Targets of discrimination protect themselves either extropunitively or intropunitively
Evidence
Allport proposed two basic modes of psychic self-protection. In the first, which he labeled extropunitive, the targets place blame for their degraded and threatened existence on external sources (e.g., Whites in general, bigots, systemic discrimination). In the second, which he labeled intropunitive, targets take responsibility for their plight, either by feeling that somehow they deserve it (i.e., false consciousness; Jost & Banaji, 1994) or that, whether deserved or not, they must take responsibility for self-protection. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 1048
Categorization
Category: Definitional Content
- DEFINE: Defines Allport’s extropunitive vs. intropunitive modes of self-protection against discrimination.
- XREF: Jost’s system justification theory (false consciousness) connects to the intropunitive mode; recall the Caste article on internalized oppression dynamics.
Related
- Allport split target coping into extropunitive and intropunitive modes (similarity 0.94)
- Victims of discrimination adapt through either externalization or internalization of blame (similarity 0.89)
- Targets of prejudice balance self-protection and self-enhancement motives (similarity 0.80)
- The mental health of discrimination victims equals that of nonvictimized groups (similarity 0.79)
- Prejudice targets show diverse intropunitive and extropunitive coping responses (similarity 0.79)
- Self-esteem protection may come from combined inward- and outward-directed defenses (similarity 0.78)