Causes of prejudice vincent n parrillo summary

576 CREATED EQUAL

what is necessary to accomplish anything approaching psychic and eco​nomic parity in the next half century will not only require a fundamental at​titude shift in American thinking but massive amounts of money as well. Be​fore the country in general can be made to understand, African Americans themselves must come to understand that this demand is not for charity. It is simply for what they are owed on a debt that is old but compellingiy obvi​ous and valid still.

Sources

Anderson, S.E. The Black Holocaust for Beginners. New York: Writers and

Readers Publishing, 1995. Bittkcr, Boris. The Case for Black Reparations. New York: Random House,

1973. Franklin, John Hope. From Slavery to Freedom, New York: Knopf, 1947. Taylor, Yuval, ed. / was Bom a Slave (vol. 1). Chicago: Lawrence Hill, 1999. Updike, John. Brazil. New York: Knopf, 1994. Westley. Robert, "Many Billions Gone." Boston College Law Review, June 1999.

Engaging the Text

1. Outline Robinson's economic argument for reparations: What measurable monetary losses have African Americans suffered as a result of slavery and discrimination? Are there losses that cannot be measured in economic terms? If so, how might they be redressed?

2. How does Robinson counter the objection that it's too late to demand resti​tution for slavery? What evidence does he present to support his con​tention that African Americans today still feel the effects of slavery? How persuasive do you find his reasoning?

3. Why does Robinson feel that it's important for African Americans to fight for reparations even when there's little chance of success?

4. Robinson cites a number of historical and legal precedents for reparations. In what ways are these cases similar to or different from the case of slav​ery? To what extent do the precedents strengthen Randall's argument?

5. Debate Robinson's claim that unless the United States addresses the issue of reparations, "there is no chance that America can solve its racial prob​lems" (para. 10).

Exploring Connections

6. What does Robinson mean when he says that "the biggest part of our prob​lem is inside us" (para. 16)? How might Claude M. Steele (p. 231), Ken Hambliit (p. 384), Shelby Steele t~ Gncu "liter Mosley (p. 755) re​spond to his age inflicted on African

PAKRILLO • CAUSES OK I'HEJUDICE 577

Rereading America 2004

Edited by: Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, Bonnie Lisle

Causes of Prejudice Vincent N. Parrillo

What motivates the creation of racial categories? In the following selec​tion, Vincent Parrillo reviews several theories that seek to explain the motives for prejudiced behavior—from socialization theory to economic competition. As Parrillo indicates, prejudice cannot be linked to any single cause: a whole network of forces and frustrations underlies this complex set of feelings and behaviors. Parrillo (h. 1938) chairs the Department of Sociology at William Paterson College in New Jersey. His books include Rethinking Today's Mi​norities (1991). Diversity in America (1996), and Understanding Race and ; j Ethnic Relations (2002). He has also written and produced two award-

winning documentaries for PBS television. This excerpt originally appeared in Strangers to These Shores (1999, 6th ed.).

Prejudicial attitudes may be either positive or negative. Sociologists primarily study the latter, however, because only negative attitudes-can lead to turbulent social relations between dominant and minority groups.

578 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 579

Numerous writers, therefore, have defined prejudice as an attitudinal "sys​tem of negative beliefs, feelings, and action-orientations regarding a certain group or groups of people."1 The status of the strangers is an important fac​tor in the development of a negative attitude. Prejudicial attitudes exist among members of both dominant and minority groups. Thus, in the rela​tions between dominant and minority groups, the antipathy felt by one group for another is quite often reciprocated.

Psychological perspectives on prejudice—whether behaviorist, cogni​tive, or psychoanalytic—focus on the subjective states of mind of individu​als. In these perspectives, a person's prejudicial attitudes may result from imitation or conditioning (behaviorist), perceived similarity-dissimilarity of beliefs (cognitive), or specific personality characteristics (psychoanalytic). In contrast, sociological perspectives focus on the objective conditions of soci​ety as the social forces behind prejudicial attitudes and behind racial and ethnic relations. Individuals do not live in a vacuum; social reality affects

their states of mind.

Both perspectives are necessary to understand prejudice. As psycholo​gist Gordon Allport argued, besides needing a close study of habits, percep​tions, motivation, and personality, we need an analysis of social settings, sit​uational forces, demographic and ecological variables, and legal and economic trends.2 Psychological and sociological perspectives complement each other in providing a fuller explanation about intergroup relations.

The Psychology of Prejudice

We can understand more about prejudice among individuals by focus​ing on four areas of study: levels of prejudice, self-justification, personality, and frustration.

Levels of Prejudice. Bernard Kramer suggests that prejudice exists on 5 three levels: cognitive, emotional, and action orientation.3 The cognitive level of prejudice encompasses a person's beliefs and perceptions of a group as threatening or nonthreatening, inferior or equal (e.g., in terms of intellect, status, or biological composition), seclusive or intrusive, impulse-gratifying, acquisitive, or possessing other positive or negative characteris​tics. Mr. X's cognitive beliefs are that Jews are intrusive and acquisitive. Other illustrations of cognitive beliefs are that the Irish are heavy drinkers and fighters. African Americans are rhythmic and lazy, and the Poles are

'Reported by Daniel Wilner, Rosabella Price Walkley, and Stuart W. Cook, "Residential Proximity and Intergroup Relations in Public Housing Projects," Journal o/Sodal Issues 8 (1) (1952): 45. See also James W. Vander Zanden, American Minority Relations, 3d ed. (New York: Ronald Press, 1972), p. 21. [All notes are the author's.]

2Gordon W. Allport, "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?" Journal of Social Issues 18

(1962): 129-30.

3Bemard M. Kramer, "Dimensions of Prejudice," Journal of Psychology 27 (April 1949):

thick-headed and unintelligent. Generalizations shape both ethnocentric and prejudicial attitudes, but there is a difference. Ethnocentrism-is a gen​eralized rejection of all outgroups on the basis of an ingroup focus, whereas prejudice is a rejection of certain people solely on the basis of their mem​bership in a particular group.

In many societies, members of die majority group may believe that a particular low-status minority group is dirty, immoral, violent, or law-breaking. In the United States, the Irish, Italians, African Americans, Mexicans, Chinese, Puerto Ricans, and others have at one time or another been labeled with most, if not all, of these adjectives. In most European countries and in the United States, the group lowest on the socioeconomic ladder has often been depicted in caricature as also lowest on the evolutionary ladder. The Irish and African Americans in the United States and the peasants and various ethnic groups in Europe have all been depicted in the past as apelike:

The Victorian images of the Irish as "white Negro" and simian Celt, or a combination of the two, derived much of its force and inspiration from physiognomical beliefs ... [but] every country in Europe had its equivalent of "white Negroes" and simianized men, whether or not they happened to be stereotypes of criminals, assassins, political radi​cals, revolutionaries, Slavs, gypsies, Jews, or peasants.4

The emotional level of prejudice refers to the feelings that a minor​ity group arouses in an individual. Although these feelings may be based on stereotypes from the cognitive level, they represent a more4ntense stage of personal involvement. The emotional attitudes may be negative or positive, such as fear/envy, distrust/trust, disgust/admiration, or contempt/empathy. These feelings, based on beliefs about the group, may be triggered by social interaction or by the possibility of interaction. For example, whites might react with fear or anger to the integration of their schools or neighborhoods, or Protestants might be jealous of the lifestyle of a highly successful Catholic business executive.

An action-orientation level of prejudice is the positive or negative predisposition to engage in discriminatory behavior. A person who harbors strong feelings about members of a certain racial or ethnic group may have a tendency to act for or against them—being aggressive or nonaggressive, offering assistance or withholding it. Such an individual would also be likely to want to exclude or include members of that group both in close, personal social relations and in peripheral social relations. For example, some people would want to exclude members of the disliked group from doing business with them or living in their neighborhood. Another manifestation of the action-orientation level of prejudice is the desire to change or maintain the status differential or inequality between the two groups, whether the area is

4L. Perry Curtis, Jr., Apes and Angels: The Irishman in Victorian Caricature (Washing-*/%« r> r*. c««,:»i.«.r,nu^ d«>^ ioti\

580 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 581

economic, political, educational, social, or a combination. Note that an ac​tion orientation is a predisposition to act, not the action itself.

Self-Justification. Self-justification involves denigrating a person or group to justify maltreatment of them. In this situation, self-justification leads to prejudice and discrimination against members of another group.

Some philosophers argue that we are not so much rational creatures as we are rationalizing creatures. We require reassurance that the things we do and the lives we live are proper, that good reasons for our actions exist. If we can convince ourselves that another group is inferior, immoral, or dan​gerous, we may feel justified in discriminating against its members, enslav​ing them, or even killing them.

History is filled with examples of people who thought their maltreat​ment of others was just and necessary: As defenders of the "true faith," the Crusaders killed "Christ-killers" (Jews) and "infidels" (Moslems). Partici​pants in the Spanish Inquisition imprisoned, tortured, and executed "heretics," "the disciples of the Devil." Similarly, the Puritans burned witches, whose refusal to confess "proved they were evil"; pioneers ex​ploited or killed Native Americans who were "heathen savages"; and whites mistreated, enslaved, or killed African Americans, who were "an inferior species." According to U.S. Army officers, the civilians in the Vietnamese village of My Lai were "probably" aiding the Vietcong; so in 1968 U.S. sol​diers fighting in the Vietnam War felt justified in slaughtering over 300 un​armed people there, including women, children, and the elderly.

Some sociologists believe that self-justification works the other way around. That is, instead of self-justification serving as a basis for subjugating others, the subjugation occurs first and the self-justification follows, result​ing in prejudice and continued discrimination.5 The evolution of racism as a concept after the establishment of the African slave trade would seem to support this idea. Philip Mason offers an insight into this view:

A specialized society is likely to defeat a simpler society and provide a lower tier still of enslaved and conquered peoples. The rulers and organizers sought security for themselves and their children; to per​petuate the power, the esteem, and the comfort they had achieved, it was necessary not only that the artisans and labourers should work contentedly but that the rulers should sleep without bad dreams. No one can say with certainty how the myths originated, but it is surely relevant that when one of the founders of Western thought set himself to frame an ideal state that would embody social justice, he—like the earliest city dwellers—not only devised a society stratified in tiers but believed it would be necessary to persuade the traders and work-

5See Marvin B. Scott and Stanford M. Lyman, "Accounts," American Sociologir.nl Review 33 (February 1968): 40-62.

people that, by divine decree, they were made from brass and iron, while the warriors were made of silver and the rulers of gold.6

Another example of self-justification serving as a source of prejudice is the dominant group's assumption of an attitude of superiority over other groups. In this respect, establishing a prestige hierarchy—ranking the sta​tus of various ethnic groups—results in differential association. To enhance or maintain self-esteem, a person may avoid social contact with groups deemed inferior and associate only with those identified as being of high status. Through such behavior, self-justification may come to intensify the

social distance between groups ….Social distance refers to the degree to

which ingroup members do not engage in social or primary relationships with members of various outgroups.

Personality. In 1950, in The Authoritarian Personality, T. W. Adorno and his colleagues reported a correlation between individuals' early child​hood experiences of harsh parental discipline and their development of an authoritarian personality as adults.7 If parents assume an excessively domineering posture in their relations with a child, exercising stern mea​sures and threatening to withdraw love if the child does not respond with weakness and submission, the child tends to be insecure and to nurture much latent hostility against the parents. When such children become adults, they may demonstrate displaced aggression, directing their hostility against a powerless group to compensate for their feelings of insecurity and fear. Highly prejudiced individuals tend to come from families that em​phasize obedience.

The authors identified authoritarianism by the use of a measuring instrument called an F scale (the F standing for potential fascism). Other tests included the A-S (anti-Semitism) and E (ethnocentrism) scales, the latter measuring attitudes toward various minorities. One of their major findings was that people who scored high on authoritarianism also consistently showed a high degree of Prejudice against all minority groups. These highly prejudiced persons were characterized by rigidity of viewpoint, dislike for ambiguity, strict obedience to leaders, and intolerance of weakness in them​selves and others.

No sooner did The Authoritarian Personality appear than controversy began. H. H. Hyman and P. B. Sheatsley challenged the methodology and analysis.8 Solomon Asch questioned the assumptions that the F scale

6Philip Mason, Patterns of Dominance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 7. See also Philip Mason, Race Relations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), pp. 17-29.

7T. W. Adorno, Else Frankel-Bninswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Autlwritarian Personality (New York: Harper & Row, 1950).

8H. H. Hyman and P. B. Sheatsley, "The Authoritarian Personality: A Methodological Critique," in R. Christie and M. Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Method of "The Au​thoritarian Personality" (Glencoe, III.: Free Press, 1954).

582 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 583

responses represented a belief system and that structural variables (such as ideologies, stratification, and mobility) do not play a role in shaping person​ality.9 E. A. Shils argued that the authors were interested only in measuring authoritarianism of the political right while ignoring such tendencies in those at the other end of the political spectrum. Other investigators sought alternative explanations for the authoritarian personality. D. Stewart and T. Hoult extended the framework beyond family childhood experiences to include other social factors.11 H. C. Kelman and Janet Barclay pointed out that substantial evidence exists showing that lower intelligence and less education also correlate with high authoritarianism scores on the F scale.12

Despite the critical attacks, the underlying conceptions of The Authori​tarian Personality were important, and research into personality as a factor in prejudice has continued. Subsequent investigators refined and modified the original study. Correcting scores for response bias, they conducted cross-cultural studies. Respondents in Germany and Near East countries, where more authoritarian social structures exist, scored higher on authori​tarianism and social distance between groups. In Japan, Germany, and the United States, authoritarianism and social distance were moderately re​lated. Other studies suggested that an inverse relationship exists between social class and F scale scores: the higher the social class, the lower the au​thoritarianism.13

Although studies of authoritarian personality have helped us under​stand some aspects of prejudice, they have not provided a causal explana​tion. Most of the findings in this area show a correlation, but the findings do not prove, for example, that harsh discipline of children causes them to be​come prejudiced adults. Perhaps the strict parents were themselves preju​diced, and the child learned those attitudes from them. Or as George Simpson and J. Milton Yinger say:

One must be careful not to assume too quickly that a certain tendency— rigidity of mind, for example—that is correlated with prejudice neces​sarily causes that prejudice—The sequence may be the other way around…. It is more likely that both are related to more basic factors.1'

"Solomon E. Asch, Social Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: l'rentice-Hall, 1952),

p. 545.

10E. A. Shik, "Authoritarianism: Right and Left," in Studies in the Scope and Method of

"The Authoritarian Personality."

"D. Stewart and T. Hoult, "A Social-Psychological Theory of 'The Authoritarian Person​ality.'" American Journal of Sociology 65 (1959): 274.

12H, C. Kelman and Janet Barclay, "The F Scale as a Measure of Breadth of Perspective," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67 (1963): 608-15.

l3For an excellent summary of authoritarian studies and literature, see John P. Kirscht and Ronald C. Dillehay. Dimensions of Authoritarianism: A Review of Researcli and Theory (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1967).

HCeorce E. Simpson and [. Milton Yinger, Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Analysis of

For some people, prejudice may indeed be rooted in subconscious childhood tensions, but we simply do not know whether these tensions di​rectly cause a high degree of prejudice in the adult or whether other power​ful social forces are the determinants. Whatever the explanation, authoritar​ianism is a significant phenomenon worthy of continued investigation. Recent research, however, has stressed social and situational factors, rather than personality, as primary causes of prejudice and discrimination.13

Yet another dimension of the personality component is that people with 20 low self-esteem are more prejudiced than those who feel good about them​selves. Some researchers have argued that individuals with low self-esteem deprecate others to enhance their feelings about themselves.16 One study asserts that "low self-esteem individuals seem to have a generally negative view of themselves, their ingroup, outgroups, and perhaps the world," and thus their tendency to be more prejudiced is not due to rating the outgroup negatively in comparison to their ingroup.17

. 'Frustration. Frustration is the result of relative deprivation in which expectations remain unsatisfied. Relative deprivation is a lack of re~ sources, or rewards, in one's standard of living in comparison with those of others in the society. A number of investigators have suggested that frustra​tions tend to increase aggression toward others.18 Frustrated people may easily strike out against the perceived cause of their frustration. However, this reaction may not be possible because the true source of the frustration is often too nebulous to be identified or too powerful to act against. In such instances, the result may be displaced aggression; in this situation, the frus​trated individual or group usually redirects anger against a more visible, vul​nerable, and socially sanctioned target, one unable to strike back. Minorities meet these criteria and are thus frequently the recipients of displaced ag​gression by the dominant group.

Blaming others for something that is not their fault is known as scape-goating. The term comes from the ancient Hebrew custom of using a goat

"Ibid., pp. 62-79.

"Howard J. Ehrlich, The Social Psychology of Prejudice (New York: Wiley, 1974); G. Sherwood, "Self-Serving Biases in Person Perception," Psychological Bulletin 90 (1981): 445-59; T. A. Wills, "Downward Comparison Principles in Social Psychology," Psychological Bulletin 90 (1981): 245-71.

"Jennifer Crocker and Ian Schwartz. "Prejudice and Ingroup Favoritism in a Minimal In-tergroup Situation: Effects of Self-Esteem," Personality ami Social Psychology Bulletin 11 (4) (December 1985): 379-86.

"John Dollard, Leonard W. Doob, Ncal E. Miller. O. II. Mowrer, and Robert P. Sears, Frustration and Aggression (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1939); A. F. Henry and J. F. Short, Jr.. Suicide and Homicide (New York: Free Press, 1954); Neal Miller and Richard Bugelski, "Minor Studies in Aggression: The Influence of Frustration Imposed by the Ingroup on Attitudes Expressed Toward Out-Croups," Journal of Psychology 25 (1948): 437-42; Stuart Palmer, The Psychology of Murder (New York: T. Y. Crowell. 1960); Brendcn C. Rule and Elizabeth Percival, The Effects of Frustration and Attack on Physical Aggression," journal of

584 CHEATED EQUAL

PARRII.LO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 585

during the Day of Atonement as a symbol of the sins of the people. In an annual ceremony, a priest placed his hands on the head of a goat and listed the people's sins in a symbolic transference of guilt; he then chased the goat out of the community, thereby freeing the people of sin.19 Since those times, the powerful group has usually punished the scapegoat group rather than allowing it to escape.

There have been many instances throughout world history of minority groups serving as scapegoats, including the Christians in ancient Rome, the Huguenots in France, the Jews in Europe and Russia, and the Puritans and Quakers in England. Gordon Allport suggests that certain characteristics are necessary for a group to become a suitable scapegoat. The group must be (1) highly visible in physical appearance or observable customs and ac​tions; (2) not strong enough to strike back; (3) situated within easy access of the dominant group and, ideally, concentrated in one area; (4) a past target of hostility for whom latent hostility still exists; and (5) the symbol of an un​popular concept.20

Some groups fit this typology better than others, but minority racial and ethnic groups have been a perennial choice. Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews, Quakers, Mormons, Chinese, Japanese, Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Chicanos, and Koreans have all been treated, at one time or another, as the scapegoat in the United States. Especially in times of economic hardship, societies tend to blame some group for the general conditions, which often leads to aggressive action against the group as an expression of frustration. For ex​ample, a study by Carl Hovland and Robert Sears found that, between 1882 and 1930, a definite correlation existed between a decline in the price of cotton and an increase in the number of lynchings of Blacks.21

In several controlled experiments, social scientists have attempted to measure the validity of the scapegoat theory. Neal Miller and Richard Bugelski tested a group of young men aged eighteen to twenty who were working in a government camp about their feelings toward various minority groups. The young men were reexamined about these feelings after experi​encing frustration by being obliged to take a long, difficult test and being de​nied an opportunity to see a film at a local theater. This group showed some evidence of increased prejudicial feelings, whereas a control group, which did not experience any frustration, showed no change in prejudicial attitudes.22

Donald Weatherley conducted an experiment with a group of college students to measure the relationship between frustration and aggression against a specific disliked group.23 After identifying students who were or

"Leviticus 16:5-22.

^Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Weslcy, 1954), pp. 13-14.

2lCarl 1. Hovland and Robert R. Sears, "Minor Studies of Aggression: Correlation of Lynchings with Economic Indices," Journal of Psychology 9 (Winter 1940): 301-10.

22..,11 J „ 1.1„- »»<;.,„,<:.„,)!„»;„ ACTorn«!nn " nn 437—42

were not highly anti-Semitic and subjecting them to a strongly frustrating ex​perience, he asked the students to write stories about pictures shown to them. Some of the students were shown pictures of people who had been given Jew​ish names; other students were presented with pictures of unnamed people. When the pictures were unidentified, the stories of the anti-Semitic students did not differ from those of other students. When the pictures were identi​fied, however, the anti-Semitic students wrote stories reflecting much more aggression against the Jews in the pictures than did the other students.

For over twenty years, Leonard Berkowitz and his associates studied and experimented with aggressive behavior. They concluded that, con​fronted with equally frustrating situations, highly prejudiced individuals are more likely to seek scapegoats than are nonprejudiced individuals. Another intervening variable is that personal frustrations (marital failure, injury, or mental illness) make people more likely to seek scapegoats than do shared frustrations (dangers of flood or hurricane).24

Some experiments have shown that aggression does not increase if the frustration is understandable.25 Other experiments have found that people become aggressive only if the aggression directly relieves their frustration. Still other studies have shown that anger is a more likely result if the person responsible for the frustrating situation could have acted otherwise.27 Clearly, the results are mixed, depending on the variables within a given so​cial situation.

Frustration-aggression theory, although helpful, is not completely sat​isfactory. It ignores the role of culture and the reality of actual social conflict and fails to show any causal relationship. Most of the responses measured in these studies were of people already biased. Why did one group rather than another become the object of the aggression? Moreover, frustration does not necessarily precede aggression, and aggression does not necessarily How from frustration.

The Sociology of Prejudice

Sociologist Talcott Parsons provided one bridge between psychology and sociology by introducing social forces as a variable in frustration-aggression theory. He suggested that both the family and the occupational

"Sec Leonard Berkowitz, "Whatever Happened to the Fnist ration-Aggression Hy]K>the-sis?" American Behavioral Scientist 21 (1978): 691-708; L. Berkowitz. Aggression: A Social Psychological Analysis (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962).

BD. Zillman, Hostility and Aggression (Hillsdale, N.J.: Laurence Erlbauiti. 1979); R. A. Baron, Human Aggression (New York: Plenum Press, 1977); N. Paslore, "Tlie Hole of Arbi​trariness in the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis," Journal of Abnotvtal and Social Psychol​ogy 47 (1952): 728-31.

MA. H. Buss, "Instrumentality of Aggression, Feedback, and Frustration as Determinants of Physical Aggrcssion,"/t>urna/ of Persanalltu and Social Psurhnlnan n 11 QflfiV i ";i_RO

586 CREATED EQUAL

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PHEJUDICE 587

structure may produce anxieties and insecurities that create frustration.28 According to this view, the growing-up process (gaining parental affection and approval, identifying with and imitating sexual role models, and com​peting with others in adulthood) sometimes involves severe emotional strain. The result is an adult personality with a large reservoir of repressed aggression that becomes free-floating—susceptible to redirection against convenient scapegoats. Similarly, the occupational system is a source of frustration: its emphasis on competitiveness and individual achievement, its function of conferring status, its requirement that people inhibit their nat​ural impulses at work, and its ties to the state of the economy are among the factors that generate emotional anxieties. Parsons pessimistically concluded that minorities fulfill a functional "need" as targets for displaced aggression and therefore will remain targets.29

Perhaps most influential in staking out the sociological position on prejudice was Herbert Blumer, who suggested that prejudice always involves the "sense of group position" in society. Agreeing with Kramer's delineation of three levels of prejudice, Blumer argued that prejudice can include beliefs, feelings, and a predisposition to action, thus motivating behavior that derives from the social hierarchy.30 By emphasizing historically established group positions and relationships, Blumer shifted his focus away from the attitudes and personality compositions of individuals. As a social phenomenon, prejudice rises or falls ac​cording to issues that alter one group's position vis-à-vis that of another group.

Socialization) In the socialization process, individuals acquire the values, attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, in​cluding religion, nationality, and social class. Generally, the child conforms to the parents' expectations in acquiring an understanding of the world and its people. Being impressionable and knowing of no alternative conceptions of the world, the child usually accepts these concepts without questioning. We thus learn the prejudices of our parents and others, which then become part of our values and beliefs. Even when based on false stereotypes, prejudices shape our perceptions of various peoples and influence our attitudes and ac​tions toward particular groups. For example, if we develop negative attitudes about Jews because we are taught that they are shrewd, acquisitive, and clan​nish—all-too-familiar stereotypes—as adults we may refrain from business or social relationships with them. We may not even realize the reason for such avoidance, so subtle has been the prejudice instilled within us.

^Talcott Parsons, "Certain Primary Sources and Patterns of Aggression in the Social Structure of die Western World," in Essays in Sociological Theory (New York: Free Press, 1964). pp. 298-322.

raFor an excellent review of Parsonian theory in this area, see Stanford M. Lyman, The Black American in Sociological Thought: A Failure of Perspective (New York: Putnam, 1972), pp. 145-69.

MHerbert Blumer, "Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position." Pacific Sociological

People may learn certain prejudices because of their pervasiveness. The cultural screen that we develop and through which we view the sur​rounding world is not always accurate, but it does permit transmission of shared values and attitudes, which arc reinforced by others. Prejudice, like cultural values, is taught and learned through the socialization process. The prevailing prejudicial attitudes and actions may be deeply embedded in cus​tom or law (e.g., the Jim Crow laws of the 1890s and the early twentieth century establishing segregated public facilities throughout the South, which subsequent generations accepted as proper, and maintained in their own adult lives).

Although socialization explains how prejudicial, attitudes may be trans​mitted from one generation to the next, it does not explain their origin or why they intensify or diminish over the years. These aspects of prejudice must be explained in another way.

Economic-Competition. People tend to be more hostile toward others when they feel that their security is threatened; thus many social scientists conclude that economic competition and conflict breed prejudice. Cer​tainly, considerable evidence shows that negative stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination increase markedly whenever competition for available jobs increases.

An excellent illustration relates to the Chinese sojourners in the nineteenth-century United States. Prior to the 1870s, the transcontinental railroad was being built, and the Chinese filled many of the jobs made avail​able by this project in the sparsely populated West. Although they were ex​pelled from the region's gold mines and schools and could obtain no redress of grievances in the courts, they managed to convey to some Whites the image of being a clean, hard-working, law-abiding people. The completion of the railroad, the flood of former Civil War soldiers into the job market, and the economic depression of 1873 worsened their situation. The Chinese became more frequent victims of open discrimination and hostility. Their positive stereotype among some Whites was widely displaced by a negative one: They were now "conniving," "crafty," "criminal," "the yellow menace." Only after they retreated into Chinatowns and entered specialty occupa​tions that minimized their competition with Whites did the intense hostility abate.

One pioneer in the scientific study of prejudice, John Dollard, demon​strated how prejudice against the Germans, which had been virtually nonex​istent, arose in a small U.S. industrial town when times got bad:

Local Whites largely drawn from the surrounding farms manifested considerable direct aggression toward the newcomers. Scornful and derogatory opinions were expressed about the Germans, and the na​tive Whites had a satisfying sense of superiority toward them The

chief element in the permission to be aggressive against the Germans

588 CREATED EQUAL

native Whites felt definitely crowded for their jobs by the entering German groups and in case of bad times had a chance to blame the Germans who by their presence provided more competitors for the scarcer jobs. There seemed to be no traditional pattern of prejudice against Germans unless the skeletal suspicion of all out-groupers (al​ways present) be invoked in this place.31

Both experimental studies and historical analyses have added credence to the economic-competition theory. Muzafer Sherif directed several exper​iments showing how intergroup competition at a boys' camp led to conflict and escalating hostility.32 Donald Young pointed out that, throughout U.S. history, in times of high unemployment and thus intense job competition, nativist movements against minorities have flourished.33 This pattern has held true regionally—against Asians on the West Coast, Italians in Louisiana, and French Canadians in New England—and nationally, with the antiforeign movements always peaking during periods of depression. So it was with the Native American Party in the 1830s, the Know-Nothing Party in the 1850s, the American Protective Association in the 1890s, and the Ku Klux Klan after World War I. Since the passage of civil rights laws on employment in the twentieth century, researchers have consistently de​tected the strongest antiblack prejudice among working-class and middle-class Whites who feel threatened by Blacks entering their socioeconomic group in noticeable numbers.34 It seems that any group applying the pres​sure of job competition most directly on another group becomes a target of its prejudice.

Once again, a theory that offers some excellent insights into preju​dice—in particular, that adverse economic conditions correlate with in​creased hostility toward minorities—also has some serious shortcomings. Not all groups that have been objects of hostility (e.g., Quakers and Mor​mons) have been economic competitors. Moreover, why is hostility against some groups greater than against others? Why do the negative feelings in some communities run against groups whose numbers are so small that they cannot possibly pose an economic threat? Evidently values besides eco​nomic ones cause people to be antagonistic to a group perceived as an ac​tual or potential threat.

31 John Dollard, "Hostility and Fear in Social Life," Social Forces 17 (1938): 15-26.

32Muzafcr Sherif, O. J. Harvey, B. Jack White, William Hood, and Carolyn Sherif, Inter​group Conflict and Cooperation: Tlw Robbers Cave Experiment (Norman: University of Okla​homa Institute of Intergroup Relations, 1961). See also M. Sherif, "Experiments in Croup Conflict." Scientific American 195 (1956): 54-58.

MDonald Young, Research Memorandum on Minority Peoples in the Depression (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1937), pp. 133-41.

34Andrew Greeley and Paul Sheatsley, "The Acceptance of Desegregation Continues to Advance," Scientific American 210 (1971): 13-19; T. F. Pettigrew, "Three Issues in Ethnicity: Boundaries, Deprivations, and Perceptions," in M. Yinger and S. J. Cutler (eds.), Major Social Issues: A Multidisciplinary View (New York: Free Press, 1978); R. D. Vanneman and T. F.

PARRILLO • CAUSES OF PREJUDICE 589

Social Norms. Some sociologists have suggested that a relationship exists between prejudice and a person's tendency to conform to societal ex​pectations.35 Social norms—the norms of one's culture—form the gener​ally shared rules defining what is and is not proper-behavior. By learning and automatically accepting the prevailing prejudices, an individual is simply conforming to those norms.

This theory holds that a direct relationship exists between degree of conformity and degree of prejudice. If so, people's prejudices should de​crease or increase significantly when they move into areas where the preju​dicial norm is lesser or greater. Evidence supports this view. Thomas Pettigrew found that Southerners in the 1950s became less prejudiced against Blacks when they interacted with them in the army, where the social norms were less prejudicial.36 In another study, Jeanne Watson found that people moving into an anti-Semitic neighborhood in New York City became more anti-Semitic.37

John Dollard's study, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (1937), pro​vides an in-depth look at the emotional adjustment of Whites and Blacks to rigid social norms.38 In his study of the processes, functions, and mainte​nance of accommodation, Dollard detailed the "carrot-and-stick" method social groups employed. Intimidation—sometimes even severe reprisals for going against social norms—ensured compliance. However, reprisals usu​ally were unnecessary. The advantages Whites and Blacks gained in psycho​logical, economic, or behavioral terms served to perpetuate the caste order. These gains in personal security and stability set in motion a vicious circle. They encouraged a way of life that reinforced the rationale of die social sys​tem in this community.

Two 1994 studies provided further evidence of the powerful influence of social norms. Joachim Krueger and Russell W. Clement found that con​sensus bias persisted despite the availability of statistical data and knowl​edge about such bias.39 Michael R. Leippe and Donna Eisenstadt showed that induced compliance can change socially significant attitudes and that the change generalizes to broader beliefs.'10

•""See Harry H. L. Kitano. "Passive Discrimination in the Normal Person," Journal of So​cial Psychology 70 (1966): 23-31.

^Thomas Pettigrew, "Regional Differences in Anti-Negro Prejudice," Journal of Abnor​mal and Social Psycliology 59 (1959): 28-36.

a7Jeanne Watson, "Some Social and Psychological Situations Related to Change in Atti​tude." Human Relations 3 (1950): 15-56.

^John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town, 3d cd. (Garden City. N.Y.: Double-day Anchor Books. 1957).

•^Joachim Krueger and Russell W. Clement, "The Truly False Consensus Effect: An In​eradicable and Egocentric Bias in Social Perception," Journal of Personality and Social Psy​chology 67 (1994): 596-610.

^Michael R. Ix-ippe and Donna Eisenstadt, "Generalization of Dissonance Reduction: Decreasing Prejudice through Induced Compliance," Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

590 CREATED EQUAL

TERKEL • C. p. ELLIS 591

Although the social-norms theory explains prevailing attitudes, it does not explain either their origins or the reasons why new prejudices develop when other groups move into an area. In addition, the theory does not ex​plain why prejudicial attitudes against a particular group rise and fall cycli​cally over the years.

Although many social scientists have attempted to identify the causes of 45 prejudice, no single factor provides an adequate explanation. Prejudice is a complex phenomenon, and it is most likely the product of more than one causal agent. Sociologists today tend either to emphasize multiple-cause ex​planations or to stress social forces encountered in specific and similar situa​tions—forces such as economic conditions, stratification, and hostility to​ward an outgroup.

Engaging the Text

1. Review Parrillo's discussion of the cognitive, emotional, and action-oricntcd levels of prejudice. Do you think it's possible for an individual to hold prejudiced beliefs that do not affect her feelings and actions? Why or why not?

2. How can prejudice arise from self-justification? Offer some examples of how a group can assume an attitude of superiority in order to justify ill-treatment of others.

3. How, according to Parrillo, might personal factors like authoritarian attitudes, low self-esteem, or frustration promote the growth of prej​udice?

4. What is the "socialization process," according to Parrillo? In what different ways can socialization instill prejudice?

5. What is the relationship between economic competition and prejudice? Do you think prejudice would continue to exist if everyone had a good job with a comfortable income?

Exploring Connections

6. Which of the theories Parrillo outlines, if any, might help to explain the at​titudes toward blacks expressed by Thomas Jefferson (p. 551)? Which apply most clearly to the life story of C. P. Ellis (p. 591)?

7. Read or review Carmen Vazquez's "Appearances" (p. 489). How useful are the theories presented by Parrillo in analyzing prejudice against gays and lesbians? To what extent can concepts like levels of prejudice, self-justification, frustration, socialization, and economic competition help us understand antigay attitudes?