Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The protestant work ethic: A lay theory with dual intergroup implications

  • Stony Brook University
  • Borough of Manhattan Community College

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

79 Scopus citations

Abstract

The authors propose that, in the US, the Protestant work ethic (PWE) relates both to social tolerance and intolerance. PWE is proposed to have a surface meaning that relates to social tolerance, and also an associated meaning that relates to intolerance, which is acquired in part through social and cultural experience (e.g. PWE being used as a justifier of inequality). In correlational and experimental studies, PWE was related to greater egalitarianism and desired social closeness to African Americans among younger participants (9- to 12- and 14- to 16-year-olds) relative to older participants (college students). Subsequent experiments directly manipulated college students' interpretations of PWE, showing that those experimentally led to focus on others' use of PWE in support of their arguments (associated meaning condition) endorsed egalitarianism to a lesser extent (Study 3) and donated less money to a homeless shelter (Study 4) than did those simply focusing on the definition of PWE (definition condition). In contrast to these findings, the authors showed that social dominance orientation has a unitary relation to social intolerance across the three age groups studied (Study 1). The implications of these findings and future work on the duality of lay theories are discussed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)95-115
Number of pages21
JournalGroup Processes and Intergroup Relations
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2006

Keywords

  • Duality
  • Egalitarianism
  • Implicit theories
  • Justification
  • Lay theories
  • Prejudice
  • Protestant work ethic
  • Racial attitudes
  • Social dominance orientation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The protestant work ethic: A lay theory with dual intergroup implications'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this