Low-prejudice people experience compunction when their behavior contradicts their egalitarian standards

Evidence

When actual responses were discrepant from people’s personal standards, Devine et al. (1991) found that low-prejudice people experienced compunction but high-prejudice people did not. Moreover, the greater the violation of nonprejudiced standards, the more guilt low-prejudice people reported. For low-prejudice people, then, the conflict between their should and would reactions threatens their nonprejudiced self-concepts and they hold themselves personally accountable for these failures. In tandem with considerable similar evidence (for a review, see Devine & Monteith, 1993), it appears that many people are embroiled in the arduous process of prejudice reduction. Further, in line with Allport’s prescient observations, the adoption and internalization of nonprejudiced standards is clearly only the first step in breaking the prejudice habit. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2106 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Aversive racism theory stems from the idea that as concerns about being egalitarian have increased, people are far less likely to endorse explicit expressions of bias and prejudice (Dovidio, 2001). Over time prejudice and discrimination have become subtler and sometimes occur outside of conscious awareness (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Aversive racism theory also maintains that despite striving for egalitarian principles, many people still harbor negative feelings toward and thoughts about minority groups (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Specifically, the theory posits that people will not express prejudice if they are aware of the potential for their actions to be perceived as discriminatory, but when they are unaware of the potential to express bias they often will act in discriminatory ways (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Pearson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2009; Saucier, Miller, & Doucet, 2005). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 862 (#complicates, via linked claim)

As defined by Allport (1954/1979), psychodynamic theories of prejudice emphasized internal motivational variables, especially those involving “unconscious mental operation in the individual” (p. 352). Psychodynamic theories, he said, could explain how a person might not be “aware of the psychological function that prejudice serves in his life,” so that when he explained his reasons for feeling hostility towards outgroups, those explanations would be “merely rationalizations” (p. 352). In short, psychodynamic theories emphasize that prejudice can be a byproduct of people’s attempts to feel good about themselves, and more generally, to avoid threatening thoughts. A core assumption is that sometimes what one hates about other groups of people is related to the things that one hates about oneself. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2341 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Only people with internalized nonprejudiced standards feel guilt over their actual prejudiced responses — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2106; Illegitimacy perception is necessary but not sufficient to drive guilt intensity variation. — Michael T. Schmitt, Daniel A. Miller, Nyla R. Branscombe, and Jack W. Brehm, The Difficulty of Making Reparations…, 86; Prejudice level determines who experiences guilt versus mere discomfort from should-would discrepancies — Janet K. Swim and Deborah L. Miller, White Guilt: Its Antecedents and…, 34 (+13 more)

Broader Connections