Normative pressure changes prejudice’s expression, not its underlying strength.

Evidence

According to Allport, none of the above strategies provides a true or effective resolution of inner conflict. Instead, each of these strategies and their contemporary theoretical counterparts explain how the conflict between thought and action remains intact and nonthreatening. Hence, they are explanations for how prejudice persists rather than how prejudice is reduced. Each of the modern theories, for example, presumes that in the context of normative pressure, people’s prejudices are forced “underground,” such that they are expressed in subtle, indirect, or covert ways. Thus, prejudice does not truly decline; rather, the form in which prejudice is expressed is changed. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2099

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the book’s ongoing argument about modern prejudice theories — the idea that apparent decline in prejudice is form-shifting evokes the ‘new racism’ literature and also home-library material on moral panics as veiled signaling. — connects to: Post-1964 social proscription of racism allows measurement of social-pressure effects on prejudice. — Deborah L. Hall and David C. Matz and Wendy Wood, Why Don’t We Practice What We Preach? A…, 11
• DEEPTHINKING: A paradigm-level claim: all the modern prejudice strategies are mechanisms of persistence, not reduction — measurable shifts in expressiveness are mistaken for attitude change. Resists a one-sentence summary because the distinction between expression-form and underlying attitude reframes how to read virtually all survey data on prejudice decline.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2099