49
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice.

      ,
      Psychological Bulletin
      American Psychological Association (APA)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The authors propose a justification-suppression model (JSM), which characterizes the processes that lead to prejudice expression and the experience of one's own prejudice. They suggest that "genuine" prejudices are not directly expressed but are restrained by beliefs, values, and norms that suppress them. Prejudices are expressed when justifications (e.g., attributions, ideologies, stereotypes) release suppressed prejudices. The same process accounts for which prejudices are accepted into the self-concept The JSM is used to organize the prejudice literature, and many empirical findings are recharacterized as factors affecting suppression or justification, rather than directly affecting genuine prejudice. The authors discuss the implications of the JSM for several topics, including prejudice measurement, ambivalence, and the distinction between prejudice and its expression.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas.

              In two experiments, we examined the perceived controllability and stability of the causes of 10 stigmas. Guided by attribution theory, we also ascertained the affective reactions of pity and anger, helping judgments, and the efficacy of five intervention techniques. In the first study we found that physically based stigmas were perceived as onset-uncontrollable, and elicited pity, no anger, and judgments to help. On the other hand, mental-behavioral stigmas were perceived as onset-controllable, and elicited little pity, much anger, and judgments to neglect. In addition, physically based stigmas were perceived as stable, or irreversible, whereas mental-behavioral stigmas were generally considered unstable, or reversible. The perceived efficacy of disparate interventions was guided in part by beliefs about stigma stability. In the second study we manipulated perceptions of causal controllability. Attributional shifts resulted in changes in affective responses and behavioral judgments. However, attributional alteration was not equally possible for all the stigmas.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychological Bulletin
                Psychological Bulletin
                American Psychological Association (APA)
                1939-1455
                0033-2909
                2003
                2003
                : 129
                : 3
                : 414-446
                Article
                10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414
                12784937
                2f483dbb-3edb-48a7-89fa-c1e8ecef00ee
                © 2003
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article