745588

research-article2017
TAP0010.1177/0959354317745588Theory & PsychologyAbad-Merino et al.

Article

Theory & Psychology

The systematic study of how

1­–18
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
subtle forms of bias related to sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0959354317745588
https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354317745588
prosocial behavior operate in journals.sagepub.com/home/tap

racial and gender relations

Silvia Abad-Merino
Yale University

John F. Dovidio
Yale University

Carmen Tabernero
University of Córdoba

Ignacio González
University of Córdoba

Abstract
Psychological research and theory have traditionally focused on bias and conflict between
separate groups. Our central thesis is that the processes that shape hierarchical group relations
within a society are distinctive and typically operate in ways that are frequently subtle rather than
blatant. The challenges of detecting new subtle forms of bias are receiving considerable attention
in the field of social psychology, internationally. Although explicit hostility toward minority groups
seems to have faded in modern societies, cross-cultural data show that the status, resources, and
the power of women and ethnic/racial minorities remain unequal. The present literature review
integrates the findings of cross-cultural research showing the role of paternalistic legitimizing ideas
and behavior for establishing, maintaining, and reinforcing group hierarchy and the disadvantage
of members of traditionally underrepresented groups. Specifically, we explain how intergroup
helping relations can be used as a mechanism to maintain social advantage in racial and gender
relations. These theoretical and experimental insights help illuminate the dynamics of relations
between socially linked groups and the nature of contemporary bias. We also highlight how this
perspective suggests novel and productive directions for future research.

Corresponding author:
Silvia Abad-Merino, Yale University, 2 Hillhouse Ave, New Haven, CT 06520-8205, USA.
Email: silvia.abadmerino@yale.edu
2 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

Keywords
gender, intergroup helping, power relations, race, subtle bias

Prosocial behavior and subtle bias in racial and gender

relations
Overt expressions of racial, ethnic, and gender prejudice have consistently declined
internationally. Representative surveys in the United States and Europe have revealed
that attitudes toward racial/ethnic minorities and women are becoming increasingly
favorable across time (European Commission, 2012; Pearson, Dovidio, & Gaertner,
2009; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001). At the same time, gaps and disparities
between groups continue to exist and demographics reflect that social outcomes remain
unequal (Eurostat, 2017; U.S. Department of Labor, 2009). In the European Union (EU),
Eurostat (2017) revealed a persistent gender wage gap, in which men make wages 16.3%
greater than women on average, reaching a maximum of 27.7% for part-time workers in
Portugal. In England, Blacks and Asians are disadvantaged relative to Whites in housing
opportunities (Heath & Cheung, 2007), job opportunities, and health outcomes (Blackaby,
Leslie, Murphy, & O’Leary, 2005; Modood et al., 1997). These disparities are rooted, in
part, in group-based discrimination. In Ireland, for example, McGinnity and her col-
leagues (McGinnity, Nelson, Lunn, & Quinn, 2009) found that candidates with Irish
names were more than twice as likely to be invited to interview for advertised jobs as
minority group candidates with identifiably non-Irish names (e.g., Asian, African, and
German names), even though they all submitted equivalent resumes.
In the present literature review, we explain how a focus on prejudice as antipathy in
its blatant form (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) can obscure many of the
dynamics of contemporary bias and shows how, despite substantial declines in overt
forms of racism and sexism, subtle biases may be expressed in indirect and ostensibly
prosocial ways that contribute to perpetuating social inequality. This review draws on
psychological theory and cross-cultural empirical data to integrate different perspectives
about bias and concludes by identifying promising directions for future research.

Bias in contemporary societies

Psychological research and theory has traditionally focused on bias and conflict between
separate groups. In this section, we briefly review these traditional perspectives on inter-
group relations. However, relations between groups that are interdependent, often within
an overarching collective identity, are also common and important—and potentially
dynamically distinctive (Gaertner, Dovidio, Guerra, Hehman, & Saguy, 2016). Thus, in
this section we also consider the particular nature of relations, and often bias, between
subgroups connected by a shared identity or mutual interdependence. Our central thesis
is that the processes that shape hierarchical group relations within a society are distinc-
tive and typically operate in ways that are subtle rather than blatant, frequently involving
strategically positive forms of behaviors and indirect influence rather than direct coer-
cion or overt actions of control, and often cloaked by system-justifying ideologies that
are endorsed by disadvantaged—as well as by advantaged groups.
Abad-Merino et al. 3

Bias between separate groups.  Three dominant strands of research within social psychol-
ogy emphasize general processes in human social cognition and motivation as key
dynamics in social bias and conflict between groups: (a) social cognition and categoriza-
tion, (b) social identity, and (c) social functional relationships. Whereas earlier research
in psychology emphasized the role of potentially psychopathological or maladaptive
processes (e.g., authoritarianism; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford,
1950) as central contributors to intergroup bias and conflict, these three themes highlight
the role of normal and potentially adaptive influences as a foundation for intergroup
conflict. These influences operate in potentially complementary ways to create, main-
tain, and often exacerbate intergroup bias and conflict.
The social cognitive perspective highlights the intra-individual processes that contrib-
ute to intergroup bias. According to the social cognitive approach, people have an inher-
ent tendency to categorize others into groups to help manage a potentially overwhelming
amount of social information they encounter and must process daily (see Hamilton,
1981). Categorizing people into groups, which often occurs rapidly and automatically,
however, has important social consequences: it profoundly affects people’s perceptions,
cognitions, feelings, and behavior. When people are seen as members of social catego-
ries, members of the same group are perceived to be more similar than before, and dis-
tinctions between members of different categories become exaggerated (Tajfel, 1969).
Recognition of one’s membership in some groups (ingroups) but not others (outgroups)
arouses further bias. For example, people spontaneously respond more positively toward
ingroup than outgroup members (Otten & Moskowitz, 2000; Otten & Wentura, 1999)
and are more cooperative with and trusting of ingroup than outgroup members (see
Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Voci, 2006).
Whereas social cognitive and social categorization processes make group mem-
berships and boundaries particularly salient and prompt differential treatment of
ingroup and outgroup members, motivational processes initially identified by work
on social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) help explain why group conflict is
so pervasive (see Abrams & Hogg, 2010). According to social identity theory, people
have a basic need for positive self-esteem, and this need can be satisfied by member-
ship in prestigious social groups. One way to achieve this end is to join social groups
that are socially valued; another way is to increase the perceived worth of the social
groups to which one already belongs—often by devaluing other groups (e.g., Fein &
Spencer, 1997). Discrimination against members of another group is one common
way to promote the positive distinctiveness of one’s group (Haslam & Reicher,
2007).
While social categorization and social identity shape intergroup orientations in ways
that promote intergroup bias and conflict, research on social functional relationships
illuminates the additional effects of intergroup competition on intergroup relations. In
sociology as well as psychology, theories based on functional relations often point to
competition as a fundamental cause of intergroup prejudice and conflict. Realistic group
conflict theory (Bobo, 1999; Campbell, 1965; Sherif, 1966), for example, posits that
perceived group competition for resources produces efforts to reduce the access of other
groups to the resources. This process was illustrated in a classic work by Muzafer Sherif
and his colleagues (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961), which demonstrated
how competition increased prejudice and promoted acts of aggression between two
4 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

groups of boys at a summer camp, whereas tasks that required both groups to cooperate
to achieve a mutually desired goal ameliorated this conflict.
As we noted earlier, although the processes that shape intergroup relations between
groups also apply to relations between groups that are interdependent or share an over-
arching identity, the dynamics of such relations between groups that coexist within a
society are likely distinctive. We consider these dynamics in the next section.

Bias between interdependent groups.  While these three psychological forces—social cat-
egorization, social identity, and intergroup competition—generally promote bias and
conflict between distinct groups in which relations are often framed as zero-sum, they
often operate in contexts that inhibit the open expression of bias between the groups. For
example, in many cases, groups may be socially interdependent, representing subgroups
within the same society (e.g., ethnic groups) or in daily relationships (e.g., people of vari-
ous genders). Moreover, in such contexts of interdependence, overt bias and conflict may
violate basic principles that bind the society together, and conflict between groups may
undermine the society or relationship in ways that may commonly be viewed as detri-
mental to members of both groups.
Even when one group has more power and status within a society, overt expressions of
bias, control, or competition may produce destabilizing relations that undermine the soci-
ety. As French and Raven (1959) explained for interpersonal power relations and
Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, and Manstead (2006) articulated in terms of power differences
between groups, direct exertions of power create negative reactions among the targets of
such behavior, which over time increases resistance and ultimately erodes the resources of
those with more power to influence and control those with less power. Moreover, because
fairness is a fundamental principle within societies (Dovidio, 2013; Tyler, 2011) that con-
tributes to coordinated functions and stability, egalitarian social norms often develop
across interdependent groups. These norms may further limit the blatant expression of
prejudice. Thus, more subtle forms of social control that reinforce the hierarchical struc-
ture between groups that are interdependent within society may be preferred by members
of high power, socially advantaged groups over blatant forms of bias and social control.
Like blatant bias, these forms of social control also restrict the opportunities for social
advancement of members of traditionally disadvantaged groups, but in ways that may be
less recognizable as unfair bias (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). This bias is often cloaked in
rationalizations or system-justifying ideologies that appear to legitimize the advantages
that some groups experience over others (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek,
2004; Jost & Van der Toorn, 2012). Subtle bias may be particularly pernicious because it
often operates without recognition or intervention and, as a consequence, tends to elicit
less social resistance and may often be endorsed by members of disadvantaged groups
(Kay et al., 2009), which perpetuates their lower status and social mobility.
System-justification theory (Jost, Gaucher, & Stern, 2015; Jost & Van der Toorn,
2012) illuminates the dynamics of one such hierarchy-justifying process. According to
system justification theory, people not only want to hold favorable attitudes about them-
selves and their own groups, but they also want to hold favorable attitudes about the
overarching social order (system justification). To do so, members of groups lower and
higher in status often both adopt system-justifying ideologies that rationalize, and thus
reinforce and perpetuate, the hierarchical structure and corresponding disparities in
Abad-Merino et al. 5

society. Southern Italians, who have been traditionally poorer and viewed less favorably
than Northern Italians, frequently endorse negative stereotypes of their group (Jost et al.,
2010). Moreover, the more dependent people feel on the society for their welfare, the
more motivated they are to view the statuses of different groups within the society as
legitimate and to see the way society is as the way it should be (Kay et al., 2009).
Social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) proposes that broadly shared cul-
tural ideologies operate in the form of legitimizing myths that provide the moral and
intellectual justification for the maintenance of group-based inequalities (see Foels &
Pratto, 2015). Examples of such group-serving ideologies are the protestant work ethic
and meritocracy. The protestant work ethic asserts that humans control their own fate and
emphasizes that people should work hard as the means to success (Mirels & Garrett,
1971); whereas meritocracy focuses more strongly on the value of a person’s input than
on the effort expended by the person in their input. From these perspectives, people who
are disadvantaged socioeconomically are often assumed to have “earned” their lower
status through lack of motivation or ability (Major, Kaiser, O’Brien, & McCoy, 2007).
These mechanisms underlying subtle bias may be particularly pernicious because
they maintain an imbalance of resources and opportunities between groups in society
while avoiding recognition of unfair treatment and often inducing the cooperation of
members of disadvantaged groups through actions that appear positive and seemingly
promote harmony but have longer-term negative implications by reinforcing hierarchical
relations (Jackman, 1994; Saguy, Dovidio, & Pratto, 2008; Scheepers et al., 2006).
Paternalism, which involves actions that limit the freedom of members of a group with
the justification that it is “for their own good,” seems to be a powerful instrument to
persuade members of particular groups to accept a subordinate position in the group
hierarchy, allowing the group showing paternalism dominance.
Glick and Fiske (2001a) argued that paternalism (benevolent sexism) reflects a desire
to domesticate and exploit a low-status group while it serves as an ideological trend that
legitimates the status inequality favoring the dominant group. Thus, the development of
bonds of affection in a form of parental protection while exercising absolute authority
over the low-status group shapes intergroup relations in a way that molds the low-status
group’s behavior into the acceptance of stable disparities between them and the dominant
group (Jackman, 1994). In gender relations, paternalism may lead to women’s acceptance
of sexist ideologies, and therefore to reduce the likelihood that women will challenge the
status quo by seeking greater independence and higher status. For example, Rudman and
Heppen (2003) found that college women who implicitly associated male romantic part-
ners with gentlemanly portraits had less ambitious career goals, probably because they
were relying on a future protector and husband to provide for them (Glick & Fiske, 2001a).
Thus, in contemporary societies unequal social relations “are driven not by hostility but
by the desire to control subordinates” (Dovidio, Glick, & Rudman, 2005, p. 101). One
important mechanism related to paternalism is the influence of helping behavior.

Helping and intergroup relations

Helping relations are a complex phenomenon involving multiple causes and multifac-
eted human interaction. Social psychological research has examined helping relations as
an expression of solidarity and genuine caring for others in need (e.g., Penner, Dovidio,
6 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

Figure 1.  The intergroup helping as status relations model. Reprinted from Nadler (2002), p.493.

Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005), which reinforces individuals’ common connection (Caprara
& Steca, 2005; Dovidio, Piliavin, Schroeder, & Penner, 2006; Reicher & Haslam, 2010).
However, recent research on helping and intergroup relations also examines helping
interactions as an expression of inequality in social relations (Dovidio, Gaertner, &
Abad-Merino, 2017). Much of this research has been influenced by the intergroup help-
ing as status relations model (Nadler, 2002; see also Nadler, 2016). This model has
received considerable, converging empirical support over the past decade (e.g.,
Cunningham & Platow, 2007; Halabi, Dovidio, & Nadler, 2008; Nadler & Halabi, 2006;
van Leeuwen, Täuber, & Sassenberg, 2011).
The intergroup helping as status relations model explains the ways that groups use
intergroup helping relations as a mechanism to maintain or challenge hierarchy and
social advantage. Indeed, the model, depicted in Figure 1, suggests that helping outgroup
members, at least in particular ways, contributes to maintaining the ingroup’s positive
distinctiveness, and that being willing to receive help from the outgroup implicates the
acceptance of the receiving group’s lower status. Both cases describe a general picture of
the mechanisms that underlie the perpetuation of social inequity.
Abad-Merino et al. 7

By contrast, low-status group members can challenge the existing social hierarchy by
refusing to seek or receive help from the outgroup. These helping dynamics are pre-
sented in Figure 1, identifying the principal factors that are involved in intergroup help-
ing relations: (a) nature of intergroup power relations (high perceived legitimacy and
stability vs. low perceived legitimacy and stability) and (b) type of help that is offered
(independent vs. dependent help). Nadler’s model considers both the type of assistance
offered by members of high-status groups and the responses of members of low-status
groups to this help.
The intergroup helping as status relations model builds directly on the fundamental
tenet of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) that a critical factor shaping inter-
group relations is the nature of power relations, particularly the security of hierarchical
status relations between groups. Secure status relations are perceived as stable and legiti-
mate, whereas insecure relations are perceived as illegitimate and/or unstable. When the
status hierarchy is perceived as secure, neither high-status group members nor low-status
group members are motivated to challenge inequality. However, when the status hierar-
chy is perceived as insecure, high-status group members are motivated to preserve the
status quo by strengthening the low-status group’s dependence on them (Nadler, Harpaz-
Gorodeisky, & Ben-David, 2009). Low-status group members, by contrast, exhibit
greater motivation to initiate social change when status relations between the groups are
more insecure (Nadler & Halabi, 2006). For example, in a series of experiments, van
Leeuwen and colleagues (2011) demonstrated that under conditions of social conflict
between groups, participants were (a) less willing to seek help from the other group in
general and (b) less willing to seek help that increased their dependency on the other
group in particular.
According to the intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002, 2016),
these motivations are reflected in the type of assistance offered by members of high-
status groups to members of low-status groups and in reciprocal responses of members
of low status groups to offers of assistance by high-status groups (see Figure 1). In terms
of assistance offered, Nadler (2002) distinguished between dependency-oriented and
autonomy-oriented help. Dependency-oriented help offers an immediate solution to the
problem and it assumes that the recipient of the help does not have the knowledge or the
resources to solve the problem by him/herself. Autonomy-oriented help provides the
appropriate tools to solve a problem. This kind of help preserves the independence of the
recipient of the help in dealing with the problem in future. Thus, when intergroup rela-
tions are perceived as less secure, members of high-status groups are more likely to offer
dependency-oriented, relative to autonomy-oriented, help to members of low-status
groups.
Experimental research on the subject has demonstrated the validity of the intergroup
helping as status relations model and its consideration of helping as a social mechanism
to ensure the helper’s prestige and power. Nadler et al. (2009) used the term defensive
helping to describe how the advantaged group can use helping strategically to defend
against threats to their social identity and protect their privileged position in society.
Ostensibly on the basis of a dot estimation task (but actually randomly), these researchers
assigned participants to a group of “global” or “specific” perceivers. Nadler et al. (Study
1) found that participants who identified more strongly with their group were more likely
8 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

to offer assistance to the other group in order to enhance the status of their group, particu-
larly when they felt that status was threatened. In addition, in a second study, in which the
stability of the status between high schools was portrayed as less stable (Nadler et al.,
2009, Study 2 and Study 3), students from a high-status high school offered more patron-
izing assistance (help on an easy task, in Study 2) and more dependency-oriented help
(in Study 3) but not empowering help (help on a difficult task, in Study 2) or autonomy-
oriented help (in Study 3) to students from a low-status high school.
Because accepting assistance reinforces the subordinate status of the recipient to
the donor of helping (see Nadler & Halabi, 2006), members of low-status groups
tend to respond negatively to offers of assistance from high-status groups (Deelstra
et al., 2003). However, these negative responses are particularly likely to occur when
status relations are insecure and members of low-status groups are particularly
motivated to improve the position of their group and the type of help offered is
dependency-oriented.
Recent findings on intergroup helping also demonstrate that help seeking has different
meanings and different implications for members of high-status groups versus members
of low-status groups. Following a pattern of “a stigma-consistent behavior,” high-status
group members that seek help are considered to be competent individuals who are highly
motivated to overcome an obstacle, resulting in autonomy-oriented help. However, the
seeking help behavior of low-status group members is viewed as lack of ability, which is
a confirming stereotype of weakness that results in dependency-oriented help (Nadler &
Chernyak-Hai, 2014).
Although Nadler’s (2002) intergroup helping as status relations model encompasses
responses of both helpers and recipients of help in intergroup contexts, this review
focuses on the helper and the type of help that is offered. That is, our emphasis is on the
helper. This theoretical analysis extends previous work by integrating principles and
paradigms from the intergroup helping as status relations model with research on inter-
group relations between members of different ethnic and racial groups and with work on
patronizing forms of sexism (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005a, 2005b; Dardenne, Dumont, &
Bollier, 2007; Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001b). In addition, the model considers individual
differences that can moderate the relationship between intergroup status relations and the
type of help that is offered to ethnic minorities.

Ethnicity, race, status relations, and helping

Research guided by the intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002) has
examined various forms of relations between racial and ethnic groups, representing dif-
ferent social statuses. Intergroup helping relations are complex, involving varied motives
to give help and subsequent reactions to receiving help. For example, when members of
the dominant group feel responsible for the disadvantaged position of the members of the
low-status group, and feel guilty for it, they become involved in prosocial actions to
compensate for the damage of institutionalized inequities. Iyer, Leach, and Crosby
(2003) and Leach, Bilali, and Pagliaro (2015) found that White Americans who felt
guilty for their supremacy position over Black Americans were more likely to help them
in order to relieve feelings of collective guilt.
Abad-Merino et al. 9

Consistent with the intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002), the
ways people help members of other groups are shaped by motives to maintain or achieve
higher status for their group. Halabi et al. (2008) found, for example, that Israeli Jews
offered Israeli Arabs less help, and particularly less autonomy-oriented help, than they
did to other Israeli Jews across a variety of problem-solving situations. Moreover, when
status relations were perceived as threatened by the educational progress made by Israeli
Arabs, Israeli Jews offered more dependency-oriented, relative to autonomy-oriented,
assistance to Israeli Arabs. Members of other dominant ethnic groups, residents of host
countries, also dispense more dependency-oriented help than autonomy-oriented help to
immigrants when they are perceived as a threat (Jackson & Esses, 2000) and give them
more dependency-oriented help compared to ingroup members when the status relations
are perceived as unstable (Cunningham & Platow, 2007).
Opposition to affirmative action programs that are designed to promote autonomy and
independence among low-status members may be a socially acceptable expression of
racial prejudice in societies where more blatant types of discrimination are seen as illegiti-
mate (McConahay, 1986), and this objection to affirmative action programs is a way to
maintain social hierarchy and ingroup advantage (Augoustinos, Ahrens, & Innes, 1994).
Because maintaining status hierarchy appears to be involved in both gender and
racial/ethnic intergroup relations (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), different forms of helping
behavior can also affect the processes of gender-based group hierarchy, contributing to
the perpetuation of structural disparities.

Gender, status relations, and helping

The perceived legitimacy and stability of the dominance of men over women has substan-
tially changed over the years. In the past, gender hierarchy was viewed as a stable and
legitimate social phenomenon. However, women are now more prevalent in the labor force
(Cotter, England, & Hermsen, 2008) and involved in social spheres beyond domestic rela-
tions and traditional “female” occupations (Cotter, Hermsen, & Vanneman, 2004, pp. 10–
14; England & Folbre, 2005). Thus, men’s social advantage over women is no longer
considered stable or legitimate; gender hierarchical relations have evolved into an insecure
and changeable condition (Diekman, Goodfriend, & Goodwin, 2004; Nadler, 2002).
In these circumstances of recent instability of the male dominant group’s hegem-
ony, the intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002) predicts that the
dominant group will defend its social advantage by reinforcing the low-status group’s
dependence on them. Providing dependency-oriented help to women contributes to
institutionalizing women’s chronic dependency and social disadvantage, while still
being consistent with general social norms of being gracious and supportive to women
in need. Compatible with research on benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996; see
also Lee, Fiske, & Glick, 2010), it establishes an environment of caring and support for
women that endorses the valuable “feminine” qualities while their social roles remain
restricted compared to those of men.
Moreover, Jackman (1994) and Biernat and Vescio (2002) showed that women also
supported paternalistic biases against women. In particular, Biernat and Vescio (2002)
found that women, as much as men, engaged in patronizing forms of praise while still
10 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

discriminating against competent women. Also, in a series of studies, Kay et al. (2009)
demonstrated that people’s motivations to justify and preserve the status quo, which are
equally strong for women and men, lead women to support policies and take actions that
ultimately perpetuate gender inequality. Specifically, Kay et al. (2009) found that women
who felt dependent on the social system were as likely as men to support the status quo
rather than endorse affirmative action policies that would benefit the social advancement
of women. Furthermore, after being presented with information that women were under-
represented in politics or in business, under conditions designed to elicit greater system
justification needs, participants of both genders engaged in actions that would reinforce
the underrepresentation of women in these domains (e.g., rating a “deviating” woman’s
competence and likeability poorly). Thus, because of prevalent motivations for system
justification (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Van der Toorn, 2012) and to preserve the status quo
(Kay et al., 2009), both men and women would support women who displayed prosocial
characteristics in a seemingly positive way through dependency-oriented helping. This
pattern would maintain and reinforce the traditional gender hierarchy (Vescio, Gervais,
Snyder, & Hoover, 2005).

Individual differences, status relations, and helping

Individual differences play a general role in helping behavior. People who are higher in
empathy and in feelings of efficacy are typically more helpful (Dovidio et al., 2006).
However, with respect to helping as a way to establish or attain status (Nadler, 2002), the
two most influential individual differences have been ingroup identification and Social
Dominance Orientation, which represents individual differences in support of group-
based hierarchy ideologies. Ingroup identification refers to the degree to which a group
membership is a valued and central element in one’s identity (Ellemers, Spears, &
Doosje, 1999; Leach, Mosquera, Vliek, & Hirt, 2010). Individuals with a higher level of
ingroup identification are more likely to use helping relations as a way to preserve or
promote their group’s social position. Nadler and Halabi (2006) found that high identi-
fiers were less willing to accept help from the high-status outgroup than low identifiers,
and that this reaction was more pronounced when status relations were perceived as
unstable and help was dependency-oriented.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) also systematically
influences the ways people choose to help members of another group. In general, because
people higher in SDO tend to see intergroup relations as more zero-sum and are moti-
vated to support their group’s status, they tend to give less autonomy-oriented relative to
dependency-oriented help across group lines. Higher SDO Canadians were less likely to
give autonomy-oriented forms of help to immigrants (Jackson & Esses, 2000) and, simi-
larly, higher SDO Israeli Jews were less likely to support giving autonomy-oriented help
to Israeli Arabs (Halabi et al., 2008).
Intergroup prejudices are also a potentially important, but less examined, individual dif-
ference within the context of Nadler’s (2002) model. Nevertheless, the limited evidence is
supportive of the model. Abad-Merino, Newheiser, Dovidio, Tabernero, and González
(2013) investigated the relation between prejudice against Latinos and the degree to which
people offer autonomy-oriented relative to dependency-oriented assistance in terms of
Abad-Merino et al. 11

social policies. These researchers found that participants higher in prejudice against Latinos
were less likely to offer autonomy-oriented relative to dependency-oriented help specifi-
cally to a Latina woman, distinctive from their response to an African American or White
woman. These group-specific prejudices affect the way subtle bias influences helping
toward the targets of prejudice in ways above and beyond general intergroup orientations
(assessed by SDO). Opposition to affirmative action programs that are designed to promote
autonomy and independence among members of low-status groups may be a socially
acceptable expression of racial prejudice in societies where more blatant discrimination is
deemed illegitimate (McConahay, 1986). This objection to affirmative action programs
that provide autonomy-oriented help may thus be a way to maintain social hierarchy and
ingroup advantage (Augoustinos et al., 1994). The link between dependency-oriented help
and the promotion of chronic dependency is a vicious cycle that has been examined in the
educational field. D’Errico, Leone, and Mastrovito (2011) found that children in the low-
status group to behave less autonomously than Italian children in their interactions with
teachers while solving a puzzle task, and it subsequently reinforced their lower status and
potentially contributed to chronic dependency.

Summary and implications

Whereas research on intergroup bias has traditionally focused on direct and overtly nega-
tive manifestations, the objective of the current review of the literature was to illuminate
how ostensibly prosocial behavior can subtly shape intergroup relations to perpetuate
inequitable outcomes between groups. Specifically, our examination, drawing on the
intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002), focused on how subtle forms
of bias related to prosocial behavior operate in racial and ethnic relations. We extended
this framework by integrating it with theoretical perspectives on paternalism and benev-
olent sexism in gender relations. These subtle biases are most likely to operate to enhance
social control over racial/ethnic minorities and women in a climate in which there is
widespread support for egalitarian values.
Our review and analysis suggests at least two novel, concrete directions for future
research. First, most current measures of prejudice focus on prejudice as antipathy and/
or overt expressions of support for hierarchical relations between groups (e.g., SDO). We
propose that hostile forms of prejudice may be supplanted in current societies by more
sophisticated subtle forms of bias. As a consequence, new measures of prejudice may
need to be developed to capture these subtle, and potentially changing, forms of bias to
further illuminate the ways seemingly positive actions maintain group hierarchy and
perpetuate unfair advantages and disadvantages to groups and their members. Current
measures of symbolic racism (Henry & Sears, 2002), modern sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall,
& Hunter, 1995), and benevolent and hostile sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996, 2001b) cap-
ture many elements of subtle bias, but it may be possible to create a measure of subtle
bias that, like SDO, may be applicable across a range of biases based on race, ethnicity,
and gender that may share the function of maintaining hierarchy involving socially or
legally protected groups through prosocial actions.
Second, future research might consider further the conditions that promote benevo-
lent versus hostile expressions to maintain and reinforce intergroup hierarchy. For
12 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

example, intergroup biases may be more direct and overtly negative when groups are
seen as distinct and potentially competitive. Perceiving groups as potentially competitors
in zero-sum relationships arouses intergroup threat (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, &
Armstrong, 2001) that justifies direct exploitation of the other group (Insko et al., 2001;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). By contrast, when groups perceive themselves as interdepend-
ent within a larger community and as sharing a common identity, they are more sensitive
to issues of procedural fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2003) and recognize the potential for
reactance that can produce collective action by members of socially disadvantaged
groups (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), which threatens the stability of the
status quo (Scheepers et al., 2006). Thus, under conditions of such interdependence,
prosocial mechanisms for social control such as those identified in Nadler’s (2002)
model, may operate more effectively.
In conclusion, prosocial as well as antisocial behavior can, when used strategically,
represent a powerful mechanism for social control. These processes not only have
implications for relatively spontaneous behaviors between individuals from different
groups, as identified in the intergroup helping as status relations model (Nadler, 2002),
but also for support for social policies that can enhance the autonomy or dependency of
members of lower-status groups and affect groups collectively (Jackson & Esses, 2000).
Understanding why, how, and when people and groups use ostensibly prosocial behav-
ior as a mechanism for social control can draw attention to subtle processes that pro-
mote inequity and suggest new interventions for achieving truly fair and just societies.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Abad-Merino, S., Newheiser, A. K., Dovidio, J. F., Tabernero, C., & González, I. (2013). The
dynamics of intergroup helping: The case of subtle bias against Latinos. Cultural Diversity
and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 19, 445–452. doi: 10.1037/a0032658
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Social identity and self categorization. In J. F. Dovidio, M.
Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and
discrimination (pp. 179–193). London, UK: Sage.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York, NY: Harper.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.
Augoustinos, M., Ahrens, C., & Innes, J. M. (1994). Stereotypes and prejudice: The Australian
experience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 125–141. doi: 10.1111/j.2044–
8309.1994.tb01014.x
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005a). The burden of benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the
maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633–642.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.270
Abad-Merino et al. 13

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005b). The perils of political correctness: Men’s and women’s
responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75–78.
doi: 10.1177/019027250506800106
Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications
of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66–77. doi: 10.1177/0146167202281006
Blackaby, D. H., Leslie, D. G., Murphy, P. D., & O’Leary, N. C. (2005). Born in Britain: How are
native ethnic minorities faring in the British labor market? Economics Letters, 88, 370–375.
doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.008
Bobo, L. D. (1999). Prejudice as group position: Microfoundations of a sociological approach
to racism and race relations. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 445–472. doi: 10.1111/0022–
4537.00127
Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311). Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Caprara, G. V., & Steca, P. (2005). Self–efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior
conducive to life satisfaction across ages. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24,
191–217. doi: 10.1521/jscp.24.2.191.62271
Cotter, D. A., England, P., & Hermsen, J. (2008). Moms and jobs: Trends in mothers’ employment
and which mothers stay home. In S. Coontz (Ed.), American families: A multicultural reader
(2nd ed., pp. 379–386). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., & Vanneman, R. (2004). Gender inequality at work. New York,
NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Cunningham, E., & Platow, M. J. (2007). On helping lower status out-groups: The nature of the
help and the stability of the intergroup status hierarchy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology,
10, 258–264. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–839X.2007.00234.x
Dardenne, B., Dumont, M., & Bollier, T. (2007). Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism:
Consequences for women’s performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93,
764–779. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.93.5.764
Deelstra, J. T., Peeters, M. C., Schaufeli, W. B., Stroebe, W., Zijlstra, F. R., & van Doornen, L.
P. (2003). Receiving instrumental support at work: When help is not welcome. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 324–331. doi: 10.1037/0021–9010.88.2.324
D’Errico, F., Leone, G., & Mastrovito, T. (2011). The paradox of over-help. When teacher’s inter-
vention makes an immigrant child more dependent. In W. Berg, (Ed.), Multicultural classes
(pp. 129–144). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag GmbH.
Diekman, A. B., Goodfriend, W., & Goodwin, S. (2004). Dynamic stereotypes of power:
Perceived change and stability in gender hierarchies. Sex Roles, 50, 201–215. doi: 10.1023/b:s
ers.0000015552.22775.44
Dovidio, J. F. (2013). Landmark article: Bridging intragroup processes and intergroup relations.
Needing the twain to meet. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 1–24. doi: 10.1111/
bjso.12026
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Abad-Merino, S. (2017). Helping behavior and subtle discrimi-
nation. In E. A. C. van Leeuwen & H. Zagefka (Eds.), Intergroup helping. New York, NY:
Springer.
Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. E., & Rudman, L. A. (2005). On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after
Allport. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., Schroeder, D. A., & Penner, L. (2006). The social psychology of
prosocial behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

Ellemers, N. E., Spears, R. E., & Doosje, B. E. (1999). (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commit-
ment, content. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
England, P., & Folbre, N. (2005). Gender and economic sociology. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg
(Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology (pp. 627–649). New York, NY: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. M. (2001). The immigration
dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity.
Journal of Social Issues, 57, 389–412. doi: 10.1111/0022–4537.00220
European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 393. Discrimination in the EU in
2012. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/
ebs_393_en.pdf
Eurostat. (2017). Gender pay gap statistics. Eurostat: Statistics explained. Retrieved from http://
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Gender_pay_gap_statistics
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self
through derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31–44. doi:
10.1037/0022–3514.73.1.31
Foels, R., & Pratto, F. (2015). The hidden dynamics of discrimination: How ideologies organize
power and influence intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J.
A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Group pro-
cesses (pp. 341–369). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. P. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in
social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity
model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Guerra, R., Hehman, E., & Saguy, T. (2016). A common ingroup
identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In T. Nelson (Ed.),
Handbook of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping (2nd ed., pp. 433–454). New York,
NY: Psychology Press.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile
and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:
10.1037/0022–3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001a). Ambivalent stereotypes as legitimizing ideologies: Differentiating
paternalistic and envious prejudice. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legiti-
macy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 278–306).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001b). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as com-
plementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:
10.1037//0003–066x.56.2.109
Halabi, S., Dovidio, J. F., & Nadler, A. (2008). When and how do high status group members
offer help: Effects of social dominance orientation and status threat. Political Psychology, 29,
841–858. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9221.2008.00669.x
Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some thoughts on the cognitive
approach. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behav-
ior (pp. 333–353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. (2007). Beyond the banality of evil: Three dynamics of an interac-
tionist social psychology of tyranny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 615–
622. doi: 10.1177/0146167206298570
Heath, A. F., & Cheung, S. Y. (2007). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western labour mar-
kets. Proceedings of the British Academy, 137. doi: 10.5871/bacad/978 0197263860.001.0001
Abad-Merino et al. 15

Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The Symbolic Racism 2000 Scale. Political Psychology, 23,
253–283. doi: 10.1111/0162–895x.00281
Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., …Montoya, M. R.
(2001). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future
interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 95–111. doi: 10.1037//0022–
3514.80.1.95
Iyer, A., Leach, C. W., & Crosby, F. J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The ben-
efits and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117–129. doi:
10.1177/0146167202238377
Jackman, M. R. (1994). Velvet glove: Paternalism and conflict in gender, class, and race relations.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic competition on people’s
willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–
435. doi: 10.1177/1368430200003004006
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the produc-
tion of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi: 10.1111/
j.2044–8309.tb01008.x
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory:
Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political
Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. doi: 10.1111/j.1467–9221.2004.00402.x
Jost, J. T., Gaucher, D., & Stern, C. (2015). “The world isn’t fair”: A system justification perspec-
tive on social stratification. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver, J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson
(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2. Group processes (pp.
317–340). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., van der Toorn, J., Ledgerwood, A., Mandisodza, A., & Nosek, B. (2010).
System justification: How do we know it’s motivated? In D. R. Bobocel, A. C. Kay, M.
P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of justice and legitimacy: The Ontario
Symposium (Vol. 11, pp. 173−203). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jost, J. T., & van der Toorn, J. (2012). System justification theory. In P.A.M. van Lange, A. W.
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp.
313–343) London, UK: Sage.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Peach, J. M., Laurin, K., Friesen, J., Zanna, M. P., & Spencer, S. J.
(2009). Inequality, discrimination, and the power of the status quo: Direct evidence for a
motivation to see the way things are as the way they should be. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 97, 421–434. doi: 10.1037/a0015997
Leach, C. W., Bilali, R., & Pagliaro, S. (2015). Groups and morality. In M. Mikulincer, P. R. Shaver,
J. F. Dovidio, & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology:
Vol. 2. Group processes (pp. 123–149). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Leach, C. W., Mosquera, P. M. R., Vliek, M. L., & Hirt, E. (2010). Group devaluation and group
identification. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 535–552. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–4560.2010.01661.x
Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2010). Next gen ambivalent sexism: Converging correlates,
causality in context, and converse causality. An introduction to the special issue. Sex Roles,
62, 395–404. doi: 10.1007/s11199–010–9747–9
Major, B., Kaiser, C. R., O’Brien, L. T., & McCoy, S. K. (2007). Perceived discrimination as
worldview threat or worldview confirmation: Implications for self-esteem. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1068–1086. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.92.6.1068
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F.
Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91–126). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
16 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

McGinnity, F., Nelson, J., Lunn, P., & Quinn, E. (2009). Discrimination in recruitment: Evidence
from a field experiment. Dublin, Ireland: Equality Authority/ESRI.
Mirels, H. L., & Garrett, J. B. (1971). The protestant ethic as a personality variable. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36(1), 40–44. doi: 10.1037/h0030477
Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee, S., & Beishon, S. (1997). Ethnic
minorities in Britain: Diversity and disadvantage. London, UK: Policy Studies Institute.
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter–group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging
social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502.
doi: 10.1111/1540–4560.00272
Nadler, A. (2016). Intergroup helping relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 64–68. doi:
10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.05.016
Nadler, A., & Chernyak-Hai, L. (2014). Helping them stay where they are: Status effects on
dependency/autonomy-oriented helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106,
58–72. doi: 10.1037/a0034152
Nadler, A., & Halabi, S. (2006). Intergroup helping as status relations: Effects of status stabil-
ity, identification, and type of help on receptivity to high-status group’s help. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 97–110. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.91.1.97
Nadler, A., Harpaz-Gorodeisky, G., & Ben-David, Y. (2009). Defensive helping: Threat to group
identity, ingroup identification, status stability, and common group identity as determinants
of intergroup help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 823–834. doi:
10.1037/a0015968
Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-
based spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 36, 77–89. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1999.1399
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (1999). About the impact of automaticity in the minimal group para-
digm: Evidence from affective priming tasks. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29,
1049–1071. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099–0992(199912)29:8<1049::aid-ejsp985>3.0.co;2-q
Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice:
Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 314–338. doi:
10.1111/j.1751–9004.2009.00183.x
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior:
Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365–392. doi: 10.1146/annurev.
psych.56.091103.070141
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420250106
Reicher, S. D., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). Beyond help: A social psychology of collective solidar-
ity and social cohesion. In S. Stürmer & M. Snyder (Eds.), The psychology of pro-social
behavior: Group processes, intergroup relations, and helping (pp. 289–309). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Rudman, L. A., & Heppen, J. B. (2003). Implicit romantic fantasies and women’s interest in per-
sonal power: A glass slipper effect? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1357–
1370. doi: 10.1177/0146167203256906
Saguy, T., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2008). Beyond contact: Intergroup contact in the con-
text of power relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 432–445. doi:
10.1177/0146167207311200
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. S. (2006). Diversity in in-group bias:
Structural factors, situational features, and social functions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 944–960. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.90.6.944
Abad-Merino et al. 17

Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul. doi: 10.1177/030639686800900327
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict
and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book
Exchange.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–224. doi:
10.1037//0022–3514.68.2.199
Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 79–97. doi:
10.1111/j.1540–4560.1969.tb00620.x
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family
issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family,
63, 1009–1037. doi: 10.1111/j.1741–3737.2001.01009.x
Tyler, T. R. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural justice, social
identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0704_07
U.S. Department of Labor. (2009). An analysis of reasons for the disparity in wages between men
and women. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/pub-
lic-policy/hr-public-policy-issues/documents/gender%20wage%20gap%20final%20report.
pdf
van Leeuwen, E., Täuber, S., & Sassenberg, K. (2011). Knocking on the outgroup’s door: Seeking
outgroup help under conditions of task or relational conflict. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 33, 266–278. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2011.589339
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of
collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. doi: 10.1037/0033–2909.134.4.504
Vescio, T. K., Gervais, S. J., Snyder, M., & Hoover, A. (2005). Power and the creation of patron-
izing environments: The stereotype-based behaviors of the powerful and their effects on
female performance in masculine domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 658–672. doi: 10.1037/0022–3514.88.4.658
Voci, A. (2006). The link between identification and in-group favouritism: Effects of threat to
social identity and trust-related emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 265–284.
doi: 10.1348/014466605x52245

Author biographies
Silvia Abad-Merino is a professor of Didactics and Organizational Education at the University of
Córdoba, Spain. Her research is focused on the systematic study of how subtle forms of bias main-
tain structural disadvantage for ethnic minorities and women, the evaluation of inequitable out-
comes of different vulnerable populations in educational and health settings, and the dynamics of
intergroup helping.
18 Theory & Psychology 00(0)

John F. Dovidio is a Carl Iver Hovland professor of Psychology and Public Health at Yale
University, New Haven, CT, USA. His research interests are in stereotyping, prejudice, and dis-
crimination; social power and nonverbal communication; and altruism and helping.
Carmen Tabernero is a professor of Social Psychology at the University of Salamanca, Spain.
From a social-cognitive perspective, her main research interest is the analysis of motivational
processes at individual and collective level (e.g., self-efficacy and collective-efficacy, goals, and
emotional states) related to behavior (e.g., complex decision making processes, acculturation pro-
cesses, or prosocial and pro-environmental behaviors). She has been principal investigator in many
research projects; her present project is focalized on the study of the motivational processes related
to health and life satisfaction in patients with cardiovascular disease.
Ignacio González is a professor of Educational Research Methodology at University of Córdoba,
Spain. He is the director of the research group SEJ049 – Educational Evaluation and Innovation.
His research is concerned with educational evaluation and training in teacher skills.