1. Lecture Outline Prejudice Theories of Prejudice Measures of Prejudice Explicit v.s. Implicit Prejudice

2. Prejudice Definition: A positive or negative attitude, belief, or feeling about a person generalized from attitudes, beliefs, or feelings about the person’s group

3. Components of Prejudice Stereotypic beliefs typical attributes Symbolic beliefs values, traditions, customs Emotions affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

4. Theories of Prejudice Realistic Group Conflict Theory Minimal Group Paradigm

5. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Group: social unit; members inter- dependent In-group: group person belongs to Out-group: group person does not belong to Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification

6. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Competition between groups causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

7. The Summer Camp Studies Sherif and Colleagues Purpose: Test whether competition causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

8. Summer Camp Studies Created situations that fostered: l group identity l intergroup conflict l group harmony

9. Four stages l Spontaneous interpersonal friendships l Group formation l Intergroup conflict l Intergroup harmony Summer Camp Studies

10. Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships Studies 1 and 2 Boys from whole camp interacted Developed friendships naturally Listed close friends Two groups created

11. Stage 2: Group Formation Studies 1 and 2 Boys developed in-group identity interacted only with own group activities fostered liking Listed close friends 2nd time 95% listed friends from in- group

12. Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave) nBegan at group formation stage Two groups - different locations Boys developed in-group identity interacted only with own activities fostered liking

13. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prize l baseball l touch football l tug of war l treasure hunt Intergroup conflict: l name calling l stealing flags l fights

14. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss Collected as many beans as they could Put beans in sack Supposedly shown each boy’s sack Estimated number of beans in each sack Knew group membership only

15. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss Same sack shown to each boy Results: l overestimated beans for in-group l underestimated beans for out-group

16. Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony Reduce conflict & prejudice 1. Contact hypothesis 2. Superordinate goals  water supply malfunctioned  bus broke down

17. Minimal Group Paradigm Challenged idea that competition required for intergroup conflict A simple distinction between groups is sufficient to cause bias

18. Minimal Group Paradigm People assigned to groups Groups have no history, norms, or values Members have no contact Membership based on trivial criteria

19. Minimal Group Paradigm Goal of these experiments: Show that group membership ALONE produces in-group bias

20. Minimal Group Paradigm 1. Group members alone and anonymous 2. 14-15 yr. old boys 3. Boys estimated dots on a screen 4. Boys labeled as over- or underestimators 5. Boys completed series of pay off matrices where they gave points to individual boys who would later receive the points and trade them in for fun stuff

21. Minimal Group Paradigm Payoff Matrix #26, one of the: overestimators (in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 #17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 underestimators (out-group) Boys most often selected 12:11 strategy Fairness combined with ingroup profit

22. Minimal Group Paradigm The Big Point In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources Group identity was sufficient to create in- group bias

23. Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice Old Fashioned Racism Scale Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites? If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?

24. Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice Modern Racism Scale Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights

25. Self-Reported Prejudice General pattern: Prejudice is subsiding

26. Explanations People are less prejudiced now Social Desirability

27. People lie about their prejudiced to appear unbiased to others

28. Bogus Pipeline An experimental paradigm Experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

29. Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached -3 -2 0 +1 +2 +3 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

30. Completed survey about self Rated African Americans on traits by turning wheel -3 (very uncharacteristic) +3 (very characteristic) -3 -2 0 +1 +2 +3 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

31. Manipulation Bogus pipeline group Control group

32. If people lie on self-report measures to appear unbiased then…. Attributes Negative Positive Bogus Pipeline > ControlControl > Bogus Pipeline Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

33. Neg. Attributes: Bogus Pipeline Control Happy-go-lucky.93 -.13 Ignorant.60.20 Stupid.13 -1.00 Physically dirty.20 -1.33 Unreliable.27 -.67 Lazy.60 -.73 Aggressive 1.20.67 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

34. Pos. AttributesBogus PipelineControl Intelligent.00.47 Ambitious.07.33 Sensitive.87 1.60 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

35. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit MeasuresImplicit Measures Responses more easily modified

36. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit MeasuresImplicit Measures More vulnerable to social desirability

37. Taxonomy of Prejudice Measures Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000) Controlling Responses Easy Difficult Old fashioned racism Open discrimination Racial slurs Modern racism Subtle prejudice scale Seating distanceSubtle language biasEye contact Non-verbal behaviors Who-said-what Famous person task Implicit association test Stroop-like taskRT following priming Physiological reactions

38. IAT: Implicit Association Test The IAT measures RT: l how quickly people categorize stimulus words. Faster RT = stronger association IAT responses correlate mildly with explicit responses

39. Dissociation A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures

40. Causes of Dissociation Social desirability: l People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased l This would produce dissociation

41. Causes of Dissociation Internalized egalitarian values: l People genuinely endorse egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them l This too would produce dissociation

42. Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals

43. Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings i.e., prejudice is unconscious

44. Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 3. Internalized egalitarian values are newer associations & require more cognitive resources to access than ingrained prejudice. These resources are not available when completing implicit measures

45. Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 4. Egalitarian values only accessible when completing explicit measures. When completing implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

46. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Social Desirability Internalized Egalitarian Values Know they are prejudiced Know they are lying Do not know they are prejudiced Believe they are telling the truth

47. Subliminal Priming Study Devine (1989) 1. Measure prejudice 2. Subliminal priming 3. Rate Donald

48. Manipulation: Percent of primes presented 80% of primes associated with AA 20% of primes associated with AA Subliminal Priming Study Devine (1989)

49. Results: 1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition 2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

50. Primes presented outside of awareness As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald Unconscious prejudice dominates Subliminal Priming Study Devine (1989)