Page 57 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

DOVIDIO AND HEBL
28
to all groups that may be victimized by discrimination (e.g., gay and
lesbian individuals in many parts of the country), and particularly to mem­
bers of groups whose stigmas are perceived to be controllable (e.g., over­
weight people). Moreover, because the psychological bases that underlie
individual-level discrimination (e.g., stereotypes, negative affect) have not
been addressed directly, discrimation will be readily manifested when
changes in the social context signal discrimination is permissible (Crandall
& Eshleman, 2003). The implications for an organization can be quite di­
rect and immediate. Brief et al. (1995) demonstrated that MB As show a
propensity to discriminate in an obvious and blatant manner against mi­
norities when they are told in an explicit manner that the CEO supports
such discrimination.
The motivation for and causes of discrimination at the individual level
also commonly do not reflect a malicious desire to harm those from other
groups. As we have discussed, the conscious motivations of most White
individuals is to treat Black individuals fairly: Polls and surveys about
prejudice and intent to discriminate have shown consistent declines to
low levels (Schuman et al., 1997). Instead, discrimination may arise out of
unconscious psychological processes, making much of the discrimination
that occurs unintentional. Because individuals also internalize egalitarian
norms and principles but continue to harbor negative feelings and be­
liefs, often unconsciously (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), discrimination is
frequently manifested in subtle and indirect ways, for example in how
people interpret the actions of others and how they interact with them,
which is not readily recognizable as discrimination.
These findings suggest at least three additional avenues of inquiry in
organizations that go beyond a traditional focus on the effects of blatant
expressions of prejudice and discrimination against minorities. One direc­
tion involves the effects of ingroup favoritism on disparities in outcomes
between majority and minority group members. Research on social cate­
gorization demonstrates that people, particularly those with limited inter­
group experience, typically feel more comfortable with members of their
own group than with members of other groups (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2000),
and that they are more open, self-disclosing, and helpful to members of
their own group (Dovidio, Gaertner et al., 1997). When legally protected
groups (such as women or racial and ethnic minorities) are involved, ma­
jority group members may also avoid minority group members out of a fear
of behaving inappropriately, in way that might suggest prejudice or dis­
crimination and place them in organizational or legal jeopardy (Gaertner
& Dovidio, 1986).
This avoidant behavior likely results in less support and less senior spon­
sorship for minority group members than for majority group members in