
Prejudice is a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable
group on the basis of generalizations derived from faulty or
incomplete information
• Note: prejudice is an attitude; it is hard to eliminate
• However, in the last few decades, American society has become less
prejudiced against women and some minorities – hate crimes and
overt expression of prejudice tend to be less flagrant and frequent
than they used to be

Components of prejudice
• Cognitive component = a stereotype or set of beliefs about a group
• Emotional component = dislike of or active hostility toward the group
• Behavioral component = a predisposition to discriminate against the
group whenever possible

The nature of prejudice leads us to generalize from individuals to
the group as a whole

When most people think of prejudice, they imagine overt
behavior; however, many otherwise decent people are
capable of subtle acts of prejudice
• Today, most people probably think of themselves as unprejudiced, yet
they may continue to discriminate against minority group members in
less obvious ways

Hostile vs. benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2002)
• Hostile sexism = reflects an active dislike of women
 Hostile sexists hold stereotypic views that suggest that women are inferior to
men (e.g., that they are less competent or less intelligent than men)
• Benevolent sexism = appears favorable to women but is actually
patronizing
 Benevolent sexists hold stereotypically positive views of women, but
underneath it all they assume women are the weaker, less competent sex
(e.g., idealizing women as cooks and mothers, wanting to protect them even
when it is not needed – the underlying assumptions are that they are different,
weaker, and less competent in other domains than men)

Pager (2003) Study:
• Had well-groomed, smart college grads with identical resumes
apply for 350 jobs – ½ were white, ½ were African-American,
and of each group, half admitted to having served 18 months in
prison for cocaine possession
• Employers called back white ex-convict job applicants 2x as
often as their black counterparts
• White applicants with a clean record were called back 3x as
often as their black counterparts

Hebl et al. (2002) Study: (same method as study above)
• No evidence of blatant discrimination against “homosexual”
job applicants; however, employers engaged in subtle acts of
prejudice (they were less verbally positive, conducted shorter
interviews, used fewer words, and made less eye contact when
interviewing the “homosexual” students)


At the core of prejudice is stereotyping
A stereotype is a simplistic generalization about a group of people—
assigning them identical characteristics consistent with one’s prejudices
(regardless of the actual variation among members of that group)
• However, stereotyping is hard to avoid – it is basically a cognitive heuristic that
helps speed up our thinking, so it is a byproduct of how we all naturally think!

We learn to assign characteristics to other groups at a very young age
• When 5th and 6th graders were asked to rate their classmates, they rated
children of upper-class families more positively than children of lower-class
families on every desirable quality (Neugarten, 1946)

Not all stereotypes are negative at face value – for example,
stereotypes that Asians are good at math
• Are there negative consequences to positive stereotyping?
Stereotypes and attributions


The ultimate attribution error = in an ambiguous situation, people
tend to make attributions consistent with their prejudices
(Pettigrew, 1979)
For example, if people believe women are less competent than
men, how will they interpret evidence of a woman’s doing well on
a difficult task? (Swim & Sanna,1996)
• They will attribute the woman’s success to hard work (rather than to her ability),
whereas they will attribute a man’s success to his ability
• Similarly, they will attribute a woman’s failure on a task to her lack of ability,
whereas they will attribute a man’s failure to bad luck or low effort

Prejudice causes particular kinds of negative attributions, which
can, in turn, strengthen and intensify the prejudice
Self-fulfilling prophecies
 When we hold strong beliefs or stereotypes about
other people, our behavior toward them often causes
them to behave in ways that validate our original
assumptions
 The self-fulfilling prophecy insures that we create a
social reality in line with our expectations; thus, our
stereotypes are resistant to change
 We tend to notice and recall instances that confirm the
stereotype and not count instances that are inconsistent
with the stereotype


Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Example:
Imagine that a mutual acquaintance warned me that you are cold,
aloof, and reserved. When we do meet, I would likely keep my
distance and not try too hard to engage you in a lively
conversation. Suppose that in reality, you are generally warm and
outgoing. My behavior would not give you the opportunity for you
to show how warm and outgoing you are. In response to my
behavior, you would probably keep your distance from me, and
my expectations that you are not warm or friendly would be
confirmed!
• This also frequently happens with children in class – if a
teacher has heard that a child is badly behaved or not smart,
they often will not give the child the opportunity to prove
otherwise!
Self-fulfilling prophecies (cont.)
 People who are targets of negative stereotypes can end up
confirming those very stereotypes due to the phenomenon of selffulfilling prophecies
• Steele and Aronson administered the GRE to black and white college
students. Half were told it was an intelligence test; the other half were
told that the test did not have to do with intellectual ability
• White students performed equally well in both conditions. However,
black students performed significantly more poorly when told the test
measured their intelligence
• The reason is that there is a negative stereotype in our culture that
African Americans are less intelligent. This may make them so
anxious about fulfilling that stereotype that they actually perform
below their ability level on tests of intelligence
 Stereotype Threat
(cont.)
• In fact, African Americans who merely have to check a box signifying
their race before taking tests of intelligence perform significantly
worse than when they report their race following the test
 The reason is that checking the box primes them to think about their
race, which increases the level of anxiety about confirming negative
stereotypes about their race by performing poorly on the test
 Thus, many prominent researchers have fought to move the
demographics page to the end of important tests such as the SAT.
• Stereotype threat also applies to other groups with significant
stereotypes such as:
 Women working on math problems
 Latinos working on tests of verbal ability
 Asian women actually performed worse on a math test when first
primed with a reminder that they were women but performed much
better when primed with a reminder that they were Asian
Blaming the victim
 Blaming
the victim = the tendency to blame
individuals for their victimization;
• This tendency is typically motivated by a desire to
see the world as a fair place
• We find it frightening to think about living in a world
where people through no fault of their own can be
deprived of what they deserve or need. It is slightly
comforting to believe they might have done
something to warrant such treatment
Five basic causes of prejudice (these are
not mutually exclusive!):
 Economic and political competition or
conflict
 Displaced aggression
 Maintenance of status or self-image
 Dispositional prejudice
 Conformity to existing social norms


Competition and conflict breed prejudice
Prejudiced attitudes tend to increase when times are tense and
there is conflict over mutually exclusive goals (e.g., when
competition for scarce jobs increases)
• When this is the case, the dominant group may attempt to
exploit or derogate the minority group to gain some material
advantage
• For example, in 1938, Dollard found that as jobs became scarce
in a small town, the level of prejudice towards minorities
increased
• We can see a possible recent example in this in the increase in
hostility toward undocumented immigrants in America during
the recent economic downturn

Sherif et al. (1961)
• Sought to determine whether competition itself causes prejudice
• Healthy, well-adjusted 12-year-old boys in a Boy Scout camp were
•
•
•
•
•
randomly assigned to be in a group: either the Eagles or the Rattlers
Each group did cooperative activities to build a sense of group
cohesiveness within that group such as building a diving board for a
pool or sharing group meals
Next, they engaged the groups in a series of competitive activities in
which the two groups were pitted against each other such as sports
games with prizes for the winning team
This resulted in hostility during the competitions; in one instance a riot
broke out! After this, competitive games were eliminated, and social
contact between groups was encouraged
However, between-group hostility continued to escalate even when the
competition was eliminated and groups were encouraged to socialize
with each other
This demonstrates how competition can breed prejudice that is
difficult to extinguish

Scapegoating refers to the process of blaming a relatively
powerless innocent person for something that is not his or her
fault
• Often the cause of a person’s frustration is too big or too big for direct
retaliation, so anger is taken out on an easier target
• For example, if a 6-year-old boy is humiliated by his teacher, he cannot
fight back because the teacher has too much power. However, he might be
able to bully his younger sibling to release his hurt feelings
• Another example: if there is mass unemployment, it is too difficult to
retaliate against the whole economic system, so people might increase
their level of prejudice toward a minority group (as in the example for
competition), or they might take out their anger on their partners

Individuals tend to displace aggression onto groups that are
disliked, visible, and relatively powerless
• For example, in the rural south, African Americans were often scapegoated
(in the past and to a slightly lesser extent today)

Miller and Bugelski (1948)
• White students were asked to state their feelings about various
minority groups
• Two conditions: some students were frustrated by being
deprived of an opportunity to see a movie and were given a
difficult series of tests. Participants in the control group did not
have the frustrating experience and got to watch the movie.
• Students who went through the frustrating experience showed
an increase in prejudice when they were then asked to restate
their feelings about the minority groups; the control group did
not undergo any change in prejudice
• This is an example of students displacing their anger at being
frustrated onto an innocent group

Prejudice can come from our need to justify our
behavior and sense of self
• For example, if we convince ourselves that a group is unworthy,
subhuman, stupid, or immoral, it helps us to keep from feeling
immoral for subsequent brutality (e.g., enslaving members of
that group, depriving them of education, or aggressing against
them)

If our socioeconomic status is low, we might need the
presence of a downtrodden minority group to feel
superior to somebody
• Research has shown that those whose social status is low or declining
are more prejudiced than those whose social status is high or rising
(Dollard, 1987)


Some people are predisposed toward being
prejudiced because of their inborn disposition as well
as their early childhood environments
These individuals are authoritarian personalities
(Adorno et al., 1950). They tend to be:
• Rigid in their beliefs
• Possess conventional attitudes
• Intolerant of weakness in themselves and others
• Highly punitive
• Suspicious
• Respectful of authority to an unusual degree

Recent research has shown that authoritarian
personalities:
• Believe that it is natural for some people to dominate others
• Believe that equality of races is neither natural nor desirable
• Believe that political conservatism is superior to liberalism
• Sources: Jost et al., 2000; Jost et al., 2003; Sidanius et al., 1999

Authoritarian personalities tend to show a consistently
high degree of prejudice against all minority groups


Many people simply learn a wide array of prejudices
by conforming to the lessons they learn from their
parents and from their subculture
Pettigrew (1958) argued that, although economic
competition, frustration, and personality needs to
account for some prejudice, the great majority of
prejudiced behavior is driven by conformity to social
norms
• For example, a study of interracial tension in South Africa found
that those individuals who were most likely to conform to a
great variety of social norms also showed a higher degree of
prejudice against black people (Pettigrew, 1958)
 People
are usually deeply committed to their
prejudicial behavior; prejudice is not easily
changed by an information campaign
• The reason is that people are inclined not to take in
information that is dissonant with their beliefs
 If
people are forced to listen to information that
is inconsistent with their deep-seated attitudes,
they will reject it, distort it, or ignore it
• For example, if most white South Africans believe that
black people commit virtually all the crimes, and you
show them evidence that there are white convicts, they
will discount that evidence, distort it, or ignore it
altogether
Effects of equal-status contact

Equal-status contact between groups can change attitudes
• Changes in behavior can affect changes in attitude:
 If people who are prejudiced against one another are brought
into direct contact, they come into contact with real people
and not simply a stereotype. Eventually, this can lead to
greater understanding, but only if the people are of equal
status. For example, a slave master who had contact only with
blacks who were slaves would not show a decrease in the
level of prejudice
• Equal-status contact can increase understanding and decrease
tension (Pettigrew, 1997)
 Equal-Status
Contact Example:
• Deutsch and Collins (1951) found that when
housing projects were segregated,
stereotypes prevailed, and there were high
levels of prejudice
• However, when housing projects were
integrated, there was an increase in positive
attitudes about other races



The vicarious effects of desegregation
Desegregation can affect the values of people who do
not even have the opportunity to have direct contact
with minority groups
• Just the knowledge that all groups have the same
access to everything is enough to decrease
stereotyping. We assume that if there is segregation,
the other group must be inferior
Dissonance reduction:
• If I know that you and I will inevitably be in close contact, and I
do not like you, I will experience dissonance
• To reduce dissonance, I will try to convince myself that you are
not as bad as I had previously thought; a reduction in hostile
feelings will result
 Inevitability
is a crucial factor (Clark,
1953): if I think I can get out of contact
with other races, I will not feel the need
to re-examine my negative beliefs; I will
just try to avoid them.
• Immediate desegregation was far more effective
than gradual desegregation
• Violence occurred in places where ambiguous
or inconsistent policies were employed or where
community leaders tended to vacillate
Complications to reducing prejudice

Economic conflict and competition can lead to
increased prejudiced attitudes
• For example, integrated private housing is associated with
increased prejudiced attitudes among the white residents. This
is different from public housing because there is competition
for limited resources involved (Kramer, 1951)

School desegregation may result in a competitive
situation, which may lead to increased hostility at least
partially due to an attempt to regain some lost selfesteem
Interdependence—a possible solution

Putting people in a situation in which they have to
cooperate with each other to accomplish a goal may
help reduce prejudice
• Sherif and Sherif (1956): when boys (Eagles and Rattlers) had to
work together toward a common goal, there was a decrease in
hostile feelings and negative stereotyping

The key factor seems to be mutual interdependence—a
situation wherein individuals need one another to
accomplish their goal
Why does mutual interdependence work?


It places people in a favor-doing situation: when
people act in a way that benefits others, they feel more
favorably toward the people they helped (Leippe et al.,
1994)
Cooperation lowers barriers between groups by
changing our tendency to categorize the out-group
from “those people” to “us people”
• This results from empathy—the ability to experience what your
group member is experiencing