Prejudice-reduction programs can target structural rather than only individual-level change

Evidence

Allport’s argument that intergroup relations programs were not able to address social-structural issues such as institutional prejudice and discrimination has proven not to be correct. Some techniques focus on group-level rather than individual-level relations, acknowledge that individuals are defined and limited by their group identification, and demonstrate that groups are embedded in systematic power politics. In these programs, emphasis is placed on creating a more equitable environment in the institutions in which the programs are conducted. They also engage the participants in social change efforts that extend beyond these institutions. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2672

Categorization

Category: Contrarian or Surprising Claims

• XREF: Connects to the contact hypothesis literature and to critiques that Allport’s framework neglected structural power.

Related

• Anti-prejudice programs can successfully target institutional rather than only individual bias. (similarity 0.95)
• Intergroup programs can address institutional prejudice, contrary to Allport (similarity 0.94)
• Allport’s contact program framework survived except on structural discrimination (similarity 0.84)
• Individual-difference and intergroup approaches to prejudice have remained disconnected since Allport. (similarity 0.84)
• Allport’s evaluation standards were ahead of 1950s practice (similarity 0.84)
• Contact research should start from the default prediction of prejudice reduction (similarity 0.84)
• Prejudice reduction may not require eliminating perceived group differences (similarity 0.83)
• Allport’s contact hypothesis has guided fifty years of intergroup research (similarity 0.83)
• Allport held that equal-status contact alone cannot reduce prejudice (similarity 0.83)
• Indirect programs improve intergroup relations without ever discussing prejudice explicitly (similarity 0.83)
• Personality and intergroup approaches to prejudice have barely integrated over fifty years (similarity 0.82)
• Today’s intergroup programs match Allport’s designs but their evaluations fall short (similarity 0.82)
• Allport doubted contact would reduce prejudice except under specified positive conditions. (similarity 0.82)
• Allport’s contact conditions boost prejudice reduction more for nonracial than racial intergroup contexts (similarity 0.82)
• Allport focused on immediate situational causes and doubted contact would generally reduce prejudice. (similarity 0.82)