Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:53:38.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prejudice reduction, collective action, and then what?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2012

Dominic Abrams ,
Milica Vasiljevic  and
Hazel M. Wardrop
Dominic Abrams
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/people/abramsd/[email protected]@kent.ac.uk
Milica Vasiljevic
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/people/abramsd/[email protected]@kent.ac.uk
Hazel M. Wardrop
Affiliation:
Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent CT2 7NP, United Kingdom. [email protected]://www.kent.ac.uk/psychology/people/abramsd/[email protected]@kent.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite downsides, it must, on balance, be good to reduce prejudice. Despite upsides, collective action can also have destructive outcomes. Improving intergroup relations requires multiple levels of analysis involving a broader approach to prejudice reduction, awareness of potential conflict escalation, development of intergroup understanding, and promotion of a wider human rights perspective.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2012 , pp. 425 - 426
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, D. (2010) Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Research Report 56. EHRC. Retrieved from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/56_processes_of_prejudice.pdf.Google Scholar
Abrams, D. & Grant, P. R. (2011) Testing the social identity relative deprivation (SIRD) model of social change: The political rise of Scottish nationalism. British Journal of Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02032.x.Google Scholar
Abrams, D. & Hogg, M. A. (2004) Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8:98–106. DOI: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0802_2.Google Scholar
Abrams, D. & Houston, D. M. (2006) Equality, diversity and prejudice in Britain: Results from the 2005 national survey. The Equalities Review. Cabinet Office. Retrieved from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100807034701/http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/equalitiesreview/upload/assets/www.theequalitiesreview.org.uk/kentequality.pdf.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, D. (2007) Sociopsychological foundations of intractable conflicts. American Behavioral Scientist 50:1430–53. DOI: 10.1177/0002764207302462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Hewstone, M. (2005) An integrative theory of intergroup contact. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 37, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 255–343. Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. J. & Hewstone, M. (2007) Multiple social categorization. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 39, ed. Zanna, M. P., pp. 163–254, Academic Press. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)39004-1.Google Scholar
Crisp, R. J. & Turner, R. N. (2011) Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin 137:242–66. DOI: 10.1037/a0021840.Google Scholar
Doise, W. (1998) Social psychology and human rights. European Review 6:341–47. DOI: 10.1017/S1062798700003380.Google Scholar
EHRC (2010) How fair is Britain? Equality, human rights and good relations: The first triennial review. Equality and Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/key-projects/how-fair-is-britain/.Google Scholar
Mallett, R. K., Huntsinger, J. R., Sinclair, S. & Swim, J. K. (2008) Seeing through their eyes: When majority group members take collective action on behalf of an outgroup. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 11:451–70. DOI: 10.1177/1368430208095400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roccas, S. & Brewer, M. B. (2002) Social identity complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 6:88–106. DOI: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01.Google Scholar
Simmel, G. (1955) Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Free Press.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: The social psychology of intergroup relations, ed. Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S., pp. 33–47. Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Vasiljevic, M. & Crisp, R. J. (2010) Thinking about surprising social pairings reduces discrimination and increases tolerance between social groups. Paper presented at the International Conference on Discrimination and Tolerance in Intergroup Relations, Jena, Germany, June 30–July 3.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, A., Abrams, D., Doosje, B. & Manstead, A. (2011) Causal and moral responsibility: Antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt. European Journal of Social Psychology 41:825–39. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.826.Google Scholar