Prejudice refers to an evaluative attitude, judgement, or emotional orientation toward a person or social group that is influenced by perceived group membership. In social psychology, prejudice is commonly associated with negative evaluations of groups or their members, although the broader concept can include favourable as well as unfavourable pre judgement depending on theoretical usage. Prejudice differs from Stereotyping because stereotypes primarily concern beliefs or generalisations, whereas prejudice concerns evaluation and affect.
It also differs from discrimination, which concerns behaviour or unequal treatment. These processes can interact but should be measured separately. Prejudice can be explicit, meaning consciously expressed and endorsed, or can involve automatic associations that influence responses without deliberate intention. It can target groups defined by ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender, age, social class, disability, sexual orientation, occupation, or other social categories. The content and expression of prejudice vary across historical periods and social contexts.
Prejudice develops through multiple psychological and social processes. Social learning can transmit evaluative attitudes through family, peers, institutions, cultural narratives, and media. Group identification can create distinctions between in-groups and out-groups, while perceived competition or threat can intensify negative evaluations. Social categorisation can make group boundaries cognitively salient, and stereotypes can provide the beliefs through which prejudice is expressed.
Personality and individual differences can also influence susceptibility to particular forms of prejudice, but individual psychology is only one part of the explanation. Institutional arrangements, economic competition, historical conflict, social norms, political rhetoric, segregation, unequal status relationships, and patterns of contact can influence prejudice at population level. Consequently, prejudice should not be explained exclusively as a personal defect or isolated attitude. It can be learned and reinforced within social environments, although individuals can also resist prevailing norms and change their attitudes.
Prejudice can take explicit and implicit forms. Explicit prejudice involves consciously accessible evaluations that people are willing to report or express, while implicit forms concern automatic associations that may influence judgements without deliberate endorsement. Researchers use different methods to study these processes, including questionnaires, behavioural measures, experimental tasks, and observational research.
Measures of implicit association should not be interpreted as direct proof of a person's complete set of beliefs or intentions because automatic responses can be influenced by familiarity, cultural exposure, context, and measurement conditions. Similarly, self reports can be affected by social desirability and concerns about appearing prejudiced. Comprehensive research therefore uses multiple forms of evidence. The distinction between explicit and implicit processes is important because a person may consciously reject prejudice while still possessing culturally learned associations that influence rapid judgements, although automatic associations do not necessarily translate into discriminatory behaviour.
Prejudice is closely connected with Stereotyping and discrimination. A stereotype provides a generalised belief about a social group, prejudice involves an evaluative response, and discrimination involves behaviour that treats people differently on the basis of group membership. The three can reinforce one another but do not always occur together. A person can hold a stereotype without strong emotional prejudice, experience prejudice without acting discriminatorily because social norms prohibit discrimination, or discriminate through institutional procedures without consciously endorsing a prejudiced belief. This separation is essential when analysing social inequality. Changing one component may not automatically change the others. For example, correcting inaccurate beliefs may not eliminate negative emotion, while changing institutional procedures may reduce discriminatory outcomes even when some private prejudicial attitudes remain.
Prejudice can be directed toward both historically powerful and historically marginalised groups, but its social consequences depend on status, institutional power, numbers, historical conditions, and available resources. Individual prejudice may produce interpersonal hostility, exclusion, avoidance, unequal treatment, or social distance. When prejudicial attitudes are embedded within organisations or institutions, they can influence recruitment, education, housing, healthcare, policing, access to services, or other areas of social life.
Institutional patterns should be distinguished from individual attitudes because unequal outcomes can arise through rules, practices, incentives, or historical arrangements even when individual decision makers do not consciously intend discriminatory outcomes. Conversely, evidence of unequal outcomes does not by itself establish that every individual involved holds prejudiced attitudes. Careful analysis therefore examines both psychological attitudes and institutional mechanisms.
Contact between groups is an important area of research concerning Prejudice. Meaningful interaction can sometimes reduce negative attitudes by increasing familiarity, providing individuating information, correcting inaccurate assumptions, and establishing relationships across group boundaries. The conditions of contact matter. Interaction that occurs under conditions of equal status, cooperation, shared goals, institutional support, and sustained interpersonal engagement can differ substantially from contact characterised by competition, unequal power, or hostility. Mere physical proximity therefore does not guarantee prejudice reduction. Contact can also produce different outcomes depending on how individuals interpret the interaction and whether it changes broader social expectations. Other approaches include education, institutional reform, structured cooperation, changes in social norms, and opportunities to develop identities that cross group boundaries.
Prejudice can change over time because social norms, institutions, demographic patterns, education, interpersonal relationships, and cultural representations change. Public expressions that were once socially accepted may become less acceptable, leading to changes in explicit reporting even if some underlying attitudes remain. Conversely, periods of economic instability, political conflict, perceived threat, or social polarisation can increase the salience of group boundaries and create conditions in which prejudicial attitudes become more visible.
Historical analysis is therefore important when comparing levels of prejudice across periods. Measurement must also account for changes in willingness to disclose attitudes. A reduction in openly expressed prejudice does not necessarily demonstrate that all forms of bias have disappeared, just as evidence of implicit associations does not establish that every individual will act discriminatorily. Multiple measures and contextual evidence are required for accurate interpretation.
A common misconception is that Prejudice is simply another word for discrimination. Prejudice is primarily an evaluative attitude or orientation, while discrimination concerns behaviour and treatment. Another misconception is that prejudice always results from conscious hatred. Prejudice can involve subtle evaluations, learned associations, social distance, or assumptions that operate without deliberate hostility. It is also incorrect to assume that one universal intervention can eliminate prejudice because its causes and mechanisms vary across groups and contexts.
Understanding Prejudice requires attention to social categorisation, stereotypes, attitudes, emotions, group identity, perceived threat, social learning, institutional conditions, interpersonal contact, and cultural norms. The concept is particularly important because it links individual psychological processes with wider patterns of intergroup relations while allowing careful distinction between what people believe, what they feel, how they behave, and how institutions structure opportunities and treatment.
