This is “Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination”, chapter 12 from the book Social Psychology Principles

(index.html) (v. 1.0).

This book is licensed under a Creative Commons by-nc-sa 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/

3.0/) license. See the license for more details, but that basically means you can share this book as long as you
credit the author (but see below), don't make money from it, and do make it available to everyone else under the
same terms.

This content was accessible as of December 29, 2012, and it was downloaded then by Andy Schmitz
(http://lardbucket.org) in an effort to preserve the availability of this book.

Normally, the author and publisher would be credited here. However, the publisher has asked for the customary
Creative Commons attribution to the original publisher, authors, title, and book URI to be removed. Additionally,
per the publisher's request, their name has been removed in some passages. More information is available on this
project's attribution page (http://2012books.lardbucket.org/attribution.html?utm_source=header).

For more information on the source of this book, or why it is available for free, please see the project's home page
(http://2012books.lardbucket.org/). You can browse or download additional books there.

i
646
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Chapter 12
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

647
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Beating of Gay Man Leads to Hate Crime Prosecution in New Mexico

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

Image courtesy of alka3en, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Virginia_Tech_massacre_candlelight_vigil_Burruss.jpg.

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

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

648
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

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

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

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

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

Contemporary increases in globalization and immigration are leading to more

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

These changes will create many benefits for society and for the individuals within
it. Gender, cultural, and ethnic diversity can improve creativity and group
performance, facilitate new ways of looking at problems, and allow multiple
viewpoints on decisions (Mannix & Neale, 2005; van Knippenberg & Schippers,
2007).Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005). What differences make a difference? The
promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 6(2), 31–55; van Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. C. (2007). Work
group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58(1), 515–541. On the other hand, as we
have seen in many places in this book, perceived similarity is an extremely
important determinant of liking. Members of culturally diverse groups may be less
attracted to each other than are members of more homogeneous groups, may have
more difficulty communicating with each other, and in some cases may actively
dislike and even engage in aggressive behavior toward each other.

The principles of social psychology, including the ABCs—affect, behavior, and

cognition—apply to the study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, and
social psychologists have expended substantial research efforts studying these
concepts (Figure 12.1). The cognitive component in our perceptions of group

649
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

members is the stereotype1—the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the
characteristics of social groups. We may decide that “Italians are romantic,” that “old
people are boring,” or that “college professors are nerds.” And we may use those
beliefs to guide our actions toward people from those groups. In addition to our
stereotypes, we may also develop prejudice2—an unjustifiable negative attitude toward
an outgroup or toward the members of that outgroup. Prejudice can take the form of
disliking, anger, fear, disgust, discomfort, and even hatred—the kind of affective
states that can lead to behavior such as the gay bashing you just read about. Our
stereotypes and our prejudices are problematic because they may create
discrimination3—unjustified negative behaviors toward members of outgroups based on
their group membership.

Although violence against members of outgroups is fortunately rare, stereotypes,

prejudice, and discrimination nevertheless influence people’s lives in a variety of
ways. Stereotypes influence our academic performance (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007),
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats:
Implications of a multi-threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators,
consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(2),
107–130. doi: 10.1177/1088868306294790 the careers that we chose to follow (Zhang,
Schmader, Forbes, 2009),Zhang, S., Schmader, T., & Forbes, C. (2009). The effects of
gender stereotypes on women’s career choice: Opening the glass door. In M.
Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century:
Understanding barriers to gender equality (pp. 125–150). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. our experiences at work (Fiske & Lee, 2008),Fiske, S. T., &
Lee, T. L. (2008). Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination. In A. P.
Brief (Ed.), Diversity at work (pp. 13–52). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
and the amount that we are paid for the work that we do (Jackson, 2011; Wood &
Eagly, 2010).Jackson, L. M. (2011). The psychology of prejudice: From attitudes to social
action. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; Wood, W., & Eagly, A.
H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629–667). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

1. The positive or negative beliefs

that we hold about the
characteristics of social groups.

2. An unjustifiable negative
attitude toward an outgroup or
toward the members of that
outgroup.

3. Unjustified negative behaviors

toward members of outgroups
based on their group
membership.

650
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Figure 12.1

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

Stereotypes and prejudice have a pervasive and often pernicious influence on our
responses to others, and also in some cases on our own behaviors. To take one
example, social psychological research has found that our stereotypes may in some
cases lead to stereotype threat4—performance decrements that are caused by the
knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999)Spencer, S. J.,
Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math
performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28. found that when
women were reminded of the (untrue) stereotype that “women are poor at math”
they performed more poorly on math tests than when they were not reminded of
the stereotype, and other research has found stereotype threat in many other
domains as well. We’ll consider the role of stereotype threat in more detail later in
this chapter.

In one particularly disturbing line of research about the influence of prejudice on

behaviors, Joshua Correll and his colleagues had White participants participate in
an experiment in which they viewed photographs of White and Black people on a
4. Performance decrements that
computer screen. Across the experiment, the photographs showed the people
are caused by the knowledge of
cultural stereotypes. holding either a gun or something harmless such as a cell phone. The participants

651
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

were asked to decide as quickly as possible to press a button to “shoot” if the target
held a weapon but to “not shoot” if the person did not hold a weapon. Overall, the
White participants tended to shoot more often when the person holding the object
was Black than when the person holding the object was White, and this occurred
even when there was no weapon present (Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2007;
Correll et al., 2007).Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2007). The
influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology,
37(6), 1102–1117. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.450; Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink,
B., Sadler, M. S., & Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thin blue line: Police officers and
racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6),
1006–1023. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.92.6.1006

Discrimination is a major societal problem because it is so pervasive, takes so many

forms, and has such negative effects on so many people. Even people who are paid
to be unbiased may discriminate. Price and Wolfers (2007)Price, J., & Wolfers, J.
(2007). Racial discrimination among NBA referees. NBER Working Paper #13206.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. found that White players in
National Basketball Association games received fewer fouls when more of the
referees present in the game were White, and Black players received fewer fouls
when more of the referees present in the game where Black. The implication
is—whether they know it or not—the referees were discriminating on the basis of
race.

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

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

652
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Figure 12.2

Do you have stereotypes about any of these people?

© Thinkstock

653
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Describe the fundamental process of social categorization and its

influence on thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
2. Define stereotypes and describe the ways that stereotypes are measured.
3. Review the ways that stereotypes influence our behavior.

Thinking about others in terms of their group memberships is known as social

categorization5—the natural cognitive process by which we place individuals into social
groups. Social categorization occurs when we think of someone as a man (versus a
woman), an old person (versus a young person), a Black person (versus an Asian or
White person), and so on (Allport, 1954/1979).Allport, G. W. (1954/1979). The nature
of prejudice. New York, NY: Doubleday. Just as we categorize objects into different
types, so we categorize people according to their social group memberships. Once
we do so, we begin to respond to those people more as members of a social group
than as individuals.

Imagine for a moment that two college students, John and Sarah, are talking at a
table in the student union at your college or university. At this point, we would
probably not consider them to be acting as group members, but rather as two
individuals. John is expressing his opinions, and Sarah is expressing hers. Imagine,
however, that as the conversation continues, Sarah brings up an assignment that
she is completing for her women’s studies class. It turns out that John does not
think there should be a women’s studies program at the college, and he tells Sarah
so. He argues that if there is a women’s studies program, then there should be a
men’s studies program too. Furthermore, he argues that women are getting too
many breaks in job hiring and that qualified men are the targets of discrimination.
Sarah feels quite the contrary—arguing that women have been the targets of sexism
for many, many years and even now do not have the same access to high-paying
jobs that men do.

You can see that an interaction that began at individual level, as two individuals
conversing, has now turned to the group level, in which John has begun to consider
5. The natural cognitive process
himself as a man, and Sarah has begun to consider herself as a woman. In short,
of placing individuals into
social groups according to Sarah is now arguing her points not so much for herself as she is as a representative
their social categories (e.g., of one of her ingroups—namely, women—and John is acting as a representative of
men versus women, old people one of his ingroups—namely, men. Sarah feels that her positions are correct, and
versus young people).

654
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

she believes they are true not only for her but for women in general. And the same
is true of John. You can see that these social categorizations may create some
potential for misperception, and perhaps even hostility. And John and Sarah may
even change their opinions about each other, forgetting that they really like each
other as individuals, because they are now responding more as group members with
opposing views.

Imagine now that while John and Sarah are still talking, some students from
another college, each wearing the hats and jackets of that school, show up in the
student union. The presence of these outsiders might change the direction of social
categorization entirely, leading both John and Sarah to think of themselves as
students at their own college. And this social categorization might lead them to
become more aware of the positive characteristics of their college (the excellent
basketball team, lovely campus, and intelligent students) in comparison with the
characteristics of the other school. Now, rather than perceiving themselves as
members of two different groups (men versus women), John and Sarah might
suddenly perceive themselves as members of the same social category (students at
their college).

Perhaps this example will help you see the flexibility of social categorization. We
sometimes think of our relationships with others at the individual level and
sometimes at the group level. And which groups we use in social categorization can
change over time and in different situations. I think you would agree that you are
more likely to categorize yourself as a member of your college or university when
your basketball or football team has just won a really important game, or at your
commencement day ceremony, than you would on a normal evening out with your
family. In these cases, your membership as a university student is simply more
salient and important than it is every day, and you are more likely to categorize
yourself accordingly.

Spontaneous Social Categorization

Social categorization occurs spontaneously, without much thought on our part

(Crisp & Hewstone, 2007).Crisp, R. J., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (2007). Multiple social
categorization. San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press. Shelley Taylor and her
colleagues (Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978)Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff,
N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory
and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 778–793. showed
their research participants a slide and tape presentation of three male and three
female college students who had supposedly participated in a discussion group.
During the presentation, each member of the discussion group made a suggestion
about how to advertise a college play. The statements were controlled so that across
all the research participants, the statements made by the men and the women were

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 655

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

of equal length and quality. Furthermore, one half of the participants were told that
when the presentation was over, they would be asked to remember which person
had made which suggestion, whereas the other half of the participants were told
merely to observe the interaction without attending to anything in particular.

After they had viewed all the statements made by the individuals in the discussion
group, the research participants were given a memory test (this was entirely
unexpected for the participants who had not been given memory instructions). The
participants were shown the list of all the statements that had been made, along
with the pictures of each of the discussion group members, and were asked to
indicate who had made each of the statements. The research participants were not
very good at this task, and yet when they made mistakes, these errors were very
systematic.

As you can see in Table 12.1 "Name Confusions", the mistakes were such that the
statements that had actually been made by a man were more frequently wrongly
attributed to another man in the group than to another woman, and the statements
actually made by a woman were more frequently attributed to other women in the
group than to a man. The participants evidently categorized the speakers by their
gender, leading them to make more within-gender than across-gender confusions.

Interestingly, and suggesting that categorization is occurring all the time, the
instructions that the participants had been given made absolutely no difference.
There was just as much categorization for those who were not given any
instructions as for those who were told to remember who said what. Other research
using this technique has found that we spontaneously categorize each other on the
basis of many other group memberships, including race, academic status (student
versus teacher), social roles, and other social categories (Fiske, Haslam, & Fiske,
1991; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992).Fiske, A. P., Haslam, N., & Fiske, S. T.
(1991). Confusing one person with another: What errors reveal about the
elementary forms of social relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(5),
656–674; Stangor, C., Lynch, L., Duan, C., & Glass, B. (1992). Categorization of
individuals on the basis of multiple social features. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 62(2), 207–218.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 656

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Table 12.1 Name Confusions

Instructions Within race errors Between race errors

Memory 5.78 4.29

No memory 6.57 4.36

Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and Ruderman (1978)Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., &
Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and
stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 778–793. demonstrated
that people categorized others spontaneously. Even without any instructions to
categorize, people nevertheless confused others by their sex.

The conclusion is simple, if perhaps obvious: Social categorization is occurring all

around us all the time. Indeed, social categorization occurs so quickly that people
may have difficulty not thinking about others in terms of their group memberships
(see Figure 12.3).

The Benefits of Social Categorization

Figure 12.3
The tendency to categorize others is normally quite
useful. In some cases, we categorize because doing so
provides us with information about the characteristics
of people who belong to certain social groups (Lee,
Jussim, & McCauley, 1995).Lee, Y. T., Jussim, L. J., &
McCauley, C. R. (1995). Stereotype accuracy: Toward
appreciating group differences. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. If you found yourself lost in a
city, you might look for a police officer or a taxi driver
to help you find your way. In this case, social
categorization would probably be useful because a
police officer or a taxi driver might be particularly
likely to know the layout of the city streets. Of course,
using social categories will only be informative to the
extent that the stereotypes held by the individual about If you are like most people, you
that category are accurate. If police officers were will have a strong desire to
categorize this person as either
actually not that knowledgeable about the city layout,
male or female.
then using this categorization would not be informative.

© Thinkstock
It has been argued that there is a kernel of truth in most
stereotypes, and this seems to be the case. There is a
correlation between how group members perceive the
stereotypes of their own groups and how people from

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 657

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

other groups perceive those same stereotypes (Judd & Park, 1993; Swim, 1994).Judd,
C. M., & Park, B. (1993). Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes.
Psychological Review, 100(1), 109–128; Swim, J. K. (1994). Perceived versus meta-
analytic effect sizes: An assessment of the accuracy of gender stereotypes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 21–36. This truth may come in part from the
roles that individuals play in society. For instance, the stereotypes (which are held
by many people) that women are “nurturing” and that men are “dominant” may
occur in part because, on average, men and women find themselves in different
social roles within a culture (Eagly & Steffen, 1984).Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J.
(1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into
social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754. In most
cultures, men are more likely to be in higher-status occupations, such as doctors
and lawyers, whereas women are more likely to play the role of homemakers and
child-care workers. In this sense, the stereotypes are at least partly true for many of
the members of the social category, in terms of their actual behaviors. Because men
are more likely to be leaders than are women, they may well be, on average, more
dominant; and because women are more likely to take care of children, they may,
on average, act in a more nurturing way than do men.

On the other hand, we sometimes categorize others not because it seems to provide
more information about them but because we may not have the time (or the
motivation) to do anything more thorough. Using our stereotypes to size up
another person might simply make our life easier (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, &
Jetten, 1994).Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out
of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(5), 808–817. According to this approach, thinking about other
people in terms of their social category memberships is a functional way of dealing
with the world—things are complicated, and we reduce complexity by relying on
our stereotypes.

The Negative Outcomes of Social Categorization

Although thinking about others in terms of their social category memberships has
some potential benefits for the person who does the categorizing, categorizing
others, rather than treating them as unique individuals with their own unique
characteristics, has a wide variety of negative, and often very unfair, outcomes for
those who are categorized.

One problem is that social categorization distorts our perceptions such that we tend
to exaggerate the differences between people from different social groups while at
the same time perceiving members of groups (and particularly outgroups) as more
similar to each other than they actually are. This overgeneralization makes it more
likely that we will think about and treat all members of a group the same way.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 658

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Tajfel and Wilkes (1963)Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A. L. (1963). Classification and
quantitative judgment. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101–114. performed a simple
experiment that provided a picture of the potential outcomes of categorization. As
you can see in Figure 12.4 "Perceptual Accentuation", the experiment involved
having research participants judge the length of six lines. In one of the
experimental conditions, participants simply saw six lines, whereas in the other
condition, the lines were systematically categorized into two groups—one
comprising the three shorter lines and one comprising the three longer lines.

Figure 12.4 Perceptual Accentuation

Lines C and D were seen as the same length in the noncategorized condition, but line C was perceived as longer than
line D when the lines were categorized into two groups. From Tajfel (1970).Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in
intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.

Tajfel found that the lines were perceived differently when they were categorized,
such that the differences between the groups and the similarities within the groups
were emphasized. Specifically, he found that although lines C and D (which are
actually the same length) were perceived as equal in length when the lines were not
categorized, line D was perceived as being significantly longer than line C in the
condition in which the lines were categorized. In this case, categorization into two

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 659

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

groups—the “short lines group” and the “long lines group”—produced a perceptual
bias such that the two groups of lines were seen as more different than they really
were.

Similar effects occur when we categorize other people. We tend to see people who
belong to the same social group as more similar than they actually are, and we tend
to judge people from different social groups as more different than they actually
are. The tendency to see members of social groups as similar to each other is
particularly strong for members of outgroups, resulting in outgroup
homogeneity6—the tendency to view members of outgroups as more similar to each other
than we see members of ingroups (Linville, Salovey, & Fischer, 1986; Ostrom &
Sedikides, 1992; Meissner & Brigham, 2001).Linville, P. W., Salovey, P., & Fischer, G.
W. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An
application to ingroup-outgroup perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.),
Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 165–208). Orlando, FL: Academic Press;
Ostrom, T. M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Out-group homogeneity effects in natural and
minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 536–552; Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J.
C. (2001). Thirty years of investigating the own-race bias in memory for faces: A
meta-analytic review. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 3–35. I’m sure you’ve had
this experience yourself, when you found yourself thinking or saying, “Oh, them,
they’re all the same!”

Patricia Linville and Edward Jones (1980)Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. (1980).
Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38, 689–703. gave research participants a list of trait terms and asked
them to think about either members of their own group (e.g., Blacks) or members of
another group (e.g., Whites) and to place the trait terms into piles that represented
different types of people in the group. The results of these studies, as well as other
studies like them, were clear: People perceive outgroups as more homogeneous
than the ingroup. Just as White people used fewer piles of traits to describe Blacks
than Whites, young people used fewer piles of traits to describe elderly people than
they did young people, and students used fewer piles for members of other
universities than they did for members of their own university.

Outgroup homogeneity occurs in part because we don’t have as much contact with
outgroup members as we do with ingroup members, and the quality of interaction
with outgroup members is often more superficial. This prevents us from really
learning about the outgroup members as individuals, and as a result, we tend to be
unaware of the differences among the group members. In addition to learning less
about them because we see and interact with them less, we routinely categorize
6. The tendency to view members
of outgroups as more similar to
outgroup members, thus making them appear more cognitively similar (Haslam,
each other than we see Oakes, & Turner, 1996).Haslam, S. A., Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1996). Social
members of ingroups. identity, self-categorization, and the perceived homogeneity of ingroups and

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 660

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

outgroups: The interaction between social motivation and cognition. In Handbook of

motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 182–222). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.

Once we begin to see the members of outgroups as more similar to each other than
they actually are, it then becomes very easy to apply our stereotypes to the
members of the groups without having to consider whether the characteristic is
actually true of the particular individual. If men think that women are all alike,
then they may also think that they all have the same characteristics—they’re all
“emotional” and “weak.” And women may have similarly simplified beliefs about
men (they’re “insensitive,” “unwilling to commit,” etc.). The outcome is that the
stereotypes become linked to the group itself in a set of mental representations
(Figure 12.5). The stereotypes are “pictures in our heads” of the social groups
(Lippman, 1922).Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York, NY: Harcourt & Brace.
These beliefs just seem right and natural, even though they are frequently distorted
overgeneralizations (Hirschfeld, 1996; Yzerbyt, Schadron, Leyens, & Rocher,
1994).Hirschfeld, L. (1996). Race in the making: Cognition, culture and the child’s
construction of human kinds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; Yzerbyt, V., Schadron, G.,
Leyens, J., & Rocher, S. (1994). Social judgeability: The impact of meta-informational
cues on the use of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 48–55.

Figure 12.5

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 661

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Stereotypes are the beliefs associated with social categories. The figure shows links between the social category of
college professors and its stereotypes as a type of neural network or schema. The representation also includes one
image (or exemplar) of a particular college professor whom the student knows.

Image courtesy of Dan Gilbert.

Our stereotypes and prejudices are learned through many different processes. This
multiplicity of causes is unfortunate because it makes stereotypes and prejudices
even more likely to form and harder to change. For one, we learn our stereotypes in
part through our communications with parents and peers (Aboud & Doyle,
1996)Aboud, F. E., & Doyle, A.-B. (1996). Parental and peer influences on children’s
racial attitudes. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 371–383. and from
the behaviors we see portrayed in the media (Brown, 1995).Brown, R. (1995).
Prejudice: Its social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Even 5-year-old children
have learned cultural norms about the appropriate activities and behaviors for boys
and girls and also have developed stereotypes about age, race, and physical
attractiveness (Bigler & Liben, 2006).Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A
developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail
(Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 34, pp. 39–89). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier. And there is often good agreement about the stereotypes of social
categories among the individuals within a given culture. In one study assessing
stereotypes, Stephanie Madon and her colleagues (Madon et al., 2001)Madon, S.,
Guyll, M., Aboufadel, K., Montiel, E., Smith, A., Palumbo, P., et al. (2001). Ethnic and
national stereotypes: The Princeton trilogy revisited and revised. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 996–1010. doi: 10.1177/0146167201278007 presented
U.S. college students with a list of 84 trait terms and asked them to indicate for
which groups each trait seemed appropriate (Figure 12.6 "Current Stereotypes Held
by College Students"). The participants tended to agree about what traits were true
of which groups, and this was true even for groups of which the respondents were
likely to never have met a single member (Arabs and Russians). Even today, there is
good agreement about the stereotypes of members of many social groups, including
men and women and a variety of ethnic groups.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 662

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Figure 12.6 Current Stereotypes Held by College Students

From Madon et al. (2001).Madon, S., Guyll, M., Aboufadel, K., Montiel, E., Smith, A., Palumbo, P., & Jussim, L. (2001).
Ethnic and national stereotypes: The Princeton trilogy revisited and revised. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 27(8), 996–1010. doi: 10.1177/0146167201278007

Once they become established, stereotypes (like any other cognitive representation)
tend to persevere. We begin to respond to members of stereotyped categories as if
we already knew what they were like. Yaacov Trope and Eric Thompson
(1997)Trope, Y., & Thompson, E. (1997). Looking for truth in all the wrong places?
Asymmetric search of individuating information about stereotyped group members.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(2), 229–241. found that individuals
addressed fewer questions to members of categories about which they had strong
stereotypes (as if they already knew what these people were like) and that the
questions they did ask were likely to confirm the stereotypes they already had.

In other cases, stereotypes are maintained because information that confirms our
stereotypes is better remembered than information that disconfirms them. When
we see members of social groups perform behaviors, we tend to better remember
information that confirms our stereotypes than we remember information that
disconfirms our stereotypes (Fyock & Stangor, 1994).Fyock, J., & Stangor, C. (1994).

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 663

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance. British Journal of Social

Psychology, 33(3), 331–343. If we believe that women are bad drivers and we see a
woman driving poorly, then we tend to remember it, but when we see a woman who
drives particularly well, we tend to forget it. This is of course another example of
the general principle of assimilation—we tend to perceive the world in ways that
make it fit our existing beliefs more easily than we change our beliefs to fit the
reality around us.

And stereotypes become difficult to change because they are so important to

us—they become an integral and important part of our everyday lives in our
culture. Stereotypes are frequently expressed on TV, in movies, and in chat rooms
and blogs, and we learn a lot of our beliefs from these sources. Our friends also tend
to hold beliefs similar to ours, and we talk about these beliefs when we get together
with them (Schaller & Conway, 1999).Schaller, M., & Conway, G. (1999). Influence of
impression-management goals on the emerging content of group stereotypes:
Support for a social-evolutionary perspective. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 25, 819–833. In short, stereotypes and prejudice are powerful largely
because they are important social norms that are part of our culture (Guimond,
2000).Guimond, S. (2000). Group socialization and prejudice: The social transmission
of intergroup attitudes and beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(3),
335–354.

Because they are so highly cognitively accessible, and because they seem so “right,”
7. A procedure, designed to elicit our stereotypes easily influence our judgments of and responses to those we have
more honest responses, in categorized. The social psychologist John Bargh once described stereotypes as
which an experimenter first
convinces participants that he “cognitive monsters” because their activation was so powerful and because the
or he has access to their “true” activated beliefs had such insidious influences on social judgment (Bargh,
beliefs. Once the participants 1999).Bargh, J. (Ed.). (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against the controllability of
are convinced that the
automatic stereotype effects. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Making things even more
researcher knows their “true
attitudes,” they are assumed to difficult, stereotypes are strongest for the people who are in most need of
be more honest in answering change—the people who are most prejudiced (Lepore & Brown, 1997).Lepore, L., &
the rest of the questions they Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal
are asked.
of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 275–287.
8. A procedure designed to elicit
more honest, implicit beliefs.
Participants are asked to Because stereotypes and prejudice often operate out of our awareness, and also
classify stimuli into one of two because people are frequently unwilling to admit that they hold them, social
categories by pressing one
psychologists have developed methods for assessing them indirectly. In the next
button with their left hand and
another button with their right section we will consider two of these approaches—the bogus pipeline procedure7
hand. The categories are and the Implicit Association Test (IAT)8
arranged such that the
responses to be answered with
the left and right buttons
either match the stereotype or
mismatch the stereotype.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 664

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Research Focus

Measuring Stereotypes Indirectly

One difficulty in measuring stereotypes and prejudice is that people may not
tell the truth about their beliefs. Most people do not want to admit—either to
themselves or to others—that they hold stereotypes or that they are prejudiced
toward some social groups. To get around this problem, social psychologists
make use of a number of techniques that help them measure these beliefs more
subtly and indirectly.

One indirect approach to assessing prejudice is called the bogus pipeline

procedure (Jones & Sigall, 1971).Jones, E. E., & Sigall, H. (1971). The bogus
pipeline: A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude. Psychological
Bulletin, 76(5), 349–364. In this procedure, the experimenter first convinces the
participants that he or he has access to their “true” beliefs, for instance, by
getting access to a questionnaire that they completed at a prior experimental
session. Once the participants are convinced that the researcher is able to
assess their “true” attitudes, it is expected that they will be more honest in
answering the rest of the questions they are asked because they want to be sure
that the researcher does not catch them lying. The bogus pipeline procedure
suggests that people may frequently mask their negative beliefs in
public—people express more prejudice when they are in the bogus pipeline
than they do when they are asked the same questions more directly.

Other indirect measures of prejudice are also frequently used in social

psychological research, for instance—assessing nonverbal behaviors such as
speech errors or physical closeness. One common measure involves asking
participants to take a seat on a chair near a person from a different racial or
ethnic group and measuring how far away the person sits (Sechrist & Stangor,
2001; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).Sechrist, G. B., & Stangor, C. (2001).
Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype
accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(4), 645–654; Word, C.
O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling
prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
10(2), 109–120. People who sit farther away are assumed to be more prejudiced
toward the members of the group.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 665

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Because our stereotypes are activated spontaneously when we think about

members of different social groups, it is possible to use reaction-time measures
to assess this activation and thus to learn about people’s stereotypes and
prejudices. In these procedures, participants are asked to make a series of
judgments about pictures or descriptions of social groups and then to answer
questions as quickly as they can, but without making mistakes. The speed of
these responses is used to determine an individual’s stereotypes or prejudice.

The most popular reaction-time implicit measure of prejudice—the Implicit

Association Test (IAT)—is frequently used to assess stereotypes and prejudice
(Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007).Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M.
R. (Eds.). (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and
conceptual review. New York, NY: Psychology Press. In the IAT, participants are
asked to classify stimuli that they view on a computer screen into one of two
categories by pressing one of two computer keys, one with their left hand and
one with their right hand. Furthermore, the categories are arranged such that
the responses to be answered with the left and right buttons either “fit with”
(match) the stereotype or do not “fit with” (mismatch) the stereotype. For
instance, in one version of the IAT, participants are shown pictures of men and
women and also shown words related to gender stereotypes (e.g., strong, leader,
or powerful for men and nurturing, emotional, or weak for women). Then the
participants categorize the photos (“Is this picture a picture of a man or a
woman?”) and answer questions about the stereotypes (“Is this the word
strong?) by pressing either the Yes button or the No button using either their
left hand or their right hand.

When the responses are arranged on the screen in a “matching” way, such that
the male category and the “strong” category are on the same side of the screen
(e.g., on the right side), participants can do the task very quickly and they make
few mistakes. It’s just easier, because the stereotypes are matched or associated
with the pictures in a way that makes sense. But when the images are arranged
such that the women and the strong categories are on the same side, whereas
the men and the weak categories are on the other side, most participants make
more errors and respond more slowly. The basic assumption is that if two
concepts are associated or linked, they will be responded to more quickly if
they are classified using the same, rather than different, keys.

Implicit association procedures such as the IAT show that even participants
who claim that they are not prejudiced do seem to hold cultural stereotypes
about social groups. Even Black people themselves respond more quickly to

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 666

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

positive words that are associated with White rather than Black faces on the
IAT, suggesting that they have subtle racial prejudice toward Blacks.

Because they hold these beliefs, it is possible—although not guaranteed—that

they may use them when responding to other people, creating a subtle and
unconscious type of discrimination. Although the meaning of the IAT has been
debated (Tetlock & Mitchell, 2008),Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2008).
Calibrating prejudice in milliseconds. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71(1), 12–16.
research using implicit measures does suggest that—whether we know it or not,
and even though we may try to control them when we can—our stereotypes
and prejudices are easily activated when we see members of different social
categories (Barden, Maddux, Petty, & Brewer, 2004).Barden, J., Maddux, W. W.,
Petty, R. E., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). Contextual moderation of racial bias: The
impact of social roles on controlled and automatically activated attitudes.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 5–22.

Do you hold implicit prejudices? Try the IAT yourself, here:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit

Although in some cases the stereotypes that are used to make judgments might
actually be true of the individual being judged, in many other cases they are not.
Stereotyping is problematic when the stereotypes we hold about a social group are
inaccurate overall, and particularly when they do not apply to the individual who is
being judged (Stangor, 1995).Stangor, C. (1995). Content and application inaccuracy
in social stereotyping. In Y. T. Lee, L. J. Jussim, & C. R. McCauley (Eds.), Stereotype
accuracy: Toward appreciating group differences (pp. 275–292). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. Stereotyping others is simply unfair. Even if
many women are more emotional than are most men, not all are, and it is not right
to judge any one woman as if she is.

In the end, stereotypes become self-fulfilling prophecies, such that our expectations
about the group members make the stereotypes come true (Snyder, Tanke, &
Berscheid, 1977; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid,
E. (1977). Social perception and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature
of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35(9), 656–666; Word,
C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling
prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(2),
109–120. Once we believe that men make better leaders than women, we tend to
behave toward men in ways that makes it easier for them to lead. And we behave

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 667

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

toward women in ways that makes it more difficult for them to lead. The result?
Men find it easier to excel in leadership positions, whereas women have to work
hard to overcome the false beliefs about their lack of leadership abilities (Phelan &
Rudman, 2010).Phelan, J. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2010). Prejudice toward female
leaders: Backlash effects and women’s impression management dilemma. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4(10), 807–820. doi: 10.1111/j.1751–9004.2010.00306.x
And self-fulfilling prophecies are ubiquitous—even teachers’ expectations about
their students’ academic abilities can influence the students’ school performance
(Jussim, Robustelli, & Cain, 2009).Jussim, L., Robustelli, S. L., & Cain, T. R. (2009).
Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies. In K. R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 349–380). New York, NY: Routledge/
Taylor & Francis Group.

Of course, you may think that you personally do not behave in these ways, and you
may not. But research has found that stereotypes are often used out of our
awareness, which makes it very difficult for us to correct for them. Even when we
think we are being completely fair, we may nevertheless be using our stereotypes to
condone discrimination (Chen & Bargh, 1999).Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1999).
Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to
approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(2),
215–224. And when we are distracted or under time pressure, these tendencies
become even more powerful (Stangor & Duan, 1991).Stangor, C., & Duan, C. (1991).
Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(4), 357–378.

Furthermore, attempting to prevent our stereotype from coloring our reactions to

others takes effort. We experience more negative affect (particularly anxiety) when
we are with members of other groups than we do when we are with people from our
own groups, and we need to use more cognitive resources to control our behavior
because of our anxiety about revealing our stereotypes or prejudices (Butz & Plant,
2006; Richeson & Shelton, 2003).Butz, D. A., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Perceiving
outgroup members as unresponsive: Implications for approach-related emotions,
intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(6), 1066–1079;
Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of
interracial contact on executive function. Psychological Science, 14(3), 287–290. When
we know that we need to control our expectations so that we do not unintentionally
stereotype the other person, we may try to do so—but doing so takes effort and may
frequently fail (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994).Macrae, C. N.,
Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight:
Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5),
808–817.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 668

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Social Psychology in the Public Interest

Stereotype Threat

Our stereotypes influence not only our judgments of others but also our beliefs
about ourselves, and even our own performance on important tasks. In some
cases, these beliefs may be positive, and they have the effect of making us feel
more confident and thus better able to perform tasks. Because Asian students
are aware of the stereotype that “Asians are good at math,” reminding them of
this fact before they take a difficult math test can improve their performance
on the test (Walton & Cohen, 2003).Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2003).
Stereotype lift. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(5), 456–467. On the
other hand, sometimes these beliefs are negative, and they create negative self-
fulfilling prophecies such that we perform more poorly just because of our
knowledge about the stereotypes.

One of the long-standing puzzles in the area of academic performance concerns

why Black students perform more poorly on standardized tests, receive lower
grades, and are less likely to remain in school in comparison with White
students, even when other factors such as family income, parents’ education,
and other relevant variables are controlled. Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson
(1995)Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual
performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
797–811. tested the hypothesis that these differences might be due to the
activation of negative stereotypes. Because Black students are aware of the
(inaccurate) stereotype that “Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites,” this
stereotype might create a negative expectation, which might interfere with
their performance on intellectual tests through fear of confirming that
stereotype.

In support of this hypothesis, Steele and Aronson’s research revealed that Black
college students performed worse (in comparison with their prior test scores)
on math questions taken from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) when
the test was described to them as being “diagnostic of their mathematical
ability” (and thus when the stereotype was relevant) but that their
performance was not influenced when the same questions were framed as “an
exercise in problem solving.” And in another study, Steele and Aronson found
that when Black students were asked to indicate their race before they took a
math test (again activating the stereotype), they performed more poorly than

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 669

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

they had on prior exams, whereas the scores of White students were not
affected by first indicating their race.

Steele and Aronson argued that thinking about negative stereotypes that are
relevant to a task that one is performing creates stereotype threat—performance
decrements that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotypes. That is, they
argued that the negative impact of race on standardized tests may be caused, at
least in part, by the performance situation itself. Because the threat is “in the
air,” Black students may be negatively influenced by it.

Research has found that the experience of stereotype threat can help explain a
wide variety of performance decrements among those who are targeted by
negative stereotypes. For instance, when a math task is described as diagnostic
of intelligence, Latinos and particularly Latinas perform more poorly than do
Whites (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002).Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., &
Williams, K. J. (2002). The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority
status on the test performance of Latino women. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(5), 659–670. Similarly, when stereotypes are activated, children with
low socioeconomic status perform more poorly in math than do those with high
socioeconomic status, and psychology students perform more poorly than do
natural science students (Brown, Croizet, Bohner, Fournet, & Payne,
2003).Brown, R., Croizet, J.-C., Bohner, G., Fournet, M., & Payne, A. (2003).
Automatic category activation and social behaviour: The moderating role of
prejudiced beliefs. Social Cognition, 21(3), 167–193. Even groups who typically
enjoy advantaged social status can be made to experience stereotype threat.
White men performed more poorly on a math test when they were told that
their performance would be compared with that of Asian men (Aronson,
Lustina, Good, Keough, & Steele, 1999),Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C.,
Keough, K., & Steele, C. M. (1999). When White men can’t do math: Necessary
and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 35, 29–24. and Whites performed more poorly than Blacks on a sport-
related task when it was described to them as measuring their natural athletic
ability (Stone, 2002).Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The
effects of stereotype threat on self-handicapping in White athletes. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1667–1678.

Stereotype threat is created in situations that pose a significant threat to self-

concern, such that our perceptions of ourselves as important, valuable, and
capable individuals are threatened. In these situations, there is a discrepancy
between our positive concept of our skills and abilities and the negative

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 670

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

stereotypes suggesting poor performance. When our stereotypes lead us to be

believe that we are likely to perform poorly on a task, we experience a feeling
of unease and status threat.

Research has found that stereotype threat is caused by both cognitive and
affective factors. On the cognitive side, individuals who are experiencing
stereotype threat show an impairment in cognitive processing that is caused by
increased vigilance toward the environment and attempts to suppress their
stereotypical thoughts. On the affective side, stereotype threat creates stress as
well as a variety of affective responses including anxiety (Schmader, Johns, &
Forbes, 2008).Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process
model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115(2),
336–356.

Stereotype threat is not, however, absolute—we can get past it if we try. What is
important is to reduce the self-concern that is engaged when we consider the
relevant negative stereotypes. Manipulations that affirm positive
characteristics about oneself or one’s group are successful at reducing
stereotype threat (Alter, Aronson, Darley, Rodriguez, & Ruble, 2010; Greenberg
et al., 2003; McIntyre, Paulson, & Lord, 2003).Alter, A. L., Aronson, J., Darley, J.
M., Rodriguez, C., & Ruble, D. N. (2010). Rising to the threat: Reducing
stereotype threat by reframing the threat as a challenge. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46(1), 166–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.09.014; Greenberg, J.,
Martens, A., Jonas, E., Eisenstadt, D., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (2003).
Psychological defense in anticipation of anxiety: Eliminating the potential for
anxiety eliminates the effect of mortality salience on worldview defense.
Psychological Science, 14(5), 516–519; McIntyre, R. B., Paulson, R. M., & Lord, C. G.
(2003). Alleviating women’s mathematics stereotype threat through salience of
group achievements. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 83–90. In
fact, just knowing that stereotype threat exists and may influence performance
can help alleviate its negative impact (Johns, Schmader, & Martens,
2005).Johns, M., Schmader, T., & Martens, A. (2005). Knowing is half the battle:
Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women’s math
performance. Psychological Science, 16(3), 175–179.

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 671

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Beliefs about the characteristics of the groups and the members of those
groups are known as stereotypes.
• Prejudice refers to an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an
outgroup.
• Stereotypes and prejudice may create discrimination.
• Stereotyping and prejudice begin from social categorization—the
natural cognitive process by which we place individuals into social
groups.
• Social categorization influences our perceptions of groups—for instance,
the perception of outgroup homogeneity.
• Once our stereotypes and prejudices become established, they are
difficult to change and may lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, such that
our expectations about the group members make the stereotypes come
true.
• Stereotypes may influence our performance on important tasks through
stereotype threat.

EXERCISES AND CRITICAL THINKING

1. Look again at the pictures in Figure 12.2, and consider your thoughts
and feelings about each person. What are your stereotypes and
prejudices about them? Do you think your stereotypes are accurate?
2. On which (if any) social categories do you categorize others? Why do you
(or don’t you) categorize? Is your behavior fair or unfair to the people
you are categorizing?
3. Think of a task that one of the social groups to which you belong is
considered to be particularly good (or poor) at. Do you think the cultural
stereotypes about your group have ever influenced your performance on
a task?

12.1 Social Categorization and Stereotyping 672

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

1. Review the causes and outcomes of ingroup favoritism.

2. Summarize the results of Henri Tajfel’s research on minimal groups.
3. Outline the personality and cultural variables that influence ingroup
favoritism.

We have now seen that social categorization occurs whenever we think about
others in terms of their category memberships rather than on the basis of other,
more personal information about the individual. And we have seen that social
categorization can have a variety of negative consequences for the people who are
the targets of our stereotypes. But social categorization becomes even more
important, and has even more powerful effects upon our reactions to others, when
the categorization becomes more emotionally involving, and particularly when the
categorization involves categorization into liked ingroups and potentially disliked
outgroups (Amodio & Devine, 2006).Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006).
Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence for independent
constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
91, 652–661.

Because our ancestors lived in small social groups that were frequently in conflict
with other groups, it was evolutionarily functional for them to view members of
other groups as different and potentially dangerous (Brewer & Caporael, 2006;
Navarrete, Kurzban, Fessler, & Kirkpatrick, 2004).Brewer, M. B., & Caporael, L. R.
(2006). An evolutionary perspective on social identity: Revisiting groups. In M.
Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp.
143–161). New York, NY: Psychology Press; Navarrete, C. D., Kurzban, R., Fessler, D.
M. T., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2004). Anxiety and intergroup bias: Terror management
or coalitional psychology? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(4), 370–397.
Differentiating between “us” and “them” probably helped keep us safe and free
from disease, and as a result, the human brain became very efficient in making
these distinctions (Mahajan et al., 2011; Phelps et al., 2000; Van Vugt & Schaller,
2008; Zaraté, Stoever, MacLin, & Arms-Chavez, 2008).Mahajan, N., Martinez, M. A.,
Gutierrez, N. L., Diesendruck, G., Banaji, M. R., & Santos, L. R. (2011). The evolution
of intergroup bias: Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100(3), 387–405. doi: 10.1037/a0022459; Phelps, E. A.,
O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J.
C.…Banaji, M. R. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation

673
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 729–738; Van

Vugt, M., & Schaller, M. (2008). Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics: An
introduction. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12(1), 1–6; Zaraté, M. A.,
Stoever, C. J., MacLin, M. K., & Arms-Chavez, C. J. (2008). Neurocognitive
underpinnings of face perception: Further evidence of distinct person and group
perception processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 108–115. The
problem is that these naturally occurring tendencies may lead us to prefer people
who are like us, and in some cases even to unfairly reject people from outgroups.

Liking “Us” More Than “Them”: Ingroup Favoritism

In his important research on group perceptions, Henri Tajfel and his colleagues
(Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971)Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C.
(1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 1, 149–178. demonstrated how incredibly powerful the role of self-
concern is in group perceptions. He found that just dividing people into arbitrary
groups produces ingroup favoritism9—the tendency to respond more positively to
people from our ingroups than we do to people from outgroups.

In Tajfel’s research, small groups of high school students came to his laboratory for
a study supposedly concerning “artistic tastes.” The students were first shown a
series of paintings by two contemporary artists, Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky.
Supposedly on the basis of their preferences for each painting, the students were
divided into two groups (they were called the X group and the Y group). Each boy
was told which group he had been assigned to and that different boys were assigned
to different groups. But none of them were told the group memberships of any of
the other boys.

The boys were then given a chance to allocate points to other boys in their own
group and to boys in the other group (but never to themselves) using a series of
payoff matrices, such as those shown in Figure 12.7 "Examples of Matrices Used in
the Minimal Intergroup Studies of Tajfel and His Colleagues". The charts divided a
given number of rewards between two boys, and the boys thought that the rewards
would be used to determine how much each boy would be paid for his participation.
In some cases, the division was between two boys in the boy’s own group (the
ingroup); in other cases, the division was between two boys who had been assigned
to the other group (the outgroup); and in still other cases, the division was between
a boy in the ingroup and a boy in the outgroup. Tajfel then examined the goals that
the boys used when they divided up the points.

9. The tendency to respond more

positively to our ingroups than
we do to outgroups.

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 674

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Figure 12.7 Examples of Matrices Used in the Minimal Intergroup Studies of Tajfel and His Colleagues

From Tajfel (1970).Tajfel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96–102.

A comparison of the boys’ choices in the different matrices showed that they
allocated points between two boys in the ingroup or between two boys in the
outgroup in an essentially fair way, so that each boy got the same amount.
However, fairness was not the predominant approach when dividing points
between ingroup and outgroup. In this case, rather than exhibiting fairness, the
boys displayed ingroup favoritism, such that they gave more points to other
members of their own group in relationship to boys in the other group. For
instance, the boys might assign 8 points to the ingroup boy and only 3 points to the
outgroup boy, even though the matrix also contained a choice in which they could
give the ingroup and the outgroup boys 13 points each. In short, the boys preferred
to maximize the gains of the other boys in their own group in comparison with the
boys in the outgroup, even if doing so meant giving their own group members fewer
points than they could otherwise have received.

Perhaps the most striking part of Tajfel’s results is that ingroup favoritism was
found to occur on the basis of such arbitrary and unimportant groupings. In fact,
ingroup favoritism occurs even when the assignment to groups is on such trivial
things as whether people “overestimate” or “underestimate” the number of dots
shown on a display, or on the basis of a completely random coin toss (Billig & Tajfel,
1973; Locksley, Ortiz, & Hepburn, 1980).Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social
categorization and similarity in intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 3, 27–52; Locksley, A., Ortiz, V., & Hepburn, C. (1980). Social
categorization and discriminatory behavior: Extinguishing the minimal intergroup
discrimination effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 773–783. doi:
10.1037/0022–3514.39.5.773 Tajfel’s research, as well other research demonstrating
ingroup favoritism, provides a powerful demonstration of a very important social

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 675

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

psychological process: Groups exist simply because individuals perceive those

groups as existing. Even in a case where there really is no group (at least no
meaningful group in any real sense), we still perceive groups and still demonstrate
ingroup favoritism.

The Outcomes of Ingroup Favoritism

The tendency to favor their ingroup develops quickly in young children, beginning
at the age of 3 years and increasing up to about 6 years of age, and almost
immediately begins to influence their behavior (Aboud, 2003; Aboud & Amato,
2001).Aboud, F. E. (2003). The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group
prejudice in young children: Are they distinct attitudes? Developmental Psychology,
39(1), 48–60; Aboud, F. E., & Amato, M. (2001). Developmental and socialization
influences on intergroup bias. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in
social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 65–85). New York, NY: Blackwell. Young children show
greater liking for peers of their own sex and race and typically play with same-sex
others after the age of 3. And there is a norm that we should favor our ingroups:
People like people who express ingroup favoritism better than those who are more
egalitarian (Castelli & Carraro, 2010).Castelli, L., & Carraro, L. (2010). Striving for
difference: On the spontaneous preference for ingroup members who maximize
ingroup positive distinctiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), 881–890.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.740 Ingroup favoritism is found for many different types of social
groups, in many different settings, on many different dimensions, and in many
different cultures (Bennett et al., 2004; Pinter & Greenwald, 2011).Bennett, M.,
Barrett, M., Karakozov, R., Kipiani, G., Lyons, E., Pavlenko, V.…Riazanova., T. (2004).
Young children’s evaluations of the ingroup and of outgroups: A multi-national
study. Social Development, 13(1), 124–141. doi: 10.1046/j.1467–9507.2004.00260.x;
Pinter, B., & Greenwald, A. G. (2011). A comparison of minimal group induction
procedures. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 81–98. doi: 10.1177/
1368430210375251 Ingroup favoritism also occurs on trait ratings, such that ingroup
members are rated as having more positive characteristics than are outgroup
members (Hewstone, 1990).Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”?
A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 20(4), 311–335. People also take credit for the successes of other ingroup
members, remember more positive than negative information about ingroups, are
more critical of the performance of outgroup than of ingroup members, and believe
that their own groups are less prejudiced than are outgroups (Shelton & Richeson,
2005).Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2005). Intergroup contact and pluralistic
ignorance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 91–107.

People also talk differently about their ingroups than their outgroups, such that
they describe the ingroup and its members as having broad positive traits (“We are
generous and friendly”) but describe negative ingroup behaviors in terms of the

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 676

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

specific behaviors of single group members (“Our group member, Bill, hit
someone”) (Maass & Arcuri, 1996; Maass, Ceccarielli, & Rudin, 1996; von Hippel,
Sekaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1997).Maass, A., & Arcuri, L. (1996). Language and
stereotyping. In C. N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and
stereotyping (pp. 193–226). New York, NY: Guilford Press; Maass, A., Ceccarielli, R., &
Rudin, S. (1996). Linguistic intergroup bias: Evidence for in-group-protective
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 512–526; von Hippel, W.,
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Vargas, P. (1997). The linguistic intergroup bias as an implicit
indicator of prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(5), 490–509. These
actions allow us to spread positive characteristics to all members of our ingroup but
reserve negative aspects for individual group members, thereby protecting the
group’s image.

People also make trait attributions in ways that benefit their ingroups, just as they make
trait attributions that benefit themselves. This general tendency, known as the
ultimate attribution error10, results in the tendency for each of the competing
groups to perceive the other group extremely and unrealistically negatively
(Hewstone, 1990).Hewstone, M. (1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review
of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 20(4), 311–335. When an ingroup member engages in a positive behavior,
we tend to see it as a stable internal characteristic of the group as a whole.
Similarly, negative behaviors on the part of the outgroup are seen as caused by
stable negative group characteristics. On the other hand, negative behaviors from
the ingroup and positive behaviors from the outgroup are more likely to be seen as
caused by temporary situational variables or by behaviors of specific individuals
and are less likely to be attributed to the group.

Ingroup Favoritism Has Many Causes

Ingroup favoritism has a number of causes. For one, it is a natural part of social
categorization—we categorize into ingroups and outgroups because it helps us
simplify and structure our environment. It is easy, and perhaps even natural, to
believe in the simple idea that “we are better than they are.” People who report
that they have strong needs for simplifying their environments also show more
ingroup favoritism (Stangor & Leary, 2006).Stangor, C., & Leary, S. (2006).
Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 243–283.

Ingroup favoritism also occurs at least in part because we belong to the ingroup and
not the outgroup (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996).Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996).
10. The tendency for competing Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of
groups to make causal
attributions that maintain Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 661–677. We like people who are similar to
ingroup favoritism. ourselves, and we perceive other ingroup members as similar to us. This also leads

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 677

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

us to favor other members of our ingroup, particularly when we can clearly

differentiate them from members of outgroups. We may also prefer ingroups
because they are more familiar to us (Zebrowitz, Bronstad, & Lee, 2007).Zebrowitz,
L. A., Bronstad, P. M., & Lee, H. K. (2007). The contribution of face familiarity to
ingroup favoritism and stereotyping. Social Cognition, 25(2), 306–338. doi: 10.1521/
soco.2007.25.2.306

But the most important determinant of ingroup favoritism is simple self-

enhancement. We want to feel good about ourselves, and seeing our ingroups
positively helps us do so (Brewer, 1979).Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the
minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 86, 307–324. Being a member of a group that has positive characteristics
provides us with the feelings of social identity11—the positive self-esteem that we get
from our group memberships. When we can identify ourselves as a member of a
meaningful social group (even if it is a relatively trivial one), we can feel better
about ourselves.

We are particularly likely to show ingroup favoritism when we are threatened or

otherwise worried about our self-concept (Maner et al., 2005; Solomon, Greenberg,
& Pyszczynski, 2000).Maner, J. K., Kenrick, D. T., Becker, D. V., Robertson, T. E.,
Hofer, B., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2005). Functional projection: How
fundamentally social motives can bias interpersonal perception. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 63–75; Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski,
T. (2000). Pride and prejudice: Fear of death and social behavior. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(6), 200–204. And people express higher self-esteem after they
have been given the opportunity to derogate outgroups, suggesting that ingroup
favoritism does make us feel good (Lemyre & Smith, 1985; Rubin & Hewstone,
1998).Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem
in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49,
660–670; Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theory’s self-esteem
hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarification. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 2, 40–62. Furthermore, when individuals feel that the value of
their ingroup is being threatened, they respond as if they are trying to regain their
own self-worth—by expressing more positive attitudes toward ingroups and more
negative attitudes toward outgroups (Branscombe, Wann, Noel, & Coleman, 1993;
Spears, Doosje, & Ellemers, 1997).Branscombe, N. R., Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., &
Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened
social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381–388; Spears, R.,
Doosje, B., & Ellemers, N. (1997). Self-stereotyping in the face of threats to group
status and distinctiveness: The role of group identification. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 23, 538–553. Fein and Spencer (1997)Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J.
11. The positive emotions that we (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating
experience as a member of an
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. found that participants
important social group.

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 678

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

expressed less prejudice after they had been given the opportunity to affirm and
make salient an important and positive part of their own self-concept. In short,
when our group seems to be good, we feel good; when our group seems to be bad,
we feel bad.

In some cases, we may be able to feel good about our group memberships even
when our own individual outcomes are not so positive. Schmitt, Silvia, and
Branscombe (2000)Schmitt, M. T., Silvia, P. J., & Branscombe, N. R. (2000). The
intersection of self-evaluation maintenance and social identity theories: Intragroup
judgment in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 26(12), 1598–1606. had groups of female college students perform a
creativity task and then gave them feedback indicating that although they
themselves had performed very poorly, another woman in their group had
performed very well. Furthermore, in some experimental conditions, the women
were told that the research was comparing the scores of men and women (which
was designed to increase categorization by gender). In these conditions, rather than
being saddened by the upward comparison with the other woman, participants used
the successful performance of the other woman to feel good about themselves, as
women.

When Ingroup Favoritism Does Not Occur

Although people have a general tendency to show ingroup favoritism, there are
least some cases in which it does not occur. One situation in which ingroup
favoritism is unlikely is when the members of the ingroup are clearly inferior to
other groups on an important dimension. The players on a baseball team that has
not won a single game all season are unlikely to be able to feel very good about
themselves as a team and are pretty much forced to concede that the outgroups are
better, at least as far as playing baseball is concerned. Members of low-status
groups show less ingroup favoritism than do members of high-status groups and
may even display outgroup favoritism, in which they admit that the other groups
are better than they are (Clark & Clark, 1947).Clark, K., & Clark, M. (1947). Racial
identification and preference in Negro children. In E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb, & E.
Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 602–611). New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.

Another case in which people judge other members of the ingroup very negatively
occurs when a member of one’s own group behaves in a way that threatens the
positive image of the ingroup. A student who behaves in a way unbecoming to
university students, or a teammate who does not seem to value the importance of
the team, is disparaged by the other group members, often more than the same
behavior from an outgroup member would be. The strong devaluation of ingroup

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 679

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

members who threaten the positive image and identity of the ingroup is known as the
black sheep effect12.

Personality and Cultural Determinants of Ingroup Favoritism

To this point, we have considered ingroup favoritism as a natural part of everyday

life. Because the tendency to favor the ingroup is a normal byproduct of self-
concern, most people do, by and large, prefer their ingroups over outgroups. And
yet not everyone is equally ingroup-favoring in all situations. There are a number of
individual difference measures that predict prejudice, and these differences become
particularly likely to show up under circumstances in which the desire to protect
the self becomes important (Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte,
2003).Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social
dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants
of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 697–721.
doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.84.4.697

Some people are more likely than others to show ingroup favoritism because they
are particularly likely to rely on their group memberships to create a positive social
identity. These differences in group identification can be measured through self-
report measures such as the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen & Crocker,
1992).Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-
evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18,
302–318. The scale assesses the extent to which the individual values his or her
memberships in groups in public and private ways, as well as the extent to which he
or she gains social identity from those groups. People who score higher on the scale
show more ingroup favoritism in comparison with those who score lower on it
(Stangor & Thompson, 2002).Stangor, C., & Thompson, E. P. (2002). Needs for
cognitive economy and self-enhancement as unique predictors of intergroup
attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(4), 563–575. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.114
The scale, from Luhtanen and Crocker (1992),Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A
collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. is shown in Table 12.2 "The Collective Self-
Esteem Scale".

Table 12.2 The Collective Self-Esteem Scale

I am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to.

Membership I feel I don’t have much to offer to the social groups I belong to [R].
12. Strong negative responses to
ingroup members who I am a cooperative participant in the social groups I belong to.
threaten the positive image
and identity of the ingroup. [R] = Item is reversed before scoring.

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 680

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

I often feel I’m an unclean member of my social group [R].

I often regret that I belong to some of the social groups I do [R].

In general, I’m glad to be a member of the social groups I belong to.

Private Overall, I often feel that the social groups of which I am a member are not
worthwhile [R].

I feel good about the social groups I belong to.

Overall, my social groups are considered good by others.

Most people consider my social groups, on the average, to be more

ineffective than other social groups [R].
Public
In general, others respect the social groups that I am a member of.

In general, others think that the social groups I am a member of are

unworthy [R].

Overall, my group memberships have very little to do with how I feel about
myself [R].

The social groups I belong to are an important reflection of who I am.

Identity
The social groups I belong to are unimportant in my sense of what kind of a
person I am [R].

In general, belonging to social groups is an important part of my self-image.

[R] = Item is reversed before scoring.

Another personality dimension that relates to the desires to protect and enhance
the self and the ingroup and thus also relates to greater ingroup favoritism, and in
some cases prejudice toward outgroups, is the personality dimension of
authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer,
1988).Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950).
The authoritarian personality. New York, NY: Harper; Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of
freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Authoritarianism13 is a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer
things to be simple rather than complex and who tend to hold traditional and conventional
values. Authoritarians are ingroup-favoring in part because they have a need to self-
enhance and in part because they prefer simplicity and thus find it easy to think
simply: “We are all good and they are all less good.” Political conservatives tend to
show more ingroup favoritism than do political liberals, perhaps because the
former are more concerned with protecting the ingroup from threats posed by
13. An individual difference others (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Stangor & Leary, 2006).Jost, J. T.,
variable characterized by a Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as
tendency to prefer things to be
simple rather than complex
motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375; Stangor, C., &
and to hold traditional values.

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 681

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Leary, S. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 243–283.

People with strong goals toward other-concern display less ingroup favoritism and
less prejudice. People who view it as particularly important to connect with and
respect other people—those who are more focused on tolerance and fairness toward
others—are less ingroup-favoring and more positive toward the members of groups
other than their own. The desire to be fair and to accept others can be assessed by
individual difference measures such as desire to control one’s prejudice (Plant &
Devine, 1998)Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to
respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832.
and humanism (Katz & Hass, 1988).Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence
and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive
structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.

Social dominance orientation (SDO)14 is a personality variable that refers to the

tendency to see and to accept inequality among different groups (Pratto, Sidanius,
Stallworth, & Malle, 1995).Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F.
(1995). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and
political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. People who
score high on measures of SDO believe that there are and should be status
differences among social groups, and they do not see these as wrong. High SDO
individuals agree with statements such as “Some groups of people are simply
inferior to other groups,” “In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to
use force against other groups,” and “It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance
in life than others.” Those who are low on SDO, on the other hand, believe that all
groups are relatively equal in status and tend to disagree with these statements.
People who score higher on SDO also show greater ingroup favoritism.

Stereotyping and prejudice also varies across cultures. Spencer-Rodgers, Williams,

Hamilton, Peng, and Wang (2007)Spencer-Rodgers, J., Williams, M. J., Hamilton, D.
L., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2007). Culture and group perception: Dispositional and
stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 93(4), 525–543. tested the hypothesis that Chinese participants,
because of their collectivist orientation, would find social groups more important
than would Americans (who are more individualistic) and that as a result, they
would be more likely to infer personality traits on the basis of group
membership—that is, to stereotype. Supporting the hypothesis, they found that
Chinese participants made stronger stereotypical trait inferences than Americans
14. An individual difference did on the basis of a target’s membership in a fictitious group.
measures that assesses the
tendency to see and justify
inequality among different
social groups.

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 682

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Ingroup favoritism is a fundamental and evolutionarily functional

aspect of human perception, and it occurs even in groups that are not
particularly meaningful.
• Ingroup favoritism is caused by a variety of variables, but particularly
important is self-concern: We experience positive social identity as a
result of our membership in valued social groups.
• Ingroup favoritism develops early in children and influences our
behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members in a variety of ways.
• Personality dimensions that relate to ingroup favoritism include
authoritarianism and social dominance orientation—dimensions that
relate to less ingroup favoritism include a desire to control one’s
prejudice and humanism.
• There are at least some cultural differences in the tendency to show
ingroup favoritism and to stereotype others.

EXERCISES AND CRITICAL THINKING

1. Consider some of the important social groups to which you belong. Do

your group memberships lead to ingroup favoritism or even prejudice?
2. Describe a time when the members of one of your important social
groups behaved in a way that increased group identity (e.g., showing the
black sheep effect). What was the outcome of the actions?

12.2 Ingroup Favoritism and Prejudice 683

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

12.3 Reducing Discrimination

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

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

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

Discrimination influences the daily life of its victims in areas such as employment,
income, financial opportunities, housing and educational opportunities, and
medical care. Discrimination has been blamed for the large percentage of Blacks
living in poverty and for their lack of access to high-paying jobs (Williams & Rucker,
1996).Williams, D. R., & Rucker, T. (Eds.). (1996). Socioeconomic status and the health of
racial minority populations. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Blacks have higher
mortality rates than Whites for 8 of the 10 leading causes of death in the United
States (Williams, 1999)Williams, D. R. (1999). Race, socioeconomics status, and
health: The added effect of racism and discrimination. In Adler, N. E., Boyce, T.,
Chesney, M. A., & Cohen, S. (1994). Socioeconomic status and health: The challenge
of the gradient. American Psychologist, 49, 15-24. and have less access to and receive
poorer-quality health care, even controlling for other variables such as level of
health insurance. Suicide rates among lesbians and gays are substantially higher
than rates for the general population, and it has been argued that this in part due to
the negative outcomes of prejudice, including negative attitudes and resulting
social isolation (Halpert, 2002).Halpert, S. C. (2002). Suicidal behavior among gay
male youth. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 6, 53–79. And in some rare cases,
discrimination even takes the form of hate crimes such as gay bashing.

More commonly, members of minority groups also face a variety of small hassles,
such as bad service in restaurants, being stared at, and being the target of jokes

684
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

(Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003).Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L.
L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college students’
experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these
incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29(1), 38–67. But even these everyday “minor”
forms of discrimination can be problematic because they may produce anger and
anxiety among stigmatized group members and may lead to stress and other
psychological problems (Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000; Klonoff, Landrine, &
Ullman, 1999).Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., & Campbell, R. (2000). Sexist
discrimination may account for well-known gender differences in psychiatric
symptoms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 93–99; Klonoff, E. A., Landrine, H., &
Ullman, J. B. (1999). Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among blacks.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(4), 329–339. Stigmatized individuals
who report experiencing more exposure to discrimination or other forms of unfair
treatment also report more depression, anger, and anxiety and lower levels of life
satisfaction and happiness (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001).Swim, J. K.,
Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its
incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal
of Social Issues, 57(1), 31–53.

Of course most of us do try to keep our stereotypes and our prejudices out of mind,
and we work hard to avoid discriminating (Richeson & Shelton, 2007).Richeson, J.
A., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Negotiating interracial interactions: Costs, consequences,
and possibilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 316–320. doi:
10.1111/j.1467–8721.2007.00528.x But even when we work to keep our negative
beliefs under control, this does not mean that they easily disappear. Neil Macrae
and his colleagues (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994)Macrae, C. N.,
Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight:
Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(5),
808–817. asked British college students to write a paragraph describing a skinhead
(a member of a group that is negatively stereotyped in England). One half of the
participants were asked to be sure to not use their stereotypes when they were
judging him, whereas the other half simply wrote whatever came to mind. Although
the participants who were asked to suppress their thoughts were able to do it, this
suppression didn’t last very long. After they had suppressed their stereotypes, these
beliefs quickly popped back into mind, making it even more likely that they would
be used immediately later.

But stereotypes are not always and inevitably activated when we encounter people
from other groups. We can and we do get past them, although doing so may take
some effort on our part (Blair, 2002).Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic
stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261.
There are a number of techniques that we can use to try to improve our attitudes
toward outgroups, and at least some of them have been found to be effective.

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 685

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, and Russin (2000)Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F.,
Moll, J., Hermsen, S., & Russin, A. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of
training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,78 (5), 871–888. found that students who practiced
responding in nonstereotypical ways to members of other groups became better
able to avoid activating their negative stereotypes on future occasions. And a
number of studies have found that we become less prejudiced when we are exposed
to and think about group members who have particularly positive or
nonstereotypical characteristics. For instance, Blair, Ma, and Lenton (2001)Blair, I.
V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of
implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(5), 828–841. asked their participants to imagine a woman who was
“strong” and found that doing so decreased stereotyping of women. Similarly,
Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, and Wanke (1995)Bodenhausen, G. V., Schwarz, N.,
Bless, H., & Wanke, M. (1995). Effects of atypical exemplars on racial beliefs:
Enlightened racism or generalized appraisals? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 31, 48–63. found that when White students thought about positive Black
role models—such as Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan—they became less
prejudiced toward Blacks.

Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms

One variable that makes us less prejudiced is education. People who are more
educated express fewer stereotypes and prejudice in general. This is true for
students who enroll in courses that are related to stereotypes and prejudice, such as
a course on gender and ethnic diversity (Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001),Rudman,
L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). “Unlearning” automatic biases: The
malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 81(5), 856–868. and is also true more generally—education reduces
prejudice, regardless of what particular courses you take (Sidanius, Sinclair, &
Pratto, 2006).Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance
orientation, gender, and increasing educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36(7), 1640–1653.

The effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to the
new social norms that people are introduced to in school. Social norms define what
is appropriate and inappropriate, and we can effectively change stereotypes and
prejudice by changing the relevant norms about them. Jetten, Spears, and Manstead
(1997)Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Strength of identification and
intergroup differentiation: The influence of group norms. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 27(5), 603–609. manipulated whether students thought that the other
members of their university favored equal treatment of others or believed that
others thought it was appropriate to favor the ingroup. They found that

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 686

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

perceptions of what the other group members believed had an important influence
on the beliefs of the individuals themselves. The students were more likely to show
ingroup favoritism when they believed that the norm of their ingroup was to do so,
and this tendency was increased for students who had high social identification
with the ingroup.

Sechrist and Stangor (2001)Sechrist, G., & Stangor, C. (2001). Perceived consensus
influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(4), 645–654. selected White college students who were either
high or low in prejudice toward Blacks and then provided them with information
indicating that their prejudiced or unprejudiced beliefs were either shared or not
shared by the other students at their university. Then the students were asked to
take a seat in a hallway to wait for the next part of the experiment. A Black
confederate was sitting in one seat at the end of the row, and the dependent
measure was how far away the students sat from her.

As you can see in Figure 12.8 "The Role of Norms in Intergroup Behavior", high
prejudice students who learned that other students were also prejudiced sat farther
away from the Black confederate in comparison with high prejudice individuals
who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared. On the other hand,
students who were initially low in prejudice and who believed these views were
shared sat closer to the Black confederate in comparison with low prejudice
individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared. These results
demonstrate that our perceptions of relevant social norms can strengthen or
weaken our tendencies to engage in discriminatory behaviors.

Figure 12.8 The Role of Norms in Intergroup Behavior

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

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 687

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

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

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

What this means is that if you believe that prejudice is wrong, you must confront it
when you see it happening. Czopp, Monteith, and Mark (2006)Czopp, A. M.,
Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias
through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90(5), 784–803. had White participants participate in a task in which it was easy to
unintentionally stereotype a Black person, and as a result, many of the participants
did so. Then, confederates of the experimenter confronted the students about their
stereotypes, saying things such as “Maybe it would be good to think about Blacks in
other ways that are a little more fair?” or “It just seems that you sound like some
kind of racist to me. You know what I mean?” Although the participants who had
been confronted experienced negative feelings about the confrontation and also
expressed negative opinions about the person who confronted them, the
confrontation did work. The students who had been confronted expressed less
prejudice and fewer stereotypes on subsequent tasks than did the students who had
not been confronted.

As this study concluded, taking steps to reduce prejudice is everyone’s duty—having

a little courage can go a long way in this regard. Confronting prejudice can lead
other people to think that we are complaining and therefore to dislike us (Kaiser &
Miller, 2001; Shelton & Stewart, 2004),Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop
complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263; Shelton, N. J., & Stewart, R. E. (2004).
Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–222. but confronting prejudice is not all
negative for the person who confronts. Although it is embarrassing to do so,
particularly if we are not completely sure that the behavior was in fact prejudice,
when we fail to confront, we may frequently later feel guilty that we did not
(Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006).Shelton, J. N., Richeson, J. A., Salvatore,
J., & Hill, D. M. (Eds.). (2006). Silence is not golden: The intrapersonal consequences of not
confronting prejudice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 688

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Reducing Prejudice Through Intergroup Contact

One of the reasons that people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they
view the members of outgroups as different from them. We may become concerned
that our interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant,
and these anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from those groups
(Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008).Mallett, R. K., Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2008).
Expect the unexpected: Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an intergroup
forecasting error. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(2), 265–277. doi:
10.1037/0022–3514.94.2.94.2.265 What this suggests is that a good way to reduce
prejudice is to help people create closer connections with members of different
groups. People will be more favorable toward others when they learn to see those
other people as more similar to them, as closer to the self, and to be more
concerned about them.

The idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice, known as the contact
hypothesis15, is simple: If children from different ethnic groups play together in
school, their attitudes toward each other should improve. And if we encourage
college students to travel abroad, they will meet people from other cultures and
become more positive toward them.

One important example of the use of intergroup contact to influence prejudice

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

The strategy of busing was initiated after the Supreme Court decision, and it had a
profound effect on schools in the United States. For one, the policy was very
effective in changing school makeup—the number of segregated schools decreased
dramatically during the 1960s after the policy was begun. Busing also improved the
educational and occupational achievement of Blacks and increased the desire of
Blacks to interact with Whites, for instance, by forming cross-race friendships
(Stephan, 1999).Stephan, W. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New
York, NY: Teacher’s College Press. Overall, then, the case of desegregating schools
in the United States supports the expectation that intergroup contact, at least in
15. The idea that intergroup the long run, can be successful in changing attitudes. Nevertheless, as a result of
contact will reduce prejudice.

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 689

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

several subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the policy of desegregating

schools via busing was not continued past the 1990s.

Although student busing to achieve desegregated schools represents one prominent

example of intergroup contact, such contact occurs in many other areas as well.
Taken together, there is substantial support for the effectiveness of intergroup
contact in improving group attitudes in a wide variety of situations, including
schools, work organizations, military forces, and public housing. Pettigrew and
Tropp (2006)Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of
intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783.
conducted a meta-analysis in which they reviewed over 500 studies that had
investigated the effects of intergroup contact on group attitudes. They found that
attitudes toward groups that were in contact became more positive over time.
Furthermore, positive effects of contact were found on both stereotypes and
prejudice and for many different types of contacted groups.

The positive effects of intergroup contact may be due in part to increases in other-
concern. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000)Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000).
Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and
in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 708–724. found
that leading students to take the perspective of another group member—which
increased empathy and closeness to the person—also reduced prejudice. And the
behavior of students on college campuses demonstrates the importance of
connecting with others and the dangers of not doing so. Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin,
and Sinclair (2004)Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic
enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus: The good, the
bad, and the ugly. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 96–110. found that
students who joined exclusive campus groups, including fraternities, sororities, and
minority ethnic organizations (such as the African Student Union), were more
prejudiced to begin with and became even less connected and more intolerant of
members of other social groups over the time that they remained in the
organizations. It appears that memberships in these groups focused the students on
themselves and other people who were very similar to them, leading them to
become less tolerant of others who are different.

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

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 690

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

When we first meet someone from another category, we are likely to rely almost
exclusively on our stereotypes (Brodt & Ross, 1998).Brodt, S. E., & Ross, L. D. (1998).
The role of stereotyping in overconfident social prediction. Social Cognition, 16,
225–252. However, when we get to know the individual well (e.g., as a student in a
classroom learns to know the other students over a school year), we may get to the
point where we ignore that individual’s group membership almost completely,
responding to him or her entirely at the individual level (Madon et al.,
1998).Madon, S., Jussim, L., Keiper, S., Eccles, J., Smith, A., & Palumbo, P. (1998). The
accuracy and power of sex, social class, and ethnic stereotypes: A naturalistic study
in person perception. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(12), 1304–1318.
Thus contact is effective in part because it leads us to get past our perceptions of
others as group members and to individuate them.

When we get past group memberships and focus more on the individuals in the
groups, we begin to see that there is a great deal of variability among the group
members and that our global and undifferentiating group stereotypes are actually
not that informative (Rothbart & John, 1985).Rothbart, M., & John, O. P. (1985).
Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of
intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81–104. Successful intergroup contact
tends to reduce the perception of outgroup homogeneity. Contact also helps us feel
more positively about the members of the other group, and this positive affect
makes us like them more.

Intergroup contact is also more successful when the people involved in the contact
are motivated to learn about the others. One factor that increases this motivation is
interdependence—a state in which the group members depend on each other for
successful performance of the group goals (Neuberg & Fiske, 1987).Neuberg, S. L., &
Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome
dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444. The importance of interdependence can
be seen in the success of cooperative learning techniques, such as the jigsaw
classroom (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978; Aronson, 2004).Aronson,
E., Blaney, N., Stephan, C., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jig-saw classroom. London,
England: Sage; Aronson, E. (2004). Reducing hostility and building compassion:
Lessons from the jigsaw classroom. In A. G. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good
and evil (pp. 469–488). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

The jigsaw classroom16 is an approach to learning in which students from different

racial or ethnic groups work together, in an interdependent way, to master material. The
16. An approach to learning in class is divided into small learning groups, where each group is diverse in ethnic
which students from different
racial or ethnic groups work
and gender composition. The assigned material to be learned is divided into as
together, in an interdependent many parts as there are students in the group, and members of different groups
way, to master material. who are assigned the same task meet together to help develop a strong report. Each

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 691

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

student then learns his or her own part of the material and presents this piece of
the puzzle to the other members of his or her group. The students in each group are
therefore interdependent in learning all the material. A wide variety of techniques,
based on principles of the jigsaw classroom, are in use in many schools around the
United States and the world, and research studying these approaches has found
that cooperative, interdependent experiences among students from different social
groups are effective in reducing negative stereotyping and prejudice (Stephan,
1999).Stephan, W. (1999). Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools. New York, NY:
Teacher’s College Press.

In sum, we can say that contact will be most effective when it is easier to get to
know, and become more respectful of, the members of the other group and when
the social norms of the situation promote equal, fair treatment of all groups. If the
groups are treated unequally, for instance, by a teacher or leader who is prejudiced
and who therefore treats the different groups differently, or if the groups are in
competition rather than cooperation, there will be no benefit. In cases when these
conditions are not met, contact may not be effective and may in fact increase
prejudice, particularly when it confirms stereotypical expectations (Stangor, Jonas,
Stroebe, & Hewstone, 1996).Stangor, C., Jonas, K., Stroebe, W., & Hewstone, M.
(1996). Development and change of national stereotypes and attitudes. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 663–675. Finally, it is important that enough time be
allowed for the changes to take effect. In the case of busing in the United States, for
instance, the positive effects of contact seemed to have been occurring, but they
were not happening particularly fast.

Let’s consider in the next section still another way that intergroup contact can
reduce prejudice—the idea that prejudice can be reduced for people who have
friends who are friends with members of the outgroup—the extended-contact
hypothesis17.

17. The prediction that people who

have friends from other social
groups will be more accepting
of all members of those groups.

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 692

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Research Focus

The Extended-Contact Hypothesis

Although the contact hypothesis proposes that direct contact between people
from different social groups will produce more positive attitudes between
them, recent evidence suggests that prejudice can also be reduced for people who
have friends who are friends with members of the outgroup, even if the individual
does not have direct contact with the outgroup members himself or herself.
This hypothesis is known as the extended-contact hypothesis. Supporting this
prediction, Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997)Wright, S. C.,
Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact
effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90. found in two correlational studies that college
students who reported that their own friends had friends who were from
another ethnic group reported more positive attitudes toward that outgroup
than did students who did not have any friends who had outgroup friends, even
controlling for the participants’ own outgroup friendships.

Wright et al. (1997) also tested the extended-contact hypothesis

experimentally. Participants were four groups of 14 students, and each group
spent a whole day in the lab. On arrival, 7 participants were assigned to the
“green” group, and 7 to the “blue” group, supposedly on the basis of similar
interests. To create strong ingroup identity and to produce competition
between the groups, the group members wore blue and green t-shirts and
engaged in a series of competitive tasks. Participants then expressed their
initial thoughts and feelings about the outgroup and its members.

Then, supposedly as part of an entirely different study, one participant was

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

In the final phase, the groups then engaged in another competitive task, and
participants rated their thoughts and feelings about the outgroup and its
members again. As you can see in the following figure, and supporting the

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 693

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

extended-contact hypothesis, results showed that the participants (including

those who did not participate in the closeness task themselves) were more
positive toward the outgroup after than before the two team members had met.
This study, as well as many other studies, supports the importance of cross-
group friendships in promoting favorable outgroup attitudes (Page-Gould,
Mendoza-Denton, & Tropp, 2008; Shook & Fazio, 2008).Page-Gould, E., Mendoza-
Denton, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend:
Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1080–1094. doi: 10.1037/
0022–3514.95.5.1080; Shook, N. J., & Fazio, R. H. (2008). Interracial roommate
relationships: An experimental field test of the contact hypothesis. Psychological
Science, 19(7), 717–723. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9280.2008.02147.x

Figure 12.9
The Extended-Contact Hypothesis

This figure shows how members of the two groups, which were in competition with each other, rated each
other before and after the experimental manipulation of friendship. You can see that group relationships,
which were becoming more negative, changed to being more positive after the intervention. Data are from
Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997).Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A.
(1997). The extended contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 73(1), 73–90.

Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization

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

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 694

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

This fact was demonstrated in a very convincing way in one of the most well known
of all social psychological studies. In the “Robbers’ Cave Experiment,” Sherif,
Harvey, White, Hood, and Sherif (1961)Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W.
R., & Sherif, C. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers’ cave experiment.
Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. studied the group behavior of 11-year-
old boys at a summer camp. Although the boys did not know it, the researchers
carefully observed the behaviors of the children during the camp session, with the
goal of learning about how group conflict developed and how it might be resolved
among the children.

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

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

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

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 695

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

group members gradually improved; there was a reduction of hostility between the
groups and an emergence of more positive intergroup attitudes.

This strategy was effective because it led the campers to perceive both the ingroup
and the outgroup as one large group (“we”) rather than as two separate groups
(“us” and “them”). As differentiation between the ingroup and the outgroup
decreases, so should ingroup favoritism, prejudice, and conflict. The differences
between the original groups are still present, but they are potentially counteracted
by perceived similarities in the second superordinate group. The attempt to reduce
prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization is known as the goal of creating a
common ingroup identity18 (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2008),Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J.
F. (Eds.). (2008). Addressing contemporary racism: The common ingroup identity model.
New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. and we can diagram the
relationship as follows:

interdependence and cooperation → common ingroup identity → favorable

intergroup attitudes.

A substantial amount of research has supported the predictions of the common

ingroup identity model. For instance, Samuel Gaertner and his colleagues (Gaertner,
Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989)Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F.
(1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239–249. tested the hypothesis that
interdependent cooperation in groups reduces negative beliefs about outgroup
members because it leads people to see the others as part of the ingroup (by
creating a common identity). In this research, college students were brought to a
laboratory where they were each assigned to one of two teams of three members
each, and each team was given a chance to create its own unique group identity by
working together. Then, the two teams were brought into a single room to work on
a problem. In one condition, the two teams were told to work together as a larger,
six-member team to solve the problem, whereas in the other condition, the two
teams worked on the problem separately.

Consistent with the expected positive results of creating a common group identity,
the interdependence created in the condition where the teams worked together
increased the tendency of the team members to see themselves as members of a
single, larger team, and this in turn reduced the tendency for each group to show
18. The experience of social
ingroup favoritism.
identity that occurs when
differences in social grouping
at one level are reduced by But the benefits of recategorization are not confined to laboratory settings—they
perceived similarities on a also appear in our everyday interactions with other people. Jason Neir and his
second, superordinate colleagues (Neir et al., 2001)Neir, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S.,
category.

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 696

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Ward, C. M., & Rust, C. R. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The
effects of a common group identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4,
299–316. had Black and White interviewers approach White students who were
attending a football game. The dependent measure was whether or not they agreed
to help the interviewer by completing a questionnaire. However, the interviewers
also wore hats representing either one of the two universities who were playing in
the game. As you can see in Figure 12.10 "Recategorization and Helping Behavior",
the data were analyzed both by whether the interviewer and the student were of
the same race (either both White or one White and one Black) and also by whether
they wore hats from the same or different universities. As expected on the basis of
recategorization and the common ingroup identity approach, the White students
were significantly more likely to help the Black interviewers when they wore a hat
of the same university as that worn by the interviewee. The hat evidently led the
White students to recategorize the interviewer as part of the university ingroup,
leading to more helping. However, whether the individuals shared university
affiliation did not influence helping for the White participants, presumably because
they already saw the interviewer as a member of the ingroup (the interviewer was
also White).

Figure 12.10 Recategorization and Helping Behavior

In this field study, White and Black interviewers asked White students attending a football game to help them by
completing a questionnaire. The data were analyzed both by whether the request was to a White (ingroup) or Black
(outgroup) student and also by whether the individual whose help was sought wore the same hat that they did or a
different hat. Results supported the common ingroup identity model. Helping was much greater for outgroup
members when hats were the same. Data are from Neir et al. (2001).Neir, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker,
B. S., Ward, C. M., & Rust, C. R. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group
identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 299–316.

Again, the implications of these results are clear and powerful. If we want to
improve attitudes among people, we must get them to see each other as more

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 697

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

similar and less different. And even relatively simple ways of doing so, such as
wearing a hat that suggests an ingroup identification, can be successful.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Changing our stereotypes and prejudices is not easy, and attempting to

suppress them may backfire. However, with appropriate effort, we can
reduce our tendency to rely on our stereotypes and prejudices.
• One approach to changing stereotypes and prejudice is by changing
social norms—for instance, through education and laws enforcing
equality.
• Prejudice will change faster when it is confronted by people who see it
occurring. Confronting prejudice may be embarrassing, but it also can
make us feel that we have done the right thing.
• Intergroup attitudes will be improved when we can lead people to focus
more on their connections with others. Intergroup contact, extended
contact with others who share friends with outgroup members, and a
common ingroup identity are all examples of this process.

EXERCISES AND CRITICAL THINKING

1. Does your college or university support efforts to increase intergroup

contact? If so, do the efforts seem to be successful in reducing prejudice?
2. Have you ever confronted or failed to confront a person who you
thought was expressing prejudice or discriminating? Why did you
confront (or not confront) that person, and how did doing so make you
feel?
3. Imagine you are a teacher in a classroom and you see that some children
expressing prejudice or discrimination toward other children on the
basis of their race. What techniques would you use to attempt to reduce
these negative behaviors?

12.3 Reducing Discrimination 698

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

12.4 Thinking Like a Social Psychologist About Stereotyping, Prejudice,

and Discrimination

This chapter has focused on the ways in which people from different social groups
feel about, think about, and behave toward each other. In most cases, we have
positive thoughts and feelings about others, and our interactions with them are
friendly and positive. And yet in other cases, there is a potential for negative
interactions, and in rare cases, even hostility and violence.

Look again at the pictures in Figure 12.2 and carefully consider your thoughts and
feelings about each person. Does the image bring some stereotypes to mind? What
about prejudices? How do you think your impressions of the individuals might
influence your behavior toward them? Do you hold these beliefs yourself, or do you
know people who do? Can you see how quickly you or other people might make
judgments about these individuals, based on the culturally relevant stereotypes,
and how those judgments might lead to discrimination? What might be the negative
outcomes of the stereotypes on the person?

I hope that you can now see, perhaps more clearly than you did before, that social
categorization is all around us. We think about other people in terms of their group
memberships, and this is entirely natural. But perhaps you are now able to see the
processes more fully. I hope you can see that categorization has some benefits—it
allows us to think about ourselves as members of valued groups, for instance, but it
also has some potential negative outcomes, including overgeneralized stereotyping
and ingroup favoritism. I hope that you are now more aware how easily we
categorize others, how quickly we learn stereotypes, and how fast ingroup
favoritism develops and that you can better see the impact these processes have on
our judgments of others.

You will now be able to see that prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes reflect,
respectively, the ABCs of affect, behavior, and cognition. And because you are
thinking like a social psychologist, you will realize that prejudice is not
unusual—that it results in large part from self-concern. We like our own groups
because we feel good about them and see them as similar. But we can improve our
attitudes toward outgroups by focusing on other concern—by being more inclusive
and including more different people into our ingroups. Perhaps the best thing we
can do is to recategorize such that we see all people as human beings; we are all in
the same ingroup, and we should treat everyone the way we would like them to
treat us—with respect.

699
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

I hope your new knowledge can help you in your own relationships with others. Is it
possible that you have ingroup favoritism that you were not aware of? Or perhaps
you hold stereotypes about other groups that you would like to avoid holding? You
can now see, I think, how better to avoid being prejudiced yourself. And you are
now perhaps more aware of the importance of social norms—we must work to
prevent those norms from allowing prejudice. To stop prejudice, you must be
willing to interact with people from other groups, and you must confront prejudice
when you see it occurring. These behaviors may be difficult, but in the end they will
help you be a better citizen.

12.4 Thinking Like a Social Psychologist About Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination 700
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

12.5 Chapter Summary

The social groups that are part of a given nation or society become essential parts of
the culture itself. We easily develop beliefs about the characteristics of the groups
and the members of those groups (stereotypes) as well as prejudice (an unjustifiable
negative attitude toward an outgroup). Our stereotypes and our prejudices are
problematic because they may create discrimination—unjustified negative
behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership.
Discrimination is a societal and health problem because it is so pervasive, takes so
many forms, and has such negative effects on so many people.

Stereotyping and prejudice begin from social categorization—the natural cognitive

process by which we place individuals into social groups. Social categorization is in
many cases quite helpful and useful. In some cases, we might categorize others
because doing so provides us with information about the characteristics of people
who belong to certain social groups or categories. And we may categorize others
because we may not have time to do anything more thorough.

A problem is that social categorization distorts our perceptions of others such that
we tend to exaggerate the differences between social groups while at the same time
perceiving members of groups (and particularly outgroups) as more similar to each
other than they actually are. One particularly strong outcome of social
categorization is outgroup homogeneity—the tendency to view members of
outgroups as more similar to each other than we see members of ingroups.

Once we begin to categorize other people, and we start to see the members of those
groups as more similar to each other than they actually are, it then becomes very
easy to apply our stereotypes to the members of the groups, without having to
consider whether the characteristic is actually true of the particular individual. If
men think that women are all alike, then they may act toward all women in the
same way, and doing so is unfair.

Our stereotypes and prejudices are learned through both cognitive and affective
processes. Once they become established, stereotypes (like any other cognitive
representation) tend to persevere—they are difficult to change. In the end,
stereotypes become self-fulfilling prophecies, such that our expectations about the
group members make the stereotypes come true. And our stereotypes also influence
our performance on important tasks through stereotype threat.

701
Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Ingroup favoritism occurs on the basis of even arbitrary and unimportant

groupings and is found for many different types of social groups, in many different
settings, on many different dimensions, and in many different cultures.

The most important determinant of ingroup favoritism is simple self-enhancement.

We want to feel good about ourselves, and being a member of a group that has
positive characteristics provides social identity—the positive self-esteem that we
get from our group memberships. In cases when our groups do not provide positive
social identity, we must try to restore a positive self-worth. If we cannot leave the
group, we may try to perceive the group as positively as possible, perhaps by
focusing on dimensions on which the group does not compare so unfavorably.

Although it is assumed that most people gain at least some positive social identity
through their group memberships, people differ in the extent to which they use
their group memberships to create social identity. Personality dimensions related
to prejudice include authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. And there
is also at least some evidence that stereotyping varies across cultures.

Because social categorization is a basic human process that provides some benefits
for us, stereotypes and prejudices are easy to develop but difficult to change. But
stereotypes and prejudice are not inevitable.

The positive effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large
part to the new social norms that people experience in school, which people who do
not go to school do not learn. True changes in beliefs will only occur if they are
supported by changes in social norms. And because social norms are so important,
the behavior of individuals can help create or reduce it. Prejudice will be more
likely to continue if people allow it to by not responding to it or confronting it when
it occurs.

Intergroup attitudes will be improved when we can lead people to focus relatively
more on their concerns for others and relatively less on their desires to feel good
about themselves. Intergroup contact is effective in this regard, although only
under conditions that allow us to individuate others. And individuation is more
successful when the people involved in the contact are interdependent, such as in
cooperative educational contexts like the jigsaw classroom. Prejudice can also be
reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the
outgroup—the extended-contact hypothesis.

In the “Robbers’ Cave Experiment,” as well as in many other studies, it has been
found that superordinate goals that help us see others as part of the same category

12.5 Chapter Summary 702

Chapter 12 Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

as we are provide a common ingroup identity and are successful at improving

intergroup attitudes.

You can now see how important social categorization is but also that it has many
potential negative outcomes. You are now more aware how easily we categorize
others, how quickly we learn stereotypes, and how fast ingroup favoritism
develops, and you can better see the impact that these processes have on our
judgments of others. You can use that new knowledge to help you avoid being
prejudiced yourself and to help others from being prejudiced too. Doing so will be
difficult, but in the end it will be useful.

But just because we have stereotypes or hold prejudices does not mean that we
cannot change them or that we must act on them. If sports referees learn about
their prejudices, they can work harder to overcome them, and they may well be
successful. And when you learn about your own stereotypes and your own
prejudices, and the effects of those beliefs on yourself and others, you may be able
to change your own behavior and respond more appropriately to the stereotypes
and prejudices expressed by others.

12.5 Chapter Summary 703