Introduction
The evidence Dixon et al. summarize reveals that clusters and components of prejudicial attitudes are not unitary. Prejudices are better represented as a mosaic, where positive attitudes toward members of a targeted group sometimes coexist with negative evaluations of policies and programs that would reduce social inequities that these groups suffer. The target article signals a change in thinking about the “nature of prejudice” that may turn out to be as significant as the identification of unconscious components of prejudicial attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji Reference Greenwald and Banaji1995).
We propose that history helps us interpret complex findings related to prejudice and broadens the paradigms in experimental social psychology and social neuroscience. The expanded approach includes studies of systemic and structural aspects of racism, sexism, and other oppressive social processes.
Historical complexity of prejudicial attitudes
Dixon et al. discuss the work of Fox-Genovese and Genovese (Reference Fox-Genovese and Genovese2005), revealing both aggressive and paternalistic attitudes toward the enslaved on the part of Southern plantation owners. Indeed, history is replete with such examples. Du Bois's (Reference Du Bois1935) in Black Reconstruction described the complex attitudes of northern and southern whites toward enslaved people and toward a war that might result in the dismantling of the slavery system. He recounted the search for a slogan around which people in the north and west would rally. Ultimately, the refrain that reflected their attitudes pledged allegiance to the flag, while “…all its foes we abhor/ we ain't for the n… but we are for the war” (p. 56).
John Hope Franklin's (Reference Franklin1965) essay “Two Worlds of Race” reminds us that Lincoln often expressed ambivalent attitudes toward enslaved individuals and their capacity to succeed in the United States. Franklin pointed out that even among abolitionists there was no universal sentiment for social inclusion or close proximity with people of African descent. We know that those few, such as John Brown, who thought otherwise, had their behavior described as madness. Thus, professional historians would barely raise an eyebrow at the conclusions Dixon et al. advanced indicating that individuals show inconsistencies between the emotional evaluation of persons targeted by prejudice and policy-related attitudes.
History and research into social inequities
Citing important studies of the origins of the urban underclass, Chowkwanyun (Reference Chowkwanyun2011) asserted that the inclusion of a historical perspective expands and deepens empirical studies of social inequities. Historical research identifies central actors and pivotal decisions that emanate from all levels of society and converge to produce current conditions. For history, studies of prejudice and quantitative listings of race differences in behaviors and conditions are mere starting points. Ultimately, historians determine how social groups and institutions and civic organizations – large and small – converge to structure social outcomes along racial lines. The integration of the historical method into behavioral science research moves the focus from “individual-level characteristics or behaviors and how much they predict life chances in larger social structure … to how transformations of the latter can alter the former” (Chowkwanyun Reference Chowkwanyun2011, p. 259).
Thus, the historical perspective helps with the interpretations of intriguing findings of the kind Dixon et al. cite, but its contributions only begin there. History compels behavioral research paradigms to go beyond studies of prejudice and consider the role other oppressive individual and institutional practices play in supporting social inequities. Racism has been described in terms of power dynamics, structural components, and institutional actors that may operate in the absence of negative intentions (Bonilla-Silva Reference Bonilla-Silva2001; Reference Bonilla-Silva2006; Jones Reference Jones1972/1997; Paradies Reference Paradies2006). Gee and Ford (Reference Gee and Ford2011) encouraged the study of the effects on health of structural factors in society, including neighborhood segregation and immigration policies.
Indeed, prejudice is an ostensible, but perhaps less critical factor contributing to inequalities. The structural elements, though less apparent, are largely responsible for the persistence of racialized and gender-related disparities. Dixon et al. called attention to a body of research indicating that among oppressed groups, attitudes toward policies aimed at reducing social inequities become more negative when social proximity increases positive between-group feelings. It may be that as intergroup contact reduces antipathy between advantaged and disadvantaged group members, it results in marginalized group members attributing continued inequities to the actions and behaviors of their group. Indeed, within group contact does nothing inherently to heighten the awareness and understanding of institutional and structural sources of inequities. It is essential to measure attitudes toward many oppressive societal forces in order to determine why the reduction of intergroup negative attitudes might reduce one's willingness to mobilize actions to combat inequities.
The mounting attention multilevel models are paying to institutionally based sources of social inequities (Krieger Reference Krieger2011; Sadanius et al. Reference Sadanius, Pratto, van Laar and Levin2004) should not sideline the laboratory paradigms that experimental social psychologists and social neuroscientists favor. Systemic forces can be studied in the laboratory. Krieger (Reference Krieger1994; Reference Krieger2011) employed a fractal metaphor to illustrate operation of factors from multiple levels on bio-behavioral phenomena. The fractal approach asserts that each causal factor is represented at the various levels of analysis. Hence, prejudicial attitudes are represented within cognitive schema, neural networks, as well as within institutional actions. Similarly, structural racism will be represented at the biological and psychological levels of analysis.
Consistent with the fractal approach, Harrell et al. (Reference Harrell, Burford, Cage, Nelson, Shearon, Thompson and Green2011) discussed the internal psychological representations, as well as psychophysiological mechanisms, involved in various forms of racism. They suggested that structural racism could be examined in the laboratory in terms of the negative self-schema racialized outcomes generate, or in terms of the rumination and perseverative thinking that these disparities cause in marginalized groups. The task for the experimental social psychologist and social neuroscientist is to determine how systemic oppressive social processes are represented psychologically and to operationalize these manifestations in laboratory paradigms.
Conclusion
An awareness of history facilitates understanding of sometimes perplexing findings of the kind Dixon et al. cite. Historians are keenly aware that social inequities are multi-determined phenomena and are comfortable studying these factors using quantitative and qualitative methods. Thus, history is invaluable as investigators grapple with the interaction among complex forces, ranging from the psychological to macrosocial that determine social outcomes.
Introduction
The evidence Dixon et al. summarize reveals that clusters and components of prejudicial attitudes are not unitary. Prejudices are better represented as a mosaic, where positive attitudes toward members of a targeted group sometimes coexist with negative evaluations of policies and programs that would reduce social inequities that these groups suffer. The target article signals a change in thinking about the “nature of prejudice” that may turn out to be as significant as the identification of unconscious components of prejudicial attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji Reference Greenwald and Banaji1995).
We propose that history helps us interpret complex findings related to prejudice and broadens the paradigms in experimental social psychology and social neuroscience. The expanded approach includes studies of systemic and structural aspects of racism, sexism, and other oppressive social processes.
Historical complexity of prejudicial attitudes
Dixon et al. discuss the work of Fox-Genovese and Genovese (Reference Fox-Genovese and Genovese2005), revealing both aggressive and paternalistic attitudes toward the enslaved on the part of Southern plantation owners. Indeed, history is replete with such examples. Du Bois's (Reference Du Bois1935) in Black Reconstruction described the complex attitudes of northern and southern whites toward enslaved people and toward a war that might result in the dismantling of the slavery system. He recounted the search for a slogan around which people in the north and west would rally. Ultimately, the refrain that reflected their attitudes pledged allegiance to the flag, while “…all its foes we abhor/ we ain't for the n… but we are for the war” (p. 56).
John Hope Franklin's (Reference Franklin1965) essay “Two Worlds of Race” reminds us that Lincoln often expressed ambivalent attitudes toward enslaved individuals and their capacity to succeed in the United States. Franklin pointed out that even among abolitionists there was no universal sentiment for social inclusion or close proximity with people of African descent. We know that those few, such as John Brown, who thought otherwise, had their behavior described as madness. Thus, professional historians would barely raise an eyebrow at the conclusions Dixon et al. advanced indicating that individuals show inconsistencies between the emotional evaluation of persons targeted by prejudice and policy-related attitudes.
History and research into social inequities
Citing important studies of the origins of the urban underclass, Chowkwanyun (Reference Chowkwanyun2011) asserted that the inclusion of a historical perspective expands and deepens empirical studies of social inequities. Historical research identifies central actors and pivotal decisions that emanate from all levels of society and converge to produce current conditions. For history, studies of prejudice and quantitative listings of race differences in behaviors and conditions are mere starting points. Ultimately, historians determine how social groups and institutions and civic organizations – large and small – converge to structure social outcomes along racial lines. The integration of the historical method into behavioral science research moves the focus from “individual-level characteristics or behaviors and how much they predict life chances in larger social structure … to how transformations of the latter can alter the former” (Chowkwanyun Reference Chowkwanyun2011, p. 259).
Thus, the historical perspective helps with the interpretations of intriguing findings of the kind Dixon et al. cite, but its contributions only begin there. History compels behavioral research paradigms to go beyond studies of prejudice and consider the role other oppressive individual and institutional practices play in supporting social inequities. Racism has been described in terms of power dynamics, structural components, and institutional actors that may operate in the absence of negative intentions (Bonilla-Silva Reference Bonilla-Silva2001; Reference Bonilla-Silva2006; Jones Reference Jones1972/1997; Paradies Reference Paradies2006). Gee and Ford (Reference Gee and Ford2011) encouraged the study of the effects on health of structural factors in society, including neighborhood segregation and immigration policies.
Indeed, prejudice is an ostensible, but perhaps less critical factor contributing to inequalities. The structural elements, though less apparent, are largely responsible for the persistence of racialized and gender-related disparities. Dixon et al. called attention to a body of research indicating that among oppressed groups, attitudes toward policies aimed at reducing social inequities become more negative when social proximity increases positive between-group feelings. It may be that as intergroup contact reduces antipathy between advantaged and disadvantaged group members, it results in marginalized group members attributing continued inequities to the actions and behaviors of their group. Indeed, within group contact does nothing inherently to heighten the awareness and understanding of institutional and structural sources of inequities. It is essential to measure attitudes toward many oppressive societal forces in order to determine why the reduction of intergroup negative attitudes might reduce one's willingness to mobilize actions to combat inequities.
The mounting attention multilevel models are paying to institutionally based sources of social inequities (Krieger Reference Krieger2011; Sadanius et al. Reference Sadanius, Pratto, van Laar and Levin2004) should not sideline the laboratory paradigms that experimental social psychologists and social neuroscientists favor. Systemic forces can be studied in the laboratory. Krieger (Reference Krieger1994; Reference Krieger2011) employed a fractal metaphor to illustrate operation of factors from multiple levels on bio-behavioral phenomena. The fractal approach asserts that each causal factor is represented at the various levels of analysis. Hence, prejudicial attitudes are represented within cognitive schema, neural networks, as well as within institutional actions. Similarly, structural racism will be represented at the biological and psychological levels of analysis.
Consistent with the fractal approach, Harrell et al. (Reference Harrell, Burford, Cage, Nelson, Shearon, Thompson and Green2011) discussed the internal psychological representations, as well as psychophysiological mechanisms, involved in various forms of racism. They suggested that structural racism could be examined in the laboratory in terms of the negative self-schema racialized outcomes generate, or in terms of the rumination and perseverative thinking that these disparities cause in marginalized groups. The task for the experimental social psychologist and social neuroscientist is to determine how systemic oppressive social processes are represented psychologically and to operationalize these manifestations in laboratory paradigms.
Conclusion
An awareness of history facilitates understanding of sometimes perplexing findings of the kind Dixon et al. cite. Historians are keenly aware that social inequities are multi-determined phenomena and are comfortable studying these factors using quantitative and qualitative methods. Thus, history is invaluable as investigators grapple with the interaction among complex forces, ranging from the psychological to macrosocial that determine social outcomes.