Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Social Psychology Chapter 5 September 17, 2004 Class #4

He fit the description… Case Study: February 4, 1999 – Amadou Diallo, 22, died in a hail of 41 bullets outside his Bronx apartment in what the officers testified was a tragic error

Stereotypes and Prejudices The generalized perceptions, beliefs, and expectations a person has about members in some group Schemas about entire groups of people Effects of stereotypes on behavior can be automatic and unconscious Prejudice A negative attitude toward an individual based solely on the person’s membership is some group Includes an irrational hostility toward a particular race or group In one word…prejudgment Discrimination Differential treatment of individuals who belong to different groups

Stereotype Generalized belief about members of a group Stereotypes about racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation groups are schemas.  Generalized belief about members of a group May or may not be accurate Most researchers believe it is even possible to have a schema that you don't personally believe (OTHER PEOPLE think that Group x has qualities y... but I don't)… Lets try this: What are the characteristics of: A typical New Yorker? A typical Californian? A typical white male? A typical “career woman” A typical “stay-at-home” mom

How Stereotypes Form: Social Categorization The classification of persons into groups on the basis of common attributes. Helps us form impressions quickly and use past experiences to guide new interactions. Serious drawback: By categorizing people, we often: Overestimate the differences between groups Underestimate the differences within groups Can bias our perceptions

Stone et al. (1997) Radio broadcast played to participants They are shown a “photograph” of the player to be analyzed Participants rated the player better if they thought he was black

How Stereotypes Form: In-groups vs. Out-groups Strong tendency to divide people into ingroups and outgroups Such group identifications can promote an ingroup bias… Often it becomes an “Us vs. Them” attitude Consequences Exaggerate differences between ingroups and other outgroups. Outgroup homogeneity effect

Perceived Outgroup Homogeneity Phenomenon of overestimating the extent to which members within other groups are similar to each other Example: “They all look the same to me”

How Stereotypes Form: Maybe they become automatic… Devine (1989) Suggests that our parents and media may have started an early process that has now become automatic

Racial Bias Study: Sagar & Schofield (1980) Purpose: Demonstrate that stereotypes bias interpretation of ambiguous events Participants: 40 African American; 40 White Procedures: Participants presented with four ambiguous drawings: Bumping Requesting food Poking Taking a pencil

Sagar & Schofield (1980) Participants were to rate actor’s behavior as..... Mean Threatening Playful Friendly

Sagar & Schofield (1980): Experimental Set-Up Actor Race African American White Participant Race

Sagar & Schofield (1980): Results Subject Actor Mean & Threatening White W 8.28 AA 8.99 African W 7.38 American AA 8.40 Conclusion: White and African American participants rated identical behavior as more mean and threatening when actor was African American. Schemas influence the interpretation of events.

Who has the razor??? Allport and Postman's (1947) Subjects were shown a picture depicting two men, one black and one white, confronting each other on a subway car The white man has a straight razor in his hand After viewing the picture, the first subject describes it to a second subject, who in turn describes it to another, and so on After a few retellings, the straight razor ends up (is inferred to be) in the hand of the black man

Interesting replication… Boon & Davies (1987) Subjects see a cartoon story of 2 men interacting on the subway.  At the end of the interaction, one man pulls a knife. Different subjects see one of three different versions: 1) Both men are white:  Man A has the knife (wearing a suit)     2) Both men are white:  Man B has the knife (wearing work clothes)     3) One is black, one is white:  White man has the knife

Boon & Davies (1987) Retrieval phase Both recall and recognition tests Recall test:  No stimuli, just "describe the man who pulled the knife“ Recognition test:  See two versions of the critical picture (correct knife-holder, or knife in the OTHER man's hand): instructions are "pick the one you saw before“ There is a correct and an incorrect version for the participants who saw the original story with two white men, AND also for those participants who saw the original story with one white man and one black man

Results??? What do you think happened??? Explanations???

Can stereotypes actually create self-fulfilling prophecies??? Wood et al. (1974) White male University students interviewed white and black male high school students seeking employment White interviewers of black applicants (relative to white interviewers of white applicants) Sat further away Conducted shorter interviews Made more speech errors Appeared to cause black applicants to become uncomfortable Follow-up Experiment While males were applicants Treated like black applicants were treated in the first experiment They performed similarly (to black applicants in exp. 1) during the interview

Three Levels of Stereotypes Public What we say to others about a group Private what we consciously think about a group, but don’t say to others Implicit unconscious mental associations guiding our judgments and actions without our conscious awareness Public stereotypes have decreased in North America recently (“political correctness”)

Well, there are exceptions… “The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners”

Explicit versus Implicit Prejudice If you were asked your opinions about Irishmen, Californians, or fraternity men, that would tap: Explicit prejudice – positive or negative feelings of which you are aware But not implicit prejudice – feelings of which you are not aware

Intergroup Competition Sherif (1961): The Robbers Cave Experiment Two groups of eleven year-old boys were sent to a remote summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park (Oklahoma) Initially unaware of their fragile co-existence, they formed tribalistic bonds, and having a great time…and then… These middle class boys placed into competing areas in a summer camp: They competed for medals and attention

Competed in a variety of contests…

Soon the rivalry became violent… Raided one another’s cabins Stole and burned one another’s flags Came to view one another as “stinkers” “smart-alecks” and “sneaks” Verbal prejudice became apparent, spiraling downward towards aggressive territorial violence The groups eventually had to be separated

So how did experimenters try to reduce the prejudice they had created??? Propaganda: No Positive propaganda about one group directed to the other by the experimenters did not help Contact: No Doing non-competitive activities together (e.g., watching movies) did not help Cooperative action: Yes Experimenters arranged for camp truck to break down Both groups needed to pull it uphill Intergroup friendships began to develop

Realistic Conflict Theory Proposal that intergroup conflict, and negative prejudices and stereotypes, emerge out of actual competition between groups for desired resources Example: Members of different ethnic groups may compete for the same jobs, or the same farmland

Realistic Conflict Theory Competition for valuable but limited resources breeds hostility… Loser: becomes frustrated Winner: becomes threatened Result: Much conflict Example: Women and immigrants joining the workforce When conflict arises there is a higher tendency to rely on stereotypes…”they’re all the same”

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Rubin & Hewstone (1998) Comparing our ingroups with outgroups that are less well off can raise our self-esteem We desire to feel good about ourselves Part of our identity comes from the groups to which we belong

Discrimination Behaviors directed toward people on the basis of their group membership Unfair treatment

History Repeats Itself Who is more likely to get harassed at the airport security check?

Who is more likely to get harassed at an airport security check??? Note: Several of the previous slides were prepared by the following website: http://instruct.uwo.ca/psychology/023/pdfs/

Discrimination Do you know anyone who has, because of their membership in a group, been: Denied a job or promotion? Insulted or harassed? Ignored or poorly served in a restaurant or other business? Denied an apartment or house?

Herek (2000) On the one hand, people surveyed seemed to think that homosexuals deserved similar job opportunities But when we got to specifics, old attitudes surfaced See next two slides…

* 07/16/96 Do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities? 100 Should Have Equal Rights Percentage 50 Should NOT Have Equal Rights 1977 1982 1989 1992 1996 YEAR *

Percentage Saying “Should” * 07/16/96 Do you think homosexuals should or should not be hired for the following occupations? 100 Salespersons Doctors Percentage Saying “Should” 50 Many still believe homosexuals should be excluded from some jobs. Clergy Elementary School Teachers 1977 1982 1989 1992 1996 YEAR *

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Fitzgerald (1993) As many as 50% of women are sexually harassed during their academic or working lives Faley et al. (1999) U.S. Army spent $250 million in one year to deal with problems related to sexual harassment

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Pryor & Day (1988) Behavior seen as more harassing when performed by person in power Sheets & Braver (1993) Less harassing when performed by an attractive single individual Terpstra & Baker (1986) Women more likely than men to define staring and flirting as sexually harassing

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Men are more likely to harass than are women But whether men harass or not depends on the man, and on the situation In one study, male students were asked to train a young woman on a complex word-processing task

Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993) Male participants were introduced to the female trainee (confederate) by a male graduate student (confederate) who acted either: Sexist Put his arm around trainee, visually checked out her body Professional Respectful of trainee

Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993) DV: The amount of sexuality expressed by the male student while instructing the female trainee IV: Amount of exposure to sexual harassment Results did not depend on the IV but rather depended on the participant’s chronic disposition to harass So the situational factor here was relatively unimportant

Costs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping Schulman et al. (1999) Physicians were only 60% as likely to suggest a top-rated diagnostic test for black “heart patients” as for whites Even when blacks presented same symptoms, and gave identical information about themselves

Costs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping Ayres & Siegelman (1995) This study found that white men were offered better deals on cars: $109 less than White women $318 less than Black women $935 less than Black men

Stereotype threat… Can you see how a stereotype threat can develop… You go to ATM and woman in front looks at you and seems nervous

Reducing Prejudice One hypothesis is - negative stereotypes and prejudice are due to ignorance From this perspective, simply exposing people to members of different groups should reduce prejudice But merely putting different groups together has not generally worked

Reducing Prejudice Contact Hypothesis Stereotypes and prejudice toward a group will diminish as contact with the group increases Getting to know and hopefully to understand a group Get two groups to work towards a common goal Cooperation helps; competition hurts

Effective group contact… Outgroup members have traits and abilities challenging negative stereotypes Contact is supported by local authorities and norms Groups are of equal status, at least in contact setting Contact is at individual level Contact is rewarding Groups work toward common goals

Jigsaw Classroom Each student in a mixed race group is given a different, and essential, task to complete towards a class project This intervention takes advantage of each of the six principles of effective group contact

Back to the Rattlers and Eagles… Importance of common goals was shown in the study of the Rattlers and Eagles… When their only contact involved competitive games, interactions became increasingly negative But then researchers forced the boys to cooperate towards common goals (such as starting a bus to take them all to a movie)

Ratings of Own Group 100 Ratings of Other Group 80 60 Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable 40 20 After Competition After Cooperation After competing, the Rattlers’ impressions of the Eagles were highly unfavorable, as were the Eagles’ impressions of the Rattlers

Ratings of Own Group 100 Ratings of Other Group 80 60 Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable 40 20 After Competition After Cooperation The hostility between the groups eventually turned into friendship and acceptance after they were induced to begin cooperating with each other

Finally, maybe we should just eliminate these altogether…