CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

clined significantly over the past 35

Reducing Prejudice: Combating years. Contemporary forms of prej-
Intergroup Biases udice, however, continue to exist
and affect the lives of people in
John F. Dovidio1 and Samuel L. Gaertner subtle but significant ways
Department of Psychology, Colgate University, Hamilton, New York (J.F.D.), and (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998;
Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware (S.L.G.) Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). The
negative feelings and beliefs that
underlie contemporary forms of
prejudice may be rooted in either
Abstract Keywords
individual processes (such as cog-
Strategies for reducing prej- attitude change; intergroup
nitive and motivational biases
udice may be directed at the contact; prejudice; racism;
and socialization) or intergroup
traditional, intentional form of social categorization
processes (such as realistic group
prejudice or at more subtle
conflict or biases associated with
and perhaps less conscious
Prejudice is commonly defined the mere categorization of people
contemporary forms. Whereas
as an unfair negative attitude to- into in-groups and out-groups).
the traditional form of preju-
ward a social group or a member of These negative biases may occur
dice may be reduced by direct
that group. Stereotypes, which are spontaneously, automatically, and
educational and attitude-
overgeneralizations about a group without full awareness.
change techniques, contempo-
or its members that are factually in- Many contemporary approaches
rary forms may require alter-
correct and inordinately rigid, are a to prejudice based on race, ethnici-
native strategies oriented
set of beliefs that can accompany ty, or sex acknowledge the persist-
toward the individual or in-
the negative feelings associated ence of overt, intentional forms of
volving intergroup contact.
with prejudice. Traditional ap- prejudice but also consider the role
Individual-oriented tech-
proaches consider prejudice, like of these automatic or unconscious
niques can involve leading
other attitudes, to be acquired processes2 and the consequent in-
people who possess contem-
through socialization and support- direct expressions of bias. With re-
porary prejudices to discover
ed by the beliefs, attitudes, and val- spect to the racial prejudice of
inconsistencies among their
ues of friends and peer groups (see white Americans toward blacks, for
self-images, values, and be-
Jones, 1997). We consider the na- example, in contrast to “old-fash-
haviors; such inconsistencies
ture of traditional and contempo- ioned” racism, which is blatant,
can arouse negative emotional
rary forms of prejudice, particular- aversive racism represents a subtle,
states (e.g., guilt), which
ly racial prejudice, and review a often unintentional, form of bias
motivate the development of
range of techniques that have been that characterizes many white
more favorable attitudes.
demonstrated empirically to re- Americans who possess strong
Intergroup strategies can in-
duce prejudice and other forms of egalitarian values and who believe
volve structuring intergroup
intergroup bias. Bias can occur in that they are nonprejudiced.
contact to produce more indi-
many forms, and thus it has been Aversive racists also possess nega-
vidualized perceptions of the
assessed by a range of measures. tive racial feelings and beliefs
members of the other group,
These measures include standard- (which develop through normal so-
foster personalized interac-
ized tests of prejudice toward an- cialization or reflect social-catego-
tions between members of the
other social group, stereotypes, rization biases) that they are un-
different groups, or redefine
evaluations of and feelings about aware of or that they try to
group boundaries to create
specific group members and about dissociate from their nonpreju-
more inclusive, superordinate
the group in general, support for diced self-images. Because aversive
representations of the groups.
policies and individual actions racists consciously endorse egali-
Understanding the nature and
benefiting the other group, and in- tarian values, they will not discrim-
bases of prejudice can thus
teraction and friendship patterns. inate directly and openly in ways
guide, theoretically and prag-
In part because of changing that can be attributed to racism;
matically, interventions that
norms and the Civil Rights Act and however, because of their negative
can effectively reduce both
other legislative interventions that feelings, they will discriminate,
traditional and contemporary
made discrimination not simply often unintentionally, when their
forms of prejudice.
immoral but also illegal, overt ex- behavior can be justified on the
pressions of prejudice have de- basis of some factor other than race

Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society 101

102 VOLUME 8, NUMBER 4, AUGUST 1999

(e.g., questionable qualifications attitudes and behaviors (Stephan & attitudes and produce more favor-
for a position). Thus, aversive Stephan, 1984). Other techniques able intergroup behaviors (even
racists may regularly engage in dis- are aimed at changing or diluting nonverbal behaviors) several
crimination while they maintain stereotypes by presenting counter- months later. Also, people who
self-images of being nonpreju- stereotypic or nonstereotypic infor- consciously endorse nonprejudiced
diced. According to symbolic mation about group members. attitudes, but whose behaviors
racism theory, a related perspective Providing stereotype-disconfirm- may reflect racial bias, commonly
that has emphasized the role of po- ing information is more effective experience feelings of guilt and
litically conservative rather than when the information concerns a compunction when they become
liberal ideology (Sears, 1988), nega- broad range of group members aware of discrepancies between
tive feelings toward blacks that who are otherwise typical of their their potential behavior toward mi-
whites acquire early in life persist group rather than when the infor- norities (i.e., what they would do)
into adulthood but are expressed mation concerns a single person and their personal standards (i.e.,
indirectly and symbolically, in who is not a prototypical represen- what they should do) during labora-
terms of opposition to busing or re- tative of the group. In the latter tory interventions. These emotional
sistance to preferential treatment, case, people are likely to maintain reactions, in turn, can motivate
rather than directly or overtly, as in their overall stereotype of the people to control subsequent spon-
support for segregation. group while subtyping, with an- taneous stereotypical responses
Contemporary expressions of other stereotype, group members and behave more favorably in the
bias may also reflect a dissociation who disconfirm the general group future (Devine & Monteith, 1993).
between cultural stereotypes, stereotype (e.g., black athletes; People’s conscious efforts to sup-
which develop through common Hewstone, 1996). The effectiveness press stereotypically biased reac-
socialization experiences and be- of multicultural education pro- tions can inhibit even the imme-
cause of repeated exposure gener- grams is supported by the results diate activation of normally
ally become automatically activat- of controlled intervention pro- automatic associations, and with
ed, and individual differences in grams in the real world; evidence sufficient practice, these efforts can
prejudicial motivations. Although of the effectiveness of attitude- and eliminate automatic stereotype ac-
whites both high and low in preju- stereotype-change approaches, and tivation over the long term.
dice may be equally aware of cul- the hypothesized underlying Approaches oriented toward the
tural stereotypes and show similar processes, comes largely (but not individual, however, are not the
levels of automatic activation, only exclusively) from experimental lab- only way to combat contemporary
those low in prejudice make a con- oratory research. forms of prejudice. Strategies that
scious attempt to prevent those Approaches for dealing with the emphasize intergroup processes,
negative stereotypes from influen- traditional form of prejudice are such as intergroup contact and
cing their behavior (Devine & generally less effective for combat- social categorization and identity,
Monteith, 1993). ing the contemporary forms. With are alternative, complementary
respect to contemporary racism, for approaches.
example, whites already conscious-
ly endorse egalitarian, nonpreju-
INDIVIDUAL PROCESSES
diced views and disavow tradition-
AND PREJUDICE INTERGROUP CONTACT
al stereotypes. Instead, indirect
REDUCTION
strategies that benefit from peo-
ple’s genuine motivation to be non- Real-world interventions, labo-
Attempts to reduce the direct, prejudiced may be more effective ratory studies, and survey studies
traditional form of racial prejudice for reducing contemporary forms have demonstrated that intergroup
typically involve educational of prejudice. For example, tech- contact under specified conditions
strategies to enhance knowledge niques that lead people who pos- (including equal status between the
and appreciation of other groups sess contemporary prejudices to groups, cooperative intergroup in-
(e.g., multicultural education pro- discover inconsistencies among teractions, opportunities for per-
grams), emphasize norms that prej- their self-images, values, and be- sonal acquaintance, and supportive
udice is wrong, and involve direct haviors may arouse feelings of egalitarian norms) is a powerful
persuasive strategies (e.g., mass guilt, tension about the inconsis- technique for reducing intergroup
media appeals) or indirect attitude- tencies, or other negative emotion- bias and conflict (Pettigrew, 1998).
change techniques that make peo- al states that can motivate the de- Drawing on these principles, co-
ple aware of inconsistencies in their velopment of more favorable racial operative learning and “jigsaw”

Published by Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

 CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 103

classroom interventions (Aronson which people are seen as unique in- of the original two groups included
& Patnoe, 1997) are designed to in- dividuals (personalization), with within the new, larger group. The
crease interdependence between the exchange of intimate informa- model also recognizes that decate-
members of different groups work- tion (Brewer & Miller, 1984). gorization (seeing people as sepa-
ing on a designated problem-solv- Alternatively, intergroup contact rate individuals) can also reduce
ing task and to enhance apprecia- may be structured to maintain but bias. In contrast, perceptions of
tion for the resources they bring to alter the nature of group bound- the groups as different entities
the task. Cooperation is effective aries, that is, to produce recatego- (we/they) maintains and reinforces
for reducing subsequent inter- rization. One recategorization ap- bias. The Common In-Group
group bias when the task is com- proach involves either creating or Identity Model is presented
pleted successfully, group contri- increasing the salience of crosscut- schematically in Figure 1.
butions to solving the problem are ting group memberships. Making In experiments in the laboratory
seen as different or complementary, interactants aware that members of and in the field, and in surveys in
and the interaction among partici- another group are also members of natural settings (a multi-ethnic high
pants during the task is friendly, one’s own group when groups are school, banking mergers, and
personal, and supportive. defined by a different dimension blended families), we have found
Recent research has attempted to can improve intergroup attitudes evidence consistent with the
elucidate how the different factors (Urban & Miller, 1998). Another re- Common In-Group Identity Model
of intergroup contact (e.g., coopera- categorization strategy, represent- and the hypothesis that intergroup
tion, personal interaction) operate ed by our own work on the contact can reduce prejudice.
to reduce bias. Engaging in activi- Common In-Group Identity Model, Specifically, we have found that key
ties to achieve common, superordi- involves interventions to change aspects of intergroup contact, such
nate goals, for instance, changes people’s conceptions of groups, so as cooperation, decrease intergroup
the functional relations between that they think of membership not bias in part through changing cog-
groups from actual or symbol- in terms of several different groups, nitive representations of the groups.
ic competition to cooperation. but in terms of one, more inclu- The development of a common in-
Through psychological processes sive group (Gaertner, Dovidio, group identity also facilitates help-
to restore cognitive balance or re- Anastasio, Bachman, & Rust, 1993). ing behaviors and self-disclosing
duce inconsistency between actions The Common In-Group Identity interactions that can produce recip-
and attitudes, attitudes toward Model recognizes the central role of rocally positive responses and that
members of the other group and to- social categorization in reducing as can further reduce intergroup prej-
ward the group as a whole may im- well as in creating intergroup bias udices through other mechanisms
prove to be consistent with the pos- (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Specifically, such as personalization.
itive nature of the interaction. Also, if members of different groups are Moreover, the development of a
the rewarding properties of achiev- induced to conceive of themselves common in-group identity does not
ing success may become associated more as members of a single, su- necessarily require groups to for-
with members of other groups, perordinate group rather than as sake their original identities.
thereby increasing attraction. members of two separate groups, Threats to important personal iden-
attitudes toward former out-group tities or the “positive distinctive-
members will become more posi- ness” of one’s group can, in fact,
tive through processes involving exacerbate intergroup prejudices.
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION
pro-in-group bias. Thus, changing The development of a dual identity
AND IDENTITY
the basis of categorization from (two subgroups in one group; see
race to an alternative dimension Fig. 1), in which original and su-
Factors of intergroup contact, can alter who is a “we” and who is perordinate group memberships
such as cooperation, may also re- a “they,” undermining a contribut- are simultaneously salient, is ex-
duce bias through reducing the ing force to contemporary forms of plicitly considered in the model.
salience of the intergroup bound- racism, such as aversive racism. Even when racial or ethnic identity
aries, that is, through decategoriza- The development of a superordi- is strong, perceptions of a super-
tion. According to this perspective, nate identity does not always re- ordinate connection enhance inter-
interaction during intergroup con- quire people to abandon their pre- racial trust and acceptance. Indeed,
tact can individuate members of vious group identities; they may the development of a dual identity,
the out-group by revealing vari- possess dual identities, conceiving in terms of a bicultural or multicul-
ability in their opinions (Wilder, of themselves as belonging both to tural identity, not only is possible
1986) or can produce interactions in the superordinate group and to one but can contribute to the social

Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society

104 VOLUME 8, NUMBER 4, AUGUST 1999

tion, addressing contemporary

forms requires alternative strate-
gies. Individual-level strategies
engage the genuine motivations
of people to be nonprejudiced.
Intergroup approaches focus on re-
alistic group conflict or the psycho-
logical effects of categorizing peo-
ple into in-groups and out-groups.
The benefits of intergroup contact
can occur through many routes,
such as producing more individu-
ated perceptions of out-group
members and more personalized
relationships. Intergroup contact
can also produce more inclusive,
superordinate representations of
the groups, which can harness the
psychological forces that con-
tribute to intergroup bias and redi-
rect them to improve attitudes to-
ward people who would otherwise
be recognized only as out-group
members. Understanding the
processes involved in the nature
Fig. 1. The Common In-Group Identity Model. In this model, elements of an inter-
and development of prejudice can
group contact situation (e.g., intergroup interdependence) influence cognitive
representations of the groups as one superordinate group (recategorization), as thus guide, both theoretically and
two subgroups in one group (recategorization involving a dual identity), as pragmatically, interventions that
two groups (categorization), or as separate individuals (decategorization). can effectively reduce both tradi-
Recategorization and decategorization, in turn, can both reduce cognitive, affec- tional and contemporary forms of
tive, and behavioral biases, but in different ways. Recategorization reduces bias by
prejudice.
extending the benefits of in-group favoritism to former out-group members.
Attitudes and behavior toward these former out-group members thus become
more favorable, approaching attitudes and behaviors toward in-group members.
Decategorization, in contrast, reduces favoritism toward original in-group mem-
bers as they become perceived as separate individuals rather than members of Recommended Reading
one’s own group.
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1996).
Intergroup relations. Pacific Grove,
adjustment, psychological adapta- these more positive attitudes may CA: Brooks/Cole.
tion, and overall well-being of generalize to other members of the Brown, R.J. (1995). Prejudice.
minority-group members (LaFrom- groups not directly involved in the Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Hawley, W.D., & Jackson, A.W.
boise, Coleman, & Gerton, 1993). contact situation. (Eds.). (1995). Toward a common
Recognizing both different and destiny: Improving race and ethnic
common group membership, a relations in America. San
more complex form of a common Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
CONCLUSION Landis, D., & Bhagat, R.S. (Eds.).
in-group identity, may also in-
(1996). Handbook of intercultural
crease the generalizability of the training. Thousand Oaks, CA:
benefits of intergroup contact for Prejudice can occur in its bla- Sage.
prejudice reduction. The develop- tant, traditional form, or it may be Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W.
ment of a common in-group identi- rooted in unconscious and auto- (1996). Intergroup relations.
ty contributes to more positive atti- matic negative feelings and beliefs Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
tudes toward members of other that characterize contemporary
groups present in the contact situa- forms. Whereas the traditional Acknowledgments—Preparation of this
tion, whereas recognition of the form of prejudice may be combat- article was facilitated by National
separate group memberships pro- ed by using direct techniques in- Institute of Mental Health Grant MH
48721.
vides the associative link by which volving attitude change and educa-

Published by Blackwell Publishers, Inc.

 CURRENT DIRECTIONS IN PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 105

Notes Devine, P.G., & Monteith, M.J. (1993). The role of LaFromboise, T., Coleman, H.L.K., & Gerton, J.
discrepancy-associated affect in prejudice (1993). Psychological impact of biculturalism:
reduction. In D.M. Mackie & D.L. Hamilton Evidence and theory. Psychological Bulletin, 114,
1. Address correspondence to John (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: 395–412.
F. Dovidio, Department of Psychology, Interactive processes in intergroup perception (pp. Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory.
317–344). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.
Colgate University, Hamilton, NY Dovidio, J.F., & Gaertner, S.L. (1998). On the nature Sears, D.O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P.A. Katz &
13346; e-mail: jdovidio@mail.colgate. of contemporary prejudice: The causes, conse- D.A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles
edu. quences, and challenges of aversive racism. In in controversy (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum
2. For further information and a J. Eberhardt & S.T. Fiske (Eds.), Confronting Press.
racism: The problem and the response (pp. 3–32). Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1984). The role of
demonstration in which you can test Newbury Park, CA: Sage. ignorance in intergroup relations. In N. Miller
the automaticity of your own racial at- Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. (1986). The aversive & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The
titudes using the Implicit Association form of racism. In J.F. Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner
psychology of desegregation (pp. 229–257).
Test, see Anthony Greenwald’s World (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp.
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Wide Web site: http://weber.u. Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A.,
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative the-
washington.edu/~agg/ (e-mail: agg@ ory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin & S.
Bachman, B.A., & Rust, M.C. (1993). The
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of inter-
u.washington.edu). Common Ingroup Identity Model: Re-
group relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA:
categorization and the reduction of intergroup
bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Brooks/Cole.
European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. Urban, L.M., & Miller, N. (1998). A theoretical
References 1–26). London: Wiley. analysis of crossed categorization effects: A
Hewstone, M. (1996). Contact and categorization: meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Aronson, E., & Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw class- Social psychological interventions to change Psychology, 74, 894–908.
room. New York: Longman. intergroup relations. In N. Macrae, M. Wilder, D.A. (1986). Social categorization:
Brewer, M.B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact Hewstone, & C. Stangor (Eds.), Foundations of Implications for creation and reduction of
hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on deseg- stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 323–368). New intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
regation. In N. Miller & M.B. Brewer (Eds.), York: Guilford Press. Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.
Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation Jones, J.M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). 19, pp. 291–355). Orlando, FL: Academic
(pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. New York: McGraw-Hill. Press.

When does revealing personal se-

Revealing Personal Secrets crets to various confidants backfire?
Anita E. Kelly1 And, finally, when should someone
reveal his or her personal secrets?
Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, Indiana

SECRECY
Abstract ceived by the secret keeper to
Both the health benefits and be nonjudgmental, and who is Secrecy involves actively hiding
the potential drawbacks of re- able to offer new insights into private information from others.
vealing personal secrets (i.e., the secret. The most painful or traumatic per-
those that directly involve the sonal experiences are often con-
secret keeper) are reviewed. Keywords cealed, and most secrets are likely
Making the decision to reveal revealing secrets; new insights; to involve negative or stigmatizing
personal secrets to others in- confidants information that pertains to the se-
volves a trade-off. On the one cret keepers themselves. For exam-
hand, secret keepers can feel ple, people may keep secret the
better by revealing their se- Psychologists and laypersons fact that they have AIDS, are alco-
crets and gaining new insights have long believed that keeping holic, or have been raped. Secrecy
into them. On the other hand, personal secrets is stressful and that has also been called self-conceal-
secret keepers can avoid look- unburdening oneself of such secrets ment and active inhibition of dis-
ing bad before important audi- offers emotional relief and physio- closure.
ences (such as their bosses or logical benefits. Supporting this no-
therapists) by not revealing tion is recent experimental research
their secrets. Making a wise that has demonstrated the health
benefits of revealing personal se- HEALTH BENEFITS OF
decision to reveal a personal
crets (i.e., ones that directly involve REVEALING SECRETS
secret hinges on finding an ap-
propriate confidant—someone the secret keeper). These findings
who is discreet, who is per- lead to several key questions: Why The belief that secrecy is prob-
do these health benefits occur? lematic is supported by studies

Copyright © 1999 American Psychological Society

This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the
accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material.