Affective reactions to prejudice-related discrepant responses were examined either before (standard-salient condition) or after (standard-not-salient condition) subjects' personal standards for responding were made salient. The standard-salience manipulation had little influence on discrepancy-associated discomfort. However, discrepancy-associated guilt was significantly attenuated in the standard-not-salient condition. Correlations within prejudice levels revealed that, even among low-prejudiced subjects, the relation between guilt and discrepancies was quite weak in the standard-not-salient condition. This indicates that self-regulatory processes aimed at reducing prejudice may not be initiated on a regular basis. The results also revealed that the correlation between guilt and discrepancies was significant, although modest, among moderately prejudiced and high prejudiced subjects in the standard-salient condition. The implications of this finding are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Ausubel, D. P. (1955). Relationships between shame and guilt in the socializing process. Psychological Review, 62, 378-390.
3.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression. American Psychologist, 45, 494-503.
4.
Campbell, E. Q. (1961). Moral discomfort and racial segregation-An examination of the Myrdal hypothesis. Social Forces, 39, 228-234.
5.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
Devine, P. G., & Monteith, M. J. (1993). The role of discrepancy-associated affect in prejudice reduction. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in intergroup perception (pp. 317-344). San Diego: Academic Press.
7.
Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with and without compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 817-830.
8.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Anastasio, P. A., & Sanitioso, R. (1992). Cognitive and motivational bases of bias: Implications of aversive racism for attitudes toward Hispanics. In S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A. L. Culbertson (Eds.), Hispanics in the workplace (pp. 75-106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
10.
Frey, D., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Helping and the avoidance of inappropriate interracial behavior: A strategy that perpetuates a nonprejudiced self-image. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1083-1090.
11.
Friedrichs, R. W. (1959). Christians and residential exclusion: An empirical study of a Northern dilemma. Journal of Social Issues, 15, 14-23.
12.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). New York: Academic Press.
13.
Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy theory: A theory relating self and affectPsychological Review, 94, 319-340.
14.
Krosnick, J. A. (1989). Attitude importance and attitude accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 297-308.
15.
Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of heterosexuals toward homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex Research, 16, 245-257.
16.
McConahay, J. G. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-125). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 469-485.
18.
Monteith, M. J., Devine, P. G., & Zuwerink, J. R. (1993). Self-directed versus other-directed affect as a consequence of prejudice-related discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 198-210.
19.
Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1994). Prejudice and prejudice reduction: Classic challenges, contemporary approaches. In P. G. Devine, D. L. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social cognition: Contributions to classic issues in social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press
20.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma. New York: Harper & Row.
21.
Pressly, S. L., & Devine, P. G. (1992, April). Sex, sexism, and compunction: Group membership or internalization of standards? Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
22.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
23.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1988). A model of behavioral self-regulation: Translating intention into action. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol 21, pp. 303-346). New York: Academic Press.
24.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Pity, anger, and guilt An attributional analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226-232.
25.
Westie, F. R. (1965). The American dilemma: An empirical test. American Sociological Review, 30, 527-538.
26.
Zuwerink, J. R., & Devine, P. G. (1993, April). Prejudice, internalization, and the accessibility of personal standards. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.
27.
Zuwerink, J. R., Monteith, M. J., Devine, P. G., & Cook, D. (in press). Prejudice toward Blacks: With and without compunction?Basic and Applied Social Psychology.
