Type-Rationalizations of Group Antipathy

LaPiere, Richard T.

doi:10.2307/2570963

Cited by 60 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies that address these kinds of questions once dominated social psychological research. From the 1930s to the 1950s, there was widespread interest in a variety of stereotype content issues, including the rigidity and inaccuracy of ethnic stereotypes (e.g., Clarke & Campbell, 1955;Katz & Braly, 1933;LaPierre, 1936). The Princeton trilogy, which includes Katz and Braly's (1933) original study and two replications (Gilbert, 1951;Karlins, Coffman, & Walters, 1969), exemplifies this early emphasis.…”

Section: Whatdopeoplebelieveaboutdifferentsocialgroupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised

Madon

Guyll

Aboufadel

et al. 2001

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

237

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies assessed changes in the content, consensus, and favorableness of 10 ethnic and national stereotypes by replicating and extending the Princeton trilogy. Results indicated that throughout the past 60 years, almost all of the ethnic and national stereotypes that were examined had changed in content, and more than half had changed in consensus. Most changes in consensus reflected increases rather than decreases, suggesting that modern members of stereotyped groups may confront stereotypes more frequently than did previous members of stereotyped groups. However, the damaging effects that consensual stereotypes can have on members of these groups may be tempered by the finding that most of the stereotypes became more favorable. These results are discussed in terms of changing social roles, intergroup contact, and stereotype accuracy.

show abstract

Section: Whatdopeoplebelieveaboutdifferentsocialgroupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised

Madon

Guyll

Aboufadel

et al. 2001

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

237

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea that threat constitutes a justification of discrimination is not in itself a new one (see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). In fact, one of the first analyses of the justifying role of threat perception in intergroup attitudes was carried out by LaPiere (1936) in his research on the explanations given by the inhabitants of Fresno County, California, to justify their antipathy towards Armenian immigrants. LaPierre found that threat perception was the main reason invoked to explain intergroup antipathy.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hence, threat perceptions should have a mediating role in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination. Indeed, this threat perception should be a mediator in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination since it can be regarded as a justifying factor of discrimination (see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003;LaPiere, 1936), especially when the social context condemns discrimination. Pereira et al (2009) provided experimental support for this hypothesis by manipulating an infra-humanized representation of Turkish people, i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants

Pereira

Vala

Costa-Lopes

2010

Euro J Social Psych

219

136

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research analyses the mediational role of threat perception in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination (opposition to immigration and opposition to naturalization of immigrants). In the first study, using representative samples in 21 European countries (N ¼ 36 566) from European Social Survey (2002), we showed that the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration was more strongly mediated by realistic than by symbolic threat perceptions. In Study 2, using representative samples in two countries with different traditions of immigration (Switzerland, N ¼ 940; Portugal, N ¼ 1514), we showed that realistic threat more strongly mediated the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration, while only symbolic threat perception mediated the link between prejudice and opposition to naturalization. The theoretical implications of considering threat perceptions as factors that legitimize discrimination are discussed. Copyright # 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Research on the relationship between prejudice and discrimination (e.g. Lord, Lepper, & Mackie, 1984;McConahay, 1983;Smith & Dixon, 1968;Weitz, 1972) has been carried out within the more general framework of the early studies on the connection between attitude and behaviour (e.g. Kutner, Wilkins, & Yarrow, 1952;LaPiere, 1934;Wicker, 1969). While the literature on the relationship between attitude and behaviour specifies when attitudes predict behaviour (e.g. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975;Zanna, Olson, & Fazio, 1980) and presents some hypotheses on how this process occurs (e.g. Fazio, 1990;Snyder, 1982; for a review, see Eagly & Chaiken, 1998), the literature on the prejudice-discrimination link still reveals some shortcomings in these matters (see Fiske, 1998Fiske, , 2000, for a review). In fact, the few studies concerning the when question have shown that the prejudice-discrimination correlation has a moderate magnitude (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996), and that this correlation depends on several moderators (Schutz & Six, 1996). To our knowledge, only the model proposed by Pereira, Vala, and Leyens (2009) has addressed the how question, predicting that the psychological processes through which preconceived attitudes lead to discriminatory behaviour involve justifying factors, such as threat perception. In fact, Pereira et al. experimentally showed that symbolic threat perception mediates the relationship between infra-humanization of Turkish people and the opposition to the adhesion of Turkey to the European Union (EU). The current paper extends Pereira et al.'s findings by testing whether distinct types of threats differentially mediate the relationship between prejudice and discrimination. Specifically, we tested the hypothesis that the relationship between prejudice and opposition to immigration in Europe is more strongly mediated by realistic threat (Studies 1 and 2) and that the relationship between prejudice and opposition to naturalization is more strongly mediated by symbolic threat (Study 2).Europe...

show abstract

“…They were labeled liars and troublemakers when in fact they compared favorably with other ethnic groups in their credit standing, incidence of litigation, and application for charity. 41 This study and the others just mentioned above show that stereotypical attributions have been an ongoing concern for social scientists for quite some time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

Chinese Political Attitudes and Values in Comparative Context: Cautionary Remarks on Cultural Attributions

Chan

2008

J OF CHIN POLIT SCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Type-Rationalizations of Group Antipathy

Cited by 60 publications

References 0 publications

Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised

Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised

From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants

Chinese Political Attitudes and Values in Comparative Context: Cautionary Remarks on Cultural Attributions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About