Pervasive prejudice still takes distinct forms across different societies

Evidence

The fact that prejudice is pervasive does not mean it takes the same form everywhere. The fact that prejudice can be described as a ‘fact of life’ (Dixon and Levine, 2012 , p. 3), very much in line with Allport’s conception of prejudice, is arguably not enough to understand its societal anchorage, distinctiveness and uniqueness in certain societies and conditions. — Cristian Tileagă, The Nature of Prejudice, 100

Categorization

• XREF: A direct methodological critique of the dominant negative-evaluation definition opened at location 98. — connects to: Brazilians deny personal prejudice while overwhelmingly endorsing stereotyping beliefs — David Theo Goldberg, The Threat of Race: Reflections on…, 1794

Related

• Not all prejudices are alike; each is culturally situated (similarity 0.85)
• Modern research weights social processes in prejudice even more than Allport did (similarity 0.84)
• Prejudice is explained by societal characteristics, not only individual traits (similarity 0.83)
• Prejudice arises from multiple interacting levels, not any single cause. (similarity 0.83)
• Prejudices cannot be understood apart from a society’s history and contradictions (similarity 0.83)
• Personality and intergroup approaches to prejudice have barely integrated over fifty years (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudice is an interpretive concept lacking fixed definition (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudice is public harm to esteem, not merely private attitude (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudice is context-specific toward individuals, not a global attitude toward groups (similarity 0.82)
• Understanding prejudice requires cultural, not merely psychological, analysis (similarity 0.82)
• Whether perceived group differences are accurate remains an open research question (similarity 0.82)
• Society’s creed and norms explain prejudice better than any single theory (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s hostility-driven model has dominated prejudice research for decades despite revisions (similarity 0.82)
• Prejudice scholars should revisit foundational theory and method rather than only innovate (similarity 0.81)
• Prejudice varies with context yet remains predictable from role requirements. (similarity 0.81)