The systematic study of how subtle forms of bias related to prosocial behavior operate in racial and gender relations

Abstract

Psychological research and theory have traditionally focused on bias and conflict between separate groups. Our central thesis is that the processes that shape hierarchical group relations within a society are distinctive and typically operate in ways that are frequently subtle rather than blatant. The challenges of detecting new subtle forms of bias are receiving considerable attention in the field of social psychology, internationally. Although explicit hostility toward minority groups seems to have faded in modern societies, cross-cultural data show that the status, resources, and the power of women and ethnic/racial minorities remain unequal. The present literature review integrates the findings of cross-cultural research showing the role of paternalistic legitimizing ideas and behavior for establishing, maintaining, and reinforcing group hierarchy and the disadvantage of members of traditionally underrepresented groups. Specifically, we explain how intergroup helping relations can be used as a mechanism to maintain social advantage in racial and gender relations. These theoretical and experimental insights help illuminate the dynamics of relations between socially linked groups and the nature of contemporary bias. We also highlight how this perspective suggests novel and productive directions for future research.

The role of social categorization and social dominance orientation in behavioral adaptability.

“…In such situations, if people behave more similarly with the out-group interaction partners than with the in-group interaction partners, it would support the idea that out-group homogeneity has an effect at a behavioral level. Because biases such as the out-group homogeneity effect occur rapidly and automatically (Abad-Merino et al, 2018; Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008) and because not adapting one’s behavior may lead to negative interaction outcomes (Palese & Schmid Mast, 2019b), we argue that understanding how out-group homogeneity affects how people behave with out-group members is important to avoid the emergence of unintentional discriminatory practices during social interactions.…”

“…People use social categories to readily distinguish between in- and out-group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and this social categorization impacts peoples’ perceptions and behavior (Abad-Merino et al, 2018; Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008). At a perceptual level, social categorization implies that people perceive in- and out-group members differently.…”

Indigenous and gendered persons and peoples in business ethics education: Intersections of Indigenous wisdoms and de Beauvoirian existentialism

“…It can be interpersonal or structural. It can be singular or systemic (Abad‐Merino et al., 2018; Forscher et al., 2017). We recommend that business education includes Indigenous philosophies and knowledges, along with a diversity of gender theories to serve as context for students, so they may engage in active and ongoing bias disruption.…”

The Gender Gap in Start-up Funding: The Role of Investors’ Benevolent Sexism

“…First, by integrating social psychology work on benevolent sexism with entrepreneurship work on gender gap in funding, this study identifies a novel and previously overlooked factor in influencing discrepant outcomes in funding of male-and female-led ventures, i.e., benevolent sexism. This current work therefore offers a unique perspective regarding the origins of the gender funding gap, which so far has been attributed to the perception of women's inferior competencea perception that has declined across time (Abad-Merino, Dovidio, Tabernero, & González, 2018). Moreover, in contrast to majority of work in entrepreneurship that has used archival data sets and hence only theorized about underlying effects of sexist attitudes, this paper provides empirical evidence for the role of benevolent sexism.…”

“…For example, women show higher levels of preference for and attraction to benevolent sexist men compared to non-sexist men (Bohner, Ahlborn, & Steiner, 2010;Kilianski & Rudman, 1998;Montañés, Lemus, Moya, Bohner, & Megías, 2013), and both men and women perceive benevolent sexists as supporters of women's empowerment (Hopkins-Doyle et al, 2019). In addition to being more socially acceptable, benevolent sexism is also more widely endorsed than hostile sexism (Abad-Merino et al, 2018;King et al, 2012). Finally, women do not differ substantially from men in the extent to which they hold these beliefs (Becker, 2010).…”