Transcript Slide 1
Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination Lecture Outline Components of intergroup bias Theories of prejudice and discrimination cognitive, realistic conflict, motivational, cultural, evolutionary Consequences: Stereotype threat Strategies of overcoming prejudice and discrimination The ABC of Intergroup Bias Stereotypes (Cognition) beliefs about attributes that are thought to be characteristic of members of particular groups Prejudice (Affect) a negative attitude or affective response toward a certain group and its individual members Discrimination (Behaviour) negative behaviour towards members of a particular group based on their membership in that group The Cognitive Perspective Emphasizes the cognitive processes that produce and maintain stereotypes, and how stereotypes in turn affect prejudice and discrimination The Cognitive Perspective implicit (automatic) processes processes that occur outside of our awareness, without conscious control explicit (controlled) processes processes that occur with conscious direction and deliberate thought Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes and Prejudice 1) Explicit Attitudes: what people consciously endorse or believe 2) Implicit Attitudes: associations that are outside of conscious awareness a. Implicit Association Test (IAT) meaures unconscious stereotypes and prejudices toward particular groups (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995) b. Priming and Implicit Prejudice Priming - procedure used to increase the accessibility of a concept or schema (for example, a stereotype) Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes and Prejudice If I an E are different, which one is the “true” attitude? Better question: under which conditions each type of attitude predicts behaviour? Implicit attitudes predict discrimination esp. when cognitive resources are taxed, ex, fatigue, time pressure Explicit attitudes predict discrimination better otherwise On misperceiving a weapon (Payne, 2001) 200 ms OR OR Decision: Weapon or tool? .5 second 200 ms The Cognitive Perspective Some cognitive biases make stereotypes resistent to discomfirmation Outgroup homogeneity effect - tendency to assume that within-group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups Illusory correlations – biased perception and memory for connection between unusual (negative) acts and minority groups Counter-stereotypic examples are subtyped Realistic Group Conflict Theory group conflict, prejudice, and discrimination are likely to arise over competition between groups for limited desired resources Correlation between cotton prices and # of lynchings of Blacks in US South Cotton Prices # of Lynchings Similar pattern for unemployment rate and opposition to immigration in Canada Realistic Conflict Theory The Robber’s Cave Experiment (Sherif et al. 1961) a. Competition and Intergroup Conflict b. Reducing Intergroup Conflict Through Superordinate Goals superordinate goals - goals that transcend the interests of one individual group, and that can be achieved more readily by two or more groups working together Example: “Earthquake diplomacy” Evaluating RCT Minimal Group Experiments Participants are assigned to groups on meaningless criteria Then they are given the opportunity to distribute resources (e.g., money) Participants show ingroup favoritism! Cannot be explained by RCT We need a motivational perspective The Motivational Perspective Prejudice and discrimination can be a tool to boost our self-esteem and repair perceived threats to our self-esteem The Motivational Perspective Social Identity Theory a person’s self-concept and self-esteem not only derive from personal identity and accomplishments, but from the status and accomplishments of the various groups to which the person belongs After negative personal feedback, ppts derogate outgroups (A), which restores their self-esteem (B) (Fein & Spencer, 1997) Belief systems to rationalize inequality & discrimination System justification (Jost et al, 2004) Similar to just world beliefs, applied to groups: “different groups deserve what they get” Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius & Pratto) Belief that their own groups are “destined” to dominate other less worthy, groups Members of more privileged groups endorse SDO more (men, EuroCanadians, high caste Hindus, Ashkenazi Israelis, Maronite Lebanese, Mainlainder Taiwanese) High SDO scores predict overt prejudice and more stereotyping towards lower-status groups Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination Evolutionary account #1 Innate tendency for “us vs. them thinking” or coalitional psychology Intergoup psychology evolved (in ancestral times)– small cohesive, mutually hostile bands But what counts as ingroup vs. outgroup is flexible, socially constructed Explains why bases of discrimination is radically different across time and place, but us-them mentality is so resilient Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination Evolutionary account #2 Intergoup psychology is misapplication of our innate understanding of species with “essences” We tend to think of different social groups as if they are different biological species Explains why many social categories are essentialized And why the more essentialized, the easier to stereotype Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination Cultural account Cultural dissimilarity breeds dislike Brewer & Campbell (1976): study of intercultural attitudes • 30 East African societies in in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanzania • Measures of cultural similarity, familiarity, liking, and personality traits • People felt the most positive towards groups that: (1) Were geographically nearer (2) Culturally most similar to themselves Being a Member of a Stigmatized Group 1. Attributional Ambiguity 2. Stereotype Threat - fear that one will confirm the stereotypes that others have regarding some salient group of which on is a member Stereotype Threat in Intellectual Abilities ST can occur for any social group for which there is a negative stereotype on a skill Stereotype Threat in Intellectual Abilities African Americans and intellectual abilities Women and math White men and athletic abilities Etc. Stereotype Threat Stereotype Threat Slide 25 of 28 Stereotype threat vs. boost (Shih, Pittinski & Ambady, 1999 Reducing Stereotype Threat in Educational Settings Developing awareness Communicating (and having) high expectations Social support Positive role models Reducing prejudice and conflict Superordinate goals Superordinate identity Equal status contact Perceived similarity between groups Multiculturalism