes, the target’s coping responses, and the dynamics that take place between these characters in the context of prejudice (Dovidio 2001). These three waves of research have led to a more holistic and nuanced picture of prejudice.

The Determinants of Prejudice

Earlier in the chapter, Allport (1954) was noted for emphasizing the important role of stereotypes as an explanatory factor in the occurrence of prejudice. In an article by Zanna (1994), the author argues that the predictors of prejudicial attitudes include stereotypic beliefs and more. By arguing that stereotypes play an important role in the formation of prejudice, out-group derogation is based on a person’s “beliefs that typical members of the outgroup possess certain characteristics or traits” (Zanna 1994, p. 1). However, the author provides support that prejudice is also anchored on “symbolic beliefs (beliefs that typical members violate cherished traditions, customs, and values) as well as on emotions and past experiences that are associated with the outgroup” (Zanna 1994, p. 1).

Mechanisms for Moderating Prejudice

Prejudice, being characterized as an unjust disposition toward members of another group, has been the focus of attention of a number of social psychologists. In particular, this has encouraged scholars to come up with strategies directed at restraining if not eliminating prejudice. Earlier in this entry, it was argued that prejudice can take two general routes – either direct, blatant, and traditional manifestations of prejudice or the indirect, subtle, and contemporary forms of intergroup bias. There have been a number of propositions with respect to minimizing prejudice among groups, but the cruciality in assessing their effectiveness is dependent on the form of prejudice being addressed.

Direct, traditional forms of prejudice are moderated through education and information campaigns that attempt to change individuals’ biased attitudes (Stephan and Stephan 1984, cited in Dovidio and Gaertner 1999). As for contemporary forms of prejudice, these processes that target the individual prove to be inadequate. Instead, strategies that facilitate intergroup contact and capitalize on social categorization can reduce prejudice (Dovidio and Gaertner 1999). Intergroup contact strategies build upon activities that encourage the groups in conflict to experience interdependence and cooperation and accomplish a common task that is based on the strengths and contributions of both groups (Dovidio and Gaertner 1999). Social categorization, which underpins the spontaneous classification of others as in-group or out-group, also presents a promising way of minimizing intergroup conflicts. These strategies include “reducing the salience of the intergroup boundaries, that is, through decategorization…maintain but alter the nature of group boundaries, that is, to produce recategorization” (Dovidio and Gaertner 1999, p. 103). A specific model that is also based on the principle of social categorization is the common in-group identity model (Gaertner et al. 1993). This model works to minimize in-group favoritism and out-group derogation by facilitating groups in strained relationships “to conceive of themselves as members of a single, superordinate group rather than as members of two separate groups” (Dovidio and Gaertner 1999, p. 103).

Conclusion

This entry began by tracing the roots of prejudice from Allport’s premises. In recognizing his unparalleled contributions to the development of this social construct, literature also surfaced the shortcomings in his work. This became the jump-off point for further studies that continue to enrich the field of prejudice in identifying its different forms, explanatory variables, and the social psychological mechanisms of tempering the phenomenon.

Cross-References