Prejudice effects are now seen as less internalized and permanent than Allport held

Evidence

Another development is the application of stress and coping frameworks to understand targets’ psychological responses to prejudice (see Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002, for a review). According to these frameworks, being a target of prejudice is a stressful predicament. How individuals respond and adapt to this stressor differs depending on their cognitive appraisals (e.g., how threatening they perceive an event to be) and the coping strategies they employ in response to events appraised as stressful. Coping refers to volitional efforts to manage stress, and can be distinguished from nonvolitional responses to prejudice (e.g., stress responses). Within stress and coping frameworks it is theoretically possible for people to be exposed to prejudice but not perceive it, as well as to perceive themselves as targets of prejudice but not experience this as stressful. In sum, contemporary approaches view the psychological effects of prejudice as less permanent, less internalized, less inevitable, and less universal than did Allport. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 939 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Contemporary frameworks see prejudice effects as less inevitable than Allport did — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 939; Post-Allport research shows people can hold prejudice without conscious awareness of it — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 148

Broader Connections

• Contemporary frameworks see prejudice effects as less inevitable than Allport did #corroborates (0.98) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 939