Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T21:58:44.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dominance of the individual in intergroup relations research: Understanding social change requires psychological theories of collective and structural phenomena

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2012

Elizabeth Levy Paluck
Elizabeth Levy Paluck*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540. [email protected]://betsylevypaluck.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Dixon et al. suggest that the psychological literature on intergroup relations should shift from theorizing “prejudice reduction” to “social change.” A focus on social change exposes the importance of psychological theories involving collective phenomena like social norms and institutions. Individuals' attitudes and emotions may follow, rather than cause, changes in social norms and institutional arrangements.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , December 2012 , pp. 443 - 444
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

Allport, G. (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C. & Vaughn, L. A. (1994) Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology 79:993–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, L. & Rutland, A. (2006) Extended contact through story reading in school: Reducing children's prejudice toward the disabled. Journal of Social Issues 62:469–88.Google Scholar
Crandall, C. S. & Stangor, C. (2005) Conformity and prejudice. In: On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport, ed. Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. & Rudman, L. A., pp. 295–309. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. (2006) Best practices or best guesses: Assessing the effectiveness of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review 71:589–617.Google Scholar
Kenrick, A. & Paluck, E. L. Extended contact with gay men through film. Unpublished data.Google Scholar
Latané, B. (1980) The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist 36:343–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurin, K., Kay, A. & Fitzsimons, G. (2012) Reactance versus rationalization: Divergent responses to policies that constrain freedom. Psychological Science 23:205–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, K. (1951) Field theory in social science, ed. Cartwright, D.. Harper.Google Scholar
Paluck, E. L. (2009a) Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96:574–87.Google Scholar
Paluck, E. L. (2009b) What's in a norm? Sources and processes of norm change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96:594–600.Google Scholar
Paluck, E. L. & Shepherd, H. (under review) The salience of social referents: A field experiment on collective norms and harassment behavior in a school social network.Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T. (1991) Normative theory in intergroup relations: Explaining both harmony and conflict. Psychology and Developing Societies 3:3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar