|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 3, No. 4,
403-418 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/1368430200003004005
© 2000 SAGE Publications
Right before Our Eyes: The Failure to Recognize Non-Prototypical Forms of Prejudice
Mollie W. Marti
University of Iowa
Deborah M. Bobier
University of Iowa
Robert S. Baron
University of Iowa, robert-baron{at}uiowa.edu
Two studies examined accessibility as the key construct in explaining people’s tendency to recognize prototypical forms of prejudice more than non-prototypical forms. Pilot studies suggested that for the present population, race and sex were highly accessible and age and weight were less accessible forms of prejudice. Both studies established that for the more accessible forms of prejudice, participants were more likely to label discriminatory actions as prejudice and were more likely to rate such prejudice as more severe than in cases of less accessible forms of prejudice. Study 1 indicated that explicitly priming participants to look for prejudice increased detection for less accessible forms of prejudice only. Increasing cognitive processing requirements in Study 2 significantly decreased participants’ ability to detect prejudice and this was most noticeable in cases of non-prototypical discrimination. The data support the notions that prototypical prejudice is more likely to be detected than non-prototypical prejudice and that accessibility is an important mediator of prejudice perception. The data are more equivocal regarding whether the perception of prototypical prejudice is an automatic process.
Key Words: accessibility • discrimination • intergroup relations • perceptions • prejudice
References
- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
- Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., & Kao, C. F. (1991). Detecting and labeling prejudice: Do female perpetrators go undetected?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 115-123.
- Cohen, S. (1978) Environmental load and the allocation of attention. In A. Baum, J. E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
- Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determinants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 247-282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
- Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Higgins, E. T., & Brendl, C. M. (1995). Accessibility and applicability: Some ‘activation rules’ influencing judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 218-243.[CrossRef]
- Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 727-739.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
[Order article via Infotrieve]
- Inman, M. L., Huerta, J., & Oh, S. (1998). Perceiving discrimination: The role of prototypes and norm violation. Unpublished manuscript, Trinity University, San Antonio, TX.
- Katz, I. (1981). Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.[CrossRef][ISI]
- Marti, M. W., & Blanck, P. D. (in press). Attitudes, behavior, and the ADA. In P. D. Blanck (Ed.), Employment, disability, and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Issues in law, public policy, and research. Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
- Rodin, M., & Harari, H. (1986). Fact, belief, and the attribution of prejudice. Social Cognition, 4, 437-445.
- Rodin, M. J., Price, J. M., Bryson, J. B., & Sanchez, F. J. (1990). Asymmetry in prejudice attribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 481-504.[CrossRef]
- Rosch, E. (1973). On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language (pp. 111-144). New York: Academic Press.
- Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
- Tajfel, H. (1969). The cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-97.
- Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124-1131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
- Winer, B.J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati What's this?
|
