What's in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change.

This reply to the commentary by E. Staub and L. A. Pearlman (2009) revisits the field experimental results of E. L. Paluck (2009). It introduces further evidence and theoretical elaboration supporting Paluck's conclusion that exposure to a reconciliation-themed radio soap opera changed perceptions of social norms and behaviors, not beliefs. Experimental and longitudinal survey evidence reinforces the finding that the radio program affected socially shared perceptions of typical or prescribed behavior—that is, social norms. Specifically, measurements of perceptions of social norms called into question by Staub and Pearlman are shown to correlate with perceptions of public opinion and public, not private, behaviors. Although measurement issues and the mechanisms of the radio program's influence merit further testing, theory and evidence point to social interactions and emotional engagement, not individual education, as the likely mechanisms of change. The present exchange makes salient what is at stake in this debate: a model of change based on learning and personal beliefs versus a model based on group influence and social norms. These theoretical models recommend very different strategies for prejudice and conflict reduction. Future field experiments should attempt to adjudicate between these models by testing relevant policies in real-world settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization.

The authors studied social norms and prejudice using M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif's (1953) group norm theory of attitudes. In 7 studies (N=1, 504), social norms were measured and manipulated to examine their effects on prejudice; both normatively proscribed and normatively prescribed forms of prejudice were included. The public expression of prejudice toward 105 social groups was very highly correlated with social approval of that expression. Participants closely adhere to social norms when expressing prejudice, evaluating scenarios of discrimination, and reacting to hostile jokes. The authors reconceptualized the source of motivation to suppress prejudice in terms of identifying with new reference groups and adapting oneself to fit new norms. Suppression scales seem to measure patterns of concern about group norms rather than personal commitments to reducing prejudice; high suppressors are strong norm followers. Compared with low suppressors, high suppressors follow normative rules more closely and are more strongly influenced by shifts in local social norms. There is much value in continuing the study of normative influence and self-adaptation to social norms, particularly in terms of the group norm theory of attitudes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intergroup relations: insights from a theoretically integrative approach

In social psychology, specific research traditions, which often spring up in response to external events or social problems, tend to perpetuate the theoretical assumptions and methodological approaches with which they began. As a result, theories and methods that have proven powerful in 1 topic area are often not applied in other areas, even to conceptually similar issues. The authors adopt a theoretically integrative approach to the topic of intergroup relations. Theories and empirical approaches from the domains of attitudes, impression formation, the self, personal relationships, and norms offer many new insights into problematic issues, such as repeated findings of dissociations among stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. This integrative approach not only promises new theoretical advances, but also suggests numerous potential practical approaches to limiting or reducing destructive patterns of intergroup relations.     

Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction.

An intergroup extension of M. A. Hogg's (1992, 1993) social attraction hypothesis is proposed. Netball teams were investigated with measures assessing the relationship between (a) objective status; (b) "social beliefs" about intergroup status, stability, legitimacy, and permeability; (c) group identification, self-categorization, and prototypicality; (d) interpersonal relations and similarity; (e) depersonalized social attraction; and (f) true personal attraction. As predicted, group-membership based social attraction was directly influenced by self-categorization; indirectly influenced, through self-categorization, by intergroup status and stability beliefs; and uninfluenced by interpersonal relations. Social attraction (related to prototypicality and group identification) was relatively independent of personal attraction (related to similarity and interpersonal variables). Legitimacy, permeability, and the empirical co-occurrence of social and personal attraction in cohesive groups are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice.

Three experiments examined the impact of incidental emotions on implicit intergroup evaluations. Experiment 1 demonstrated that for unknown social groups, two negative emotions that are broadly applicable to intergroup conflict (anger and disgust) both created implicit bias where none had existed before. However, for known groups about which perceivers had prior knowledge, emotions increased implicit prejudice only if the induced emotion was applicable to the outgroup stereotype. Disgust increased bias against disgust-relevant groups (e.g., homosexuals) but anger did not (Experiment 2); anger increased bias against anger-relevant groups (e.g., Arabs) but disgust did not (Experiment 3). Consistent with functional theories of emotion, these findings suggest that negative intergroup emotions signal specific types of threat. If the emotion-specific threat is applicable to prior expectations of a group, the emotion ratchets up implicit prejudice toward that group. However, if the emotion-specific threat is not applicable to the target group, evaluations remain unchanged. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine?

Three studies examined whether the concern for justice can be a genuine determinant of attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) or whether justice-based opposition merely masks prejudice. In line with the hypothesis of justice as a cause, we found that, independent of their level of prejudice, people were opposed to AA programs that violate distributive and procedural justice norms, as a result of genuine beliefs in the principles of fairness that the programs violate. Nevertheless, in line with the hypothesis of justice as a rationalization, we also found that people's prejudice level was positively associated with opposition to AA programs that were not explicitly justice violating; moreover, the effect of prejudice was mediated through the tendency to construe these programs as justice violating. The present research has implications for understanding attitudes toward social policies where it is possible that justice concerns could be a genuine source of opposition or a rationalization of prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time.

Unfavorable evaluations of others reflect both specific prejudice and generalized negativity. Study 1 examined self-reported norms and personal endorsement of prejudices to various social groups. Study 2 used judgments of overweight persons to examine links among prejudice, personality, and prosocial motives. Study 3 examined negative evaluations and social distancing during interpersonal interaction. Study 4 observed the translation of negative evaluations into overt discrimination. Study 5 experimentally manipulated the behavior of the target and observed its interactive effects with weight, personality, and prosocial motives. Results suggest that prejudice can emerge from otherwise unprejudiced persons when situations permit justification. Patterns in negative evaluations are linked distinctively to (a) the Big Five dimension of Agreeableness, (b) proximal social cognition and motives, and (c) discrimination. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Beyond the Optimal Contact Strategy: A Reality Check for the Contact Hypothesis.

The contact hypothesis proposes that interaction between members of different groups reduces intergroup prejudice if--and only if--certain optimal conditions are present. For over 50 years, research using this framework has explored the boundary conditions for ideal contact and has guided interventions to promote desegregation. Although supporting the contact hypothesis in principle, the authors critique some research practices that have come to dominate the field: (a) the prioritizing of the study of interactions occurring under rarefied conditions, (b) the reformulation of lay understandings of contact in terms of a generic typology of ideal dimensions, and (c) the use of shifts in personal prejudice as the primary measure of outcome. The authors argue that these practices have limited the contact hypothesis both as an explanation of the intergroup dynamics of desegregation and as a framework for promoting social psychological change. In so arguing, the authors look toward a complementary program of research on contact and desegregation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility.

Past research has demonstrated the powerful influence other people have on the thoughts and behaviors of individuals. However, the study of intergroup attitudes has focused primarily on the influence of direct exposure to out-group members as determinants of stereotypes and prejudice. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that learning that others share one's intergroup beliefs influences intergroup attitudes and behavior as well as stereotype representation. Experiment 1 demonstrated that learning that one's beliefs are shared or not shared with others influences attitudes, behavior, and the strength of the attitude–behavior relationship. Experiment 2 demonstrated a potential mechanism for such effects by showing that learning about whether others share one's stereotypes influences the accessibility of those stereotypes and related stereotypes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes about racial characteristics.

Social stereotypes may be expressed as personal beliefs about the characteristics of a group or as beliefs about the predominant cultural view of a group. In a study with a full intergroup design, Black and White participants rated Black and White racial groups. Results supported 3 sets of predictions derived from a projection model of stereotyping. First, participants' personal beliefs predicted their ratings of cultural stereotypes even when the group averages of personal beliefs and cultural stereotypes were statistically controlled. Second, interrater agreement in stereotype ratings was substantial for both rating tasks. Third, members of both groups underestimated how favorably their own group was rated by members of their respective out-group. Implications of the findings for the mental organizations of stereotypes, their measurement, and their consequences for social behavior are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does contact reduce prejudice or does prejudice reduce contact? A longitudinal test of the contact hypothesis among majority and minority groups in three european countries.

A widely researched panacea for reducing intergroup prejudice is the contact hypothesis. However, few longitudinal studies can shed light on the direction of causal processes: from contact to prejudice reduction (contact effects) or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). The authors conducted a longitudinal field survey in Germany, Belgium, and England with school students. The sample comprised members of both ethnic minorities (n = 512) and ethnic majorities (n = 1,143). Path analyses yielded both lagged contact effects and prejudice effects: Contact reduced prejudice, but prejudice also reduced contact. Furthermore, contact effects were negligible for minority members. These effects were obtained for 2 indicators of prejudice: negative intergroup emotions and desire for social distance. For both majority and minority members, contact effects on negative emotions were stronger when outgroup contacts were perceived as being typical of their group. Contact effects were also mediated by intergroup anxiety. This mediating mechanism was impaired for minority members because of a weakened effect of anxiety on desire for social distance. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model.

The issue of personality and prejudice has been largely investigated in terms of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. However, these seem more appropriately conceptualized as ideological attitudes than as personality dimensions. The authors describe a causal model linking dual dimensions of personality, social world view, ideological attitudes, and intergroup attitudes. Structural equation modeling with data from American and White Afrikaner students supported the model, suggesting that social conformity and belief in a dangerous world influence authoritarian attitudes, whereas toughmindedness and belief in a competitive jungle world influence social dominance attitudes, and these two ideological attitude dimensions influence intergroup attitudes. The model implies that dual motivational and cognitive processes, which may be activated by different kinds of situational and intergroup dynamics, may underlie 2 distinct dimensions of prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Unlearning" automatic biases: The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes.

The present research suggests that automatic and controlled intergroup biases can be modified through diversity education. In 2 experiments, students enrolled in a prejudice and conflict seminar showed significantly reduced implicit and explicit anti-Black biases, compared with control students. The authors explored correlates of prejudice and stereotype reduction. In each experiment, seminar students' implicit and explicit change scores positively covaried with factors suggestive of affective and cognitive processes, respectively. The findings show the malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes and suggest that these may effectively be changed through affective processes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Have confidence in contact.

In an article in the May–June 2009 American Psychologist, we discussed a new approach to reducing prejudice and encouraging more positive intergroup relations (Crisp & Turner, 2009). We named the approach imagined intergroup contact and defined it as “the mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category” (Crisp & Turner, 2009, p. 234). Our proposition is that simply imagining contact with outgroup members can produce more positive perceptions of outgroups. In his commentary, Honeycutt noted that our “article is excellent in its premise” (p. 129), but he was critical of our decision not to discuss his own work in imagined interactions (IIs). Imagined contact is not a magic cure, and it is not a one-shot solution to the problem of prejudice. But as a first step on the road to reduced prejudice and more positive intergroup relations, it may just turn out to be invaluable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Basic behavioral science research for mental health: Social influence and social cognition.

Discusses the issues of social influence, social cognition, stereotyping and prejudice, and social and personal identity in basic behavioral science research for mental health. The significance of social influence for mental and physical health is illustrated by 3 lines of research: impact of persuasive messages, self-persuasion, and resisting pressure to change or conform. Three aspects of social cognition, including accessibility of social beliefs, causal attribution, and standards of self-evaluation, are given, and the prevalence of stereotyping is discussed. The significance of both social and personal identity in mental health is addressed, as well as the issue of coping with challenges to the identity. Directions for future research on social influence and social cognition are outlined. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reasons for skepticism about the efficacy of simulated social contact interventions.

Comments on Crisp and Turner (May–June 2009), who argued that imagining intergroup interactions reduces intergroup prejudice. They argued that the procedure is remarkably effective, with “significant potential application for policymakers and educators seeking to promote tolerance for social diversity” (p. 238). We believe that such interventions, although appealing to many individuals, are problematic and that the authors’ conclusions are overly optimistic. We believe that simulated contact interventions are highly unlikely to produce meaningful attitude change. In sum, we are deeply skeptical about the ability of imagined contact interventions to reduce prejudice. A single, brief, imaginary encounter with an outgroup member is unlikely to reverse or erase the psychological mechanisms that create prejudice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

An experimental study of cross-cultural norm conflict.

"An experimental study was conducted in which normative conflict of foreign students was examined. From a treatment of norms as force-fields, predictions were made about the resolution of intergroup norm conflict under two conditions of situational potency of membership. It was hypothesized that the resolution of intergroup norm conflict favors the norm of the group whose situational potency is increased. The results obtained did not show the clarity necessary for a definitive validation of the hypotheses. The major analyses led to acceptable levels of significance in only half of the tests made; nevertheless, all the results presented a consistent pattern in harmony with the theoretical formulation." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice.

The authors propose a justification-suppression model (JSM), which characterizes the processes that lead to prejudice expression and the experience of one's own prejudice. They suggest that "genuine" prejudices are not directly expressed but are restrained by beliefs, values, and norms that suppress them. Prejudices are expressed when justifications (e.g., attributions, ideologies, stereotypes) release suppressed prejudices. The same process accounts for which prejudices are accepted into the self-concept. The JSM is used to organize the prejudice literature, and many empirical findings are recharacterized as factors affecting suppression or justification, rather than directly affecting genuine prejudice. The authors discuss the implications of the JSM for several topics, including prejudice measurement, ambivalence, and the distinction between prejudice and its expression. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes.

Motivational and cognitive factors have been used to explain negative attitudes toward out-group members. According to the integrated threat theory of prejudice, negative intergroup attitudes are predicted by proximal factors consisting of perceived threats from out-group members; these threats, in turn, are predicted by distal factors such as perceived differences in group status or negative out-group contact. In the present study, White and First Nation people (adolescents and adults) completed measures assessing distal and proximal variables and attitudes toward members of the other ethnic group. Path analyses indicate that realistic and symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes predicted negative out-group attitudes. Many of these threats, and in some cases ethnic attitudes, were associated with negative intergroup contact, strength of in-group identity, perceptions of intergroup conflict, and perceived status inequality. Theoretical and applied implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Correction to Amodio et al. (2008).

Reports an error in "Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control" by David M. Amodio, Patricia G. Devine and Eddie Harmon-Jones (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2008[Jan], Vol 94[1], 60-74). In this article, there was an error in Figure 4. The corrected figure is provided in this erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2007-19165-005.) Low-prejudice people vary considerably in their ability to regulate intergroup responses. The authors hypothesized that this variability arises from a neural mechanism for monitoring conflict between automatic race-biased tendencies and egalitarian intentions. In Study 1, they found that low-prejudice participants whose nonprejudiced responses are motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did participants motivated by a combination of internal and external factors. This difference was associated with greater conflict-monitoring activity, measured by event-related potentials, when responses required stereotype inhibition. Study 2 demonstrated that group differences were specific to response control in the domain of prejudice. Results indicate that conflict monitoring, a preconscious component of response control, accounts for variability in intergroup bias among low-prejudice participants. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)