prejudice and discrimination psychology essay

Module 9: Prejudice

Module Overview

Module 9 takes what has been learned throughout the previous eight modules and relates it to the case of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance. We will differentiate between key concepts and then move to explanations of, and ways to reduce, prejudice, discrimination, stereotyping, and intolerance.

Module Outline

9.1. Defining Terms and Types

9.2. causes of prejudice and discrimination, 9.3. reducing prejudice and discrimination.

Module Learning Outcomes

• Frame the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination from attitude theory and the three components of an attitude.
• Outline potential causes of prejudice, discrimination, and intolerance.
• Describe methods to reduce intolerance.

Section Learning Objectives

• Restate the three components of attitudes.
• Differentiate between stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination.
• Define and describe stereotype threat.
• Contrast explicit and implicit attitudes.
• Describe the various forms prejudice and discrimination can take.
• Define stigma and list and describe its forms.
• Clarify how stigma impacts people with mental illnesses.

9.1.1. Attitudes About Other Groups

To distinguish the terms stereotype, discrimination, and prejudice we have to take a step back. Recall from Module 5 (Section 5.1.1.) that the tripartite model is used to examine the structure and function of an attitude. It states that attitudes are composed of three components – affective or emotional, behavioral, and cognitive. Affective indicates our feelings about the source of our attitude. Cognitive indicates our thoughts about it and behavior indicates the actions we take in relation to the thoughts and feelings we have about the source of the attitude. Figure 5.1 provided a great example of how these three components relate to one another. If we consider our attitude towards puppies, the affective component would manifest by our feeling or outwardly saying that we love puppies. We might base this affection for them on thinking about how they are fluffy or cute (the cognitive component). Finally, our thoughts and feelings produce the behavior of petting them whenever one is near. So how does this relate to the current discussion?

9.1.1.1. Stereotypes. In Module 4 (Section 4.1.4.2) we defined a group stereotype as our beliefs about what are the typical traits or characteristics of members of a specific group. Notice the word beliefs in the definition. Hence, in terms of our attitude about another group, our stereotype represents the cognitive component.

The group that is the subject of the stereotype may experience what is called stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), or the social-psychological predicament that arises from widely-known negative stereotypes about one’s group. Steele & Aronson (1995) state, “the existence of such a stereotype means that anything one does or any of one’s features that conform to it make the stereotype more plausible as a self-characterization in the eyes of others, and perhaps even in one’s own eyes” (pg. 797). Consider the stereotypes for feminists or White males. There is a definite stereotype of these groups which may be true of some individuals in the group, and lead to others seeing them that way too. The exact implications of these stereotypes are often negative and could be self-threatening enough to have disruptive effects on the person’s life. In one experiment, the authors gave black and white college students a 30-minute test composed of items from the verbal section of the GRE (Graduate Record Exam). In the stereotype threat condition, the test was described as diagnostic of intellectual ability and in the non-stereotype threat condition it was described as a laboratory problem-solving task that was nondiagnostic of ability. A second nondiagnostic condition was included which told participants to view the difficult test as a challenge. Results showed that black participants performed worse than white participants when the test was framed as a measure of their ability but performed as well as their White counterparts when told that it was not reflective of their ability. Statistical analyses also showed that black participants in the diagnostic condition saw their relative performance as poorer than black participants in the non-diagnostic-only condition. Follow up work found that helping African American students see intelligence as malleable reduced their vulnerability to stereotype threat (Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002).

9.1.1.2. Prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice occurs when someone holds a negative feeling about a group of people, representing the affective component. As noted above, our thoughts and feelings lead to behavior and so discrimination is when a person acts in a way that is negative against a group of people. What might the effect of such behavior be on the target of the discrimination? According to a 2018 report by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, “Discrimination affects people’s opportunities, their well-being, and their sense of agency. Persistent exposure to discrimination can lead individuals to internalize the prejudice or stigma that is directed against them, manifesting in shame, low self-esteem, fear and stress, as well as poor health” (For more on the report, please visit https://www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/2018/02/prejudice-and-discrimination/ .)

If you think about these terms for a bit, stereotypes and prejudice seem to go together. Taking a step back from the current conversation, think about a political candidate. You likely hold specific thoughts about their policies, how they act, the overall likelihood of success if elected, etc. In conjunction with these thoughts, you also hold certain feelings about them. You might like them, love them, dislike them, or hate them. These thoughts and feelings lead us to behave in a certain way. If we like the candidate, we will vote for them. We might also campaign for them or mention them to others in conversation. The point is that the thoughts and feelings generally go together and you really cannot have one without the other. Behavior arises as a result of them. The same would be true of stereotypes and prejudice which go together, and these lead to behavior.

Consider this now. Can a person be prejudicial and adopt certain stereotypes of other groups, but not discriminate against them? The answer is yes. Most people do not act on prejudices about others due to social norms against such actions. Let’s face it. If you make a snide comment about a fellow employee of another race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic group this could lead to disciplinary action up to being fired. Outside of work, comments like that could lead to legal action against you. So even if you hold such beliefs and feelings, you tend to keep them to yourself.

Now is it possible to be discriminatory without being prejudicial? The answer is yes, though this one may not be as obvious. Say an employer needs someone who can lift up to 75lbs on a regular basis. If you cannot do that and are not hired, you were discriminated against but that does not mean that the employer has prejudicial beliefs about you. The same would be said if a Ph.D. was required for a position and you were refused the job since you only have a Bachelor’s degree. One more example is useful. The online psychology students at Washington State University recently were able to establish a chapter of Psi Chi, the Psychology National Honor Society (done in the spring 2019 for context). Based on national chapter rules, students cannot be accepted unless they have at least 3.0 cumulative and psychology GPAs. We have discussed raising this to 3.3. So, if a student has a 2.9, they would be excluded from the group (under either cut off). This is discrimination but we are not prejudicial against students with a GPA under the cutoff. Given that this is an honor society, a certain level of performance is expected. These aforementioned types of behaviors occur every day but are not indicative of a larger problem, usually.

9.1.2. Implicit Attitudes

Section 9.1.1. describes what are called explicit attitudes , or attitudes that are obvious and known or at the level of conscious awareness. Is it possible that we might not even be aware we hold such attitudes towards other people? The answer is yes and is called an implicit attitude . Most people when asked if they hold a racist attitude would vehemently deny such a truth but research using the Implicit Association Test (IAT) shows otherwise (Greenwald et al., 1998). The test occurs in four stages. First, the participant is asked to categorize faces as black or white by pressing the left- or right-hand key. Next, the participant categorizes words as positive or negative in the same way. Third, words and faces are paired and a participant may be asked to press the left-hand key for a black face or positive word and the right-hand key for a white face or negative word. In the fourth and final stage, the task is the same as in Stage 3 but now black and negative are paired and white and good are paired. The test measures how fast people respond to the different pairs and in general the results show that people respond faster when liked faces are paired with positive words and similarly, when disliked faces are paired with negative words. In another study using the IAT, Dasgupta et al. (2000) found that positive attributes were more strongly associated with White rather than Black Americans and the effect held when equally unfamiliar faces were used as stimuli for both racial groups.

Check out the Project Implicit website at – https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

9.1.3. Types of Prejudice and Discrimination

It is not illegal to hold negative thoughts and feelings about others, though it could be considered immoral. What is illegal is when we act on these prejudices and stereotypes and treat others different as a result. Discrimination can take several different forms which we will discuss now. Be advised that though these forms of discrimination can happen in almost any environment, we will focus primarily on the workplace as guidelines exist at the federal level.

9.1.3.1. Racism . According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “Race discrimination involves treating someone (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because he/she is of a certain race or because of personal characteristics associated with race (such as hair texture, skin color, or certain facial features). Color discrimination involves treating someone unfavorably because of skin color complexion.” But race/color discrimination also occurs when we treat someone differently because they are married to a person of a certain race or color. Discrimination on the basis of race can take the form of not hiring, firing, denying or offering lower pay to, skipping for promotion, not training, or laying off a person of another race or color. Harassment on the basis of race/color is said to have occurred if racial slurs are used, offensive or derogatory remarks are made, or racially-offensive symbols are used. The key is that harassment is prevalent when the offensive behavior occurs so frequently, or is so severe, that it creates a hostile environment or in the case of work environments, it leads to an adverse employment decision such as firing or a demotion. How prevalent is race-based discrimination in the workplace? According to EEOC, in 1997 there were 29,199 charges filed with a total of 28,528 in 2017. The highest number of charges filed occurred in 2010 with 35,890. For more on race/color discrimination in the workplace, please visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/race_color.cfm .

A few types of racism are worth distinguishing. First, old-fashioned racism is the belief that whites are superior to all other racial groups and lead to segregation and some of the forms of discrimination mentioned above. This is contrasted with modern racism which only appears when it is safe and socially acceptable to do so. According to Entman (1990) modern racism is composed of three closely intertwined but distinct components. First, is the “anti-black” effect or a general emotional hostility toward blacks. Second, is resistance to the political demands of African Americans. Third, is the belief that racism is dead and that blacks are no longer denied the ability to achieve due to racial discrimination.

Aversive racism occurs when a person denies personal prejudice but has underlying unconscious negative feelings toward another racial group. This could result in uneasiness, discomfort, disgust, and even fear. The person may find a Hispanic person as aversive but at the same time any suggestion that they are prejudiced equally aversive. As Dovidio and Gaertner (2004) wrote, “Thus, aversive racism may involve more positive reactions to whites than to blacks, reflecting a pro-in-group rather than an anti-out-group orientation, thereby avoiding the sigma of overt bigotry and protecting a nonprejudiced self-image” (pg. 4). Another study found that self-reported prejudice was lower in 1998-1999 than it was in 1988-1989. During both time periods, though, white participants did not engage in discriminatory selection decisions when a candidate’s qualifications were clearly weak or strong but did discriminate when the appropriate decision was more ambiguous (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000).

Finally, symbolic racism (Sears & Kinder, 1971) occurs when negative views of another racial group are coupled with values such as individualism. It includes four components measured as such (Sears & Henry, 2005):

• Denial of continuing discrimination – Agreement with the following statement would indicate symbolic racism – ‘Discrimination against blacks is no longer a problem in the United States’ while symbolic racism would be evident if you said there has been a lot of real change in the position of black people over the past few years.
• Work ethic and responsibility for outcomes – If you agree with the following statement symbolic racism would be apparent – ‘It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could just be as well off as whites.’
• Excessive demands – Consider this question. ‘Some say that the Civil Rights people have been trying to push too fast. Others feel that they haven’t pushed fast enough. How about you?’ If you say push too fast you are displaying symbolic racism.
• Undeserved advantage – If you disagree with ‘Over the last few years, blacks have gotten less than they deserve’ but agree with ‘Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve’ you are displaying aversive racism.

9.1.3.2. Sexism. Sex discrimination involves treating a person unfavorably due to their sex. EEOC states, “Harassment can include “sexual harassment” or unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Harassment does not have to be of a sexual nature, however, and can include offensive remarks about a person’s sex. For example, it is illegal to harass a woman by making offensive comments about women in general.” The victim and the harasser can be either a man or woman, and of the same sex. In 1997, the EEOC had 24,728 charges filed for sex-based discrimination and in 2017 this number was 25,605. The peak charges filed was 30,356 in 2012. For more on sex discrimination in the work place, please visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sex.cfm .

9.1.3.3. Ageism. According to the EEOC, age discrimination occurs when an applicant or employee is treated less favorably due to their age. EEOC writes, “The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) forbids age discrimination against people who are age 40 or older. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination.”  Interestingly, it is not illegal for an employer to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both are over the age of 40. In 1997, the EEOC had 15,785 charges filed for age discrimination and in 2017 this number was 18,376. The peak charges filed was 24,582 filed in 2008. For more on age discrimination in the work place, please visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm .

9.1.3.4. Weight discrimination. Discrimination does occur in relation to a person’s weight, or as the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination says, “for people who are heavier than average.” They call for equal treatment in the job market and on the job; competent and respectful treatment by health care professionals; the realization that happy, attractive, and capable people come in all sizes; and state that each person has the responsibility to stand up for themselves and others suffering weight discrimination. The group also notes that the media often portrays the obese in a negative light and promotes people’s fear of fat and obsession with thinness. Finally, they write, “We stand in solidarity with those who experience discrimination based on based on ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or other traits. Our mission is to make people aware of discrimination based on size, shape, and weight, and to work to end such discrimination.” For more on the council, please visit: http://cswd.org/ .

To read about workplace weight discrimination issues, please check out the Time article from August 16, 2017.: http://time.com/4883176/weight-discrimination-workplace-laws/

9.1.3.5. Disability discrimination. According to EEOC, disability discrimination occurs when an employer or other entity, “treats an applicant or employee less favorably because she has a history of a disability (such as cancer that is controlled or in remission) or because she is believed to have a physical or mental impairment that is not transitory (lasting or expected to last six months or less) and minor (even if she does not have such an impairment).” The law also requires an employer (or in the cases of students, a university) to provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability, unless it would cause significant difficulty or expense. For more on disability discrimination in the workplace, please visit: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/disability.cfm .

9.1.4. Stigmatization

Overlapping with prejudice and discrimination in terms of how people from other groups are treated is stigma , or when negative stereotyping, labeling, rejection, devaluation, and/or loss of status occur due to membership in a particular social group such as being Hispanic, Jewish, or a Goth; or due to a specific characteristic such as having a mental illness or cancer. Stigma takes on three forms as described below:

• Public stigma – When members of a society endorse negative stereotypes of people from another group and discriminate against them. They might avoid them all together resulting in social isolation. An example is when an employer intentionally does not hire a person because their mental illness is discovered.
• Label avoidance – In order to avoid being labeled as “crazy” or “nuts” people needing care may avoid seeking it all together or stop care once started. Due to these labels, funding for mental health services or aid to compromised groups could be restricted and instead, physical health services funded.
• Self-stigma – When people from another group internalize the negative stereotypes and prejudice, and in turn, discriminate against themselves. They may experience shame, reduced self-esteem, hopelessness, low self-efficacy, and a reduction in coping mechanisms. An obvious consequence of these potential outcomes is the why try effect, or the person saying ‘Why should I try and get that job. I am not worthy of it’ (Corrigan, Larson, & Rusch, 2009; Corrigan, et al., 2016).

Another form of stigma that is worth noting is that of courtesy stigma or when stigma affects people associated with the person with a mental disorder, physical disability, or who is overweight or obese. Karnieli-Miller et. al. (2013) found that families of the afflicted were often blamed, rejected, or devalued when others learned that a family member had a serious mental illness (SMI). Due to this they felt hurt and betrayed and an important source of social support during the difficult time had disappeared, resulting in greater levels of stress. To cope, they had decided to conceal their relative’s illness, and some parents struggled to decide whether it was their place to disclose versus the relative’s place. Others fought with the issue of confronting the stigma through attempts at education or to just ignore it due to not having enough energy or desiring to maintain personal boundaries. There was also a need to understand responses of others and to attribute it to a lack of knowledge, experience, and/or media coverage. In some cases, the reappraisal allowed family members to feel compassion for others rather than feeling put down or blamed. The authors concluded that each family “develops its own coping strategies which vary according to its personal experiences, values, and extent of other commitments” and that “coping strategies families employ change over-time.”

9.1.4.1. The case of stigma and mental illness. Effects of stigma for those with a mental illness include experiencing work-related discrimination resulting in higher levels of self-stigma and stress (Rusch et al., 2014), higher rates of suicide, especially when treatment is not available (Rusch, Zlati, Black, and Thornicroft, 2014; Rihmer & Kiss, 2002), and a decreased likelihood of future help-seeking intention in a university sample (Lally et al., 2013). The results of the latter study also showed that personal contact with someone with a history of mental illness led to a decreased likelihood of seeking help. This is important because 48% of the sample stated that they needed help for an emotional or mental health issue during the past year but did not seek help. Similar results have been reported in other studies (Eisenberg, Downs, Golberstein, & Zivin, 2009). It is important to also point out that social distance, a result of stigma, has also been shown to increase throughout the life span suggesting that anti-stigma campaigns should focus on older people primarily (Schomerus, et al., 2015).

To help deal with stigma in the mental health community, Papish et al. (2013) investigated the effect of a one-time contact-based educational intervention compared to a four-week mandatory psychiatry course on the stigma of mental illness among medical students at the University of Calgary. The course included two methods involving contact with people who had been diagnosed with a mental disorder – patient presentations or two, one-hour oral presentations in which patients shared their story of having a mental illness; and “clinical correlations” in which students are mentored by a psychiatrist while they directly interacted with patients with a mental illness in either inpatient or outpatient settings. Results showed that medical students did hold a stigma towards mental illness and that comprehensive medical education can reduce this stigma. As the authors stated, “These results suggest that it is possible to create an environment in which medical student attitudes towards mental illness can be shifted in a positive direction.” That said, the level of stigma was still higher for mental illness than it was for a stigmatized physical illness, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus.

What might happen if mental illness is presented as a treatable condition? McGinty, Goldman, Pescosolido, and Barry (2015) found that portraying schizophrenia, depression, and heroin addiction as untreated and symptomatic increased negative public attitudes towards people with these conditions but when the same people were portrayed as successfully treated, the desire for social distance was reduced, there was less willingness to discriminate against them, and belief in treatment’s effectiveness increased in the public.

Self-stigma has also been shown to affect self-esteem, which then affects hope, which then affects quality of life among people with SMI. As such, hope should play a central role in recovery (Mashiach-Eizenberg et al., 2013). Narrative Enhancement and Cognitive Therapy (NECT) is an intervention designed to reduce internalized stigma and targets both hope and self-esteem (Yanos et al., 2011). The intervention replaces stigmatizing myths with facts about the illness and recovery which leads to hope in clients and greater levels of self-esteem. This may then reduce susceptibility to internalized stigma.

Stigma has been shown to lead to health inequities (Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013) prompting calls for stigma change. Targeting stigma leads to two different agendas. The services agenda attempts to remove stigma so the person can seek mental health services while the rights agenda tries to replace discrimination that “robs people of rightful opportunities with affirming attitudes and behavior” (Corrigan, 2016). The former is successful when there is evidence that people with mental illness are seeking services more or becoming better engaged while the latter is successful when there is an increase in the number of people with mental illnesses in the workforce and receiving reasonable accommodations. The federal government has tackled this issue with landmark legislation such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 though protections are not uniform across all subgroups due to “1) explicit language about inclusion and exclusion criteria in the statute or implementation rule,

2) vague statutory language that yields variation in the interpretation about which groups qualify for protection, and 3) incentives created by the legislation that affect specific groups differently” (Cummings, Lucas, and Druss, 2013).

• Clarify how social identity theory and social categorization explain prejudice and discrimination.
• Describe how negative group stereotypes and prejudice are socialized.
• Explain whether emotions can predict intolerance.
• Discuss theories explaining the inevitability of intergroup rivalry and conflict over limited resources.
• Clarify how attribution theory explains prejudice and discrimination.

9.2.1. Social Identity Theory and Social Categorization

Social identity theory asserts that people have a proclivity to categorize their social world into meaningfully simplistic representations of groups of people. These representations are then organized as prototypes , or “fuzzy sets of a relatively limited number of category defining features that not only define one category but serve to distinguish it from other categories” (Foddy & Hogg, 1999). This social categorization process leads us to emphasize the perceived similarities within our group and the differences between groups and involves the self. We construct in-groups , or groups we identify with, and out-groups , or groups that are not our own, and categorize the self as an in-group member. From this, behavior is generated such that the self is assimilated to the salient in-group prototype which defines specific cognitions, affect, and behavior we may exhibit. We favor ingroups, called ingroup favoritism , to enhance our own self-esteem and produce a positive self-concept.  Another consequence is that we tend to see members of the outgroup as similar to one another while our ingroup is seen as varied, called the outgroup homogeneity effect (Park & Rothbart, 1982). One reason why this might occur is that we generally have less involvement with individual members of outgroups and so are less familiar with them. If we have contact, then they are less likely to be seen as homogeneous.

Tajfel et al. (1979) stated that we associate the various social categories with positive or negative value connotations which in turn lead to a positive or negative social identity, based on the evaluations of groups that contribute to our social identity. We also evaluate our group by making a social comparison to other groups. They write, “positively discrepant comparisons between in-group and out-group produce high prestige; negatively discrepant comparisons between in-group and out-group result in low prestige” (pg. 60).  We desire favorable comparisons between the in-group and some relevant out-groups meaning the in-group is seen as distinct. Our self-esteem can be boosted through our personal achievements or by being associated with successful groups.

9.2.2. Socialization of Negative Group Stereotypes and Prejudice

It should not be a surprise to learn that one way we acquire stereotypes and prejudice is to simply learn them in childhood. Three main, complementary and not competitive, learning models explain how this might occur. In fact, they explain how we acquire and then subsequently maintain such cognitions and emotional reactions to other groups. They could also account for why discriminatory acts are committed.

First, observational learning is learning by simply watching others, or you might say we model their behavior. Albert Bandura conducted the pivotal research on observational learning in which children were first brought into a room to watch a video of an adult playing nicely or aggressively with a Bobo doll. This was a model. Next, the children are placed in a room with a lot of toys in it. In the room is a highly prized toy but they are told they cannot play with it. All other toys are fine and a Bobo doll is in the room. Children who watched the aggressive model behaved aggressively with the Bobo doll while those who saw the nice model, played nice. Both groups were frustrated when deprived of the coveted toy. In relation to our discussion of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination, a child may observe a parent utter racial slurs, make derogatory gestures, or engage in behavior intended to hurt another group. The child can learn to express the same attitudes both in terms of cognitions and affect, and possibly through subsequent actions they make. So, the child may express the stereotype of a group and show negative feelings toward that group, and then later state a racial slur at a member of the group or deny them some resource they are legally able to obtain in keeping with discrimination…. And all because they saw their parents or other key figures do the same at some earlier time in life. Keep in mind this all can happen without the parent ever actually ever trying to teach the child such attitudes.

Second, respondent conditioning occurs when we link a previously neutral stimulus (NS) with a stimulus that is unlearned or inborn, called an unconditioned stimulus (US). With repeated pairings of NS and US, the organism will come to make a response to the NS and not the US.  How so? According to respondent conditioning, learning occurs in three phases: preconditioning, conditioning, and postconditioning. Preconditioning signifies that some learning is already present. There is no need to learn it again. The US yields an unconditioned response (UR). It is un-conditioned meaning it is not (un) learned (conditioned). Conditioning is when learning occurs and in respondent conditioning this is the pairing of the neutral stimulus and unconditioned stimulus which recall yields an UR. Postconditioning, or after (post) learning (conditioning) has occurred, establishes a new and not naturally occurring relationship of a conditioned stimulus (CS; previously the NS) and conditioned response (CR; the same response). In Pavlov’s classic experiments, dogs salivated in response to food (US and UR); no learning was necessary. But Pavlov realized that dogs salivated even before they had the food in front of them. They did so when the heard footsteps coming down or at the sound of a bell (the NS which cause no response initially). With enough pairings, the dogs came to realize that the bell (NS formerly and now a CS) indicated food was coming and salivated (previously the UR and now the CR). How does this relate to learning prejudice and stereotypes? Children may come to associate certain groups (initially a NS) with such things as crime, poverty, and other negative characteristics. Now in respondent conditioning these stimuli were initially neutral like the groups but through socialization children learned these were bad making the relationship of such characteristics as being negative a CS-CR relationship. The new NS is linked to a CS and eventually just thinking of a specific racial group (now a new CS) for example will yield the negative feelings (CR) because we have learned that the group consists of poor criminals who may be dirty or vile for instance.

Third, operant conditioning is a type of associative learning which focuses on consequences that follow a response or behavior that we make (anything we do, say, or think/feel) and whether it makes a behavior more or less likely to occur. A contingency is when one thing occurs due to another. Think of it as an If-Then statement. If I do X then Y will happen. For operant conditioning this means that if I make a behavior, then a specific consequence will follow. The events (response and consequence) are linked in time. What form do these consequences take? There are two main ways they can present themselves. First, in reinforcement , the consequences lead to a behavior/response being more likely to occur in the future. It is strengthened. Second, in punishment , a behavior/response is less likely to occur in the future or is weakened, due to the consequences. Operant conditioning says that four contingencies are then possible based on whether something good or bad is given or taken away. Let’s go through each and give an example related to the topic of this module.

• Positive Punishment (PP) – If something bad or aversive is given or added, then the behavior is less likely to occur in the future. If you talk back to your mother and she slaps your mouth, this is a PP. Your response of talking back led to the consequence of the aversive slap being delivered or given to your face. In relation to our discussion, if you make a racist slur at work and are reprimanded by being given a demerit or verbally scolded by HR, then you will be less likely to make one again.
• Positive Reinforcement (PR) – If something good is given or added, then the behavior is more likely to occur in the future. If you study hard and earn, or are given, an A on your exam, you will be more likely to study hard in the future. Likewise, if you make a negative racial comment at home and are praised by your parents, then you will be likely to do this again in the future.
• Negative Reinforcement (NR) – This is a tough one for students to comprehend because the terms don’t seem to go together and are counterintuitive. But it is really simple and you experience NR all the time. This is when something bad or aversive is taken away or subtracted due to your actions, making it that you will be more likely to make the same behavior in the future when some stimuli presents itself. For instance, what do you do if you have a headache? You likely answered take Tylenol. If you do this and the headache goes away, you will take Tylenol in the future when you have a headache. NR can either result in current escape behavior or future avoidance behavior. What does this mean? Escape occurs when we are presently experiencing an aversive event and want it to end. We make a behavior and if the aversive event, like the headache, goes away, we will repeat the taking of Tylenol in the future. This future action is an avoidance event. We might start to feel a headache coming on and run to take Tylenol right away. By doing so we have removed the possibility of the aversive event occurring and this behavior demonstrates that learning has occurred. In the case of discrimination, if we believe a new family to our neighborhood from a different racial or ethnic group is somehow a problem, we might engage in hostile behavior to encourage them to move. If they do so, then this is NR and specifically escape behavior. The neighborhood may get the reputation of not welcoming a diverse range of people and cause future outgroup members to take up residence elsewhere (avoidance behavior).
• Negative Punishment (NP) – This is when something good is taken away or subtracted making a behavior less likely in the future. If you are late to class and your professor deducts 5 points from your final grade (the points are something good and the loss is negative), you will likely be on time in all subsequent classes. Back to the work example for NR, we might also be sent home with pay or lose a promotion.

9.2.3. Do Emotions Predict Intolerance?

A 2004 article in the Monitor on Psychology notes that though most research points to the fact that intolerance is caused by negative stereotypes, at least in part, research by Susan Fiske of Princeton University indicates that pity, envy, disgust, and pride – all emotions – may play a larger role. Fiske’s research team found that the emotions are not only tied to prejudice, but to discriminatory behavior as well. “It’s not illegal to have a bad thought or feeling in your head,” said Fiske. “What really matters is the behavior.” This behavior can include bringing harm to others or excluding them, and through a meta-analysis she conducted of 57 studies done over 50 years on attitude behavior and racial bias, she found that emotions predict behaviors twice as much as negative stereotypes.

Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, and Xu (2002) proposed that the content of stereotypes be studied and argued that stereotypes are captured by the dimensions of warmth and competence. The researchers wrote, “subjectively positive stereotypes on one dimension do not contradict prejudice but often are functionally consistent with unflattering stereotypes on the other dimension” (pg. 878). It is also predicted that status and competition, two variables important for intergroup relations, predict the dimensions of stereotypes such that for subordinate, noncompetitive groups (i.e. the elderly) the positive stereotype of warmth will act jointly with the negative stereotype of low competence to give privileged groups an advantage. They add that for competitive out-groups such as Asians, there is a positive stereotype of competence in conjunction with a negative stereotype of low warmth which justifies the in-group’s resentment of them. Finally, they predicted that different combinations of stereotypic warmth and competence bring about unique intergroup emotions, directed toward various societal groups such that “pity targets the warm but not competent subordinates; envy targets the competent but not warm competitors; contempt is reserved for out-groups deemed neither warm nor competent” (pg. 879).

The data provided from nine survey samples show that perceived competence and warmth did indeed differentiate out-group stereotypes; that many out-groups are perceived as competent but not warm (or warm but not competent); that perceived social status predicted perceived competence and perceived competition predicted perceived lack of warmth; and that pity, envy, contempt, and admiration differentiated the four combinations of perceived warmth and competence. In relation to the last finding, the authors speculated, “Both envy items (i.e., envious, jealous) reflect the belief that another possesses some object that the self desires but lacks; this, then, acknowledges the out-groups’ possession of good qualities and also that the out-group is responsible for the in-group’s distress. In short, envy and jealousy are inherently mixed emotions. Ina similar way, pity and sympathy directed toward warm but incompetent out-groups suggest a mixture of subjectively good feelings and acknowledgement of the out-groups’ inferior position. Again, pity is inherently a mixed emotion” (pg. 897). The results of the study fly in the face of the consensus of social psychologists that prejudice involves simultaneous dislike and disrespect for an out-group, but instead, shows that out-group prejudice often focuses on one or the other, but not both.

For more from the Monitor on Psychology article, please visit:

https://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/prejudice

9.2.4. Is Intergroup Rivalry Inevitable Due to Competition for Limited Resources?

Another line of thinking does assert that groups will engage in prejudicial and discriminatory practices because they are competing for limited resources. The interesting thing is that competition comes about due to either real imbalances of power and resources, called the realistic group conflict theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972) or perceived imbalances, called relative deprivation . In the case of the former, groups competing for limited jobs may engage in discriminatory practices or make prejudicial comments about the other group. In the case of the latter, simply believing that your situation is improving but slower than other groups, can lead to instances of intergroup conflict. Using the realistic group conflict theory as a base, Brief et al. (2005) found that the closer whites lived to blacks and the more interethnic conflict they perceived in their communities, the more negative their reaction was to diverse workplaces.

Dominant groups likewise want to maintain the status quo or continue their control over subordinate groups. Those with a social dominance orientation (SDO) view their ingroup as dominant and superior to outgroups and seek to enforce the hierarchy as it exists now.  They take on roles that enhance or attenuate inequality; are generally intolerant; are not empathetic and altruistic; express less concern for others;  are generally more conservative, patriotic, nationalistic, and express cultural elitism; support chauvinist policies; do not support gay rights, women’s rights, social welfare programs, ameliorative racial policy, and environmental policy; generally support military programs; support wars for dominance but not war unconditionally; and finally the orientation is more present in males than females (Pratto et al., 1994). The orientation was also found to be distinct from an authoritarian personality in which a person displays an exaggerated submission to authority, is intolerant of weakness, endorses the use of punitive measures toward outgroup members or deviants, and conformity to ingroup leaders (Adorno et al., 1950), though Pratto et al. (1994) do indicate that SDO does predict many of the social attitudes conceptually associated with authoritarianism such as ethnocentrism, punitiveness, and conservatism. It is also distinct from social identity theory such that, “Social identity theory posits out-group denigration as a device for maintaining positive social identity; social dominance theory posits it as a device to maintain superior group status” (pg. 757).

The system justification theory proposes that people are motivated to varying degrees, to defend, bolster, and justify existing social, political, and economic arrangements, also known as the status quo, to maintain their advantaged position. These behaviors legitimatize the social hierarchy as it currently exists, even if they hold a disadvantaged place in this system (Jost, 2011). In the case of the disadvantaged, they may assert that the system is fair and just and display outgroup favoritism to those who perform well in the system.

9.2.5. Attribution Theory

Recall from Module 4 (Section 4.2.1) attribution theory (Heider, 1958) asserts that people are motivated to explain their own and other people’s behavior by attributing causes of that behavior to either something in themselves or a trait they have, called a dispositional attribution , or to something outside the person called a situational attribution . We also commit the fundamental attribution error (FAE; Jones & Harris, 1967) which is an error in assigning a cause to another’s behavior in which we automatically assume a dispositional reason for his or her actions and ignore situational factors. Related to the current discussion of prejudice and discrimination, we commit the cognitive error of group-serving bias by ignoring an outgroup member’s positive behavior and assigning dispositional attributions to their negative behavior while attributing negative behavior to situational factors and positive behavior to dispositional ones for ingroup members. One study investigated harmful behavior and found evidence of the group-serving bias insofar as members of the Italian Communist party said outgroup actors were more aggressive and intentional in their harmful actions than in-group actors (Schruijer et al., 1994).

Finally, attributional ambiguity refers to the confusion a person may experience over whether or not they are being treated prejudicially (Crocker & Major, 1989). Though no one would want to be discriminated against or experience prejudice, knowing this is the cause of negative feedback can actually protect one’s self-esteem. Women in one experiment received negative feedback from an evaluator they knew was prejudiced and showed less depression than women who received negative feedback from a nonprejudiced evaluator. In a second experiment, white and black college students were given interpersonal feedback from a white evaluator who could either see them or not. Black participants were more likely to attribute negative feedback to prejudice than positive feedback. Additionally, being seen by the evaluator protected the self-esteem of Black participants from negative feedback but lowered the self-esteem of those who were given positive feedback (Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991).

• Define tolerance.
• Describe ways to promote tolerance and improve intergroup relations.
• Describe Allport’s intergroup contact theory and state whether it is supported by research.
• Describe the Jigsaw classroom and evidence supporting it.

In the pervious two sections we have discussed attitudes we hold toward other groups and how the concepts of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination reflect the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes, respectively. We then proposed potential causes of prejudice and discrimination outgroups face. So how do we go about reducing prejudice and discrimination?

9.3.1. Teaching Tolerance

As a starting point, one way to reduce prejudice and discrimination (or reduce negative feelings rooted in cognitions about another group and negative behavior made in relation to the group) is by teaching tolerance or “respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. Tolerance is harmony in difference.” The Teaching Tolerance movement ( https://www.tolerance.org/ ), founded in 1991 by the Southern Poverty Law Center to prevent the growth of hate, provides free resources to teachers, educators, and administrators from kindergarten to high school. The program centers on social justice, which includes the domains of identity, diversity, justice, and action; and anti-bias, which encourages children and young people to challenge prejudice and be agents of change in their own lives. They write, “We view tolerance as a way of thinking and feeling—but most importantly, of acting—that gives us peace in our individuality, respect for those unlike us, the wisdom to discern humane values and the courage to act upon them.”

The group proposes 13 principles to improve intergroup relations. Briefly, they include:

• Principle 1 – Sources of prejudice and discrimination should be addressed at the institutional and individual levels and where people learn, work, and live. The group notes that power differences, whether real or imagined, have to be dealt with as they are at the heart of intergroup tensions.
• Principle 2 – We have to go beyond merely raising knowledge and awareness to include efforts to influence the behavior of others. Strategies to improve intergroup relations must also include lessons about how one is to act in accordance with this new knowledge. Also, as prejudice and discrimination are socially influenced to change our own behavior we may need to look to others for support and our efforts may involve change the behavior of those who express such negative views of others and who possibly act on it.
• Principle 3 – Strategies should include all racial and ethnic groups involved as “diversity provides an opportunity for learning and for comparison that can help avoid oversimplification or stereotyping.”
• Principle 4 – There should be cooperative, equal-status roles for persons from different groups. Activities should be cooperative in nature to ensure that people from different backgrounds can all contribute equally to the task.
• Principle 5 – People in positions of power should participate in, and model, what is being taught in race relations programs as an example to those being taught and to show that the learning activities matter.
• Principle 6 – Positive intergroup relations should be taught to children at an early age but at the same time, we need to realize that these lessons may not stick even though they do make later lessons easier to teach and learn. The group states, “People cannot be inoculated against prejudice. Given the differences in living conditions of various racial and ethnic groups, as well as the existence of discrimination throughout our society, improving intergroup relations is a challenge that requires ongoing work .” The last two words are by far the most important in this principle.
• Principle 7 – Building off Principle 6, a one-time workshop, course, or learning module is not enough and there needs to be “highly focused activities and efforts to ensure that positive intergroup relations are pursued throughout the organization involved.”
• Principle 8 – Similarities between racial and ethnic groups need to be emphasized as much as differences in social class, gender, and language. Though there are differences between groups, they also have a lot in common. “Making “the other” seem less different, strange, or exotic can encourage positive interactions and avoid stereotyping.”
• Principle 9 – Most Americans of European descent value the concept of the “melting pot” but expect persons of color and immigrants to assimilate into the dominant white culture and resent them if they do not. Others insist that individuals choose a single cultural identity but by doing so communicate a lack of respect for people with bicultural or multicultural identities and discriminate against them. Hence, we must recognize the value of these varied identities as they represent a bridge to improved intergroup relations.
• Principle 10 – Oftentimes it is myths and misinformation that sustain stereotypes and prejudices. The inaccuracies of these myths must be exposed to undermine the justifications for prejudice.
• Principle 11 – Those who are to implement learning activities should be properly trained and their commitment firm to increase the effectiveness of the effort.
• Principle 12 – The exact problems involved in poor intergroup relations within a setting should be diagnosed so that the correct strategies can be used and then follow-up studies of individual and organization change should follow.
• Principle 13 – The strategies we use to reduce prejudice toward any particular racial or ethnic group may not transfer to other races or groups. “Since most people recognize that racism is inconsistent with democratic values, it is often the case that prejudiced persons have developed what they think are reasonable justifications for prejudices and discriminatory behavior that are specific to particular groups.”

The group notes that all 13 principles do not need to be included in every strategy, and some effective strategies and intervention programs incorporate as few as two or three. The principles presented above are meant to provide guidelines for action and are not guaranteed to work. Even the best-designed strategies can be undermined by weak implementation. The principles are also meant to focus research and discussion on what an effective program would look like.

Source: https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/strategies-for-reducing-racial-and-ethnic-prejudice-essential-principles

For Your Consideration

So do interventions to reduce prejudice and create an inclusive environment in early childhood work? A systematic review was conducted by Aboud et al. (2012) and provided mixed evidence. Check out the article for yourself:  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229712000214

9.3.2. Intergroup Contact Theory

According to an APA feature article in 2001, to reduce bias among conflicting groups, all you need is contact ( https://www.apa.org/monitor/nov01/contact ). In the 1950s, psychologist Gordon Allport proposed his “ contact hypothesis ” which states that contact between groups can promote acceptance and tolerance but only when four conditions are met. First, there must be equal status between the groups in the situation as if the status quo of imbalance is maintained, the stereotypes fueling prejudice and discrimination cannot be broken down. Second, the groups must share common goals that are superordinate to any one group which leads to the third condition of intergroup cooperation. The groups must work together and share in the fruits of their labor. Finally, there has to be support at the institutional level in terms of authorities, law, or custom (Allport, 1954).

A 2006 meta-analysis by Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp confirms Allport’s hypothesis. The researchers synthesized the effects from 696 samples and found that greater intergroup contact is associated with lower levels of prejudice. They also found that intergroup contact effects generalize beyond participants in the immediate contact situation. They write, “Not only do attitudes toward the immediate participants usually become more favorable, but so do attitudes toward the entire outgroup, outgroup members in other situations, and even outgroups not involved in the contact. This result enhances the potential of intergroup contact to be a practical, applied means of improving intergroup relations” (pg. 766).

To read the meta-analysis for yourself, please visit: http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/genderandsexualitylawblog/files/2012/04/A-Meta-Analytic-Test-of-Intergroup-Contact-Theory.pdf

9.3.3. Jigsaw Classroom

            The Jigsaw classroom was created in the early 1970s by Elliot Aronson and his students at the University of Texas and the University of California (Aronson et al., 1978). It has a proven track record of reducing racial conflict and increasing positive educational outcomes. These include reducing absenteeism, increasing a student’s liking of school, and improving test performance. Like a jigsaw puzzle, each student represents a piece and is needed to complete and fully understand the final product. So how does it work? According to https://www.jigsaw.org/ :

• The class is divided into smaller groups of 5-6 students, each group diverse in terms of gender, race, ability, and ethnicity.
• One student is appointed as the group leader and should be the most mature student in the group.
• The lesson for the day is divided into 5-6 segments. As the website says, if you were presenting a lesson on Eleanor Roosevelt, you would break it up into covering her childhood, life with Franklin and their children, her life after he contracted polio, her work in the White House as First Lady, and her life and work after her husband died.
• Each student is then assigned to learn one segment ONLY.
• The students are given time to read over their segment and learn it at least twice. Memorization of the script is not needed.
• Temporary “expert” groups are next created by having students from each jigsaw group join other students assigned the same segment. The students are given time to discuss the main points with others in the expert group and to rehearse the presentations they will make to their jigsaw group.
• Students are returned to their jigsaw groups.
• The students are then asked to present his or her segment to the group and the other group members are encouraged to ask questions for clarification.
• The teacher is asked to move from group to group and observe the process. If there is a problem in the group such as one member being disruptive or dominating, the teacher will make an intervention appropriate to the situation. With time, the group leader will handle such situations but needs to be trained. The teacher could do this by whispering instructions to the leader.
• Once the session is over, the teacher gives a quiz on the material. This reinforces that the sessions are not fun and games, but really count.

So, does it work? Results show that once a group begins to work well, barriers break down and the students show liking for one another and empathy too (Aronson, 2002). The same results were observed in a study of Vietnamese tertiary students such that they reported appreciating working with others, getting help, and discussing the content with each other (Tran & Lewis, 2012). Outside of reducing intergroup rivalries and prejudice, an adaptation has been shown to help reduce social loafing in college student group projects (Voyles, Bailey, & Durik, 2015).

For more on the jigsaw classroom, please visit: https://www.jigsaw.org/

Module Recap

In Module 9 we discussed the special case of an attitude related to groups and were reminded that attitudes consist of cognitions, affect, and behavior. In relation to our current discussion, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination reflect the three dimensions of an attitude, respectfully. We also discussed attitudes that we might not be aware of, called implicit attitudes, and discussed types of prejudice and discrimination to include racism, sexism, ageism, weight discrimination, and disability discrimination. We then covered stigmatization and related it to discrimination on the basis of mental illness, specifically. With this done, we attempted to offer explanations for why intolerance exists. We presented social identity theory and social categorization, socialization using the three learning models, stereotype content model, numerous theories for why intergroup rivalries and conflict occur, and attribution theory as potential explanations. Finally, we proposed ways to reduce prejudice and discrimination such as teaching tolerance, promoting contact between groups, and use of the jigsaw classroom model.

With this covered, Module 9 and Part III: How We Influence and Are Influenced By Others is complete. Be sure you are preparing for your exam and in Part IV we will conclude this book by discussing How We Relate to Others and topics such as aggression, helping others, and attraction.

2nd edition

Share This Book

• Increase Font Size

Stereotypes, Prejudice and Discrimination

As discussed earlier, the social groups we belong to, help form our identities (Tajfel, 1974) and people are often biased against others outside of their own social group (out-groups), showing prejudice (emotional bias), stereotypes (cognitive bias), and discrimination (behavioral bias). These three aspects of bias are related, but they each can occur separately from the others (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2010; Fiske, 1998).

Stereotypes

A stereotype is a specific belief or assumption (thoughts) about individuals based solely on their membership in a group, regardless of their individual characteristics. Stereotypes can be positive or negative and when overgeneralized are applied to all members of a group. For example, the model minority stereotype of Asian Americans as highly intelligent, diligent and good at math can be damaging professionally, academically (Trytten et al., 2012). These beliefs are overgeneralized to all members of the group, even though many of the individual group members may in fact be struggle academically and professionally.

Another example of a well-known stereotype involves beliefs about racial differences among athletes. As Hodge, Burden, Robinson, and Bennett (2008) point out, black male athletes are often believed to be more athletic, yet less intelligent, than their white male counterparts. These beliefs persist despite a number of high profile examples to the contrary. Sadly, such beliefs often influence how these athletes are treated by others and how they view themselves and their own capabilities. Stereotypes are universal. Whether or not you agree with a stereotype the content of stereotypes is generally well-known within in a given culture (Devine, 1989).

Prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group (Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010). Prejudice is common against people who are members of an unfamiliar cultural group. An example of prejudice is having a negative attitude toward people who are not born in the United States. Although people holding this prejudiced attitude do not know all people who were not born in the United States, they dislike them due to their status as foreigners.

Explicit prejudice, negative feelings about an out-group that are openly admitted, is very difficult to measure because this is generally not socially acceptable. This means that tests and instruments measuring prejudice may be susceptible to socially desirable responding (Chapter 2). To address this research bias, psychologists have developed several ways to measure implicit prejudice, which is the relatively automatic and unconscious in-group preference. The most famous instrument used is the Implicit Association Test (IAT;Greenwald, Banaji, Rudman, Farnham, Nosek, & Mellott, 2002; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The IAT is done on the computer and measures how quickly you can sort words or pictures into different categories. People may explicitly deny prejudice but when they’re given this computer task to categorize people from these out-groups that automatic or unconscious hesitation (a result of having mixed evaluations about the out-group) will show up in the test. Numerous studies have revealed, people tend to be faster at pairing their own group with good categories as compared to pairing others’ groups. In fact, this finding generally holds regardless if one’s group is measured according race, age, religion, nationality, and even temporary, insignificant memberships. Automatic associations and unconscious responses are often driven by society’s stereotypes and can result in discrimination like allocating fewer resources to disliked out-groups (Rudman & Ashmore, 2009).

Discrimination

When someone acts on prejudiced attitudes toward a group of people this is known as discrimination. Discrimination is negative action toward an individual as a result of one’s membership in a particular group (Allport, 1954; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). As a result of holding negative beliefs (stereotypes) and negative attitudes (prejudice) about a particular group, people often treat the target of prejudice poorly. Discrimination can extend to institutions or social and political systems.

Institutional discrimination refers to practices (at the social level) which serve to reinforce social norms for preference, privilege and limited access to services and resources. In the United States, African Americans have lower life expectancy, experience higher risk for a cardiac events and higher rates of anxiety and depression than others racial and ethnic groups in the United States (Williams, 1999; Williams & Mohammed, 2009). Native American populations experience higher rates of injury than other ethnic and racial groups (Williams, 1999). These disparities are not simply the result of lifestyle choices but represent systemic practices in healthcare that treat racial and ethnic minorities differently, as well as the effect of chronic prejudice and racism (Gee & Ford, 2011; Williams, 1999; Williams & Mohammed, 2009).

Suicide rates among lesbians and gays are substantially higher than rates for the general population, and it has been argued that this in part due to the negative outcomes of prejudice, including negative attitudes and social isolation (Halpert, 2002). Stigmatized individuals who report experiencing more exposure to discrimination or other forms of unfair treatment also report more depression, anger, and anxiety and lower levels of life satisfaction and happiness (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001). Exposure to chronic and persistent discrimination is harmful to our health.

Culture and Psychology Copyright © 2020 by L D Worthy; T Lavigne; and F Romero is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice
• > An Introduction to the Psychology of Prejudice

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Notes on the Contributors
• Part I General Theoretical Perspectives
• 1 An Introduction to the Psychology of Prejudice
• 2 Evolutionary Approaches to Stereotyping and Prejudice
• 3 From Prejudice to Social Change: A Social Identity Perspective
• 4 Ingroup Projection as a Challenge of Diversity: Consensus about and Complexity of Superordinate Categories
• 5 Intergroup Discrimination: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate?
• 6 Intergroup Emotions Theory: Prejudice and Differentiated Emotional Reactions toward Outgroups
• 7 Intergroup Threats
• 8 Social Dominance Theory: Explorations in the Psychology of Oppression
• 9 The Dual Process Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice
• 10 Is Prejudice Heritable? Evidence from Twin Studies
• Part II Prejudice in Specific Domains
• Part III Prejudice Reduction and Analysis in Applied Contexts

1 - An Introduction to the Psychology of Prejudice

from Part I - General Theoretical Perspectives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

What Is Prejudice?

What makes something, say a particular attitude or belief, an expression of prejudice? What defines a particular attitude as racist or sexist? We are often asked these questions by our students, reporters, and sometimes (although perhaps not often enough) by policymakers. The question of “what is prejudice?” is a difficult and extremely important one to answer. According to Gordon Allport (1954, p. 9), and many of the subsequent textbooks in social psychology and related areas, prejudice can be defined as “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he [sic] is a member of that group.”

Allport's definition of prejudice-as-antipathy, or to use some other synonyms, prejudice-as-overt-dislike, hostility, or aversion, is consistent with many of the types of attitudes that members of the public may tend to naturally think of as being, for example, sexist, racist, homophobic, and so forth. Researchers working in the area of prejudice and intergroup relations owe Gordon Allport a huge intellectual debt for his founding work in the area. However, when it comes to a working definition of prejudice, Allport's was incomplete.

Indeed, in the introduction to On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport , Dovidio, Glick, and Rudman (2005) commented that the definition of prejudice-as-antipathy was “Allport's most fundamental blindspot” (p. 10). We agree, and many of the chapters in this handbook illustrate the point. For example, Connor, Glick, and Fiske (2017) and Hammond and Overall (2017) emphasize that patronizing attitudes that position one group as weaker than the other and in need of protection (such as benevolent sexism) perform remarkably well in maintaining inequality. Similarly, Brewer's (2017) chapter highlights that disparity can arise not only as a result from outgroup hate but rather because of ingroup love. Neither of these phenomena fit a definition of prejudice-as-antipathy. However, they may sometimes have a more powerful effect on diffusing resistance to inequality and hierarchy and legitimizing violence and oppression because of the very fact that they seem caring or are focused on ingroup preservation, rather than overt anti-outgroup hostility.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• An Introduction to the Psychology of Prejudice
• By Chris G. Sibley , University of Auckland, Fiona Kate Barlow , University of Queensland
• Edited by Chris G. Sibley , University of Auckland , Fiona Kate Barlow , University of Queensland
• Book: The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice
• Online publication: 17 November 2016
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.001

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 12: Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Beating of gay man leads to hate crime prosecution in new mexico.

Hate crimes are fortunately very rare. They are often followed by vigils like this one in which people come together to express their support for those who have been attacked.

Wikimedia Commons – CC BY 2.0.

On February 27, 2005, James Maestas, a Latino gay man from Santa Fe, New Mexico, and his companion, Joshua Stockham, were leaving a restaurant when they were approached by five men who started to become violent toward them. One of the assailants, who was 19 years old at the time, stood over Maestas and repeatedly punched him in the face and head.

Maestas was taken to St. Vincent Regional Medical Center in Santa Fe where he was treated for a broken nose and a concussion. Because he was kicked so hard in the abdomen, he also required the help of a respirator to breathe.

In the months that followed the attack, people gathered for a vigil to show their support for Maestas and even donated almost $50,000 to help pay his medical bills.

Maestas made a full recovery and said he had plans to begin classes at Santa Fe Community College. He hoped he could sit down one day and have a friendly talk with his attackers.

The assailants were charged with aggravated battery and conspiracy and tried under New Mexico’s hate crimes law, which added time to their sentences.

Source: LGBT Hate Crimes Project. (2010). James Maestas. Retrieved from http://www.lgbthatecrimes.org/doku.php/james_maestas .

Contemporary increases in globalization and immigration are leading to more culturally diverse populations in the United States and in many other countries. People from minority groups now account for over one third of the U.S. population, as well as most of the growth in its labor force. Older people are working longer, women are becoming more equally represented in a wide variety of jobs, and the ethnic mix of most occupations is also increasing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011).

These changes will create many benefits for society and for the individuals within it. Gender, cultural, and ethnic diversity can improve creativity and group performance, facilitate new ways of looking at problems, and allow multiple viewpoints on decisions (Mannix & Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg & Schippers, 2007). On the other hand, as we have seen in many places in this book, perceived similarity is an extremely important determinant of liking. Members of culturally diverse groups may be less attracted to each other than are members of more homogeneous groups, may have more difficulty communicating with each other, and in some cases may actively dislike and even engage in aggressive behavior toward each other.

The principles of social psychology, including the ABCs—affect, behavior, and cognition—apply to the study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, and social psychologists have expended substantial research efforts studying these concepts ( Figure 12.1 ). The cognitive component in our perceptions of group members is the stereotype — the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the characteristics of social groups. We may decide that “Italians are romantic,” that “old people are boring,” or that “college professors are nerds.” And we may use those beliefs to guide our actions toward people from those groups. In addition to our stereotypes, we may also develop prejudice — an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an outgroup or toward the members of that outgroup . Prejudice can take the form of disliking, anger, fear, disgust, discomfort, and even hatred—the kind of affective states that can lead to behavior such as the gay bashing you just read about. Our stereotypes and our prejudices are problematic because they may create discrimination — unjustified negative behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership .

Although violence against members of outgroups is fortunately rare, stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination nevertheless influence people’s lives in a variety of ways. Stereotypes influence our academic performance (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007), the careers that we chose to follow (Zhang, Schmader, Forbes, 2009), our experiences at work (Fiske & Lee, 2008), and the amount that we are paid for the work that we do (Jackson, 2011; Wood & Eagly, 2010).

Figure 12.1

Relationships among social groups are influenced by the ABCs of social psychology.

Stereotypes and prejudice have a pervasive and often pernicious influence on our responses to others, and also in some cases on our own behaviors. To take one example, social psychological research has found that our stereotypes may in some cases lead to stereotype threat — performance decrements that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotypes . Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) found that when women were reminded of the (untrue) stereotype that “women are poor at math” they performed more poorly on math tests than when they were not reminded of the stereotype, and other research has found stereotype threat in many other domains as well. We’ll consider the role of stereotype threat in more detail later in this chapter.

In one particularly disturbing line of research about the influence of prejudice on behaviors, Joshua Correll and his colleagues had White participants participate in an experiment in which they viewed photographs of White and Black people on a computer screen. Across the experiment, the photographs showed the people holding either a gun or something harmless such as a cell phone. The participants were asked to decide as quickly as possible to press a button to “shoot” if the target held a weapon but to “not shoot” if the person did not hold a weapon. Overall, the White participants tended to shoot more often when the person holding the object was Black than when the person holding the object was White, and this occurred even when there was no weapon present (Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2007; Correll et al., 2007).

Discrimination is a major societal problem because it is so pervasive, takes so many forms, and has such negative effects on so many people. Even people who are paid to be unbiased may discriminate. Price and Wolfers (2007) found that White players in National Basketball Association games received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game were White, and Black players received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game where Black. The implication is—whether they know it or not—the referees were discriminating on the basis of race.

I’m sure that you have had some experiences where you found yourself responding to another person on the basis of a stereotype or a prejudice, and perhaps the fact that you did surprised you. Perhaps you then tried to get past these beliefs and to react to the person more on the basis of his or her individual characteristics. We like some people and we dislike others—this is natural—but we should not let a person’s skin color, gender, age, religion, or ethnic background make these determinations for us. And yet, despite our best intentions, we may end up making friends only with people who are similar to us and perhaps even avoiding people whom we see as different.

In this chapter, we will study the processes by which we develop, maintain, and make use of our stereotypes and our prejudices. We will consider the negative outcomes of those beliefs on the targets of our perceptions, and we will consider ways that we might be able to change those beliefs, or at least help us stop acting upon them. Let’s begin by considering the cognitive side of our group beliefs—focusing primarily on stereotypes—before turning to the important role of feelings in prejudice.

Figure 12.2

Do you have stereotypes about any of these people?

United Nations Photo – AMISOM Rehabilitates Well in Mogadishu District – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Binder.donedat – Tattoo Arts Festival in Pattaya, Thailand – CC BY-ND 2.0; Beryl_snw – null – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0; Tony Alter – Wheels and Heels – CC BY 2.0.

Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2007). The influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37 (6), 1102–1117. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.450.

Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., & Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92 (6), 1006–1023. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.92.6.1006.

Fiske, S. T., & Lee, T. L. (2008). Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination. In A. P. Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 13–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, L. M. (2011). The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social action . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 6 (2), 31–55.

Price, J., & Wolfers, J. (2007). Racial discrimination among NBA referees . NBER Working Paper #13206. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11 (2), 107–130. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294790.

Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35 , 4–28.

U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58 (1), 515–541.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Zhang, S., Schmader, T., & Forbes, C. (2009). The effects of gender stereotypes on women’s career choice: Opening the glass door. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 125–150). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Principles of Social Psychology Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

• A-Z Publications

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 72, 2021, review article, prejudice reduction: progress and challenges.

• Elizabeth Levy Paluck 1 , Roni Porat 1,2 , Chelsey S. Clark 1 , and Donald P. Green 3
• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA; email: [email protected] 2 Departments of Political Science and International Relations, Hebrew University, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel 3 Department of Political Science, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
• Vol. 72:533-560 (Volume publication date January 2021) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619
• First published as a Review in Advance on September 14, 2020
• Copyright © 2021 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

The past decade has seen rapid growth in research that evaluates methods for reducing prejudice. This essay reviews 418 experiments reported in 309 manuscripts from 2007 to 2019 to assess which approaches work best and why. Our quantitative assessment uses meta-analysis to estimate average effects. Our qualitative assessment calls attention to landmark studies that are noteworthy for sustained interventions, imaginative measurement, and transparency. However, 76% of all studies evaluate light touch interventions, the long-term impact of which remains unclear. The modal intervention uses mentalizing as a salve for prejudice. Although these studies report optimistic conclusions, we identify troubling indications of publication bias that may exaggerate effects. Furthermore, landmark studies often find limited effects, which suggests the need for further theoretical innovation or synergies with other kinds of psychological or structural interventions. We conclude that much research effort is theoretically and empirically ill-suited to provide actionable, evidence-based recommendations for reducing prejudice.

Article metrics loading...

Full text loading...

Literature Cited

• Alimo CJ. 2012 . From dialogue to action: the impact of cross-race intergroup dialogue on the development of white college students as racial allies. Equity Excell. Educ. 45 : 36– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Allport G. 1954 . The Nature of Prejudice Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley
• Balas R , Sweklej J. 2013 . Changing prejudice with evaluative conditioning. Polish Psychol. Bull. 44 : 379– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Banakou D , Hanumanthu PD , Slater M 2016 . Virtual embodiment of White people in a Black virtual body leads to a sustained reduction in their implicit racial bias. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 10 : 601 [Google Scholar]
• Berthold A , Leicht C , Methner N , Gaum P 2013 . Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup—the impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 1034– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Bezrukova K , Spell CS , Perry JL , Jehn KA 2016 . A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychol. Bull. 142 : 1227– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Boag EM , Wilson D. 2014 . Inside experience: Engagement empathy and prejudice towards prisoners. J. Crim. Psychol. 4 : 1 33– 43 [Google Scholar]
• Brauer M , Er-Rafiy A. 2011 . Increasing perceived variability reduces prejudice and discrimination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 47 : 871– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Broockman D , Kalla J. 2016 . Durably reducing transphobia: a field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science 352 : 220– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Brownstein M , Madva A , Gawronski B 2019 . What do implicit measures measure. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Cogn. Sci. 10 : e1501 [Google Scholar]
• Bruneau EG , Saxe R. 2012 . The power of being heard: the benefits of “perspective-giving” in the context of intergroup conflict. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 : 855– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Cameron L , Rutland A , Brown R 2007 . Promoting children's positive intergroup attitudes towards stigmatized groups: extended contact and multiple classification skills training. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 31 : 454– 66 [Google Scholar]
• Castillo JLÁ , Equizábal AJ , Cámara CP , González HG 2014 . The fight against prejudice in older adults: perspective taking effectiveness. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 46 : 137– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Chaney KE. 2016 . Ends: the endurance, depth, and scope of confronting as a prejudice reduction strategy Ph.D. Thesis, Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ:
• Chang EH , Milkman KL , Gromet DM , Rebele RW , Massey C et al. 2019 . The mixed effects of online diversity training. PNAS 116 : 7778– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Daumeyer NM , Onyeador IN , Brown X , Richeson JA 2019 . Consequences of attributing discrimination to implicit versus explicit bias. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 84 : 103812 [Google Scholar]
• Dessel AB. 2010 . Effects of intergroup dialogue: public school teachers and sexual orientation prejudice. Small Group Res 41 : 556– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Devine PG , Forscher PS , Austin AJ , Cox WT 2012 . Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: a prejudice habit-breaking intervention. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 48 : 1267– 78 [Google Scholar]
• Devine PG , Monteith MJ. 1999 . Automaticity and control in stereotyping. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 339– 60 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
• Eno CA , Ewoldsen DR. 2010 . The influence of explicitly and implicitly measured prejudice on interpretations of and reactions to Black film. Media Psychol 13 : 1– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Festinger L. 1962 . A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance 2 : Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
• Finseraas H , Kotsadam A. 2017 . Does personal contact with ethnic minorities affect anti-immigrant sentiments? Evidence from a field experiment. Eur. J. Political Res. 56 : 703– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Fiske S , Lin M , Neuberg SL 1999 . The continuum model: ten years later. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology S Chaiken, Y Trope 703– 22 New York: Guilford [Google Scholar]
• Forscher PS , Devine PG. 2017 . Knowledge-based interventions are more likely to reduce legal disparities than are implicit bias interventions. Enhancing Justice: Reducing Bias SE Redfield 303– 16 Chicago: Am. Bar Assoc. [Google Scholar]
• Forscher PS , Lai CK , Axt JR , Ebersole CR , Herman M et al. 2019 . A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 117 : 522– 59 [Google Scholar]
• Forscher PS , Mitamura C , Dix EL , Cox WT , Devine PG 2017 . Breaking the prejudice habit: mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 72 : 133– 46 [Google Scholar]
• French AR , Franz TM , Phelan LL , Blaine BE 2013 . Reducing Muslim/Arab stereotypes through evaluative conditioning. J. Soc. Psychol. 153 : 6– 9 [Google Scholar]
• Gaertner SL , Dovidio JF. 2000 . Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model Hove, UK: Psychol. Press
• Galinsky AD , Moskowitz GB. 2000 . Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78 : 708– 24 [Google Scholar]
• Goldstein NJ , Cialdini RB , Griskevicius V 2008 . A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35 : 472– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Gómez Á , LR Tropp , Vázquez A , Voci A , Hewstone M 2018 . Depersonalized extended contact and injunctive norms about cross-group friendship impact intergroup orientations. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76 : 356– 70 [Google Scholar]
• Green MC , Brock TC. 2000 . The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 79 : 701– 21 [Google Scholar]
• Greenwald AG , Krieger LH. 2006 . Implicit bias: scientific foundations. Calif. Law Rev. 94 : 945– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Greenwald AG , Nosek BA , Banaji MR 2003 . Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 85 : 197– 216 [Google Scholar]
• Greitemeyer T , Schwab A. 2014 . Employing music exposure to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Aggress. Behav. 40 : 542– 51 [Google Scholar]
• Gross JJ. 2013 . Handbook of Emotion Regulation New York: Guilford
• Gurin P , Nagda BRA , Zuniga X 2013 . Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue New York: Russell Sage Found.
• Hall NR , Crisp RJ , Suen Mw 2009 . Reducing implicit prejudice by blurring intergroup boundaries. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31 : 244– 54 [Google Scholar]
• Halperin E , Porat R , Tamir M , Gross JJ 2013 . Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflicts? From the laboratory to the field. Psychol. Sci. 24 : 106– 11 [Google Scholar]
• Heitland K , Bohner G. 2010 . Reducing prejudice via cognitive dissonance: Individual differences in preference for consistency moderate the effects of counter-attitudinal advocacy. Soc. Influ. 5 : 164– 81 [Google Scholar]
• Hocevar KP , Metzger M , Flanagin AJ 2017 . Source credibility, expertise, and trust in health and risk messaging. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication . https://oxfordre.com/communication/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228613-e-287?print=pdf [Google Scholar]
• Husnu S , Crisp RJ. 2010 . Imagined intergroup contact: a new technique for encouraging greater inter-ethnic contact in cyprus. Peace Confl. J. Peace Psychol. 16 : 97– 108 [Google Scholar]
• Husnu S , Paolini S. 2019 . Positive imagined contact is actively chosen: exploring determinants and consequences of volitional intergroup imagery in a conflict-ridden setting. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 22 : 511– 29 [Google Scholar]
• Johnson DR , Jasper DM , Griffin S , Huffman BL 2013 . Reading narrative fiction reduces Arab-Muslim prejudice and offers a safe haven from intergroup anxiety. Soc. Cogn. 31 : 578– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Jost JT , Rudman LA , Blair IV , Carney DR , Dasgupta N et al. 2009 . The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: a refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore. Res. Organ. Behav. 29 : 39– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Kalev A , Dobbin F , Kelly E 2006 . Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71 : 589– 617 [Google Scholar]
• Kalla JL , Broockman DE. 2020 . Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: evidence from three field experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114 : 410– 25 [Google Scholar]
• Kawakami K , Phills CE , Steele JR , Dovidio JF 2007 . (Close) distance makes the heart grow fonder: improving implicit racial attitudes and interracial interactions through approach behaviors. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 92 : 957– 71 [Google Scholar]
• Klein RA , Ratliff KA , Vianello M , Adams RB , Bahník Š et al. 2014 . Investigating variation in replicability: a “many labs” replication project. Soc. Psychol. 45 : 142– 52 [Google Scholar]
• Kraimer M , Bolino M , Mead B 2016 . Themes in expatriate and repatriate research over four decades: What do we know and what do we still need to learn. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3 : 83– 109 [Google Scholar]
• Kurdi B , Seitchik AE , Axt J , Carroll T , Karapetyan A et al. 2018 . Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: a meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 74 : 569– 86 [Google Scholar]
• Lai C , Hoffman K , Nosek B 2013 . Reducing implicit prejudice. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass 7 : 315– 30 [Google Scholar]
• Lai C , Marini M , Lehr S , Cerruti C , Shin JE et al. 2014 . Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 : 1765– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Lai C , Skinner A , Cooley E , Murrar S , Brauer M et al. 2016 . Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145 : 1001– 16 [Google Scholar]
• LaPiere RT. 1934 . Attitudes versus actions. Soc. Forces 13 : 230– 37 [Google Scholar]
• Latu IM. 2010 . Reducing automatic stereotype activation: mechanisms and moderators of situational attribution training PhD Thesis, Ga. State Univ Atlanta:
• Lehmiller JJ , Law AT , Tormala TT 2010 . The effect of self-affirmation on sexual prejudice. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 46 : 276– 85 [Google Scholar]
• Lemmer G , Wagner U. 2015 . Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45 : 152– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Li J , Fan Y , Zhong HQ , Duan XL , Chen W et al. 2019 . Effectiveness of an anti-stigma training on improving attitudes and decreasing discrimination towards people with mental disorders among care assistant workers in Guangzhou, China. Int. J. Ment. Health Syst. 13 : 1 [Google Scholar]
• Lowe M. 2020 . Types of contact: a field experiment on collaborative and adversarial caste integration CESifo Work. Pap. No. 8089, CESifo Munich, Ger:.
• Mendoza SA , Gollwitzer PM , Amodio DM 2010 . Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes: reflexive control through implementation intentions. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36 : 512– 23 [Google Scholar]
• Moher D , Liberati A , Tetzlaff J , Altman DG 2009 . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151 : 264– 69 [Google Scholar]
• Mousa S. 2020 . Building social cohesion between Christians and Muslims through soccer in post-ISIS Iraq. Science 369 : 866 – 70 [Google Scholar]
• Munger K. 2017 . Tweetment effects on the tweeted: experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behav 39 : 629– 49 [Google Scholar]
• Murrar S , Brauer M. 2018 . Entertainment-education effectively reduces prejudice. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21 : 1053– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Neto F , da Conceiçao Pinto M , Mullet E 2016 . Can music reduce anti-dark-skin prejudice? A test of a cross-cultural musical education programme. Psychol. Music 44 : 388– 98 [Google Scholar]
• Oh SY , Bailenson J , Weisz E , Zaki J 2016 . Virtually old: embodied perspective taking and the reduction of ageism under threat. Comput. Hum. Behav. 60 : 398– 410 [Google Scholar]
• Olson MA , Fazio RH. 2006 . Reducing automatically activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32 : 421– 33 [Google Scholar]
• Oswald FL , Mitchell G , Blanton H , Jaccard J , Tetlock PE 2013 . Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 105 : 171– 92 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL. 2006 . Diversity training and intergroup contact: a call to action research. J. Soc. Issues 62 : 577– 95 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL. 2009a . Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: a field experiment in Rwanda. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96 : 574– 87 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL. 2009b . What's in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 96 : 594– 600 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Green DP. 2009 . Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60 : 339– 67 [Google Scholar]
• Paluck EL , Green SA , Green DP 2019 . The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav. Public Policy 3 : 129– 58 [Google Scholar]
• Park B , Rothbart M. 1982 . Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 42 : 1051– 68 [Google Scholar]
• Parrott S , Carpentier FRD , Northup CT 2017 . A test of interactive narrative as a tool against prejudice. Howard J. Commun. 28 : 374– 89 [Google Scholar]
• Patel SL. 2013 . Examining the influence of perceived social consensus information on weight prejudice across development PhD Thesis, Univ. Tex Dallas:
• Perry S. 2011 . Responses to prejudice feedback on the race-implicit associations test and the role of bias awareness PhD Thesis, Univ. Ill Chicago:
• Pettigrew TF , Tropp LR. 2006 . A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 90 : 751– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Prentice D , Paluck EL. 2020 . Engineering social change using social norms: lessons from the study of collective action. Curr. Opin. Psychol. Bull. 35 : 138– 42 [Google Scholar]
• Radnitz S. 2018 . Historical narratives and post-conflict reconciliation: an experiment in Azerbaijan. Confl. Manag. Peace Sci. 35 : 154– 74 [Google Scholar]
• Robinson C. 2010 . Cross-cutting messages and political tolerance: an experiment using evangelical Protestants. Political Behav 32 : 495– 515 [Google Scholar]
• Roese NJ , Jamieson DW. 1993 . Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: a critical review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 114 : 363– 75 [Google Scholar]
• Rosenthal R. 1979 . The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 86 : 638– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Scacco A , Warren SS. 2018 . Can social contact reduce prejudice and discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in Nigeria. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 112 : 654– 77 [Google Scholar]
• Sechrist GB , Milford-Szafran LR. 2011 . “I depend on you, you depend on me. Shouldn't we agree?”: the influence of interdependent relationships on individuals' racial attitudes. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 33 : 145– 56 [Google Scholar]
• Sekaquaptewa D , Espinoza P , Thompson M , Vargas P , von Hippel W 2003 . Stereotypic explanatory bias: implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 39 : 75– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Sherman DK , Cohen GL. 2006 . The psychology of self-defense: self-affirmation theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38 : 183– 242 [Google Scholar]
• Shih MJ , Stotzer R , Gutiérrez AS 2013 . Perspective-taking and empathy: generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups. Asian Am. J. Psychol. 4 : 79– 83 [Google Scholar]
• Siegel AA , Badaan V. 2020 . #No2sectarianism: experimental approaches to reducing sectarian hate speech online. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114 : 837– 55 [Google Scholar]
• Simonsohn U , Nelson LD , Simmons JP 2014 . P-curve: a key to the file-drawer. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143 : 534– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Smeekes A , Verkuyten M , Poppe E 2012 . How a tolerant past affects the present: historical tolerance and the acceptance of Muslim expressive rights. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 38 : 1410– 22 [Google Scholar]
• Smith BD , Silk K. 2011 . Cultural competence clinic: an online, interactive, simulation for working effectively with Arab American Muslim patients. Acad. Psychiatry 35 : 312– 16 [Google Scholar]
• Stell AJ , Farsides T. 2016 . Brief loving-kindness meditation reduces racial bias, mediated by positive other-regarding emotions. Motiv. Emot. 40 : 140– 47 [Google Scholar]
• Stewart BD , Payne BK. 2008 . Bringing automatic stereotyping under control: implementation intentions as efficient means of thought control. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34 : 1332– 45 [Google Scholar]
• Tajfel H , Turner J. 1979 . An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations WG Austin, S Worchel 33– 47 Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole [Google Scholar]
• Thaler RH , Sunstein CR. 2009 . Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness New York: Penguin
• Turner RN , Crisp RJ , Lambert E 2007 . Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 10 : 427– 41 [Google Scholar]
• Vezzali L. 2017 . Valence matters: positive meta-stereotypes and interethnic interactions. J. Soc. Psychol. 157 : 247– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Villicana AJ , Rivera LM , Garcia DM 2018 . When one's group is beneficial: the effect of group-affirmation and subjective group identification on prejudice. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 21 : 962– 76 [Google Scholar]
• Walsh SP. 2013 . Reducing automatic stereotype activation: European and African American photos in situational attribution training PhD Thesis, Univ. Miss Oxford:
• Walton GM. 2014 . The new science of wise psychological interventions. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 23 : 73– 82 [Google Scholar]
• West K , Bruckmüller S. 2013 . Nice and easy does it: how perceptual fluency moderates the effectiveness of imagined contact. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49 : 254– 62 [Google Scholar]
• Witkowska M , Beneda M , Čehajić-Clancy S , Bilewicz M 2019 . Fostering contact after historical atrocities: the potential of moral exemplars. Political Psychol 40 : 565– 82 [Google Scholar]
• Woodcock A , Monteith MJ. 2013 . Forging links with the self to combat implicit bias. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. 16 : 445– 61 [Google Scholar]
• Wright SC , Aron A , McLaughlin-Volpe T , Ropp SA 1997 . The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 73 : 73– 90 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

Download the Supplemental Appendix (PDF). Includes Supplemental Tables 1-5, and Supplemental Figures A and 1-6.

• Article Type: Review Article

Most Read This Month

Most cited most cited rss feed, job burnout, executive functions, social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective, on happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, mediation analysis, sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it, missing data analysis: making it work in the real world, grounded cognition, personality structure: emergence of the five-factor model, motivational beliefs, values, and goals.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2024 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

How People's Prejudices Develop

Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Amy Morin, LCSW, is a psychotherapist and international bestselling author. Her books, including "13 Things Mentally Strong People Don't Do," have been translated into more than 40 languages. Her TEDx talk,  "The Secret of Becoming Mentally Strong," is one of the most viewed talks of all time.

What Is Prejudice?

Prejudice is a negative preconception or attitude toward members of a certain group. Prejudices can strongly influence how people behave and interact with others, specifically those who are different from them in some regard. Prejudice is often subconscious and can affect people's behavior without them realizing it.

Common features of prejudice include negative feelings and stereotyped beliefs about members of a group, as well as a tendency to discriminate against them. In society, we often see prejudices based on characteristics like race, sex, religion, culture, and more.

When people hold prejudicial attitudes toward others of a certain group, they tend to view everyone with the defining characteristic as the same. They paint every individual with the trait with a broad brush and fail to look at each person as a unique individual. Keep reading to learn more about prejudice and how to reduce prejudice.

Prejudice vs. Discrimination

Sometimes, prejudice is confused with discrimination . While prejudice involves having negative attitudes toward members of a certain group, discrimination occurs when those feelings are acted upon.

Types of Prejudice

There are many types of prejudice. These include, but are not limited to:

• Ageism : The belief that someone is "too old" or "too young" for a particular role or activity.
• Classism: Negative beliefs about someone based on their income. This often manifests in people looking down on others because they are "poor" or members of the working class
• Homophobia : A sense of discomfort, fear, distrust, or hatred for people who are members of the LGBTQ+ community .
• Nationalism: The belief that the interests of your nation are more important than those of other nations.
• Racism : A sense of discomfort, fear, distrust, or hatred for people toward members of a certain racial or ethnic group. Racist beliefs have impacted many societal and governmental systems, making the oppression systemic.
• Religious prejudice: Negative feelings toward someone because of their religious beliefs, practices, and/or ideologies
• Sexism: Stereotypes and/or beliefs about someone based on their sex or gender.
• Xenophobia : The fear or general dislike of people considered "foreign" or "strange," typically compared to people in their native country.

Causes of Prejudice

How is it we become prejudiced? There are a few potential causes to consider.

Stereotypes

In many cases, prejudices and stereotypes feed into one another. A stereotype is a simplified assumption about a group based on prior experiences or beliefs.

An example of a gendered stereotype is the belief that only girls can wear dresses, or only young boys can play with trucks. Examples of racial stereotypes include "Black people are good at basketball," "White people can't dance," or "Asians are good at math."

According to an article in Current Directions in Psychological Science , prejudice comes from people who aren't comfortable with ambiguity and thus make generalizations about others. These generalizations reduce the ambiguity and ease processing, but often result in harmful judgements and actions.

Categorizing

We are inundated with too much information to sort through all of it in a methodical, and rational fashion, so we often depend upon our ability to place people, ideas, and objects into categories to make the world easier to understand.

Psychologist Gordon Allport believed sorting information into mental categories is important for making sense of the world around us. "The human mind must think with the aid of categories," Allport explained in his book, The Nature of Prejudice . "Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it."

Being able to quickly categorize information allows us to interact and react quickly, but it also leads to mistakes. For example, we tend to minimize the differences among people within certain groups and exaggerate the differences between groups. This is referred to as social categorization .

Prejudgments

In one classic experiment, participants were asked to judge the height of people shown in photographs. They were told that for every woman of a particular height, there was a man of the same height. Therefore, they were not to rely on the person's sex to determine the height.

Despite being offered a $50 cash prize for whoever made the most accurate judgments, participants consistently rated the men as being a few inches taller than the women. Because of their prejudgment and existing categorical beliefs that men are taller, the participants were unable to judge the heights accurately.

Outgroup Homogeneity Bias

People tend to view members of outside groups as being more homogenous than members of their own group. This phenomenon is referred to as the outgroup homogeneity bias . This perception that all members of an outgroup are alike holds whether the group is based on race, nationality, religion, age, or another group affiliation.

Historical Events

Sometimes prejudice develops in response to historical events. An example of this is how many people developed negative beliefs against all Muslims after the attacks on September 11, 2001 . This is known as Islamaphobia and still impacts Muslim Americans today.

Family, Friends, and Social Groups

A 2018 study involving children between the ages of 3 and 9 found that even the subtlest ethnic prejudice of the parents predicted whether their children would have an implicit prejudice, regardless of parenting style . This demonstrates how easily the beliefs of parental figures can influence the development of prejudice.

Another 2018 study found similar results but with friends rather than family. This one involved 1,009 teens who were either 13 or 16 years of age and found the attitude of their peers affected the participants' level of individual prejudice.

Impact of Prejudice

Prejudice exists almost everywhere and can affect people and societies in different ways.

Poorer Health

Studies have shown a relationship between those who have experienced prejudice and poorer physical health, both directly and indirectly. Examples of direct impacts are how prejudice can lead to living in a less environment with limited access to health resources. Indirect impacts include prejudice-related stress and altered health behaviors.

Other research has linked perceived prejudice with poorer mental health as well, both in terms of ethnic identity and hopelessness . Being part of a group that experiences real or perceived prejudices can impact health both physically and mentally.

Increased Discrimination

Stereotypes not only lead to misguided beliefs but can also cause discrimination. Stereotypes can impact the ability of the person being discriminated against when trying to get a job, secure housing, and more. In some cases, discrimination may result in violence.

Harassment is a form of discrimination often occurring in the workplace. A 2018 survey found that 59% of women and 27% of men had experienced sexual harassment at work. Other forms of harassment resulting from prejudice include harassment related to characteristics such as race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, and religion.

Studies indicate that discrimination can also negatively impact health. This is because someone who is discriminated against may lack access to nicer living conditions and quality healthcare, and may experience increased stress levels.

Research has even found that discrimination can affect the health of the person's partner, increasing their risk of depression and putting greater strain on the relationship.

Reduced Multiculturalism and Segregation

According to one study, the level at which people identify with their native country impacts their level of prejudice against people wishing to immigrate to their country.

If there is a high level of prejudice against a certain immigrant group, immigration policy is likely to reflect those prejudices and make it harder for members of that group to immigrate. Prejudice and discrimination can also lead to segregation, whether it be personal or institutional.

How to Reduce Prejudice

In addition to looking at causes for prejudice, researchers have also explored different prejudice can be reduced and eventually even eliminated. Training people to have more empathy for members of other groups is one method that has shown considerable success.

By imagining themselves in the same situation, people are able to gain a greater understanding of other people's actions.

Other techniques used to reduce prejudice include, but are not limited to:

• Gaining public support and awareness for anti-prejudice social norms
• Increasing contact with members of other social groups
• Making people aware of the inconsistencies in their own beliefs
• Passing laws and regulations that require fair and equal treatment for all people

Dumper K, Jenkins W, Lacombe A, Lovett M, Perimutter M. Prejudice & discrimination .

Phills C, Hahn A, Gawronski B. The bidirectional causal relations between implicit stereotypes and implicit prejudice . Personality Social Psychol Bull . 2020;46(9):1318-1330. doi:10.1177/0146167219899234

Association for Psychological Science. Research states that prejudice comes from a basic human need and way of thinking .

Allport GW. The Nature of Human Prejudice . Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 

University of Minnesota. Principles of social psychology: Social categorization and stereotyping .

Nelson TE, Biernat MR, Manis M. Everyday base rates (sex stereotypes): Potent and resilient . J Personal Social Psychol . 1990;59(4):664-675. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.4.664

American Psychological Association. Outgroup homogeneity bias .

Mineo L. Muslim Americans who endured post-9/11 bias see solutions in education, political involvement . The Harvard Gazette .

Pirchio S, Passiatore Y, Panno A, Maricchiolo F, Carrus G. A chip off the old block: Parents' subtle ethnic prejudice predicts children's implicit prejudice . Front Psychol . 2018;9:110. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00110

Hjerm M, Eger M, Danell R. Peer attitudes and the development of prejudice in adolescence . Socius Sociolog Res Dynamic World . 2018;4:1-11. doi:10.1177/2378023118763187

Dover T, Hunger J, Major B. Health consequences of prejudice and discrimination . Wiley Encyclop Health Psychol . 2020:231-238. doi:10.1002/9781119057840.ch71

Yao J, Yang L. Perceived prejudice and the mental health of Chinese ethnic minority students: The chain mediating effect of ethnic identity and hope . Front Psychol . 2017;8:1167. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01167

Blazina C. Fast facts on views of workplace harassment amid allegations against New York Gov. Cuomo . Pew Research Center.

Bulatao RA, Anderson NB. Understanding racial and ethnic differences in health in late life: A research agenda . National Research Council (US) Panel on Race, Ethnicity, and Health Later in Life.

Wofford N, Defever A, Chopik W. The vicarious effects of discrimination: How partner experiences of discrimination affect individual health . Soc Psychol Personal Sci . 2019;10(1):121-130. doi:10.1177/1948550617746218

Badea C, Iyer A, Aebischer V. National identification, endorsement of acculturation ideologies and prejudice: The impact of perceived threat of immigration . Int Rev Social Psychol . 2018;31(1):14. doi:10.5334/irsp.147

Miklikowska M. Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence . Development Psychol . 2018;54(4):703-717. doi:10.1037/dev0000474

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."

Racism, bias, and discrimination

Racism is a form of prejudice that generally includes negative emotional reactions to members of a group, acceptance of negative stereotypes, and racial discrimination against individuals; in some cases it can lead to violence.

Discrimination refers to the differential treatment of different age, gender, racial, ethnic, religious, national, ability identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic, and other groups at the individual level and the institutional/structural level. Discrimination is usually the behavioral manifestation of prejudice and involves negative, hostile, and injurious treatment of members of rejected groups.

Adapted from the APA Dictionary of Psychology

Resources from APA

Psychologists with mental health conditions may face discrimination

How the field can address its covert history of stigmatizing colleagues

Musicians fight mental health stigma through music

Artists share their wisdom and experiences coping with mental health challenges

Is mental health still misconstrued on screen? Psychology goes to Hollywood to dispel stigma

The industry is eager for psychologists’ expertise to improve mental health portrayals on-screen and more.

Policymakers are taking aim at women and LGBTQ+ individuals

Alarming policy trends are affecting people’s mental health, but psychologists are fighting back.

More resources about racism

What APA is doing

Race, ethnicity, and religion

APA Services advocates for the equal treatment of people of all races, religions, and ethnicities, as well as funding for federal programs that address health disparities in these groups.

Equity, diversity, and inclusion

Inclusive language guidelines

APA’s commitment to addressing systemic racism

APA’s action plan for addressing inequality

APA’s apology to people of color in the U.S.

Confronting past wrongs and building an equitable future

Contextual Social Psychology

Trauma and Racial Minority Immigrants

Dismantling Everyday Discrimination

The Psychology of Prejudice, 2nd Ed.

Attachment-Based Family Therapy for Sexual and Gender Minority Young Adults and Their Non-Accepting Parents

Magination Press children’s books

Bernice Sandler and the Fight for Title IX

Something Happened to My Dad

Something Happened in Our Town

Algo Le Pasó a Mi Papá

There's a Cat in Our Class!

Journal special issues

Racial Trauma

Asian America and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Police, Violence, and Social Justice

Foundational Contributions of Black Scholars in Psychology

Intersectionality in Psychology

Ethnic psychological associations

• American Arab, Middle Eastern, and North African Psychological Association
• The Association of Black Psychologists
• Asian American Psychological Association
• National Latinx Psychological Association
• Society of Indian Psychologists

Related resources

• Protecting and Defending our People: Nakni tushka anowa (The Warrior’s Path) Final Report (PDF, 8.64MB) APA Division 45 Warrior’s Path Presidential Task Force (2020)
• Society for Community Research and Action (APA Division 27) Antiracism / Antioppression email series
• Society of Counseling Psychology (APA Division 17) Social justice resources
• Talking About Race | National Museum of African American History and Culture Tools and guidance for discussions of race
• InnoPsych therapists of color search

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

11.3 Reducing Discrimination

Learning Objectives

• Review the causes of discrimination and the ways that we can reduce it.
• Summarize the conditions under which intergroup contact does or does not reduce prejudice and discrimination.

We have seen that social categorization is a basic part of human nature and one that helps us to simplify our social worlds, to draw quick (if potentially inaccurate) conclusions about others, and to feel good about ourselves. In many cases, our preferences for ingroups may be relatively harmless—we may prefer to socialize with people who share our race or ethnicity for instance, but without particularly disliking the others. But categorizing others may also lead to prejudice and discrimination, and it may even do so without our awareness. Because prejudice and discrimination are so harmful to so many people, we must all work to get beyond them.

Discrimination influences the daily life of its victims in areas such as employment, income, financial opportunities, housing and educational opportunities, and medical care. Even with the same level of education and years of experience, ethnic minorities in Canada are 40% less likely to receive callbacks for an interview following a job application (Oreopolous, 2011). Blacks have higher mortality rates than Whites for eight of the 10 leading causes of death in the United States (Williams, 1999) and have less access to and receive poorer-quality health care, even controlling for other variables such as level of health insurance. Suicide rates among lesbians and gays are substantially higher than rates for the general population, and it has been argued that this in part due to the negative outcomes of prejudice, including negative attitudes and resulting social isolation (Halpert, 2002). And in some rare cases, discrimination even takes the form of hate crimes such as gay bashing.

More commonly, members of minority groups also face a variety of small hassles, such as bad service in restaurants, being stared at, and being the target of jokes (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). But even these everyday “minor” forms of discrimination can be problematic because they may produce anger and anxiety among stigmatized group members and may lead to stress and other psychological problems (Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ullman, 1999). Stigmatized individuals who report experiencing more exposure to discrimination or other forms of unfair treatment also report more depression, anger, and anxiety and lower levels of life satisfaction and happiness (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001).

Of course, most of us do try to keep our stereotypes and our prejudices out of mind, and we work hard to avoid discriminating (Richeson & Shelton, 2007). But even when we work to keep our negative beliefs under control, this does not mean that they easily disappear. Neil Macrae and his colleagues (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994) asked British college students to write a paragraph describing a skinhead (a member of a group that is negatively stereotyped in England). One half of the participants were asked to be sure to not use their stereotypes when they were judging him, whereas the other half simply wrote whatever came to mind. Although the participants who were asked to suppress their thoughts were able to do it, this suppression didn’t last very long. After they had suppressed their stereotypes, these beliefs quickly popped back into mind, making it even more likely that they would be used immediately later.

But stereotypes are not always and inevitably activated when we encounter people from other groups. We can and we do get past them, although doing so may take some effort on our part (Blair, 2002). There are a number of techniques that we can use to try to improve our attitudes toward outgroups, and at least some of them have been found to be effective. Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, and Russin (2000) found that students who practiced responding in nonstereotypical ways to members of other groups became better able to avoid activating their negative stereotypes on future occasions. And a number of studies have found that we become less prejudiced when we are exposed to and think about group members who have particularly positive or nonstereotypical characteristics. For instance, Blair, Ma, and Lenton (2001) asked their participants to imagine a woman who was “strong” and found that doing so decreased stereotyping of women. Similarly, Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, and Wanke (1995) found that when White American students thought about positive Black role models—such as Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan—they became less prejudiced toward Blacks.

Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms

One variable that makes us less prejudiced is education. People who are more educated express fewer stereotypes and prejudice in general. This is true for students who enroll in courses that are related to stereotypes and prejudice, such as a course on gender and ethnic diversity (Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001), and is also true more generally—education reduces prejudice, regardless of what particular courses you take (Sidanius, Sinclair, & Pratto, 2006).

The effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to the new social norms that people are introduced to in school. Social norms define what is appropriate and inappropriate, and we can effectively change stereotypes and prejudice by changing the relevant norms about them. Jetten, Spears, and Manstead (1997) manipulated whether students thought that the other members of their university favored equal treatment of others or believed that others thought it was appropriate to favor the ingroup. They found that perceptions of what the other group members believed had an important influence on the beliefs of the individuals themselves. The students were more likely to show ingroup favoritism when they believed that the norm of their ingroup was to do so, and this tendency was increased for students who had high social identification with the ingroup.

Sechrist and Stangor (2001) selected White college students who were either high or low in prejudice toward Blacks and then provided them with information indicating that their prejudiced or unprejudiced beliefs were either shared or not shared by the other students at their university. Then the students were asked to take a seat in a hallway to wait for the next part of the experiment. A Black confederate was sitting in one seat at the end of the row, and the dependent measure was how far away the students sat from her.

As you can see in Figure 11.9, high prejudice students who learned that other students were also prejudiced sat farther away from the Black confederate in comparison with high prejudice individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared. On the other hand, students who were initially low in prejudice and who believed these views were shared sat closer to the Black confederate in comparison with low prejudice individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared. These results demonstrate that our perceptions of relevant social norms can strengthen or weaken our tendencies to engage in discriminatory behaviors.

White college students who were low in prejudice toward Blacks sat closer to the Black confederate when they had been told that their beliefs were shared with other group members at their university. On the other hand, White college students who were high in prejudice sat farther away from the Black confederate when they had been told that their beliefs were shared with other group members at their university. Data are from Sechrist and Stangor (2001).

The influence of social norms is powerful, and long-lasting changes in beliefs about outgroups will occur only if they are supported by changes in social norms. Prejudice and discrimination thrive in environments in which they are perceived to be the norm, but they die when the existing social norms do not allow it. And because social norms are so important, the behavior of individuals can help create or reduce prejudice and discrimination. Discrimination, prejudice, and even hate crimes such as gay bashing will be more likely to continue if people do not respond to or confront them when they occur.

What this means is that if you believe that prejudice is wrong, you must confront it when you see it happening. Czopp, Monteith, and Mark (2006) had White participants participate in a task in which it was easy to unintentionally stereotype a Black person, and as a result, many of the participants did so. Then, confederates of the experimenter confronted the students about their stereotypes, saying things such as “Maybe it would be good to think about Blacks in other ways that are a little more fair?” or “It just seems that you sound like some kind of racist to me. You know what I mean?” Although the participants who had been confronted experienced negative feelings about the confrontation and also expressed negative opinions about the person who confronted them, the confrontation did work. The students who had been confronted expressed less prejudice and fewer stereotypes on subsequent tasks than did the students who had not been confronted.

As this study concluded, taking steps to reduce prejudice is everyone’s duty—having a little courage can go a long way in this regard. Confronting prejudice can lead other people to think that we are complaining and therefore to dislike us (Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Shelton & Stewart, 2004), but confronting prejudice is not all negative for the person who confronts. Although it is embarrassing to do so, particularly if we are not completely sure that the behavior was in fact prejudice, when we fail to confront, we may frequently later feel guilty that we did not (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006).

Reducing Prejudice through Intergroup Contact

One of the reasons that people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they view the members of outgroups as different from them. We may become concerned that our interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant, and these anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from those groups (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). What this suggests is that a good way to reduce prejudice is to help people create closer connections with members of different groups. People will be more favorable toward others when they learn to see those other people as more similar to them, as closer to the self, and to be more concerned about them.

The idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice , known as the contact hypothesis , is simple: If children from different ethnic groups play together in school, their attitudes toward each other should improve. And if we encourage college students to travel abroad, they will meet people from other cultures and become more positive toward them.

One important example of the use of intergroup contact to influence prejudice came about as a result of the important U.S. Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed, based in large part on the testimony of psychologists, that busing Black children to schools attended primarily by White children, and vice versa, would produce positive outcomes on intergroup attitudes, not only because it would provide Black children with access to better schools, but also because the resulting intergroup contact would reduce prejudice between Black and White children. This strategy seemed particularly appropriate at the time it was implemented because most schools in the United States then were highly segregated by race.

The strategy of busing was initiated after the Supreme Court decision, and it had a profound effect on schools in the United States. For one, the policy was very effective in changing school makeup—the number of segregated schools decreased dramatically during the 1960s after the policy was begun. Busing also improved the educational and occupational achievement of Blacks and increased the desire of Blacks to interact with Whites; for instance, by forming cross-race friendships (Stephan, 1999). Overall, then, the case of desegregating schools in the United States supports the expectation that intergroup contact, at least in the long run, can be successful in changing attitudes. Nevertheless, as a result of several subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the policy of desegregating schools via busing was not continued past the 1990s.

Although student busing to achieve desegregated schools represents one prominent example of intergroup contact, such contact occurs in many other areas as well. Taken together, there is substantial support for the effectiveness of intergroup contact in improving group attitudes in a wide variety of situations, including schools, work organizations, military forces, and public housing. Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) conducted a meta-analysis in which they reviewed over 500 studies that had investigated the effects of intergroup contact on group attitudes. They found that attitudes toward groups that were in contact became more positive over time. Furthermore, positive effects of contact were found on both stereotypes and prejudice and for many different types of contacted groups.

The positive effects of intergroup contact may be due in part to increases in other-concern. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) found that leading students to take the perspective of another group member—which increased empathy and closeness to the person—also reduced prejudice. And the behavior of students on college campuses demonstrates the importance of connecting with others and the dangers of not doing so. Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, and Sinclair (2004) found that students who joined exclusive campus groups, including fraternities, sororities, and minority ethnic organizations (such as the African Student Union), were more prejudiced to begin with and became even less connected and more intolerant of members of other social groups over the time that they remained in the organizations. It appears that memberships in these groups focused the students on themselves and other people who were very similar to them, leading them to become less tolerant of others who are different.

Although intergroup contact does work, it is not a panacea because the conditions necessary for it to be successful are frequently not met. Contact can be expected to work only in situations that create the appropriate opportunities for change. For one, contact will only be effective if it provides information demonstrating that the existing stereotypes held by the individuals are incorrect. When we learn more about groups that we didn’t know much about before, we learn more of the truth about them, leading us to be less biased in our beliefs. But if our interactions with the group members do not allow us to learn new beliefs, then contact cannot work.

When we first meet someone from another category, we are likely to rely almost exclusively on our stereotypes (Brodt & Ross, 1998). However, when we get to know the individual well (e.g., as a student in a classroom learns to know the other students over a school year), we may get to the point where we ignore that individual’s group membership almost completely, responding to him or her entirely at the individual level (Madon et al., 1998). Thus contact is effective in part because it leads us to get past our perceptions of others as group members and to individuate them.

When we get past group memberships and focus more on the individuals in the groups, we begin to see that there is a great deal of variability among the group members and that our global and undifferentiating group stereotypes are actually not that informative (Rothbart & John, 1985). Successful intergroup contact tends to reduce the perception of outgroup homogeneity. Contact also helps us feel more positively about the members of the other group, and this positive affect makes us like them more.

Intergroup contact is also more successful when the people involved in the contact are motivated to learn about the others. One factor that increases this motivation is interdependence — a state in which the group members depend on each other for successful performance of the group goals (Neuberg & Fiske, 1987). The importance of interdependence can be seen in the success of cooperative learning techniques, such as the jigsaw classroom (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Aronson, 2004).

The jigsaw classroom is an approach to learning in which students from different racial or ethnic groups work together, in an interdependent way, to master material . The class is divided into small learning groups, where each group is diverse in ethnic and gender composition. The assigned material to be learned is divided into as many parts as there are students in the group, and members of different groups who are assigned the same task meet together to help develop a strong report. Each student then learns his or her own part of the material and presents this piece of the puzzle to the other members of his or her group. The students in each group are therefore interdependent in learning all the material. A wide variety of techniques, based on principles of the jigsaw classroom, are in use in many schools around the world, and research studying these approaches has found that cooperative, interdependent experiences among students from different social groups are effective in reducing negative stereotyping and prejudice (Stephan, 1999).

In sum, we can say that contact will be most effective when it is easier to get to know, and become more respectful of, the members of the other group and when the social norms of the situation promote equal, fair treatment of all groups. If the groups are treated unequally, for instance, by a teacher or leader who is prejudiced and who therefore treats the different groups differently, or if the groups are in competition rather than cooperation, there will be no benefit. In cases when these conditions are not met, contact may not be effective and may in fact increase prejudice, particularly when it confirms stereotypical expectations (Stangor, Jonas, Stroebe, & Hewstone, 1996). Finally, it is important that enough time be allowed for the changes to take effect. In the case of busing in the United States, for instance, the positive effects of contact seemed to have been occurring, but they were not happening particularly fast.

Let’s consider (in the following Research Focus) still another way that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice— the idea that prejudice can be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the outgroup , known as the  extended-contact hypothesis.

Research Focus

The Extended-Contact Hypothesis

Although the contact hypothesis proposes that direct contact between people from different social groups will produce more positive attitudes between them, recent evidence suggests that prejudice can also be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the outgroup , even if the individual does not have direct contact with the outgroup members himself or herself. This hypothesis is known as the extended-contact hypothesis . Supporting this prediction, Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997) found in two correlational studies that college students who reported that their own friends had friends who were from another ethnic group reported more positive attitudes toward that outgroup than did students who did not have any friends who had outgroup friends, even controlling for the participants’ own outgroup friendships.

Wright and his colleages (1997) also tested the extended-contact hypothesis experimentally. Participants were four groups of 14 students, and each group spent a whole day in the lab. On arrival, seven participants were assigned to the “green” group, and seven to the “blue” group, supposedly on the basis of similar interests. To create strong ingroup identity and to produce competition between the groups, the group members wore blue and green T-shirts and engaged in a series of competitive tasks. Participants then expressed their initial thoughts and feelings about the outgroup and its members.

Then, supposedly as part of an entirely different study, one participant was randomly selected from each group, and the two were taken to a separate room in which they engaged in a relationship-building task that has been shown to quickly create feelings of friendship between two strangers. Then the two members from each team were then reunited with their original groups, where they were encouraged to describe their experience with the other group member in the friendship-building task.

In the final phase, the groups then engaged in another competitive task, and participants rated their thoughts and feelings about the outgroup and its members again. As you can see in Figure 11.10, and supporting the extended-contact hypothesis, results showed that the participants (including those who did not participate in the closeness task themselves) were more positive toward the outgroup after than before the two team members had met. This study, as well as many other studies, supports the importance of cross-group friendships in promoting favorable outgroup attitudes (Page-Gould, Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008; Shook & Fazio, 2008).

Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization

The research on intergroup contact suggests that although contact may improve prejudice, it may make it worse if it is not implemented correctly. Improvement is likely only when the contact moves the members of the groups to feel that they are closer to each other rather than further away from each other. In short, groups are going to have better attitudes toward each other when they see themselves more similarly to each other—when they feel more like one large group than a set of smaller groups.

This fact was demonstrated in a very convincing way in what is now a classic social psychological study. In the “Robbers’ Cave Experiment,” Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif (1961) studied the group behavior of 11-year-old boys at a summer camp. Although the boys did not know it, the researchers carefully observed the behaviors of the children during the camp session, with the goal of learning about how group conflict developed and how it might be resolved among the children.

During the first week of the camp, the boys were divided into two groups that camped at two different campsites. During this time, friendly relationships developed among the boys within each of the two groups. Each group developed its own social norms and group structure and became quite cohesive, with a strong positive social identity. The two groups chose names for themselves (the Rattlers and the Eagles), and each made their own group flag and participated in separate camp activities.

At the end of this one-week baseline period, it was arranged that the two groups of boys would become aware of each other’s presence. Furthermore, the researchers worked to create conditions that led to increases in each group’s social identity and at the same time created negative perceptions of the other group. The researchers arranged baseball games, a tug-of-war, and a treasure hunt and offered prizes for the group that won the competitions. Almost immediately, this competition created ingroup favoritism and prejudice, and discrimination quickly followed. By the end of the second week, the Eagles had sneaked up to the Rattlers’ cabin and stolen their flag. When the Rattlers discovered the theft, they in turn raided the Eagles’ cabin, stealing things. There were food fights in the dining room, which was now shared by the groups, and the researchers documented a substantial increase in name-calling and stereotypes of the outgroup. Some fistfights even erupted between members of the different groups.

The researchers then intervened by trying to move the groups closer to each other. They began this third stage of the research by setting up a series of situations in which the boys had to work together to solve a problem. These situations were designed to create interdependence by presenting the boys with superordinate goals — goals that were both very important to them and yet that required the cooperative efforts and resources of both the Eagles and the Rattlers to attain. These goals involved such things as the need to pool money across both groups in order to rent a movie that all the campers wanted to view, or the need to pull together on ropes to get a food truck that had become stuck back onto the road. As the children worked together to meet these goals, the negative perceptions of the group members gradually improved; there was a reduction of hostility between the groups and an emergence of more positive intergroup attitudes.

This strategy was effective because it led the campers to perceive both the ingroup and the outgroup as one large group (“we”) rather than as two separate groups (“us” and “them”). As differentiation between the ingroup and the outgroup decreases, so should ingroup favoritism, prejudice, and conflict. The differences between the original groups are still present, but they are potentially counteracted by perceived similarities in the second superordinate group. The attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization is known as the goal of creating a common ingroup identity (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2008), and we can diagram the relationship as follows:

interdependence and cooperation → common ingroup identity → favorable intergroup attitudes.

A substantial amount of research has supported the predictions of the common ingroup identity model. For instance, Samuel Gaertner and his colleagues (Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989) tested the hypothesis that interdependent cooperation in groups reduces negative beliefs about outgroup members because it leads people to see the others as part of the ingroup (by creating a common identity). In this research, college students were brought to a laboratory where they were each assigned to one of two teams of three members each, and each team was given a chance to create its own unique group identity by working together. Then, the two teams were brought into a single room to work on a problem. In one condition, the two teams were told to work together as a larger, six-member team to solve the problem, whereas in the other condition, the two teams worked on the problem separately.

Consistent with the expected positive results of creating a common group identity, the interdependence created in the condition where the teams worked together increased the tendency of the team members to see themselves as members of a single larger team, and this in turn reduced the tendency for each group to show ingroup favoritism.

But the benefits of recategorization are not confined to laboratory settings—they also appear in our everyday interactions with other people. Jason Neir and his colleagues had Black and White interviewers approach White students who were attending a football game (Neir et al., 2001). The dependent measure was whether or not they agreed to help the interviewer by completing a questionnaire. However, the interviewers also wore hats representing either one of the two universities who were playing in the game. As you can see in Figure 11.11, the data were analyzed both by whether the interviewer and the student were of the same race (either both White or one White and one Black) and also by whether they wore hats from the same or different universities. As expected on the basis of recategorization and the common ingroup identity approach, the White students were significantly more likely to help the Black interviewers when they wore a hat of the same university as that worn by the interviewee. The hat evidently led the White students to recategorize the interviewer as part of the university ingroup, leading to more helping. However, whether the individuals shared university affiliation did not influence helping for the White participants, presumably because they already saw the interviewer as a member of the ingroup (the interviewer was also White).

In this field study, White and Black interviewers asked White students attending a football game to help them by completing a questionnaire. The data were analyzed both by whether the request was to a White (ingroup) or Black (outgroup) student and also by whether the individual whose help was sought wore the same hat that they did or a different hat. Results supported the common ingroup identity model. Helping was much greater for outgroup members when hats were the same. Data are from Neir et al. (2001).

Again, the implications of these results are clear and powerful. If we want to improve attitudes among people, we must get them to see each other as more similar and less different. And even relatively simple ways of doing so, such as wearing a hat that suggests an ingroup identification, can be successful.

Key Takeaways

• Changing our stereotypes and prejudices is not easy, and attempting to suppress them may backfire. However, with appropriate effort, we can reduce our tendency to rely on our stereotypes and prejudices.
• One approach to changing stereotypes and prejudice is by changing social norms—for instance, through education and laws enforcing equality.
• Prejudice will change faster when it is confronted by people who see it occurring. Confronting prejudice may be embarrassing, but it also can make us feel that we have done the right thing.
• Intergroup attitudes will be improved when we can lead people to focus more on their connections with others. Intergroup contact, extended contact with others who share friends with outgroup members, and a common ingroup identity are all examples of this process.

Exercises and Critical Thinking

• Watch the program “ A Class Divided .” Do you think Jane Elliott’s method of teaching people about prejudice is ethical?
• Have you ever confronted or failed to confront a person who you thought was expressing prejudice or discriminating? Why did you confront (or not confront) that person, and how did doing so make you feel?
• Imagine you are a teacher in a classroom and you see that some children expressing prejudice or discrimination toward other children on the basis of their race. What techniques would you use to attempt to reduce these negative behaviors?

Aronson, E. (2004). Reducing hostility and building compassion: Lessons from the jigsaw classroom. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 469–488). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jig-saw classroom . London, England: Sage.

Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261.

Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 828–841.

Bodenhausen, G. V., Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Wanke, M. (1995). Effects of atypical exemplars on racial beliefs: Enlightened racism or generalized appraisals? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31 , 48–63.

Brodt, S. E., & Ross, L. D. (1998). The role of stereotyping in overconfident social prediction. Social Cognition, 16 , 225–252.

Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 784–803.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (Eds.). (2008). Addressing contemporary racism: The common ingroup identity model . New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.

Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (2), 239–249.

Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724.

Halpert, S. C. (2002). Suicidal behavior among gay male youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 6, 53–79.

Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: The influence of group norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 603–609.

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.

Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78 (5), 871–888.

Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist discrimination may account for well-known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24 , 93–99.

Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among blacks. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5 (4), 329–339.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (5), 808–817.

Madon, S., Jussim, L., Keiper, S., Eccles, J., Smith, A., & Palumbo, P. (1998). The accuracy and power of sex, social class, and ethnic stereotypes: A naturalistic study in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1304–1318.

Mallett, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008). Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265–277. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.94.2.94.2.265

Neir, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., & Rust, C. R. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4 , 299–316.

Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 , 431–444.

Oreopolous, P. (2011). Why do skilled immigrants struggle in the labor market? A field experiment with six thousand résumés.  American Economic Journal, 3 (4), 148-171.

Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95 (5), 1080–1094. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.95.5.1080.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), 751–783.

Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences, and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16 (6), 316–320. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–8721.2007.00528.x

Rothbart, M., & John, O. P. (1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41 , 81–104.

Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). “Unlearning” automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (5), 856–868.

Sechrist, G., & Stangor, C. (2001). Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (4), 645–654.

Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore, J., & Hill, D. M. (Eds.). (2006). Silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not confronting prejudice . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Shelton, N. J., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–222.

Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers’ cave experiment . Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Interracial roommate relationships: An experimental field test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological Science, 19 (7), 717–723. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02147.x

Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance orientation, gender, and increasing educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36 (7), 1640–1653.

Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96–110.

Stangor, C., Jonas, K., Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M. (1996). Development and change of national stereotypes and attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26 , 663–675.

Stephan, W. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools . New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (1), 31–53.

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38–67.

Williams, D. R. (1999). Race, socioeconomics status, and health: The added effect of racism and discrimination. In Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., & Cohen, S. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49 , 15-24.

Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1), 73–90.

The idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice.

The extent to which the group members are mutually dependent upon each other to reach a goal.

To learning in which students from different racial or ethnic groups work together, in an interdependent way, to master material.

The idea that prejudice can be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the outgroup.

Goals that were both very important to them and yet that required the cooperative efforts and resources of both the Eagles and the Rattlers to attain.

The attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization.

Principles of Social Psychology - 1st International H5P Edition Copyright © 2022 by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

11.3 Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you should be able to:

• Explain the difference between stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination, and racism
• Identify different types of discrimination
• View racial tension through a sociological lens

It is important to learn about stereotypes before discussing the terms prejudice, discrimination, and racism that are often used interchangeably in everyday conversation. Stereotypes are oversimplified generalizations about groups of people. Stereotypes can be based on race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation—almost any characteristic. They may be positive (usually about one’s own group) but are often negative (usually toward other groups, such as when members of a dominant racial group suggest that a subordinate racial group is stupid or lazy). In either case, the stereotype is a generalization that doesn’t take individual differences into account.

Where do stereotypes come from? In fact, new stereotypes are rarely created; rather, they are recycled from subordinate groups that have assimilated into society and are reused to describe newly subordinate groups. For example, many stereotypes that are currently used to characterize new immigrants were used earlier in American history to characterize Irish and Eastern European immigrants.

Prejudice refers to the beliefs, thoughts, feelings, and attitudes someone holds about a group. A prejudice is not based on personal experience; instead, it is a prejudgment, originating outside actual experience. Recall from the chapter on Crime and Deviance that the criminalization of marijuana was based on anti-immigrant sentiment; proponents used fictional, fear-instilling stories of "reefer madness" and rampant immoral and illegal activities among Spanish-speaking people to justify new laws and harsh treatment of marijuana users. Many people who supported criminalizing marijuana had never met any of the new immigrants who were rumored to use it; the ideas were based in prejudice.

While prejudice is based in beliefs outside of experience, experience can lead people to feel that their prejudice is confirmed or justified. This is a type of confirmation bias. For example, if someone is taught to believe that a certain ethnic group has negative attributes, every negative act committed someone in that group can be seen as confirming the prejudice. Even a minor social offense committed by a member of the ethnic group, like crossing the street outside the crosswalk or talking too loudly on a bus, could confirm the prejudice.

While prejudice often originates outside experience, it isn't instinctive. Prejudice—as well as the stereotypes that lead to it and the discrimination that stems from it—is most often taught and learned. The teaching arrives in many forms, from direct instruction or indoctrination, to observation and socialization. Movies, books, charismatic speakers, and even a desire to impress others can all support the development of prejudices.

Discrimination

While prejudice refers to biased thinking, discrimination consists of actions against a group of people. Discrimination can be based on race, ethnicity, age, religion, health, and other categories. For example, discrimination based on race or ethnicity can take many forms, from unfair housing practices such as redlining to biased hiring systems. Overt discrimination has long been part of U.S. history. In the late nineteenth century, it was not uncommon for business owners to hang signs that read, "Help Wanted: No Irish Need Apply." And southern Jim Crow laws, with their "Whites Only" signs, exemplified overt discrimination that is not tolerated today.

Discrimination also manifests in different ways. The scenarios above are examples of individual discrimination, but other types exist. Institutional discrimination occurs when a societal system has developed with embedded disenfranchisement of a group, such as the U.S. military's historical nonacceptance of minority sexualities (the "don't ask, don't tell" policy reflected this norm).

While the form and severity of discrimination vary significantly, they are considered forms of oppression. Institutional discrimination can also include the promotion of a group's status, such in the case of privilege, which is the benefits people receive simply by being part of the dominant group.

Most people have some level of privilege, whether it has to do with health, ability, race, or gender. When discussing race, the focus is often on White privilege , which is the societal privilege that benefits White people, or those perceived to be White, over non-White people in some societies, including the United States. Most White people are willing to admit that non-White people live with a set of disadvantages due to the color of their skin. But until they gain a good degree of self-awareness, few people are willing to acknowledge the benefits they themselves receive by being a part of the dominant group. Why not? Some may feel it lessens their accomplishments, others may feel a degree of guilt, and still others may feel that admitting to privilege makes them seem like a bad or mean person. But White (or other dominant) privilege is an institutional condition, not a personal one. It exists whether the person asks for it or not. In fact, a pioneering thinker on the topic, Peggy McIntosh, noted that she didn't recognize privilege because, in fact, it was not based in meanness. Instead, it was an "invisible weightless knapsack full of special provisions" that she didn't ask for, yet from which she still benefitted (McIntosh 1989). As the reference indicates, McIntosh's first major publication about White privilege was released in 1989; many people have only become familiar with the term in recent years.

Prejudice and discrimination can overlap and intersect in many ways. To illustrate, here are four examples of how prejudice and discrimination can occur. Unprejudiced nondiscriminators are open-minded, tolerant, and accepting individuals. Unprejudiced discriminators might be those who unthinkingly practice sexism in their workplace by not considering women or gender nonconforming people for certain positions that have traditionally been held by men. Prejudiced nondiscriminators are those who hold racist beliefs but don't act on them, such as a racist store owner who serves minority customers. Prejudiced discriminators include those who actively make disparaging remarks about others or who perpetuate hate crimes.

Racism is a stronger type of prejudice and discrimination used to justify inequalities against individuals by maintaining that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others; it is a set of practices used by a racial dominant group to maximize advantages for itself by disadvantaging racial minority groups. Such practices have affected wealth gap, employment, housing discrimination, government surveillance, incarceration, drug arrests, immigration arrests, infant mortality and much more (Race Forward 2021).

Broadly, individuals belonging to minority groups experience both individual racism and systemic racism during their lifetime. While reading the following some of the common forms of racism, ask yourself, “Am I a part of this racism?” “How can I contribute to stop racism?”

• Individual or Interpersonal Racism refers to prejudice and discrimination executed by individuals consciously and unconsciously that occurs between individuals. Examples include telling a racist joke and believing in the superiority of White people.
• Systemic Racism , also called structural racism or institutional racism, is systems and structures that have procedures or processes that disadvantages racial minority groups. Systemic racism occurs in organizations as discriminatory treatments and unfair policies based on race that result in inequitable outcomes for White people over people of color. For example, a school system where students of color are distributed into underfunded schools and out of the higher-resourced schools.
• Racial Profiling is a type of systemic racism that involves the singling out of racial minorities for differential treatment, usually harsher treatment. The disparate treatment of racial minorities by law enforcement officials is a common example of racial profiling in the United States. For example, a study on the Driver's License Privilege to All Minnesota Residents from 2008 to 2010 found that the percentage of Latinos arrested was disproportionally high (Feist 2013). Similarly, the disproportionate number of Black men arrested, charged, and convicted of crimes reflect racial profiling.
• Historical Racism is economic inequality or social disparity caused by past racism. For example, African-Americans have had their opportunities in wealth, education and employment adversely affected due to the mistreatment of their ancestors during the slavery and post-slavery period (Wilson 2012).
• Cultural Racism occurs when the assumption of inferiority of one or more races is built into the culture of a society. For example, the European culture is considered supposedly more mature, evolved and rational than other cultures (Blaut 1992). A study showed that White and Asian American students with high GPAs experience greater social acceptance while Black and Native American students with high GPAs are rejected by their peers (Fuller-Rowell and Doan 2010).
• Colorism is a form of racism, in which someone believes one type of skin tone is superior or inferior to another within a racial group. For example, if an employer believes a Black employee with a darker skin tone is less capable than a Black employee with lighter skin tone, that is colorism. Studies suggest that darker skinned African Americans experience more discrimination than lighter skinned African Americans (Herring, Keith, and Horton 2004; Klonoff and Landrine 2000).
• Color-Avoidance Racism (sometimes referred to as "colorblind racism") is an avoidance of racial language by European-Americans that ignores the fact that racism continues to be an issue. The U.S. cultural narrative that typically focuses on individual racism fails to recognize systemic racism. It has arisen since the post-Civil Rights era and supports racism while avoiding any reference to race (Bonilla-Silva 2015).

How to Be an Antiracist

Almost all mainstream voices in the United States oppose racism. Despite this, racism is prevalent in several forms. For example, when a newspaper uses people's race to identify individuals accused of a crime, it may enhance stereotypes of a certain minority. Another example of racist practices is racial steering , in which real estate agents direct prospective homeowners toward or away from certain neighborhoods based on their race.

Racist attitudes and beliefs are often more insidious and harder to pin down than specific racist practices. They become more complex due to implicit bias (also referred to as unconscious bias) which is the process of associating stereotypes or attitudes towards categories of people without conscious awareness – which can result in unfair actions and decisions that are at odds with one’s conscious beliefs about fairness and equality (Osta and Vasquez 2021). For example, in schools we often see “honors” and “gifted” classes quickly filled with White students while the majority of Black and Latino students are placed in the lower track classes. As a result, our mind consciously and unconsciously starts to associate Black and Latino students with being less intelligent, less capable. Osta and Vasquez (2021) argue that placing the student of color into a lower and less rigorous track, we reproduce the inequity and the vicious cycle of structural racism and implicit bias continues.

If everyone becomes antiracist, breaking the vicious cycle of structural racism and implicit bias may not be far away. To be antiracist is a radical choice in the face of history, requiring a radical reorientation of our consciousness (Kendi 2019). Proponents of anti-racism indicate that we must work collaboratively within ourselves, our institutions, and our networks to challenge racism at local, national and global levels. The practice of anti-racism is everyone’s ongoing work that everyone should pursue at least the following (Carter and Snyder 2020):

• Understand and own the racist ideas in which we have been socialized and the racist biases that these ideas have created within each of us.
• Identify racist policies, practices, and procedures and replace them with antiracist policies, practices, and procedures.

Anti-racism need not be confrontational in the sense of engaging in direct arguments with people, feeling terrible about your privilege, or denying your own needs or success. In fact, many people who are a part of a minority acknowledge the need for allies from the dominant group (Melaku 2020). Understanding and owning the racist ideas, and recognizing your own privilege, is a good and brave thing.

We cannot erase racism simply by enacting laws to abolish it, because it is embedded in our complex reality that relates to educational, economic, criminal, political, and other social systems. Importantly, everyone can become antiracist by making conscious choices daily. Being racist or antiracist is not about who you are; it is about what you do (Carter and Snyder 2020).

What does it mean to you to be an “anti-racist”? How do see the recent events or protests in your community, country or somewhere else? Are they making any desired changes?

Big Picture

Racial tensions in the united states.

The death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri on August 9, 2014 illustrates racial tensions in the United States as well as the overlap between prejudice, discrimination, and institutional racism. On that day, Brown, a young unarmed Black man, was killed by a White police officer named Darren Wilson. During the incident, Wilson directed Brown and his friend to walk on the sidewalk instead of in the street. While eyewitness accounts vary, they agree that an altercation occurred between Wilson and Brown. Wilson’s version has him shooting Brown in self-defense after Brown assaulted him, while Dorian Johnson, a friend of Brown also present at the time, claimed that Brown first ran away, then turned with his hands in the air to surrender, after which Wilson shot him repeatedly (Nobles and Bosman 2014). Three autopsies independently confirmed that Brown was shot six times (Lowery and Fears 2014).

The shooting focused attention on a number of race-related tensions in the United States. First, members of the predominantly Black community viewed Brown’s death as the result of a White police officer racially profiling a Black man (Nobles and Bosman 2014). In the days after, it was revealed that only three members of the town’s fifty-three-member police force were Black (Nobles and Bosman 2014). The national dialogue shifted during the next few weeks, with some commentators pointing to a nationwide sedimentation of racial inequality and identifying redlining in Ferguson as a cause of the unbalanced racial composition in the community, in local political establishments, and in the police force (Bouie 2014). Redlining is the practice of routinely refusing mortgages for households and businesses located in predominately minority communities, while sedimentation of racial inequality describes the intergenerational impact of both practical and legalized racism that limits the abilities of Black people to accumulate wealth.

Ferguson’s racial imbalance may explain in part why, even though in 2010 only about 63 percent of its population was Black, in 2013 Black people were detained in 86 percent of stops, 92 percent of searches, and 93 percent of arrests (Missouri Attorney General’s Office 2014). In addition, de facto segregation in Ferguson’s schools, a race-based wealth gap, urban sprawl, and a Black unemployment rate three times that of the White unemployment rate worsened existing racial tensions in Ferguson while also reflecting nationwide racial inequalities (Bouie 2014).

This situation has not much changed in the United States. After Michael Brown, dozens of unarmed Black people have been shot and killed by police. Studies find no change to the racial disparity in the use of deadly force by police (Belli 2020). Do you think that racial tension can be reduced by stopping police action against racial minorities? What types of policies and practices are important to reduce racial tension? Who are responsible? Why?

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Sociology 3e
• Publication date: Jun 3, 2021
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/11-3-prejudice-discrimination-and-racism

© Jan 18, 2024 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Prejudice and Discrimination Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Prejudice and discrimination are impossible to avoid when living in society. However, you rarely think about them, if you are not a subject of bias. At least, what I can say about myself is that I have never really thought about prejudice and discrimination, their essence, and consequences. This course helped me realize that these phenomena are complicated and versatile. I have learned that they have many levels and can be formulated by the trends in television programs, commercials, music, and cultural developments. Well, I think it might be true because if since childhood we watch television programs that depict discrimination and bias, then we start thinking of them as of a normal way of building relations with people from outside our group.

Nevertheless, I believe that media culture is not the initial source of imposing belief that treating those who are somehow not like you differently is normal. What is the most robust influential factor is the process of socialization within your group. As a kid, you start it within your family. However, growing up in a family that criticizes discrimination does not necessarily mean that you will become an unbiased adult. What matters is the further process of socialization when you become a member of a bigger group that consists of people with various ethnic, social, religious, and other backgrounds. Seeing the difference every day, you start thinking differently than when you were a part of your small social group – family. At least, it was like that for me.

When I was in a family, I was completely unbiased because I always saw people who had similar backgrounds. When watching TV, I rarely thought that programs and commercials portray differences between people with different backgrounds; I just enjoyed the process. However, when I became a part of a larger group, I started noticing that I like people who are similar to my family members more than others who differ from me in some ways. Since then, I remarked that media also plays a role in this process showing differences between men and women, stressing on racial and class segregation. That said, what I believe is the source of bias is the subconscious desire to be involved with the members of your group that becomes stronger when you see that it is highlighted on television that aims at shaping particular attitudes to the member outside the group.

Prejudice and discrimination are just one side of the process of socialization. Another side of it is acknowledging that they exist and influence other people, trying to understand what makes you biased and what are the prejudices you have. What I can say about myself is that being in a group while studying the nature of bias and discrimination was a useful experience. It helped me become somewhat less biased because I saw people with different backgrounds gathered in one group.

In fact, I realized that we all are similar because we all have some prejudices and feel uncomfortable when sharing our feelings and thoughts. I believe that the outcomes of the course might have been different if I were not to share my feelings with the group or completed the assignment on my own because constant interactions with different people helped me reduce the prejudices, and sometime later the feeling of discomfort vanished, as I realized that I can trust these people and bias cannot be justified.

• Feminist Examination of Science
• Ethnic Stratification, Prejudice & Discrimination
• Children's Socialization
• Teenage Pregnancy and Abortion: Articles Evaluation
• Hollywood Community Profile: Audience/Stakeholders
• Common Property Use in the Indo-Pacific Region
• Ashkenazi's and Western Zionists' Influence on Israel
• Death With Dignity as a Social Concept
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, July 27). Prejudice and Discrimination. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prejudice-and-discrimination/

"Prejudice and Discrimination." IvyPanda , 27 July 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/prejudice-and-discrimination/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Prejudice and Discrimination'. 27 July.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Prejudice and Discrimination." July 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prejudice-and-discrimination/.

1. IvyPanda . "Prejudice and Discrimination." July 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prejudice-and-discrimination/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Prejudice and Discrimination." July 27, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/prejudice-and-discrimination/.

Home — Essay Samples — Sociology — Media Influence — Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice and Discrimination

• Categories: Discrimination Media Influence

About this sample

Words: 885 |

Published: Feb 12, 2024

Words: 885 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, changing social norms, intergroup contact, consciousness-raising and self-regulation, cooperative learning, entertainment, news, and print media.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

• Expert in: Social Issues Sociology

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

4 pages / 1919 words

1 pages / 617 words

1 pages / 643 words

5 pages / 2086 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Media Influence

First let’s talk about NARCISSISTIC. It means a person who has an excessive interest in or admiration of themselves, and an exceptional interest in or admiration for oneself, especially their physical appearance. And there is a [...]

Narratives play a pivotal role in shaping public opinion on police brutality. Through the media and social media, narratives capture the attention of the masses, evoking emotions and driving societal change. To effectively [...]

Anorexia nervosa, commonly referred to as anorexia, is a severe psychological disorder characterized by an extreme fear of gaining weight and a distorted body image, which leads to self-imposed starvation and excessive weight [...]

The prevalence of media in modern society is evident through its impact on various aspects of our lives. From influencing consumer behavior and attitudes to shaping public opinion and political discourse, the effects of media on [...]

One of the least controversial ideas in our culture is “resource conservation”: the idea that we should prioritize conserving resources for future generations lest we leave them with nothing. This of courses implies that there [...]

Spotify's marketing of the Joe Rogan podcast has undoubtedly played a vital role in the platform's success. Through strategic promotion, Spotify has leveraged its extensive user base to maximize the podcast's reach. The [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Implicit Bias (Unconscious Bias): Definition & Examples

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

On This Page:

Implicit bias refers to the beliefs and attitudes that affect our understanding, actions and decisions in an unconscious way.

Take-home Messages

• Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that can manifest in the criminal justice system, workplace, school setting, and in the healthcare system.
• Implicit bias is also known as unconscious bias or implicit social cognition.
• There are many different examples of implicit biases, ranging from categories of race, gender, and sexuality.
• These biases often arise from trying to find patterns and navigate the overwhelming stimuli in this complicated world. Culture, media, and upbringing can also contribute to the development of such biases.
• Removing these biases is a challenge, especially because we often don’t even know they exist, but research reveals potential interventions and provides hope that levels of implicit biases in the United States are decreasing.

The term implicit bias was first coined in 1995 by psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald, who argued that social behavior is largely influenced by unconscious associations and judgments (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).

So, what is implicit bias?

Specifically, implicit bias refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious way, making them difficult to control.

Since the mid-90s, psychologists have extensively researched implicit biases, revealing that, without even knowing it, we all possess our own implicit biases.

System 1 and System 2 Thinking

Kahneman (2011) distinguishes between two types of thinking: system 1 and system 2.

• System 1 is the brain’s fast, emotional, unconscious thinking mode. This type of thinking requires little effort, but it is often error-prone. Most everyday activities (like driving, talking, cleaning, etc.) heavily use the type 1 system.
• System 2 is slow, logical, effortful, conscious thought, where reason dominates.

Implicit Bias vs. Explicit Bias

What is meant by implicit bias?

Implicit bias (unconscious bias) refers to attitudes and beliefs outside our conscious awareness and control. Implicit biases are an example of system one thinking, so we are unaware they exist (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006).

An implicit bias may counter a person’s conscious beliefs without realizing it. For example, it is possible to express explicit liking of a certain social group or approval of a certain action while simultaneously being biased against that group or action on an unconscious level.

Therefore, implicit and explicit biases might differ for the same person.

It is important to understand that implicit biases can become explicit biases. This occurs when you become consciously aware of your prejudices and beliefs. They surface in your mind, leading you to choose whether to act on or against them.

What is meant by explicit bias?

Explicit biases are biases we are aware of on a conscious level (for example, feeling threatened by another group and delivering hate speech as a result). They are an example of system 2 thinking.

It is also possible that your implicit and explicit biases differ from your neighbor, friend, or family member. Many factors can control how such biases are developed.

What Are the Implications of Unconscious Bias?

Implicit biases become evident in many different domains of society. On an interpersonal level, they can manifest in simply daily interactions.

This occurs when certain actions (or microaggressions) make others feel uncomfortable or aware of the specific prejudices you may hold against them.

Implicit Prejudice

Implicit prejudice is the automatic, unconscious attitudes or stereotypes that influence our understanding, actions, and decisions. Unlike explicit prejudice, which is consciously controlled, implicit prejudice can occur even in individuals who consciously reject prejudice and strive for impartiality.

Unconscious racial stereotypes are a major example of implicit prejudice. In other words, having an automatic preference for one race over another without being aware of this bias.

This bias can manifest in small interpersonal interactions and has broader implications in society’s legal system and many other important sectors.

Examples may include holding an implicit stereotype that associates Black individuals as violent. As a result, you may cross the street at night when you see a Black man walking in your direction without even realizing why you are crossing the street.

The action taken here is an example of a microaggression. A microaggression is a subtle, automatic, and often nonverbal that communicates hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group (Pierce, 1970). Crossing the street communicates an implicit prejudice, even though you might not even be aware.

Another example of an implicit racial bias is if a Latino student is complimented by a teacher for speaking perfect English, but he is a native English speaker. Here, the teacher assumed that English would not be his first language simply because he is Latino.

Gender Stereotypes

Gender biases are another common form of implicit bias. Gender biases are the ways in which we judge men and women based on traditional feminine and masculine assigned traits.

For example, a greater assignment of fame to male than female names (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995) reveals a subconscious bias that holds men at a higher level than their female counterparts. Whether you voice the opinion that men are more famous than women is independent of this implicit gender bias.

Another common implicit gender bias regards women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics).

In school, girls are more likely to be associated with language over math. In contrast, males are more likely to be associated with math over language (Steffens & Jelenec, 2011), revealing clear gender-related implicit biases that can ultimately go so far as to dictate future career paths.

Even if you outwardly say men and women are equally good at math, it is possible you subconsciously associate math more strongly with men without even being aware of this association.

Health Care

Healthcare is another setting where implicit biases are very present. Racial and ethnic minorities and women are subject to less accurate diagnoses, curtailed treatment options, less pain management, and worse clinical outcomes (Chapman, Kaatz, & Carnes, 2013).

Additionally, Black children are often not treated as children or given the same compassion or level of care provided for White children (Johnson et al., 2017).

It becomes evident that implicit biases infiltrate the most common sectors of society, making it all the more important to question how we can remove these biases.

LGBTQ+ Community Bias

Similar to implicit racial and gender biases, individuals may hold implicit biases against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Again, that does not necessarily mean that these opinions are voiced outwardly or even consciously recognized by the beholder, for that matter.

Rather, these biases are unconscious. A really simple example could be asking a female friend if she has a boyfriend, assuming her sexuality and that heterosexuality is the norm or default.

Instead, you could ask your friend if she is seeing someone in this specific situation. Several other forms of implicit biases fall into categories ranging from weight to ethnicity to ability that come into play in our everyday lives.

Legal System

Both law enforcement and the legal system shed light on implicit biases. An example of implicit bias functioning in law enforcement is the shooter bias – the tendency among the police to shoot Black civilians more often than White civilians, even when they are unarmed (Mekawi & Bresin, 2015).

This bias has been repeatedly tested in the laboratory setting, revealing an implicit bias against Black individuals. Blacks are also disproportionately arrested and given harsher sentences, and Black juveniles are tried as adults more often than their White peers.

Black boys are also seen as less childlike, less innocent, more culpable, more responsible for their actions, and as being more appropriate targets for police violence (Goff, 2014).

Together, these unconscious stereotypes, which are not rooted in truth, form an array of implicit biases that are extremely dangerous and utterly unjust.

Implicit biases are also visible in the workplace. One experiment that tracked the success of White and Black job applicants found that stereotypically White received 50% more callbacks than stereotypically Black names, regardless of the industry or occupation (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004).

This reveals another form of implicit bias: the hiring bias – Anglicized‐named applicants receiving more favorable pre‐interview impressions than other ethnic‐named applicants (Watson, Appiah, & Thornton, 2011).

We’re susceptible to bias because of these tendencies:

We tend to seek out patterns

A key reason we develop such biases is that our brains have a natural tendency to look for patterns and associations to make sense of a very complicated world.

Research shows that even before kindergarten, children already use their group membership (e.g., racial group, gender group, age group, etc.) to guide inferences about psychological and behavioral traits.

At such a young age, they have already begun seeking patterns and recognizing what distinguishes them from other groups (Baron, Dunham, Banaji, & Carey, 2014).

And not only do children recognize what sets them apart from other groups, they believe “what is similar to me is good, and what is different from me is bad” (Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001).

Children aren’t just noticing how similar or dissimilar they are to others; dissimilar people are actively disliked (Aboud, 1988).

Recognizing what sets you apart from others and then forming negative opinions about those outgroups (a social group with which an individual does not identify) contributes to the development of implicit biases.

We like to take shortcuts

Another explanation is that the development of these biases is a result of the brain’s tendency to try to simplify the world.

Mental shortcuts make it faster and easier for the brain to sort through all of the overwhelming data and stimuli we are met with every second of the day. And we take mental shortcuts all the time. Rules of thumb, educated guesses, and using “common sense” are all forms of mental shortcuts.

Implicit bias is a result of taking one of these cognitive shortcuts inaccurately (Rynders, 2019). As a result, we incorrectly rely on these unconscious stereotypes to provide guidance in a very complex world.

And especially when we are under high levels of stress, we are more likely to rely on these biases than to examine all of the relevant, surrounding information (Wigboldus, Sherman, Franzese, & Knippenberg, 2004).

Social and Cultural influences

Influences from media, culture, and your individual upbringing can also contribute to the rise of implicit associations that people form about the members of social outgroups. Media has become increasingly accessible, and while that has many benefits, it can also lead to implicit biases.

The way TV portrays individuals or the language journal articles use can ingrain specific biases in our minds.

For example, they can lead us to associate Black people with criminals or females as nurses or teachers. The way you are raised can also play a huge role. One research study found that parental racial attitudes can influence children’s implicit prejudice (Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005).

And parents are not the only figures who can influence such attitudes. Siblings, the school setting, and the culture in which you grow up can also shape your explicit beliefs and implicit biases.

Implicit Attitude Test (IAT)

What sets implicit biases apart from other forms is that they are subconscious – we don’t know if we have them.

However, researchers have developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) tool to help reveal such biases.

The Implicit Attitude Test (IAT) is a psychological assessment to measure an individual’s unconscious biases and associations. The test measures how quickly a person associates concepts or groups (such as race or gender) with positive or negative attributes, revealing biases that may not be consciously acknowledged.

The IAT requires participants to categorize negative and positive words together with either images or words (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).

Tests are taken online and must be performed as quickly as possible, the faster you categorize certain words or faces of a category, the stronger the bias you hold about that category.

For example, the Race IAT requires participants to categorize White faces and Black faces and negative and positive words. The relative speed of association of black faces with negative words is used as an indication of the level of anti-black bias.

Professor Brian Nosek and colleagues tested more than 700,000 subjects. They found that more than 70% of White subjects more easily associated White faces with positive words and Black faces with negative words, concluding that this was evidence of implicit racial bias (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007).

Outside of lab testing, it is very difficult to know if we do, in fact, possess these biases. The fact that they are so hard to detect is in the very nature of this form of bias, making them very dangerous in various real-world settings.

How to Reduce Implicit Bias

Because of the harmful nature of implicit biases, it is critical to examine how we can begin to remove them.

Practicing mindfulness is one potential way, as it reduces the stress and cognitive load that otherwise leads to relying on such biases.

A 2016 study found that brief mediation decreased unconscious bias against black people and elderly people (Lueke & Gibson, 2016), providing initial insight into the usefulness of this approach and paving the way for future research on this intervention.

Adjust your perspective

Another method is perspective-taking – looking beyond your own point of view so that you can consider how someone else may think or feel about something.

Researcher Belinda Gutierrez implemented a videogame called “Fair Play,” in which players assume the role of a Black graduate student named Jamal Davis.

As Jamal, players experience subtle race bias while completing “quests” to obtain a science degree.

Gutierrez hypothesized that participants who were randomly assigned to play the game would have greater empathy for Jamal and lower implicit race bias than participants randomized to read narrative text (not perspective-taking) describing Jamal’s experience (Gutierrez, 2014), and her hypothesis was supported, illustrating the benefits of perspective taking in increasing empathy towards outgroup members.

Specific implicit bias training has been incorporated in different educational and law enforcement settings. Research has found that diversity training to overcome biases against women in STEM improved with men (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014).

Training programs designed to target and help overcome implicit biases may also be beneficial for police officers (Plant & Peruche, 2005), but there is not enough conclusive evidence to completely support this claim. One pitfall of such training is a potential rebound effect.

Actively trying to inhibit stereotyping actually results in the bias eventually increasing more so than if it had not been initially suppressed in the first place (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). This is very similar to the white bear problem that is discussed in many psychology curricula.

This concept refers to the psychological process whereby deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more likely to surface (Wegner & Schneider, 2003).

Education is crucial. Understanding what implicit biases are, how they can arise how, and how to recognize them in yourself and others are all incredibly important in working towards overcoming such biases.

Learning about other cultures or outgroups and what language and behaviors may come off as offensive is critical as well. Education is a powerful tool that can extend beyond the classroom through books, media, and conversations.

On the bright side, implicit biases in the United States have been improving.

From 2007 to 2016, implicit biases have changed towards neutrality for sexual orientation, race, and skin-tone attitudes (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019), demonstrating that it is possible to overcome these biases.

Books for further reading

As mentioned, education is extremely important. Here are a few places to get started in learning more about implicit biases:

• Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See Think and Do by Jennifer Eberhardt
• Blindspot by Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji
• Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law by Justin Levinson and Robert Smith

Keywords and Terminology

To find materials on implicit bias and related topics, search databases and other tools using the following keywords:

Is unconscious bias the same as implicit bias?

Yes, unconscious bias is the same as implicit bias. Both terms refer to the biases we carry without awareness or conscious control, which can affect our attitudes and actions toward others.

In what ways can implicit bias impact our interactions with others?

Implicit bias can impact our interactions with others by unconsciously influencing our attitudes, behaviors, and decisions. This can lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, even when we consciously believe in equality and fairness.

It can affect various domains of life, including workplace dynamics, healthcare provision, law enforcement, and everyday social interactions.

What are some implicit bias examples?

Some examples of implicit biases include assuming a woman is less competent than a man in a leadership role, associating certain ethnicities with criminal behavior, or believing that older people are not technologically savvy.

Other examples include perceiving individuals with disabilities as less capable or assuming that someone who is overweight is lazy or unmotivated.

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice . B. Blackwell.

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 (2), 181.

Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., Banaji, M., & Carey, S. (2014). Constraints on the acquisition of social category concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development , 15 (2), 238-268.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review , 94 (4), 991-1013.

Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 5 (2), 118-128.

Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of general internal medicine , 28 (11), 1504-1510.

Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological science , 30(2), 174-192.

Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of personality and socialpsychology,106(4), 526.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, 102(1), 4.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology , 74(6), 1464.

Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review , 94 (4), 945-967.

Gutierrez, B., Kaatz, A., Chu, S., Ramirez, D., Samson-Samuel, C., & Carnes, M. (2014). “Fair Play”: a videogame designed to address implicit race bias through active perspective taking. Games for health journal , 3 (6), 371-378.

Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education , 17 (3), 419-438.

Johnson, T. J., Winger, D. G., Hickey, R. W., Switzer, G. E., Miller, E., Nguyen, M. B., … & Hausmann, L. R. (2017). Comparison of physician implicit racial bias toward adults versus children. Academic pediatrics , 17 (2), 120-126.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow . Macmillan.

Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2016). Brief mindfulness meditation reduces discrimination. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice , 3 (1), 34.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of personality and social psychology , 67 (5), 808.

Mekawi, Y., & Bresin, K. (2015). Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 61 , 120-130.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior , 4 , 265-292.

Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. The black seventies , 265-282.

Plant, E. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2005). The consequences of race for police officers’ responses to criminal suspects. Psychological Science , 16 (3), 180-183.

Rynders, D. (2019). Battling Implicit Bias in the IDEA to Advocate for African American Students with Disabilities. Touro L. Rev. , 35 , 461.

Sinclair, S., Dunn, E., & Lowery, B. (2005). The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children’s implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 41 (3), 283-289.

Steffens, M. C., & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles , 64(5-6), 324-335.

Watson, S., Appiah, O., & Thornton, C. G. (2011). The effect of name on pre‐interview impressions and occupational stereotypes: the case of black sales job applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 41 (10), 2405-2420.

Wegner, D. M., & Schneider, D. J. (2003). The white bear story. Psychological Inquiry , 14 (3-4), 326-329.

Wigboldus, D. H., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & Knippenberg, A. V. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition , 22 (3), 292-309.

Further Information

Test yourself for bias.

• Project Implicit (IAT Test) From Harvard University
• Implicit Association Test From the Social Psychology Network
• Test Yourself for Hidden Bias From Teaching Tolerance
• How The Concept Of Implicit Bias Came Into Being With Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard University. Author of Blindspot: hidden biases of good people5:28 minutes; includes a transcript
• Understanding Your Racial Biases With John Dovidio, Ph.D., Yale University From the American Psychological Association11:09 minutes; includes a transcript
• Talking Implicit Bias in Policing With Jack Glaser, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley21:59 minutes
• Implicit Bias: A Factor in Health Communication With Dr. Winston Wong, Kaiser Permanente19:58 minutes
• Bias, Black Lives and Academic Medicine Dr. David Ansell on Your Health Radio (August 1, 2015)21:42 minutes
• Uncovering Hidden Biases Google talk with Dr. Mahzarin Banaji, Harvard University
• Impact of Implicit Bias on the Justice System 9:14 minutes
• Students Speak Up: What Bias Means to Them 2:17 minutes
• Weight Bias in Health Care From Yale University16:56 minutes
• Gender and Racial Bias In Facial Recognition Technology 4:43 minutes

Journal Articles

• An implicit bias primer Mitchell, G. (2018). An implicit bias primer. Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law , 25, 27–59.
• Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior, 4 , 265-292.
• Implicit Racial/Ethnic Bias Among Health Care Professionals and Its Influence on Health Care Outcomes: A Systematic Review Hall, W. J., Chapman, M. V., Lee, K. M., Merino, Y. M., Thomas, T. W., Payne, B. K., … & Coyne-Beasley, T. (2015). Implicit racial/ethnic bias among health care professionals and its influence on health care outcomes: a systematic review. American Journal of public health, 105 (12), e60-e76.
• Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology Burgess, D., Van Ryn, M., Dovidio, J., & Saha, S. (2007). Reducing racial bias among health care providers: lessons from social-cognitive psychology. Journal of general internal medicine, 22 (6), 882-887.
• Integrating implicit bias into counselor education Boysen, G. A. (2010). Integrating Implicit Bias Into Counselor Education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 49 (4), 210–227.
• Cognitive Biases and Errors as Cause—and Journalistic Best Practices as Effect Christian, S. (2013). Cognitive Biases and Errors as Cause—and Journalistic Best Practices as Effect. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 28 (3), 160–174.
• Empathy intervention to reduce implicit bias in pre-service teachers Whitford, D. K., & Emerson, A. M. (2019). Empathy Intervention to Reduce Implicit Bias in Pre-Service Teachers. Psychological Reports, 122 (2), 670–688.

Related Articles

Cognitive Psychology

Automatic Processing in Psychology: Definition & Examples

Controlled Processing in Psychology: Definition & Examples

How Ego Depletion Can Drain Your Willpower

What is the Default Mode Network?

Theories of Selective Attention in Psychology

Availability Heuristic and Decision Making

• DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12762
• Corpus ID: 270001625

Beyond the incident: Influences on the perception of multiple instances of discrimination.

• Paul-Michael Heineck , Roland Deutsch
• Published in British Journal of Social… 25 May 2024

33 References

Do you see what i see: similarities and differences in victims' and observers' perceptions of discrimination, prototypes and same-gender bias in perceptions of hiring discrimination, perceiving racism in ambiguous situations: who relies on easy-to-use information, asymmetry in prejudice attribution, an attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas., system justification or social dominance a multilevel test of the ideological motivators of perceived discrimination, prejudice and self-esteem: a transactional model, derogation, exclusion, and unfair treatment of persons with social flaws, influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice., attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: the role of group identification and appraisals, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

70 New Psychology Dissertation Topics for Stellar Papers

This is a massive list of psychology dissertation topics for your future paper.

A bonus also awaits the most attentive and patient readers, so don’t be in a hurry to leave the page!

In this article, you’ll learn what makes for a good topic for a psychology dissertation, understand the principles behind choosing it, and get actual fresh topic ideas for papers in seven different fields of psychology.

No time to read? Scroll down for the topics list, or contact our dissertation writing services for quick help.

Psychology Dissertation: The Basics

A psychology dissertation is a substantial project. Many aspiring psychologists need to write a dissertation in order to get a Master’s or Ph.D.. The dissertation demonstrates the student’s ability to conduct independent research, contribute to the scientific community, and communicate their findings in a comprehensive document.

A dissertation undergoes a rigorous review process by a college committee and may include an oral defense.

Its structure is much more complex than a standard college essay or thesis. When writing a dissertation, get ready to spend months on researching and organizing your future dissertation outline , incorporating the following components:

• A title page
• Acknowledgments to those who helped you prepare the dissertation
• An abstract ( Dissertation abstracts summarize your research so that the audience can understand its relevance and contribution to the scientific community.)
• A table of contents
• An introduction
• A literature review
• A methodology
• Your findings and analysis
• A discussion and conclusion
• References (a bibliography)
• Appendices (any additional information you used to complete a dissertation: tables, graphs, diagrams, etc.)

How long is a dissertation ?

A dissertation’s length varies depending on your institution, field, and level of education. While you might need to write 8,000–15,000 words for an undergraduate paper, your Ph.D. dissertation will likely have 70,000–100,000 words.

For a Master’s, get ready to craft a 12,000–50,000 word dissertation.

Why bother with psychology dissertation topics?

The topic you choose for your dissertation can determine the overall success of your research. You need a good one that’s relevant and that you’ll be able to find adequate resources to complete.

Consideration of dissertation ideas psychology takes time. Explore different options, ask tutors and other professionals about relevant topics, and bear in mind your own academic interests and expertise.

Other factors to remember when choosing a dissertation topic:

• A topic’s social influence: Do you have anything new to say about the topic that will add to the field’s general body of knowledge? 
• Research limitations: Do you have sufficient resources to complete the project on your chosen topic? (Relevant data for research and analysis, financial support, faculty advisors available to guide you through the process, etc.)
• Ethical considerations: Do you or would your community have any ethical concerns about the topic?

What Are Good Psychology Dissertation Topics?

“How do I write my essay well?” is a question we often receive from students.  Well, one of the first things you can do is to pick  a good topic.

“How do I know if my topic is good enough?” What makes psychology dissertation topics interesting or worthwhile?

Here are some things to consider when choosing a dissertation topic:

• Relevant. It addresses current issues or gaps in psychology.
• Original. It brings a new perspective to the issue or explores unexamined areas.
• Specific. It’s well-defined and focused on a question in a thorough way. 
• Clear. It’s precisely articulated and maintains focus.
• Feasible. It’s achievable with the available resources and within the given time.
• Ethical. It is ethical and ensures the privacy and welfare of participants.
• Meaningful. It has clear theoretical and practical implications and improves psychological interventions or therapies.

Dissertation Topics in Psychology: How to Choose

Now that you know the features of a good dissertation topic (see above), choosing one for your future paper will be easier.

These steps are here to help you do that faster:

• Pick an interesting topic. It’s your research, and completing the project will be less challenging if you work on something that personally engages your interest.
• Evaluate a topic’s importance for the field. Does it address current issues or gaps? Does it have clear implications? What can it contribute to the field?
• Examine the accessibility to resources. Will you have enough data, funding, and time to conduct research and complete your dissertation on that topic?
• Identify potential challenges with the topic. Is it too broad or narrow for what you want to achieve? Are there any ethical issues related to it?
• Discuss your dissertation topics in psychology with supervisors or colleagues. This can help you gain new perspectives and develop a topic idea that will turn your write my dissertation challenge into a fascinating journey.

Below are 70 fresh psychology dissertation ideas for your paper. Consider the type of psychology you must focus on, and review our list of topics for inspiration.

Clinical Psychology Dissertation Topics

Try these clinical psychology dissertation topics for research:

• Evaluating the effectiveness of cognitive-behavioral therapy in managing anxiety disorders.
• Investigating the long-term mental health effects of childhood trauma in adults.
• The impact of mindfulness-based practices on depression treatment outcomes.
• Examining the prolonged effects of electroconvulsive therapy in treating severe depression.
• The connection between sleep disturbances and adolescent mental health.
• Evaluating the potency of virtual reality exposure therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder.
• How cultural factors influence the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia.
• A comparative study of group therapy and individual therapy for substance abuse treatment.
• The impact of social media on the self-esteem and mental well-being of adolescents.
• Understanding the role of family dynamics in the emergence of eating disorders.

Educational Psychology Topic Ideas

These dissertation topics in education can inspire you to develop yours:

• The effects of inclusive education on children with learning disabilities.
• How teacher-student relationships impact academic achievement.
• The role of parental involvement in children’s educational outcomes.
• Exploring the impact of technology on student engagement and learning.
• The effectiveness of different teaching strategies in fostering critical thinking skills.
• The link between motivation and academic performance in high school students.
• Gender differences in STEM education: Problems, causes and solutions.
• The impact of the school environment on student mental health.
• How standardized testing affects student learning and teacher performance.
• The role of educational psychology in developing interventions for bullying.

Dissertation Topics in Industrial Psychology

Below are ten dissertation topics in industrial psychology that could serve as a basis for your research:

• How different leadership styles influence employee job satisfaction.
• Exploring the relationship between workplace diversity and team performance.
• How remote work impacts employees’ productivity and well-being.
• Assessing the impact of job stress on employee turnover rates.
• How organizational culture impacts employee behavior.
• How training and development programs influence employee performance.
• Exploring the connection between employee motivation and organizational commitment.
• Evaluating the effectiveness of performance appraisal systems in improving job completion.
• Exploring the impact of work-life balance policies on employee satisfaction.
• The significance of EI for effective leadership.

Personality Psychology Ideas to Write About

Some medical education dissertation topics are about personality psychology. Consider these ten to guide you on the way to your own research:

• The influence of personality traits on career choice and job satisfaction.
• The role of character traits in coping with stress and adversity.
• Exploring the relationship between personality and mental health disorders.
• The impact of social media on the development of narcissistic traits.
• How personality traits affect relationship satisfaction and stability.
• Understanding the environmental influences on personality development.
• The relationship between personality and risk-taking behaviors.
• How personality traits influence academic achievement.
• The role of personality in predicting political beliefs and behaviors.
• Exploring the impact of personality on physical health and well-being.

Social Psychology Topic Ideas

These psychology dissertation topics are about the ways individuals behave within social contexts. If it’s the area of your expertise, feel free to consider:

• The role of social influence on decision-making processes.
• Exploring the impact of group dynamics on individual behavior.
• How stereotypes can affect academic performance.
• How social identity influences intergroup relations and conflict.
• The impact of media on shaping societal attitudes and behaviors.
• The role of social support in coping with stress and adversity.
• The influence of cultural norms on prosocial behavior.
• How prejudice and discrimination affect mental health and well-being.
• The role of social comparison in shaping self-esteem and life satisfaction.
• Exploring the psychological mechanisms underlying conformity and obedience.

Cognitive Psychology Dissertation Topics

These dissertation topics for psychology delve into cognitive processes like memory, perception, attention, and problem-solving.

• The influence of attention on the processes of memory formation and retrieval.
• Investigating how aging affects cognitive functions.
• How bilingualism affects cognitive development and functioning.
• The relationship between cognitive load and decision-making processes.
• How sleep deprivation influences cognitive abilities.
• Exploring the impact of cognitive biases on judgment and behavior.
• The role of working memory in problem-solving and reasoning.
• How emotion influences cognitive processes and decision-making.
• The effects of digital media on cognitive development in children.
• Examining the neural basis of cognitive control and executive functions.

Topic Ideas for Dissertations in Behavioral Sciences

The top psychology dissertation examples include engaging topics in this subfield of psychology. By choosing any of the below, you’ll have plenty of room to explore:

• The impact of behavioral interventions on smoking cessation.
• Exploring the relationship between diet, exercise, and mental health.
• The role of behavioral genetics in understanding addiction.
• How environmental factors influence behavioral development.
• The effectiveness of behavior modification programs in treating obesity.
• Exploring the impact of stress on health behaviors and outcomes.
• The role behavioral interventions play in managing chronic pain.
• How cultural factors influence health-related behaviors.
• The relationship between behavioral habits and overall well-being.
• The impact of technology on behavior and social interactions.

It’s Time to Choose!

With so many psychology dissertation topics listed, hopefully there’s one on there that piques your interest ?

If you’re still feeling doubtful or unready to jump into the research, feel free to buy dissertation online from professional academic writers with expertise in the field.

Photo by Becca Tapert from Unsplash

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What our customers say

Our website uses secure cookies. More details

Get professional help from best writers right from your phone

Grab our 3 e-books bundle for $27 FREE

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Cultural Issues and the 2024 Election

8. Gun attitudes and the 2024 election

Table of contents.

• Voters’ views about race and society, the impact of the legacy of slavery
• Most voters, but not all, view the nation’s diversity as a strength
• How should the country handle undocumented immigrants currently in the U.S.?
• Attitudes toward hearing other languages in public places
• Biden and Trump supporters’ views about discussing America’s historical successes, failures
• How does the U.S. compare with other countries?
• Views of women’s progress
• How much of a priority should marriage and children be?
• Abortion, IVF access and birth control
• Views of gender identity
• Voters’ attitudes toward use of gender-neutral pronouns
• Societal impact of more social acceptance of lesbian, gay, bisexual people
• Religion and government policy
• How much influence should the Bible have on the nation’s laws, if any?
• Views on the federal government’s role in promoting Christian values
• Most voters say it is not necessary to believe in God to be moral
• Is the justice system too tough on criminals, or not tough enough?
• Policing and law enforcement
• How Trump, Biden supporters view gun rights and ownership
• Views on the increasing number of guns in the U.S.
• Acknowledgments
• The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Perhaps no topic divides voters more deeply than the role that firearms have in American life.

By overwhelming margins, Joe Biden’s supporters prioritize gun control over gun rights and say gun ownership does more to reduce than increase safety; roughly eight-in-ten Biden supporters (83%) say the increase in guns in the U.S. is at least somewhat bad for society.

By comparable or even somewhat larger margins, Donald Trump’s supporters express opposing views on all three measures.

Underscoring the divisiveness of this topic, Americans even disagree about whether gun violence is a major national problem. In a separate survey , 68% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say gun violence is a very big problem, compared with 27% of Republicans and Republican leaners.

For the most part, attitudes about guns are fairly similar among Trump’s supporters, as well as Biden’s. This underscores the deep differences between the two coalitions. 

Still, there are some internal differences within each coalition.

Among both the Trump and Biden coalitions, voters living in rural areas are more supportive of gun rights than urban voters. There is a similar pattern in views on gun safety.

Among Trump supporters

White Trump supporters are more likely than Hispanic Trump supporters to say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own a gun (89% vs. 70%) than to control gun ownership and that gun ownership does more to increase than decrease safety (90% vs. 71%).

Women voters who back Trump are somewhat less likely than his male supporters to support gun rights and say gun ownership increases safety. Still, more than eight-in-ten women and men who support Trump hold these views.

The share of Americans who say they own a gun – or that someone else in their household owns a firearm – has remained steady in recent years. But other evidence, including data on gun sales, shows a rise in the overall number of guns in the country.

Voters overall are divided over whether the increase is good or bad for society: 52% say it is very or somewhat bad, while 22% say it is good and a quarter say it is neither good nor bad.

Relatively few Trump supporters (21%) view the growing number of guns negatively; more say it is a good thing for society (40%) or neither bad nor good (38%).

Biden supporters (83%) are nearly four times as likely as Trump supporters to say the increase is a bad thing.

Among Trump supporters, nearly twice as many women (28%) as men (15%) say the increase in guns in the U.S. is bad for society. Trump supporters who live in urban (28%) or suburban (24%) areas are more likely than rural Trump supporters (14%) to view this trend negatively.

Large majorities of Biden supporters across demographic groups have a negative view of the increase in the number of guns. Still, a larger share of Biden supporters with a four-year college degree (91%) say this is bad thing than do those who do not have degree (77%).

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Criminal Justice
• Discrimination & Prejudice
• Donald Trump
• Election 2024
• Gender Equality & Discrimination
• Gender Identity
• Immigration & Language Adoption
• LGBTQ Attitudes & Experiences
• Marriage & Divorce
• Partisanship & Issues
• Political Issues
• Racial Bias & Discrimination
• Religion & Government
• Religion & Politics
• Unauthorized Immigration

More than half of Americans are following election news closely, and many are already worn out

Americans have mixed views about how the news media cover biden’s, trump’s ages, an early look at black voters’ views on biden, trump and election 2024, voters’ views of trump and biden differ sharply by religion, in tight presidential race, voters are broadly critical of both biden and trump, most popular, report materials.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center