Prejudice targets show diverse intropunitive and extropunitive coping responses

Evidence

Furthermore, because of his limited view of prejudice as antipathy, Allport also missed the full impact on victims of prejudice (Major & Vick, Jones, Jost & Hamilton). He noted that targets of prejudice often internalized hostile orientations: “His natural self-love may, under the persistent blows of contempt, turn his spirit to cringing and self-hate” (p. 143). To his credit, he rejected the contemporaneous view that self-hatred was inevitable and, instead, identified diverse responses to victimization, including self-directed (intropunitive) responses, such as denial of group membership, and other-directed (extropunitive) reactions, such as aggression. Nonetheless, he did not integrate these responses into a coherent framework or anticipate the possibility that they reflect different stages of identity development ( Jones). He also did not link them to general processes (such as coping with stress; Major & Vick). Finally, he did not consider how the conflict between targets’ own and society’s evaluations of their group might lead them to have different conscious and nonconscious responses to prejudice ( Jost & Hamilton). — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 141

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines intropunitive (self-directed, e.g., denial of group membership) vs extropunitive (other-directed, e.g., aggression) responses to victimization.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 141