1. 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

2. Definitions J. Kovel, White Racism Racism: social institutions which disadvantage a group Prejudice: a person’s negative stereotypes, hostility, misunderstandings

3. Types of Prejudice Joel Kovel: White Racism Dominative Racism Aversive Racism Metaracism

4. Dominative Racism Southern Slavery Face-to-face domination Emotionally “hot” –Aggression –Sexuality

5. Aversive Racism Northern segregation Separation; distance Emotionally “cold ” –Pollution –Dirt

6. 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

7. Ambivalence / Value Duality Theories Katz & Hass: Attitudinal Ambivalence Value Duality Rogers & Prentice-Dunn: Reverse Racism & Regressive Racism

8. Ambivalence / Value Duality ( Katz & Hass ) Background Stigma  ambivalence  quick to help, exonerate quick to blame, avoid, reject

9. 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

10. Unintentional Harm Experiments Subjects who inflict unintentional harm derogate (view negatively) their victims Cognitive dissonance theory: harm  dissonance  justification

11. 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”

12. 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”

13. Value Duality Egalitarianism  Blacks as disadvantaged (Egalitarianism scale) Competitive Individualism  Blacks as deviant (Protestant Ethic scale)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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.

17. Regressive Racism ( Rogers & Prentice-Dunn ) New egalitarian norms  “reverse discrimination” (preferential treatment)

18. “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

19. 2 x 2 x 2 Factorial Design Insult Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Deindividuation Yes No Yes No Victim White Black

20. Results Main effect of deindividuation –Deindividuation  higher shock No main effect of race of victim Interaction effect of insult & race

21. Race X Insult Interaction Effect

22. Reverse discrimination Regressive racism

23. 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

24. Conclusions Americans take a Janus-faced view of interracial encounters, one face looking forward but the other face focusing grimly on the past.

25. 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

26. What to do? …to overcome ambivalence & prejudices

27. Boys’ Camp Experiment on Group Conflict Muzafir Sherif 1956

28. “Robbers’ Cave” Camp Mapped friendship networks Introduced group competition Mapped new friendship networks Observed behavior Non-competitive social interaction Staged Emergency

29. No groups: friendship networks formed

30. In-Group Formation: New Friendship Networks

31. In-Group Formation: New friendship networks

32. Robbers Cave Experiment Group Competition

33. 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!”

34. How to Reduce Conflict? Friendly social interaction: more hostility, epithets, taunting

35. Staged Emergency

36. Rattlers & eagles cooperate Hostility, taunting drop New cross-group friendships form

37. “Robbers’ Cave” Camp Opportunities for pleasant interaction  continued hostility Interdependence (staged emergency)  decreased hostility, cooperation, re-formed friendship patterns

38. Causes of Prejudice ( Elliot Aronson ) Low social status Scapegoating Authoritarian Personality Realistic Group Conflict Conformity to Social Norms

39. Causes of Prejudice ( Elliot Aronson ) Low socio-economic status  higher prejudice

40. Causes of Prejudice ( Elliot Aronson ) 1. Economic & political competition ( “realistic group conflict theory” ) Sherif experiment

41. 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

42. Causes of Prejudice ( Elliot Aronson ) 3. Prejudiced Personality Authoritarian Personality

43. Causes of Prejudice ( Elliot Aronson ) 4. Conformity to community norms people who move shift attitudes miners: prejudiced above ground integrated below

44. “Stateways can change folkways” Changing attitudes often doesn’t change behavior Changing behavior often changes attitudes

45. De-segregation “Equal status contact”  succeeds “Inequality & competition”  increases hostility

46. Successful Integration Equal Status + Interdependence –Sherif experiment Jigsaw Classroom http://www.jigsaw.org/

47. What to do? Inter-dependence ! ! !