4.3 An Integrative approach to

prejudice and discrimination

Prejudice and discrimination can be

considered the result of complex interactions of different factors: Biological Cognitive Sociocultural

Why does prejudice & discrimination

continue?

Stereotyping

A cognitive process in which people categorize others i.e. in terms of belonging to a social group, appearance etc.

Prejudice Attitude – a combination of emotions and cognition.

Individuals judge others on attributes and apply an emotional component to their view of the individual.

Discrimination Behavior – an individual treats someone differently

based upon his/her membership of a group, rather than their merits.

Key Terms

Hart (2000) Assessed neurological region of the

brain associated with prejudice Procedure: White and Blacks given brief

subliminal glimpse of faces of individuals of different ethnic origins. MRI monitored activity.

Findings: Activity observed in the amygdala (emotional center).

Phelps (2000) found similar results in activation of amygdala when individuals were exposed to stimuli and scores on a standardized test for ethnic prejudice.

Biological Research on the origins of prejudice

http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/ Banaji and Greenwald – test subconscious

prejudice. Friske – 16 min. 49 sec.

MRI, showed photos of disabled, rich, athletes, disabled, homeless.

Homeless images resulted in the insula lighting up (associated with disgust)

Warm, productive images triggered dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

Implicit association Test

Friske – supports ideas that dehumanization of

groups leads to changes in the way the brain works.

How does Friske in the documentary explain how changes in the brain can be overcome?

Dehumanization

This behavior may be a way to protect the

gene pool. Being able to detect a threat from an out-

group, may have evolutionary advantages for the gene pool.

How does this idea fit in todays society?

Evolutionary Arguments

(+) can link prejudice to a brain function(+) Out groups trigger immediate response to amygdala(+) Cognitive control of emotion reacts in frontal lobe

(-)Prejudice has an emotion component which means there must be a cognitive factor in how one responds

Bettelheim and Janowitz (1964) one’s stereotypes do not predict one’s feelings of prejudice or discrimination.

(-) Cunningham (2004) longer exposure to the images results in frontal lobe activity in addition to the amygdala.(-) Phelps – can not conclude is the activation of the amygdala was innate response or learned response.

Strengths and Limitations of evolutionary theory

Cognitive research on prejudice.

Pages 130- 132

What role does hostility, as an emotion, play in

stereotypes? And, how does it become connected to stereotypes

that develop in a culture?

Tversky and Kahnemaa (1982) – people make judgments based upon the availability heuristic, that is, based upon what information is readily available to them.

Cognitively this may be seen as schema processing.

Cognitive research on the origins of prejudice

Friske and Taylor – described the term

“cognitive miser” People have limited capacity to process social

information and therefore use shortcuts or develop simple rules (heuristics) in order to make complex issues more simple.

Example – Darley and Gross (1983)

“cognitive miser”

Method: laboratory experiment

Often called the Hannah Study Aim: to test the hypothesis that schematic processing

result in distorted perceptions of people when they have to make judgments about their ability.

Procedure: Participants saw 2 videos of a girl. First experiment – participant viewed both videos Follow-up experiment participants viewed either video 1 or

video2 In video 1, girl was playing in a poor environment. In video 2, girl was playing in a middle class environment.

Then they saw a video of the girl taking what looked to be an intelligence test and answering the questions inconsistently.

Darley and Gross

Findings: Experiment 1: When the participant were asked to predict

the academic prospects of the two girls ALL said they would do fine and have an education Researchers interpreted this as USA fundamental belief

Experiment 2: When participants were asked to judge the future of the

girls, they all said the “rich” girl would do well and the “poor” girl would do less well.

On average they judges the “rich” Hannah as having a 5th grade academic level, and “poor” Hannah at a 4th grade level.

Darley and Gross cont.,

Results:

The study demonstrates that participants probably used pre-stored schemas of what it means to be poor and rich.

They then interpreted the rest of the scene based on these schemas.

Due to ambiguous information about the girl in the testing scenario, the participants used the information from the first video to form an impression

Darley and Gross cont.,

What schema processing did the participants

assume in the follow-up experiment? What is the problem with this kind of

processing? Can this lead to self-fulfilling prophecy? What would Rosenthal and Jacobson say?

1. Humans are social animals ( need to belong)2. Culture influence behavior3. Social Self4. Peoples views of the world are resistant

to change1. To overcome stereotyping , individuals must

overcome “conformational bias”1. Looking for information that confirms their

prejudice.2. How do you do this?

1. PROOF, EVIDENCE must be presented to the individual holding the prejudice.

Principles of sociocultural levels of analysis

Tedeschi and Rosenfield (1981) – attitude

change is seen as an attempt to avoid social anxiety and embarrassment, or to protect the positive veiw of one’s own identity.

Jane Elliot (1960) (14:36)

Impression management theory

How do you think people estimate the future of a child coming from either one off these

areas?

Explain why it is so, arguing on evidence.

What are the implications of this?

What could a member of society do to prevent that prejudice about poor children’s academic capacity becomes true?

Sociocultural research on the origins of

prejudice

Pg 133 - 134

To base ones behavior on gender, sexuality or

ethnicity would be attribution error. Actor-observer bias confirms the belief in a

group that In-group members are successful because of

who they are Out-group is not successful because of who

they are Any success by the out group is purely luck,

outside assistance or circumstance.

Is ones behavior based on Gender, sexuality or

ethnicity?

Robbers’ Cave Experiment ( Sherif 1961)

Group identity on intergroup conflict Realistic Conflict Theory – when there is

competition for limited resources negative feelings will arise.

Method: Field Experiment (created ecological validity)

Procedure: 2 groups – Eagles and the Rattlers

Hypothesis: when two groups have conflicting aims, their members will become hostile to each other.

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory: roots to prejudice &

discrimination

Superordinate goals – an urgent situation

was created e.g. natural disasters, 911, impact on survival

Contact Hypothesis – the reduction of prejudice as observed through superordinate goals.

Prejudice is reduced when the groups are perceived are equal.

Diminishing the hostility

When contact is positive: prejudice is reduce When contact is natural vs forced it brings

about the strongest results in prejudice reduction.

Limitations of Sheif’s study: Homogenous group No long history of oppression All participants came to the camp voluntarily Group had equal status when they arrived.

Evaluating Contact Hypothesis

The origin of prejudice is multi-factorial. Must take a holistic approach to understand the problem.

Biological response from the amygdala evolutionary advantageous to protect the genes form the out-

group Cognitive

Availability heuristics The role of perception Cognitive dissonance

Sociocultural factors Stereotyping (social cognition) Fundamental attribution error Contact hypothesis

Summary