Search

We compared the subtlety of four measures of sexism and sources of variation in male and female psychology students' judgments that beliefs from these scales and everyday behaviors were sexist. Participants judged traditional gender role and hostile sexist beliefs as more sexist than benevolent and modern sexist beliefs, indicating the latter were more subtle measures of sexism. Participants also judged traditional gender role behaviors as more sexist than unwanted sexual attention, suggesting the latter may less readily be identified as sexist. Variation in judgments of beliefs as sexist was related to differences in likelihood of endorsing such beliefs. This relation fully accounted for the tendency for men to be less likely to judge beliefs as sexist in comparison to women. Endorsement of Modern and Hostile Sexist beliefs was related to judgments of behaviors as sexist. The implications of the results for scale usage and identifying sexist behavior are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research investigated the contextual nature of decisions about racial exclusion by analyzing why individuals might be willing to accept members of other racial groups into some types of social relationships but nevertheless exclude them from other types of relationships. Our analysis examined the underlying reasoning processes used to make such decisions. We conducted two studies to test the types of reasoning used by young adults regarding cross-race interpersonal relationships. Study 1(N = 292) demonstrated that racial exclusion is more likely to be condoned and justified as an issue of personal choice and less likely to be seen as an issue of overt racism in intimate than in nonintimate contexts. Study 2 (N = 196) demonstrated that participants viewed it as more wrong to exclude others from cross-race than same-race relationships and that when relationships were high (vs. low) in physical contact they were viewed as more likely to be issues of personal choice, regardless of whether they were same- or cross-race. The results help explain why there are substantial contextual differences in the extent to which exclusion of individuals based on racial group membership is perceived as acceptable. Keywords: intimacy; intergroup relations; adolescence; prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discrimination towards members of low-status groups takes a variety of forms, and results in a variety of negative consequences for its victims. Furthermore, discrimination may influence its targets either directly (for instance, when housing discrimination makes insurance, mortgage rates, or rents higher for African Americans than for whites) or indirectly , that is via perceptions on the part of the stigmatised. In the latter case the outcomes are caused or amplified by perceptions on the part of the victim that he or she is the target of discrimination. This chapter focuses on current research concerning factors that influence the perception of discrimination and its indirect influence on individuals. We review work from our own lab as well as from the field more broadly, focusing on research that attempts to explain contextual and individual variability in how events that are potentially due to discrimination are initially perceived, subsequently interpreted, and then publicly reported or withheld. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two experiments, the authors found that providing feedback to European American participants that others held different beliefs about African Americans than they originally estimated significantly changed the beliefs that they held about that group. The observed changes were stronger for people who were exposed to information about the opinions of ingroup rather than outgroup members and persisted when measured in an unrelated experimental session held 1 week later. The authors also found in a third experiment that providing information that others agreed with the individual's own racial stereotypes bolstered them such that they were more resistant to subsequent change attempts. Taken together, the results suggest that learning about the racial beliefs of others has the potential to either produce or inhibit stereotype change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five experiments used a name-matching paradigm developed by Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, and Ruderman (1978) to investigate how people use the immediately apparent features of others as a basis of social categorization. Ss were more likely to categorize targets according to their sex than their race but also tended to categorize using a single subordinate category that represented sex and race simultaneously. Racially prejudiced subjects categorized to a greater degree by race than did non-prejudiced subjects, but manipulations of construct accessibility and processing goals did not influence categorization by race or sex. Processing goals did influence the use of clothing style as a categorization feature. Results are discussed in terms of the functional utility of person features as a basis of categorization and the effects of categorization on social stereotyping and prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Four experiments examined how an actor's intent and the harm experienced by a target influence judgments of prejudice and discrimination. The presence of intent increased the likelihood that participants judged an actor as prejudiced and the actor's behavior as discriminatory. When intent was uncertain, harm influenced judgments of the behavior, which in turn influenced judgments of the actor, and participants were more cautious in their judgments about an actor than an actor's behavior. Harm also played a stronger role in targets' than observers' judgments. Understanding the role of intent and harm on perceptions of prejudice can help explain variations in targets' versus observers', and possibly targets' versus actors', judgments of discrimination and prejudice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]