The Social Psychology of Discrimination: Theory, Measurement and Consequences

This chapter discusses the prevalence of discrimination and its definitions. It outlines theories underlying the phenomenon and ways in which social psychological studies have measured discrimination. It also considers the systemic consequences of discrimination and their implications for intergroup relations, social mobility and personal wellbeing.

84
Chapter 5
The Social Psychology of Discrimination:
Theory, Measurement and Consequences
Ananthi Al Ramiah, Miles Hewstone,
John F. Dovidio and Louis A. Penner
ocial psychologists engage with the prevalence and problems
of discrimination by studying the processes that underlie it.
Understanding when discrimination is likely to occur suggests
ways that we can overcome it. In this chapter, we begin by dis‐
cussing the ways in which social psychologists talk about dis‐
crimination and discussits prevalence. Second, we outline some
theories underlying the phenomenon. Third, we consider the
ways in which social psychological studies have measured dis‐
crimination, discussing findings from laboratory and field stud‐
ies with explicit and implicit measures. Fourth, we consider the
systemic consequences of discrimination and their implications
for intergrouprelations, social mobility and personal wellbeing.
Finally, we provide a summary and some conclusions.
Defining Discrimination
Social psychologistsare carefulto disentanglediscrimination
from its close cousins of prejudice and stereotypes. Prejudice re‐
fers to an unjustifiable negative attitude toward a group and its
individual members. Stereotypes are beliefs about the personal
S

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
85
attributes of a group of people, and can be over‐generalised, inac‐
curate, and resistant to change in the presence of new informa‐
tion. Discrimination refers to unjustifiable negative behaviour to‐
wards a group or its members, where behaviour is adjudged to
include both actions towards, and judgements/decisions about,
group members.Correll et al. (2010, p. 46) provide a very useful
definition of discrimination as ‘behaviour directed towards cate‐
gory members that is consequential for their outcomes and that is
directed towards them not because of any particular deserving‐
ness or reciprocity, but simply because they happen to be mem‐
bersof that category’. The notion of ‘deservingness’ is central to
the expression and experience of discrimination. It is not an ob‐
jectively defined criterion but one that has its roots in historical
and present‐dayinequalitiesand societalnorms. Perpetrators
may see their behaviours as justified by the deservingness of the
targets, while the targets themselves may disagree. Thus the be‐
haviours, which some judge to be discriminatory, will not be seen
as such by others.
The expression of discrimination can broadly be classified
into two types: overt or direct, and subtle, unconscious or auto‐
matic. Manifestations include verbal and non‐verbal hostility
(Darley and Fazio, 1980; Word et al., 1974), avoidance of contact
(Cuddy et al., 2007; Pettigrew and Tropp, 2006), aggressive ap‐
proach behaviours (Cuddy, et al., 2007) and the denial of oppor‐
tunities and access or equal treatment (Bobo, 2001; Sidanius and
Pratto, 1999).
Across a range of domains,cultures and historical periods,
there are and have been systemic disparities between members
of dominant and non‐dominant groups (Sidaniuis and Pratto,
1999). For example, ethnic minorities consistently experience
worse health outcomes (Barnett and Halverson, 2001;
Underwood et al., 2004), worse school performance (Cohen et
al., 2006), and harsher treatment in the justice system
(Steffensmeier and Demuth, 2000). In both business and aca‐

Making Equality Count
86
demic domains, women are paid less and hold positions of lower
status than men, controlling for occupation and qualifications
(Goldman et al., 2006). In terms of the labour market, sociologi‐
cal research shows that ethnic minority applicants tend to suffer
from a phenomenon known as the ethnic penalty. Ethnic penal‐
tiesare defined as the net disadvantages experienced by ethnic
minorities after controlling for their educational qualifications,
age and experience in the labour market (Heath and McMahon,
1997). While the ethnic penalty cannot be equated with dis‐
crimination, discrimination is likely to be a major factor respon‐
sible for its existence.This discrimination ranges from unequal
treatment that minority group members receive during the ap‐
plication process, and over the course of their education and so‐
cialisation, which can have grave consequences for the existence
of ‘bridging’ social networks, ‘spatial mismatch’ between labour
availability and opportunity, and differences in aspirations and
preferences(Heath and McMahon, 1997).
Theories of Discrimination
Several theories have shaped our understanding of intergroup
relations, prejudice and discrimination, and we focus on four
here: the social identity perspective, the ‘behaviours from inter‐
group affect and stereotypes’ map, aversive racism theory and
system justification theory.
As individuals living in a social context, we traverse the
continuum between our personal and collective selves. Differ‐
ent social contexts lead to the salience of particular group
memberships (Turner et al., 1987). The first theoretical frame‐
work that we outline, the social identity perspective (Tajfel and
Turner, 1979) holds that group members are motivated topro‐
tect their self‐esteem and achieve a positive and distinct social
identity. This drive for a positive social identity can result in
discrimination, which is expressed as either direct harm to the

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
87
outgroup, or more commonly and spontaneously, as giving
preferential treatment to the ingroup, a phenomenon known as
ingroup bias.
Going further, and illustrating the general tendency that
humans have to discriminate, the minimal group paradigm stud‐
ies (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) reveal how mere categorisation as a
group member can leadto ingroup bias, the favouring of in‐
group members over outgroup members in evaluations and allo‐
cation of resources (Turner, 1978). In the minimal group para‐
digm studies, participants are classified as belonging to arbitrary
groups (e.g. people who tend to overestimate or underestimate
the number of dots presented tothem) and evaluate members of
the ingroup and outgroup, and take part in a reward allocation
task (Tajfel and Turner, 1986) between the two groups. Results
across hundreds of studies show that participants rate ingroup
members more positively, exhibit preference for ingroup mem‐
bers in allocation of resources, and want tomaintain maximal
difference in allocation between ingroup and outgroup mem‐
bers, thereby giving outgroup members less than an equality
norm would require. Given the fact that group membership in
this paradigm does not involve a deeply‐held attachment and
operates within the wider context of equality norms, this ten‐
dencyto discriminate is an important finding, and indicative of
the spontaneous nature of prejudice and discrimination in inter‐
group contexts (Al Ramiah et al., in press). Whereas social cate‐
gorisation is sufficient to create discriminatory treatment, often
motivated by ingroup favouritism, direct competition between
groups exacerbates this bias, typically generating responses di‐
rectly to disadvantage the outgroup, as well (Sherif et al., 1961).
Whereas social identity theory examines basic, general proc‐
esses leading to intergroup discrimination, the BIAS map (Be‐
haviours from Intergroup Affect and Stereotypes; see Cuddy, et
al., 2007) offers insights into the specific ways that we discrimi‐
nate against members of particular types of groups. The BIAS

Making Equality Count
88
map (Figure 1) is an extension of the Stereotype Content Model
(Fiske et al., 2002), and proposes that the relative status and
competitiveness of groups determine the stereotype content of
warmth and competence attributed to the outgroup.
Figure 1: The BIAS Map: Behaviours from Intergroup Affect and
Stereotypes (Cuddy et al.,2007)
These stereotypes predict affect towards the outgroup, and af‐
fect predicts action tendencies. Group stereotypes contain a
mixture of competence and warmth attributes, and this combi‐
nation of content gives rise to particular emotions and action
tendencies. The warmth dimension of stereotypes, which carries
greater weight in social encounters (Cuddyet al., 2007; Van
Lange and Kuhlman, 1994; Vonk, 1999; Wojciszke et al., 1998),
predicts active behavioural tendencies while the secondary di‐
mension of competence predicts more passive tendencies. Nega‐
tive active and passive behaviours can be construed by targets as
constituting discrimination, and can have significant impact on

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
89
the quality of their lives. Examples of negative passive behav‐
iours are ignoring another’s presence, not making eye contact
with them, excluding members of certain groups from getting
opportunities, and so on, while examples of negative active be‐
haviours include supporting institutional racism or voting for
anti‐immigration political parties. Theseexamples show that
discriminatory behaviours can range from the subtle to the
overt, and the particular views that we have about each out‐
group determines the manifestation of discrimination.
The third theory that we consider, aversive racism (Dovidio
and Gaertner, 2004) complements social identity theory (which
suggests the pervasiveness ofintergroup discrimination) and the
BIAS map (which helps identify the form in which discrimina‐
tion will be manifested) by further identifying when discrimina‐
tion will be manifested or inhibited. The aversive racism frame‐
work essentially evolved to understand the psychological con‐
flict that afflicts many White Americans with regard to theirra‐
cial attitudes.Changingsocial norms increasinglyprohibit
prejudice and discrimination towards minority and other stig‐
matised groups (Crandall et al., 2002), and work in the United
States has shown that appearing racist has become aversive to
many White Americans (Dovidio and Gaertner, 2004; Gaertner
and Dovidio, 1986; Katz andHass, 1988; McConahay, 1986) in
terms not only of their public image but also of their private self
concept. However, a multitude of individual and societal factors
continue to reinforce stereotypes and negative evaluative biases
(which are rooted, in part, in biases identified by social identity
theory), which result in continued expression and experience of
discrimination. Equality norms give rise to considerable psycho‐
logical conflict in which people regard prejudice as unjust and
offensive, but remain unable to fully suppress their own biases.
Thus ethnic and racial attitudes have become more complex
than they were in the past.

Making Equality Count
90
According to the aversive racism framework, people resolve
this conflict by upholding egalitarian norms and simultaneously
maintaining subtle or automatic forms of prejudice. Specifically,
people generally will not discriminate in situations in which
right and wrong is clearly defined; discrimination would be ob‐
vious to others and to oneself, and aversiveracists do not want
to appear or be discriminatory. However, aversive racists will
systematically discriminate when appropriate behaviours are not
clearly prescribed or they can justify their behaviour on the basis
of some factor other than race (see Dovidio and Gaertner, 2004).
The pervasiveness of discrimination and its systematic, andof‐
ten subtle, expression shapes society in ways that perpetuate in‐
equities. The final theory that we outline is system justification
theory, which hinges on the finding that low‐status groups in ‘un‐
equal social systems … internalize a sense of personal or collective
inferiority’ (Jost et al., 2001, p. 367).System justification theorists
argue that the social identity perspective posited need for positive
distinctiveness as a function of feeling good about oneself (ego
justification) and one’s group (group justification) is related (posi‐
tively or negatively, depending on your status) to the belief that
the system in which the groups arebased is fair (Jost and Banaji,
1994). For high‐status groups, ego and group justification corre‐
spond to a belief that the system is just and that their high‐status
is a reward for their worthiness. This leads to ingroup bias. People
with a history of personal and group advantage often derive the
prescriptive from the descriptive, or in other words, labour under
the 'is‐ought' illusion (Hume, 1939); they believe that as this is
what the world looks like and has looked like for a long time, this
is in fact what it should look like. For low‐status group members,
however, these justification needs can be at odds (Jost and Bur‐
gess, 2000) if they believe that the system is just. Their low‐status
can be seen as deserved punishment for their unworthiness and
can lead to the expression of outgroup bias, or a sense that the
outgroup is betterand therefore ought to be privileged. Thus sys‐

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
91
tem justification theory extends the social identity perspective to
explain why inequality and discrimination amongst groups is per‐
petuated and tolerated.
While these theories underlying discrimination are by no
means exhaustive of the social psychological literature, we be‐
lieve that these approaches help explain why, how, and when
discrimination occurs andis perpetuated over time. These theo‐
ries thus offer a solid grounding from which to consider the
studies of discrimination that follow.
Measuring Discrimination
The United States General Social Survey dropped its equal‐
employment‐opportunity question because of near‐unanimous
support for the principle (Quillan, 2006). However, the evolu‐
tion and predictive power of the theories just discussed speak to
the fact that prejudice and discrimination, rather than evaporat‐
ing in the heat of social change, remain strong and reliable fea‐
tures of intergroup life. There are overt and subtle ways to cap‐
ture the impulses and evaluations that precede discrimination.
Explicit measures ofprejudice are self‐report measuresin
which the participants state their attitudes about, or action ten‐
dencies toward, a particular target. These measures presume that
participants are conscious of their evaluations and behavioural
tendencies, and are constructed in a way to reduce the amount of
socially desirable responding.In meta‐analyses of the relationship
between explicit prejudice and discrimination, the authors found
a modest correlation between the two (r = .32: Dovidio et al., 1996;
r=.36: Greenwald et al., 2009). Despite the modest effect sizes, the
fact that they are derived from studies conducted in a range of
situations and intergroup contexts suggests the reliability of the
relationships, and the value of explicit measures.
However, as our review of theories of discrimination sug‐
gests, biases do not necessarily have to be conscious or inten‐

Making Equality Count
92
tional to create unfair discrimination.Implicit measuresof
prejudice capture the evaluations and beliefs that are automati‐
cally, often unconsciously, activated by the presence or thought
of the target group (Dovidio et al., 2001). These measures over‐
come the social desirability concerns that plague explicit meas‐
ures because they allow usto capture prejudice that people may
be unwilling and/or unable to express (Fazio and Olson, 2003).
The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is an example of implicit
measurement (Greenwald et al., 1998), that is based on the find‐
ing that people make connections more quickly between pairs of
ideas that arealready related in our minds. Thus, it should be
more difficult, and hence take longer, to produce evaluatively
incompatible than compatible responses. For example, in the
case of ageism, people typically take longer to pair the words
‘old’ and ‘good’ than they do to pair the words ‘old’ and ‘bad’. It
is considered to be an instance of prejudice because it involves a
bias in our minds such that there are stronger mental associa‐
tions between stereotype‐consistent features (typically negative)
and particular groups than between stereotype‐inconsistent fea‐
tures and group membership. The time taken to respond does
not dependon any essential or accurate feature of the groups in
question,but reflectswell‐learnedculturalassociationsthat
automatically come to mind (Blair et al., 2004). In a meta‐analysis
of the relationship between implicit prejudice and discrimination,
the authors found a weak‐to‐modestrelationship(r = .27:
Greenwald etal., 2009), though in the context of studies that
dealt with Black‐White relations in the US, the relationship be‐
tween implicit measures and discrimination (r = .24) was stronger
than that between explicit measures and discrimination (r= .12).
Experiments on unobtrusive forms of prejudice show that
White bias againstBlacks is more prevalent than indicated by
surveys (Crosby et al., 1980). Despite people’s best intentions,
their ethnically biased cognitions and associations may persist.
The result is a modern, subtle form of prejudice (that can be

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
93
tapped by both implicit and explicit measures) that goes under‐
ground so as not to conflict with anti‐racist norms while it con‐
tinues to shape people’scognition,emotionsand behaviours
(Dovidio and Gaertner, 2004). Discrimination may take the form
of blaming the outgroup for their disadvantage (Hewstone et al.,
2002;Jost and Banaji, 1994; Pettigrew et al., 1998), not supporting
policies that uplift outgroup members (Gilens, 1996), avoidance of
interactions with outgroup members (Van Laar et al.,2005),
automatically treating outgroup members as embodying stereo‐
typical traits of their groups (Fiske, 1998), preference for the in‐
group over outgroup leadingto preferential reward allocation
(Tajfel and Turner, 1986), and ambivalent responses to the out‐
group, that is having mixed positive and negative views about
outgroup members (Glick and Fiske, 1996) which can lead to
avoidance and passive harm to the outgroup (Cuddy et al., 2007).
We now consider two empirical approaches– laboratory and
field studies – to the study of discrimination and the processes
that underlie it.
Laboratory Studies
In a laboratory study, the investigator manipulates a variable of
interest, randomly assigns participants to different conditions of
the variable or treatments, and measures their responses to the
manipulation while attempting to control for other relevant
conditions or attributes.
Laboratory studies can reveal both subtle and blatant dis‐
criminatory responses, and illuminate the processes that shape
these responses. In a classic social psychological paper, Word et
al. (1974) studied the presence and effects of subtle non‐verbal
discriminatory behaviours among university studentsin a series
of two studies. In Study 1, they identified non‐verbal discrimina‐
tory behaviours from White interviewers of Black versus White
job applicants. In Study 2 they were able to demonstrate that

Making Equality Count
94
such subtle discriminatory behaviours when directed against
White applicantsby White interviewerselicited behaviours
stereotypically associated with Blacks, and led to poor perform‐
ance in the interview,a demonstrationof the self‐fulfilling
prophesy; i.e. treating others like they will fail causes them to
fail. This study powerfully demonstrated that negativestereo‐
types about an outgroup can give rise to negative passive behav‐
iour, which in turn can have performance‐reducingconse‐
quences for the recipients of such non‐verbal behaviours. In le‐
gal settings, negative verbal and non‐verbal treatment may con‐
stitute unlawful discrimination when they result in thecreation
of a hostile work environment (Blank et al., 2004).
In an effort to examine the relationship between explicit and
implicit measures of prejudice and verbal and non‐verbal dis‐
criminatory behaviours, Dovidio et al. (2002) first asked White
university student participants to complete a self‐report meas‐
ure of theirattitudes towards Blacks. Some time later, during the
experimental phase of the study, they subliminally primed par‐
ticipants with White and Black faces and positive and negative
non‐stereotypic characteristics which participants had to pair
together. Subliminal priming refers to stimuli presented fleet‐
ingly, outside conscious awareness. Their response timeto each
category‐word combination (e.g. black/ friendly) was measured
as an indication of their implicit associations, with shorter re‐
sponse latencies reflecting higher implicit associations of par‐
ticular ethnic groups with particular stereotypes. Then partici‐
pants, who were told they were taking part in an unrelated
study, engaged in aninteraction task first with a White (Black)
confederate and then with a Black (White) confederate; these
interactions were videotaped. After each interaction, both the
participant and the confederate completed rating scales of their
own and the confederate’s friendliness. In the next stage of the
study, the videotaped interactions were playedin silent mode to
two judges who rated the friendliness of non‐verbal behaviours

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
95
of the participants.As the authorsanticipated,the explicit
prejudice measure significantly predicted bias in White partici‐
pants’ verbal behaviour to Black relative to White confederates.
The implicit measure significantly predicted White participants’
non‐verbal friendliness and the extent to which the confederates
and observers perceived bias in the participants’ friendliness.
This study powerfully elucidates a point raised earlier in this
chapter, that behaviours which some judge to be discriminatory
will not be seen as such by others. Specifically, implicit negative
attitudes towards the outgroup can lead majority/minority or
advantaged/disadvantaged group members to form divergent
impressions of their interaction partner. Theseimplicit attitudes
are associated in this study and in the one by Word et al. (1974)
with non‐verbal behaviours (what the BIAS map would term
passive harm), which led to the development of self‐fulfilling
prophesies. The inconsistency of one’s implicit and explicit atti‐
tudes explains why majority and minoritygroup members ex‐
perience interethnic interactions in such divergent ways; major‐
ity group members refer to their explicit attitudes when thinking
about interactionswith outgroupmembers,while minority
group members seem to rely more on the majority group mem‐
ber’s implicit attitude, as reflected in their non‐verbal behav‐
iours,to determine the friendliness of the interaction.
Consistent with the predictions of aversive racism, discrimi‐
nation against Blacks in helping behaviours was more likely
when participants could rationalise decisions not to help with
reasons that had nothing to do with ethnicity. For example, us‐
ing university students, Gaertner and Dovidio (1977) showed
that in an emergency, Black victims were less likely to be helped
when the participant had the opportunity to diffuse responsibil‐
ity over several other people, who could potentially be called
upon to help; however, Blacks and Whites were helped equally
when the participant was the only bystander. Ina meta‐analysis
on helping behaviours, Saucier et al. (2005) found that when

Making Equality Count
96
helping was lengthier, riskier, more difficult, more effortful, and
when potential helpers were further away from targets, Whites
gave less help to Blacks than to fellow Whites.
Similardiscriminationwas evidencedwhen Dovidio and
Gaertner (2000) studied how White university student partici‐
pants made selection decisions in a hiring task. Theyfound that
White participants did not discriminate against White relative
to Black candidates when the candidate’s qualifications were ei‐
ther strong or weak, but did discriminate when the decision was
more ambiguous (i.e. when qualifications were middling). Echo‐
ing findings from the helping studies, in the ambiguous condi‐
tion, participantswere able to find alternative explanations for
their unwillingness to hire Black applicants, and thus could ex‐
press their prejudice without having to be faced with it. This is a
classic manifestation of modern or aversive racism (Dovidio and
Gaertner, 2004; McConahay, 1986).
Another study with obvious real‐world consequence isBlair
et al.’s (2004) study on judge biases in criminal sentencing. The
authors anticipated that moving beyond mere ethnic categorisa‐
tion, further intra‐category categorisation, specifically the pos‐
session of Afrocentric features, could predict behaviour towards
members of subcategories. Afrocentric features refer to features
deemed to be typical of AfricanAmericans: darker skin, fuller
lips and broader noses (Pizzi et al., 2005). Afrocentric features
vary between categories as well as within them, and it is well‐
documented that possession of Afrocentric features is likely to
lead to greater categorisation as Black, which in turn is likely to
lead to stereotypic inferences about that individual (Blair et al.,
2002; Eberhardt et al., 2006).
Using data from the Department of Corrections in Florida,
which has a webpage for every incarcerated inmate (including
their criminal record, sentence and a court ‘mug shot’), the au‐
thors conducted a study of the relationship between having
Afrocentricfeatures and sentence length. They used advanced

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
97
law students to create an index of each felon’s criminal history,
which reflected aspects such as the seriousness of the current
convicted offence and the number of prior offences. The Afro‐
centric features of each of the felons was rated by participants
from earlier studies. There was evidence of longer sentences for
those with the same criminal history if they were higher on
Afrocentric features (within ethnic group). Particularly the au‐
thors found that controlling for criminal history and crime type,
those with more Afrocentric features tended to have received a
judicial sentence that was on average eight months longer than
those with less Afrocentric features.
Related to the justice system, the final laboratory study that
we will discuss is an important piece of research that involves
split‐second decisions with possibly fatal consequences. Correll
et al. (2002) conducted several studies to understand whether
implicit associations of ethnicity with certain group stereotypes
might inform a police officer’s decision to shoot a suspect. Using
a simple videogame, Black or White targets holding guns or
other non‐threateningobjects(such as mobile phones),ap‐
peared in real‐world backgrounds. Participants (who included
university students and adults from the wider population) were
told to ‘shoot’armed targets and to ‘not shoot’ unarmed targets.
In line with their expectations, the authors found that White
participants made the correct decision to shoot an armed target
more quickly if the target was Black than if he was White. Con‐
versely, they also found that White participants decided to ‘not
shoot’ an unarmed target more quickly if he was White. What
this study shows is that our implicit associations can have very
grave consequences, and are particularly powerful predictors of
behaviour in situations where we are required to react very
quickly, and with little time for non‐automatic processes toop‐
erate. This is once again a demonstration that ‘best intentions’,
while very important in a range of domains, may sometimes be
too difficult to access at times of emergency.

Making Equality Count
98
The authors also conducted a further study (Correll et al.,
2007) in which they gave actual police officers the same response
latency task. They found that police officers demonstrated bias in
the latencies of their correct responses, in that the automatic as‐
sociations come to mind for them as well. However, the police
officers made many more correct decisions and their decisions
were not influenced by the irrelevant cue of target ethnicity. This
demonstrates the effect of training; the automatic associations
were still there, but their impact on final performance could be
controlled such that the officers did not act onthis bias.
Field Studies
Laboratory experiments are well‐suited to establishing cause‐
and‐effect relationships (internal validity), but the often artifi‐
cial nature of laboratory studies and their general reliance on
college students as participants raise questions about the gener‐
alisability (external validity) of the findings. Field studies com‐
plement laboratoryresearch because they observe people in
their natural settings, or when they are in treatment and control
conditions that are not created by the researcher. Field experi‐
ments measurethe impact of differentialtreatmentsmore
cleanly than non‐experimental approaches, yet they have the
advantage of occurring in a realisticsetting and hence are more
directly generalisablethan laboratoryexperiments.However
they do often involve non‐random allocation of participants to
conditions, and do not give researchers the ability to control for
possible confounding variables.
The role that prejudice plays in helping behaviours is illus‐
trated by Bushman and Bonacci (2004)in their modern version
of the lost‐letter technique (Milgram et al., 1965). In this study,
White student participants at an American university completed
a self‐report measure of prejudice towards Arabs. Then two
weeks later, they ‘mistakenly’ received an email intended for an‐

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
99
other student (who was of Arab or European descent) contain‐
ing information that the intended recipient either won a prestig‐
ious scholarship or was not awarded it. The winner of the schol‐
arship needed to respond to the email within 48 hours in order
to receive the scholarship. Of interest was whether the student
alerted the sender to the mistake. The authors found that when
the recipient won the scholarship worth thousands of dollars,
more prejudiced participants were less likely to alert the sender
if the recipient was of Arab rather than European descent. If,
however, the intended recipient did notwin the scholarship,
then more prejudiced participants were more likely to alert the
sender if the non‐winning recipient was of Arab rather than
European descent. Thus the prejudiced participants were less
likely to pass on time‐sensitive and highly important good news,
but more likely to pass on bad newsthat was not time‐sensitive.
Other paradigms studying the effects of prejudice on behaviour
gauge willingness to help a caller who has just spent his/her last
dime mistakenly calling the recipient of the call (though in the
age of cell phones, the utility of this paradigm is quite limited!),
someonewho drops papers or books, or knocks over a cup of
pencils (see Crosby et al., 1980).
Hiring decisions also have their counterpart in field studies.
Glick et al. (1988) examined gender discrimination in hiring by
asking professionals to evaluate bogus résumés of men and
women for jobs that were eithermasculine or feminine in na‐
ture. The individuating information provided about male and
female job applicants led participants to make virtually identical
inferences about the personality traits of male and female appli‐
cants who had the same information in their résumés. However,
even though a ‘masculine’ female applicant was perceivedto be
just as aggressive, independent, strong, and decisive as a ‘mascu‐
line’ male applicant, the female applicant was less likely to be
interviewed or hired for the male‐dominated job of sales man‐
ager. Similarly, female applicants were consistently preferred

Making Equality Count
100
over male applicants for the job of receptionist or secretary, even
when the applicants were thought not to differ in the degree to
which they possessed masculine or feminine personality traits.
The authors argue that one possibility is that employers consider
certain occupations to be gendered and thus hire on the basis of
that stereotype rather than on the basis of individuating non‐
gendered information about the applicant. Thus gender plays a
disproportionate role in explaining hiring preferences for gen‐
dered occupations.
Prejudiceand discriminationdo not always manifestin
more/less likelihood of being hired, but they do have other more
subtle manifestations, consistent with findings from Word et al.
(1974). Hebl et al. (2002) had confederate ‘applicants’ (blind to
their condition) wear hats labelled with either ‘gay and proud’
(stigmatising condition) or ‘Texan and proud’ (neutral condi‐
tion) and apply for retail jobs. The results revealed that gay and
lesbian applicantsdid not experience formal discrimination (i.e.
no differences in being told there were jobs available, being able
to fill out applications, or in receiving job callbacks) relative to
assumed heterosexual applicants, but they did experience more
subtle and informal discrimination(the averageinteraction
length was 6 1/2 minutes with non‐stigmatised applicants, com‐
pared to about 4 minutes for the gay and lesbian applicants, and
the interactions were also rated by observers as having less
warmth, increased interaction distance and more rudeness) than
did assumed heterosexual applicants.
Doctor–patient interactions are a realm in which we do not
expect to see highlevels of ethnic prejudice or discrimination, as
the disease is expected to serve as a common and uniting enemy.
Penner et al. (2010b) studied the effects of physician bias in in‐
teractions between Black patients and non‐Black physicians in a
primary care facility in the US. The patient participants com‐
pleted a questionnaire on their health, perceived discrimination,
and compliance with medical regimens, while the physician par‐

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
101
ticipants completed measures of their explicit and implicit bias.
The interactions between physician and patient were recorded,
and then after the interaction, the patients’ and physicians’ im‐
mediate and longer‐term reactions to the interactions were re‐
corded. The patients had a less positive view of interactions and
talked less (seealso Penner et al., 2010a) with physicians who
were low in explicit prejudice and high in implicit prejudice than
they did with physicians who had any other combination of im‐
plicit and explicit prejudice. Low explicit‐high implicit prejudice
physicians represent the classic aversive racist, and Black pa‐
tients mayhave responded to these types of physicians most
negatively because of the dissonance between the physician’s
view of themselves (possibly in terms of verbal behaviour) and
their actual (likely non‐verbal) behaviours which betrayed their
implicit prejudice.
Other studies suggest that discrimination may also be re‐
sponsible for disparities in cancertreatments (Penner et al., in
press). For example, Black women are more likely than White
women to receive inappropriately low doses of chemotherapy
for breast cancer; and Black men are less likely than White men
to receive aggressive or definitive treatment for moderate and
advanced grades of prostate cancer. Neitherof these kinds of
difference were explained by medical reasons or factors such as
the availability of medical insurance. These and other studies of
Black–White health disparities in the US demonstrate the po‐
tentially serious consequences of expressing prejudice and ex‐
periencing discrimination, even in what is commonly regarded
as aprejudice‐transcending domain such as healthcare.
Consequences of Discrimination
The consequences of discrimination are pervasive, cumulative
and long‐lasting, and in this section we will consider some of
these.

Making Equality Count
102
In terms of the effects of discrimination on neighbourhood
choice, it has been argued that many people occupy segregated
areas because of discrimination by members of the majority
group, who prefer not to share neighbourhoods with minority
members and newcomers (Cater and Hones, 1978). Thus par‐
ticular groups often live encapsulatedin enclaves (Peach, 1996),
attached to the economy, but separate from the broader society
(Modood et al., 1997). This segregated living has clear conse‐
quences for integration, and the absence of positive intergroup
contact is associatedwith greaterprejudice(Hewstoneand
Brown, 1986).
Discrimination across situations and time can giverise to
cumulative disadvantage. Avoidance may appear harmless in
any given situation but, when aggregated across situations, such
rejection can lead to long‐term exclusion. This is particularly
problematicin situationswhere social networkingmatters
(Heath and McMahon, 1997), such as employment, education,
and health care. Such exclusionary practices can bejust as dam‐
aging as more active and direct discrimination. In addition to
discrimination across situations, cumulative disadvantage can
also arise from exclusion across group memberships. Situations of
‘multiple jeopardy’ arise when people are denied access on the
basis of more than one of their memberships (e.g. a homosexual
blackwoman in a wheelchair). Individuals who are in double or
triple minority or stigmatised groups experience considerable dif‐
ficulty in being accepted as equal members of society (Crisp and
Hewstone, 1999), and in succeeding. Cumulative disadvantage
also arisesfrom persistentdisadvantage.For minoritygroup
members, today’s outcomes may affect the incentivesfor tomor‐
row’s behaviour at every stage of the life cycle and in different so‐
cial domains (Loury, 2000; Lundberg and Startz, 1998). This leads
to entrenched social hierarchies and reduced social mobility.
Another consequence of discrimination, either verbal or non‐
verbal (and demonstrated by several of the studies discussed),is

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
103
that it can result in under‐performance and stress. Others’ nega‐
tive stereotypes and expectations of the discriminated‐against
group can lead one to experience stereotype threat, which is a
debilitating concern that one will be evaluated on the basis of
the negative stereotype (Steele and Aronson, 1995). This has
beenshown to be related to under‐performance in educational
settings (Steele and Aronson, 1995) and also employment set‐
tings (Darley and Gross, 1983; Word, et al., 1974), in the form of
lower organisational commitment, career commitment, organ‐
isational self‐esteem and job satisfaction (Ragins and Cornwell,
2002). It is alsoassociated with increased anxiety, stress and
poor physical health for targets (Waldo, 1999).
In addition to increasesin anxiety,being discriminated
against can have implications for other aspects of mental well‐
being (Pascoe and Richman, 2009). In a multilevel study using a
Black sample of 10‐12 year old children inthe US, Simons et al.
(2002) found that a history of discrimination had an impact on
depressive symptoms at both the individual and community
level. At the individual‐level, in addition to uninvolved parent‐
ing and criminal victimisation, having a history of being person‐
ally racially discriminated against explained childhooddepres‐
sive symptoms. At the community‐level, a history of discrimina‐
tion was associated with depressive symptoms over and above
criminal victimisation and ethnic identification. One way in
which the stigmatised regulate emotion and protect self‐esteem
in the face of threats to their identity is by withdrawing their ef‐
fortsfrom and/or disengaging their self‐esteem from domains in
which they are negatively stereotyped or fear being a target of
discrimination (Major et al., 1998; Steele, 1997). For example,
women who were primed with negativegenderstereotypes
chose to answer fewer math questions and focused instead on
verbal questions ina challenging test (Davies et al., 2002).
While discrimination and stereotype threat can lead stigma‐
tised group members to underperform, an additional implica‐

Making Equality Count
104
tion is that members of a disadvantaged group may need to be‐
come better qualified than majority group members in order to
succeed (Biernat and Kobrynowicz, 1997). This is due to a per‐
ception that on average, members of stigmatised groups are
poorly qualified and incompetent. Thus members of the lower‐
status groups are taxed for their group membership, by perceiv‐
ing that they need to work harder than advantaged group mem‐
bers in order to succeed. This is sometimes referred to in Ameri‐
can common parlance as the ‘Black tax’.
Perceived discrimination is also closely connected with ‘race‐
based rejectionsensititivity’ (Mendoza‐Denton et al., 2002). This
refers to the anxiety that minority/stigmatised group members
experience of being rejected purely on account of their ethnic‐
ity/group membership. Mendoza‐Denton et al. (2002) found
that Black students high in race‐based rejection sensitivity had
fewer White friends and interacted with professors andteaching
assistants less compared to students low in race‐based rejection
sensitivity.
Finally, with regard to health outcomes, the racially discor‐
dant nature of most medical interactions (about 75 per cent of
all US medical interactions with Black patients involve non‐
Black physicians)appearsto have deleteriousconsequences.
Specifically, they result in interactions that are, relative to ra‐
cially concordant interactions, less patient‐centred, character‐
ised by less positive affect, involve less patient participation in
decision making, more likely to be dominated by the physician
and involve poorer information exchange between physician and
patient (Penner, et al., in press). This, combined with a history
of discrimination, can lead to very negative health outcomesfor
minority group patients. In a longitudinal study Penner and his
colleagues (Penner et al., 2009) showed that Black patients who
reported experiencing high levels of discrimination were less
likely to adhere to the treatment prescribed to them by non‐
Black physicians, and to have more negative reactions to these

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
105
physicians. They also reported poorer health and, in fact, their
medical records showed that they had more chronic diseases.
Conclusion
The foregoing offers an insight into the social psychological
theories, measurement and consequences of discrimination. Im‐
plicit and explicit measurement of prejudice and discrimination
illustrate that they abound, and are of great consequence.
However, having prejudice does not mean that individuals
will necessarily engage in discriminatory behaviours. As dis‐
cussed, the meta‐analysesreported (Dovidio et al., 1996;
Greenwald et al., 2009) found a modest relationship between
implicit and explicit measures and discrimination‐related ten‐
dencies. This suggests that while prejudiceis one of the roots of
discrimination, not all individuals who hold negative attitudes
go on to discriminate, and that other variables have significant
explanatory power. Furthermore, particularly with regard to pre‐
dictions based on implicit measures, they do not take into ac‐
count the other forces that operate upon anindividual in a so‐
cial setting. The strong norms of equal opportunity, profit moti‐
vation and job and diversity training might motivate an individ‐
ual or an organisation to behave in non‐discriminatory ways
(Correll, et al., 2007), and not merely to be negatively influenced
by their implicit associations (Mitchelland Tetlock, 2008), and
even explicit evaluations.
What is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt is that discrimi‐
nation has very grave consequences for minority group and
stigmatised individuals and that the disadvantage experienced
by any one group in any one generation can have a multiplier
effect on intergenerational disadvantageacross domains, situa‐
tions and group memberships. Thus more research is needed to
uncover the many manifestations of discrimination and its proc‐
esses, and to understand the ways in which it might effectively

Making Equality Count
106
be reduced or prevented. We hope to have demonstrated that
social psychologists have made some important inroads in this
effort, and the other chapters in the volume have provided ex‐
cellent insights from other disciplines. Greater clarity and faster
advancement will be achieved through cross‐disciplinary col‐
laboration.
References
Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M. and Schmid, K. (in press). 'Self, identity and
society'. Psychological Studies.
Barnett, E. and Halverson, J. (2001). 'Local increases in coronary heart
disease mortality among Blacks and Whites in the United States, 1985‐
1995'. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1499‐1506.
Biernat, M. and Kobrynowicz,D. (1997). 'Gender‐ and race‐based
standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability
standards for devalued groups'. Journal of Personalityand Social
Psychology, 72, 544‐557.
Blair, I.V., Judd, C. M. and Chapleau, K.M. (2004). 'The influence of
afrocentric facial features in criminal sentencing'. Psychological Science,
15, 674‐679.
Blair, I.V., Judd, C.M., Sadler, M.S. and Jenkins, C. (2002). 'The role of
Afrocentricfeaturesin person perception:Judging by featuresand
categories'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 5‐25.
Blank, R.M., Dabady, M. and Citro, C.F. (eds.) (2004). Measuring Racial
Discrimination Washington, DC: TheNational Academies Press.
Bobo, L. (2001). 'Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth
century'. In N. Smelser, W.J. Wilson and F. Mitchell (eds.), America
Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequences (pp. 262‐299). Wash‐
ington, DC: National Academy Press.
Bushman, B.J. and Bonacci, A.M. (2004). 'You've got mail:Using e‐mail to
examine the effect of prejudicedattitudeson discriminationagainst
Arabs'. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 753‐759.
Cater, J. and Hones, T. (1978). 'Ethnic and residential space: The case of
Asians in Bradford'. Tijdscrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 70,
86‐97.

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
107
Cohen, G.L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N. and Master, A. (2006). 'Reducing the
racial achievement gap: A social‐psychological intervention'. Science, 313,
1307‐1310.
Correll, J., Judd, C.M., Park, B. and Wittenbrink, B. (2010). 'Measuring
prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination'. In J.F. Dovidio, M. Hewstone,
P. Glick and V.M. Esses (eds.), The Sage Handbookof Prejudice,
Stereotyping, and Discrimination. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C.M. and Wittenbrink, B. (2002). 'The police
officer’s dilemma: Using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening
individuals'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314‐1329.
Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C.M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler,M.S. and Keesee,
T. (2007). 'Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the
decision to shoot'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1006‐
1023.
Crandall, C.S., Eshleman, A. and O’Brien, L.T. (2002). 'Social norms and
the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for
internalization'.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359‐378.
Crisp, R.J. and Hewstone, M. (1999). 'Differential evaluation of crossed
category groups: Patterns, processes, and reducing intergroup bias'. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 303‐333.
Crosby, F., Bromley, S. and Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of
Black and White discriminationand prejudice:A literaturereview.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546‐563.
Cuddy, A.J.C., Fiske, S.T, and Glick, P. (2007). 'The BIAS map: Behaviors
from intergroup affect and stereotypes'. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 631‐648.
Darley, J.M., and Fazio, R.H. (1980). 'Expectancy confirmation processes
arising in thesocial interaction sequence'. American Psychologist, 35, 867‐
881.
Darley, J.M. and Gross, P.H. (1983). 'A hypothesis‐confirming bias in
labeling effects'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20‐33.
Davies, P.G., Spencer, S.J., Quinn, D.M. and Gerhardstein, R. (2002).
'Consuming images: How television commercials that elicit stereotype
threatcan restrain women academically and professionally'. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1615‐1628.
Dovidio, J.F., Brigham,J.C., Johnson, B.T. and Gaertner,S.L. (1996).
'Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: Another look'. In N. Macrae,
C. Stangor and M. Hewstone (eds.), Stereotypes and Stereotyping (pp. 276‐
319). New York: Guilford.

Making Equality Count
108
Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner,S.L. (2000). 'Aversiveracism in selection
decisions: 1989 and 1999'. Psychological Science, 11, 315‐319.
Dovidio, J.F. and Gaertner, S.L. (2004). 'Aversive racism'. In M. Zanna
(ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1‐52). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K. and Beach,K. (2001). 'Examination of the
relationshipbetween implicit and explicit measures of intergroup
attitudes'.In R. Brown and S. Gaertner(eds.), Intergrouprelations:
Blackwell handbook in social psychology (Vol. Intergroup relations (pp.
175‐197). Oxford: Blackwell. , pp. 175‐197). Oxford Blackwell.
Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K. and Gaertner, S.L. (2002). 'Implicit and explicit
prejudice and interracial interaction'. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 62‐28.
Eberhardt,J.L., Davies, P.G., Purdie‐Vaughns,V.J. and Johnson, S.L.
(2006). 'Looking deathworthy:Perceived stereotypicalityof Black
defendants predicts capital‐sentencing outcomes'. Psychological Science,
17, 383‐386.
Fazio, R.H. and Olson, M.A. (2003). 'Implicitmeasures in social cognition
research: Their meaning and use'. Annual Review of Psychology, 54.
Fiske, S.T. (1998). 'Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination'. In D.
Gilbert, S.T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4
ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357‐411). Boston, MA: McGraw‐Hill.
Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick,P. and Xu, J. (2002). 'A model of (often
mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow
from status and competition'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
878‐902.
Gaertner, S.L. and Dovidio, J.F. (1977). 'The subtlety of white racism,
arousal and helping behavior'. Journal of Personalityand Social
Psychology,35, 691‐707.
Gaertner, S.L. and Dovidio, J.F. (1986) 'The aversive form of racism' in J.F.
Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner (eds.) Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Gilens, M. (1996). 'Race coding and white opposition to welfare'. American
Political Science Review, 90, 593‐604.
Glick, P. and Fiske, S.T. (1996).The AmbivalentSexism Inventory:
Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 491‐512.

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
109
Glick, P., Zion, C. and Nelson, C. (1988). 'What mediates sex discrimi‐
nation in hiring decisions?' Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
55, 178‐186.
Goldman, B., Gutek, B., Stein, J. and Lewis, K. (2006). 'Antecedents and
consequences of employment discrimination in organizations'. Journal of
Management, 32, 786‐830.
Greenwald,A.G., McGhee, D.E. and Schwartz, J.K.L. (1998). 'Measuring
individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test'.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464‐1480.
Greenwald, A.G., Poehlman, T.A., Uhlmann, E.L. and Banaji, M.R. (2009).
'Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta‐analysis
of predictive validity'. Journalof Persoanlity and Social Psychology, 97, 17‐
41.
Heath, A.F. and McMahon, D. (1997).Educationand occupational
attainment: the impact of ethnic origins. London: HMSO.
Hebl, M., Foster, J.M., Mannix, L.M. and Dovidio, J.F. (2002). 'Formal and
interpersonal discrimination: A field study examination of applicant bias'.
Personality and SocialPsychological Bulletin, 28, 815‐825.
Hewstone,M., and Brown, R. (1986).'Contact is not enough: An
intergroup perspective on the "contact hypothesis"'. In M. Hewstone and
R. Brown (eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 1‐44).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002). 'Intergroupbias'. Annual
Review of Psychology, 53, 575‐604.
Hume, D. (1939). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Jost, J.T. and Banaji, M.R. (1994). 'The role of stereotyping in system‐
justification and the production of false consciousness'. British Journal of
Social Psychology 33, 1‐27.
Jost, J.T.and Burgess, D. (2000). 'Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict
between group and system justification motives in low status groups'.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, 293‐305.
Jost, J.T., Burgess, D. and Mosso, C. (2001). 'Conflicts of legitimation
among self, group, and system: The integrativepotential of system
justification theory'.In J.T. Jost and B. Major (eds.), The psychology of
legitimacy:Emergingperspectiveson ideology,justice,and intergroup
relations (pp. 363‐388). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Making Equality Count
110
Katz, I. and 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.
Loury, G.C. (2000). 'Social exclusion and ethnic groups: The challenge to
economics'. Boston University – Institute for Economic Development, 106.
Lundberg,S. and Startz, R. (1998). 'Inequality and race: Models and
policy'. Working Papers 0067.
Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C. and Crocker, J. (1998).
'Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The
role of psychological disengagement'. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 24, 34‐50.
McConahay, J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern
racism scale. In S.L. Gaertner and J.F. Dovidio (eds.), Prejudice,
discrimination and racism (pp. 91‐125). London: Academic Press.
Mendoza‐Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V.J., Davis, A. and Pietrzak, J.
(2002). 'Sensitivityto status‐basedrejection:Implicationsfor African
American students’ college experience'. Journalof Personality and Social
Psychology, 83, 896‐918.
Milgram, S., Mann, L. and Harter, S. (1965). 'The lost letter technique: A
tool of social research'. Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 437–438.
Mitchell, G. and Tetlock, P.E. (2008). 'Calibrating Prejudice in Milli‐
seconds'. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 12‐16.
Modood, T.,Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., et al.
(1997). 'Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage' Fourth
National Survey of Ethnic Minorities.
Pascoe,E.A. and Richman,L.S. (2009) 'Perceiveddiscriminationand
health: A meta‐analytic review'. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 531‐554.
Peach, C. (1996). 'Themeaning of segregation'. Planning Practice and
Research, 11, 137‐150.
Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., Edmondson,D., Dailey, R., Markova,T.,
Albrecht, T. L., et al. (2009). 'The experience of discrimination, and black‐
white health disparities in medical care'. Journal of Black Psychology, 35,
180‐203.
Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., West,T.V., Gaertner, S.L., Albrecht, T.L., Daily,
R. K. et al. (2010a). 'Aversive racism and medical interactions with Black
patients: A field study'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Society
of Behavioral Medicine, Seattle, Washington,

The Social Psychology of Discrimination
111
Penner, L.A., Dovidio, J.F., West, T.V., Gaertner, S.L., Albrecht, T.L., Daily,
R.K. et al. (2010b). 'Aversive racism and medical interactions with Black
patients: A field study'. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 436‐
440.
Penner, L.A., Eggly, S., Griggs, J., Orom, H. and Underwood, W. I. (in
press). Life‐threateningdisparities: The roles of ethnicity and social class
in the treatment of cancer. Journal of Social Issues
Pettigrew, T.F., Jackson, J.S., Ben Brika, J., Lemaine, G., Meertens, R.W.,
Wagner, U. et al. (1998).'Outgroup prejudicein Western Europe'.
European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 241‐273.
Pettigrew, T.F. and Tropp,L.R. (2006). 'A meta‐analytic test of intergroup
contact theory'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751‐783
Pizzi, W., Blair, I. and Judd, C. (2005). 'Discrimination in sentencing based
on Afro‐centric features'. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 10, 1–27.
Quillan, L. (2006). 'New approaches to understandingracial prejudice and
discrimination'. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 299‐328.
Ragins, B.R., and Cornwell, J.M. (2002). 'Pink triangles: Antecedents and
consequencesof perceivedworkplacediscriminationagainstgay and
lesbian employees'. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244‐1261.
Saucier, D.A., Miller, C.T. and Doucet, N. (2005). 'Differences in helping
whites and blacks: A meta‐analysis'. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 2‐16.
Sidanius, J. and Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of
social hierarchy and oppression. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Simons, R.L., Murry, V., McLoyd, V., Lin, K.‐H., Cutrona, C. and Conger,
R.D. (2002). 'Discrimination,crime, ethnic identity, and parenting as
correlates of depressive symptoms among African American children: A
multilevel analysis'. Development and Psychopathology, 14, 371‐393.
Steele, C.M. (1997). 'A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual
identity and performance'. American Psychologist, 52, 613‐629.
Steele, C.M., and Aronson, J. (1995). 'Stereotypethreat and the intellectual
test performance of African Americans'. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 797–811.
Steffensmeier,D. and Demuth, S. (2000). 'Ethnicityand Sentencing
Outcomes in U.S. FederalCourts: Who is PunishedMore Harshly?'
American Sociological Review, 65, 705‐729.

Making Equality Count
112
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979). 'An integrative theory of intergroup
conflict'. In S. Worchel and W.G. Austin (eds.), The social psychology of
intergroup relations (pp. 33‐47). Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. (1986). 'The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior'. In S. Worchel and W.G.Austin (eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 7‐24). Chicago: Nelson‐Hall.
Turner, J.C. (1978). 'Social comparison, similarity and ingroup favouritism'.
In T.H (ed.), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies in the Social
Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 235‐250). London: Academic Press.
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D.and Wetherell, M.S.
(1987). Rediscovering the social group. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Underwood, W., De Monner, S., Ubel, P., Fagerlin, A., Sanda, M.G., and
Wei, J.T. (2004). 'Racial/ethnic disparities in the treatment of localized/
regional prostate cancer'. The Journal of Urology, 171, 1504‐1507.
Van Laar, C., Levin, S., Sinclair,S. and Sidanius, J. (2005). 'The effect of
college roommate contact on ethnic attitudes and behaviors'. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 329‐345.
Waldo, C.R. (1999). 'Working in a majority context: A structural model of
heterosexism as minority stress in the workplace'. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 46, 218–232.
Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P. and Cooper, J. (1974). 'The nonverbal mediation
of self‐fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction'. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109‐120.