Is One’s Own Ethnic Prejudice Always Subtle? The Inconsistency of Prejudice Endorsement and Prejudice Awareness Depends on Self-Related Egalitarian Standards and Motivations

IF 1.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Basic and Applied Social Psychology Pub Date : 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1080/01973533.2019.1689362
Karolina Fetz, T. Müller
{"title":"Is One’s Own Ethnic Prejudice Always Subtle? The Inconsistency of Prejudice Endorsement and Prejudice Awareness Depends on Self-Related Egalitarian Standards and Motivations","authors":"Karolina Fetz, T. Müller","doi":"10.1080/01973533.2019.1689362","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In light of current egalitarian norms, it seems intuitive to assume that people endorsing ethnically prejudicial beliefs are largely unaware of their xenophobic content. However, a cognitive consistency perspective would suggest that individuals with low anti-prejudice standards might care less if their opinions are prejudiced. Corroborating this idea, Study 1 (N = 919) reveals that intra-individually the endorsement of prejudicial beliefs was negatively related to their evaluation as xenophobic (prejudice awareness), but more so among individuals with strong self-related egalitarian standards. Study 2 (N = 1,201) replicates these findings and shows that egalitarian standards salience led to a stronger negative association between prejudice endorsement and awareness. This suggests that low-egalitarians are less suitable targets for awareness-raising components of anti-prejudice interventions.","PeriodicalId":48014,"journal":{"name":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","volume":"42 1","pages":"1 - 28"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/01973533.2019.1689362","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basic and Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1689362","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In light of current egalitarian norms, it seems intuitive to assume that people endorsing ethnically prejudicial beliefs are largely unaware of their xenophobic content. However, a cognitive consistency perspective would suggest that individuals with low anti-prejudice standards might care less if their opinions are prejudiced. Corroborating this idea, Study 1 (N = 919) reveals that intra-individually the endorsement of prejudicial beliefs was negatively related to their evaluation as xenophobic (prejudice awareness), but more so among individuals with strong self-related egalitarian standards. Study 2 (N = 1,201) replicates these findings and shows that egalitarian standards salience led to a stronger negative association between prejudice endorsement and awareness. This suggests that low-egalitarians are less suitable targets for awareness-raising components of anti-prejudice interventions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一个人的种族偏见总是微妙的吗?偏见认同与偏见意识的不一致依赖于自我相关的平等标准和动机
摘要根据当前的平等主义规范,人们似乎直观地认为,支持种族偏见信仰的人在很大程度上不知道他们的仇外内容。然而,从认知一致性的角度来看,反偏见标准低的人可能不太在乎自己的观点是否有偏见。研究1(N)证实了这一观点 = 919)揭示,在个体内部,对偏见信仰的认可与他们的仇外评价(偏见意识)呈负相关,但在具有强烈的自我相关平等标准的个体中更是如此。研究2(N = 1201)复制了这些发现,并表明平等主义标准的显著性导致了偏见认可和意识之间更强的负面联系。这表明,低平等主义者不太适合作为反偏见干预措施中提高认识的组成部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
12.50%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Basic and Applied Social Psychology (BASP) emphasizes the publication of outstanding research articles, but also considers literature reviews, criticism, and methodological or theoretical statements spanning the entire range of social psychological issues. The journal will publish basic work in areas of social psychology that can be applied to societal problems, as well as direct application of social psychology to such problems. The journal provides a venue for a broad range of specialty areas, including research on legal and political issues, environmental influences on behavior, organizations, aging, medical and health-related outcomes, sexuality, education and learning, the effects of mass media, gender issues, and population problems.
期刊最新文献
Mindsets at Work: Understanding the Positive Impact of Growth Mindsets on Workplace Coaching Understanding the Relationship Between Just World Belief and Career Success: The Role of Work Engagement A Cognitive Toolbox for Persuasion. Perceived Diagnosticity and Persuasibility Bias of Persuasive Features The Changing Moral Environment—A Three-Wave Study Testing Four Moral Theories and the Fear of COVID-19 in Predicting Compliance with Behavioral Guidelines on COVID-19, Moralization Toward Non-Compliance, and Vaccination Outperforming in the Workplace: Predicting Employee Sensitivity About Being the Target of a Threatening Upward Comparison
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1