8.3: Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice and Discrimination

Prejudice is a negative attitude and feeling toward an individual based solely on one’s membership in a particular social group, such as gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, social class, religion, sexual orientation, profession, and many more (Allport, 1954; Brown, 2010). An example of prejudice is having a negative attitude toward people who are not born in the United States. Although people holding this prejudiced attitude do not know all people who were not born in the United States, they dislike them due to their status as foreigners.

Identifying Prejudice

Implicit bias refers to unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that affect how we perceive and interact with others, often without our awareness (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Because people may be unaware of these biases - or reluctant to admit them - social psychologists have developed indirect methods to study them.

In intercultural contexts, implicit bias can lead to microaggressions: subtle, often unintended slights that communicate exclusion or disrespect (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder, Nadal, & Esquilin., 2007). Though seemingly minor, these moments accumulate over time, undermining trust and reinforcing power imbalances. Addressing implicit bias requires intentional reflection, education, and exposure to diverse perspectives.

Researchers often measure implicit bias through nonverbal behaviors, such as physical distance. For example, participants asked to sit near someone from a different racial group tend to sit farther away if they hold prejudiced attitudes (Sechrist & Stangor, 2001; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).

Reaction-time tests also reveal bias. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) asks respondents to quickly categorize images and words. When stereotype-consistent pairings (e.g., “men” and “strong”) are grouped together, responses are faster and more accurate. When pairings challenge stereotypes (e.g., “women” and “strong”), responses slow and errors increase (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007). These patterns suggest that even individuals who consciously reject prejudice may still hold implicit associations.

Research shows that implicit bias can influence behavior in serious ways. In one study, White participants were more likely to “shoot” unarmed Black targets than White ones in simulated decision-making tasks, revealing how bias can affect split-second judgements (Correll et al., 2007).

Although the IAT and similar tools have sparked debate (Tetlock & Mitchell, 2008), they consistently show that stereotypes are easily activated and can shape behavior - even when people intend to be fair (Barden, Maddux, Petty, & Brewer, 2004).

Figure 8.2.1: An actual screenshot from an IAT (Implicit Association Test) that is designed to test a person’s reaction time (measured in milliseconds) to an array of stimuli that are presented on the screen. This particular item is testing an individual’s unconscious reaction towards members of various ethnic groups. [Image: Courtesy of Anthony Greenwald from Project Implicit]

Explaining Prejudice

As discussed previously in this section, we all belong to a gender, race, age, and social economic group. These groups provide a powerful source of our identity and self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). These groups serve as our ingroups. An ingroup is a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to. A group that we don’t belong to, or an outgroup, is a group that we view as fundamentally different from us. For example, if you are female, your gender ingroup includes all females, and your gender outgroup includes all males. People often view gender groups as being fundamentally different from each other in personality traits, characteristics, social roles, and interests. Perceiving others as members of ingroups or outgroups is one of the most important perceptual distinctions that we make. We often feel strongly connected to our ingroups, especially when they are centrally tied to our identities and culture. Because we often feel a strong sense of belonging and emotional connection to our ingroups, we develop ingroup favoritism—the tendency to respond more positively to people from our ingroups than we do to people from outgroups.

People also make trait attributions in ways that benefit their ingroups, just as they make trait attributions that benefit themselves. This general tendency, known as the ultimate attribution error, results in the tendency for each of the competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and unrealistically negatively (Hewstone, 1990). When an ingroup member engages in a positive behavior, we tend to see it as a stable internal characteristic of the group as a whole. Similarly, negative behaviors on the part of the outgroup are seen as caused by stable negative group characteristics. On the other hand, negative behaviors from the ingroup and positive behaviors from the outgroup are more likely to be seen as caused by temporary situational variables or by behaviors of specific individuals and are less likely to be attributed to the group. For example, if your friend (someone you perceive as part of your ingroup) does well on an exam, you might account for that by stating that your friend is smart and studied well for the exam. But if someone who you consider as part of your outgroup, such as an international student, does well on an exam, then the reason attributed is that the subject matter is easy, or the professor gives easy exams. Similarly, if your friend does poorly on an exam, you may blame the difficulty of the subject matter or the professor for making unfair exams. If an international student does poorly on an exam, the tendency is to see it as a group trait (international students tend to do poorly on exams). This ingroup bias can result in prejudice and discrimination because the outgroup is perceived as different and is less preferred than our ingroup.

A personality dimension that relates to the desires to protect and enhance the self and the ingroup and thus also relates to greater ingroup favoritism, and in some cases prejudice toward outgroups, is the personality dimension of authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1988). Authoritarianism is a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer things to be simple rather than complex and who tend to hold traditional and conventional values. Authoritarians are ingroup-favoring in part because they have a need to self-enhance and in part because they prefer simplicity and thus find it easy to think simply: “We are all good and they are all less good.” Political conservatives tend to show more ingroup favoritism than do political liberals, perhaps because the former are more concerned with protecting the ingroup from threats posed by others (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Stangor & Leary, 2006). Authoritarian personalities develop in childhood in response to parents who practice harsh discipline. Individuals with authoritarian personalities emphasize such things as obedience to authority, a rigid adherence to rules, and low acceptance of people (outgroups) not like oneself. Many studies find strong racial and ethnic prejudice among such individuals (Sibley & Duckitt, 2008). But whether their prejudice stems from their authoritarian personalities or instead from the fact that their parents were probably prejudiced themselves remains an important question.

Developed initially from John Dollard’s (1900-1980) frustration-aggression theory, Scapegoating is the act of blaming a subordinate group when the dominant group experiences frustration or is blocked from obtaining a goal (Allport, 1954). History provides many examples: The lynchings of African Americans in the South increased when the Southern economy worsened and decreased when the economy improved (Tolnay & Beck, 1995). Similarly, white mob violence against Chinese immigrants in the 1870s began after the railroad construction that employed so many Chinese immigrants slowed and the Chinese began looking for work in other industries. Whites feared that the Chinese would take jobs away from white workers and that their large supply of labor would drive down wages. Their assaults on the Chinese killed several people and prompted the passage by Congress of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 that prohibited Chinese immigration (Dinnerstein & Reimers, 2009). An example from the last century is the way that Adolf Hitler was able to use the Jewish people as scapegoats for Germany’s social and economic problems. In the United States, many states have enacted laws to disenfranchise immigrants; these laws are popular because they let the dominant group scapegoat a subordinate group. Many minority groups have been scapegoated for a nation’s — or an individual’s — woes.

Figure 8.2.2: During the 1870s, whites feared that Chinese immigrants would take away their jobs. This fear led to white mob violence against the Chinese and to an act of Congress that prohibited Chinese immigration.
Wikimedia Commons (opens in new window)– public domain.

One popular explanation of prejudice emphasizes conformity and socialization and is called social learning theory. In this view, people who are prejudiced are merely conforming to the culture in which they grow up, and prejudice is the result of socialization from parents, peers, the news media, Facebook, and other various aspects of their culture. Supporting this view, studies have found that people tend to become more prejudiced when they move to areas where people are very prejudiced and less prejudiced when they move to locations where people are less prejudiced (Aronson, 2008).

The mass media play a significant role in shaping public perceptions of race and reinforcing prejudice. This influence stems from the persistent tendency to portray people of color - particularly Black Americans - in disproportionately negative light. Such portrayals can validate existing biases or even intensify them (Cox, 2024). Recent studies show that although poverty affects all racial groups, media coverage still overrepresents Black Americans in stories about welfare and crime. A 2023 Pew Research Center survey found that 63% of Black Americans believe news coverage about their communities is more negative than coverage of other groups, and 43% say it significantly reinforces stereotypes (Bauder, 2023). Additionally, Black Americans are often depicted as either victims or perpetrators of crime, with little attention paid to the diversity and nuance within their communities (Whitaker, as cited in Bauder, 2023). Leadership disparities in newsrooms further compound the issue: in 2024, only 29% of top editors in U.S. news outlets were people of color, despite people of color comprising a much larger share of the population (Reuters Institute, 2024). These patterns suggest that media bias is not only persistent but structurally embedded, influencing how audiences interpret race, poverty, and civic worth.

Discrimination

Prejudice and discrimination are often confused, but the basic difference between them is this: prejudice is the attitude, while discrimination is the behavior. Sometimes people will act on their prejudiced attitudes toward a group of people, and this behavior is known as discrimination. More specifically, discrimination in this context refers to the arbitrary denial of rights, privileges, and opportunities to members of these groups. The use of the word arbitrary emphasizes that these groups are being treated unequally not because of their lack of merit but because of one’s membership in a particular group (Allport, 1954; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). As a result of holding negative beliefs (stereotypes) and negative attitudes (prejudice) about a particular group, people often treat the target of prejudice poorly.

Examples of Discrimination

When we meet strangers we automatically process three pieces of information about them: their race, gender, and age (Ito & Urland, 2003). Why are these aspects of an unfamiliar person so important? Why don’t we instead notice whether their eyes are friendly, whether they are smiling, their height, the type of clothes they are wearing? Although these secondary characteristics are important in forming a first impression of a stranger, the social categories of race, gender, and age provide a wealth of information about an individual. This information, however, is based on stereotypes, and prejudice and discrimination often begin in the form of stereotypes.

Racism

Racism is a type of prejudice that is used to justify the belief that one racial category is somehow superior or inferior to others. Racial discrimination is discrimination against an individual based solely on one’s membership in a specific racial group (such as toward African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans, Arab Americans, etc.). For example, Blacks are significantly more likely to have their vehicles searched during traffic stops than Whites, particularly when Blacks are driving in predominately White neighborhoods, (a phenomenon often termed “DWB,” or “driving while Black.”) (Rojek, Rosenfeld, & Decker, 2012). Mexican Americans and other Latinx groups also are targets of racism from the police and other members of the community. For example, when purchasing items with a personal check, Latinx shoppers are more likely than White shoppers to be asked to show formal identification (Dovidio et al., 2010).

In one case of alleged harassment by the police, several East Haven, Connecticut, police officers were arrested on federal charges due to reportedly continued harassment and brutalization of Latinx people. When the accusations came out, the mayor of East Haven was asked, “What are you doing for the Latino community today?” The Mayor responded, “I might have tacos when I go home, I’m not quite sure yet” (“East Haven Mayor,” 2012) This statement undermines the important issue of racial profiling and police harassment of Latinx people, while belittling Latinx culture by emphasizing an interest in a food product stereotypically associated with Latinx people. We will discuss racism in more depth in the next section.

Sexism

Sexism is prejudice and discrimination toward individuals based on their sex. Typically, sexism takes the form of men holding biases against women, but either sex can show sexism toward their own or the other sex. Common forms of sexism in modern society include gender role expectations, such as expecting women to be the caretakers of the household. Sexism also includes people’s expectations for how members of a gender group should behave. Women are still widely expected to be friendly, modest, and nurturing, and when they act assertively or self-promote, they often face social penalties for violating these norms (Travis, 2025). Recent research confirms that female job applicants who highlight their achievements are perceived as competent but are also more likely to be disliked and passed over for leadership roles (McKinsey & LeanIn.Org(opens in new window), 2024). This reflects a persistent double bind: women must demonstrate competence to be considered for advancement, yet doing so can trigger backlash for frying gender expectations.

Sexism also operates at a structural level, especially in hiring and promotion within male-dominated fields like engineering, aviation, and construction. Despite gains in education and experience, women remain underrepresented in these sectors and face slower career progression (McKinsey & LeanIn.Org(opens in new window), 2024). A 2024 study found that women are less likely to be shortlisted for interviews than equally qualified men, particularly when hiring decisions are made by managers rather than HR professionals (Travis, 2025). These patterns reveal how gender bias continues to shape workplace outcomes, often in subtle but measurable ways.

Figure 8.2.3: Women now have many jobs previously closed to them, though they still face challenges in male-dominated occupations.
(credit: "Alex"/Flickr)

Religious Discrimination

Religious discrimination is prejudice and bias directed toward individuals based on their religious identity or practices. Similar to racism and sexism, religious discrimination operates both interpersonally and structurally, shaping how people are treated in everyday interactions and within institutions. For example, Muslim and Jewish Americans report disproportionately high levels of hostility, ranging from verbal harassment to organizational exclusion, compared to Christian counterparts (Scheitle & Ecklund, 2020). These experiences are not simply incidental but reflect broader cultural narratives such as Islamophobia and anti‑Semitism, which frame certain religious groups as threatening or “outsiders.”

Religious prejudice also manifests in subtle ways, such as assumptions about who is “truly American” or who belongs in professional spaces. Surveys show that a significant portion of U.S. adults link Christianity with national identity, which can marginalize non‑Christian groups and reinforce exclusionary norms (Scheitle & Ecklund, 2020). In workplaces, employees who wear visible religious symbols—such as hijabs, yarmulkes, or turbans—may face bias in hiring or promotion, echoing the structural barriers seen in sexism and racism. These patterns reveal how religious identity, like race and gender, becomes a site of discrimination that limits opportunities and undermines communication competence across diverse communities.

Student Voice

Islamophobia in the USA

The form of prejudice I want to reflect on is Islamophobia and racism. As a Muslim Afghan woman, I often feel a mixture of gratitude and uneasiness. I am thankful that I live in the United States, where I can pursue my education, an opportunity many girls in Afghanistan are denied today. Every time I sit in a classroom or think about my future, I am reminded of those who are not allowed to do the same. That reminder motivates me, but it also makes me aware of how fragile basic rights can be.

In recent years, global conflicts and intense debates about immigration have made me more conscious of how quickly public attitudes can shift, and how those shifts affect the safety and visibility of Muslim communities like mine. I believe deeply that all people, regardless of background, deserve safety, dignity, and the freedom to live without fear. That belief shapes how I understand what is happening around me and how I connect with others.

I also admire the courage of people from many communities, including Jewish and Muslim, who speak out against violence and advocate for peace. Seeing those shared values gives me hope and reminds me that humanity is strongest when we stand together rather than apart. Even though I haven’t personally experienced direct discrimination, I still feel nervous at times because I know how quickly misunderstanding can turn into prejudice.

For me, resilience means holding on to faith, hope, and education. Afghan families like mine continue moving forward despite uncertainty. Muslim women, whether or not they wear hijab, still learn, work, and raise their voices even when the world feels heavy. One strategy from the intercultural communication that resonates with me is storytelling. When people share their personal experiences, others begin to see them as individuals rather than stereotypes. If more stories were heard from Muslims, Afghans, Palestinians, Jewish people, and many others who seek peace, we would see more understanding and less fear.

Through storytelling, I hope to challenge assumptions and remind others that every person, no matter their faith or background, deserves dignity, understanding, and the freedom to thrive.

Sana Babakarkhil, Cerritos College Student

Heterosexism

While public support for LBGTQ+ rights has grown significantly in recent years, homophobia remains a persistent form of prejudice in U.S. society. In 2025, many LGBTQ+ individuals still face exclusion, microaggressions, and systemic discrimination in workplaces, schools, and communities (GLAAD, 2025). This bias often manifests in subtle ways - such as avoiding LGBTQ+ neighbors or co-workers - but also in more overt forms, including hiring discrimination and social rejection.

Despite legal protections in many states, LGBTQ+ job applicants continue to be passed over due to implicit bias. A recent audit study found that resumes with LGBTQ+ indicators received fewer callbacks than identical resumes without such markers, especially in conservative regions (Tilsik, Anteby, & Knight, 2024). These findings suggest that heteronormative expectations still shape perceptions of professionalism and belonging.

Homophobia can also be fueled by internal conflict. In a now-classic study, Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) explored the psychological roots of homophobic attitudes. They found that men who scored high on a homophobia scale showed physiological arousal to male-male sexual content, despite denying any attraction. THis paradox has led researchers to examine how repression, shame, and cultural norms may contribute to hostile attitudes toward LGBTQ+ individuals.

Today, scholars emphasize that homophobia is not simply a personal prejudice - it is a social construct shaped by gender norms, religious ideologies, and power structures. Understanding its roots is essential for fostering inclusive communication and dismantling barriers to equality.

Ageism

People often form judgments and hold expectations about people based on their age, which can lead to ageism - prejudice or discrimination rooted in age-based stereotypes. While ageism most commonly targets older adults, younger people also experience bias, particularly in professional and leadership contexts (Stanford Center on Longevity, 2025). In U.S. culture, ageism remains one of the most socially accepted forms of prejudice, often portraying older adults as cognitively slow, physically frail, or less attractive (Weir, 2023). These stereotypes contribute to exclusion in healthcare, employment, and media representation, and have been linked to poorer health outcomes and reduced self-esteem among older adults (NCEA, 2025).

Importantly, attitudes toward aging vary across cultures. Many Asian, Latinx, and African American communities - both within and beyond the United States - continue to honor and respect older adults, valuing their wisdom and life experiences. Intergenerational programs and culturally grounded practices offer promising pathways to challenge ageist assumptions and promote more inclusive communication across age groups (Stanford Center on Longevity, 2025).

Types of Discrimination

Individual Discrimination

Individual discrimination is discrimination that individuals practice in their daily lives, usually because they are prejudiced. To many observers, the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in February 2012 was a deadly example of individual discrimination. Martin, a 17-year-old African American, was walking in a gated community in Sanford, Florida, as he returned from a 7-Eleven with a bag of Skittles and some iced tea. An armed neighborhood watch volunteer, George Zimmerman, called 911 and said Martin looked suspicious. Although the 911 operator told Zimmerman not to approach Martin, Zimmerman did so anyway; within minutes Zimmerman shot and killed the unarmed Martin and later claimed self-defense. According to many critics of this incident, Martin’s only “crime” was “walking while black.” As an African American newspaper columnist observed, “For every black man in America, from the millionaire in the corner office to the mechanic in the local garage, the Trayvon Martin tragedy is personal. It could have been me or one of my sons. It could have been any of us” (Robinson, 2012).

Figure 8.2.4: Michael Flishman - Trayvon_Martin_Occupy March 21 - CC BY-SA 2.0

Much individual discrimination occurs in the workplace, as sociologist Denise Segura (Segura, 1992) documented when she interviewed 152 Mexican American women working in white-collar jobs at a public university in California. More than 40 percent of the women said they had encountered workplace discrimination based on their ethnicity and/or gender, and they attributed their treatment to stereotypes held by their employers and coworkers. Along with discrimination, they were the targets of condescending comments like “I didn’t know that there were any educated people in Mexico that have a graduate degree.”

Institutional Discrimination

Individual discrimination is important to address, but just as consequential in today’s world is institutional discrimination, or discrimination that pervades the practices of whole institutions, such as housing, medical care, law enforcement, employment, and education. This type of discrimination does not just affect a few isolated individuals, instead, it affects large numbers of individuals simply because of their race, gender, ability, or other group affiliation.

Institutional discrimination often stems from prejudice, as was certainly true in the South during segregation. However, institutions can also discriminate without realizing it. They may make decisions that seem to be racially neutral, but upon close inspection, have a discriminatory effect against people of color. Unfortunately, too often institutional discrimination is a carefully orchestrated plan to target certain groups for discrimination, without appearing to. A particularly egregious example is the so-called War on Drugs, whereby discriminatory enforcement of drug laws resulted in higher arrest and incarceration rates for lower income, urban, communities of color. These communities are not reflective of increased prevalence of drug use, but rather of law enforcement’s targeting of these populations. Institutional discrimination affects the life chances of people of color in many aspects of life today. To illustrate this, we turn to some examples of institutional discrimination that have been the subject of government investigation and scholarly research.

Criminal Justice

Since the launch of the “War on Drugs” in the 1980s, the U.S. incarceration rate has remained the highest among high-income nations. As of 2024, approximately 1.9 million people are incarcerated in the United States, with racial disparities continuing to define the system (Sawyer & Wagner, 2024). Black men remain nearly six times more likely to be incarcerated than white men, and Black women are imprisoned at twice the rate of white women (The Sentencing Project, 2023). Although Black and Latinx individuals make up roughly 31% of the U.S. adult population, they account for over 52% of the incarcerated population (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2024).

These disparities extend beyond prison walls. Nearly half of Black women report having a close family member who is or has been incarcerated, compared to just 12% of white women (Wang, 2023). The long-term effects on families and communities - especially children - are profound. Black children are significantly more likely to experience parental incarceration, particularly when fathers lack access to education or stable employment (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2024).

California reflects this national pattern. In 2024, African Americans made up 28% of the male prison population in California, despite comprising only 6% of the state’s male population (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR], 2024). Latino men are also disproportionately represented, with incarceration rates nearly double those of white men. Despite similar rates of drug use across racial groups, Black Californians are still arrested and imprisoned at significantly higher rates for drug-related offenses - evidence of ongoing institutional bias in the criminal justice system (Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board, 2024).

Health Care

People of color have higher rates of disease and illness than whites, due in large part to institutional discrimination based on race and ethnicity. Several studies use hospital records to investigate whether people of color receive optimal medical care, including coronary bypass surgery, angioplasty, and catheterization. A 2024 report from the Commonwealth Fund found that Black Americans and American Indians are significantly more likely to die from preventable and treatable conditions than white Americans - even in states with high-performing health systems (Commonwealth Fund, 2024). These disparities persist across income levels, with middle-class Black patients receiving fewer life-saving procedures such as coronary bypass surgery, angioplasty, and cardiac catheterization compared to their white counterparts (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ], 2025). One landmark study remains especially relevant. Shulman et. al. (1999) performed an experiment in which several hundred doctors viewed videos of African American and White patients, all of whom, unknown to the doctors, were actors. In the videos, each “patient” complained of identical chest pain and other symptoms. The doctors were then asked to indicate whether they thought the patient needed cardiac catheterization. The African American patients were less likely than the white patients to be recommended for this procedure (Schulman et al., 1999). Why does discrimination like this occur? While overt racism may play a role in some cases, research increasingly points to unconscious bias as a key driver of these disparities (AHRQ, 2025).

These health inequities are compounded by the intersection of race and incarceration. Incarcerated individuals - disproportionately people of color - face dramatically elevated rates of physical and mental health disorders. HIV is up to seven times more prevalent in prison populations, Hepatitis C up to 21 times more prevalent, and mental health disorders up to five times more common than in the general population (Wang, 2023). Roughly 68% of incarcerated individuals suffer from substance use disorders, yet only 15% receive adequate treatment (Wang, 2023). Because African Americans are overrepresented in the prison system, these disparities contribute to broader racial gaps in health outcomes. Mass incarceration, therefore, is not only a criminal justice issue - it is a public health crisis.

Housing

Although mortgage lenders are legally prohibited from considering race or ethnicity, racial disparities in mortgage approval persist. Recent studies show that Black and Latinx applicants are still more likely than white applicants to be denied mortgages - even when controlling for income, employment, and credit history (Richardson et. al., 2023). Audit studies using matched applicants of different races confirm that equally qualified Black and Latinx individuals face higher rejection rates and less favorable loan terms (National Fair Housing Alliance [NFHA], 2024).

These disparities are often justified by lenders as reflections of economic risk, yet they reveal patterns of institutional discrimination. Practices such as redlining - where banks and insurers deny services or charge higher rates in predominately nonwhite neighborhoods - continue to shape housing access. Although illegal, redlining persists through algorithmic bias, zoning laws, and selective marketing (NFHA, 2024; Rothstein, 2017).

Mortgage discrimination and redlining contribute to residential segregation, which remains widespread in many U.S. cities. African Americans, in particular, experience hypersegregation, a form of extreme spatial isolation that limits access to quality schools, jobs, and healthcare (NFHA, 2024). While online housing platforms have increased transparency, informal networks and selective listings still exclude people of color from certain neighborhoods.

Residential segregation reinforces cycles of poverty and marginalization. Concentrated disadvantage - marked by underemployment, crime, and limited mobility - continue to disproportionately affect Black communities. As Rothstein (2017) argues, segregation is not accidental but the result of decades of policy decisions that have shaped where people live and what opportunities they can access.

Employment

Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned racial discrimination in employment, including hiring, wages, and firing. Yet in 2025, racial disparities in earnings and employment outcomes persist. Black, Latinx, and Native American workers continue to earn significantly less than white workers, even when controlling for education and experience (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [BLS], 2024). These gaps reflect both conscious and unconscious bias in hiring practices, workplace culture, and access to advancement opportunities.

A foundational study by Devah Pager (2003) remains relevant today. In her field experiment, equally qualified Black and white men applied for entry-level jobs, some disclosing a criminal record. Strikingly, Black applicants without a criminal record were hired at the same low rate as white applicants with a criminal record - highlighting the compounded impact of racial bias and criminal history on employment.

Recent research confirms that incarceration continues to severely limit economic mobility. Formerly incarcerated individuals experience a 40-60% reduction in lifetime earnings, with Black men disproportionately affected due to higher incarceration rates and systemic barriers to reentry (Looney & Turner, 2018). These effects ripple across generations: approximately 2.7 million U.S. children have an incarcerated parent, and the absence of economic and emotional support significantly undermine child development and long-term opportunity (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2024).

Conclusion

Throughout this section, we’ve examined how prejudice and discrimination manifest across multiple domains - race, gender, sexuality, age, health, housing, employment, and the criminal justice system. These patterns are not simply interpersonal; they are embedded in cultural narratives, institutional practices, and historical legacies that shape how we see others and how others see us.

From an intercultural perspective, understanding prejudice requires more than identifying bias - it demands that we explore how cultural assumptions, power imbalances, and systemic inequities influence perception and interaction.
Whether through implicit bias or overt exclusion, discrimination limits access to opportunity and belonging, especially for those whose identities fall outside dominant cultural norms.

It’s important to keep in mind that these dynamics are not fixed. They are learned, reinforced, and therefore, can be unlearned. By recognizing how cultural frameworks shape our judgement, we can begin to challenge essentialist thinking, foster empathy, and create more inclusive spaces for dialogue and growth.

As we move into the final section on Racism and Privilege, we shift our focus from individual acts of bias to border systems of advantage. Privilege often operates invisibly, benefiting some while marginalizing others. Understanding how privilege intersects with race, culture, and identity is essential for building intercultural competence and working toward equity in communication and society.

Contributors and Attributions

Prejudice and Discrimination by Rice University. Provided by OER Commons. License: CC-BY-NC

Social Problems: Continuity and Change, by University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. License: CC-BY-NC-SA

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping. By, Fiske, S. T. (2020) . In R. Biswas-Diener & E. Diener (Eds), Noba textbook series: Psychology. Champaign, IL: DEF publishers. Retrieved from http://noba.to/jfkx7nrd(opens in new window) License: CC-BY-NC-SA

Adapted from: Exploring Intercultural Communication, by Tom Grothe. Provided by LibreTexts. License: CC-BY