Answer: The premise of this review is that, in general terms, prejudice needs to be viewed
as a process within a set of relationships, rather than a state or characteristic of
particular people (Abrams and Houston, 2006; Abrams and Christian, 2007).
That is, we need to understand the different forms prejudice might take, when it
might be expressed, and what factors promote or inhibit its expression. It is as
important to know about the conditions that give rise to, and can counter, prejudice,
as to measure the particular amount or virulence of prejudice at a particular time.
Prejudice can be directed to a wide range of groups and, and can be expressed
in a wide variety of ways. Therefore, it is necessary to think broadly about the
types of ‘benchmarks’ that will be useful for measuring change. It is also
necessary to break down the concept of prejudice into distinct components and
to understand how and when these fit together to produce discriminatory outcomes
and inequality. Equally important, however, is to achieve these goals within a
unifying conceptual framework.
Explanation: Within psychology there have been numerous attempts to define prejudice.
Crandall and Eshelman (2003) note that prejudice cannot always be described
as irrational or unjustified and that it is therefore better to define it as ‘a negative
evaluation of a social group or an individual that is significantly based on the
individual’s group membership’ (p. 414). This, unfortunately, leaves us slightly adrift
in terms of policy because it neglects prejudice that does not involve negative
evaluations
