Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotypes

UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 5.1 Free with a free account

Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotypes

Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 5: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup ConflictSection 5.1 · lesson 25 of 8513 min · free with a free account

← Shaped by the World Around Us: How Social and Cultural Systems Define the SelfNext lesson: Where Bias Begins: Tracing the Theories and Origins of Prejudice →

Earn 3 college credits for Advanced Social PsychologyRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Psychology 310 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Three separable constructs, and the moderators that decouple them.

  • Map prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination onto Allport's ABC model
  • Distinguish explicit from implicit attitudes and how each is measured
  • Define aversive racism, microaggressions, and institutional discrimination
  • Explain when prejudice does and does not produce behavior

Free study notes

Get this lesson's notes by email

The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.

One email. Unsubscribe in one click.

Transcript

Everything said in the video, section by section (1,586 words). Read along, or search it.

Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup Conflict

Labels, Bias, and Exclusion

Three words get used almost interchangeably in ordinary speech. Prejudice, stereotype, and discrimination. In this field they name three different things, and keeping them apart is the whole discipline. One is a belief. One is a feeling. One is an act. And the striking empirical fact is that they routinely come apart. This section builds Allport's framework, then immediately stress-tests it. We will cover explicit and implicit measurement, and what each one predicts. Then the forms discrimination takes, from an individual refusal to a funding formula. And we close on the question that matters for intervention design. When does a prejudiced attitude actually turn into a discriminatory act?

Allport, 1954

The Text the Field Still Runs On

Gordon Allport published The Nature of Prejudice in nineteen fifty-four. It remains the foundational text, and two of its formulations are still quoted directly. Prejudice, he wrote, is a feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing. Prior to, or not based on, actual experience. Now read that second half again, because most people skip it. The defect Allport names is epistemic, not emotional. The feeling itself may be perfectly mild. What makes it prejudice is that it arrives before the evidence does. He described stereotypes with a phrase borrowed from journalism. Pictures in our heads, which organize perception of social groups. And he gave the field its organizing framework, which is where we go next.

The Framework

One Attitude, Three Components

Allport's tripartite framework maps the three constructs onto one attitude. Specifically, onto the classic affective, behavioral, and cognitive components. A stereotype is the cognitive component. Beliefs about the typical characteristics of a group member. Members of group X are aggressive. That is a claim about attributes. Prejudice is the affective component. An evaluative attitude, usually negative, based on group membership. Discomfort, fear, or contempt directed at members of a group. Discrimination is the behavioral component. Differential treatment of individuals based on their group membership. Refusing to hire, to seat, or to serve. The mapping earns its keep by forcing a question about evidence. Which component does this measurement actually bear on? A survey measures one thing. A hiring audit measures a different thing.

The Critical Insight

The Three Components Come Apart

Now the most important consequence of the model, and it is a negative one. The three components do not always align. Treating them as one variable is the standard error in this literature. A person may hold negative stereotypic beliefs about a group. And still experience no strong negative affect toward its members. Another person may feel real discomfort in intergroup contact. And never discriminate behaviorally at all. This dissociation matters most in a specific context. Where discrimination is costly, or socially sanctioned. There, behavior gets suppressed while prejudice and stereotyping remain intact. Which sets up a trap for anyone designing an intervention. A program that only suppresses behavior can look completely successful. Its outcome measure improves, and the cognitive and affective components are untouched.

Cognition

Stereotypes as Cognitive Economy

Take the cognitive component on its own terms now. A stereotype is a cognitive schema. A generalized belief, or set of expectations, about the attributes of a group's members. Walter Lippmann coined the term in its modern sense, back in nineteen twenty-two. Three properties are worth stating carefully, because students get them wrong. Stereotypes may be positive, negative, or neutral in valence. They may have a statistical kernel of truth, or be entirely fictitious. And they operate both consciously and automatically, below awareness. Their core cognitive function is to reduce processing demands. Categorize by group membership and you get fast, low-effort inference. Fiske and Taylor's cognitive miser framework, from nineteen eighty-four, explains the persistence. Under information overload, categorization is genuinely adaptive. But there is a bill, and it is systematic distortion. Stereotypes exaggerate within-group similarity, and between-group difference. And they steer attention, encoding, and retrieval toward stereotype-consistent information.

Five Types

Not All Stereotypes Work the Same Way

Not all stereotypes work the same way, and five types are worth separating. An explicit stereotype is consciously held, and endorsable. You can measure it by asking, on a survey. An implicit stereotype is an automatically activated association. Usually negative, and often outside awareness. It shows up in response latency differences, and in priming studies. A descriptive stereotype says what group members are like. Librarians are introverted. It guides expectation and perception. A prescriptive stereotype says what group members should be like. And violations of it trigger sanctions, which is the crucial difference. Assertive women violate prescriptive feminine norms, and get punished for it. A benevolent stereotype is superficially positive, and patronizing underneath. Women are warm and nurturing, which restricts them to caregiving roles. The last two are the ones that get missed. Prescriptive stereotypes punish people for not matching. Benevolent ones sound like compliments while narrowing the available roles.

Steele And Aronson

Stereotype Threat, and Its Evidentiary Status

Stereotypes have direct behavioral consequences for the people they describe. Steele and Aronson demonstrated this in nineteen ninety-five. They called it stereotype threat. It is the situational predicament of being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype. Confirming it as self-characteristic, about your own group. Their manipulation was minimal, which is what makes the result striking. Black undergraduates took a verbal test. For one group it was framed as diagnostic of intellectual ability. For the other it was framed as non-diagnostic. Same test. Different sentence beforehand. Performance was significantly worse under the diagnostic framing. The mechanism runs through anxiety, cognitive load, and self-monitoring. Resources spent on managing the threat are not available for the task. It has been replicated across dozens of group-ability combinations. But cite it with a caveat attached. Flore and Wicherts's twenty fifteen meta-analysis found smaller effects than the originals.

Affect

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Now the affective component, and how it gets measured. Prejudice is an evaluative attitude, directed at people by perceived group membership. It bundles three things together. Affective reactions, such as discomfort, fear, contempt, or pity. Evaluative judgments, that the group is inferior or superior. And motivational tendencies, of approach or of avoidance. Contemporary research splits it into explicit and implicit. Explicit prejudice is consciously held, and reportable. Implicit prejudice is automatically activated, and may be consciously disavowed. Greenwald and Banaji defined the implicit case in nineteen ninety-five. An introspectively unidentified trace of past experience. Or an inaccurately identified one, which is the sharper version. That trace mediates feeling, thought, or action toward social objects. The Implicit Association Test operationalizes this, following Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz. Their nineteen ninety-eight method compares reaction times. Stereotype-congruent pairings against stereotype-incongruent ones.

The Dissociation

Two Measures, Two Kinds of Behavior

Here is the finding that makes measurement genuinely hard. Explicit and implicit measures of prejudice are often weakly correlated. The same person can sincerely endorse egalitarian values. And show strong implicit bias on the test. This is not simply hypocrisy, and treating it that way misses the point. The two measures predict different classes of behavior. Implicit attitudes predict spontaneous, unmonitored behaviors. Non-verbal warmth. Response latency in a hiring decision. Explicit attitudes predict deliberate, controlled behaviors. The decisions a person could justify aloud if asked. In socially sensitive domains, explicit prejudice may be suppressed. Suppressed to appear egalitarian, while implicit bias keeps shaping behavior. One caution before you rely on any of this. The test has attracted serious methodological criticism. Low test-retest reliability, and unclear construct validity.

Behavior

Discrimination Across Levels of Analysis

Discrimination is behavior. That is the whole definition. Differential treatment of individuals based on their group membership. And it operates across levels that require different kinds of analysis. Direct or overt discrimination is explicit and intentional. Refusing to rent an apartment to someone because of their ethnicity. Indirect or subtle discrimination uses ostensibly neutral policies. Requiring qualifications irrelevant to job performance, that fewer minority applicants hold. Nobody has to intend anything for that to disadvantage a group. Institutional discrimination is embedded in policies, laws, and practices. Redlining. Racially disparate sentencing. School funding tied to property taxes. These systematically disadvantage groups regardless of individual intent. Microaggressions are brief, commonplace interpersonal exchanges. They communicate denigrating messages about group membership. Asking an Asian-American where they are really from. And one more form deserves a slide of its own.

Aversive Racism

Discrimination With an Egalitarian Self-Image

Modern discrimination research has shifted its focus decisively. Away from overt, intentional prejudiced acts. Toward subtle, often unintentional forms. Aversive racism is the central case, from Gaertner and Dovidio in nineteen eighty-six. It describes a specific profile. Individuals who explicitly endorse egalitarian values. And who harbor implicit negative affect toward racial outgroups. Both at once, and sincerely. The discrimination surfaces only in ambiguous situations. Situations where a non-racial explanation is available for the behavior. Their demonstration makes this concrete. White participants helped a Black victim less, but only when others were present. With others around, inaction could be attributed to those other potential helpers. Alone, no excuse was available, and helping did not differ. This is why aversive racism is so hard to address. It is psychologically invisible to the perpetrator, and resistant to accusation.

The Link

Prejudice Does Not Automatically Produce Discrimination

Close on the question that matters most for intervention design. Does a prejudiced attitude actually produce a discriminatory act? LaPiere ran the classic demonstration in nineteen thirty-four. He traveled across the United States with a Chinese couple. They were refused service at only one of two hundred fifty-one establishments. He then wrote to each establishment afterward. Would you serve members of the Chinese race? Ninety-two percent said they would not. So the expressed attitude did not predict the actual behavior at all. Four moderators determine when attitude becomes act. Social norms can suppress discriminatory behavior even where prejudice is high. Opportunity structures determine whether discrimination is even possible. Situational ambiguity decides whether implicit prejudice finds behavioral expression. And self-regulation capacity can decouple attitude from action entirely. So the design target is not the attitude. It is the moderators.

About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study

Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.

Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →

Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology

Why take it here

Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study

How other people shape what we think and doAdvanced Social Psychology explains how people think about, influence and relate to one another: attitudes and persuasion, the self, prejudice and intergroup conflict, attraction and close relationships, conformity and obedience, helping and aggression. It is a common upper-level course in psychology and sociology degrees.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Thomas Edison State UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks with NCCRS +many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →

Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.

FAQ

Questions students ask us

About Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotypes

What is the difference between prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination?
A stereotype is a belief about a group, prejudice is a feeling or evaluation toward a group, and discrimination is behavior that treats people differently because of group membership. These map onto the cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of an attitude. They often come apart: someone may hold a stereotype without strong negative feeling, or feel discomfort without discriminating, especially when discrimination is costly or socially punished.
What is the difference between direct, indirect, and institutional discrimination?
Direct discrimination is overt and intentional, such as refusing to rent an apartment to someone because of their ethnicity. Indirect discrimination works through rules that look neutral but disadvantage a group, such as requiring qualifications irrelevant to the job that fewer minority applicants hold. Institutional discrimination is built into policies, laws, and practices, such as redlining or school funding tied to local property taxes, and it can disadvantage groups regardless of anyone's intent.
What is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes?
A descriptive stereotype states what members of a group are supposedly like, such as the belief that librarians are introverted, and it shapes expectations and perception. A prescriptive stereotype states what members should be like, and people who violate it often face backlash, as when assertive women are judged more harshly than equally assertive men. Even benevolent stereotypes, such as the view that women are naturally nurturing, can be patronizing and confine people to narrow roles.
What is aversive racism?
Aversive racism describes people who sincerely endorse egalitarian values but also hold unacknowledged negative feelings toward a racial outgroup. Gaertner and Dovidio described it in 1986. Such people tend to discriminate mainly when a situation is ambiguous and a nonracial excuse is available. In an emergency-helping study, White participants helped a Black victim less than a White victim when other bystanders were present, but not when they were alone and responsibility was clear.

About the Advanced Social Psychology course

How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 85 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 85 lessons total about 15 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.

85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Advanced Social Psychology →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Advanced Social Psychology
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →