COMMENTARIES Caught in the Cultural Lag: The Stigma of ...

COMMENTARIES

larger communal network has on any given communal seems possible, and it’s certainly an empirical ques-

relationships. Singles being demoted when a friend or tion. It is also a question we would not have asked

sibling marries is a question about how the nature of without having read the DePaulo and Morris article.

others’ larger social network influences this particular In sum, we absolutely do believe that focusing

relationship. Thinking in terms of the nature of peo- clearly on relationship issues of importance to singles

ple’s relationship hierarchies, however, makes it clear will lead us to do new and important research. Such re-

that there are many related questions that could be search, we suspect, is likely not only to advance our un-

asked. Do such demotions always occur? What are the derstanding of the lives of singles but also to be more

implications for the single person? Is he or she likely to generally informative about relationship processes.

reciprocally reduce commitments to the married indi-

vidual? Is he or she likely to seek new relationships in

which he or she is at the top of the partner’s hierarchy? Does It Make Sense To Identify

Is he or she likely to react by feeling less secure? Are Research on Singles as a Specifically

asymmetries in where people place one another in their New and Distinct Area for

respective relationship hierarchies well tolerated or Relationship Researchers?

not? These are all important research questions, which We Think Not.

thinking about singles bring to the fore and which also

have importance to understanding relationships more Much of what we have said already implies that

generally. For instance, the birth of a child may cause we do not think it will be terribly useful to think of

some husbands and friends to feel demoted in the new research on singles as a new and distinct area of re-

mothers’ hierarchies, much as a person may feel de- search. Indeed, we do not. When people begin to

moted when a sibling marries. think of research on “singles” as a field (or, for that

Thinking more broadly about social networks matter, research on sexually committed relation-

may also suggest theoretically based answers to the ships, or friendships, or siblings as separate fields),
origin of some of the negative stereotypes of singles what often happens is that researchers within the
area begin to communicate primarily with one an-
yto which DePaulo and Morris (this issue) refer in other. Simultaneously, researchers outside the field
optheir article. They observe that singles are often con- do not feel compelled to read materials falling within
the field.
sidered selfish or immature. This does seem odd.
There is another, and we believe preferable, route to
CWhy should it be the case? Most singles do have increasing our knowledge and understanding of issues
tclose others about whom they care. We think the of particular importance to singles. It is to address
olikely answer lies in the very existence of norms for questions of particular relevance to singles within the
Nthe nature of most people’s hierarchies of communal context of broader psychological theories of
orelationships combined with a dose of the “false con-
Dsensus effect” with which social psychologists are
well-acquainted. If most people do place sexual part- intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning. We have

ners at the top of their communal hierarchies (per- tried to illustrate throughout this commentary how the-

haps along with their child or children), then they ories of relationship functioning can contribute to un-

will provide the most noncontingent, unselfish car- derstanding singles, and reciprocally how thinking

ing to these people (Clark, Graham, & Grote, 2002; about singles can enhance theories of relationship

Mills et al., 2004). Simultaneously, for people who functioning. However, this point extends beyond rela-

do have these sexually committed relationships and tionship research. In this regard, consider DePaulo and

children, the needs of others (e.g., siblings, friends, Morris’s comments (this issue) about stereotyping of

nieces and nephews) are likely to be a lower priority. and prejudice against singles generally having fallen

Now consider the false consensus effect—people as- “under the cultural radar.” This general phenomenon of

sume that others’ views are like their own (Krueger a particular type of bias escaping notice is a fascinating

& Clement, 1994; Marks & Miller, 1987; Mullen & one. It seems to us that stereotype and prejudice re-

Goethals, 1990). Could it be because people in sexu- searchers might well be best equipped to address why

ally coupled relationships engage in self-sacrifice one particular type of prejudice escapes notice whereas

primarily in relation to their children and spouses others do not. Might it be easier to not notice or to ig-

(and rarely in their other relationships, which for nore stereotyping of and prejudice against a group that

them are lower in their communal hierarchies), that seems to have been joined voluntarily and from which

they assume those without sexual partners do the one presumably can escape if one wishes? Does bias

same? If so they may believe that singles see no against singles escape notice because most people per-

one’s needs as equal to or more important than their ceive singlehood to be voluntary? In explaining how

own, whereas singles actually may have relation- and why stereotyping and prejudice can escape notice,

ships with others to whose needs they are as respon- stereotype researchers would simultaneously be ad-

sive or even more responsive than their own. This dressing a very general issue regarding stereotyping

134

COMMENTARIES

and prejudice and a question fundamental to under- Conclusions

standing bias against singles.

DePaulo and Morris (this issue) have written a very

broad article that touches on both political and scien-

tific issues. They urge us as psychologists to think

What About the Specific Term about issues of importance to singles. We have consid-

“Single”? Is It a Useful Term for ered their article primarily from one particular per-

Relationship Researchers? spective—that of researchers who study close relation-

Not Very, We Think. ships. From that perspective we acknowledge that, at

least in conducting research on ongoing, intact close

The term “single” is used in common language. It relationships, we have disproportionately focused on

often means unmarried. Sometimes it refers to not be- sexually coupled relationships. However, we firmly

ing in a sexually committed relationship. Is categoriz- believe that our focus on theoretically important rela-

ing people as singles or nonsingles useful for a rela- tionship processes likely to apply to all close relation-

tionship researcher? We think not. ships makes our research more applicable to the lives

First, as DePaulo and Morris (this issue) make of singles than it appears on the surface. At the same

clear, the category of “singles” includes myriad time, we welcome DePaulo and Morris’s push to think

types of people—those who never marry, those who carefully about issues of particular import to singles.

marry and divorce, those who were married and lose We believe doing so will bring some important rela-

a spouse to death, those who never formed a sexually tionship-relevant questions to the fore that might other-

committed relationship in the first place by choice, wise not be salient. Finally, whereas we believe rela-

and those who never formed a sexually committed tionship researchers and prejudice and stereotype

relationship due to lack of opportunity. As such, the researchers may benefit from considering some of the

category “single” seems too broad a term or category issues that DePaulo and Morris raise, we would urge
to be scientifically useful for studying the anteced- those interested in singles not to consider that field to
be one unto itself or to readily adopt the term and cate-
yents and consequences of these various sorts of gory “single” for scientific purposes. Rather, use of ex-
opsinglehood which are, undoubtedly, extremely var- tant theory (and the development of new theory) aimed
at understanding the experiences of singles within rela-
ied. So, too, is the experience of these sorts of tionships (and networks of relationships), and catego-
rizing and labeling singles in ways that fit with theory
Csinglehood likely to be extremely varied. Thus, in seems a wiser strategy.
tstriving to do a better job to incorporate singles into
orelationship research, we think it will prove wise to
Ndivide “singles” into coherent categories, the nature
oof which (and labels for which) ought to be driven by
Dthe theoretical question at hand. This means that dif-
ferent researchers will categorize and label groups of Notes

“singles” in different ways and that there is no one

correct way to do so. This is, in our view, the way it We acknowledge the support of NSF grant BCS
should be. 9983417, which facilitated Margaret Clark’s participa-
tion in this project, and of NIH NRSA grant F31
Second, as we have already noted, the very term MH068094, which facilitated Steven Graham’s partic-
“single” is an odd one. If taken literally, it implies a ipation in this project. The opinions expressed in this
person’s isolation from all close relationships—an commentary are those of the authors and do not neces-
isolation that does not characterize most singles. sarily reflect the opinions of the National Science
Perhaps the term has been adopted in common par- Foundation or of the National Institutes of Health. We
lance because people not involved in a sexually thank Ed Lemay for his comments on an earlier version
committed relationship do not have the peer rela- of this manuscript.
tionship people generally consider most important,
as DePaulo and Morris (this issue) note. However, Margaret S. Clark, Department of Psychology, Car-
for research purposes, we would prefer narrower, negie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213.
more specific terms including ones that refer to

people who are single in the sense of lacking other

types of common relationships as well—not only References
those without romantic partners but also those with-

out children, siblings, best friends, and friends as Baldwin, M. W. (1994). Primed relational schemas as a source of
well. In choosing such terms, we would agree with self-evaluative reactions. Journal of Social and Clinical Psy-
DePaulo and Morris that it is certainly wise to avoid chology, 13, 380–403.
ones that are pejorative and we believe that this can
be accomplished. Baldwin, M. W., Carrell, S. E., & Lopez, D. F. (1990). Priming rela-
tionship schemas: My advisor and the Pope are watching me

135

COMMENTARIES

from the back of my mind. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the

chology, 26, 435–454. false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72–90.

for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motiva- Mills, J., Clark, M. S., Ford, T., & Johnson, M. (2004). Measuring

tion. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. communal strength. Personal Relationships, 11, 213–230.

Beach, S. R. H., Whitaker, D. J., Jones, D. J., & Tesser, A. (2001). Mullen. B., & Goethals, G. R. (1990). Social projection, actual con-

When does performance prompt complementarity in romantic sensus and valence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29,

relationships? Personal Relationships, 8, 231–248. 279–282.

Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. L. Murray, S. L., & Holmes, J. G. (1997). A leap of faith: Positive illu-

Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction (pp. sions in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychol-

355–381). New York: Academic. ogy Bulletin, 23, 586–604.

Buss. D. M. (2003). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as nec- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Griffin, D. W. (1996). The benefits of

essary as love and sex. New York: Free Press. positive illusions: Idealization and the construction of satisfac-

Clark, M. S., Graham, S., & Grote, N. (2002). Bases for giving bene- tion in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

fits in marriage: What is ideal? What is realistic? What really Psychology, 70, 79–98.

happens? (pp. 150–176). In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Un- Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Griffin, D. W., Bellavia, G., & Rose, P.

derstanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple in- (2001). The mismeasure of love: How self-doubt contaminates

teraction. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. relationship beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange tin, 27, 423–436.

and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., Holmes, J. G. (2004). Perceived partner

Psychology, 37, 12–24. responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of inti-

Dutton, D. G., & Aron, A. (1974). Some evidence for heightened macy and closeness. In D. J. Machek & A. Aron. (Eds.), Hand-

sexual attraction under conditions of high anxiety. Journal of book of closeness and intimacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 510–517. Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Fincham, F. D. (2001). Attributions in close relationships: From Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal pro-

Balkanization to integration. In G. J. O. Fletcher & M. S. Clark cess. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships:

(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Interpersonal Theory, research, and interventions (pp. 367–389). Chichester,

processes (pp. 3–31). Malden, MA: Blackwell. England: Wiley.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Bargh, J. A. (2003). Thinking of you:
Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with re- Rusbult, C. E., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (1996). Interdependence pro-
cesses. In E. T. Higgins & A Krglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:
ylationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Handbook of basic principles (pp. 564–596). New York: Guilford.
pogy, 84, 148–163.
oGable, S. L., Reis, H. T., Impett, E. A., & Asher, E. R. (2004). What Simpson, J. A., Gangestad, S. W., & Lerma, M. (1990). Perception of
Cdo you do when things go right? The intrapersonal and interper- physical attractiveness: Mechanisms involved in the mainte-
nance of romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and So-
sonal benefits of sharing positive events. Journal of Personality cial Psychology, 59, 1192–1201.

tand Social Psychology, 87, 228–245. Simpson, J. A., Ickes, W., & Blackstone, T. (1995). When the
oGrote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the head protects the heart: Empathic accuracy in dating rela-
tionships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Nfamily: Cause or consequence of marital distress? Journal of 69, 629–641.

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281–293. Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perception
and interpersonal behavior: On the self-fulfilling nature of so-
oHolmes, J. G. (1991). Trust and the appraisal process in close relation-
Dships. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal
relationships (Vol. 2, pp. 57–104). London: Jessica Kingsley. cial stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Johnson, D. J., & Rusbult, C. E. (1989). Resisting temptation: Deval- 35, 656–666.

uation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining com- Tesser, A. (1980). Self esteem maintenance in family dynamics.

mitment in close relationships. Journal of Personality and So- Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 77–91.

cial Psychology, 57, 967–980. Tesser, A., & Campbell, J. (1982). Self-evaluation maintenance and

Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N. L., Reis, H. T., Rusbult, C. E., the perception of friends and strangers. Journal of Personality,

& Van Lange, P. A. M. (2003). An atlas of interpersonal situa- 59, 261–279.

tions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Tesser, A., & Smith, J. (1980). Some effects of friendship and task

Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1994). The truly false consensus ef- relevance on helping. You don’t always help the one you like.

fect: An ineradicable and egocentric bias in social perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 582–590.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 596–610. Wegner, D. M., Raymond, P., & Erber, R. (1991). Transactive mem-

Laurenceau, J. P., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Feldman Barrett, L. (1998). ory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social

Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of Psychology, 61, 923–929.

self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner re- White, G. L., Fishbein, S., & Rutstein, S. (1981). Passionate love and

sponsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personal- the misattribution of arousal. Journal of Personality and Social

ity and Social Psychology, 74, 1238–1251. Psychology, 41, 56–62.

136

COMMENTARIES

How a Prejudice Is Recognized

Christian S. Crandall and Ruth H. Warner

Department of Psychology
University of Kansas

When we teach prejudice to graduate and under- For Allport, to be a prejudice, there must be an incor-

graduate students, we use Gordon Allport’s (1954) rect, overgeneralized, or inflexible belief about a group

classic The Nature of Prejudice. This is probably the that is associated with negative affect. The definition

best single book ever written in social psychology, but that Allport (1954) most vigorously endorses is:

it may be time for us to consider discarding it. While

much of its content is marvelous, the scholarship and Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based on a faulty and
breadth of coverage is awe-inspiring, and the writing is inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It
enviably stylish, it begins to border on irrelevance. The may be directed toward a group as whole, or toward an

Nature of Prejudice is just as remarkable for what it individual because he is a member of that group. (p. 9)

does not say, as what it does say. There is virtually

nothing on sexism, there is no mention of homophobia, Allport also struggles with the question of the nor-
and antifat attitudes are entirely ignored. There is, mative acceptability of a prejudice. He considers
however, content on prejudice toward Irish immi- American slavery and the Indian caste system, and re-
grants, and some well thought out examples about Ar- flects on theorists who suggest that social norms pro-
menians. Large portions of the book are slipping into vide the boundaries of what is prejudice:
the category of historical curiosity.

DePaulo and Morris (this issue) end their article They claim that attitudes are prejudice only if they vi-
where we begin ours. They ask “To what levels must olate some important norms or values accepted in a
culture. They insist that prejudice is only that type of
yprejudice and discrimination rise before they are taken prejudgment that is ethically disapproved in a society.
pseriously? And, who decides … when there are already (pp. 9–10). Prejudice is the moral evaluation placed
oso many put-upon groups vying for our attention and by a culture on some of its own practices. It is a desig-
Cconcern, do we really need another?” nation of attitudes that are disapproved. (p. 11; empha-
tDePaulo and Morris’s (this issue) task begins with sis in original)
othe need to demonstrate the existence of a bias against
Nsingle people; this they do quite well. The more diffi- These theorists suggested that a prejudice is defined
only as deviation from normal cultural practice—a be-
cult job for them is to move this bias into the social cat-lief or attitude is only a prejudice if it violates some im-

oegory of “prejudice,” the particular case that they label
Dsinglism. If such a bias exists (and we do not dispute

the general argument), then why must DePaulo and portant norms or values in a culture. Prejudice be-
Morris write a article to convince the professional
comes deviance from common practice. While we do
community of its existence?
not think that the definition of a prejudice should be

based on normative attitudes or common practice, it is

clear to us that the recognition of an attitude as a preju-

The Failure To Study Certain dice is closely linked to the normative status of that be-
Prejudices Is a Failure of Definition of lief. Singlism is a good case of this failure to identify a
prejudice.
“Prejudice”
In contrast to Allport (1954), we suggest that preju-

The prevailing definitions of prejudice in today’s re- dice should be defined as “a negative evaluation of a
search still stem from Allport (1954), in which rational social group, or a negative evaluation of an individual
thought, reasonableness, and deviation from some nor- that is significantly based on the individual’s group
mative values form the notion of prejudice. To show membership” (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003, p. 414).
how Allport defines prejudice, we look closely at how This differs from Allport in that a prejudice does not
Allport struggles with the question of definition. He need to be irrational, unfounded, too extreme, or
writes in Chapter 1: counternormative to be labeled a prejudice. All nega-
tive evaluations of groups and their members can be

represented as prejudice, and the rationality (or justifi-

… thinking ill of others without sufficient warrant. cation) of that evaluation is a separate and subsequent
This crisp phrasing contains the two essential ingredi- psychological process independent from the emotional
ents of all definitions—reference to unfounded judg- experience of prejudice itself (for a review of the pro-

ment and to a feeling tone. (p. 6) cess of justification, see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).

137

COMMENTARIES

DePaulo and Morris (this issue) show that negative subconscious ideology. But accepted ideology should

attitudes, practices, and policies toward singles do not play little or no part in determining what constitutes a

draw attention. Being expected and common, they do psychological process, what determines the bound-

not lead to a perception of attitudes—acting singlist aries of a phenomenon, and what is a psychological

draws no attention, no explanation, no inference. Attri- “unit.” Whether or not being single is a bad thing or

butions of motive are rare when the behavior is com- good thing should not determine whether attitudes to-

mon, expected, and normal (Heider, 1958; Jones and ward singles is a legitimate area for study. Because the

Davis, 1965). The advantage of Crandall & Crandall & Eshleman (2003) definition says less about

Eshleman’s (2003) definition is that whether or not the what a prejudice is, it provides more opportunity to

feeling and behavior toward a group is based on a sen- study phenomena that Allport (1954) would have ruled

sible foundation is moved out of the definition of the out. Attitudes toward social groups that are nearly uni-

phenomenon, and instead is conceived as a supporting versally treated as “bad” (e.g., rapists, genocidal sol-

and related process. Under this definition, an affective diers, murderers, Chetniks) are worthy of study, as are

bias need not be shown to be irrational or incorrect, attitudes toward groups that are universally seen as

merely present. If the psychological processes that lead good (e.g., pediatric nurses, special education teachers,

to prejudice are the same for prejudices that are norma- firefighters killed in the line of duty, social psycholo-

tive (i.e., part of a dominant ideology) and those that gists). Attitudes toward these groups are especially

are counternormative (e.g., a social psychologist) the useful to compare with each other, and toward more

dichotomy between “rational prejudice” and “irratio- usual prejudice targets. Crandall’s (1994) research on

nal prejudice” is moot. antifat attitudes was conceived in part as a way to study

The important distinction between Crandall and racism, by comparing antifat and anti-Black attitudes

Eshleman’s (2003) definition and Allport’s is in the and the differences in social acceptability and justifica-

treatment of justifications and social norms. Compared tion for the prejudices.

to Allport (1954), Crandall and Eshleman argued that Recognition of Prejudice and the
no amount of justification for a negative evaluation of a “Normative Window”

ygroup disqualifies that evaluation as prejudice. Despite Social psychologists and everyday Americans (and
opthe substantial justification enemy soldiers may have Allport) operate with a limited definition of prejudice,
and this constricted description focuses on only a small
toward each other, based on realistic conflict and past part of the possible varieties of prejudice. We suggest
that prejudices that people are concerned about, that
Chistory of aggression, their negative emotions would are the topics of scientific study, that people actively
tstill be conceptualized as prejudice.

Do NoIdeology Is Norms
Singlism, as DePaulo and Morris (this issue) show seek to suppress, are prejudices that are in a narrow

us, is a comfortable part of the mainstream ideology. It “normative window” of appropriateness, where the

is normative, and acting singlistic is in no way deviant prevailing norms are neither entirely positive nor en-

from regular cultural practices. The kind of prejudice tirely negative toward the groups, but where there is a

toward singles that they review is so smoothly inte- general social change toward greater acceptance of the

grated into the everyday ideology of Americans that group. This normative window encompasses most of

most people will not notice their evaluations, their be- prejudices based on race, religion, ethnicity, and physi-

liefs, their assumptions, and their preferences. cal handicap. Increasingly, “singles” may be moving

If a prejudice is entirely normative, it hardly re- into this normative window. The idea of the normative

quires further thought; justifications for prejudice are window of prejudice is based on the following four

necessary only when we notice something (Duval, (and a half) propositions:

Silvia, & Lalwani, 2001). The ideology of singlism

renders discrimination invisible; ideology in turn cre- 1. Prejudice Against Groups Runs the
ates social norms, and it is counternormative behavior Entire Gamut of Social Acceptability,
that we see as people and study as social psychologists From Completely Unquestioning
(Heider, 1958). Acceptance, To Complete and Utter

Unacceptability

Failure To Recognize Who Is a Target of While some definitions may rule many of these
Discrimination Is Function of Ideology groups outside of theoretical interest, we suggest a def-
inition that highlights the differences in normative ac-
We agree with DePaulo and Morris (this issue) that ceptability. Although we have covered this argument
the ease with which we accept singlism reflects mostly previously, we do want to point out that today’s accept-

138

COMMENTARIES

able prejudice may be tomorrow’s unacceptable preju- person who reads the newspaper can be unaware that

dice. There has been substantial shift in the acceptabil- many of these global trends come with prejudice-en-

ity of racial and religious prejudice (e.g., Gibson & hancing and prejudice-reducing components. Still, a

Duch, 1992). Allport (1954) is strangely silent on the little over 100 years ago cross-national, cross-racial,

matter of sexual orientation. Much of the problem is re- and cross-religious friendships were nearly unthink-

ally based on a naïve definition of what prejudice is— able; now they are common place in Western societ-

it’s something that’s “bad.” This value component is ies and becoming more frequent in many other soci-

usually tacit in definitions, but there is a subtle connec- eties (Archdeacon, 1983; Higginbotham &

tion the underlying “rationality” of the prejudice. This Kopytoff, 1989).

rationality needs to be established only when the atti-

tudes conflict with the prevailing ideology; conformity 3. The Social Acceptability of
is presumed to be rational among conformists. Prejudices Is a Close Indicator of

What Prejudices People Have

2. The Social Acceptability of Social norms change, and this can be readily
Prejudices Changes Over Time tracked in surveys and polls (e.g., Case & Greeley,

This is obviously true—prejudice about sexual ori- 1990). But most importantly, the prevalence of preju-

entation was completely unstudied by social psycholo- dice is closely related to social norms about prejudice,

gists in the 1950s; it is now a staple of prejudice re- and when norms change, so to do individual attitudes.

search. Despite the persistence of some racial Crandall, Eshleman, and O’Brien (2002) showed that

prejudice, on many observable indicators racial preju- people’s reports of their prejudice was extremely

dice and discrimination are diminishing (Case & closely related to what their group described as norma-

Greeley, 1990). Allport (1954) discusses prejudice tive; individual attitudes correlated r = .96 with the pre-

aimed at Catholics and Italians—there is virtually no vailing social norms about prejudice.
focus on these prejudices today, and there is reason to Prejudices are acquired through our social lives—

ybelieve they have been reduced in the United States. peers, family, neighborhoods, friendship, mass media,
opThe amount of prejudice changes as a function of a va- individual experience, and so on. The forces that deter-
mine which prejudices individuals report and experi-
riety of issues, particularly the threat posed by a group ence are the very same forces that shape the social
world and normative acceptability. What creates social
C(Stangor & Crandall, 2000). Which group is immigrat- norms also creates individual attitudes.
ting and the target of job competition, status of interna-
otional conflict and economic dispute, changes in sex 4. What Social Psychologists Study as
Nroles, disputes over oil, etc., all affect which prejudicesPrejudice Is Closely Linked to the
oare acceptable (e.g., Allport, 1954). Window of Normative Acceptability.
D2a. There is a general trend toward reduction in Prejudices in a Narrow Window of
Shifting Normative Acceptability Are
prejudice. We believe we are not overly optimistic, the Main Topic of Social Psychological
and we suggest that global and nearly universal trends Research
are leading to less overall prejudice toward many of the
most important social groups. Large economic, demo-
graphic, and technological changes have lead to pres-

sures against many, many kinds of prejudice. These In general, social psychologists study prejudices

trends include (a) the globalization of information, that (a) they perceive to be wrong, (b) are at least

which provides information about social groups, en- somewhat common in the general population, and

ables contact among them, and under good circum- (c) are shifting from normative acceptability to nor-

stances encourages understanding; (b) higher levels of mative unacceptability. We suggest that what deter-

education, especially among groups with little previ- mines the vast amount of attention to prejudice is

ous education, but also extending educational opportu- that the targets are located within a normative win-

nities to women throughout the globe; and perhaps dow and are generally passing from an acceptable

most importantly (c) mutual reliance and interaction prejudice to an unacceptable prejudice. Prejudice

based on shared, globalized economies (Bhagwati, on the basis of religion was common and mostly ac-

2004). ceptable in the decades leading up to Allport

All of these pressure are likely to reduce a wide (1954), but was clearly on the declining side of re-

variety of prejudices, and we like to hope that these spectability—this made it an attractive target of re-

pressures will overcome the obviously powerful search and social policy. On the other hand, preju-

countervailing forces of war, economic competition dice on the basis of sexual orientation in the United

for oil, and so on, which can serve to increase inter- States was perfectly normal in the 1950s, and is ab-

group conflict and its attendant prejudices. And no sent from Allport’s attention. Heterosexism has

139

COMMENTARIES

substantially declined in the intervening 50 years, Where Does Normative

but because it has not disappeared it still plays an Change Come From?

important role in policy and politics; we found 640

different articles or chapters on the matter in This is the $64,000 question for social influence and

PsycInfo from 1998 onward. normative approaches to social psychology, and the

Social psychologists (and sociologists, and the general tendency is to point to nonpsychological pro-

rest of us) study only a tiny fraction of the possible cesses. We will adhere to that propensity here when de-

targets. We would not argue that the field is focusing scribing norms about prejudice. Prejudice comes and

on uninteresting, unimportant, or irrelevant re- goes with economic changes, war and conflict, demo-

search—quite the contrary. But the failure to focus graphic shifts, patterns of immigration, and so on.

on the widest possible swath of prejudices narrows Some of these factors increase prejudices, others de-

our focus and leads us to miss a wide range of phe- crease them. But we will point to three general trends

nomena relevant to the process. To paraphrase the for reduced global prejudice.

immortal words of Peggy Lee “we know a little bit

about a lot of things,” but we don’t know enough Globalization
about the broader phenomenon.

Figure 1 lays out the basic concept of the “win- The primary reductive force toward prejudice is in-

dow” of prejudice. First, the picture suggests that creasing globalization. Nothing reduces prejudice so

there is an entire range of acceptable and unaccept- much as interdependence (Fiske, 2000) and globaliza-

able prejudices. Second, it locates in the normative tion has the effect of enhancing intergroup coopera-

window those prejudices that social psychologists tion, particularly at the elite level where war, political

study. Third, it suggests that it may be possible that relations, and media depictions can set the agenda

there is a general secular trend toward lowered preju- (Bhagwati, 2004). Many advanced forms of communi-

dice over time. Certainly the claim about the general cation can serve the function of social contact.

ytrend is the most controversial and most difficult to Technology
pdemonstrate. It is hard to test whether most prejudices
oare generally declining, or whether we simply study Significant technological advances can reduce prej-
udice. Because social disruptiveness and contagability
those prejudices that are normatively on their way contribute to social rejection in physical illness stigma-
tization, medical treatments that “normalize” can re-
Cdown. But the main point of this figure is that whether duce fear and rejection of the afflicted (Crandall &
tor not a prejudice is (a) thought to exist and (b) appro-Moriarty, 1995). In the case of singles, particularly sin-
opriate for study is closely related to its normative sta-
Ntus; prejudices in the normative window gain atten-
Dotion from social scientists.

Figure 1. Defining the limits of acceptable targets of prejudice research.

140