Prejudice arises from role-context devaluation, not from negative attitudes alone

Evidence

Our expanded treatment of prejudice rests upon the simple idea of role incongruity – that prejudice often results from the mismatch between beliefs about the attributes typically possessed by members of a social group (that is, their stereotype) and beliefs about the attributes that facilitate success in valued social roles. … Such incongruity between stereotypical characteristics and social roles does not necessarily lead to a generalized hostile attitude toward the mismatched individual but to a decline in evaluation relative to a matched individual in the context of the particular role. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 174

In conclusion, it is insufficient to view prejudice solely as a rigid, generalized negative attitude toward a group. Much everyday prejudice consists of the relative devaluation in specific role contexts of members of a particular group compared to equivalent members of other groups. … However, the devaluation – that is, the downward attitudinal shift – does not necessarily produce a negative attitude, nor is the overall context-free attitude toward the target group necessarily negative. The key eliciting condition for prejudice is the potential or actual entry of group members into social roles to which they are stereotypically mismatched. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 223

In conclusion, it is insufficient to view prejudice solely as a rigid, generalized negative attitude toward a group. Much everyday prejudice consists of the relative devaluation in specific role contexts of members of a particular group compared to equivalent members of other groups. In this analysis, prejudice remains attitudinal, as in Allport’s definition, and therefore can be expressed in beliefs, affects, and behaviors. However, the devaluation – that is, the downward attitudinal shift – does not necessarily produce a negative attitude, nor is the overall context-free attitude toward the target group necessarily negative. The key eliciting condition for prejudice is the potential or actual entry of group members into social roles to which they are stereotypically mismatched. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 223

Categorization

• DEFINE: Role incongruity theory is introduced here as a mechanism for prejudice that does not require antipathy toward the whole group.
• XREF: Connects to role congruity theory of prejudice against female leaders (Eagly & Karau) and to Allport’s own framing of prejudice. — connects to: Distinct structural relations produce qualitatively different forms of prejudice — Susan T. Fiske et al., A Model of (Often Mixed) Stereotype…, 305
• DEEPTHINKING: Reframes prejudice itself as situational rather than dispositional, undermining a core assumption about where bias lives.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 174; John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 223; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 223