Week 8 Prejudice and How to Reduce Them PDF

**Week 8 Prejudice and How to Reduce Them** - **Prejudice Definition** - **Prejudice Measures** 1. **Association Task Measure**: Implicit bias 2. **Skin conductance measures**: Physiological 3. **Donations to charity measure:** Behavioural measures 4. **Self-report questionnaires measu...

**Week 8 Prejudice and How to Reduce Them** - **Prejudice Definition** - **Prejudice Measures** 1. **Association Task Measure**: Implicit bias 2. **Skin conductance measures**: Physiological 3. **Donations to charity measure:** Behavioural measures 4. **Self-report questionnaires measure** Explicit bias - **3 Components of Prejudice** 1. **Cognitive: Stereotypes** are generalisations about a group that assign them specific characteristics. It's the beliefs and schemas about how we think of that group. **The belief** that someone is lazy. 2. **Affective Bias:** **emotional/affect** reactions towards the group**, E.g**. hate and feelings towards someone or a group. Contempt 3. **Behaviour:** Acts of **discrimination** are unjustified negative or harmful behaviours towards a group member based on their membership in a group. **Examples**: refusing to hire someone who is Indian, not hiring members of a group. - **Attitude Object:** Individual members of a group - **Common Types of Prejudices** - **Homophobia:** - **Transphobia:** - **Sexism:** - **Racism:** - **Antisemitism:** religion Jewish - **Prejudices Come from:** - Operant conditioning - Social Learning - War - Direct experience - Interpersonal conflict - Classical conditioning - Genes - The Media - Family - Peers - Behaviour - **Social Categorisation** The process by which people categorise themselves and others into differentiated social groups. The process by which people categorise themselves and others into different groups **Two types:** 1. Ingroups 2. Outgroups **Common social categorisations** - Race - Religion - Social class/status - Gender - Sexuality - Marital status - (Dis)ability - Nationality - Occupation - Age **SOCIAL Identity Theory** **Individuals derive some of their self-esteem from the group they belong to** - **Social Identity Theory and the Origins of Prejudice** A person's sense of who they are is based on their group memberships People need their group to view themselves positively - **Categorisation that Causes Prejudices** - **School Teacher Jane Elliot:** Martin Luther King - Students' blue eyes vs brown eyes - Ingroup students changed their behaviour, personalities and academic performance improved. - Suggested that minimal conditions are needed to create ingroups, along with favouritism and bias towards outgroups. Jane Elliott&\#39;s Blue-Eyes / Brown-Eyes: An Exercise in Racism **Minimal Groups Paradigm** - Not a theory, just a model - Discovered that minimal conditions are needed for prejudices to occur between groups - Shows one tiny factor is all that is needed for people to feel a part of an ingroup and their self-esteem and positive associations grow - It takes one tiny factor to great out-group, which has negative impacts. 1. **Research on the Minimal Group Paradigm** **TAJFEL ET AL. (1971): Minimal Group Paradigm Experiments Pairs of paintings** - Most people (72.3%) will give more points to those in the same group as them. - People favour people in their ingroup, even if the connection that makes them part of that group is meaningless. 2. **Minimal Group Experiment** **NAVARRETE ET AL. (2012): Conditioned fear of your own ingroup or outgroup members.** - Psychology students, different coloured shirts to create in group - Electric shock - Conditioned fear - We looked at how long it took participants to fear members of their ingroup who gave them electric shock compared to members of an outgroup who did it. - We learn to hate and fear outgroups faster then members of our ingroup. - In groups, hostility arises from conflicting goals. - In groups, hostility arises when competition over limited resources or prizes occurs. - We associate positive attributes with our own group - **Cognitive Dissonance**  - **Dissonance Study** **BERSCHEID ET AL. (1968): electric shock** - We justify our prejudiced behaviour to feel congruent again - When we face cognitive dissonance due to acting prejudiced, we devise a reason to justify our behaviour towards that group to feel congruent again. - Subconscious process - When we hurt the outgroup, we must justify why they deserve it to feel better. - The people who determine the level of shock to administer to the confederate and know they would not be shocked in return have less positive views of the confederate compared to the participants who determine the level of shock to administer and know they would be shocked in return. **Individual to Group Generalisation** **The observed characteristic of a single group member informs the perceptions of the entire group.** - **Generalisation Effect** - When we get information about one or a few members of a group it changes our judgement of the entire group - One perception pollutes feelings about the entire group **Outgroup Homogeneity Effect** **We perceive individuals in an outgroup as being more similar than they are.** - Outgroup members: " they are all alike" - We perceive members of our ingroup to be individual and not precisely the same. **Research Outgroup Homogeneity Effect** 1. **QUATTRONE & JONES (1980): OUT GROUP HOMOGENATY AND GENERALISATION** - How accurately can you predict the decisions of others based on the group they are in? - Princeton Uni Vs Rutgers College - We base our judgements of the entire outgroup by one member - We assume all outgroup members are exactly the same - One outgroup member's behaviour influences our expectations for the entire group. **Research Outgroup Homogeneity Effect** 2. **PUHL ET AL. (2013): Generalization about Obese People** When an outgroup member is portrayed negatively, it impacts how we feel about the entire group. **Stereotype**: It makes me think obese people are lazy. **Behavioural** intention: Social distance from them. **Affect Bias**: It makes me dislike obese people. **Common Ingroup Identity Model** **A larger identity overriding smaller groups will reduce prejudice.** **Reducing Prejudices** 1. **Categorisation Common Ingroup Identity Model**  - Ingroup Bias can be reduced if members of different groups are induced to think of themselves as a part of that group **The Common Ingroup Identity Model** - The superordinate identity is difficult to sustain - Efforts to induce a superordinate identity may be met with resistance - The superordinate group may not represent everyone **THE DUAL IDENTITY MODEL** **A larger identity that encompasses both groups but also sustains smaller groups will reduce prejudice.** - The subgroup identity is activated simultaneously with the shared group identity. - Extends ingroup favouritism to outgroup members, - Allows outgroup members to maintain their subgroup identities. 1. **Research** **With the Dual Identity Model Manipulation** **SHI ET AL. (2017): In China Urban Vs Rural Residence** - Social scientists propose that an approach that simultaneously emphasizes the differences between the urban residents and rural-to-urban migrants and our shared identity as Chinese is an essential component to the well-being of both group members." - Members could maintain rural or urban subgroups but belong to a larger group of Chinese country people. **Reducing Prejudice- Generalisation With Counter Stereo-typical Conditions** **RAMASUBRAMANIAN (2015):** - **Counter-stereotypical condition:** Stories about Morgan Freeman and Beyonce Knowles - Assessed stereotypes about African Americans, symbolic racism, and support for affirmative action - Positive stories about outgroups African Americans changed negative stereotypes. - Media can influence perceptions **Intergroup Contact Theory:** Interactions between individuals from different groups will reduce prejudice towards the groups they represent **Reducing Prejudice Generalisations with Intergroup Contact Theory** - Interaction (or contact) between individuals belonging to different groups will reduce prejudice between those groups - When we interact with in outgroup member we learn that they don't conform and meet the stereotypes we had for that group, leads to more positive attitudes towards the entire group Intergroup contact can be by: **CONTACT DOESN'T NEED TO FACE TO FACE** - Interaction does not need to be face-to-face - It can also be: - Vicarious ( A person of ingroup interacting nice with outgroup person) - Imagined - In VR - In online chat rooms - **Reducing Prejudice Generalisation Teacher Rachel Own Study** - **Maunder et al., 2019** - Contact and interactions with outgroup Members reduce prejudice and generalisation. - Contact with people in any way, including chatrooms, online, face-to-face, and VR, all work. Any contact reduces prejudice. - More contact leads to less prejudice. - Individual to group generalisation, participants generalised from their positive experience with one person with schizophrenia to people with schizophrenia in general - Real-world intergroup contact is not always: - Socially normative - Short-term - Positive: often, negative interactions still occur and increase prejudice more than positive interactions. - Stripped of intergroup tension: - Mixed-race or religious school students don't automatically associate with outgroups and don't mix unless they are made to. - **Intergroup Contact Criticisms (McKeown & Dixon, 2017):** - Intergroup contact may have a "sedative effect" on the recognition of inequality and injustice, and participation in collective action - Contact = - Feeling of similarity with majority - Expectation of fair treatment - Reduced attribution to discrimination - Legitimization of hierarchical power relations - Less allyship among minority groups