A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice.

By C. Crandall, A. Eshleman. Psychological bulletin, 2003

1,089 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f1a67c203205fc9429c79a6e5967a52303da50bb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Racism on the Internet: Conceptualization and Recommendations for Research (2018, methodology): “The justification–suppression model of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) is also useful in this regard as expression of prejudicial beliefs on the Internet may be justified as an effort for the dominant group to identify with their privileged statuses in society; put simply, racist remarks…”
Cheating more when the spoils are split (2011, background): “…likely to act discriminatorily when they can ‘‘camouflage’’ their discriminatory behavior or prejudicial attitudes behind socially acceptable reasons (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Dovidio, Smith, Donnella, & Gaertner, 1997; Esses, Dietz, & Bhardwaj, 2006; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977, 2000; Gaertner,…”
Danger, Disease, and the Nature of Prejudice(s) (2012, background): “Like food, the word prejudice is singular, not plural, and is typically defined in a singular way (e.g., “a negative evaluation of a social group or a negative evaluation of an individual that is significantly based on the individual's group membership”; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003, p. 414).”
Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election (2010, neutral): “Given sufficient time and cognitive resources, the reasoning process evaluates whether associations are valid or invalid by checking them against evidence and personal values ( Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Fazio et al., 1995).”
From prejudice to discrimination: The legitimizing role of perceived threat in discrimination against immigrants (2010, background): “Indeed, this threat perception should be a mediator in the relationship between prejudice and discrimination since it can be regarded as a justifying factor of discrimination (see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; LaPiere, 1936), especially when the social context condemns discrimination.”
FLATTERY WILL GET YOU EVERYWHERE (ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE A MALE CAUCASIAN): HOW INGRATIATION, BOARDROOM BEHAVIOR, AND DEMOGRAPHIC MINORITY STATUS AFFECT ADDITIONAL BOARD APPOINTMENTS AT U.S. COMPANIES (2007, background): “…perspectives on discrimination, such as “aversive racism,” that suggest that although overt forms of discrimination have become less common in U.S. companies over time, discrimination persists in relatively subtle, “covert” forms (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000: 316).”
Sexual Prejudice (2014, neutral): “Of course, our design cannot conclusively prove this, nor conclusively rule out the reverse causality hypothesis that sexual prejudices cause perceptions of unwanted sexual interest (perhaps via prejudice justification processes; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).”
Consequences of attributing discrimination to implicit vs. explicit bias (2019, background): “Coupled with general societal condemnation of explicit forms of racial bias (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), it is possible that individuals with higher levels of IMS may be especially likely to hold perpetrators of discrimination that is thought to be due to explicit bias more accountable and see them…”
The Contact Space: A Novel Framework for Intergroup Contact Research (2010, background): “Crisp and Turner (2009) note how imagined contact can be a prelude to extended and actual contact, reducing anxiety levels about the outgroup prior to “real” contact.”
Endorsing Obama licenses favoring Whites (2009, background): “Contemporary Americans are normally careful not to express such views for fear of experiencing disapproval or guilt (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), unless their past behavior establishes their moral credentials as unbiased individuals: Monin and Miller (2001) showed that merely choosing an…”
The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations (2010, background): “Much of the work broadly classifi ed under the “justifi cation-suppression model” of prejudice (Crandall and Eshleman, 2003) converges on the idea that individual prejudice will be suppressed unless it can be justifi ed on grounds other than prejudice.”
Disparagement humor: A theoretical and empirical review of psychoanalytic, superiority, and social identity theories (2008, background): “That is, people may suppress prejudice in order to maintain a non-prejudiced self-concept or to avoid the appearance of prejudice to others (Crandall and Eshleman 2003: 420).”
Gone Fishing: I–O Psychologists' Missed Opportunities to Understand Marginalized Employees' Experiences With Discrimination (2013, background): “For instance, many individuals view obesity as a characteristic that one has a great deal of control over based on diet, exercise, and lifestyle, and therefore they feel more justified in discriminating against these individuals (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).”