Personality and Social Psychology Review

The study of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) as predictors of prejudice has represented an attempt to explain group dynamics in terms of individual traits. In contrast, I argue that the individual tendencies that predict prejudice are actually a product of group dynamics. This article critiques personality approaches, focusing primarily on authoritarianism and secondarily on social dominance, and defends a model that explains the 2 variables in terms of discrete group processes. According to the Dual Group Processes model, SDO reflects category differentiation, which involves the evaluation of individuals on the basis of their category membership. RWA reflects normative differentiation, which involves the evaluation of ingroup members on the basis of their prototypicality. Authoritarian aggression—whether against ethnic minorities or other targets—is conceptualized as an intragroup phenomenon, involving the rejection of perceived antinorm deviants who threaten the longevity or legitimacy of social norms.

For the past 40 years, social psychological research on stereotyping and prejudice in the United States has been dominated by the social cognition perspective, which has emphasized the important role of basic categorization processes in intergroup dynamics. An inadvertent consequence of this approach has been a disproportionate focus on social categorization as a causal factor in intergroup animosity and, accordingly, an emphasis on approaches that minimize category distinctions as the solution to intergroup conflict. Though recognizing the crucial function of categorization, we question existing support for the hypothesis that the perception of strong group differences necessarily results in greater intergroup bias. Given that it is neither feasible nor ultimately desirable to imagine that social categories can be eliminated, we suggest that a more useful approach is one that promotes intergroup harmony even while recognizing and valuing the distinctions that define our social world.

This article shows that 35 years of empirical research on teacher expectations justifies the following conclusions: (a) Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom do occur, but these effects are typically small, they do not accumulate greatly across perceivers or over time, and they may be more likely to dissipate than accumulate; (b) powerful self-fulfilling prophecies may selectively occur among students from stigmatized social groups; (c) whether self-fulfilling prophecies affect intelligence, and whether they in general do more harm than good, remains unclear, and (d) teacher expectations may predict student outcomes more because these expectations are accurate than because they are self-fulfilling. Implications for future research, the role of self-fulfilling prophecies in social problems, and perspectives emphasizing the power of erroneous beliefs to create social reality are discussed.

This review highlights the value of empirical investigations examining actual interactions that occur between stigmatizers and targets, and is intended to stimulate and help guide research of this type. We identify trends in the literature demonstrating that research studying ongoing interactions between stigmatizers and targets is relatively less common than in the past. Interactive studies are challenging, complex, and have variables that are sometimes more difficult to control; yet, they offer unique insights and significant contributions to understanding stigma-related phenomena that may not be offered in other (e.g., self-report) paradigms. This article presents a conceptual and empirical overview of stigma research, delineates the unique contributions that have been made by conducting interactive studies, and proposes what can be further learned by conducting more of such research.