On the Nature of Prejudice - download.e-bookshelf.de · 14 Instrumental Relations Among Groups: Group Competition, Conﬂict, and Prejudice 227 Victoria M. Esses, Lynne M. Jackson,

On the Nature of Prejudice

Fifty Years after Allport

Edited by

John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick,and Laurie A. Rudman

ON THE NATURE OFPREJUDICE

This book is dedicated to:

Florence Langone DovidioKaren Carr GlickRobert B. Jorissen

and to Gordon W. Allport

On the Nature of Prejudice

Fifty Years after Allport

Edited by


© 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltdexcept for editorial material and organization

© 2005 by John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

550 Swanston Street, Carlton, Victoria 3053, Australia

The right of John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman to be identifiedas the Authors of the Editorial Material in this Work has been asserted in

accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by theUK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988, without the prior

permission of the publisher.

First published 2005 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd

1 2005

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

On the nature of prejudice : fifty years after Allport / edited by John F. Dovidio,Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman.

p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-2750-9 (hardcover : alk. paper)ISBN-10: 1-4051-2750-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-2751-6 (pbk. : alk. paper)

ISBN-10: 1-4051-2751-1 (pbk. : alk. paper)1. Prejudices. 2. Allport, Gordon W. (Gordon Willard), 1897–1967. Nature of

prejudice. I. Dovidio, John F. II. Glick, Peter Samuel. III. Rudman, Laurie A.

BF575.P9062 2005303.3′85—dc22

2004029764

A catalogue record for this title is available from the British Library.

Set in 10.5/12.5pt Bemboby Graphicraft Limited, Hong KongPrinted and bound in Gospons, India

The publisher’s policy is to use permanent paper from mills that operate asustainable forestry policy, and which has been manufactured from pulp

processed using acid-free and elementary chlorine-free practices. Furthermore,the publisher ensures that the text paper and cover board used have met acceptable

environmental accreditation standards.

For further information onBlackwell Publishing, visit our website:

www.blackwellpublishing.com

Contents

List of Contributors viiiForeword by Victoria M. Esses xiPreface xiii

1 Introduction: Reflecting on The Nature of Prejudice:Fifty Years after Allport 1John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, and Laurie A. Rudman

Part I: Preferential Thinking 17

2 What is the Problem? Prejudice as an Attitude-in-Context 19Alice H. Eagly and Amanda B. Diekman

3 Social Cognition and the Normality of Prejudgment 36Susan T. Fiske

4 Ingroup Affiliations and Prejudice 54Rupert Brown and Hanna Zagefka

5 Categorization, Recategorization, and Intergroup Bias 71Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio

6 Rejection or Inclusion of Outgroups? 89Mary R. Jackman

7 Rejection of Women? Beyond Prejudice as Antipathy 106Laurie A. Rudman

Part II: Group Differences 121

8 Group Differences and Stereotype Accuracy 123Charles M. Judd and Bernadette Park

9 The Psychological Impact of Prejudice 139Brenda Major and S. Brooke Vick

10 Mechanisms for Coping with Victimization:Self-Protection Plus Self-Enhancement 155James M. Jones

Part III: Perceiving and Thinking About GroupDifferences 173

11 Cognitive Process: Reality Constraints and IntegrityConcerns in Social Perception 175Vincent Yzerbyt and Olivier Corneille

12 Linguistic Factors: Antilocutions, Ethnonyms,Ethnophaulisms, and Other Varieties of Hate Speech 192Brian Mullen and Tirza Leader

13 Stereotypes in Our Culture 208John T. Jost and David L. Hamilton

Part IV: Sociocultural Factors 225

14 Instrumental Relations Among Groups: GroupCompetition, Conflict, and Prejudice 227Victoria M. Esses, Lynne M. Jackson, John F. Dovidio,and Gordon Hodson

15 Choice of Scapegoats 244Peter Glick

16 Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its Historyand Influence 262Thomas F. Pettigrew and Linda R. Tropp

17 Intergroup Contact: When Does it Work, and Why? 278Jared B. Kenworthy, Rhiannon N. Turner, Miles Hewstone,and Alberto Voci

vi Contents

Part V: Acquiring Prejudice 293

18 Conformity and Prejudice 295Christian S. Crandall and Charles Stangor

19 The Development of Prejudice in Childhood andAdolescence 310Frances E. Aboud

20 Breaking the Prejudice Habit: Allport’s “Inner Conflict”Revisited 327Patricia G. Devine

21 Inner Conflict in the Political Psychology of Racism 343David O. Sears

Part VI: The Dynamics of Prejudice 359

22 Aggression, Hatred, and Other Emotions 361Eliot R. Smith and Diane M. Mackie

23 Allport’s “Living Inkblots”: The Role of DefensiveProjection in Stereotyping and Prejudice 377Leonard S. Newman and Tracy L. Caldwell

Part VII: Character Structure 393

24 Personality and Prejudice 395John Duckitt

25 Religion and Prejudice 413C. Daniel Batson and E. L. Stocks

Part VIII: Reducing Group Tensions 429

26 Intergroup Relations Program Evaluation 431Walter G. Stephan and Cookie White Stephan

Author Index 447Subject Index 463

Contents vii

Contributors

Frances E. Aboud, Department of Psychology, McGill University, Montréal,Canada.

C. Daniel Batson, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence,USA.

Rupert Brown, Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, UK.Tracy L. Caldwell, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Chicago,

USA.Olivier Corneille, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Louvain at

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Christian S. Crandall, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence,

USA.Patricia G. Devine, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison,

USA.Amanda B. Diekman, Department of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford,

Ohio, USA.John F. Dovidio, Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs,

USA.John Duckitt, Psychology Department, University of Auckland, New Zealand.Alice H. Eagly, Department of Psychology, Northwestern University, Evanston,

USA.Victoria M. Esses, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario,

London, Canada.Susan T. Fiske, Department of Psychology, Princeton University, USA.Samuel L. Gaertner, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark,

USA.Peter Glick, Department of Psychology, Lawrence University, Appleton, USA.David L. Hamilton, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa

Barbara, USA.

Miles Hewstone, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford,UK.

Gordon Hodson, Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharine’s,Canada.

Mary R. Jackman, Department of Sociology, University of California, Davis,USA.

Lynne M. Jackson, Department of Psychology, King’s University College, theUniversity of Western Ontario, London, Canada.

James M. Jones, Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark,USA.

John T. Jost, Department of Psychology, New York University, USA.Charles M. Judd, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder,

USA.Jared B. Kenworthy, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of

Oxford, UK.Tirza Leader, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, USA.Diane M. Mackie, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa

Barbara, USA.Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara,

USA.Brian Mullen, Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, USA.Leonard S. Newman, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Chicago,

USA.Bernadette Park, Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder,

USA.Thomas F. Pettigrew, Department of Psychology, University of California,

Santa Cruz, USA.Laurie A. Rudman, Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, USA.David O. Sears, Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles,

USA.Eliot R. Smith, Department of Psychology, Indiana University, Bloomington,

USA.Charles Stangor, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland, College

Park, USA.Cookie White Stephan, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New

Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA.Walter G. Stephan, Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University,

Las Cruces, USA.E. L. Stocks, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA.

Contributors ix

Linda R. Tropp, Department of Psychology, Boston College, USA.Rhiannon N. Turner, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of

Oxford, UK.S. Brooke Vick, Department of Psychology, University of California, Santa

Barbara, USA.Alberto Voci, Department of Psychology, University of Padova, Italy.Vincent Yzerbyt, Department of Psychology, Catholic University of Louvain at

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.Hanna Zagefka, Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, UK.

x Contributors

Foreword

The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) is verypleased to sponsor On the Nature of Prejudice. This book is very timely,marking the 50th anniversary of Allport’s The Nature of Prejudice, firstpublished in 1954. Allport’s The Nature of Prejudice has been extremelyinfluential in defining the direction that the field of psychology has takenover the course of the last 50 years. Not only does the current volumeupdate Allport’s work, but it reexamines fundamental concepts and themesthat were central to The Nature of Prejudice and are of enduring importance.The editors and authors are respected leaders in the field, and in thisvolume have constructed comprehensive theories that clarify concepts,synthesize complex research results, and generate new directions for futureresearch. Thus, just as The Nature of Prejudice provided a framework forexamining prejudice in the last 50 years, the current volume is likely toguide theorizing and research in prejudice for decades to come. Theauthors of individual chapters, and especially the editors, have investedtime, energy, and expertise in this book. Yet the royalties from sales willgo to SPSSI to further the Society’s educational and scientific endeavors.We are deeply grateful to them for allowing SPSSI to be the officialsponsor of this unique and valuable book.

It is very apt that SPSSI be the official sponsor of this book. GordonAllport played a major role in the history of SPSSI, as a founding memberof the organization, a council member in 1936–40 and 1946–7, andpresident in 1943–4. One of SPSSI’s major awards is named in honor ofGordon Allport, and a number of the contributors to the volume havereceived this prestigious award. In addition, SPSSI’s mission is to bringtheory and practice into focus on human problems of the group, the com-munity, and nations, as well as the increasingly important problems thathave no national boundaries. Prejudice is an enduring problem that con-tinues to be of national and international importance, and psychological

research makes important contributions in understanding and seeking tocombat this human problem. Thus, the topic of prejudice has historicallybeen and continues to be a major focus of SPSSI.

We invite psychologists and other social scientists who are interested insocial issues to learn more about SPSSI. We have over 3,000 membersfrom all over the world, and we publish print and electronic journals, holda biennial conference, and provide grants and awards for research on socialissues. More information about joining SPSSI can be found at www.spssi.org.

Victoria M. EssesUniversity of Western OntarioCanada

xii Foreword

Preface

The year 2004 marked the 50th anniversary of the publication of GordonAllport’s The Nature of Prejudice. Few works have had such a significant andlasting impact on psychology. Allport’s ideas foreshadowed many of the“new” developments in the field, and his book has provided a scholarlyfoundation for generations of students, teachers, and scholars in this area.In the 25th anniversary edition of the book (1954/1979), Kenneth Clarkwrote in the preface, “As is generally recognized, The Nature of Prejudice isa classic. Its table of contents establishes the parameters for a scholarlysocial science approach to the discussion and understanding of this com-plex human problem” (p. ix). In the introduction to the same volume,Thomas Pettigrew concurred, “The table of contents . . . has in fact organ-ized the scholarly study of the important concept of prejudice. The Natureof Prejudice delineated the area of study, set up its basic categories andproblems, and cast it in a broad, eclectic framework that remains today”(p. xiii). As you will see from the chapters in this volume, The Nature ofPrejudice remains a classic at its 50th anniversary, and Allport’s ideas haveinfluenced scholars in the field as much over the past 25 years as they didin the book’s first 25 years.

Given the contemporary prominence of The Nature of Prejudice, as wellas its historical significance, the idea for this volume should have seemedobvious to us. It was not. The inspiration for this book evolved out of aconference, sponsored by the Fetzer Institute, designed to provide a forumfor experienced scientists to collectively think about prejudice research –where it has been, where it is going – and to provide their own uniqueperspective on how the field’s approach to studying intergroup relationsmight be improved. This necessarily involved thinking critically abouthow prejudice has historically been defined, operationalized, and investig-ated, with an eye toward expanding the field’s approach.

The conference attracted a distinguished group of participants. A volumeon the proceedings was proposed, but initially met with limited enthusiasm.Some of the participants felt that another volume with chapters on “Whathave I done lately?” could not compete with other professional demandson their time. However, when an alternative was proposed – the presentvolume commemorating the 50th anniversary of The Nature of Prejudice –the response was immediately supportive. People recognized the monu-mental contribution of Allport’s book and welcomed the opportunity toreflect on its historical contribution while evaluating the present state ofresearch and projecting important future directions.

The current volume is thus designed as a companion to The Nature ofPrejudice. Our goal is to build on and to reexamine the groundbreakinginsights of Gordon Allport in his classic book, providing up-to-date cover-age of critical contemporary issues in the social-psychological study ofprejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. The contributions are linkedto specific chapters and topics in the classic book. As both Clark andPettigrew acknowledged, the table of contents of The Nature of Prejudicehas defined the field over the past 50 years.

The chapters follow a fixed format. They briefly summarize Allport’sposition on a topic, examine developments in the area since Allport pub-lished his book, introduce new conceptual frameworks for understandingthe topic, assess how Allport’s ideas have been supported, and identifypromising new directions of inquiry. Quotes from Allport correspond tothe 1954/1979 25th anniversary republication of The Nature of Prejudice,the edition that is most readily available to students and scholars at thistime. Although the chapters all recognize Allport’s significant contributionsand honor his work, in the tradition of scholarly exchange that Allportvalued so deeply, the authors also offer critical appraisals of his ideas inlight of current evidence, discuss where and how some of his ideas werelimited, and reveal new insights and phenomena that Allport did notconsider.

This book should be valuable to advanced undergraduates, graduatestudents, and professionals who are interested in the areas of prejudice,stereotyping, and discrimination, but it should also be accessible to ageneral lay audience. The orientation of the book is social psychological,but the volume is also intended to appeal to students and scholars in socio-logy, political science, and education, as well as to academics and practi-tioners interested in antibias education and prejudice reduction techniquesand strategies.

The contributors to the volume are highly respected and prolific pre-judice theorists and researchers, all of whom have proven their ability to

xiv Preface

construct influential theories that clarify concepts and synthesize complexresearch results. Given their stature and the currently dynamic state of thefield, we believe that this volume will provide a framework to guidetheorizing and research in prejudice and stereotypes for decades to comeand continue to remind the field of Gordon Allport’s critical role inshaping it. We did not know Gordon Allport personally, but we are wellaware of his significant intellectual legacy. This book honors that legacy.

The editors are very grateful to the Fetzer Institute for sponsoring theconference “Revisiting The Nature of Prejudice” in September 2002, whichstimulated the idea for the book. Special thanks are due to Lynn Under-wood, Heidi Matteo, and Wayne Ramsey. We also express our sincereappreciation for the skillful and patient administrative assistance providedby Kathy Langworthy throughout the process. Finally, we acknowledgethe support of NIMH Grant MH 48721 (to Jack Dovidio) and NationalScience Foundation Grant BCS-0109997 (to Laurie Rudman) during thepreparation of the volume.

Preface xv

Introduction 1

1Chapter One

Introduction: Reflecting on The Natureof Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport


There is no debate that Gordon W. Allport’s (1954/1979) The Nature ofPrejudice is the foundational work for the social psychology of prejudice.Contemporary prejudice researchers and scholars regularly refer back tothis work not only for apt quotations but also for inspiration. Socialscience instructors often pair Allport’s book with recent articles. Indeed,any student of prejudice ignorant of Allport would be rightly consideredilliterate. Social science is all too often subject to fleeting fads and fashions.Books written a decade ago are typically considered to be outdated. Yethalf a century after its publication, The Nature of Prejudice remains the mostwidely cited work on prejudice. The scope and endurance of its influencehas been nothing short of remarkable.

Why has this been so? Allport’s profound insights, which have hadlasting impact on the field, represent the obvious reason. Allport definedthe core issues that the field continues to explore, struggle with, andreconsider. But there are others reasons, including Allport’s inclusivenessand rich use of examples. Allport did not advocate a single pet theory ofprejudice but chose instead to identify and illustrate a variety of perspectives,ranging from macro, or social-structural causes, to micro, or individualcauses. He included provocative examples that, even when he chose notto interpret them in depth, could be used and exploited by others. Inshort, he was a synthetic and generous thinker.

The flip side of this breadth, generosity, and intellectual dexterity isthat Allport embraced seemingly contradictory views at different points inThe Nature of Prejudice. Thus, he has been many things to many thinkers.For example, Allport is the founder of the cognitive approach to preju-dice, which views stereotyping and categorization as normal and inevit-able byproducts of how people think. Yet he also viewed prejudice as afundamentally irrational hatred, born of ignorance and the ego-defensive

2 Dovidio, Glick, and Rudman

maneuvers of people with weak personality structures. Thus, from thestandpoint of logical consistency, Allport often left much to be desired, butfrom the standpoint of generating ideas, he could hardly have been moresuccessful; his book has been, and will likely continue to be, mined pro-ductively by generations of theorists and researchers.

The apparent inconsistencies in Allport’s thinking, however, stem inpart from the complexity of the phenomenon. A prominent exampleconcerns the role of stereotyping in prejudice. Early on in The Nature ofPrejudice, in chapter 2, he implicated stereotypic thinking as a foundationfor prejudice. He observed, “The category saturates all that it containswith the same ideational and emotional flavor” (1954/1979, p. 21). Later,in chapter 12, he wrote that stereotypes are “primarily rationalizers. Theyadapt to the prevailing temper of prejudice or the needs of the situation.While it does no harm (and may do some good) to combat them . . . itmust not be thought that this attack alone will eradicate the roots ofprejudice” (p. 204). Allport explicitly addressed the apparent contradictionin these statements, embracing stereotypes as both causes and consequencesof prejudice: “The stereotype acts as both a justificatory device for cate-gorical acceptance or rejection of a group, and as a screening or selectivedevice to maintain simplicity in perception and thinking” (p. 192). Fiftyyears later, after thousands of studies on stereotyping, the extent to whichstereotypes are cause or consequence of prejudice remains a subject oflively debate.

This volume honors Allport in the way he would like best – by offeringcritical reflections on his seminal tract that reveal where he blazed import-ant new paths and where he missed critical turns, where he led the fieldforward and where he led it astray. We have come neither uncriticallyto praise nor to bury Allport, but to engage in a conversation with him,to give our response to his call. Like The Nature of Prejudice, this bookapproaches prejudice from multiple angles and embraces many views, whichwe hope will stimulate decades of new research and theoretical advancesin the study of prejudice. However, unlike Allport’s monograph, our bookhas taken 44 people (to his one) to do it – which is both a testament toAllport’s achievement and an indication of how the field has grown.

The fact that growth in prejudice research has often followed the con-tours outlined in The Nature of Prejudice also signifies the depth of itsimpact on the field. Allport himself believed that the book’s thematicorganization was his greatest and most lasting contribution, and we con-cur. Although we did not strive for one-to-one correspondence betweenthe two volumes’ chapters, we intended our book to serve as a companionpiece to the original, and so we followed its structure. Additionally, the

Introduction 3

chapters in the current volume follow a common organization. Each chaptersummarizes Allport’s views on the topic, reviews developments since thepublication of The Nature of Prejudice, presents at least one new framework,assesses current support for Allport’s position, and identifies promisingdirections for future research.

Instead of summarizing each of the chapters contained in this editedvolume, as is common practice, this Introduction reviews the volume’soverarching themes. To do so, we focus on Allport’s enduring contributions,identify seemingly contradictory strands of arguments, and, with the benefitof 50 years of additional research (i.e., informed hindsight), highlight thelimitations of Allport’s analysis.

Allport’s Enduring Insights

Gordon Allport is widely recognized for his significant insights into pre-judice. His expertise on the topic was clearly deep and broad, but he alsohad a unique capacity for integration. He organized many disparate viewson prejudice and synthesized them around three basic themes, concerningcognitive, motivational, and sociocultural processes. These processes arefrequently intertwined in practice, and each chapter in this volume typic-ally addresses all three types. Allport himself acknowledged that “[intergroup]conflict is like a note on an organ. It sets all prejudices that are attunedto it in simultaneous vibration” (1954/1979, p. 233). However, as will beoutlined below, each of these components involves some conceptuallydistinct processes.

Social Cognitive Processes

Allport emphasized the importance of social categorization in prejudice ina manner that was unprecedented in his day. Although ingroup–outgroupdistinctions had been previously recognized as a source of bias (Sumner,1906), Allport focused on the normality and inevitability of categorizingsocial groups. Allport noted, “The human mind must think with the aid ofcategories. . . . Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudg-ment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends uponit” (p. 20). The role of social categorization is now widely acknowledgedas a fundamental process in the development and maintenance of prejudicein such diverse approaches as Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979),


social cognition (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986), and Self-Categorization Theory(Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).

In the present volume, cognitive processes that originate with socialcategorization and influence the way people perceive and think aboutothers are central to chapters by Fiske (chapter 3: Social Cognition and theNormality of Prejudgment), Yzerbyt and Corneille (chapter 11: CognitiveProcesses: Reality Constraints and Integrity Concerns in Social Percep-tion), Brown and Zagefka (chapter 4: Ingroup Affiliations and Prejudice),Gaertner and Dovidio (chapter 5: Categorization, Recategorization, andIntergroup Bias), Judd and Park (chapter 8: Group Differences and Stereo-type Accuracy), and Jost and Hamilton (chapter 13, Stereotypes in OurCulture).

Each of these chapters notes how developments since Allport haveborrowed from and built upon his insights concerning cognitive function-ing. Fifty years ago, he explained how social categorization “dominatesour entire mental life. . . . A new experience must be redacted into oldcategories” (p. 20), and that “it selects, accentuates, and interprets the sen-sory data” (p. 166), thereby guiding subsequent perception and evaluation(Fiske). Because, as Allport observed, the cognitive processes involved inprejudice are part of normal functioning, they operate within the generalconstraints of “reality” and are influenced by people’s salient goals andmotivations (Yzerbyt & Corneille).

Allport also clearly recognized how group affiliation affects the ways inwhich people value others and how individuals differ in their identifica-tion with their group (Brown & Zagefka). He remarked that “the sense ofbelonging is a highly personal matter. Even two members of the sameactual in-group may view its composition in widely divergent ways”(p. 36). Moreover, he illustrated how the salience of group identity isalterable – how categorization can become recategorization – and howpeople can be members of multiple categories and possess multiple identities(Gaertner & Dovidio). For example, he wrote that “in-group member-ships are not permanently fixed. For certain purposes an individual mayaffirm one category of membership, for other purposes a slightly largercategory” (p. 35).

One of Allport’s strongest legacies is that he focused social psychologists’attention on the role of stereotypes, not merely as group descriptions(Lippmann, 1922), but also as cognitive structures that shape thoughts,feelings, and action. He observed that “categorization assimilates as muchas it can to the cluster” (p. 20), and he considered the role of categoriza-tion on perceptions of both typicality and variability within groups, aswell as in terms of between-group differences ( Judd & Park). In addition,

Introduction 5

Allport argued that racial and ethnic categories reflect a pernicious kind ofessentialism that shapes the nature of stereotypes ( Jost & Hamilton). Thesebeliefs develop because categories often stem from differences in physicalappearance that are visibly salient. Allport noted, “Even a fragment ofvisibility . . . focuses people’s minds on the possibility that everything maybe related to this fragment” (p. 109); and he observed, “Where visibilitydoes exist, it is almost always thought to be linked with deeper lying traitsthan is in fact the case” (p. 132). The chapters in this volume cited abovespeak directly to each of these points. Along with Allport’s text, theyhighlight the central role of social categorization and other social cognitiveprocesses in prejudice.

Although the field subsequently emphasized a cognitive approach toprejudice consistent with Allport’s views, Allport was remarkably comfort-able integrating motivational and cognitive influences. Allport maintaineda balance in his consideration of these two important sources of prejudicethat psychologists since have had difficulty achieving (see Tetlock & Levi,1982), but which authors in this volume have striven to recapture.

Motivational Influences

Allport acknowledged the functional nature of prejudice and identifiedboth material gain and self-enhancement as basic motivational processesunderlying prejudice. In terms of material gain, he noted, “Outright greedis certainly a cause of prejudice” (p. 370). With respect to psychologicalneeds, Allport suggested that self-esteem can often be a goal in itself:“most people want to be higher on the status ladder than they are”(p. 371). However, self-enhancement can be based in avoidance as well asapproach motives. Insecurity, fear, and anxiety can stimulate a need forself-enhancement, which, in some cases, creates or exacerbates prejudice.Allport believed that the “hunger for status is matched by a haunting fearthat one’s status may not be secure. The effort to maintain a precariousposition can bring with it an almost reflex disparagement of others”(p. 371).

The fundamental motives to maintain power, status, and control and tomeet one’s ideals and aspirations, both materially and symbolically, are acentral focus of much of Allport’s classic book and at the heart of severalchapters in the current volume: Jackman (chapter 6: Rejection or Inclu-sion of Outgroups?), Eagly and Diekman (chapter 2: What is the Problem?Prejudice as Attitude-in-Context), Rudman (chapter 7: Rejection ofWomen? Beyond Prejudice as Antipathy), Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, and


Hodson (chapter 14: Instrumental Relations among Groups: Group Com-petition, Conflict, and Prejudice); Smith and Mackie (chapter 22: Aggres-sion, Hatred, and Other Emotions); Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, andVoci (chapter 17, Intergroup Contact: When Does It Work, and Why?);Devine (chapter 20: Breaking the Prejudice Habit: Allport’s “Inner Con-flict” Revisited); Duckitt (chapter 24: Personality and Prejudice); Newmanand Caldwell (chapter 23: Allport’s “Living Inkblots”: The Role of Defens-ive Projection in Stereotyping and Prejudice); Glick (chapter 15: Choiceof Scapegoats); Major & Vick (chapter 9: The Psychological Impact ofPrejudice); and Jones (chapter 10: Mechanisms for Coping with Victimiza-tion: Self-Protection Plus Self-Enhancement).

Adopting a broad perspective, Allport observed that “there lies at theheart of any diversified and stratified social system the tempting possibilitythat economic, sexual, political, and status gains may result from the delib-erate (and even from unconscious) exploitation of minorities. To achievethese gains prejudice is propagated by those who stand to win the mostadvantage” (p. 234). Although his own definition of prejudice was restrictedto prejudice as antipathy, this functional view of prejudice – prejudice as“rationalized exploitation” (p. 209) – is compatible with social-structuralconceptions of prejudice, which suggest that prejudice has mutated in thewake of changing social mores to involve a blend of negative affect andindividualistic values (Sears), can manifest itself as an ostensibly benevolentpaternalism that perpetuates inequality and exploitation ( Jackman), andreflects negative responses to deviations from traditional stereotypic rolesand characteristics that serve to reinforce the status quo (Eagly & Diekman;Rudman).

Competition and conflict over material resources and symbolic issueshad an important place in Allport’s analysis of the nature of prejudice(Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson). In reference to realistic group conflict,he noted that “there are many economic, international, and ideologicalconflicts that represent a genuine clash of interests” (p. 233); with respectto symbolic conflict, he observed, “Differences are numerous and visible.The resulting clash of customs, tastes, ideologies cannot help but engenderfriction” (p. 222).

Because Allport defined prejudice as an antipathy, he emphasized negat-ive emotions as a critical element of intergroup relations. Allport devotedthree chapters to these emotions: chapter 21, “Frustration”; chapter 22,“Aggression and Hatred”; chapter 23, “Anxiety, Sex, Guilt.” Contem-porary prejudice research has recently “rediscovered” emotions and howdifferent emotions may reflect different types of prejudice and precipitatedifferent kinds of responses (Smith & Mackie). Intergroup contact that

Introduction 7

arouses identity or realistic threat increases bias, whereas appropriatelystructured, cooperative contact can reduce prejudice, at least in part byreducing intergroup anxiety and threat (Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, &Voci). Certain negative emotions, such as guilt and compunction, whenappropriately aroused can motivate efforts to become less prejudiced(Devine). Allport argued that although “self-insight . . . does not auto-matically cure prejudice” (p. 328), many people who come to recognizediscrepancies between their actual behavior and their egalitarian ideals willexperience compunction, which motivates change. Allport explained, “Theywish to face the whole issue and get it settled so that their daily conductwill be under the dominance of a wholly consistent philosophy of humanrelationships” (p. 338).

Needs for group status or personal esteem, which may be rooted infeelings of anxiety and threat, motivate individuals, according to Allport,to seek a “crutch”: “The crutch he needs must perform several functions.It must give reassurance for past failures, safe guidance for present conduct,and ensure confidence in facing the future. While prejudice by itself doesnot do all of these things, it develops as an important incident in the totalprotective adjustment” (p. 396). These needs may be related to personalitystructure (Duckitt), social circumstances, or social institutions, such asreligion (Batson & Stocks). For example, Allport observed that religioncan be positively or negatively related to prejudice, and remarked, “Itsfunctional significance may range from its crutch-like ability to bolsterinfantile and magical forms of thinking to its support for a guiding andcomprehensive view of life that turns the individual from his self-centeredness towards genuine love for his neighbor” (pp. 451–2).

Needs for status and esteem can also result in projection (Newman &Caldwell) or more extreme psychological responses, such as scapegoating(Glick). According to Allport, “Projection may be defined as the tendencyto attribute falsely to other people motives or traits that are our own, or insome way explain or justify our own” (p. 382). With respect to scapegoating,he added, “The nearest to an all-duty scapegoat then is a religious, ethnic,or racial group. Having permanence and stability, they can be given adefinite status and stereotyped as a group” (p. 246).

Allport also considered self-protective strategies from the standpoint ofthe targets of prejudice. Contrary to prevailing views arguing for targets’inevitable self-hatred, Allport realized that active motivations to cope withprejudice, which could be directed inwardly or outwardly, could be crit-ical factors in the psychology of stigmatized group members (e.g., ethnicminorities). He commented that “since no one can be indifferent to theabuse and expectations of others, we must anticipate that ego defensiveness


will frequently be found among members of groups that are set off forridicule, disparagement, and discrimination” (p. 143). These ego defensescan be viewed as part of more general processes involved in coping withstress (Major & Vick) and may reflect not only reactive responses tooppression but also active attempts for self-enhancement shaped by aminority group’s cultural traditions and beliefs ( Jones).

In sum, Allport characterized intergroup conflict as stemming from bothperceptual and goal-driven causes, which could be rational or irrational.Further, he recognized in The Nature of Prejudice that cognitive and moti-vational precursors to prejudice operate in a context that is influenced bydevelopmental processes and socialization forces.

Sociocultural Processes

Allport devoted three chapters explicitly to the development of prejudice:chapter 17, “Conforming”; chapter 18, “The Young Child”; and chapter19, “Later Learning.” There are two related chapters in our volume, oneby Crandall and Stangor (chapter 18: Conformity and Prejudice) and theother by Aboud (chapter 19: The Development of Prejudice in Childhoodand Adolescence). Allport identified how both overt pressure and moresubtle influences, such as identification, help to transmit prejudice acrosspeople and generations. He commented that “parents sometimes deliber-ately inculcate ethnocentrism, but more often they are unaware of doingso” (p. 292). Allport also recognized the effect of maturation processes ondeveloping “fear of the strange” (p. 300) and the “dawn of racial aware-ness” (p. 301), as well as social learning, peer influence, and culturalimmersion later in life.

Social prejudices, according to Allport, could then become embeddedin social mechanisms, such as language, that maintained these biases andtransmitted them broadly across space and time. He wrote, “In order tohold a generalization in mind for reflection and recall, for identificationand for action, we need to fix it in words.” The depth of Allport’s insightis examined by Mullen and Leader (chapter 12: Linguistic Factors:Antilocutions, Ethnonyms, Ethnophaulisms, and Other Varieties of HateSpeech).

Allport, however, felt that social interventions, drawing on these sameprinciples, held great promise for reducing prejudice. He proposed, build-ing on the earlier work of Williams (1947), that appropriately structuredintergroup contact could effectively decrease bias at the individual level.

Introduction 9

He observed that personal acquaintance, residential contact, occupationalcontact, and pursuit of common goals were often critical for prejudicereduction. At the end of chapter 16, “The Effect of Contact,” he outlinedwhat has come to be known as the Contact Hypothesis:

Prejudice . . . may be reduced by equal status contact between majority andminority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatlyenhanced if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law,custom, or local atmosphere), and provided it is of the sort that leads to theperception of common interests and common humanity between membersof the two groups. (p. 281)

Pettigrew and Tropp’s contribution to the present volume, chapter 16,“Allport’s Intergroup Contact Hypothesis: Its History and Influence,” atteststo the profound influence and enduring wisdom of Allport’s proposal.Kenworthy, Turner, Hewstone, and Voci (chapter 17: Intergroup Con-tact: When Does it Work, and Why?) further explore developments incontact research, including what is currently known about precisely whenand why intergroup contact reduces prejudice.

Allport also described other valuable social interventions, includingformal education programs, acquaintance programs, and group retrainingprograms. These and other, newer approaches are reviewed by Stephanand Stephan (chapter 26: Intergroup Relations Program Evaluation). Allportdescribed the effects of these programs as diverse and complex but stillpromising, and he suggested that social-psychological research could betterinform practice in reducing bias. Stephan and Stephan echo these conclu-sions today. Finally, Allport recognized laws as a fundamental socializingagent that could have profound influence on attitudes. He argued thatattitudes have to be changed to a certain degree to pass legislation, but“when the initial work has been done, then the legislation in turn becomeseducative. The masses of people do not become converts in advance;rather they are converted by the fait accompli. . . . They allow themselves tobe re-educated by the new norm that prevails” (p. 471). Thus Allportbelieved that sociocultural influences – from parental influence, to peerpressure, to laws – could both create and maintain prejudice and be afundamental key to eliminating prejudice.

A reverberating theme throughout many of the chapters in this volumeconcerns Allport’s prescience. Yet, no one could have fully anticipated allof the developments in the study of prejudice that have occurred in thepast 50 years. Allport’s views were limited not only by a restricted empir-ical base, but also by prevailing social views and values. As a consequence,


Allport missed important aspects of the nature of prejudice. Moreover,because of his profound influence, his blindspots became the field’s blindspotsfor many years.

Moving Beyond Allport

Allport intended to stimulate the study of prejudice, and he did. Since thepublication of The Nature of Prejudice there have been thousands of con-tributions, in the form of research articles, reviews, chapters, and books, tothe understanding of prejudice. This body of work reinforces many ofAllport’s conclusions and speculations, but it has also moved beyond hisideas and data, demonstrating tensions and limitations in his thinking.Reflecting on Allport’s tensions has often proved to be creative, with thefield circling back years later to rediscover (to good effect) a relativelyignored strand of Allport’s thought (e.g., the revival of motivated cogni-tion). Discovering what Allport missed has taken longer, which testifies toAllport’s impact. Allport, one suspects, would be no less delighted by theconvincing disconfirmation of some of his ideas than by the revitalizationof others – both have been instrumental to the development of the field.

In this section, we review four topics that have developed most signific-antly beyond Allport’s treatment of prejudice, focusing on the seeminglycontradictory strands or premature conclusions that created unresolvedtensions in Allport’s thought and highlighting what Allport missed. Insome cases, Allport’s premature conclusions led the field astray (e.g., definingprejudice); in other areas he simply stopped short and did not recognizefertile areas for empirical and conceptual development (e.g., nonconsciousprejudice).

Conceptualizing Prejudice

Allport’s most fundamental blindspot concerns his definition of prejudiceas “an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization” (p. 9).Chapters by Eagly and Diekman, Jackman, and Rudman in the currentvolume explore how this definition has obscured important aspects ofprejudice, both pragmatically and theoretically. Allport’s emphasis on anti-pathy directed the field toward types of prejudice that produce exclusionand violence, but it distracted the field from other types of bias involvingmore subtle types of control and exploitation (e.g., affectionate paternalism).

Introduction 11

Perhaps a victim of his time, he overlooked, as Rudman describes it, the“ordinariness of gender prejudice.” Only two pages of his book (pp. 33–4) were dedicated to an analysis of sexism. Several chapters in our volume(Eagly & Diekman, Jackman, and Rudman) redress this oversight, drawingattention not only to the issue of sexism, but also to the inadequacy ofdefining prejudice solely as an antipathy. The consequence of this chal-lenge to conceptions of the nature of prejudice is profound, suggestingthat prejudice comes in qualitatively different forms, such as an ostensiblybenevolent paternalism that disadvantages groups without apparent antipathy,that Allport and, for many years, the rest of the field, simply missed.

Prejudice as Coercion versus Compliance

Allport recognized that prejudice functioned to maintain the advantagedstatus of majority groups while rationalizing the exploitation of minoritygroups. However, he did not consider other, arguably more prevalentmechanisms of control, such as those involving protection and bene-volence (e.g., paternalism; Jackman). In this way, he missed the broaderdynamics of prejudice that can contribute to systemic inequities by co-opting minority-group members. A focus on the relations between groupsreveals evidence of seemingly “cooperative” behaviors of victimization bythe targets of prejudice and of subtle “backlash” to even positive behaviors,if they deviate from the status quo (see Jackman, Rudman, and Eagly &Diekman).

Furthermore, because of his limited view of prejudice as antipathy,Allport also missed the full impact on victims of prejudice (Major & Vick,Jones, Jost & Hamilton). He noted that targets of prejudice often internal-ized hostile orientations: “His natural self-love may, under the persistentblows of contempt, turn his spirit to cringing and self-hate” (p. 143). Tohis credit, he rejected the contemporaneous view that self-hatred wasinevitable and, instead, identified diverse responses to victimization,including self-directed (intropunitive) responses, such as denial of groupmembership, and other-directed (extropunitive) reactions, such as aggres-sion. Nonetheless, he did not integrate these responses into a coherentframework or anticipate the possibility that they reflect different stages ofidentity development ( Jones). He also did not link them to general pro-cesses (such as coping with stress; Major & Vick). Finally, he did notconsider how the conflict between targets’ own and society’s evaluationsof their group might lead them to have different conscious and nonconsciousresponses to prejudice ( Jost & Hamilton).


The Normality and Consciousness of Prejudice

As the title of chapter 2 in The Nature of Prejudice, “The Normality ofPrejudgment,” proclaims, Allport understood prejudice and discriminationas byproducts of cognitive mechanisms that are typically functional ineveryday life (e.g., categorization). His insights led directly to the social-cognitive revolution that continues to make an enormous contribution tothe study of prejudice. Still, he wrestled with psychodynamic themes thatpermeated the field in his day, including the notion that people areinstinctually destructive. He was openly critical of the tautology of thisapproach, noting that “widespread conflict does not mean in itself thatinstinct underlies it” (p. 214). However, psychodynamics held a place ofprominence in The Nature of Prejudice.

Allport walked a precarious tightrope with his treatment of the psycho-dynamic approach to prejudice. He borrowed heavily from the topics itemphasized, but he scrupulously avoided advocating purely psychoanalyticexplanations; instead, he incorporated psychodynamic ideas into his ownpositions. In his section “The Dynamics of Prejudice,” Allport noted thatwhile the “major insights [it contained] are in many instances derived frompsychoanalytic work,” he would occasionally “have to place strictures uponthe exuberance of the theorizing . . . Yet this criticalness will not in the leastdiminish our indebtedness to Freud and to psychoanalysis” (pp. 352–3).

In chapter 25, “The Prejudiced Personality,” he considered psycho-dynamic themes such as ambivalence toward parents, dichotomization (i.e.,rigid thinking), and authoritarianism as key influences in the prejudicedpersonality (Duckitt). He also devoted full chapters to scapegoating (seeGlick) and projection (see Newman & Caldwell). Yet throughout, Allportreminded readers of the normality and the seemingly logical nature ofprejudgment.

Perhaps because of his unwillingness to fully embrace psychoanalysis,Allport made passing references to unconscious processes, but gave themlimited emphasis in his book. When he did, he downplayed their role. Forexample, with respect to scapegoat theory, he noted that there could be “alarge amount of unconscious mental operation in the individual” (p. 352),but he thought people to be more unaware of the source of their orienta-tion than of their attitude toward the group, observing, “Few peopleknow the real reason for their hatred of minority groups” (p. 352). In his“Inner Conflict” chapter, he concluded that there is “a sizable group whototally lack insight. They are filled with prejudices and deny this fact”(p. 329). However, rather than probing more deeply into the different

On the Nature of Prejudice - download.e-bookshelf.de · 14 Instrumental Relations Among Groups: Group Competition, Conﬂict, and Prejudice 227 Victoria M. Esses, Lynne M. Jackson,

Documents