13: 5/7/2009
Chapter Prejudice
Prejudice negative attitude toward people solely on the basis of group membership Discrimination negative action toward people y g p p solely on the basis of group membership Stereotypes generalization about people solely on the basis of group membership
Expectations about traits, values, likes, etc...
In common = Applies to all members of the group whether or not the given expectations fit
Prejudice effects EVERYONE
Prejudice can be based on nationality racial and ethnic racial and ethnic gender sexual orientation religion appearance weight age political ideology sexual preferences sexual preferences abortion in the past disabilities diseases hair color profession grade level
1
5/7/2009
Bond et al., 1988; Psychiatric Hospital
Black patients exhibited fewer cases of violent behavior, but were over 6 times as likely to be physically/chemically restrained within first 30 days This difference disappeared after 30 days This difference disappeared after 30 days
Staff finally got to know (individuate) Black patients
Up to 1920's: Race Psychology Saw Whites as superior to nonWhites Scientifically sought to prove nonWhites were less intelligent, "evolutionarily backwards", and "excessively sexual"
1920's 30's: The Big Shift Scientists weren't getting expected results
Led to the question: Why is there prejudice?
2
5/7/2009
1950s: Prejudiced Personality How could Nazi's perform such horrors?
Answer: Those people must be sick!
Dawn of "prejudiced personalities"
Authoritarianism
Discovery of "generalized prejudiced"
Rightwing Authoritarianism
Authoritarian submission
Submission to authority
Authoritarian aggression
Aggression toward those who don't
Conventionalism
Strong adherence to tradition Strong aversion to change
Socialdominance Orientation
Preference for hierarchical society
Aversion to those who "don't know their place"
Views dominant group as naturally superior Views dominant group as naturally superior Adherence to "Legitimizing Beliefs"
Paternalistic Myth subordinate groups are weak, but we take care of them Reciprocal Myth groups serve different roles and dominant and subordinate groups are both needed Sacred Myth group hierarchy is determined by God
3
5/7/2009
Worldview
RWA = The world is dangerous and threatening SDO = The world is a competitive jungle
Motivation
RWA = Defend social order, eliminate threats to tradition, established norms, and authority figures SDO = Defend ingroup's status, eliminate threats to ingroup power and authority
Prejudice
RWA = more prejudice toward groups that threaten tradition, norms, and authority
E.g., sexual minorities, homeless, rock stars, drug addicts E.g., sexual minorities, homeless, rock stars, drug addicts
SDO = more prejudice toward groups that threaten ingroup superiority
E.g., Blacks, women, Jews, Asians
RWA and SDO account for 50% of prejudice!
1960: Cultural Prejudice Why is everyone in the South still prejudiced?
Answer: That culture must be sick!
Uncovered "institutionalized" prejudice
Undoing of systemwide discrimination
Psychologists nowhere to be found
More done by sociologists and criminal justice
4
5/7/2009
1970s: Intergroup Prejudice Prejudice is not just a "Southern" problem
Intergroup processes makes people sick! Intergroup processes makes people sick!
Conflict, comparison, justification
Prejudiced personality / culture not necessary
Assumptions People motivated toward max reward / min cost Max rewards require ingroup cooperation and Max rewards require ingroup cooperation and outgroup competition in acquiring scarce resources Competition between groups leads to prejudice
RCT Example: Robbers Cave Study Boy camp first segregated into two camps
Eagles and Rattlers
Groups bonded separately and then entered into competition Prejudice/discrimination/stereotyping ensued
Fights, flag burning, derogatory names
5
5/7/2009
Robbers Cave Study (cont.) Competitive games were replaced with cooperative games
Superordinate Goal cooperation from multiple groups necessary for any group to reach its goal
Prejudice disappeared!
Eagles and Rattlers became fast friends
At the very end, one group was rewarded ice cream and that group offered their share with the other
Conflict not necessary Assumptions
One's group memberships are tied to selfesteem Motivation to maintain high selfesteem causes need to maintain high opinion of ingroups One way to accomplish this is by derogating outgroups
Akin to "downward social comparison"
SIT Example: Minimal Group Studies Groups of pars are divided arbitrarily
E.g., high guessers vs. low guessers
Leads to exaggeration of perceived differences between groups Leads to "ingroup bias" in liking and even allocating resources
6
5/7/2009
When people's selfesteem is threatened, they should use intergroup bias to defend it Fein & Spencer 1997 Fein & Spencer, 1997
Half of pars were told they had low IQs (threat) Pars were told a story about Greg, half were told that Greg was gay
Fein & Spencer, 1997 (cont.) Pars who were threatened displayed more stereo typing of gay Greg Selfesteem recovered to extent that gay Greg was stereotyped
Assumptions
People have need to justify the system (see the world as fair) world as fair) Causes people to justify social hierarchy, and thus inequality and prejudice
7
5/7/2009
SJT explains a lot SIT cannot! Why members of disadvantaged groups...
Don't rise up and increase their status Often show ambivalent ingroup attitudes
Benevolent sexism by women Voting against one's best interests
Often show outgroup favoritism
Especially in implicit measures
In some studies, 60% of Blacks/Latinos show outgroup fav.
If, during RCT, one group gains dominance Stable Oppression (SJT) subordinate group accepts they are lesser than dominant group
Results in longstanding prejudice
U Unstable Oppression (SIT) subordinate group bl O i (SIT) b di does not accept that they are lesser and challenges dominant group If dominant group sees their status as legitimate, subordinate group is seen as threat
Results in longstanding prejudice
Duckitt, 1992
Prejudice is reduced only if...
Subordinate group doesn't accept their position Dominant group see their position as illegitimate
Common course of prejudice reduction
Subordinate group demands civil rights Dominant group eventually sees their position as illegitimate and begins relinquishing power
8
5/7/2009
1980s: Cognitive Prejudice Don't need RCT, SIT, or SJT for prejudice Basic cognitive processes cause prejudice
Stereotyping Why do it?
Conserves cognitive resources W We categorize everything! i hi !
Bodenhausen, 1990
"Morning people" stereotype more in the evening "Evening people" stereotype more in the morning
Categorization Accentuation
Categorizing causes us to see greater differences between groups than there really are Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963
Pars looked at four lines going from small to large When a line was placed between two sets of lines, differences between linegroups was seen as larger than differences within linegroups Effect strengthened even more when groups were given the labels "Group A" and "Group B"
9
5/7/2009
Why are stereotypes so pervasive? Biased information processing
P Processing counterstereo. info. takes effort! i i f k ff !
Cognitive load tends to increase stereotyping We blame counterstereo. on external causes
Ultimate Attribution Error
Those who don't fit the stereo. are subtyped
Stereotypes only change if...
Group consistently displays counterstereotypical behavior
Only works if group members are seen as "typical" Only works if group members are seen as typical
So many subtypes are made that the original stereotype loses usefulness
10
5/7/2009
Affects memory Snyder & Uranowitz, 1978
Pars read about "Betty K." D Description Betty of contained both stereotypical i i fB i db h i l (cheerleader) and counterstereotypical (loves math) information Pars failed to remember counterstereo. info. Pars misremembered additional stereotypical info.
Affects behavior Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974
Discovered Whites did better than Blacks in interviews Discovered interviewers used different behaviors when interviewing Whites and Blacks
With Blacks = less eye contact, sits farther away, shorter interview time
Experimenters called these Style #1 (seen with Whites) and Style #2 (seen with Blacks)
Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974 (cont.)
Experimenters trained interviewers to use either Style #1 or Style #2 Black and White applicants now performed equally Black and White applicants now performed equally
Everyone performed well with Style #1 Everyone performed poorly with Style #2
Example of selffulfilling prophecy
11
5/7/2009
Affects performance ( stereotype threat ) Steele & Aronson, 1995
Blacks performed worse than comparable Whites only when SAT was said to be "diagnostic"
Stone, 2002
Whites performed worse than comparable Blacks only when golf exercise was said to be "diagnostic"
Stricker & Ward, 2004
Simply marking gender after (rather than before) taking APCT (calculus) reduced gender gap by 33%
Caused by
Fear of confirming negative stereotypes
Especially if you care about the subject
Causes
Increased physiological stress (HR, blood pressure) Increased negative thinking and emotions Increased selfmonitoring
Screws up normally automatic behaviors
Cure
Learn about stereotype threat
Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008
1980s: Modern and Cognitive Prejudice Oldfashioned prejudice seemed to disappear
Yet discrimination / inequality was still rampant Yet discrimination / inequality was still rampant
Discovery of modern/symbolic/aversive bias
Prejudice is now subtle and perhaps even more insidious than before!
12
5/7/2009
Content of "Modern" / "Symbolic" Prejudice
Group X no longer faces prejudice/discrimination G Group X's continuing failures are their own fault X' i i f il h i f l
"They aren't trying hard enough"
Group X demands too much special treatment and they already get more than they deserve
More acceptable form of prejudice?
Prejudice disguised as conservatism More likely to be expressed
But correlates very highly with oldfashioned prejudice (r .60)
Predicts
Political decisions
Both electing politicians and voting on props
Not openly endorsing prejudice, but displaying it when it is "excusable" Social distancing
Whit t d t it f th f Whites tend to sit further from Blacks when there Bl k h th are others in the room, but not when it is just the two of them (that's too obvious)
Bystander Effect
Replicated classic study and found confederate was helped 75% when White, 38% when Black
13
5/7/2009
Hiring Job Applicants
When applicant was clearly qualified or not, it didn't matter if they were Black or White When applicant was 50% qualified When applicant was 50% qualified
Hired 76% of the time when White Hired 38% of the time when Black
These were Whites who even scored low in "modern" prejudice!
Are some people prejudiced and not even know it?!
1990s on: Implicit Prejudice Invention of "implicit" measures of prejudice
Like the IAT
Bias assessed by implicit measures
Measures associations between groups (White and Black) and valence (good or bad)
Where do these associations come from?
Media, gossip, "cultural knowledge"
14
5/7/2009
Why do these associations matter?
Affects nonverbal behavior
Eye contact, seating distance Eye contact, seating distance Just like the difference between Style #1 and Style #2 in Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974
Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002
Black and White pars interacted while being recorded Different reactions
Whites came away feeling the interaction went well Blacks came away feeling the interaction went poorly
When looking at verbal behavior
Whites performed well, were nice, and displayed no bias
When looking at nonverbal behavior
Whites performed poorly, were avoidant, and displayed much more bias than when interacting with other Whites
Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002 (cont.)
Whites were only knowledgeable about their verbal behavior Blacks were knowledgeable about the Whites verbal Blacks were knowledgeable about the Whites verbal and nonverbal behavior
They tended to report that something in the interaction "didn't feel right", or that their partner was biased However, they couldn't say exactly how they knew
White's nonverbal bias was predicted by IAT
15
5/7/2009
Contact Hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
"Necessary conditions":
Equal status between groups Cooperation, pursuit of super ordinate goals Cooperation, pursuit of superordinate goals Potential for friendship Support of institutions and authority figures
So many conditions!
Is contact beneficial even without meeting these?
Pettigrew & Tropp, 2004
Metaanalysis of over 500 studies (whoa!) Found that contact and prejudice are moderately Found that contact and prejudice are moderately related (r = .20) even when conditions aren't met
4% of prejudice "accounted for" by lack of contact
But, they are even more related when Allport's conditions are met (r = .30)
9% of prejudice "accounted for" by lack of contact
Does contact lead to less prejudice?
Could it be that less prejudice leads to more contact? Pettigrew & Tropp, 2004
Relationship between contact and prejudice was, by far, largest in "no choice" contact studies
Levin et al., 2003
Collected longitudinal data over 5 years of college life and found equal effects between... More contact leading to less prejudice Less prejudice leading to more contact
16
5/7/2009
PageGould, Mendoza, & Tropp, 2008 (cont.)
White and Latino/a pars met for 1 hour each week for 3 weeks to develop cross group friendship for 3 weeks to develop crossgroup friendship Beforehand, all pars took a raceIAT
PageGould, Mendoza, & Tropp, 2008 (cont.)
Pars high in IAT and RSrace showed significant drops in stress during the interaction with each week
PageGould, Mendoza, & Tropp, 2008 (cont.)
Pars high in IAT and RSrace showed significant increases in postmanipulation crossgroup friendships
17
5/7/2009
Why does contact work? It builds friendships.
Increases individuation (decreases stereotyping) Increases perceived similarity between groups Increases intergroup empathy
Replacing stereotypes works better than suppressing them Kawakami et al., 2000
Negation Training
When pars saw stereotypical pairing (woman + weak), they verbally said "No" and mentally suppressed that stereotype (tried not to think about it)
Affirmation Training
When pars saw stereotypical pairing, they verbally said "No" and mentally replaced it with a counter stereotypical pairing (woman + strong)
Olson & Fazio, 2006
Exposed pars to "attention task" where images of Black people were continually paired with positive images/words Pars didn't notice this type of pairing was going on Pars showed significant decreases in implicit bias, even two days after the experiment
Surround yourself with positive exemplars
Black history month
18
5/7/2009
Stewart & Payne, 2008
Simply asked pars to think counterstereotypical thoughts whenever encountering a Black person Pars showed dramatic decreases in implicit bias even after a short period of time (several days)
Practice makes perfect!
Prejudice may seem inevitable
Springs from personality, RCT, SIT, and SJT
Prejudice may seem ubiquitous
Displaying itself in oldfashioned, modern, aversive and implicit ways
But, you don't have to be prejudiced
Make crossgroup friendships Be mindful of stereotyping Be mindful of nonverbal behavior Above all, just be kind and don't rush to judgment
19