View source for Prejudice

{{Short description|Attitudes based on preconceived categories}}
{{other uses}}
[[File:Mr-prejudice-1943.jpg|thumb|''Mr. Prejudice'', painted by [[Horace Pippin]] in 1943, depicts a personal view of race relations in the United States.]]
'''Prejudice''' can be an affective feeling towards a person based on their perceived [[In-group and out-group|social group membership]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Definition of PREJUDICE |url=https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice |access-date=2021-09-21 |website=[[Merriam-Webster]] |language=en}}</ref> The word is often used to refer to a preconceived (usually unfavourable) evaluation or classification of another person based on that person's perceived personal characteristics, such as [[sex]], [[gender]], [[gender identity]], [[belief]]s, [[Value (personal and cultural)|values]], [[social class]], [[friendship]], [[Ageing|age]], [[disability]], [[religion]], [[sexual orientation|sexuality]], [[Race (human classification)|race]], [[ethnicity]], [[language]], [[nationality]], [[culture]], [[complexion]], [[beauty]], [[height]], [[body weight]], [[job|occupation]], [[wealth]], [[education]], [[criminality]], [[Fan loyalty|sport-team affiliation]], [[Psychology of music preference|music tastes]] or other perceived characteristics.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Bethlehem|first=Douglas W.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rI3wCQAAQBAJ&q=prejudice+psychology|title=A Social Psychology of Prejudice|date=2015-06-19|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-1-317-54855-3|language=en}}</ref>

The word "prejudice" can also refer to unfounded or [[pigeonholed]] beliefs<ref>{{Cite journal | doi= 10.1177/0165025407083670|title = Commentary: The Problems of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Exclusion| journal= International Journal of Behavioral Development| volume= 31| issue= 5| pages= 419–422 |year = 2007 |last1 = Turiel |first1 = Elliot |s2cid = 145744721}}</ref><ref>[[William James]] wrote: "A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." [http://www.freemaninstitute.com/quotes.htm Quotable Quotes – Courtesy of The Freeman Institute.]</ref> and it may apply to "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence".<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Rosnow |first1= Ralph L. |title= Poultry and Prejudice |journal= Psychologist Today |date= March 1972 |volume= 5 |issue= 10 |pages= 53–6}}</ref> [[Gordon Allport]] defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience".<ref>{{cite book|last= Allport|first= Gordon|title= The Nature of Prejudice|year= 1979|publisher= Perseus Books Publishing|isbn= 978-0-201-00179-2|page= 6}}</ref> [[Lene Auestad|Auestad]] (2015) defines prejudice as characterized by "symbolic transfer", transfer of a value-laden meaning content onto a socially-formed category and then on to individuals who are taken to belong to that category, resistance to change, and overgeneralization.<ref>
{{cite book
|last1= Auestad|first1= Lene|title= Respect, Plurality, and Prejudice
|date= 2015|publisher= Karnac|location= London|isbn= 9781782201397
|pages= xxi–xxii|edition= 1
|url= http://www.karnacbooks.com/product/respect-plurality-and-prejudice-a-psychoanalytical-and-philosophical-enquiry-into-the-dynamics-of-social-exclusion-and-discrimination/35283/?MATCH=1
}}
</ref>

The [[United Nations]] Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility has highlighted research considering prejudice as a [[International security | global security]] threat due to its use in [[scapegoating]] some populations and inciting others to commit [[violence | violent acts]] towards them and how this can endanger individuals, countries, and the international community.<ref>{{cite web | last=Bello | first=Valeria | title=Why Prejudice is a Global Security Threat | website=UNU-GCM: United Nations University Institute on Globalization, Culture and Mobility | date=2014 | url=https://gcm.unu.edu/publications/articles/why-prejudice-is-a-global-security-threat.html}}</ref>

==Etymology==
{{Unreferenced section|date=July 2024}}
The word prejudice has been used since [[Middle English]] around the year 1300. It comes from the [[Old French]] word préjudice, which comes from [[Latin]] praeiūdicium which comes from prae (before) and iūdicium (judgment).

==Historical approaches==
The first [[psychological research]] conducted on prejudice occurred in the 1920s. This research attempted to prove [[white supremacy]]. One article from 1925 which reviewed 73 studies on race concluded that the studies seemed "to indicate the mental superiority of the white race".<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/h0075064 |title=A review of race psychology |url=https://archive.org/details/sim_psychological-bulletin_1930-05_27_5/page/n1 |year=1930 |last1=Garth |first1=T. Rooster. |journal=[[Psychological Bulletin]] |volume=27 |issue=5 |pages=329–56}}</ref> These studies, along with other research, led many psychologists to view prejudice as a natural response to races believed to be inferior.

In the 1930s and 1940s, this perspective began to change due to the increasing concern about [[Antisemitism|anti-Semitism]] due to the ideology of the [[Nazis]]. At the time, theorists viewed prejudice as pathological and they thus looked for personality syndromes linked with [[racism]]. [[Theodor Adorno]] believed that prejudice stemmed from an [[authoritarian personality]]; he believed that people with authoritarian personalities were the most likely to be prejudiced against groups of lower status. He described authoritarians as "rigid thinkers who obeyed authority, saw the world as [[black and white thinking|black and white]], and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies".<ref name="Plous, S 2011">Plous, S. "[http://www.understandingprejudice.org/apa/english/ The Psychology of Prejudice]". Understanding Prejudice.org. Web. 07 Apr. 2011.{{vs|where's the URL?|date=November 2012}}</ref>

In 1954, [[Gordon Allport]], in his classic work ''[[The Nature of Prejudice]]'', linked prejudice to categorical thinking. Allport claimed that prejudice is a natural and normal process for humans. According to him, "The human mind must think with the aid of categories... Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it."<ref>{{cite book|last=Allport|first=Gordon W.|year=1954|title=The Nature of Prejudice|location=Reading, MA|publisher=Addison-Wesley|lccn=54005626}}{{page needed|date=November 2012}}</ref> In his book, he emphasizes the importance of the [[contact hypothesis]]. This theory posits that contact between different (ethnic) groups can reduce prejudices against those groups. Allport acknowledges the importance of the circumstances in which such contact occurs. He has attached conditions to it to promote positive contact and reduce prejudices.

In the 1970s, research began to show that prejudice tends to be based on [[In-group favoritism|favoritism towards one's own groups]], rather than negative feelings towards another group. According to [[Marilyn Brewer]], prejudice "may develop not because [[Ingroups and outgroups|outgroups]] are hated, but because positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy, and trust are reserved for the ingroup".<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/0022-4537.00126 |title=The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? |year=1999 |last1=Brewer |first1=Marilynn B. |journal=[[Journal of Social Issues]] |volume=55 |issue=3 |pages=429–44}}</ref>

In 1979, [[Thomas F. Pettigrew (sociologist)|Thomas Pettigrew]] described the [[ultimate attribution error]] and its role in prejudice. The ultimate attribution error occurs when ingroup members "(1) attribute negative outgroup behavior to dispositional causes (more than they would for identical ingroup behavior), and (2) attribute positive outgroup behavior to one or more of the following causes: (a) a fluke or exceptional case, (b) luck or special advantage, (c) high motivation and effort, and (d) situational factors"/<ref name="Plous, S 2011"/>

[[Elisabeth Young-Bruehl|Young-Bruehl]] (1996) argued that prejudice cannot be treated in the singular; one should rather speak of different prejudices as characteristic of different character types. Her theory defines prejudices as being social defences, distinguishing between an obsessional character structure, primarily linked with anti-semitism, hysterical characters, primarily associated with racism, and narcissistic characters, linked with sexism.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Young-Bruehl|first1=Elizabeth|title=An Anatomy of Prejudices|date=1996|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge, MA|isbn=9780674031913|page=[https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780674031913/page/38 38]|url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780674031913/page/38|url-access=registration}}</ref>

==Contemporary theories and empirical findings==

The [[out-group homogeneity]] effect is the perception that members of an out-group are more similar (homogenous) than members of the in-group. Social psychologists Quattrone and Jones conducted a study demonstrating this with students from the rival schools [[Princeton University]] and [[Rutgers University]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.38.1.141 |title=The perception of variability within in-groups and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers |year=1980 |last1=Quattrone |first1=George A. |last2=Jones |first2=Edward E. |journal=[[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] |volume=38 |pages=141–52}}</ref> Students at each school were shown videos of other students from each school choosing a type of music to listen to for an auditory perception study. Then the participants were asked to guess what percentage of the videotaped students' classmates would choose the same. Participants predicted a much greater similarity between out-group members (the rival school) than between members of their in-group.

The justification-suppression model of prejudice was created by Christian Crandall and Amy Eshleman.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.414 |title=A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice |year=2003 |last1=Crandall |first1=Christian S. |last2=Eshleman |first2=Amy |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=129 |issue=3 |pages=414–46 |pmid=12784937|s2cid=15659505 }}</ref> This model explains that people face a conflict between the desire to express prejudice and the desire to maintain a positive [[self-concept]]. This conflict causes people to search for justification for disliking an out-group, and to use that justification to avoid negative feelings ([[cognitive dissonance]]) about themselves when they act on their dislike of the out-group.

The [[realistic conflict theory]] states that competition between limited [[resources]] leads to increased negative prejudices and discrimination. This can be seen even when the resource is insignificant. In the Robber's Cave experiment,<ref>{{cite book |first1=Muzafer |last1=Sherif |first2=O. J. |last2=Harvey |first3=B. Jack |last3=White |first4=William R. |last4=Hood |first5=Carolyn W. |last5=Sherif |year=1988 |title=The Robbers Cave Experiment: Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation |location=Middletown, Connecticut |publisher=Wesleyan University Press |isbn=978-0-8195-6194-7}}{{page needed|date=November 2012}}</ref> negative prejudice and hostility was created between two summer camps after sports competitions for small prizes. The hostility was lessened after the two competing camps were forced to cooperate on tasks to achieve a common goal.

Another contemporary theory is the [[integrated threat theory]] (ITT), which was developed by Walter G Stephan.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01022.x |title=Women's Attitudes Toward Men: an Integrated Threat Theory Approach |year=2000 |last1=Stephan |first1=Cookie White |last2=Stephan |first2=Walter C. |last3=Demitrakis |first3=Katherine M. |last4=Yamada |first4=Ann Marie |last5=Clason |first5=Dennis L. |journal=[[Psychology of Women Quarterly]] |volume=24 |pages=63–73|s2cid=143906177 }}</ref> It draws from and builds upon several other psychological explanations of prejudice and ingroup/outgroup behaviour, such as the realistic conflict theory and [[symbolic racism]].<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 |title=Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review |year=2006 |last1=Riek |first1=Blake M. |last2=Mania |first2=Eric W. |last3=Gaertner |first3=Samuel L. |journal=[[Personality and Social Psychology Review]] |volume=10 |issue=4 |pages=336–53 |pmid=17201592|s2cid=144762865 }}</ref> It also uses the [[social identity theory]] perspective as the basis for its validity; that is, it assumes that individuals operate in a group-based context where group memberships form a part of individual identity. ITT posits that outgroup prejudice and discrimination is caused when individuals perceive an outgroup to be threatening in some way. ITT defines four threats: 
* Realistic threats
* Symbolic threats
* Intergroup anxiety
* Negative stereotypes

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

Additionally, [[social dominance theory]] states that society can be viewed as group-based hierarchies. In competition for scarce resources such as housing or employment, dominant groups create prejudiced "legitimizing myths" to provide moral and intellectual justification for their dominant position over other groups and validate their claim over the limited resources.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476 |title=Racism, conservatism, Affirmative Action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? |year=1996 |last1=Sidanius |first1=Jim |last2=Pratto |first2=Felicia |last3=Bobo |first3=Lawrence |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=70 |issue=3 |pages=476–90|citeseerx=10.1.1.474.1114 }}</ref> Legitimizing myths, such as discriminatory hiring practices or biased merit norms, work to maintain these prejudiced hierarchies.

Prejudice can be a central contributing factor to depression.<ref name="Cox et al. (2012)">{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/1745691612455204 |title=Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Depression: The Integrated Perspective |year=2012 |last1=Cox |first1=William T. L. |last2=Abramson |first2=Lyn Y. |last3=Devine |first3=Patricia G. |last4=Hollon |first4=Steven D. |journal=[[Perspectives on Psychological Science]] |volume=7 |issue=5 |pages=427–49 |pmid=26168502|s2cid=1512121 }}</ref> This can occur in someone who is a prejudice victim, being the target of someone else's prejudice, or when people have prejudice against themselves that causes their own depression.

Paul Bloom argues that while prejudice can be irrational and have terrible consequences, it is natural and often quite rational. This is because prejudices are based on the human tendency to categorise objects and people based on prior experience. This means people make predictions about things in a category based on prior experience with that category, with the resulting predictions usually being accurate (though not always). Bloom argues that this process of categorisation and prediction is necessary for survival and normal interaction, quoting William Hazlitt, who stated "Without the aid of prejudice and custom, I should not be able to find my way my across the room; nor know how to conduct myself in any circumstances, nor what to feel in any relation of life".<ref>Bloom, Paul [https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_bloom_can_prejudice_ever_be_a_good_thing/transcript "Can prejudice ever be a good thing"] January 2014, accessed 02/12/17</ref>

In recent years, researchers have argued that the study of prejudice has been traditionally too narrow. It is argued that since prejudice is defined as a negative affect towards members of a group, there are many groups against whom prejudice is acceptable (such as rapists, men who abandon their families, pedophiles, neo-Nazis, drink-drivers, queue jumpers, murderers etc.), yet such prejudices are not studied. It has been suggested that researchers have focused too much on an evaluative approach to prejudice, rather than a descriptive approach, which looks at the actual psychological mechanisms behind prejudiced attitudes. It is argued that this limits research to targets of prejudice to groups deemed to be receiving unjust treatment, while groups researchers deem treated justly or deservedly of prejudice are overlooked. As a result, the scope of prejudice has begun to expand in research, allowing a more accurate analysis of the relationship between psychological traits and prejudice.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Crandell |first1= Christian S. |last2=Ferguson |first2=Mark A. |last3=Bahns |first3=Angela J.|editor-last1=Stangor |editor-first1=Charles |editor-last2=Crendeall |editor-first2=Christian S. |title=Stereotyping and Prejudice |publisher=Psychology Press |date=2013 |chapter=Chapter 3: When We See Prejudice |isbn=978-1848726444}}
* Crawford, Jarret, and Mark J. Brandt. 2018. “Big Five Traits and Inclusive Generalized Prejudice.” PsyArXiv. June 30. {{doi|10.31234/osf.io/6vqwk}}.
* Brandt, Mark, and J. T. Crawford. "Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice." Current Directions in Psychological Science (2019).
* Ferguson, Mark A., Nyla R. Branscombe, and Katherine J. Reynolds. "Social psychological research on prejudice as collective action supporting emergent ingroup members." British Journal of Social Psychology (2019).
* Brandt, Mark J., and Jarret T. Crawford. "Worldview conflict and prejudice." In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 61, pp. 1-66. Academic Press, 2020.
* Crawford, Jarret T., and Mark J. Brandt. "Who is prejudiced, and toward whom? The big five traits and generalized prejudice." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45, no. 10 (2019): 1455-1467.</ref> {{Excessive citations inline|date=October 2021}}

Some researchers had advocated looking into understanding prejudice from the perspective of collective values than just as biased psychological mechanism and different conceptions of prejudice, including what lay people think constitutes prejudice.<ref>Platow, Michael J., Dirk Van Rooy, Martha Augoustinos, Russell Spears, Daniel Bar-Tal, and Diana M. Grace.[https://web.archive.org/web/20190507160819/https://www.psychology.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/NZJP-Vol-48-No-1-DRAFT-v2-1.pdf "Prejudice is about Collective Values, not a Biased Psychological System."] Editor’s Introduction 48, no. 1 (2019): 15.</ref><ref>Billig, Michael. "The notion of “prejudice”: Some rhetorical and ideological aspects." Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality, and social change (2012): 139-157.</ref> This is due to concerns that the way prejudice has been operationalised does not fit its psychological definition and that it is often used to indicate a belief is faulty or unjustified without actually proving this to be the case.<ref>Brown, Rupert. Prejudice: Its social psychology. John Wiley & Sons, 2011.</ref><ref>Crawford, Jarret T., and Lee Jussim, eds. Politics of Social Psychology. Psychology Press, 2017.</ref>

Some research has connected [[dark triad]] personality traits ([[Machiavellianism (psychology)|Machiavellianism]], grandiose [[narcissism]], and [[psychopathy]]) with being more likely to hold racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and transphobic views.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Kay |first1=Cameron S. |last2=Dimakis |first2=Sarah |title=Moral Foundations Partially Explain the Associations of Machiavellianism, Grandiose Narcissism, and Psychopathy With Homonegativity and Transnegativity |journal=Journal of Homosexuality |date=2022 |volume=71 |issue=3 |pages=775–802 |doi=10.1080/00918369.2022.2132576|pmid=36282082 |s2cid=253108410 }}</ref>

=== Evolutionary psychology ===
{{excerpt|Prejudice from an evolutionary perspective}}

===Problems with psychological models===
One problem with the notion that prejudice evolved because of a necessity to simplify social classifications because of limited brain capacity and at the same time can be mitigated through education is that the two contradict each other, the combination amounting to saying that the problem is a shortage of hardware and at the same time can be mitigated by stuffing even more software into the hardware one just said was overloaded with too much software.<ref>Rolf Pfeifer, Josh Bongard (2006). How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence</ref> The distinction between men's hostility to outgroup men being based on dominance and aggression and women's hostility to outgroup men being based on fear of sexual coercion is criticized with reference to the historical example that Hitler and other male Nazis believed that intergroup sex was worse than murder and would destroy them permanently which they did not believe that war itself would, i.e. a view of outgroup male threat that evolutionary psychology considers to be a female view and not a male view.<ref>David Buller (2005). Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature</ref>{{Better source needed|date=February 2022}}

==Types of prejudice==
One can be prejudiced against or have a preconceived notion about someone due to any characteristic they find to be unusual or undesirable. A few commonplace examples of prejudice are those based on someone's race, gender, nationality, social status, sexual orientation, or religious affiliation, and controversies may arise from any given topic.<ref>{{Cite web |title=APA Dictionary of Psychology |url=https://dictionary.apa.org/ |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=dictionary.apa.org |language=en}}</ref>

===Gender identity===
{{Main article| Gender Identity| Transphobia}}
[[Transgender]] and [[Non-binary gender|non-binary]] people can be discriminated against because they identify with a gender that does not align with their [[Sex assignment|assigned sex at birth]]. Refusal to call them by their preferred pronouns, or claims that they are not the gender they identify as, could be considered discrimination, especially if the victim of this discrimination has expressed repetitively what their preferred identity is.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Transphobia or Transmisia: What It Is and What To Do About It |url=https://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/what-is-transphobia-and-transmisia |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=WebMD |language=en}}</ref>

[[Gender identity]] is now considered a protected category of discrimination. Therefore, severe cases of this discrimination can lead to criminal penalty or [[Prosecutor|prosecution]] in some countries,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Norway Has Made Biphobic, Transphobic Speech Illegal |url=https://www.out.com/news/2020/11/11/norway-has-made-biphobic-transphobic-speech-illegal |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=www.out.com |language=en}}</ref> and workplaces are required (in some jurisdictions) to protect against discrimination based on gender identity.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WORLD Policy Analysis Center |url=https://www.worldpolicycenter.org/policies/are-employers-required-to-take-steps-to-prevent-workplace-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-gender-identity |access-date=2025-10-25 |website=www.worldpolicycenter.org |language=en}}</ref> 

====Sexism====
{{Excerpt|Sexism}}

===Nationalism===
{{Main article|Nationalism}}
Nationalism is a sentiment based on common cultural characteristics that binds a population and often produces a policy of national independence or [[separatism]].<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nationalism "Nationalism"], dictionary.com</ref> It suggests a "shared identity" amongst a nation's people that minimizes differences within the group and emphasizes perceived boundaries between the group and non-members.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2">{{cite book |last1=Blackwell |first1=Judith |first2=Murray |last2=Smith |first3=John |last3=Sorenson |title=Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science |url=https://archive.org/details/cultureofprejudi0000blac |url-access=registration |location=Toronto |publisher=Broadview Press |year=2003 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/cultureofprejudi0000blac/page/31 31–2]|isbn=9781551114903 }}</ref> This leads to the assumption that members of the nation have more in common than they actually do, that they are "culturally unified", even if injustices within the nation based on differences like status and race exist.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2"/> During times of conflict between one nation and another, nationalism is controversial since it may function as a buffer for criticism when it comes to the nation's own problems since it makes the nation's own hierarchies and internal conflicts appear to be natural.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2"/> It may also serve a way of rallying the people of the nation in support of a particular political goal.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2"/> Nationalism usually involves a push for conformity, obedience, and solidarity amongst the nation's people and can result not only in feelings of public responsibility but also in a narrow sense of community due to the exclusion of those who are considered outsiders.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2"/> Since the identity of nationalists is linked to their allegiance to the state, the presence of strangers who do not share this allegiance may result in hostility.<ref name="Blackwell, Judith 2003 p31-2"/>

===Classism===
{{Main article|Classism}}
Classism is defined by [[Dictionary.com]] as "a biased or discriminatory attitude on distinctions made between social or economic classes".<ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/classism "Classism"], dictionary.com</ref>

Some argue that [[economic inequality]] is an unavoidable aspect of society and the inequality of abilities, so there will always be a ruling class.<ref>Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=zUbvP87QKX0C Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science]''. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2003. 145. Print.</ref> Some also argue that, even within the most [[Egalitarianism|egalitarian]] societies in history, some form of ranking based on worth-based and worth-based individual status takes place. Therefore, one may believe the existence of social classes is a natural feature of society.<ref name="ReferenceA">Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. ''Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science''. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2003. 146. Print.</ref> Hierarchies can also be found in animals such as [[apes]] and other [[primates]].

Others argue the contrary. According to [[Anthropology|anthropological]] evidence, for the majority of the time the human species has been in existence, humans have lived in a manner in which the land and resources were not privately owned, although were common merely among the members of the same kin-based band or tribe.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Also, since it was kin-oriented, when social ranking did occur, it was not antagonistic or hostile like the current class system.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

===Sexual discrimination===
{{Main article|Sexual orientation discrimination|Homophobia}}
Individuals with non-heterosexual sexual attraction, such as [[Homosexuality|homosexuals]] and [[Bisexuality|bisexuals]], may experience hatred from others due to their sexual orientation; a term for such hatred based upon one's sexual orientation is ''[[homophobia]]''. However, more specific words for discrimination directed towards specific sexualities exist under other names, such as ''[[biphobia]]''.<ref name="concept">{{cite journal |last1=Fraïssé |first1=C. |last2=Barrientos |first2=J. |date=November 2016 |title=The concept of homophobia: A psychosocial perspective |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136016000116 |journal=Sexologies |volume=25 |issue=4 |pages=e65–e69 |doi=10.1016/j.sexol.2016.02.002 |access-date=27 February 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Due to what social psychologists call the vividness effect, a tendency to notice only certain distinctive characteristics, the majority population tends to draw conclusions like gays flaunt their sexuality.<ref name="Anderson, Kristin 2010">Anderson, Kristin. ''Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 198. Print.</ref> Such images may be easily recalled to mind due to their vividness, making it harder to appraise the entire situation.<ref name="Anderson, Kristin 2010"/> The majority population may not only think that homosexuals flaunt their sexuality or are "too gay", but may also erroneously believe that homosexuals are easy to identify and label as being gay or lesbian when compared to others who are not homosexual.<ref>Anderson, Kristin. ''Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. 200. Print.</ref>

The idea of [[heterosexual privilege]] has been known to flourish in society. Research and questionnaires are formulated to fit the majority; i.e., [[Heterosexuality|heterosexuals]]. The status of [[Cultural assimilation|assimilating]] or conforming to heterosexual standards may be referred to as "[[heteronormativity]]", or it may refer to ideology that the primary or only social norm is being heterosexual.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-heterosexual-privilege-definition-examples.html |access-date=2022-06-26 |website=study.com|title=What is Heterosexual Privilege? - Definition & Examples }}</ref>

In the [[Law of the United States|US legal system]], all groups are not always considered equal under the [[law]]. The [[Gay panic defense|gay or queer panic defense]] is a term for defenses or arguments used to defend the accused in court cases, that defense lawyers may use to justify their client's [[hate crime]] against someone that the client thought was LGBT. The controversy comes when [[Criminal defense lawyer|defense lawyers]] use the victim's [[Minority group|minority status]] as an [[Justification and excuse|excuse or justification]] for crimes that were directed against them. This may be seen as an example of [[victim blaming]]. One method of this defense, [[Homosexual panic|homosexual panic disorder]], is to claim that the victim's sexual orientation, body movement patterns (such as their walking patterns or how they dance), or appearance that is associated with a minority sexual orientation provoked a violent reaction in the defendant. This is not a proven disorder, is no longer recognized by the [[DSM-5|DSM]], and, therefore, is not a disorder that is medically recognized, but it is a term to explain certain acts of violence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Helmers |first1=Matthew T. |title=Death and Discourse: The History of Arguing Against the Homosexual Panic Defense |journal=Law, Culture and the Humanities |date=June 2017 |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=285–301 |doi=10.1177/1743872113479885 |s2cid=147272154 |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1743872113479885 |access-date=27 February 2022|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Research shows that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a powerful feature of many labor markets. For example, studies show that gay men earn 10–32% less than heterosexual men in the United States, and that there is significant discrimination in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation in many labor markets.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Tilcsik | first1 = A | year = 2011 | title = Pride and Prejudice: Employment Discrimination against Openly Gay Men in the United States | journal = [[American Journal of Sociology]] | volume = 117 | issue = 2| pages = 586–626 | pmid = 22268247 | doi=10.1086/661653| hdl = 1807/34998 | s2cid = 23542996 | hdl-access = free }}</ref>

===Racism===
{{Main article|Racism}}
Racism is defined as the belief that physical characteristics determine cultural traits, and that racial characteristics make some groups superior.<ref name="Blackwell37">Blackwell, Judith, Murray Smith, and John Sorenson. ''Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science''. Toronto: Broadview Press, 2003. 37–38. Print.</ref> By separating people into [[Racial hierarchy|hierarchies]] based upon their race, it has been argued that unequal treatment among the different groups of people is just and fair due to their [[Genetics|genetic]] differences.<ref name="Blackwell37" /> Racism can occur amongst any group that can be identified based upon physical features or even characteristics of their culture.<ref name="Blackwell37" /> Though people may be lumped together and called a specific race, everyone does not fit neatly into such categories, making it hard to define and describe a race accurately.<ref name="Blackwell37" />

====Scientific racism====
[[Scientific racism]] began to flourish in the eighteenth century and was greatly influenced by [[Charles Darwin]]'s [[evolution]]ary studies, as well as ideas taken from the writings of philosophers like [[Aristotle]]; for example, Aristotle believed in the concept of "[[Natural slavery|natural slaves]]".<ref name="Blackwell37" /> This concept focuses on the necessity of hierarchies and how some people are bound to be on the bottom of the pyramid. Though racism has been a prominent topic in history, there is still debate over whether race actually exists,{{Citation needed|date=May 2012}} making the discussion of race a controversial topic. Even though the concept of race is still being debated, the effects of racism are apparent. Racism and other forms of prejudice can affect a person's behavior, thoughts, and feelings, and social psychologists strive to study these effects.

===Religious discrimination===
{{Main article|Religious discrimination}}

While various religions teach their members to be tolerant of those who are different and to have compassion, throughout history there have been [[Religious war|wars]], [[pogrom]]s and other forms of violence motivated by hatred of religious groups.<ref name="Dovidio, John 2005">[[Dovidio, John]], Peter Glick, and Laurie Rudman. ''On the Nature of Prejudice''. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 413. Print.</ref>

In the modern world, researchers in western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic countries have done various studies exploring the relationship between religion and prejudice; thus far, they have received mixed results. A study done with US college students found that those who reported religion to be very influential in their lives seem to have a higher rate of prejudice than those who reported not being religious.<ref name="Dovidio, John 2005"/> Other studies found that religion has a positive effect on people as far as prejudice is concerned.<ref name="Dovidio, John 2005"/> This difference in results may be attributed to the differences in religious practices or religious interpretations amongst the individuals. Those who practice "institutionalized religion", which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice.<ref name="ReferenceB">Dovidio, John, Peter Glick, and Laurie Rudman. ''On the Nature of Prejudice''. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. 414. Print.</ref> Those who practice "interiorized religion", in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.<ref name="ReferenceB"/>

===Linguistic discrimination===
{{Main article|Linguistic discrimination}}

Individuals or groups may be treated unfairly based solely on their use of language. This use of language may include the individual's [[native language]] or other characteristics of the person's speech, such as an [[accent (sociolinguistics)|accent]] or [[dialect]], the size of [[vocabulary]] (whether the person uses complex and varied words), and [[syntax]]. It may also involve a person's ability or inability to use one language instead of another. {{Citation needed|date=February 2022}}

In the mid-1980s, [[linguistics|linguist]] [[Tove Skutnabb-Kangas]] captured this idea of discrimination based on language as the concept of linguicism. Kangas defined linguicism as the ideologies and structures used to "legitimate, effectuate, and reproduce unequal division of power and resources (both material and non-material) between groups which are defined on the basis of language".<ref>Quoted in Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Phillipson, Robert, {{"'}}Mother Tongue': The Theoretical and Sociopolitical Construction of a Concept". In Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) (1989), ''Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties'', p. 455. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter & Co. {{ISBN|3-11-011299-X}}.</ref>

===Neurological discrimination===
{{Main article|Neurodiversity}}
{{See also|Ableism}}

==== High-functioning ====
Broadly speaking, attribution of low social status to those who do not conform to non-autistic expectations of personality and behaviour. This can manifest through assumption of 'disability' status to those who are high functioning enough to exist outside of diagnostic criteria, yet do not desire to (or are unable to) conform their behaviour to conventional patterns. This is a controversial and somewhat contemporary concept; with various disciplinary approaches promoting conflicting messages what normality constitutes, the degree of acceptable [[Differential psychology|individual difference]] within that category, and the precise criteria for what constitutes medical disorder. This has been most prominent in the case of high-functioning autism,<ref name="Silberman, Steve 2015">''[https://books.google.com/books?id=WRpPDQAAQBAJ NeuroTribes: The legacy of autism and how to think smarter about people who think differently]''. Allen & Unwin. Print.</ref> where direct cognitive benefits increasingly appear to come at the expense of social intelligence.<ref>{{cite journal
| last = Iuculano
| first = Teresa
| title = Brain Organization Underlying Superior Mathematical Abilities in Children with Autism
| journal = Biological Psychiatry
| year = 2014
| doi=10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.06.018
| volume=75
| issue = 3
| pages=223–230| pmc=3897253
| pmid=23954299
}}</ref>

Discrimination may also extend to other high functioning individuals carrying pathological phenotypes, such as those with [[ADHD|attention deficit hyperactivity disorder]] and [[Bipolar disorder|bipolar spectrum disorders]]. In these cases, there are indications that perceived (or actual) socially disadvantageous cognitive traits are directly correlated with advantageous cognitive traits in other domains, notably creativity and divergent thinking,<ref>{{cite journal
| last = Carson
| first = Shelley 
| title = Creativity and Psychopathology: A Shared Vulnerability Model
| journal = Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
| year = 2011
| pmid=21443821
| volume=56
| issue = 3 
| pages=144–53| doi = 10.1177/070674371105600304 
| doi-access = free
}}</ref> and yet these strengths might become systematically overlooked. The case for "neurological discrimination" as such lies in the expectation that one's professional capacity may be judged by the quality of ones social interaction, which can in such cases be an inaccurate and discriminatory metric for employment suitability.

Since there are moves by some experts to have these [[High-functioning autism|higher-functioning]] extremes reclassified as extensions of human personality,<ref>{{cite journal
| last = Wakabayashi
| first = Akio
| title = Are autistic traits an independent personality dimension? A study of the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) and the NEO-PI-R
| journal = Personality and Individual Differences
| year = 2006
| doi=10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.003
| volume=41
| issue = 5
| pages=873–883}}</ref> any legitimisation of discrimination against these groups would fit the very definition of prejudice, as medical validation for such discrimination becomes redundant. Recent advancements in [[behavioural genetics]] and [[neuroscience]] have made this a very relevant issue of discussion, with existing frameworks requiring significant overhaul to accommodate the strength of findings over the last decade.{{Citation needed|date=March 2022}}

==Multiculturalism==
{{Main article|Multiculturalism}}
{{quote box
| title = "Stopping" people<br>you have nothing in common with
| quote = {{nbsp|5}} {{font| font=Times New Roman |size=16px |And if you don't stop people that you've never seen before, that you have nothing in common with, your country is going to fail. ... This double-tailed monster [of [[Sustainable energy|green energy]] and [[immigration]]] destroys everything in its wake, and they cannot let that happen any longer. You're doing it because you want to be nice, you want to be politically correct, and you're destroying your heritage.}}
| author = — President Donald Trump<br>to the [[United Nations General Assembly|UN General Assembly]]
| source = <br/>September 23, 2025<ref name=TrumpUN_20250923>{{cite web |title=Trump Speaks at U.N. |url=https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-un |publisher=[[Rev (company)|Rev]] |website=Rev.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250926151110/https://www.rev.com/transcripts/trump-speaks-at-un |archive-date=September 26, 2025 |date=September 23, 2025 |url-status=live}}</ref>
| align = right | width = 35% | border = 1px | fontsize = 100% | bgcolor = #fafafa | title_bg = #fafafa | title_fnt = #202060 | qalign = left | salign = right
}}
Humans have an evolved propensity to think categorically about social groups, manifested in cognitive processes with broad implications for public and political endorsement of multicultural policy, according to psychologists [[Richard J. Crisp]] and Rose Meleady.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.1219009 |title=Adapting to a Multicultural Future |year=2012 |last1=Crisp |first1=Richard J. |last2=Meleady |first2=Rose |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=336 |issue=6083 |pages=853–5 |pmid=22605761|bibcode=2012Sci...336..853C |s2cid=21624259 }}</ref> They postulated a cognitive-evolutionary account of human adaptation to social diversity that explains general resistance to multiculturalism, and offer a reorienting call for scholars and policy-makers who seek intervention-based solutions to the problem of prejudice.

==Reducing prejudice==
{{Main|Approaches to prejudice reduction}}
[[File:Allophilia Scale.svg|thumb|upright=1.4|Prejudice and [[allophilia]]]]

===Contact hypothesis===
The [[contact hypothesis]] predicts that prejudice can only be reduced when in-group and out-group members are brought together.<ref name="Aronson, E. 2010">Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2010). ''Social Psychology'' (7th edition). New York: Pearson.</ref><ref name="Paluck2018">{{cite journal |last1=Paluck |first1=Elizabeth Levy |last2=Green |first2=Seth A |last3=Green |first3=Donald P |title=The contact hypothesis re-evaluated |journal=Behavioural Public Policy |date=10 July 2018 |volume=3 |issue=2 |pages=129–158 |doi=10.1017/bpp.2018.25|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Academics Thomas Pettigrew and Linda Tropp conducted a [[meta-analysis]] of 515 studies involving a quarter of a million participants in 38 nations to examine how intergroup contact reduces prejudice. They found that three [[Mediation (statistics)|mediators]] are of particular importance: Intergroup contact reduces prejudice by (1) enhancing knowledge about the outgroup, (2) reducing anxiety about intergroup contact, and (3) increasing [[empathy]] and perspective-taking. While all three of these mediators had mediational effects, the mediational value of increased knowledge was less strong than anxiety reduction and empathy.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Pettigrew |first1= Thomas F. |last2= Tropp |first2= Linda R. |year= 2008 |title= How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators |journal= [[European Journal of Social Psychology]] |volume= 38 |issue= 6 |pages= 922–934 |doi= 10.1002/ejsp.504|author-link1=Thomas F. Pettigrew (sociologist) |doi-access= free }}</ref> In addition, some individuals confront discrimination when they see it happen, with research finding that individuals are more likely to confront when they perceive benefits to themselves, and are less likely to confront when concerned about others' reactions.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Good | first1 = J. J. | last2 = Moss-Racusin | first2 = C. A. | last3 = Sanchez | first3 = D. T. | year = 2012 | title = When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others | journal = Psychology of Women Quarterly | volume = 36 | issue = 2| pages = 210–226 | doi = 10.1177/0361684312440958 | s2cid = 143907822 }}</ref>

===Jigsaw (teaching technique)===
In [[Elliot Aronson]]'s [[jigsaw (teaching technique)|"jigsaw" teaching technique]] there are six conditions that must be met to reduce prejudice.<ref name="Aronson, E. 2010"/> First, the in- and out-groups must have a degree of mutual interdependence. Second, both groups need to share a common goal. Third, the two groups must have equal status. Fourth, there must be frequent opportunities for informal and interpersonal contact between groups. Fifth, there should be multiple contacts between the in- and the out-groups. Finally, [[social norm]]s of equality must exist and be present to foster prejudice reduction.

==See also==
{{commons category|Prejudice}}
{{wiktionary|prejudice|prejudgment|bigotry}}
{{wikiquote}}
{{wikiquote|bigotry}}
{{columns-list|colwidth=30em|
* [[Allport's Scale]]
* [[Ambivalent prejudice]]
* [[Benevolent prejudice]]
* [[Bias]]
* [[Collective responsibility]]
* [[Common ingroup identity]]
* [[Conformity]]
* [[Fascism]]
* [[Hate crime]]
* [[Hate speech]]
* [[Hostile prejudice]]
* [[Human rights]]
* [[Idée fixe (psychology)]]
* [[In-group and out-group]]
* [[Milgram experiment]]
* [[Nazism]]
* [[Political correctness]]
* [[Prejudice from an evolutionary perspective]]
* [[Presumption of guilt]]
* [[Reverse discrimination]]
* [[Social influence]]
* [[Stigma management]]
* [[Stigma]]
* [[Suspension of judgment]]
* [[Terrorism]]
* [[wikt:Special:Search/tolerance|Tolerance]]
* [[Totalitarianism]]
}}
{{-}}

==References==
{{Reflist|35em}}

==Further reading==
*Adorno, Th. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. and Sanford, R. N. (1950). ''The authoritarian personality''. New York: Harper.
*{{cite book | last=Cantle | first=Ted | chapter=Prejudice, Discrimination and the 'Fear of Difference' | title=Community Cohesion | pages=91–115 | publisher=Palgrave Macmillan | publication-place=London, UK | publication-date=2005 | doi=10.1057/9780230508712_4 | isbn=978-0-230-50871-2}}
*{{cite book | last=Bello | first=Valeria | title=International Migration and International Security: Why Prejudice is a Global Security Threat | publisher=Routledge | publication-date=2017 | isbn=9781138689473 | oclc=957742876 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TycDvgAACAAJ}}
*{{cite web | last=Curle | first=Clint | title=Us vs. Them: The process of othering | date=January 24, 2020 | website=Canadian Museum for Human Rights| url=https://humanrights.ca/story/us-vs-them-process-othering}} <!---background info--->
*BACILA, Carlos Roberto. Criminologia e Estigmas: Um estudo sobre os Preconceitos. São Paulo: Gen Atlas, 2016.
*Dorschel, A., ''[https://philpapers.org/rec/DORRP Rethinking prejudice]''. Aldershot, Hampshire – Burlington, Vermont – Singapore – Sydney: Ashgate, 2000 (New Critical Thinking in Philosophy, ed. Ernest Sosa, [[Alan H. Goldman]], Alan Musgrave et alii). – Reissued: Routledge, London – New York, NY, 2020.
*Eskin, Michael, ''The DNA of Prejudice: On the One and the Many''. New York: Upper West Side Philosophers, Inc. 2010 (Next Generation Indie Book Award for Social Change).
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1348/000712601162059 |pmid=11256766 |title=Social cognition: Categorical person perception |year=2001 |last1=MacRae |first1=C. Neil |last2=Bodenhausen |first2=Galen V. |journal=British Journal of Psychology |volume=92 |issue=Pt 1 |pages=239–55|citeseerx=10.1.1.318.4390 }}
*{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.589 |title=Stereotype efficiency reconsidered: Encoding flexibility under cognitive load |year=1998 |last1=Sherman |first1=Jeffrey W. |last2=Lee |first2=Angela Y. |last3=Bessenoff |first3=Gayle R. |last4=Frost |first4=Leigh A. |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=75 |issue=3 |pages=589–606 |pmid=9781404|s2cid=6703739 |url=http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6qv8d7pf }}
*{{cite book |first1=Donald R. |last1=Kinder |first2=Lynn M. |last2=Sanders |year=1997 |chapter=Subtle Prejudice for Modern Times |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=QluVfkhpKpsC&pg=PA92 |pages=92–160 |title=Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals |series=American Politics and Political Economy |location=Chicago |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-43574-9}}
*{{cite journal | last1 = Brandt | first1 = M | last2 = Crawford | first2 = J | year = 2016 | title = Answering Unresolved Questions About the Relationship Between Cognitive Ability and Prejudice | journal = Social Psychological and Personality Science | volume =  7| issue = 8| pages =  884–892| doi = 10.1177/1948550616660592 | s2cid = 147715632 }}
*Paluck, Elizabeth Levy; Porat, Roni; Clark, Chelsey S.; Green, Donald P. (2021). "Prejudice Reduction: Progress and Challenges". ''Annual Review of Psychology''. '''72''' (1). [[Doi (identifier)|doi]]:10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619.
*Amodio, David M.; Cikara, Mina (2021). "The Social Neuroscience of Prejudice". ''Annual Review of Psychology''. '''72''' (1). [[Doi (identifier)|doi]]:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050928.

{{abuse}}
{{Discrimination}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:Prejudices| ]]
[[Category:Abuse]]
[[Category:Anti-social behaviour]]
[[Category:Barriers to critical thinking]]
[[Category:Prejudice and discrimination]]