532 Prejudice, Racism, and Discrimination
the psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimina-
tion that was reviewed earlier suggests several conclusions.
First, for some groups and for some individuals within op-
pressed groups, perceptions of prejudice and attributions of
setbacks to prejudice may buffer self-esteem and maintain
well-being. However, the buffering effect of attributed preju-
dice is probably a weak one, may occur for only some groups,
involves a tradeoff between types of self-esteem and per-
ceived control, and is mediated or moderated by in-group
identification. Somewhat perversely, the buffering effects of
perceived discrimination on self-esteem seem to be more
straightforward and clearer for members of dominant than of
subordinate groups. Second, the experience or perception of
prejudice and discrimination toward oneself and one’s group
is unquestionably stressful, although personality-based hardi-
ness and in-group identification may moderate discrimination-
related stress to some extent. Discrimination-related stress
has been linked to mental and physical health outcomes for
both American women and Black Americans. Stereotype
threat—the perception of being negatively stereotyped by
others in academic and other domains—is also a stressor
whose deleterious effects on achievement task performance
are now established, although the mediators are unclear. Fi-
nally, Some evidence suggests that perceived prejudice and
discrimination, along with feelings of resentment about in-
group disadvantage relative to other groups, instigate desires
to take corrective social action. These conclusions demon-
strate that our knowledge of the psychology of victimization
has advanced appreciably in the last several decades of the
twentieth century.
A FINAL THOUGHT
Having considered the psychology of bigotry as well as the
psychology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination,
a next step for future psychological research on prejudice
may be to explore the reciprocal interaction between bigot
and victim. To date, the psychology of bigotry and the psy-
chology of being a victim of prejudice and discrimination
have been investigated separately from one another and have
focused heavily on intrapersonal dynamics (e.g., the effects
of automatic processing on a person’s cognitions and behav-
iors). Yet, some previous theorists (e.g., Dion et al., 1978)
have suggested that the bigot and the victim of prejudice form
a complementary role relationship with one another. Under-
standing the interpersonal dynamics of prejudice may require
investigating situations in the laboratory and the community
where victims of prejudice confront the bigotry, whether from
one or more persons or an institution, directly. As always,
psychological researchers interested in prejudice will rise to
the methodological and theoretical challenges of exploring
the reciprocal interactions between bigot and victim.REFERENCESAdorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford,
R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality.New York: Harper
& Row.
Allison, K. W. (1998). Stress and oppressed social category mem-
bership. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The tar-
get’s perspective(pp. 145–170). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg,
Canada: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-
wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., &
Brown, J. (1999). When white men can’t do math: Necessary and
sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 35,29–46.
Aronson, J., Quinn, D. M., & Spencer, S. J. (1998). Stereotype
threat and the academic underperformance of minorities and
women. In C. Stangor & J. Swim (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s
perspective(pp. 83–103). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Bargh, J. (1989). Unintended thought. New York: Guilford.
Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M., & Maio, G. R. (1996). The utility of open-
ended measures to assess intergroup ambivalence. Canadian
Journal of Behavioural Science, 28,12–18.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American
values: A “value congruence” approach to understanding out-
group attitudes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32,
387–410.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., Theno, S. A., & Crandall, C. S. (1996). Val-
ues and prejudice: Toward understanding the impact of American
values on out-group attitudes. In C. Seligman, J. M. Olson, & M. P.
Zanna (Eds.),The psychology of values: The Ontario Symposium
(Vol. 8, pp. 153–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Birt, C. M., & Dion, K. L. (1987). Relative deprivation theory and
responses to discrimination in a gay male and lesbian sample.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 26,139–145.
Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s
privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in
women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
167–184.
Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based
discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),Prejudice: The
target’s perspective(pp. 243–266). Orlando, FL: Academic.
Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Per-
ceiving pervasive discrimination among African-Americans:
Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77,135–149.