Essentialism Promotes Racial Prejudice by Increasing Endorsement of Social Hierarchies

Key Ideas Regarding Essentialism and Prejudice

• Psychological essentialism: This is the belief that social groups (like races) have deep, unchanging natural qualities. This idea can lead to biased views of other groups and increase prejudice by making people think some groups are naturally better or worse than others.
• Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): This refers to how much someone believes society should be organized into hierarchies, where some groups have more power and status than others.
• Attitudes Toward Blacks (ATB) Scale: A survey used to measure conscious (explicit) negative beliefs or prejudice against Black people.
• Feelings thermometers: A way to measure how positively or negatively someone feels about Black and White groups on a scale from 0 (very cold/negative) to 100 (very warm/positive).
• Implicit prejudice: This is unconscious bias, often measured by the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Positive scores mean a bias favoring White people or against Black people, while negative scores mean the opposite.
• Main idea tested: The research looked at whether essentialism makes people support social hierarchies more, and if this, in turn, increases their prejudice, especially against groups seen as lower status (like Black people).

Main Guesses (Hypotheses)

• Essentialism increases prejudice against lower-status groups because it makes people more accepting of social hierarchies. This happens regardless of the observer's race.
• If essentialism mainly sets boundaries between groups, it should predict prejudice against out-groups based on who belongs to which race.
• The belief in social hierarchies acts as a bridge, explaining why essentialism leads to prejudice.
• This idea might also explain negative views within the Black community itself and could apply to other low-status groups.

How Things Were Measured

• Racial essentialism: Measured using an 8-item survey (1-7 scale) asking about how natural, stable, and defining racial categories are. Higher scores mean greater essentialism.
• Explicit prejudice: Measured by the ATB scale (20 statements, 1-7 scale). Higher scores mean more conscious prejudice against Black people.
• Group-based affect: Measured by feelings thermometers for African Americans and European Americans (0-100 scale).
• Implicit prejudice: Measured by the IAT, which compares how quickly people associate White/Black with positive/negative words. Positive D scores mean pro-White/anti-Black bias.
• Additional measurement: SDO-6 (16 items, 1-7 scale). Higher scores mean stronger support for social hierarchies.
• Study participants: A total of $N = 621$ people across three studies.

Pretest and Study 1: Looking for Connections in White and Black Participants

• Pretest (White participants, $n = 151$): Essentialism was linked to conscious prejudice. The correlation between essentialism and ATB was r(145)=0.52, p<0.001. For implicit prejudice (IAT), it was $r(142)=0.22, p=0.008$. Feelings about groups were not strongly related.
• Study 1 (Total $N = 285$): Essentialism predicted conscious prejudice (ATB) for both White (b=0.56, p<0.001) and Black participants (b=0.43, p<0.001). White participants showed a stronger link. For implicit prejudice (IAT), only race had a significant effect, essentialism didn't. The main conclusion was that essentialism is connected to prejudice against Black people for both White and Black observers, suggesting that believing in hierarchies is involved.

Study 2: Testing if Essentialism Causes Prejudice

• Participants: $n = 99$ Black and $n = 89$ White individuals.
• Experiment: Participants read articles either supporting the idea that race has a genetic basis (pro-essentialism) or arguing against it (anti-essentialism).
• Measurements: SDO-6, ATB, IAT.
• Support for hierarchies: Reading pro-essentialism articles increased support for social hierarchies (average M for Pro = 2.30 vs. Anti = 1.90), $F(1,184)=9.07, p=0.003$. This effect was similar for both White and Black participants.
• Conscious prejudice (ATB): White participants showed more conscious prejudice against Black people after reading pro-essentialism articles (Pro = 2.74 vs. Anti = 1.94), F(1,184)=14.60, p<0.001. Black participants' ATB scores were not significantly affected by the articles.
• Implicit prejudice (IAT): Race was the main factor; essentialism didn't generally affect IAT scores.
• Mediation (White participants only): For White participants, the effect of essentialism on conscious prejudice worked by increasing their support for social hierarchies. This was the strongest evidence found in Study 2.

Study 3: Focus on Black Participants with a Simpler Design

• Participants: $N = 98$ Black participants.
• Experiment: Similar essentialism manipulation, followed by SDO-6 and ATB. IAT was removed to make the study shorter.
• Support for hierarchies: Pro-essentialism articles again increased support for social hierarchies among Black participants, $F(1,96)=6.40, p=0.013$.
• Conscious prejudice (ATB): There was a slight trend for essentialism to increase ATB scores, $F(1,96)=2.88, p=0.09$.
• Mediation (White participants, replicated): Similar to Study 2, essentialism influenced prejudice through hierarchy endorsement for White participants (from an earlier subsample).
• Conclusion: Essentialism can influence Black participants' attitudes toward other Black people through their acceptance of social hierarchies, though the effects were less strong and more varied compared to White participants.

Overall Discussion and What It Means

• Main discovery: Essentialism generally increases conscious prejudice against lower-status groups by making people more likely to accept social hierarchies. This happens for both White and Black individuals.
• Mechanism confirmed: The studies consistently show that believing in social hierarchies is the reason essentialism leads to prejudice.
• Explaining prejudice within groups: These findings might help explain why some Black individuals hold negative attitudes toward other Black individuals, viewing it as a general mental bias toward essentialism.
• Real-world advice: Just trying to reduce essentialist beliefs might not be enough to reduce prejudice. Efforts should also focus on changing how people see social structures, hierarchies, and whether they believe status differences are natural or fair.
• Things to consider and future work:
  • The strength of the effects varied, being stronger in White participants.
  • Study 3 was designed simply for Black participants; future research should test other situations and other low-status groups.

Quick Review (Key Points)

• Essentialism is a general thinking bias that shapes beliefs about social hierarchies, not just about individuals.
• When people think in essentialist ways, they are more likely to support social hierarchies and be prejudiced against lower-status groups, and this happens because of their acceptance of these hierarchies.
• This process is evident in both White and Black observers, but the strength of the effects differs based on race and situation.
• To effectively reduce prejudice, efforts should target both essentialist beliefs and the idea that social hierarchies are natural.

Key numbers to remember

• Total participants across all studies: $N=621$.
• Pretest: Essentialism and ATB link: r(145)=0.52, p<0.001; Essentialism and implicit prejudice (IAT) for White participants: $r(142)=0.22, p=0.009$.
• Study 1: Essentialism prediction of ATB: White b=0.56, p<0.001; Black b=0.43, p<0.001; racial interaction $p=0.008$.
• Study 2: Increase in hierarchy endorsement due to essentialism: $F(1,184)=9.07, p=0.003$; White ATB effect from essentialism: F(1,184)=14.60, p<0.001.
• Study 3: Hierarchy endorsement increase: $F(1,96)=6.40, p=0.013$; ATB effect (marginal): $F(1,96)=2.88, p=0.09$. White mediation effect (indirect): $k^2=0.34$ (consistent with Study 2).