Ambivalent prejudice: Difference between revisions

'''Ambivalent prejudice''' is a [[Social psychology|social psychological]] theory that states that, when people become aware that they have conflicting beliefs about an [[ingroupsIn-group and outgroupsout-group|outgroup]] (a group of people that do not belong to an individual's own group), they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as [[cognitive dissonance]]. These feelings are brought about because the individual on one hand believes in [[Humanitarianism|humanitarian]] virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in [[Individualism|individualistic]] virtues such as working hard to improve one's life.

According to [[Susan Fiske]], there are two underlying characteristics of [[Social stigma|stigmatized]] groups around the world:<ref name = "Fiske2012">{{cite journal |last= Fiske|first= Susan T.|date= January 2012|title= Managing Ambivalent Prejudices: Smart-but-Cold and Warm-but-Dumb Stereotypes|url= |journal= The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science|publisher= |volume= 639|issue= 1|pages= 33–48|doi= 10.1177/0002716211418444|pmid= 24115779|pmc= 3792573}}<!--|accessdate=17 November 2014--></ref> the ideas that status predicts perceived competence and that cooperation predicts perceived warmth.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> Two combinations of competence and warmth produce ambivalent [[prejudice]]s. The combined perception of groups as warm but incompetent leads to pitied groups, such as traditional women or older people.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> The combined perception of groups as competent but cold leads to envied groups, such as nontraditional women or minority entrepreneurs.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> Fiske uses this conception of prejudice to explain [[ambivalent sexism]], [[heterosexism]], [[racism]], [[Opposition to immigration|anti-immigrant]] biases, [[ageism]], and [[classism]].<ref name="Fiske2012" />

According to Whitley and Kite, ambivalent prejudice comes from one person having both good and bad thoughts about an outgroup.<ref name="KiteMary" /> The example in their book ''The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination'' talks about [[race (human classification)|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"."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kite |first1=Mary |last2=Whitley |first2=Bernard |title=The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination |location=Wadsworth |publisher=Cengage Learning |year=2010 |page=214}}</ref>

Irwin Katz said that ambivalent prejudice only occurs when only the individual becomes aware of the conflicting attitudes, and,which can be caused for most people, simply by coming face- to- face with someone from the outgroup can cause this.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Katz |first1=I |year=1981 |title=Stigma: A social psychological analysis |location=Hillsdale, NJ |publisher=Erlbaum}}{{page needed|date=November 2013}}</ref> According to Katz, thisthat conflict of attitudes can cause problems with one's [[self-image]], because it seems as thoughif one is not living up to all important values that one holds. ThisThe conflict can cause negative [[emotionemotions]]s, which are expressed in negative behavior.

Irwin Katz and Glen Hass (1988) believed that contradicting American values are to blame for ambivalent prejudice.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.55.6.893 |title=Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures |yeardate=December 1988 |last1=Katz |first1=Irwin |last2=Hass |first2=R. Glen |journal=[[Journal of Personality and Social Psychology]] |volume=55 |issue=6 |pages=893–905}}</ref> The first value is that hard work will always pay off and people get what they deserve, whilebut the other value is that all people are equal and that people should help the less fortunate. When thisthat 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. TheseThose mixed emotions lead to ambivalence.

Tara MacDonald and Mark Zanna suggested that [[stereotypestereotypes]]s were to blame for ambivalent prejudice.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1177/0146167298244009 |title=Cross-Dimension Ambivalence toward Social Groups: Can Ambivalence Affect Intentions to Hire Feminists? |yeardate=April 1998 |last1=MacDonald |first1=T. K. |last2=Zanna |first2=M. P. |journal=[[Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin]] |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=427–41|s2cid=143692981 }}</ref> According to MacDonald and Zanna, people can like others and respect others, theand twoboth emotions workingwork 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, duebecause toof certain stereotypes, or they can 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)<ref name=Matsuo2005>{{cite conference |last1=Matsuo |first1=Hisako |last2=McIntyre |first2=Kevin P.|date=August 12, 2005 |title=Ambivalent Prejudice toward Immigrants: The Role of Social Contact and Ethnic Origin |conference=Annual meeting of the [[American Sociological Association]] |location=Marriott Hotel, [[Loews Philadelphia Hotel]], Philadelphia |url=http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/2/0/1/1/pages20113/p20113-1.php}}</ref> studied American attitudes toward [[Immigrationimmigration to the United States|immigrant groups]]. He proposed that ambivalent prejudice stems from two views. There is the individualistic attitude that values the [[Protestant work ethic]], and thisan attitude that is associated with more negative attitudes toward outgroups. The other view is an [[Egalitarianismegalitarianism|egalitarian]] or humanitarian one, which is associated with more positive attitudes toward outgroups.<ref name="Fiske2012"/><ref name=Matsuo2005/>

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.<ref name="Fiske2012"/><ref>G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (Eds.), ''Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs''. Elsevier/Academic Press.</ref> Typical of all ingroup- outgroup relations, one group (men) has a much greater societal status. This is duebecause to male ambivalence havinghas three sources: paternalism, gender differentiation, and heterosexuality.<ref name="Fiske2012"/><ref>"Social psychological measures of stereotyping and prejudice"." In G. Boyle & D. Saklofske (Edseds.), ''Measures of Personality & Social Psychological Constructs''. Elsevier/Academic Press.</ref> ThisThe assessment measures an individual's endorsement of ambivalent sexism., Thea theory of ambivalent sexismthat 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.<ref name="Fiske2012"/> 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.<ref name="Fiske2012"/>

[[Ambivalent sexism]] reflects the duality of hostility towards women and the tendency for women to be rated more positively than men in surveys. Hostile sexism impacts those perceived as nontraditional women who threaten male power, for example, female professionals and intellectuals, [[Feminism|feminists]], and [[Political lesbianism|political lesbians]]. Conversely, [[benevolent sexism]] protects women who adhereare perceived as adhering to traditional gender roles, such as housewives and secretaries. Fiske asserts that these two forms of sexism comprise ambivalence.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> On the one hand, women are viewed as competent but not warm, while on the other hand, they are viewed as warm but incompetent. In the workplace, nontraditional women tend to suffer from hostile sexism since they are viewed as competitors. As benevolent sexism includes perceived obligations of protection and help, it leads to women being viewed as less worthy of hiring, training, and promoting due to the concern of them being less able to effectively manage both personal and professional.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> Fiske contends that when addressing bias against women, both demeaning benevolence and dangerous hostility must be account for.<ref name="Fiske2012" />

Ambivalent racism depicts two contrasting reactions by [[whites]] toward [[black people|blacks]]. These competing evaluations include hostile (antiblack) sentiments and subjectively sympathetic but paternalistic (problack) sentiments.<ref name="Fiske2012" /> Problack attitudes attribute black disadvantage to larger social structures and factors including [[discrimination]], [[Racial segregation|segregation]], and lack of opportunities. In contrast, hostile antiblack racism, like [[old-fashioned racism]] asserts that "black people are unambitious, disorganized, free-riding, and do not value education."<ref name="Fiske2012" /> Fiske states that "black [[Americans]] are viewed ambivalently mainly to the extent that white Americans simultaneously harbor a more subjectively positive and a more hostile attitude, which can flip from one polarity to the other, depending on individual differences in beliefs and on situational cues."<ref name="Fiske2012" />

Söder suggests that people do not have fixed cognitive assumptions or emotions about people with [[Disability|disabilities]].<ref name=Soder1990>{{cite journal |last= Söder|first= Mårten|date= 1990|title= Prejudice or Ambivalence? Attitudes Toward Persons with Disabilities|url= http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02674649066780241|journal= Disability, Handicap & Society|publisher= |volume= 5|issue= 3|pages= 227–241|doi= 10.1080/02674649066780241|accessdate=}}</ref> Rather, people are ambivalent, so their behavior in any given situation will depend on the context. People have two contrasting ideas about people with disabilities; people devalue disabilities while maintaining a benevolent sympathy towards disabled people.<ref name=Soder1990/> This leads to a conflict between basic values held by wider society and moral dilemmas in concrete daily interactions with people with disabilities. Söder proposes an ambivalence model as a better method for evaluating interactions with and attitudes about disabled people as it better captures the totality of people's sentiments.<ref name=Matsuo2005/>

===ImmigrantsXenophobia===

Matsuo and McIntyre applied the concept of ambivalent prejudice to [[immigrants]] and [[refugees]].<ref name=Matsuo2005/> They described attitudes toward immigrants and refugees as ambivalent since on the one hand they are perceived "sympathetically, as disadvantaged, and deserving of justice", but on the other hand, they are seen as "more likely to be involved in crime and a burden on the public system."<ref name=Matsuo2005/> Matsuo and McIntyre used a sample survey of college students to test egalitarianism and the [[Protestant work ethic]] (PWE) and how it relates to perceptions of refugees.<ref name=Matsuo2005/> Participants completed survey questions regarding social contact, attitudes toward specific ethnic groups, general attitudes toward refugees, and the Humanitarianism/Protestant Work Ethic Scale. They found that the ambivalent attitudes toward refugees is based on the "dual maintenance of American values", egalitarianism and PWE. In testing the [[contact theory]], they found that only when contact is personal and cooperative does prejudice decrease.<ref name=Matsuo2005/>

For example, whites' evaluations of Blacksblacks who are presented positively or negatively tend to be more extreme than evaluations of similar white individuals. Hass et al. (1991) had Whitewhite students participate in an experiment wherein thewhich each of studentthem worked with either a white or black confederate to complete a task.<ref name=Hass1991>{{cite journal |lastlast1= Hass|firstfirst1= R. Glen|last2= Katz|first2= Irwin|last3= Rizzo|first3= Nina|last4= Bailey|first4= Joan|last5= Eisenstadt|first5= Donna|date= February 1991|title= Cross-Racial Appraisal as Related to Attitude Ambivalence and Cognitive Complexity|url= |journal= Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|publisher= |volume= 17|issue= 1|pages= 83–92|doi= 10.1177/0146167291171013|accessdates2cid= 143464653}}</ref> The confederate, as instructed by the experimenter, caused either the failure or the successful achievement of the task.<ref name=Hass1991/> After the task, the white students rated the confederate’sconfederate'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.<ref name=Hass1991/> David Bell and Victoria Esses (2002) conducted a study indicated that this response amplification occurs only occurs when one believes that the ambivalent response is problematic.<ref name=Bell2002>{{cite journal |lastlast1= Bell|firstfirst1= David W.|last2= Esses|first2= Victoria M.|date= August 2002|title= Ambivalence and Response Amplification: A Motivational Perspective|url= |journal= Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin|publisher= |volume= 28|issue= 8|pages= 1143–1152|doi= 10.1177/01461672022811012|accessdates2cid= 145564841}}</ref> 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.

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.<ref name=Leippe1994>{{cite journal |lastlast1= Leippe|firstfirst1= Michael R.|last2= Eisenstadt|first2= Donna|date= September 1994|title= Generalization of Dissonance Reduction: Decreasing Prejudice Through Induced Compliance|url= |journal= Journal of Personality and Social Psychology|publisher= |volume= 67|issue= 3|pages= 395–413|doi= 10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.395|accessdate=}}</ref> 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.<ref name=Leippe1994/> 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.<ref name=Leippe1994/> 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.<ref name=Leippe1994/>

*[[Role Congruitycongruity Theorytheory]]