Robin Bergh

National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement

About 70% of more than half a million Implicit Association Tests completed by citizens of 34 countries revealed expected implicit stereotypes associating science with males more than with females. We discovered that nation-level implicit stereotypes predicted nation-level sex differences in 8th-grade science and mathematics achievement. Self-reported stereotypes did not provide additional predictive validity of the achievement gap. We suggest that implicit stereotypes and sex differences in science participation and performance are mutually reinforcing, contributing to the persistent gender gap in science engagement.

Generalized Prejudice: Common and Specific Components

This research examined the personality-prejudice relationship and whether personality and social psychological factors predict different aspects of prejudice. We proposed a distinction between a co ...

“Not One of Us” Predictors and Consequences of Denying Ingroup Characteristics to Ambiguous Targets

We investigated individual difference predictors of ascribing ingroup characteristics to negative and positive ambiguous targets. Studies 1 and 2 investigated events involving negative targets whose status as racial (Tsarnaev brothers) or national (Woolwich attackers) ingroup members remained ambiguous. Immediately following the attacks, we presented White Americans and British individuals with the suspects’ images. Those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)—concerned with enforcing status boundaries and adherence to ingroup norms, respectively—perceived these low status and low conformity suspects as looking less White and less British, thus denying them ingroup characteristics. Perceiving suspects in more exclusionary terms increased support for treating them harshly, and for militaristic counter-terrorism policies prioritizing ingroup safety over outgroup harm. Studies 3 and 4 experimentally manipulated a racially ambiguous target’s status and conformity. Results suggested that target status and conformity critically influence SDO’s (status) and RWA’s (conformity) effects on inclusionary versus exclusionary perceptions.

Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated.

Many scholars have proposed that people who reject one outgroup tend to reject other outgroups. Studies examining a latent factor behind different prejudices (e.g., toward ethnic and sexual minorities) have referred to this as generalized prejudice. Such research has also documented robust relations between latent prejudice factors and basic personality traits. However, targets of generalized prejudice tend to be lower in power and status and thus it remains an open question as to whether generalized prejudice, as traditionally studied, is about devaluing outgroups or devaluing marginalized groups. We present 7 studies, including experiments and national probability samples (N = 9,907 and 4,037) assessing the importance of outgroup devaluation, versus status- or power based devaluations, for understanding the nature of generalized prejudice, and its links to personality. Results show that (a) personality variables do not predict ingroup/outgroup biases in settings where power and status differences are absent, (b) women and overweight people who score high on generalized prejudice devalue their own groups, and (c) personality variables are far more predictive of prejudice toward low-compared with high-status targets. Together, these findings suggest that the personality explanation of prejudice including the generalized prejudice concept is not about ingroups versus outgroups per se, but rather about devaluing marginalized groups. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Personality Underpinnings of Explicit and Implicit Generalized Prejudice

The idea of prejudice as a tendency that can be generalized from one target to another and the personality–prejudice relationship have been widely examined using explicit measures. However, less is known about this tendency and its relation to personality for implicit prejudice measures, like the implicit association test (IAT). Three studies including explicit and corresponding implicit prejudice measures toward various target groups confirmed a generalized factor for both types of measures with a stronger common component for the explicit factor. Personality was significantly related to the explicit measures only. Also, the personality and prejudice measures were unrelated to explicit and implicit attitudes toward an irrelevant target which rules out potential method confound. These results indicate that explicit and implicit prejudice measures tap different psychological constructs relating differently to the individual’s self-reported personality. The findings have implications for the debate on whether IAT scores reflect personally endorsed attitudes.

The compatibility of personality and social identity processes: The effect of gender identity on neuroticism.

In an experimental study (N = 186), we examined the effect of identity (gender versus personal) on participants‘ self–rated neuroticism and estimates of mean neuroticism for men and women. Self–rated neuroticism was measured before and after the identity salience manipulation. Following self–categorization theory, we predicted that identity salience would affect levels of self–rated neuroticism and the estimates (perceptions) of mean neuroticism for each sex. From a personality perspective, we expected substantial correlations between pre–manipulation and post–manipulation neuroticism scores in both identity conditions. The relation between participants‘ self–rated neuroticism and their estimates of mean neuroticism for their own sex was also examined. The effect of identity salience was unclear with regard to self–rated neuroticism levels, whereas the manipulation had apparent effects on estimated mean neuroticism levels for men and women. Also, self–rated neuroticism was found to predict estimates of mean neuroticism for men and women in the gender, but not personal, identity condition. Finally, in line with a personality perspective, the relative positions in self–rated neuroticism were highly stable in both conditions. The findings indicate a compatibility of self–categorization theory and personality perspectives and suggest that both are valuable to understand the changeability and stability of the self. Copyright

Comparing a Variable-Centered and a Person-Centered Approach to the Structure of Prejudice:

Whereas research on generalized prejudice is dominated by variable-centered approaches, which focus on communalities between different types of prejudice, we propose a complementary person-centered approach, looking for subgroups of people characterized by similar patterns of prejudice. To this end, we compare the results of a variable-centered (using confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) and a person-centered (using latent class analysis [LCA]) approach to generalized prejudice. While CFA points to a multidimensional solution with a strong overlap between prejudice dimensions, LCA distinguishes five prejudice patterns that cannot be organized along a linear continuum of more versus less prejudiced dispositions. Explanatory models for the two solutions are estimated. Results show that the two methods are largely complementary in conceptualizing generalized prejudice.

Generalized Prejudice: Old Wisdom and New Perspectives

Some individuals seem to carry prejudice with them, from context to context, from attitudes toward one group to attitudes toward other, seemingly unrelated, groups. This reveals itself in correlations between different kinds of prejudice, for example, against Jews and old people. This observation also represents one of the oldest lessons in the prejudice literature (Allport, 1954; Hartley, 1946). What is perhaps more startling is just how much of the variance is shared between different prejudices. More than half of the individual variability in devaluing attitudes toward immigrants; women; gays; and old, overweight, or disabled people can be traced to the same underlying factor (generalized prejudice; see Bergh, Akrami, & Ekehammar, 2012; Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003). Such a big chunk of variance would seem difficult to overlook in the pursuit of a comprehensive understanding of prejudice. In this chapter we initially cover some basic empirical findings and discuss how descriptions of generalized prejudice factor(s) have developed over time. What they all have in common is the idea that devaluing and/or negative attitudes are generalized across group domains (e.g., against various ethnic, age, and religious groups). However, as we elaborate, there are also important themes that differentiate certain views. Second, we discuss some proposed contradictions to generalized prejudice research, as connected to a declining popularity of the concept since Allports time. We note how many of these seeming contradictions can be resolved by statistical reappraisals. In the final section, we discuss a new perspective on what generalized prejudice represents. A central question here is whether generalized prejudice is associated more with a comprehensive concern for societal “order” rather than reflecting an “us versus them” mentality. The Empirical “Fact” Generalized prejudice is primarily reflected in the correlation between measures of devaluation of different groups. Hartley (1946) was one of the pioneers in examining this issue. His participants provided social distance ratings for 39 social groups (mainly ethnic ones), but also three fictitious groups (e.g., Pireneans). He found many substantial correlations between the various group evaluations, including the fictitious ones. Some eight years on, and many studies later, Allport (1954) proclaimed that the generalization of prejudice was “one of the facts of which we are most certain” (p. 68). As provocative as that may sound, and as much as scholars have since departed from his views, there is strong evidence for the basic idea that prejudice reproduces across targets.