discrimination research papers examples

Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research

• Open Access
• First Online: 09 April 2021

Cite this chapter

You have full access to this open access chapter

• Rosita Fibbi 4 ,
• Arnfinn H. Midtbøen 5 &
• Patrick Simon 6  

Part of the book series: IMISCOE Research Series ((IMIS))

10k Accesses

Increasing migration-related diversity in Europe has fostered dramatic changes since the 1950s, among them the rise of striking ethno-racial inequalities in employment, housing, health, and a range of other social domains. These ethno-racial disadvantages can be understood as evidence of widespread discrimination; however, scholarly debates reflect striking differences in the conceptualization and measurement of discrimination in the social sciences. Indeed, what discrimination is, as well as how and why it operates, are differently understood and studied by the various scholarships and scientific fields. It is the ambition of this book to summarize how we frame, study, theorize, and aim at combatting ethno-racial discrimination in Europe.

You have full access to this open access chapter,  Download chapter PDF

European societies are more ethnically diverse than ever. The increasing migration-related diversity has fostered dramatic changes since the 1950s, among them the rise of striking ethno-racial inequalities in employment, housing, health, and a range of other social domains. The sources of these enduring inequalities have been a subject of controversy for decades. To some scholars, ethno-racial gaps in such outcomes are seen as transitional bumps in the road toward integration, while others view structural racism, ethnic hostility, and subtle forms of outgroup-bias as fundamental causes of persistent ethno-racial inequalities. These ethno-racial disadvantages can be understood as evidence of widespread discrimination; however, scholarly debates reflect striking differences in the conceptualization and measurement of discrimination in the social sciences.

What discrimination is, as well as how and why it operates, are differently understood and studied by the various scholarships and scientific fields. A large body of research has been undertaken over the previous three decades, using a variety of methods – qualitative, quantitative, and experimental. These research efforts have improved our knowledge of the dynamics of discrimination in Europe and beyond. It is the ambition of this book to summarize how we frame, study, theorize, and aim at combatting ethno-racial discrimination in Europe.

1.1 Post-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial Diversity Turn

Even though ethnic and racial diversity has existed to some extent in Europe (through the slave trade, transnational merchants, and colonial troops), the scope of migration-related diversity reached an unprecedented level in the period following World War II. This period coincides with broader processes of decolonization and the beginning of mass migration from non-European countries, be it from former colonies to the former metropoles (from the Caribbean or India and Pakistan to the UK; South-East Asia, North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa to France) or in the context of labor migration without prior colonial ties (from Turkey to Germany or the Netherlands; Morocco to Belgium or the Netherlands, etc.).

The ethnic and racial diversity in large demographic figures began in the 1960s (Van Mol and de Valk 2016 ). At this time, most labor migrants were coming from other European countries, but figures of non-European migration were beginning to rise: in 1975, 8% of the population in France and the UK had a migration background, half of which originated from a non-European country. By contrast, in 2014, 9.2% of the population of the EU28 had a migration background from outside of Europe (either foreign born or native-born from foreign-born parent(s)), and this share reached almost 16% in Sweden; 14% in the Netherlands, France, and the UK; and between 10 and 13% in Germany, Belgium, and Austria. The intensification of migration, especially from Asia and Africa, has heightened the visibility of ethno-racial diversity in large European metropolises. Almost 50% of inhabitants in Amsterdam and Rotterdam have a “nonwestern allochthon ” background (2014), 40% of Londoners are black or ethnic minorities (2011), while 30% of Berliners (2013) and 43% of Parisians (metropolitan area; 2009) have a migration background. The major facts of this demographic evolution are not only that diversity has reached a point of “super-diversity” (see Vertovec 2007 ; Crul 2016 ) in size and origins, but also that descendants of immigrants (i.e., the second generation) today make up a significant demographic group in most European countries, with the exception of Southern Europe where immigration first boomed in the 2000s.

The coming of age of the second generation has challenged the capacity of different models of integration to fulfill promises of equality, while the socio-cultural cohesion of European societies is changing and has to be revised to include ethnic and racial diversity. Native-born descendants of immigrants are socialized in the country of their parents’ migration and, in most European countries, share the full citizenship of the country where they live and, consequently, the rights attached to it. However, an increasing number of studies show that even the second generation faces disadvantages in education, employment, and housing that cannot be explained by their lack of skills or social capital (Heath and Cheung 2007 ). The transmission of penalties from one generation to the other – and in some cases an even higher level of penalty for the second generation than for the first – cannot be explained solely by the deficiencies in human, social, and cultural capital, as could have been the case for low-skilled labor migrants arriving in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, the persistence of ethno-racial disadvantages among citizens who do not differ from others except for their ethnic background, their skin color, or their religious beliefs is a testament to the fact that equality for all is an ambition not yet achieved.

Citizenship status may represent a basis for differential treatment. Undoubtedly, citizenship status is generally considered a legitimate basis for differential treatment, which is therefore not acknowledged as discrimination. Indeed, in many European countries, the divide between nationals and European Union (EU) citizens lost its bearing with the extension of social rights to EU citizens (Koopmans et al. 2012 ). Yet, in other countries, and for non-EU citizens, foreign citizenship status creates barriers to access to social subsidies, health care, specific professions, and pensions or exposure to differential treatment in criminal justice. In most countries, voting rights are conditional to citizenship, and the movement to expand the polity to non-citizens is uneven, at least for elections of representatives at the national parliaments. Notably, in countries with restrictive access to naturalization, citizenship status may provide an effective basis for unequal treatment (Hainmueller and Hangartner 2013 ). The issue of discrimination among nationals, therefore, should not overshadow the enduring citizenship-based inequalities.

The gap between ethnic diversity among the population and scarcity of the representation of this diversity in the economic, political, and cultural elites demonstrate that there are obstacles to minorities entering these positions. This picture varies across countries and social domains. The UK, Belgium, or the Netherlands display a higher proportion of elected politicians with a migration background than France or Germany (Alba and Foner 2015 ). Some would argue that it is only a matter of time before newcomers will take their rank in the queue and access the close ring of power in one or two generations. Others conclude that there is a glass ceiling for ethno-racial minorities, which will prove as efficient as that for women to prevent them from making their way to the top. The exception that proves the rule can be found in sports, where athletes with minority backgrounds are often well represented in high-level competitions. The question is how to narrow the gap in other domains of social life, and what this gap tells us about the structures of inequalities in European societies.

1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe

Discrimination is as old as human society. However, the use of the concept in academic research and policy debates in Europe is fairly recent. In the case of differential treatment of ethnic and racial minorities, the concept was typically related to blatant forms of racism and antisemitism, while the more subtle forms of stigmatization, subordination, and exclusion for a long time did not receive much attention as forms of “everyday racism” (Essed 1991 ). The turn from explicit racism to more subtle forms of selection and preference based on ethnicity and race paved the way to current research on discrimination. In European societies, where formal equality is a fundamental principle protected by law, discrimination is rarely observed directly. Contrary to overt racism, which is explicit and easily identified, discrimination is typically a hidden part of decisions, selection processes, and choices that are not explicitly based on ethnic or racial characteristics, even though they produce unfair biases. Discrimination does not have to be intentional and it is often not even a conscious part of human action and interaction. While it is clear that discrimination exists, this form of differential treatment is hard to make visible. The major task of research in the field is thus to provide evidence of the processes and magnitude of discrimination. Beyond the variety of approaches in the different disciplines, however, discrimination researchers tend to agree on the starting point: stereotypes and prejudices are nurturing negative perceptions, more or less explicit, of individuals or groups through processes of ethnicization or racialization, which in turn create biases in decision-making processes and serve as barriers to opportunities for these individuals or groups.

Although the concepts of inequality, discrimination, and racism are sometimes used interchangeably, the concept of discrimination entails specificities in terms of social processes, power relations, and legal frameworks that have opened new perspectives to understand ethnic and racial inequalities. The genealogy of the concept and its diffusion in scientific publications still has to be studied thoroughly, and we searched in major journals to identify broad historical sequences across national contexts. Until the 1980s, the use of the concept of discrimination was not widespread in the media, public opinion, science, or policies. In scientific publications, the dissemination of the concept was already well advanced in the US at the beginning of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery to describe interracial relations. In Europe, there is a sharp distinction between the UK and continental Europe in this regard. The development of studies referring explicitly to discrimination in the UK has a clear link to the post-colonial migration after World War II and the foundation of ethnic and racial studies in the 1960s. However, the references to discrimination remained quite limited in the scientific literature until the 1990s – even in specialized journals such as Ethnic and Racial Studies , New Community and its follower Journal for Ethnic and Migration Studies , and more recently Ethnicities  – when the number of articles containing the term discrimination in their title or keywords increased significantly. In French-speaking journals, references to discrimination were restricted to a small number of feminist journals in the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s and 2000s in mainstream social science journals. The same held true in Germany, with a slight delay in the middle of the 2000s. Since the 2000s, the scientific publications on discrimination have reached new peaks in most European countries.

The year 2000 stands as a turning point in the development of research and public interest in discrimination in continental Europe. This date coincides with the legal recognition of discrimination by the parliament of the EU through a directive “implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” more commonly called the “Race Equality Directive.” This directive put ethnic and racial discrimination on the political agenda of EU countries. This political decision contributed to changing the legal framework of EU countries, which incorporated non-discrimination as a major reference and transposed most of the terms of the Race Equality Directive into their national legislation. The implementation of the directive was also a milestone in the advent of the awareness of discrimination in Europe. In order to think in terms of discrimination, there should be a principle of equal treatment applied to everyone, regardless of their ethnicity or race. This principle of equal treatment is not new, but it has remained quite formal for a long time. The Race Equality Directive represented a turning point toward a more effective and proactive approach to achieve equality and accrued sensitivity to counter discrimination wherever it takes place.

The first step to mobilize against discrimination is to launch awareness-raising campaigns to create a new consciousness of the existence of ethno-racial disadvantages. The denial of discrimination is indeed a paradoxical consequence of the extension of formal equality in post-war democratic regimes. Since racism is morally condemned and legally prohibited, it is expected that discrimination should not occur and, thus, that racism is incidental. Incidentally, an opinion survey conducted in 2000 for the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (which was replaced in 2003 by the Fundamental Rights Agency [FRA]), showed that only 31% of respondents in the EU15 at the time agreed that discrimination should be outlawed. However, the second Eurobarometer explicitly dedicated to studying discrimination in 2007 found that ethnic discrimination was perceived as the most widespread (very or fairly) type of discrimination by 64% of EU citizens (European Commission 2007 ). Almost 10 years later, in 2015, the answers were similar for ethnic discrimination but had increased for all other grounds except gender. Yet, there are large discrepancies between countries, with the Netherlands, Sweden, and France showing the highest levels of consciousness of ethnic discrimination (84%, 84%, and 82%, respectively), whereas awareness is much lower in Poland (31%) and Latvia (32%). In Western Europe, Germany (60%) and Austria (58%) stand out with relatively lower marks (European Commission 2015 ).

These Eurobarometer surveys provide useful information about the knowledge of discrimination and the attitudes of Europeans toward policies against it. However, they focus on the representation of different types of discrimination rather than the personal experience of minority members. To gather statistics on the experience of discrimination is difficult for two reasons: (1) minorities are poorly represented in surveys with relatively small samples in the general population and (2) questions about experiences of discrimination are rarely asked in non-specific surveys. Thanks to the growing interest in discrimination, more surveys are providing direct and indirect variables that are useful in studying the personal experiences of ethno-racial disadvantage.

The European Social Survey, for example, has introduced a question on perceived group discrimination (which is not exactly a personal self-reported experience of discrimination, see Chap. 4 ). In 2007 and 2015, the FRA conducted a specialized survey on discrimination in the 28 EU countries, the Minorities and Discrimination (EU-MIDIS) survey, to fill the gap in the knowledge of the experience of discrimination of ethnic and racial minorities. The information collected is wide ranging; however, only two minority groups were surveyed in each EU country, and the survey is not representative of the population.

Of course, European-wide surveys are not the main statistical sources on discrimination. Administrative statistics, censuses, and social surveys at the national and local levels in numerous countries bring new knowledge of discrimination, either with direct measures when this is the main topic of data collection or more indirectly when they provide information on gaps in employment or education faced by disadvantaged groups. The key point is to be able to identify the relevant population category in relation to discrimination, as we know that ethno-racial groups do not experience discrimination to the same extent. Analyses of immigrants or the second generation as a whole might miss the significant differences between – broadly speaking – European and non-European origins. Or, to put it in a different way, between white and non-white or “visible” minorities. Countries where groups with a European background make up most of the migration-related diversity typically show low levels of discrimination, while countries with high proportions of groups with non-European backgrounds, especially Africans (North and Sub-Saharan), Caribbean people, and South Asians, record dramatic levels of discrimination.

1.3 Who Is Discriminated Against? The Problem with Statistics on Ethnicity and Race

Collecting data on discrimination raises the problem of the identification of minority groups. Migration-related diversity has been designed from the beginning of mass migration based on place of birth of the individuals (foreign born) or their citizenship (foreigners). In countries where citizenship acquisition is limited, citizenship or nationality draws the boundary between “us” and “the others” over generations. This is not the case in countries with more open citizenship regimes where native-born children of immigrants acquire by law the nationality of their country of residence and thus cannot be identified by these variables. If most European countries collect data on foreigners and immigrants, a limited number identify the second generation (i.e., the children of immigrants born in the country of immigration). The question is whether the categories of immigrants and the second generation really reflect the population groups exposed to ethno-racial discrimination. As the grounds of discrimination make clear, nationality or country of birth is not the only characteristic generating biases and disadvantages: ethnicity, race, or color are directly involved. However, if it seems straightforward to define country of birth and citizenship, collecting data on ethnicity, race, or color is complex and, in Europe, highly sensitive.

Indeed, the controversial point is defining population groups by using the same characteristics by which they are discriminated against. This raises ethical, political, legal, and methodological issues. Ethical because the choice to re-use the very categories that convey stereotypes and prejudices at the heart of discrimination entails significant consequences. Political because European countries have adopted a color-blind strategy since 1945, meaning that their political philosophies consider that racial terminologies are producing racism by themselves and should be strictly avoided (depending on the countries, ethnicities receive the same blame). Legal because most European countries interpret the provisions of the European directive on data protection and their transposition in national laws as a legal prohibition. Methodological because there is no standardized format to collect personal information on ethnicity or race and there are several methodological pitfalls commented in the scientific literature. Data on ethnicity per se are collected in censuses to describe national minorities in Eastern Europe, the UK, and Ireland, which are the only Western European countries to produce statistics by ethno-racial categories (Simon 2012 ). The information is collected by self-identification either with an open question about one’s ethnicity or by ticking a box (or several in the case of multiple choices) in a list of categories. None of these questions explicitly mention race: for example, the categories in the UK census refer to “White,” “black British,” or “Asian British” among other items, but the question itself is called the “ethnic group question.”

In the rest of Europe, place of birth and nationality of the parents would be used as proxies for ethnicity in a limited number of countries: Scandinavia, the Netherlands, and Belgium to name a few. Data on second generations can be found in France, Germany, and Switzerland among others in specialized surveys with limitations in size and scope. Moreover, the succession of generations since the arrival of the first migrants will fade groups into invisibility by the third generation. This process is already well advanced in the oldest immigration countries, such as France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Asking questions about the grandparents and the previous generations is not an option since it would require hard decisions to classify those with mixed ancestry (how many ancestors are needed to belong to one category?), not to mention the problems in memory to retrieve all valuable information about the grandparents. This is one of the reasons why traditional immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia) collect data on ethnicity through self-identification questions.

The discrepancies between official categories and those exposed to discrimination have fostered debates between state members and International Human Rights Organizations – such as the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) at the Council of Europe, and the EU FRA – which claim that more data are needed on racism and discrimination categorized by ethnicity. The same applies to academia and antiracist NGOs where debates host advocates and opponents to “ethnic statistics.” There is no easy solution, but the accuracy of data for the measurement of discrimination is a strategic issue for both research and policies.

1.4 Discrimination and Integration: Commonalities and Contradictions

How does research on discrimination relate to the broader field of research on immigrant assimilation or integration? On one hand, assimilation/integration and discrimination are closely related both in theory and in empirical studies. Discrimination hinders full participation in society, and the persistence of ethnic penalties across generations contradicts long-term assimilation prospects. On the other hand, both assimilation and integration theory tend to assume that the role of discrimination in shaping access to opportunities will decrease over time. Assimilation is often defined as “the decline of ethnic distinction and its corollary cultural and social difference” (Alba and Nee 2003 , 11), a definition that bears an expectation that migrants and their descendants will over time cease to be viewed as different from the “mainstream population,” reach parity in socioeconomic outcomes, and gradually become “one of us.” In the canonical definition, integration departs from assimilation by considering incorporation as a two-way process. Migrants and ethnic minorities are expected to become full members of a society by adopting core values, norms, and basic cultural codes (e.g., language) from mainstream society, while mainstream society is transformed in return by the participation of migrants and ethnic minorities (Alba et al. 2012 ). The main idea is that convergence rather than differentiation should occur to reach social cohesion, and mastering the cultural codes of mainstream society will alleviate the barriers to resource access, such as education, employment, housing, and rights.

Of course, studies of assimilation and integration do not necessarily ignore that migrants and ethnic minorities face penalties in the course of the process of acculturation and incorporation into mainstream society. In the landmark book, Assimilation in American Life , Milton Gordon clearly spelled out that the elimination of prejudice and discrimination is a key parameter for assimilation to occur; or to use his own terms, that “attitude receptional” and “behavioral receptional” dimensions of assimilation are crucial to complete the process (Gordon 1964 , 81). Yet, ethnic penalties are believed to be mainly determined by human capital and class differences and therefore progressively offset as education level rises, elevating the newcomers to conditions of the natives and reducing the social distance between groups. Stressing the importance of generational progress, assimilation theory thus tends to consider discrimination as merely a short-run phenomenon.

The main blind spots in assimilation and integration theories revolve around two issues: the specific inequalities related to the ethnicization or racialization of non-white minorities and the balance between the responsibilities of the structures of mainstream society and the agencies of migrants and ethnic minorities in the process of incorporation. Along these two dimensions, discrimination research offers a different perspective than what is regularly employed in studies of assimilation and integration.

Discrimination research tends to identify the unfavorable and unfair treatment of individuals or groups based on categorical characteristics and often shows these unfair treatments lie in the activation of stereotypes and prejudices by gatekeepers and the lack of neutrality in processes of selection. In this perspective, what has to be transformed and adapted to change the situation are the structures – the institutions, procedures, bureaucratic routines, etc. – of mainstream society, opening it up to ethnic and racial diversity to enable migrants and ethnic minorities to participate on equal footing with other individuals, independent of their identities. By contrast, in studies of assimilation and integration, explanations of disadvantages are often linked to the lack of human capital and social networks among migrants and ethnic minorities, suggesting that they have to transform themselves to be able to take full part in society. To simplify matters, studies of assimilation and integration often explain persistent disadvantages by pointing to characteristics of migrants and ethnic minorities, while discrimination research explains disadvantages by characteristics of the social and political system.

Both assimilation and integration theories have gradually opened up for including processes of ethnicization and racialization and the consequences of such processes on assimilation prospects. Most prominently, segmented assimilation theory (Portes and Rumbaut 2001 ; Portes and Zhou 1993 ) shifts the focus away from migrants’ adaptation efforts and to the forms of interaction between minority groups – and prominently the second and later generations – and the receiving society. In this variant of assimilation theory, societies are viewed as structurally stratified by class, gender, and race, which powerfully influence the resources and opportunities available to immigrants and their descendants and contribute to shaping alternative paths of incorporation. According to segmented assimilation theory, children of immigrants may end up “ascending into the ranks of a prosperous middle class or join in large numbers the ranks of a racialized, permanently impoverished population at the bottom of society” (Portes et al. 2005 , 1004), the latter outcome echoing worries over persistent ethnic and racial disadvantage. Another possible outcome is upward bicultural mobility (selective acculturation) of the children of poorly educated parents, protected by strong community ties.

The major question arising from these related fields of research – the literature on assimilation and integration, on the one hand, and the literature on discrimination, on the other – is whether the gradual diversification of Europe will result in “mainstream expansion,” in which migrants and their descendants over time will ascend the ladders into the middle and upper classes of the societies they live in, or whether we are witnessing the formation of a permanent underclass along ethnic and racial lines. This book will not provide the ultimate answer to this question. However, by introducing the main concepts, theories, and methods in the field of discrimination, as well as pointing out key research findings, policies that are enacted to combat discrimination, and avenues for future research, we hope to provide the reader with an overview of the field.

1.5 The Content of the Book

The literature on discrimination is flourishing, and it involves a wide range of concepts, theories, methods, and findings. Chapter 2 provides the key concepts in the field. The chapter distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination as legal and sociological concepts, between systemic and institutional discrimination, and between discrimination as intentional actions, subtle biases, and what might be referred to as the cumulative effects of past discrimination on the present. Chapter 3 reviews the main theoretical explanations of discrimination from a cross-disciplinary perspective. Mirroring the historical development of the field, it presents and discusses theories seeking the cause of prejudice and discrimination at the individual, organizational, and structural levels.

Of course, our knowledge of discrimination depends on the methods of measurement, since the phenomenon is mainly visible through its quantification. Hence, Chapter 4 offers an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of available methods of measurement, including statistical analysis of administrative data, surveys among potential victims and perpetrators, qualitative in-depth studies, legal cases, and experimental approaches to the study of discrimination (including survey experiments, lab experiments, and field experiments).

Importantly, discrimination does not occur similarly in all domains of social life, and it takes different forms according to the domain in question (e.g., the labor market, education, housing, health services, and public services). Chapter 5 taps into the large body of empirical work that can be grouped under the heading “discrimination research” in order to provide some key findings, while simultaneously highlighting a distinction between systems of differentiation and systems of equality.

What happens when discrimination occurs? Chapter 6 addresses the consequences of unfair treatment for targeted individuals and groups, as well as their reaction to it. These individual and collective responses to discrimination are seconded by policies designed to tackle discrimination. However, antidiscrimination policies vary greatly across countries, and Chapter 7 provides an overview of the different types of policies against discrimination in Europe and beyond, both public policies and schemes implemented by organizations. The chapter also reflects on some of the key political and societal debates about the implementation and the future of these policies. Chapter 8 concludes on the future of discrimination research in Europe, stressing the main challenges ahead for a burgeoning scientific field.

Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in North America and Western Europe . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration . Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Alba, R., Reitz, J. G., & Simon, P. (2012). National Conceptions of assimilation, integration, and cohesion. In M. Crul & J. H. Mollenkopf (Eds.), The changing face of world cities: Young adult children of immigrants in Europe and the United States (pp. 44–61). New York: Russel Sage.

Google Scholar  

Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cities challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42 (1), 54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1061425 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory . Newbury Park: Sage.

European Commission. (2007). Discrimination in the European Union (Special Eurobarometer, Vol. 263). Brussels: European Commission.

European Commission. (2015). Discrimination in the EU in 2015 (Special Eurobarometer, Vol. 437). Brussels: European Commission.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and National Origins . New York: Oxford University Press.

Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2013). Who gets a swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107 (01), 159–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055412000494 .

Heath, A. F., & Cheung, S. Y. (Eds.). (2007). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western labour markets . Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.

Koopmans, R., Michalowski, I., & Waibel, S. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants. National political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008. American Journal of Sociology, 117 (4), 1202–2045. https://doi.org/10.1086/662707 .

Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (Eds.). (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation . Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530 , 74–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001006 .

Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2005). Segmented assimilation on the ground: The new second generation in early adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28 (6), 1000–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870500224117 .

Simon, P. (2012). Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: A review. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35 (8), 1366–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.607507 .

Van Mol, C., & de Valk, H. (2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demographic perspective. In B. Garcés-Mascareñas & R. Penninx (Eds.), Integration processes and policies in Europe (IMISCOE Research Series). Cham: Springer.

Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (6), 1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465 .

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies, University of Neuchâtel, Neuchatel, Switzerland

Rosita Fibbi

Institute for Social Research, Oslo, Norway

Arnfinn H. Midtbøen

National Institute for Demographic Studies, Paris, France

Patrick Simon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Fibbi, R., Midtbøen, A.H., Simon, P. (2021). Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research. In: Migration and Discrimination. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_1

Published : 09 April 2021

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-67280-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-67281-2

eBook Packages : Social Sciences Social Sciences (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Promoting Diversity and Combatting Discrimination in Research Organizations: A Practitioner’s Guide

Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations

ISBN : 978-1-80117-959-1 , eISBN : 978-1-80117-956-0

Publication date: 1 December 2022

The essay is addressed to practitioners in research management and from academic leadership. It describes which measures can contribute to creating an inclusive climate for research teams and preventing and effectively dealing with discrimination. The practical recommendations consider the policy and organizational levels, as well as the individual perspective of research managers. Following a series of basic recommendations, six lessons learned are formulated, derived from the contributions to the edited collection on “Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations.”

• Inclusive work climate
• Lessons learned
• Policy recommendations
• Recommendations for actions
• Sexual harassment

Striebing, C. , Müller, J. , Schraudner, M. , Gewinner, I.V. , Morales, P.G. , Hochfeld, K. , Hoffman, S. , Kmec, J.A. , Nguyen, H.M. , Schneider, J. , Sheridan, J. , Steuer-Dankert, L. , O’Connor, L.T. and Vandevelde-Rougale, A. (2022), "Promoting Diversity and Combatting Discrimination in Research Organizations: A Practitioner’s Guide", Striebing, C. , Müller, J. and Schraudner, M. (Ed.) Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations , Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 421-441. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80117-956-020221012

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023 Clemens Striebing, Jörg Müller, Martina Schraudner, Irina Valerie Gewinner, Patricia Guerrero Morales, Katharina Hochfeld, Shekinah Hoffman, Julie A. Kmec, Huu Minh Nguyen, Jannick Schneider, Jennifer Sheridan, Linda Steuer-Dankert, Lindsey Trimble O’Connor and Agnès Vandevelde-Rougale

Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this work (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Transfer to Practice

It is a particular concern of ours to provide practitioners in academic organizations with the insights that they can draw from the contributions presented in this edited collection for their work and their specific organizational contextual conditions. With this essay, we therefore want to offer a comprehensive orientation on the question of what measures can be taken in practice to create discrimination-free working conditions for a diverse workforce, whereby we especially address academic leadership and research managers. Our prototypical program is described in the following steps:

Based on research on effective gender equality policies in research organizations, we derive four conditions that policy-makers should consider to provide sufficient framework conditions for reducing social and systemic discrimination in academia (see “Recommendations for Policy-Makers” section).

We outline a compact program of measures at the organizational level, which is essentially based on the studies of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018) about the sexual harassment of women in science and experience of this article’s authors, which we have gained in our own projects (see “Recommendations for the Design of a Discrimination Resuction Program” section).

We discuss the role that research management can – or should – play in creating a diversity-inclusive team climate as well as preventing and managing cases of discrimination (see “Recommendations for Academic Leaders and Research Managers” section).

Finally, we discuss how the contributions in this edited collection add to the current state of research on the effective prevention and fair treatment of discrimination in the scientific workplace (see “Our Lessons Learned” section).

Recommendations for Policy-Makers

For more than two decades now, the European Commission has been funding research projects that address the question of how to increase the participation of women researchers in research teams and decision-making positions in the European Research Area. Without claiming to be exhaustive, examples include the Helsinki Group on Women in Science reports first published in 2002 ( EC, 2008 ), the PRAGES project ( Cacace, 2009 ), and the STAGES project ( Kalpazidou Schmidt and Cacace, 2017 ).

A subsequent assessment of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s ( OECD, 2018 ) Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook appears to be rather skeptical concerning the impact of gender equality interventions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). The authors recognize the strong prevalence of gender equality measures among OECD countries, mainly aiming to increase the number of students in the STEM fields and the provision of support to individual women scientists. However, they criticize the fragmentation of current policy actions “[…] characterised by multiple institutions acting independently, and limited co-ordination between education, science and innovation actors” ( OECD, 2018 : 178). They attest an insufficient sustainability of the various initiatives and the need for more systemic evaluations and indicators as well as mutual learning formats. Especially regarding the importance of long-term monitoring and evaluation of gender equality challenges and measures, the OECD report confirms the policy recommendations of the mentioned EC reports. Moreover, the nub of equality measures addresses the quantitative equalization of women and men, yet the quality of work and working climate are a rare issue.

The following framework conditions for success in promoting gender equality in research – and, by analogy, promoting underrepresented or disadvantaged groups of people – can be derived from the reports mentioned above.

Gender monitoring: Highly institutionalized gender monitoring that comprises a high number of research institutions and indicators keeps gender equality on the broader political and organizational agenda and enables problem-framing and impact evaluation of gender equality measures.

Leadership: A clear commitment of political and organizational leaders gives legitimacy to those actors like working groups, equality officers or intrapreneurs who work every day to improve gender equality in their organizations.

Networks: Networks enable mutual learning for research organizations and enable coordinating extensive actions at multiple levels between versatile actors from local to global.

A fourth condition for success – which is not explicitly mentioned in the reports above but should not be underestimated – is the binding nature of anti-discrimination measures. Research shows that a lack of consequences often restricts the effectiveness of gender equality measures ( Matthies and Zimmermann, 2010 ; van den Brink and Benschop, 2012 ). Firm accountability provides measures such as quotas, voluntary agreements and gender equality plans with the necessary binding force and therefore will be considered in the following discussion, along with the other policy approaches.

Recommendations for Designing a Discrimination Reduction Program

Structured according to a simplified policy cycle that distinguishes the phases of policy formulation, implementation and evaluation and has an iterative sequence, Fig. 22 lists a number of measures to reduce, prevent and manage experiences of discrimination in the research workplace (see also Marquis et al., 2008 : 4–6).

Building Blocks of a Coherent and Comprehensive Program to Ensure a Discrimination-Free and Diversity-Friendly Workplace.

Evaluating the Status Quo and the Achievement of Objectives

The basis for developing an effective anti-discrimination program is a sound knowledge base on the distribution of employees according to different socio-demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender, care responsibilities, ethnicity, etc.). For the purpose of evidence-based development of a discrimination reduction program, ideally data is collected that relates the respective socio-demographic characteristics to organizational status characteristics (e.g., hierarchical position, function, income) or employee perceptions and experiences (e.g., survey of work climate, experiences of social misconduct, compatibility of professional and private obligations). 1

The finer the units of analysis, the more meaningful the evaluation of the status quo and the achievement of objectives. For example, to identify potential outcomes of systemic discrimination, data should be differentiable by scientific or non-scientific activity or hierarchical level. The work climate may considerably vary between individual teams and across disciplines, depending on conflict constellations that are very situation-specific. 2

For an evaluation to be successful and – above all – practically relevant, it is important to plan for budget and working time. Evaluations not only involve sending out an online survey and presenting the results in PowerPoint; rather, they require a person or group of persons with sufficient expertise to develop an evaluation concept (key questions are: What do we want to know and why?), implement it using suitable survey instruments (questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, document analyses, etc.) in compliance with data protection regulations, and generate meaningful data that meet social science quality standards (e.g., validity and reliability, transferability, representativeness). In the meantime, there are a number of tools that enable an easily applicable organizational survey tailored to research organizations, e.g., on gender equality. 3 However, without social science expertise, even these tools cannot be used optimally, nor can the data generated be interpreted well.

Statistical methods such as questionnaire surveys often reach their limits when researching minority groups such as employees with health impairments or LGBTQI+ employees. Since social minorities are obviously often small groups in terms of numbers and therefore difficult to reach, collecting data on them often violates data protection regulations. Person-related inferences are easily made possible when – for example – two out of 80 respondents assign themselves to a third gender category. In these cases, qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups, must be used to gather information about any experiences of discrimination. Another strength of qualitative methods is that they enable understanding correlations in data (e.g., why one social group evaluates the work climate worse than another), whereas the strength of quantitative methods lies in detecting and confirming such correlations.

Another necessity for an evaluation that holds practical relevance is a process for its utilization. Within this framework, questions arise concerning how often an evaluation should be carried out, what happens to the results of the evaluation, what happens in the case of conspicuous or critical values at the organizational or team level, who determines the threshold values for the critical values, and who manages this process. The clearer and more binding that the process is for utilizing the evaluation results, the stronger the practical impact of the evaluation.

The data collected and the evaluations carried out on it should be handled transparently to counteract the creation of organizational myths within the workforce about positive and negative discrimination among them, potentially compromising the effectiveness of anti-discrimination policies. 4 The results of the status quo and progress evaluation can be reported in the annual or equality report of a research organization. Continuous progress monitoring requires that the data collected meet social science standards from the outset (see the discussion of evaluation teams above), since data are no longer comparable between two or more time periods if the questionnaire design is changed in significant ways.

The knowledge base generated by the evaluation can be used to develop targeted policies. Noteworthy, the evaluation of the policy program to be established should already be considered during its development ( Palmén et al., 2019 ). Key questions are which indicators can be used to determine whether a program has been successful or whether adjustments are necessary. Furthermore, how are the data needed to answer this question generated, and who collects and evaluates them? Adequate human resources must be planned for ongoing evaluation.

Policy Formulation: Defining Clear Behavioral Expectations and Consequences

When designing a social intervention such as an anti-discrimination program, it is important to formulate a set of goals that are as specific as possible for the state to aim for. Specific goals enable the effective planning and use of the human and financial resources available to implement the program, means-ends relationships can be assessed for appropriateness, and goal achievement can be evaluated. Insofar as an organizational cultural change is aimed for, it should be clearly presented accordingly which behavior is expected from the employees in concrete terms, which complaint channels are open in the event of violations and which consequences may occur ( Daley et al., 2018 ).

A code of conduct can be formulated as a key document that provides a framework of orientation for employees and the anti-discrimination program. The code of conduct should be short and compact. It should not be formulated only by the leadership team but in a participatory process involving employees. This promotes the acceptance and implementation of such a code of conduct. In practice, such codes of conduct regularly address the key issues of workplace integrity and the prevention of workplace incivility. Such broad framing signals that protection against discrimination requires the active cooperation of all employees and that not only extreme cases of discrimination that can be proven in court are to be prevented, but rather that the general aim is to create a positive inclusive working environment in which even minor forms of discrimination cannot flourish in the first place.

Broad framing as workplace integrity or incivility also emphasizes the integrated nature of an anti-discrimination policy. In practice, in most academic institutions, equality officers, disability officers, anti-racism officers, work councils and other bodies are separate institutions that often have to establish mutual intersections. For example, if a sexist work environment prevails at a university or other academic institution, organizational change should not only be the responsibility of the equal opportunity officers, but must be driven by the management level and lived by all employees. Moreover, it is very likely that other types of discrimination are also taking place. A smart anti-discrimination policy takes into account and bridges the functional differentiation of institutional discrimination prevention and management.

In the sense of an integrated approach with clear behavioral expectations, it is also important to explicitly include personnel management competencies in job profiles and subsequently also evaluate academic leaders based on these competencies. At present, the suitability of researchers for leadership positions is often assessed solely based on their academic performance and very few leaders are trained to recognize or effectively address inequitable behaviors. Management and personnel leadership skills are expected in very few job requirements, although “team science” ( Wang and Barabási, 2021 ) is on the rise.

When designing policies, it is also important to encourage bottom-up approaches, i.e., initiatives coming from employee representatives, team members, and not decided by an institution’s management. Such initiatives are more likely to promote equity in a grounded and reflexive approach that might challenge dominant views on personnel management in academia and research organizations. Bottom-up approaches could inter alia help thinking research policies and practices outside a neoliberal managerial grid (see Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales in this collection) and thus contribute to fostering a more caring environment, with more time and resources allocated to thinking and creating, and less to complying with evaluation indicators based on international rankings that tend to reinforce power imbalance and competition both between individuals and between organizations instead of acknowledging the contribution of research to society ( Hodgins and McNamara, 2021 ).

Policy Implementation: Embedding Objectives Through Context-Specific Measures

An anti-discrimination program should generally be implemented through context-specific interventions ( Palmén et al., 2019 ). This means that the program should be tailored as appropriately as possible for the specific situation and challenges in an organization. Individual interventions should be adapted to the requirements and needs of different target groups, such as research managers, early career researchers, administrative staff, and others. Measures should also take into account organizational characteristics: for example, in a research organization with low staff turnover, targets for the representation of certain social groups will only be realized in the long term.

In terms of content, a wide range of measures is available, which should be coordinated with evaluating the status quo and formulating goals. Typical measures include welcome actions for new staff, training for employees to enable them to implement the goals of the anti-discrimination program in their daily work; for example, to recognize and overcome implicit prejudices against certain social groups, work productively in diverse teams, or behave appropriately as a bystander to discriminatory behavior in the workplace. Training such as anti-discrimination or anti-gender bias training as part of institutional onboarding after hiring and repeated refresher courses can also help to ensure that managers have the appropriate skills for inclusive leadership and conflict management.

As already mentioned above, the commitment of the academic leaders in a research organization is a central condition for the success of an anti-discrimination program. This commitment should be visible in the organization; for example, through speeches or circulars (provided that these discourses are linked to means and practical actions). 5

Fig. 22 lists a range of other possible measures through which the goals of an anti-discrimination policy can be implemented: regular career-related and documented development discussions between leaders and their employees promote joint career development and partly counteract biased preference or disadvantage in interactions between leaders and their employees (vertical discrimination), especially early career researchers and their supervisors, as well as among employees (horizontal discrimination). Low-threshold, confidential, and well-advertised reporting channels – which can not only be consulted in cases of tangible discrimination – may enable leaders to intervene at an early stage. In cases where the personal supervisor is excluded as a reporting channel due to a conflict, research organizations should offer “neutral” reporting channels that are not embedded in local hierarchies and dependencies. Depending on the context, measures aimed at improving the reconciliation of scientific work and private life are potentially suitable for reducing gender-related discrimination, e.g., crediting parental leave and care responsibilities when assessing the scientific performance of an early- or mid-career researcher, waiving meetings at off-peak times, or offering childcare.

Recommendations for Academic Leaders and Research Managers

Research managers are considered to be those individuals who provide support services to researchers and academics and themselves have an academic education and – in some cases – experience in research and teaching ( WR, 2018 : 85). 6 They work in staffs or decentralized units, monitor compliance with quality standards, supervise committees, and are involved with personnel processes in a variety of ways.

While the integration and productive use of diversity in research teams in everyday work is the task of traditional academic leaders – e.g., chair holders, research group leaders or the dean – research managers are regularly entrusted with diversity monitoring and developing and implementing strategic action programs (as exemplified above) from an organizational perspective. A comparable division of labor also exists for preventing and handling discrimination, which are regularly to be resolved initially by “line management,” i.e., the immediate leader in accordance with the academic hierarchical order, but which can be handed over under certain criteria or alternatively to specially established committees, staff units or service providers. Examples include academic ombudspersons, equal opportunity officers, compliance officers, representatives of the severely disabled, staff councils, psycho-social counseling centers, lawyers or other external reporting offices. Nonetheless, as studies in this volume show, these organs do not always interfere flawlessly, which require further optimization of their work and anti-discrimination actions.

Integrating Diverse Teams

Regarding gender-diverse teams, Nielsen et al. (2018) discuss how to create a diversity-inclusive team climate in research and innovation development. First, the quality of collaboration and problem-solving ability of diverse teams (and homogeneous teams as well) is considerably influenced by their diversity belief and openness to diversity. Diversity belief refers to the conviction of individual team members that their difference is a strength in the work process ( van Dick et al., 2008 ). Openness to diversity refers to the awareness of – for example – visible, informational or value differences in a team and the willingness of a team member to engage with dissimilar individuals and learn from them ( Hobman et al., 2004 ). Accordingly, it is recommended that academic leaders interact with their teams to determine whether they view themselves as homogeneous or heterogeneous in terms of the professional and socio-demographic characteristics of their members and whether they view each as positive or negative. A low openness to diversity or a low diversity belief would have to be explored in an exchange with the team or a bilateral exchange with the team members.

Second, teams that work productively are those whose interactions (i.e., conversations and collaboration) between team members are determined by the expertise and experience of individual team members rather than social relationships ( Joshi and Knight 2015 ). For leaders, this implies clearly identifying and communicating to the team the competencies and responsibilities of each member of their team. Larger work tasks in research projects should be differentiated according to the competencies that they require to be mastered and how the team members can optimally complement each other in their competencies.

Third, the same applies to the integration of diverse teams that applies to team processes in general, namely teams need team players. Team members should have a certain level of identification with their team, a shared sense of purpose and they must trust the team’s ability to accomplish tasks, the team’s processes should be transparently coordinated, and team members should treat each other with mutual respect and openness ( Nielsen et al., 2018 ). The team structure should thereby regulate itself based on the competencies and expertise of the team members, as noted above. Too much team cohesion in turn can lead to isolation and silo thinking in an organization and may even be more conducive to exclusion and discrimination processes ( Feldblum and Lipnic, 2021 ).

Preventing and Managing Discrimination

The expectations placed on leaders and research managers to prevent and deal with discrimination in the workplace are sometimes high and sometimes seem contradictory. An idealistic and a realistic perspective can be distinguished.

In the idealistic perspective, organizations strive for rationally acting leadership and management personnel. These personnel are sensitized through training and show zero tolerance toward discriminatory behavior and structures in the workplace. They regularly and perceptibly commit to zero tolerance in the organization, set an example through their own behavior, and deal with discrimination claims promptly and fairly (prototypical Daley et al., 2018 ).

On the other hand, a realistic perspective takes better account of the complexity of social conflicts in the workplace. It is often not possible to say clearly who are the perpetrators and who are the victims in a conflict case. Typical of this are claims of systemic discrimination based on institutions – i.e., implicit and explicit rules and practices – in an organization or in cases of scandalization. In his studies on academic mobbing, Westhues (2021) recommends a sober and critical approach to complaints of workplace misconduct within the line authority. The respective academic leaders in charge would have a broader perspective to deal with claims sensitively and fairly, whereas individuals and committees specifically appointed to investigate would sometimes tend toward zealotry. Westhues emphasizes that social conflict in the workplace is often borne out of social relationships. The individuals involved in each case seek empathy and allies, which can lead to the aforementioned scandalization, i.e., criticism by a group against an individual (also conceivable in relation to accusations of inaction regarding dismantling discriminatory institutions), without there being any concrete misconduct against the group.

In turn, the realistic perspective reaches its limits where problem-solving by academic leaders does not take place; for example, because they are involved in the conflict themselves, they are not willing to adjust supposedly discriminatory structures and rules, or an adjustment of the structures simply exceeds their work capacities.

In summary, it can be deduced from the comparison of the two approaches that universities and research institutions need sensitized leadership and management personnel who are aware of their role model function and trained to deal with employee complaints objectively, discreetly and rationally. At the same time, due to their embeddedness in the work processes of their own organization, academic leadership personnel are also only capable of objectively and conclusively resolving cases of social misconduct and discrimination complaints to a certain extent. This requires contact points that deal with preventing and managing discrimination on a structural basis (and not exclusively based on a specific case).

Our Lessons Learned

Lesson 1: identifying and knowing the majority group in a research organization is key to understanding discrimination processes.

Our first lesson learned is anything but a novel insight; rather, it is the core of social identity theory. The theoretical assumption that there are so-called in- and out-groups in (research) organizations, whose boundaries are constitutive of experiences of discrimination partly formed through experiences of discrimination, is supported in particular by the contributions of Sheridan et al., Striebing, Pantelmann and Wälty, Nguyen et al. and Gewinner. The contributions discuss and/or provide evidence of the negative consequences of deviating from a norm type that can typically be described as male, healthy, and belonging to the ethnic majority in a country. In their paper, Pantelmann and Wälty comprehensively explain the historically formative role of this in-group, leading to what the authors describe as an androcentric academia. A typical example of the androcentric character of work processes in academia is the traditionally very high proportion of men in scientific leadership positions and the low proportion of men in administrative assistant functions [ e.g., Kolboske (2021) shows this for the German Max Planck Society].

The respective in-groups – which vary in their composition depending on the local context – have defined the implicit and explicit rules and practices in research organizations over time and continue to play a major role in determining their interpretation. Examples of such indirectly exclusionary rules include processes that appear to create rationality and transparency, such as evaluation rules or review committees. These kind of rational processes are problematic when they only aim to create decision legitimacy through processes seen as legitimate rather than a truly legitimate, just, “good” outcome, free of cognitive bias (van den Brink and Benschop, 2012, on the concept of legal legitimacy: Mayntz, 2010 ). The Covid-19 pandemic and the associated problem of double jeopardy – especially for the parents of young children – is an example of how processes that appear objective can lead to systemic discrimination when research organizations evaluate process outcomes as “neutral.” The constraints associated with the pandemic have led to an average decline in publication output among female researchers, which will disadvantage their long-term career development if research organizations maintain their unilateral focus on process justice rather than outcome justice ( Squazzoni et al., 2021 ; Nature Editorial, 2021 ).

Examples of informal practices shaped and reproduced by an in-group that can have an indirectly exclusionary effect may seem trivial in some cases, but they can be highly meaningful in individual research organizations. One can think of regulars’ tables, meetings in the evening hours, 24/7 lab hours, hiking groups, and other forms of interaction that promote exchanges based on expectations of presence and personal sympathies rather than professional skills and expertise ( Nielsen et al., 2018 ).

In their study of Vietnamese social scientists, Nguyen et al. illustrate that individuals who assume a higher level of effort in informal household and care work are disproportionately less able to meet academic performance expectations than individuals who assume fewer household duties. In Vietnamese society, it is also usually women who are influenced in their career advancement by more informal work.

In his study on work climate in the Max Planck Society, Striebing also shows for Germany that women with responsibility for minor children rate their work climate lower than men with children or women without children. In Striebing’s studies on work climate and bullying, women generally rate their work climate lower than men and experience bullying more often. 7 Moreover, according to Sheridan et al., it is the employees who deviate from the norm due to their sexual orientation, skin color or health impairments who seem to most frequently experience hostile and intimidating behavior in the academic workplace (see lesson 5).

Using the example of women researchers from the former Soviet Union working in Germany, Gewinner provides a comprehensive picture of the extent to which institutions shaped by the respective national majority society and the in-groups in academic organizations pose special challenges to individuals who deviate from the in-groups; for example, due to their gender, living circumstances, or nationality.

Since academia – shaped by its respective local in-groups – cannot necessarily provide equal opportunities for a diverse workforce, good academic leaders and research managers strive in a self-reflective manner to dismantle those structures and processes that can lead to implicit and indirect disadvantage for certain groups of employees. This means that strengthening disadvantaged groups through mentoring and networking programs as well as training can only be one part, but it is equally important to be attentive to structures and processes that can lead to disadvantage, and to dismantle them.

Lesson 2: Managers Are Not Neutral Regulators and Conflict Resolvers

Creating an inclusive work culture, designing and implementing anti-discrimination prevention programs, reducing discrimination, and intervening in cases of conflict in the workforce are especially the tasks of academic leaders and research managers. A number of the studies in the edited collection imply that this group of people is not itself a neutral entity and is itself part or non-part of organizational in- and out-groups, as well as one of the most important levers for successful diversity management.

The study by Kmec et al. supports the relevance of belief systems in the interpretation of illegal harassment behaviors. The authors found that individuals who hold more gender egalitarian beliefs (that women and men are equal) are more likely to recognize factually illegal acts of sexual harassment than individuals with traditional gender beliefs. Their study also points to the special importance of merit beliefs: people who believe that they live in a just society tend to regard sexual harassment as neither illegal nor inappropriate in cases that are (in everyday perception) ambiguous.

Striebing’s work climate and bullying studies show that a gender gap in the perception of the work climate and the experience of bullying narrows from the PhD level to group or institute leadership. The author interprets this observation as a filtering mechanism of the science system. His results suggest that the “successful” women and men who hold scientific leadership positions perceive and evaluate their work environment differently than early career researchers and – as a conjecture – may have limited empathy for problems of their employees due to this different perception.

Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales’ case studies demonstrate the high complexity of bullying constellations. They argue that management ideology and practices force individuals who perceive themselves to be affected by bullying or discrimination into a formalized discourse. They highlight that what a person complains about and how they do so is not only essential for perceiving conflict dynamics but also for how managers and research management perceive and evaluate the person, and that it can influence the likelihood of success of a complaint:

[…] even in organizations where policies to guarantee dignity and respect have been adopted, showing one’s hurt to managers or human resources department is not sufficient so that steps would be taken to ensure a saner working atmosphere; it can even be detrimental to the person showing his/her vulnerability. (Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales in this collection)

The two authors also highlight that it can be problematic to apply seemingly rational approaches (e.g., measures to reduce discrimination and strengthen reconcilability) to issues that primarily have an emotional impact on those involved. For example, a person’s perceived work-life balance is not only influenced by organizational factors such as the range of flexible working time models and workload, and not only by cognitive-psychological factors such as a person’s ability to cope with stress or the pace at which a person works, but also by situational aspects such as individual career prospects or the management style, or societal aspects such as traditional views on parenting or care. If the individual work–life balance is nevertheless not right in an organization with comprehensive reconciliation offerings, it is therefore not necessarily the individual who is “defective,” but rather the broader social context must also be taken into account.

The contributions of Kmec et al. and Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales imply the strong importance of patience and reflexivity – or “attentive listening” – in academic leadership. Thus, on the one hand, leaders and research managers are required to reconcile the different interests and personalities of individual team members and – in cases of conflict – weigh the perspectives of all stakeholders, including both co-workers and organizational goals. In doing so, it is important that academic leaders and research managers not only obtain a comprehensive picture – i.e., take all perspectives into account – but they also need a detailed picture, and they should perceive employees in their entirety as the people they are, with their multiple overlaps of status, character or social background. In doing so, evaluating leaders and research managers must also be aware of the relativity of their own perspective: Why might I find one person in a conflict more sympathetic than another or be better able to understand their perspective?

The article by Kmec et al. also shows the importance of drawing clear boundaries for misconduct in the workplace and sensitizing management personnel to this. Only in this way can clear decisions be made – even in “gray areas” – concerning what is judged to be appropriate or inappropriate, and managers must be supported in setting an example of the conduct desired in the workplace. In this context, with reference to their case study at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Sheridan et al. state that most academic leaders and supervisors had no knowledge of how to deal with misconduct in general. They recommend that universities should essentially develop a process and disciplinary measures for this.

Lesson 3: The System Can Tend to Individualize and Normalize Discrimination

Just because a problem is not visible, this does not mean it is not there: in their case study of a German university, Pantelmann and Wälty form a diagnosis that could certainly be extended to other types of organizations:

The university approach to the problem [of sexual violence] paints a picture of sexual harassment as an individual (women’s) problem for which individual solutions must be found. Acts of harassment and violence are normalized, minimized, and dismissed by patriarchal gender norms and power relations […] as well as by complex and uneven systems of loyalty and hierarchy […]. (Pantelmann and Wälty in this collection)

By the university approach, the authors mean the interplay of patriarchal institutions (see lesson 1), the self-image of a non-discriminatory, neutral and enlightened academy, combined with market-oriented organizational and management structures (e.g., performance evaluation, dependency and competition situations reinforced by fixed-term employment relationships, competition for external funding).

The authors note – similar to Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales (see lesson 2) – that there seems to be a contradiction between the rational world of science and experiences of discrimination, harassment, and bullying that primarily take place on an emotional level. The latter are seen as remote from science and more societal in nature. On the part of research managers, this led to a failure to accept their (co-)responsibility for the campus as part of society and a good working atmosphere to the necessary extent, as well as combatting social misconduct and systemic discrimination, even if it remained below a threshold punishable by criminal or labor law.

From these considerations, it can be concluded that in most research organizations an institutional commitment to responsibility for a good research culture and combating discriminatory behavior and structures (as well as other forms of social misconduct) is an essential milestone. Often reviled as “paper tigers,” in this sense codes of conduct are important markers of the way forward and institutional self-assurances that can then have an indirect impact on an organization’s discrimination policies. However, due to the tendency to normalize, relativize, and downplay discrimination as described by Wälty and Pantelmann, one or the other skeptical leader must be convinced that the formulation of a formal institutional commitment against discrimination is desirable (but not sufficient per se ). In this regard, Sheridan et al. emphasize the added value of employee surveys, not least to counter skeptics of the need for anti-discrimination measures with data.

Lesson 4: How Identity Characteristics Shape Conflicts and Conflict Perceptions Is Difficult to Predict and Strongly Depends on Situational Circumstances (in Individual Cases)

In particular, the contribution of Vandevelde-Rougale and Guerrero Morales conveys how the multiple socio-demographic characteristics of individuals involved in conflict can shape conflicts and conflict dynamics. Identity categories such as gender, class, nation or race can be intertwined with different power positions. These identity-related power positions may be the starting point of conflicts, and they can be mobilized by participants in conflicts to place themselves in a stronger position (e.g., as part of the search for allies or to normatively underpin their own position), and they also shape the way in which third parties (such as leaders and research managers) perceive and interpret a conflict.

Accordingly, Sheridan et al. highlight that in practice they have found that individuals who receive and process complaints against social misconduct must be well trained in implicit/explicit bias and discrimination. Accordingly, there is a possibility that the view of persons making a report against social misconduct is biased. Thus, the reported person’s behaviors would sometimes be interpreted depending on their gender, sexual orientation, race, or other socio-demographic factors.

Striebing’s paper builds on this consideration and explores whether a person’s gender is related to whether that person perceives one or a series of negative experiences as bullying or sexual discrimination. In practice, it is possible for individuals who complain to a leader or other entity about misconduct or discrimination to be (implicitly) confronted with accusations of being too sensitive ( Hinze, 2004 ). A reference to the identity of the reporting individuals then functions as an easy legitimation for leaders and research managers to justify doing nothing or decide and act along their sympathies and (maybe biased) intuition.

Striebing concludes that the relationship between experience(s) of negative acts in the workplace and their assessment as bullying or sexual discrimination is indeed influenced by the gender of the person concerned. However, the pattern of this correlation – i.e. which specific negative acts are more often seen as “transgressive” by women or men – is so complex and weak in its entirety that a practical effect is questionable.

As a result of these considerations, leaders and research managers should be sensitized to perceive and deal with the identitarian dimension of workplace conflicts and reflect their own positioning appropriately. At the same time, leaders and research managers should be sensitized to be attentive and critical whenever a person’s credibility is placed in the context of his/her socio-demographic characteristics.

Lesson 5: Measures Aimed at Very General Groups of People Waste Financial and Personnel Resources

Often academic support programs target very open groups of people, such as “the women,” “the students with an immigrant background,” or “the working-class children.” However, this does not sufficiently take into account the fact that people have a variety of identities and balance them with each other.

The studies by Gewinner, Nguyen et al., Striebing and Sheridan et al. show that – for example – women are not fundamentally less able than men to compete academically and in the working environment, experience a qualitatively poorer working environment or misconduct more frequently. Moreover, women might perceive programs addressing women as discriminatory by themselves, since they subtly and unconsciously label them as less productive, thus manifesting the gender or national differences. Even women in a conservative male breadwinner partnership who take on the main responsibility of raising children in their partnership are not necessarily at a disadvantage if – for example – they are supported by their (in-)parents, as Nguyen et al. show. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to gender aspects in organizing the most suitable form of support programs such as training courses for female researchers. Striebing also shows for the German Max Planck Society that self-perceptions of bullying experiences are more frequent – for example – among male social scientists than among women in the STEM disciplines. In Sheridan et al., among the group of women, women of color and those with disabilities most frequently report experiences of hostile and intimidating behavior in the workplace, and in the group of men, gay men and those with disabilities.

Research management should apply an intersectional perspective 8 when analyzing the need for organizational support measures and conceptualizing these measures. Vulnerable target groups and their needs should be defined and analyzed as precisely as possible. For example, if a measure is to be developed to increase the proportion of women, it should be asked in as much detail as possible which women can benefit from the measure and under which circumstances, as well as which ones cannot. If a measure is to be developed to prevent, e.g., sexism or racism, it should be asked which groups of people are to be protected from which groups of people in particular.

Lesson 6: It Is a Long Way from Raising Awareness through Trainings to Factual Effects on the Incidence of Discrimination Experiences

Sheridan et al. show in their study that short-term effects of anti-discrimination measures such as training or information campaigns cannot be expected. Based on the authors’ data, it can be surmised that such measures can immediately and quite persistently increase sensitivity to discriminatory and inappropriate behavior in the workplace and knowledge about how to deal with it, but that there are pitfalls for a long-term effect on reported cases of social misconduct in the workplace (see also Chang et al., 2019 ). The authors conclude: “We have found supplemental education and resources are necessary to empower individuals to interrupt HIB [hostile and intimidating behavior] in their work environments” (Sheridan et al. in this collection).

It also seems conceivable that local efforts to promote diversity in academia may also be undermined by developments at the regional or national level. For example, Sheridan et al. emphasize a more adversarial political and social climate under Donald Trump’s presidency in the United States. They speculate that this overall climate change might provide a possible explanation for why counterintuitively LGBT individuals were the only ones among the groups of individuals studied to even report an increase in experiences of misconduct in the academic workplace during the study period.

Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten also highlight the challenges of a multi-level perspective in diversity management. In doing so, they adopt a holistic perspective by analyzing the framework conditions of the German science system and reflecting on the different influencing factors. They link this perspective to a systems theory approach, which highlights the complexity of key positions and emphasizes the need to develop measures that address the specific framework conditions of the respective organization. Using the example of a complex research organization with several management levels – i.e., the institute and network level or the chair and university management level as well as institute-specific cultures – Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten identify the general challenge in the fact that the diversity climate experienced by the research teams is ultimately a function of the diversity management of the different levels. The authors therefore point to the importance of a common diversity strategy that is co-formulated and supported by all levels of an organizational network and fits the needs of the respective organizational levels. Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten emphasize the potential of academic leaders as multipliers for establishing an open diversity belief and climate. In their case study of a large German research association, Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten found that the leadership style attributed to management and the leadership style that they aspired to themselves were closely linked. The authors see these effects of homosocial reproduction as an explanation for this ideational similarity between managers (managers hire and promote people if they feel connected to them due to perceived similarities) and the role model effect of top managers whose style is adopted in practice by team members. Linked to the examined perception of diversity, Steuer-Dankert and Leicht-Scholten also see a direct effect of leadership behavior in the diversity management context on the next generation of scientists. In order to counteract these effects in the long term, they recommend a stronger link between diversity management and the change management approach, which at the same time underpins the long-term nature of corresponding measures.

We Can only go Ahead

Within the framework of the texts published in this collection, not only the extent of discrimination in research organizations was measured and described, but often implicit or direct criticism of established structures was also voiced. The main object of criticism was the effects of “neoliberalization” of universities ( Block, Gray, and Holborow, 2012 ; Hodgins and McNamara 2021 ) and “bureaucratization” and “corporatization” of research administration ( Sørensen and Traweek, 2021 ), and in particular the role of academic leaders, research managers as well as representatives and officers for the concerns of the employees. The critique collected here highlights that restructuring the research system does not necessarily lead to a rationalization of personnel processes and career paths. Moreover, academic leaders and research managers are also by no means neutrally administering, measuring, evaluating, and deciding entities, but rather these are embedded in and emerged from the very research system to whose rationalization they are supposed to contribute.

Finally, it should be emphasized once again that we do not believe that the “old research system” – in which research organizations hardly conducted any performance evaluations, academic leaders had more discretion, and third-party funding was not awarded in open competition – could have integrated or managed diversity better. We welcome the increasing reduction of power imbalances in the scientific workforce and see major potential in the professionalization of diversity management and the handling of experiences of discrimination in research institutions, especially in the newly-created professional field of research managers ( WR, 2018 ).

The fact that we increasingly talk about and problematize diversity and discrimination in research organizations can also be seen as a positive sign. The idea of the “integration paradox” ( Mafaalani, 2018 ) highlights that equal treatment of social groups is only demanded when a group and society (or an organization) have become aware that the respective group is to be treated equally. In this sense, it remains to be hoped for the future that conflicts and disputes – as an indicator of an increased awareness for discrimination processes – around the diverse socio-demographic character of the scientific workforce will continue to increase in the future.

Funding Note

The present contribution is not related to externally funded research.

Potential guidelines concerning the assessment of diversity initiatives: J. Marquis, N. Lim, L. Scott, C. Harrell, and J. Kavanagh (2008) , [online] Rand.org. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP206.pdf accessed 10 February 2022. Guidance on measuring socio-demographic characteristics: J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and U. Warner, Measuring Ethnicity in Cross-National Comparative Survey Research; GESIS-Schriftenreihe Band 4 (Bonn: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 2010); J. H. P. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik and U. Warner, Measuring Occupation and Labour Status in Crossnational Comparative Surveys ; GESIS-Schriftenreihe Band 7 (Bonn: GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, 2011). Guidance on measuring diversity and inclusion: K. April and E. Blass, Measuring Diversity Practice and Developing Inclusion (2010). https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kurt-April/publication/228668437_Measuring_Diversity_Practice_and_Developing_Inclusion/links/0a85e534e003f59ba3000000/Measuring-Diversity-Practice-and-Developing-Inclusion.pdf , accessed 10 February 2022.; S. Thompson, “Defining and measuring ‘inclusion’ within an organization”, K4D Helpdesk Report (Brighton, UK: Institute of Development Studies, 2017).

At the same time, the units of analysis should not be chosen too finely. Data protection requirements are crucial here. The data collected and reported regularly must not allow drawing any personal conclusions, i.e., the identification of a respondent based on the data shared by him or her (which can quickly become the case, especially for research organizations with a three-digit or lower number of employees). Furthermore, when surveying the work climate, opinions and experiences of employees, valid results can only be expected if “shaming” is excluded. The results should not be used to compare individual teams or groups to identify high- or low-performers.

See for example the GEAM Tool: “The Gender Equality Audit and Monitoring (GEAM) tool is an integrated environment for carrying out survey-based gender equality audits in academic organizations or organizational units”, https://act-on-gender.eu/nes/gender-equality-audit-and-monitoring-geam-tool accessed 15 March 2022. For another example, see the Immunity to Change Tool, which helps people identify and subsequently alter “competing commitments” that conflict with change (e.g. a change in the gender composition of research spaces), https://www.gse.harvard.edu/hgse100/story/changing-better , accessed 16 March 2022.

Organizational interventions such as diversity measures or data collection in the context of such measures are naturally questioned by organizational members. Organizational members interpret such measures based on how they perceive their organization. These assessments can tend to be positive or negative, which is why proactive communication management in relation to diversity policies is important. For a detailed discussion of the causes and effects of diversity resistance, see Thomas (2020) .

Of course, visibility per se is insufficient and adverse effects can be observed where there is a discrepancy between managerial discourse (including against discrimination and/or workplace bullying) and organizational practice (see inter alia: Clasches, 2019; Bereni, 2020 ; Vandevelde-Rougale, 2016 ).

With the emergence of professional research management, the status of faculty changes from autonomous members of their respective scientific profession to employees of the respective university or research institution, as Gerber (2014) states for the United States. In the European research area, the emergence of the professional group of research managers has been accelerated by the Bologna reform (to harmonize the system of higher education teaching across Europe) and the increased importance of third-party funding for research financing, as a result of which universities have been increasingly entrusted with management tasks ( WR, 2018 : 85).

The influence of nationality presents a more complex picture, for which an obvious explanation is that nationality groups are attributed different statuses and possibly also different stereotypes.

For us, this means considering the complexity of identities and that, e.g., two positive linear effects do not necessarily add up to each other. It also means taking into account “power domains” and “power vectors” ( Bilge, 2013 ).

Bereni, 2020 Bereni , L. , “La diversité, ruse ou dévoiement de l’égalité?” , L’Observatoire , 56 ( 2020 ): 30 – 32 .

Bilge, 2013 Bilge , S. , “Intersectionality undone. Saving intersectionality from feminist intersectionality studies” , Du Bois Review , 10 no. 2 ( 2013 ): 405 – 424 .

Block, Gray, and Holborow, 2012 Block , D. , J. Gray , and M. Holborow , Neoliberalism and Applied Linguistics ( New York : Routledge , 2012) .

Cacace, 2009 Cacace , M. , “Guidelines for Gender Equality Programmes in Science: Prages - Practising Gender Equality in Science” ( Rome : Ministry for Economy and Finance , 2009 ).

Chang, Milkman, Gromet, Rebele, Massey, Duckworth, and Grant, 2019 Chang , E.H. , K.L. Milkman , D.M. Gromet , R.W. Rebele , C. Massey , A.L. Duckworth , and A.M. Grant , “The mixed effects of online diversity training” , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America , 116 no. 16 ( 2019 ): 7778 – 7783 .

Clasches, 2019 Clasches , “Retourner l’arme du droit. Contre le harcèlement sexuel dans l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche” , Travail, genre et sociétés , 42 ( 2019 ): 191 – 194 .

Daley, Travis, and Shaffer, 2018 Daley , L.P. , D.J. Travis , and E.S. Shaffer , “Sexual harassment in the workplace: how companies can prepare, prevent, respond, and transform their culture” ( Catalyst , 2018 ).

European Commission, 2008 European Commission , “Benchmarking policy measures for gender equality in science” (Updated 2008 ). Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/benchmarking-policy-measures_en.pdf accessed 23 October 2017.

Feldblum, and Lipnic, 2021 Feldblum , C.R. and V.A. Lipnic , “Select task force on the study of harassment in the workplace | U.S. equal employment opportunity commission” ( 2021 ). Available at: https://www.eeoc.gov/select-task-force-study-harassment-workplace accessed 14 December 2021.

Gerber, 2014 Gerber , L.G. , The Rise and Decline of Faculty Governance: Professionalization and the Modern American University ( Baltimore, MD : Johns Hopkins University Press , 2014) .

Hinze, 2004 Hinze , S.W. , “‘Am I being over-sensitive?’ Women’s experience of sexual harassment during medical training” , Health , 8 no. 1 ( 2004 ): 101 – 127 .

Hobman, Bordia, and Gallois, 2004 Hobman , E.V. , P. Bordia , and C. Gallois , “Perceived dissimilarity and work group involvement” , Group & Organization Management , 29 no. 5 ( 2004 ): 560 – 587 .

Hodgins, and McNamara, 2021 Hodgins , M. and P.M. McNamara , “The Neoliberal University in Ireland: institutional bullying by another name?” , Societies , 11 no. 2 ( 2021 ): 52 .

Joshi, and Knight, 2015 Joshi , A. and A.P. Knight , “Who defers to whom and why? dual pathways linking demographic differences and dyadic deference to team effectiveness” , Academy of Management Journal , 58 no. 1 ( 2015 ): 59 – 84 .

Kalpazidou Schmidt, and Cacace, 2017 Kalpazidou Schmidt , E. and M. Cacace , “Addressing gender inequality in science: the multifaceted challenge of assessing impact” , Research Evaluation , 26 ( 2017 ): 1 – 13 .

Kolboske, 2021 Kolboske , B. , “Hierarchies. Lotta support, little science? scientists and secretaries in the Max Planck Society” , in Fundamental Questions: Gender Dimensions in Max Planck Research Projects , 1st ed., Eds U. Weber ( Baden-Baden : Nomos , 2021 ): 105 – 134 .

Mafaalani, 2018 Mafaalani , A. el, Das Integrationsparadox: Warum gelungene Integration zu mehr Konflikten führt [The integration paradox: Why successful integration leads to more conflict.] , 2nd ed. ( Cologne : Kiepenheuer & Witsch , 2018 ).

Marquis, Lim, Scott, Harrell, and Kavanagh, 2008 Marquis , J.P. , N. Lim , L.M. Scott , C.H. Harrell , and J. Kavanagh , Managing diversity in corporate America – an exploratory analysis ( RAND Corporation , 2008 ). Available at: https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2007/RAND_OP206.pdf

Matthies, and Zimmermann, 2010 Matthies , H. and K. Zimmermann , “Gender equality in the research system [Gleichstellung in Der Wissenschaft]” , in Handbook Science Policy [Handbuch Wissenschaftspolitik] , Eds D. Simon , A. Knie , and S. Hornbostel ( Wiesbaden : VS Verlag , 2010 ): 193 – 209 .

Mayntz, 2010 Mayntz , R. , “Legitimacy and compliance in transnational governance” , MPIfG Working Paper, No. 10/5 ( Cologne : Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies , 2010 ).

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine , Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine ( Washington, DC : The National Academies Press , 2018) .

Nature Editorial, 2021 Nature Editorial , “COVID is amplifying the inadequacy of research-evaluation processes” , Nature , 591 no. 7 ( 2021 ). doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00527-9

Nielsen, Bloch, and Schiebinger, 2018 Nielsen , M.W. , C.W. Bloch , and L. Schiebinger , “Making gender diversity work for scientific discovery and innovation” , Nature Human Behaviour , 2 ( 2018 ): 726 – 734 .

OECD, 2018 OECD , “Gender in a changing context for STI” , in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2018 Adapting to Technological and Societal Disruption , Ed. OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook ( Paris : OECD Publishing , 2018 ): 163 – 284 .

Palmén, Schmidt, Striebing, Reidl, Bührer, and Groó, 2019 Palmén , R. , E.K. Schmidt , C. Striebing , S. Reidl , S. Bührer , and D. Groó , “Measuring gender in R&I – theories, methods, and experience” , Interdisciplinary Science Reviews , 44 no. 2 ( 2019 ): 154 – 165 .

Sørensen, and Traweek, 2021 Sørensen , K.H. and S. Traweek , Questing Excellence in Academia ( London : Routledge , 2021) .

Squazzoni, Bravo, Grimaldo, García-Costa, Farjam, and Mehmani, 2021 Squazzoni , F. , G. Bravo , F. Grimaldo , D. García-Costa , M. Farjam , and B. Mehmani , “Gender gap in journal submissions and peer review during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study on 2329 Elsevier journals” , PLOS ONE 16 , no. 10 ( 2021 ).

Thomas, 2020 Thomas , K.M. , Diversity Resistance in Organizations ( New York : Routledge , 2020) .

van den Brink, and Benschop, 2012 van den Brink , M. and Y. Benschop , “Slaying the seven-headed dragon: the quest for gender change in academia” , Gender, Work and Organization , 19 no. 1 ( 2012 ): 71 – 92 .

van Dick, van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, and Brodbeck, 2008 van Dick , R. , D. van Knippenberg , S. Hägele , Y.R.F. Guillaume , and F.C. Brodbeck , “Group diversity and group identification: the moderating role of diversity beliefs” , Human Relations , 61 no. 10 ( 2008 ): 1463 – 1492 .

Vandevelde-Rougale, 2016 Vandevelde-Rougale , A. , “Discours managérial, lissage de la parole et vacillement du rapport au langage: l’empêchement de l’expression subjective des émotions” , Langage et Société , 158 ( 2016 ): 35 – 50 .

Wang, and Barabási, 2021 Wang , D. and A.-L. Barabási , Eds, The Science of Science ( Cambridge : Cambridge University Press , 2021) .

Westhues, 2021 Westhues , K. , “Three stories and five questions arising from research on academic mobbing1” , Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung , 1–2 ( 2021 ): 118 – 127 .

WR (German Research Council), 2018 WR (German Research Council) , Empfehlungen zur Hochschulgovernance (Recommendations on university governance). Print 7328-18 ( 2018 ). Available at: https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/archiv/7328-18.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=15 accessed on 13 August 2020.

Book Chapters

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 18 November 2020

Racial discrimination and health: a prospective study of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom

• Ruth A. Hackett   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5428-2950 1 , 2 ,
• Amy Ronaldson 3 ,
• Kamaldeep Bhui 4 ,
• Andrew Steptoe 2 &
• Sarah E. Jackson 2  

BMC Public Health volume  20 , Article number:  1652 ( 2020 ) Cite this article

45k Accesses

44 Citations

63 Altmetric

Metrics details

Racism has been linked with poor health in studies in the United States. Little is known about prospective associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes in the United Kingdom (UK).

Data were from 4883 ethnic minority (i.e. non-white) participants in the UK Household Longitudinal Study. Perceived discrimination in the last 12 months on the basis of ethnicity or nationality was reported in 2009/10. Psychological distress, mental functioning, life satisfaction, self-rated health, physical functioning and reports of limiting longstanding illness were assessed in 2009/10 and 2011/12. Linear and logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, sex, income, education and ethnicity. Prospective analyses also adjusted for baseline status on the outcome being evaluated.

Racial discrimination was reported by 998 (20.4%) of the sample. Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (odds ratio (OR) = 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.49; 2.13) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.24; 1.82) than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated with greater psychological distress ( B  = 1.11, 95% CI 0.88; 1.34), poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 3.61; 95% CI -4.29; − 2.93), poorer physical functioning ( B  = − 0.86; 95% CI -1.50; − 0.27), and lower life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.40, 95% CI -0.52; − 0.27). Prospectively, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.01; 1.69) and fair/poor self-rated health (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.00; 1.69), than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated increased psychological distress ( B  = 0.52, 95% CI 0.20; 0.85) and poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 1.77; 95% CI -2.70; − 0.83) over two-year follow-up, adjusting for baseline scores.

Conclusions

UK adults belonging to ethnic minority groups who perceive racial discrimination experience poorer mental and physical health than those who do not. These results highlight the need for effective interventions to combat racial discrimination in order to reduce inequalities in health.

Peer Review reports

Discrimination is defined as the differential treatment of an individual based on a socially ascribed characteristic [ 1 ]. In the United Kingdom (UK), the 1965 Race Relations Act [ 2 ] outlawed discrimination on the grounds of colour, nationality and ethnic or national origins. Race remains a protected characteristic under contemporary equality law [ 3 ]. Despite this legislative effort, ethnic inequalities in education, work, health and criminal justice remain [ 4 ].

Discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin is regarded as the most common type of prejudice in Europe, with 64% of adults perceiving racial discrimination to be widespread in a survey of 27,718 people [ 5 ]. In Britain in 2017, 26% of a representative sample described themselves as racially prejudiced [ 6 ], and race continues to be the most common motivator for hate crime incidents [ 7 , 8 ]. Against the backdrop of the vote to leave the European Union (Brexit), hostility towards migrants and the growth in right-wing nationalist movements [ 9 ], these figures reflect a rise in reported racial discrimination in both the UK and Europe [ 5 , 6 ].

A growing body of research has investigated discrimination as a determinant of mental health [ 10 , 11 , 12 ] and to a lesser extent physical health [ 11 ]. In an early meta-analysis of 110 studies, discrimination was linked with poor mental health, including psychological distress and decreased life satisfaction [ 11 ]. A sub-set of 36 studies in the review investigated associations with physical health. Significant associations were detected in a pooled analysis with various outcomes including hypertension and acute cardiovascular responses to laboratory discrimination protocols. A more recent meta-analysis of 328 studies focusing on discrimination and mental health outcomes alone, again observed that those who perceived discrimination had poorer mental health [ 12 ]. This finding was also detected in an independent analysis of 211 cross-sectional studies linking racial discrimination with poor mental health [ 12 ].

Racism is a recognised social determinant of health and a driver of ethnic inequities in health [ 13 ]. It can be understood as a complex, organised system embedded in socio-political and historical contexts, that involves classifying ethnic groups into social hierarchies. These groups are ideologically assigned differential value, which drives disparities in access to power, resources and opportunities [ 14 , 15 ]. It occurs at both structural and individual levels (self-reported experiences of racial discrimination) [ 14 , 15 ].

Several reviews and meta-analyses have focused solely on perceived racial discrimination and health outcomes [ 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The largest study to date meta-analysed the results from 293 studies and assessed both mental and physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. In this analysis, racial discrimination was associated with poorer overall mental health including greater psychological distress, poorer life satisfaction and poorer general mental functioning in independent analyses. Racism was also linked with poorer general health and poorer physical health overall, though few effects remained significant when looking at specific physical health outcomes in separate analyses.

Racial discrimination at the structural and individual level is theorised to impact health through several mechanisms [ 15 ]. At the structural level racial discrimination may operate through the unfair allocation of societal resources that are determinants of health (e.g. education, employment, housing) [ 14 , 15 ] and through differential access to healthcare, as well as perceived poorer quality of care [ 19 ]. Another mechanism linking racial discrimination and health could be through the dysregulation of stress-related biological processes [ 20 ]. Frequent exposure to racial discrimination is a chronic stressor and has been linked with dysregulated cardiovascular, neuroendocrine and inflammatory processes [ 21 , 22 ] which in turn impact both physical and mental health. Individual health risk (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption) could link perceived racial discrimination and health, as means of coping with or avoiding discrimination [ 23 , 24 ].

Although a growing number of studies have investigated the link between racial discrimination and health, there are still areas where more research is required. In the 2015 racism meta-analysis of almost 300 studies, only 9% of the data included were prospective [ 16 ]. The authors aimed to compare the effect sizes of the cross-sectional and prospective studies included in their review but were unable to conduct this analysis for the physical outcomes data, emphasising the need for more prospective studies on physical health outcomes in particular.

Further, the literature is dominated by United States (US)-based studies drawn from convenience samples [ 12 , 16 ]. In the latest racism and health meta-analysis, over one third of the articles included were drawn from student samples and only nine (2.7%) of the included studies were UK-based [ 16 ]. This is important as the makeup of ethnic minority groups in the UK differs from that of the US, with those of South Asian backgrounds forming the largest minority group [ 25 ]. In addition, all of the UK studies were cross-sectional in nature and focused on mental health, with physical outcomes such as the number of physical illnesses [ 26 ] and self-rated health [ 27 ] included in only two of the studies.

To date, one UK study has assessed the relationship between racial discrimination and health prospectively. In an analysis of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS), the authors found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer mental functioning scores 4 years later [ 28 ]. They also reported a dose-response relationship between the experience of racial discrimination and mental health, with those who reported racial discrimination at more than one timepoint over a 3-year period experiencing a greater deterioration in mental functioning.

Overall, there is a dearth of prospective evidence on the link between racial discrimination and health in UK samples, particularly in relation to physical health outcomes.

To address these gaps in the literature, the present study set out to assess cross-sectional and prospective associations between racial discrimination and health in a large community-dwelling UK population cohort. Specifically, we were interested in psychological distress, mental functioning and life satisfaction, as indicators of mental health, as well as self-rated health and physical functioning as markers of physical health, along with limiting longstanding illness as an indicator of impairment. We hypothesised that those who perceived racial discrimination would have poorer health across all measures both cross-sectionally and prospectively.

Study population

The current study uses data from UKHLS [ 29 ]. The study began in 2009/10 (wave 1) with follow-ups yearly. This study uses data from waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12) of the data collection. The UKHLS consists of a representative sample of the UK population, as well as an ethnic minority boost sample [ 25 , 30 ]. In this study we use data from ‘extra 5 minutes sample’ of over 8000 individuals who had an additional 5 min of questions on issues of importance to ethnicity research including discrimination. The majority of this sample are drawn from ethnic minority groups ( n  = 6722), in addition to a smaller comparison group of white participants ( n  = 1428) [ 25 ]. We restricted our analyses to those who provided information on racial discrimination at wave 1 ( n  = 5707) and self-reported being of non-white ethnicity ( n  = 4883). The participants included in our study were significantly older ( p  = 0.002) and were less likely to have an educational qualification ( p  < 0.001) than those who did not provide data for the study. They were also more likely to be male ( p  < 0.001) and of South Asian ethnicity ( p  < 0.001) The groups did not differ on income ( p  = 0.136). All participants provided fully informed written consent and the University of Essex Ethics Committee granted ethical approval for UKHLS.

Racial discrimination

To measure perceived discrimination, participants were asked whether in the past 12 months, they had (a) felt unsafe, (b) avoided going to or being in, (c) been insulted, called names, threatened or shouted at, or (d) been physically attacked in 7 different settings 1) At school/college/work, 2) On public transport, 3) At or around bus or train stations, 4) In a taxi, 5) Public buildings such as shopping centres or pubs, 6) Outside on the street, in parks or other public places, or 7) At home. If they answered yes to any one of these questions, a follow-up question asked them to choose an attribution for the discrimination from a list of categories including ethnicity, nationality, age, and sex among others. Participants could choose multiple settings and attributions for the perceived discrimination. Those who attributed any experience of discrimination to their ethnicity or nationality are treated as cases of perceived racial discrimination in our analyses. Those who did not perceive any form of discrimination serve as the comparison group in our analyses. Those who reported other (non-racial) forms of discrimination were not included in the analysis. This measure has been used in previous investigations to look at the link between perceived discrimination and health outcomes [ 28 , 31 , 32 ].

Mental health outcomes

We included 3 mental health measures at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12). Psychological distress was assessed using the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 [ 33 ], in line with previous studies [ 31 , 32 ]. This tool has been validated as a screening tool to detect psychological distress in community samples [ 34 ]. This measure involved ratings of 12 statements including whether the participant had “ Been able to enjoy your normal day to day activities ” or whether they “ Felt constantly under strain ” with binary response options (yes/no). After totalling, the overall score ranged from 0 (least distressed) to 12 (most distressed). The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.99.

The 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) mental component summary score was used to measure limitations caused by emotional, mental health and social functioning issues [ 35 ], in keeping with previous studies [ 31 , 32 ]. This tool has been validated for use as a measure of mental functioning in community samples [ 35 , 36 ]. Items included ratings of feelings experienced over the past 4 weeks such as “ Have you felt downhearted or blue ?” or “Accomplished less than you would like” . A total score ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 100 (high functioning) was derived using standard methods [ 37 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.98.

One item was used to assess participants’ life satisfaction by asking them how satisfied they were with their “life overall”, on a scale from 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 7 (completely satisfied) [ 38 ]. Single item measures of life satisfaction are widely used in survey studies [ 39 ] This measure has been used in previous investigations to assess the link between discrimination and life satisfaction [ 31 , 32 ].

Impairment outcome

Self-reported limiting longstanding illness at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12) was used as measure of impairment. It was measured using one item “Do you have any long-standing physical or mental impairment, illness or disability?...mean [ing] anything that has … or is likely to trouble you over a period of at least 12 months” with response options of yes or no. Self-reported limiting longstanding illness has been investigated in relation to perceived discrimination in other studies [ 40 , 41 ].

Physical health outcomes

We included 2 measures of physical health that were assessed at waves 1 (2009/10) and 3 (2011/12). The SF-12 physical component summary score was used to measure limitations caused by deficits in physical functioning [ 35 ]. Participants were ask ed “Does your health now limit you a lot, limit you a little or not limit you at all?” in activities such “climbing stairs” or “moving a table, pushing a vacuum cleaner, bowling or playing golf”. Overall scores were derived using standard methods ranging from 0 (low functioning) to 100 (high functioning) [ 37 ]. The Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was 0.98. This tool has been validated for use as a measure of physical functioning in community samples [ 35 , 36 ].

A single item was used to assess self-rated health: “ Would you say your health is … poor/fair/good/very good/excellent?” In keeping with earlier work [ 31 , 32 , 42 ] self-rated health was dichotomised with 0 being “good/very good/excellent” and 1 being “poor/fair”. This single item measure has been shown to have good predictive validity for health outcomes [ 42 ].

Our analyses included covariates that are likely relevant to racial discrimination and physical and mental health. All covariates were assessed at wave 1. Age in years was included as a continuous variable. Self-reported sex was included and coded as male/female. Socioeconomic status is an important contributor to racial disparities in health [ 43 ]. Racial discrimination can compound these inequalities. Therefore, we included education as a 3-level variable, coded as 1 “university degree”, 2 “high school qualification” and 3 “no qualification”. Equivalised monthly household income was computed by dividing total household net income by the modified Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) equivalence scale to account for the effects of household size and composition [ 44 ]. The UKHLS samples the 5 main ethnic minority groups in the UK [ 25 , 30 ]: Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black African and Black Caribbean. Participants were asked “What is your ethnic group?” with response options standardised in line with the England and Wales 2011 Census [ 25 ]. Response options also accounted for those of “mixed backgrounds”. We included ethnicity as a 6-level variable with these 5 main UK minority groups and 1 additional category of non-white individuals from a range of other minority backgrounds including Chinese, Arab and mixed ethnic backgrounds among others. For our sensitivity analysis, we collapsed ethnicity into a 3-level variable with Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi participants coded as “South Asian” Black African and Black Caribbean participants coded as “Black” and other non-white participants coded as “Other”.

Statistical analyses

The characteristics of those who did and those who did not report racial discrimination at wave 1 were compared using Chi-squared tests for categorical variables and independent samples t-tests for continuous variables. Associations between racial discrimination and the mental and physical health measures were assessed using linear regression for continuous outcomes and binary logistic regression for categorical outcomes. For the mental health analyses, psychological distress, mental functioning and life satisfaction were the outcome variables. For the impairment analysis limiting longstanding illness was the outcome variable. For the physical health analyses, physical functioning and self-rated health were the outcome variables. Age, sex, household income, education and ethnicity at wave 1 were adjusted for in all analyses. Baseline (wave 1) score/status on the relevant outcome variable was included as an additional covariate in prospective analyses. Only those with complete case information at wave 1 ( n  = 4883) and wave 3 ( n  = 2833) were included in the analyses. We tested for interactions between racial discrimination and age, sex, income, education or ethnicity on the mental and physical health outcomes at both waves 1 and 3. No significant effects were detected. Thus, interaction terms were not included in our final reported models.

Results from linear regression analyses are presented as unstandardized B and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Results from binary logistic regression analyses are presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI. The level of significance was set at p  < 0.05. Unstandardized Bs and ORs rather than p values should be used to determine the strength of associations. All analyses were conducted using SPSS v.24.

Sensitivity analyses

To test the robustness of our findings, we conducted three sets of sensitivity analyses. In our first, we investigated whether a certain type of discriminatory experience (i.e. feeling unsafe, avoiding somewhere, being insulted or attacked) contributing to the measure of racial discrimination was driving the results. We tested this by removing each type of discriminatory experience from the exposure variable in turn, as has been done in previous investigations [ 31 , 32 , 40 ]. In the second sensitivity analysis, we assessed whether participants who were lost to follow-up differed from those who provided data at both waves, and tested whether this influenced the findings by conducting the cross-sectional analyses (wave 1) including only those who provided follow-up data at wave 3. In our final sensitivity analysis, we assessed whether the associations between racial discrimination and our health outcomes varied depending on ethnic group (South Asian, Black or Other), as there is currently limited evidence in this area outside of the US context [ 16 ].

A total of 4883 participants were included in our analysis and of these 998 (20.4%) reported ethnicity ( n  = 854) or nationality ( n  = 144) discrimination. The characteristics of the sample at wave 1 in relation to racial discrimination are displayed in Table  1 . Those who perceived racial discrimination were younger on average and were more likely to hold a university degree than those who did not perceive racial discrimination. There were no differences in sex or income, but reports of racial discrimination did vary by ethnic group. Those in the Indian (23.3%) and in the Other ethnic group (24%) were most likely to report experiences of racial discrimination. Further detail on the types of racial discrimination and the settings in which the racial discrimination occurred for the different ethnic groups can be found in Supplementary Table  1 .

Racial discrimination and mental health

The descriptive characteristics of the sample in relation to health outcomes are displayed in Table  2 . The mental health findings from the regression analyses are displayed in the upper panel of Table  3 . Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had greater psychological distress ( B  = 1.11, 95% CI 0.88; 1.34, p  < 0.001), poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 3.61; 95% CI -4.29; − 2.93, p  < 0.001) and lower life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.40, 95% CI -0.52; − 0.27, p  < 0.001), than those who did not report racial discrimination, independent of covariates.

In prospective analyses, those who perceived racial discrimination had greater psychological distress 2 years later than those who did not perceive racial discrimination, independent of covariates and baseline psychological distress ( B  = 0.52, 95% CI 0.20; 0.85, p  = 0.002). We detected an association between racial discrimination and poorer mental functioning ( B  = − 1.77; 95% CI -2.70; − 0.83, p  < 0.001), independent of covariates and mental functioning at wave 1. In adjusted analyses, those who reported racial discrimination had slightly lower life satisfaction than those who did not report racial discrimination at follow-up (means = 4.77 vs 4.91), but this difference did not reach statistical significance ( p  = 0.102).

Racial discrimination, impairment and physical health

The impairment and physical health results are displayed in the lower panel of Table 3 . The cross-sectional findings suggest that independent of covariates, participants who perceived racial discrimination were significantly more likely on average to report having a limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.78; 95% CI 1.49; 2.13, p  < 0.001), and were more likely on average to rate their health as fair/poor (OR = 1.50; 95% CI 1.24; 1.82, p  < 0.001) than those who did not perceive racial discrimination. Those who reported racial discrimination also had significantly poorer physical functioning ( B  = − 0.86; 95% CI -1.50; − 0.27, p  = 0.008) than those who did not report racial discrimination in adjusted analyses.

In prospective analyses, those who reported racial discrimination were significantly more likely on average to have a limiting longstanding illness 2 years later than those who did not report racial discrimination, independent of covariates and limiting longstanding illness at baseline (OR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.01; 1.69, p  = 0.039). A greater proportion of those who reported racial discrimination rated their health as fair/poor on average at follow-up than those who did not report racial discrimination (OR = 1.30; 95% CI 1.00; 1.69, p  = 0.048) in adjusted analyses. However, we failed to detect a prospective adjusted association between racial discrimination and physical functioning ( p  = 0.290).

In the first sensitivity analysis, removing each of the discriminatory experiences from the measure of racial discrimination in turn did not alter any of the cross-sectional results (Table  4 , upper panel). Prospectively, the association between racial discrimination and all the mental health measures and limiting longstanding illness remained the same regardless of the type of discriminatory experience removed from the measure (Table 4 , lower panel). For self-rated health, the association was fairly robust to the type of discriminatory experience, but was slightly attenuated when “feeling unsafe” was removed from the racial discrimination variable ( p  = 0.133). Again, for the most part, no significant prospective associations were detected for physical functioning except when “feeling unsafe” was removed from the racial discrimination variable ( p  = 0.027).

In the second sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Table  2 ), cross-sectional physical and impairment (lower panel) and mental health (upper panel) findings for those who provided complete data at wave 3 were similar to the full-sample at wave 1.

In our final sensitivity analysis (Supplementary Table  3 ), we assessed whether the associations between racial discrimination and our health outcomes varied depending on ethnic group (South Asian, Black, Other). For the cross-sectional analyses, the findings for psychological distress and mental functioning did not vary by ethnic group. However, for life satisfaction ( B  = − 0.23; 95% CI -0.47; 0.02, p  = 0.069), limiting longstanding illness (OR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.93; 1.92, p  = 0.113), physical functioning ( B  = 0.42; 95% CI -0.84; 1.68, p  = 0.511), and self-rated health (OR = 1.01; 95% CI 0.67; 1.53, p  = 0.955) the findings for the Black group were non-significant, with lower point estimates than when the ethnic groups were combined in the main analysis. For the prospective analyses, there was no group difference for the impairment and physical health outcomes. However, the findings for psychological distress ( B  = 0.32; 95% CI -0.18; 0.82, p  = 0.207), and mental functioning ( B  = − 1.37; 95% CI -2.83; 0.09, p  = 0.065), were not significant for the South Asian group, with lower point estimates than in the combined model. Interestingly, for life satisfaction, those in the Other ethnic group had significantly lower life satisfaction at wave 3 ( B  = − 0.39; 95% CI -0.69;-0.08, p  = 0.013), with greater point estimates than in the combined model. This finding remained non-significant for the South Asian and Black groups.

In this large UK-based prospective sample of ethnic minority participants, we detected associations between racial discrimination and poorer health. Cross-sectionally, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness and poor self-rated health, than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated greater psychological distress, lower life satisfaction, and poorer physical and mental functioning. In prospective analyses, those who reported racial discrimination had a greater likelihood on average of limiting longstanding illness and poor self-rated health than those who did not report racial discrimination. Racial discrimination was associated with greater psychological distress and poorer mental functioning over a two-year follow-up period, regardless of baseline health. No significant prospective associations with physical functioning or life satisfaction were detected.

To our knowledge, this is the first prospective UK-based study to investigate both mental and physical health outcomes in relation to racial discrimination. One earlier analysis of the UKHLS found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer mental functioning over a 1–4 year follow-up period [ 28 ]. The current study also found a prospective association between racial discrimination and poor mental functioning. Our study builds upon previous findings by additionally showing that this association is independent of baseline mental functioning. We also observed a prospective association with psychological distress, another marker of mental health, with those reporting racial discrimination experiencing an increase in psychological distress over time. We did not detect a prospective association between racial discrimination and poorer life satisfaction. Mean scores trended in this direction but the association did not reach statistical significance. A 2015 longitudinal analysis of the US-based Health and Retirement Study with over 6000 participants also failed to detect a prospective association between racial discrimination and decreases in life satisfaction [ 45 ], and pooled analyses have been unable to investigate prospective associations with life satisfaction due lack of sufficient evidence [ 12 , 16 ]. A possible explanation for this null finding, consistent with earlier work, is that racial discrimination is more strongly associated with negative mental health outcomes such as psychological distress than with positive outcomes such as life satisfaction [ 12 , 16 ]. Another potential reason for these findings relates to duration of follow-up, as review evidence suggests that a recent experience of racial discrimination may be more strongly associated with poor mental health and more weakly related to life satisfaction measures [ 16 ]. Our follow-up period of 2 years was relatively short which may have contributed to these results.

Reviews in the field [ 16 , 17 ] have highlighted the need for more prospective evidence, particularly for physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. We found that participants who reported racial discrimination were more likely to report having a limiting longstanding illness and poorer self-rated health, independent of baseline status. Meta-analytic evidence has demonstrated an association between racism and poor general health and worse physical health outcomes [ 16 ]. We built upon this predominately US-based data (a considerable portion of which used convenience sampling) to demonstrate prospective associations between racial discrimination and physical health outcomes in a representative sample of UK adults from ethnic minority groups. We failed to observe a prospective association between perceived racial discrimination and physical functioning, although participants who reported racial discrimination had slightly lower physical functioning scores prospectively than those who did not report racial discrimination. This lack of association may indicate that ongoing experiences of racial discrimination had already made an impact on physical functioning at the time of wave 1 survey, limiting the scope for further significant decreases in this measure over time, particularly as we took baseline physical functioning into account in our analyses. Another possibility, is that the etiological period involved for a decline in physical functioning may differ from that of mental functioning [ 14 ]. These outcomes were measured using the same tool (SF-12) but only mental functioning was significantly associated with racial discrimination over the follow-up period.

Review evidence based on US data suggests that associations between racial discrimination and health may vary depending on ethnic group [ 16 ]. In our sensitivity analysis, the cross-sectional results for life satisfaction and impairment and physical health outcomes were non-significant for the Black group. Prospectively the findings for psychological distress and mental functioning were non-significant for the South Asian group. Whereas, life satisfaction was found to significantly decline for the Other group over the follow-up period. Taken together these results suggest associations with health outcomes are strongest for South Asian and Other groups cross-sectionally, while prospectively racial discrimination appears to most consistently impact mental health outcomes in Black and Other ethnic groups. These findings should be interpreted with caution due to the likelihood that some of our analyses were underpowered.

In our cross-sectional analyses, we found that those who perceived racial discrimination had poorer mental health, with greater psychological distress, poorer mental functioning and lower life satisfaction. Previous work in UKHLS has demonstrated a cross-sectional association with psychological distress using pooled data across three waves of data collection [ 46 ]. To our knowledge no prior UK-based work has reported on cross-sectional associations with poor mental functioning and low life satisfaction. These findings are consistent with earlier work in other countries [ 12 , 16 , 45 ].

We detected links between racial discrimination and poor physical health and impairment. Specifically, we found that those who reported racial discrimination had poorer self-rated health, poorer physical functioning scores and a greater likelihood of having a limiting longstanding illness than those who did not report racial discrimination. Earlier work using the 1993/1994 UK-based Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities survey reported associations between perceived racial discrimination and poor self-rated health [ 27 , 47 ] and limiting longstanding illness [ 47 ]. Our more recent findings from 2009/2010 suggest that these deleterious associations remain an issue for minorities in the UK.

We detected stronger associations between racial discrimination and health for cross-sectional than for prospective comparisons, in keeping with earlier evidence [ 16 ]. However, cross-sectional work cannot determine whether reports of racial discrimination stimulate poor mental and physical health or whether perceptions of racial discrimination are a manifestation of feeling suboptimal mentally or physically. Our prospective findings therefore add to the field in establishing that racial discrimination predicts poor mental and physical outcomes prospectively, net of baseline associations, supporting the hypothesis that racial discrimination has adverse consequences for future health.

With regard to the pathways through which racial discrimination negatively impacts health, there are several possibilities that could help explain our results. One mechanism linking racial discrimination and health may be through the dysregulation of stress-related biological processes. In response to perceived chronic discrimination, stress processes may be frequently activated, which over time may result in disturbances across multiple biological systems, in line with the theory of allostatic load [ 20 ]. Review evidence indicates discrimination is associated with heightened cardiovascular responses to stress [ 11 , 21 ], though it is unclear whether this translates into an increased risk for clinical hypertension [ 48 ]. Another biological mechanism that may link discrimination and health is through activation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. Several reviews have linked racial discrimination [ 21 , 49 , 50 ] with changes in various cortisol parameters, which in turn have been linked with poorer mental and physical health [ 51 , 52 ]. Deleterious changes in other biological processes such as heightened inflammation [ 22 ] and alterations in DNA methylation of stress-related genes [ 53 ] have been linked with discrimination in recent studies. Alterations in these stress-related biological processes offer a plausible link to negative changes in physical [ 54 , 55 ] and, mental health outcomes [ 51 , 56 ]. Racial discrimination has also been associated with disturbances in neurobiological processes, with alterations observed in brain areas such as the anterior cingulate cortex, prefrontal cortex and amygdala which overlap with pathways associated with poor mental health [ 57 ].

Individual health risk (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption etc.) could link perceived racial discrimination and poor mental and physical health, either as a method of coping with the negative psychological effect of perceiving racial discrimination (e.g. excessive alcohol consumption as a coping mechanism) or as a barrier to engaging in healthy behaviours (e.g. avoiding a health service perceived to be discriminatory). Racial discrimination has been associated with smoking [ 23 , 58 , 59 ], excessive alcohol consumption [ 23 , 60 ], as well as substance abuse [ 61 , 62 ]. Review evidence has linked discrimination with poor sleep [ 63 ] as well as weight gain in prospective studies [ 24 ]. This individual health risk offers a plausible indirect pathway linking racial discrimination with both poor mental [ 64 , 65 ], as well as physical health outcomes [ 66 ].

Another possibility at the broader structural level is that racial discrimination may impact health through differential access to societal resources such as education, employment, welfare and criminal justice [ 14 , 15 ]. In the UK, a 2016 report documented persistent ethnic disparities in educational attainment, employment, access to fair pay and adequate housing, as well the over-representation of ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system [ 4 ]. Further, data from this report highlight inequalities in access to healthcare among ethnic minority groups [ 4 ]. While meta-analytic evidence indicates that racial discrimination is associated with more negative patient experiences of health services, as well as delaying/not getting healthcare and lack of treatment uptake [ 19 ]. As these factors are social determinants of health in of themselves [ 13 , 14 , 15 ], they may act as a pathway through which perceptions of racial discrimination can act to negatively influence health.

The results of the current study need to be assessed in terms of strengths and limitations. There is a dearth of prospective evidence on the link between racial discrimination and health in UK samples, particularly in relation to physical health. Our large sample of ethnic minority participants allowed us to examine changes in mental and physical health over 2 years, and demonstrated both cross-sectional and prospective associations. We also adjusted statistically for factors that potentially confound associations, including age, sex, socioeconomic status and ethnicity. Although controlling for covariates does not tease out the complexity of the relationships between perceived racial discrimination and these sociodemographic characteristics [ 43 ]. For example, socioeconomic status contributes to racial inequalities in health [ 43 ], while racial discrimination can compound these disparities and can be conceptualised as an indicator of structural racism [ 13 ]; statistical adjusting for socioeconomic status does not capture these relationships.

The study of racism is a complex and contested area of research [ 67 , 68 ] and our study was not without limitations. Our measure of perceived discrimination was not specifically tailored for racial discrimination, as participants in the could attribute their experience to other forms of discrimination as well (e.g. sexism, ageism). There is evidence that the exposure instrument can influence associations between racism and physical and mental health outcomes [ 16 ] . Participants were able to attribute multiple reasons for their report of discrimination, which could have helped to avoid priming and this measure has been used to assess racial discrimination in previous work [ 28 ]. However, it is possible that measures such as the Schedule of Racist Events scale [ 69 ] and the Perceived Racism Scale [ 70 ] with more specific items on racist degradation and experiences of racism in personal and professional contexts could have garnered different results. Further, the self-report individual measure of racial discrimination employed in our study does not capture the structural conditions that shape the varied ways in which racial discrimination operates [ 14 ]. We only assessed perceived racial discrimination at baseline in this study and did not investigate whether racial discrimination experiences were persistent or changed over time.

Racial discrimination was assessed by self-reports of experiences in the past year and was therefore subject to recall bias. Our findings reflect the perception of racial discrimination rather than objective encounters with racial discrimination. It is possible that objective encounters with racism and perceiving one’s self as the target of racial discrimination might have different consequences for health. Experimental studies involving exposure to discriminatory scenarios have been used to investigate the health impact of objective exposures to racial discrimination. However, these studies may not represent a gold standard for the study of the relationship between discrimination and health, as meta-analytic evidence indicates that exposure to a single negative event in a laboratory setting does not negatively influence health [ 12 ].

In conclusion, this study adds to the field by demonstrating cross-sectional and prospective relationships between racial discrimination and both mental and physical health outcomes. With the rise in racial discrimination in the UK [ 6 ] in the aftermath of the Brexit vote [ 9 ] our findings highlight the need to reduce racial discrimination, not only to promote equity, but also to potentially benefit mental and physical health and reduce health inequalities.

Racial discrimination is a complex system that involves assigning ethnic groups differential value, which drives disparities in access to power, resources and opportunities [ 14 , 15 ]. Due to its multi-faceted nature, occurring at both the structural and individual level multiple interventions will be required to tackle this pervasive determinant of health. Historically, raising awareness of racial discrimination has been necessary to promote activism to bring about legislative and social change to improve the position of ethnic minority groups. In terms of public health, there are calls to integrate research about racial discrimination and health into medical teaching in an attempt to tackle structural racism and to highlight the impact racial discrimination has on health [ 71 , 72 ]. As well as strategies to reduce the pervasiveness of racial discrimination in institutional contexts, action through social media may have benefits for individual health too. The Black Lives Matter campaign is an example of a recent social media movement which has drawn attention to the issue of racial discrimination. There is some evidence that campaigns may provide a source of empowerment, particularly in a time where ethnic minority youth participation in traditional civic engagement activities are in decline [ 73 ]. Evidence suggests the Twitter conversation remained Black-led [ 73 ] and that the majority of the 40 million plus tweets were supportive of the movement [ 73 , 74 ]. However, whether social media campaigns positively [ 73 ] or negatively impact minority health [ 75 ] remains the subject of debate. Further, it should be acknowledged that interventions to educate and raise awareness do not tackle the structural macro-level forces that shape the position of ethnic minorities in society. Although, more challenging to address, work is required to identify socio-political processes that generate racial discrimination so attempts can be made to mitigate its effects. Research into the pathways underlying the link between racial discrimination and health are required to develop policy and to target interventions in this field.

Availability of data and materials

The UKHLS datasets analysed during the current study are freely available in the UK Data Service repository https://ukdataservice.ac.uk/

Abbreviations

Confidence Interval

General Health Questionnaire-12

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

Short-form Health Survey-12

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom Household Longitudinal Study

United States

Alvarez-Galvez J, Salvador-Carulla L. Perceived discrimination and self-rated health in Europe: evidence from the European social survey (2010). PLoS One. 2013;8:e74252.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

The Race Relations Act. 1965. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1965/73/enacted .

The Equality Act. 2010. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents .

Equality and Human Rights Commission. Healing a Divided Britain: the need for a comprehensive race equality strategy. 2016.

Google Scholar  

European Union. Discrimination in the EU in 2015. 2015.

Kelley N, Khan O, Sharrock S. Racial prejudice in Britain today. London: NatCen Social Research and Runnymede Trust; 2017.

Home Office. Hate Crime, England and Wales, 2017/18. Statistical Bulletin 20/18. 2018.

Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Hate Crime in Scotland 2017–18. 2019. https://www.copfs.gov.uk/images/Documents/Statistics/Hate%20Crime%202017-18/Hate%20Crime%20in%20Scotland%202017-18.pdf .

Bhui K, Halvorsrud K, Nazroo J. Making a difference: ethnic inequality and severe mental illness. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213:574–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Goto JB, Couto PFM, Bastos JL. Systematic review of epidemiological studies on interpersonal discrimination and mental health. Cad Saude Publica. 2013;29:445–59.

Pascoe EA, Smart RL. Perceived discrimination and health: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:531–54.

Schmitt MT, Branscombe NR, Postmes T, Garcia A. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:921–48.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Discrimination and racial disparities in health: evidence and needed research. J Behav Med. 2009;32:20–47.

Krieger N. Measures of racism, sexism, heterosexism, and gender Binarism for health equity research: from structural injustice to embodied harm—an Ecosocial analysis. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020;41:37–62.

Williams DR, Mohammed SA. Racism and health I: pathways and scientific evidence. Am Behav Sci. 2013;57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487340 .

Paradies Y, Ben J, Denson N, Elias A, Priest N, Pieterse A, et al. Racism as a determinant of health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0138511.

Priest N, Paradies Y, Trenerry B, Truong M, Karlsen S, Kelly Y. A systematic review of studies examining the relationship between reported racism and health and wellbeing for children and young people. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2013;95:115–27.

Lee DL, Ahn S. The relation of racial identity, ethnic identity, and racial socialization to discrimination-distress: a meta-analysis of black Americans. J Couns Psychol. 2013;60:1–14.

Ben J, Cormack D, Harris R, Paradies Y. Racism and health service utilisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0189900.

McEwen BS. Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1998;840:33–44.

Lockwood KG, Marsland AL, Matthews KA, Gianaros PJ. Perceived discrimination and cardiovascular health disparities: a multisystem review and health neuroscience perspective. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2018;1428:170–207.

Kershaw KN, Lewis TT, Diez Roux AV, Jenny NS, Liu K, Penedo FJ, et al. Self-reported experiences of discrimination and inflammation among men and women: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2016;35:343–50.

Borrell LN, Kiefe CI, Diez-Roux AV, Williams DR, Gordon-Larsen P. Racial discrimination, racial/ethnic segregation, and health behaviors in the CARDIA study. Ethn Health. 2013;18:227–43.

de CO B, Bastos JL, González-Chica DA, Peres MA, Paradies YC. Interpersonal discrimination and markers of adiposity in longitudinal studies: a systematic review. Obes Rev Off J Int Assoc Study Obes. 2017;18:1040–9.

McFall S, Nandi A, Platt L. Understanding society: UK household longitudinal study: user guide to ethnicity and immigration research. 4th ed. Colchester: University of Essex; 2017.

Heim D, Hunter SC, Jones R. Perceived discrimination, identification, social capital, and well-being: relationships with physical health and psychological distress in a U.K. minority ethnic community sample. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 2011;42:1145–64.

Bécares L, Nazroo J, Stafford M. The buffering effects of ethnic density on experienced racism and health. Health Place. 2009;15:700–8.

Wallace S, Nazroo J, Bécares L. Cumulative effect of racial discrimination on the mental health of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. Am J Public Health. 2016;106:1294–300.

University of Essex. Institute for Social and Economic Research, NatCen Social Research, Kantar Public. Understanding Society: Waves 1–7, 2009–2016 and Harmonised BHPS: Waves 1–18, 1991–2009. 9th Edition. UK data service; 2017.

Knies G. Understanding society: The UK household longitudinal study, Waves 1–7 (User Guide). University of Essex. Colchester: Institute for Social and Economic Research; 2017.

Hackett RA, Steptoe A, Jackson SE. Sex discrimination and mental health in women: a prospective analysis. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2019;38:1014–24.

Hackett RA, Steptoe A, Lang RP, Jackson SE. Disability discrimination and well-being in the United Kingdom: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035714.

Goldberg D, Williams P. A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. Basingstoke: NFER-Nelson; 1988.

Romppel M, Braehler E, Roth M, Glaesmer H. What is the general health Questionnaire-12 assessing?: dimensionality and psychometric properties of the general health Questionnaire-12 in a large scale German population sample. Compr Psychiatry. 2013;54:406–13.

Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–33.

Cheak-Zamora NC, Wyrwich KW, McBride TD. Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:727–35.

Ware JE. How to score version 2 of the SF-12 health survey (with a supplement documenting version 1) edition: first. Lincoln, RI: Health Assessment Lab; 2002.

Lucas RE, Donnellan MB. Estimating the reliability of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from four National Panel Studies. Soc Indic Res. 2012;105:323–31.

Dolan P, Peasgood T, White M. Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. J Econ Psychiatry. 2008;29:94–122.

Jackson SE, Hackett RA, Steptoe A. Associations between age discrimination and health and wellbeing: cross-sectional and prospective analysis of the English longitudinal study of ageing. Lancet Public Health. 2019;4:e200–8.

Jackson SE, Hackett RA, Grabovac I, Smith L, Steptoe A. Perceived discrimination, health and wellbeing among middle-aged and older lesbian, gay and bisexual people: a prospective study. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0216497.

DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P. Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question. A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:267–75.

Williams DR, Priest N, Anderson N. Understanding associations between race, socioeconomic status and health: patterns and prospects. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2016;35:407–11.

OECD. What are equivalence scales? 2005.

Sutin AR, Stephan Y, Carretta H, Terracciano A. Perceived discrimination and physical, cognitive, and emotional health in older adulthood. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Off J Am Assoc Geriatr Psychiatry. 2015;23:171–9.

Nandi A, Luthra R, Benzeval M. Ethnic and racial harassment and mental health: Identifying sources of resilience (No. 2016–14). 2016. https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/iser/2016-14 .

Karlsen S, Nazroo JY. Agency and structure: the impact of ethnic identity and racism on the health of ethnic minority people. Sociol Health Illn. 2002;24:1–20.

Dolezsar CM, McGrath JJ, Herzig AJM, Miller SB. Perceived racial discrimination and hypertension: a comprehensive systematic review. Health Psychol Off J Div Health Psychol Am Psychol Assoc. 2014;33:20–34.

Busse D, Yim IS, Campos B, Marshburn CK. Discrimination and the HPA axis: current evidence and future directions. J Behav Med. 2017;40:539–52.

Korous KM, Causadias JM, Casper DM. Racial discrimination and cortisol output: A meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2017;193:90–100.

Adam EK, Quinn ME, Tavernier R, McQuillan MT, Dahlke KA, Gilbert KE. Diurnal cortisol slopes and mental and physical health outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2017;83:25–41.

Hackett RA, Kivimäki M, Kumari M, Steptoe A. Diurnal cortisol patterns, future diabetes, and impaired glucose metabolism in the Whitehall II cohort study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2016;101:619–25.

Santos HP, Nephew BC, Bhattacharya A, Tan X, Smith L, Alyamani RAS, et al. Discrimination exposure and DNA methylation of stress-related genes in Latina mothers. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;98:131–8.

Wang X, Bao W, Liu J, OuYang Y-Y, Wang D, Rong S, et al. Inflammatory markers and risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:166–75.

Chida Y, Steptoe A. Greater cardiovascular responses to laboratory mental stress are associated with poor subsequent cardiovascular risk status a meta-analysis of prospective evidence. Hypertension. 2010;55:1026–32.

Slavich GM, Irwin MR. From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: a social signal transduction theory of depression. Psychol Bull. 2014;140:774–815.

Berger M, Sarnyai Z. “More than skin deep”: stress neurobiology and mental health consequences of racial discrimination. Stress Amst Neth. 2015;18:1–10.

Bennett GG, Wolin KY, Robinson EL, Fowler S, Edwards CL. Perceived racial/ethnic harassment and tobacco use among African American young adults. Am J Public Health. 2005;95:238–40.

Sims M, Diez-Roux AV, Gebreab SY, Brenner A, Dubbert P, Wyatt S, et al. Perceived discrimination is associated with health behaviours among African-Americans in the Jackson heart study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70:187–94.

Gilbert PA, Zemore SE. Discrimination and drinking: A systematic review of the evidence. Soc Sci Med 1982. 2016;161:178–94.

Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, Cleveland MJ, Wills TA, Brody G. Perceived discrimination and substance use in African American parents and their children: a panel study. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86:517–29.

Gibbons FX, Etcheverry PE, Stock ML, Gerrard M, Weng C-Y, Kiviniemi M, et al. Exploring the link between racial discrimination and substance use: what mediates? What buffers? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;99:785–801.

Slopen N, Lewis TT, Williams DR. Discrimination and sleep: a systematic review. Sleep Med. 2016;18:88–95.

Brennan PL, SooHoo S, Lemke S, Schutte KK. Alcohol use predicts 10-year depressive symptom trajectories in the health and retirement study. J Aging Health. 2016;28:911–32.

Baglioni C, Battagliese G, Feige B, Spiegelhalder K, Nissen C, Voderholzer U, et al. Insomnia as a predictor of depression: a meta-analytic evaluation of longitudinal epidemiological studies. J Affect Disord. 2011;135:10–9.

Yusuf S, Hawken S, Ounpuu S, Dans T, Avezum A, Lanas F, et al. Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case-control study. Lancet. 2004;364:937–52.

Boyd R, Lindo E, Weeks L, McLemore M. On Racism: A New Standard For Publishing On Racial Health Inequities. Health Affairs Blog. 2020. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200630.939347/full/ . Accessed 18 Aug 2020.

Kaplan JB, Bennett T. Use of race and ethnicity in biomedical publication. JAMA. 2003;289:2709–16.

Landrine H, Klonoff EA. The schedule of racist events: a measure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative physical and mental health consequences. J Black Psychol. 1996;22:144–68.

McNeilly MD, Anderson NB, Armstead CA, Clark R, Corbett M, Robinson EL, et al. The perceived racism scale: a multidimensional assessment of the experience of White racism among African Americans. Ethn Dis. 1996;6:154–66.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jee-Lyn García J, Sharif MZ. Black lives matter: a commentary on racism and public health. Am J Public Health. 2015;105:e27–30.

Williams DR, Cooper LA. Reducing racial inequities in health: using what we already know to take action. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16040606 .

Freelon D, McIlwain CD, Clark M. Beyond the Hashtags: #Ferguson, #Blacklivesmatter, and the online struggle for offline justice. SSRN scholarly paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network; 2016. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2747066 . Accessed 8 Aug 2019.

Ince J, Rojas F, Davis CA. The social media response to black lives matter: how twitter users interact with black lives matter through hashtag use. Ethn Racial Stud. 2017;40:1814–30.

Umaña-Taylor AJ, Tynes BM, Toomey RB, Williams DR, Mitchell KJ. Latino adolescents’ perceived discrimination in online and offline settings: an examination of cultural risk and protective factors. Dev Psychol. 2015;51:87–100.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council ( https://esrc.ukri.org/ ), grant number ES/R005990/1. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Health Psychology Section, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Ruth A. Hackett

Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK

Ruth A. Hackett, Andrew Steptoe & Sarah E. Jackson

Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK

Amy Ronaldson

Centre for Department of Psychiatry & Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Kamaldeep Bhui

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

RAH conducted the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. AR, KB and AS edited and reviewed the manuscript. SJ provided scientific overview, edited and reviewed the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth A. Hackett .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Ethical approval for UKHLS was obtained from the University of Essex Ethics Committee. All participants provided fully informed written consent.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1:.

Supplementary Table 1. Racial discrimination types and settings by ethnic group. Supplementary Table 2. Associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes (complete cases at wave 3). Supplementary Table 3. Cross-sectional and prospective associations between racial discrimination and health outcomes stratified by ethnic group

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hackett, R.A., Ronaldson, A., Bhui, K. et al. Racial discrimination and health: a prospective study of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. BMC Public Health 20 , 1652 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09792-1

Download citation

Received : 18 May 2020

Accepted : 29 October 2020

Published : 18 November 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09792-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Discrimination
• Mental health
• Physical health

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples

📜 history of discrimination & essay writing tips, 🏆 best discrimination topic ideas & essay examples, 🥇 most interesting discrimination topics to write about, ⚡ shocking discrimination essay examples, 🎓 good discrimination research topic ideas, 📌 discrimination speech topics and prompts, 📝 simple & easy discrimination topics for essay, ❓discrimination research paper question.

Discrimination essays are an essential part of historical and social sciences because of the influence of the practice on past and current humanity. In this article we will reveal the brief lookback to the history of discrimination and its causes, and provide a list of discrimination topics for essay, as well as paper examples on gender, disability, and racial inequality.

Past practices such as slavery were a result of discriminatory racist beliefs, and it took a long time for African Americans to be acknowledged as equal under law to other races.

Even then, the school of thought was not eradicated, and ethnic minorities as well as women would be oppressed by segregation and unequal opportunities until the emergence of the civil rights movement in the second half of the 20th century.

Even today, discriminatory practices arguably continue, and the debate around their existence draws considerable attention. You can use any of these topics to write an outstanding essay by following the guidelines below.

Discussions of slavery as a form of discrimination will usually be historic in nature, as they will discuss the practice as applied in the United States and other countries in the same region, but the notion offers discrimination essay topics for periods including modernity.

Before the Civil War, many people believed that black people were inferior to whites in some way, possibly due to the disparity between the advancement of African and European civilizations.

As such, even free black people would undergo harassment and risk being enslaved again if they did not leave for a territory that did not have the practice. The topic has been well researched, and so you can and should the wealth of information available to paint an accurate picture.

Even after the abolition of slavery, discriminatory views and practices persisted in many places. Examples included segregation practices where black people would be confined to ghettos and not allowed to visit various institutions.

The civil rights movement arose in the 1960s aimed to right that injustice, but eventually expanded to encompass more marginalized groups, such as women. Gender bias was prevalent at the time, with women being seen as housewives who could not work as well as men.

The success of the feminist message changed that perception and enabled women to choose their life freely. The various efforts and successes of the movement can provide you with ideas for an interesting work.

Ultimately, discrimination is being called out to this day, though many people hold the opinion that it has been mostly or completely eliminated in most advanced countries.

Nevertheless, many modern industries are affected by claims of faults such as gender discrimination, expressed as phenomena such as disproportionate hiring of males or a disparity in earnings between the sexes.

Other instances of modern discrimination are more concrete, such as the severe punishments for homosexuality practiced in some Muslim countries to this day. Humanity is still not entirely equal, and to progress towards that goal, we must identify and address issues.

Here are some additional tips that will improve the general quality of your essay:

• Surround your discrimination essay body with an introduction and a conclusion. The former describes the topic and provides the reader with a thesis that names the central idea of the essay. The latter sums up the essay and provides some closing words.
• Separate different sections of your paper with titles that identify their topics. This practice improves the essay’s structure and appearance, making it easier for the reader to navigate it, especially if you use well-designed discrimination essay titles.

Find excellent discrimination essay examples and other useful samples for your work on IvyPanda!

• Causes of Discrimination in Society The main causes of discrimination are racial prejudices, gender, national and religious stereotypes, social categorization, and sexual orientation. Racial profiling is one of the vivid examples of racial discrimination and racial prejudices.
• A Personal Experience of Discrimination It was then that I experience ostracism and discrimination in the hands of the joyous Parisians. My friends had always praised the shopping district in Paris and I finally had a chance to witness the […]
• BMW Group’s Pricing Strategy and Discrimination Therefore, the company makes use of this strategy to leverage its products in the market. This strategy is commonly used before the launch of a new product.
• The Challenges of Racism Influential for the Life of Frederick Douglass and Barack Obama However, Douglass became an influential anti-slavery and human rights activist because in the early childhood he learnt the power of education to fight inequality with the help of his literary and public speaking skills to […]
• Racism and Discrimination as Social Constructs This is because the concept of race has a negative connotation in the society. For example in some societies, especially the western society; the concept of race implies un-fair treatment and discrimination of a particular […]
• Bipolar Disorder in the Muslim and Discrimination of People With This Mental Illness However, the largest proportion of Muslims believes that there is a significant association of mental illnesses like bipolar disorder and evil spirits.
• Was Ernest Hemingway a Misogynist? A Sexism Hemingway does not hide the uselessness of Wilson in the eyes of Margot; she only uses him as a toy, and even after they have sex Hemingway still questions it.
• Essay on Social Class Inequality & Discrimination In this paper, I analyze three articles on social class and inequality to find out whether the authors’ views agree with mine on the negative attitudes towards the poor by the middle class and the […]
• Discussion of Language Discrimination Moreover, while Kina preferred to be silent in front of lawyers and solicitors, Daisy Li could speak up on the matter even with her “broken” English.
• Discrimination in School Based on the data in this case, describe the behaviour of the students in this class The children’s behaviour displays racial discrimination owing to their treatment of the new coloured student in class.
• Racial Discrimination in “A Raisin in the Sun” Racial discrimination is the main theme of the book, strongly reflecting the situation that prevailed during the 1950s in the United States, a time when the story’s Younger family lived in Chicago’s South Side ghetto.
• Discrimination Causes, Effects and Types As shown in the above definition, discrimination is unjust because it involves classifying a given group of people based on characteristics that make them look unfit to be part of the rest of the group.
• Prejudice and Discrimination Among Students The goal of this study is to investigate the peculiarities of prejudicial and discriminatory treatment among students and explain their correlation with anxiety and depression.
• Sarah Baartman: A Victim of Discrimination The life of Sara Baartman continues to attract the attention of people who are interested in the history of colonialism and slavery. This is one of the details that attract the attention of the viewer.
• Age Discrimination at the Workplace The first step to preventing age discrimination in a company is for the management to understand the meaning of age discrimination and its effects on the company.
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace Essay This essay will document gender bias and gender discrimination in the context of social and physical and the social confines of the work place that is experienced at work in the context of United States […]
• Maya Angelou: Racism and Segregation in “I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings” An example is that, as she fails to recite her poem in church, she notes that her dress is probably a handout from a white woman.
• Racial Discrimination Effects in Coming of Age in Mississippi by Anne Moody The vivid description of events from the beginning gives the reader a clear picture of a girl who was born in problems and in spite of her intelligence she always became a victim of circumstances.
• AIDS Discrimination in “Philadelphia” (1993) by Jonathan Demme “Philadelphia” is the film that appeared on the screens at the end of the 20th century. He is a lawyer, who copes with his duties easily and is known as one of the best professionals.
• Racism and Motherhood Themes in Grimke’s “Rachel” In addition, her mother kept the cause of the deaths of Rachel’s father and brother secret. In essence, the play Rachel is educative and addresses some of the challenges people face in society.
• Contrast Between Tituba and John Indian and Countering Racism The declaration suggests that Conde believed the story of Tituba’s maltreatment needed to be told to expose the truth she had been denied due to her skin color and gender.
• Anti-discrimination Legislation Under the provisions of the sexual discrimination Act, a person who displays any behavior that is deemed to be sexually harassing in a nature will be held responsible for their behavior.
• Cause and Effect of Racial Discrimination Irrespective of massive efforts to emphasize the role of diversity and equality in society, it is still impossible to state that the United States is free from racial discrimination.
• Discrimination in Education and Unfair Admission The significance of equality in education is due to the natural development of society and the transition to a civilized order, where any manifestations of bias for various reasons are unacceptable.
• Discrimination as Part of Society Thus, the authors focus on the analytical analysis of any phenomenon of discrimination: the study of social, historical, political, and other aspects that have an impact on the growth of oppression of certain groups.
• Racial Discrimination at the Workplace The main change that is discussed in this essay is the introduction of legislation that will see the creation of a special authority that is aimed at guaranteeing the freedom of all workers at the […]
• Discrimination at the Workplace: Legislations Regarding Discrimination In addition, the law was also instrumental in the establishment of the EEOC, a body charged with the responsibility of implementing this particular law, along with other laws that seeks to protect employees against discrimination […]
• Discrimination at Workplaces The current increase in the temporary, part-time wage work and other forms of employment that is not covered by labor laws and policies in Canada has contributed a lot to cases of discrimination and other […]
• Is Troy Maxson (Wilson’s Fences) a Victim of Racism? As a black American, Troy’s childhood experiences have been passed on to his children, making him a victim of an oppressive culture. Therefore, this makes Troy a victim of racism and culture, contributing to his […]
• Classism as a Complex Issue of Discrimination Classism is not an issue that affects just a small sector of the population. To facilitate justice in society, the issue of classism needs to be studied.
• Prejudice and Discrimination What I can say about myself is that being in a group while studying the nature of bias and discrimination was a useful experience.
• Misogyny and Sexism in Policing A solution to solving sexism and misogyny in policing is increasing the number of female police officers and educating on gender bias.
• The Issue of Discrimination Within American Ethnicity by Aguirre and Turner The white ethnics managed to blend with the overall population and advance the educational and occupational aspects by adhering to culture, speech, value, and other features of the Anglo-Saxon core.
• Gender-Based Discrimination in the Workplace In order to give a good account of the effects of gender-based discrimination against women, this paper examines the space of women in the automotive engineering industry.
• Immigration and Discrimination in the Workplace The ability to see a big picture and the need to appreciate the contribution of immigrants to U.S.economy will reduce the incidences of discrimination in the workplace.
• The Anatomy of Scientific Racism: Racialist Responses to Black Athletic Achievement Miller is of the view that it is the white scholars that are responsible for impeding the success of black athletes and performers.
• Controversy of Gender and Race Discrimination Gender and race issues should be well tackled, for instance, in some of the societies men are believed to be superior to women and hold all the important positions in the society.
• Sexism, Racism, Ableism, Ageism, Classism The absurdity and blatant sexism of this issue made me angry at how the United States is unable to resolve and overcome the lack of gender equality.
• Coca-Cola Discrimination Issues Therefore, the essay discusses the discrimination issues raised by four African-Americans that led to a lawsuit, examines actions that would have prevented or minimized the lawsuit, and considers the company’s structural and human resource perspectives […]
• Root Causes and Solutions to Racism Media is meant to eradicate racism and maintain unity among people but the case is different in some situations. Also, it is vital to make children understand nothing is amusing in the use of stereotypes […]
• The Discrimination Disparity Continuum. Bill Macumber Though these guidelines are available and are supposed to be the guide for the justice system, there have been cases when there have been a miscarriage of justice, which has led to the conviction of […]
• Anthem by Ayn Rand: Discrimination Theme In the book, the theme of liberty is presented as the opposite of discrimination, and there is a category representing liberty in this book.
• Accent Discrimination and the Harmful Effects The learners of English as a second language have been greatly affected because of the discrimination faced from other individuals because of the difference in pronunciation.
• Discrimination against Immigrants Immigrants face different types of discrimination in the course of their stay in the U. The most common types of discrimination that the immigrants in the U.
• Discrimination in Sarah Baartman’s Life Besides her treatment as an object of racial inferiority and medical research, Bartman’s experience manifested the intersection of various forms of discrimination, such as, gender, race, nationality, and class discrimination. Bartman’s experience was a manifestation […]
• Discrimination of Black Women During Pregnancy To sum up, some data show that there are prominent healthcare disparities among black women and white women during the carriage and delivery of a child.
• Discrimination Against Women and Protecting Laws In response to the great discrimination of women, international women conferences have played a significant role in assisting in formulation and enacting of appropriate discrimination laws to curtail gender bias.
• Racism and Gender in Beyoncé’s Lemonade The album Lemonade by an American singer Beyonce is one of the brightest examples when an artist portrays the elements of her culture in her music. Along with music videos, the album features a number […]
• Prejudice and Discrimination in Diverse Organizations Prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping are common in an organization and each one of them has its effects which directly or indirectly influence an organization.
• Black or White Racism When one listens to the “Black or White” song, it is clear that Michael Jackson is not expecting his audience to be either white or black people to listen and learn the message he is […]
• Racial Discrimination Through the Cosmetics Industry The variety of preconceptions such as the hypersexuality of black women and the perception of their beauty as an unideal version of whites’ one also indicates racism.
• The Pink Tax Issue: Economic Discrimination Against Women Opponents of the Pink Tax argue that it denies women of agency and choice by implying that women are susceptible to a marketing strategy that prevents them from selecting cheaper products.
• Wearing Headscarves and Workplace Discrimination Johnson’s unwillingness to compromise and adjust to the plaintiff’s needs aggravates the case. Johnson’s preoccupation with the employee’s safety and appeased the fear of losing patrons due to Ms.
• The Life of Muslims in the USA and Discrimination The life of Muslims in the USA is a topic of numerous researches. The Council on American-Islamic Relations, the group that should present Islamic perspective to the American audience, is believed to be radical and […]
• Sociology: Prejudice and Discrimination in India The Dalits and the Adivasis and other classes of Indian Society are pursuing the erasure of the age old caste system with the new Indian socialist revolution.
• Sexism in Walt Disney Animation Studios’ Works Most of the works show the oppression of women’s rights and women in general, which is confirmed by the absence of a mother’s archetype.
• How Racism Makes Us Sick: Public Talk That Matters As a developing learner, I find this speech as a good example of how to raise such provocative themes as racism in the United States and not to be obsessed with prejudice.
• The Problem of Racism in Brazilian Football Skidmore describes it as the relationships that could result into conflict and consciousness and determination of the people’s status in a community or a particular group. In football, racism damages pride of the players and […]
• Does Racism and Discrimination Still Exist Today? This fact explains why racism and discrimination are inseparable in many parts of the globe. Sex discrimination continues to affect the goals and expectations of many women in our society.
• Sexism in the English Language Issue The degree of sexism in the attitude of the speaker while using English is also indicative of the cultural differences in attitude towards sexism in language.
• Discrimination at Publix Incorporation Despite the claim by the management of Publix Incorporation that the firm is committed to ensuring non-discrimination; the firm has not effectively implemented policies aimed at abating discrimination.
• Segregation and Discrimination in My Left Foot This is because Christy Brown is given the chance to stay with his family, and in due course, he shows how talented he is by making use of the only part of his body that […]
• The Equal Opportunities Approach and Discrimination The aim of this paper is to discuss the extent to which the EO approach helps to eradicate workplace discrimination in all its complex forms.
• Pressing Issues in Femininity: Gender and Racism When speaking of the current issues in femininity, women are not reduced to their roles of housewives to the extent to which they used to be.
• Racism: De Brahm’s Map and the Casta Paintings However, De Brahm’s map is one of the most striking pieces of evidence of the conquest of space and the entrenchment of the idea of land and people as titular property.
• Racism and Inequality in Society The idea of race as a social construct is examined in the first episode of the documentary series “The Power of an Illusion”.
• Anti-Racism: Marginalization and Exclusion in Healthcare This essay examines the course’s impact and the concepts of marginalization and exclusion in healthcare. Marginalization is a concept that has profoundly influenced the understanding of race and racism in healthcare.
• Workplace Discrimination: Types and Regulations In the 1970s and the 1990s, disability rights evolved with the introduction of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• The Issue of Racism in the United States The entire history of the United States is permeated with the evolution of the ideas of racism. Turning to history, we can see that the U.S.moved from slavery to using the Black population to solve […]
• History of Racial Discrimination in Haiti and America The choice of topic, racial discrimination in Haiti and America, was influenced by beliefs, values, and assumptions emphasizing the importance of equality and justice for all races.
• Racism and History of Discrimination As a result, advocacy should be aimed at creating new models in criminal justice that will ensure the protection of all minority groups and due process.
• Racial Discrimination and Color Blindness Of the three ideologies, racial harmony is considered the most appropriate for coping with problems of racism and racial injustice due to various reasons.
• Race, Racism, and Dangers of Race Thinking While it is true that some forms of race thinking can be used to justify and perpetuate racism, it is not necessarily the case that all forms of race thinking are inherently racist. Race thinking […]
• LGBTQ+ (Queer) Military Discrimination in Healthcare Furthermore, the subject is relevant to the field of psychology as the current phenomenon examines discrimination in healthcare both from the psychological outcomes experienced by veterans as well as the perception of LGBTQ+ patients through […]
• Racial Discrimination in American Literature In this way, the author denies the difference between people of color and whites and, therefore, the concept of racism in general.
• Discrimination at Work and Persistent Poverty While discrimination remains contributing to persistent poverty, organizations may benefit from blind hiring, an inclusive and accepting culture, and visible leadership to ensure efficient diversity management on a long-term basis. In conclusion, discrimination remains a […]
• Racism in the US: Settler Imperialism They prove that colonial imperialism is a structure, not a contextual phenomenon and that, as such, it propagates the marginalization of native people.
• Why Empathy in Racism Should Be Avoided Empathy is the capacity to comprehend and experience the emotions and ideas of others. Moreover, empathic emotions are essential to social and interpersonal life since they allow individuals to adapt their cognitive processes to their […]
• Discrimination Against African-American Patients The study results are inconsistent due to the selected approach and limited sample size. The study focused on the personal experiences of a small local group of African-American patients, primarily elderly females, not allowing for […]
• Racial Discrimination in High Education This peer-reviewed scholar article was found in the JSTOR database through entering key words “race affirmative action” and marking the publication period between 2017 and 2022.
• Discrimination Against Survivors of Canada’s Indian Residential Schools According to Schwetizer, such institutions were characterized by poor conditions, heavy workloads, and the oppression of cultural attributes, through the use of which the government expected to adapt the aboriginal people to society’s standards.
• Social Sciences: Racism Through Different Lenses A thorough analysis of diversity adds value to social interactions by informing human behavior through a deeper understanding of racism and its impacts on society. Using the humanities lens leads to a better understanding of […]
• Successful Bias Lawsuits: Texas Company in Employment Discrimination Case The allegation was filed by the Department of Labor’s office in 2020, after the evidence indicated a shortfall of black and Asian employees at the company.
• Racial Discrimination in Dormitory Discrimination is considered to be behavior that restricts the rights and freedoms of the individual. Therefore, it is essential to investigate discrimination in dormitories and propose solutions to this problem, such as disseminating knowledge about […]
• Racism and Its Impact on Populations and Society The ignorance of many individuals about other people’s cultures and ethnicities is one of the causes of racism. One can examine the various components of society and how they relate to the issue of racism […]
• Eliminating Discrimination: Poems From “Counting Descent” by Clint Smith The poems illustrated how the world is passed, what the ocean said to the black boy, and what the cicada said to the black boy.
• Institutionalized Racism and Individualistic Racism Excellent examples of individualistic racism include the belief in white supremacy, racial jokes, employment discrimination, and personal prejudices against black people. Overall, institutionalized and individualistic racism is a perversive issue that affects racial relations in […]
• Community Engagement with Racism To enhance the population’s degree of involvement in racism, the study calls for collaboration; this can be seen as a community effort to foster a sense of teamwork.
• LGBT Discrimination Research Prospects: An Analysis The aim of this assignment is to summarize the research that has been done on LGBT discrimination, particularly in the workplace and during the recruiting process.
• Discrimination Against the Elderly Population in the Medical Field The first week I was preoccupied, being my first time interacting with the older patients and also the fact that it was my first week and I was just getting used to the environment.
• The Pricing Policy of Price Discrimination The equilibrium price of a commodity from the point of view of a free market is formed at the intersection of supply and demand, which fluctuates depending on many factors.
• Racism Detection with Implicit Association Test Racial bias is deeply rooted in human society and propelled by norms and stereotypic ideologies that lead to implicit bias and the unfair treatment of minority groups.
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act The law ADEA, which stands for The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, exhausts assumptions or beliefs that age affects a person’s ability to work.
• Identity and Belonging: Racism and Ethnicity In the documentary Afro Germany – Being Black and German, several individuals share their stories of feeling mistreated and excluded because of their skin color.
• Policies to Eliminate Racial Disparities and Discrimination The solution to exclusion is to build social inclusion in the classroom and within the school by encouraging peer acceptance, cross-group friendships, and built-in prevention.
• Living With HIV: Stigma and Discrimination The mental health and emotional well-being of the population living with this virus are affected due to the humiliation and judgment they face from their fellows around them.
• Causes, Facilitators, and Solutions to Racism These theories suggest that racism serves a particular function in society, occurs due to the interactions of individuals from dominant groups, and results from a human culture of prejudice and discrimination.
• Racial Discrimination and Justice in Education An example is the complaint of the parents of one of the black students that, during the passage of civilizations, the Greeks, Romans, and Incas were discussed in the lessons, but nothing was said about […]
• Empathy and Racism in Stockett’s The Help and Li’s To Kill a Mockingbird To start with, the first approach to racism and promoting empathy is to confront prevalent discrimination and racism, which was often shown in The Help. Another solution to racism and the possibility of promoting empathy […]
• Education in Canada and Discrimination In general, the immersion in the history of the residential school system on the basis of related articles, videos, and music has left a highly oppressive feeling.
• Discrimination in the US Healthcare Sector More than 70% of those who buy insurance plans via the exchanges are also estimated to be entitled to tax credits, which will further lower their rates in addition to the lower premiums.
• Racism in the Healthcare Sector In 2020, the cases and instances of racism in healthcare rose by 16% from 2018; there were notable instances of racism in various spheres of health. 9% of blacks have been protected from discrimination and […]
• The Airline Industry: Sex Discrimination Although some females and males are fighting these stereotypes, there has been a culture in the airline industry to give females the flight attendant jobs and males the piloting jobs. Similarly, the roles of male […]
• Individual and Structural Discrimination Toward LGBT (Queer) Military Personnel Consequently, LGBT military personnel are potentially even more vulnerable to mental health issues due to the combined stress of being LGBT and being in the military.
• Racism in Healthcare and Education The mission should emphasize that it promotes diversity and equality of all students and seeks to eliminate racial bias. It is necessary to modify the mission to include the concept of inclusiveness and equality.
• Equal Opportunity and Discrimination Thus, if a female individual feels denied a job opportunity due to the employer’s attitude to her possible pregnancy, she can apply to the Equal employment opportunity commission and ask for an investigation. EO serves […]
• Institutional Racism in the Workplace Despite countless efforts to offer African-Americans the same rights and opportunities as Whites, the situation cannot be resolved due to the emergence of new factors and challenges.
• Racism in Education in the United States Such racial disparities in the educational workforce confirm the problem of structural racism and barrier to implementing diversity in higher medical education. Structural racism has a long history and continues to affect the growth of […]
• Individuals With Disabilities: Prejudice and Discrimination I researched that people with persistent medical or physical disorders, such as cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis, who have speech, articulation, or communication impairments, for example, are sometimes seen as having an intellectual deficiency. Corey […]
• Rhetoric in Obama’s 2008 Speech on Racism When the audience became excited, it was Obama’s responsibility to convey his message in a more accessible form. To conclude, Obama’s speech in 2008 facilitated his election as the first African American President in history.
• How to Talk to Children About Racism The text begins by referring to recent events that were related to race-based discrimination and hatred, such as the murder of George Floyd and the protests dedicated to the matter.
• Care for Real: Racism and Food Insecurity Care for Real relies on the generosity of residents, donation campaigns, and business owners to collect and deliver these supplies. The research article discusses some of the factors that contribute to the creation of racism […]
• Racism Towards Just and Holistic Health Therefore, the critical content of the event was to determine the steps covered so far in the fight for racial equality in the provision of care and what can be done to improve the status […]
• People With Mental Illnesses: Stigma, Prejudice, and Discrimination The post raises awareness of the highly important and rarely discussed topic of stigma, prejudice, and discrimination against people with mental illnesses, which are not only harmful on their own but also make such individuals […]
• Workplace Discrimination: Impact of Family-Friendly Policies There is a reduction in the number of compulsory working hours, allowing employees more time to spend with their families and children.
• Discrimination Culture in Saudi Oil and Gas Sector The purpose of this paper is to inspect the interrelationship between the organizational culture and discrimination in the O&G sector in Saudi Arabia.
• Racism and Related Issues in Canadian Society The first issue is that it does not review the systemic and structural aspects of racism and how it affects various institutions and society as a whole.
• LGBTQ+ Families: Discrimination and Challenges The family model directly affects the social status of family members and the well-being of children. LGBTQ+ families’ wealth level is lower than that of families in the neighborhood due to labor discrimination.
• Public Discrimination Based on the Status of Vaccination from COVID-19 It should be noted that COVID-19 is not a rare or exotic disease, but the rapid spread of this infection from the Chinese city of Wuhan led to the dramatic assignment of pandemic status to […]
• LGBTQ Members: Discrimination and Stigmatization What remains unclear from the reading is the notion that before the 1990s, people from the middle class expressed abiding and strong desires to be acknowledged as “the other sex”.
• Systemic Racism and Discrimination Thus, exploring the concept of race from a sociological perspective emphasizes the initial aspect of inequality in the foundation of the concept and provides valuable insight into the reasons of racial discrimination in modern society.
• The Racism Problem and Its Relevance The images demonstrate how deeply racism is rooted in our society and the role the media plays in spreading and combating racism.
• Gender Discrimination in Public Administration The subject of the dispute and the statement of claim was the vacancy of a traffic controller, which was initially offered to Johnson, but then, as part of the program, the place was given to […]
• How to Overcome Poverty and Discrimination As such, to give a chance to the “defeated” children and save their lives, as Alexie puts it, society itself must change the rules so that everyone can have access to this ticket to success. […]
• Aspects of Socio-Economic Sides of Racism And the answer is given in Dorothy Brown’s article for CNN “Whites who escape the attention of the police benefit because of slavery’s long reach”.. This shows that the problem of racism is actual in […]
• Sexism and Internal Discrimination at Google The recommendation in the case is that the organization should provide justice to all the employees who are victims of discrimination and sexual harassment, irrespective of the perpetrator.
• Tackling Racism in the Workplace It means that reporting racism to HR does not have the expected positive effect on workplace relations, and employees may not feel secure to notify HR about the incidences of racism.
• Issue of Racism Around the World One of the instances of racism around the world is the manifestations of violence against indigenous women, which threatens the safety of this vulnerable group and should be mitigated.
• Discrimination in the United States The paper’s authors see systemic racism as a consequence of segregation in World War I migration, which resulted in distinct communities that were not understandable to white Americans.
• Causes of Discrimination Towards Immigrants Discrimination and intolerance against immigrants, and the implications of these inflammatory convictions and conduct, determine the sociocultural and economic destiny of welcoming nations and those who aspire to make these communities their new residence.
• The Racism Problem and How to Fight It Racism is one of the common problems of the modern world which might not allow several individuals to feel a valuable part of society due to their skin color, gender, or social status.
• Environmental Racism: The Water Crisis in Flint, Michigan The situation is a manifestation of environmental racism and classism since most of the city’s population is people of color and poor. Thus, the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, is a manifestation of environmental racism […]
• The “Racism and Discrimination” Documentary The documentary “Racism and Discrimination” is about an anti-racist teacher Jane Elliot who attempts to show the white people the feeling of discrimination. The central argument of the documentary is diversity training to seize the […]
• Abortion-Related Racial Discrimination in the US In spite of being a numerical minority, Black women in the U.S.resort to abortion services rather often compared to the White population.
• Canadian Society: Sexism and the Persistent Woman Question Equality of work, payments, and respect for women is on the agenda of this party, but they lack a modern look that refers to the problems of harassment and bullying in social networks.
• Social Problems Surrounding Racism, Prejudice and Discrimination This kind of discrimination makes the students lose their self-esteem and the traumas experienced affects the mental health of these students in the long term.
• Racism and Intolerance: The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre: Crafting a Legacy by Messer elaborates on the legacy of the event and its repercussions and offers a profound analysis of the issue, which strengthened my focus of the research.
• Discussion of Gender Discrimination in Modern Society In the professional field, women are constantly in discriminatory positions of jeopardy due to their gender. However, women still need to compete in the work environment.
• Gender Roles, Expectations, and Discrimination Despite Isaac being the calmest boy in the school, he had a crush on Grace, a beautiful girl in the school who was from a wealthy family.
• The Unethical Practice of Racism in a Doctor’s Case The involvement of Barrett in the protest is both unethical for the university’s image and immoral for the community. However, the school would likely face tougher court fines and a direct order to reinstate Barrett’s […]
• The Problem of Racism in America One explanation of racism by feminist thinkers is that racism is a manifestation of the agency and power of people of a particular racial identity over others.
• Racism: “The Sum of Us” Article by McGhee The economic analysis and sociological findings in America have drawn a detailed picture of the cost of racism in America and how to overcome it together.
• Contemporary Sociological Theories and American Racism The central intention of this theory paper is to apply modern theoretical concepts from the humanities discipline of sociology to the topic of racism in the United States.
• Sex Workers: Discrimination and Criminalization The essay looks at the problem of discrimination against sex workers and the criminalization of sex work and highlights efforts that have been made towards decriminalization of the activity.
• A Cause-and-Effect Analysis of Racism and Discrimination As a result, it is vital to conduct a cause-and-effect analysis to determine the key immediate and hidden causes of racism to be able to address them in a proper manner.
• The Issue of Obesity in the Workplace: Discrimination and Its Prevention The critical detail is that the spread of the negative attitude to obesity in the workplace leads to the segregation of overweight people, stereotypical perceptions of their abilities, and prejudged attitudes toward them.
• Employment Discrimination Based on Religion In other words, although both elementary teachers had no formal title of a minister and limited religious training, the religious education and formation of students were the basic reason for the existence of the majority […]
• Discrimination Cases and Their Outcomes In the US, noticeable and influential cases tend to occur, and they remind the nation of the existing problem and reduce the effect of discrimination.
• Institutional Racism Through the Lenses of Housing Policy While not being allowed to buy property because of the racial covenants, the discriminated people had to house in other areas.
• The Problem of Age Discrimination Ageism includes many tendencies that change people; thus, ageism entails factors that influence people’s perception of each other, for example, in the work environment.
• Social Inequality and Discrimination Gender discrimination is when a person or a group of people is treated unfairly or unfairly because of their gender. Moreover, there is a classification of the thinking model in which a person exalts his […]
• Job Discrimination and Harassment Secondly, the strengths of the discrimination suit include the fact that he is the only white employee in his unit and one of the few men, suggesting a certain bias within the hiring department.
• Dealing With Race Discrimination: Impact of Color Blindness However, psychologists have been trying to employ racial color blindness as a strategy to manage diversity and intergroup affairs. However, in other places, such as in enduring structural racism, it serves as a device to […]
• Role of Racism in Contemporary US Public Opinion This source is useful because it defines racism, describes its forms, and presents the survey results about the prevalence of five types of racial bias.
• The Amazon Warehouse Employee Sexual Orientation Discrimination With the mismatch between the aspects of the work at the Amazon warehouse, the demand for the job, the ability to work successfully, and the wants and desires of the employees, it is worth noting […]
• The Mutation of Racism into New Subtle Forms The trend reflects the ability of racism to respond to the rising sensitivity of the people and the widespread rejection of prejudice.
• Racism: Healthcare Crisis and the Nurses Role The diminished admittance to mind is because of the impacts of fundamental bigotry, going from doubt of the medical care framework to coordinate racial segregation by medical care suppliers.
• Origins of Racial Discrimination Despite such limitations as statistical data being left out, I will use this article to support the historical evaluation of racism in the United States and add ineffective policing to the origins of racism.
• Language Discrimination in Modern Society It is necessary to let go of the fear of talking and writing on social networks in a language that is not native to you.
• Anti-discrimination Legislation and Supporting Case Law The response to this was the abolition of the quota system and the adoption in 1995 of the Act on Non-Discrimination of the Disabled and a package of additional regulations, in particular, on the education […]
• Beverly Greene Life and View of Racism
• Historical Racism in South Africa and the US
• Gender Stereotypes and Sexual Discrimination
• Capitalism and Racism in Past and Present
• Minstrels’ Influence on the Spread of Racism
• How Parents of Color Transcend Nightmare of Racism
• Bias and Discrimination: Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping
• A Problem of Racial Discrimination in the Modern World
• Beverly Tatum’s Monolog About Injustice of Racism
• Discrimination: Trans World Airlines, Inc. vs. Hardison
• Discrimination in the Bostock v. Clayton County Case
• Issue of Institutional Racism
• Discrimination: Chalmers v. Tulon Company of Richmond
• Discrimination: Peterson v. Wilmur Communications
• Racism in America Today: Problems of Today
• Evidence of Existence of Modern Racism
• Culture Play in Prejudices, Stereotyping, and Racism
• Latin-African Philosophical Wars on Racism in US
• Confronting Stereotypes, Racism and Microaggression
• Racial Discrimination in Dallas-Fort Worth Region
• Healthcare Call to Action: Racism in Medicine
• White Counselors Broaching Race and Racism Study
• US Federal Anti-Discrimination Laws Response
• British Colonial Racism for Aboriginal Australians
• Discrimination Against African American Nurses
• “Ocean Acidification Impairs Olfactory Discrimination…” by Munday
• American Culture and Its Racism Roots
• The Black People: Sexuality and Racial Discrimination
• Racism Evolution: Experience of African Diaspora
• The Problem of Explicit Racism
• Discrimination Against Hispanics in America
• Discrimination and Prejudice Comparison
• Racial Discrimination and Residential Segregation
• Significance of Perceived Racism:Ethnic Group Disparities in Health
• Religious Practices and Business Discrimination
• Discrimination in Canadian Society
• The Sexism Behind HB16 Bill
• Social Justice, Diversity and Workplace Discrimination
• Racism as Origin of Enslavement
• Colorblind Racism and Its Minimization
• Legacy of Racism Against African American Women and Men
• The Bill H.R.666 Anti-Racism in Public Health Act of 2021
• When Men Experience Sexism Article by Berlatsky
• Summary of the Issue About Racism
• Non-White Experience: Stereotyping and Discrimination
• How the Prison Industrial Complex Perpetuate Racism
• Social Change Project: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
• Disability Discrimination and How to Deal With It
• Battling Racism in the Modern World
• Indian Youth Against Racism: Photo Analysis
• Racism: Do We Need More Stringent Laws?
• Free Speech vs. Anti-Discrimination Practices Conflict
• Problem of Racism in Schools Overview
• US Immigration Policy and Its Correlation to Structural Racism
• The Fashion Industry: Discrimination Case
• America: Racism, Terrorism, and Ethno-Culturalism
• Discrimination and Substance Use Disorders among Latinos’ Article Review
• Racism in Healthcare and Its Implications
• Issue of Racism in Healthcare
• Workplace Discrimination Based on Attractiveness
• Racism and Statistical & Pure Discrimination
• Solving Racial Discrimination in the US: The Best Strategies
• Popular Music at the Times of Racism and Segregation
• Religious Discrimination Against a Muslim Employee
• Temporary Aid Program: Racism in Child Welfare
• The Problem of Racism in the Police Force
• Discussion Board Post: Discrimination and Harassment
• The Discrimination of African Americans
• Western Scientific Approach as a Cause of Racism
• How Does Racism Affect Health?
• Investigating the Discrimination in the Workplace
• Citizen: An American Lyric and Systemic Racism
• The Reflection of Twain’s Views on Racism in Huck Finn
• Black as a Label: Racial Discrimination
• Urban Regime Theory in Anti-Black Discrimination
• Nike: Workplace Writing and Discrimination
• Environmental Discrimination in Canada
• The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and Racial Discrimination
• Flint Water Crisis: Environmental Racism and Racial Capitalism
• Cancer Alley and Environmental Racism
• Housing Discrimination and Federal Laws Analysis
• Cancer Alley and Environmental Racism in the US
• American Healthcare in the Context of Racism
• Discrimination and Politics of Gender and Sexuality
• Discussion of COVID-19 and Discrimination
• Origins of Modern Racism and Ancient Slavery
• Discrimination of Employees With Physical and Cognitive Impairments in the Workplace
• Contribution of Racism to Economic Recession Due to COVID-19
• What Stories Can Teach Us About Racism
• Racism in Canadian Medical System
• Profit and Racism in the Prisons of the United States
• Everyday Sexism in Relation to Everyday Disablism
• Discrimination and Health of Immigrants in Canada
• Life History Interview: Discrimination as an African American
• Discrimination. Unequal or Unfair Treatment of Individuals
• Rio Tinto: Case Study About Racism and Discrimination
• Racism: US v. The Amistad and Dred Scott v. Sandford
• Discrimination in the Workplace: How to Solve It
• Race and Color Discrimination Against US Employees
• Discrimination Against People of Color and Queer Community
• Critical Social Problems Research: Racism and Racial Domination
• Discrimination as an External Manifestation of Societal Ills
• Business and Corporate Law: Discrimination Case Analysis
• Harassment Law – Tennie Pierce Discrimination
• Criminal Justice: Racial Prejudice and Racial Discrimination
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
• Manifestations of Gender Discrimination in Insurance
• Discrimination Against Customers With Disabilities
• Work Place Discrimination
• The History of Racial Discrimination and Its Effects on the American Races
• Protections Against Employment Discrimination
• Discrimination Complaint on a Civil Litigation Processes
• Racial Discrimination in the US Criminal Justice System
• Policing in America: The Issue of Violence and Racism
• LGBTQ Rights: Sexual Minority Members Discrimination
• Institutional and Interpersonal Racism, White Privilege
• Racism and Sexism as a Threat
• The Aspects of Discrimination
• The Development of a Measure to Assess Symbolic Racism
• Syrian Conflict and Women Rights: Way to Equality or Another Discrimination
• Racism and Tokenism in Bon Appetit: Leadership and Ethical Perspective
• Ethnic Stratification, Prejudice & Discrimination
• From “Scientific” Racism to Local Histories of Lynching
• Equal Pay Act: Pay Discrimination
• Sexism Against Women in the Military
• Subjective Assumptions and Medicine: Racism
• Anti-Discrimination Laws in the U.S.
• Discrimination Against Muslim in the USA
• Racism Experiences in the Workplace in the UK
• Race and Ethnicity, Other Minorities and Discrimination
• The History of Immigration to the United States and the Nature of Racism
• Gender and the Problem of Discrimination
• Discrimination and the Hiring Process
• Legal Process About Discrimination
• Race and Racism in the USA: The Origins and the Future
• Genetics of Sexual Orientation: Privacy, Discrimination, and Social Engineering
• Environmental Racism in the United States: Concept, Solution to the Problem
• Discrimination in Puerto Rico
• Protecting George Wallace’s Organized Racism
• How Can the World Unite to Fight Racism?
• Fighting Anti-Muslim Sentiments
• Female Workers Discrimination and Affirmative Action
• Ideological Support Arab Muslim Discrimination
• The Most Prominent Forms of Discrimination
• Discrimination of Women in IT Sphere
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace and Better Management Skills
• Racism in America and Its Literature
• Race, Class and Gender. Racism on Practice
• Racism: Term Definition and History of Display of Racism Remarks
• Institutional Discrimination, Prejudice and Racism
• The Glass Ceiling Term: Discrimination in the Healthcare Sector
• Racism in Contemporary North America
• Racial Discrimination of Women in Modern Community
• Racial and Gender Discrimination in the Workplace and Housing
• History of Sexism: Features in the Legal System
• Racism Without Racists in Patriarchal Society
• Racism in Employment Practices
• Asians Discrimination in USA
• Discrimination in the United States of America
• Racism: Definition and Consequences
• The Problem of Racism in Canada
• The Discrimination Against Women in United Kingdom
• Exploring and Comparing Racism and Ethnocentrism
• Discrimination Against Black People
• Intraracial Discrimination: Grace Hsiang’s Article’s Analysis
• Ethics of Gender Identity Discrimination at Work
• Racism Cannot Be Unlearned Through Education
• Racism Among Students of Swinburne University
• Racism in Movies: Stereotypes and Prejudices
• Racism Concepts: Influence of Politics
• Racism: Resolving by Means of Education
• Sexual Discrimination in Astra Company
• Intersectionality Oppression and Discrimination in Latin America
• Sexism in Media: The Effect of Media on Adolescent Females
• Prejudice and Discrimination in Canada
• The Issues of Racial Discrimination in US
• Price Discrimination in Healthcare and Family Health Care Insurance
• Facing Racism: A Short Story
• Prejudice as the Root Cause of the Discrimination
• Sexual Discrimination Scandal: Astra-USA
• Astra Way: Sexual Discrimination Scandal
• Business Ethics: Discrimination Against Employees
• White Supremacy as an Extreme Racism Group
• The Impact of Catholic Views on Discrimination Against Women and Minorities in the Workplace
• Gender and Cultural Discrimination in Modern Society
• Holocaust: From Discrimination to Concentration Camps
• Muslim Discrimination in the UK After the July 7 Attacks
• American Racism: So Why Isn’t Obama White?
• Modern Racism in American Society
• Obama, the First US Black President: Is Racism Over?
• Analyzing Discrimination Against Jews
• Philosophy of Human Conduct: Institutional Racism
• Explaining Persistence of Discrimination and Privilege
• Literature on Latina Women and Sexism
• Racism and Civil Rights: Then and Now
• Employee Issues: Gender Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Discrimination
• Primary School Teaching: Challenging Racism
• Racism and White Supremacism in the American Government
• Discrimination in Recruiting & Promotional Aspects: Tanglewood Company
• Disability Discrimination Laws: Workers’ Compensation
• Human Resource Management: US Age Discrimination Act
• “Red Lining” – A Type of Discrimination
• Social Construction of Race and Racism
• The Problem of Gender-Based Employment Discrimination
• Discrimination Against Gays in the Military
• Canada: Discrimination in British North America
• Racism Issues: Looking and Stereotype
• The Problem of Gender Discrimination
• Hurricane Katrine Exposed Racism in New Orleans
• Muslim Society, Life Meaning, and Discrimination
• Affirmative Action and Reverse Discrimination
• AIDS in a Different Culture Review: Cultural Differences, Prejudice, and Racism
• Anti-Racism Policy Statement in Australian Schools
• Racism, Minorities and Majorities Analysis
• Chicano Discrimination in Higher Education
• Racism and Ethnicity in Latin America
• Problem of Racism to Native Americans in Sport
• Veiled Sexism in the United Arab Emirates
• Racial Discrimination in Song ‘Strange Fruit’
• Racism Effects on the Premier League Players
• Discrimination in Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office
• Social Psychology: Racism in Jury Behaviour
• Racism in the United States of the 21st Century
• Michael Blechman: ‘Diversity’ Looks a Lot Like Old-Fashioned Discrimination
• The Limits of Price Discrimination
• A Conduct Parameter Model of Price Discrimination
• Appiah’s Ideas of Racism, Equality, and Justice
• Discrimination Against Women and Immigrants at Work
• Consumer Welfare and Price Discrimination
• Racism in Media: Positive and Negative Impact
• Poverty, Stratification and Gender Discrimination
• Racism: World Politicians Discussion
• Racism: Once Overt, but Now Covert
• Lawsuits on Religious Discrimination
• Institutions and Gender Discrimination Issues
• Environmental Racism and Indigenous Knowledge
• Racism Effects on Criminal Justice System
• Ableism: Bias Against People With Disabilities
• Sexism: Gender, Class and Power
• Organizational Behavior: Group Size and Discrimination
• Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination: Social Influence
• Rights, Equity and the State: Sexual Orientation and Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination on Birth Stage
• Scientific Racism: the Eugenics of Social Darwinism
• Racism in African American Studies and History
• Islam and Racism: Malcolm X’s Letter From Mecca
• Prejudice and Discrimination in Policing
• Racism vs. “Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself”
• Racism in Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgenders
• Immigrant Employment Issues and Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination in the United States
• Price Discrimination and Psychological Techniques
• Robert Senske vs Sybase Inc: Labor Discrimination Case
• Evian and Aquafina Waters: Stimulus Discrimination Concept
• Employment Discrimination and Law Amendment
• Bias and Discrimination in Early Childhood Care Centers
• Sexism and Presidential Elections in the USA
• Legal and Ethical Issues: Discrimination Remedy
• The Effects of Labor Market Discrimination
• Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
• Racism in Australian Football League Sporting Clubs
• Thomas Jefferson on Civil Rights, Slavery, Racism
• Discrimination in Admission Policies Criteria
• Heterosexism and Its Explanation
• Discrimination and Employee Performance Studies
• Workplace Gender Equality and Discrimination Laws
• Racial Discrimination Forms Against Afro-Americas
• Positive Discrimination of Women in Hiring and Promotion
• Racial Discrimination in Employment
• The Problem of Discrimination Against the LGBT Community
• Fair Treatment and Discrimination in the Workplace
• Racial Bias and Discrimination in Law Enforcement
• White Privilege and Racism in American Society
• Racism, Privilege and Stereotyping Concepts
• Gender Discrimination and Shared Responsibility
• Kansas State University Community’s Racism Issues
• Australian Anti-Discrimination Acts and Their Provision
• Racism Against Roma and Afro-American People
• Sexism and Male Nurses
• Gender, Size Discrimination and Fatphobia
• Impact of Racism as a Social Determinant of Health
• Racism in the United States: Before and After World War II
• Race-Norming and Discrimination Issues
• Baldwin’s and Coates’ Anti-Racism Communication
• The Problem of Racism and Injustice
• Racism as the Epitome of Moral Bankruptcy
• Sports: Discrimination, Match-Fixing and Doping
• Discrimination Against Women and Men of Different Races
• Employee Discrimination and Legal Protection
• Discrimination Against Refugees in a New Country
• Weight Discrimination and Beauty Prejudice in the HRM
• Hate Groups as Drivers of Discrimination
• Racism and Society: Different Perspectives
• Racism in Trump’s and Clinton’s Campaigns
• Obama’s Presidency and Racism in the USA
• Colin Powell and the Fight Against Structural Racism
• Workplace Discrimination and Legislation in the US
• Discrimination During the Recruitment Process
• Direct, Intentional, Institutional Discrimination
• Age Discrimination and Workplace Segregation
• Hate Crimes and Anti-Discrimination Laws
• Sexism and the Founding Fathers
• White Police’s Discrimination Against Black People
• Discrimination in Lending Practices
• Racial Discrimination in Employment in the US
• Racism in Media and Objective Coverage
• California Real Estate Discrimination
• Diversity and Discrimination in Hiring Process
• Workplace Discrimination Complaints
• Racism Elimination and Sociological Strategies
• Discrimination and Profiling in “Crash” Movie
• Employment Discrimination and Equal Opportunities
• Ableism in Education, Workplace and Community
• Gender Discrimination in History and Nowadays
• Social and Cultural Diversity and Racism
• Stereotyping and Discrimination in Advertising
• Does Unconscious Racism Exist by Lincoln Quillian
• Muslims in the US: Prejudice and Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination Issue at the Workplace
• Racism and Discrimination in Religion Context
• Women’s Difference: Sex Discrimination
• Workplace Discrimination: Data Collection Methods
• US Teachers’ Rights, Dismissal, and Discrimination
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination at the Workplace
• Colorblindness as a Reason for Workplace Discrimination
• Discrimination in the USA: Cases and Policies
• Racism: Theoretical Perspectives and Research Methods
• Racism in the Setting the Rising Sun Postcard
• Car Pricing and Discrimination in Chicago
• The Effects of Racism on Learners Academic Outcomes
• Darwin’s and Galton’s Scientific Racism
• Eli Lilly & Company’s Discrimination Class Action
• The Voting Rights Act and Racial Discrimination
• English Literature Impact on Racism Among Africans
• Discrimination Complaint and the Litigation Process
• Price Discrimination Concept in Economics
• Jerrell Shofner’s Views on the Racial Discrimination
• Prejudice and Discrimination Reduction Prospects
• People with Disabilities: The Systemic Ableism
• The US Government and Discrimination With Muslims
• Asian American Communities and Racism in the USA
• Racial Discrimination and Its Effects on Employees
• Racism in the USA: Causes, Consequences and Solutions
• Discrimination of Women and Minorities in Firms
• Negative Aspects of Discrimination at the Workplace
• Sexism as Perceived by the Young Men
• Racial Discrimination in Social Institutions
• Effects of Discrimination in the Workplace
• King’s and Obama’s Views on Racism in America
• Lanning v. SEPTA: Employment Discrimination and Testing Practices
• Girls Discrimination in the Modern Educational System
• Racism Manifests in the Contemporary Society
• Racism in USA: Virginia Laws on Slavery
• Racism as a Reality of Modern American Society
• Homosexual Discrimination in Our Society: Causes and Effects
• Ethnicity and Issues of Racism in the United States
• Rodney King’s Case of Racial Discrimination
• Discrimination by Appearance in the USA
• Educational Attainment and Racial Discrimination
• Racial Discrimination Against Asian American Students
• Racism Issue and Solutions
• Addressing Discrimination at Workplace
• On Language Grounds: Discrimination of International Students
• Intersectionality and Gendered Racism
• International Students Discrimination in the USA
• Racism and Education in the United States
• Discrimination Due to Language Differences
• Racism in Michigan University
• Gender Discrimination in Russian Workplaces
• Racism and Sexism Ethical Problem
• Conflict and Racial Hostility
• “Going for the Look, but Risking Discrimination” by Steven Greenhouse
• Racism as a Case of Ignorance and Prejudice
• Racism and Segregation in American History
• Discrimination Definition and Characteristics
• Humanism, Racism, and Speciesism
• Discrimination Definition, Its Causes and Effects
• Racism in American Schools
• Racist America: Current Realities and Future Prospects
• Sexism in the English Language
• Racism: Impact on Minorities in American Society
• Discrimination in the Workplace: Denial of Promotion
• Asian-Americans Workplace Discrimination
• Self-Interest and Discrimination in Sociology
• Civil Movements: Discrimination and Its Consequences
• Racism Against Native Americans
• The Recruitment of Employees and Discrimination
• Gender Discrimination in the Workplace: Resolving Glass Ceiling Issue
• Obama’s First Election and Racism
• Adolf Hitler: From Patriotism to Racism
• Discrimination and Affirmative Action
• Problems of Environmental Racism
• How Obama’s First Election Has Been Affected by Racism?
• Race Discrimination in the USA
• How Different Young Australians Experience Racism?
• Racial Discrimination in Organizations
• Understanding Race and Racism
• In Australia, Are Cultural Rights a Form of Racism?
• Racism, Stigma, and Eexism – Sociology
• African Americans: Race and Ethnic Discrimination
• Racism and Ethnicity in United States
• Ethnic Stratification, Prejudice, Discrimination: Hispanics
• Problems of Ethnic Discrimination in US
• ‘Animal Rights’ Activists and Racism
• Diversity and Discrimination in the Workplace: The Role in Activities of an Organization
• Price Discrimination Economics
• Sex Discrimination at Wal-Mart
• Religious and Racal Discrimination in Eboo Patel’s “Acts of Faith”
• The Racial Discrimination Among Employers
• The Discrimination Against Women Employees in the Telecommunication Industry
• Theories of Cultural Diversity: Anthropological Theory and Discrimination
• Psychological Impact: Stereotyping, Prejudice and Racism
• Discrimination and Affirmative Action: New Haven Firefighter’s Case
• Multicultural Psychology: Cultural Identity and Racism
• Employing Individuals to Fill in Vacancies in the Company
• How Fake News Use Satire as a Medium to Address Issues on Racism?
• Young Australians and Racism
• Price Discrimination and Monopolistic Competition
• Relationship Between Institutionalized Racism and Marxism
• Statelessness and Discrimination
• Discrimination Against Black Women
• Democratic Racism in Canada
• Social Construction of “Race” and “Racism” and Its Relationship to Democratic Racism in Canada
• Ethnicity: Oppression and Racism
• The Impact of Prejudice and Discrimination
• Age discrimination in Employment
• Discrimination in the Labor Market
• Racism in Family Therapy by Laszloffy and Hardy
• The Roma Problems and the Causes of Racism
• Racial Discrimination in the US
• Does Competition Eliminate Discrimination?
• Are HIV/AIDS Carriers Suffering From Discrimination?
• Does Ethnic Discrimination Vary Across Minority Groups?
• Can Competition Among Employers Reduce Governmental Discrimination?
• Does Gender Discrimination Contribute to India’s Population Imbalance?
• Are Racial Profiling and Police Discrimination an Issue?
• Does Health Predict the Reporting of Racial Discrimination or Do Reports of Discrimination Predict Health?
• Can Gender-Fair Language Reduce Gender Stereotyping and Discrimination?
• Does Market Liberalisation Reduce Gender Discrimination?
• Are Spatial Frequency Cues Used for Whisker-Based Active Discrimination?
• Does Political Competition Lessen Ethnic Discrimination?
• Can Social Contact Reduce Prejudice and Discrimination?
• Does Protecting Older Workers From Discrimination Make It Harder to Get Hired?
• Are the Processes Underlying Discrimination the Same for Women and Men?
• Does Racial Discrimination Exist Within the NBA?
• Can Social Media Lead to Labor Market Discrimination?
• Does Religious Discrimination Really Exist in Todays America?
• Did Fredy Villanueva Face Racial Discrimination?
• Does the Stimulus Type Influence Horses Performance in a Quantity Discrimination Task?
• Can the Government Deter Discrimination?
• Do Anti-discrimination Laws Alleviate Labor Market Duality?
• Can the One-Drop Rule Tell Us Anything About Racial Discrimination?
• Does Banning Price Discrimination Promote Entry and Increase Welfare?
• Have Anti-discrimination Housing Laws Worked?
• How Does Discrimination Affect People With Mental Illness?
• What Exactly Does Racial Discrimination Mean?
• Should the Racial Discrimination Act Be Reformed?
• What Are the Causes of Discrimination?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 26). 618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/discrimination-essay-examples/

"618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/discrimination-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples'. 26 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/discrimination-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/discrimination-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "618 Thought-provoking Discrimination Essay Ideas & Examples." October 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/discrimination-essay-examples/.

• Gender Inequality Research Topics
• Racial Profiling Essay Topics
• Gender Stereotypes Essay Titles
• Indigenous People Research Topics
• Oppression Research Topics
• Aliens Research Topics
• Prejudice Essay Topics
• Global Issues Essay Topics

Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination Research Paper

View sample prejudice, racism, and discrimination research paper. Browse research paper examples for more inspiration. If you need a psychology research paper written according to all the academic standards, you can always turn to our experienced writers for help. This is how your paper can get an A! Feel free to contact our writing service for professional assistance. We offer high-quality assignments for reasonable rates.

Prejudice (i.e., biased and usually negative attitudes toward social groups and their members), racism (a negatively oriented prejudice toward certain groups seen as biologically different and inferior to one’s own), and discrimination (unfair behavior or unequal treatment accorded others on the basis of their group membership or possession of an arbitrary trait, such as skin color) have been favored topics of research and theorizing for many years by psychologists—especially social and personality psychologists—around the world. Of these three concepts, prejudice is perhaps the most central and important. Prejudice underlies racism and is also believed to motivate acts of discrimination. Between 1887 and 2000, nearly 4,000 papers were published on prejudice in journals covered by the American Psychological Association’s electronic database of published psychological literature. Since the 1950s, in particular, the pace of psychological research on prejudice has steadily increased.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

Much like prejudice as a topic in international prose and poetry (Larson, 1971), the psychology of prejudice reflects two main themes: (a) the psychology of the bigot, which seeks to understand why some people are prejudiced toward certain groups and their members, and (b) the psychology of the victim of prejudice and discrimination, which focuses on the psychological correlates and consequences of experiencing or perceiving oneself to be an object or target of prejudice or discrimination. These two principal themes likewise provide the basic organization for this research paper.

Research on the psychology of the bigot far exceeds that on the psychology of the victim of prejudice and discrimination. One reason for this differential emphasis undoubtedly stems from the optimistic view that if the psychology of bigotry could be truly understood, scientifically based remedial efforts could then be devised and deployed to reduce, if not eliminate, prejudice at its source within the bigot. Yet, even if we suddenly possessed a magic bullet that instantly turned bigots into tolerant people, a strong case could be made for a psychology of the victim. Among other reasons, some of the prejudice and discrimination confronting members of oppressed groups comes from structural and institutional forms of racism, sexism, and all other “isms” rather than being solely due to intolerant and bigoted individuals. The task of addressing the social structural bases of prejudice within society and its institutions is apt to be far more daunting and difficult than reducing prejudices in individuals with psychological or other means—a formidable enough challenge in its own right.

The extant literature on prejudice is also so vast and diverse that one paper cannot realistically suffice to capture it all. Accordingly, this research paper’s goal is to survey major perspectives and research foci on the aforementioned two themes underlying the psychology of prejudice at the turn of the twenty-first century. The amount of psychological research on prejudice has, to some extent, waxed and waned over the last five decades of the twentieth century. The prejudice literature has also been characterized by different emphases or waves, such as whether prejudice is conceptualized as a form of psychopathology or is instead viewed as being the product of normal cognitive processes (Duckitt, 1994). This research paper focuses on the historical continuity of key ideas and psychological explanations about prejudice over the past several decades and emphasizes links between classic and contemporary research on prejudice.

We begin, then, with the psychology of bigotry. Under this principal theme, the classic perspectives of authoritarian personality, just world, and belief congruence theories are considered first. Though proposed in the 1950s and 1960s, these perspectives are still with us and remain important to our contemporary understanding of prejudice. For example, by focusing on beliefs and values, belief congruence theory presaged and anticipated more recent theories of racism (considered later under the rubric of ambivalence approaches to prejudice) and also has links to more recent perspectives on prejudice and impression formation. After considering ambivalence approaches, our focus shifts to automatic and controlled processing approaches to prejudice, especially the dissociation model and recent innovations in measuring prejudice with automatic activation procedures. The final section under the psychology of bigotry highlights integrative approaches (viz., social dominance theory, integrated threat theory, and the multicomponent approach to intergroup attitudes), each of which incorporates insights from multiple perspectives in seeking to understand prejudice better.

The psychology of the victim of prejudice and discrimination—the second principal theme of this research paper— begins with a consideration of attributional ambiguity perspectives, focusing on the complex but important issue of whether and when attributing a rejection or failure to prejudice can buffer one’s sense of well-being and self-esteem. Following that, the stressfulness of perceiving oneself to be a target of prejudice or discrimination and the consequences of stereotype threat for task performance, respectively, are considered. Finally, the relationship of relative deprivation and perceived discrimination to protest and desires to take corrective action is considered. I begin, though, with the psychology of bigotry.

The Psychology of Bigotry

Authoritarian personality theories, the original theory of the authoritarian personality.

The original theory of the authoritarian personality (OTAP), proposed by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950), was the first comprehensive and systematic attempt by psychologists to understand theoretically the roots of prejudice and to link ethnic, racial, religious, and ethnocentric prejudices to personality. Adopting the research methodologies of mid-twentieth-century social and clinical psychology along with a guiding psychoanalytic theoretical perspective, Adorno et al. (1950) postulated that the origins of the prejudice-prone authoritarian personality stemmed from a particular pattern of childhood influences and parental practices (see Brown, 1967, for an excellent in-depth analysis of the OTAP). Specifically, the authoritarian personality was the presumed result of an upbringing by parents who, among other things, (a) disciplined their child harshly, (b) emphasized duties and obligations instead of affection in childparent relations, (c) made their love dependent on the child’s unquestioning obedience, and (d) were status-oriented by being ingratiating toward those of higher social status but contemptuous toward those of lesser social status.

According to the OTAP, the child in such a family develops hostility but cannot express it toward the harsh, frustrating, but feared parents. This submission leads the child to develop a sense of itself as dependent upon its parents and unable to defy their authority. Moreover, the child in an authoritarian family presumably deploys an array of defense mechanisms to deal with the repressed hostility felt toward its parents. By identifying with the aggressor and following a strategy of “if you can’t beat them, join them,” the child comes to idealize its parents and to identify with established authority in general. Repressed hostility and other impulses unacceptable to its parents, such as aggression and sex, are displaced and projected by the child onto minority and subordinate groups as safe, alternative outlets. As a result, the child in an authoritarian family presumably develops a rigid personality organization characterized by a moralistic attitude toward unconventional people and practices, prejudice toward minority and other out-groups, and a tendency to idealize power, status, strength, and toughness but to disdain tenderness, weakness, and self-introspection.

The OTAP has several implications flowing from the central idea that prejudice toward ethnic and racial minorities and other target groups reflects an underlying, deep-seated personality structure in the bigot. First, prejudice should relate to attitudes toward a variety of issues and objects (e.g., attitudes toward sex, power, and political-economic issues) that would otherwise appear unrelated to prejudice and to one another because their interrelations reflect deeper, unconscious processes and connections. (OTAP’s tenet that prejudice is rooted in unconscious processes is clearly echoed in contemporary theories of prejudice emphasizing automatic cognitive processing, described later, as an important feature of individuals’ prejudicial beliefs and their expression.) Second, the authoritarian personality would be prejudiced toward a wide variety of target groups. If an authoritarian person’s prejudice toward one group were somehow blocked, it would presumably be expressed, in a process of symptom substitution, toward other groups. Third, if prejudice is indeed deeply rooted in a personality structure, it should be difficult to change and would require depth-oriented techniques, such as psychotherapy and insight, that promote and produce profound personality change in the bigoted individual.

Adorno et al. (1950) attempted to validate the OTAP, in good part, by developing a personality scale, the California F (for fascism) scale, whose items were constructed to tap the right-wing political ideology and belief syndrome that they theorized as comprising the authoritarian personality. U.S. respondents’ F scale scores correlated positively, as hypothesized, with their scores on other attitude scales designed to assess anti-Semitism, negative attitudes toward Blacks and other U.S. minority groups, and U.S. ethnocentrism. The F scale was subsequently incorporated into numerous studies in the 1950s and 1960s. Though criticized at the time of its initial appearance and later for keying all its items in one direction and not correcting for acquiescence response set, the F scale was still sporadically used by psychological and survey researchers well up to the 1980s. It remained for Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996), in a trilogy of books reflecting often painstaking psychometric research, to demonstrate conclusively the California F scale’s serious inadequacies as a measure of proneness to prejudice and to refocus the conceptualization of the authoritarian personality into a more rigorously defined construct and scale of rightwing authoritarianism.

The Theory of Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Altemeyer (1981) persuasively detailed the inadequacies of the California F scale, most notably its lack of scale homogeneity and its saturation with response sets, especially acquiescence. Even more important, however, he created a psychometrically and conceptually appropriate scale of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) that he has continued to refine (see Altemeyer, 1996). Altemeyer defined RWA as the covariation of three attitudes: (a) authoritarian submission (i.e., ready submission to societally established authorities), (b) authoritarian aggression (i.e., aggression sanctioned by established authorities toward defined targets or social groups), and (c) conventionalism (i.e., adherence to conventions endorsed by societally established authorities). Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996) has extensively documented RWA’s correlates, often with numerous replications. For example, RWA is concentrated more among politicians of the right, fundamentalist Protestants, and the poorly educated. Also, parents outscore their university-age offspring in RWA.

Altemeyer’s approach to RWA differs from the OTAP in several important regards (Dion, 1990). By contrast to the OTAP’s psychoanalytic perspective, Altemeyer has favored social learning theory as an explanation for the development of RWA in individuals, especially Bandura’s versions with their emphases on vicarious learning and self-regulation by cognitive processes. Social learning theory has provided Altemeyer with a heuristic framework for explaining the contribution to RWA of personal experiences in one’s adolescence, of parents and peers, of university education and parenthood, and the paradoxical role of religion in fostering RWA by creating a sense of self-righteousness. Second, whereas the OTAP portrayed authoritarianism as a personality dimension with its developmental roots in infancy and early childhood, Altemeyer has viewed RWAas an attitudinal orientation that emerges and crystallizes in early adolescence, suggesting that it may be more readily amenable to change within the individual.

Finally, in addition to documenting its empirical links to prejudice, Altemeyer (1988, 1996) has particularly focused on the political correlates of RWA. He has shown repeatedly that individuals (usually university students) scoring high on the RWA scale are reportedly more than willing and ready to punish others and to infringe upon and curtail their civil rights, especially those who threaten the social order. RWA scale scores have also been found to discriminate well between provincial and state legislators in Canada and the United States belonging to right- and left-wing political parties. Knowing politicians’ RWA scale scores appears to be a useful piece of information for predicting their attitudes and behaviors.

Research by Altemeyer and others indicates that the RWA scale correlates between .30 and .50 with measures of prejudice toward racial and ethnic minorities and ethnocentrism scales. RWA correlates negatively with internal motivation (e.g., personal standards) and positively with external motivation (e.g., social or peer pressure) by White people to respond without prejudice toward Black people (Plant & Devine, 1998). RWA consistently correlates more highly, between .5 and .6, with homophobia and negative attitudes toward homosexuals. Indeed, Altemeyer (1996) contended that RWA is the single individual difference variable most relevant for predicting attitudes toward homosexuals, especially negative ones.

Studies by other investigators have likewise documented a consistently negative relationship between RWA and attitudes toward homosexuals and homosexuality (e.g., Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Lippa & Arad, 1999; Whitley, 1999), strongly reinforcingAltemeyer’s conclusion in this regard. The negative attitudes toward homosexuals by those scoring high in RWA are due to perceived impediments of homosexuals and homosexuality to one’s values (Haddock et al., 1993) or to religiousness. Finally, a recent lexical approach to mapping the structure of social attitudes by Saucier (2000) showed that authoritarianism and RWA (along with conservatism and religiousness) defined the first and largest of three factors in the domain of social attitudes and beliefs. Clearly, the authoritarianism construct, especially RWA, remains important in psychological research on prejudice and in linking prejudice to individuals’personality and attitudes.

Just World Theory

An individual’s belief in a just world (BJW) is another psychological dimension relevant for understanding individuals’ reactions to ethnic and racial minorities and victims of ill fortune. According to Lerner’s (1980) just world theory, we all believe, to a varying extent, in a just world where people get what they deserve and also deserve what they get. The BJW presumably enables us to view our world as a safe, predictable place where we can expect to obtain desired rewards and to avoid unpleasant outcomes. Becoming aware of an innocent victim who does not deserve to suffer, however, threatens one’s BJW. Individuals go to considerable lengths to maintain and protect their BJW in the face of contrary information. For example, classic experiments by Lerner and his colleagues have demonstrated that when unable to prevent or compensate for an innocent victim’s suffering, observers preserved their BJW by derogating the victim and seeing the suffering as deserved (see Lerner, 1980).

Questionnaire measures of the BJW consistently correlate with the tendency to blame visible victims (e.g., ethnic and racial minorities, the unemployed, and immigrants and asylum seekers) with samples of university and community respondents in the United States, Canada, and Europe (see Montada & Lerner, 1998). However, the BJW construct is conceptually and empirically distinguishable from authoritarianism. Using factor analyses of questionnaire measures from a sample of Canadian university students in Ontario, Lerner (1978) showed that authoritarianism (as measured by Rokeach’s 1960 F scale) and BJW loaded on separate, independent factors. Authoritarianism loaded on a xenophobia factor characterized by high loading for authoritarianism, adherence to the Protestant ethic (a belief in the virtues of hard work and effort), attitudes toward social changes, and negative attitudes toward both minority groups and out-groups (e.g., Americans). By contrast, the BJW loaded on a win-lose view of the world, in which winners (e.g., Americans) were viewed positively, while losers (e.g., Native Indians and Métis) were negatively appraised. The BJW also correlates positively, but only modestly (i.e., between .1 and .3) with RWA (Lambert, Burroughs, & Chasteen, 1998).

It is interesting that blaming victims for their ill fate strengthens the observer’s BJW (see Lerner & Montada,1998). In turn, believing oneself to have been victimized as a target of prejudice or discrimination also appears to affect the BJW adversely. Birt and Dion (1987) found that in Toronto, the greater the perceived discrimination against homosexuals as a group, the weaker was the BJW among gay and lesbian respondents. Thus, jus tworld theory and the BJW have relevance for the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination as well as the psychology of bigotry.

Belief Congruence Theory

Rokeach (1960) criticized the OTAP for focusing on rightwing authoritarianism, contending that authoritarianism need not be tied inextricably to either right- or left-wing political views. As an alternative, he proposed the construct of closedmindedness or dogmatism and developed several Dogmatism Scales in an attempt to measure authoritarianism and to assess general authoritarianism of the political left as well as the political right. Unfortunately, his Dogmatism Scales possess serious psychometric limitations and are relatively little used today. Moreover, if it exists, left-wing authoritarianism would involve resisting and opposing conventional and established authorities (see Altemeyer, 1996, for an interesting discussion of dogmatism and left-wing authoritarianism and some new prospective scales for measuring these dimensions).

In the same book on the open and closed mind, however, Rokeach, Smith, and Evans (1960) also proposed an important perspective on prejudice: belief congruence theory (BCT). According to BCT, individuals cognitively organize their psychological world along the lines of belief congruence, liking those with similar beliefs and disliking those with dissimilar beliefs. Although the link between attitude similarity and interpersonal attraction had already been well demonstrated by that point, Rokeach et al.’s provocative contribution was to extent it to the domain of prejudice and to argue that all forms of prejudice were essentially different forms of belief prejudice. Thus, according to BCT, the racial conflict between Blacks and Whites in the United States is not due to race per se but rather to opposite or conflicting stands on key issues such as affirmative action in employment and education. Likewise, the antipathies between English and French in Canada are not due to ethnicity per se, but rather to conflict over the issue of Quebec’s role, and the place of the French language, within Canada. In other words, racial and ethnic prejudice, as two examples, presumably reflect belief prejudice.

BCT clearly suggests research in which belief is pitted against group membership characteristics such as race or ethnicity. Rokeach et al. (1960), for example, had samples of White university students from northern and southern parts of the United States rate their desires to be friends with members of pairs of stimulus persons whose races and beliefs, both race-relevant and -irrelevant, were specified. For example, Type R pairs varied in race but kept belief constant (e.g., a White person who believes in God vs. a Black person who believes in God). Type B pairs kept race constant but varied belief (a Black person who believes in God vs. a Black person who is an atheist). Type RB pairs varied both race and belief simultaneously. Differences in friendliness ratings for members of a stimulus person pair were taken as reflecting discrimination. A critical comparison suggested by BCT involved a choice between an in-group member with dissimilar beliefs versus an out-group member with beliefs similar to one’s own. For this pair comparison, individuals’ preference typically goes to the latter, consistent with BCT. Likewise, Rokeach and Mezei (1966) showed that belief similarity excels race in predicting pBibliography: for work partners among employment applicants following actual interpersonal interaction and discussion between Black and White participants with similar and dissimilar beliefs on an issue.

BCT remains as relevant a theory of prejudice in the twenty-first century as it was in the latter half of the twentieth century, largely due to the research over the past several decades of Insko and his colleagues (e.g., Cox, Smith, & Insko, 1996; Insko, Nacoste, & Moe, 1983) as well as recent contributions by Biernat and her colleagues (Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996; Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & Crandall, 1996). For example, Insko et al. (1983) reviewed the literature and compared the strong version of BCT (when social pressure is absent, only belief determines racial-ethnic discrimination) to a weak version (when social pressure is absent, belief is more important than race in determining discrimination or prejudice). They concluded that the weak version of BCT was clearly supported by the evidence, whereas the strong version was more problematic (e.g., race effects in the form of ingroup favoritism occur even in the absence of social pressure).

Cox et al. (1996) reported results of three cross-sectional surveys conducted over several decades of Black and White teenagers sampled from a North Carolina school system who had responded to stimulus persons varying in race and belief, using a belief discrepancy manipulation in which dissimilar beliefs were ones that respondents themselves had previously attributed to the other race. For White respondents, race effects (i.e., preferring their own race to Blacks on social distance and other attitude measures) steadily declined across three points in time from 1966 to 1993, as did perceived disapproval of interracial contacts and relationships. The effects of belief similarity affected all of their dependent variables and were constant across decades for White respondents. For Black respondents, more complex findings were obtained: Specifically, race effects (i.e., in-group preference) did not decline between 1979 and 1993 (the only two time periods including Black respondents), and belief similarity primarily influenced same-race rather than interracial evaluations.

BCT has clear links to contemporary perspectives on impression formation and prejudice. For example, Cox et al. (1996) noted that BCT is very similar to Fiske and Neuberg’s (1990) temporal-continuum model of impression formation. In the latter model, a perceiver begins with categorical information (viz., race, ethnicity, sex, age, etc.) about a person but proceeds, if time permits and circumstances require, to process individuating information (e.g., beliefs of the stimulus person). Like Fiske and Neuberg’s model, BCT deals with the issue of when individuating information (viz., beliefs and values) about a stimulus person overcomes competing categorical information (viz., group membership) in the impressions we form of others. Likewise, the importance that BCT accords to perceived belief dissimilarity in eliciting prejudice is shared today by terror management theory, a perspective focusing on the psychological consequences of being aware of, or sensitized to, one’s mortality (Solomon, Greenberg, & Pyszczynski, 2000).

BCT has also been extended to the value domain. Schwartz and Struch (1989) proposed that perceptions of value dissimilarities between groups underlie intergroup antagonisms and undercut feelings of shared humanity. Likewise, Biernat, Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996) reported studies in which group membership cues (race and sexual orientation, respectively, in separate studies) were crossed with value violation (e.g., a lazy vs. dependable worker in the race study or a good vs. bad parental example in the sexual orientation study).

Value similarity had a strong effect on stimulus person ratings in both studies and a stronger effect than group membership characteristics (i.e., whether the stimulus person being evaluated was an in-group or out-group member from the perspective of the respondent).

When only group membership cues are available, perceivers infer that an out-group member has dissimilar beliefs, triggering a discriminatory or prejudicial response toward her or him, whether the out-group is defined by race or sexual orientation (see Stein, Hardyck, & Smith, 1965; Pilkington & Lydon, 1997). When belief similarity or dissimilarity is crossed with group membership, belief effects (i.e., preferring the individual with similar beliefs to one with dissimilar beliefs) are stronger. Race effects, however, usually remain evident in interpersonally intimate domains such as eating together, dating, and marriage. Insko et al. (1983; Cox et al., 1996) have suggested that race effects in these particular domains reflect perceived disapproval of interracial contact by reference persons such as parents and peers rather than intimacy per se.

In sum, as a perspective on prejudice, BCT anticipated the subsequent focus on the importance of values in prejudice, an idea pivotal to ambivalence approaches to prejudice that emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. I now turn to ambivalence approaches to prejudice.

Ambivalence Approaches

Myrdal (1994) was perhaps first to suggest that ambivalence underlies White Americans’ attitudes and behaviors toward Blacks. This idea lay fallow in U.S. psychology until the late 1970s (see Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Pettigrew, 1979). By thatpoint, though, it had become increasingly apparent that White Americans were less prone to strident racism asserting White superiority, Black inferiority, and racial segregation but instead inclined toward subtler expressions of racism. Although attitude surveys suggested growing racial tolerance among White Americans from the 1960s onward, the evidence was much less clear on indirect indicators (e.g., nonverbal behavior and helping behavior) that feelings of White Americans toward Blacks had truly become more tolerant.

In the last few decades, several groups of researchers concerned with prejudice, racism, and discrimination in the United States have characterized White Americans’ attitudes toward Black Americans in the latter twentieth and early twenty-first centuries as being ambivalent in nature, that is, consisting of both positive and negative elements (see Jones, 1997). They differ, however, in the nature of the positive and negative elements comprising this ambivalence and other aspects of their models. These ambivalence approaches include theories of aversive racism, symbolic and modern racism, response amplification, ambivalent sexism, and blatant versus subtle prejudice.

Aversive Racism

Dovidio and Gaertner (1986), for example, proposed a theory of aversive racism, in which they characterized the racial attitudes of most liberal, White Americans today as a subtler and less obviously bigoted view of Black Americans than the dominative racism (i.e., old-fashioned, “redneck” views of White superiority and Black inferiority) of previous generations. According to the aversive racism perspective, prejudice in the United States of the later twentieth century became a subtler, less direct, and perhaps more pernicious form than before, although dominative racism has not disappeared altogether.

Aversive racism theory suggests that on one hand, most White Americans subscribe strongly to an egalitarian value system, inclining them to sympathize with victims of injustice, such as Black Americans and other racial minorities, and to support policies promoting racial equality. This strong adherence to egalitarianism enables White Americans to regard themselves as being unprejudiced and nondiscriminatory. This positive component of the ambivalence comprising aversive racism is not assumed, however, to include genuinely pro-Black attitudes or sentiments of true friendship between Whites and Blacks in the United States.

On the other hand, owing to a historically racist culture in the United States and certain feelings of negative affect (e.g., uneasiness, disgust, fear, and discomfort, though not necessarily hostility or hate) toward Black Americans, most White Americans are assumed to avoid Black-White interracial interactions and to be biased and discriminatory toward Black Americans in situations in which they can do so without appearing to be prejudiced or in which it may be justified under a rationale preserving their erstwhile egalitarian values. Aversive racism is not assumed to be a psychopathological phenomenon but rather to reflect normal cognitive processes and the influence of sociocultural and historical processes on White Americans.

Several implications flow from aversive racism theory and the idea that aversive racists are strongly motivated and vigilant to avoid appearing racially bigoted. First, traditional prejudice measures in the form of standard attitude scales would presumably be difficult and perhaps of limited use for assessing aversive racism, according to Dovidio and Gaertner (1986). Nevertheless, based on survey research up to the 1990s, Dovidio and Gaertner (1991) estimated that perhaps a fifth of White U.S. citizens were overtly racist. The other 80% of White Americans would presumably be, to varying extent, ambivalent toward Black Americans. White Americans who espouse a political philosophy of liberalism should be especially prone to aversive racism (Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & Crandall, 1996).

As noted earlier, a second implication of aversive racism theory is that in situations where discrimination would be blatant and where the appropriate behavior is normative and well-defined, White Americans would be unlikely to discriminate against Black Americans because doing so would contradict their allegedly nonprejudiced, egalitarian ideals and self-images. However, in ambiguous situations where the discrimination is less blatant or obvious, White Americans should be more likely to be biased against Black Americans because in that case they can do so without necessarily threatening their self-images. This feature of aversive racism theory—emphasizing the normative structure of situations as a moderator variable for predicting when racially ambivalent White Americans will or will not discriminate against Black Americans—is perhaps its most unique and distinctive feature among ambivalence approaches (Biernat, Vescio, Theno, & Crandall, 1996). These predictions have been amply supported in studies of White Americans, mostly college students, by Dovidio, Gaertner, and their colleagues.

This supportive research has included studies of helping, social cognition studies measuring reaction times linking the words “white” and “black” to positive and negative stereotype characteristics, studies where pictures of Black and White individuals’ faces are presented as primes (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986), research on juridic recommendations of the death penalty in a capital case (Dovidio, Smith, Gershenfeld Donnella, & Gaertner, 1997), and personnel selection recommendations in 1989 and 1999 (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000), among others. In all of these studies, findings supported aversive racism theory and were unaffected by whether the participants had scored low or high on standard prejudice measures, though high scorers on such scales often showed greater bias toward Blacks than did low scorers.

What remains to be demonstrated by aversive racism theorists is that it is actually the conflict or tension between the positive element of egalitarianism, or one hand, and negative feelings toward Blacks, on the other, that constitutes the underlying basis of ambivalence for White Americans’attitudes and behaviors toward Blacks and is the driving force behind their discrimination of Blacks in ambiguous situations. Indeed, egalitarianism is the value that perhaps most strongly promotes tolerance and mitigates negative feelings toward Blacks by White Americans. Presenting liberal-oriented U.S. university students with an egalitarian message has been shown by Biernat, Vescio, and Theno (1996) to elicit more positive ratings of a Black stimulus person than a White one. Whether egalitarianism promotes tolerance among individuals in countries other than the United States, however, remains to be seen. With White participants from Portugal and Brazil, Vala and Lima (2001) found that activating an egalitarian norm affected perceptions and evaluations of a White but not a Black stimulus person.

Although aversive racism theory has an excellent track record in predicting a variety of cognitions and behaviors in the social psychological laboratory, documenting the precise nature of White Americans’ ambivalence toward Blacks remains a task to be completed. Using recently developed automatic processing techniques (described later) to assess nonconscious feelings of antipathy toward Blacks (or other oppressed group members) in conjunction with standard value measures to assess egalitarianism and other potentially race-relevant values may provide some useful leverage for assessing aversive racism in White participants and for testing the theory directly.

Symbolic and Modern Racism

Closely related to aversive racism theory are the constructs of symbolic and modern racism that have been suggested by several researchers, such as McConahay (1986) and Sears (1988; Sears & Funk, 1991). The symbolic and modern racism constructs originated because standard prejudice scales of the 1950s and 1960s became increasingly problematic for U.S. survey researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, owing to social desirability issues (i.e., the transparency of what they were measuring) and because they failed to predict racially relevant political behavior, such as voting intentions for capable Black candidates in elections where candidates of both races were running and racism likely played a role in the outcome (see Kinder & Sears, 1981).

What did predict voting and support for progressive racial policies were attitude items reflecting an abstract, moral tone that Black Americans were violating cherished White American values such as individualism and the Protestant ethic extolling the virtues of individual effort and hard work—qualities White Americans often felt were lacking among Black Americans. Ambivalence, then, arises because many White Americans want to maintain a nonprejudiced image even though they privately resent and dislike Blacks and feel the racial discrimination toward Blacks in the United States no longer exists. In protecting themselves from the appearance of being prejudiced, symbolic or modern racists justify their negative attitudes and behaviors toward Blacks by invoking nonprejudiced explanations in the form of American values or ideals. A symbolic or modern racist, for example, might justify opposition to affirmative action programs benefiting Blacks by saying that they violate the value of equality by favoring one group over others.

The constructs of symbolic and modern racism are similar to aversive racism. In both cases, the ambivalence arises from negative feelings toward Black people versus core American values. In both cases, White Americans dislike and avoid racial prejudice but seek indirect ways to manifest their negative feelings toward Black Americans. All three racism constructs are interested in predicting interpersonal behavior, with symbolic and modern racism being used mainly to predict political attitudes and behavior, typically in surveys. Symbolic and modern racism are assumed to emerge from early political socialization and not to be based on personal experience, personal competition, or direct, personal, economic threats to Whites from Blacks. Unlike aversive racism, however, items and scales to assess symbolic and modern racism have been constructed by their adherents and have proven very popular in survey and experimental research on prejudice by psychologists in the late twentieth century.

McConahay (1986), for example, presented a Modern Racism Scale (MRS) and an Old-Fashioned Racism Scale (OFRS), with moderate, positive correlations between the two, and items loading on one or the other factor in exploratory factor analyses. Whereas the OFRS was reactive (i.e., White U.S. respondents’ scores were lower when it was administered by a Black experimenter than by a White one), the MRS was nonreactive (at least in the 1980s). Items from symbolic or modern racism scales became the standard measure of prejudice toward Blacks in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s and are still frequently used in this regard. In the twenty-first century, newer scales such as the Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scales (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) or the Social Dominance Orientation Scale (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), both of which are discussed later, are perhaps more apt to become the preferred, “paper-andpencil” measures of prejudice.

Sniderman and Tetlock (1986), themselves prominent political psychologists, have strongly criticized the constructs and measurement of symbolic and modern racism. Among other things, they criticized symbolic and modern racism for being unclear as to the causal relation between anti-Black affect and core American values, for equating political policy pBibliography: (e.g., opposition to busing school children or affirmative action) with racism itself, and for suggesting that old-fashioned racism no longer existed in the United States. Sniderman and Tetlock even contended that symbolic racism theory was unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The MRS, they also charged, was confounded with political conservatism. Sniderman and his colleagues showed that political conservatism related not to rejection and prejudice toward out-group members but rather to greater support for those, whether from the in-group or out-group, who behaved in a manner consistent with politically conservative principles (e.g., Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, & Kendrick, 1991).

Although proponents of symbolic and modern racism have not thoroughly explored the presumed link to values, Biernat, Vescio, and Theno (1996) did so in a series of studies. For example, after completing Rokeach’s Value Survey, White U.S. undergraduates were asked to rate the extent to which four target groups, including BlackAmericans, supported or violated their values. Whether considering their top value or their hierarchy of values, Black Americans were perceived as less supportive of their values than were White Americans; however,therewasnodifferenceinperceivedviolationofvalues for these two target groups. Likewise, differences in ratings of White versus Black support and violation of values correlated with measures of modern racism as well as pro- and anti-Black attitudes, although these correlations were consistently modest in magnitude. Consistent with theories of symbolic and modern racism, Biernat et al. showed that White individuals who scored high on the Protestant work ethic and had their values made salient rated a Black employee less positively than a White employee when they violated the work ethic.

Thus, Biernat, Vescio, and Theno’s (1996) research partially supported models of symbolic and modern racism. However, if violating core American values is indeed one of the two key components of symbolic and modern racism, one would expect to find much stronger relationships than they did. Biernat et al. also questioned the assumption that modernsymbolic racism is a blending of negative affect toward Blacks and core American values, such as individualism. Their analyses suggested that egalitarianism is a stronger predictor than individualism of intergroup attitudes and that combining negative affect with value measures added little beyond the separate components in predicting responses to an out-group member in their studies of race and sexual orientation.

In the ambivalence approach presented next the focus shifts to conflict between pro- and anti-Black attitudes linked to values as the determinant of positive and negative reactions to Blacks by White Americans.

Ambivalence Amplification

Katz and Hass (1988) contended that most White Americans hold both positive and negative attitudes about Black Americans that are relatively independent of one another. A White American who endorses positive statements about Blacks on a “Pro-Black scale” is neither more nor less likely to agree with anti-Black statements from a separate “AntiBlack scale.” Moreover, for White American respondents, these racial beliefs relate to different and conflicting value systems. Pro-Black attitudes (e.g., beliefs that Blacks have a disadvantaged position in society) are linked to humanitarian-egalitarian values. By contrast, anti-Black attitudes (e.g., beliefs that Black people lack the drive or skills necessary to improve their socioeconomic position) related to White respondents’ beliefs in individualism and the Protestant ethic.

Katz and his colleagues proposed that when these conflicting beliefs are salient to a White person holding them and who also becomes aware of the ambivalence, he or she experiences negative arousal and is motivated to reduce this tension. Indeed, Hass, Katz, Rizzo, Bailey, and Moore (1992) have demonstrated that White American participants experienced negative mood change when their racial ambivalence toward Black people was stimulated by reading a vivid description of an ugly racial incident in which gangs of young Whites in New York City viciously beat some Black Americans whose car had broken down in their neighborhood. This discomfort can be reduced, according to these theorists, by intensifying either the positive or negative component of the conflicted attitude toward Blacks—an idea defining response amplification theory .

Response amplification theory suggests that for ambivalent White Americans attitudes and behavior will be more polarized or amplified toward Black Americans than toward fellow White Americans. Experimental evidence for response amplification theory, as applied to Black Americans and other socially stigmatized groups such as the handicapped, was presented by Katz and Glass (1979). For example, White U.S. undergraduates who had been led to believe that they had delivered a series of strong shocks to a victim derogated a Black victim more than a White victim, and this derogation was a function of the extent of ambivalence as reflected by measures of prejudice and sympathy toward Blacks. Whether racial ambivalence potentiates positive or negative responses depends on the situational context and the ambivalent person’s behavioral options.

Ambivalent Sexism

Sexism, like racism, reflects ambivalence. Glick and Fiske (1996) viewed sexism as a multidimensional construct involving ambivalence. They proposed that ambivalent sexism comprises two positively correlated components: hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS). The former consists of hostility, negative attitudes, and negative stereotypes of women. By contrast, BS is a set of interrelated sexist attitudes that portray women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in affective tone from the perceiver’s viewpoint and elicit prosocial behaviors (e.g., helping) or intimacy seeking (e.g., self-disclosure). Benevolent sexism reflects a positive attitude toward women and positive stereotypes about women, although Glick and Fiske do not view it as a good thing. Although both HS and BS were originally postulated to include three underlying components, this conjecture was supported only for BS, while HS was found to be a unidimensional construct.

Both HS and BS relate, as one would expect, to other measures of modern sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995) and neo-sexism (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995). Benevolent sexism, however, relates to subtler forms of sexism than HS, masked as it is in a veil of positive sentiment toward women. Glick and Fiske (1996) suggested that among women, BS reflects a tendency to adopt as one’s own the prevalent forms of sexist prejudice in U.S. society. They also suggested that while modern- and neo-sexism measures excel in predicting gender-related political attitudes, HS and BS scales together (comprising the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory, or ASI) would be better at predicting attitudes and behavior in the realm of interpersonal and romantic relationships between women and men. As well, sexist ambivalence—the combination of scoring high on both BS and HS—is believed to polarize attitudes and behaviors toward women, in a process like that proposed by Katz, Haas, and their colleagues for amplified responses toward Black Americans and the physically handicapped as induced by ambivalence.

Blatant and Subtle Prejudice

The preceding ambivalence approaches differ in whether they assume that old-fashioned prejudice still exists or whether it is seen to be as potent as its modern or symbolic variants. For example, advocates of symbolic and modern racism suggest that it is the more dominant form of prejudice today. Other ambivalence approaches assume that both forms are prevalent and require assessment by researchers interested in prejudice. For example, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) postulated the existence of both blatant and subtle prejudice toward out-groups today. They characterized blatant prejudice (the traditional form) as “hot, close, and direct” and suggested that it consisted of two components: (a) perceived threat and rejection of the out-group and (b) avoidance of intimacy (especially sex and marriage). By contrast, subtle prejudice (the modern variant) is “cool, distant, and indirect” and includes three components: (a) defense of traditional values, (b) exaggeration of cultural differences, and (c) denial of positive emotional responses toward out-groups.

Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) created separate multi-item scales for blatant and subtle prejudice toward immigrants and administered them to survey respondents from four European countries with regard to several different target groups. Across countries, confirmatory factor analyses suggested that two-factor models surpassed a one-factor model, butthatacorrelatedtwo-factormodelandahierarchicalmodel in which blatant and subtle prejudice were first-order factors subsumed under a general second-order factor were equally viable models to account for the pattern of scale scores.

An advantage of using both subtle and blatant prejudice scales is that a threefold typology emerged that yielded different patterns of responses to immigrants in Pettigrew and Meertens’s (1995) research. Respondents who scored low on both blatant and subtle prejudice scales were called “equalitarians,” a group who were most in favor of maintaining and enhancing immigrants’ rights in their countries and who presumably have internalized most strongly contemporary norms of tolerance in their societies. Respondents scoring high on both scales comprised “bigots,” who were most in favor of returning immigrants to their home countries and restricting immigrants’ rights and were assumed to have rejected current norms against blatant prejudice. “Subtles” were respondents scoring low on blatant prejudice but high on subtle prejudice and were assumed to have only partially and incompletely internalized norms against blatant prejudice. On immigration issues, “subtles” adopted a middling, nonprejudicial stance between bigots and equalitarians and required justification for restricting immigrants’ rights. The “subtles” category, of course, is the analogue to symbolic, modern, and aversive racism in that these people strive to appear nonprejudiced and are assumed to express their biases against immigrants in ways that do not violate current norms against blatant prejudice.

Automatic and Controlled Processing

The dissociation model.

As noted earlier in discussing ambivalence approaches to prejudice, some prejudice researchers (e.g., Crosby et al., 1980; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986) have suggested that most White Americans are prejudiced toward Black people and that subtle behaviors that individuals can less readily monitor and censor (e.g., helping, nonverbal behavior, reaction times to briefly presented stimuli) are better gauges of White Americans’true racial attitudes. In an influential contribution to the prejudice literature, Devine (1989) strongly challenged and countered this view. She claimed that it implied that prejudiced beliefs and attitudes were unamenable to change, as well as that prejudice is an inevitable, unavoidable product of normal cognitive processes.

As an alternative, Devine (1989) proposed a dissociation model that emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between automatic versus controlled cognitive processing and the differentiation of stereotype activation versus personal beliefs. The automatic versus controlled processing distinction emerged in cognitive psychology during the 1970s and subsequently has become an increasingly important construct in social and personality psychology (see Bargh, 1989). Automatic processing refers to unintentional, nonconscious cognitive processing that occurs without effort or intention and is unlimited by cognitive capacity. By contrast, controlled cognitive processing refers to intentional, effortful, and goal-directed processing of information that is assumed to be under the person’s awareness and control but subject to limitation by cognitive capacity (e.g., attentional limits). Applying this distinction to the relationship between stereotyping and prejudice, Devine (1989) suggested that stereotype activation was an automatic process that did not require intention, attention, or cognitive capacity on the part of a perceiver. Instead, whenever an appropriate cue is present, such as the appearance of a Black person or a symbolic representation of one, a White U.S. perceiver’s stereotype of Black people should be activated automatically.

Devine (1989) proposed that common socialization experiences in late-20th-century America have led White people in the U.S. to become equally knowledgeable about the prevalent and generally negative stereotype of Black people, regardless of their personal levels of prejudice. As a consequence of this common knowledge, her dissociation model predicted that automatic activation of the stereotype would be equally strong and unavoidable for White U.S. perceivers, regardless of the extent of their personal prejudice toward Blacks.

Prejudiced and nonprejudiced White persons, however, were expected in the dissociation model to differ in their personal beliefs concerning Black people, and this difference in personal beliefs regarding Blacks should be manifested on cognitive tasks involving deliberate, controlled cognitive processing. Specifically, on such a task, nonprejudiced White persons should inhibit and override their negative cultural stereotype of Blacks because it conflicts with their egalitarian values and their personal beliefs and to replace the pejorative, Black stereotype with more positive perceptions and attributions of Black persons. On this latter point, Devine’s (1989) analysis of nonprejudiced perceivers agrees with aversive racism and modern-symbolic racism theories in positing a conflict between core American values, on one hand, and a desire to avoid appearing prejudiced, on the other.

For prejudiced White persons, on the other hand, the cultural stereotype of Blacks and their personal beliefs about them are congruent with one another. Because they do not conflict, there would be little need for them to censor their negative personal beliefs concerning Black people. Thus, according to the dissociation model, White persons varying in prejudice toward Black people should differ on cognitive tasks involving controlled processing but not on tasks involving automatic processing.

Devine (1989) supported her dissociation model with three studies, in which the MRS served as the measure used to define high versus low levels of prejudice in White participants. One study demonstrated that on an open-ended measure, both high- and low-prejudice White participants listed very similar characteristics, and predominantly negative ones, when asked to describe the cultural stereotype of Black people—an effect since replicated by other investigators in the United States and the United Kingdom (e.g., Lepore & Brown, 1997). Another study deployed a controlled processing task by giving participants ample time to list alternative labels for “Black Americans” and then asking them to list all of their thoughts in response to this label. Thoughts on this listing task were categorized by judges as being positive beliefs, negative beliefs, or traits. Highly prejudiced White participants listed negative traits most often, while less prejudiced ones were more likely to list thoughts reflecting positive beliefs—uncontroverisal and unsurprising results.

In what has since become a more controversial study, however, Devine (1989) also compared reactions of White persons varying in prejudice on an automatic processing task in which participants were subliminally presented with word primes parafoveally (i.e., outside the central visual field) while performing a perceptual vigilance task. Word primes were related to the Black stereotype either 20% or 80% of the time and included reference both to the category Blacks and to stereotypic traits for Black Americans (e.g., lazy, poor, oppressed, etc.). Following this automatic processing task in which participants had been primed to varying extent with racially relevant stimuli, they read an ambiguous story about a male person of unspecified race performing various assertive behaviors and then rendered their impressions of him. As predicted by the dissociation model, impressions of the stimulus person were affected by the automatic processing task in that attributions of hostility were more likely when primes from the preceding automatic processing task had been proportionally more stereotypically oriented (i.e., in the 80% condition instead of the 20% one), with no difference as a function of the participants’ level of prejudice.

From the preceding research, Devine (1989) concluded that controlled processing rather than automatic processing differentiates the highly prejudiced from their less prejudiced White counterparts. Moreover, White people with egalitarian ideals employ controlled processing to try to behave and think in an unprejudiced manner toward Black people. Both high- and low-prejudiced White Americans have the same stereotypic knowledge of Black people and are presumably both susceptible to having this stereotypic knowledge that is presumably elicited automatically beneath their awareness. However, stereotypic and prejudicial responses can be overridden by intentional and flexible controlled processing.

Deciding to be unprejudiced is, according to the dissociation model, a conscious, intentional act of controlled processing. Inhibiting and overriding stereotypic and prejudicial responses elicited by automatic activation processes and replacing them with more appropriate and positive beliefs toward Blacks and other minorities held by individuals seeking to be unprejudiced is akin, Devine has argued, to their “breaking a bad habit.” That is, the White person trying to be unprejudiced toward Black people must consciously and deliberately decide to forego prejudicial beliefs and actions (the bad, old habit) and to replace them with new attitudes and behaviors consistent with an egalitarian outlook (the new, good habit). In essence, Devine’s (1989) dissociation model suggests that for those seeking to be (or actually being) unprejudiced, automatic and controlled processes must become dissociated from one another, with the good habit of tolerance strengthened at the expense of the bad habit of prejudice.

Monteith (1993; Monteith, Devine, & Zuwerink, 1993; Monteith & Walters, 1998) and her colleagues (Devine & Monteith, 1999; Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991) have explored in depth the self-regulatory processes by which low-prejudice White Americans (i.e., those who score low on prejudice measures, such as the MRS) inhibit prejudiced responses and maintain egalitarian standards. First, low-prejudice Whites do indeed have personal beliefs and standards against expressing prejudice toward oppressed groups, such as Black people and homosexuals, but many of the former also acknowledge responding from time to time in ways that are more prejudiced than their personal beliefs would warrant. Second, when they do find themselves exhibiting a biased response toward an oppressed group member (i.e., what Monteith and her colleagues term a prejudice-related discrepancy ), low-prejudice White Americans experience emotional responses in the form of guilt and negative, self-directed affect as well as increased self-focus and self-attention, and they subsequently monitor their behavior more carefully to ensure that it conforms more closely to their personal beliefs.

Critique of the Dissociation Model

The dissociation model’s contention that prejudiced and unprejudiced perceivers would be equally responsive to priming by an automatic processing task has, however, been recently criticized and questioned by several investigators. Lepore and Brown (1997), for example, criticized Devine’s (1989) automatic processing study for including both categorical cues referring to Blacks as a social group and stereotypic traits of Black people among the subliminal primes. As an alternative to the dissociation model, Lepore and Brown argued that the link between the category and the stereotypic features relating to Blacks differentiates White perceivers varying in prejudice, with the link being much stronger and more chronically accessible for highly prejudiced White persons than for less prejudiced ones. If only categorical cues referring to Blacks as a group comprise the subliminal primes on an automatic processing task, one should observe highly prejudiced White persons subsequently forming more negative impressions than less prejudiced ones—a result that Lepore and Brown (1997, Study 2), in fact, have obtained.

By contrast, subliminal cues that include stereotypic attributes along with the categorical label also prime the stereotypic knowledge of both high- and low-prejudice White perceivers, which has been shown to be highly similar. Thus, subliminal cues containing both category Bibliography: and stereotypic attributes on an automatic processing task would not be expected to reveal differences between White persons varying in prejudice, a prediction that Lepore and Brown (1997, Study 3) also supported in a conceptual replication of Devine’s (1989) automatic processing study. Null hypothesis predictions have been rife on the issue of automatic processing effects on impression formation as a function of the White participants’ prejudice toward Blacks. Predicting the null hypothesis, however, is problematic because tests of such hypotheses often lack sufficient statistical power (see Cohen, 1992).

Kawakami, Dion, and Dovidio (1998) further reinforced Lepore and Brown’s conceptual analysis in two ways. They found that high-prejudice White persons were more responsive to primes on a single task where automatic and controlled processing could both be experimentally manipulated by varying stimulus onset asynchrony (i.e., the difference in time between presentation of the prime and a subsequent, tobe-responded-to stimulus). Second, individual differences in stereotype attribution as assessed by a separate measure correlated with stereotypic activation on the experimental task when it allowed automatic processing.

With regard to Devine’s automatic processing findings, Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, and Williams (1995) have suggested that the MRS has become a reactive and insensitive measure of racial prejudice. Consistent with this point, they showed that the levels of modern racism in White American participants failed to moderate priming effects on a procedure (described later) that was designed to elicit automatic activation of racial attitudes.

Taken together, the preceding critiques of the dissociation model have important implications for prejudice and its reduction. According to Lepore and Brown’s (1997) alternative perspective, low-prejudice White persons have never established the bad habit of prejudice toward Black people in the first place or established it much less firmly than their highly prejudiced White counterparts. For low-prejudice White persons, the link between the social category, Blacks, and the culturally stereotypic information about them is already weak and tenuous. Rather than unlearning a bad habit, those interested in reducing prejudice in White people presumably need to focus on the highly prejudiced Whites and on weakening the associative strength of the links between the category of Blacks as a social group and negative stereotypic information and content about them.

Automatic Activation as Prejudice Measures

Automatic activation techniques are a means of unobtrusively measuring racial and other intergroup attitudes and an alternative to traditional attitude scales, which are often compromised by social desirability and transparency regarding the goal of assessing prejudice. Even the MRS has recently been shown to be sensitive to social desirability, yielding lower scores from White participants when administered by a Black experimenter than by aWhite one (Fazio et al., 1995, Study 3). From their findings in several studies, Fazio et al. (1995) have styled the MRS as a measure of White Americans’ “willingness to express” negative feelings or opinions about Blacks, one that also confounds racism with political conservatism. Other researchers have noted that correlations between old-fashioned and modern and symbolic racism are higher than would be expected if these were truly two separate constructs rather than different aspects of a single construct (see Dovidio et al., 1997; Swim et al., 1995).

As an alternative, Fazio et al. (1995) proposed a priming paradigm using automatic activation of attitudes from memory as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes that is demonstrably superior to the MRS. The priming procedure consists of multiple trials on a computer in which the prime consists of a symbolic representation of the attitude object, such as digitized photos of stimulus persons from one or more racial groups. Immediately following the prime, a target in the form of a positive or negative evaluative adjective is displayed, and the participant is required to indicate its connotation as either good or bad by pressing different computer keys. When the prime and target are evaluatively congruent for the participant, responding should be facilitated as manifested in a faster, more efficient reaction time. By contrast, when prime and target are evaluatively incongruent with one another from the viewpoint of the participant, responding should be slowed, as reflected by a longer reaction time.

Using this priming procedure, Fazio et al. (1995) showed in several studies that White U.S. university students showed greater facilitation when negative adjectives were preceded by photos of Black people. By contrast, a small sample of Black participants showed response facilitation on the priming task when photos of Blacks preceded positive adjectives and when White photos were preceded by negative adjectives. Moreover, scores on this unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes had predictive validity for a Black experimenter’s ratings of the participant’s friendliness and interest when interacting with her, to which MRS scores were unrelated.

Along similar lines, Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) suggested the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a related procedure for assessing implicit attitudes, defined as behaviors, feelings, or thoughts elicited outside the participant’s awareness by automatically activated evaluation procedures (see Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). The IAT consists of a series of five discrimination tasks, conducted on computer, in which the participants differentiate between two categories of stimuli by responding as quickly as possible on different computer keys.

If one were assessing White attitudes toward Black people with the IAT, the first task would be an initial target-concept discrimination in which they might be asked to differentiate between White and Black American first names by pressing different keys on the computer. The second task is an associated attribute discrimination in which the participant differentiates pleasant from unpleasant words. The third step is the initial combined task in which the two prior tasks are now superimposed or mapped onto one another, such as using one key for individual stimuli that are either White or pleasant and another key for stimuli that are either Black or unpleasant. In the fourth step, the response keys from the first task are reversed. The fifth and final step, the reverse combined task, reverses the response key contingencies from the third step (e.g., one key for stimuli that are either White or unpleasant or either Black or pleasant. The difference in speed of responding to the two combined tasks on the IAT provides the measure of implicit attitudes. Following the earlier example, a latency shorter for the first combined task than for the reverse combined task would suggest a less positive or more negative implicit attitude toward Blacks by a White participant.

Using the IAT, Greenwald and Banaji (1998) found evidence that it may reveal the existence of prejudice that is not evident on paper-and-pencil attitude measures such as the semantic differential scale. Whereas a majority of a sample of White American participants in one study indicated no Black-White difference or even a pro-Black preference on paper-and-pencil ratings, all but one had IAT scores indicating a White preference, presumably a nonconscious one. Greenwald and his colleagues have also found modest positive correlations between IAT scores and some “explicit” attitude measures such as the feeling thermometer (in which social groups are rated on a 100-point thermometer scale) and a diversity index but not others, especially semantic differential scales. IAT scores, they suggested, do not merely reflect greater familiarity with one’s in-group (e.g., naming practices, facial stimuli) compared to an out-group. The IAT procedure, they also proposed, yields stronger effect sizes and is therefore more sensitive than the priming procedure devised by Fazio et al. (1995) and by other investigators.

One would not necessarily expect implicit and explicit measures of racial attitudes to correlate highly with one another. Demonstrating this point, Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, and Howard (1997) showed that the predictive validity of implicit (i.e., elicited by automatic processing techniques, such as priming or the IAT) and explicit measures of racial attitudes (i.e., elicited by self-report measures such as scales of modern and old-fashioned racism) of White participants toward Black people diverges in a predictable manner. Specifically, implicit prejudice measures predicted spontaneous cognitions and behaviors that are not easily monitored but reflect automatic processing, such as performance on a word-completion task in which answers may be racially tinged or nonverbal behavior such as eye blinking or direct gaze when interacting with a Black person. By contrast, explicit prejudice measures possessed predictive validity for deliberative thoughts and actions that reflect controlled processing, such as judgments of a Black defendant’s guilt in a juridic decision-making task and evaluations.

Fazio et al. (1995) had previously obtained a similar pattern of findings. Their unobtrusive priming measure of prejudice in Whites had predictive validity for rated quality of interaction with a Black experimenter, whereas explicit measures predicted deliberative acts such as attractiveness ratings of photos and evaluations of the fairness of the Rodney King verdict (in which White police officers in Los Angeles were exonerated from charges of using excessive force with a Black defendant). Both explicit and implicit measures predicted attributions of responsibility for the causes of rioting following the Rodney King verdict. Thus, implicit attitude measures add an important, new, and separate dimension to the conceptual and methodological toolbox that psychologists have to assess prejudice.

To summarize, both automatic and controlled cognitive processing play an important role in the social psychology of bigotry. Racial stimuli presented below or just above the threshold of awareness operate as primes that influence thinking and behavior by White persons toward members of a stereotyped group such as Blacks. If the racial prime includes only reference to the social category, automatic activation will activate stronger stereotypes among the more highly prejudiced Whites than among the less prejudiced. If the racial prime includes both categorical reference as well as stereotypic trait information, differences on dependent measures (e.g., impression formation) between participants differing in levels of prejudice by Whites will usually no longer be apparent.

An important development for automatic processing techniques has been their utilization for assessing prejudice, avoiding problems with standard attitude measures of prejudice such as social desirability, and deliberately masking one’s negative feelings toward specific groups. These techniques, such as the priming methodology as well as the IAT, will undoubtedly be increasingly utilized to assess individuals’ nonconscious prejudices, with the resulting measures being especially helpful in predicting behaviors and cognitions toward out-group members that an individual cannot easily monitor and censor.

Integrative Approaches

The rubric of integrative approaches includes perspectives on prejudice that include the insights of multiple theoretical viewpoints concerning the psychology of bigotry that their advocates have organized into a single, coherent, explanatory framework. By incorporating multiple perspectives, each integrative approach becomes a broad, comprehensive explanation of prejudice. Social dominance theory, integrated threat theory, and a multicomponent approach to intergroup attitudes exemplify integrative approaches to prejudice.

Social Dominance Theory

Social dominance theory (SDT) assumes that societies are structured as group-based social hierarchies, with one or a small number of dominant or hegemonic groups at the top of the social structure and at least one subordinate group below them (Sidanius, Levin, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In general, dominant group members disproportionately enjoy society’s goods and benefits (i.e., wealth, status, and power), whereas subordinate group members suffer a disproportionate share of society’s miseries and inequities (i.e., poverty, low prestige, and relative powerlessness).

In group-based social hierarchies, individual’s stations in life are determined largely by their membership in socially constructed groups defined by race, gender, age, religion, social class, and so on. Group-based hierarchies are assumed to be highly stable, often reflecting consensus as to which groups are dominant and subordinate, respectively. For example, perceived social standing of U.S. ethnic groups in 1964 and later in 1989 correlated almost perfectly across the quarter century (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). SDT defines three types of social stratification systems: an age system where adults and older individuals command more resources and power than the younger, a gender system in which men possess greater status and power than women, and an arbitrary set system in which socially constructed, arbitrarily defined categories (e.g., races, occupations, social classes, nationalities) enjoy disproportionately more status and power over other socially constructed categories. SDT concentrates especially on gender and arbitrary set systems of group-based hierarchy.

Whereas age and gender systems of group hierarchy are assumed by SDT to be universal across human societies, arbitrary set hierarchies differ in several regards. First, they display more definitional fluidity across time period and countries. Sidanius and Pratto (1999), the principal architects of SDT, claimed that arbitrary set hierarchies emerge only in societies that produce an economic surplus. Arbitrary set hierarchies tend to be dynastic with social status passing on to one’s children. Finally, arbitrary set hierarchies are presumably maintained more by terror, violence, and brutality than by age- and gender-based hierarchies.

Three basic assumptions of SDT are as follows: (a) Most intergroup conflict and oppression reflect a predisposition toward forming group-based social hierarchy; (b) social systems are prone to hierarchy-enhancing (HE) forces pushing toward greater inequality, and opposing effects of hierarchy-attenuating (HA) forces toward greater equality; and (c) conflict between HE and HA forces produces relatively stable social systems.

From these assumptions SDT concerns itself with the mechanisms that contribute to group-based social hierarchy and with how hierarchies affect these mechanisms. Behavioral asymmetry is one mechanism. The notion of behavioral asymmetry is that the behavioral repertoires of dominant and subordinate group members differ and that these differences contribute to the hierarchical relationships among these groups. Four types of behavioral asymmetries are asymmetrical in-group bias, systematic out-group favoritism or deference, self-debilitating behavior, and ideological asymmetry.

Regarding in-group bias (i.e., favoring one’s own group over other groups), dominants show more than do subordinates. This asymmetrical in-group bias reinforces the hegemonic group’s dominance over the subordinate group. By contrast, deference, or out-group favoritism, is more apt to be shown by members of the subordinate group, again reinforcing the dominant group’s hegemony. Self-debilitation occurs when subordinate group members engage in more selfdefeating and self-destructive behavior, such as criminal activity or drugs, than do dominant group members. Ideological asymmetry refers to the idea the antiegalitarian values lead one to endorse policies and ideologies promoting groupbased inequality, such as support for the death penalty in the United States, which dominant group members endorse more strongly than do subordinate group members.

The degree of group-based social inequality is also influenced by support for various legitimizing myths (LMs). These are ideologies that provide moral or intellectual justifications for group-based social hierarchies within all three hierarchical systems (age, gender, or arbitrary set). SDT defines two types of LMs based on whether they facilitate social inequality and are HE or facilitate social equality and are HA. Racism, sexism, and ageism exemplify HE-LMs, while feminism, socialism, and universalism are HA-LM examples.

The psychological aspect of SDT is the construct of social dominance orientation (SDO) as assessed by an eponymous scale. SDO is a personality dimension defined as an attitude toward intergroup relations reflecting antiegalitarianism and intolerance, at one end, to support for group-based hierarchy and the domination of inferior groups by superior groups, at the opposite end. A high score on the SDO scale reflects a willingness to accept inequalities between and among groups in society. Items in the SDO scale refer to groups in the abstract and thus tap the respondent’s acceptance of intergroup inequalities for whatever group distinctions are salient to the respondent in a given sociopolitical or national context.

SDO scale scores have been shown to relate to many political attitudes (e.g., political conservatism, nationalism, patriotism), legitimizing ideologies (e.g., racism, sexism, belief in fate), social attributions (e.g., internal vs. external attributions for the fate of the poor), HE/HA career choices (e.g., police officers vs. teachers), and group evaluations (see Sidanius et al., 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In Saucier’s (2000, p. 378) study of the structure of social attitudes, SDO loaded with Machiavellianism on a dimension defined as “favoring whatever is immediately beneficial to me and mine, disregarding wider concerns of fairness or morality,” which was separate from the factor on which authoritarianism loaded on.

Focusing on prejudice specifically, Whitley (1999) has shown that (a) SDO predicted most forms of prejudice toward BlackAmericans and homosexuals in a sample of White, heterosexual U.S. university students and (b) SDO also mediated gender differences in those prejudices in that sample.According to Sidanius, Pratto, and their colleagues, SDO also shows discriminant validity in being relatively independent of other constructs such as conservatism, interpersonal dominance, and right-wing authoritarianism, although Altemeyer (1996) reported a moderate, positive correlation between RWA and SDO. Consistent with the notion that attitudes toward group hierarchy reflected in the SDO scale are culturally universal, Pratto et al. (2000) showed that with proper translation and back translation, SDO can be reliably measured crossculturally, and its scores related in theoretically predicted ways to sexism, prejudice toward oppressed groups by majority group members, and related attitudes (e.g., support for the military) for samples of respondents in several countries outside North America, including Israel, Taiwan, and the People’s Republic of China (Shanghai), as well as Canada.

Advocates of SDT have suggested that the SDO construct can account for the relationships between conservatism and racism and between conservatism and antimiscegenation (i.e., a disdain for interracial marriages) in terms of their mutual dependence on SDO (see Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Advocates of SDT also believe that individual differences in SDO are determined by four factors: group status, gender, socialization, and temperament. First, the greater the social status of one’s in-group in a given society, the higher is one’s level of SDO. In the United States, for example, White Americans outscore Black Americans in SDO. In Israel, Ashkenazi (European ancestry) Jews have higher SDOs than Sephardic (NorthAfrican or Middle Eastern ancestry) Jews. Second, the single most reliable finding of SDT research is that with a few exceptions in cultures outside North America (see Pratto et al., 2000), males outscore females on SDO. Socialization experiences, such as education, are also assumed to affect SDO, with higher educational levels relating inversely to SDO. Finally, higher SDO scores correlate with lower empathy levels and greater aggressivity—temperamental features that are presumably heritable and that promote out-group prejudice.

Advocates of SDT view it as a theoretical perspective linking the individual and the social structure together in the explanation of prejudice, and one that provides a comprehensive explanation for the oppression of subordinate groups by dominant ones in human societies around the world. As such, its advocates claim that SDT complements and integrates theories of prejudice focusing on the individual, such as the right-wing authoritarianism theory (see Altemeyer, 1996; Whitley, 1999), and those focusing on the role of social structure and elites, such as Marxism, as well as providing a theoretical bridge between these micro and macro levels of analysis.

Proponents of SDT have also noted some differences between their perspective and other theories of prejudice and racism. Sidanius et al. (1999) suggested that symbolic racism is limited to focusing on racism toward Black Americans in one historical and cultural context (viz., the United States in the late 20th century), whereas SDT claims a much wider historical and cross-cultural focus as well as a broader sweep regarding oppressed groups around the world to which it presumably applies. In fact, however, some evidence suggests that U.S.-derived measures of prejudice, especially blatant and subtle prejudice, work as well in Europe as they do in the United States (Pettigrew et al., 1998). Similarly, while symbolic and modern racism theories focus on values such as individualism and the Protestant ethic, SDT instead emphasizes anti egalitarianism as crucial to prejudice.

Its proponents also suggest that SDT complements intergroup theories, such as social identity theory (SIT), by taking into account the attitudes and behaviors of subordinate group members as well as those from the dominant group, focusing on out-group derogation as well as in-group favoritism, and differentiating status and power in intergroup relations. Indeed, researchers have profitably used both SDT and SIT (e.g., Levin & Sidanius, 1999; Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Federico, 1998) to yield insights into intergroup processes, such as the relationship between in-group identification and SDO in high-status versus low-status groups in a society. Clearly, SDT is presently one of the most prominent and promising contemporary theories of prejudice, and the SDO measure is apt to become a scale of choice among those who wish to use an explicit prejudice measure instead of, or along with, implicit prejudice measures.

Integrated Threat Theory

Without claiming to incorporate all possible causes of prejudice, Walter Stephan, Cookie Stephan, and their colleagues have nevertheless proposed that threat is certainly one major class of its causes and arguably its principal one. Their integrated threat theory (ITT) identifies and combines four major types of threat that they and other investigators have previously documented as relevant to understanding and predicting prejudice: (a) realistic threats, (b) symbolic threats, (c) intergroup anxiety, and (d) stereotyping (e.g., Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman, 1999). Although other theories and investigators have emphasized one or another of these threats, the Stephans and their associates provide a distinctive twist or interpretation of each threat in the overall context of ITT.

Realistic threats include any perceived threats from another group to the welfare, well-being, or survival of one’s ingroup and its members. Symbolic threats are perceived group differences in beliefs, values, or norms that may threaten the in-group’s way of life. Unlike symbolic racism, ITT’s symbolic threats apply to a wider array of groups, both dominant and subordinate, and to value differences in general, rather than those typifying only U.S. society, such as the Protestant ethic. The intergroup anxiety construct derives from prior research by Stephan and Stephan (1985), referring to the negative emotions occurring when one interacts with members of another group, especially an antagonistic or competitive outgroup. Beliefs about the characteristics of groups and the traits of group members (i.e., stereotypes) constitute yet another threat by creating expectancies about the type of interactions thatcanbeanticipatedwithout-groupmembers,withnegative expectancies reflecting prejudice. Finally, in addition to the four types of threat, ITT also assumes that the history and nature of prior contact between groups (e.g., negative, positive, or mixed) and the status of groups relative to one another also needs to be taken into account for predicting prejudice.

Immigrants are assumed by ITT to elicit all four types of threat in members of immigrant-receiving societies, such as the United States, Spain, and Israel. For that reason, attitudes toward immigrant groups have figured prominently as a criterion of particular interest in ITT research. Using samples of university students at several locales throughout the United States, Stephan, Ybarra, and Bachman (1999) showed that all four threats were relevant for predicting prejudice toward Cubans (in Miami), Mexicans (in New Mexico), and Asians (in Hawaii), accounting for 50% or more of the variance in attitudes toward each of these different immigrant groups. Stephan, Ybarra, Martinez, Schwarzwald, and Tur-Kaspa (1998) likewise showed that each of the four threats was a reliable predictor of attitudes held by Spanish university students toward Moroccan immigrants and by Israeli students toward Ethiopian and Russian immigrants to Israel.

Structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses by Stephan et al. (1998) indicated that the four threats comprised a single, unitary dimension of threat. Schwarzwald and Tur-Kaspa (1997) showed that realistic, symbolic, and interpersonal threats were significant predictors of Israeli university students’ attitudes toward Ethiopian and Russian immigrants, whereas individual differences in SDO predicted prejudice toward Ethiopian immigrants only. By exploring women’s attitudes toward men, Stephan, Stephan, Demitrakis,Yamada, and Clason (2000) showed that ITT is useful for target groups other than immigrants and for attitudes of members of subordinate or oppressed groups as well as dominant ones. Stephan et al. found that for women, symbolic threat, intergroup anxiety, and negative contact were predictors of negative attitudes toward men; however, contrary to prediction, realistic threats failed to emerge as a reliable predictor.

Because the preceding research on ITT is correlational in nature, it does not and cannot conclusively document that the causal sequence goes only from perceived threat to prejudice and not the other way or in both directions. However, Maio, Esses, and Bell (1994) experimentally manipulated perceived realistic and symbolic threats and found increased prejudice toward immigrants, thus validating at least the proposed causal sequence of threats heightening prejudice that lies at the core of ITT, at least for that target group.

Assessment of different types of threat has potential utility for those interested in improving intergroup relations. In studies in which attitudes toward more than one target group are assessed from an ITTperspective, one may explore which target group may deserve more attention in ameliorative efforts (for an example, see Schwarzwald &Tur-Kaspa, 1997). Similarly, in the aforementioned studies of ITT, some but usually not all types of threat emerged as significant predictors, suggesting where change attempts might profitably focus. For example, in attitudes of U.S. university students toward Mexican immigrants, intergroup anxiety has emerged as the most reliable predictor (Stephan & Stephan, 1996; Ybarra & Stephan, 1994). ITT is, therefore, especially useful for those interested in reducing as well as understanding prejudice.

The Multicomponent Approach to Intergroup Attitudes

The multicomponent approach to intergroup attitudes (MAIA), proposed by Esses, Haddock, and Zanna (1993; see also Haddock et al., 1993; Zanna, 1994), is the final example of an integrative theoretical approach to be considered. Although MAIA was derived independently from ITT, the two perspectives clearly resemble one another in their mutual emphases on symbolic beliefs and emotional reactions to outgroups as important predictors of prejudice and also in a shared interest in determining if and when stereotypes of out-groups will relate to prejudice toward them.

MAIA presumes that an intergroup attitude, like the attitude concept in general, has several components (viz., evaluations, cognitions, and affect). An attitude toward a social group is an overall evaluation, either positive or negative. Esses and her colleagues use the feeling thermometer as their preferred measure of an intergroup attitude as a global evaluation. The goal of MAIA is to predict prejudice and intergroup attitudes, relying mainly on cognitive and affective factors as the key predictors. Stereotypes and symbolic beliefs constitute MAIA’s cognitive factors. Stereotypes are beliefs about the characteristics of groups, both those shared with other perceivers (i.e., a consensual stereotype) and those unique to a given perceiver (a personal stereotype), with personal stereotypes assumed by MAIA researchers to be more useful to predict prejudice than consensual stereotypes. Symbolic beliefs are a person’s ideas as to how a social group hinders or facilitates her or his core values and norms. In the MAIA the affective component consists of the specific feelings and emotions evoked by a social group (see also Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1994). To assess personal stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and emotions toward one or more groups, MAIA researchers typically employ open-ended measures in which respondents first list their thoughts and feelings toward a specified group and then go over their lists in order to rate the valence of each entry and the percentage of the social group believed to be characterized by it.

In their initial studies MAIA researchers explored attitudes among English-Canadian university respondents in Ontario toward several social groups: English-Canadians, FrenchCanadians, Native Indians, Pakistanis, and homosexuals (see Esses et al., 1993). The MAIA model successfully predicted attitudes toward the out-groups. Attitudes toward Pakistanis and homosexuals were best predicted by symbolic beliefs, a component of intergroup attitudes believed to be important for assessing prejudice toward disliked or unfavorable groups. By contrast, out-groups more favorably regarded by the English-Canadian respondents (viz., French-Canadians and Native Indians) were best predicted by emotions.

Esses et al. (1993) also showed that RWA is an important moderator of out-group attitudes and their subcomponents. English-Canadian respondents scoring high on RWA had consistently more negative attitudes toward all four outgroups, especially the disfavored groups, and symbolic beliefs were their single best predictor of attitudes toward different groups, including French-Canadians. By contrast, emotions best predicted the more favorable out-group attitudes of those scoring low on RWA.

These conclusions, particularly regarding homosexuals as a target group, were further reinforced in two studies by Haddock et al. (1993). Their first study confirmed the more negative attitude of high RWA scorers toward homosexuals and the importance of symbolic beliefs in predicting prejudice toward homosexuals. Their second study replicated and extended these findings by showing that for those scoring high on RWA, past experience and perceived value dissimilarity were additional factors along with symbolic beliefs that were useful in predicting their prejudicial attitude toward homosexuals.

Because intergroup attitudes can be ambivalent rather than uniformly positive or negative, Esses and her colleagues extended their open-ended techniques to assess attitudinal ambivalence toward various social groups. In one study, Bell, Esses, and Maio (1996) assessed evaluations, stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and emotions that a sample of English-Canadian university students in Ontario felt toward Native People, French-Canadians, Canadians, and Oriental immigrants. Respondents were more ambivalent toward Native People than Canadians or Oriental immigrants, with French-Canadians in between. Correlations between average ambivalence scores and an overall summary evaluation of each group showed that ambivalence was unrelated to attitude toward Native Peoples but negatively related to attitudes for the other groups, especially French-Canadians. Because MAIA takes into account ambivalence in intergroup attitudes, it could also qualify as an ambivalence approach to prejudice.

As perhaps the ultimate form of an integrative approach to the psychology of bigotry, one could ask what a general theory of prejudice would look like. In reviewing the literature on theories of racism and their own research on values and prejudice, Biernat, Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996) outlined just such a general theory of prejudice. A general theory, they suggested, should seek to predict or explain prejudice by oppressors toward an array of potential target groups, such as Blacks, homosexuals, ethnic groups, women, and so on in the United States and in other countries. They also generated a list of factors that promote prejudice. From racism and belief congruence theories (as well as SDT, ITT, and MAIA, it might be added), these prejudice-promoting factors include negative affect toward Blacks (and other groups), prototypic values such as antiegalitarianism, individualism, and the Protestant ethic, the perception that members of groups who are the target of prejudice violate cherished beliefs and values, as well as normative and contextual cues that condone or permit prejudice and discrimination. Other contributing factors, they noted, would include known correlates of prejudice, such as an authoritarian personality (especially RWA) and attributional styles in perceivers that lead them to attribute negative outcomes confronting oppressed people to internal, controllable causes rather than external ones.

To their list of factors promoting prejudice should also be added individual differences in aggressiveness and social dominance orientation, realistic threats, and situational cues that prime and stimulate negative out-group attitudes, both subliminally and supraliminally. In addition, unconscious processes of the types specified by the OTAP and automatic processing approaches to prejudice would also need to be taken into account. On the other hand, humanitarian and egalitarian values, internal motivation to avoid prejudice, and empathy and sympathetic identification with the underdog would help to counteract prejudice and its expression.

This outline for a general theory of prejudice summarizes well the insights of psychology’s best theories for understanding prejudice at the dawn of the twenty-first century. It highlights ambiguities that future research might try to resolve, such as whether egalitarian values promote or counter prejudice or both, depending on yet other factors. Finally, it is perhaps useful as a heuristic device for designing and executing studies of prejudice, with an eye to evaluating the relative power of promotive and counteractive factors and assessing their unique predictive power and interactions. Illustrating just such an approach is the research by Biernat, Vescio, Theno, and Crandall (1996), which (among other things) included measures of core American values, prejudice scales, supraliminal priming of values, and experimental variations in value violation by attitude targets representing (in different studies) variations in race, sexual orientation, and weight status.

Having completed a review of prejudice from the perspective of the bigot, I now consider the psychology of prejudice from the viewpoint of the victim or target.

The Psychology of the Victim of Prejudice and Discrimination

Psychologists have long been interested in the effects of discrimination on members of oppressed groups. One early approach to exploring this question was to assess samples of oppressed individuals on psychological measures as a means of exploring the impact of oppression. Kardiner and Ovesey (1951), for example, used psychoanalytic interviews and responses to projective tests such as the thematic apperception test (TAT) and the Rorschach to assess the “mark of oppression” among Black Americans. Similarly, Karon (1975) compared samples of White respondents and northern versus southern Black respondents in the United States on a modified version of the Tomkins-Horn Picture Arrangement Test (PAT), a projective test for assessing personality. Although both studies showed evidence of the stigma of being Black in the United States, they did not link it clearly to experiences of discrimination encountered by their respondents.

Attributional Ambiguity Perspectives

Beginning in the 1970s, research on the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination changed in several important ways (see Dion, Earn, &Yee, 1978). First, it shifted toward an experimental approach in which discrimination experiences were manipulated by investigators in the psychological laboratory by creating conditions in which participants from stigmatized groups either could or could not attribute a negative outcome to prejudice on the part of others (an attributional ambiguity paradigm) or were explicitly given the odds that their failure was due to discrimination by allegedly biased judges of their performance (the base rate paradigm). Second, these experimentally oriented researchers often adopted a viewpoint stressing the attributional ambiguity of being a target of prejudice (see Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Dion, 1975, 1986; Dion & Earn, 1975; Dion et al., 1978).

According to an attributional ambiguity perspective, instances of encountering prejudice or discrimination are often ambiguous. For example, Black Americans who encounter a rejection from a White American confront an attributional dilemma to explain the situation and must decide whether the rejection is due to something about themselves (i.e., a personal characteristic) or to something about the person rejecting them (e.g., a prejudicial bias or a discriminatory reaction against Blacks). Attributional ambiguity perspectives emphasize that the type of attributions that a victim of prejudice or discrimination makes in such a situation (i.e., an internal attribution to the self, an external attribution of perceived prejudice or discrimination, or perhaps both) has a psychological impact on the victim’s self-evaluations and affective reactions.

Attributions of Prejudice and Self-Esteem

Dion (1975) provided the first suggestive evidence for a link between attributions of prejudice and self-esteem in an experiment where university women competed against several opponents in a laboratory setting, who they were led to believe were either all male or all female; and the women themselves were made to fail either mildly or severely. Following experimentally induced failure, the women rated themselves on positive and negative traits comprising the female stereotype and self-esteem traits and indicated to what extent their opponents were biased and prejudiced against them. From this latter measure, women were further categorized into high- versus low-perceived prejudice groups, with perceived prejudice taken as an additional independent variable along with the experimental variables of alleged sex of the opponents and severity of failure (i.e., an internal analysis).

Unsurprisingly, the greater the failure, the lower was the women’s subsequent self-esteem. However, perceived prejudice moderated this effect and apparently mitigated the impact of severe failure in decreasing women’s self-esteem. Specifically, women who experienced severe failure with male opponents and perceived it as reflecting sexist prejudice showed higher self-regard than did those who did not see their putative male opponents as prejudiced. Dion (1975) interpreted this finding as suggesting that perceived prejudice or discrimination may not inevitably lower self-esteem in the victim. Rather, under some circumstances the attribution of prejudice may sustain self-esteem by enabling the minority or subordinate group member to attribute a negative experience to prejudice by others toward an arbitrary trait (i.e., their group membership) rather than to their own personal qualities as an individual.

In an important theoretical statement and elaboration of the attributional ambiguity perspective, Crocker and Major (1989) reviewed the then-existing literature and outlined several ways that members of stigmatized groups could protect their self-concepts in the face of a negative experience. For example, a stigmatized group member could interpret the negative encounter as due to prejudice or discrimination toward their group. Alternatively, they could protect themselves from invidious comparisons with privileged majority group members by comparing their outcomes to their own ingroup rather than to the out-group and by focusing on those dimensions on which their group exceeds the dominant outgroup. Major and Schmader (1998) have added psychological disengagement to the list of ways in which stigmatized group members may psychologically insulate and protect themselves from prejudice and discrimination. Miller and Kaiser (2001a, 2001b) recently outlined the wide variety of responses that those who are discriminated against may employ to protect themselves, drawing from the literature on coping and stress as well as attachment theory for insights.

Crocker and Major (1993) qualified the conditions under which attributing negative outcomes to prejudice could buttress one’s self-esteem: namely, when the stigma was perceived as legitimate, justifiable, or controllable and legitimizing beliefs supported the stigmatized group’s lower status, or when other important beliefs were threatened by attributions of prejudice. Crocker, Cornwell, and Major (1993) supported this reasoning in a subsequent experiment in which obese women were rejected by an attractive male confederate as a potential date. Although the obese women attributed the negative outcome to their weight, they did not attribute it to the male rater or to his prejudice. Crocker et al. interpreted the lower self-esteem by obese women to the fact that obesity is widely seen as a controllable stigma, which legitimizes and justifies prejudice and bias toward the overweight. The stigma of obesity, however, applies more to White than to Black American women (Hebl & Heatherton, 1998).

Crocker, Major, and their colleagues have also conducted experimental tests of the attributional ambiguity perspective with groups that regard prejudice and discrimination toward them as illegitimate. Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, and Major (1991) focused on sex and race in separate experiments in order to explore the potential buffering effects of perceived prejudice on self-esteem. Their study with White U.S. university women as participants succeeded in experimentally varying their attributions to prejudice on the part of a sexist man evaluating an essay of theirs negatively; however, the trait measure of global self-esteem failed to yield reliable differences as a function of perceived prejudice, though the mood measure followed the prediction of a self-protective function for attributions of prejudice.

Crocker et al. (1991) reported finding evidence for the buffering effects of perceived prejudice on self-esteem with BlackAmerican participants who had received either positive or negative interpersonal feedback from a White evaluator. These participants believed that the White evaluator either could see them from another room and was thus aware of their race or could not see them because of a drawn blind and hence was unaware of their race. Black participants who thought they could be seen by aWhite evaluator and had attributed the evaluator’s feedback to prejudice showed less of a pretestposttest difference in self-esteem than when they thought that the White evaluator could not see them. In other words, in the condition where prejudice was attributed, Black participants appeared to discount the negative feedback from a White evaluator, with the consequence that their self-esteem was left unchanged. They also discounted positive feedback when the White evaluator could allegedly see them and showed decreased self-esteem in that condition.

The classic book Black Like Me, in which White author James Griffin (1961) described his experiences posing as a Black man in the U.S. South of the 1950s, had suggested a similar process among Black Americans. Recalling an instance of racial discrimination he had experience, he noted, “The Negro’s only salvation . . . lies in his belief, the old belief of his fore fathers, that these things are not directed against him personally, but against his race, his pigmentation. His mother or aunt or teacher long ago carefully prepared him, explaining that ‘. . . they don’t do it to you because you’re Johnny—they don’t even know you. They do it against your Negro-ness’” (p. 48). In the United States, Black Americans are considerably more likely to be targets of prejudice and discrimination than are members of other minority or subordinate groups. Perhaps as a consequence of this greater victimization now and in the past, BlackAmericans have developed through ethnic group socialization the strategy of discounting negative (and perhaps positive) feedback from White majority group members and attributing negative feedback to prejudice as a means of coping and sustaining their self-esteem.

Some investigators (e.g., Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Kobrynowicz & Branscombe, 1997), however, have questioned whether Crocker et al. (1991) actually succeeded in demonstrating the buffering effects of attributing prejudice on self-esteem with their Black participants. Branscombe and Ellemers (1998) have instead suggested that in-group identification is a necessary mediator between the attribution of prejudice for experiences of oppression and selfesteem for Black American men and women as well as other minority groups in the United States, such as Native Americans and Hispanic-Americans. The greater the ingroup identification, the more likely that attributions of prejudice for experiences of discrimination or oppression will be associated with the maintenance and retention of high self-esteem.

Protective Benefits for Majority Group Members

Of course, even members of dominant, hegemonic groups can and sometimes do avail themselves of the self-protective benefits of perceiving themselves and their group as being discriminated against, but apparently without the same psychological dilemma and tradeoff confronting members of oppressed groups. Kobrynowicz and Branscombe (1997) argued that certain members of structurally privileged groups, such as White American men whose self-esteem may be low or otherwise vulnerable, may exaggerate estimates of perceived discrimination against their group as a means of bolstering their self-esteem. Consistent with this perspective, a sample of White men scoring low in self-esteem were especially prone to perceive themselves and their group as having been discriminated against on the basis of gender. Likewise, Branscombe (1998) showed that asking men to contemplate their group’s disadvantage on the basis of gender led to higher self-esteem, whereas thinking about their group’s advantages produced decreases on group-related well-being. By contrast, women contemplating their group’s disadvantages scored lower in reported self-esteem. Thus, the selfprotective effect of attributing one’s failure to discrimination is apparently even more evident among dominant majority group members and has positive benefits for both their selfesteem and their sense of control.

The Personal-Group Discrimination Discrepancy

Research originally conducted in the tradition of relative deprivation theory has suggested that individuals in subordinate and oppressed groups typically perceive more group discrimination than personal discrimination. Specifically, in testing models of egoistic relative deprivation (defined later), Crosby (1982) observed that members of a sample of working women in Massachusetts believed that they, as individual women, were personally less deprived and discriminated against in terms of income and employment opportunities than were women as a group. Crosby (1984) subsequently attributed the tendency for women to perceive less personal than group discrimination to a process of denial of their personal disadvantage.

This phenomenon has since been observed among ethnic and racial groups in the United States, Canada, and elsewhere and has been labeled the personal-group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD; Taylor, Wright, Moghaddam, & Lalonde, 1990; Taylor, Wright, & Porter, 1994). Much like Crosby (1982), Taylor et al. (1990) found that Haitian and East Indian women in Montreal reported more group than personal discrimination across four sources of potential discrimination (viz., race, culture, status as newcomers to Canada, and sex). Dion and Kawakami (1996) likewise found a PGDD across a variety of domains for six ethnic groups in Toronto, three of them visible minorities and the other three White or nonvisible minorities, although the PGDD was consistently stronger among the visible minorities.

Explanations for the Personal-Group Discrimination Discrepancy

One reason that people from oppressed groups may be reluctant to claim that they have personally experienced prejudice or discrimination is that there are social costs to attributing a setback to discrimination. In two studies, Kaiser and Miller (2001) showed that a Black person who attributed a failing grade on a test to discrimination was perceived by Whites as being a complainer and was evaluated less positively than was a Black person attributing the failure to the low quality of his answers on the test.

Perhaps the most comprehensive explanation of the PGDD, at present, has been suggested by Postmes, Branscombe, Spears, and Young (1999). Postmes and his colleagues argued that the PGDD is not an intentional comparison between oneself and one’s group as regards experienced discrimination. If the latter were the case, the difference between separate ratings of perceived discrimination for self and for group (i.e., the standard way of assessing the PGDD) should relate highly to a single direct comparison for self (compared to others of one’s group, e.g., a gender group) or in-group (compared to a comparison out-group, e.g., the other gender group). In fact, standard PGDD scores correlated only modestly with direct comparisons for self and for group.

Instead, Postmes et al. (1999) proposed and showed that ratings of personal discrimination and of group discrimination are based on two separate judgments: an interpersonal judgment comparing self and other in-group members for ratings of personal discrimination and an intergroup judgment comparing one’s in-group to an out-group for ratings of group discrimination. Consistent with this emphasis on different types of judgment and comparison referents, they also demonstrated that ratings of personal discrimination or advantage reflect personal, self-serving motives; whereas ratings of group discrimination or advantage are influenced by social identity motives and in-group identification. Other researchers’ analyses of the PGDD converge with Postmes et al.’s conclusions (Dion & Kawakami, 1996; Kessler, Mummendey, & Leisse, 2000; Quinn, Roese, Pennington, & Olson, 1999).

Perceived Prejudice and Discrimination as Stressors

A stress model.

A number of investigators have independently proposed that perceiving oneself to be a target of prejudice or discrimination is a psychosocial stressor. For example, Dion, Dion, and Pak (1992) contended that perceived prejudice or discrimination is a social stressor because it elicits cognitive appraisals of threat such that its victims see themselves as being deliberate targets of negative behavior by one or more out-group antagonists and impute stable, malevolent motives and intentions to them. Moreover, prejudice and discrimination are often unpredictable stressors, entailing greater adaptational costs for the victim than a predictable or controllable stressor (see Allison, 1998, for an excellent discussion of other stress models).

If perceived prejudice and discrimination are indeed stressors, they should produce in individuals various socialpsychological consequences known to result from stress, such as negative affect, reported stress, psychological or psychiatric symptoms, and lowered sense of well-being, as well as heightened in-group identification (a frequent response to external threat to one’s group). Dion et al.’s stress model of perceived discrimination has now been amply supported by both experimental and correlational studies. In an experiment varying perceived prejudice in an attributional ambiguity paradigm, Dion and Earn (1975) found that when they made attributions to prejudice for a severe failure, Jewish men showed evidence of heightened in-group identification as well as a stress response on mood measures: namely, feeling more aggression, greater sadness, higher anxiety, and heightened self-consciousness. Similar, Crocker et al. (1993) found that women, especially obese ones, reported more negative moods when they received negative feedback from an attractive man as opposed to positive feedback.

Correlational studies concur strongly with experimental studies in documenting a link between perceived discrimination and stress. Perceptions of discrimination in Black Americans correlate with psychiatric symptoms. Landrine and Klonoff (1996; Klonoff & Landrine, 1999) developed a reliable 18-item measure of perceived racial discrimination called the Schedule of Racist Events (SRE) and validated it in two separate studies with samples of Black American community respondents. In the most recent study with more than 500 respondents sampled from middle- and lower-class sections of San Bernardino, California, they found that 96% reported discrimination in the past year and 98% at some time during their lives. For 95% of the respondents, these discrimination experiences were labeled as stressful. Black American men reported more experiences of discrimination than did their female counterparts. In both studies, frequency of discrimination experiences correlated positively with psychiatric symptoms, accounting for about 10% of the variance. In the 1996 study, the frequency of discrimination experiences was also linked to cigarette smoking.

Other researchers have highlighted the cumulative and chronic stressfulness of perceived discrimination among Black Americans. Feagin (1991) emphasized that for Black Americans, even those well ensconced in the middle class, the cumulative effect of racist encounters over a lifetime becomes potentially more potent than a simple sum of frequency count of such experiences might suggest. Branscombe, Schmitt, and Harvey (1999) showed the negative effects upon well-being of chronic perceptions of discrimination in Black American respondents. Branscombe and her colleagues emphasized that chronic perceptions of discrimination and stable attributions of pervasive prejudice have quite different effects on selfesteem and well-being than do attributions to prejudice for a single event, such as is typically explored in laboratory studies of perceived prejudice or discrimination.

A Biopsychosocial Model

Clark, Anderson, Clark, and Williams (1999) proposed a biopsychosocial model of racism as a stressor for Black Americans. Its underlying assumption is that perceived racism leads to heightened psychological and physiological stress responses from Black Americans. In this model, constitutional, sociodemographic, psychological, and behavioral factors are proposed to moderate the relationship between an environmental stimulus and its perception as being racist. Perceptions of racism are then linked to coping responses, psychological and physiological stress responses, and health outcomes.

The links between perceived racism and health outcomes among Black Americans are perhaps the most intriguing and important aspect of Clark et al.’s (1999) model. The authors suggested that racism and its perception (or denial) relate to cardiovascular, neuroendocrine, and immune system responses by Black Americans. Hypertension among Black Americans may well be associated, albeit in complex ways, with experiences of racism and methods of coping with them. For example, Krieger (1990) found that Black American women who indicated that they passively accepted racist experiences were over four times more likely to report hypertension than were those indicating a more active response to unfair treatment. Moreover, those Black American women reporting no instances of unfair treatment were more than 2 1 2 times more likely to report hypertension than were those reporting one or more experiences of racism. If one assumes that Black women reporting no instances were denying or internalizing racist experiences, this finding and other studies (Krieger & Sidney, 1996) suggest that as a coping mechanism, denial may have unfortunate health correlates or consequences for Black Americans. The specific links between perceptions and experiences of racism and hypertension in Black Americans of both sexes, however, remain to be firmly established and better understood.

Like racism, sexism also has pernicious consequences for individuals experiencing and perceiving it. Landrine, Klonoff, Gibbs, Manning, and Lund (1995) correlated lifetime and recent experiences of sexist events from their Schedule of Sexist Events (SSE) with scores from anxiety and depression scales, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSC), and a measure of premenstrual tension syndrome (PMTS). Hierarchical regression analyses were performed in which generic stress measures for life events and hassles were entered at the first step, followed by lifetime and recent SSE scores in the second step. SSE scores accounted for additional variance beyond the generic stress indexes. Sexist discrimination emerged as an especially important and better predictor than generic stress for symptoms from the PMTS and HSC measures including premenstrual, somatization, obsessive-compulsive, depressive, and total psychiatric symptoms. Moreover, the ability of SSE scores to predict symptoms varied as a function of the U.S. women’s ages and ethnicities. Lifetime SSE scores enhanced prediction (over and above generic stress measures) of total HSC symptoms for older women but not for younger ones.

Buffers for Discrimination-Related Stress

Not all members of oppressed groups will suffer the stress of discrimination in the same way or to the same extent. The personality construct of hardiness—a composite of selfesteem and sense of control—may be one factor that buffers the stress of experiencing or perceiving discrimination toward oneself and one’s group. Dion et al. (1992) explored the role of personality-based hardiness in a study of Toronto’s Chinese community. As they predicted, the relationship of discrimination to psychological symptoms was markedly higher among Chinese community respondents who were low in hardiness than among those high in hardiness. Indeed, for those scoring high in hardiness, discrimination and reported psychological symptoms were effectively unrelated, whereas they related reasonably strongly for those low in hardiness. In addition, alternative interpretations in terms of differential life stresses or differential exposure to discrimination in the two hardiness groups were ruled out as rival explanations (see Dion et al., 1992).

Foster and Dion (2001) explored whether the beneficial relationship of personality-based hardiness to discriminationrelated stress is due to buffering or denial in an experiment in which women confronted gender discrimination on an examination. The findings favored a buffering interpretation and suggested that the buffering was due to the types of attributions that hardy women made relative to their less hardy counterparts. Specifically, hardy women made specific, unstable attributions rather than global, stable ones; that is, they tended to see the gender discrimination as a unique and unusual occurrence, even though there were no differences between the hardy and nonhardy women in perceived unfairness of the discrimination.

Whereas hardiness may provide a personality-based buffer and coping dimension, in-group identification has been hypothesized to be important in predicting reliance on group-based responses to coping with discrimination and buffering self-esteem. Branscombe and Ellemers (1998) proposed a rejection-identification model suggesting that greater willingness to make attributions to prejudice among Black Americans heightens their minority-group identification as well as hostility toward the dominant White group but has a negative effect on personal and collective sense of wellbeing. Minority-group identification, however, has a buffering effect in sustaining well-being. Branscombe and her colleagues tested and supported this model with SEM procedures. Some alternative theoretical models failed to receive support.

Stereotype Threat

Not only do women and minority members confront prejudice and discrimination, but they also must deal with broadly shared, negative stereotypes about their groups by majority group members, which can have pernicious and deleterious effects upon their academic and athletic performance. Black Americans, for example, confront low expectations in the realm of academic ability, whereas women in the United States, Canada, and some other societies are presumed by consensually shared stereotypes to be inferior in mathematics compared to men.

Steele (1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995) and his colleagues contended that negative stereotypes impugning the abilities of stigmatized group members constitute a powerful situational threat with two notable consequences. First, in a testing situation involving an ability where one’s group is negatively stereotyped, the performance of those members who care about the ability and doing well on the test can be adversely affected. Second, chronic experiences of stereotype threat can lead members of stigmatized groups to disidentify by denying the importance of the ability for themselves. At the college level, this disidentification can lead to academic dropouts among Black Americans and proportionally fewer women enrolling in math, science, and engineering programs where mathematical ability is prerequisite.

Initial Studies

Steele and Aronson (1995) reported the first set of four experiments documenting the impact of stereotype threat on the performance of Black American university students, relative to their White American counterparts, at Stanford University, an elite U.S. university. These investigators told participants that difficult and challenging items from the Graduate Record Examination (GRE) either were diagnostic of their intellectual ability (the diagnostic or stereotype threat condition) or were a test of problem-solving with no implications for diagnosing their intellectual ability (the nondiagnostic or nostereotype-threat condition). In all four studies, participants’ previous Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) scores in high school were statistically controlled in the analyses by means of analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) procedures.

The first two studies by Steele and Aronson (1995) demonstrated that Black American participants in the diagnostic or stereotype threat condition completed fewer items and attained lower accuracy (i.e., number of items correct relative to the number attempted) than did either Black or White participants in the other conditions. Steele and Aronson’s third experiment demonstrated that the diagnostic ability manipulation elicited among Black participants who were expecting to take a difficult test (but did not do so) the racial stereotype of Blacks held by Whites as well as an avoidance of selfcharacterization in terms of this stereotype, and even an avoidance of indicating one’s racial status on a demographic postquestionnaire, relative to nondiagnostic and control conditions. In Study 4, priming race by merely having participants indicate their race on a demographic questionnaire before attempting a challenging intellectual test served to inhibit performance by Black participants and presumably to elicit stereotype threat. Steele and Aronson proposed that the mechanism underlying the impact of stereotype threat on the test performance of their Black American participants was probably an inefficiency of cognitive processing, not unlike that produced by other evaluative pressures.

Croizet and Claire (1998) extended the applicability of the stereotype threat concept to those of low socioeconomic status (SES) outside the United States. Using a predominantly female sample of French university students, these investigators likewise found that under stereotype threat, students of low SES obtained fewer correct answers, attempted fewer items, and had lower overall accuracy on verbal GRE items. By contrast, much like Steele and Aronson (1995) had previously found in comparing Black and White American participants, there was no difference in test performance between participants of low and high SES when the same test was described as nondiagnostic of one’s intellectual ability. Varying the salience of SES before the test by having participants indicate their parents’occupation and educational level, however, had no effect in this study.

Recent Studies

Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) themselves applied stereotype threat theory to U.S. women’s math performance in three studies including math-oriented students who had taken calculusandhadperformedhighlyonthehigh-schoolmathematics section of the SAT. Their first experiment demonstrated that a gender difference, with women underperforming men, occurred only when the math GRE items used to assess math performance were difficult rather than easy. Spencer and his colleagues varied stereotype threat in the next two studies by informing participants either that there was a gender difference previously obtained with the math GRE items they were to solve (threat condition) or not (no stereotype threat). In the no threat condition, women’s performance on the math GRE test equalled that of men. By contrast, in the threat condition, women underperformed men. Finally, their third experiment demonstrated that the stereotype threat effect was obtainable at a state university in the U.S. whose academic standards were less rigorous and selective than the elite university samples in prior studies and further explored possible mediating processes. The mediational tests excluded evaluation apprehension and self-efficacy as a basis for the impact of stereotype threat on women’s math performance. Anxiety emerged as a weak mediator of stereotype threat.

Finally, recent studies by different sets of investigators show that stereotype threat can affect the performance of White majority group members and does not require that one be a member of a historically stigmatized group. Aronson et al. (1999) conducted two experiments in which White students of high math ability at an elite U.S. university were presented information that Asian Americans outperform Whites in math (stereotype threat condition) or not (no threat condition). Additionally, in the second study they selected math-oriented students who scored on the bottom and top tertiles of rated importance of mathematics ability to their self-concept as a means of assessing low versus high identification with this domain. Their first study showed that White students performed less well on a challenging math test when threatened with a racial stereotype indicating their inferiority relative to Asians. Their second study showed that this stereotype effect occurred only when the White students were math-identified and that evaluation apprehension was a weak, potential mediator.

Stone, Lynch, Sjomeling, and Darley (1999) took advantage of a golf test that they presented to Black and White Princeton University participants as indicating their “natural athletic ability” or their “sports intelligence.” Their first study showed that performance by Black students on the golf test suffered more when it constituted a stereotype threat (an indication of sports intelligence—a negative stereotype for Whites) than when it did not (an indication of natural athletic ability—a positive stereotype for Blacks). By contrast, for White participants for whom the opposite was true (i.e., sports intelligence is a positive stereotype, and natural athletic ability is a negative or less positive stereotype than for Blacks), the reverse pattern was obtained, as predicted from stereotype threat theory. Their second study, focusing on White participants only, showed that the detrimental effects of stereotype threat on performance on the golf test occurred only for “engaged” participants for whom performance in the athletic domain was important to their self-worth and not for those who were “disengaged.” In addition to showing the importance of engagement for the stereotype threat effect, their explorations of mediators for White participants implicated performance anxiety and lowered expectations when the task’s difficulty became apparent.

In sum, accumulating evidence suggests that the stereotype threat effect is real and that its effects can be demonstrated among historically stigmatized groups such as Black Americans and White women as well as nonstigmatized groups. Also, apart from the obvious importance of a person being engaged and identified with the domain (e.g., math, athletics, etc.), the precise mechanisms responsible for the stereotype threat effect remain somewhat ambiguous. The preceding studies have assessed an array of potential mediators—such as self-handicapping and situational and trait anxiety, as well as test anxiety, evaluation apprehension; self-concept, and so on—with self-report measures. Weak evidence of potential mediators has emerged, though not the same ones across studies and groups. Perhaps different mechanisms will ultimately be shown to be important for different target groups. What seems clear at present is that the stereotype threat effect is not due to a lowering of effort, as stereotype-threatened individuals typically work or try harder than their nonthreatened counterparts. On the other hand, stereotype threat seems to act as a distractor and an additional pressure that reduces one’s effectiveness for successfully completing challenging tasks at the limit of one’s ability in a given domain.

Advocates of stereotype threat theory suggest that their perspective is optimistic in that it points to a situational stressor as a key factor in underperformance by negatively stereotyped and stigmatized groups, in contrast to dispositional interpretations of innate inferiority in ability, genetic factors, and so on. Stereotype threat theory also provides a viable explanation for why academic achievement tests have lower criterion validity for stigmatized groups in the U.S. and elsewhere than for nonstigmatized ones. Once the deleterious effects of stereotype threat are identified and understood, steps to counteract them in standardized testing and in academic learning environments can be developed—a process that Steele and his colleagues have already begun with some notable success (see Aronson, Quinn, & Spencer, 1998; Steele, 1997).

Relative Deprivation, Perceived Discrimination, and Desire for Corrective Action

Paradoxically, members of oppressed groups do not always, or even often, respond to stereotypes, disadvantage, deprivation, and discrimination by seeking redress or social change. Relative deprivation theory (RDT) is one conceptual framework that tries to predict when and why members of an oppressed group will respond to their disadvantage with attempts to instigate social change, such as political protest. As its name implies, RDT assumes that one’s feelings of deprivation are not absolute but instead depend on the individual or group with whom one compares.

RDT proposes different types of deprivation as defined by two dimensions. One dimension concerns the focus of comparison and defines the distinction between egoistic and fraternalistic relative deprivation (RD). Egoistic RD occurs when an individual feels deprived relative to others in their membership group. Fraternalistic RD (also called collectivistic RD by those of us preferring a gender-neutral label) occurs when one’s group is perceived to be at a disadvantage to one or more out-groups. The second dimension concerns the cognitive-affective distinction. Cognitive RD concerns the perception of inequality, whereas affective RD refers to resentment over inequalities. Taken together, these two dimensions define four types of RD. Reviews of RDT (e.g., Dion, 1986) indicate that of these four types, it is primarily affective, collectivistic RD (i.e., resentment over poorer treatment of one’s group compared to other groups) that best predicts desires and attempts at social change.

In a series of studies, I and my colleagues have pitted perceived discrimination against measures of RD types to assess their relative efficacy at predicting attitudinal measures of desires to take corrective action (Dion, 2002). With groups in Canada such as lesbians and gays, Chinese university students, and women, we have consistently found that perceived discrimination is a more powerful and consistent predictor of reported desires to corrective action than are the different RD types, with the notable exception of affective, collectivistic RD (e.g., Birt & Dion, 1987; Dion & Kawakami, 2000). Together, perceived discrimination and affective, collectivistic RD predict desires to take corrective action in response to group disadvantage quite well. Relatedly, Foster (2000) has shown that global attributions of gender discrimination (i.e., seeing gender discrimination as affecting many situations in one’s life) was also associated with greater proneness to support collective action in U.S. college women. Thus, the victim’s perceptions of discrimination—whether it is seen as being global in its effects, whether it affects one’s group, and whether it evokes a negative affective response—make a difference in stimulating desires to take corrective action and to mobilize one’s efforts with others to create social change.

Perceived prejudice and discrimination are pivotal in the psychology of ethnic and intergroup relations. The literature on the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination that was reviewed earlier suggests several conclusions. First, for some groups and for some individuals within oppressed groups, perceptions of prejudice and attributions of setbacks to prejudice may buffer self-esteem and maintain well-being. However, the buffering effect of attributed prejudice is probably a weak one, may occur for only some groups, involves a tradeoff between types of self-esteem and perceived control, and is mediated or moderated by in-group identification. Somewhat perversely, the buffering effects of perceived discrimination on self-esteem seem to be more straightforward and clearer for members of dominant than of subordinate groups. Second, the experience or perception of prejudice and discrimination toward oneself and one’s group is unquestionably stressful, although personality-based hardiness and in-group identification may moderate discriminationrelated stress to some extent. Discrimination-related stress has been linked to mental and physical health outcomes for both American women and Black Americans. Stereotype threat—the perception of being negatively stereotyped by others in academic and other domains—is also a stressor whose deleterious effects on achievement task performance are now established, although the mediators are unclear. Finally, Some evidence suggests that perceived prejudice and discrimination, along with feelings of resentment about ingroup disadvantage relative to other groups, instigate desires to take corrective social action. These conclusions demonstrate that our knowledge of the psychology of victimization has advanced appreciably in the last several decades of the twentieth century.

A Final Thought

Having considered the psychology of bigotry as well as the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination, a next step for future psychological research on prejudice may be to explore the reciprocal interaction between bigot and victim. To date, the psychology of bigotry and the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination have been investigated separately from one another and have focused heavily on intrapersonal dynamics (e.g., the effects of automatic processing on a person’s cognitions and behaviors). Yet, some previous theorists (e.g., Dion et al., 1978) have suggested that the bigot and the victim of prejudice form a complementary role relationship with one another. Understanding the interpersonal dynamics of prejudice may require investigating situations in the laboratory and the community where victims of prejudice confront the bigotry, whether from one or more persons or an institution, directly. As always, psychological researchers interested in prejudice will rise to the methodological and theoretical challenges of exploring the reciprocal interactions between bigot and victim.

Bibliography:

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
• Allison, K. W. (1998). Stress and oppressed social category membership. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 145–170). Orlando, FL: Academic.
• Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism . Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding rightwing authoritarianism . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 29–46.
• Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Stereotype threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and women. In C. Stangor & J. Swim (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 83–103). Orlando, FL: Academic.
• Bargh, J. (1989). Unintended thought . New York: Guilford.
• Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of openended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 12–18.
• Biernat,M.,Vescio,T.K.,&Theno,S.A.(1996).ViolatingAmerican values: A “value congruence” approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387–410.
• Biernat,M.,Vescio,T.K.,Theno,S.A.,&Crandall,C.S.(1996).Values and prejudice:Toward understanding the impact ofAmerican values on out-groupattitudes. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Birt, C. M., & Dion, K. L. (1987). Relative deprivation theory and responses to discrimination in a gay male and lesbian sample. British Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 139–145.
• Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184.
• Branscombe,N.R.,&Ellemers,N.(1998).Copingwithgroup-based discrimination.InJ.K.Swim&C.Stangor(Eds.), Prejudice:The target’s perspective (pp. 243–266). Orlando, FL:Academic.
• Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149.
• Brown, R. (1967). Social psychology. New York: Free Press.
• Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African-Americans. American Psychologist, 54, 805–816.
• Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
• Cox, C. L., Smith, S. L., & Insko, C. A. (1996). Categorical race versus individuating belief as determinants of discrimination: A study of southern adolescents in 1966, 1979, and 1993. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 39–70.
• Crocker, J., Cornwell, B., & Major, B. (1993). The stigma of overweight: Affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 60–70.
• Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective function. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.
• Crocker,J.,&Major,B.(1993).Reactionstostigma.Themoderating role of justifications. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 289– 314). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social Stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228.
• Croizet, J.-C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 588–594.
• Crosby, F. (1982). Relative deprivation and working women. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386.
• Crosby, F., Bromley, S., & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546–563.
• Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
• Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1999).Automaticity and control in stereotyping. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theoriesinsocialpsychology (pp.339–360).NewYork:Guilford.
• Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with and without compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 817–830.
• Dion, K. L. (1975). Women’s reactions to discrimination from members of the same or the opposite sex. Journal of Research in Personality, 9, 294–306.
• Dion, K. L. (1986). Responses to perceived discrimination and relative deprivation. In J. M. Olson, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 159–179). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Dion, K. L. (1990). Review of the book Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Canadian Psychology, 31, 374–376.
• Dion, K. L. (2002). The social psychology of perceived prejudice and discrimination. Canadian Psychology, 43, 1–10.
• Dion, K. L., Dion, K. K., & Pak, A. W.-p. (1992). Personality-based hardiness as a buffer for discrimination-related stress in members of Toronto’s Chinese community. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 24, 517–536.
• Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 944–950.
• Dion, K. L., Earn, B. M., & Yee, P. H. N. (1978). The experience of being a victim of prejudice: An experimental approach. International Journal of Psychology, 13, 197–214.
• Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (1996). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another look at the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 203–213.
• Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (2000, June 18). Predictors of collective action among women. Symposium presentation to the Third Biennial Meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Minneapolis, MN.
• Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic.
• Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the expression and assessment of racial prejudice. In H. J. Knopke, R. J. Norrell, & R. W. Rogers (Eds.), Opening doors: Perspectives on race relations in contemporary America (pp. 119–148). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
• Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319.
• Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540.
• Dovidio, J. F., Smith, J. K., Gershenfeld Donnella, A. G., & Gaertner, S. L. (1997). Racial attitudes and the death penalty. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1466–1487.
• Duckitt, J. (1994). The social psychology of prejudice. Westport, CT: Praeger.
• Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137– 166). Orlando, FL:Academic.
• Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). The role of mood in the expression of intergroup stereotypes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Symposium. (Vol. 7, pp. 77–101). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: Abona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027.
• Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: AntiBlack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116.
• Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Foster, M. D. (2000). Utilization of global attributions in recognizing and responding to gender discrimination among college women. Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 19, 57–69.
• Foster, M. D., & Dion, K. L. (2001, June). Hardiness and responses to perceived discrimination: Buffer or denial? Symposium conducted at the 13th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
• Glick, P., & Fiske, S. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.
• Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
• 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, 1464–1480.
• Griffin, J. H. (1961). Black like me. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
• Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 105–118.
• Hass, R. G., Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786–797.
• Hebl, M. R., & Heatherton, T. F. (1998). The stigma of obesity in women: The difference is black and white. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 417–426.
• Insko, C. A., Nacoste, R. W., & Moe, J. L. (1983). Belief congruence and racial discrimination: Review of the evidence and critical evaluation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 153–174.
• Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.
• Kardiner, A., & Ovesey, L. (1951). The mark of oppression. New York: Norton.
• Karon, B. P. (1975). Black scars: A rigorous investigation of the effects of discrimination. New York: Springer.
• Katz, I., & Glass, D. C. (1979). An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 55–70). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
• Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893–905.
• Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial prejudice and stereotype activation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 407–416.
• Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., & Leisse, U.-K. (2000). The personalgroup discrepancy: Is there a common information basis for personal and group judgment? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 95–109.
• Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.
• Klonoff, E. A., & Landrine, H. (1999). Cross-validation of the Schedule of Racist Events. Journal of Black Psychology, 25, 231–254.
• Kobrynowicz, D., & Branscombe, N. R. (1997). Who considers themselves victims of discrimination? Individual difference predictors of perceived gender discrimination in women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 347–363.
• Krieger, N. (1990). Racial and gender discrimination: Risk factors for high blood pressure? Social Science & Medicine, 30, 1273–1281.
• Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. (1996). Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA Study of young black and white adults. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 1370–1378.
• Lambert, A. J., Burroughs, T., & Chasteen, A. L. (1998). Belief in a just world and right-wing authoritarianism as moderators of perceived risk. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 107–125). New York: Plenum.
• Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events: Ameasure of racial discrimination and a study of its negative and physical and mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168.
• Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., Manning, V., & Lund, M. (1995). Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender discrimination: An application of the Schedule of Sexist Events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 473–492.
• Larson, C. R. (Ed.). (1971). New York: Signet.
• Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275–287 .
• Lerner, M. J. (1978). “Belief in a just world” versus the “authoritarian” syndrome . . . but nobody liked the Indians. Ethnicity, 8, 229–237.
• Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
• Lerner, M. J., & Montada, L. (1998). An overview: Advances in belief in a just world theory and methods. In L. Montada & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world (pp. 1–7). New York: Plenum.
• Levin, S., Sidanius, J. (1999). Social dominance and social identity in the United States and Israel: In-group favoritism and outgroup derogation. Political Psychology, 20, 99–126.
• Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. (1998). Ethnic identity, legitimizing ideologies, and social status: Amatter of ideological asymmetry. Political Psychology, 19, 373–404.
• Lippa, R., & Arad, S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463–493.
• Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., & Bell, D. W. (1994). The formation of attitudes toward new immigrant groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1762–1776.
• Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through psychological disengagement. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 219–241). Orlando, FL: Academic.
• 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). Orlando, FL: Academic.
• Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2001a). A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma. The Journal of Social Issues, 57 (1), 73–92.
• Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2001b). Implications of mental models of self and others for the targets of discrimination. In M. R. Leary (Ed.) Interpersonal rejection (pp. 189–212). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Montada, L., & Lerner, M. J. (Eds.). (1998). Responses to victimizations and belief in a just world . New York: Plenum.
• Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 469–485.
• Monteith, M. J., Devine, P. G., & Zuwerink, J. R. (1993). Selfdirected versus other-directed affect as a consequence of prejudice-related discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 198–210.
• Monteith, M. J., & Walters, G. L. (1998). Egalitarianism, moral obligation, and prejudice-related standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 186–199.
• Myrdal, G. (1944). The American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy . New York: Harper.
• Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). Racial change and social policy. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 441, 114–131.
• Pettigrew, T. F., Jackson, J. S., Ben Brika, J., Lemaine, G., Meertens, R. W., Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1998). Out-group prejudice in Western Europe. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 241–273). London: Wiley.
• Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75.
• Pilkington, N. W., & Lydon, J. E. (1997). The relative effect of attitude similarity and attitude dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction: Investigating the moderating roles of prejudice and group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 107–122.
• Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811–832.
• Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999). Comparative processes in personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 320–338.
• Pratto, F., Liu, J. H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance orientation and the legitimization of inequality across cultures. Journal of CrossCultural Psychology, 31, 369–409.
• Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
• Quinn, K. A., Roese, N. J., Pennington, G. L., & Olson, J. M. (1999). The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: The role of information complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1430–1440.
• Rokeach, M. (Ed.). (1960). The open and closed mind . New York: Basic Books.
• Rokeach, M., & Mezei, L. (1966). Race and shared belief as factors in social distance. Science, 151, 167–172.
• Rokeach, M., Smith, P. W., & Evans, R. I. (1960). Two kinds of prejudice or one? In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind (pp. 132–168). New York; Basic Books.
• Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385.
• Schwartz, S., & Struch, N. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and intergroup antagonism. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–168). New York: SpringerVerlag.
• Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1997). Perceived threat and social dominance as determinants of prejudice toward Russian and Ethiopian immigrants in Israel. Megamot, 38, 504–527.
• Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum.
• Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 24, pp. 2–91). San Diego, CA: Academic.
• Sidanius, J., Levin, S., Rabinowitz, J. L., & Federico, C. M. (1999). Peering into the jaws of the beast: The integrative dynamics of social identity, symbolic racism, and social dominance. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 80–131). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
• Sniderman, P. M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., & Kendrick, A. (1991). The new racism: American Journal of Political Science, 35, 423–447.
• Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986). Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution in political analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 42 (2), 129–150.
• Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (2000). Pride and prejudice: Fear of death and social behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 200–204.
• Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. (1999). Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 4–28.
• Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
• Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.
• Stein, D. D., Hardyck, J. A., & Smith, M. B. (1965). Race and belief: An open and shut case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 281–289.
• Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. G., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A.-M., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 63–73.
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41 (3), 157–176.
• Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 409–426.
• Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants: An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 2221–2237.
• Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C. M., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29, 559–576.
• Stone,J.,Lynch,C.L.,Sjomeling,M.,&Darley,J.M.(1999).Stereotype threat effects on black and white athletic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1213–1227.
• Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214.
• Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., Moghaddam, F. M., & Lalonde, R. N. (1990). The personal/group discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself, to be a target of discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 254–262.
• Taylor, D. M., Wright, S. C., & Porter, L. E. (1994). Dimensions of perceived discrimination: The personal/group discrimination discrepancy. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 233–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ca change, plus c’est pareil [The more things change, the more they’re the same]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
• Vala, J., & Lima, M. (2001, May). Implicit racial attitudes: The impact of the norms of egalitarianism and individualism on the deindividuation of black persons. Paper presented at the Group Meeting on Prejudice and Racism co-sponsored by EAESP and SPSSI, Granada, Spain.
• Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.
• Ybarra, O. J., & Stephan, W. G. (1994). Perceived threat as a predictor of stereotypes and prejudice: Americans’ reactions to Mexican immigrants. Boletin de Psicologia, 42, 39–54.
• Zanna, M. P. (1994). On the nature of prejudice. Canadian Psychology, 35, 11–23.

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: When Employees Identify with Their Company, They’re Less Likely to Recognize Gender Discrimination

• Jamie L. Gloor,
• Tyler Okimoto,
• Brooke Gazdag,
• Michelle Ryan

Beware the “not here” bias.

Identifying as an organizational member — or feeling a strong sense of attachment to the organization — is generally a positive thing for employees and employers. But our research on workplace incivility and mistreatment shows that it can also shape when — and if — employees recognize and respond to subtle forms of discrimination against women at work. Evidence shows that leaders, as well as employees, play a key role in identifying and remedying gender discrimination in all its forms. If the goal is to proactively address gender discrimination in the workplace and encourage leaders and workers to remove their rose-colored glasses, this article offers a few suggestions.

You’re in the elevator of your office building. The doors open and two coworkers — one male and one female — enter the elevator in a heated debate. The female employee is trying to explain an issue on a project she’s leading, but the male employee interrupts her: “ Geez, I’ve heard enough of you and your opinions!” The woman falls silent, clearly upset and shaken by the comment.

• JG Jamie L. Gloor is a Swiss National Science Foundation professor of Leadership & Diversity Science at the University of St.Gallen in Switzerland. Her research, teaching, and speaking focus on diversity and inclusion, leadership, humor, and sustainability to craft more equitable, enjoyable, and productive workplaces with positive impact.
• TO Tyler Okimoto is a professor of management and academic dean within the faculty of Business, Economics, and Law at the University of Queensland. His research aims to understand the factors that bias employee judgments and lead to discrimination at work, and how organizations can work through biased viewpoints to promote consensus and a greater sense of fairness.

Xinxin Li is an associate professor of management at the Antai College of Economics and Management at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University. Her research focuses on DEI, business ethics, and emotions at work.

• BG Brooke Gazdag is an associate professor and academic director of executive education at the Kühne Logistics University in Hamburg, Germany. Through her research and teaching, she seeks to improve employees’ experience at work through leadership, negotiations, and diversity and inclusion.

Michelle Ryan is a professor of social and organizational psychology and the director of the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership at The Australian National University. Her work centers on understanding the psychological processes underlying workplace gender inequality, and designing and implementing innovative and evidence-based interventions to increase gender equality.

Partner Center

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 09 May 2024

Cubic millimetre of brain mapped in spectacular detail

• Carissa Wong

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rendering based on electron-microscope data, showing the positions of neurons in a fragment of the brain cortex. Neurons are coloured according to size. Credit: Google Research & Lichtman Lab (Harvard University). Renderings by D. Berger (Harvard University)

Researchers have mapped a tiny piece of the human brain in astonishing detail. The resulting cell atlas, which was described today in Science 1 and is available online , reveals new patterns of connections between brain cells called neurons, as well as cells that wrap around themselves to form knots, and pairs of neurons that are almost mirror images of each other.

The 3D map covers a volume of about one cubic millimetre, one-millionth of a whole brain, and contains roughly 57,000 cells and 150 million synapses — the connections between neurons. It incorporates a colossal 1.4 petabytes of data. “It’s a little bit humbling,” says Viren Jain, a neuroscientist at Google in Mountain View, California, and a co-author of the paper. “How are we ever going to really come to terms with all this complexity?”

Slivers of brain

The brain fragment was taken from a 45-year-old woman when she underwent surgery to treat her epilepsy. It came from the cortex, a part of the brain involved in learning, problem-solving and processing sensory signals. The sample was immersed in preservatives and stained with heavy metals to make the cells easier to see. Neuroscientist Jeff Lichtman at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues then cut the sample into around 5,000 slices — each just 34 nanometres thick — that could be imaged using electron microscopes.

Jain’s team then built artificial-intelligence models that were able to stitch the microscope images together to reconstruct the whole sample in 3D. “I remember this moment, going into the map and looking at one individual synapse from this woman’s brain, and then zooming out into these other millions of pixels,” says Jain. “It felt sort of spiritual.”

A single neuron (white) shown with 5,600 of the axons (blue) that connect to it. The synapses that make these connections are shown in green. Credit: Google Research & Lichtman Lab (Harvard University). Renderings by D. Berger (Harvard University)

When examining the model in detail, the researchers discovered unconventional neurons, including some that made up to 50 connections with each other. “In general, you would find a couple of connections at most between two neurons,” says Jain. Elsewhere, the model showed neurons with tendrils that formed knots around themselves. “Nobody had seen anything like this before,” Jain adds.

The team also found pairs of neurons that were near-perfect mirror images of each other. “We found two groups that would send their dendrites in two different directions, and sometimes there was a kind of mirror symmetry,” Jain says. It is unclear what role these features have in the brain.

Proofreaders needed

The map is so large that most of it has yet to be manually checked, and it could still contain errors created by the process of stitching so many images together. “Hundreds of cells have been ‘proofread’, but that’s obviously a few per cent of the 50,000 cells in there,” says Jain. He hopes that others will help to proofread parts of the map they are interested in. The team plans to produce similar maps of brain samples from other people — but a map of the entire brain is unlikely in the next few decades, he says.

“This paper is really the tour de force creation of a human cortex data set,” says Hongkui Zeng, director of the Allen Institute for Brain Science in Seattle. The vast amount of data that has been made freely accessible will “allow the community to look deeper into the micro-circuitry in the human cortex”, she adds.

Gaining a deeper understanding of how the cortex works could offer clues about how to treat some psychiatric and neurodegenerative diseases. “This map provides unprecedented details that can unveil new rules of neural connections and help to decipher the inner working of the human brain,” says Yongsoo Kim, a neuroscientist at Pennsylvania State University in Hershey.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01387-9

Shapson-Coe, A. et al. Science 384 , eadk4858 (2024).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Neuroscience

Retuning of hippocampal representations during sleep

Article 08 MAY 24

Structural pharmacology and therapeutic potential of 5-methoxytryptamines

Magnetic field effects on behaviour in Drosophila

Matters Arising 01 MAY 24

Found: the dial in the brain that controls the immune system

News 01 MAY 24

Rat neurons repair mouse brains — and restore sense of smell

News 25 APR 24

Mini-colon and brain ‘organoids’ shed light on cancer and other diseases

News 24 APR 24

Faculty Positions at the Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

CMLR's goal is to advance machine learning-related research across a wide range of disciplines.

Beijing, China

Center for Machine Learning Research (CMLR), Peking University

Faculty Positions at SUSTech Department of Biomedical Engineering

We seek outstanding applicants for full-time tenure-track/tenured faculty positions. Positions are available for both junior and senior-level.

Shenzhen, Guangdong, China

Southern University of Science and Technology (Biomedical Engineering)

Southeast University Future Technology Institute Recruitment Notice

Professor openings in mechanical engineering, control science and engineering, and integrating emerging interdisciplinary majors

Nanjing, Jiangsu (CN)

Southeast University

Staff Scientist

A Staff Scientist position is available in the laboratory of Drs. Elliot and Glassberg to study translational aspects of lung injury, repair and fibro

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University Chicago - Department of Medicine

W3-Professorship (with tenure) in Inorganic Chemistry

The Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bonn invites applications for a W3-Pro...

53113, Zentrum (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Delving into Human Behavior: the Art of Naturalistic Observation

This essay about the method of naturalistic observation in psychology, highlighting its unique ability to capture authentic human behavior in real-life settings. It discusses the importance of observing behavior in natural environments, where individuals interact spontaneously, offering insights into social dynamics and generating new research avenues. Despite challenges like observer bias and resource constraints, naturalistic observation remains a valuable tool for understanding the intricacies of human behavior and social interaction.

How it works

In the vast landscape of psychological research, one methodology stands out for its ability to capture the essence of human behavior in its most authentic form: naturalistic observation. Far from the sterile confines of a laboratory, naturalistic observation ventures into the heart of everyday life, unveiling the intricacies of human interaction and behavior within their natural habitat. It is a journey into the realm of genuine experience, where the complexities of social dynamics and individual quirks are laid bare for scrutiny and understanding.

At its core, naturalistic observation offers a unique perspective on human behavior by immersing researchers in the environments where it naturally unfolds. Whether it’s a bustling city street, a tranquil park, or a lively classroom, these natural settings serve as the stage for the drama of everyday life. Here, researchers become silent observers, blending into the background as they witness the ebb and flow of human interaction with an unobtrusive gaze. It is through this lens that the true essence of behavior is revealed, unencumbered by the constraints of artificial experimental setups.

One of the most compelling aspects of naturalistic observation is its ability to capture the nuances of social interaction in real-time. In these natural settings, individuals behave in ways that are spontaneous and unscripted, offering researchers a glimpse into the intricacies of human relationships and social dynamics. Whether it’s the subtle cues of nonverbal communication or the complex interplay of group dynamics, naturalistic observation allows researchers to peel back the layers of social behavior and uncover its underlying mechanisms.

Moreover, naturalistic observation holds immense potential for uncovering unexpected insights and generating new avenues of research. As researchers immerse themselves in the rich tapestry of everyday life, they may stumble upon intriguing patterns or phenomena that spark their curiosity. Perhaps it’s the way pedestrians navigate a crowded street or the dynamics of conversation in a bustling café. These seemingly mundane observations can serve as the seeds for further exploration, leading researchers down unexpected paths of inquiry and discovery.

However, naturalistic observation is not without its challenges and limitations. One of the most significant hurdles is the potential for observer bias, wherein the presence of the researcher may subtly influence the behavior of those being observed. To mitigate this risk, researchers employ a variety of strategies, such as blending into the environment or employing covert observation techniques. Additionally, naturalistic observation can be resource-intensive, requiring researchers to invest significant time and effort in data collection and analysis.

Despite these challenges, the benefits of naturalistic observation are undeniable. By providing a window into the complexities of human behavior in its natural habitat, this approach offers unparalleled insights into the intricacies of social interaction and individual behavior. It is a journey into the heart of what it means to be human, where the mundane becomes extraordinary and the ordinary becomes extraordinary. In the hands of skilled researchers, naturalistic observation is not just a tool for understanding behavior; it is a gateway to a deeper understanding of the human experience itself.

Cite this page

Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation. (2024, May 12). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/

"Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation." PapersOwl.com , 12 May 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/ [Accessed: 12 May. 2024]

"Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation." PapersOwl.com, May 12, 2024. Accessed May 12, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/

"Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation," PapersOwl.com , 12-May-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/. [Accessed: 12-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Delving into Human Behavior: The Art of Naturalistic Observation . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/delving-into-human-behavior-the-art-of-naturalistic-observation/ [Accessed: 12-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers