Social discrimination is a common experience with measurable consequences for those affected. The effects include poorer mental health and poverty, issues which are commonly addressed by human service professionals. People who are transgender are particular targets of discrimination and, as such, find themselves in need of human service assistance at levels disproportionate to the larger population. Research from social psychology suggests that intergroup contact reduces prejudice. This quasi-experiment explored the effect a transgender speaker, followed by informal social interaction, had on measures of transgender prejudice in a sample of college students

Although accumulating research indicates that negative expectations about interracial interactions undermine the quality of such interactions, little research has examined the factors that moderate the influence of negative expectations on responses to interracial interactions. We propose that individuals who endorse work-related ideologies such as the Protestant work ethic (PWE) expect that outcomes in interracial interactions should be contingent upon individual effort. As a result, such individuals are hypothesized to respond in a negative manner when they believe that regardless of their effort in an interracial interaction, interaction partners will respond negatively to them (termed negative response expectancies). Consistent with this hypothesis, negative response expectancies led to an increased desire to avoid interracial interactions (Studies 1a and 1b) and more antisocial behavior directed at an interracial interaction partner among individuals who strongly endorsed the PWE (Study 2). Across the studies, effects of negative response expectancies were relatively weaker or non-significant among individuals lower in the PWE. The implications of these findings for understanding the interplay between the PWE and expectancies in interracial interactions are discussed.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The current study examined African American participants’ perceptions of and reactions to a White ally vs. a Black target (vs. a no confrontation control condition) prejudice confrontation. Based on intergroup helping theories suggesting that low-status group members question high-status helper motivations and consequently feel disempowered by their help (Fisher, Nadler, & Whitcher-Alagna, 1982; Nadler, 2002), we predicted that participants would report lower empowerment when a White vs. Black person confronted on their behalf, and that perceived confronter motivation would mediate the effect of confronter group membership on empowerment. To test these hypotheses, we recruited African American participants (N = 477) via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk, randomly assigned them to either a no confrontation control, target confrontation, or ally confrontation condition, and then assessed participants’ sense of psychological empowerment and perceptions of the confronter’s motivation. The results supported our predictions for the primary dependent variables, and mediation analyses provided evidence for a causal model such that confronter group membership affected participants’ psychological empowerment via their perceptions of the confronter’s motivation. The findings suggest that although both target and ally confrontations are preferable to no confrontation, allies should be aware of the possible disempowering effect of their confronting on targets of prejudice and the importance of their own motivations when engaging in prejudice confrontation. The current study further emphasizes the importance of representing targets’ perspectives in studies of prejudice.

This paper argues for the counter intuitive notion that some prejudice is morally justified. The argument is divided up into three parts: (1) what prejudice is, (2) the role of epistemology and (3) the final moral argument. The first section initially establishes a working definition which allows prejudice to be justified epistemically. The section then continues to demonstrate how prejudice has the logical structure of generic statements and facilitates a more generous view of prejudice and what it often expresses. The first section is concluded by explaining how prejudice is a result of the cognitive process called categorization, and how this cognitive process is inevitable and necessary. The second section addresses relevant epistemology, especially how belief comes to be epistemically justified. The papers argue for the notion of two different thresholds: justified belief and acceptance. This conception of epistemically justified belief is then connected to morality through Rosen’s following principle: “When X does A out of innocent ignorance, then X is guilt-free in that he did A, assuming that A would have been a guilt-free act if things were as X thought.” This bridge thereby allows prejudice to be morally justified through epistemic justification. The last section of the paper presents examples of prejudice and analyzes them by using the premises from the first two first sections. If epistemically justified belief necessarily generates moral justification, these examples illustrate prejudice which is morally justified. Two objections against this conclusion are then addressed. The first objection concerns the types of prejudice illustrated in the examples, and questions whether they really are prejudices. This objection is refuted by referencing the working definition of prejudice. The second objection concerns the harm prejudice impose on society on a larger level. Two versions of this objection are addressed and refuted.

Traditionally, the discourse on race relations in the U.S. has focused on relations between Whites and ethnic minorities, with little being known about the antecedents and consequences of inter-minority prejudice. This paper will present results from two studies that were conducted with Asian, Black, and Latino undergraduate students, assessing motivations to embrace a collective identity with ethnic minorities (versus express prejudice towards other ethnic minority groups). Blacks,’ Asians’, and Latinos’ ethnic group identification, as well their identification with a superordinate "people of color" (POC) category were assessed. POC identification was found to be closely aligned with one's political beliefs (e.g., perceptions that the system is unjust, and that racial minorities face discrimination in the U.S.) For Asian participants, POC identification predicted more positive attitudes towards other ethnic minority groups perceived to face similar discrimination in the U.S. (e.g., Latinos and Blacks.) However, Blacks' identification as POC actually predicted negative attitudes towards Asians, who were not seen as facing the same barriers to upward mobility as other racial minority groups in the U.S. The results indicate that the politics of POC identification might actually contribute to increased tension between ethnic minorities in the U.S.; implications for more effecting coalition building between racial minorities in the U.S. are also discussed in this paper.

No description available.

The term "ghetto" has an ambiguous meaning in American society. The term frequently has been used as either a noun or an adjective. As a noun the term "ghetto" is often used to describe a place - Small describes the ghetto as a: "…a particular type of neighborhood; it exhibits a cohesive set of characteristics, such as deteriorating housing, crime, depopulation, and social isolation…"(2008: 78.) This description as a noun is indicative of unsavory social conditions and climate that fosters an unproductive populace. As an adjective the term remains more difficult to solidly define. The bulk of available research often has worked to define what the "ghetto" is in reference to a physical location. The term seems to be more pervasive than simply being a place; it can be used to describe people, particular behaviors and traits as well as objects. The current study seeks to gain a deeper understanding of what a 'ghetto' is and how the word is used in a variety of ways. This study will analyze the multifaceted applications of the term 'ghetto' and how the term works to promote negative socioeconomic racialized ideologies. This study is pertinent because it addresses issues of institutionalized discrimination and prejudiced language. Findings are predicted to address the manners in which discrimination functions through language usage.

No description available.

The current study employed both a variable- and person-centered approach to analyze data taken from a large sample of U.S. adults (N = 602, 59% males). For the former, structural equation modeling was utilized to empirically articulate the links between the four facets of psychopathy (interpersonal, affective, lifestyle, antisocial) and the six facets of ethnocentrism. For the person-centered approach, descriptive discriminant analysis was used to assess for differences in psychopathic trait profiles between those elevated or low in ethnocentric attitudes. Consistent with expectations, the affective dimension positively predicted denigration of out-group members whereas the lifestyle domain negatively predicted all facets of ethnocentrism. Unexpectedly, the antisocial facet positively predicted group cohesion and devotion towards one's ethnic in-group. Additionally, those elevated in ethnocentrism had higher interpersonal and affective scores and lower lifestyle scores relative to those low in ethnocentric attitudes. Results are discussed in the context of risk assessment for hate-based violence and the overlap in the nomological network of psychopathy and prejudicial attitudes.

No description available.