Perceived trait differences rationalize group advantage

Evidence

First, racial attitudes in the United States, at least for the past 150 years, have involved a blend of antiblack affect and traditional moral values. Indeed, theories of prejudice have been routinely concerned with intergroup affect and stereotyping, that is, with feelings and beliefs about the traits of group members. Second, the perception of some trait difference between blacks and whites can and has been used to rationalize a group advantage. As Jackman and Senter (1983) argued, perceived trait differences can serve the ideological needs of dominant groups. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3416

The upshot of this is twofold. First, racial attitudes in the United States, at least for the past 150 years, have involved a blend of antiblack affect and traditional moral values. Indeed, theories of prejudice have been routinely concerned with intergroup affect and stereotyping, that is, with feelings and beliefs about the traits of group members. Second, the perception of some trait difference between blacks and whites can and has been used to rationalize a group advantage. As Jackman and Senter (1983) argued, perceived trait differences can serve the ideological needs of dominant groups. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3416

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes the system-justification theme running through this book and connects to legitimation-of-privilege arguments made in earlier chapters. — connects to: Small derogatory perceived differences suffice to justify group advantage — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 3418
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3416; John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 3416