Victims of discrimination adapt through either externalization or internalization of blame

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. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1048

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines Allport’s two core coping modes — extropunitive vs intropunitive — still a live distinction in contemporary discrimination research.
• XREF: Connects to system justification theory (Jost & Banaji), and to the ‘belief in a just world’ and internalized-oppression strands of social psychology. — connects to: Victims of persecution develop distorting stereotypes that endanger their own survival chances; Neoliberal crisis narratives redirect blame from structures onto individual psychology — Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, 433; Psychological equity restoration can shift blame onto disadvantaged groups and motivate counter-restoration — Nyla R. Branscombe and Bertjan Doosje (eds.), Collective Guilt: International…, 469 (+1 more)