Lecture Outline Private v.s. public support Prejudice reduction strategies Discrimination Causes of...

Lecture Outline

Private v.s. public support

Prejudice reduction strategies

Discrimination

Causes of discrimination

Coping with a disadvantaged status

Allport (1954)

Private support: Private institutional support to reduce prejudice at the community level:

»National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

»Anti-Defamation League

Allport (1954)

Public support: Public (government) support to reduce prejudice through laws:

»Fair Housing Laws»Presidential decree:

example: desegregate military (Truman)

Allport (1954)

“The intent of laws is to equalize advantages and lessen discrimination. Legislation aims not at controlling prejudice, but only its open expression...when expression changes, thoughts too, in the long run, are likely to fall into line.”

Approaches To Prejudice Reduction

1. Education2. Colorblind approach

3. Multiculturalism4. Intergroup contact5. Common group identity

Education

Cause: prejudice resides in perpetrators of prejudice; a personal flaw

Premise: better understanding of minority groups will reduce prejudice

Solution: educate the prejudiced about other groups

Education

Biggest limitation:

Least prejudiced people most willing to seek out relevant information

– “Preaching to the choir”

Colorblind Approach

Cause: acknowledgement of group membership

Premise: pretend group membership doesn’t matter, and soon it won’t

Solution: ignore group membership and create a group-neutral society

Colorblind Approach

The color blind approach has been advocated as goal by civil rights leaders:

“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”

M.L. King, Jr., 8/28/63

The color blind approach has also been advocated by conservatives:

End the double standard of racial preferences in higher education admissions: “Avoid the politics of racialism and pursue an agenda

that is colorblind in law and

practice.”

William Bennett, 1/10/2003

Color Blind Approach

Biggest limitations:

1. Assumes level playing field for different social groups. But...

– Race does influence judgments

– Not all groups have same advantages

Color Blind Approach

Biggest limitations:

2. Suppressing stereotyping makes it more intense in future

– Stereotype rebound (suppression) effect

Color Blind Approach

Stereotype Rebound Study

Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)

Shown photo of skinhead

Composed passage

Manipulation:–no special instructions

–told not to use stereotypes

Shown photo of 2nd skinhead

Composed passage of 2nd skinhead

DV: Stereotypic content of passage

Passage Suppression Control Group Group

1 5.54 6.952 7.83 7.08

Stereotype Rebound Study

Macrae et al., (1994)

Implication:

A colorblind society may have opposite effect than intended

–By trying to ignore group member-ship, people may use it more

Stereotype Rebound Study

Macrae et al., (1994)

Multicultural Approach

Cause: Lack of assimilation

Premise: Assimilation of different cultures, traditions, customs, etc. will reduce prejudice

Solution: Make groups more similar

Multicultural Approach

Two versions:

1. One-way assimilation–minority groups take on customs, traditions, etc of majority group

Limitation: minority group has to abandon their own heritage and culture

Multicultural Approach

Two versions:

2. Melting pot assimilationMinority & majority groups take on each others’ customs, traditions, etc.

All contribute to newly emerging culture

Limitation: majority groups resist this kind of assimilation; takes very long time

Intergroup Contact

Cause: Stereotypes come from limited interaction between groups

Premise: Contact between minority and majority groups reduces prejudice by dispelling stereotypes

Solution: Increase contact between different social groups

Mere Exposure version:

Mere exposure in the absence of structure or institutional support is sufficient to (1) increase contact and (2) reduce prejudice

Intergroup Contact

Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)

Examined whether mere exposure increases intergroup contact

Participants: students, 10-13 yrs oldn = 120048% African American; 52% white

Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)

Procedures:

Examined seating patterns in the cafeteria for 1 year

Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)

Results:

1. Race and gender were both significant grouping criteria

»boys sat with boys»girls sat with girls»AA sat with AA»W sat with W

Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)

Results:

2. Racial segregation decreased during 7th grade, but increased during 8th grade where:

–students tracked into ability groups

–accelerated track mostly Whites

–regular track mostly African Americans

Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)

Conclusions:

1. Mere exposure not sufficient to increase intergroup contact

Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)

Examined whether mere exposure increased amount and intimacy of contact

Participants: French and English speaking college students

24% French; 76% English

Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)

Procedure: –Kept diary of all interactions

–Rated interactions for intimacy

–Rated interactions for importance

Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)

Prediction: If ethnicity does not matter then:

% of interactions = base rates

same intimacy same importance

Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)

Results:% interactions > base

rates

intimacy > w/i group interactions

importance > w/i group interactions

Mere Exposure

Does mere exposure increase contact?

No.

Does mere exposure reduce prejudice?

No.

Intergroup Contact

1954 Supreme Court ruling that segregated schools is

unconstitutional

Beyond Mere Exposure

Allport’s contact hypothesis:

Intergroup contact reduces prejudice if four characteristics are present:

–equal status between groups

–common goals–intergroup cooperation–support of institution or authority

Contact Hypothesis

Received mixed support

Researchers keep adding characteristics to make it work

Like...............

Contact Hypothesis

Intimate contactPossibility of friendshipsSuperordinate goalsNorms that favor group

equalityBehaviors must dispel

stereotypesIndividuals viewed as typical

And the list goes on, leading some to wonder whether contact works at all

Jigsaw Classroom

Provides strong support for the contact hypothesis

Jigsaw classroom:

Based on cooperation, not competition

Encourages intergroup contact

Satisfies many characteristics listed before

Jigsaw Classroom

Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids

learning about pets

Child 1Canaries

Child 2Hamsters

Child 3Goldfish

Child 4Dogs

Child 5Cats

Canaryexpertgroup

Hamsterexpertgroup

Goldfishexpertgroup

Dogexpertgroup

Catexpertgroup

Jigsaw Classroom

Four key characteristics

1. Learning achieved through cooperation among small groups of children who are inter-dependent

Jigsaw Classroom

Four key characteristics

2. Interaction among children is high. Interaction between teacher and student is low

Jigsaw Classroom

Four key characteristics

3. Equal status between children of different ethnic and gender groups

Jigsaw Classroom

Four key characteristics

4. Process is overseen and facilitated by teacher – i.e., process has institutional support

Jigsaw Classroom

In comparison to traditional classroom, jigsaw students:

Like students of other ethnicities and gender more

Have higher self-esteem

Learn just as much

Hold more positive intergroup attitudes

Show less prejudice and stereotyping

Jigsaw Classroom

What accounts for the success of the jigsaw classroom?

It may have something to do with a

Common Ingroup Identity

Common Ingroup Identity

Cause: Ingroup - outgroup designation

Premise: Prejudice stems from seeing others as belonging to an outgroup

Solution: Have different group form one big group

Common Ingroup Identity

Example of Common Ingroup Identity

Final state of the summer camp studies

–Through superordinate goal, boys came to see each other as one large group, rather than two smaller competing groups

Plane Wreck StudyGaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio

(1989)

Show that common ingroup identity reduces prejudice

Procedures: 1. participants met in groups of 32. selected name for group3. discussed items to salvage from

plane wreck4. two (3 person) groups became one

(6 person) group

Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)

Manipulation: Original groups retained their

names–maintained original group identities

Larger group chose new name for all

–created a common ingroup identity

Individuals chose new name for self

–reduced original group ties

Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)

Participants rated others in 6 person group

Dependent VariableRating of original group members minus their rating of new group members: (old - new)

Higher values indicate greater bias against new members

0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45

Originalname

IndividualNames

One newname

Deg

ree

of

Bia

s

•Greatest bias when in and outgroups salient

•Intermediate bias when group membership minimized.

•Lowest bias when groups formed common ingroup identity

Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)

Discrimination

Unfair treatment of person/group in

comparison to others who are not members of that

group

Causes of Discrimination

1. Stereotypes bias impressions

2. Personal characteristics match a stereotype

3. Social Networks

Cause #1:Stereotypes Bias

Impressions

Stereotypes Impressions Decisions

Stereotypes bias impressions, impressions influence decisions, such as who to hire

Positive Stereotyping Study

Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto (1991)

Participants: 162 women, 162 men

Procedures: Participants rated women or men on 32 traits

16 were positive16 were negative

Higher value = more favorable rating

Positive Stereotyping Study

Eagly et al. (1991)

0.12

0.22

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Women Men

Group Rated by Participants

Fav

ora

bil

ity

of

Tra

its

Positive Stereotyping Study

Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto (1991)

Conclusion:

1. Sex stereotypes bias impressions of women in a favorable way

2. Individual women are then discriminated against for having these positive traits because the traits are devalued in high status/high paying professions

Diagnostic Case Information

Information that is relevant to a judgment

Reduces the effect that a stereotype has on impressions

Assertiveness Study (Locksley)

Diagnostic Case Information

Stereotypes should not lead to job discrimination because job applicant’s give lots of diagnostic case information when applying for a job.

This has led researchers to hypothesize a more complex relationship between stereotypes and discrimination.................

Cause #2: Match B/T Personal

Characteristics and a Stereotype

Premise: Job applicants are judged as more suitable for job when their personal characteristics match those associated with the job.

Example: Nurturing person will be judged more suitable as a child care worker than a lawyer.

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Participants: 467 men and 13 women business professionals in Northeast Wisconsin

Procedure: Mailed them a packet that included:

cover letter resume of job applicant questionnaire

Matching StudyGlick et al., (1988)

Cover letter:

Indicated that purpose of study was to examine the influence of resume styles on hiring decisions.

Instructed participants to read the resume carefully and then respond to the questionnaire

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Manipulations:

1. Gender of applicant: Kate NorrisKen Norris

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Manipulations: 2. Applicant’s personal characteristics

masculine: summer job in retail sales at sporting good store, work study job with maintenance crew, captain of varsity basketball team

feminine: summer job in retail sales at jewelry store, work study job as aerobics instructor at campus gym, captain of the pep squad

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Manipulations:

3. Type of job applying for:

masculine: sales manager for heavy machinery company

feminine: dental receptionist/secretary

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Dependent Variables:

1. Personality trait ratings on masculine and feminine traits

2. Likelihood of interviewing applicant for a position

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Stereotypes Impressions Decisions

Good matchto stereotype

Poor matchto stereotype

more likely to get

interviewed

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Stereotypes Impressions DecisionsX

Result:

Sex stereotypes did not bias impressions

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Result:

Greater likelihood of interviewing applicant when match between applicant’s personal characteristics and stereotype was good

Good matchto stereotype

Poor matchto stereotype

more likely to get interviewed

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Masculine manFeminine man

Masculine womanFeminine woman

More likely to be interviewed for masculine

job

More likely to be interviewed

for feminine job

Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)

Conclusion:

Discrimination can occur even when stereotypes do not bias impressions

Cause #3:Social Networks

Disadvantaged groups may be excluded from jobs at 3 different stages:

1. Job candidate stage: stage at which employers are recruiting pool of applicants

2. Job entry stage: stage at which one is hired

3. Job promotion stage: stage at which current employee is promoted with company

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Surveyed over 4000 employers about their hiring and promotion procedures

Here is what they found….

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Job Entry Stage

Principle method to identify applicants is

through informal social networks

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Job Entry Stage

Informal social networks hurt minorities/women because:

1. Companies are often segregated

2. On average, minorities/women have lower paying and lower status jobs

Upshot: Whites will learn about better jobs than minorities

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Job Selection Stage

Employers admit to using applicant’s group

membership (race, sex) to infer job relevant skills

when they are unable or unwilling to determine applicant’s actual skill

level

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Job Selection Stage

Use of group membership hurts minorities/women because:

1. Minorities/women perceived less competent

Upshot: Majority will be selected for job more often by virtue of being perceived as more competent

Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)

Job Promotion Stage

Employers were no more likely to promote Whites over minorities for internal

promotions

Upshot: Minorities/women fare best at this stage (though there is still a salary gap)

Five Stage ModelTaylor & McKirnan (1984)

Stages through which disadvantaged groups go through over time

Can take centuries to go through all the stages

Stage 1: Clearly stratified intergroup

relations

Groups are clearly differentiated

on basis of ascribed characteristics

Stage 1: Clearly stratified intergroup

relations

At this stage:

Stratification based solely on group membership

No social mobility whatsoever

Absence of social mobility accepted by advantaged and disadvantaged groups

Stage 2: Emerging individualistic

social ideology

Groups are supposedly differentiated

on basis of achieved characteristics

Stage 2: Emerging individualistic

social ideology

At this stage:Social mobility possible

Advantaged/disadvantaged groups attribute their status to individual characteristics

Attributing status of disadvantaged to their individual characteristics releases high status group from blame

Stage 3: Individual social mobility

Individuals from disadvantaged groups

try to move into advantaged group

Stage 3: Individual social mobility

1. Try to pass as member of the advantaged group:

change physical characteristics

change name change accent

Stage 3: Individual social mobility

2. Disadvantaged adopt some, but not all, characteristics of advantaged group

Stage 3: Individual social mobility

At this stage:Social mobility begins to occur, but only among most talented in disadvantaged group

If no members of disadvantaged group gain access to advantaged group, people attribute status to ascribed characteristics

When some members of disadvantaged group gain access to advantaged group, people attribute status to achieved characteristics

Stage 4: Consciousness raising

Most talented of disadvantaged group have moved into the advantaged

group.

The less talented remain disadvantaged.

Stage 4: Consciousness raising

At this stage:Social mobility serves two functions

confirms belief that social mobility based on achieved characteristics

those who do not gain access to advantaged group may raise awareness that talent is not as important as it appears and instigate collective action

Stage 5: Collective action

The consciousness raising from

Stage 4 creates collective action

Stage 5: Collective action

At this stage: The disadvantaged and advantaged compete

The disadvantaged redefine attributes once viewed as negative as positive

The disadvantaged create new dimensions on which their status should be evaluated

environmental hardships

Stage 5: Collective action

Status of disadvantaged group does not change, and both groups move back to Stage 2

Status of groups reverses and both groups move back to Stage 2 in reversed position

Groups become relatively, but not perfectly, equal and competition continues

Three outcomes of this stage:

Social Status StudyWright, Taylor, & Moghaddam

(1990)

Prediction #1:

Collective action most likely when disadvantaged believe that movement to higher status group is not based on talent

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Prediction #2:

Tokenism leads people to believe that social mobility possible and reduces collective action

Tokenism: when a select few from disadvantaged group gain access into advantaged group

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Procedures:

1. Cover story: told study about ability to make effective decisions

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Procedures:

2. Told that:As in real world, must

move up the social hierarchy

Social mobility possible

Benefits to being in advantaged group

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Procedures:

3. Read criminal case and answer 3 essay questions

4. Essays given to advantaged group for evaluation

5. Informed as to whether their essay was good enough for them to gain access to advantaged group

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Open condition: scored < 8.5 cutoff

Quota condition: scored > cutoff, but not among 30% selected

Token condition: scored > cutoff, but not among 2% selected

Closed condition: no mobility possible

Manipulation: Reason given for failure

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Participants rated extent to which different actions appealed to them: accept decision (no action)

request retest (individual action)

collective protest (individual action

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Number selecting collective action

Open Quota Token Closed

6 8 8 15

Collective action most likely when disadvantaged believe that

movement into higher status group not based on talent

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Number in Token condition selecting collective vs. individual action

Collective Individual

8 23

Tokenism reduces likelihood of collective action

Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)

Conclusion:

Advantaged groups that allow token members in can avoid collective action and keep most disadvantaged members out, thereby largely maintaining the status quo