seem that, at least in the antipoverty area, norms of social justice and equity have
had a strong and continuing influence on this society's responsiveness to the
needs of those whom it labels as deviant.

I believe that the incoherence of our national policy toward certain categories
of people reflects a corresponding incoherence in the way the majority feel about
them. A central thesis of this book is that attitudes about marginal groups are not
simply prejudiced, neutral, or accepting, but tend rather to be deeply conflicted
and uncertain, a complex mixture of sympathetic and aversive elements. It is
further proposed that as a consequence of the ambivalence, behavior toward
group members can be erratic and extreme -- either in a positive or negative
direction depending on how situational factors affect the attitudinal equation. The
idea that sentiments about minorities are often conflicted is certainly not new.
Erving Goffman ( 1963) implied as much in his essay on Stigma, and much
earlier Gunner Myrdal ( 1944) maintained in An American Dilemma that whites'
ambivalence about blacks was the key to understanding race relations in this
country. But almost no systematic studies were done on this topic prior to the
investigations that my colleagues and I carried out. (A few notable exceptions are
described later.)

This book describes a program of research on people's reactions to blacks and
the physically handicapped, categories that were selected because they seemed to
be representative of a whole range of social classes that are generally seen as
deviant but also as disadvantaged in their pursuit of life goals. The assumption is
that this dual perception generates both hostile and compassionate dispositions.
The experiments were designed to evaluate a theory about the conditions under
which social contact with a member of a stigmatized group (e.g., a black or a
handicapped person) gives rise to extremely favorable or unfavorable behavior
toward the person. On the whole, the theory is reasonably well supported by the
results, although many unresolved issues remain.

A major portion of the research program was a product of close collaboration
between David C. Glass and myself. When we started the project, Dr. Glass was
on the faculty of New York University, and I was located at the Graduate Center
of the City University of New York. But shortly thereafter, he moved to the
University of Texas at Austin, where he remained for a few years. Hence one set
of studies was carried out in New York and another set in Austin. (The Austin
work is described in Chapter 9.) However, the main theoretical notions, the
overall investigative strategy, and the design of key experiments were worked
out jointly by Dr. Glass and myself. I assume sole responsibility for the way
various concepts are presented in this book, and for whatever weaknesses, errors,
or omissions are to be found in its pages.

While other co-investigators have been cited at appropriate places throughout
the text, I should like at this time to mention a few whose participation was of
special importance. Sheldon Cohen was not only involved in the early experi-
ments but remained interested in the work at all stages and contributed a number

-x-