The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness

Jost, John T.; Banaji, Mahzarin R.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x

Cited by 2,440 publications

(2,048 citation statements)

References 128 publications

Supporting

113

Mentioning

1,846

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The hypothesis that lower status individuals also benefit psychologically from being in a hierarchy is consistent with research under the umbrella of system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994;Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004), which holds that individuals are motivated to view their sociopolitical systems as legitimate. To the extent that hierarchies are commonly the way in which systems are organized, defending the status quo often entails defending hierarchies (Gaucher, Kay, & Laurin, 2010;Kaiser et al, 2013).…”

Section: Social Hierarchiessupporting

confidence: 79%

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Friesen

Kay

Eibach

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

170

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hierarchies are a ubiquitous form of human social organization. We hypothesized that 1 reason for the prevalence of hierarchies is that they offer structure and therefore satisfy the core motivational needs for order and control relative to less structured forms of social organization. This hypothesis is rooted in compensatory control theory, which posits that (a) individuals have a basic need to perceive the world as orderly and structured, and (b) personal and external sources of control are capable of satisfying this need because both serve the comforting belief that the world operates in an orderly fashion. Our first 2 studies confirmed that hierarchies were perceived as more structured and orderly relative to egalitarian arrangements (Study 1) and that working in a hierarchical workplace promotes a feeling of self-efficacy (Study 2). We threatened participants’ sense of personal control and measured perceptions of and preferences for hierarchy in 5 subsequent experiments. Participants who lacked control perceived more hierarchy occurring in ambiguous social situations (Study 3) and preferred hierarchy more strongly in workplace contexts (Studies 4–5). We also provide evidence that hierarchies are indeed appealing because of their structure: Preference for hierarchy was higher among individuals high in Personal Need for Structure and a control threat increased preference for hierarchy even among participants low in Personal Need for Structure (Study 5). Framing a hierarchy as unstructured reversed the effect of control threat on hierarchy (Study 6). Finally, hierarchy-enhancing jobs were more appealing after control threat, even when they were low in power and status (Study 7).

show abstract

Section: Social Hierarchiessupporting

confidence: 79%

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Friesen

Kay

Eibach

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

170

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[10] Considering Racial Injustice (Larisa Heiphetz) Many Americans believe that racial inequality is a thing of the past (Eibach & Ehrlinger, 2006), that the current social order is legitimate (Jost & Banaji, 1994), and that Whites deserve the benefits they receive (Bonilla-Silva, Lewis, & Embrick, 2004 [11] Instilling a Sense of Common Humanity (Carlee Beth Hawkins) Social attitudes are influenced by the boundaries drawn between ingroups and outgroups, with ingroup members being liked more than outgroup members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). If the boundaries of the ingroup can be redrawn and expanded to include outgroup members, attitudes toward outgroups may become more positive (Gaertner, Dovidio, Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993).…”

Section: Appeals To Egalitarian Values [9] Priming Feelings Of Non-obmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Lai¹,

Marini

Lehr

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Self Cite

501

462

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted seventeen interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in four studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of seventeen interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other nine interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others' perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics. Abstract = 160 words Keywords = attitudes, racial prejudice, implicit social cognition, malleability, Implicit Association Test September 9, 2016 update: We updated this manuscript to fix several minor reporting errors that we have learned about since the publication of the manuscript in August 2014. For a summary of these updates, please see pages 67 and 68. Authors' note:This project was supported by a gift from Project Implicit. Lai and Hawkins are consultants and Nosek is an officer of Project Implicit, Inc., a non-profit organization that includes in its mission "To develop and deliver methods for investigating and applying phenomena of implicit social cognition, including especially phenomena of implicit bias based on age, race, gender or other factors. Thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness shape social perception, judgment and action (Bargh, 1999;Devine, 1989;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Nowhere has this idea been more explored than in studies of racial prejudice in which people report egalitarian racial attitudes, but also implicitly prefer Whites compared to Blacks (Devine, 1989;Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997;Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;. These studies have been influential because implicit racial preferences predict behaviors such as negative interracial contact (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), biases in medical decision-making (Green et al., 2007), and hiring discrimination (Rooth, 2010).From the hundreds of studies conducted, we can conclude that implicit preferences (1) are related to, but distinct from, explicit preferences (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;, (2) are constructed through different mechanisms than explicit preferences (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009;Ranganath & Nosek, 2008;Ratliff & Nosek, 2011;Rydell & McConnell, 2006), ...

show abstract

“…Some groups provide labor that is exploited by others or perform unpleasant or dangerous tasks that others prefer to avoid. Ideologies develop to legitimate and help perpetuate these inequalities (Jost and Banaji 1994;Marx and Engels 1976). We argue that exploitation and domination, along with their corresponding ideologies, are one basic function of stigma and prejudice.…”

Section: Why Some Characteristics Become the Target Of Stigma And Prementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Proposed functions include coping with guilt and anxiety (Allport 1954), self-esteem enhancement through downward comparisons (Wills 1981), management of terror associated with awareness of one's mortality (Solomon et al 1991), simplification of information processing (Allport 1954;Hamilton and Trollier 1986), competitive group advantage (Allport 1954;Feagin 2000;Tajfel and Turner 1979) and system justification (Corrigan et al 2003;Jost and Banaji 1994). These explanations do not specify why particular groups are targeted for stigma or prejudice (Stangor and Crandall 2000).…”

Section: Relation To Other Functional Explanations Of Stigma and Prejmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Clearly, this set of 18 models is not exhaustive. Other models that we did not include because of space limitations are those of Adorno et al (1950), Brewer (1979, Greenwald and Banaji (1995), Jost andBanaji (1994), Macrae et al (1994), Neuberg et al (2000, Sidanius and Pratto (1999), Sears (1988), Smith (1984, and contributions to the edited collection by Levin and van Laar (2006).We analyzed the conceptual models in three ways. Second, we compared each pair of models searching for contradictions or incompatibilitiescases in which the models make different predictions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?

Phelan¹,

Link²,

Dovidio

2008

Social Science & Medicine

577

423

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In light of increasing cross-communication and possible coalescence of conceptual models of stigma and prejudice, we reviewed 18 key models in order to explore commonalities and possible distinctions between prejudice and stigma. We arrive at two conclusions. First, the two sets of models have much in common (representing "one animal"); most differences are a matter of focus and emphasis. Second, one important distinction is in the type of human characteristics that are the primary focus of models of prejudice (race) and stigma (deviant behavior and identities, and disease and disabilities). This led us to develop a typology of three functions of stigma and prejudice: exploitation and domination (keeping people down); norm enforcement (keeping people in); and disease avoidance (keeping people away). We argue that attention to these functions will enhance our understanding of stigma and prejudice and our ability to reduce them. Keywords stigma; prejudice; conceptual models; race; disease; disability "Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group" (Allport 1954: 9). "Stigma … is the situation of the individual who is disqualified from full social acceptance" (Goffman 1963: preface). The stigmatized individual is "reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one" (Goffman 1963: 3).So are the terms "prejudice" and "stigma" defined by the authors who gave life to eachAllport publishing The Nature of Prejudice in 1954 and Goffman Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity in 1963. Since then, largely separate literatures have developed around the two concepts. However, there is evidence that these literatures have begun to coalesce. Increased attention by prejudice researchers to the targets of prejudice in the 1990s (Crocker and Garcia 2006) brought greater overlap to work on stigma and prejudice. The concepts of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination increasingly are used by the © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Corresponding Author: Dr. Jo Phelan jcp13@columbia.edu. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. NIH Public Access NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript same authors in the same texts (e.g., Heatherton et al. 2000;Levin and Van Laar 2006). In 2006, the National Institute of Mental Health brought together prejudice and stigma researchers to address the problem of mental-illness stigma. This special i...

show abstract

The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness

Cited by 2,440 publications

References 128 publications

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Seeking structure in social organization: Compensatory control and the psychological advantages of hierarchy.

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About