The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice最新文献

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

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

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

Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century 二十一世纪的矛盾性别歧视

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.013

Rachel A. Connor, P. Glick, S. Fiske

{"title":"Ambivalent Sexism in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"Rachel A. Connor, P. Glick, S. Fiske","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.013","url":null,"abstract":"Gender-based inequality is pervasive. Historically and cross-culturally, men have held more resources, power, and status than women. Despite general trends toward gender equality, male dominance remains a global reality. As of 2014, the global gender gap in economic participation and opportunity, which includes gender gaps in income, labor force participation, and professional advancement, stood at 60% (Hausmann, Tyson, Bekhouche, & Zahidi, 2014). If progress toward gender equality continues at the same pace, it will take until 2095 to completely close this gap. Yet in contrast to characterizations of intergroup relations as hostile and competitive, gender relations are predominantly cooperative – individual men and women consistently engage in and sustain close relationships with members of the other sex, whether friends, parents, siblings, or significant others. Herein lies the gender relationship paradox. How is the tension between male hegemony and male-female intimacy reconciled? Ambivalent sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) recognizes that sexism entails a mixture of antipathy and subjective benevolence: • Hostile sexism corresponds to classic definitions of prejudice as antipathy (Allport, 1954) and reflects the hostile derogation of women who pose a threat to the gender hierarchy (e.g., feminists). • Benevolent sexism is “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling (for the perceiver)” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491). Benevolent sexism bestows affection on women who embrace limited but traditional gender roles (e.g., housewives). Hence, although benevolent sexism may appear positive, it presumes and reinforces women's subordinate status. Ambivalent sexism theory argues that hostile and benevolent sexism are, in fact, not conflicting but complementary ideologies that present a resolution to the gender relationship paradox. By offering male protection and provision to women in exchange for their compliance, benevolent sexism recruits women as unwitting participants in their own subjugation, thereby obviating overt coercion. Hostile sexism serves to safeguard the status quo by punishing those who deviate from traditional gender roles. This chapter discusses ambivalent sexism as a coordinated system of control that serves male dominance and limits women's power across personal, economic, and political domains. First, we review ambivalent sexism theory, focusing on ambivalent sexism's system-justifying functions. The second section addresses how ambivalent sexism polices women's bodies through the threat of rape, sexual harassment, and violence, as well as oppressive beauty ideals.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"30 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":"133826165","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: 45

Aversive Racism and Contemporary Bias 厌恶种族主义和当代偏见

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.012

J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, Adam R. Pearson

{"title":"Aversive Racism and Contemporary Bias","authors":"J. Dovidio, S. Gaertner, Adam R. Pearson","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.012","url":null,"abstract":"In the United States, the 1960s and early 1970s were characterized by significant societal changes. The Civil Rights Movement and social, political, and moral forces stimulated these changes to address racism by White Americans toward Black Americans and achieve the nation's historical egalitarian ideals. With the Civil Rights legislation and other federal mandates, it was no longer simply immoral to discriminate against Blacks; it was now also illegal. Surveys and national polls revealed significant reductions in overt expressions of prejudice among Whites toward Blacks (Dovidio & Gartner, 2004). This unprecedented change in race relations in the United States changed the nature of racial attitudes, from blatant to subtle, and consequently the study of prejudice in psychology (Dovidio, 2001). In other countries, similar normative changes have reduced blatant expressions of prejudice while more subtle, yet equally pernicious, forms of bias persist (see Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). This chapter reviews the development of theory about contemporary forms of racism – focusing primarily on aversive racism – tracing the evolution of this perspective, describing key empirical evidence, and identifying productive avenues for future research. We begin by reviewing relations among different theories of subtle contemporary racism and discussing work on implicit prejudice and its relationship to aversive racism. We then consider the implications of aversive racism for interventions to reduce bias and identify promising new directions for research on contemporary racism, in general, and aversive racism, in particular. Overview of Theories of Subtle Racism The changing social norms and values shaped by the civil rights era posed unique challenges to the study of prejudice. Although overt expressions of prejudice and negative stereotyping have substantially declined, in part because of new normative pressures toward egalitarianism, privately held beliefs continue to reflect negative racial attitudes and beliefs. One effect of these new norms was that people appeared to more deliberately manage how others perceived their racial attitudes. For example, when expressing attitudes under conditions in which they were led to believe their true attitudes could be detected (e.g., bogus pipeline; Roese & Jamieson, 1993), Whites displayed significantly more negative attitudes toward Blacks than when they reported their attitudes under more normal conditions. This effect occurred, in part, because people normally consciously manage self-reports of prejudice and interracial behaviors to appear nonbiased.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"105 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":"131487100","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: 65

Prejudice against Immigrants in Multicultural Societies 多元文化社会中对移民的偏见

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.018

C. Ward, Á. Szabó, Jaimee Stuart

{"title":"Prejudice against Immigrants in Multicultural Societies","authors":"C. Ward, Á. Szabó, Jaimee Stuart","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.018","url":null,"abstract":"Migration is one of the most ancient traditions of humankind. From the beginning of human history, people have been moving places and crossing cultural and societal borders to search for new opportunities and a better life or to flee from war and natural disasters. Although migration is not a modern phenomenon, because of recent technological advancements in communication and transportation, moving across countries has become easier than ever before. This has resulted in a marked worldwide increase in the migrant stock over the past 50 years. In 2013, more than 230 million people were living as international immigrants, and it is projected that the migrant population will reach 400 million by 2050 (Martin, 2013). Globally, four major migration pathways can be identified. The largest exchange (36%) occurs between regions of the Global South, that is, people from less affluent countries moving to other undeveloped regions. The second largest flow (35%) goes from the Global South to the Global North, that is, people from undeveloped regions migrating to the developed world. It is worth noting that the South to North migration continues to rise and is soon expected to become the primary trend. International relocation within the Global North is also considerable (23%), whereas North to South migration contributes only a small proportion (6%) to the global trends. Although there are no notable gender differences in migration trends, age appears to be a significant factor. Of all immigrants, 15% are younger than age 20, and approximately 74% belong to the working-age population. In sum, the majority of international immigrants (59%) currently reside in the developed world, where, according to recent statistics, migration has become the primary source of population growth, highlighting its growing significance in terms of economic prosperity and sustainable social development (UN, 2013). At the same time, it is important to recognize that migration is not just an economic matter; it also has important implications for individuals and societies. As a result of globalization, demographic expansion, and increasing diversity within and across nations, plural societies are facing a wide range of social issues stemming from a multicultural reality, in which firsthand intercultural contact is an indispensable part of everyday experiences. Navigating these multiethnic contemporary societies has become increasingly complex and challenging, fostering public resistance to immigration and negative intergroup attitudes.","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"64 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":"123848560","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: 11

Recent Developments in Intergroup Contact Research: Affective Processes, Group Status, and Contact Valence 群体间接触研究的最新进展:情感过程、群体地位和接触价

The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice Pub Date : 2016-10-01 DOI: 10.1017/9781316161579.020

Linda R. Tropp, A. Mazziotta, Stephen C. Wright

{"title":"Recent Developments in Intergroup Contact Research: Affective Processes, Group Status, and Contact Valence","authors":"Linda R. Tropp, A. Mazziotta, Stephen C. Wright","doi":"10.1017/9781316161579.020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.020","url":null,"abstract":"What are the consequences of bringing people from diverse groups together? Does it enhance trust and goodwill, or does it lead to mistrust and hostility? More than 60 years ago, social scientists offered initial evidence and theoretical perspectives regarding how contact between members of different groups can reduce intergroup hostility and promote positive intergroup attitudes (see Allport, 1954; Williams, 1947). Since then, Allport's (1954) formulation of intergroup contact theory has become one of the most enduring models in the history of social psychology (Brewer & Brown, 1998), as well as one of psychology's best strategies to improve intergroup relations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). This chapter provides an overview of recent theorizing and research on intergroup contact with a focus on three key developments in the literature. First, we highlight the special role of affective processes and friendship in improving intergroup attitudes while considering both direct and indirect forms of intergroup contact. We then review the differential effects and implications of contact among members of minority and majority groups and describe how contact effects reach far beyond shifts in intergroup attitudes. Finally, we discuss the effects of both positive and negative intergroup contact on attitudes and relations between groups. Effects of Direct Contact Research reveals the crucial roles that affective processes play in contact effects, both in terms of the kinds of contact that are most likely to improve intergroup attitudes and the kinds of positive outcomes we can expect from such contact (see Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). With survey data from seven European samples, seminal work by Pettigrew (1997) showed that intergroup contact in the form of cross-group friendships was consistently and negatively associated with a range of prejudice measures, particularly those assessing feelings of sympathy and admiration toward the outgroup. In line with Pettigrew's (1997) findings, other studies indicate that cross-group friendships relate more strongly to reduced prejudice than more distant forms of contact (Herek & Capitanio, 1996), particularly when affective dimensions of prejudice such as feelings and emotions toward outgroup members are involved (Tropp & Pettigrew, 2005a). Cross-group friendships. Empirical interest in the special role of cross-group friendships has expanded and corroborated these early findings through longitudinal, meta-analytic, and experimental research. Longitudinal surveys in several countries have shown that greater cross-group friendships predict more positive intergroup attitudes over time (Binder et al., 2009; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003; Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, 2011).","PeriodicalId":355478,"journal":{"name":"The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice","volume":"9 2 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":"124096561","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: 26