Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures

Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures
Chapter 13 Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures In this chapter, you will learn about: The empirical basis of social psychology and How this branch of social science differs from other social sciences. You will learn about the historical roots of social psychology as a discipline You will be introduced to some of the key concepts of interest to social psychologists.

This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

Multimedia Directory Slide 44 Stereotype Threats Video

Prejudice—The Ubiquitous Social Phenomenon
Prejudice is ubiquitous. It affects us all. Prejudice often flows from the minority group to the majority group. Can also flow in the other direction Any group can be a target of prejudice. Consider one of the most superordinate groups to which you belong—your nationality. Americans are not universally loved, respected, and admired; at one time or another, we Americans have been the target of prejudice in just about every corner of the world. In the 1960s and 1970s, North Vietnamese Communists referred to Americans as the “running dogs of capitalist imperialism.” In the twenty-first century, the majority of people living in the Middle East think of America as a ruthless, power-hungry, amoral nation, referring to us as “the great Satan.” In our own hemisphere, many of our neighbors to the south consider us overfed economic and military bullies.

Many aspects of your identity can cause you to be labeled and discriminated against: Nationality Racial and ethnic identity Gender Sexual orientation

What is this woman’s occupation
What is this woman’s occupation? Most Western non-Muslims hold the stereotype that Muslim women who wear the full-length black niqab must be repressed sexually as well as politically. But Wedad Lootah, a Muslim living in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, is a marriage counselor and sexual activist, author of a best-selling Arabic sex manual. Source: Bryan Denton/The New York Times/Redux Pictures

Many aspects of your identity can cause you to be labeled and discriminated against: Religion Appearance Physical state Weight

Many aspects of your identity can cause you to be labeled and discriminated against: Disabilities Diseases Hair color Professions Hobbies

Prejudice is dangerous. It can escalate to extreme hatred, torture, murder, and even genocide. Even when murder or genocide is not the result, the targets of prejudice will suffer in less dramatic ways. One frequent consequence is diminution of one’s self-esteem. As discussed in chapter 6, self-esteem is a vital aspect of a person’s life. Who we think we are is a key determinant of how we behave and who we become. A person with low self-esteem will, by definition, conclude that he or she is unworthy of a good education, a decent job, an exciting romantic partner, and so on. Thus a person with low self-esteem is more likely to be unhappy and unsuccessful than a person with well-grounded high self-esteem. In a democracy, such a person is also less likely to take advantage of available opportunities.

Prejudice Defined Prejudice is an attitude with three components:
Affective (emotional) component Type of emotion linked with the attitude (e.g., anger, warmth) Extremity of the attitude (e.g., mild uneasiness, outright hostility)

Prejudice Defined Prejudice is an attitude with three components:
Behavioral component How people act on emotions and cognitions Cognitive component Beliefs or thoughts that make up the attitude

Prejudice Defined Prejudice
General attitude structure and its affective (emotional) component Social psychologists use the word prejudice primarily when referring to negative attitudes about others. But we have have positive attitudes too. For example, you could be prejudiced against Texans or prejudiced in favor of Texans. In one case, your emotional reaction is negative; when a person is introduced to you as “This is Bob from Texas,” you will expect him to act in particular ways that you associate with “those obnoxious Texans.” Conversely, if your emotional reaction is positive, you will be delighted to meet another one of “those wonderful, uninhibited Texans,” and you’ll expect Bob to demonstrate many positive qualities, such as warmth and friendliness.

Prejudice Defined A hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group, based solely on their membership in that group For example, when we say that someone is prejudiced against blacks, we mean that he or she is primed to behave coolly or with hostility toward blacks and that he or she feels that all blacks are pretty much the same. Thus the characteristics this individual assigns to blacks are negative and applied to the group as a whole. The individual traits or behaviors of the individual target of prejudice will either go unnoticed or be dismissed.

Stereotypes—The Cognitive Component
A generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members. Once formed, stereotypes are resistant to change on the basis of new information!

Stereotypes—The Cognitive Component
Stereotyping is a cognitive process, not an emotional one. Stereotyping does not necessarily lead to intentional acts of abuse. Stereotyping is a technique we use to simplify how we look at the world. We all do it to some extent. For example, Gordon Allport (1954) described stereotyping as “the law of least effort.” According to Allport, the world is just too complicated for us to have a highly differentiated attitude about everything. Instead, we maximize our cognitive time and energy by developing elegant, accurate attitudes about some topics while relying on simple, sketchy beliefs for others.

The Illusory Correlation
Minority groups are distinctive so we remember their behavior. Creates an illusory correlation between the group and behavior we encounter. Example—thinking Muslims are terrorists after 9/11 (Fiedler, 2000; Garcia-Marques & Hamilton, 1996; Shavitt, Sanbonmatsu, Smittipatana, & Posavac, 1999) Illusory Correlation When we expect two things to be related, we fool ourselves into believing that they are actually unrelated.

What’s Wrong with Positive Stereotypes?
Potential abuse of stereotyping can be more subtle—and might involve a stereotype about a positive attribute. Example—race and sports ability The film White Man Can’t Jump (1992) involved a stereotype that men of African descent are better at basketball than white men. In fact, 75-80% of National Basketball League players in the last quarter of the 20th Century were indeed African American (Gladwell, 1997; Hoose, 1989), far greater than the 13% to be expected from comparative population statistics.

Example Sports, Race, and Attribution What’s wrong with the implication that black men can jump? “Mark Flick” study (Stone et al., 1997) In a clever experiment, college students listened to a twenty-minute audiotape recording of a college basketball game. They were asked to focus on one of the players, Mark Flick, and were allowed to look at a folder containing information about him, including a photograph—allegedly of Flick. Half of the participants saw a photo of an African American male; the others saw a photo of a white male. After listening to the game, the students rated Flick’s performance. Their ratings reflected the prevailing stereotypes: Students who believed Flick was African American rated him as having more athletic ability and as having played a better game than those who thought he was white. Those who thought he was white rated him as having greater hustle and greater basketball sense (Stone, Perry, & Darley, 1997).

Denies individuality of person Ignore the fact that plenty of African American kids are not adept at basketball and a plenty of white kids are If we meet a young African American man and feel astonished at his ineptitude on the basketball court, we are denying him his individuality.

Stereotypes of Gender Traditional Stereotypes Women Men
More socially sensitive, friendlier, and more concerned with the welfare of others Men More dominant, controlling, and independent (Eagly, 1994; Eagly & Wood, 1991; Swim, 1994) (Swim, 1994) Eagly (1995, 1996)

Stereotypes of Gender Hostile sexism Benevolent sexism
Stereotypical views of women that suggest that women are inferior to men E.g., that they are less intelligent, less competent, and so on Benevolent sexism Stereotypical, positive views of women Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (2001) Stereotypically positive feelings about a group (as is true of benevolent sexists) can be damaging to the target because it is limiting. But benevolent sexism goes a bit further. According to Glick and Fiske, underneath it all, benevolent sexists (like hostile sexists) assume that women are the weaker sex. Benevolent sexists tend to idealize women romantically, may admire them as wonderful cooks and mothers, and want to protect them when they do not need protection. Thus in the final analysis, both hostile sexism and benevolent sexism—for different reasons—serve to justify relegating women to traditional stereotyped roles in society.

Emotions—The Affective Component
Negative emotions about groups are often ingrained. This makes such attitudes difficult to dispel.

Discrimination— The Behavioral Component
An unjustified negative or harmful action toward the members of a group simply because of their membership in that group. If you are a fourth-grade math teacher with the stereotypical belief that little girls are hopeless at math, you might be less likely to spend as much time in the classroom coaching a girl than coaching a boy. If you are a police officer and you have the stereotypical belief that African Americans are more violent than whites, this might affect your behavior toward a specific black man you are trying to arrest.

Discrimination— The Behavioral Component
Microaggressions Slights, indignities and “putdowns” directed at minorities and people with disabilities (Dovidio, Pagotto, & Hebl, 2011; Nadal et al., 2011; Sue, 2010). Derald Sue (2010) Example: A white professor compliments an Asian American graduate student on his “excellent English,” although the student has lived in the United States his whole life.

One unobtrusive measure of social distance and “microaggressions” is to notice how people respond, nonverbally, to people with disabilities. Source: Sally Greenhill/Sally and Richard Greenhill/Alamy

“Modern” Racism and Other Implicit Prejudices
People hide prejudice. When situation becomes “safe,” their prejudice will be revealed. Example Questioning President Obama’s Americanism, not his race per se (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996; McConahay,1986) (Hehman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 2011)

Measuring Implicit Prejudices
Most people don’t want to admit their prejudices, so unobtrusive measures are necessary. Bogus pipeline Participants believed a “lie detector” could detect true attitudes. More likely to express racist attitudes Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) Measures speed of positive and negative reactions to target groups The students’ responses showed more racial prejudice when the bogus pipeline was used (Sigall & Page, 1971; Roese & Jamieson, 1993). Proponents of the IAT have marshaled evidence that the implicit bias it uncovers is related to how people actually behave in various situations (Greenwald et al., 2009)— for example, whether they find whites or blacks trustworthy and would be willing to invest money with them in a project (Stanley et al., 2011). But other social psychologists believe that whatever the test measures, it is not a stable prejudice (De Houwer et al., 2009).

Typical stimuli used in the IAT to measure implicit racism
Typical stimuli used in the IAT to measure implicit racism. Source: William A. Cunningham, University of Toronto

Activating Implicit Prejudices
To best understand implicit prejudices, observe actual behavior A compelling way of measuring implicit prejudices is by observing how people actually behave when they are stressed, angry, or otherwise not in full control of their conscious intentions.

Participants played a video game in which they were supposed to “shoot” a man if he was holding a gun and withhold fire if he was holding a harmless object such as a cell phone. As the data graph shows, players were equally likely to “shoot” an armed white man, but much more likely to “shoot” black men who were unarmed, like the man in the photo. (Adapted from Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002) Figure 13.1 Errors Made in “Shooting” People in a Video Game Participants played a video game in which they were supposed to “shoot” a man if he was holding a gun and withhold fire if he was holding a harmless object such as a cell phone. As the data graph shows, players were equally likely to “shoot” an armed white man, but much more likely to “shoot” black men who were unarmed, like the man in the photo. (Adapted from Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002)

Participants played a video game in which they were supposed to “shoot” a man if he was holding a gun and withhold fire if he was holding a harmless object such as a cell phone. As the data graph shows, players were equally likely to “shoot” an armed white man, but much more likely to “shoot” black men who were unarmed, like the man in the photo. (Adapted from Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002) Figure 13.1 (continued) Errors Made in “Shooting” People in a Video Game Participants played a video game in which they were supposed to “shoot” a man if he was holding a gun and withhold fire if he was holding a harmless object such as a cell phone. As the data graph shows, players were equally likely to “shoot” an armed white man, but much more likely to “shoot” black men who were unarmed, like the man in the photo. (Adapted from Correll, Park, Judd, & Wittenbrink, 2002)

Implicit prejudices can also be activated when a person is angered or insulted (Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1981). White students were told they would be inflicting electric shock on another student, the “learner,” whom they were told was either white or African American, as part of an apparent study of biofeedback. The students initially gave a lower intensity of shock to black learners than to white ones—reflecting a desire, perhaps, to show that they were not prejudiced. The students then overheard the learner making derogatory comments about them, which, naturally, made them angry. Now, given another opportunity to inflict electric shock, the students who were working with a black learner administered higher levels of shock than did students who worked with a white learner (Adapted from Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, Figure 13.2 The Unleashing of Prejudice Against African Americans (Adapted from Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1981)

Automatic and Controlled Processing of Stereotypes
Automatic processing of information Do not have control over Stereotypes may be automatically triggered under certain conditions. Controlled processing of information Have control over Ignore or refute stereotype that was automatically activated How does this activation process work? Patricia Devine and her colleagues argue that members of society share an archive of accessible stereotypes, even if they do not believe them. Devine differentiates between the automatic processing of information and the controlled processing of information (Devine, 1989a; Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, and Vance, 2002; Zuwerink, Montieth, Devine, & Cook, 1996).

Figure 13.3 A Two-Step Model of the Cognitive Processing of Stereotypes

Effects of Prejudice on the Victim—Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Example If a society believes that a particular group is stupid, uneducable, it will act in accordance with beliefs. Educational resources will not be provided to that group. The Consequence—The group will not attain adequate education. The Result—The society’s original belief will be confirmed. Thirty years later, what do you find? An entire group that with few exceptions is fit only for menial jobs. On a societal level, the insidiousness of the self-fulfilling prophecy goes far. Why waste educational resources on them? Hence they are given inadequate schooling. Suppose that there is a general belief that a particular group is irredeemably stupid, uneducable, and fit only for menial jobs. “See? I was right all the while,” says the bigot. “How fortunate that we didn’t waste our precious educational resources on such people!” The self-fulfilling prophecy strikes again.

Figure 13.4 An Experiment Demonstrating Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Stereotype Threat Victim of prejudice may internalize stereotypes
Experience anxiety about confirming stereotype There is a statistical difference in academic test performance among various cultural groups in this country. In general, although there is considerable overlap, Asian Americans as a group perform slightly better than Anglo Americans, who in turn perform better than African Americans. Why does this occur? There may be any number of explanations—economic, cultural, historical, political. One important reason recently discovered has to do with anxiety produced by negative stereotypes. In a striking series of experiments, Claude Steele, Joshua Aronson, and their colleagues have demonstrated that at least one major contributing factor is clearly situational and is based on a phenomenon they call stereotype threat (Aronson et al., 1998, 1999; Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995a, 1995b).

Stereotype Threat The apprehension experienced by members of a group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype When African American students find themselves in highly evaluative educational situations, most tend to experience apprehension about confirming the existing negative cultural stereotype of “intellectual inferiority.”

Stereotype Threat (Stone et al., 1999)
Participants played a game of miniature golf. One half were told the game measured “sport strategic intelligence.” Black athletes performed worse than white athletes. One half were told the game measured “natural athletic ability.” Black athletes better than white athletes.

Stereotype Threat and Gender
Stereotype—Men are better at math than women. IV = Information given to women about a math test DV = women’s performance on the test Joshua Aronson and his colleagues (1999) demonstrated that white males perform less well on a math exam when they thought they would be compared with Asian males—a group that they considered to have superior math ability.

When told the math test was designed to show gender differences in math abilities Women did not perform as well as men When told the math test did not detect male-female differences Women and men performed equally well Joshua Aronson and his colleagues (1999) demonstrated that white males perform less well on a math exam when they thought they would be compared with Asian males—a group that they considered to have superior math ability.

Other research shows white men’s performance can be similarly affected by task instructions Joshua Aronson and his colleagues (1999) demonstrated that white males perform less well on a math exam when they thought they would be compared with Asian males—a group that they considered to have superior math ability.

Stereotype Threat How can the effects of stereotype threat be reversed? Simply understanding stereotype threat can improve performance. Reminding participants they were “selective northeastern liberal arts college” students eliminated the gender gap on a spatial ability test. Matthew McGlone and Joshua Aronson (2006) The “I’m-a-good-student” mindset effectively countered the women-aren’t-good-at-math stereotype, leading to significantly better spatial performance for the female test takers. Similar results were found for advanced calculus students at the university level (Good, Aronson & Harder, 2006), and with middle school students on actual standardized tests (Good, Aronson & Inzlicht, 2003). Research shows the performance-enhancing benefit of other counter-stereotype mindsets as well, such as exposure to successful role models from the stereotyped group (Marx & Roman, 2002; McIntyre, Paulson, & Lord, 2003), being reminded that abilities are improvable rather than fixed (Aronson, Fried, & Good, 2002; Good, Aronson & Inzlicht, 2003)—and even the mindset that anxiety on standardized tests is normal for members of stereotyped groups (Aronson & Williams, 2006; Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005).

Stereotype Threats Video
Click on the screenshot to hear Dr. Aronson discuss how stereotype threat can affect performance as well as ways to counteract stereotype threat. Back to Directory

What Causes Prejudice? Prejudice is created and maintained by many forces in the social world.

Children often learn prejudice from parents and grandparents
Children often learn prejudice from parents and grandparents. Source: AP Photo/The Herald, Ross Taylor

Pressures to Conform: Normative Rules
Institutional discrimination Practices that discriminate, legally or illegally, against a minority group by virtue of its ethnicity, gender, culture, age, sexual orientation, or other target of societal or company prejudice. Simply by living in a society where stereotypical information abounds and where discriminatory behavior is the norm, the vast majority of us will unwittingly develop prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior to some extent.

Institutionalized Racism and Sexism
Racist attitudes that are held by the vast majority of people living in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm Institutionalized sexism Sexist attitudes that are held by the vast majority of people living in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm We call this institutional discrimination or, more specifically, as institutionalized racism and institutionalized sexism.

When Prejudice Is Institutionalized
Normative conformity The strong tendency to go along with the group in order to fulfill the group’s expectations and gain acceptance For example, Ernest Campbell and Thomas Pettigrew (1959) studied the ministers of Little Rock, Arkansas, after the 1954 Supreme Court decision struck down school segregation. Most ministers favored integration and equality for all American citizens, but they kept these views to themselves. They were afraid to support desegregation from their pulpits because they knew that their white congregations were violently opposed to it. Going against the prevailing norm would have meant losing church members and contributions, and under such normative pressure, even ministers found it difficult to do the right thing.

Social Categorization— Us Versus Them
The first step in prejudice Creation of groups Putting some people into one group based on certain characteristics This kind of categorization—an underlying theme of human social cognition Useful and necessary But can have profound implications (Brewer & Brown, 1998; Rosch & Lloyd, 1978; Taylor, 1981; Wilder, 1986) For example, we make sense out of the physical world by grouping animals and plants into taxonomies based on their physical characteristics; similarly, we make sense out of our social world by grouping people according to other characteristics, including gender, nationality, ethnicity, and so on. When we encounter people with these characteristics, we rely on our perceptions of what people with similar characteristics have been like in the past to help us determine how to react to someone else with the same characteristics (Andersen & Klatzky, 1987).

In-Group Bias Positive feelings and special treatment for people we have defined as being part of our in-group and negative feelings and unfair treatment for others simply because we have defined them as being in the out-group

Dressing alike is a way of demonstrating membership in an in-group
Dressing alike is a way of demonstrating membership in an in-group. Source: Cultura Creative/Alamy

In-Group Bias The major underlying motive is self-esteem
Individuals enhance self-esteem by identifying with specific social groups. Self-esteem is enhanced only if the individual sees these groups as superior to other groups. Thus for members of the Ku Klux Klan, it is not enough to believe that the races should be kept separate; they must convince themselves of the supremacy of the white race in order to feel good about themselves.

In-Group Bias Researchers have created entities that they refer to as minimal groups. Strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable. In one experiment, participants watched a coin toss that randomly assigned them to either group X or group W. (Tajfel, 1982a; Tajfel & Billig, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Participants in another experiment were first asked to express their opinions about artists they had never heard of and were then randomly assigned to a group that appreciated either the “Klee style” or the “Kandinsky style,” ostensibly due to their picture preferences.

In-Group Bias Despite being strangers before the experiment, group members behaved as if those in the same group were friends or family. They liked members of their own group better. (Brewer, 1979; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992; Wilder, 1981)

In-Group Bias Despite being strangers before the experiment, group members behaved as if those in the same group were friends or family. They rated members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities and to have done better work than out-group members. They allocated more rewards to those who shared their label. (Brewer, 1979; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992; Wilder, 1981)

Out-Group Homogeneity
In-group members tend to perceive out-group members as being more similar (homogeneous) than they really are. If you know something about one out-group member, you are more likely to feel you know something about all of them. (Linville, Fischer, & Salovey, 1989; Quattrone, 1986) Does your college have a traditional rival, whether in athletics or academics? If so, as an in-group member, you probably value your institution more highly than this rival (thereby raising and protecting your self-esteem), and you probably perceive students at this rival school to be more similar to each other (e.g., as a given type) than you perceive students at your own college to be. Out-Group Homogeneity The belief that “they” are all alike.

Consider a study of students in two rival universities: Princeton and Rutgers (Quattrone & Jones, 1980). The rivalry between these colleges is based on athletics, academics, and even class-consciousness (Princeton is private and Rutgers is public). Male research participants at the two schools watched videotaped scenes in which three different young men were asked to make a decision—for example, in one videotape, an experimenter asked a man whether he wanted to listen to rock music or classical music while he participated in an experiment on auditory perception. The participants were told that the man was either a Princeton or a Rutgers student, so for some of them the student in the videotape was an in-group member and for others an out-group member. Participants had to predict what the man in the videotape would choose. After they saw the man make his choice (e.g., rock or classical music), they were asked to predict what percentage of male students at that institution would make the same choice. Did the predictions vary due to the in- or out-group status of the target men? As you can see in this figure, the results support the out-group homogeneity hypothesis: When the target person was an out-group member, the participants believed his choice was more predictive of what his peers would choose than when he was an in-group member (a student at their own school). Similar results have been found in a wide variety of experiments in the United States, Europe, and Australia (Duck, Hogg, & Terry, 1995; Hartstone & Augoustinos, 1995; Judd & Park, 1988; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Park & Rothbart, 1982). Figure 13.5 Judgments About In-Group and Out-Group Members After watching the target person make a choice between two alternatives, participants were asked to estimate what percentage of students at their school (in-group) and their rival school (out-group) would make the same choice. An out-group homogeneity bias was found: Students thought that outgroup members were more alike, whereas they noticed variation within their own in-group. (Adapted from Quattrone & Jones, 1980)

How We Assign Meaning Attributional Biases

Dispositional Versus Situational Explanations
One reason stereotypes are so insidious and persistent is the human tendency to make dispositional attributions. Relying too heavily on dispositional attributions often leads us to make attributional mistakes. Dispositional attributions—that is, to leap to the conclusion that a person’s behavior is due to some aspect of his or her personality rather than to some aspect of the situation. Although attributing people’s behavior to their dispositions is often accurate, human behavior is also shaped by situational forces. Given that this process operates on an individual level, you can only imagine the problems and complications that arise when we overzealously act out the fundamental attribution error for a whole group of people—an out-group.

Ultimate attribution error Our tendency to make dispositional attributions about an individual’s negative behavior to an entire group of people. Many Americans have a stereotype about African American and Hispanic men that involves aggression and the potential for violence—a very powerful dispositional attribution. In one study, college students, playing the role of jurors in a mock trial, were more likely to find a defendant guilty of a given crime simply if his name was Carlos Ramirez rather than Robert Johnson (Bodenhausen, 1988). Thus any situational information or extenuating circumstances that might have explained the defendant’s actions were ignored when the powerful dispositional attribution was stereotypically triggered—in this case, by the Hispanic name.

Researchers had college students read fictionalized files on prisoners to make a parole decision. Sometimes the crime matched the common stereotype of the offender. Hispanic male—assault and battery Upper-class Anglo-American—embezzlement (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985) These results indicate that when people conform to our stereotype, we tend to blind ourselves to clues about why they might have behaved as they did. Instead, we assume that something about their character or disposition, and not their situation or life circumstances, caused their behavior. In other words, when the fundamental attribution error rears its ugly head, we make dispositional attributions (based on our stereotypical beliefs about an ethnic or racial group) and not situational ones.

When crimes were consistent with stereotypes, students’ recommendations for parole were harsher. Most students ignored additional information that was relevant to a parole decision but inconsistent with the stereotype (such as evidence of good behavior in prison). (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985) These results indicate that when people conform to our stereotype, we tend to blind ourselves to clues about why they might have behaved as they did. Instead, we assume that something about their character or disposition, and not their situation or life circumstances, caused their behavior. In other words, when the fundamental attribution error rears its ugly head, we make dispositional attributions (based on our stereotypical beliefs about an ethnic or racial group) and not situational ones.

Blaming the Victim When empathy is absent, it can be hard to avoid blaming the victim. Most people, when confronted with evidence of an unfair outcome that is otherwise difficult to explain, find a way to blame the victim (Crandall, D'Anello, Sakalli, Lazarus, Wieczorkowska, & Feather, 2001; Lerner, 1980, 1991; Lerner & Grant, 1990). For example, in one experiment, two people worked equally hard on the same task and, by the flip of a coin, one received a sizable reward and the other received nothing. After the fact, observers tended to reconstruct what happened and convince themselves that the unlucky person must have worked less hard. Similarly, negative attitudes toward the poor and the homeless—including blaming them for their own plight—are more prevalent among individuals who display a strong belief in a just world (Furnham & Gunter, 1984). Blaming the Victim The tendency to blame individuals (make dispositional attributions) for their victimization, is typically motivated by a desire to see the world as a fair place.

Blaming the Victim Example—rape victims
Must have “deserved it” Behaved inappropriately Dressed provocatively Blaming the victim serves a self-protective function Can’t happen to me, wouldn’t behave that way College students who were provided with a description of a young woman’s friendly behavior toward a man judged that behavior as completely appropriate (Janoff-Bulman, Timko, & Carli, 1985). Another group of students was given the same description, plus the information that the encounter ended with the young woman being raped by the man. This group rated the young woman’s behavior as inappropriate; she was judged as having brought the rape on herself. We can protect ourselves from that fear by convincing ourselves that the person must have done something to cause the tragedy. We feel safer, then, because we believe that we would have behaved more cautiously (Jones & Aronson, 1973)

The Justification-Suppression Model of Prejudice
Crandall and Eschleman’s (2003) model Struggle between urge to express prejudice and the need to maintain positive self-concept (as a non-bigot) Requires energy to suppress prejudiced impulses As Crandall & Eshleman put it, “Justification undoes suppression, it provides cover, and it protects a sense of egalitarianism and a non-prejudiced self-image” (2003, p: 425). For example, suppose you dislike homosexuals—and are inclined to deny them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy. But you are suppressing those feelings and actions because you want to preserve your self-image as a fair-minded, non-bigoted person. How might you avoid the expenditure of all that energy suppressing your impulse? As a justification for the expression of anti-homosexual thoughts and feelings, many people have used the Bible. Through the lens of a particular reading of the Bible, an anti-gay stance can be defended as fighting for “family values” rather than against gays and lesbians. This could help you preserve your self-image as a fair-minded person despite supporting actions that you might otherwise consider to be unfair (see Myers & Scanzoni, 2006).

The Bible has been used to promote tolerance and compassion—as well as to justify and inflame many prejudices. Source: Jim West/ Alamy

The Justification-Suppression Model of Prejudice
To conserve energy, seek valid justification for holding a negative attitude toward a particular out-group Can then act against that group and still feel like a non-bigot Avoids cognitive dissonance As Crandall & Eshleman put it, “Justification undoes suppression, it provides cover, and it protects a sense of egalitarianism and a non-prejudiced self-image” (2003, p: 425). For example, suppose you dislike homosexuals—and are inclined to deny them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy. But you are suppressing those feelings and actions because you want to preserve your self-image as a fair-minded, non-bigoted person. How might you avoid the expenditure of all that energy suppressing your impulse? As a justification for the expression of anti-homosexual thoughts and feelings, many people have used the Bible. Through the lens of a particular reading of the Bible, an anti-gay stance can be defended as fighting for “family values” rather than against gays and lesbians. This could help you preserve your self-image as a fair-minded person despite supporting actions that you might otherwise consider to be unfair (see Myers & Scanzoni, 2006).

Prejudice and Economic Competition
Realistic conflict theory Limited resources  conflict among groups  prejudice and discrimination The idea that limited resources lead to conflict between groups and result in increased prejudice and discrimination (J. W. Jackson, 1993; Sherif, 1966; White, 1977) For example, prejudice has existed between Anglos and Mexican American migrant workers over a limited number of jobs, between Arabs and Israelis over disputed territory, and between northerners and southerners over the abolition of slavery.

Economic and Political Competition
When times are tough and resources are scarce: In-group members will feel more threatened by the out-group. Incidents of prejudice, discrimination, and violence toward out-group members will increase. Sherif’s classic study—Eagles versus Rattlers In a classic experiment, Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues (1961) tested group conflict theory using the natural environment of a Boy Scout camp. The participants in the camp were normal, well-adjusted 12-year-old boys who were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the Eagles or the Rattlers. Each group stayed in its own cabin; the cabins were located quite a distance apart to reduce contact between the two groups. The youngsters were placed in situations designed to increase the cohesiveness of their own group. This was done by arranging enjoyable activities such as hiking and swimming and by having the campers work with their group on various building projects, preparing group meals, and so on. After feelings of cohesiveness developed within each group, the researchers set up a series of competitive activities in which the two groups were pitted against each other—for example, in games like football, baseball, and tug-of-war, where prizes were awarded to the winning team. These competitive games aroused feelings of conflict and tension between the two groups. In addition, the investigators created other situations to further intensify the conflict. For example, a camp party was arranged, but each group was told it started at a different time, thereby ensuring that the Eagles would arrive well before the Rattlers. The refreshments at the party consisted of two different kinds of food: Half the food was fresh, appealing, and appetizing, while the other half was squashed, ugly, and unappetizing. As you’d expect, the early-arriving Eagles ate well, and the latecoming Rattlers were not happy with what they found. They began to curse at the exploitive group. Because the Eagles believed they deserved what they got (first come, first served), they resented the name-calling and responded in kind. Name-calling escalated into food-throwing, and within a short time, punches were thrown and a full-scale riot ensued. Following this incident, the investigators tried to reverse the hostility they had promoted. Competitive games were eliminated, and a great deal of nonconflictual social contact was initiated. Once hostility had been aroused, however, simply eliminating the competition did not eliminate the hostility. Indeed, hostility continued to escalate, even when the two groups were engaged in such benign activities as watching movies together. Eventually, the investigators did manage to reduce the hostility between the two groups; exactly how will be discussed at the end of this chapter.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Prejudice increases when times are tense and conflict exists over mutually exclusive goals. Example Economic recession and violence against Latinos Migrant workers whose labor is needed in many American states but who are perceived as costing American workers their jobs. As the American economy has worsened, violence against Latinos has risen more than 40%, and Mexicans have become the main focus of white anger about illegal immigration. These changes in the target of a majority group’s anger suggest that when times are tough and resources are scarce, in-group members will feel more threatened by the out-group, and incidents of prejudice, discrimination, and violence toward out-group members will increase.

The Role of the Scapegoat
Scapegoating When frustrated or unhappy, people tend to displace aggression onto groups that are disliked, visible, and relatively powerless Form of aggression dependent on what in-group approves of or allows Since the 1940s and 1950s, lynchings of African Americans and pogroms against Jews have diminished dramatically because these are now deemed illegal by the dominant culture. But not all progress is linear. In the past decade, we have seen many eastern European countries emerge from the shadow of the former Soviet Union. But the new freedoms in the region have been accompanied by increased feelings of nationalism (“us versus them”) that have in turn intensified feelings of rancor and prejudice against out-groups. In the Baltic States and the Balkans, the rise in nationalistic feelings has led to the outbreak of hostility and even war among Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, Azerbaijanis and Armenians, and other groups. And there is evidence that anti-Semitism is on the rise again in eastern Europe (Poppe, 2001; Singer, 1990). SCAPEGOAT THEORY (ALLPORT, 1954; GEMMILL, 1989; MILLER & BUGELSKI, 1948)

After the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 9/11, scapegoating of Muslims increased. Source: David Taylor Photography/Alamy

How Can Prejudice Be Reduced?
Because stereotypes and prejudice are based on false information, for many years social observers believed that education was the answer: All we needed to do was expose people to the truth and their prejudices would disappear. But this has proved a naive hope (Lazarsfeld, 1940). After reading this chapter to this point, you can see why this might be the case. Because of the underlying emotional aspects of prejudice, as well as some of the cognitive ruts we get into (e.g., attributional biases, biased expectations, and illusory correlations), stereotypes based on misinformation are difficult to modify simply by providing people with the facts. But there is hope. As you may have experienced, repeated contact with members of an out-group can modify stereotypes and prejudice. But mere contact is not enough; it must be a special kind of contact. What exactly does this mean?

Researchers have found that when people are presented with an example that seems to refute their existing stereotype, most do not change their general belief. One experiment—some people presented with disconfirming evidence actually strengthened stereotypical belief. (Kunda & Oleson, 1997)

Researchers have found that when people are presented with an example that seems to refute their existing stereotype, most do not change their general belief. Disconfirming evidence challenged them to come up with additional reasons for holding on to that belief. (Kunda & Oleson, 1997)

Today’s multiethnic college campuses are a living laboratory of the contact hypothesis.
White students who have roommates, friends, and relationships across racial and ethnic lines tend to become less prejudiced and find commonalities across group borders (Van Laar et al., 2008). Cross-group friendships benefit minorities and reduce their prejudices too. Minority students who join ethnic student organizations tend to develop, over time, not only an even stronger ethnic identity, but also an increased sense of ethnic victimization. Just like white students who live in white fraternities and sororities, they come to feel that they have less in common with other ethnic groups (Sidanius et al.,2004) In a longitudinal study of minority black students at a predominantly white university, many black students at first felt dissatisfied and excluded from school life. But the more white friends they made, the higher their sense of belonging (purple bar) and satisfaction with the university (green bar). This finding was particularly significant for minority students who had been the most sensitive to rejection and who had felt the most anxious and insecure about being in a largely white school. The study was later replicated with minority Latino students. (Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2008) Figure 13.6 The Impact of Cross-Ethnic Friendships on Minority Students’ Well-Being In a longitudinal study of minority black students at a predominantly white university, many black students at first felt dissatisfied and excluded from school life. But the more white friends they made, the higher their sense of belonging (purple bar) and satisfaction with the university (green bar). This finding was particularly significant for minority students who had been the most sensitive to rejection and who had felt the most anxious and insecure about being in a largely white school. The study was later replicated with minority Latino students. (Mendoza-Denton & Page-Gould, 2008)

The Contact Hypothesis
Mere contact between groups not sufficient to reduce prejudice Can create opportunities for conflict that may increase it Prejudice will decrease when two conditions are met: Both groups are of equal status. Both share a common goal. In his careful analysis of the research examining the impact of desegregation, Walter Stephan (1978, 1985) was unable to find a single study demonstrating a significant increase in self-esteem among African American children, and 25% of the studies showed a significant decrease in their self-esteem following desegregation. In addition, prejudice was not reduced. Stephan (1978) found that in 53% of the studies, prejudice actually increased; in 34% of the studies, no change in prejudice occurred. And if one had taken an aerial photograph of the schoolyards of most desegregated schools, one would have found that there was very little true integration: White kids tended to cluster with white kids, black kids tended to cluster with black kids, Hispanic kids tended to cluster with Hispanic kids, and so on (Aronson, 1978; Aronson & Gonzalez, 1988; Aronson & Thibodeau, 1992; Schofield, 1986). Clearly, in this instance, mere contact did not work as we had hoped.

When Contact Reduces Prejudice—Six Conditions
Sherif and colleagues (1961) found: Once hostility and distrust were established, simply removing a conflict and the competition did not restore harmony. In fact, bringing two competing groups together in neutral situations actually increased their hostility and distrust. (Amir, 1969, 1976) Mutual Interdependence The need to depend on each other to accomplish a goal that is important to each group.

Sherif placed two groups of boys in situations where they experienced conflict. For example, the investigators set up an emergency situation by damaging the water supply system. The only way the system could be repaired was if all the Rattlers and Eagles cooperated immediately. On another occasion, the camp truck broke down while the boys were on a camping trip. To get the truck going again, it was necessary to pull it up a rather steep hill. This could be accomplished only if all the youngsters pulled together, regardless of whether they were Eagles or Rattlers. Eventually, these sorts of situations brought about a diminution of hostile feelings and negative stereotyping among the campers. In fact, after these cooperative situations were introduced, the number of boys who said their closest friend was in the other group increased dramatically. Figure 13.7 How Cooperation Fosters Intergroup Relations When the Eagles and the Rattlers were in competition, very few of the boys in each group had friends from the other side. Intergroup tensions were eased only after the boys had to cooperate to get shared privileges and the boys began to make friends across “enemy lines.” (Based on data in Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961)

When Contact Reduces Prejudice—Six Conditions
Mutual interdependence Common goal Equal status Friendly, informal setting Knowing multiple out-group members Social norms of equality Mutual interdependence: When each party’s success depends on the other party’s success. Common goal: A superordinate goal will take higher priority than other concerns and potentially unite people despite other conflicts. Equal status: At the boys’ camp (Sherif et al., 1961) and in the public housing project (Deutsch & Collins, 1951), the group members were very much the same in terms of status and power. No one was the boss, and no one was the less powerful employee. When status is unequal, interactions can easily follow stereotypical patterns. The whole point of contact is to allow people to learn that their stereotypes are inaccurate; contact and interaction should lead to disconfirmation of negative, stereotyped beliefs. If status is unequal between the groups, their interactions will be shaped by that status difference—the bosses will act like stereotypical bosses, the employees like stereotypical subordinates—and no one will learn new, disconfirming information about the other group (Pettigrew, 1969; Wilder, 1984). Fourth, contact must occur in a friendly, informal setting where in-group members can interact with out-group members on a one-to-one basis (Brewer & Miller, 1984; Cook, 1984; Wilder, 1986). Simply placing two groups in contact in a room where they can remain segregated will do little to promote their understanding or knowledge of each other. Fifth, through friendly, informal interactions with multiple members of the out-group, an individual will learn that his or her beliefs about the out-group are wrong. It is crucial for the individual to believe that the out-group members he or she comes to know are typical of their group; otherwise, the stereotype can be maintained by labeling one out-group member as the exception (Wilder, 1984). For example, a study of male police officers assigned female partners in Washington, D.C., found that although the men were satisfied with their female partner’s performance, they still opposed hiring women police officers. Their stereotypes about women’s ability to do police work hadn’t changed; in fact, they matched those of male officers with male partners (Milton, 1971). Why? They perceived their partner as an exception. Sixth and last, contact is most likely to lead to reduced prejudice when social norms that promote and support equality among groups are operating in the situation (Amir, 1969; Wilder, 1984). Social norms are powerful; here they can be harnessed to motivate people to reach out to members of the out-group. For example, if the boss or the professor creates and reinforces a norm o

When women first began to work as peers with male police officers, they were often seen as the exception to the existing stereotype of women. Under what conditions will contact in the workplace reduce prejudice? Source: Jonathan Nourok/PhotoEdit

Jigsaw Classroom Classroom setting designed to reduce prejudice and raise the self-esteem of children Placing children in small, desegregated groups Make each child dependent on the other children in the group to learn the course material and do well in the class Reduces prejudice and promotes integration

Jigsaw Classroom Why does the jigsaw work?
Breaks down perception of in-group and out-group, creates feeling of “one-ness” People must do each other “favors” by sharing information Develop empathy for others One of the most effective ways of improving race relations, improving empathy, and improving instruction

Summary and Review Components of Prejudice
Modern Racism and Implicit Prejudices Causes of Prejudice Reducing Prejudice To recap, in this chapter, a number of issues pertaining to prejudice were examined. The affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of prejudice were considered. Causes of prejudice were discussed along with strategies for reducing prejudice.

For example, in Jane Elliot’s third-grade classroom, children grouped according to eye color began to act differently based on that social categorization. Blue-eyed children, the superior group, stuck together and actively promoted and used their higher status and power in the classroom.

They formed an in-group, defined as the group with which an individual identifies. The blue-eyed kids saw the brown-eyed ones as outsiders—different and inferior.

To the blue-eyed children, the brown-eyed kids were the out-group, the group with which the individual does not identify.

Implicit Prejudice Often aren’t aware of our prejudices.
How can it be prejudice if we aren’t even aware of it? Can manifest in dangerous consequences. Example Studies have shown people more likely to accidentally shoot an unarmed African American than a White person

Expectations and Distortions
When a member of an out-group behaves as we expect, it confirms and even strengthens our stereotype. And when an out-group member behaves in an unexpected, nonstereotypical fashion? This phenomenon was beautifully captured in the laboratory (Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982). College men were scheduled, in pairs, to participate in the experiment. In one condition, the experimenter casually informed one participant that his partner was extremely unfriendly; in the other condition, the experimenter told one participant that his partner was extremely friendly. In both conditions, the participants went out of their way to be nice to their partner, and their partner returned their friendliness—that is, he behaved warmly and smiled a lot, as college men tend to do when they are treated nicely. The difference was that the participants who expected their partner to be unfriendly interpreted his friendly behavior as phony—as a temporary, fake response to their own nice behavior. They were convinced that underneath it all, he really was an unfriendly person. Accordingly, when the observed behavior—friendliness—was unexpected and contrary to their dispositional attribution, participants attributed it to the situation: “He’s just pretending to be friendly.” The dispositional attribution emerged unscathed.

Expectations and Distortions
Attribution theory: can simply engage in some attributional fancy footwork and emerge with our dispositional stereotype intact Can make situational attributions about the exception. Example, that the person really is as we believe, but it just isn’t apparent in this situation. This phenomenon was beautifully captured in the laboratory (Ickes, Patterson, Rajecki, & Tanford, 1982). College men were scheduled, in pairs, to participate in the experiment. In one condition, the experimenter casually informed one participant that his partner was extremely unfriendly; in the other condition, the experimenter told one participant that his partner was extremely friendly. In both conditions, the participants went out of their way to be nice to their partner, and their partner returned their friendliness—that is, he behaved warmly and smiled a lot, as college men tend to do when they are treated nicely. The difference was that the participants who expected their partner to be unfriendly interpreted his friendly behavior as phony—as a temporary, fake response to their own nice behavior. They were convinced that underneath it all, he really was an unfriendly person. Accordingly, when the observed behavior—friendliness—was unexpected and contrary to their dispositional attribution, participants attributed it to the situation: “He’s just pretending to be friendly.” The dispositional attribution emerged unscathed.

Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Prejudice: Causes, Consequences, and Cures"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback