Institutional Prejudice

Institutional prejudice refers to the systemic discrimination and negative attitudes directed towards specific social groups, particularly in institutional settings such as workplaces, government agencies, and educational institutions. This phenomenon manifests through social policies that disadvantage outgroups—those who are perceived as different based on attributes like race or ethnicity. Both race and ethnicity are socially constructed categories, with race often based on physical characteristics and ethnicity connected to shared cultural traits such as language, religion, and customs. The concept underscores that prejudicial attitudes are not just individual biases but can be ingrained in societal structures, leading to disparate treatment in areas like hiring practices, law enforcement, and housing policies.

Institutional prejudice is often exacerbated by the perception of minority group threats, which posits that as the population of a minority group increases in a given area, the majority may feel threatened, resulting in stricter social controls and increased policing of those minorities. Historical examples highlight how institutional prejudice has affected various ethnic groups, such as Japanese Americans during World War II, illustrating the damaging effects of societal biases. Understanding this topic is crucial for recognizing how deeply rooted prejudices can shape social dynamics and perpetuate inequality, emphasizing the need for societal change and awareness to foster more inclusive environments.

Published in: 2021

By: McFeeters, Belinda Bennett

Subject Terms

Institutional Prejudice

This article defines race and ethnicity and discusses instances in which these factors have played a role in situations of prejudice and institutional prejudice. Both race and ethnicity are defined as socially constructed categories, with race focusing on biological and societal characteristics and ethnicity focusing on those who share the same religion, language or dialect, or customs, norms, practices, and history. Institutional prejudice involves preconceived thoughts and emotions about an outgroup regarding social policies like hiring and firing, police and legal policies, and housing. These occurrences are discussed.

Keywords Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory; Discrimination; Ethnic Identity; Ethnicity; Ingroups; Institutional Prejudice; Intergroup; Minority Group Threat; Outgroups; Prejudice; Race; Socially Constructed; Stereotype

Race & Ethnicity > Institutional Prejudice

Overview

Race is best described as a socially constructed category. Groups that are treated as distinct within society based on various characteristics, including biological characteristics, are considered races. Assumed culturally or biologically inferior characteristics, as noted by powerful social groups, generally cause races to be singled out as being different. This thinking brings on great distress to the individual members of a race due to being treated differently and unfairly. Consequently, the manner in which groups have been treated both historically and socially defines the racial groups rather than individual biological characteristics (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Racial categories like 'Black' and 'White' are assigned to people by society, rather than by science, fact, or even logic. These decisions are generally based on opinion and social experience and explain what is meant by race being a "socially constructed" term. Though perceived biological differences like skin color, lip form, and hair texture typically define the meaning of race between groups, the social categories used to divide racial groups are not exactly fixed and vary from society to society. Laws defining who is African American, for example, have varied historically based on the laws of the state in which one resides. This suggests that racial differences are not merely biological (Andersen & Taylor, 2006; Washington, 2004).

For example, for years Tennessee and North Carolina law defined people as Black if they had at least one great-grandparent who was Black. Having any Black ancestors (even one great-great-great-grandparent) satisfied the conditions for other Southern states, which were based on the so-called "one drop" rule (Taylor, 2006; Malcomson, 2000). More complexity comes into play when the meaning of race is considered in other countries, as race is defined more so by one's social class. For example, a dark brown-skinned Black person in Brazil could be considered White, particularly if he or she has a high economic status. Brazilians are considered Black only if they are descendants of Africans and have no apparent White ancestry. Under the Brazilian rule, the majority of African Americans would not be considered Black in Brazil (Surratt & Inciardi, 1998; Omi & Winant, 1994; Sowell, 1983; Blalock, 1982). To add, the social constructionist view argues that a classification system based only on skin color, body shape, hair style, and the like does not fully justify meaningful and biological evidence, but has been used to justify the unequal treatment of diverse groups (Machery & Faucher, 2005).

Ethnicity

Like race, ethnicity is considered a social category of people who share various characteristics. For example, an ethnic group may share a common religion, a common language or dialect, or common customs, norms, practices, and history. Examples of ethnic groups that reside in the United States include Mexican Americans, Japanese Americans, Italian Americans, Arab Americans, Polish Americans, Greek Americans, and Irish Americans. However, ethnic groups are found in other societies as well. The Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq, whose ethnic classifications are based on their religious differences, serve as one example (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Unique historical and social experiences cause the development of ethnic groups, and these experiences make up the group's ethnic identity. An example of ethnic identity is the way Italian immigrants came to identify themselves as a group. Before immigration, Italian immigrants did not consider themselves an ethnic group with similar experiences and interests, as they came from different villages and cities. Instead, their family backgrounds and communities of origin were the identifiers of the groups they belonged to. The immigration process, however, and the experiences Italians underwent in the United States, influenced the creation of a new identity for Italians as they now shared similar experiences in a foreign land (Waters, 1990; Alba, 1990).

The intensity level of ethnic development and identification can vary. If ethnic groups face prejudice or some type of hostility from other groups, they tend to unite around common interests politically and economically. In addition, voluntary or involuntary development of ethnic unity may occur as a result of ethnic group exclusion by ingroups with more power in various residential areas, social clubs, or occupations. These instances typically cause ethnic identity to strengthen (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Prejudice

Before we can discuss institutional prejudice, we must first define prejudice. It is, however, important to differentiate prejudice from other related terms. Terms like discrimination and stereotypes are similar to prejudice, but they each have different meanings. For example, discrimination is a matter of action, whereas prejudice is about one's attitude. Stereotypes, on the other hand, are sets of beliefs about social group members that have been overly simplified. They are normally intended to describe a typical member in the group, but they typically provide inaccurate descriptions (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Steele, Choi, and Ambady (2004) define prejudice as a preconceived negative attitude or feeling toward an outgroup (group from a different racial, ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic group from one's own). Prejudice is driven by emotion (Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupuis, 2004), and it is further described as an evaluation of a social group based on misjudgments that are believed, even if facts have proven the believer wrong (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew, 1971; Jones, 1997). For example, having negative thoughts about people solely because they belong to a certain group is considered prejudice. Though negative predispositions usually define prejudices, prejudices can sometimes be positive. For example, a negative feeling about someone in a different group from one's own is often associated with a positive disposition for someone who is in one's own group (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Though most people fail to own up to racial and ethnic prejudices, the majority of citizens hold some form of prejudice against other groups different from them. Whether it is on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, age, class, or sexual orientation, almost everyone holds a prejudice against another in some way (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Prejudice based on race or ethnicity, in particular, is referred to as racial-ethnic prejudice. An example that would constitute prejudice in this case is if a Latino person dislikes an Anglo person, only because he or she is White. The Latino person would be considered a member of the ingroup and the White person would be part of the outgroup. Statements from the Latino like, "all Whites behave badly," indicate that the Latino is using a stereotype to justify his or her prejudice. It is a negative prejudgment based solely on race and ethnicity (Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Some forms of prejudice can lead to intergroup hostility and violence, the dehumanization of others different from oneself, and can even lead to mass murders and group destruction. The Holocaust, the genocide of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda, the conflict that continues between the Israelis and Palestinians, and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, are all examples of what intergroup hatred can cause (Steele, Choi, & Ambady, 2004).

In the United States, the most physically violent forms of prejudices that continue to persist tend to involve African Americans, Hispanics, and homosexuals. Each of these groups has suffered instances of beating or even murder as a result of their group membership. The fatal beating of Matthew Shepard, a gay student at the University of Wyoming, is an example of the prejudices the homosexual community has experienced. Shepard was brutally beaten and left in freezing temperatures to die, just because of his sexual orientation. The incident that happened to Rodney King, an African American, is another example of how prejudicial attitudes have caused harm to an outgroup member. In this case, several White Los Angeles police officers beat King severely in an act that seemed to be driven by racial motives. Based on incidents such as these, researchers have asked questions about where these attitudes originate, form, and develop over the years (Steele, Choi, & Ambady, 2004).

Research findings suggest that the very first signs of prejudice have been seen in children at very early stages in their lives (Aboud, 1988). Around age five, a child's prejudice level is high and begins to decrease or become more flexible as the child matures. Some research indicates that by the time a child becomes a teenager and older, the prejudices they held at an early age return. This is particularly true if the prejudice is around their social environment. For instance, if a child's mother shows some form of ethnic prejudice, more than likely the child with display the same prejudice. In addition, children of highly authoritative parents with great rigidity and intolerance for difference typically are more prejudiced than other children who don't have that type of family structure (Steele, Choi, & Ambady, 2004).

Applications

Institutional Prejudice

When one considers prejudicial attitudes held in and among institutions, the term institutional prejudice appears. Institutional prejudice involves preconceived thoughts and emotions about an outgroup regarding social policies like hiring and firing, police and legal policies, housing, and the like. It occurs in public bodies like corporations, universities, and state and government agencies, or simply among various ingroups (Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupuis, 2004; Andersen & Taylor, 2006).

Minority Group Threat

Institutional prejudice on the basis of race and ethnicity has taken many forms. When race has been at the forefront of the prejudice, the topic of minority threat and perceived police force size needed is one example that sheds light on this problem and highlights the minority group threat theory. Minority group threat explains the types of social controls that affect racial minorities disproportionately, such as felon disenfranchisement laws (Behrens et al., 2003), incarceration rates (Greenberg & West, 2001), or arrest rates of minorities (Eitle et al., 2002).

Mainstream thinking suggests that the larger the number of minority (often African American) members in an area, the more majority members should feel threatened. This form of institutional prejudice in turn increases the perceived level of crime control needed in that area, and eventually increases the size of the police force. This causes larger criminal justice costs, more arrests, and increased imprisonment rates of minorities (Stults & Baumer, 2007).

Examples

There are many examples of institutional prejudice on the basis of ethnicity and negative bias that have surfaced as a result of immigration to the United States. Between 1890 and 1924, for example, Japanese people were able to immigrate to the United States. Many first-generation immigrants employed in agriculture came from farming families and wanted to purchase their own land. The 1913 Alien Land Law of California, however, held that Japanese aliens could only lease land for three years, and even those who already owned or were leasing land could not leave the land to their heirs. So even though the second generation of Japanese Americans became more educated than their parents, spoke in American English, and essentially assimilated to American culture, they still faced prejudice, specifically in areas with the largest populations of Japanese Americans, on the West Coast from Washington to southern California (Glenn, 1986).

The most significant examples of institutional prejudice among Japanese Americans occurred following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. After the attack, the loyalty of Japanese Americans was questioned. Their assets were frozen, and in many cases, their real estate was confiscated, and they were labeled by the media as "traitors" and "enemy aliens" (Glenn, 1986). Numerous Japanese Americans were forced to leave their homes and were taken to relocation camps. These relocation efforts destroyed many Japanese families and ruined their finances (Glenn, 1986; Kitano, 1976; Takaki, 1989).

In the late 1960s, more Koreans came to the United States following amendments made to the immigration laws. These amendments allowed increased immigration from Asia. At least half of the adults that immigrated to the U.S. came with a college education and had been successful professionals prior to arriving. Institutional prejudice surfaced, however, when Koreans sought employment. Despite their level of education, many immigrants had no choice but to take unskilled jobs. Similarly, in the 1970s, numerous Vietnamese refugees immigrated to the United States. Like other Asian immigrants before them, they were routinely faced with institutional prejudice because of the way many Americans perceived them. Americans perceived Vietnamese as competitors for their jobs, which were scarce at the time. Therefore, Vietnamese immigrants often faced various prejudices and hostility based on the motives Americans thought the Vietnamese had (Kim, 1993; Winnick, 1990). In each case, there was a negative bias against the other group.

Viewpoints

Allport's Contact Hypothesis of Intergroup Interactions

Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory (Allport, 1954) lends some explanation for how institutional prejudice occurs. It explains the process by which diverse groups (ingroups and outgroups) interact with one another. The theory posits that a specific type of setting must be created to encourage groups to develop positive interactive relations. The setting should consist of four conditions: cooperation between groups, equal status, common goals, and support from authority figures in the program or institution in which the interaction takes place. Less bias and a greater possibility for cross-group interactions have resulted when these conditions have been met, including a reduction in prejudices (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Troop, 2000). Allport (1954) suggests that ingroups are "psychologically primary," meaning that familiarity, preference, and attachment for one's ingroups is established before the development of attitudes toward specific outgroups.

Advice to Individuals Working Toward Eliminating Prejudice

One line of thought in reducing prejudice suggests simply making a determined effort not to be prejudiced. Though this is typically a very difficult task for many, suppressing negative thoughts and removing them from one's mind is recommended as a key effort to eliminating prejudice in oneself. One must be cognizant, however, that in some cases, this strategy leads to one having somewhat of a rebound effect. Now, the area of prejudice is focused on more rather than ignored, because the individual is purposely trying not to think about the issue (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994).

Terms & Concepts

Allport's Intergroup Contact Theory: Allport's Intergroup contact theory posits that a specific type of setting must be created to encourage diverse groups to develop positive interactive relations. This setting should consist of four conditions: cooperation between groups, equal status, common goals, and support from authority figures in the program or institution in which the interaction takes place.

Discrimination: Discrimination is a matter of action and consists of overt negative and unequal treatment of members of members of the outgroup.

Ethnic Identity: Ethnic identity refers to the way in which a group sees themselves sharing common cultural bonds with one another.

Ethnicity: Ethnicity is considered a social category of people who share various characteristics, such as a common religion or language.

Ingroups: A sociological term used to describe a group that people identify with and feel some form of attachment to. In many instances, the attachment is based on opposition toward outgroups.

Institutional Prejudice: Institutional prejudice involves preconceived thoughts and emotions about an outgroup regarding social policies like hiring and firing, police and legal policies, housing, and the like. It occurs in public bodies like corporations, universities, and state and government agencies, or simply among various ingroups.

Intergroup: Intergroup refers to the state of being or occurring between two or more social groups.

Minority Group Threat: Minority group threat explains the types of social controls that affect racial minorities disproportionately, such as felon disenfranchisement laws, incarceration rates, or arrest rates of minorities.

Outgroups: A group of individuals toward which members of an ingroup harbor a sense of opposition, resistance, and even hatred. Outgroups are required for ingroups to exist.

Prejudice: Prejudice is a preconceived negative attitude or feeling toward an outgroup (group from a different racial, ethnic, religious, or socioeconomic category than one's own), and is driven by emotion. Prejudice is further described as an evaluation of a social group based on misjudgments that are believed, even if facts have proven the believer wrong.

Race: Race is best described as a socially constructed category. Groups that are treated as distinct within society based on various characteristics, including biological characteristics, are considered races.

Racial-ethnic Prejudice: Racial-ethnic prejudice is prejudice based on race or ethnicity only.

Socially Constructed: Socially constructed refers to decisions that are generally made based on opinion and social experience. It is a social process used to define racial groups.

Stereotype: A stereotype is a belief about members of a social group or division that is often oversimplified.

Bibliography

Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic identity: The transformation of ethnicity in the lives of Americans of European ancestry. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

Andersen, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2006). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society, 4th ed. New York: Wadsworth.

Behrens, A., Uggen, C. & Manza, J. (2003). Ballot manipulation and the 'Menace of Negro Domination': Racial threat and felon disenfranchisement in the United States, 1850–2002, American Journal of Sociology, 109, 559–605. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=11947805&site=ehost-live

Chen E. Y. F. (1991). Conflict between Korean greengrocers and Black Americans. Unpublished thesis. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Duriez, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & De Witte, H. (2007). The social costs of extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits: Their relation with social dominance and racial and ethnic prejudice. Journal of Personality, 75, 757–782. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=25427259&site=ehost-live

Eckert, R., & Rowley, A. (2013). Audism: A theory and practice of audiocentric privilege. Humanity & Society, 37, 101–130. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87039398

Eitle, D., D'Alesso, S. & Stolzenberg, L. (2002) Racial threat and social control: A test of the political, economic, and threat of Black crime hypotheses, Social Forces, 81, 557–76. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=8596816&site=ehost-live

Future directions in research on institutional and interpersonal discrimination and children's health. (2013). American Journal of Public Health, 103, 1754–1763. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90147833

Glenn, E. N. (1986). Issei, Nisei, War Bride: Three generations of Japanese American women in domestic service. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Greenberg, D. & West, V. (2001) State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991, Criminology 39, 615–53. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5101430&site=ehost-live

Harrison, F. (1995). The persistent power of race in the cultural and political economy of racism. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 47–74. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9511201348&site=ehost-live

Johnson, J. A., Musial, D., Hall, G. E., Gollnick, D. M., & Dupuis, V. L. (2004). Introduction to the foundations of American education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.

Jones, J. (1997). Prejudice and racism, (2nd Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kim, E. H. (1993). Home is where the Han is: A Korean American perspective on the Los Angeles upheavals. In Robert Gooding-Williams (Ed.), Reading Rodney King/reading urban uprising, (pp. 214–235). New York: Routledge.

Kitano, H. (1976). Japanese Americans: The evolution of a subculture, (2nd Ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.

Machery, E., & Faucher, L. (2005). Social Construction and the Concept of Race. Philosophy of Science, 72, 1208–1219. Retrieved September 19, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=24277141&site=ehost-live

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808–817.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1971). Racially separate or together? New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pettigrew, T. & Troop, L. (2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 93–114). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Shavers, V. L., Fagan, P., Jones, D., Klein, W. P., Boyington, J., Moten, C., & Rorie, E. (2012). The state of research on racial/ethnic discrimination in the receipt of health care. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 953–966. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=76603136

Steele, J., Choi, S. J. & Ambady, N. (2004). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: The effect of group based expectations on moral functioning in T.A. Thorkildsen, J. Manning, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), Children and Youth Series: Nurturing Morality. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Stults, B., & Baumer, E. (2007, September). Racial Context and Police Force Size: Evaluating the Empirical Validity of the Minority Threat Perspective. American Journal of Sociology, 113, 507–546. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26342009&site=ehost-live

Takaki R. (1989). Strangers form a different shore: A history of Asian Americans. New York: Penguin.

Taylor, H. F. (2006). Defining race. In E. Higginbotham and M. L. Andersen (Eds.). Race and ethnicity in U. S. Society. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Utsey, S., Ponterotto, J., & Porter, J. (2008). Prejudice and racism, year 2008 — still going strong: Research on reducing prejudice with recommended methodological advances. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 339–347. Retrieved September 25, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=32732656&site=ehost-live

Washington, S. (2004). Racial taxonomy. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Sociology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

Waters, M. C. (1990). Ethnic options: Choosing identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Winnick, L. (1990). America's model minority. Commentary, 90, 222-229.

Institutional Prejudice

On this Page

Subject Terms

Institutional Prejudice

Race & Ethnicity > Institutional Prejudice

Overview

Ethnicity

Prejudice

Applications

Institutional Prejudice

Minority Group Threat

Examples

Viewpoints

Allport's Contact Hypothesis of Intergroup Interactions

Advice to Individuals Working Toward Eliminating Prejudice

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading

Institutional Prejudice

On this Page

Subject Terms

Institutional Prejudice

Race & Ethnicity > Institutional Prejudice

Overview

The Social Construction of Race

Ethnicity

Prejudice

Applications

Institutional Prejudice

Minority Group Threat

Examples

Viewpoints

Allport's Contact Hypothesis of Intergroup Interactions

Advice to Individuals Working Toward Eliminating Prejudice

Terms & Concepts

Bibliography

Suggested Reading