Modern Prejudice

[Danielyan Garay]

Harvardpsychologist Mahzarin Banaji was once approached by a reporter for an interview. When Banaji heard the name of the magazine the reporter was writing for, she declined the interview: She didn't think much of the magazine and believed it portrayed research in psychology inaccurately.

But then the reporter said something that made her reconsider, Banaji recalled: "She said, 'You know, I used to be a student at Yale when you were there, and even though I didn't take a course with you, I do remember hearing about your work.' "

After she changed her mind, Banaji got to thinking. Why had she changed her mind? She still didn't think much of the magazine in which the article would appear. The answer: The reporter had found a way to make a personal connection.

For most people, this would have been so obvious and self-explanatory it would have required no further thought. Of course, we might think. Of course we'd help someone with whom we have a personal connection.

Take Banaji's own behavior toward the reporter with a Yale connection. She would not have changed her mind for another reporter without the personal connection. In that sense, her decision was a form of prejudice, even though it didn't feel that way.

Now, most people might argue such favoritism is harmless, but Banaji and Greenwald think it might actually explain a lot about the modern United States, where vanishingly few people say they hold explicit prejudice toward others but wide disparities remain along class, race and gender lines.

In many ways, the psychologists' work mirrors the conclusion of another recent book: In The American Non-Dilemma: Racial Inequality without Racism, sociologist Nancy DiTomaso asks how it is that few people report feeling racial prejudice, while the United States still has enormous disparities. Discrimination today is less about treating people from other groups badly, DiTomaso writes, and more about giving preferential treatment to people who are part of our "in-groups."

The insidious thing about favoritism is that it doesn't feel icky in any way, Banaji says. We feel like a great friend when we give a buddy a foot in the door to a job interview at our workplace. We feel like good parents when we arrange a class trip for our daughter's class to our place of work. We feel like generous people when we give our neighbors extra tickets to a sports game or a show.

In each case, however, Banaji, Greenwald and DiTomaso might argue, we strengthen existing patterns of advantage and disadvantage because our friends, neighbors and children's classmates are overwhelmingly likely to share our own racial, religious and socioeconomic backgrounds. When we help someone from one of these in-groups, we don't stop to ask: Whom are we not helping?

The gash went from Kaplan's palm to her wrist. She raced over to Yale-New Haven Hospital. Pretty much the first thing she told the ER doctor was that she was a quilter. She was worried about her hand. The doctor reassured her and started to stitch her up. He was doing a perfectly competent job, she says.

Everything changed in an instant. The hospital tracked down the best-known hand specialist in New England. They brought in a whole team of doctors. They operated for hours and tried to save practically every last nerve.

Banaji says she and Kaplan asked themselves later why the doctor had not called in the specialist right away. "Somehow," Banaji says, "it must be that the doctor was not moved, did not feel compelled by the quilter story in the same way as he was compelled by a two-word phrase, 'Yale professor.' "

Kaplan told Banaji that she was able to go back to quilting, but that she still occasionally feels a twinge in the hand. And it made her wonder what might have happened if she hadn't received the best treatment.

After reading the story about Kaplan, for example, one relative of Greenwald's decided to do something about it. Every year, she used to donate a certain amount of money to her alma mater. After reading Kaplan's story, Banaji says, the woman decided to keep giving money to her alma mater, but to split the donation in half. She now gives half to her alma mater and half to the United Negro College Fund.

The site is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

This paper describes the psychometric properties of the Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS), which measures contemporary negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (i.e., attitudes not based on traditional or moral objections to homosexuality). In Study 1 (N = 353), a preliminary version of the MHS was developed, and its psychometric properties were examined. Participants in Studies 2 and 3 (Ns = 308 and 233, respectively) completed the MHS and other attitudinal measures. The relationships among these variables were investigated to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the scale's construct validity. In Study 4 (N = 36), a behavioural expression of modern homonegativity was examined using the attributional ambiguity paradigm. The results of these studies indicate that the MHS is unidimensional, possesses a high degree of internal consistency, and is factorially distinct from a measure of old-fashioned homonegativity. As hypothesized, scores on the MHS correlated positively with political conservatism, religious behaviour, religious self-schema and modern sexism, but did not correlate significantly with social desirability bias. In addition, the MHS appears to be less susceptible to floor effects than a commonly used measure of old-fashioned homonegativity. Finally, the experimental study revealed that participants obtaining high scores on the MHS were less likely to sit beside individuals wearing T-shirts with pro-gay or pro-lesbian slogans when they could justify their seating choice on nonprejudicial grounds.

In two studies, Study 1 and Study 2, we examine whether attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities, like sexism and racism, consist of two forms-a classical and a modern, where the classical is overt and blatant and the modern is more subtle and covert. Self-report scales tapping these two forms were developed in Study 1. Based on confirmatory factor analyses, the results in Study 1 supported our hypothesis and revealed that the modern and classical forms are correlated but distinguishable. This outcome was replicated in Study 2. Construct and discriminatory validations of the scales provided further support for the distinction. The theoretical and practical importance of the results is discussed in relation to previous research on attitudes toward people with intellectual disabilities and other social outgroups.

The gathering--called the National Multicultural Conference and Summit II--combined state-of-the-art research, summary discussions, and informal and sometimes provocative gatherings. At sessions called "Difficult dialogues," participants shared their views on the nation's progress--or lack thereof--in accepting those who aren't white, male, heterosexual and able-bodied. In large-group forums, they suggested ways APA can better address multicultural issues in its training programs, publications and infrastructure.

Hosted by APA divisions concerned with multicultural issues--Divs. 17 (Counseling), 35 (Society for the Psychology of Women), 44 (Society for the Psychological Study of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Issues) and 45 (Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues)--the conference comes at an important time, when there is growing interest in and knowledge about multiculturalism and at the same time a backlash against it, says conference organizer Melba J. Vasquez, PhD, a Div. 35 representative to the meeting.

"There's a growing awareness in psychology that incorporating multicultural understanding in service delivery, research, training, teaching and social advocacy is really, really important," Vasquez said. "Psychologists of color and white psychologists are hungry for a focused forum that addresses these issues. It's inspiring to have the attendance growing at a time when attendance at many academic conferences is going down."

A major conference theme and an emerging one in multicultural research was multiple identities--what it's like to traverse the intersecting worlds of, for example, being gay and Latino, disabled and Chinese-American or African-American and female. Speakers referred to "sexualities" and "sexual orientations" to describe the complexity of people's sexual behaviors and desires (see article, page 35); pinpointed distinctions made by people with disabilities between those who use wheelchairs and those who can walk or stand; and highlighted the importance of including women's issues in ethnic-minority research, a combination neglected in most multicultural research.

It's no accident the meeting was only the second of its kind, participants commented. Society--and for that matter psychology--has a long way to go before it's multiculturally competent, they emphasized.

"What happens in America is we don't know each other," said Joseph L. White, PhD, who was honored as one of four senior men of color at the conference (see page 32). "In order to come to reconciliation, to mutual enrichment, you have to experience people up close. And in order to do that, you have to lose your safety zone."

Two social psychologists well-known for their work on the effects of racism--Claude Steele, PhD, of Stanford University and John Dovidio, PhD, of Colgate University--launched the conference from an academic end. Steele described new research amplifying his theory of "stereotype threat," and Dovidio demonstrated that a new form of white racism--an essentially unconscious one--can affect blacks' ability to get jobs and do well in them.

3a8082e126