1996
DOI: 10.1016/0147-1767(96)00028-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How strong is the relationship between prejudice and discrimination? A meta-analytic answer

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
53
0
6

Year Published

2008
2008
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 90 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 58 publications
4
53
0
6
Order By: Relevance
“…Discrimination is often defined as a behavioral measure (Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994). However, it is often operationalized as a behavioral intention (e.g., Schutz & Six, 1996;Sellers & Shelton, 2003). It was the case in the present study.…”
Section: Implications and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 58%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Discrimination is often defined as a behavioral measure (Leyens, Yzerbyt, & Schadron, 1994). However, it is often operationalized as a behavioral intention (e.g., Schutz & Six, 1996;Sellers & Shelton, 2003). It was the case in the present study.…”
Section: Implications and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 58%
“…In their meta-analysis, Schutz and Six (1996) found a higher correlation between negative attitudes and behavioral intentions (r = .45, p < .001) than between prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviors (r = .36, p < .001). This gap calls for attempts to measure discriminatory behaviors rather than intentions.…”
Section: Implications and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, it is clear that preferences for the in-group do importantly affect decision-making in the domain of cooperation, for example by leading children and adults to give more of their resources to in-group members. This is perhaps not altogether surprising given that in-group preferences guide behaviour in a range of other domains as well, as well evidenced in the literature on intergroup discrimination [20,21]. However, what we want to rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org Phil.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For example, some argue that emphasizing or even manufacturing positive dimensions of an in-group is a means of enhancing or defending the self (a central tenet of Social Identity Theory [17]); others instead suggest that self-related positivity simply spreads from the self to social in-groups via basic associative processes [18,19]. These details need not concern us here, but the critical point is that once in-group favouritism emerges (via any of these routes), it can directly affect many aspects of intergroup functioning, including how I treat in-group members in cooperative interactions, simply because I prefer in-group members and preferences affect behaviour [20,21]. Thus, these views explain enhanced cooperation with ingroup members, but not by postulating that specific norms govern within-group cooperative behaviour.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Este resulta-do no estaría de acuerdo con la ausencia de correlación entre los dos componentes que ha sido hallada en otros estudios (Amodio & Devine, 2006), si bien es coherente con la asociación moderada que existe entre estereotipia y prejuicio a nivel explícito (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnston, & Gaertner, 1996;Fiske, 2000;Schneider, 2004;Schutz & Six, 1996). Por otra parte, a pesar de la relación encontrada en niveles implícitos, se podrían seguir apoyando las diferencias existentes entre ambos constructos porque dicha asociación no es intensa y, además, el tamaño de la diferencia estadística entre las medias en ambas variables es grande.…”
Section: -Discusiónunclassified