Transcript Psychology of Prejudice

Psychology of Prejudice
1.
Types of Racism
2.
Value Duality & Regressive Racism
3.
Group Conflict (Sherif)
4.
Causes of Prejudice (review)
5.
Interdependence & Jigsaw Classroom
Definitions
J. Kovel, White Racism
• Racism: social institutions which
disadvantage a group
• Prejudice: a person’s negative
stereotypes, hostility,
misunderstandings
Types of Prejudice
Joel Kovel: White Racism
• Dominative Racism
• Aversive Racism
• Metaracism
Dominative Racism
• Southern Slavery
• Face-to-face domination
• Emotionally “hot”
– Aggression
– Sexuality
Aversive Racism
• Northern segregation
• Separation; distance
• Emotionally “cold”
– Pollution
– Dirt
Metaracism
• Post-Civil Rights Movement
• Official anti-discrimination
• Institutional Racism
– Discrimination & inequality preserved
without personal prejudice
– Stereotypes operate automatically
– Value duality & ambivalence
– “reverse” & “regressive” racism
Ambivalence / Value Duality Theories
• Katz & Hass:
Attitudinal Ambivalence
Value Duality
• Rogers & Prentice-Dunn:
Reverse Racism &
Regressive Racism
Ambivalence / Value Duality
( Katz & Hass )
• Background
Stigma  ambivalence 
quick to help, exonerate
quick to blame, avoid, reject
White Attitudes
• Less overt prejudice; still covert prejudice
• Lip-Service?
• Positive & negative “side by side”?
• Co-existence of anti-discrimination
attitudes & racial bias
• Duality:
Blacks seen as disadvantaged & deviant
Unintentional Harm Experiments
• Subjects who inflict unintentional harm
derogate (view negatively) their victims
• Cognitive dissonance theory:
harm  dissonance  justification
Unintentional Harm Experiments
• Whites shock confederates (black or white)
Give more negative “personal impressions”
of blacks than whites
• Prejudice scale & sympathy scale
( Uncorrelated )
• Whites high on both -- “ambivalent” -- gave
most derogatory views of black “victim”
Post-Harm Helping Experiment
• White subjects shock black vs. white
• “Victim” departs, leaving request for
help on research project: writing
sentence many times
• Subjects give black “victims” 3 times the
help they give to white “victims”
Value Duality
• Egalitarianism
 Blacks as disadvantaged
(Egalitarianism scale)
• Competitive Individualism
 Blacks as deviant
(Protestant Ethic scale)
Attitude Ambivalence Study
• Pro-black scale
(r = .58 with scale of egalitarian values)
• Anti-black scale
(r = .49 with scale of Protestant Ethic values)
• Ambivalence = pro score X anti score
Attitude Ambivalence Study
• 100 Subjects (college students)
• Student endangered by chem lab fire
• Questionnaire with 4 versions:
– White X Black main character
– Brave X Timid actions
• Higher ambivalence  higher praise &
blame of blacks
Conclusion
“A substantial number of whites hold
two opposing and contradictory racial
attitudes, one friendly and the other hostile.
“This ambivalence can cause behavior
toward minority persons to be unstable and
extreme – in either a positive or a negative
direction, depending on the situation.
Regressive Racism
( Rogers & Prentice-Dunn )
• New egalitarian norms
 “reverse discrimination”
(preferential treatment)
“Behavior Modification” /
“Biofeedback” Experiment
• 96 white college S-s in groups of 4
• Monitoring confederate’s heart rate
• Giving shocks when heart rate drops
• Dependent Variable: shock intensity
shock duration
2 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design
Insult
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Deindividuation
Victim
Yes
White
No
Yes
Black
No
Results
• Main effect of deindividuation
– Deindividuation  higher shock
• No main effect of race of victim
• Interaction effect of insult & race
Race X
Insult
Interaction
Effect
Regressive racism
Reverse discrimination
Discussion
• Ambivalence: Katz’s ambivalence 
amplification
• Disinhibition: de-indiv & insult allow
deep-seated prejudice to be expressed
• Regression: de-indiv & insult cause
regression to older prejudice
Conclusions
Americans take a Janus-faced
view of interracial encounters, one
face looking forward but the other
face focusing grimly on the past.
Implications
• In conditions of meta-racism…
many whites feel anxious & ambivalent.
• They hold sincere anti-prejudicial
attitudes…
but when threatened, quick to reject and
“slip into” stereotyping
What to do?
…to overcome ambivalence
& prejudices
Boys’ Camp Experiment
on Group Conflict
Muzafir Sherif
1956
“Robbers’ Cave” Camp
• Mapped friendship networks
• Introduced group competition
• Mapped new friendship networks
• Observed behavior
• Non-competitive social interaction
• Staged Emergency
No groups:
friendship networks formed
In-Group Formation:
New Friendship Networks
In-Group Formation:
New friendship networks
Robbers Cave Experiment
Group Competition
Group Competitions
• In-group solidarity + prejudice
against out-group
• Hostility: scuffles & raids
• Bullies become leaders & heroes
• Epithets
(even for former “best friends”)
“Ladies first!”
“Get the dirt off!”
How to Reduce Conflict?
Friendly social interaction:
more hostility, epithets, taunting
Staged Emergency
Staged Emergency
• Rattlers & eagles cooperate
• Hostility, taunting drop
• New cross-group friendships
form
“Robbers’ Cave” Camp
• Opportunities for pleasant interaction
 continued hostility
• Interdependence (staged emergency)
 decreased hostility, cooperation,
re-formed friendship patterns
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
• Low social status
• Scapegoating
• Authoritarian Personality
• Realistic Group Conflict
• Conformity to Social Norms
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
• Low socio-economic status
 higher prejudice
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
1. Economic & political competition
( “realistic group conflict theory” )
Sherif experiment
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
2. Scapegoat Theory
frustration  displaced aggression
– Jews as scapegoats in Nazi Germany
– Lynchings correlated with cotton prices
– Pogroms against Chinese in Indonesia
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
3. Prejudiced Personality
Authoritarian Personality
Causes of Prejudice
( Elliot Aronson )
4. Conformity to community norms
people who move shift attitudes
miners: prejudiced above ground
integrated below
“Stateways can change folkways”
• Changing attitudes often doesn’t
change behavior
• Changing behavior often changes
attitudes
De-segregation
• “Equal status contact”
 succeeds
• “Inequality & competition”
 increases hostility
Successful Integration
• Equal Status + Interdependence
– Sherif experiment
• Jigsaw Classroom
http://www.jigsaw.org/
What to do?
Inter-dependence ! ! !