Ambivalent prejudice

Ambivalent prejudice is a social psychological theory that states when people become aware they have conflicting beliefs about an outgroup (a group of people that do not belong to an individual's own group), they experience an unpleasant mental feeling generally referred to as cognitive dissonance. These feelings are brought about because on one hand an individual believes in humanitarian virtues such as helping those in need, but on the other hand also believes in individualistic virtues such as working hard to improve one’s life.

Bernard Whitley and Mary Kite^[1] contend that this dissonance motivates people to alter their thoughts in an attempt to reduce their discomfort. Depending on the situation or context that has primed them, people will give priority to either the positive beliefs or the negative beliefs leading to a corresponding behavioral shift, known as response amplification.

Views on ambivalent prejudice

According to Bernard Whitley and Mary Kite, ambivalent prejudice comes from one person having both good and bad thoughts about an outgroup^[2]. The example in their book, ”The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination,” talks about race and how White people often have ambivalent attitudes towards Black people. This means that their behavior is also ambivalent, "sometimes it is positive, sometimes negative" (Whitley & Kite, 2010, p. 214).

Irwin Katz said ambivalent prejudice only occurs when the individual becomes aware of the conflicting attitudes, and for most people, simply coming face-to-face with someone from the out-group can cause this^[3]. According to Katz, this conflict of attitudes can cause problems with one's self-image, because it seems as though one is not living up to all important values that one holds. This conflict can cause negative emotions, which are expressed in negative behavior.

Irwin Katz and Glen Hass^[4] believed that contradicting American values is to blame for ambivalent prejudice (1988). The first value is that hard work will always pay off and people get what they deserve. The other is that all people are equal and people should help the less fortunate. When this is applied to race, many White people are torn. They see disadvantaged Black people as not working hard enough to be worth as much as White people, but they also understand that Black people have a harder time financially and socially. These mixed emotions lead to ambivalence.

Tara MacDonald and Mark Zanna suggested that stereotypes were to blame for ambivalent prejudice^[5]. According to MacDonald and Zanna, people can like others and respect others, the two emotions working independently of each other. When a person feels those things towards an entire group, it is because of stereotypes. Therefore, a White person can like and disrespect Black people, due to certain stereotypes, or dislike but respect Black people for other stereotypes.

In a study testing the nature of ambivalent prejudice, Dr. H. Matsuo (2005)^[6] studied American attitudes toward immigrant groups. He proposed that ambivalent prejudice stems from two views. There is a more individualistic attitude, which is associated with the importance of the Protestant work ethic. This attitude is associated with more negative attitudes toward outgroups. The other view is an egalitarian or humanitarian view. This view is associated with more positive attitudes toward outgroups.

Response Amplification

When trying to rid themselves of their cognitive dissonance people tend to act based on the context in which they find themselves. For example if they are having a negative experience they will react more negatively than the situation calls for and if they are having a positive experience they will respond more positively than the situation calls for. Essentially they are amplifying what they think the correct response is in order to prove to themselves that they are not behaving in a prejudiced way.

Example of ambivalent prejudice in action

Susan believes she is a tolerant, accepting person. She agrees that African Americans have many more disadvantages than whites and is therefore supportive of spending tax dollars to help support the poor. However, she also believes that people should work hard for what they want and often wonders why African Americans don't try harder to better themselves. When someone points out that these beliefs contradict with a tolerant perspective, Susan gets very uncomfortable.

In an effort to overcome this discomfort Susan prioritizes one set of beliefs over the other, responding more positively in response to a positive interaction and more negative in response to a negative interaction. In other words If she has a pleasant interaction with an African American she will respond more positively than a person who is not experiencing ambivalent prejudice would and conversely if she has a negative reaction she would respond more negatively than a person who is not experiencing ambivalent prejudice would.

See also

• Ambivalent sexism
• Benevolent prejudice
• Hostile prejudice
• Prejudice
• Ingroups and outgroups

References