Abstract

An attempt to discover the developmental roots of prejudice formation was the primary theme of this research in an effort to determine possible prevention measures to eliminate the presence of prejudice. Parenting and infant attachment styles were found to be the unifying theme in creating some of the foundations and differences between prejudiced and nonprejudiced personalities. Defining the characteristics of these two distinctive personalities provided the instruments of exploratory research and eventual possibilities for suggesting successful preventive measure. Personality constructs of self, emotion, coping strategies, among others were represented in the research.

Searching for the Roots of Prejudice: A Developmental Analysis

To be quite honest, the motivations behind this project come from much of the frustration and confusion I felt after an experience with prejudice that left me deeply questioning the very foundations of my thinking, and in effect, the thinking of others. After evaluating my experience, what I found most disheartening was the mere fact that we, as a society, still hold onto the prejudices of the past, despite efforts to reduce them. What surprised me the most, however, was how frequently I encountered the same conservative and stereotypical thinking, typically resounding in older generations, within the children and younger adults of my generation. In a time where the overt expression of prejudice has been decreasing (Plant & Devine, 1998), what, indeed, accounts for this continuing prevalence of prejudiced thinking in the more diversely educated younger generations? More importantly and representative of the reasons underlying this investigative search, what makes a person act in prejudiced ways, and upon what foundations is this belief system created?

No one can dismiss the shattering effects of hate crimes, sexual harassment, and other types of prejudiced-driven violence that flash across the television screens and newspapers on, what seems, a daily basis. While these incidences represent the more extreme and media- popularized forms of prejudice, more subtle incidences occur in the most elementary parts of daily life: in conversation, while walking down the street, or in the neighborhood grocery store. 1n most of these cases, an individual may show prejudice and may not even realize it. For instance, while walking on the street, an individual encounters a man very disheveled. He looks dirty; his clothes are ragged; and, his facial expression emits a feeling of been fatigued. Upon first impression, one individual believes this man to be a homeless person. Thinking the man wants to ask for money, the individual noticeably begins to look down, avoiding visual contact and begins diverting direction to increase the distance from this man while passing him on the street. A second individual begins to approach this same man and makes eye contact with him, upon asking, “how are you doing?” The disheveled man smiles and replies, “Been a long day, I just helped finish building a room in my daughter’s house, and I’m heading to the lumberyard to pick up some more wood.” After this interaction, both engage in a short conversation, passing a few more short comments on the happenings of their day, and finally move on to their intended destinations before meeting.

The first individual made many assumptions in his first impression of the “disheveled” man on the street, most notably ones associated with stereotypical thinking. Stereotypes are generalizations made of a group which are then used to characterize its individual members without considering their uniqueness (Aronson, Wilson, & Akert, 1997). In the example just presented, the first individual primarily looked at the man’s appearance, noting the characteristics seeming most representative of a homeless person, such as the “ragged” clothes, “dirty” face, and “tired” facial expression. Assuming these characteristics were representative of “homeless” people, the individual then made a second assumption that all homeless people ask for money. This first individual engaged in an automatic processing of these stereotypes, which then initiated the formation of an attitude that homeless people are bad and seemingly not worthy of contact (Devine, 1989). This “hostile or negative” attitude toward a member of a group because of characteristics defining that particular group, homeless people in this case, is otherwise known as prejudice (Aronson, et. al., 1997, p. 478). When prejudice results in negative and unjustified actions against members of a stereotyped groups, as exemplified by this individual’s distancing behavior, it becomes known as discrimination (Aronson, et. al., 1997).

The second individual may have processed these same stereotypes upon first encountering the man on the street, but on the other hand, engaged in further investigation of these stereotypes through controlled processing (Devine, 1989). During controlled processing, stereotypes are evaluated on their foundations and determined unjustified if faced with examples that cease to support the generalization. Based on this evaluative process, stereotypes associated with prejudiced attitudes gradually become eliminated or less automatic, and new nonprejudiced attitudes are then formed to replace them. Controlled processing requires much effort to attend to the fallacies within stereotypes, while automatic processing requires little if any attention. Stereotypes are automatic processes because they are most often ingrained early in childhood, and therefore are brought up easily when one encounters a situation like the one mentioned.

Devine (1989), through her research on these processes, noted that those participants who used controlled processing, therefore evaluating their adherence to stereotypes, were more likely to hold nonprejudiced attitudes. Those who formed attitudes consistent with the automatic processing of stereotypes were less likely to engage in controlled processing and therefore more likely to maintain prejudiced attitudes. In the example, the first individual mostly likely held a prejudiced attitude based on what characterized a “ homeless person” stereotype, while the second individual probably engaged in controlled processing in order to evaluate the stereotype (by initiating contact) in efforts to replace it (realizing that not all “disheveled” men are homeless), which in turn led to the formation of a non-prejudiced attitude (Devine, 1989; Simoni, 1996).

There are noticeable differences between the personalities of prejudiced and non-prejudiced individuals, and most of these differences are based on the foundations of self concept (Brown, 1998). Individuals most often tend to use the “self as a reference point when judging others,” and this would be indicative of situations that involve making differential comparisons such as those of prejudice (p. 1 12). The more cognizant and judgmental one is of aspects within the self, the more likely one is to be discriminative of similar characteristics in other individuals. How confident one feels in what represents the self concept determines which social situations he or she will engage in within the environment. For instance, Simoni (1996) found that a higher self-esteem determined whether a participant would initiate contact with a member of a stigmatized group, specifically those of non-heterosexual orientation. When contact was initiated with positive outcomes, these higher-esteemed individuals were then more able to dis-spell their negative stereotypes, thus building non-prejudiced attitudes. Self-concept and its related components, such as esteem, identity, and emotion, will be explored further in this research to investigate the differences between prejudiced and non-prejudiced personalities and the roots of their existence.

Taking the search for the roots of prejudice back to its developmental constructs requires not only an examination at how judgmental personalities develop, but also a thorough look at who instills these values in the first place. Differences between prejudiced and non-prejudiced personalities are most attributed to the learning, which takes place early in childhood development (Santrock, 1997). The caregiver-child interaction early on helps to build a child’s sense of security, an ability to cope with things novel and ambiguous, as well as a child’s individuality and independence. Attachment and parenting styles are the most defined methods used by researchers in creating connections between a child’s early development and what will then characterize a child’s personality into the maturation of adulthood (Baumrind, 1966; Baumrind, 1993; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). As already attested, the confidence and security a child builds and maintains through development can strongly affect whether an individual will evaluate their environment in alternative ways, especially in situations involving prejudice. How caregivers contribute to the development of prejudiced attitudes will be explored further, especially through an examination of the authoritarian personality and the restrictive effects of its associated parenting style (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Baumrind, 1966).

Much of today’s efforts to eliminate prejudice are centralized around trying to create methods to reduce the initiation of judgmental attitudes and discriminating behavior, while little effort is devoted to devising preventive methods (Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991; Monteith, Devine, & Zuwerink, 1993; Plant & Devine, 1998). Motivation plays a major role in the process to respond without prejudice when confronted with a stereotype-provoking situation (Plant & Devine, 1998). When individuals react in ways that are not representative of their non-prejudiced standards, negative affective responses are experienced. Nonprejudiced individuals, as a result, use this affect as motivation to control the activation of stereotypes, thus trying to decrease and eventually eliminate prejudiced responses (Monteith, et al., 1993). The roles of motivation and emotion will be examined more thoroughly in efforts to explain the prejudice reduction process, yet what has driven the investigation in this research resolves primarily around determining preventive methods for eliminating prejudice. Hopefully through exploring the developmental constructs of prejudice formation, it will be possible to guide the direction of perspective in this area.

To thoroughly examine all of the topics presented here will involve an interdisciplinary analysis of many areas of psychology, with a primary focus on cognitive, developmental, and social concepts. As the title indicates, the organization of this research will follow human development as it relates to the factors affecting prejudice formation. The research will begin, however, with an explanation of how the development of “natural categories” as a way to simplify and organize the environment leads to the development of stereotypes, prejudice, and eventually discrimination (Reed, 1996, p. 235). Presenting this cognitive and social foundation of prejudice builds an elementary understanding of this concept, while at the same time allowing a transition into the developmental constructs that define its creation and progression throughout human maturation from infancy into adulthood.

Natural Categorization: Where prejudice begins

Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin (1956), in making the following conclusion from their research, successfully develop the connection between the uses of categorization in beginning the elementary roots to prejudice:  To categorize is to render discriminable different things equivalent, to group the objects and events around us into classes, and to respond to them in terms of their class membership rather than their uniqueness (as cited in Reed, 1996, p. 219).  Objects in the environment tend to fall into natural categories, or groups, which can then be further categorized based on distinctive characteristics (Reed, 1996). Classifying complex sensory stimuli into groups simplifies the process of organizing and perceiving the world in which everyone lives. This process not only serves a useful purpose for perceiving objects, but people as well (Anderson & Klatzky, 1987). Natural categorization involves forming hierarchies ranging from the overall group’s defining characteristics to the breakdown into more specified and unique characteristics of particular members. To apply this to person perception, if the students of an introductory class were categorized, the process would most likely begin by distinguishing groups based on gender. These two groups would represent the top of the hierarchy, with subgroups breaking down by more distinctive characteristics such as height, nationality, or academic major. By associating people with larger groups, greater “predictive power” is produced because many generalizations, and therefore assumptions, can be made based on group membership (Anderson & Klatzky, 1987, p. 235).

In society, people tend to form social groups based on these categorizations as well, thus creating their self-concepts based on membership within a particular group (Blascovich, Wyer, Swart, & Kibler, 1997). Associating oneself or another person with certain social groups has growing consequences when people begin to use these groups to form stereotypes, or value-based judgments based on the physical characteristics or behaviors of a particular group (Anderson & Klatzky, 1987). While stereotypes can be both positive or negative, by focusing on a group’s similarity instead of an individual’s uniqueness, people are more likely to make sweeping generalizations based on these stereotypes, therefore ignoring the distinctive qualities of a particular group member (Reed, 1996).

Stereotypes are dominantly influenced by the process of categorization (Devine, 1989). With the development of stereotypes from cognitive processing, prejudice becomes the next level of response. Prejudice is an attitude, or an affective response that evolves from placing value on the differences between groups (Aronson, et. aL, 1997). For instance, many stereotypes exist about the perceived abilities of different culture groups. In particular, one such stereotype associates accelerated math abilities with those of Asian decent. If an employer hires an Asian, rather than the typical Joe, as a math teacher, the employer is showing a positive prejudice toward the Asian and a negative prejudice against the “typical Joe” based on the presented stereotype. While one can show positive or negative prejudices, it is the negative forms which create the most problems within today’s society. The negative form of prejudice is defined as “hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group” (p. 478). While there are some who believe that there is a strong association between stereotyping and prejudice formation, there are others who claim that the knowledge of a stereotype is different from the belief in a stereotype, therefore downplaying a direct connection between the two (Devine, 1989). 1n other words, there is a difference between cognitively activating a stereotype and assimilating it into one’s belief system, and this process is based on evaluation.

The following observation by Morley (1886), “labels are devices for saving talkative persons the trouble of thinking,” makes a rather direct, yet revealing, statement about those who readily accept stereotypes into their personal beliefs, and those who do not (as cited in Gilbert & Hixon, 1991, p. 509). The acceptance or evaluation of stereotypes involves automatic and controlled processing (Devine, 1989). These cognitive-based methods of categorizing are used to interpret how well an object in the environment represents the prototypical model for group membership. The prototype of a group has all of the group’s defining characteristics and is used as the general representative when encountering novel stimuli (Reed, 1996). To give an example, a “prototypical” baby representative would most likely have two sets of extremities, a hairless head, and would probably be curled up in the “fetal position,” among other defining characteristics. Any time one would encounter a baby, he or she would bring up this prototypical model.

This process would typically involve automatic processing. These processes are based on associations made between a group and its defining characteristics. Automatic processes are unintentional in that they can be readily activated by the presence of stimuli in the environment (Devine, 1989). This indicates that a person has already learned to make an association between a particular object and its assumed characteristics at some point previously and then has repeatedly been exposed to this association enough for it to become “automatic” with subsequent exposures to the stimulus.

Suppose, for instance, one has learned that a dog barks. Every time one sees a dog barking after this, this person will automatically reactivate this association upon initially encountering another dog. Controlled processing, however, is intentional and requires an individual’s attention before making an association (Devine, 1989). A controlled process would be activated, in this case, if one was presented with a dog who did not bark, and then based on this observation, had to determine whether or not this animal was, indeed, a dog. fri other words, this person would need to evaluate the defining characteristics of dogs to make this association. This process cannot be seen as automatic because one cannot nonconsciously determine if this particular animal belongs to the group without examining its defining characteristics, therefore requiring the use of attention. As a result, controlled processes have considerable usefulness in “decision making, problem solving, and the initiation of new behaviors” (Devine, 1989, p. 6).

Stereotypes are usually seen as representative of automatic processing. The ability of one to use controlled processing to downplay the automatic processing of stereotypes begins to determine the distinct differences between one who holds prejudiced attitudes versus one who does not (Devine, 1989). Stereotypes are often introduced very early in a child’s development and therefore have significantly more time to be activated, thus becoming automatic. For an individual who holds different personal beliefs from a formed stereotype, the controlled processing that must take place to counteract the activation of a stereotype and bring forth the personal belief requires increased and continuing attention. An evaluated personal standard, then, requires much attended effort to become automatic. Children learn to evaluate their personal beliefs much later in the developmental process, so newly developed beliefs have had less cognitive activation, further exemplifying the increased efforts associated with controlled processing (Devine, 1989). As a result, stereotypes become more accessible, because as Gilbert and Hixon (1991) state, the evaluation involved in controlling stereotype activation often appears too difficult.

In a study conducted by Devine (1989), the relationship between automatic processing of stereotypes and the controlled processing required to form non-prejudiced attitudes was explored. Results indicated that many people have the automatic processes of stereotypes available, but Devine was careful to say that this does not show prejudice. The mind is aware of many associations based on beliefs and attitudes within the environment, but there is not sufficient evidence to support the relations between stereotype knowledge and prejudice. One can be non-prejudiced by activating controlled processes for personal beliefs and inhibiting the automatic processes for an established stereotype. When high and low-prejudiced subjects were given the opportunity, in anonymous conditions, to write down their beliefs about a stereotyped group, high-prejudiced subjects were more likely to respond consistently with the stereotype, while low-prejudiced subjects used the opportunity to display their true beliefs, which ceased to coincide with negative stereotypes. These subjects have consciously made the decision to inhibit activation of stereotypes by replacing them with evaluated non-prejudiced beliefs. This observation seems to indicate that some form of resiliency, or motivation in light of difficulty, is needed to decrease stereotype activation in an effort to form non-prejudiced attitudes (LePageLees, 1997). The controlled processing in this exercise indicates the increased attention and evaluation needed to respond according to personal belief systems (Devine, 1989). Subjects were more likely to report thoughts that were consistent with their prejudiced or non-prejudiced identity. These results indicate that prejudiced individuals are more likely to make assumptions about a person based on the characteristics of a categorized group, whereas non-prejudiced subjects are more likely to display individual responses that downplayed the stereotyped beliefs about a group.

Non-prejudice and Perspective Taking: A Central Concept

Some conclusions can be made in beginning to distinguish between the personalities of prejudiced and non-prejudiced individuals based on some of the research presented. Before exploring developmental concepts, it is necessary to identify what defines the main differences between these two distinctive personalities. What becomes most apparent is the ability and desire of non-prejudiced individuals to engage in alternative thinking and perspective taking behaviors (Aronson, et al., 1997; Bagozzi, 1992; Santrock, 1997). Given that stereotypes are often established in a child’ s mind before maturing cognitively enough to challenge them, the ability to later evaluate the foundations of these stereotypes requires the ability to think flexibly to create a diversity of perspectives during evaluative processes, such as the one involving stereotype inhibition (Devine, 1989).

Perspective taking is defined as the ability to understand another’s thoughts and feelings by assuming a perspective other than one’ s own. Being able to adequately develop this skill not only is considered valuable in creating positive social interactions, but associated with the evaluative process behind “reasoned behavior” (Bagozzi, 1992, p. 178). One who engages in reasoned behavior is activating controlled processes, those that are fundamental in being able to develop new behaviors, such as those connected with acting in non-prejudiced ways (Devine, 1989).

Perspective taking begins in early childhood with most adopting egocentric viewpoints, but as children mature into adolescence, they become more self-reflective and flexible to other viewpoints (Wang & Van Horn, 1981). Broadening one’s viewpoints are elementary in the process maintain non-prejudiced attitudes toward others. The process begins by sensing differentiation in the environment in early childhood which gradually progresses to the ability to see and understand other viewpoints. Most of the foundations of perspective taking lie in the development of self, which will be discussed later. To begin this developmental investigation into prejudice roots, it seems most logical to start in infancy with the development of attachment styles. From there, these attachment styles will then be related to particular styles of parenting which either encourage or discourage prejudiced thinking.

Infant Attachment: Developing a Sense of Security

To explore the nature of prejudice formation thoroughly, a look into its developmental factors during infancy and early childhood is essential in showing the insightful connections to a later discriminatory nature. Developmental psychologists such as Ainsworth (1979), Erikson (1968), and Bowlby (1969, 1989), have consistently highlighted the importance of a child’s first year of life in the creation of a secure psychological foundation in later experiences, and what many of them have reported to contribute to this foundation is the infant and caregiver’s ability to form a sustaining attachment (as cited in Santrock, 1997). On the other hand, other psychologists disagree with this primary role of attachment and proclaim that temperament also plays a highly contributory role (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas, Chess, Hinde, & McCall, 1987). It is the effort here to explain both the forms of attachment and temperament and their connection to prejudice formation.

Beginning with Ainsworth’s (1972) development of the “Strange Situation” in which infants were introduced to various separation and reunion episodes with the primary caregiver, subsequent research has shown that secure infant attachment is elementary in a child’s emerging confidence in exploring the environment and further adaptation skills of flexibility and problem solving capabilities (as cited in Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Infants, by nature, are curious, so therefore, exploring the novelty in their environment becomes an inherent desire to settle their surmounting curiosity. Infants, however, only feel this security to explore after establishing a strong bond of attachment with the caregiver, through which the caregiver has communicated one’s stability in the infant’s life. If an infant has not developed this security, the caregiver and infant attachment is not creating the adaptive skills shown in most interactions (Sroufe & Waters, 1977).

There are three primary forms of infant-caregiver attachment styles which Ainsworth and her colleagues use to describe the infant’s security in exploring the environment (Crowell & Feldman, 1991; Santrock, 1997; Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Typically the caregiver is seen as the mother, but the caregiver is termed as the person who serves the primary role in taking care of a child. The first, secure attachment, is a style characterized by the infant’s ability to use the caregiver as the foundation from which to move within the environment. The caregiver shows increased sensitivity to the infant’ s needs and maintains fulfillment of them in an effort to promote security and stability when a child wishes to investigate or is introduced to a separation. An insecurely attached infant exhibits either avoidant or resistant behavior toward the caregiver when introduced into a separation episode. The insecure-avoidant infants tend to ignore and avoid the caregiver, and thus, are less likely to maintain close proximity to the caregiver. Insecure-resistant infants show a “clinging” yet resistant behavior characterized by holding on but simultaneously pushing away.

The type and strength of attachment behavior established in infancy has been consistently related to behavior patterns in later development (Sroufe & Waters, 1977). Attachment in infancy may hold considerable meaning for predicting the strength and viability of many other interactions later in childhood and adolescence, such as peer group socializations. While securely attached infants would likely exhibit adapting and fruitful interactions within peer groups, those children who were insecurely attached in infancy, either through resistance or avoidance, are predicted to develop less sustainable and thriving interactions.

Consequently, researchers have shown that the type of attachment behavior a caregiver experienced in childhood is linked to subsequent attachment styles established with a child in parenting. (Cowan, Cowan, Cohn, & Pearson, 1996; Crowell & Feldman, 1991). Crowell and Feldman (199 1) examined “working models of attachment” to refer to the experiences that characterized a caregiver’ s interaction as a child with a parent, which are therefore unconsciously incorporated when “interpret[ing] and act[ing] on new experiences” (p. 597). In other words, the type of relationships formed in childhood can be used by adults as a basis for forming future relationships, especially, in this case, those in conjunction with parenting.

Using the Adult Attachment Interview, caregivers were categorized based on childhood descriptions of family relationships, the form of language used in communicating these experiences, and the connection between the childhood and parenting experiences. Results from this interview led Crowell and Feldman (1 991) to determine three adult attachment classifications: secure, preoccupied, and dismissing. In a secure adult attachment style, an individual clearly portrays a diversity of childhood experiences “acknowledg[ing] both positive and negative experiences and emotions” (Crowell & Feldman, 1991, p. 597). Adults associated with insecure (preoccupied and dismissing) attachment styles either tend to dismiss the meaningfulness of negative childhood experiences, or show a continued preoccupation with parents based on unresolved childhood conflicts. These attachment behaviors associated with caregivers’ childhood experiences have been connected with the types of attachment that are then formed with their children.

Specifically in this study, Crowell and Feldman (1991) determined a relation between adult attachment classifications and the caregiver’s, the mother in this case, behavior during separation and reunion phases with the infant. Secure mothers showed affection toward their child which carried over to an ease of transition in separation, which was followed with the mother regaining closeness and affection upon return. Insecure and dismissive mothers exhibited little uneasiness in leaving their children, though the child showed less acceptance of the separation. Upon reunion with the children, mothers remained distant and uninvolved while their children often showed little eye contact as well. Both mother and child tended to show avoidant behavior. With preoccupied mothers, separations tended to be difficult; mothers were anxious and made few attempts to ease the comfort or prepare the child for separation. Similar to the responses portrayed by dismissive mothers with their children, both preoccupied mothers and their children tended to avoid one another, thus limiting the interaction and eye contact typically displayed by secure mothers.

Following this particular research, Cowan, et al. (1996) made further connections with the working models of attachments and children’s behaviors. Adult attachment classifications not only have an effect on parent-child relationships, but in the abilities for children to adapt to their environment as well. In effect, secure and insecure adult attachment also implicates the style of parenting a caregiver may adopt with their children. Examining the interactions of both mothers and fathers with their children along with the effect of marital relations, results showed a distinct relation between marital interaction with the effectiveness of parenting, and thus the tendency of children to either internalize or externalize behaviors in stressful situations in childhood. When one internalizes behavior based on stress, one usually feels depressed; while one who externalizes behavior typically engages in some form of outward negative response, such as aggression. Fathers tend to contribute to predicting a child’s likelihood of externalizing behavior, more so because they are implicated in increased problems of aggression. On the other hand, mothers tend to internalize behavior, thus explaining the increased prevalence of depression behaviors among this group. Depending on whether the mother is seen as the more “dominant” character in the family system, this effect can exhibit influence on a child’s tendency to either internalize or externalize behavior.

To relate this to prejudice concepts, the externalizing of behavior representative of this study would most likely lead to discriminatory reactions if one held highly prejudiced attitudes. On the other hand, non-prejudiced individuals would more likely react in controlled ways to create “reasoned behavior” rather than behavior based on impulse (Bagozzi, 1992). Examining the types of behavior patterns exhibited by parents in relating to the development of a child’s behavior opens up the exploration into the caregivers, themselves, as a way to determine their contributatory role in prejudice formation.

Parenting Styles: A Strong Pathway to Prejudice

While human development in its early stages depends heavily on the style of attachment between the parent and child, another factor plays a distinct role in creating a viable, secure, and flexible environment in development. Parenting styles not only play a major factor in early development but hold a sustainable role in the continuing growth of a child to an adult. Parents are the primary “teachers,” so to speak, for a child until school age, so it becomes easier to see that what a child learns and how a child copes in the parent-child environment early on creates a foundation for future relationships.

Beyond this link, there is also sufficient evidence that a particular parenting style, authoritarian, plays a role in the formation of a prejudiced thinking (Adorno, et al., 1950). Much of this is apparent from evidence showing that the type of parenting style that is adopted is consistently related to the flexibility of a parent’s own beliefs. A generational cycle can be formed, for better or worse, transferring the beliefs underlying the parenting style onto a child. Through this process, the child then may adopt the pattern of thinking into his or her self belief, therefore passing it on into later relationships (Cowan, et al., 1996). The effort here is to define the different styles of parenting, to show how they affect a child’s development, and finally to demonstrate their contributing role in the foundations for self, emotional, and social development.

Parenting styles are the way in which a caregiver fosters emotional support, establishes control, and affects a child’s mode of thinking within his or her environment. There are three types of parenting styles that are the most apparent in child-rearing practices, and those are permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian (Baumrind, 1966). There are distinct characteristics of each of these parenting styles, and what will become especially apparent, is the way in which each fosters a child’s sense of self and independence, emotionality, and social identity. Examining these parenting styles allows opportunity to then form connections to the personality characteristics of prejudiced and non-prejudiced individuals.

Permissive, authoritative, and authoritarian methods differ most overall in one particular element: control. This element of control and how it is manifested, maintained, and adapted within a parent-child construct represents the underlying connection between all of these parenting styles (Adomo, et al., 1950). Permissive and authoritarian styles characterize the extremes on this element, from lack of to excessive control, while authoritative parenting establishes a healthy and flexible balance in control between the two.

What characterizes the permissive parenting style is a primary lack of restraint in guiding a child’s behavior (Baumrind, 1966). Permissive parents tend to exhibit little control where the child is concerned, most exemplified by the “nonpunitive, acceptant, and affirmative manner toward the child’s impulses, desires, and actions” (p. 889). The parent acts as a nonjudgmental standard neither enforcing personal beliefs upon the child nor encouraging the child to accept external beliefs. In this effort, the child is most likely promoted to be self-regulated, determining his or her own needs and standards by which to act on and adapt to the environment. As a result, this lack of control encourages the child to show little concern or restraint in impulse expression or acknowledgment of how actions affect the self or others.

The need for control is seen by authoritarian parents as the fundamental means of shaping behavior and forcing adherence to their standards (Adorno, et al., 1950; Baumrind, 1966). Authoritarian control, in most cases, is used by parents in extreme measures in an effort to exert firm and restrictive hold over a child’s behavior. Obedience to parental standard is strongly ingrained into the child with punishment and hostility used as instruments in forming this pattern. As a result, the child exhibits no freedom to explore alternative thinking or behavior for fear of disrupting order or letting down the parents.

The most notable history underlying the formation of the authoritarian parenting style arose from and is distinctly related to the behaviors exhibited by Adolf Hitler in his non-compassionate attempt to nullify and eliminate the presence of the Jews in concentration camps in Germany. Though extreme behaviors were carried out, it was found that most of the guards were not abnormal or over the edge, but were influenced greatly by the threat of defying authoritarian control (Aronson, et al., 1997). Out of this event, researchers were able to determine characteristics of the authoritarian personality while at the same time creating an awareness of its foundations (Adorno, et al., 1950). Authoritarian parents show intolerance of the desire for independent thinking in a child, therefore instilling a sense of weakness and helplessness against those of authority. The child becomes submissive to the parent, but feels anger toward them for their hostility. Since this anger cannot be unleashed on the authoritarian parents, the child instead releases this anger against others. Children of authoritarian parents are those most likely to maintain the prejudiced thinking exhibited by their parents because they were forbidden to engage in alternative thinking behaviors while under their parental control. As a result, stereotypes are automatically processed and acted upon in discriminative ways, which would be less likely of a child who was allowed to explore other perspectives outside those standards set by the parents.

Self Development

Building the sense of self encompasses the development of self esteem, identity, and self awareness (Brown, 1998). Much of this development begins in the early stages of infancy and progresses to more monumental stages in early childhood through adolescence. While later development is key in the maturation and achievement stages of self esteem, identity, and self awareness, the foundation of this growth lies in infancy and early childhood in strong connection with a security of attachment. Within this connection lies the basis of prejudice formation, especially so because much of a degradation of others arises out of an insecure sense of self.

The most important and underlying development associated with a sense of self arises out of an achievement of identity. The composition of self, according to research conducted by Cheek, Tropp, Chen, and Underwood (1994), consists of a breakdown into separate identities, those primarily being ones of a social, personal, and collective nature (as cited in Brown, 1998). The process of identity development involves stages of crisis and conflict where one explores various aspects of self with questions such as “who am I?” and “who do I want to be?” in an effort to resolve what is noted by Erikson (1968) as “identity diffusion” (as cited in Santrock, 1997, p. 398). Crisis is the foundation of identity exploration. It represents a period where one searches for meaning and is illustrated predominately by the development of alternative thinking and perspective taking different from established beliefs set by parents and other primary influencers as a way to determine one’s self belief. If crises during identity development are not resolved, one remains in either the identity diffusion, foreclosure, or moratorium stages, which are stages characterized by a lack of or inadequate attainment or resolution of crisis and commitment.

Social identities refer to the part of self where one considers how he or she is perceived by others within particular social realms surrounding family, religion, ethnicity, politics, and work, to give a few examples. There is a perceived difference between those social identities one is born with, such as ethnic background, and those acquired through experiences, such as a religious affiliation. These differences are associated with a particular identity one fulfills while acting upon others within a certain social environment. For instance, if one is at home within the family environment, one would most likely take on the role of sister, brother, mother, or father, depending on, of course, which role he or she is defined as in the family. On the other hand, if this same person is participating in a political convention, he or she would most likely be labeled in this context as either Democrat, Republican, Liberterian, or another group, depending on political affiliation. Which social identity receives most attention depends on the type of social situation one is involved in. Many of the underlying aspects of social identities involve the emergence and labeling of groups.

Stigmatized Groups and their Self-protective strategies: Locus of Control

When negative associations are connected to this labeling process, the initial stages of stigmatization begin to develop (Crocker & Major, 1989). Stigmatization involves the emergence of negative attitudes, stereotypes, or beliefs about a particular social category which are then typically related to “poor interpersonal or economic outcomes relative to members of the society at large because of discrimination. . .“ (p. 609). The distinction between a stigmatized group and a general outgroup is the fact that stigmatized groups are out-groups in comparison to the dominant culture group, whereas general out-groups are simply compared to in-groups (they may not be dominant). To clarify, a stigmatized group at a university might be those who have a homosexual orientation, most likely considered a minority group, whereas the dominant culture group would be those who are heterosexual in orientation. General in-groups or out-groups on this same campus could be characterized by the association with a sorority, fraternity, or independent group. Belonging to one particular sorority may be considered the in-group, but this in-group would not represent the dominant group, because most women attending the university would not belong to this ingroup, only a select few.

Stigmatized groups are most likely to be the target of prejudice and discrimination (Crocker & Major, 1989). Members of these groups, however, typically exhibit high global self- esteem either equal to or higher than members from non-stigmatized groups. Contrary to expectations, Crocker and Major (1989) and Hillman, Wood, and Sawilowsky (1998) found that self-esteem is not lowered on the basis of prejudice and discrimination, thus indicating that these members engage in self- protective methods to displace the negative effects of attacks on the self. Specifically through their literature research, Crocker and Major identified three protective mechanisms used by members of stigmatized groups. In an effort to relinquish the effects of prejudice against self-esteem, individuals within these groups associate the negative evaluations as an attack against the group rather than themselves as a member. Also, by comparing one’s poor performance or negative feedback with other members’ similar negative evaluation, an individual member lessens the negative effect on one’ s personal self-esteem. Lastly, devaluing is used as a self-protective strategy in an effort to downplay poor or negative feedback, yet attributing value to those evaluations and performances that help to boost self-esteem. Those who internalize the negative attitudes and stereotyping set by those of the nonstigmatized group, however, are vulnerable to damaging effects on self-esteem. Crocker and Major suggest that this effect is most likely to develop in individuals whose social stigma is more apparent to others or those who have just been labeled as a member of a stigmatized group.

Devaluing was a concept introduced in research conducted by Steele and Aronson (1995) in efforts to investigate self-protective strategies used by African Americans in academic performance. In what became known as “stereotype threat,” Steele and Aronson (1995) identified the prevalence of African Americans to feel an excess pressure to conform to standard stereotypes when put in situations where they seem to have to prove the validation of the stereotype, such as in standardized test situations (p. 797). When participants were told that the standardized test did not reflect on their intellectual ability, the African American participants were able to devalue the pre-existing stereotype to perform quite equally to the White participants taking the same test.

Locus of control coping strategies are significantly positively related to self-esteem development (Madonna & Philpot, 1996). Individuals exhibiting an internal locus of control, meaning that positive reinforcement given to an individual is attributed to one’s personal effort and ability, are more likely to harbor a high self-esteem. As a result, they are more likely to feel control over their environment, indicating more feelings of independence (Chubb, Fertman, & Ross, 1997). External locus of control, on the hand, is defined as the reinforcement given on the basis of luck or chance without any personal effort. Developing an internal locus of control can also be traced back to “being raised in a home environment that is warm, protective, and nurturing” (p. 1 16). According to this evidence, authoritative parenting associated with a secure attachment style would most likely be inducing the aforementioned environment (Baumrind, 1966; Crowell & Feldman, 1991).

Self Esteem: How it can decrease prejudice formation

From a different perspective, self esteem of non-stigmatized members was found to play a role in the initiation of contact with, and subsequently on attitude formation toward, those from stigmatized groups (Simoni, 1996). Behavior surrounding the beliefs of heterosexism was examined by Simoni (1996) to determine how self-esteem contributed to the formation of prejudiced attitudes toward stigmatized homosexuals on college campuses. Heterosexism emerges from the belief that heterosexuality is the only “natural and acceptable” sexual orientation while presenting prejudiced feelings, in terms of fear and hatred, toward those internalizing a non-heterosexual orientation (p. 68). Initiating contact with members of this stigmatized group had a significant effect in lessening heterosexist attitudes, yet this contact was exhibited most significantly by those non-stigmatized members who possessed high self-esteem. In other words, while high self-esteem itself was not significantly correlated with the lessening of heterosexist attitudes, it was correlated significantly with the likelihood that one would initiate contact with a member of a stigmatized group of non-heterosexuals. Based on positive interactions, as a result, non-stigmatized group members were then able to create more positive attitudes toward gay and lesbian stigmatized group members.

It would be reasonable to note here that non-stigmatized group members who exhibit a lower self esteem are less likely to make an attempt at changing prejudiced attitudes while those members with a higher self esteem show a increased likelihood to downplay social influences in an effort use alternative thinking and contact as a way to develop non-prejudiced attitudes toward stigmatized individuals and groups. In trying to discover the roots of prejudice, it would advantageous to then examine, in this case, how self esteem develops in relation to prejudice formation. Self esteem develops early in childhood arising out of feelings of belonging and mastery which combine to define this concept as a general positive feeling one has toward the self (Brown, 1998). Most specifically, in the studies examined here, self esteem is described in global terms, as the overall feeling of self worth (Crocker & Major, 1989).

The sense of belonging arises out of the security in feeling loved while the sense of mastery develops out of the feeling of being able to affect the surrounding environment. Both of these qualities of self esteem have the potential of a secure development in the parent-child interactive environment as early as the first year of life (Brown, 1998). Once caregivers create a feeling of trust, thus building a foundation for high self-esteem, a child can successfully progress into Erikson’s psychosocial stage of “autonomy verses shame and doubt,” where feelings of mastery are then strived for within the environment (p. 197). As evident here, the development of a sense of belonging and mastery, inherent of high self-esteem, originate from the styles of attachment cultivated by parent and child interaction.

Depending on the nature of attachment, the components of self-esteem may not develop at all or develop inadequately, therefore questioning the abilities build and maintain a positive self-esteem. As mentioned earlier, the three attachment styles are avoidant, resistant, and secure and are based on the behavior of the mother and infant when a separation is introduced followed by a reunion (Cowan, et al., 1996; Crowell & Feldman, 1991). Infants who exhibit avoidant behavior toward the caregiver upon reunion have been shown to lack a sense of belonging, while yet being able to attain the sense of mastery (Brown, 1998). On the other hand, resistant and anxious infants are more likely to develop a sense of belonging while failing to accomplish a sense of mastery. This becomes associated, as a result, with an apprehension to approach obstacles in the environment. In this case, infants are more likely to hold back and be hesitant. Securely attached infants adequately develop both senses of belonging and mastery and therefore show the most potential for establishing a higher self-esteem. As a result, individuals possessing this higher self-esteem can be shown to make attempts at exploring their environment in such ways to decrease the inherent acceptance of stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes by approaching and initiating contact with individual in outgroups and stigmatized groups.

Emotionality

Being knowledgeable of the self also involves being aware of one’s emotions because they are elementary in creating effective problem solving strategies and adapting with a diversity of perspective taking efforts (Mayer & Salovey, 1997). The ability to engage in successful perspective taking strategies, characterized by the attunement to others’ perspectives and feelings, creates the foundation for being able to explore beyond standard set beliefs (stereotypes) in an effort to examine other viewpoints (Santrock, 1997). This ability can then lead to the denouncement of negative stereotypes to the formation of nonprejudiced attitudes as a result of controlled processing (Devine, 1989). The effort here is to explore the foundation of emotion as it relates to the popularized concept of emotional intelligence, and then apply this knowledge to the formation and elimination of prejudice thinking.

Fundamentally related to the intrapersonal and interpersonal intelligences developed by Gardner (1983), emotional intelligence requires the ability not only to be knowledgeable and adapatable to one’s own emotions but to others’ emotions, as well, in the process of self-regulation (Martinez-Pons, 1997; as cited in Schutte, Malouff, Hall, Haggerty, Cooper, Golden, & Dornheim, 1998). Emotional intelligence, as defined by Mayer and Salovey (1997), consists of four components all centering around the development of adaptability. The first component is defined by the perception of emotion, appraisal of others’ emotions and the self expression of emotion while interacting with others in the environment. Moving from these basic processes, the second component involves how emotion helps to facilitate thinking. The third component delves even further by trying to understand, analyze, and apply one’s emotional knowledge. The four component is characterized by learning to regulate emotions to enhance growth within the self.

Research conducted by LePage-Lees (1997) examined the specific aspects of emotional intelligence involving critical thinking and self-awareness. Using women from disadvantaged backgrounds, LePage-Lees suspected that their resilience, resulting from the experience of considerable stressors within their daily living, allowed them to develop a strong sense of emotional intelligence. This, in effect, result because of a constant need for these women to be adaptable to unpredictable social situations. Specifically, LePage-Lees found that these women were especially skillful in critical thinking, which is stimulated by adopting alternative perspectives by “examin[ing] information reflectively and introspectively” to produce a diversity ofsolutions (p. 472).

Martinez-Pons (1 997) examined emotional intelligence as it related to aspects of personal functioning, specifically concerning life satisfaction, task mastery, personal improvement, and competitiveness in gaining success over others. Most useful in this study was the connection between the task mastery and personal improvement element of goal orientation and the ability for “strategy shifting” to create adaptability (p. 4). As discussed earlier, the ability to adapt within one’s environment represents also a strong ability evaluate perspectives other than those accepted by the majority. Results from the study also indicate a weakness with the instrument measuring emotional intelligence which, in effect, is still a relatively new concept. The Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS) measured on three components using a Likert scale: attention to mood and emotions, emotional clarity, and emotional repair. This test, however, failed to measure an individual’s ability to acknowledge and adapt to other’s emotions, which would be relevant in determining successful social interactions. This study examined more dominantly the ability to regulate one’s personal emotions within psychological functioning, which is strongly related to a sense of well-being (Mayer & Geher, 1996).

To begin developing the connection of emotional intelligence to prejudice formation, Mayer & Geher (1996) examined an associated quality called social intelligence. Beginning as a study of “how people made judgments regarding others and the accuracy of such judgments,” social intelligence can be broken down into two components, those being emotional and motivational intelligence (p. 91). Understanding motivational intelligence involves learning the driving forces behind the need for achievement, power, and the desire for affiliation. These two subjuctive components of social intelligence help to play a significant role in determining person perception.

Using Motivation and Emotion to Reduce Prejudice

Plant and Devine (1998) attempt to look at aspects of motivation and emotion surrounding an individual’s desire to respond without prejudice to stereotype-provoking situations of racial prejudice. Overt racial prejudice has decreased considerably in the face of the recent rise of the politically correct (PC) movement designed to reduce the activation of prejudiced responses. While this attempt has created substantial results, it has also been discovered that the actual prejudiced attitudes have not been eliminated, only their overt expression as discriminatory behavior. In an effort to evaluate methods to reduce prejudiced attitudes, Plant and Devine decided to examine both the internal and external motivations of nonprejudiced individuals. In other words, Plant and Devine wanted to determine the rationality behind one’s internal motivations, those based on personal beliefs, and external motivations, those based on others’ beliefs, in responding without prejudice.

After determining whether participants in the study were primarily internally or externally motivated in their nonprejudiced beliefs, Plant and Devine (1998) devised a further examination to determine the affective responses of nonprejudiced individuals when they, in fact, responded with prejudice in a stereotype-provoking situation. That is, while a participant’s attitude might be termed as nonpiejudiced, the prejudiced behavior might show otherwise. Two distinct patterns of affective response were recorded by participants depending on whether their non-prejudiced beliefs were based on internal or external motivations. When participants were internally motivated to respond without prejudice, yet their behavior was representative of prejudice, they recorded affective responses of guilt and shame, indicating a violation of personal beliefs with their behavior When participants’ prejudiced behavior violated external beliefs, or those set by significant others, their affective responses significantly reflected feelings of fear and threa

When examining aspects of prejudice reduction, Plant and Devine (1998) noted that those individuals who were internally motivated to respond without prejudice experienced guilt and shame as a result of prejudiced behavior. In future situations, these participants were more likely to attempt to control and examine this behavior to respond closer to their personal beliefs. This evidence supports the use of controlled processing by non-prejudiced individuals in efforts to display non-judgmental behavior when interacting with stereotypes (Monteith, Devine, & Zuwerink, 1993). In addition, this research shows that emotion plays a large part in prejudice formation, as well as in the attempts to rectify and reduce prejudiced behavior.

Parenting Styles: The Unifying Theme

Throughout this research, it has become evident that the role of parents represent the unifying theme surrounding efforts to prevent the development of prejudice. Being one of the primary influencers in a child’s life from the beginning of infancy into much of adolescence, parents, or the primary caregivers, have the most potential in developing all of the characteristics of a non-prejudiced personality. On the other hand, with the damaging effects of authoritarian parenting and insecure attachment styles, parents can also play a significant role also in a child’s prejudice formation.

By exploring how prejudiced attitudes are developed and the way they are linked to stereotypes and discrimination, it is possible to look back at what laid the foundations for stereotypical thinking. In all actuality, groups develop naturally because people are involuntarily cued to develop categories as a way to organize the environment. It is rather amazing from that simple observation that the development of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination begin. By looking back into developmental constructs, it became possible to determine the differences between prejudiced and nonprejudiced personalities and what defined their roots.

In essence, this research attempted to display some of the interesting connections linking prejudice formation with developmental processes. While a significant role was placed on parenting and its differential styles in the relationship to prejudice, that does not mean this is the only influence. Caregivers are obviously not the only people that a child interacts with in the environment. If this was taken further, the role of education, peers, other family members, and of course, the role of genetics could be talked about. That could be done, but that would be dismissing the elementary role that parents play, a role which has consistently resurfaced throughout this research. Parents, or the primary caregivers, affect in some way everything from infant attachment and security, a child’s sense of self, the development of identity, moral judgment, abilities for social interaction, and the development of individuality and independence. All of these in some way relate to alternative thinking or the acceptance of stereotypical beliefs set by others. As a result, this therefore, relates to the tendencies to be prejudiced or non-prejudiced within one’s environment. My goal was simply to create an awareness of that, and as a result, to possibly create enlightenment about the evolution of prejudice, so that preventive measures might be identified.

References

Adomo, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

Anderson, S. M., & Klatzky, R. L. (1987). Traits and social stereotypes: Levels of categorization in person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 235-246.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. (1997). Social psychology. New York, NY: Longman.

Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psychological Quarterly, 55, 178- 204.

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of authoritative parental control on child behavior. Child Development, 37, 887-907.

Baumrind, D. (1993). The average expectable environment is not good enough: A response to Scam Child Development, 64, 1299-13 17.

Blascovich, J., Wyer, N. A., Swart, L. A., & Kibler, J. L. (1997). Racism and racial categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1364-1372.

Brown, J. D. (1998). The self. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

Chubb, N. H., Fertman, C. I., & Ross, J. L. (1997). Adolescent self-esteem and locus of control: A longitudinal study of gender and age differences. Adolescence, 32, 113-129.

Cowan, P. A., Cowan, C. P., Cohn, D. A., & Pearson, J. L. (1996). Parents’ attachment histories and children’s externalizing and internalizing behaviors: Exploring family systems models of linkage. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 53-63.

Crocker, I., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crowell, J. A., & Feldman, S. S. (1991). Mothers’ working models of attachment relationships and mother and child behavior during separation and reunion. Developmental Psychology, 27, 597-605.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with and without compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 817-830.

Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-5 17.

Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R. A., McCall, R. B. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 58, 505-529.

Hillman, S. B., Wood, P. C., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1998). The protective style questionnaire: Self-protective mechanisms among stigmatized adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 29-38.

LePage-Lees, P. (1997). Exploring patterns of achievement and intellectual development among academically successful women from disadvantaged backgrounds. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 468-478.

Madonna Jr., S., & Philpot, V. D. (1996). Self-statements, self-esteem, and locus of control in discriminating college students’ scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. Psychological Reports, 78, 53 1-534.

Martinez-Pons, M. (1997-98). The relation of emotional intelligence with selected areas of personal functioning. Imagination, CQgnition, and Personality, 17, 3-13.

Mayer, J. D., & Geher, G. (1996). Emotional intelligence and the identification of emotion. Intelligence, 22, 89-113.

Mayer, I. D., & Salovey, P. (1997). What is emotional intelligence? In P. Salovey & D. J. Sluyter (Eds.), Emotional development and emotional intelligence. (pp. 3-31). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Monteith, M. J., Devine, P. G., & Zuwerink, J. R. (1993). Self-directed versus other- directed affect as a consequence of prejudice-related discrepancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology4 198-210.

Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Jnternal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.

Reed, S. K. (1996). Cognition. (4th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Santrock, J. W. (1997). Life-span development. (6th ed.). Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T., Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 167-177.

Simoni, J. M. (1996). Pathways to prejudice: Predicting students’ heterosexist attitudes with demographics, self esteem, and contact with lesbians and gay men. Journal of College Student Development, 37 68-78.

Sroufe, A. L., & Waters, E. (1977). Attachment as an organizational construct. Child Development, 48, 1184-1199.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.

Wang, N., & Van Horn, K. R. (1981). Multiple response selections in children’s perspective taking. Psychological Reports, 48, 343-350.

Wood, P. C., Hillman, S. B., & Sawilowsky, S. S. (1996). Locus of control, self-concept, and self-esteem among at-risk African-American adolescents. Adolescence, 31, 597-604.