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

Abstract

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.

When authorities' commands backfire: Attributions about consensus and effects on deviant decision making.

“…For instance, individuals express prejudices more strongly when they perceive that those prejudicial beliefs are normatively endorsed or shared more widely (Crandall, Eshleman, & O'Brien, 2002;Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). This is not merely strategic self-presentation either; stereotypes spring to mind more easily when individuals perceive that others endorse those stereotypes ).…”

Development of the positive–negative asymmetry effect: in‐group exclusion norm as a mediator of children's evaluations on negative attributes

“…It is possible that young children lack an internal motivation to control their intergroup bias on the negative dimension either because of the absence of a personal egalitarian motive to be fair minded or the failure to internalize the in-group social norm regarding the illegitimacy of any specific form of prejudice expression (Monteith, 1993;Plant & Devine, 1998;Rutland, 2004;. Indeed, the self-presentational account of prejudice development (Rutland, 2004; suggests that children with age begin to control their social discrimination by conforming to perceived in-group social norms regarding the appropriateness of explicit negative intergroup bias (Crandall, Eshleman, & O'Brien, 2002). Developmental research on children's evaluations of gender and racial exclusions also suggests that with age children develop social-conventional norms regarding the appropriateness of social exclusion (Killen & Stangor, 2001;Killen et al, 2002).…”

“…According to this view, bias typically declines during middle childhood with the development of an internal motivation to control prejudiced attitudes (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;Plant & Devine, 1998). Moreover, this motivation results from the internalization of and attempt to conform to perceived social norms regarding the appropriateness of explicitly expressing prejudice (Crandall, Eshleman, & O'Brien, 2002). Despite their differing mechanisms of development, both the cognitive-developmental and the self-presentational account would predict that intergroup bias should decline in middle childhood.…”

Benevolent Sexism, Perceived Health Risks, and the Inclination to Restrict Pregnant Women’s Freedoms

“…Thus, pregnancy may be a legitimizing condition (cf. Crandall et al, 2002) enabling ideologies to find expression. Additionally, it is possible that benevolent sexism and related ideological concerns are activated by contact with pregnant women (Rudman & Fiske, 2008).…”