Small qualified trait differences with strong negative evaluation justify dominance

Evidence

Jackman and Senter (1983) added, on the basis of an analysis of national survey data on group images concerning the traits of intelligence, dependability, and laziness, that most whites do not posit the existence of large, categorical differences between themselves and blacks. Instead, they tend to express only small, qualified distinctions in those traits that favor whites. These small and qualified differences, however, are given a strong negative evaluation. This evaluative overlay is sufficient to justify a dominant group advantage. Jackman and Senter explained that “the perception of small but derogatory differences represents a hardening line of defense against challenge” (p. 332). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3418 (#expands, via linked claim)

Jackman and Senter (1983) added, on the basis of an analysis of national survey data on group images concerning the traits of intelligence, dependability, and laziness, that most whites do not posit the existence of large, categorical differences between themselves and blacks. Instead, they tend to express only small, qualified distinctions in those traits that favor whites. These small and qualified differences, however, are given a strong negative evaluation. This evaluative overlay is sufficient to justify a dominant group advantage. Jackman and Senter explained that “the perception of small but derogatory differences represents a hardening line of defense against challenge” (p. 332). — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3418 (#expands, via linked claim)

First, racial attitudes in the United States, at least for the past 150 years, have involved a blend of antiblack affect and traditional moral values. Indeed, theories of prejudice have been routinely concerned with intergroup affect and stereotyping, that is, with feelings and beliefs about the traits of group members. Second, the perception of some trait difference between blacks and whites can and has been used to rationalize a group advantage. As Jackman and Senter (1983) argued, perceived trait differences can serve the ideological needs of dominant groups. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3416 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Small qualified trait differences carry strong evaluative weight — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3418; Trait evaluation is context-dependent and flips with role fit — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 197; Positive stereotypes can justify subordination more effectively than negative ones — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology: Key Readings, 2956 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Small qualified trait differences carry strong evaluative weight #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3418
• Small derogatory perceived differences suffice to justify group advantage #expands (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3418
• Perceived trait differences rationalize group advantage #expands (0.92) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 3416