Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Beyond prejudice
View graph of relations

Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? / Dixon, John; Levine, Mark; Reicher, Steve et al.
In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Vol. 35, No. 6, 01.12.2012, p. 411-425.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Dixon J, Levine M, Reicher S, Durrheim K. Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2012 Dec 1;35(6):411-425. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X11002214

Author

Dixon, John ; Levine, Mark ; Reicher, Steve et al. / Beyond prejudice : Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2012 ; Vol. 35, No. 6. pp. 411-425.

Bibtex

@article{df9e0f04f6364f5080362779ba207587,
title = "Beyond prejudice: Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?",
abstract = "For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and inclusive (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?.",
keywords = "collective action, contact, intergroup relations, prejudice, prejudice reduction social change",
author = "John Dixon and Mark Levine and Steve Reicher and Kevin Durrheim",
year = "2012",
month = dec,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0140525X11002214",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "411--425",
journal = "Behavioral and Brain Sciences",
issn = "0140-525X",
publisher = "CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS",
number = "6",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Beyond prejudice

T2 - Are negative evaluations the problem and is getting us to like one another more the solution?

AU - Dixon, John

AU - Levine, Mark

AU - Reicher, Steve

AU - Durrheim, Kevin

PY - 2012/12/1

Y1 - 2012/12/1

N2 - For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and inclusive (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?.

AB - For most of the history of prejudice research, negativity has been treated as its emotional and cognitive signature, a conception that continues to dominate work on the topic. By this definition, prejudice occurs when we dislike or derogate members of other groups. Recent research, however, has highlighted the need for a more nuanced and inclusive (Eagly 2004) perspective on the role of intergroup emotions and beliefs in sustaining discrimination. On the one hand, several independent lines of research have shown that unequal intergroup relations are often marked by attitudinal complexity, with positive responses such as affection and admiration mingling with negative responses such as contempt and resentment. Simple antipathy is the exception rather than the rule. On the other hand, there is mounting evidence that nurturing bonds of affection between the advantaged and the disadvantaged sometimes entrenches rather than disrupts wider patterns of discrimination. Notably, prejudice reduction interventions may have ironic effects on the political attitudes of the historically disadvantaged, decreasing their perceptions of injustice and willingness to engage in collective action to transform social inequalities. These developments raise a number of important questions. Has the time come to challenge the assumption that negative evaluations are inevitably the cognitive and affective hallmarks of discrimination? Is the orthodox concept of prejudice in danger of side-tracking, if not obstructing, progress towards social justice in a fuller sense? What are the prospects for reconciling a prejudice reduction model of change, designed to get people to like one another more, with a collective action model of change, designed to ignite struggles to achieve intergroup equality?.

KW - collective action

KW - contact

KW - intergroup relations

KW - prejudice

KW - prejudice reduction social change

U2 - 10.1017/S0140525X11002214

DO - 10.1017/S0140525X11002214

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 23164194

AN - SCOPUS:84870880438

VL - 35

SP - 411

EP - 425

JO - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

JF - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

SN - 0140-525X

IS - 6

ER -