1 Lecture Outline nOld-fashioned racism nContemporary Theories of Racism  Symbolic (Modern) Racism  Aversive Racism  Ambivalence-Amplification Theory nHow prejudice affects targets  Stereotype Threat  Consequences of positive prejudice

2 Old Fashioned Racism Premise: nPeople are aware of their prejudice nBut may try to conceal it from others

3 Symbolic (Modern) Racism Premise: People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized ­harbor prejudice ­believe racism and discrimination are wrong

4 Symbolic (Modern) Racism Symbolic racists are caught between: nThe prejudice they feel nThe egalitarian values they espouse Not consciously aware of prejudice

5 Symbolic (Modern) Racism Symbolic racism manifested in disguised form: l Protestant work ethnic l opposition to affirmative action Conservative values serve to keep disadvantaged groups disadvantaged

6 Kinder & Sears (1981) Purpose: Test whether racial prejudice stems from:  conflict over scarce resources  belief that African Americans violate cherished values

7 Kinder & Sears (1981) Overview Mayoral elections in Los Angeles:  1969 and 1973 Candidates:  Samuel Yorty: White conservative  Thomas Bradley: African American liberal What predicts voting behavior?  competition over scarce resources  symbolic racist beliefs

8 Kinder & Sears (1981) Election Results: 1969: Samuel Yorty won with 53% of vote 1973: Thomas Bradley won with 56% of vote

9 Kinder & Sears (1981) Prediction: Scarce Resources If racial prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, then... Those Whites who are in the more competition for resources with African Americans will show greater prejudice than those who are in less competition.

10 Kinder & Sears (1981) Prediction: Symbolic Racism If racial prejudice stems from symbolic racism, then..... The more strongly Whites believe that African Americans violate traditional values, the more prejudice they will show.

11 Kinder & Sears (1981) Participants: nWhite residents of Los Angeles, CA n1969 (n = 198); 1973 (n = 239) nMost lived in suburbs nHomeowners n33% attended college nMost were Protestant, others Catholic nNearly all were married nMost had children

12 Kinder & Sears (1981) Prejudice: Measured via voting behavior

13 Kinder & Sears (1981) Competition over scarce resources: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning four domains of racial threat.....

14 4 Domains of Racial Threat 1. Neighborhood desegregation & interracial social contact Example Question How strongly would you object if a member of your family wanted to bring an African American friend home to dinner

15 4 Domains of Racial Threat 2. Economic competition Example Question Have the economic gains of African Americans been about the same, much greater than, greater than, or less than yours over the past 5 years?

16 4 Domains of Racial Threat 3. Racial Busing Example Question How likely is it that African American children will be bused into the elementary schools of this neighborhood?

17 4 Domains of Racial Threat 4. Perceptions of African American violence Example Question How likely is it that African Americans will bring violence to this neighborhood?

18 Kinder & Sears (1981) Symbolic Racism: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning two domains of value systems...

19 2 Domains of Value Systems 1. Expressive Racism Example Question Do you think that most African Americans who receive money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried or do they really need the help?

20 2 Domains of Value Systems 2. Opposition to racial busing Example Question Busing elementary school children to schools in other parts of the city only harms their education

21 Kinder & Sears (1981):Results Only symbolic racism significantly explained voting behavior

22 Kinder & Sears (1981) nFor symbolic racists, prejudice is disguised as endorsement of conservative values nThis enables them to believe they are non-prejudiced, while still supporting political positions that favor Whites over African Americans

23 Aversive Racism Premise: Also proposes that people: 1. Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized ­harbor prejudice ­endorse egalitarian values that oppose racism and discrimination 2. Are not typically conscious of prejudice

24 Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..

25 Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism Aversive racists… nendorse liberal values nsuppress prejudice when it becomes conscious

26 Symbolic and Aversive Racism Symbolic and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control

27 Modern and Aversive Racism Both Symbolic and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice How do they do this?

28 Symbolic and Aversive Racism nNot aware of prejudice on conscious level nAccess egalitarian values when cognitive resources are plentiful, and report low prejudice nIngrained prejudice accessed on implicit measures or non-monitored behaviors

29 Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Premise: People are ambivalent toward the stigmatized. l aversion and hostility l sympathy and compassion

30 Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that Ambivalence causes threat to self- esteem nNo matter how one feels, that feeling is in conflict with the other way one feels

31 Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that People try to reduce threats to self- esteem nThey justify or deny the way the feel at the moment, depending on the situation

32 Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that Behavior toward the stigmatized is very unstable 4. People are aware of their ambivalence

33 Katz & Glass (1979) Study 1 and 2 Examined how the situation affects whether people will justify or deny feeling prejudice toward a stigmatized person

34 Katz & Glass (1979) Study 1 Prediction: nPeople will justify prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

35 Katz & Glass (1979) Study 1 Procedure: 1.Male participants evaluated a confederate on 20 item impression questionnaire  liking  warmth  conceit  intelligence  adjustment

36 Katz & Glass (1979) Study 1 Procedure: 2.Participant was required to administer shock to confederate as feedback 3. Participant then evaluated confederate 2nd time on impression questionnaire

37 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Manipulations: 1. Confederate race: l African American l White 2. Shock level: (no shock actually given) l strong and painful l weak and not painful

38 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Prediction restated: People justify prejudice by denigrating stigmatized other, making that person seem unworthy and deserving of dislike. This means: Participants who gave “strong shocks” to the African American target should show greatest change in post-shock ratings (negative direction)

39 Results: African American target White target Strong shock Mild Shock Strong shock Mild Shock Before Shock Change score Negative change = more negative impression after shock Positive change = more positive impression after shock As predicted, impression of African American confederate became most negative after strong shock

40 Katz & Glass (1979) Study 2 Prediction: nPeople will deny prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

41 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2 Procedure: 1. Participant introduced to confederate 2. Participant required to insult confederate 3. Told confederate left before criticism was explained as part of the experiment 4. Participant believed experiment was over 5. Sent to office for $, where got letter from confederate.....

42 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2 The letter: nDoing an independent study project nNeeded one more participant nStudy was on repetition nExperimental materials attached nMaterials asked participant to repetitively write the same sentence over and over

43 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Manipulations: 1. Confederate race: l African American l White 2. Insult level: l Very hurtful l Not very hurtful

44 Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Prediction restated: People will deny prejudice by going out of their way to help a stigmatized other whom they have harmed. This means: Participants who gave “hurtful insult” to the African American target should work the hardest in the repetitive experiment.

45 Results: African American target White target Hurtful Insult Not hurtful insult Values are the average number of times repetitive sentence was written in booklet. As predicted, participants wrote the sentence more often after having harmed the African American target. No other significant differences.

46 Katz & Glass (1979) Conclusion: nPeople feel ambivalence toward stigmatized others, and respond in extreme ways toward those whom they have harmed nSometimes behave positively, sometimes negatively depending on the situation

47 How Prejudice Affects Targets nStereotype Threat (Claude Steele) nUnintended consequences of positive prejudice (Madeline Heilman)

48 Stereotype Threat Premise: nStigmatized groups are aware of negative stereotypes nThis awareness produces “stereotype threat”

49 Stereotype Threat Definition: Fear that one will be viewed or treated in way consistent with stereotype, or that one will confirm the stereotype

50 Stereotype Threat nStereotype threat is situationally induced. nArises when target realizes that negative stereotype can explain their behavior or attributes

51 Stereotype Threat Steele points to achievement gaps between African Americans and Whites: nNational drop out rates: 70% AA; 42% W nCollege GPA: African Americans’ GPA two thirds of a grade lower than White’s

52 Stereotype Threat nDifferences typically explained by socio- economic disadvantages faced by African Americans. nBut, African Americans achieve lower than Whites even when they do not differ socio- economically from Whites nSteele argues that stereotype threat contributes to the achievement gap

53 Steele & Aronson (1995) Study 1 and 2 Purpose: Test theory of stereotype threat with respect to African American students and intellectual ability

54 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1 Prediction: nAfrican American students will perform worse than White students on a test said to be a valid measure of intellectual ability, but..... nPerform as good as Whites when test is said to be a laboratory exercise

55 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1 Procedure: nGiven 30 item SAT-like verbal problems nCompleted the test Manipulation: nRace of participant: AA or W nValidity of test: diagnostic; non-diagnostic DV: number correct on test

56 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1 African Americans performed just as well on the test as Whites in non-diagnostic conditions, but worse in the diagnostic conditions

57 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1 Conclusion: nBelieving that a test was valid measure of intellectual ability undermined performance of African American but not White students

58 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2 Purpose: nExamine process by which stereotype threat operates nFocused on apprehension.....

59 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2 Research Question: nDid the diagnostic condition reduce African American participants’ performance by eliciting in them a fear that they would be judged in line with negative stereotype?

60 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2 Prediction: nIf apprehension at work, then.... nAfrican Americans in the diagnostic condition should distance self from stereotype -- i.e., show it does not apply to them personally

61 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2 Procedures: nExpected to complete SAT-like verbal problems nRated self-preferences:  music: jazz, rap music, classical  sports: baseball, basketball, boxing  traits: extroverted, aggressive, humorous nNever actually took test

62 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2 Manipulations: l Race of participant: AA or W l Validity of test: diagnostic; non- diagnostic DV: l Extent to which participant rated self consistent with African American stereotype

63 Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1 African Americans rates self less consistent with AA stereotype when test said to be diagnostic of their verbal ability

64 Steele & Aronson (1995) Conclusion: African Americans under perform on measures that assess intellectual ability because such measures create apprehension that they will confirm negative stereotype about their group

65 Untended Consequences of Positive Prejudice nAffirmative action designed to help minorities and underrepresented groups, but.... nmay undermine their self-views and job performance

66 Affirmative Action Designed to: “overcome the discriminating effect of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity” (EEOC, 1970)

67 Affirmative Action EEOC’s statement: nSays that group membership should be explicitly taken into account in hiring decisions nUnspoken assumption that non- discrimination not sufficient to counteract consequences of prejudice and inequality

68 Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987) Purpose: nExamine whether affirmative action damages the self-views of those who benefit from it

69 Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987) Prediction: nWomen who believe they were preferentially selected have less confidence in their ability than those who believe they were selected on merit

70 Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987) Procedure: 1. Paired with opposite sex confederate 2. Task described; leader more important 3. Answered items assessing ability for leadership role 4. Manipulation occurred

71 Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987) Manipulation Merit: l test scored l script read l participant selected on merit Preference: l test not scored l script read l participant selected on basis of gender

72 Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987) Procedure continued: 5. Performed task 6. Rated self on: l task performance l leadership ability l desire to persist as leader in task 2

73 Results: PerformanceLeadership ability Persist as leader Men: Merit Preference Women: Merit Preference Men: Selection basis did not influence men Women: Ratings same as men in merit, but worse than all other conditions in preference

74 Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991) Background: Confidence influences job performance ntake on less challenging tasks Purpose: Examine if preferential selection causes women to select easier tasks

75 Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991) Procedures: l Similar to other study, b ut looked at managerial skills l Roles were financial services manager and subordinate l Inventory assessed managerial skills Manipulation: l selection based on merit or preference

76 Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991) Participants then indicated which of two tasks they would most like to do l Easy task l Difficult task

77 Results: Difficult Task Easy Task Men: Merit Preference 87% 100% 13% 0% Women: Merit Preference 93% 47% 7% 53% Values are the % in each condition that selected the difficult and easy task

78 Results: Difficult Task Easy Task Men: Merit Preference 87% 100% 13% 0% Women: Merit Preference 93% 47% 7% 53% Men: Chose difficult task more often regardless of selection basis Women: Same as men in merit, but chose easy task more often than any other condition in preference

79 Heilman et al., (1987; 1991) Conclusion: nPreferential selection reduces confidence nPreferential selection causes people to select less challenging tasks at work

80 Affirmative Action: Good or Bad? Does Affirmative Action always have unintended negative consequences? No. When it is based on merit and group membership, many of the bad effects it creates disappear