The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice最新文献

Evolutionary Approaches to Stereotyping and Prejudice 刻板印象和偏见的进化方法

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.003

引用次数: 0

It’s All About Ignorance: Reflections from the Blue-Eyed/Brown-Eyed Exercise 这都是关于无知的:来自蓝眼睛/棕色眼睛锻炼的反思

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.010

引用次数: 0

Where Do We Go from Here? Eight Hard Problems Facing the Scientific Study of Prejudice and Its Reduction 我们将何去何从?偏见科学研究面临的八个难题及其减少

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.016

引用次数: 0

Index 指数

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.017

引用次数: 0

The Dual Process Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice 意识形态与偏见的双重过程动机模型

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.009

J. Duckitt, C. Sibley

{"title":"The Dual Process Motivational Model of Ideology and Prejudice","authors":"J. Duckitt, C. Sibley","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.009","url":null,"abstract":"Early research on prejudice resulted in two important empirical observations. First, the kinds of social groups or categories that are targeted with prejudice vary markedly in different societies; and second, individuals within societies vary markedly in the degree to which they are generally prejudiced or generally tolerant. This suggested that we need two kinds of theories to explain prejudice. In the first case, societal or intergroup theories have focused on particular kinds of intergroup relations (e.g., intergroup competition, threat, or inequality) that would cause prejudice to be directed against specific groups and to be widely shared within a particular society. Thomas Pettigrew (1958) referred to this as the “specificity of prejudice.” In the second case, individual difference theories have focused on certain stable characteristics of individuals (e.g., personality, values, motives, or ideological beliefs) that could cause them to be generally more or less prejudiced against all or most target groups. Early theorists referred to this as the “generality of prejudice” or “generalized prejudice” (e.g., Allport, 1954). More recently, however, theories have emerged that can encompass both individual and intergroup factors within their explanatory frameworks. The dual process model (DPM) is one such approach. It was originally formulated to explain systematic individual differences in generalized prejudice, which it did in terms of two basic motivational orientations that dispose individuals to be generally prejudiced or tolerant. It also, however, proposed that these two motivational orientations would be largely activated by socially shared situational and intergroup factors (such as intergroup competition, threat, and inequality). In this way both individual and social or intergroup factors would operate together to generate prejudices. These prejudices are both specific (widely shared and directed against targets specific to a particular society) and generalized (with individuals in these societies varying systematically in the degree to which they were generally prejudiced or tolerant). The DPM encompasses three closely intertwined explanatory contributions to the understanding of prejudice. First, it conceptualizes the two major social attitudinal predictors of individual differences in prejudice as expressions of two distinct motivational goal or value dimensions. Second, the DPM shows how these two motivationally based ideological dimensions are shaped by and emerge from different social and psychological bases. And third, the DPM provides an explanation of why these two motivationally based dimensions cause prejudice and describes how they operate in a complementary and interactive fashion with social and intergroup causes of prejudice.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124518676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 71

What Is Prejudice? An Introduction 什么是偏见?介绍

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.001

引用次数: 2

Is Prejudice Heritable? Evidence from Twin Studies 偏见是遗传的吗?来自双胞胎研究的证据

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781108661911.007

F. Barlow, James M. Sherlock, Brendan P. Zietsch

引用次数: 6

Stereotypicality Biases and the Criminal Justice System 刻板印象、偏见和刑事司法系统

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2018-10-11 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.024

D. Osborne, P. G. Davies, S. Hutchinson, C. Sibley, F. Barlow

引用次数: 3

From Prejudice Reduction to Collective Action: Two Psychological Models of Social Change (and How to Reconcile Them) 从减少偏见到集体行动:社会变革的两种心理模式(及如何调和)

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-11-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.021

John Dixon, K. Durrheim, Clifford Stevenson, H. Çakal

{"title":"From Prejudice Reduction to Collective Action: Two Psychological Models of Social Change (and How to Reconcile Them)","authors":"John Dixon, K. Durrheim, Clifford Stevenson, H. Çakal","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.021","url":null,"abstract":"Even when the social order appears intractable, social change is constantly unfolding all around us, finding expression in the accumulation of small acts of resistance as much as in dramatic moments of revolution. Psychologists should take interest in the dynamics of social change, whether mundane or dramatic, for at least two reasons. First, the explanation of when and why change occurs – or fails to occur – requires analysis of ordinary people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. To understand fully the conditions under which people act in ways that support or challenge the status quo, we simply cannot afford to overlook the role of psychological factors. Second and related, processes of social change invite us to (re)appraise the moral and political implications of psychological knowledge. How do we reduce discrimination against others? When do we recognize and challenge social inequality and when do we accept or even endorse it? How can we create more inclusive forms of identity and community? Such questions elide the traditional division between scholarship and advocacy. They require us to demonstrate how psychological knowledge helps create a more just and tolerant society. Perhaps less comfortably, they require us to recognize how our discipline may be complicit in maintaining social inequalities. \u0000 \u0000In this chapter, we discuss two psychological models of social change, namely prejudice reduction and collective action. Both models focus on the problem of “-improving relations between groups to reduce social inequality and discrimination. However, they propose different psychological pathways to the achievement of this goal and prioritize different core questions. As we shall see, the prejudice reduction model primarily addresses the question “How can we get individuals to like one another more?” whereas the collective action model primarily addresses the question “How can we get individuals to mobilize together to challenge inequality?” \u0000 \u0000The first section of the chapter elaborates the fundamental principles and underlying assumptions of these models. The second section explores the relationship between the two models of change, focusing on the allegation that prejudice reduction exerts counterproductive effects on collective action. The chapter’s conclusion advocates a contextualist perspective on social change. We hold that any evaluation of the efficacy of psychological models of change must remain sensitive to the “stubborn particulars” (Cherry, 1995) of local conditions and the affordances and obstacles embedded there.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132521651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 15

Understanding the Nature, Measurement, and Utility of Implicit Intergroup Biases 了解内隐群体间偏见的性质、测量和效用

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.011

K. Yogeeswaran, T. Devos, Kyle Nash

{"title":"Understanding the Nature, Measurement, and Utility of Implicit Intergroup Biases","authors":"K. Yogeeswaran, T. Devos, Kyle Nash","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.011","url":null,"abstract":"On July 17, 2014, plain-clothed officers from the New York Police Department (NYPD) approached Eric Garner, a 43-year-old African American man suspected of selling loose cigarettes. Garner argued he had not done anything wrong and wanted to be left alone. Officer Pantaleo attempted to handcuff Garner, who moved his arms asking not to be touched, after which Pantaleo put Garner in a chokehold from behind and pulled him to the ground. Other officers surrounded Garner, while Pantaleo pushed Garner's head down to the sidewalk. In a video of the incident, Garner is heard screaming, “I can't breathe” several times before losing consciousness. Seven minutes passed before an ambulance arrived, during which time, CPR was not performed. Garner was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. Within a few months of this incident, other cases of police brutality toward young African American men came into the spotlight, including the fatal shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio; Akai Gurley in Brooklyn, New York; and John Crawford near Dayton, Ohio. The common link between all these shootings was that they involved police officers and African American males between ages 12 and 43. Following the failure to indict officers involved in these cases, widespread demonstrations on the street called for justice (Gambino, Thrasher, & Epstein, 2014). Social movements including Twitter's “#BlackLivesMatter” and “#ICan'tBreathe” also called for action against police violence toward African Americans. Despite public outcry over these cases, national surveys revealed a clear racial gap in perceptions of such incidents. Whereas 80% of African Americans believed that the shooting of Michael Brown raised racial issues that warranted discussion, only 37% of White Americans believed so. By contrast, 47% of White Americans believed race was getting more attention than it deserved (Anderson, 2014). To some individuals, race was irrelevant because there was no overt expression of racism. US Congressman Peter King, for example, argued that racial bias was irrelevant in Garner's death because racial epithets were not used by the police, and the officers would have treated Garner the same if he were a White male (Levine, 2014). Yet, federally collected data on police shootings reveal that young African American men are 21 times more likely to be shot dead by police than their White counterparts (Gabrielson, Jones, & Sagara, 2014).","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127180917","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 12