Page 38 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

14
DOVIDIO AND HEBL
to be consciously endorsed to be influential; they may be activated both im­
plicitly (automatically and without awareness) and explicitly (consciously,
deliberately, and controllably). Whereas explicit prejudices and stereotypes
typically are assessed using self-report measures, implicit prejudices and
stereotypes typically are measured using response latency techniques or
other (e.g., memory) cognitive tasks. Furthermore, prejudice and stereo­
typing share functional characteristics. Fiske (1998) observed that both are
enduring human characteristics, have automatic aspects, have a degree of
social utility, are mutable, and are influenced by other social structures.
Finally, both are also rooted in categorical thinking about others. In the
next section, we examine how social categorization and category-based
responding influence intergroup relations and discrimination generally.

COMMON PROCESSES IN DISCRIMINATION

Discrimination, or unfair treatment, at the level of the individual has at its
foundation the recognition that people belong to different social groups.
Thus, we describe some of the causes and consequences of social cate­
gorization. As illustrated in the top of Fig. 2.1, we discuss key processes
involved in social categorization, and then we consider how cognitive pro­
cesses relate to stereotyping and affective reactions separately and how
they can jointly influence discrimination.

Social Categorization and Social Identity

From a social categorization perspective, one universal facet of human
perception essential for efficient functioning is the ability to sort people,
spontaneously and with minimum effort or awareness, into a smaller num­
ber of meaningful categories. A critical aspect of social categorization is
whether a person is perceived to be a unique individual, a member of the
perceiver's group (the ingroup), or a member of another group (an out­
group). Although the basis of people's impressions ranges on a continuum
from person-based, individuating qualities to group-based characteristics,
because of ease and efficiency, people tend to rely more on group-based
impressions (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999). The tendency to categorize oth­
ers as a member of a group rather than as an individual is stronger with
greater salience placed upon the basis of categorization, greater "fit" of an
individual to the prototype of the category, and more direct relevance of
group membership to the situation. Situational factors (such as interde­
pendence) or perceivers' motivations (such as a desire for accuracy) can
produce more individuated impressions. Stereotypic impressions tend to