Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination PDF

to each other than we see members of Stereotype - The cognitive component in ingroup our perceptions of group members. The positive or negative beliefs that we hold Stereotypes are maintained because we about the characteristics of social group. remember information that confirms...

to each other than we see members of Stereotype - The cognitive component in ingroup our perceptions of group members. The positive or negative beliefs that we hold Stereotypes are maintained because we about the characteristics of social group. remember information that confirms them better than information that disconfirms Prejudice - An unjustifiable negative them (Fyock & Stangor, 1994). attitude toward an outgroup or toward the members of that outgroup. Discrimination -unjustified negative Why are Stereotypes so Pervasive? behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership. Stereotypes are hard to change because they are deeply embedded in our culture Stereotype threat - Performance and daily lives, often reinforced through decrements that are caused by the media and social interactions (Schaller & knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Conway, 1999). Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) found Stereotypes are highly accessible and feel that when women were reminded of the "right," making them easily influence our (untrue) stereotype that “women are poor at judgments and behaviors toward those we math,” they performed more poorly on math categorize (Bargh, 1999). tests than when they were not reminded of the stereotype These "cognitive monsters" have a powerful, insidious impact on social In a study by Joshua Correll, White judgment. participants were more likely to mistakenly shoot Black individuals, even when no Moreover, stereotypes are strongest among weapon was present, highlighting implicit those who are most prejudiced and in need racial bias. of change (Lepore & Brown, 1997). Price and Wolfers (2007) found that White Measuring Stereotypes Indirectly players in National Basketball Association games received fewer fouls when more of Bogus pipeline procedure (Jones & the referees present in the game were Sigall, 1971). In this procedure, the White, and Black players received fewer experimenter first convinces the participants fouls when more of the referees present in that he or she has access to their “true” the game where Black. The implication beliefs, for instance, by getting access to a is—whether they know it or not—the questionnaire that they completed at a prior referees were discriminating on the basis of experimental session race. Assessing nonverbal behaviors such as Social categorization - the natural speech errors or physical closeness. cognitive process by which we place Implicit Association Test (IAT)—is individuals into social groups. frequently used to assess stereotypes and Shelley Taylor and colleagues (1978) prejudice (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, showed participants a presentation of three 2007). In the IAT, participants are asked to male and three female college students classify stimuli that they view on a computer discussing how to advertise a play. screen into one of two categories by Participants were either instructed to pressing one of two computer keys, one remember who said what or simply observe with their left hand and one with their right the interaction. Afterward, they took a hand. memory test where they were asked to match each statement with the correct Reducing Discrimination speaker, and while their recall was generally · There are a number of techniques that poor, their mistakes followed a consistent we can use to try to improve our attitudes pattern. toward outgroups, and at least some of Outgroup homogeneity—the tendency to them have been found to be effective. view members of outgroups as more similar · Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, and ○ After receiving this Russin (2000) found that students who information, students were practiced responding in nonstereotypical asked to sit in a hallway with ways to members of other groups became a Black individual (a better able to avoid activating their negative "confederate" working with stereotypes on future occasions. the researchers) seated at one end. The researchers · And a number of studies have found measured how far the that we become less prejudiced when we students chose to sit from are exposed to and think about group this person. members who have particularly positive or Results for High-Prejudice nonstereotypical characteristics. Students: ○ High-prejudice students who · One variable that makes us less thought others shared their prejudiced is education. People with more prejudiced views sat farther education generally have fewer stereotypes away from the Black and prejudices. confederate than those who thought others did not share The effects of education on reducing their views. prejudice are probably due in large Results for Low-Prejudice part to the new social norms that Students: people are introduced to in school. ○ Low-prejudice students who Social norm defines on what is believed their unprejudiced appropriate and inappropriate, and views were shared by others we can effectively change sat closer to the Black stereotypes and prejudice by confederate than those who changing relevant norms about thought others did not share them. their views. Example of this is the study of Spears This experiment shows that the beliefs we and Manstead in 1997. think are accepted by others (social norms) Their study was about students' perceptions can influence our behavior. When people of what other group members believed had believe their prejudices are shared, they a significant impact on their own beliefs. may act more discriminatory, but if they The study manipulated whether students think others are unprejudiced, they may thought their university peers favored equal behave more inclusively. treatment or believed that favoring the · The influence of social ingroup was appropriate. The results norms is powerful, and showed that students were more likely to long-lasting changes in show ingroup favoritism when they believed beliefs about outgroups will that their ingroup's norm was to do so. This occur only if they are tendency was even stronger for students supported by changes in who had a high social identification with the social norms. ingroup. · Prejudice and Another example for this is the experiment discrimination thrive in by Sechrist and Stangor (2001): environments in which they Study Setup: are perceived to be the norm, ○ White college students, but they die when the identified as either high or existing social norms do not low in prejudice toward Black allow it. individuals, were told either · And because social that their views (prejudiced or norms are so important, the unprejudiced) were shared behavior of individuals can by other students at their help create or reduce university or that they were prejudice and discrimination. not shared. Seating Distance as a Measure:  · Discrimination, prejudice, One important determinant of ingroup and even hate crimes such favoritism is self-enhancement. We want to as gay bashing will be more feel good about ourselves, and being a likely to continue if people do member of a group that has positive not respond to or confront characteristics helps us do that. Our group them when they occur. memberships give us feelings of social identity, which is the positive self-esteem What this means is that if you believe that that we get from our group memberships. prejudice is wrong, you must confront it People are especially likely to exhibit when you see it happening. Confronting ingroup favoritism when they feel prejudice can lead to a reduction in threatened or worried about their prejudice and stereotypes. The self-concept. This suggests that ingroup confrontation may lead the confronted favoritism can boost self-esteem. individual to express less prejudice and fewer stereotypes on subsequent tasks. There are several other reasons why we People who were confronted experienced might exhibit ingroup favoritism: negative feelings about the confrontation. One study also found that people who fail to It is a natural part of social categorization. confront prejudice may later feel guilty. Individuals like people who are similar to Long-term Change Requires Social themselves and perceive their ingroup Norms: members as similar. Lasting reduction in prejudice occurs Ingroups are more familiar. when societal norms also change to discourage discrimination. Ingroup favoritism is less likely to occur Environments where prejudice isn’t when: tolerated help limit discriminatory Members of the ingroup are clearly inferior behaviors. to other groups on an important dimension. A member of the ingroup behaves in a way Social categorization becomes more that threatens the positive image of the important, and has even more powerful ingroup. This is known as the black sheep effects on reactions to others when the effect. categorization becomes more emotionally The Black Sheep Effect involving. This is especially true when the categorization involves dividing people into is the strong devaluation of ingroup liked ingroups and potentially disliked members that threatens the positive image outgroups. and identity of the ingroup. Ingroup Favoritism The Robbers' Cave Experiment Ingroup favoritism - is the tendency to The sources describe a classic social respond more positively to people from our psychology experiment known as the ingroup than we do to people from Robbers' Cave Experiment to illustrate outgroups. Ingroup favoritism is a ingroup favoritism. Muzafer Sherif and his fundamental aspect of human perception colleagues (1954, 1961) conducted this and occurs even in groups that are not experiment, which observed the behavior of particularly meaningful. It can be observed 11-year-old boys at a summer camp. The in young children as early as three years of boys were divided into two groups and age and increases up until about six years placed in situations that created conflict of age. Children as young as nine months between them. Researchers then old have been shown to prefer those who intervened in an attempt to reduce this treat similar others well and dissimilar conflict. others poorly. Ingroup favoritism is found in many different types of social groups, settings, dimensions, and cultures. Determinants of Ingroup Favoritism Simply bringing the boys together and anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting encouraging them to interact was not with people from those groups (Mallett, enough to reduce the conflict. Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). The researchers were successful in - What this suggests is that a good way to reducing the conflict by creating a reduce prejudice is to help people create superordinate goal that required the groups closer connections with members of to work together. different groups. People will be more favorable toward others when they learn to Common Ingroup Identity Model see those other people as more similar to them, as closer to the self, and to be more The Robbers' Cave Experiment provides concerned about them. support for the common ingroup identity model. This model proposes that intergroup conflict can be reduced by changing people's social categorizations in such a Contact hypothesis - The idea that way that members of both groups see intergroup contact will reduce prejudice themselves as members of a single, larger, and more inclusive group. The 1954 Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of Education and the resulting desegregation busing policy are an important example of the use of intergroup contact to reduce prejudice. The case established that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, and the busing policy was an attempt to address the remaining segregation in schools. The policy was based on the idea that intergroup contact, or having children from different groups play together, could improve attitudes between them. This idea is known as the contact hypothesis. Intergroup Contact Beyond Schools While student busing is a common example of intergroup contact, it also happens in workplaces, military settings, and housing. Studies, such as Pettigrew and Tropp's (2006) meta-analysis of over 500 studies, show that intergroup contact generally improves group attitudes, reducing stereotypes and prejudice. Empathy and Perspective-Taking Help Reduce Prejudice Moreover, research by Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) highlights that taking another person's perspective Reducing Prejudice through Intergroup can foster empathy and reduce Contact prejudice. This demonstrates how understanding others on a personal - One of the reasons that people may level leads to better connections. hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they Risks of Exclusive Groups view the members of outgroups as different However, joining exclusive groups, from them. like fraternities, sororities, or ethnic organizations, can deepen prejudice. - We may become concerned that our As Sidanius and colleagues (2004) interactions with people from different racial found, these groups tend to focus on groups will be unpleasant, and these sameness, limiting tolerance for  those outside the group, that’s why interdependent way, to master material. In they remained in the organization. this model, diverse students depend on one Conditions for Effective Contact another to succeed, reducing stereotypes For intergroup contact to work, it and prejudice (Aronson, 2004). must allow people to challenge stereotypes with new information. If Cooperative activities, like the "jigsaw stereotypes remain unchallenged, classroom," show how interdependence contact might fail or even reinforce fosters respect and understanding. In this biases. model, diverse students depend on one another to succeed, reducing stereotypes - When we learn more about groups that and prejudice (Aronson, 2004). we didn’t know much about before, we learn more of the truth about them, leading us to · Social Norms and Fair Treatment Are be less biased in our beliefs. But if our Key - effective contact requires equality and interactions with the group members do not fair treatment. For instance, biased allow us to learn new beliefs, then contact leadership or competition between groups cannot work. can worsen prejudice. Long-term contact, like busing, needs time for positive changes Individuation Over Stereotypes to take hold. Over time, meaningful interactions help people see others as The Extended-Contact Hypothesis individuals, not just group members. Interestingly, prejudice can This reduces the perception of decrease even indirectly. Wright and outgroup homogeneity and colleagues (1997) showed that encourages more positive attitudes. knowing someone who has outgroup friends can improve attitudes toward According to (Brodt & Ross, 1998), that outgroup, emphasizing the When we first meet someone from power of social networks in reducing another category, we are likely to rely bias. almost exclusively on our stereotypes. However, ha study liwat nira Madon et Another way that intergroup contact can al., 1998, when we get to know the reduce prejudice, it is known as the… individual well, we may get to the point where we ignore that individual’s group Extended contact hypothesis - —the idea membership almost completely, that prejudice can be reduced for people responding to him or her entirely at the who have friends who are friends with individual level. members of the outgroup Interdependence Promotes Connection Cross-Group Friendships Matter - creating friendships between group - Intergroup contact is also more members positively impacts attitudes successful when the people involved in the for everyone involved. Experiments contact are motivated to learn about the show that even observing such others. friendships can shift group perceptions toward positivity. - And one factor that increases this motivation is interdependence. Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization interdependence—a state in which the group members depend on each other for To begin with, contact alone doesn’t successful performance of the group goals always improve prejudice. Research (Neuberg & Fiske, 1987). shows that if intergroup contact is not implemented properly, it can · The importance of interdependence can make prejudice worse. Successful be seen in the success of cooperative improvement requires groups to feel learning techniques, such as the jigsaw closer to each other rather than classroom. further away from each other. Next, creating a shared identity jigsaw classroom is an approach to fosters unity. Groups are more likely learning in which students from different to develop better attitudes toward racial or ethnic groups work together, in an  each other when they see one large group (“we”) rather than themselves as part of a larger, two separate ones (“us” and “them”), united group rather than as separate the boys began to see similarities smaller groups. that counteracted their differences. This fact was demonstrated in a very convincing way in what is and we can diagram the relationship as now a classic social follows: psychological study. For example, the Robbers’ Cave Experiment interdependence and cooperation → demonstrated this principle. common ingroup identity → favorable ○ Researchers divided intergroup attitudes. 11-year-old boys at a Moreover, this concept has been summer camp into two supported by further research. groups, which quickly formed strong social identities. o In laboratory studies, ○ Competitions like tug-of-war, college students who worked baseball games and as one large team showed treasured hunt increased reduced favoritism and more ingroup favoritism and positive attitudes toward prejudice, and discrimination each other. quickly followed. leading to theft, fights, and hostility ○ In real-world settings, a study between the groups. at a football game found that ○ However, the situation White students were more improved through likely to help Black cooperation. When the interviewers if they wore hats physical harm are present, indicating the same researchers intervene by university. The shared trying to move the groups affiliation (university identity) closer to each other. reduced perceived Researchers introduced differences. shared challenges, by setting To reduce prejudice, we must up a series of situations in encourage people to see one which the boys had to work another as more similar than together to solve a problem, different. Even small gestures, like like pooling resources to rent identifying with a shared symbol, can a movie or working together effectively foster unity and to move a stuck food truck. cooperation. ○ These tasks were designed to create interdependence by presenting the boys with… superordinate goals—goals that were both very important to them and yet that required the cooperative efforts and resources of both the Eagles and the Rattlers to attain. As the children worked together to meet these goals, the negative perceptions of the group members gradually improved; there was a reduction of hostility between the groups and an emergence of more positive intergroup attitudes. This strategy worked by creating a "common ingroup identity" - The attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2008). By viewing themselves as