Prejudice Is a Disease. So Is Fashion, but I Will Not Wear Prejudice Meaning

Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Mr. Prejudice - painted past Horace Pippin in 1943, depicts a personal view of race relations in the Us

Prejudice ^[i] can exist an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership.^[2] The word is often used to refer to a preconceived (unremarkably unfavourable) evaluation or classification of some other person based on that person'due south perceived political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, behavior, values, social class, age, disability, faith, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, complexion, beauty, height, occupation, wealth, education, misdeed, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other personal characteristics.^[3]

The word "prejudice" can also refer to unfounded or pigeonholed beliefs^[4] ^[5] and it may apply to "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".^[vi] Gordon Allport defined prejudice every bit a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual feel".^[vii] Auestad (2015) defines prejudice every bit characterized by "symbolic transfer", transfer of a value-laden significant content onto a socially-formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.^[8]

Etymology [edit]

Historical approaches [edit]

The first psychological research conducted on prejudice occurred in the 1920s. This research attempted to prove white supremacy. One article from 1925 which reviewed 73 studies on race concluded that the studies seemed "to indicate the mental superiority of the white race".^[ix] These studies, forth with other research, led many psychologists to view prejudice as a natural response to races believed to be inferior.

In the 1930s and 1940s, this perspective began to change due to the increasing concern about anti-Semitism due to the credo of the Nazis. At the time, theorists viewed prejudice every bit pathological and they thus looked for personality syndromes linked with racism. Theodor Adorno believed that prejudice stemmed from an authoritarian personality; he believed that people with disciplinarian personalities were the most likely to be prejudiced confronting groups of lower status. He described authoritarians as "rigid thinkers who obeyed authority, saw the earth every bit black and white, and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies".^[ten]

In 1954, Gordon Allport, in his classic work The Nature of Prejudice, linked prejudice to categorical thinking. Allport claimed that prejudice is a natural and normal process for humans. According to him, "The human heed must think with the aid of categories... Once formed, categories are the footing for normal prejudgment. We cannot peradventure avert this process. Orderly living depends upon it."^[11]

In the 1970s, research began to prove that prejudice tends to be based on favoritism towards one'southward own groups, rather than negative feelings towards some other group. According to Marilyn Brewer, prejudice "may develop not because outgroups are hated, just because positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy, and trust are reserved for the ingroup".^[12]

In 1979, Thomas Pettigrew described the ultimate attribution fault and its function in prejudice. The ultimate attribution error occurs when ingroup members "(1) attribute negative outgroup behavior to dispositional causes (more than than they would for identical ingroup beliefs), and (2) attribute positive outgroup behavior to one or more of the post-obit causes: (a) a fluke or exceptional case, (b) luck or special advantage, (c) high motivation and effort, and (d) situational factors"/^[x]

Youeng-Bruehl (1996) argued that prejudice cannot be treated in the atypical; 1 should rather speak of different prejudices as characteristic of different character types. Her theory defines prejudices equally being social defences, distinguishing between an obsessional graphic symbol structure, primarily linked with anti-semitism, hysterical characters, primarily associated with racism, and narcissistic characters, linked with sexism.^[xiii]

Contemporary theories and empirical findings [edit]

The out-grouping homogeneity event is the perception that members of an out-group are more than like (homogenous) than members of the in-group. Social psychologists Quattrone and Jones conducted a study demonstrating this with students from the rival schools Princeton University and Rutgers University.^[14] Students at each schoolhouse were shown videos of other students from each school choosing a type of music to listen to for an auditory perception study. And then the participants were asked to guess what per centum of the videotaped students' classmates would choose the same. Participants predicted a much greater similarity between out-group members (the rival school) than between members of their in-group.

The justification-suppression model of prejudice was created by Christian Crandall and Amy Eshleman.^[15] This model explains that people face a conflict between the desire to limited prejudice and the desire to maintain a positive cocky-concept. This conflict causes people to search for justification for disliking an out-grouping, and to employ that justification to avoid negative feelings (cognitive dissonance) most themselves when they deed on their dislike of the out-group.

The realistic conflict theory states that contest between limited resources leads to increased negative prejudices and discrimination. This can exist seen fifty-fifty when the resource is insignificant. In the Robber's Cave experiment,^[16] negative prejudice and hostility was created between two summer camps after sports competitions for pocket-sized prizes. The hostility was lessened after the ii competing camps were forced to cooperate on tasks to achieve a common goal.

Some other gimmicky theory is the integrated threat theory (ITT), which was developed by Walter G Stephan.^[17] It draws from and builds upon several other psychological explanations of prejudice and ingroup/outgroup behaviour, such every bit the realistic conflict theory and symbolic racism.^[18] It also uses the social identity theory perspective as the basis for its validity; that is, it assumes that individuals operate in a grouping-based context where group memberships form a part of private identity. ITT posits that outgroup prejudice and bigotry is caused when individuals perceive an outgroup to be threatening in some way. ITT defines four threats:

Realistic threats
Symbolic threats
Intergroup anxiety
Negative stereotypes

Realistic threats are tangible, such as competition for a natural resource or a threat to income. Symbolic threats ascend from a perceived departure in cultural values between groups or a perceived imbalance of ability (for example, an ingroup perceiving an outgroup's religion as incompatible with theirs). Intergroup anxiety is a feeling of uneasiness experienced in the presence of an outgroup or outgroup fellow member, which constitutes a threat because interactions with other groups crusade negative feelings (e.grand., a threat to comfortable interactions). Negative stereotypes are similarly threats, in that individuals conceptualize negative behaviour from outgroup members in line with the perceived stereotype (for example, that the outgroup is tearing). Often these stereotypes are associated with emotions such as fear and anger. ITT differs from other threat theories by including intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes as threat types.

Additionally, social dominance theory states that society tin can be viewed as group-based hierarchies. In competition for scarce resources such equally housing or employment, ascendant groups create prejudiced "legitimizing myths" to provide moral and intellectual justification for their dominant position over other groups and validate their claim over the limited resources.^[xix] Legitimizing myths, such as discriminatory hiring practices or biased merit norms, piece of work to maintain these prejudiced hierarchies.

Prejudice can be a central contributing gene to depression.^[20] This can occur in someone who is a prejudice victim, being the target of someone else's prejudice, or when people have prejudice confronting themselves that causes their own depression.

Paul Blossom argues that while prejudice can be irrational and have terrible consequences, it is natural and often quite rational. This is because prejudices are based on the human tendency to categorise objects and people based on prior experience. This means people make predictions near things in a category based on prior experience with that category, with the resulting predictions usually beingness authentic (though non ever). Flower argues that this process of categorisation and prediction is necessary for survival and normal interaction, quoting William Hazlitt, who stated "Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find my style my across the room; nor know how to bear myself in any circumstances, nor what to experience in whatever relation of life".^[21]

In recent years, researchers have argued that the study of prejudice has been traditionally as well narrow. It is argued that since prejudice is defined every bit a negative impact towards members of a grouping, there are many groups confronting whom prejudice is adequate (such equally rapists, men who abandon their families, pedophiles, neo-Nazis, drink-drivers, queue jumpers, murderers etc.), nevertheless such prejudices aren't studied. It has been suggested that researchers accept focused too much on an evaluative approach to prejudice, rather than a descriptive arroyo, which looks at the actual psychological mechanisms behind prejudiced attitudes. Information technology is argued that this limits research to targets of prejudice to groups deemed to be receiving unjust treatment, while groups researchers deem treated justly or deservedly of prejudice are overlooked. Equally a effect, the scope of prejudice has begun to expand in enquiry, allowing a more authentic assay of the relationship between psychological traits and prejudice. ^[22] ^{[ excessive citations ]}

Some researchers had advocated looking into agreement prejudice from the perspective of collective values than just as biased psychological mechanism and different conceptions of prejudice, including what lay people recall constitutes prejudice.^[23] ^[24] This is due to concerns that the way prejudice has been operationalised does not fit its psychological definition and that information technology is frequently used to indicate a belief is faulty or unjustified without actually proving this to exist the case.^[25] ^[26]

Types of Prejudice [edit]

One tin be prejudiced against or accept a preconceived notion almost someone due to any characteristic they find to exist unusual or undesirable. A few commonplace examples of prejudice are those based on someone's race, gender, nationality, social status, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation, and controversies may arise from whatsoever given topic.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Gender Identity [edit]

Transgender and non-binary people can be discriminated against because they identify with a gender that does not align with the their assigned sex at birth. Refusal to call them by their preferred pronouns, or claims that they are not the gender they identify as could exist considered discrimination if it occurs in the right circumstances. Especially if the victim of this discrimination has expressed repetitively what their preferred identity is.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Gender Identity is at present considered a protected category of discrimination. Therefore, severe cases of this bigotry can lead to criminal penalisation or prosecution^{[ commendation needed ]}(non to exist dislocated with persecution; a term that is synonymous with bigotry.^{[ citation needed ]}), and workplaces are required to protect against discrimination based on Gender Identity.^{[ citation needed ]}

Sexism [edit]

Sexism, also chosen gender discrimination, is prejudice or bigotry based on a person's sex or gender(while related, these two concepts are not the same. Sex is based on an cess of biological factors, while gender relates to one's identity.^{[ commendation needed ]}.) Sexism tin affect whatsoever gender, simply it is particularly documented equally affecting women and girls more often (more broadly, the female^{[ citation needed ]} [relates to sexual activity, but can be used to describe the correlated gender of Homo sapiens. Although, information technology does non always match. See: Transgender, Not-binary, Gender identity, or the Gender identity section of this page for more information^{[ citation needed ]}]).^[27] The discussion of such sentiments, and actual gender differences and stereotypes continue to exist controversial topics. Throughout history, women accept been thought of every bit beingness subordinate to men, often being ignored in areas like the academia or belittled altogether. Traditionally, men were thought of as being more than capable than women, mentally and physically.^[28] In the field of social psychology, prejudice studies like the "Who Likes Competent Women" report led the style for gender-based research on prejudice.^[28] This resulted in two broad themes or focuses in the field: the first being a focus on attitudes toward gender equality, and the second focusing on people'southward beliefs well-nigh men and women.^[28] Today, studies based on sexism go on in the field of psychology as researchers try to understand how people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors influence and are influenced past others.^{[ citation needed ]}

Misandry (prejudice or discrimination towards men) and misogyny(prejudice or discrimination towards women) are two divide forms of sexism based on the gender of the victim.^{[ citation needed ]} Although, misandry is more than rarely used, and its existence is more upward to debate than misogyny, information technology is yet a form of sexism.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Nationalism [edit]

Nationalism is a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and frequently produces a policy of national independence or separatism.^[29] It suggests a "shared identity" among a nation'south people that minimizes differences within the grouping and emphasizes perceived boundaries between the group and non-members.^[30] This leads to the supposition that members of the nation have more than in common than they really do, that they are "culturally unified", even if injustices within the nation based on differences similar status and race exist.^[30] During times of conflict betwixt one nation and some other, nationalism is controversial since it may role every bit a buffer for criticism when information technology comes to the nation's own problems since it makes the nation's own hierarchies and internal conflicts appear to exist natural.^[xxx] It may also serve a fashion of rallying the people of the nation in support of a particular political goal.^[30] Nationalism usually involves a push button for conformity, obedience, and solidarity amongst the nation's people and can effect not only in feelings of public responsibleness but also in a narrow sense of community due to the exclusion of those who are considered outsiders.^[xxx] Since the identity of nationalists is linked to their allegiance to the state, the presence of strangers who do not share this allegiance may event in hostility.^[xxx]

Classism [edit]

Classism is defined past lexicon.com as "a biased or discriminatory attitude on distinctions made betwixt social or economic classes".^[31] The thought of separating people based on course is controversial in itself. Some argue that economic inequality is an unavoidable attribute of society, and so there will ever be a ruling grade.^[32] Some also argue that, even within the most egalitarian societies in history, some form of ranking based on social status takes place. Therefore, i may believe the beingness of social classes is a natural characteristic of lodge.^[33]

Others debate the contrary. According to anthropological evidence, for the bulk of the fourth dimension the human species has been in existence, humans have lived in a manner in which the land and resources were not privately owned.^[33] Besides, when social ranking did occur, it was not antagonistic or hostile like the electric current class system.^[33] This evidence has been used to support the thought that the existence of a social class system is unnecessary. Overall, society has neither come up to a consensus over the necessity of the course organization, nor been able to bargain with the hostility and prejudice that occurs because of the grade system.

Sexual discrimination [edit]

One'due south sexual orientation is the "direction of one'southward sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes".^[34] Like most minority groups, homosexuals and bisexuals are not immune to prejudice or stereotypes from the majority group. They may feel hatred from others due to their sexual orientation; a term for such intense hatred based upon one's sexual orientation is homophobia. "Queer" may be used as an umbrella term for individuals in the LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and others). Yet, more specific words for bigotry directed towards specific sexualities be nether other names, such as biphobia.^[35]

Due to what social psychologists call the vividness result, a tendency to notice only certain distinctive characteristics, the majority population tends to draw conclusions like gays flaunt their sexuality.^[36] Such images may exist hands recalled to mind due to their vividness, making it harder to appraise the unabridged situation.^[36] The majority population may not only remember that homosexuals flaunt their sexuality or are "too gay", but may besides erroneously believe that homosexuals are like shooting fish in a barrel to identify and label as being gay or lesbian when compared to others who are not homosexual.^[37]

The idea of heterosexual privilege has been known to flourish in society. Research and questionnaires are formulated to fit the majority; i.e., heterosexuals. The status of assimilating or conforming to heterosexual standards may be referred to every bit "heteronormativity", or it may refer to ideology that the primary or only social norm is being heterosexual.^{[ citation needed ]}

In the US legal system, all groups are non always considered equal under the law. The gay or queer panic defence force is a term for defenses or arguments used to defend the defendant in court cases, that defense force lawyers may apply to justify their client'southward hate criminal offense against someone that the client thought was LGBT. The controversy comes when defense force lawyers use the victim'southward minority condition as an excuse or justification for crimes that were directed against them. This may be seen every bit an instance of victim blaming. One method of this defense, homosexual panic disorder, is to claim that the victim's sexual orientation, body movement patterns (such as their walking patterns or how they trip the light fantastic), or appearance that is associated with a minority sexual orientation provoked a violent reaction in the defendant. This is not a proven disorder, is no longer recognized by the DSM, and, therefore, is not a disorder that is medically recognized, but it is a term to explicate certain acts of violence.^[38]

Research shows that bigotry on the basis of sexual orientation is a powerful feature of many labor markets. For instance, studies show that gay men earn ten–32% less than heterosexual men in the United States, and that at that place is significant discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in many labor markets.^[39]

Racism [edit]

Racism is defined as the conventionalities that physical characteristics determine cultural traits, and that racial characteristics make some groups superior.^[40] By separating people into hierarchies based upon their race, it has been argued that diff treatment among the different groups of people is only and fair due to their genetic differences.^[40] Racism can occur amongst any group that can exist identified based upon physical features or fifty-fifty characteristics of their culture.^[40] Though people may exist lumped together and chosen a specific race, everyone does non fit neatly into such categories, making it hard to define and describe a race accurately.^[40]

Scientific Racism [edit]

Scientific racism began to flourish in the eighteenth century and was greatly influenced past Charles Darwin's evolutionary studies, every bit well as ideas taken from the writings of philosophers like Aristotle; for case, Aristotle believed in the concept of "natural slaves".^[40] This concept focuses on the necessity of hierarchies and how some people are bound to exist on the lesser of the pyramid. Though racism has been a prominent topic in history, there is still debate over whether race actually exists,^{[ commendation needed ]} making the discussion of race a controversial topic. Fifty-fifty though the concept of race is still being debated, the furnishings of racism are apparent. Racism and other forms of prejudice tin bear on a person'south behavior, thoughts, and feelings, and social psychologists strive to study these furnishings.

Religious discrimination [edit]

While various religions teach their members to be tolerant of those who are different and to have compassion, throughout history at that place accept been wars, pogroms and other forms of violence motivated by hatred of religious groups.^[41]

In the mod globe, researchers in western, educated, industrialized, rich and autonomous countries have done various studies exploring the human relationship between organized religion and prejudice; thus far, they have received mixed results. A study done with United states of america higher students institute that those who reported religion to be very influential in their lives seem to accept a higher rate of prejudice than those who reported not being religious.^[41] Other studies constitute that religion has a positive upshot on people equally far every bit prejudice is concerned.^[41] This difference in results may be attributed to the differences in religious practices or religious interpretations amongst the individuals. Those who do "institutionalized religion", which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice.^[42] Those who practice "interiorized religion", in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.^[42]

Linguistic bigotry [edit]

Individuals or groups may be treated unfairly based solely on their use of language. This use of language may include the individual'south native language or other characteristics of the person's speech, such as an accent or dialect, the size of vocabulary (whether the person uses complex and varied words), and syntax. It may besides involve a person's power or inability to use one language instead of another.^{[ citation needed ]}

In the mid-1980s, linguist Tove Skutnabb-Kangas captured this idea of discrimination based on language as the concept of linguicism. Kangas defined linguicism equally the ideologies and structures used to "legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal sectionalization of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the footing of language".^[43]

Neurological discrimination [edit]

High-Operation [edit]

Broadly speaking, attribution of low social condition to those who exercise not conform to neurotypical expectations of personality and behaviour. This can manifest through assumption of 'disability' condition to those who are high functioning enough to exist exterior of diagnostic criteria, nevertheless do not desire to (or are unable to) accommodate their behaviour to conventional patterns. This is a controversial and somewhat contemporary concept; with diverse disciplinary approaches promoting conflicting messages what normality constitutes, the degree of adequate individual difference within that category, and the precise criteria for what constitutes medical disorder. This has been well-nigh prominent in the case of high-functioning autism,^[44] where direct cognitive benefits increasingly appear to come at the expense of social intelligence.^[45]

Discrimination may also extend to other high functioning individuals conveying pathological phenotypes, such as those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and bipolar spectrum disorders. In these cases, there are indications that perceived (or actual) socially disadvantageous cognitive traits are directly correlated with advantageous cognitive traits in other domains, notably creativity and divergent thinking,^[46] and still these strengths might become systematically overlooked. The instance for "neurological discrimination" as such lies in the expectation that 1's professional capacity may be judged by the quality of ones social interaction, which can in such cases exist an inaccurate and discriminatory metric for employment suitability.

Since there are moves by some experts to have these higher-functioning extremes reclassified as extensions of human personality,^[47] any legitimisation of discrimination against these groups would fit the very definition of prejudice, as medical validation for such bigotry becomes redundant. Recent advancements in behavioural genetics and neuroscience have made this a very relevant issue of discussion, with existing frameworks requiring significant overhaul to accommodate the strength of findings over the last decade.^{[ citation needed ]}

Low-Functioning [edit]

Assumptions may be made well-nigh the intelligence or value of individuals who have or exhibit behaviors of mental disorders or conditions. Individuals who accept a hard fourth dimension assimilating or fitting into neurotypical standards and social club may exist label "Depression-Functioning".

People with neurological disorders or weather condition observed to take depression intelligence, lack of self-control, suicidal behavior, or any number of factors may be discriminated on this basis. Institutions such as mental asylums, Nazi Concentration Camps, unethical pediatric research/care facilities, and eugenics labs have been used to carry out dangerous experiments or to torture the individuals involved.

Most discrimination today is characterized past individuals making comments towards low-functioning individuals or past harming them physically by themselves, just some institutions practice dangerous activities on these individuals.

Multiculturalism [edit]

Humans have an evolved propensity to think categorically virtually social groups, manifested in cognitive processes with wide implications for public and political endorsement of multicultural policy, according to psychologists Richard J. Well-baked and Rose Meleady.^[48] They postulated a cognitive-evolutionary account of human adaptation to social diversity that explains full general resistance to multiculturalism, and offer a reorienting call for scholars and policy-makers who seek intervention-based solutions to the problem of prejudice.

Reducing prejudice [edit]

The contact hypothesis [edit]

The contact hypothesis predicts that prejudice can just exist reduced when in-grouping and out-group members are brought together.^[49] ^[50] In particular, there are half dozen weather that must be met to reduce prejudice, as were cultivated in Elliot Aronson's "jigsaw" teaching technique.^[49] Starting time, the in- and out-groups must have a degree of mutual interdependence. Second, both groups need to share a common goal. Third, the 2 groups must accept equal status. Fourth, in that location must exist frequent opportunities for informal and interpersonal contact between groups. Fifth, there should be multiple contacts between the in- and the out-groups. Finally, social norms of equality must exist and exist nowadays to foster prejudice reduction.

Empirical inquiry [edit]

Academics Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp conducted a meta-analysis of 515 studies involving a quarter of a 1000000 participants in 38 nations to examine how intergroup contact reduces prejudice. They plant that iii mediators are of particular importance: Intergroup contact reduces prejudice past (1) enhancing knowledge nigh the outgroup, (ii) reducing anxiety well-nigh intergroup contact, and (three) increasing empathy and perspective-taking. While all three of these mediators had mediational effects, the mediational value of increased knowledge was less potent than anxiety reduction and empathy.^[51] In add-on, some individuals face discrimination when they come across it happen, with inquiry finding that individuals are more probable to face up when they perceive benefits to themselves, and are less likely to face up when concerned about others' reactions.^[52]

Problems with psychological models [edit]

One problem with the notion that prejudice evolved considering of a necessity to simplify social classifications considering of limited encephalon chapters and at the aforementioned time can be mitigated through education is that the two contradict each other, the combination amounting to saying that the trouble is a shortage of hardware and at the aforementioned time can be mitigated by stuffing fifty-fifty more software into the hardware 1 just said was overloaded with too much software.^[53] The distinction between men's hostility to outgroup men being based on dominance and aggression and women'due south hostility to outgroup men existence based on fear of sexual compulsion is criticized with reference to the historical example that Hitler and other male Nazis believed that intergroup sex was worse than murder and would destroy them permanently which they did not believe that war itself would, i.e. a view of outgroup male threat that evolutionary psychology considers to be a female view and not a male view.^[54] ^{[ better source needed ]}

Meet also [edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Prejudice.

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Prejudice

Wikiquote has quotations related to: bigotry

Ambivalent prejudice
Benevolent prejudice
Bias
Collective responsibility
Mutual ingroup identity
Conformity
Fascism
Detest crime
Hostile prejudice
Idée fixe (psychology)
Milgram experiment
Nazism
Political correctness
Prejudice from an evolutionary perspective
Presumption of guilt
Reverse discrimination
Social influence
Stigma management
Intermission of judgment
Terrorism
Tolerance
Totalitarianism

References [edit]

^ Douglas (Ph.D.), James (1872). English etymology. p. 67.
^ "Definition of PREJUDICE". www.merriam-webster.com . Retrieved 2021-09-21 .
^ Bethlehem, Douglas W. (2015-06-19). A Social Psychology of Prejudice. Psychology Press. ISBN978-i-317-54855-3.
^ Turiel, Elliot (2007). "Commentary: The Problems of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Exclusion". International Journal of Behavioral Evolution. 31 (5): 419–422. doi:10.1177/0165025407083670. S2CID 145744721.
^ William James wrote: "A corking many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." Quotable Quotes – Courtesy of The Freeman Institute.
^ Rosnow, Ralph Fifty. (March 1972). "Poultry and Prejudice". Psychologist Today. five (ten): 53–6.
^ Allport, Gordon (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. Perseus Books Publishing. p. six. ISBN978-0-201-00179-2.
^ Auestad, Lene (2015). Respect, Plurality, and Prejudice (one ed.). London: Karnac. pp. xxi–xxii. ISBN9781782201397.
^ Garth, T. Rooster. (1930). "A review of race psychology". Psychological Bulletin. 27 (5): 329–56. doi:10.1037/h0075064.
^ ^a ^b Plous, South. "The Psychology of Prejudice". Agreement Prejudice.org. Web. 07 Apr. 2011.^{[ verification needed ]}
^ Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.^{[ page needed ]}
^ Brewer, Marilynn B. (1999). "The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Detest?". Periodical of Social Problems. 55 (3): 429–44. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00126.
^ Young-Bruehl, Elizabeth (1996). An Anatomy of Prejudices . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 38. ISBN9780674031913.
^ Quattrone, George A.; Jones, Edward East. (1980). "The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the police of modest numbers". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38: 141–52. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141.
^ Crandall, Christian S.; Eshleman, Amy (2003). "A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice". Psychological Bulletin. 129 (3): 414–46. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414. PMID 12784937.
^ Sherif, Muzafer; Harvey, O. J.; White, B. Jack; Hood, William R.; Sherif, Carolyn Due west. (1988). The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Disharmonize and Cooperation. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press. ISBN978-0-8195-6194-vii. ^{[ page needed ]}
^ Stephan, Cookie White; Stephan, Walter C.; Demitrakis, Katherine M.; Yamada, Ann Marie; Clason, Dennis L. (2000). "Women's Attitudes Toward Men: an Integrated Threat Theory Approach". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 24: 63–73. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01022.10. S2CID 143906177.
^ Riek, Blake 1000.; Mania, Eric West.; Gaertner, Samuel L. (2006). "Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 10 (four): 336–53. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4. PMID 17201592. S2CID 144762865.
^ Sidanius, Jim; Pratto, Felicia; Bobo, Lawrence (1996). "Racism, conservatism, Affirmative Action, and intellectual composure: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. seventy (3): 476–90. CiteSeerX10.1.1.474.1114. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476.
^ Cox, William T. L.; Abramson, Lyn Y.; Devine, Patricia 1000.; Hollon, Steven D. (2012). "Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective". Perspectives on Psychological Science. vii (5): 427–49. doi:x.1177/1745691612455204. PMID 26168502. S2CID 1512121.
^ Blossom, Paul "Can prejudice always be a adept thing" Jan 2014, accessed 02/12/17
^
Crandell, Christian S.; Ferguson, Marker A.; Bahns, Angela J. (2013). "Chapter 3: When Nosotros Run into Prejudice". In Stangor, Charles; Crendeall, Christian Southward. (eds.). Stereotyping and Prejudice. Psychology Press. ISBN978-1848726444.
- < Crawford, Jarret, and Marker J. Brandt. 2018. "Large Five Traits and Inclusive Generalized Prejudice." PsyArXiv. June 30. doi:10.31234/osf.io/6vqwk.
- Brandt, Marking, and J. T. Crawford. "Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups tin can help united states of america understand prejudice." Current Directions in Psychological Scientific discipline (2019).
- Ferguson, Marker A., Nyla R. Branscombe, and Katherine J. Reynolds. "Social psychological research on prejudice as commonage action supporting emergent ingroup members." British Journal of Social Psychology (2019).
- Brandt, Marking J., and Jarret T. Crawford. "Worldview conflict and prejudice." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 61, pp. ane-66. Academic Press, 2020.
- Crawford, Jarret T., and Marking J. Brandt. "Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The large five traits and generalized prejudice." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45, no. 10 (2019): 1455-1467.
^ Platow, Michael J., Dirk Van Rooy, Martha Augoustinos, Russell Spears, Daniel Bar-Tal, and Diana M. Grace."Prejudice is virtually Collective Values, not a Biased Psychological Organisation." Editor's Introduction 48, no. ane (2019): fifteen.
^ Billig, Michael. "The notion of "prejudice": Some rhetorical and ideological aspects." Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of disharmonize, inequality, and social alter (2012): 139-157.
^ Brownish, Rupert. Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
^ Crawford, Jarret T., and Lee Jussim, eds. Politics of Social Psychology. Psychology Press, 2017.
^
At that place is a clear and wide consensus among academic scholars in multiple fields that sexism unremarkably refers to discrimination confronting women, and primarily affects women. See, for instance:
- "Sexism". New Oxford American Dictionary (iii ed.). Oxford University Press. 2010. ISBN9780199891535. Defines sexism as "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically confronting women, on the basis of sex."
- "Sexism". Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Academic Edition. 2015. Defines sexism equally "prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls." Notes that "sexism in a order is virtually commonly applied against women and girls. It functions to maintain patriarchy, or male person domination, through ideological and textile practices of individuals, collectives, and institutions that oppress women and girls on the basis of sex or gender."
- Cudd, Ann E.; Jones, Leslie E. (2005). "Sexism". A Companion to Applied Ethics. London: Blackwell. Notes that "'Sexism' refers to a historically and globally pervasive class of oppression confronting women."
- Masequesmay, Gina (2008). "Sexism". In O'Brien, Jodi (ed.). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society. SAGE. Notes that "sexism commonly refers to prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls." Besides states that "sexism is an ideology or practices that maintain patriarchy or male domination."
- Hornsby, Jennifer (2005). "Sexism". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (two ed.). Oxford. Defines sexism as "thought or practice which may permeate language and which assume's women'southward inferiority to men."
- "Sexism". Collins Dictionary of Folklore. Harper Collins. 2006. Defines sexism as "any devaluation or denigration of women or men, but particularly women, which is embodied in institutions and social relationships."
- "Sexism". Palgrave MacMillan Dictionary of Political Thought. Palgrave MacMillan. 2007. Notes that "either sexual activity may be the object of sexist attitudes... however, it is ordinarily held that, in developed societies, women have been the usual victims."
- "Sexism". The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Dear, Courtship, and Sexuality through History, Book vi: The Mod Earth. Greenwood. 2007. "Sexism is any act, attitude, or institutional configuration that systematically subordinates or devalues women. Built upon the belief that men and women are constitutionally different, sexism takes these differences as indications that men are inherently superior to women, which and then is used to justify the nearly universal authorisation of men in social and familial relationships, every bit well as politics, organized religion, language, law, and economics."
- Foster, Carly Hayden (2011). "Sexism". In Kurlan, George Thomas (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Political Science. CQ Press. ISBN9781608712434. Notes that "both men and women can experience sexism, but sexism against women is more pervasive."
- Johnson, Allan G. (2000). "Sexism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Sociology. Blackwell. Suggests that "the key test of whether something is sexist... lies in its consequences: if it supports male privilege, and so it is past definition sexist. I specify 'male privilege' because in every known order where gender inequality exists, males are privileged over females."
- Lorber, Judith (2011). Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics. Oxford University Press. p. 5. Notes that "although we speak of gender inequality, information technology is usually women who are disadvantaged relative to similarly situated men."
- Wortman, Camille B.; Loftus, Elizabeth S.; Weaver, Charles A (1999). Psychology. McGraw-Loma. "As throughout history, today women are the principal victims of sexism, prejudice directed at one sex, even in the The states."
^ ^a ^b ^c Dovidio, John, Peter Glick, and Laurie Rudman. On the Nature of Prejudice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 108. Print.
^ "Nationalism", dictionary.com
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f Blackwell, Judith; Smith, Murray; Sorenson, John (2003). Civilization of Prejudice: Arguments in Disquisitional Social Science . Toronto: Broadview Press. pp. 31–2. ISBN9781551114903.
^ "Classism", lexicon.com
^ Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2003. 145. Print.
^ ^a ^b ^c Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. Civilisation of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science. Toronto: Broadview Printing, 2003. 146. Print.
^ "Sexual Orientation", dictionary.com
^ Fraïssé, C.; Barrientos, J. (Nov 2016). "The concept of homophobia: A psychosocial perspective". Sexologies. 25 (four): e65–e69. doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2016.02.002. Retrieved 27 February 2022.
^ ^a ^b Anderson, Kristin. Benign Discrimination: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Printing, 2010. 198. Print.
^ Anderson, Kristin. Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 200. Impress.
^ Helmers, Matthew T. (June 2017). "Decease and Discourse: The History of Arguing Against the Homosexual Panic Defense". Law, Culture and the Humanities. xiii (ii): 285–301. doi:10.1177/1743872113479885. Retrieved 27 Feb 2022.
^ Tilcsik, A (2011). "Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States". American Periodical of Sociology. 117 (ii): 586–626. doi:10.1086/661653. hdl:1807/34998. PMID 22268247. S2CID 23542996.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Scientific discipline. Toronto: Broadview Printing, 2003. 37–38. Print.
^ ^a ^b ^c Dovidio, John, Peter Glick, and Laurie Rudman. On the Nature of Prejudice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 413. Print.
^ ^a ^b Dovidio, John, Peter Glick, and Laurie Rudman. On the Nature of Prejudice. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 414. Print.
^ Quoted in Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Phillipson, Robert, "'Mother Tongue': The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Structure of a Concept". In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) (1989), Status and Role of Languages and Language Varieties, p. 455. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. ISBN 3-11-011299-Ten.
^ NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and how to think smarter about people who think differently. Allen & Unwin. Impress.
^ Iuculano, Teresa (2014). "Brain Arrangement Underlying Superior Mathematical Abilities in Children with Autism". Biological Psychiatry. 75 (3): 223–230. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.06.018. PMC3897253. PMID 23954299.
^ Carson, Shelley (2011). "Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model". Canadian Journal of Psychiatry. 56 (3): 144–53. doi:ten.1177/070674371105600304. PMID 21443821.
^ Wakabayashi, Akio (2006). "Are autistic traits an independent personality dimension? A report of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the NEO-PI-R". Personality and Private Differences. 41 (5): 873–883. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.003.
^ Crisp, Richard J.; Meleady, Rose (2012). "Adapting to a Multicultural Future". Science. 336 (6083): 853–5. Bibcode:2012Sci...336..853C. doi:10.1126/scientific discipline.1219009. PMID 22605761. S2CID 21624259.
^ ^a ^b Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. K. (2010). Social Psychology (7th edition). New York: Pearson.
^ Paluck, Elizabeth Levy; Green, Seth A; Light-green, Donald P (10 July 2018). "The contact hypothesis re-evaluated". Behavioural Public Policy. iii (ii): 129–158. doi:10.1017/bpp.2018.25.
^ Pettigrew, Thomas F.; Tropp, Linda R. (2008). "How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of 3 mediators". European Journal of Social Psychology. 38 (6): 922–934. doi:10.1002/ejsp.504.
^ Good, J. J.; Moss-Racusin, C. A.; Sanchez, D. T. (2012). "When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting bigotry on behalf of the cocky and others". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 36 (2): 210–226. doi:10.1177/0361684312440958. S2CID 143907822.
^ Rolf Pfeifer, Josh Bongard (2006). How the Body Shapes the Way We Call back: A New View of Intelligence
^ David Buller (2005). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Homo Nature