Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Lecture Outline

Components of intergroup bias Theories of prejudice and discrimination

cognitive, realistic conflict, motivational, cultural, evolutionary

Consequences: Stereotype threat Strategies of overcoming prejudice and

discrimination

Stereotypes (Cognition) beliefs about attributes that are thought to be characteristic of members of particular groups

Prejudice (Affect) a negative attitude or affective response toward a certain group and its individual members

Discrimination (Behaviour) negative behaviour towards members of a particular group based on their membership in that group

The ABC of Intergroup Bias

The Cognitive Perspective

Emphasizes the cognitive processes that produce and maintain stereotypes, and how stereotypes in turn affect prejudice and discrimination

The Cognitive Perspective

implicit (automatic) processes - processes that occur outside of our awareness, without conscious control explicit (controlled) processes - processes that occur with conscious direction and deliberate thought

Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes and Prejudice

1) Explicit Attitudes: what people consciously endorse or believe

2) Implicit Attitudes: associations that are outside of conscious awareness

a. Implicit Association Test (IAT) meaures unconscious stereotypes and prejudices toward particular groups (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995)

b. Priming and Implicit Prejudice

Priming - procedure used to increase the accessibility of a concept or schema (for example, a stereotype)

Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes and Prejudice

If I an E are different, which one is the “true” attitude?

Better question: under which conditions each type of attitude predicts behaviour?

Implicit attitudes predict discrimination esp. when cognitive resources are taxed, ex, fatigue, time pressure

Explicit attitudes predict discrimination better otherwise

On misperceiving a weapon (Payne, 2001)

200ms

OR

200ms

OR

Decision: Weapon or tool?

.5 second

The Cognitive Perspective

Some cognitive biases make stereotypes resistent to discomfirmation Outgroup homogeneity effect - tendency to

assume that within-group similarity is much stronger for outgroups than for ingroups

Illusory correlations – biased perception and memory for connection between unusual (negative) acts and minority groups

Counter-stereotypic examples are subtyped

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

group conflict, prejudice, and discrimination are likely to arise over competition between groups for limited desired resources

Correlation between cotton prices and # of lynchings of Blacks in US South

Cotton Prices

# of Lynchings

Similar pattern for unemployment rate and opposition to immigration in Canada

Realistic Conflict Theory

The Robber’s Cave Experiment (Sherif et al. 1961)

a. Competition and Intergroup Conflict

b. Reducing Intergroup Conflict Through Superordinate Goals

superordinate goals - goals that transcend the interests of one individual group, and that can be achieved more readily by two or more groups working together

Example: “Earthquake diplomacy”

Evaluating RCT

Minimal Group Experiments

Participants are assigned to groups on meaningless criteria

Then they are given the opportunity to distribute resources (e.g., money)

Participants show ingroup favoritism! Cannot be explained by RCT We need a motivational perspective

The Motivational Perspective

Prejudice and discrimination can be a tool to boost our self-esteem and repair perceived threats to our self-esteem

The Motivational Perspective

Social Identity Theory

a person’s self-concept and self-esteem not only derive from personal identity and accomplishments, but from the status and accomplishments of the various groups to which the person belongs

After negative personal feedback, ppts derogate outgroups (A), which restores their self-esteem (B) (Fein & Spencer, 1997)

Belief systems to rationalize inequality & discrimination

System justification (Jost et al, 2004)

Similar to just world beliefs, applied to groups: “different groups deserve what they get”

Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius & Pratto)

Belief that their own groups are “destined” to dominate other less worthy, groups

Members of more privileged groups endorse SDO more (men, EuroCanadians, high caste Hindus, Ashkenazi Israelis, Maronite Lebanese, Mainlainder Taiwanese)

High SDO scores predict overt prejudice and more stereotyping towards lower-status groups

Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination

Evolutionary account #1 Innate tendency for “us vs. them thinking” or

coalitional psychology Intergoup psychology evolved (in ancestral times)–

small cohesive, mutually hostile bands But what counts as ingroup vs. outgroup is flexible,

socially constructed Explains why bases of discrimination is radically

different across time and place, but us-them mentality is so resilient

Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination

Evolutionary account #2 Intergoup psychology is misapplication of

our innate understanding of species with “essences”

We tend to think of different social groups as if they are different biological species

Explains why many social categories are essentialized

And why the more essentialized, the easier to stereotype

Distal Explanations of prejudice and discrimination

Cultural account Cultural dissimilarity breeds dislike Brewer & Campbell (1976): study of intercultural

attitudes• 30 East African societies in in Uganda, Kenya,

and Tanzania• Measures of cultural similarity, familiarity, liking,

and personality traits• People felt the most positive towards groups that:

(1) Were geographically nearer (2) Culturally most similar to themselves

Being a Member of a Stigmatized Group

1. Attributional Ambiguity

2. Stereotype Threat

- fear that one will confirm the stereotypes that others have regarding some salient group of which on is a member

Stereotype Threat in Intellectual Abilities

ST can occur for any social group for which there is a negative stereotype on a skill

Stereotype Threat in Intellectual Abilities

African Americans and intellectual abilities

Women and math

White men and athletic abilities

Etc.

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype Threat

 

         

         

         

         

     

         

         

       

                                                                                                                                                                

 

         

         

         

         

     

         

         

       

                                                                                                                                                                

Slide 25 of 28

Stereotype threat vs. boost (Shih, Pittinski & Ambady, 1999

Reducing Stereotype Threat in Educational Settings

Developing awareness Communicating (and having) high

expectations Social support Positive role models

Reducing prejudice and conflict

Superordinate goalsSuperordinate identityEqual status contactPerceived similarity between groupsMulticulturalism