Abstract:

Social essentialism is an intuitive theory about social categories. It is a biological attribution of differences in social categories. It implies that members of one social category share unobservable intrinsic characteristics that determine their membership and generate observable similarities between them. Studies show that social essentialism increases racial, gender, and class prejudice, but also reduces prejudice against obese people, homosexuals, and criminals. Why are there domain differences in the impact of social essentialism on prejudice? The causal discounting theory holds that people weigh the possibility of multiple candidate causal explanations perceived in the process of explaining group differences. When a given causal explanation is considered more likely, other causal explanations are automatically regarded as unlikely, that is, the possibility of alternative causal explanations is discounted. The causal discounting theory, however, fails to distinguish between social categories that promote prejudices and those that reduce prejudices, nor does it explain the internal logic of causal discounting in a process of social essentialism that leads to different prejudice outcomes. Attribution theory can provide further insight into these questions.
Specifically, a major difference between social categories is whether group members are able to join or leave them. Based on this criterion, social categories can be classified into two categories: forced social categories and chosen social categories. Forced social categories result in significant social status differences between groups, and people often need to explain why one group has a lower status than another. However, in the chosen social categories, the stigma of groups is more prominent, so it is often necessary to explain why a group holds a stigmatized identity. More importantly，in forced social categories where stability cues are strong (e.g. race, gender, and class), social essentialism leads people to believe that differences between groups are difficult to change, thus increasing prejudice by discounting environmental explanations. In chosen social categories where controllability cues are strong (e.g. obesity, homosexuality, criminals), social essentialism leads people to believe that the stigmatized identities of some group members are uncontrollable, thus reducing prejudice by discounting chosen explanations.
Future research on social essentialism could focus on the following aspects in order to yield more practical value. Firstly, it is necessary to clarify social essentialist beliefs, describe how each component relates to prejudice, and analyze these relationships across different social domains in order to gain a deeper understanding. In addition, future research should examine the mechanisms behind social essentialism's influence on prejudice in greater depth. It is mainly because social essentialism's influence on prejudice can be complex, and it will not increase or decrease prejudice on its own; also, the current research on this mechanism is primarily based on causal discount theory, so future research should examine the internal mechanisms of this effect in greater detail. Finally, future research should focus on developing practical and effective interventions that can maximize the positive effects of social essentialism while eliminating its negative effects. The main reason for this is that these interventions are helpful in reducing intergroup conflict, eliminating prejudice, and fostering harmony in society. In order to reduce prejudice in the future, there needs to be vigorous development of relevant and effective intervention programs that target social essentialism.

Key words: social essentialism, prejudice, causal discounting, social categories