Ch13_Social.ppt

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IS . . . Kurt Lewin 1890-1947 Father of Modern Social Psychology “B = (P * S)”: Behavior is function of Person and Situation Social Psychology How people think about, influence, and relate to one another Not to be confused with sociology The study of attitudes, beliefs,...

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IS . . . Kurt Lewin 1890-1947 Father of Modern Social Psychology “B = (P * S)”: Behavior is function of Person and Situation Social Psychology How people think about, influence, and relate to one another Not to be confused with sociology The study of attitudes, beliefs, decisions, and actions and the way they are molded by social influence. NON SEQUITER © 2000 Wiley. Dist. by Universal Press Syndicate Reprinted with Permission 4 Social Influence Social psychology’s great lesson is the enormous power of social influence This influence can be seen in our:  Conformity  Obedience to authority  Our group behavior Social Influence as “Automatic” The Chameleon Effect Participants worked with a “partner”. Hidden cameras recorded behavior. Participants mimicked their partner without realizing it. Mimic ry It is not only true that birds of a feather flock together: it is also true that if we flock together, we might choose to wear the same feathers. Group Influence Imagine yourself standing in a room, holding a fishing pole.  Your task is to wind the reel as fast as you can.  On some occasions you wind in the presence of another participant who is also winding as fast as possible. Will the other’s presence affect your own performance? Group Influence In one of social psychology’s first experiments, Norman Triplett (1898) found that adolescents would wind a fishing reel faster in the presence of someone doing the same thing He and later social psychologists studied how others’ presence affects our behavior Social Facilitation • Social facilitation: refers to improved performance on simple or well-learned tasks in the presence of others. • Triplett (1898) noticed cyclists’ race times were faster when they competed against others than when they just raced against the clock. Works just the opposite for difficult tasks When others observe us, we become aroused, which sometimes hinders performance • Presence of Others • On well• Physiological Arousal • On new or complex learned tasks, the or simple dominant tasks, the • Well-Learned Responses response • dominant Well-Learned Responses is often response wrong is correct • Improved Performance • Impaired Performance % Shots Made Should you play pool in public? Alone With observers Percentage of Shots Made Results of Michaels et al. Pool Hall Study 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Unobserved Observed Below Average Above Average Skill of Player EASY MAZE Audience Boxes Goal DIFFICULT MAZE Goal Audience Boxes Start Floodlight Start Floodlight Two mazes used in experiments on social facilitation with cockroaches (Zajonc et al., 1969) Social Loafing Social Loafing: is the tendency of an individual in a group to exert less effort toward attaining a common goal than if they were individually accountable We pull harder by ourselves! In other words, it’s a reduced individual effort when people work in groups as compared to when they work alone. Social Loafing Diffusion of responsibility Social loafing – tendency for people in a group to exert to less effort •Why do people loaf? •Diffusion of evaluation VS Social Loafing: When Many Produce Less Group Polarization  When people of similar views form a group together, discussion within the group makes their views more extreme.  Thus, different groups become People in these MORE groups different, more polarized, may have in their views. only encountered ideas reinforcing the views they already held. Liberal Blogs (blue) and conservative blogs (red) link mostly to other likeminded blogs, generating this portrait of the polarized Blogosphere.  In pursuit of social harmony (and avoidance of open disagreement), groups will make decisions without an open exchange of ideas.  Irony: Group “think” prevents thinking, prevents a realistic assessment of options. Groupthink How much of behaviour is governed by norms? Norms Rules for accepted & expected behaviour prescriptive, proscriptive How much of behaviour is governed by norms? Rules Implicit vs explicit When you try to break from social constraints, you realize just how strong and powerful they are How much of behaviour is governed by norms? Culture Individualism vs Collectivism Roles Norms for particular social positions •We tend to absorb our roles Social Influence Percentage agreeing “The activities of married women are best confined to home and family” Percentage 70 60 Gender Role Men a set of expected behaviors for males and for females 50 40 30 20 Women 10 0 1967 ‘71 ‘75 ‘79 ‘83 Year ‘87 ‘91 ‘95 The Power of the Situation Zimbardo’s Prison Study One of the most dramatic illustrations of roles on social behaviour Ss physically & mentally healthy young men Randomly assigned to be prisoners or guards Study illustrates central tenet of social psychology: SITUATIONAL FORCES!! Vs personalities & predispositions Powerful effect of SOCIAL ROLES thus, the Prison study was an examination of deindividuation Loss of a sense of personal identity, and sometimes reduced accountability Zimbardo (1970) Deindividuation  Deindividuation: is the loss of self-awareness and self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity.  For example:  Spectators yelling at officials Mob behavior (lynchings, riots) is an example of deindividuation. Toxic Situations “Situations win, people lose” – Zimbardo, 2004 Conformity Adopting the behaviours or opinions of the group often results from a desire to be liked Normative Influence Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right? 1 2 3 What would you say if you were in a group of 6 others, and all agreed the answer was 3? A Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct. 1 2 3 But 75% went against their own eyes at least once if the group gave a wrong answer. A Conformity: Asch’s Research on Group Influence Conclusion: People faced with strong group consensus sometimes go along even though they think the others may be wrong. A B C A B C A B C A B C Asch, 1951 Conformity Social Influence: Conformity Responding to Social Norms When we are with other people and perceive a social norm (a “correct” or “normal” way to behave or think in this group), our behavior may follow the norm rather than following our own judgment.  Asch Conformity studies: About one third of people will agree with obvious mistruths to go along with the group. Think this guy will conform? That square has 5 sides. WT?? ? That square has 5 sides. Normative influence More than 1/3 of the time, intelligent, wellmeaning college Ss were “willing to call white black” by “going along with the group” confederates Proportion of Conformity Conformity by Group Size Normative influence people will sometimes conform, even in the most unambiguous situations Social pressure vs social support Sometimes only takes 1 person Follow Up Studies Later, Asch measured the effect of having at least one confederate dissent & give the correct answer Conformity as a function of social support. A Classic Case of Suggestibility  Subjects in dark room were shown a light and while alone estimated the distance the light moved.  In three group sessions, they again made distance estimations.  Subjects’ estimates converged on a common value thus establishing a group norm.  Informational Social Influence  We want to be right  we look to others, whom we believe to be correct, to give us information about how to behave, particularly in novel or ambiguous situations. (The desire to be right)  Normative Social Influence  We want to be liked  we conform because we think that others will approve and accept us. (The desire to be accepted) Obedience: Milgram’s Shock(ing) Procedure What would you do if an experimenter studying “the effects of punishment on memory” asked you to deliver painful electric shocks to a fellow participant? What if the other participant was a middleaged man who had been treated for a heart condition? Are the people who commit such acts inherently evil? Adolf Eichmann  supervised the deportation of 6,000,000 Jews to Nazi gas chambers  Were Germans generally evil?  Was Eichmann an evil sadist or merely a cog in the wheel?  How would you have behaved in his situation? Norm of Social Obedience to Authority “Eichmann defense” Stanley Milgram Subjects: Males 20-50 years old Experimenter = Authority Subject = Teacher = Subordinate Confederate = Learner = Victim Obedience Mr. Wallace: The Learner Obedience Milgram’s Shock Generator esearch Shock Generator Caution On Amp Meter Amps Slight Shock Moderate Shock Intensity Strong Shock Resistance Very Strong Shock Intense Shock Extreme Shock Danger XXX Slight Moderate Strong Intense Extreme Very Strong Danger XXX Shock Shock Shock Shock ShockShock Statements By Shock Recipient: esearch Shock Generator Caution On Amp Meter Amps Slight Shock Moderate Shock Intensity Strong Shock Resistance Very Strong Shock Intense Shock Extreme Shock Danger XXX Experimenter: “Let All! me out me out of here! “That’s Get of mehere! out ofLet here! I told“Treat you I had heart trouble. me!… My heart’s no bothering response as a wrong response. My heartYou is starting to bother mehold now!me here! have no right to the next higher level of shock.” Get me out ofDeliver here, please! meLet out!” Let me out! Let ….Let me out! me out!” “Hey! This Really…silence... Hurts!” “Ugh!” esearch How Many Obeyed? Shock Generator Caution On Amp Meter Amps Slight Shock Moderate Shock Intensity Strong Shock Resistance Very Strong Shock Intense Shock Extreme Shock Danger XXX All Still All Still All Still1 of Over 60% Still 4 8 more 1 of All Obeyed Stopped Obedient Stopped Obeying Obeying Obeying Conformity and Obedience Obedience Conformity and Obedience Obedience Conformity and Obedience Obedience Conformity and Obedience Obedience Unexpected Results Unexpected Results Milgram -- Basic Results 70 60 50 % Fully Obedient Subjects 40 30 20 10 0 Predicted Males Condition Females Unexpected Results Obedience Highest when: proximity of person giving orders authority figure prestigious institution Obedience Obedience Highest when: victim depersonalized no role models for defiance Obedience Obedience https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzd6Ew3TraA Obedience Do these effects occur in "real life"? Hofling et al. (1966) 22 Nurses telephoned by a doctor they didn't know ordered to administer a nonprescribed drug in double the maximum dosage to a patient “The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” (Milgram, 1974) Altruism Voluntary self-sacrificing behaviour intended to benefit another without expectation of reward Situational power on altruism Kitty Genovese Darley and Latane: the presence of others conducted numerous studies (Staged emergencies) Altruism Altruism Seizure study I er I think I need er if if could er er somebody er er help because I er I’m er h-h-having a a a real problem er right now and and I er if somebody could help me out it would er er s-ssure be good… (choking sounds)… I’m gonna die er er I’m gonna die er help er er seizure (more choking, goes quiet). Bystander Apathy – Diffusion of Responsibility Bystander Effect (Data from Darley & Latane, 1968) Ethics is a luxury in modern society http://youtu.be/OSsPfbup0ac Social Cognition We do not merely interact with other people, we also spend lots of time thinking about them Social Cognition Social Perception – person perception How we form impressions of others Physical appearance – salient cue Produces strong expectancies FORMING IMPRESSIONS Person perception refers to the process of forming impressions of other people based on factors such as physical appearance and stereotypes → unsurprisingly, our impressions of others are often distorted (yet we still rely on them!?!) Thin-slicing Our unconscious is able to find patterns in situations and behavior based on very narrow slices of experience. This is called “thin slicing” Power of implicit over explicit processes? Social Cognition Halo effect __________ Primacy effect Info received early in an interaction with a person 1st impressions are often lasting impressions Asch (1946) One group read this description: Intelligent Industrious Impulsive Critical Stubborn Envious Other group read this description: Envious Stubborn Critical Impulsive Industrious Intelligent Rated This Person More Positively 4-89 The Complex, Information-Rich Social World The Limited Human Attentional Capacity GOAL: Conserving Mental Effort Simplification Strategies: Expectations Dispositional Inferences Other Cognitive Shortcuts Social Cognition Schemas Cognitive structures that organize our knowledge about the world Schemas influence what we pay attention to Information consistent stored, info inconsistent ignored Self, person and social schemas – schemas applied to group = stereotype Age, sex, and race Through schemas that serve to evaluate social stimuli we automatically become suspicious of the prototypic usedcar salesman. Effect of screened auditions on success of female musicians Use of screens during auditions accounts for 1/3 of the increase in the number of female musicians in orchestras. Goldin, Claudia, and Cecilia Rouse. Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. No. w5903. National Bureau of Economic Research, 1997. FORMING IMPRESSIONS Also affecting person perception, stereotypes are overgeneralized BELIEFS about a group of people, such as an age, gender, ethnic/racial, or occupational group Social Cognition Automatic vigilance Paying more attention to negative, rather than positive, information about other people A reasonable consequence of human evolution? Social Cognition Social Cognition Social perceptions/Impressions are resistant to change Why does it seem to us as though our impressions are accurate? Attribution  the process by which people infer the causes of other people’s behavior  Example: Why did your boss yell at your co-worker?  co-worker was slacking off and deserved it?  boss is always a hothead?  boss is usually easygoing but is undergoing a divorce that has her stressed out?  boss really needed this particular job to be done right because her job is on the line External factors  people, events, situation, environment Internal Factors  traits, needs, intentions Social Thinking Emotional Effects of Attribution Problematic behavior: someone cuts in front of us. How we explain someone’s behavior affects how we react to it. Two-Step Model of the Attribution Process Attribution Theory Takes too much effort; involves logical reasoning leads to errors and false conclusions about other people We are not so rational, take shortcuts…are cognitive misers Since making attributions involves guesswork based (to a degree) on personal biases, they are often inaccurate → the fundamental attribution error refers to the tendency for observers to underestimate situational factors and overestimate dispositional factors in explaining others behavior Fundamental Attribution Error Judging on basis of internal factors and underestimating situational ones Your view: She’s lazy, inconsiderate, not motivated. (internal, personal) Her view: I’m taking 5 classes, working 30 hours/week, my boyfriend cheated on me, and my grandmother is seriously ill. (external, situational) Fundamental Attribution Error social implications disadvantaged groups victims of crime •Just-World hypothesis Belief that the World is Just The Just-World Fallacy: Believing that Justice generally happens, that people get the benefits and punishments they deserve.  Implication: If people are rich, privileged, they must have earned it;  So, if people are poor, outcast, they must not deserve better. Believing that justice happens… leads to blaming the victim. Defensive attribution (basically the just-world phenomenon) refers to the tendency to blame victims for their misfortune → this shields us from believing we will suffer similar misfortunes while also portraying victims in a negative light (fueling stereotypes/prejudice) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitob a/manitoba-judge-rebuked-for-sex-assault -remarks-1.1099355 The actor–observer effect While we tend to attribute other people’s behaviour to dispositional factors, we tend to attribute our own behaviour to situational factors (Jones & Nisbett, 1972). This is called the actor–observer effect (AOE). Actor-Observer Bias Behaviour “engulfs the visual field” figure-ground focus on behaviour Situational attributions require more effort we don’t see or consider context Attribution Most people place the blame (attribution) on the individual. “She is late because she is lazy.” “He steals because he is greedy.” “He fights because he is aggressive.” But what attributions do we make about ourselves? “I was late because the road was closed.” “I stole because I needed food.” “I fought because it was self-defence.” Let’s imagine this….. You are behind someone in a car who is driving very slowly, who looks like s/he’s going to pull over but then does not. “Dang” you say, “This person can’t drive! These ‘old people/women/foreigners/southerners should not be allowed on the road.” Now this….. A few days later, you are driving around a suburb a few miles away from your normal stomping grounds, looking for the house of a friend of a friend, who is holding a party. You can’t read the house numbers because there are lots of bushes in the way. You drive slowly so you won’t miss the house. You almost pull over a couple of times, thinking you’ve found the house. You think “why is that @#?* behind me giving me the finger?” Taken together, these scenarios demonstrate the Actor-Observer Effect The self-serving bias It is well known that people tend to accept credit for success and deny responsibility for failure. More generally, we also tend to attribute our success to internal factors such as ability, but attribute failure to external factors such as bad luck or task difficulty. This is known as the self-serving bias. → it is easy to blame others’ behavior on their disposition and much more difficult to be aware of and/or think about situational factors (fueling stereotypes/prejudice) People in collectivist cultures (those which emphasize group unity, allegiance, and purpose over the wishes of the individual), do not make the same kinds of attributions: 1. The behavior of others is attributed more to the situation; also, 2. Credit for successes is given more to others, 3. Blame for failures is taken on oneself. Expectations and SelfFulfilling Prophecies Can beliefs and expectations go beyond colouring the way you interpret experiences to actually shape social reality? Expectations and SelfFulfilling Prophecies Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) Remember the rats and students? Think of kids and their teachers Pygmalion effect expecting something to happen can in fact make it occur From: Rosenthal & Jacobson Expectations and SelfFulfilling Prophecies I have an expectation about you, which influences how I act toward you, causing you to behave in ways that confirm my expectation Expectations and SelfFulfilling Prophecies Important lesson for teachers/educators Get what you expect from students Make the future Influence student’s future behaviour and achievement Leon Festinger THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE BASIC(1957) HYPOTHESIS The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try and reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance Attitude Behavior inconsistent with the attitude Creation of dissonance Cognitive Dissonance  attitudes must be consistent with behavior  if they are not, people experience discomfort  must either change behavior or change attitude  usually it’s easier to change the attitude  Example  Stephan is a neurologist and knows that smoking is a serious health risk  Stephan smokes  Stephan must either: 1. stop smoking 2. change his attitudes • “The risks are exaggerated.” • “I’m going to die from something anyway.” • “Smoking reduces the risk of Alzheimer’s disease.” COGNITIVE DISSONANCE FESTINGER & CARLSMITH (1$ - $20 Study) Asked to tell participant that the task was interesting (to lie) Perform boring task $1 $20 $20 | Boring $1 | Interesting • Which group rated the task as more interesting after lying, those paid $1 or $20? Key is lack of sufficient external justification for one’s behavior Rate task $20 Told next person tasks were fun and interesting Asked how much they enjoyed experiment Boring Tasks Told next person tasks were fun and interesting $1 Self-Justification: Cognitive Dissonance Classic Study: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 Control (no dissonance) $20 (low dissonance) $1 (high dissonance) How much I enjoyed the experiment (-5 to +5) When prophecy fails: Cognitive dissonance in a doomsday cult (i) Members of the doomsday cult were persuaded the world would be destroyed and only they would be rescued by an alien spaceship. Committed cult members had quit their job, sold their belongings, spent all their money, and waited together for the world to end – but no spaceship came to rescue the cult. Early in the morning, the leader announced they had all been saved by God. The members were ecstatic, went to the streets to convert others and increased their commitment to the cult, despite the nonfulfilment of the prophecy! Festinger, Leon; Henry W. Riecken; Stanley Schachter (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press. When prophecy fails: Cognitive dissonance in a doomsday cult (ii) Cognitive dissonance theory explains that committed members faced an enormous dissonance between their prior actions and the failed fulfilment. These members had sold their houses and left their jobs! Thus, committed members had to modify their beliefs about the original prophecy to justify this behaviour. Festinger suggested this rationalisation was less stressful than accepting the original prophecy was wrong. Only fringe-members realised they had been fooled all along Festinger, Leon; Henry W. Riecken; Stanley Schachter (1956). When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. University of Minnesota Press. Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation (i) Behavioural challenge: Most students support environmentally friendly behaviour but still waste water when taking a shower. Intervention: Social psychologists conducted a water conservation intervention at the University of California Santa Cruz. Swimmers leaving the pool were asked a set of dissonance-generating questions on their way to the shower room. “When showering, do you always turn off the water while soaping up or shampooing? “In your view, about how long does it take an average person to shower and shampoo, without wasting any water?” Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 841-854. Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation (ii) Results: These questions reminded swimmers of the dissonance between their attitudes (conserving water) and behaviour (long showers). Compared to the control group, students asked these questions: and were showered 2x as likely to turn off the 1 minute less water while shampooing. Dickerson, C. A., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal Of Applied Social Psychology, 22(11), 841-854. 129 Cognitive Dissonance If Fiona agrees to do some fundraising for her college, her attitudes about school finances might shift to resolve her cognitive dissonance. Cognitive Dissonance Example: Initiation Effect A difficult initiation into a group influences us to like the group more, due to the justification of effort the “Ben Franklin” effect Doing a favor for Behavior (doing a someone who favor) is dissonant you dislike will with one’s attitude lead to greater so we change liking of the attitude about previously disliked person to resolve person dissonance Elaboration-Likelihood Model Message unimportant, uninteresting Heuristic processing Peripheral Route Message important, interesting Systematic processing Central Route Nonverbal cues important Argument strength unimportant Nonverbal cues unimportant Argument strength important Social Thinking: Persuasion Two cognitive pathways to affect attitudes Central Route Persuasi on Going directly through the rational mind, influencing attitudes with evidence and logic. “My product has been proven more effective.” Periphera l Route Persuasi on Changing attitudes by going around the rational mind and appealing to fears, desires, associations. “People who buy my product are happy, attractive!” Attitude Change What determines whether a person will take the central vs the peripheral route to persuasion? The key is whether people have the motivation and ability to pay attention to the facts & time People who are interested, motivated, and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments are more likely to take the central route COMPLIANCE: THE ART OF THE DEAL A. Foot-in-the-door technique Get person to consent to small request first, then ask for larger request EXAMPLE: Freedman & Fraser (1966) Procedures: Went door to door Small request: Sign petition Large request: Huge, ugly sign on lawn Experimental group= small then large Control group = large request only Foot-in-the-door technique Results 60 50 % Compliance with Large Request 40 30 20 10 0 Small then large Large only B. Door-in-the-face technique Begin with a very large request (which will be refused), then make a smaller request Smaller request is what you want in the first place  EXAMPLE: Cialdini (1975) Procedures: Large request: Counsel delinquent boys, 2hrs/wk/2yrs Smaller request: Take delinquent boys to zoo? Experimental group= large then smaller Control group= smaller request only Door-in-the-face technique Results 50 40 % Compliance with Small Request 30 20 10 0 Large then small Small only Compliance Someday he will ask you for a favour. (Reciprocation) Social Norms: Codes of Conduct The door-in-the-face technique works by asking for a large favour and then retreating to a smaller favour. This second request is typically accepted because the concession seems like a favour. Thus, this technique capitalizes on the reciprocity norm. The Foot-in-the-Door Technique Compliance with the initial request changes one’s self-image to be consistent with that first favour. It would be inconsistent with this image to refuse the second request. Prejudice Unjustifiable attitude toward an individual based on membership in a group – prejudgment Prejudice Minimal groups People show ingroup favouritism even when the groups are made by an arbitrary process Jane Elliot •Blue eyes vs brown eyes Prejudice Social categorization Us vs. them – in-group bias Hard-wired responses – possible evolutionary roots Focus on differences rather than similarities Social Relations: Cognitive Roots of Prejudice The Other-Race Effect We also are hypersensitive to difference, seeing mixed-race faces as belonging to the other group: Which faces are Caucasians Reali said: ty: Other-race effect: We tend to see uniformity in the appearance of other groups, and may assume other similarities such as traits; These presumed similarities form stereotypes. The Authoritarian Personality Stereotypes A generalization about a group’s characteristics that doesn’t consider any variation from one person to the next Blinds us to individual differences Implicit/covert prejudice The ‘new racism’ Automatic Prejudice Study: People were more likely to misperceive a tool as a gun when preceded by an AfricanAmerican face, when both were presented quickly followed by blank screen or “visual mask.” Not a gun Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasa nt or BLACKS pleasant or WHITES BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or BLACKS pleasant or WHITES love BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasa nt or WHITES pleasant or BLACKS BLACK/WHITE IAT unpleasant or WHITES pleasant or BLACKS war BLACK/WHITE IAT Your results suggest: Strong automatic preference for Whites Moderate automatic preference for Whites Slight automatic preference for Whites Little or no automatic preference Slight automatic preference for Blacks Moderate automatic preference for Blacks Strong automatic preference for Blacks BLACK/WHITE IAT Percentage of Total Respondents on IAT website Blacks/Whites IAT Preference for Whites 70% Little or no preference 17% Preference for Blacks 12% Even the Well-Intentioned Have Bias Fiske (2002) - in Western cultures:  about 10% of individuals show blatant racism  about 80% show subtle racial biases avoidance of interactions withholding of liking, respect, positive emotions awkwardness slips of the tongue stereotypic assumptions and judgments Susan Fiske (2002) What we know about bias and intergroup conflict, the problem of the century Reducing Prejudice Friendship deprovincialization Recategorization Undermining stereotypes Reversing prejudice cooperative action on shared goals Prejudice When Contact Reduces Prejudice: