Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

1
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

• Chapter 11

2
Some Definitions

• Prejudice-a negative (or at times positive)
  prejudgment of a group and its individuals.
• Its an Attitude.
• Stereotypes- beliefs about a group, can be
  positive or negative. They simplify the
  worldthey are generalizations.
• discrimination- is a negative (sometimes
  positive) behavior directed toward a group.

3
More

• -isms-institutional practices that discriminate
  even when there is no prejudicial intent.

4
How Pervasive is prejudice?

• According to Gallup polls, expressed prejudice
  has decreased dramatically over the past 50
  years.
• Subtle prejudice has replaced it.
• Ayres (1991) Car shopping (11,000)
• WM 11,362
• WW 11,504
• BM 11,783
• BW 12,237

5
Stereotypes

• Categorization
• Allport (1954) categorization of people (and
  objects) into groups was necessary for adaptive
  functioning.
• Hamilton (1982) responding to every person as an
  individual would quickly overload social
  perceivers cognitive processing and storage
  capacities (from Devine, 1995).

6
Categorization

• Tajfel et al (1971) Minimal group Paradigm-
  placed into a group with no face to face contact,
  group norms etc.
• -Decision making experiment for preferences of
  abstract paintings, Klee Kandinsky. No one know
  who else was in their group.

7
Categorization

• -Ps allocated money to people, identified by code
  numbers and group membership using a reward
  matrices book.
• -Ps made some effort to be fair in their
  allocations, but also showed a tendency toward
  more money to in-group than out-group members.
• -Inter-group rivalry can be observed in
  situations without objective conflict or history
  of conflict.

8
Categorization

• Brewer (1979) Tajfel Turner (1980) the evidence
  from a variety of dependent measures show that
  in-group members receive more favorable ratings
  than equivalent out group members or stimuli.

9
Self interest in in-group favoritism?

• Rabbie Horwitz (1969) schoolchildren randomly
  assigned to blue or green group, common fate/no.
• All Ps showed some in-group favoritism, but it
  was more pronounced for those who shared a common
  fate (reward or deprivation).

10
Categorization

• Perdue et al (1990)
• Classical conditioning
• Paired in- out-group words (e.g., we they) or
  control words with nonsense syllables (xhe fup)
  for a lexical decision task.
• This demonstrates that in- and out-groups carry
  inherent positive and negative associations
  respectively.

11
Categorization

• Howard and Rothbart (1980)
• Minimal group paradigm
• Presented equally positive and negative info
  about the in- out-group.
• How might this effect evaluations?
• General biases in cognitive processing contribute
  to intergroup biases.

12
Categorization

• Social Identity Theory (Tajfel Turner, 1986)-
  social categorization initiates basic
  motivational processes in individuals that induce
  inter-group competition (from Devine, 1995).
• Assumptions
• We are motivated to maintain our self-esteem.
• Our group membership has implications for our SE.
  

13
Categorization

• To enhance SE we can
• 1) Affiliate with positive groups or
• 2) View our social category memberships as
  positively as possible.
• When group boundaries are made salient, we are
  motivated to locate inter-group differences that
  are favorable to our in-group.
• Saliencelook for differencesfocus on
  differences that are favorable to your group.

14
Enhancing SE

• Fein and Spencer (1997)
• Success or failure feedback
• Watched a video of an Italian or Jewish
  woman.
• Ascribed traits

15
Enhancing SE II

• Mortality salience (Greenberg et al. 1990)
• Recognition of our mortality threatens our SE
• Seek to regain SE by bolstering world views and
  importance of own groups.
• E.g.
• McGregor et al. (1998) studied mortality
  salience, out-group hostility and Tabasco sauce
  allocation.

16
Categorization

• Out-Group Homogeneity
• Out-group members are seen as being different
  from in-group members.
• Out-group members are seen as being more similar
  to one another (and, thus, more interchangeable)
  relative to in-group members.

17
Categorization

• Jones, Wood, Quattrone (1981)
• Out group Homogeneity effect using university
  clubs

18
Categorization

• Why might this occur?
• 1) We learn less about the diversity of the
  out-group because we have more limited contact
  with out-group members. Those we do see become
  generalized.
• 2) It may be easier to retrieve many instances of
  in-group members from memory thus increasing
  perceptions of diversity.

19
Categorization

• Judd and Park (1988) we think about specific
  examples of in-group members, but think about
  out-group members abstractly.

20
Categorization

• Biased explanations
• Ethnocentric Attributions.
• Pettigrew (1979) the Ultimate Attribution error
• In-group members- () behavior Internal (-)
  behavior situation.
• Out-group members- () behavior situational
  (-) behavior internal.

21

• Mass et al (1989) Linguistic inter-group bias-
  positive in- and negative out-group behaviors are
  described in abstract terms whereas negative in-
  and positive out-group behaviors are described in
  specific concrete terms.
• Abstract (aggressive) resistant to
  disconfirmation.
• Concrete (punch) can be situationaly explained.

22

• Weber (1994)
• Participants were separated into over- or
  under-estimators.
• were shown a video of an interaction between
  teams of under- over-estimators.
• For ½, the over- estimator leader responded
  favorably to a plea for help
• For ½, he refused help.

23

• -The negative behavior was attributed to internal
  dispositions when it was exhibited by an out
  group member but to situational causes when he
  was an in-group member.

24
Social categories and stereotypes

• Social categories become associated with
  stereotypes.
• Stereotypes supply general expectations about
  groups and simplify perception and evaluation of
  individual members.

25
Social categories and stereotypes

• Impression Formation
• Social categories are so ingrained, accessible,
  and salient, that they are automatically used in
  social perception.
• Fiske Neuberg (1990) form impressions in
  category based -- attribute based continuum.
  Depends on motivation.
• we automatically perceive someone in terms of
  their social category.
• If motivated, we will consider additional
  information and individuate the person.

26
Social categories and stereotypes

• Information integration
• We tend to encode information in terms of social
  categories.
• Taylor et al (1978) make within race and gender
  confusions.

27
Social categories and stereotypes

• Information processing biases
• Stereotypes can affect what information is
  attended to and how that information is
  interpreted.
• Darley and Gross (1983)

28
Social categories and stereotypes

• Watched the same videotape of a 4th grade girl
  taking a testher performance was ambiguous.
• I.V. told the girl was from a high- or low-SES
  family
• Low SES- attended to and remembered instances in
  which the girl missed easy items.
• High SES- attended to and remembered success on
  difficult items.

29
Social categories and stereotypes

• Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid (1977) self fulfilling
  prophecy.

30
Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974)

• Experiment 1
• White interviewer
• 1/2 black applicant
• 1/2 white applicant
• Seating
• End interview 25 sooner
• 50 more speech errors

31
Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974)

• Experiment 2
• Trained interviewers (Act like Study 1) treated
  white applicants as though the applicants were
  white or black (St. 1)
• Interviews recorded and rated by participants
• Black condition - seemed more nervous less
  effective, less adequate for the job
• Black condition - Interviewees themselves rated
  interviewers as less adequate and less friendly.

32
Origins of Prejudice

• Campbell (1965) Realistic Group Conflict theory-
  prejudice results from direct competition for
  valuable but limited resource.
• Inter-group attitudes tend to reflect group
  interest.
• When goals are incompatible- prejudice, bias, and
  hostility result.
• When goals are compatible-tolerance, fairness
  presides.
• Canada, south

33

• Brewer Campbell (1976) ethnocentric attitudes
  among tribal groups in Africa could be related to
  economic and political relations to them.

34
Individual Differences

• Adorno et al (1950) blind submission to
  authority, middle class values
• Punitive parenting lead to admiration of
  authority and hostility toward out-group.

35
Individual Differences

• McConahay Hough (1976) modern racism scale,
  whites no longer comfortable expressing racism
  directly and do so indirectly.
• Swim et al (1995) modern sexism scale.
• Blatant sexism vs. benevolent sexism

36
Other IDs

• Social Dominance Orientation
• Want their own group to achieve social status and
  preserve it.

37
Ambivalent Racism

• Katz (1981)
• People hold two sets of ideals
• Egalitarianism (democratic humanitarianism, feel
  bad for others disadvantage)
• Individualism (personal freedom, self-reliance,
  devotion to work)
• Ambivalence is uncomfortable because attitudes
  are inconsistent.
• Respond extremely depending on situation.

38
Katz et al. (1986)

• Learn about a White or Black individuals who does
  something positive (heroic altruism) or negative
  (is incompetent at their job).
• Rate the individual.
• Results?

39
Aversive Racism

• Gaertner and Dovidio (1986)
• Americans are committed to egalitarian
  valueswant to appear fair, just, and
  un-prejudiced.
• Posses negative feelings because we are born into
  a historically racist culture and have
  cognitive/motivational biases favoring the
  in-group.

40
Aversive Racism

• People will act non-prejudice when
• 1)     The situation clearly calls for it.
• 2)     No non-prejudicial rationalization can be
  made for prejudicial behavior.
• People will act prejudice when
• 1)      The social norms of the situation are
  weak or ambiguous.
• 2)      A justification for the negative behavior
  is available.

41
Gaertner and Dovidio (1977)

• Study on helping behavior
• Experiment on extrasensory perception
• Task-receive messages from one of the other
  participants in another room
• Black or White confederate
• (Microphone) Confederate-mentions stack of
  chairs...Shouting that they are falling on him.

42
Results

• Bystanders and helping
• Alone - equally likely to help a black or white
  victim.
• Others - they were less likely to help the black
  confederate than the white confederate.
• Why?

43
Dissociation model

• and research on automatic stereotype activation,
  use, and consequence.

44
Dissociation Model

• Devine (1989)
• People possess two types of stored information
• Stereotypes- knowledge about the attributes
  stereotypically associated with a particular
  group.
• Personal Beliefs - endorsement and acceptance (or
  not) of the cultural stereotype.

45
Dissociation Model

• Stereotypes
• Automatically activated with stimulus
• Developed early as children before we can
  critically evaluate
• Greater activation over time and stronger
  association in memory
• Everyone has the same stereotype of Blacks
• Same socialization process

46
Dissociation Model

• Personal Beliefs
• Controlled
• Less activation time and therefore less
  accessible
• Must inhibit stereotype and activate personal
  beliefs
• Requires both time and cognitive capacity

47
3 Studies to test the Dissociation Model

• Study 1 - Thought-listing task (Not interested in
  your personal beliefs, but rather your knowledge
  of the content of the stereotype of Blacks)
• Used the Modern Racism Scale to divide
  participants into high- and low-prejudice groups
  and compared stereotype knowledge.

48
Modern Racism Scale

• Strongly Disagree -2 -1 0 1 2 Strongly Agree
• Over the past few years, the government and news
  media have shown more respect to blacks than they
  deserve.
• It is easy to understand the anger of Black
  people in America.
• Discrimination against Blacks in no longer a
  problem in the U.S.
• Over the past few years Blacks have gotten more,
  economically, than they deserve.
• Blacks have more influence upon school
  desegregation plans than they ought to have.
• Blacks are getting too demanding in their push
  for equal rights.
• Blacks should not put themselves where they are
  not wanted.

49
Proportion of Thoughts ListedHigh Prejudice
Low Prejudice

• Poor .80
• Aggressive .60
• Criminal .65
• Uneducated .50
• Athletic .75
• S Perverse .50
• Lazy .55
• L Intelligence .50

• Poor .75
• Aggressive .60
• Criminal .80
• Uneducated .50
• Athletic .50
• S Perverse .70
• Lazy .75
• L Intelligence .65

50
Study 2 Are stereotypes automatically activated?

• Part 1 Participants seated at a tachistocope
  and told they had to I.D. stimuli location
  (Actually Primed with stereotypic associates of
  Blacks)
• Either 80 stereotypic words or 20
• Part 2 Read ambiguous description of persons
  day. Then rate the person on trait scales.
  (Hostility)

51
Predictions?

• Remember the three aspects of Devines theory
• stereotypes all the same
• automatic stereotypes
• controlled beliefs

52
Results

• Actor ratings in 80 versus 20
• No differences between high and low-prej
• Why no differences between high and low?

53
Study 3 Personal Beliefs

• List as many alternate labels as they were aware
  of for the social group black AmericanAll
  thoughts flattering and unflattering were
  acceptable (p. 13).
• Note Now people are aware of stereotype
  activation. What are the implications?

54
ResultsHigh-Prejudice Low-Prejudice

• Listed more negative than positive thoughts
• More likely to list traits than beliefs
• Themes of hostility, aggression, or violence
  present 60 of the time.

• Listed more positive than negative thoughts
• More likely to list beliefs than traits
• Themes of hostility, aggression, or violence
  present 9 of the time.

55
Conclusions

• High and low-prejudice stereotypes are the same
• All participants use stereotypes in evaluating
  another when there is no opportunity to recognize
  and control for it.
• When given the opportunity to control for their
  knowledge of the Black stereotype, low-prejudice
  participants exhibited more positive thoughts,
  more positive beliefs, and less hostile
  descriptions.

56
Implicit Attitude Test

• How does this relate to the implicit attitude
  test?
• https//implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

57
More Implicitness

• Chen and Bargh (1997)
• Subliminal faces, white interactant
• Subliminal presentation of old stereotype

58
Weapons

• Correll et al (2002)
• W and B individuals appeared on a screen.
• Held a gun or tool (e.g., flashlight)
• Told to click shoot or dont shoot button.
• What happened?

59
Dissenting views Individual difference in
stereotype activation

• Fazio et al (1995)
• 12 , 12 words.
• Second task, asked them to indicate whether the
  words were positive or negative.
• I. V. Primed with B or W faces.
• D. V. Reaction time, treatment of a Black
  Experimenter

60
Results
61
further

• Just looking at white participants, there was no
  relationship between reaction times and prejudice
  level as measured by the MRS.
• MRS did not predict reactions to experimenter.

62
Dissenting views

• Lepore and Brown (1997)
• Suggest Devine primed stereotype AND hostility
  (semantic).
• So, LB primed the stereotype without using
  negative and hostile words like ghetto, lazy

63
Study 1

• Is stereotype knowledge the same for high and
  low-prejudice participants?
• Results-Replicated Devines finding that
  stereotype content is basically the same among
  high- and low-prejudice participants.

64
New primes

• Their primes (West Indians) Blacks,
  Afro-Caribbean, West Indians, colored, afro,
  dreadlocks, Rastafarian, reggae, ethnic, Brixton,
  Notting Hill, rap, and culture.OR Neutral Primes
• Had them read behavior-description sentences
• "He plays football regularly"
• "He goes to parties most weekends"
• "He can easily get angry at people who disagree
  with him"
• "He cannot be bothered to be on time for meetings
  and appointments"

65
DV had people rate him on several attributes
related to

• athletic (i.e., athletic, fit, sporty, and
  active),
• fun-loving (i.e., outgoing, fun loving,
  flamboyant, lively, easy going, and relaxed),
• unreliable (i.e., unreliable, irresponsible,
  careless, disorganized, and lazy),
• aggressive (i.e., aggressive, hostile,
  dislikable, quarrelsome, quick tempered, and
  touchy).

66
Results?

• High prejudiced people rated the individuals more
  highly for negative stereotypic traits, but lower
  on positive stereotypic traits.
• Low prejudiced people rated the individuals more
  highly for positive stereotypic traits, but lower
  on negative stereotypic traitsbut not quite
  significant.

67
Results
68
Does Context Matter
69
Wittenbrink, Judd, Park (2001)

• Study 1
• Completed IAT (time 1)
• Participants watched a movie clip that depicted
  African Americans in a
• Positive setting family BBQ or a..
• Negative setting poor urban neighborhood
• Completed IAT (time 2)

70
results

• IAT effect smaller for participants exposed to
  the positive, as opposed to negative movie prime.

71
Kunda et al. 2002

• In most, if not all experiments on stereotype
  activation have measured activation immediately
• Stereotypes may dissipate over time, resulting in
  less application an influence.

72
Kunda Study 1

• Watch Video of White or Black student describing
  campus life.
• Interrupt video after 15 s or 12min
• Engage in a lexical decision task (i.e., word not
  word) including stereotype words and control
  words.
• Results?

73
(No Transcript)
74
Kunda Study 2

• Read about case wherein defendant is clearly
  guilty or not.
• Read about a White or Black students
  description of campus life. Learn student agrees
  or disagrees with verdict.
• Engage in a lexical decision task again, after
  all information
• Results?

75
Similar effects found for impression formation in
Experiment 3
76
Stereotype Threat (Steele et al. 1995)

• Stereotype threat - the fear of confirming
  others negative stereotypes about ones group.
• Leads to disruptive anxiety
• Leads individuals to Disidentify from areas where
  they are disadvantaged due to stereotypes (i.e.,
  academics)
• Took test
• Measures performance or has been normed to be
  fair.

77
Steele et al. (1995)
78
Stereotype Threat

• Women and men -math
• Asians and Americans - math
• Stone et al. (2000) athletic ability vs. athletic
  intelligence
• Distraction, motivation

79
Reducing Prejudice

• Allport (1954) Contact Hypothesis,
• -Social and institutional support
• -Must allow acquaintanceship
• Equal status.

80
Reducing Prejudice

• Sherif et al. (1961)
• Two groups at summer camp Rattlers and the
  Eagles
• Competitive situations
• Intergroup bias persisted until the functional
  relationship between groups changed.
• How?
• Sherif
• Superordinate goals
• Broken down bus, movie rentals
• In future interactions, intergroup biases
  attenuated

81

• Gaertner et al (1989, 1994) common group identity
  model, create a situation so that category
  encompasses both groups. Blanchard et al (1975)
  white airman liking for black teammate increased
  if he was equal or greater status (when
  successful).