CAP 1lay Theories

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
2005, 16, 189 220
Lay theories and intergroup relations:

A social-developmental perspective
Sheri R. Levy, Tara L. West, and Luisa Ramirez
State University of New York at Stony Brook, USA
Abundant research suggests that the study of lay theories helps to explain
intergroup relations. Building on this work as well as interactionist theories
for understanding social behaviour from developmental and social
psychology, we propose an integrative social-developmental perspective
examining how lay perceivers characteristics (e.g., age, race, psychological
motivations) interact with the environments in which they are nested to impact
lay theory use over time and during life transitions. Using this perspective to
guide our investigation of the Protestant work ethic (PWE) and colourblind
theory, we show that a single lay theory can have a socially tolerant or
intolerant meaning. We review work with US children and adults (Asians,
Blacks, Latinos, Whites) as well as research with Colombian children and
adults (Mestizos), showing similarities and dierences in perceivers uses of
PWE and the colourblind theory. Even when both meanings are prevalent in a
given culture, they are not necessarily equally emphasised in all environments
or for all people living in those environments, nor are they responded to in the
same way by all people. We discuss the implications of these results for
theorising on lay theories and oer directions for future work in this area.
Like trained scientists, ordinary people seek to predict and control the
course of events with which [they are] involved (Kelly, 1955, p. 5). Peoples
nave theories achieve in some measure what science is supposed to
achieve: an adequate description of the subject matter which makes
prediction possible (Heider, 1958, p. 5). Kelly and Heider helped to
inspire the study of peoples everyday theories, which has culminated in the
Correspondence should be addressed to Sheri R. Levy, Department of Psychology, State

University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, 11794-2500, USA.
Email: [email protected]
We are grateful to Niall Bolger, Chi-yue Chiu, Geraldine Downey, Carol Dweck, Adam
Elga, Antonio Freitas, Ying-yi Hong, Miles Hewstone, and four anonymous reviewers for
valuable comments on the ideas in this manuscript. This material is in part based on work
supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0213660 to the rst author.
2005 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/10463283.html DOI: 10.1080/10463280500397234
190 LEVY, WEST, RAMIREZ
subsequent decades in a lay (or nave, implicit, folk, or common sense)

theories approach to social perception. Much work conrms their early
insights that peoples perceptions are guided by their lay theories, helping
them to understand, predict, control, and respond to their social world (for
reviews see Fletcher, 1995; Furnham, 1988; Hong, Levy, & Chiu, 2001;
Levy, Chiu, & Hong, 2006a; Wegener & Petty, 1998; Yzerbyt, Judd, &
Corneille, 2004).
Over the past two decades, researchers have increasingly investigated the
role of lay theories in intergroup relations (e.g., for reviews see Hong et al.,
2001; Levy et al., 2006a; Yzerbyt et al., 2004). This work has identied
numerous relevant lay theories including essentialism (e.g., theory about the
core qualities of a group, Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2002; Yzerbyt,
Rocher, & Schadron, 1997), incremental versus entity theories (theories
about the malleability vs xedness of human attributes, e.g., Hong, Chiu,
Yeung, & Tong, 1999; Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998), and the Protestant
work ethic (theory that hard work leads to success, e.g., Crandall, 1994;
Levy, Freitas, & Salovey, 2002). Lay theories lter incoming social
information and direct cognition, aect, and behaviour, resulting in positive
and negative implications for a wide variety of ingroups and outgroups (e.g.,
race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, weight; Crandall,
1994; Haslam et al., 2002; Hong et al., 1999; Katz & Hass, 1988; Keller,
2005; Levy et al., 1998; Quinn & Crocker, 1999; Yzerbyt et al., 1997).
Despite tremendous progress within a short period of time in uncovering
relevant lay theories and showing their far-reaching impact on group
processes, conclusions about the role and nature of lay theories are limited
by the contexts and populations studied. Some work has considered context
broadly in terms of culture and shown that, across cultures, some lay
theories are used in a similar way or endorsed to a similar degree while
others are not (e.g., Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997; Crandall & Martinez,
1996; Kashima et al., 2005; Lickel, Hamilton, Wieczorkowska, Lewis,
Sherman, & Uhles, 2000; Morris, Menon, & Ames, 2001). These studies tend
to be conducted with adult numerical majority group members in the
cultures.
Within-culture studies also tend to be limited to adult numerical majority
group members (e.g., Crandall, 1994; Haslam et al., 2002; Katz & Hass,
1988; Keller, 2005). Some of this work has focused on context narrowly
within an experimental situation and shown that lay theories that are made
accessible play a causal role in group processes (e.g., Levy et al., 1998; Levy,
West, Ramirez, & Karafantis, 2006b). Little within-culture work has directly
examined the dynamic interrelation between ones group-related experiences
and lay theories relevant to intergroup relations, although the interrelation
is acknowledged (e.g., McGarty, Yzerbyt, & Spears, 2002). For example,
few studies have examined within-culture dierences in lay theory
LAY THEORIES 191
endorsement such as those as a function of social class (see Mahalingam &

Rodriquez, 2003) or ethnicity (see Hunt, 2000). Moreover, work examining
the role of accumulated experiences on lay theory use, which could be
accomplished by comparing lay theory use among children to adults, is
scant. The limited work on lay theories and intergroup relations among
children has tended to show that lay theories emerge early in life and
inuence group processes in roughly the same way for children and adults in
the numerical majority group (e.g., Gelman, 2003; Karafantis & Levy, 2004;
Levy & Dweck, 1999).
Studying a wider range of contexts and lay theorists could reveal a more
complex role for at least some lay theories in intergroup relations. It is
possible that the intergroup meanings of lay theories vary depending on the
context and lay peoples characteristics (e.g., age, race, psychological and
social needs). As an example, school environments may highlight a social
equaliser meaning of the Protestant work ethic (PWE) to children in
messages such as anyone can succeed through hard work. However,
additional meanings of the lay theory may be commonplace in the
immediate environment of adults. Adult members of the socially advantaged
groups, although endorsing the egalitarian implication of PWE at times,
may also be motivated to embrace a justier of inequality meaning of
PWE, which suggests that disadvantaged groups deserve their disadvan-
tage by not working hard enough. Adult members of disadvantaged groups
may tend to receive and respond to the egalitarian meaning (rather than the
justier of inequality meaning of PWE) because it suggests a positive
pathway (hard work) for them in a hierarchical society, despite their
disadvantage.
SOCIAL-DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
To address such issues, we adopted an integrative social-developmental
perspective. The perspective considers an enduring social psychological
question about how contexts shape peoples judgements and behaviour
with an enduring developmental question about how the accumulation of
experience inuences peoples judgements and behaviours (see Pomerantz &
Newman, 2000, for a call for the integration of social and developmental
theorising). We have mainly drawn from ecological and life transition
theories from developmental psychology, and social identity and self-
categorisation theories from social psychology.
This social-developmental perspective is summarised in Figure 1 (based
on Bronfenbrenners, 1979, ecological perspective). An ecological perspec-
tive emphasises that people interact with and are nested within many
potentially dierent environments; further, this approach highlights the role
that personal characteristics (e.g., age, race) play in the kind of messages
Figure 1. Schematic representation of a social-developmental perspective.
people receive from their environments and how they respond to them (e.g.,
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986). Representing a complementary interactionist
perspective, social identity and self-categorisation theories emphasise that
people have multiple, nested social identities (e.g., self, ethnic group,
national group) and that dierent social contexts elicit thoughts, goals, and
behaviours based on one or more of the identities (e.g., Brewer, 1991;
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner & Reynolds, 2001). Figure 1 highlights
three of the many possible environments within peoples social system:
culture (e.g., mass media), social-economic context (e.g., community), and
immediate environment (e.g., family).
The dynamic interactions between personal characteristics and environ-
ments are captured by the double arrow in Figure 1. People of dierent ages
and races may, as suggested earlier, dierentially receive and respond to
messages about whether to use the egalitarian or the justier of inequality
meaning of a lay theory such as PWE. Social identity theory indicates that
people are motivated to positively evaluate a salient social identity, and thus
people will react to threats to their social identities and self-esteem in certain
contexts with prejudice towards other groups (see Abrams & Hogg, 1988;
Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Indeed,
lay theories serve social and psychological needs such as bolstering ones
self-esteem and lending support for ones values (e.g., see Levy et al., 2006a),
needs that would not be necessarily relevant in all situations or to people of
all ages and backgrounds.
Self-categorisation and social identity theorists have indeed noted the role
of lay theories in the dynamic interaction between people and contexts:
peoples collective psychology as group members and the social structure
of intergroup relationships . . . are mediated by peoples collective beliefs,
theories, and ideologies about intergroup relationships and the wider social
system (Turner & Reynolds, 2001, p. 146). Similarly, ecological theories
LAY THEORIES 193
acknowledge the potential socialising role of ideologies and belief systems

embedded in sub-cultures and the broader culture (e.g., Bronfenbrenner,
1979, 1986).
In addition, as depicted in Figure 1, both social and developmental
theories suggest that time is a crucial consideration, including the
cumulative eects of experiences throughout a persons lifetime on his/her
identities, in addition to changes and continuities over time in the
environments in which a person is developing (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979,
1986; Turner et al., 1987). The study of particular life periods, such as
important transitions, is especially highlighted by ecological perspectives
(e.g., Bronfenbrener, 1979; Cowan & Cowan, 2001) and social-develop-
mental theories of transitions (e.g., Higgins & Parsons, 1983; Ruble, 1994).
During a life transition, such as competing to enter college or the work
force, people may adopt the intergroup meaning of a lay theory that best
suits their needs during that time.
In short, once people are knowledgeable about the multiple meanings of a
lay theory, their use of one meaning likely depends on the extent to which
that meaning is salient or personally relevant. Thus, consistent with work
suggesting that lay theories are knowledge structures activated in particular
environments (e.g., see Hong et al., 2001; Levy et al., 2006a), we expect that
the dierent meanings of a lay theory can be activated.
With this guiding social-developmental perspective, we have begun to
pursue the dynamic interaction between lay peoples characteristics (e.g.,
age, social status, needs) and context in determining lay theory use. PWE
and colourblind theory, both of which can serve as justiers of inequality in
a seemingly egalitarian society, seem to be especially good candidates for
having at least two intergroup meanings (social equaliser and justier of
inequality) and for being used in variable ways by people and across
contexts. Below, we will mainly focus on the PWE and, to a lesser degree,
the colourblind theory.
PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC

A pervasive lay theory across many cultures is the Protestant work ethic,
which is often captured by proverbs such as The early bird gets the worm and
Madruga y veras, trabaja y tendras (Wake up early and you will see; work and
you will have). Essentially, this is the lay theory that people who work hard
succeed (e.g., Crandall, 1994; Quinn & Crocker, 1999). Our initial
examination of PWE began in the US, where we suggest it has at least
two intergroup meanings (e.g., Levy et al., 2006b). The justier of
inequality meaning is the most common way that PWE is discussed in
the social psychological literature on intergroup relations. PWE has long
been discussed as an ingredient in White racism toward Blacks; Blacks are
seen as not conforming to the work ethic (not working hard enough) and
thus deserving disadvantage (e.g., Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay &
Hough, 1976). PWE is associated with arguments justifying inequality and
dierential treatment of a variety of less successful or disadvantaged groups
(e.g., Crandall, 1994, 2000; Katz & Hass, 1988; Quinn & Crocker, 1999;
Somerman, 1993). Akin to other work on lay theories and intergroup
relations, the aforementioned work has been conducted with college-age
students who tended to be White.
Levy et al. (2006b) noted that PWE also has an egalitarian meaning
indicating that people from all social categories are basically equal and can
all succeed. Popular books in the US, such as rags to riches stories,
suggest that hard work is a social equaliser (e.g., Heykoe & Hock, 2003;
Liberman & Lavine, 2000). Indeed, there are some ndings in the social
psychological literature showing that PWE is unrelated to intolerance
(Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996; Katz & Hass, 1988; Monteith & Walters,
2000), which could reect PWE having both a social equaliser and justier
of inequality meaning.
Even when both meanings of PWE are prevalent in a given culture, they
are not necessarily equally emphasised in all environments or for all people
living in those environments; nor are they necessarily responded to in
the same way by all people. We hypothesised that US children are
predominately exposed to the egalitarian meaning of PWE. Parents,
teachers, and others in childrens immediate environment likely commu-
nicate the social equaliser meaning through stories such as the Little Engine
that Could. This is a classic story of a little engine who, through diligent
eort, was able to reach a valued outcome that appeared insurmountable. If
children accept the PWE message, as taught in such books as well as by their
teachers (or other signicant adults) encouraging all students to work hard,
they will likely believe that eort can be something that equalises people of
dierent social categories. Everyone can put forth eort and succeed, so
everyone is equal. Children of all groups are likely motivated to endorse the
egalitarian meaning of PWE because it suggests a pathway (eort) to success
for each child (e.g., see McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953,
regarding achievement motive). As children reach adolescence, they are
expected to become increasingly knowledgeable about the justier of
inequality meaning of PWE such that they use whichever meaning of PWE
is salient or personally relevant, as elaborated below.
In this section, we review our work with children and adults from
numerical majority and minority groups in the US, showing similarities
and dierences in their uses of PWE. We will also describe our work
with members of the numerical majority in Colombia, a culture in
which we anticipated that the justier of inequality meaning is largely
unrepresented.
LAY THEORIES 195
PWEs intergroup implications among numerical majority

group members in the US
Prior research, which has been conducted with mostly White college
students as noted, demonstrated that PWE often has a justier of inequality
meaning (if any meaning was revealed). Also as noted, we suggest that
children initially learn the social equaliser meaning of PWE, which remains
available to them in adulthood. During adolescence, we propose that the
justier of inequality meaning increasingly enters the immediate environ-
ment, particularly of adolescents of the more advantaged groups (e.g.,
Whites). Adolescence is a critical developmental period with changes in
social identities and roles (e.g., Higgins & Parsons, 1983; Ruble, 1994).
While developing their identity and focusing on their place in society,
relatively advantaged adolescents seem increasingly likely to hear PWE
being used to justify their position in the social system; further, they likely
have greater motivation to justify their position. Late adolescents should be
knowledgeable about both meanings of PWE and use whichever one is most
salient or personally relevant in a particular context or life period.
Developmental studies. Following from these predictions, our initial

work examined whether White children would endorse the egalitarian
meaning of PWE more than White adults, who presumably have more social
and cultural experience with PWE as a justier of inequality, and a greater
motivation to use that meaning. We studied three dierent age groups of
Whites from roughly similar socioeconomic backgrounds: late grade-school
students (approximately 10 years old), early high-school students
(approximately 15 years old), and college students (approximately 20
years old; Levy et al., 2006b, Study 1). We selected 10-year-olds as the
youngest age group because they have mastered the key developmental
milestones including the abilities to perceive similarities and dierences
within and across groups, as well as knowledge about group stereotypes
(e.g., Doyle & Aboud, 1995; McKown, 2004).
Consistent with past work, we assessed the relation between a standard
measure of PWE (Katz & Hass, 1988) and beliefs about general social
tolerance (Katz and Hasss [1988] egalitarianism/humanitarianism measure)
as well as a measure of intended behaviour towards a historically
disadvantaged group in US society, Blacks (e.g., Katz & Hass, 1988;
Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay & Hough, 1976). The measures of PWE
(items assessing the belief that hard work leads to success) and egalitarian-
ism (items assessing the belief that people should be treated equally) from
Katz and Hass (1988) were modied slightly to be appropriate for all age
groups in our study. Our measure of desired social distance was drawn from
measures used with adults (e.g., Esses & Dovidio, 2002) and children (e.g.,
Karafantis & Levy, 2004), in which participants report the extent to which
they would like to live near or be friends with Blacks.
As depicted in Figure 2, for the younger samples PWE was related
positively to egalitarianism and negatively to desired social distance from
Blacks, suggesting that at these ages PWE has a meaning that promotes
social tolerance. For the oldest sample, however, the relations between PWE
and these same social tolerance measures were mixed (unrelated to
egalitarianism, signicantly positively related to desired social distance
from Blacks), consistent with past mixed ndings and with the expectation
that adults do not solely use PWE in an intolerant way. The ndings
remained signicant when statistically controlling for participants levels of
social concerns and self-esteem.
Figure 2. Correlation of egalitarianism and interracial distance with the Protestant work ethic,
among elementary school, high school, and college students. PWE Protestant work ethic; Age
Group 1 10- to 12-year-old children; Age Group 2 14- to 16-year-old adolescents;
Age Group 3 approximately 20-year-old college students. From Levy et al. (2006b, Study 1).
LAY THEORIES 197
This study showed that PWE does indeed have an egalitarian meaning
and that PWEs meaning shifts with age. To add to our understanding of the
uses of PWE, we subsequently recruited a sample of White late high-school
students (on average, 17 years old) and adult community members (on
average, 42 years old, who lacked a 4-year college degree) who were matched
to the previous age groups on socioeconomic background. They were asked
to complete a brief survey containing the PWE and egalitarianism measures.
We expected that White late adolescents and adult community members
who represented a less select group of adults than college students would be
knowledgeable about the justier of inequality meaning of the PWE; thus,
the correlation between egalitarianism and PWE for both of these age
groups should be similar to previous ndings with college-age students. To
elaborate, although adolescents are developing their identities and learning
about their places in the social structure throughout high school, late high
school is when students are approaching the transition to college and the
work force and, thus, their future prospects are increasingly being evaluated
and compared. The justier of inequality meaning can be used by relatively
advantaged group members to take credit for their own (or their groups)
accomplishments and to blame members of other groups for their
disadvantage. Thus, the justier meaning should not be specic to college
students. We indeed found that the correlation between PWE and
egalitarianism was non-signicant for these non-college samples (Levy &
Karafantis, 2005; Levy et al., 2006b).
To summarise, the positive correlation between the PWE and
egalitarianism observed in late grade school and early high school
became non-signicant, not at college, but at the end of high school as
adolescents approached the competition for jobs and college placement;
it also remained non-signicant among an older adult community
sample. This pattern of ndings is consistent with the proposition that
PWE primarily has an egalitarian meaning among children, who
presumably have less exposure and less use for its justier of inequality
meaning.
We next aimed to provide a more denitive test of whether PWE relates
to egalitarianism among White youth. Using the same three age groups used
in the original study, we expected that activating PWE should trigger greater
levels of egalitarianism among 10- and 15-year-olds, who assumedly
construe PWE in terms of its egalitarian meaning, than 21-year-olds, who
are presumably also familiar with PWEs inequality-justifying associations
(Levy et al., 2006b, Study 2). Participants were randomly assigned to read
either a pro-PWE or anti-PWE induction article. Each article described the
same allegedly credible and extensive psychological research; however, the
articles diered in that they concluded that the ndings either supported or
opposed PWE. For example, the articles summarised one of the most
important studies in which 200 children from across the US were closely
studied for 30 years, beginning when the children were 6 years of age. To
bolster the supposed results, participants learned that the ndings were
replicated in many studies at dierent prestigious universities and in
dierent countries. The article concluded as follows: the important thing to
keep in mind is that no matter what kind of study that psychologists have
done on this topic, they have come to the same conclusion: people who
work hard do well and have a successful life (pro-PWE) or people who
work hard are not always successful (anti-PWE). As expected, after
reading the articles, participants in the pro-PWE condition endorsed PWE
to a signicantly greater extent than did participants who read the anti-PWE
article. This eect was obtained among each age group. Hence, the
inductions were successful.
The impact of each induction was then assessed with the measure of
egalitarianism used in our earlier study. As depicted in Figure 3, temporarily
activating pro- (vs anti-) PWE seemed to temporarily increase egalitarianism
Figure 3. Dierence in endorsement of egalitarianism for participants assigned to read articles

supporting (Pro-PWE) versus undermining (Anti-PWE) the Protestant work ethic, among
elementary school, high school, and college students. Age Group 1 10- to 12-year-old
children; Age Group 2 14- to 16-year-old adolescents; Age Group 3 approximately 20-
year-old college students. From Levy et al. (2006b, Study 2).
LAY THEORIES 199
among younger participants, who presumably had been predominately

exposed to the egalitarian meaning of PWE and who thus construed PWE in
egalitarian terms. In contrast, among the oldest group, those assigned to
read the pro-PWE article subsequently reported signicantly lower levels of
egalitarianism than did those assigned to read the anti-PWE article.
Replicating other past work on PWE among college students (e.g.,
Somerman, 1993), this latter nding suggests that this sample of college
students largely construed PWE in terms of the intolerant, or justier of
inequality, meaning. The eects remained signicant when taking into
account participants self-esteem and enjoyment and understanding of the
articles.
Findings from our studies as well as the prior work with White adults,
then, suggest that PWE is negatively related to or non-signicantly related
to indicators of tolerance. There does not yet appear to be evidence that
adults use PWE in an egalitarian way, even some of the time. The egalitarian
meaning of PWE is potentially applicable to all groups, for example, in
suggesting that their hard work will not be wasted but rather will bring
about success (e.g., see McClelland et al., 1953) and in supporting
psychological and social needs (e.g., bolstering egalitarian values, facilitating
interpersonal relationships; see Levy et al., 2006a). Hence, we have sought
evidence that White college students do, at times, endorse an egalitarian
meaning of PWE.
In one study (Levy & Karafantis, 2005), White participants across all 4
years of college were asked to explicitly report the extent to which they use
PWE in dierent ways such as When you say things like People who work
hard succeed, tell us how much you mean this: Anyone can work hard and
succeed because people in dierent groups have similar abilities and the
potential to do well [social equaliser] or Hard work is all thats necessary
for success, so it is not fair to give preferences to race-minority groups
like Blacks and Latinos [deny racial inequality]). Across years in college,
White students, on average, report stronger use of the egalitarian meaning
than the denial of providing racial preferences meaning. Although such a
measure has its disadvantages (e.g., eliciting socially desirable responses),
the ndings suggest that both meanings are likely available and used by
adults.
Life transition studies. Our social-developmental perspective suggests

that personal characteristics (e.g., motivations) and context (e.g., life
transitions) help to determine whether Whites in late adolescence and
adulthood use the social equaliser or justier of inequality meaning of PWE.
We have begun to test the hypothesis that the justier of inequality meaning
takes a more prominent role during life transitions that pose a threat to the
self or ones group.
To elaborate, social-developmental research on life transitions (e.g.,

Higgins & Parsons, 1983; Ruble, 1994) suggests that when people prepare
for an important transition in which they have little information, they
typically experience feelings of uncertainty and anxiety, motivating them to
gather knowledge. For instance, after learning of their pregnancy, women
reported seeking out greater information about pregnancy, which was
presumably available all along, but less attended to (Deutsch, Ruble,
Fleming, Brooks-Gunn, & Stangor, 1988). When preparing to undergo a
transition such as to work force or graduate school, potentially solidifying
or jeopardising their place in the social system, Americans are likely more
attentive to information about group-based inequalities in outcomes and
aspects of competition along racial lines (such as race-conscious policies).
Rather than focusing on eort as something that can equalise people of
dierent social categories, members of relatively advantaged groups may
nd it more self-serving to view eort as an attribute that dierentiates
groups; thus, PWE may now be increasingly associated with arguments
justifying an unequal status quo.
As a step towards testing these hypotheses, in the aforementioned study
we examined White students endorsement of the intergroup meanings of
PWE according to their year in college. As expected, compared to college
students in years one to three, college students in their fourth year, when
applications to jobs and graduate school are due, reported weaker
endorsement of the social equaliser meaning and greater endorsement of
the justier of inequality meaning of PWE (Levy & Karafantis, 2005).
In a follow-up experiment, we (Levy & Karafantis, 2005) examined
students spontaneous use of the justier of inequality meaning of PWE
after they were led to think about information hypothesised to be relevant to
the transition to educational and work environments. Prior work suggests
that US Whites and Asians may view race-conscious or armative action
policies as harming their educational and work prospects and, thus, unfairly
beneting members of other groups such as Blacks and Latinos (e.g., Bobo,
1998). Therefore, we predicted that reading about the implementation of
armative action policies, which were written to clearly benet Blacks and
Latinos over other groups, would lead White and Asian students to lean
towards the justier of inequality meaning of PWE (e.g., denying the need
for special preferences to disadvantaged groups).
White and Asian college participants were told that a wide range of
American colleges were considering several new college admission policies.
Half were randomly assigned to read a description of a radical extension of
armative action to college campuses in which 40 50% of the students
who are admitted to certain colleges each year for the next four years [will]
be Black or Latino. The other half read a description of a radical
extension of racial proling to college campuses in which 30% of qualied
LAY THEORIES 201
Black and Latino male applicants will be randomly selected for a

background check before being accepted into college. The racial proling
policy was expected to trigger the social equaliser meaning of PWE. Thus,
participants were randomly assigned to review an undesirable college
admission proposal (armative action or racial proling) in which the
Protestant work ethic (albeit dierent meanings) could be used to
spontaneously rebut them. Participants did indeed disagree with both
policies and to similar degrees.
As predicted, participants in the armative action condition reported
weaker agreement with the egalitarian meaning and greater agreement with
the justier of social inequality meaning of PWE, relative to those in the
racial proling condition. Hence, thoughts about preferential treatment of
other groups appeared to trigger an interpretation of PWE veering away
from the social equaliser meaning and towards the justier of inequality
meaning. Participants average agreement with the PWE statements at the
end of the experiment was similar in the two conditions. Thus, the meaning
of PWE shifted, not endorsement of PWE.
Similarities and differences in PWEs intergroup implications

across groups in the US
The evidence reviewed thus far indicates that PWE has both the justier
of social inequality and the social equaliser meaning among a relatively
advantaged group in the US. We expected that both meanings are
available in US culture; thus, members of all groups are expected to have
some exposure to and awareness of both meanings. To test this idea, we
aimed to trigger the justier of inequality meaning of PWE among
racially and ethnically diverse groups of college student participants.
When the justier of inequality meaning of PWE is salient, it should
produce a decrease in reported social tolerance (e.g., towards members of
lower status groups such as homeless persons) among all group members
(e.g., college students).
In one experiment (Levy et al., 2006b, Study 3), college student
participants were instructed to engage in a thought exercise in which
they rst considered the same statement representing the Protestant work
ethic (people who work hard succeed) and then were asked to write down
their thoughts about the statement in two dierent ways. Half of the
participants were asked to think about instances of others using people
who work hard succeed to justify their views: Please think about instances
in which other people have used this statement to help support a particular
point they were trying to make. Think about how others have argued that:
People who work hard succeed; people who do not work hard fail. The
other half of the participants received the denition instructions: Please
think specically about the meaning of a particular statement. That is, think
about what this statement means. Think about the statement: People who
work hard succeed; people who do not work hard fail. We expected that
thinking about others making arguments (e.g., that disadvantaged group
members are to blame for their disadvantage) would trigger the justier of
inequality meaning.
There were also two control conditions in which participants were given
identical justication and denition instructions for: Absence makes the
heart grow fonder; sometimes spending too much time together is bad for a
couple. To facilitate participants involvement in each of the thought
exercises, they were instructed to write down their thoughts. Importantly,
participants in the conditions did not dier signicantly in time spent or
number of words generated on this task. Also, participants average
agreement with the PWE statements at the end of the experiment was similar
in the two PWE conditions, consistent with the fact that these participants
were instructed to think about that same PWE statement. After the
inductions, they completed the measure of egalitarianism that we have been
using, as described earlier.
As predicted and as depicted in Figure 4, participants assigned to the
PWE-justication condition subsequently reported lower levels of egalitari-
anism than did those assigned to the PWE-denition condition. Among the
control conditions, in contrast, there was no signicant dierence in
reported egalitarianism between those who received the justication and
denition instructions regarding the absence makes the heart grow fonder
statement. Merely thinking about people using a lay theory in an argument,
then, does not decrease levels of egalitarianism.
Figure 4. Endorsement of egalitarianism for college students assigned to think about statements
of diering content, reecting either PWE (Protestant work ethic) or a control topic (Absence
makes the heart grow fonder), under instructions to focus either on how others have used the
statements to justify their views (justication conditions) or on what the statement means
(denition conditions). From Levy et al. (2006b, Study 3).
LAY THEORIES 203
In a follow-up experiment, we (Levy et al., 2006b, Study 4) used the same

justication and denition thought exercises with PWE, but this time
assessed their impact on actual intergroup behaviour monetary donations
to a homeless shelter. Borrowing from successful prior inductions promot-
ing greater helping (e.g., Batson, Sager, Garst, Kang, Rubchinsky, &
Dawson, 1997; Levy et al., 2002), participants read about a local homeless
shelter and were given the opportunity to donate money to help homeless
persons, an outgroup for the racially and ethnically diverse college parti-
cipants. Participants received course credit for their participation but also
received a surprise $2 dollar payment so that they would have money on
hand. As predicted, participants assigned to the justication condition
subsequently donated signicantly less money than did those assigned to the
denition condition.
In this experiment and in the one previously described using the same
design, we also coded participants free responses the thoughts they listed
while thinking about the denition of PWE or PWE used in arguments. As
expected, participants in the justication condition mentioned signicantly
more instances of blaming people for their disadvantage (e.g., a poor
person on the street who is begging for money . . . hasnt worked hard to
succeed, and therefore has suered the consequences) whereas participants
in the denition condition were signicantly more likely simply to restate the
PWE (e.g., people who work hard by putting in time and eort succeed and
those who dont will not succeed).
Thus, a wide variety of adults appear exposed to PWE used in arguments
that justify inequality. However, though aware of both meanings of PWE,
the justier of inequality meaning seems less likely to be highlighted in the
immediate environments of members of relatively disadvantaged groups in
the US, regardless of age. After all, that meaning of PWE, while justifying
advantaged group members place in society, by extension justies the place
of disadvantaged group members. It also appears to be tied to advantaged
group members denial of the persistence of racism and of the need for
policies that protect groups which have historically been discriminated
against.
Therefore, we predicted that the justier of inequality meaning of PWE
should be less strongly endorsed by members of disadvantaged groups
relative to more advantaged groups. There should not be dierences for the
egalitarian meaning as a function of group membership or status since the
egalitarian meaning is generally applicable to all groups in suggesting a
positive pathway (work) to success and in supporting psychological and
social needs (e.g., bolstering egalitarian values), as noted earlier. In one
study (Levy, Ramirez, & Velilla, 2005b), we tested these hypotheses with US
Black, Latino, and White college students. We included the relatively direct
measures of the intergroup meaning of PWE described earlier. Blacks and
Latinos did indeed agree less with the justier meaning of PWE compared to
Whites, and there were no signicant dierences in ratings of the equaliser
meaning of PWE. We also included general measures of PWE and
egalitarianism that we have used repeatedly in our studies. For Blacks
and Latinos, PWE was positively related to egalitarianism, suggesting that
PWE is predominately endorsed as a way to facilitate social tolerance. For
the White sample, however, PWE was unrelated to egalitarianism,
consistent with past ndings and with the expectation that they use PWE
both as a social equaliser and as a justier of inequality.
To test our prediction that US Black and Latino children would also
focus predominately on the egalitarian meaning of PWE, we also collected
data with children from these groups, ages 11 to 13 (Levy et al., 2005b).
Using the measures described previously, we found that PWE and
egalitarianism were indeed positively correlated.
In summary, adults and children from disadvantaged groups as well as
children of advantaged groups appear, on average, to focus less on the
justier of inequality meaning of PWE than do adults from advantaged
groups. It is possible that some members of disadvantaged groups (and also
of advantaged groups) reject PWE altogether because of their familiarity
with the intolerant meaning, which is an important issue requiring further
study.
PWEs intergroup implications among the numerical majority

group in Colombia
Our ndings, so far, are consistent with our social-developmental
perspective that lay theory use is determined by the dynamic interaction
among peoples characteristics and contexts. The perspective suggests it
would be useful to examine culture broadly, and ways that cultures shape
lay theories such as PWE. Conceiving of culture in broad terms, PWE
should not develop the justier of inequality meaning in cultures where
people tend to blame others less for their disadvantage. Prior work suggests
that Latin American adults tend to blame others less for their disadvantage
or stigma (being overweight, failing at a task) than do US adults
(e.g., Betancourt & Weiner, 1982; Crandall & Martinez, 1996).
We aimed to show that PWE does not obtain the justier of inequality
meaning with age (experience) in Colombia, but continues to have an
egalitarian meaning. We (Levy et al., 2005b) recruited three age groups (11-,
14-, and 17-year-olds) roughly similar to the US sample of Whites used in
our original developmental studies (Levy et al., 2006b). We focused on the
numerical majority group in Colombia, Mestizos, and used a similar
procedure to that used in the US developmental studies. We translated and
back-translated the measures into Spanish, and the internal reliability of the
LAY THEORIES 205
measures was comparable to the earlier US sample. As predicted, in

Colombia the correlation between PWE and egalitarianism was signicantly
positive and similar across the age groups, suggesting that, among these age
groups, PWE consistently relates to egalitarianism. In contrast, as described
earlier, among US Whites the correlation between PWE and egalitarianism
went from signicantly positive among younger participants (10- and
15-year-olds) to non-signicant among older participants (17-, 20-, and
42-year-olds).
In the Colombia and US developmental studies, we also assessed a lay
view that we expected to have one intergroup meaning across cultures, with
an unequivocal, stable relation to intolerance among numerical majority
group members. Social dominance orientation (SDO; e.g., Pratto, Sidanius,
Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) prescribes the non-egalitarian view that some
groups are inherently superior to others; further, a consistent demonstration
of research ndings across cultures supports this relation (e.g., Pratto et al.,
1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Accordingly, across the dierent age groups
and cultures, SDO should be negatively correlated with egalitarianism.
Indeed, we found that the correlation between SDO and egalitarianism was
consistently negative across age groups for both Colombian Mestizos and
for US Whites. Evidence that egalitarianism related to SDO consistently
across members of the numerical majority group across cultures, while its
relation to PWE diered among numerical majority groups members by
culture, helps to rule out the explanation that being a member of the
numerical majority simply explains the use of PWE in an intolerant way.
To summarise this section, PWE, in the US, is more than a justier of
inequality, as past work has indicated. Rather, PWE has implications for
both intolerance and tolerance. Consistent with the social-developmental
perspective, lay perceivers personal characteristics (e.g., age, race,
psychological needs) and the contexts in which they interact help to
determine lay theory use. In the US, children tend to use the social equaliser
meaning of PWE, whereas adults use either that meaning or the justier of
inequality meaning, whichever is most salient or personally relevant. Also,
consistent with the social-developmental perspectives emphasis on time
periods, one meaning of PWE (justier of inequality) was shown to
dominate during a particular life transition (preparing to transition to the
work force or graduate school).
COLOURBLIND THEORY
Similar to the PWE, the colourblind theory is another lay theory that seems
to have at least two intergroup meanings (social equaliser and justier of
inequality), used in variable ways by dierent people and in dierent
contexts. The colourblind theory is pervasive in many environments, and it
is captured by sayings such as You cant tell a book by its cover and All that
glitters is not gold. The colourblind theory essentially suggests that social
category information such as race is supercial, irrelevant, and an
uninformative base to make judgements of people (e.g., Allport, 1954;
Schoeld, 1986).
Researchers have long suggested that the colourblind theory should
facilitate social harmony in the racially diverse US society. It is captured by
the melting pot metaphor, which suggests that dierences between people
immigrating to a country such as the US eventually melt away, such that
there is no longer any visible or psychological basis for prejudice (Allport,
1954, p. 517). A large body of research and theorising in both developmental
and social psychology suggests that the colourblind theory facilitates
social tolerance in the US by diverting peoples attention from race
to commonalities across people or to the uniqueness of individuals
(e.g., Jones & Foley, 2003; Houser, 1978; Katz, 1973; Katz & Zalk, 1978;
Levy, West, Bigler, Karafantis, Ramirez, & Velilla, 2005c; Wolsko, Park,
Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2000).
Nonetheless, the colourblind theory may not simply facilitate social
tolerance. It may facilitate intolerance by glossing over the rich histories of
the less dominant cultures, and by underestimating and ignoring past and
present US racism (e.g., Jones, 1997; Neville, Lilly, Lee, Duran, & Browne,
2000; Schoeld, 1986). In a colourblind (or race-neutral) environment,
discrimination not only should not exist it cannot exist. Yet race and
other status characteristics do aect peoples lives. Therefore, when racism
occurs, the colourblind theory can be used to justify inaction through denial,
thereby helping to maintain the current power structure and preserving the
privileges of the dominant group (e.g., Jones, 1997; Neville et al., 2000;
Schoeld, 1986).
Applying our social-developmental perspective, the egalitarian meaning
of the colourblind theory is likely pervasive in the immediate environment of
US children of all groups. Parents, teachers, and other signicant adults
likely encourage children to treat others equally and discourage them from
teasing and excluding others based on outward appearances (e.g., gender,
race, body type; see e.g., Killen, Lee-Kim, McGlothlin, & Stangor, 2002).
Indeed, the egalitarian meaning of the colourblind theory is captured by
childrens stories such as New Neighbors from the popular Berenstain
Bears series in the US, in which the bear family learns that, despite
dierences in appearance, they are quite similar to the panda family, and
enjoys being friends with them. The egalitarian meaning of the colourblind
theory is potentially emphasised and applicable to adults of all groups as
well, for example, in suggesting that they will be treated fairly and in
supporting their psychological and social needs (e.g., bolstering egalitarian
values, facilitating interpersonal relationships; see Levy et al., 2006a).
LAY THEORIES 207
Even so, similar to our theorising about the age at which the intolerant
meaning of PWE increasingly enters the immediate environment, we suggest
that, during adolescence, relatively advantaged adolescents are increasingly
exposed to the colourblind theory being used to justify their place in the
social system; that is, to deny that other groups are disadvantaged and
facing racism.
Below, we review evidence in the US that the colourblind theory is related
to social tolerance, particularly among children (across races), and then
discuss evidence that it also is related to intolerance, particularly among
adults in the numerical majority group. We then briey describe the ndings
of a study in which we compared lay theory use among a racially diverse
group of children and adults.
As noted, one way that the colourblind theory may facilitate social
tolerance is by turning peoples attention towards the universal qualities of
people instead of social group membership. In one supportive experiment,
Houser (1978) examined the eects of viewing lms that suggested that
appearance or colour should not be considered important in relating to
others (p. 119) on the prejudice of 5- to 9-year-old racially and ethnically
diverse US children (Black, Mexican, Asian, and White). One lm depicted
the story of two puppets who were best friends until they realised that one
had stripes and the other had spots. The toymaker reunited the friends by
emphasising their similarities, namely that they were both created by him.
Although the lm clips were brief (each 10 15 minutes), children who
watched either or both lms, compared to children who did not view any
lms, assigned more positive (e.g., hardest worker) and less negative (e.g.,
steals) attributes to drawings of Black, Asian, and Latino children, relative
to drawings of White children.
The positive relation between the colourblind theory and greater social
tolerance has also been supported by several experiments in which
childrens attention was directed to individual dierences within a group
(e.g., Katz, 1973; Katz & Zalk, 1978). For example, Katz (1973) trained
7- and 11-year-old Black and White US children to attend to the unique
characteristics of people. In one condition, the uniqueness of individuals
within a racial group was highlighted by having children associate names
with photographs of children of a dierent race. In the other condition,
children were explicitly prompted to determine whether pairs of photo-
graphs were the same (thus to attend to individual dierences). Both
experimental conditions led to reduced reported social distance and
prejudice among both Black and White children of both age groups
studied, when compared to a control condition in which children simply
viewed the photographs.
Several recent experiments (e.g., Jones & Foley, 2003) have used a
combination approach in which attention is diverted from social group
category information to how people are both similar and unique (all
people are the same in a way, but each person is also unique). In one
experiment, Levy et al. (2005c) had Black and Latino children, 11 to 14
years old, read two science readers (one about the weather, the other
about recycling), which featured an equal number of light- and dark-
skinned males and females. For example, in a scene in the weather
book in which the depicted children appear frightened by thunder and
lightning, the similar unique combined message was: All humans are the
same. Everyone gets scared sometimes, but each person also is a unique
individual. Dierent things scare dierent individuals. Children who were
randomly assigned to the control condition read only about the main
topic of the book (e.g., weather). Children in the colourblind-relevant
condition reported greater levels of egalitarianism and greater desired
social closeness to unfamiliar White peers compared to those in the
control condition.
The role of the colourblind theory in intergroup relations has also been
investigated with adult (generally White) participants. Because we hypothe-
sise that adults are likely familiar with both proposed meanings of the
colourblind theory and use the one that is most personally relevant or salient
at the time, a given adult sample endorsing the colourblind theory could
show tolerant responses, intolerant responses, or both.
Experiments with US White college students (Richeson & Nussbaum,
2004; Wolsko et al., 2000), using a colourblind-relevant message similar to
the one just described with children (e.g., Jones & Foley, 2003; Levy et al.,
2005c) yielded tolerant and intolerant responses. Participants read a half-
page essay suggesting that intergroup harmony can be achieved if we
recognise that at our core we are all the same, that all men and women are
created equal, and that we are rst and foremost a nation of individuals,
before being asked to list ve reasons why adopting that view could
potentially strengthen US society (Wolsko et al., 2000, p. 638). Participants
randomly assigned to the control condition did not read an essay, but were
asked to list ve dierent thoughts, reactions, or ideas that the groups
Blacks and Whites in the US brought to mind.
Demonstrating that the colourblind theory facilitates greater social
tolerance, participants in the colourblind condition, relative to the control
condition, reported less racial ingroup preference (Wolsko et al., 2000).
However, colourblind-induced participants did not show less racial
stereotyping than control participants. Also, subsequent experiments
showed that colourblind-induced White participants exhibited greater
implicit racial attitude bias than participants who were exposed to an
anti-colourblind induction (Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004).
The intolerant or denial of racism implication of the colourblind theory
has been uncovered in other work with adults (e.g., Schoeld, 1986).
LAY THEORIES 209
Neville et al. (2000) directly tested the intolerant aspect of the colour-
blind theory through the development of the Colour-Blind Racial
Attitudes Scale (CoBRAS). This scale consists of items tapping a lack
of awareness of racial privilege (e.g., White people in the US have
certain advantages because of the colour of their skin [reverse-scored]),
blatant racism (e.g., Social problems in the US are rare, isolated
situations), and institutional racism (e.g., Due to racial discrimination,
programs such as armative action are necessary to help create equality
[reverse-scored]). Studying predominately White US college students, and
also community members, Neville et al. found that greater agreement
with the CoBRAS was positively and signicantly related to negative
attitudes toward Blacks as well as negative attitudes towards race and
gender equality.
Taken together, results from the above studies suggest that the
colourblind theory may have two opposite intergroup implications. The
colourblind theory seemed to promote greater social tolerance among
children of diverse groups in the US, while both the tolerant and intolerant
aspects of the colourblind theory were revealed among samples of
predominately White US adults. Because these studies sometimes tested
dierent aspects of the colourblind theory (drawing attention to cross-group
similarity, individual dierences, or both), it is important to examine the
tolerant and intolerant implications of the colourblind theory while dening
and assessing it in a consistent manner.
We (Levy, Karafantis, & Velilla, 2005a) have begun to address these
issues in research with participants of varying ages and races. US Black and
White adults (on average, 22 years old) and Black and White children (on
average, 13 years old) completed a measure of egalitarianism from Levy
et al. (2005b) and a measure of the colourblind theory in which they rated
their agreement with items such as Peoples race or ethnicity is not useful
information about the kind of person they are. As noted earlier, we predict
that the social equaliser meaning of the colourblind theory is available in the
immediate environment of Black and White children. For adults, we
expected that Whites receive greater exposure to and are more receptive to
the denial of racism meaning of the colourblind theory than Blacks
because it is more self-serving to them, on average.
The correlation between the colourblind theory and egalitarianism was
signicantly positive for both age groups of Black participants, suggesting
that the colourblind theory seems to have an egalitarianism meaning across
ages. However, for Whites, the correlation between colourblind theory and
egalitarianism was signicantly positive among the children and non-
signicant among the adults, consistent with our theorising that with age,
Whites are increasingly familiar with the denial of racism meaning of the
colourblind theory and are more receptive to it.
Among the college students, we have begun to look in more detail at how
the colourblind theory is used. In one US study, we compared the responses
of Whites to Blacks and Latinos, two of the largest racial and ethnic
numerical minority groups in the US (Levy et al., 2005a). Consistent with
our previous predictions, we expected that the social equaliser meaning of
the colourblind theory would be endorsed by all groups, while the denial of
racism meaning of the colourblind theory should be less strongly endorsed
by Black and Latinos relative to Whites. We included relatively direct
measures of the intergroup meanings of the colourblind theory, similar to
measures used in our work with the PWE (Levy et al., 2005b). A sample
item is: When you say things like Race doesnt matter, tell us the extent to
which you mean this: Race doesnt matter because racism is not really a
problem in the US anymore [denial of racism meaning] or Race doesnt
matter because people from dierent groups are all equal in worth and
should be given equal treatment regardless of the colour of their skin [social
equaliser meaning]. Indeed, Blacks, Latinos, and Whites did not dier in
their endorsement of the egalitarian meaning of colourblind theory. Also in
line with our hypotheses, Blacks and Latinos agreed less with the denial of
racism meaning of colourblind theory compared to Whites. It should also be
mentioned that, in this study, we included a measure of the degree to which
people identied with their ingroup, expecting that the ndings would be
accentuated for participants with stronger ingroup identications. Level of
identication was not signicantly related to their endorsement of either
meaning of the colourblind theory. Since all groups reported relatively high
levels of group identication, our ability to detect dierences was limited.
In summary, the colourblind theory appears to have both a tolerant and
intolerant meaning in the United States. In keeping with the social-
developmental perspective, the meaning depended on the lay perceivers
personal characteristics (e.g., age, race) and context.
IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Initial support for a social-developmental perspective
At the outset, we proposed a social-developmental perspective that builds on
a large body of ndings on lay theories in intergroup relations as well as on
interactionist theories of social behaviour (ecological, self-categorisation,
and social identity) from developmental and social psychology. We
suggested that an integrative social-developmental perspective that takes
into account the dynamic interaction between peoples characteristics and
the many nested environments in which they live would help expand the
understanding of the nature and role of lay theories in intergroup relations.
We then reviewed research on PWE and the colourblind theory with
LAY THEORIES 211
children and adults from dierent racial, ethnic, and national groups,
showing that a single lay theory can have a tolerant and intolerant meaning.
Further, perceivers use of one versus the other meaning seems to be
determined by the salience or personal relevance of that meaning in a
particular context or life transition.
Although more parsimonious alternative interpretations of lay theory
use are plausible, none seems to fully account for the growing set of
ndings for PWE and the colourblind theory as well as does a social-
developmental perspective. As one example, the pattern of ndings does
not point to a simple age- (or cognitive sophistication) dierences
explanation in how PWE or the colourblind theory is used in dierent
ways. Among US Whites, children generally use the egalitarian meaning
more than adults, while adults generally use the intolerant meaning more
than children (regarding PWE, Levy et al., 2006b, Studies 1 and 2;
regarding colourblind theory, Levy et al., 2005a); however, these age
dierences do not occur in all settings. Adults use of the intolerant
meaning of PWE, for example, is triggered by thinking about others using
PWE to support arguments (Levy et al., 2006b, Studies 3 and 4) and by
motivational aspects of a competitive life transition (Levy & Karafantis,
2005). White adults endorse the egalitarian meaning of the PWE (Levy
et al., 2005b) and colourblind theory (e.g., Levy et al., 2005a; also see
Wolsko et al., 2000), and likely communicate that meaning to children.
Further, a simple age-dierences explanation does not apply to US Blacks
and Latinos, who seem to predominately subscribe to the egalitarian
meaning of both PWE (e.g., Levy et al., 2005b) and the colourblind theory
(e.g., Levy et al., 2005a) regardless of age.
A race- (or social status) dierences explanation also does not fully
account for ndings thus far for either lay theory. Both the PWE and
colourblind theory appear to be used in similar ways among US children of
dierent races, with studies showing an egalitarian use of PWE for US
Black, Latino, and White children (Levy et al., 2006b; Levy et al., 2005b)
and of the colourblind theory for a diverse group of US children (e.g.,
Houser, 1978; Katz, 1973; Levy et al., 2005c). Further, dierences in use of
PWE among adults as a function of race are limited to certain contexts.
Both US Black and White adults endorsed the egalitarian meaning of PWE
(Levy et al., 2005b) and the colourblind theory (e.g., Levy et al., 2005a) to a
similar degree, and adults from dierent racial and ethnic groups can be led
to think about the intolerant meaning of PWE, with resulting reductions in
their egalitarianism and monetary donations to a homeless shelter (Levy
et al., 2006b, Study 3 and 4). Additionally suggesting that the ndings
cannot be reduced to dierences as a function of social status, adults in the
numerical majority group in Colombia (Mestizos) tend to use the egalitarian
meaning of PWE, whereas adults in the numerical majority group in the US
(Whites) tend to use both the egalitarian and justier of inequality meaning
of PWE.
Thus, the aforementioned alternative explanations for the nature of lay
theory use across and within groups (e.g., age, race) do not support the
ndings on PWE and the colourblind theory. Our proposed social-
developmental perspective is consistent with the ndings, although not
unequivocally so. We are at the early stages of testing the t of this
perspective; hence, more work is needed. Below, we spell out several lines of
future inquiry.
Some remaining issues for the study of PWE and the

colourblind theory
Greater investigation of the social identication aspect of the proposed
social-developmental perspective is needed. Our perspective builds on social
identity and self-categorisation perspectives, which highlight the impact of
the dynamic interrelation between peoples multiple social identities and
context on peoples motivational states and intergroup behaviours (e.g.,
Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Turner et al., 1987). Yet work on PWE and the
colourblind theory, including our own, has yet to focus on the salience of a
particular social identity or degree of social identication; instead, work to
date has focused on group membership, which does not take into
consideration the salience or importance of that group identity. In one
study comparing US Whites, Blacks, and Latinos uses of dierent
intergroup meanings of the colourblind theory (Levy et al., 2005b), we did
include a measure of group identication. However, group identication did
not seem to impact the ndings, likely due to the relatively high levels of
group identication in our sample.
Yet level of group identication likely plays a moderating role in lay
theory use, at least in some contexts. For example, US White early
adolescents who highly identify with being White or whose White identity is
made salient in a particular context may indeed be aware and use the
intolerant meaning of PWE or the colourblind theory. Members of groups
that have historically been discriminated against who highly identify with
their group or whose group identity has been made salient may reject PWE
or the colourblind theory in any form because of the potentially negative
implications. Future work on these lay theories that takes into consideration
peoples degree of social identication in a particular context rather than
simply considering peoples group membership (e.g., age, social status) is
needed.
Another crucial next step in applying our social-developmental perspec-
tive is the use of longitudinal and in-depth studies of the interplay between
personal characteristics and contexts in impacting intergroup uses of PWE
LAY THEORIES 213
and the colourblind theory. An important aspect of an ecological

orientation is studying development-in-context; that is, in-depth investi-
gations of people and their environments, ideally over time (e.g.,
Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1986). We (Levy & Karafantis, 2005) have begun a
longitudinal investigation of US White students as they manoeuvre their
way through high school and through the transition to college and work, in
an eort to explore changes in the use of PWE and colourblind theory,
particularly as they unfold within the school environment. Longitudinal
studies of a wide variety of groups, especially through life transitions that
signal a self or group threat are also needed to understand the personal,
motivational, and sociocultural dynamics that can produce shifts in the
endorsement and intergroup implications of lay theories such as PWE and
the colourblind theory.
Extension of social-developmental perspective to other lay

theories
Beyond further testing the t of our social-developmental perspective to
PWE and the colourblind theory, tests of the generalisability of this social-
developmental perspective to other lay theories is needed. A social-
developmental perspective seems especially useful for examining a dynamic
relation between personal characteristics and contexts in setting in motion
dierent intergroup uses of lay theories. As suggested earlier, lay theories
that are justiers of inequality in a seemingly egalitarian society are good
candidates for having more than one intergroup meaning, one that justies
intolerance and also one that supports egalitarianism.
Serving as a justier of inequality within a seemingly egalitarian
environment is just one consideration in determining whether a particular
lay theory has more than one meaning. If a lay theory is salient and socially
acceptable in a setting in which people have a range (i.e., tolerant and
intolerant) of social beliefs, people may attempt to use that lay theory in
multiple ways. For example, PWE and colourblind theory are pervasive
theories in which Americans are invested; therefore, Americans may be
motivated to accommodate such lay theories to their varying needs across
situations and over time, rather than simply discarding the lay theories.
Moreover, a lay theory would need to be somewhat vaguely and broadly
dened to allow for exibility in its implications and to appeal to people
with a wide range of beliefs and goals. Further, the social and political
climate would need to be receptive to dierent uses of that lay theory. For
instance, as noted earlier, PWE is unlikely to be used as a justier of
inequality in environments in which people tend not to be blamed for their
negative outcomes. Political movements or campaigns, nonetheless, could
alter the conditions above by changing the receptiveness of a culture
to a particular intergroup meaning of a lay theory (see Hong et al.,

1999, 2003).
Given the above considerations, other lay theories likely have more than
one intergroup meaning. Indeed, essentialism, a lay theory about the core
qualities of a group, which has long been considered an ingredient
in and justier of intolerance (e.g., Allport, 1954; Leyens et al., 2000;
Yzerbyt et al., 1997), is being shown to also relate to tolerance. An
essentialist theory is pervasive in many societies and is dened as several
interrelated beliefs (e.g., beliefs about the immutability, biological basis, and
discreteness of a group; Haslam et al., 2002; Yzerbyt et al., 1997; see
Yzerbyt et al., 2004). Some dimensions of essentialist theories (e.g., viewing
sexual orientation as an immutable and biologically based) have been
related to pro-gay attitudes among US adults (e.g., Haslam et al., 2002;
Haslam & Levy, in press; Hegarty, 2002) but not British adults (e.g.,
Hegarty, 2002). Biological explanations, however, have been related to
greater endorsement of sexism and racism among German college students
(e.g., Keller, 2005) but not US college students (e.g., Haslam et al., 2002).
Further, among US adults, other components of essentialist theories (e.g.,
viewing sexual orientation as discrete and historically invariant), have been
shown to be related to anti-gay attitudes (Haslam & Levy, in press; Haslam
et al., 2002). Thus, a complex picture of associations to tolerance and
intolerance is emerging for essentialist theories. Research on essentialism
and other lay theories with more than one intergroup meaning might t and
also benet from a social-developmental perspective that directs research
towards examining how lay perceivers characteristics interact with the
environments in which perceivers are nested, to impact lay theory use in a
particular context, during life transitions, and over time. At the same time,
work on essentialism is informing and expanding our social-developmental
theorising.
Implications of findings for the study of lay theories in

intergroup relations
Taken together, work on PWE and the colourblind theory, along with other
work on lay theories with multiple intergroup uses, sheds new light on the
nature and role of lay theories in intergroup relations. Research on lay
theories with more than one intergroup implication suggests the potential
for additional exibility and stability not aorded to lay theories with a
single intergroup implication. A lay theory can be used in more than one
way across situations and over time. This exibility provides a mechanism
for the potential stability of lay theories with more than one meaning.
People do not need to discard a lay theory when one of its meanings is not
personally relevant or appropriate in a particular context; rather, they can
LAY THEORIES 215
invoke the other meaning of the lay theory. Future work is needed to test
these conjectures.
Research on lay theories with more than one intergroup implication also
emphasises the role of psychological and social motivations in lay theory
use. Guided by an intuitive scientist metaphor, lay theories have been
discussed as serving epistemic functions (e.g., for reviews, see Fletcher, 1995;
Furnham, 1988; Hong et al., 2001; McGarty et al., 2002; Wegener & Petty,
1998). Yet lay theories are increasingly being shown to also serve
psychological and social motives, such as fostering social relationships
and supporting values (see Levy et al., 2006a). A growing body of
research, including our own, highlights that people use lay theories to
justify their prejudice and prevailing social inequalities (e.g., Crandall, 2000;
Haslam & Levy, in press; Keller, 2005; McGarty et al., 2002; Yzerbyt et al.,
1997). Further, work on PWE and the colourblind theory, as well as work
on essentialist theories, suggests that peoples use of a particular meaning of
a lay theory can depend on how personally useful it is in a context.
Our work, and that of others, then, is increasingly demonstrating some
key dierences between lay theories and scientic theories. Although lay
people and trained scientists may develop and adopt theories as epistemic
tools to approximate the truth, lay people appear to blatantly use lay
theories in other self-serving ways (for a review, see Levy et al., 2006a).
Lay people seem to use lay theories to best suit their social and
psychological needs in a particular situation or over time, even using a
single lay theory in opposite ways.
CONCLUSION
Lay theories are pervasive in our social world. They are powerful social
lters because they are socially transmitted and shared, but also because
they serve epistemic, social, and psychological needs. In this chapter, we
proposed a social-developmental perspective to expand the understanding
of the nature and role of lay theories in intergroup relations. The
perspective builds on a large body of ndings on lay theories in intergroup
relations as well as on well-established and largely complementary
interactionist theories of social behaviour from developmental and social
psychology. This integrative social-developmental perspective suggests that
lay perceivers characteristics (e.g., age, race, psychological motivations)
interact with the environments in which perceivers are nested to impact lay
theory use in particular contexts, during life transitions, and over time.
Using this perspective to guide our investigation of the Protestant work
ethic and colourblind theory, we showed that a single lay theory can have
a socially tolerant or intolerant meaning. Our review of research with
a racially and ethnically diverse group of children and adults in the US,
as well as research with Colombian children and adults (Mestizos), showed

similarities and dierences in perceivers uses of PWE and the colourblind
theory. Children and early adolescents from all racial and ethnic groups
tended to use the tolerant meanings of the lay theories. Late adolescents and
adults were found to use either the tolerant or intolerant meaning, depending
on the salience and personal relevance of that meaning in a context or life
transition through which they were navigating. Thus, even when both
meanings were prevalent in a given culture (e.g., the US), they did not appear
to be equally emphasised in all environments or for all people living in those
environments; nor were all people in that environment receptive to a
particular meaning of the lay theories. Alternative theories suggesting
dierences in lay theory use based solely on perceivers age or cognitive
sophistication or solely on perceivers race or social status cannot fully
account for the ndings. Much more work is needed in testing this integrative
social-developmental perspective with the Protestant work ethic and the
colourblind theory as well as with other lay theories. We look forward to
future work in this area that will move us towards a fuller understanding of
the nature of lay theories, while also contributing to a fuller understanding of
the dynamics of intergroup relations.
REFERENCES
Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-esteem in
social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18,
317 334.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Batson, C. D., Sager, K., Garst, E., Kang, M., Rubchinsky, K., & Dawson, K. (1997). Is
empathy-induced helping due to self-other merging? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73, 495 509.
Betancourt, H., & Weiner, B. (1982). Attributions for achievement-related events expectancy
and sentiments: A study of success and failure in Chile and the United States. Journal of
Cross-cultural Psychology, 13, 362 374.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American values: A value
congruence approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social
Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about armative action: Unanswered questions
and new directions. American Behavioural Scientist, 41, 985 1003.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475 482.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723 742.
Chiu, C-Y., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of
morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 923 940.
Cowan, C. P., & Cowan, P. A. (2001). When partners become parents: The big life change for
couples. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
LAY THEORIES 217
Crandall, C. S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882 894.
Crandall, C. S. (2000). Ideology and ideologies of stigma: The justication of stigmatization. In
T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of
stigma (pp. 126 150). New York: Guilford Press.
Crandall, C. S., & Martinez, R. (1996). Culture, ideology, and antifat attitudes. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1165 1176.
Deutsch, F. M., Ruble, D. N., Fleming, A., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Stangor, C. S. (1988).
Information seeking and maternal self-denition during the transition to motherhood.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 420 431.
Doyle, A. B., & Aboud, F. E. (1995). A longitudinal study of white children: Racial prejudice as
a social-cognitive development. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 209 228.
Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage
in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1202 1214.
Fletcher, G. (1995). The scientic credibility of folk psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Furnham, A. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understandings of problems in the social sciences.
New York: Pergamon Press.
Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. London:
Oxford University Press.
Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (in press). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and
implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with
prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87 100.
Hegarty, P. (2002). Its not a choice, its the way were built: Symbolic beliefs about sexual
orientation in the US and Britain. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12,
153 166.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Heykoe, K., & Hock, S. (2003). Harvesting the dream: The rags-to-riches tale of the Sutter Home
Winery. New York: Wiley.
Higgins, E. T., & Parsons, J. E. (1983). Social cognition and the social life of the child: Stages as
subcultures. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble, & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and
social development (pp. 15 62). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identications: A social psychology of intergroup
relations and group processes. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Yeung, G., & Tong, Y. (1999). Social comparison during the political
transition: Interaction of entity versus incremental beliefs and social identities. Journal of
Intercultural Relations, 23, 257 279.
Hong, Y. Y., Chan, G., Chiu, C. Y., Wong, R. Y. M., Hansen, I. G., Lee, S. L. et al. (2003).
How are social identities linked to self-conception and intergroup orientation? The
moderating eect of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
1147 1160.
Hong, Y. Y., Levy, S. R., & Chiu, C. Y. (2001). The contribution of the lay theories approach to
the study of groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 98 106.
Houser, B. B. (1978). An examination of the use of audiovisual media in reducing prejudice.
Psychology in the Schools, 15, 116 122.
Hunt, M. O. (2000). Status, religion, and the belief in a just world: Comparing African
Americans, Latinos, and Whites. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 325 343.
Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism. New York: McGraw Hill.
Jones, L. M., & Foley, L. A. (2003). Educating children to decategorize racial groups. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 33, 554 564.
Karafantis, D. M., & Levy, S. R. (2004). The role of childrens lay theories about the
malleability of human attributes in beliefs about and volunteering for disadvantaged groups.
Child Development, 75, 236 250.
Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., Hong, Y. et al. (2005). Culture,
essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than
groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 147 169.
Katz, I., & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conict: Correlational
and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social
Katz, P. A. (1973). Stimulus predierentiation and modication of childrens racial attitudes.
Child Development, 44, 232 237.
Katz, P. A., & Zalk, S. R. (1978). Modication of childrens racial attitudes. Developmental
Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and
its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 686 702.
Kelly, G. A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Killen, M., Lee-Kim, J., McGlothlin, H., & Stangor, C. (2002). How children and adolescents
evaluate gender and racial exclusion. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 67, 1 119.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial
threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414 431.
Levy, S. R., Chiu, C-Y., & Hong, Y. Y. (2006a). Lay theories and intergroup relations. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 5 24.
Levy, S. R., & Dweck, C. S. (1999). The impact of childrens static versus dynamic conceptions
of people on stereotype formation. Child Development, 70, 1163 1180.
Levy, S. R., Freitas, A. L., & Salovey, P. (2002). Construing action abstractly and
blurring social distinctions: Implications for perceiving homogeneity among, but also
empathizing with and helping, others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83,
1224 1238.
Levy, S. R., & Karafantis, D. M. (2005). [Unpublished data.] State University of New York at
Stony Brook, USA.
Levy, S. R., Karafantis, D. M., & Velilla, E. (2005a). [Unpublished data.] State University of
New York at Stony Brook, USA.
Levy, S. R., Ramirez, L., & Velilla, E. (2005b). The role of culture and context on the intergroup
meaning of the Protestant work ethic. Unpublished manuscript. State University of New
York at Stony Brook, USA.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement:
The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421 1436.
Levy, S. R., West, T., Bigler, R., Karafantis, D., Ramirez, L., & Velilla, E. (2005c). Messages
about the uniqueness and similarities of people: Impact on U.S. Black and Latino youth.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 26, 713 733.
Levy, S. R., West, T., Ramirez, L., & Karafantis, D. M. (2006b). The Protestant work ethic: A
lay theory with dual intergroup implications. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9,
95 115.
Leyens, J-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Perez, A. et al.
(2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups
and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 186 197.
Liberman, G., & Lavine, A. (2000). Rags to riches: Motivating stories of how ordinary people
achieved extraordinary wealth. Chicago: Dearborn Trade.
LAY THEORIES 219
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, N. (2000).
Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and
Mahalingam, R., & Rodriguez, J. (2003). Essentialism, power and cultural psychology of
gender. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 3, 157 174.
McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement
motive. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32,
23 45.
McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, Y., & Spears, R. (Eds.). (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The
formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McKown, C. (2004). Age and ethnic variation in childrens thinking about the nature of racism.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 597 617.
Monteith, M. J., & Walters, G. L. (1998). Egalitarianism, moral obligation, and
prejudice-related personal standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
186 199.
Morris, M. W., Menon, T., & Ames, D. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency:
A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 169 182.
Neville, H. A., Lilly, R. L., Lee, R. M., Duran, G., & Browne, L. (2000). Construction and
initial validation of the Colour-Blind Racial Attitudes Scale. Journal of Counseling
Pomerantz, E. M., & Newman, L. S. (2000). Looking in on the children: Using developmental
psychology as a tool for hypothesis testing and model building in social psychology.
Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 300 316.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation:
A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Quinn, D. M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Eects of belief in the Protestant
ethic and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 402 414.
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus
colour-blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417
423.
Ruble, D. N. (1994). A phase model of transitions: Cognitive and motivational consequences. In
M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 163 214). New York:
Academic Press.
Schoeld, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colourblind perspective. In J. F.
Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 231 253).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Somerman, F. B. (1993). Value, attitude, and belief determinants of willing-
ness to accept a facility for the homeless. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 2,
177 192.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conict. In W. G. Austin
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33 47). Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M., Oakes, P., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social
group: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2001). The social identity perspective in intergroup relations:
Theories, themes, and controversies. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Vol. Eds.), Blackwell
handbook in social psychology, Vol. 4: Intergroup processes (pp. 133 152). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1998). The naive scientist revisited: Naive theories and social
judgement. Social Cognition, 16, 1 7.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology:
Eects of multicultural and colour-blind perspectives on judgements of groups and
individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635 654.
Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. (Eds.). (2004). The psychology of group perception:
Perceived homogeneity, entitativity, and essentialism. New York: Psychology Press.
Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective
essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A.
Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20 50). Oxford:
Blackwell.

CAP 1lay Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAP 1lay Theories

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CAP 1lay Theories

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

2005, 16, 189 220

Lay theories and intergroup relations:

Correspondence should be addressed to Sheri R. Levy, Department of Psychology, State

2005 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology

subsequent decades in a lay (or nave, implicit, folk, or common sense)

endorsement such as those as a function of social class (see Mahalingam &

Figure 1. Schematic representation of a social-developmental perspective.

acknowledge the potential socialising role of ideologies and belief systems

PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC

PWEs intergroup implications among numerical majority

Developmental studies. Following from these predictions, our initial

Figure 3. Dierence in endorsement of egalitarianism for participants assigned to read articles

among younger participants, who presumably had been predominately

Life transition studies. Our social-developmental perspective suggests

To elaborate, social-developmental research on life transitions (e.g.,

Black and Latino male applicants will be randomly selected for a

Similarities and differences in PWEs intergroup implications

In a follow-up experiment, we (Levy et al., 2006b, Study 4) used the same

PWEs intergroup implications among the numerical majority

measures was comparable to the earlier US sample. As predicted, in

IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Some remaining issues for the study of PWE and the

and the colourblind theory. An important aspect of an ecological

Extension of social-developmental perspective to other lay

to a particular intergroup meaning of a lay theory (see Hong et al.,

Implications of findings for the study of lay theories in

as well as research with Colombian children and adults (Mestizos), showed

You might also like