Ambivalent prejudice

According to Susan Fiske, there are two underlying characteristics of stigmatized groups around the world:[2] the ideas that status predicts perceived competence and that cooperation predicts perceived warmth.[2] Two combinations of competence and warmth produce ambivalent prejudices. The combined perception of groups as warm but incompetent leads to pitied groups, such as traditional women or older people.[2] The combined perception of groups as competent but cold leads to envied groups, such as nontraditional women or minority entrepreneurs.[2] Fiske uses this conception of prejudice to explain ambivalent sexism, heterosexism, racism, anti-immigrant biases, ageism, and classism.[2]

According to Whitley and Kite, ambivalent prejudice comes from one person having both good and bad thoughts about an outgroup.[1] The example in their book The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination talks about race and how some people often have ambivalent attitudes towards people of other races. This means that their behavior is also ambivalent: "sometimes it is positive, sometimes negative".[3]

Irwin Katz said that ambivalent prejudice only occurs when the individual becomes aware of the conflicting attitudes, and, for most people, simply coming face-to-face with someone from the outgroup can cause this.[4] According to Katz, this conflict of attitudes can cause problems with one's self-image, because it seems as though one is not living up to all important values that one holds. This conflict can cause negative emotions, which are expressed in negative behavior.

Irwin Katz and Glen Hass (1988) believed that contradicting American values are to blame for ambivalent prejudice.[5] The first value is that hard work will always pay off and people get what they deserve, while the other is that all people are equal and that people should help the less fortunate. When this is applied to race, many people are torn. They see disadvantaged people of other races as not working hard enough to be worth as much as people of their own race, but they also understand that people of other race have a harder time financially and socially. These mixed emotions lead to ambivalence.

Tara MacDonald and Mark Zanna suggested that stereotypes were to blame for ambivalent prejudice.[6] According to MacDonald and Zanna, people can like others and respect others, the two emotions working independently of each other. When a person feels those things towards an entire group, it is because of stereotypes. Therefore, a person can like and disrespect people of other races, due to certain stereotypes, or dislike but respect the same group of people for other stereotypes.

In a study testing the nature of ambivalent prejudice, Hisako Matsuo and Kevin McIntyre (2005)[7] studied American attitudes toward immigrant groups. He proposed that ambivalent prejudice stems from two views. There is the individualistic attitude that values the Protestant work ethic, and this attitude is associated with more negative attitudes toward outgroups. The other view is an egalitarian or humanitarian one, which is associated with more positive attitudes toward outgroups.[2][7]

Researchers use a variety of methods to measure ambivalent prejudice. The most widely used method is the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) for sexism created by Glick and Fiske in 1996.[2][8] Typical of all ingroup- outgroup relations, one group (men) has a much greater societal status. This is due to male ambivalence having three sources: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.[2][9] This assessment measures an individual's endorsement of ambivalent sexism. The theory of ambivalent sexism postulates that male ambivalence has three sources: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality. Women who resist traditional gender roles are punished by hostile sexism which resembles old-fashioned sexism. The theory predicts resentment of nontraditional women along each dimension: dominative paternalism, competitive gender differentiation, and heterosexual hostility.[2] Conversely, women who cooperate with traditional gender roles and relationships evoke benevolent sexism which comprises protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy. The ASI measures sexism along each of the six dimensions that compose hostile sexism and benevolent sexism.[2]

The ASI is a self-report measure composed of 22 items, 11 for each subscale: hostile sexism and benevolent sexism. The two subscales can be calculated separately, or they can be averaged together to get an overall measure of sexism.[2] The assessment consist of a series of statements with which respondents indicate their level of agreement on a 6-point Likert scale in which 0 = disagree strongly and 5 = agree strongly. Certain items are reversed coded so that agreement with the statement indicates lower levels of sexism and disagreement with the statement indicates higher levels of sexism. Example items from the ASI include:[2]

Below is a series of statements concerning men and women and their relationships in contemporary society that this study wrote for their subjects to evaluate.[2]

Benevolent sexism subset:[2]

• People are often truly happy in life without being romantically involved with a member of the other sex.
• No matter how accomplished he is, a man is not truly complete as a person unless he has the love of a woman.
• Men are complete without women.
• Every man ought to have a woman whom he adores.
• Women should be cherished and protected by men.
• Women, as compared to men, tend to have a more refined sense of culture and good taste.
• Women, compared to men, tend to have superior moral sensibility.
• Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess.

Hostile sexism subset:[2]

• Women exaggerate problems they have at work.
• Most women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist.
• Women are too easily offended.
• Most women fail to appreciate fully all that men do for them.
• Feminists are not seeking for women to have more power than men.
• There are actually very few women who get a kick out of teasing men by seeming sexually available and then refusing male advances.

Researchers use various other methods to measure different types of ambivalent prejudices. For example, the Modern Racism Scale measures aspects of ambivalent racism.[2]

In order to reduce the negative feelings brought about by cognitive dissonance, people may engage in response amplification.[1] Response amplification is defined by engaging in a more extreme response to a stigmatized individual in comparison to a similar but non-stigmatized individual than the situation calls for.[1] This can include overdoing both positive responses and negative responses depending on whether the situation calls for a positive or negative response.[1]

For example, whites' evaluations of Blacks who are presented positively or negatively tend to be more extreme than evaluations of similar white individuals. Hass et al. (1991) had White students participate in an experiment where the student worked with either a white or black confederate to complete a task.[11] The confederate, instructed by the experimenter, caused either the failure or successful achievement of the task.[11] After the task, the white students rated the confederate's performance. Those who scored higher in ambivalence rated the black confederate more positively in the success condition but more negatively in the failure condition than the white confederate.[11] David Bell and Victoria Esses (2002) conducted a study indicated that this response amplification only occurs when one believes that the ambivalent response is problematic.[12] When ambivalent white Canadian students were given essays that emphasized the positivity or negativity of ambivalence (considering both the good and bad in a situation or person), only those in the negative condition engaged in response amplification.

In addition to racial contexts, response amplification has been found in multiple contexts including in cases of able bodied people interacting with disabled individuals, women and men rating members of the opposite sex, and ratings of female feminists.[1]

Leippe and Eisenstadt found that dissonance mediated changed may be more successful when an internal conflict already exists, that is, when individuals possess cognitive dissonance that can be a result of ambivalence.[13] In three experiments, whites were encouraged to write essays regarding scholarship policies that would favor blacks. Writing the essay led to a more positive perception of the policy, as well as, in some cases, more positive attitudes towards blacks in general.[13] Ambivalent people were more likely to comply with writing a positive essay than non ambivalent people. As a result of writing the essay, participants felt cognitive dissonance which led them to engage in a sort of cognitive restructuring to further reduce the dissonance.[13] This meant engaging in more extended thinking that led to more positive beliefs about Blacks in general as well as about the specific policy. By inducing compliance in writing, they were able to induce a change in attitudes toward the target group.[13]

Fiske suggests several methods to mitigate ambivalent prejudice particularly in the context of business management.[2] These methods mainly involve an increased awareness and recognition of the different types of prejudice.[2] She states that not all prejudices are alike, but they do create predictable groups of stereotypes, emotional prejudices, and discriminatory tendencies. When working to counteract prejudice, the focus should be on the most stereotypically negative aspect for a group, for example, competence for older people.[2] In addition, constructive contact, that involving cooperation and equal status in the setting, for example, between groups improves emotional intelligence.[2]

• Benevolent prejudice
• Hostile prejudice
• Ingroups and outgroups
• Role congruity theory
• Women are wonderful
• Aversive racism
• Tokenism
• Allosemitism