Aversive racism

Aversive racism is a theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes.[1][2]

Aversive racism was coined by Joel Kovel to describe the subtle racial behaviors of any ethnic or racial group who rationalize their aversion to a particular group by appeal to rules or stereotypes (Dovidio & Gaertner, p. 62).[1] People who behave in an aversively racial way may profess egalitarian beliefs, and will often deny their racially motivated behavior; nevertheless they change their behavior when dealing with a member of a minority group. The motivation for the change is thought to be implicit or subconscious. Though Kovel coined the term, most of the research has been done by John F. Dovidio and Samuel L. Gaertner.[3]

Implicit versus explicit racism

The social and political movements to eliminate racism in society have decreased overt displays of racism, known as explicit racism. Explicit racism includes any thoughts or behaviors that demonstrate a conscious acknowledgement of racist attitudes and beliefs. By contrast, implicit racism includes unconscious biases, expectations, or tendencies that exist within an individual, regardless of ill-will or any self-aware prejudices.

The passage of civil rights legislation and socially enforced taboos against explicit racism have served to inhibit direct outward expressions of prejudice against minorities over the last several decades.[4] But forms of implicit racism including aversive racism, symbolic racism, and ambivalent prejudice, may have come to replace these overt expressions of prejudice.[5] Research has not revealed a downward trend in implicit racism that would mirror the decline of explicit racism.[6]

Furthermore, implicit racism, when explicit racism is absent or rare, raises new issues. When surveyed about their attitudes concerning the racial climate in America, black people and white people had largely different perceptions, with black people viewing racial discrimination as far more impactful on income and education disparities,[7] and being far less satisfied in general with the treatment of minorities in America.[8] One explanation for this is that because explicit racism is so much less prevalent, Whites no longer perceive directly the ways that prejudice leaves its mark on American society; minorities, on the other hand, still recognize or feel the implicit racism behind certain interracial interactions.

Measuring implicit bias

Several methods have been employed to measure implicit racism. Although explicit racism can be measured easily by surveying people's attitudes and beliefs about other races, implicit racism is by its nature more elusive, and requires more subtle strategies for its measurement.

One of the most prevalent ways of assessing implicit racism is through response latency procedures, such as the implicit-association test (IAT). In an IAT measuring implicit racism, individuals will be shown images and asked to press the same key for an image of a black person and or a word that indicates something good, and another key for an image of a white person or something bad. These pairs will also be tested in reverse order (one key for a white person or something good, another for a black person or something bad). The greater the disparity in reaction times and accuracy between the different pair groups, the greater implicit racism is measured in that individual.[9]

Other ways of measuring implicit racism include physiological measures (such as tracking people's heart rates), memory tasks and indirect self-report measures. Collectively, these implicit attitude measures provide a strong means of identifying aversive racism. A truly nonprejudiced person will score well on both explicit racism measures and implicit racism measures. An aversive but not overt racist will instead score low on explicit measures, but not on implicit measures.[10]

Studies

In an experiment conducted by Gaertner and Dovidio in 2000, white college students were asked to assess the credentials and to make hiring recommendations for prospective white and black job candidates with either strong, weak, or marginal credentials. The results showed no overt discrimination when the applicants clearly had strong or weak credentials. Signs of aversive racism appeared only when the applicants possessed marginal credentials. Black candidates were recommended more than 20% less than the same white candidates who had the same marginal credentials.[11]

Dovidio and Gaertner showed evidence of aversive racism in the 1970s and 1980s with their field research. People from a list of conservative and liberal political parties in Brooklyn, New York were called by a "wrong number" caller, a confederate to the researcher, attempting to get hold of a mechanic to come help them with their broken down car. The confederate called from a pay phone and was out of change to make another call and asked the participant to make the call for them. The independent variable, or the variable the experimenter changed, was the dialect of the confederate to convince the participant that the "wrong number" caller was either white or black. It was also noted how many people just hung-up the phone when they found it was a wrong number.

Conservatives were significantly less helpful to people perceived as black, helping out those perceived as white 92% of the time compared with 65% of the time for those perceived as black (Dovidio & Gaertner, p. 69).[1] The liberals helped white people 85% of the time and black people 75% of the time (Dovidio & Gaertner, p. 69).[1] However, people from the liberal party hung up prematurely on black people 19% versus 3% of the time for white people, while the conservatives prematurely hung up on 8% of black people and 5% of white people (Dovidio & Gaertner, p. 69).[1] Such a big percentage gap with the liberals show that they may have a high affinity for an egalitarian society, but they still foster racial prejudices.

Psychology

Dovidio and Gaertner introduced three psychological supports for aversive racism. As humans, people are predisposed to cognitive categorization. By categorizing people into different groups, it allows us to see the differences that exist between other groups compared to the groups we've put ourselves in. By recognizing these differences, we are then motivated to control our environment around us when we interact with outgroups. This motivation is desirable because we want our interactions to be positive, especially when interacting with minorities. The most influential psychological support is the socialization of two sets of incompatible values.[12] Americans, as children, are brought up being taught to have an egalitarian belief system. They want justice and equality for all minorities. They are also taught about the racial traditions that symbolize American history. These two sets of incompatible values conflict with one another, resulting in inconsistent behavior towards members of outgroups. They feel the internal negative affect based on these two sets of values and it comes out in their behaviors and attitudes on other people. Prejudice has been a wide phenomenon while racism is a broader topic that connects individual beliefs and behavior to broader social norms and practices that disadvantage particular groups. [13]

Consequences

Because aversive racists endorse egalitarian values, their biases do not manifest in situations where there are clear social norms of right and wrong.[14] To discriminate in such situations would compromise their egalitarian beliefs. In these situations, aversive racists are motivated to avoid actions that could be associated with racist intent. Instead, aversive racists may discriminate in situations in which the guidelines for appropriate social behavior are unclear, when the basis for decision making is vague, or when their actions can be justified or rationalized on the basis of some factor other than race. In these situations, their unconscious thoughts and feelings may contribute to discriminatory behavior.

A wide variety of empirical research supports the effects of nonconscious prejudice on aversive racists' behavior. These studies include experiments in emergency and nonemergency helping behaviors, selection decisions in employment and college decisions, interpersonal judgments, and policy and legal decisions.[14][15]

Selection decisions in employment and admissions

Aversive racism can have serious implications for selection decisions. According to the aversive racism framework, discrimination should occur in situations in which decision can be ostensibly be based on factors other than race. Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) created just such a condition. College students were asked to make hiring recommendations for a campus position. In the first condition, one candidate was clearly more qualified than the other. In the second condition, candidates' credentials were more evenly matched with no clear optimal choice. As expected, the first condition revealed no racial bias. Participants consistently chose the more qualified candidate. However, in the latter condition, as predicted, participants recommended the white candidate over the black in substantially more cases. Even in the face of similar credentials, participants ostensibly justified their discrimination on the grounds of other, non-racial factors.

A similar experiment conducted by Hodson, Dovidio, and Gaertner (2002) replicated similar findings in college admission decisions. Participants were separated into two groups depending on whether they scored high or low on a self-report measure of racial prejudice. They were then asked to evaluate a group of students for college admission. The students had either high SAT scores and strong highschool grades or only strong scores in one of the two categories. As expected, there was no bias in admission decisions when the student had strong grades combined with high SAT scores. The bias revealed itself only when students were only strong in one of these areas. In these cases, substantially more black students were rejected. Even more convincingly, prejudiced participants inconsistently reported to place more value on the particular score that the black students performed poorly in. When black students had moderate SAT scores, this was cited as a reason for their denial whereas when they had moderate grades and a higher SAT score, prejudiced participants reversed their values to support their discriminatory behavior.

Of note is the fact that the study of white college students' assessments of applications was run at the same college in both 1989 and 1999, with little change found, and meta-analysis of 40 years worth of studies in the area has shown next to no improvement (Saucier, Miller, & Doucet, 2005). Because aversive racism is neither conscious nor blatantly apparent to others, it is able to survive largely unchallenged by societal pressure for egalitarianism. Thus, outgroups, particularly racial minorities, can be subject to disadvantageous selection processes.

Legal decisions

Aversive racism may have similar negative implications for bias in legal decisions. Johnson and colleagues[16] examined the effects of introducing damaging inadmissible evidence on the judgments of white jurors. The race of the defendant was manipulated to be either black or white. When exposed to only admissible evidence, jurors were not affected by the race of the defendant and perceived both whites and blacks as equally guilty. The researchers demonstrated that, when exposed to incriminating evidence that the court deems inadmissible, white jurors found black defendants more guilty, but showed no similar effect on their judgments of white defendants.[17] Consistent with the non-racial justifications given by participants in Gaertner and Dovidio's (2000) study, the participants in this study claimed to be less affected by the inadmissible evidence in the scenario where the defendant was black than when the defendant was white, displaying once again the subconscious nature of this racial discrimination.

Interaction

Because of the subtle and varied nature of these biases, aversive racism not only systematically influences decision making but can also fundamentally impact everyday social relations in ways that contribute substantially to misunderstandings and mistrust in intergroup relations.

Studies of nonverbal cues have shown repeatedly that less conscious or vigilantly controlled displays of discomfort increase in aversively racist Whites when interacting with Blacks, even when a concerted effort is being made and the white participants reported liking the black participants.[18] Dovidio et al.[18] found that negative implicit attitudes were correlated with nonverbal cues of discomfort such as increased rates of blinking and decreased eye contact in interactions with blacks. Those observing the nonverbal cues may often receive very mixed messages.[19] Consistent with this reasoning, Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner (2002) found that racial majority and racial minority members often based their perceptions of interracial interactions on two different sources of information, with white people relying more on verbal behavior and black people more on nonverbal behaviors.[20] In their experiment, black and white participants engaged in paired conversations and then provided their assessments of the interaction. Consistent with the aversive racism framework, black participants rated a white partner's friendliness as a function of their nonverbal behaviors and implicit attitudes while white participants rated their own friendliness based on the verbal content of their conversation. Thus, participants left the same interaction with differing perceptions.

Teamwork

Understandably, with the negative effects of aversive racism on interracial interaction, interracial teamwork can suffer greatly from aversive racism. The discomfort detected through subtle, nonverbal cues that goes unaddressed openly can easily cause distrust between two individuals. When these individuals are members of the same team, or office, or project it can result in less effective communication and strained relations. This, of course, can drastically decrease the quality of work produced by the team. In one study reported by Dovidio et al. (2002), when paired together on a problem-solving task, teams consisting of a black participant and a non-prejudiced white participant did much better than those with a black participant and an aversively racist white participant.[21] Surprisingly, however, teams with an overtly prejudiced white participant and a black participant showed greater efficiency on the task than teams that included an aversively racist white participant. Theoretically, the mixed messages and impressions in interaction made these teams less effective.

The consequences of these restrictive circumstances may be problematic.[21] In any workplace where a racial minority does significant work in teams, that work is at risk of being of lesser quality objectively than a white co-worker's. One substantial contributing factor may be that minority workers might often be working with a white co-worker where the tension or implicitly biased responses by that co-worker impacts their performance. The white co-workers, on the other hand, work predominantly with other white co-workers and may be unhindered by such interracial dynamics, allowing them to perform comparatively more efficiently.

In popular culture

Aversive racism has been hypothesized in the 2008 presidential elections with the emergence of the first biracial candidate, Barack Obama. During the latter half of the campaign, Obama showed a decent lead in the polls ranging anywhere from 2–10%.[22] A survey conducted by Stanford University claimed support for Obama would have been "six percentage points higher if he were white".[23] The New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof stated that "most of the votes that Mr. Obama actually loses will belong to well-meaning whites who believe in racial equality and have no objections to electing a black person as president – yet who discriminate unconsciously".[23]

Combating aversive racism

Re-directing ingroup bias

Several possibilities exist for how to combat aversive racism. One method looks to the cognitive foundations of prejudice. The basic socio-cognitive process of creating in-groups and out-groups is what leads many to identify with their own race while feeling averted to other races, or out-group members. According to the common ingroup identity model inducing individuals to recategorize themselves and others as part of a larger, superordinate group can lead to more positive attitudes towards members of a former out-group.[24] Research has shown this model to be effective.[25] This shows that changing the in-group criteria from race to something else that includes both groups, implicit biases can be diminished. It is important to note that this does not mean that each group has to necessarily relinquish subgroup identities. According to the common ingroup identity model, individuals can retain their original identity while simultaneously harboring a larger more inclusive identity – a dual identity representation.[24]

Acknowledging and addressing unconscious bias

Other research has indicated that, although often preferred by explicitly nonprejudiced people and seen to be an egalitarian approach, adopting a "colorblind" approach to interracial interactions has actually proven to be detrimental. While minorities often prefer to have their racial identity recognized, people who employ the "colorblind" approach can generate greater feelings of distrust and impressions of prejudice in interracial interactions.[26] Thus, embracing diversity, rather than ignoring the topic, can be seen as one way of improving these interactions.

The research of Monteith and Voils has demonstrated that, in aversively racist people, the recognition of disparity between their personal standards and their actual behaviors can lead to feelings of guilt, which in turn causes them to monitor their prejudicial behaviors and perform them less often.[27] Furthermore, when practiced consistently, these monitored behaviors become less and less disparate from the personal standards of the individual, and can eventually even suppress negative responses that were once automatic. This is encouraging, as it suggests that aversive racists' good intentions can be used to help eliminate their implicit prejudices.

Some research has directly supported this notion. In one study, people who scored nonprejudiced (low explicit and implicit racism scores) and as aversive racists (low explicit but high implicit racism scores) were placed in either a hypocrisy or a control condition. Those in the hypocrisy condition were made to write about some time they had been unfair or prejudiced towards an Asian person, while those in the control group were not. They were then asked to make recommendations for funding to the Asian Students Association. Aversively racist participants in the hypocrisy group made much larger funding recommendations (the highest of any of the four groups, actually) than the aversive racists in the control group. The nonprejudiced participants, on the other hand, displayed no significant difference in funding recommendations, whether they were in the hypocrisy group or the control group.[28] In another study measuring the correction of implicit bias among aversively racist people, Green et al. examined physicians' treatment recommendations for Blacks and Whites.[29] While aversive racists typically recommended an aggressive treatment plan more often for White than for Black patients, those who were made aware of the possibility that their implicit biases could be informing their treatment recommendations did not end up showing such a disparity in their treatment plans.

While all of the above-mentioned studies attempt to address the nonconscious process of implicit racism through conscious thought processes and self-awareness, others have sought to combat aversive racism through altering nonconscious processes. In the same way that implicit attitudes can be learned through sociocultural transmission, they can be "unlearned". By making individuals aware of the implicit biases affecting their behavior, they can take steps to control automatic negative associations that can lead to discriminatory behavior. A growing body of research has demonstrated that practice pairing minority racial out-groups with counter-stereotypic examples can reduce implicit forms of bias.[30] Moskowitz, Salomon and Taylor found that people with egalitarian attitudes responded faster to egalitarian words after being shown an African-American face, relative to a white face.[31] In later research, it was shown that when primed in such a way as to motivate egalitarian behaviors, stereotype-relevant reactions were slower, but notably, these reactions were recorded at speeds too fast to have been consciously controlled, indicating an implicit bias shift, rather than explicit.[32]

One very interesting finding may have implied that aversive racism can be combated simply by eliminating the desire to employ the time- and energy-saving tactic of stereotyping. By priming and inducing participants' creativity, which causes people to avoid leaning on their energy-saving mental shortcuts, such as stereotyping, reduced participants' propensity to stereotype.[33]

Finally, there is evidence to suggest that simply having a greater amount of intergroup contact is associated with less implicit intergroup bias.[34]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L., eds. (1986). "The aversive form of racism". Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism. Academic Press. pp. 61–89. ISBN 978-0-12-221425-7.
  2. ^ Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2007). Essential social psychology. London: Sage.
  3. ^ Kovel, J. (1970). White Racism: A Psychohistory. New York: Pantheon.
  4. ^ Devine, P. G.; Elliot, A. J. (1995). "Are Racial Stereotypes Really Fading? The Princeton Trilogy Revisited". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (11): 1139–50. doi:10.1177/01461672952111002.
  5. ^ James, Erika Hayes; Brief, Arthur P.; Dietz, Joerg; Cohen, Robin R. (2001). "Prejudice matters: Understanding the reactions of Whites to affirmative action programs targeted to benefit Blacks". Journal of Applied Psychology. 86 (6): 1120–8. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1120. PMID 11768055.
  6. ^ Saucier, Donald A.; Miller, Carol T.; Doucet, Nicole (2005). "Differences in Helping Whites and Blacks: A Meta-Analysis". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 9 (1): 2–16. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_1. PMID 15745861.
  7. ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (4 August 2008). "Majority of Americans Say Racism Against Blacks Widespread". Gallup.
  8. ^ Saad, Lydia (6 July 2007). "A Downturn in Black Perceptions of Racial Harmony". Gallup.
  9. ^ Greenwald, Anthony G.; McGhee, Debbie E.; Schwartz, Jordan L. K. (1998). "Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 74 (6): 1464–80. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.489.4611. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464. PMID 9654756.
  10. ^ Son Hing, Leanne S.; Chung-Yan, Greg A.; Grunfeld, Robert; Robichaud, Lori K.; Zanna, Mark P. (2005). "Exploring the Discrepancy Between Implicit and Explicit Prejudice: A Test of Aversive Racism Theory". In Forgas, Joseph P.; Williams, Kipling D.; Laham, Simon M. (eds.). Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes. Cambridge University Press. pp. 274–93. ISBN 978-0-521-83254-0.
  11. ^ Chin, Jean Lau. Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Racism in America. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Image:Table_6.1.png>
  12. ^ Whitley, B.E. & Kite, M.E. (2010). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA. Wadsworth.
  13. ^ https://www.psychology.org.au/publications/inpsych/2013/august/augoustinos. Missing or empty |title= (help)
  14. ^ a b Pearson, Adam R.; Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2009). "The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 3 (3): 314–38. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00183.x.
  15. ^ Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2004). "Aversive Racism". In Olson, James M.; Zanna, Mark P. (eds.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 36. pp. 1–52. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36001-6. ISBN 978-0-12-015236-0.
  16. ^ Johnson, J. D.; Whitestone, E.; Jackson, L. A.; Gatto, L. (1995). "Justice is Still Not Colorblind: Differential Racial Effects of Exposure to Inadmissible Evidence". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (9): 893–8. doi:10.1177/0146167295219003.
  17. ^ Hodson, Gordon; Hooper, Hugh; Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2005). "Aversive racism in Britain: The use of inadmissible evidence in legal decisions". European Journal of Social Psychology. 35 (4): 437–48. doi:10.1002/ejsp.261.
  18. ^ a b Dovidio, John F.; Kawakami, Kerry; Johnson, Craig; Johnson, Brenda; Howard, Adaiah (1997). "On the Nature of Prejudice: Automatic and Controlled Processes". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 33 (5): 510–40. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1331.
  19. ^ Karpinski, Andrew; Hilton, James L. (2001). "Attitudes and the Implicit Association Test". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81 (5): 774–88. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.774. PMID 11708556.
  20. ^ Dovidio, John F.; Kawakami, Kerry; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2002). "Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82 (1): 62–8. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.1.62. PMID 11811635.
  21. ^ a b Dovidio, John F.; Gaertner, Samuel E.; Kawakami, Kerry; Hodson, Gordon (2002). "Why can't we just get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust". Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology. 8 (2): 88–102. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.8.2.88. PMID 11987594.
  22. ^ "Obama vs. McCain (with Barr, Nader)". RealClearPolitics. 2008.
  23. ^ a b Kristof, Nicholas D. (4 October 2008). "Racism Without Racists". The New York Times.
  24. ^ a b Gaertner, Samuel L.; Dovidio, John F. (2000). Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-86377-571-0.
  25. ^ Gaertner, Samuel L.; Dovidio, John F.; Guerra, Rita; Rebelo, Margarida; Monteiro, Maria Benedicta; Riek, Blake M.; Houlette, Melissa A. (2008). "The Common In-Group Identity Model: Applications to Children and Adults". In Levy, Sheri R.; Killen, Melanie (eds.). Intergroup Attitudes and Relations in Childhood Through Adulthood. Oxford University Press. pp. 204–19. ISBN 978-0-19-975339-0.
  26. ^ Apfelbaum, Evan P.; Sommers, Samuel R.; Norton, Michael I. (2008). "Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (4): 918–32. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.587.9670. doi:10.1037/a0011990. PMID 18808268.
  27. ^ Monteith, Margo J.; Voils, Corrine I. (1998). "Proneness to prejudiced responses: Toward understanding the authenticity of self-reported discrepancies". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 75 (4): 901–16. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.901. PMID 9825527.
  28. ^ Son Hing, Leanne S.; Li, Winnie; Zanna, Mark P. (2002). "Inducing Hypocrisy to Reduce Prejudicial Responses among Aversive Racists". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38: 71–8. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1484.
  29. ^ Green, Alexander R.; Carney, Dana R.; Pallin, Daniel J.; Ngo, Long H.; Raymond, Kristal L.; Iezzoni, Lisa I.; Banaji, Mahzarin R. (2007). "Implicit Bias among Physicians and its Prediction of Thrombolysis Decisions for Black and White Patients". Journal of General Internal Medicine. 22 (9): 1231–8. doi:10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5. PMC 2219763. PMID 17594129.
  30. ^ Kawakami, Kerry; Dovidio, John F.; Moll, Jasper; Hermsen, Sander; Russin, Abby (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): 871–88. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.871. PMID 10821195.
  31. ^ Moskowitz, Gordon B.; Salomon, Amanda R.; Taylor, Constance M. (2000). "Preconsciously Controlling Stereotyping: Implicitly Activated Egalitarian Goals Prevent the Activation of Stereotypes". Social Cognition. 18 (2): 151–71. doi:10.1521/soco.2000.18.2.151.
  32. ^ Moskowitz, G. B., & Ignarri, C. (forthcoming). Implicit goals and a proactive strategy of stereotype control. Personality and Social Psychology Compass.
  33. ^ Sassenberg, Kai; Moskowitz, Gordon B. (2005). "Don't stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 41 (5): 506–14. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.002.
  34. ^ Turner, Rhiannon N.; Hewstone, Miles; Voci, Alberto (2007). "Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 93 (3): 369–88. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369. PMID 17723054.
Allosemitism

Allosemitism is a neologism used to encompass both philo-Semitic and anti-Semitic attitudes towards Jews as other.

Ambivalent prejudice

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup (a group of people that do not belong to an individual's own group), they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one's life.

Bernard Whitley and Mary Kite contend that this dissonance motivates people to alter their thoughts in an attempt to reduce their discomfort. Depending on the situation or context that has primed them, people will give priority to either the positive beliefs or the negative beliefs, leading to a corresponding behavioral shift known as response amplification.

Ambivalent sexism

Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: "hostile sexism" and "benevolent sexism". Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender (e.g., the ideas that women are incompetent and inferior to men). Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive (subjective to the person who is evaluating), but are actually damaging to people and gender equality more broadly (e.g., the ideas that women need to be protected by men). For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. However, theorists using the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism have found extensive empirical evidence for both varieties. The theory has largely been developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.

Common ingroup identity

The common ingroup identity model is a theoretical model proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio that outlines the processes through which intergroup bias may be reduced. Intergroup bias is a preference for one's in-group over the out-group. Derived from the social identity approach to intergroup behaviour, the common ingroup identity model is rooted in the process of social categorization, or how people conceive of group boundaries. The model describes how intergroup bias can be reduced if members of different groups can be induced to conceive of themselves to be part of the same group, then they would develop more positive attitudes of the former outgroup members. An individual will change the way they view the out-group through a social categorization process called recategorization where former out-group members become incorporated into individual's representations of the in-group.

Cyber racism

"Cyber racism" is a term coined by Les Back in 2002 to capture the phenomenon of racism online, particularly on white supremacist web sites. The term encompasses racist rhetoric that is distributed through computer-mediated means and includes some or all of the following characteristics: Ideas of racial uniqueness, nationalism and common destiny; racial supremacy, superiority and separation; conceptions of racial otherness; and anti-establishment world-view.

Racist views are common and often more extreme on the Internet due to a level of anonymity offered by the Internet. In a 2009 book about "common misconceptions about white supremacy online, [its] threats to today's youth; and possible solutions on navigating through the Internet, a large space where so much information is easily accessible (including hate-speech and other offensive content)", City University of New York associate professor Jessie Daniels claimed that the number of white supremacy sites online was then rising; especially in the United States after the 2008 presidential elections.According to the Australian Human Rights Commission, Cyber-Racism involves online activity that can include "jokes or comments that cause offence or hurt; name-calling or verbal abuse; harassment or intimidation, or public commentary that inflames hostility towards certain groups". Racism online can have the same effects as offensive remarks not online.

DP 7

D.P. 7 was a comic book series published by Marvel Comics as part of its New Universe imprint. It ran for 32 issues and an annual, which were published from 1986 to 1989.

The title stands for Displaced Paranormals and refers to the seven main characters of the series (who never refer to themselves as displaced). All of them received superhuman powers as a result of the stellar phenomenon known as the White Event.

D.P. 7 was the only New Universe series to maintain a stable creative team during its first year: its entire run was written by Mark Gruenwald, penciled by Paul Ryan, and colored by Paul Becton. Inker Danny Bulanadi (who began work on the title with issue #10) and letterer Janice Chiang (who began with issue #16) also stayed with D.P. 7 through to the final issue.

Integrated threat theory

Integrated threat theory, also known as intergroup threat theory is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have “real consequence” for prejudice between groups.

Kerry Kawakami

Kerry Kawakami is the current Editor of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Interpersonal Relations and Group Processes. She is also a professor of social psychology at York University in Toronto. Her research focuses on developing strategies to reduce intergroup bias. Kawakami graduated from University of Amsterdam and received her Ph.D. in psychology from University of Toronto. She is a fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA), the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA), and the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). As a professor at York University, she heads the Social Cognition Lab, which investigates social categorization processes. Kawakami’s work on stereotyping and intergroup bias has led to her international recognition. In 2014, Kawakami conducted a study investigating aversive racism in Canada using eye tracking technology. Over one thousand white participants were shown images of white faces and black faces on a computer screen. Eye tracking data showed that the participants tended to focus more on the eyes of white faces and the lips and noses of black faces. Given the importance of eye contact in social interaction, this result indicates that the black faces shown were being processed as members of a group rather than as individuals.

Microaggression

A microaggression is a term used for brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group. The term was coined by psychiatrist and Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce in 1970 to describe insults and dismissals which he regularly witnessed non-black Americans inflicting on African Americans. By the early 21st century, use of the term was applied to the casual degradation of any socially marginalized group, including LGBT, people living in poverty, and disabled people. Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as "brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership". The persons making the comments may be otherwise well-intentioned and unaware of the potential impact of their words.

Racism

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.The ideology underlying racism often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different due to their social behavior and their innate capacities, as well as the idea that they can be ranked as inferior or superior. Historical examples of institutional racism include the Holocaust, the apartheid regime in South Africa, slavery and segregation in the United States, and slavery in Latin America. Racism was also an aspect of the social organization of many colonial states and empires.

While the concepts of race and ethnicity are considered to be separate in contemporary social science, the two terms have a long history of equivalence in both popular usage and older social science literature. "Ethnicity" is often used in a sense close to one traditionally attributed to "race": the division of human groups based on qualities assumed to be essential or innate to the group (e.g. shared ancestry or shared behavior). Therefore, racism and racial discrimination are often used to describe discrimination on an ethnic or cultural basis, independent of whether these differences are described as racial. According to a United Nations convention on racial discrimination, there is no distinction between the terms "racial" and "ethnic" discrimination. The UN convention further concludes that superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous. It also declared that there is no justification for racial discrimination, anywhere, in theory or in practice.Racist ideology can manifest in many aspects of social life. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices or laws. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.

Symbolic racism

Symbolic racism (also known as modern-symbolic racism, modern racism, symbolic prejudice, and racial resentment) is a coherent belief system that reflects an underlying unidimensional prejudice towards any ethnicity. These beliefs include the stereotype that blacks are morally inferior to white people, whites are racist and that black people violate traditional White American values such as hard work and independence. This is also more of a general term than it is specifically related to prejudice towards black people. It can be more generally characterized as an open dislike and derogation of individuals related to one's self. These beliefs may cause the subject to discriminate against black people and to justify this discrimination. Some people do not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but indirectly through social and political issues.David O. Sears and P.J. Henry characterize symbolic racism as the expression or endorsement of four specific themes or beliefs:

Blacks no longer face much prejudice or discrimination.

The failure of blacks to progress results from their unwillingness to work hard enough.

Blacks are demanding too much too fast.

Blacks have gotten more than they deserve.Symbolic racism is a form of modern racism, as it is more subtle and indirect than more overt forms of racism, such as those characterized in Jim Crow laws. As symbolic racism develops through socialization and its processes occur without conscious awareness, an individual with symbolic racist beliefs may genuinely oppose racism and believe they are not racist. Symbolic racism is perhaps the most prevalent racial attitude today.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.