Psychological, Socio-Psychological and Cultural-Historical Grounds of Discriminatory Attitudes and Conditions for Overcoming Them: A Systemic-Diachronic Approach


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The problem of individuals and groups supporting discriminatory attitudes, which is one of the obstacles to the sustainable development of society, is in the field of research attention of psychology, sociology, law and other sciences. The issue of studying the psychological, socio-psychological, and cultural-historical grounds of the formation and support of discriminatory attitudes is one of the most important tasks of modern social psychology. The purpose of the study is to analyze the psychological, socio-psychological and cultural-historical grounds and support for discriminatory attitudes and means of their elimination in a situation of interaction from the standpoint of a systemic-diachronic approach. The author conducted a review and a detailed analysis of research on the cognitive, emotive and conative components of discriminatory attitudes, socio-psychological (including intergroup relations and socialization) and cultural-historical (including competitive relations and cultural transmission) grounds, principles of a systemic-diachronic approach to research, as well as applied research on eliminating discriminatory attitudes. The differentiation of discriminatory attitudes by targets of discrimination and their generalization by type, the presence of common grounds and behavioral manifestations were also noted. In addition, a systemic-diachronic approach was proposed, supported by comprehensive and meta-systemic approaches to the study of attitudes, according to which discriminatory attitudes should be considered as dynamic and structurally homogeneous, characterized by synchrony and diachrony under the influence of situational and evolutionary factors of interaction between an individual or a group with heterogeneous social subjects or objects, and taking into account various explanatory principles of their emergence, functioning and support. As a result of the theoretical analysis, the author developed a model for supporting discriminatory attitudes, reflecting their systemic structure and dynamic aspects of action. The principle of diachrony can be used to destroy consolidated discriminatory attitudes.

About the authors

Rail M. Shamionov

Saratov National Research State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: vshamionov@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8358-597X
Scopus Author ID: 56528356700
ResearcherId: C-2869-2013

Doctor of Sciences (Psychology), Professor, Head of the Department of Social Psychology of Education and Development

83 Astrakhanskaya St, Saratov, 410012, Russian Federation

References

  1. Aberson, C. L. (2019). Indirect effects of threat on the contact-prejudice relationship: A meta-analysis. Social Psychology, 50(2), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000364
  2. Ananyev, B. G. (2001). Man as an object of knowledge. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ. (In Russ.)
  3. Badea, C., Iyer, A., & Aebischer, V. (2018). National identification, endorsement of acculturation ideologies and prejudice: The impact of the perceived threat of immigration. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.147
  4. Barsukov, V. N. (2018). Assessment of the prevalence of discriminatory attitudes towards the elderly in the countries of the world. Bulletin of Tomsk State University, (429), 82–90. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/429/10
  5. Boss, H., Buliga, E., & MacInnis, C. C. (2023). “Everybody’s doing it”: Exploring the consequences of intergroup contact norms. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(6), 1205–1222. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221106926
  6. Cantal, C., Milfont, T. L., Wilson, M. S., & Gouveia, V. V. (2014). Differential effects of Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation on dimensions of generalized prejudice in Brazil. European Journal of Personality, 29(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1978
  7. Caselli, A. J., & Machia, L. V. (2022). Discrimination is not just Black and White in romantic relationships: A consideration of perspective taking and self-expansion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(4), 741–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000380
  8. Cejudo-Cortés, C. M. A., Corchuelo-Fernández, C., Tirado-Morueta, R. (2018). Use of the theory of the social representations to understand discriminatory attitudes towards HIV/AIDS. Revista Espanola de Salud Publica, 92, e201809048.
  9. Chaney, K. E., & Forbes, M. B. (2023). We stand in solidarity with you (if it helps our ingroup). Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(2), 304–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211067143
  10. Cho, H. S., Gürsoy, H., Cheah, C. S. L., Zong, X., & Ren, H. (2024). To maintain or conceal one’s cultural identity? Chinese American parents’ ethnic-racial socialization during COVID-19. Journal of Family Psychology, 38(1), 26–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0001169
  11. Colby, A., Kohlberg, L., & Kauffman, K. (1987). Theoretical introduction to the measurement of moral judgment. In A. Colby, L. Kohlberg, B. Speicher, A. Hewer, D. Candee, J. Gibbs, & C. Power (Eds.). The measurement of moral judgment: Theoretical foundations and research validation (pp. 1–61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. Cook, C. L., Li, Y. J., Newell, S. M., Cottrell, C. A., & Neel, R. (2018). The world is a scary place: Individual differences in belief in a dangerous world predict specific intergroup prejudices. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(4), 584–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216670024
  13. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 61–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(07)00002-0
  14. Da Costa, L. P., Bierwiaczonek, K., & Bianchi, M. (2024). Does digital intergroup contact reduce prejudice? A meta-analysis. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 27(7), 440–451. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2023.059
  15. Duckitt, J. (2006). Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 684–696. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284282
  16. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (oft en mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878
  17. Fuller-Rowell, T. E., Nichols, O. I., El-Sheikh, M., Burrow, A. L., Ong, A. D., & Ryff, C. D. (2024). The pandemic and social experience: For whom did discrimination and social isolation increase? Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 30(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000561
  18. Grigoryev, D. (2020). The Stereotype Content Model and ethnic stereotypes in Russia. The Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 23(2), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.31119/jssa.2020.23.2.9
  19. Grigoryev, D. (2022). Ethnic stereotype content beyond intergroup relations within societies: Exploring the North-South Hypothesis for competence and warmth. Cross-Cultural Research, 56(4), 345–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971221080618
  20. Grigoryev, D. S. (2017). Development of a short version of the scales from the methodology of J. Dakkita: right-wing authoritarianism, orientation towards social dominance, faith in a dangerous and competitive world. National Psychological Journal, 4(28), 30–44. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.11621/npj.2017.0403
  21. Hepworth, J. T., & West, S. G. (1988). Lynchings and the economy: A time-series reanalysis of Hovland and Sears (1940). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 239–247. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.239
  22. Judd, C. M., Ryan, C. S., & Park, B. (1991). Accuracy in the judgment of ingroup and outgroup variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(3), 366–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.366
  23. Karpov, A.V. (2015). Psychology of activity (vol. 1 from 5: Metasystem approach). (In Russ.). Moscow: RAO.
  24. Koehn, M. A., Jonason, P. K., & Davis, M. D. (2019). A person-centered view of prejudice: The Big Five, Dark Triad, and prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 313–316, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.038
  25. Kteily, N. S., Hodson, G., Dhont, K., & Ho, A. K. (2019). Predisposed to prejudice but responsive to intergroup contact? Testing the unique benefits of intergroup contact across different types of individual differences. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217716750
  26. Labunskaya, V. A., Bzezyan, A. A., Pogontseva, D.V., & Alperovich, V. D. (2018). Ethnolucism: An empirical model and research methods. Rostov-on-Don: Mini Type Publ. (In Russ.)
  27. Lebedeva, N. M., Tatarko, A. N., & Berry, D. (2016). Socio-psychological foundations of multiculturalism: testing hypotheses about intercultural interaction in the Russian context. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 37(2), 92–104. (In Russ.)
  28. Lilly, K. J., Sibley, C. G., & Osborne, D. (2024). Asymmetries in responses to group-based relative deprivation: The moderating effects of group status on endorsement of right- wing ideology. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 27(4), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302231185267
  29. Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G.W. (1993). Exemplar and abstraction models of perceived group variabi-lity and stereotypicality. Social Cognition, 11, 92–125. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.1993.11.1.92
  30. Marcinkovskaya, T. D. (2016). Socialization in the era of transitivity: A methodological aspect. Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 37(5), 14–21. (In Russ.).
  31. Mead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment: A study of the generation gap. New York: Doubleday & Comp.
  32. Mirakyan, A. I. (2010). The foundations of the transcendental psychology of perception. A.I. Mirakyan and modern psychology of perception: Conference Proceedings (pp. 61–89). Moscow, Obninsk: URAO “Psychological Institute”, Research Group “Social Sciences” Publ. (In Russ.)
  33. Moss, A. J., Blodorn, A., Van Camp, A. R., & O’Brien, L. T. (2019). Gender equality, value violations, and prejudice toward Muslims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(2), 288–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217716751
  34. Natsun L. N. (2018). Discrimination of people with disabilities in the labor market as a source of social vulnerability. Perm University Herald. Series: Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology, (3), 463–473. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2018-3-463-473
  35. Nosova, K. (2021). Profiles of multiple social identification and attitude to representatives of other nations in Russians and Bulgarians: A cross-cultural analysis. Кul'turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-Historical Psychology, 17(4), 97–106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2021170411
  36. Okulich, A. I. (2015). Problems of age discrimination against Russian youth. Izvestia of Higher Educational Institutions. Ural Region, (3), 19–21.
  37. Pan, D., Babb, Z. A., Brown, W. J., Qin, S., & Sánchez, J. (2024). Unidimensional versus multidimensional: A bifactor factor structure of the Self-Stigma Scale–Short (SSS-S) among U.S. adults with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 47(2), 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000596
  38. Panov, V. I. (2014). Ecopsychology: Paradigmatic Search. Moscow; St. Petersburg: Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Nestor-Istoriya Publ. (In Russ.)
  39. Pettigrew, T. F. (1969). Gordon Willard Allport: 1897–1967. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12(3), 5–19.
  40. Pogontseva, D. V. (2022). Lukism as a special case of the language of hostility. International Journal of Medicine and Psychology, 5(5), 122–126. (In Russ.).
  41. Ryaguzova, E. V. (2016). Socio-cultural paradox {antinomy} distinction between “I–Other”. Izvestiya Saratov University. (N.S.), Seriya. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 16(1), 85–89.
  42. Sarrasin, O., Green, E. G. T., Bolzman, C., Visintin, E. P., & Politi, E. (2018). Competition- and identity-based roots of anti-immigration prejudice among Individuals with and without an immigrant background. International Review of Social Psychology, 31(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.155
  43. Schuhl, J., Lambert, E., & Chatard A. (2019). Can imagination reduce prejudice over time? A preregistered test of the imagined contact hypothesis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 41(2), 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2019.1579719
  44. Sekerdej, M., Kossowska, M., & Czernatowicz-Kukuczka, A. (2018). Uncertainty and prejudice: The role of religiosity in shaping group attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, O91–O102. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2298
  45. Shamionov, R. M. (2019). Individual values and ideological attitudes as predictors of prejudice against Others. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 16(3), 309–326. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-1683-2019-16-3-309-326
  46. Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315717005
  47. Shin, H., & Dovidio, J. F. (2018). Differences, threats, values, and country-specific prejudice toward immigrants and foreign workers in three major receiving countries: The United States, Germany, and Australia. Journal of Social Issues, 74(4), 737–755 https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12296
  48. Shuman, E., Hebel-Sela, S., Zipris, I., Hasson, Y., Hameiri, B., & Halperin, E. (2023). Advancing support for intergroup equality via a self-affirmation campaign. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(8), 1888–1908. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221128505
  49. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: a longitudinal test during a global recession. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(4), 448–466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2012.757544
  50. Silva, R. L., Oliveira, J., Dias, C., Pinto, I. R., & Marques, J. M. (2018). How inclusive policies shape prejudice versus acceptance of refugees: A Portuguese study. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 24(3), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000314
  51. Sinn, J. S. (2019). Mapping ideology: Combining the Schwartz Value Circumplex with Evolutionary Theory to explain ideological differences. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 5, 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-018-0165-5
  52. Smirnova, Y. S., & Zaitseva, Y. V. (2019). The relationship of gender attitudes and career orientations of men and women at the initial stages of career building. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Philosophy and Psychology, (3), 82–90. (In Russ.)
  53. Sparkman, D. J., & Eidelman, S. (2018). We are the “human family”: Multicultural experiences predict less prejudice and greater concern for human rights through identification with humanity. Social Psychology, 49(3), 135–153. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000337
  54. Steele, R. R., Rovenpor, D. R., Lickel, B., & Denson, T. F. (2019). Emotion regulation and prejudice reduction following acute terrorist events: The impact of reflection before and after the Boston Marathon bombings. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(1), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217706182
  55. Tajfel, H. (1981). Social stereotypes and social groups. In J. Turner and H. Giles (Eds), (1981). Intergroup behaviour (pp. 144–167). Blackwell: Oxford.
  56. Uvarova, M. Yu., & Kedyarova, E. A. (2015). On the problem of studying the manifestations of gerontological ageism in modern society. Izvestiya of Irkutsk State University. Series: Psychology, 14, 67–74. (In Russ.)
  57. White, M. H., & Crandall, C. S. (2023). Perceived authenticity as a vicarious justification for prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(3), 534–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221080466

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».