Admitting one’s own value-action conflict is prerequisite to reducing prejudice.

Evidence

Allport recognized, however, that for some people, overcoming rather than circumventing prejudice was the overarching goal. For example, Allport (1954/1979) noted that some people are likely to find their defenses wanting such that “they can neither repress, rationalize, nor compromise with any comfort” (p. 338). These people are aware of, and do not hide from, the conflict between their values and their actions. Indeed, awareness of the conflict is a prerequisite to overcoming prejudice. According to Allport, successful resolution of inner conflict – true prejudice reduction – requires taking stock of one’s biases and doing the hard work to achieve an integrated personality in which there is consistency between values and actions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2100 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Explaining away inconsistent evidence can be challenging and requires a vigilance that may be taxing to social perceivers. An alternative strategy is to accept negative beliefs about outgroup members as valid while simultaneously viewing oneself as egalitarian and fair-minded. Because these views are likely to collide, Allport suggested that people who use this type of strategy would need to alternate between their conflicting views of outgroup members. Indeed, Allport suggested that this was likely the most common strategy used to address the threat of inner conflict because it allowed people to maintain a fair and just self-concept yet still respond in prejudiced ways. Using this strategy, people vacillate between their egalitarian values and their prejudiced beliefs based on situational factors that make one or the other salient. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2096 (#complicates, via linked claim)

How do Americans resolve this conflict? Allport’s answer stressed that it can be handled through various defense or conflict-resolution mechanisms (see Esses, Jackson, Dovidio, & Hodson, ch. 14 this volume). These include repression and denial (“I have no prejudice; we have no problem”); defensive rationalization, in which selective perception biases evidence in favor of prejudice while “bifurcation” allows for exceptions; and compromises that allow for the coexistence of charity and prejudice, and for gradualism as a political strategy. Optimally, inner conflict would be resolved through true consistency and integration in personality, wherein genuine enemies are recognized, while racial bogeymen, traditional scapegoats, and designated villains are dispensed with. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2162 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: True prejudice reduction requires awareness of the values-action conflict — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2100; Agreeing with a prejudice’s underlying value can disarm the prejudiced person — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice: How to Communicate…, 411; Enduring prejudice reduction requires internal motivation, not just external pressure. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2125 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• True prejudice reduction requires awareness of the values-action conflict #corroborates (0.95) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2100
• Prejudiced people mostly manage inner conflict by vacillating between values #complicates (0.80) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2096
• People resolve prejudice conflict through denial, rationalization, and compromise mechanisms. #complicates (0.75) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2162
• Agreeing with a prejudice’s underlying value can disarm the prejudiced person #complicates (0.72) — Holm Gero Hümmler, Ulrike Schiesser, Fact and Prejudice, 411
• Targets of prejudice often minimize or deny the discrimination they personally face. #complicates (0.70)