Prejudice
11/29/10
Theories Reducing of Prejudice
1. Frustration-Aggression Theory & Scapegoating 2. Realistic Group Conflict Theory 3. Social Identity Theory 4. Terror Management Theory 5. Personality Differences such as Need for Closure
Reasons why stereotypes are hard to change 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Ultimate Attribution Error Illusory Correlation Sub-typing Self-fulfilling prophecy Shifting Standards
Factors that affect attraction
Physical Attractiveness Similarity
Matching hypothesis
Proximity/Propinquity Familiarity
Mere exposure effect
Contextual factors
A Few Approaches
1. 2. 3. 4. Contact Hypothesis Revised Contact Hypothesis Common Ingroup Identity Model Colorblind vs. Diversity Approach
Contact hypothesis
Six necessary conditions: Mutual interdependence A common goal Must be equal status contact Informal, friendly setting Interaction with multiple members Social norms of equality present
Contact hypothesis
Creating situations of mutual interdependence is difficult Examples
Use of superordinate goals (Sherif's Robbers Cave) Jigsaw classroom (Aronson)
Sherif
Aronson
Pettigrew's (1998) Reformulated Contact Theory
1. A new necessary condition
Friendship potential
1. Four processes the underlie the effects
a) b) c) d) Learning new knowledge Changing behavior Creating affective ties Ingroup reappraisal
2. A stage model of the role of categorization
Pettigrew's Categorization Stages
SEVEN Necessary Conditions For Contact
Initial anxiety, but can lead to liking of the individual Initial Contact Decategorization Established Contact Salient categorization Unified Group Recategorization Leads to maximum reduction in prejudice
Can lead to less prejudice generalized to the group TIME
Gaertner & Dovidio's Common Ingroup Identity Model
Like Pettigrew's stages of categorization but adds a fourth:
Dual identity
Maintaining subgroup identity Alleviates optimal distinctiveness problems Allows minority groups the benefit of subgroup identity
High school study (1994)
Many ethnic subgroups but one school affiliation Measured perceptions of contact, identity, and intergroup bias
High School Study
Same Team
.40 (dual identity) -.08
Conditions Of Contact
.46 -.30
One Group
(re-categorization)
-.09
Different Groups
.22 (salient categorization)
Bias: Affective Reactions
Individuals
(de-categorization)
Implications for "Colorblindness"
White Americans often favor colorblindness
But this is decategorization
Minority members prefer inclusion but awareness of differences
A few approaches to help minority groups cope
Bolster self-esteem Reduce stereotype threat Reduce self-fulfilling prophecy
Ways to bolster self-esteem
What self-protective strategies are available? 1) Comparing only with ingroup members 2) Deriving self-esteem from ingroup identity 3) Discounting negative outcomes as due to prejudice 4) Devaluing stereotyped domains
Attributions to Discrimination
Stigma creates _____________________
Negative outcomes could be due to: 1) Something about the self (__________) 2) Discrimination or bias (________)
Blinds up / Blinds down Study (Crocker et al,
1991) Negative
Outcome Negative Outcome
Internal Attribution
Self-Esteem is Reduced
External Attribution
Self-Esteem is Unchanged
Blinds Up/Blind Down Study
(Crocker et al., 1991)
Attributions to Prejudice
15 13 11 9 7 5 3 BlindsDown (Race Unknown) BlindsUp (Race is Known) 1 BlindsDown (Race Unknown) BlindsUp (Race is Known) 0 N egative Feedback Positive Feedback 2
Change in Self-Esteem
N egative Positive Feedback Feedback
1
Just Black Participants
Attributions to Discrimination: Conclusions
1) Attributing _________________ to stigma can protect self-esteem
Recent work shows: Self-esteem is buffered only when discrimination is overt Perceiving discrimination _____________ predicts lower self-esteem When prejudice happens, people don't always perceive it.
Attributions to Discrimination: Conclusions
2) Attributing __________________ to stigma can hurt self-esteem
Recent work shows: Helping can sometimes hurt self-esteem Blacks had lower self-esteem after receiving unsolicited help from a White on a verbal task. Implications for affirmative action Merit-based selection ________ self-esteem Group-based selection _________ selfesteem Group + merit based selection _____ selfesteem
Devaluing Stereotyped Domains
Evidence that people devalue what their group doesn't do well...
Surgency Study (Schmader & Major, 1999)
Surgency Study
6
Value of Surgency
5 4 3 2
Ingroup Scores Higher than Outgroup
Equal Scores
Outgroup Scores Higher than Ingroup
What reduces stereotype threat?
Exposure to positive ____________ Self-affirmation Emotional expression ____________ of arousal Learning about stereotype threat?
Teaching Stereotype Threat study (Johns et al., 2005)
Does Teaching Stereotype Threat Inoculate Women Against its Effects?
100 Accuracy on Math Items 80 60 40 20 0 Problem Solving Task Math Ability Test Math Ability Test + Teaching
Women Men
Implications for Social Behavior
Negative expectancies for interactions...
Scar Study (Kleck & Strenta, 1980)
Scar Study
(Kleck & Strenta, 1980)
Participants were told that their partner would think they had allergies, epilepsy, or a facial scar.
13 11 9 7 5 3 1
Allergy Epilepsy Scar
Te ns
ene ss
Li kin g
Attra c tive
D ista nce
Patro
niz in g
Implications for Social Behavior
Negative expectancies for interactions...
Scar Study (Kleck & Strenta, 1980)
Which can create self-fulfilling prophecies
Increased `mindfulness'
Deviant Study (Frable et al., 1990)
Deviant Study
(Frable et al., 1990) Visible Valued Deviant Devalued Deviant
Prom Queen Model Black Overweight Severe Acne
Invisible
Wealthy Extremely Smart Athlete Bisexual Victim of Rape or Incest
Results of Deviant Study
Both valued or devalued deviants were mindful:
They took their partner's perspective They remembered more details
Normals were mindful when ______________ with a visibly deviant partner:
They took their partner's perspective They remembered more details
Normals engaged in more compensatory behavior only with ____________ partners.
This made their partner feel more comfortable But they liked their partner less
Implications for Social Behavior
Negative expectancies for interactions...
Scar Study (Kleck & Strenta, 1980)
Which can create self-fulfilling prophecies
Increased `mindfulness'
Deviant Study (Frable et al., 1990) Eating Disorder Study (Smart & Wegner, 1999)
Eating Disorder Study
(Smart & Wegner, 1999)
Trying to conceal one's stigma leads to preoccupation with it.
0.8
RolePlay Eating Disorder RolePlay no Disorder
Thought Intrusions
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3
Actual Eating Disorder
N o Eating Discorder
What can we do?
Mainstream Approach 1. Contact Hypothesis 2. Revised Contact Hypothesis 3. Common Ingroup Identity Model 4. Colorblind vs. Diversity Approach Responses for Stigmatized Minorities 1. Bolster self-esteem 2. Reduce stereotype threat 3. Reduce self-fulfilling prophecy