The strategic value of essentialism

Abstract

Social essentialism—the belief that individuals contain an underlying essence determined by the social categories they belong to—has generally been regarded as a harmful cognitive process that results in prejudice and other forms of injustice at the group level. Trait essentialism, also termed a fixed mindset—the belief that people's trait levels are determined and relatively unchangeable—has been construed as a parallel impediment to self‐improvement at the individual level. However, each of these domains contains findings that do not fit this narrative, suggesting that such essentialized thinking is not always detrimental at either the group or individual level and that its effects may instead depend on motivation and context. Incorporating advances in research on moral judgment and identity allow for a reconciliation of the variable effects of social and trait essentialism. In some instances, essentialism can be a strategy for reducing blame over uncontrollable aspects of individuals and groups and for identity formation.

Understanding sexual prejudice: The role of political ideology and strategic essentialism

“…Thus, conservatives relative to liberals are more likely to adopt beliefs that help legitimize inequalities, including certain types of essentialism beliefs (Hoyt, Forsyth, & Burnette, ; Keller, ; Rangel & Keller, ). Considering the robust evidence demonstrating psychological flexibility in essentialist thinking (Ryazanov & Christenfeld, ), in the current work, we suggest that political ideology is a foundational ideological belief system that motivates the endorsement of essentialist beliefs in a manner that serves to justify prejudice toward sexual minorities (Hegarty & Golden, ).…”

“…We also contribute to the nascent literature examining the strategic employment of essentialism (Ryazanov & Christenfeld, 2018) by showing that political conservatism can motivate the endorsement and rejection of essentialism beliefs in a manner that can help justify prejudice against sexual minorities. Our research is consistent with prejudice frameworks suggesting that there are primal, genuine prejudicial attitudes that can be modulated by relevant motivational and belief systems (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003;Hegarty & Golden, 2008).…”

“…They are also often seen as "natural," biologically determined, and as having clearly defined boundaries (Rhodes & Gelman, 2009). This type of essentialism has often been discussed as a source of stereotyping and prejudice, although more recent evidence suggests that the picture is more complex (Ryazanov & Christenfeld, 2018). Trait essentialism, on the contrary, refers to the essentialism of specific human traits, such as intelligence or weight.…”

“…Research reveals two main dimensions of essentialism—social essentialism and trait essentialism (Ryazanov & Christenfeld, ). Social essentialism refers to the essentialism of categories of people that differ on socially relevant attributes, such as race or gender (Rothbart & Taylor, ).…”

“…We suggest that the contrary implications that these facets of essentialism have for sexual prejudice stem largely from the differing implications they have for moral responsibility and/or blame. On the one hand, social essentialism increases prejudice by strengthening evaluations regarding the extent to which people are responsible for their stigma as it reflects a person's moral core or character (Alicke, ; Malle, Guglielmo, & Monroe, ; Ryazanov & Christenfeld, ). This character‐focused approach to understanding judgments stems from work in virtue ethics that focuses on being rather than doing (Pizarro & Tannenbaum, ).…”