Ambivalent prejudice

Last updated

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup (a group of people that do not belong to an individual's own group), they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one's life. [1]

Contents

Bernard Whitley and Mary Kite [2] contend that this dissonance motivates people to alter their thoughts in an attempt to reduce their discomfort. Depending on the situation or context that has primed them, people will give priority to either the positive beliefs or the negative beliefs, leading to a corresponding behavioral shift known as response amplification.

Theoretical framework

According to Susan Fiske, there are two underlying characteristics of stigmatized groups around the world: [3] the ideas that status predicts perceived competence and that cooperation predicts perceived warmth. [3] Two combinations of competence and warmth produce ambivalent prejudices. The combined perception of groups as warm but incompetent leads to pitied groups, such as traditional women or older people. [3] The combined perception of groups as competent but cold leads to envied groups, such as nontraditional women or minority entrepreneurs. [3] Fiske uses this conception of prejudice to explain ambivalent sexism, heterosexism, racism, anti-immigrant biases, ageism, and classism. [3]

Views

According to Whitley and Kite, ambivalent prejudice comes from one person having both good and bad thoughts about an outgroup. [2] The example in their book The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination talks about race and how some people often have ambivalent attitudes towards people of other races. This means that their behavior is also ambivalent: "sometimes it is positive, sometimes negative." [4]

Irwin Katz said that ambivalent prejudice occurs when only the individual becomes aware of the conflicting attitudes, which can be caused for most people simply by coming face to face with someone from the outgroup. [5] According to Katz, that conflict of attitudes can cause problems with one's self-image because it seems as if one is not living up to all important values that one holds. The conflict can cause negative emotions, which are expressed in negative behavior.

Irwin Katz and Glen Hass (1988) believed that contradicting American values are to blame for ambivalent prejudice. [6] The first value is that hard work will always pay off and people get what they deserve, but the other value is that all people are equal and that people should help the less fortunate. When that is applied to race, many people are torn. They see disadvantaged people of other races as not working hard enough to be worth as much as people of their own race, but they also understand that people of other race have a harder time financially and socially. Those mixed emotions lead to ambivalence.

Tara MacDonald and Mark Zanna suggested that stereotypes were to blame for ambivalent prejudice. [7] According to MacDonald and Zanna, people can like others and respect others, and both emotions work independently of each other. When a person feels those things towards an entire group, it is because of stereotypes. Therefore, a person can like and disrespect people of other races because of certain stereotypes, or they can dislike but respect the same group of people for other stereotypes.

In a study testing the nature of ambivalent prejudice, Hisako Matsuo and Kevin McIntyre (2005) [8] studied American attitudes toward immigrant groups. He proposed that ambivalent prejudice stems from two views. There is the individualistic attitude that values the Protestant work ethic, an attitude that is associated with more negative attitudes toward outgroups. The other view is an egalitarian or humanitarian one, which is associated with more positive attitudes toward outgroups. [3] [8]

Measures

Researchers use a variety of methods to measure ambivalent prejudice. The most widely used method is the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI), developed by Glick and Fiske in 1996. [3] [9] The ASI focuses on sexism, a form of ambivalent prejudice characterized by both hostile and benevolent attitudes toward women. These attitudes reflect typical ingroup-outgroup dynamics, where men, as the higher-status group, exhibit ambivalence rooted in three sources—paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality—principles measured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. [3] [10]

Hostile sexism targets women who resist traditional gender roles, resembling overly negative, old-fashioned sexism. The theory identifies resentment toward nontraditional women along each dimension: dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation, and heterosexual hostility. [3] Conversely, women who co-operate with traditional gender roles and relationships evoke benevolent sexism, characterized by attitudes like protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy. The ASI measures sexism along all of the six dimensions that compose hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. [3]

The ASI is a self-report measure consisting of 22 items, evenly divided between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism subscales (11 each). Participants rate their agreement to the statements on a 6-point Likert scale, where 0 indicates strong disagreement and 5 indicates strong agreement. Certain items are reversed coded so that agreement with the statement indicates lower levels of sexism and disagreement with the statement indicates higher levels of sexism. Both subscales can be either calculated separately or averaged together to get an overall measure of sexism. [3]

Example items from the ASI include: [3]

(Below is a series of statements concerning men and women and their relationships in contemporary society that this study wrote for their subjects to evaluate.) [3]

Benevolent sexism subset: [3]

Hostile sexism subset: [3]

Researchers use various other methods to measure different types of ambivalent prejudices. For example, the Modern Racism Scale measures aspects of ambivalent racism. [3]

The Modern Racism Scale, developed by McConahay in 1986 [11] , is another tool for assessing subtle and ambivalent racial prejudice. It evaluates attitudes such as the denial of systemic discrimination, resentment over perceived favoritism toward racial minorities, and a tendency to blame disadvantaged groups for their circumstances. By probing these ambivalent attitudes, the MRS reveals a duality in perceptions: individuals may outwardly support equality while simultaneously resisting measures aimed at addressing racial inequality. [11]

The MRS employs statements like "Discrimination against [outgroup] is no longer a problem in today’s society" and "Over the past few years, [outgroup] has been getting more than they deserve." Participants rate their agreement for these statements on a Likert scale, allowing researchers to measure subtle forms of bias that align with modern social norms. [11] While the MRS has been widely used in studies of policy attitudes and contextual influences on prejudice, it is not without limitations. Other researchers point out its vulnerability to social desirability bias, where respondents may underreport negative attitudes, and its cultural specificity, which requires careful adaptation for use outside the United States. [11] [12]

Beyond the Modern Racism Scale, researchers have developed additional tools to study ambivalent prejudice in other contexts, such as gender, immigration, and intergroup dynamics. The Humanitarianism-Protestant Work Ethic Scale (HPWES), developed by Katz and Hass in 1988 [13] , assesses the conflict between humanitarian values, such as empathy and support for helping disadvantaged groups, and individualistic values that emphasize self-reliance and hard work. This scale has been specifically useful in studying attitudes toward immigrants and refugees—groups often viewed ambivalently as deserving of compassion but also perceived as burdensome to societal resources. Research using this scale has shown that these conflicting values drive much of the ambivalence toward marginalized groups. [13] [14]

Implicit measures, like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), can also prove useful by uncovering unconscious or automatic biases. Unlike explicit self-report tools, the IAT is said to assess how individuals may unconsciously associate social groups with both positive and negative attributes. For example, an individual might implicitly link an outgroup with warmth while simultaneously associating it with incompetence, showing the two sides of ambivalence. Similarly, affective priming tasks examine how exposure to stereotypes or group-related stimuli influences immediate, subconscious reactions. [15] [16] [17]

Behavioral studies also provide insight on ambivalence, particularly through the concept of response amplification. This phenomenon occurs when individuals exhibit exaggerated reactions—either overly positive or negative—toward members of a stigmatized group. For instance, research has shown that ambivalent individuals often overcompensate with excessive praise or criticism depending on situational cues. [18] Physiological measures like skin conductance and heart rate variability capture emotional reactions during interactions with outgroup members. [19] In addition to behavioral studies, recent advances in neuroscience have further expanded the understanding of ambivalent prejudice. Functional MRI (fMRI) studies have identified brain regions involved in processing conflicting attitudes, such as the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and prefrontal cortex, which are activated during cognitive dissonance, therefore bringing attention to the fluctuating behaviors and attitudes characteristic of ambivalent prejudice. [20] [21] [22]

Applications

Sexism

First introduced by Glick and Fiske (1996), Ambivalent Sexism theory encapsulates two differing ideologies, hostile and benevolent sexism, that explain the persistent discriminatory attitudes towards women in accordance with the stereotype content model. [23] Hostile sexism is expressed when women choose to differ from the traditional, normative standard ascribed to their gender role. These women tend to be regarded as low in warmth, yet demand high competence. Examples of such include women who are CEOs, politicians or those with high achievements and awards. The typical attitude exhibited towards these women will be expressed as resentment, which may manifest in explicit discriminatory behaviour attacking their profession or new role. [23] In comparison, benevolent sexism is expressed towards women who follow the traditional gender role, yet are subtly discriminated against due to their chosen societal role. These women tend to be regarded as low in warmth, yet low in competence. Examples of such include women who are stay-at-home mothers. The typical attitude exhibited towards these women will be expressed through cherishment and protection, often implicitly discriminating against women by believing them to be incapable of caring for themselves without the male status quo. [23]

Fiske posits that the two forms of sexism posited in Ambivalent Sexism theory work to reinforce the male hierarchical power by reducing women to whether or not they follow the traditional roles. [23] Hostile sexism is more explicit and derogatory in its exhibition, often believing that these women are outliers to the social norms. Benevolent sexism is expressed more implicitly, often seeing women as objects to be protected and requiring a traditional male figure to guide and nourish them. [23] These behaviours may be subconsciously expressed, with some people not believing it to be inherently discriminatory. However, the assumption that women are incapable and require unsolicited advice or guidance is a form of benevolent sexism that can be expressed towards women who are perceived to follow prescribed gender roles. [23]

One of the consequences of widespread ambivalent sexism is violence. In a systematic literature review by Bareket and Fiske (2023), hostile sexism leads to more direct violence, which tends to be expressed in relation to the status quo being threatened by women power. In comparison, benevolent sexism leads to expressions that justify the discriminatory behaviour. [24] Bareket and Fiske label this as indirect violence, leading to cases of victim blaming passive facilitation of the discriminatory behavior and/or inaction towards discriminatory behaviour. These expressions of prejudice have been found to be expressed within a public domain, such as in a workplace, or within one’s private space. [24]

Racism

Ambivalent racism depicts two contrasting reactions by whites toward blacks. These competing evaluations include hostile (antiblack) sentiments and subjectively sympathetic but paternalistic (problack) sentiments. [3] Problack attitudes attribute black disadvantage to larger social structures and factors including discrimination, segregation, and lack of opportunities. In contrast, hostile antiblack racism, like old-fashioned racism asserts that "black people are unambitious, disorganized, free-riding, and do not value education." [3] Fiske states that "black Americans are viewed ambivalently mainly to the extent that white Americans simultaneously harbor a more subjectively positive and a more hostile attitude, which can flip from one polarity to the other, depending on individual differences in beliefs and on situational cues." [3]

Ableism

Söder suggests that people do not have fixed cognitive assumptions or emotions about people with disabilities. [25] Rather, people are ambivalent, so their behavior in any given situation will depend on the context. People have two contrasting ideas about people with disabilities; people devalue disabilities while maintaining a benevolent sympathy towards disabled people. [25] This leads to a conflict between basic values held by wider society and moral dilemmas in concrete daily interactions with people with disabilities. Söder proposes an ambivalence model as a better method for evaluating interactions with and attitudes about disabled people as it better captures the totality of people's sentiments. [8]

Xenophobia

Matsuo and McIntyre applied the concept of ambivalent prejudice to immigrants and refugees. [8] They described attitudes toward immigrants and refugees as ambivalent since on the one hand they are perceived "sympathetically, as disadvantaged, and deserving of justice", but on the other hand, they are seen as "more likely to be involved in crime and a burden on the public system." [8] Matsuo and McIntyre used a sample survey of college students to test egalitarianism and the Protestant work ethic (PWE) and how it relates to perceptions of refugees. [8] Participants completed survey questions regarding social contact, attitudes toward specific ethnic groups, general attitudes toward refugees, and the Humanitarianism/Protestant Work Ethic Scale. They found that the ambivalent attitudes toward refugees is based on the "dual maintenance of American values", egalitarianism and PWE. In testing the contact theory, they found that only when contact is personal and cooperative does prejudice decrease. [8]

Response amplification

Response amplification is a strategy that may be used to lessen the negative effects of cognitive dissonance that arises from conflicting beliefs one may hold towards their out-groups. [2] Response amplification is defined by engaging in a more extreme, overdone response towards stigmatized out-group members, in comparison to non-stigmatized individuals. [2] Exaggerated responses are overly positive or negative, relative to what is typically expected of the situation. [2] Bell and Esses (2002) from the University of Western University explain that this occurs from a motivation to reduce ambivalence, as doing so amplifies one side of the individual’s conflicting opinion, thereby mitigating the difference in beliefs. [26]

For example, a white person holding a stigmatized view of black people may evaluate this group more positively or negatively than they would for a white person, or non-stigmatized group. This was explored in the 1991 study by Hass et al. from the City University of New York. [27] The researchers assessed the level of ambience in a sample of white students. [27] Participants were then partnered with a Black or White teammate, and were instructed to complete a task together. [27] As part of the study, the assigned teammate was instructed to intentionally cause the failure or successful achievement of the task by the researchers. [27] Following task completion, the participants rated their teammate’s performance. [27] Results demonstrated that those who scored higher in ambivalence tended to rate the black teammate more positively in the success condition, but more negatively in the failure condition compared to the ratings that were given to the white teammates in either condition. [27] The findings demonstrate an amplified response towards one group to be correlated with incidence of ambivalence.

Response amplification has been found in multiple contexts. Besides racial (as previously indicated), the over-exaggerated responses have also been observed in interactions between able-bodied people towards disabled individuals, men rating women (and vice versa), and in ratings towards female feminists. [2]

Mitigation

Leippe and Eisenstadt found that dissonance mediated changed may be more successful when an internal conflict already exists, that is, when individuals possess cognitive dissonance that can be a result of ambivalence. [28] In three experiments, whites were encouraged to write essays regarding scholarship policies that would favor blacks. Writing the essay led to a more positive perception of the policy, as well as, in some cases, more positive attitudes towards blacks in general. [28] Ambivalent people were more likely to comply with writing a positive essay than non ambivalent people. As a result of writing the essay, participants felt cognitive dissonance which led them to engage in a sort of cognitive restructuring to further reduce the dissonance. [28] This meant engaging in more extended thinking that led to more positive beliefs about Blacks in general as well as about the specific policy. By inducing compliance in writing, they were able to induce a change in attitudes toward the target group. [28]

Fiske suggests several methods to mitigate ambivalent prejudice particularly in the context of business management. [3] These methods mainly involve an increased awareness and recognition of the different types of prejudice. [3] She states that not all prejudices are alike, but they do create predictable groups of stereotypes, emotional prejudices, and discriminatory tendencies. When working to counteract prejudice, the focus should be on the most stereotypically negative aspect for a group, for example, competence for older people. [3] In addition, constructive contact, that involving cooperation and equal status in the setting, for example, between groups improves emotional intelligence. [3]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prejudice</span> Attitudes based on preconceived categories

Prejudice can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived group membership. The word is often used to refer to a preconceived evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as political affiliation, sex, gender, gender identity, beliefs, values, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race, ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, complexion, beauty, height, body weight, occupation, wealth, education, criminality, sport-team affiliation, music tastes or other perceived characteristics.

A counterstereotype is an idea or object that goes against a stereotype -- a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment.

Ambivalence is a state of having simultaneous conflicting reactions, beliefs, or feelings towards some object. Stated another way, ambivalence is the experience of having an attitude towards someone or something that contains both positively and negatively valenced components. The term also refers to situations where "mixed feelings" of a more general sort are experienced, or where a person experiences uncertainty or indecisiveness.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

System justification theory is a theory within social psychology that system-justifying beliefs serve a psychologically palliative function. It proposes that people have several underlying needs, which vary from individual to individual, that can be satisfied by the defense and justification of the status quo, even when the system may be disadvantageous to certain people. People have epistemic, existential, and relational needs that are met by and manifest as ideological support for the prevailing structure of social, economic, and political norms. Need for order and stability, and thus resistance to change or alternatives, for example, can be a motivator for individuals to see the status quo as good, legitimate, and even desirable.

In psychology and other social sciences, the contact hypothesis suggests that intergroup contact under appropriate conditions can effectively reduce prejudice between majority and minority group members. Following WWII and the desegregation of the military and other public institutions, policymakers and social scientists had turned an eye towards the policy implications of interracial contact. Of them, social psychologist Gordon Allport united early research in this vein under intergroup contact theory.

Susan Tufts Fiske is an American psychologist who served as the Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs in the Department of Psychology at Princeton University. She is a social psychologist known for her work on social cognition, stereotypes, and prejudice. Fiske leads the Intergroup Relations, Social Cognition, and Social Neuroscience Lab at Princeton University. Her theoretical contributions include the development of the stereotype content model, ambivalent sexism theory, power as control theory, and the continuum model of impression formation.

Aversive racism is a social scientific theory proposed by Samuel L. Gaertner & John F. Dovidio (1986), according to which negative evaluations of racial/ethnic minorities are realized by a persistent avoidance of interaction with other racial and ethnic groups. As opposed to traditional, overt racism, which is characterized by overt hatred for and discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, aversive racism is characterized by more complex, ambivalent expressions and attitudes nonetheless with prejudicial views towards other races. Aversive racism arises from unconscious personal beliefs taught during childhood. Subtle racist behaviors are usually targeted towards African Americans. Workplace discrimination is one of the best examples of aversive racism. Biased beliefs on how minorities act and think affect how individuals interact with minority members.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stereotype</span> Generalized but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing

In social psychology, a stereotype is a generalized belief about a particular category of people. It is an expectation that people might have about every person of a particular group. The type of expectation can vary; it can be, for example, an expectation about the group's personality, preferences, appearance or ability. Stereotypes are often overgeneralized, inaccurate, and resistant to new information. A stereotype does not necessarily need to be a negative assumption. They may be positive, neutral, or negative.

Symbolic racism is a coherent belief system that reflects an underlying one-dimensional prejudice towards a racialized ethnicity. Symbolic racism is more of a general term than it is one specifically related to prejudice towards black people. These beliefs may cause the subject to discriminate against black people and to justify this discrimination. Some people do not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but is indirectly linked through social and political issues.

Ambivalent sexism is a theoretical framework which posits that sexism has two sub-components: hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS). Hostile sexism reflects overtly negative evaluations and stereotypes about a gender. Benevolent sexism represents evaluations of gender that may appear subjectively positive, but are actually damaging to people and gender equality more broadly. For the most part, psychologists have studied hostile forms of sexism. However, theorists using the theoretical framework of ambivalent sexism have found extensive empirical evidence for both varieties. The theory has largely been developed by social psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske.

Benevolent prejudice is a superficially positive prejudice expressed in terms of positive beliefs and emotional responses, which are associated with hostile prejudices or result in keeping affected groups in inferior societal positions. Benevolent prejudice can be expressed towards those of different race, religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

The women-are-wonderful effect is the phenomenon found in psychological and sociological research which suggests that people associate more positive attributes with women when compared to men. This bias reflects an emotional bias toward women as a general case. The phrase was coined by Alice Eagly and Antonio Mladinic in 1994 after finding that both male and female participants tend to assign positive traits to women, with female participants showing a far more pronounced bias. Positive traits were assigned to men by participants of both genders, but to a far lesser degree.

Hostile prejudice is the outward expression of hate for people of a different race, religion, ideology, country, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Anyone who goes against specific criteria of dress, cultural or moral beliefs, or religious or political ideologies are subject to hostile racism. This racism often leads to direct discrimination to anyone who does not fit the prejudiced person's idea of a "normal" person. This behavior is most prevalent when there are noticeable differences between ingroups and outgroups, with the outgroup members experiencing hostile prejudice from ingroup members.

An implicit bias or implicit stereotype is the pre-reflective attribution of particular qualities by an individual to a member of some social out group.

Internalized sexism is a form of sexist behavior and attitudes enacted by women toward themselves or other women and girls. Internalized sexism is a form of internalized oppression, which "consists of oppressive practices that continue to make the rounds even when members of the oppressor group are not present." Internalized sexism can have a range of effects on women and girls such as problems with mental health and body image. Modes of internalization of sexism include early childhood inculturation and consumption of media, especially of celebrity and entertainment news.

Integrated threat theory (ITT), also known as intergroup threat theory, is a theory in psychology and sociology which attempts to describe the components of perceived threat that lead to prejudice between social groups. The theory applies to any social group that may feel threatened in some way, whether or not that social group is a majority or minority group in their society. This theory deals with perceived threat rather than actual threat. Perceived threat includes all of the threats that members of group believe they are experiencing, regardless of whether those threats actually exist. For example, people may feel their economic well-being is threatened by an outgroup stealing their jobs even if, in reality, the outgroup has no effect on their job opportunities. Still, their perception that their job security is under threat can increase their levels of prejudice against the outgroup. Thus, even false alarms about threat still have "real consequence" for prejudice between groups.

Intergroup relations refers to interactions between individuals in different social groups, and to interactions taking place between the groups themselves collectively. It has long been a subject of research in social psychology, political psychology, and organizational behavior.

In social psychology, a metastereotype is a stereotype that members of one group have about the way in which they are stereotypically viewed by members of another group. In other words, it is a stereotype about a stereotype. They have been shown to have adverse effects on individuals that hold them, including on their levels of anxiety in interracial conversations. Meta-stereotypes held by African Americans regarding the stereotypes White Americans have about them have been found to be largely both negative and accurate. People portray meta-stereotypes of their ingroup more positively when talking to a member of an outgroup than to a fellow member of their ingroup.

Diversity ideology refers to individual beliefs regarding the nature of intergroup relations and how to improve them in culturally diverse societies. A large amount of scientific literature in social psychology studies diversity ideologies as prejudice reduction strategies, most commonly in the context of racial groups and interracial interactions. In research studies on the effects of diversity ideology, social psychologists have either examined endorsement of a diversity ideology as individual difference or used situational priming designs to activate the mindset of a particular diversity ideology. It is consistently shown that diversity ideologies influence how individuals perceive, judge and treat cultural outgroup members. Different diversity ideologies are associated with distinct effects on intergroup relations, such as stereotyping and prejudice, intergroup equality, and intergroup interactions from the perspectives of both majority and minority group members. Beyond intergroup consequences, diversity ideology also has implications on individual outcomes, such as whether people are open to cultural fusion and foreign ideas, which in turn predict creativity.

References

  1. ↑ Costarelli, Sandro; Gerłowska, Justyna (2015-07-04). "Ambivalence, prejudice and negative behavioural tendencies towards out-groups: The moderating role of attitude basis". Cognition and Emotion. 29 (5): 852–866. doi:10.1080/02699931.2014.950196. ISSN   0269-9931.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kite, Mary; Whitley, Bernard (2010). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. ISBN   9780495599647.[ page needed ]
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Fiske, Susan T. (January 2012). "Managing Ambivalent Prejudices: Smart-but-Cold and Warm-but-Dumb Stereotypes". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 639 (1): 33–48. doi:10.1177/0002716211418444. PMC   3792573 . PMID   24115779.
  4. ↑ Kite, Mary; Whitley, Bernard (2010). The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. p. 214. ISBN   9780495599647.
  5. ↑ Katz, I (1981). Stigma: A social psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.[ page needed ]
  6. ↑ Katz, Irwin; Hass, R. Glen (December 1988). "Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology . 55 (6): 893–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893.
  7. ↑ MacDonald, T. K.; Zanna, M. P. (April 1998). "Cross-Dimension Ambivalence toward Social Groups: Can Ambivalence Affect Intentions to Hire Feminists?". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin . 24 (4): 427–41. doi:10.1177/0146167298244009. S2CID   143692981.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Matsuo, Hisako; McIntyre, Kevin P. (August 12, 2005). Ambivalent Prejudice toward Immigrants: The Role of Social Contact and Ethnic Origin. Annual meeting of the American Sociological Association. Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia.
  9. ↑ G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs. Elsevier/Academic Press.
  10. ↑ "Social psychological measures of stereotyping and prejudice." In G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (eds.), Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs. Elsevier/Academic Press.
  11. 1 2 3 4 McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Academic Press.
  12. ↑ Henry, P.j.; Sears, David O. (2002). "The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale". Political Psychology. 23 (2): 253–283. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00281. ISSN   1467-9221.
  13. 1 2 Katz, Irwin; Hass, R. Glen (December 1988). "Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 55 (6): 893–905. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893. ISSN   1939-1315.
  14. ↑ Matsuo, Hisako & McIntyre, Kevin & Willoughby, Lisa & Uwalaka, Emmanuel. (2013). Attitudes Toward Immigrants: Test of Protestant Work Ethic, Egalitarianism, Social Contact, and Ethnic Origin. IAFOR Journal of the Social Sciences. 1. 10.22492/ijss.1.1.01.
  15. ↑ Fazio, R. H.; Sanbonmatsu, D. M.; Powell, M. C.; Kardes, F. R. (February 1986). "On the automatic activation of attitudes". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 50 (2): 229–238. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.50.2.229. ISSN   0022-3514. PMID   3701576.
  16. ↑ Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.
  17. ↑ Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: a bona fide pipeline?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(6), 1013–1027. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.69.6.1013
  18. ↑ Hass, R. Glen; Katz, Irwin; Rizzo, Nina; Bailey, Joan; Eisenstadt, Donna (1991-02-01). "Cross-Racial Appraisal as Related to Attitude Ambivalence and Cognitive Complexity". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (1): 83–92. doi:10.1177/0146167291171013. ISSN   0146-1672.
  19. ↑ Vanman, Eric J.; Saltz, Jessica L.; Nathan, Laurie R.; Warren, Jennifer A. (November 2004). "Racial discrimination by low-prejudiced whites. Facial movements as implicit measures of attitudes related to behavior". Psychological Science. 15 (11): 711–714. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00746.x. ISSN   0956-7976. PMID   15482441.
  20. ↑ van Veen, Vincent; Krug, Marie K.; Schooler, Jonathan W.; Carter, Cameron S. (November 2009). "Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance". Nature Neuroscience. 12 (11): 1469–1474. doi:10.1038/nn.2413. ISSN   1546-1726. PMID   19759538.
  21. ↑ Amodio, David; Lieberman, Matthew D. (2009), Nelson, T. (ed.), "Pictures in our heads: Contributions of fMRI to the study of prejudice and stereotyping", Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination, New York: Erlbaum Press, pp. 347–366, retrieved 2024-11-29
  22. ↑ Kubota, Jennifer T.; Banaji, Mahzarin R.; Phelps, Elizabeth A. (July 2012). "The neuroscience of race". Nature Neuroscience. 15 (7): 940–948. doi:10.1038/nn.3136. ISSN   1546-1726.
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Bareket, Orly; Fiske, Susan T. (November 2023). "A systematic review of the ambivalent sexism literature: Hostile sexism protects men's power; benevolent sexism guards traditional gender roles". Psychological Bulletin. 149 (11–12): 637–698. doi:10.1037/bul0000400. ISSN   1939-1455.
  24. 1 2 Glick, Peter; Fiske, Susan T. (March 1997). "Hostile and Benevolent Sexism: Measuring Ambivalent Sexist Attitudes Toward Women". Psychology of Women Quarterly. 21 (1): 119–135. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00104.x. ISSN   0361-6843.
  25. 1 2 Söder, Mårten (1990). "Prejudice or Ambivalence? Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities". Disability, Handicap & Society. 5 (3): 227–241. doi:10.1080/02674649066780241.
  26. ↑ Bell, David W.; Esses, Victoria M. (August 2002). "Ambivalence and Response Amplification: A Motivational Perspective". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 28 (8): 1143–1152. doi:10.1177/01461672022811012. S2CID   145564841.
  27. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hass, R. Glen; Katz, Irwin; Rizzo, Nina; Bailey, Joan; Eisenstadt, Donna (February 1991). "Cross-Racial Appraisal as Related to Attitude Ambivalence and Cognitive Complexity". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 17 (1): 83–92. doi:10.1177/0146167291171013. S2CID   143464653.
  28. 1 2 3 4 Leippe, Michael R.; Eisenstadt, Donna (September 1994). "Generalization of Dissonance Reduction: Decreasing Prejudice Through Induced Compliance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67 (3): 395–413. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.395.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.