Transcript Prejudice - Illinois

Prejudice
Theories and research
Definitions (from previous lecture)
 Stereotypes
Specific traits attributed to people based on group
membership (stereotypes are protypes!)
 Prejudice (opposite of allophilia)
Negative attitudes toward the members of a specific
group
 Discrimination
Negative behaviors directed toward members of a
specific group
Types of prejudice
 Discrimination can be institutional or interpersonal,
but prejudice is always interpersonal
 Prejudice has two components


Emotional (how you feel about a group)
Cognitive (what you think about a group)
especially the group’s intent and competence to pursue it
 Prejudice has many targets









Racism
Linguicism
Ageism
Religious intolerance
Heterosexism
Political intolerance
Classism
Ableism
Sexism
Racial Intergroup Relations Declining
Four types of outgroups
Perception of outgroups (measures)
As viewed by society, how _________ are members of this group?
Competent
Confident
Independent
Competetive
Intelligent
As viewed by society, how __________ are members of this group?
Tolerant
Warm
Good natured
Sincere
Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902
Perception of outgroups
Student sample
Paternalistic
prejudice
Allophilia
Contemptuous
prejudice
Envious
prejudice
Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902
Perception of outgroups
Student sample
Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902
Community sample
in Amherst, MA
Perceptions of
outgroups
Allport’s Scale of Prejudice intensity
 Antilocution (1) Antilocution (or hate speech)
means a majority group freely makes jokes
and refers to a minority group in terms of
negative stereotypes and negative images.
Harmful or not?
 Avoidance (2) People in a minority group are
actively avoided by members of the majority
group. Harmful how?
 Discrimination (3) Minority group is
discriminated against through the denial of
opportunities and services (prejudice in
action).
 Physical Attack (4) The majority group
vandalizes minority property and carries out
violent attacks on individuals or groups.
 Extermination (5) The majority group seeks
extermination of the minority group.
Theories of prejudice
 Who/what do we blame for prejudice?

A few “bad apples”?

Morally neutral cognitive wiring (information processing)?

A morally corrupt society?
Theories of prejudice formation
 Psychodynamic theory
 Realistic Conflict theory
 Social Identity theory
 Social Learning theory
 Cognitive theory
 Classical conditioning theory
Theories of prejudice (psychodynamic)
 The prejudiced personality
 Process: Growing up in authoritarian families
 Evidence
 Some support (high submissiveness, high conformity)
 Many limitations





Ignores situational factors (1952 Virginia mine study)
Ignores sociocultural influences (Princeton study)
Fails to explain uniformity (were all Nazis authoritarian?)
Fails to explain why specific targets are chosen
Fails to explain why most people are capable of out-group
prejudice given the right conditions
Theories of prejudice (realistic conflict)
 Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1961)

Process




We compete over scarce resources
During competition, the “other” is considered an enemy to
justify trying to “win”
Enemy is then dehumanized and scapegoated
Evidence



1958 Southern State lynching study
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave study (next 3 slides)
Some limitations
 Doesn’t explain why there is no inter-occupation conflict
 Doesn’t explain why prejudice occurs when there is little
competition
Robbers
Cave
Experiment
Robbers Cave Study
Stage 1:
In-group formation
Robbers Cave Study
Stage 2:
Group competition
Robbers Cave Study
Stage 3:
In-group formation
Theories of prejudice formation/change
 Social Identity Theory



Identity derived from group affiliation
People tend to attribute positive characteristics to
own group and view the other group more critically
(ultimate attribution error)
But why does this happen?



Self worth (self-esteem) derived from group achievement
and favorable comparisons with other groups
Result: People automatically favor in-group members
Evidence


Minimum group experiments show in-group favoritism
But they don’t show out-group derogation
Theories of prejudice formation/change
 Social Learning Theory

Allport’s notion of lack of information coupled with hostility



Lack of information makes people rely on stereotypes
Hostility makes them look for a group to scapegoat
Stereotypes lead to prejudice

Social modeling of prejudice
(parents/friends/teachers/media)

Few models of anti-racism
Active and Passive Racism

Antilocution (1) Hate speech

Avoidance (2) People in a minority group are
actively avoided by members of the majority group

Discrimination (3) Minority group is discriminated
against through denial of opportunities and
services

Physical Attack (4) Majority group vandalizes
minority property and carries out violent attacks

Extermination (5) Majority group seeks
extermination of minority group.
Allport’s model only
describes active prejudice
Note:
The chart on left is far from comprehensive.
There is a lot missing.
Theories of prejudice formation/change
 Socialization (see social learning theory)
 Classical conditioning theory

Process: Fear conditioned through secondary
conditioning (e.g., walking down street with
mom)
Even the Well-Intentioned Have Bias
 Fiske (2002) - in Western cultures:

about 10% of individuals show blatant racism

about 80% show subtle racial biases
 Subtle racial biases:




avoidance of interactions
awkwardness
slips of the tongue
stereotypic assumptions and judgments
Three theories of subtle prejudice
 Modern or symbolic racism


Blaming the victim
Support of policies that all happen to disadvantage racial minorities
 Ambivalent racism



(Katz & Hass, 1988)
High scores on pro-Black attitudes (pity for the disadvantaged)
High scores on anti-Black attitudes (hostility toward the deviant)
 Aversive racism

(Kinder & Sears, 1981)
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986)
A desire to be egalitarian and non-racist
Unconscious racist cognitions that are manifested during stress or
ambiguity
Scenes from Crash: Aversive Racism
 Character development
 Racism or not racism
Reducing Prejudice, Increasing Allophilia
 Hard to get beyond “preaching to
the choir”
 Almost no interventions proven
effective in the field (Paluck & Green,
2009)
 Diversity training in companies
ineffective (Dobbin & Kalev, 2013)
 Discussion-based approaches
polarize groups (Brauer et al., 2001)
Read full (2015) report
Fighting prejudice
 Contact theory (antidote to realistic group conflict)

Equal status contact

Contact should have high acquaintance potential

Out-group members must not conform to stereotypes

Contact situation must encourage cooperation

Group contact must be supported by authority
Fighting prejudice: Can media help?
 Public health research suggests it may

Awareness focus (e.g., smoking causes cancer) not effective

But entertainment education highly effective in many domains
(Singhal & Rogers, 2004; Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2014)
 Theoretical promise for prejudice reduction

Characters with whom people can identify (Cohen, 2001)

Characters who can serve as social models

Opportunities for indirect forms of contact (Mazziotta et al., 2011)

Narratives to help overcome resistance (Kreuter et al., 2007)
(Bandura 2004)
Fighting prejudice: Can media help?
 Study 1 (Sohad Murrar)


National sample, 193 white Americans, 18-60 years old
Randomly assigned to


Entertainment education
or
Control condition
Prejudice measured at baseline, immediately after, and 4-6 weeks later
 Explicit measure: Feeling thermometer (0 to 100) Campbell, 1971
 Implicit Measure: Arab-Muslim IAT (-2 to 2) Greenwald et al., 2003
 Process measures
 Identification with outgroup (0 to 100) Murphy et al., 2011
 Perceived variability, group malleability, emotional reaction
Fighting prejudice: Can media help?
Fighting prejudice: Can media help?
Fighting prejudice: Can media help?
 Study 2 (Sohad Murrar)

National sample, 310 non-Muslims, 18-60 years old

Randomly assigned to one of four conditions (next slide)





Intervention 1: Entertainment education
Intervention 2: Imagined contact
Intervention 3: Group malleability
Control
Process and outcome measures immediately after

Explicit measures of prejudice
 Feeling thermometer (0 to 100) Campbell, 1971
 Trait ratings (1 to 7) Osgood et al., 1957

Process measures
 Identification with outgroup (0 to 100) Murphy et al., 2011
 Perceived variability
 Intergroup anxiety
The three intervention conditions
Fighting prejudice (continued)
 Work on yourself





Become aware of personal (and societal) stereotypes
Get to know people as individuals who are part of groups
Avoid just-world beliefs
Be aware of self-fulfilling prophecies
Avoid blaming the victim
 Work on others


Do not tolerate prejudicial remarks, including jokes
Share what you think and believe, without attacking
 Promote multiculturalism




Change the metaphor
Educate yourself
Learn a foreign language
Diversify circle of friends