Transcript Stereotyping and Prejudice: I - Web Hosting at UMass Amherst

Stereotyping and Prejudice: I
• Prejudice is a ubiquitous social problem.
Examples
• Amadou Diallo
• Auburn University students suspended for
dressing up in Ku Klux Klan robes and
blackface during a Halloween party (Oct.,
2001)
Klan photo incident probed at
UMass
• Monday, September 27, 2004
• By DAN LAMOTHE
• AMHERST - Numerous high-ranking student
government officials at the University of
Massachusetts may face criminal charges
following the discovery of more than 25
photographs depicting them drinking and posing
with a caricature referencing the Ku Klux Klan…
What is prejudice?
• Prejudice is an attitude.
• Attitudes have 3 components: affective,
cognitive, and behavioral
Affective component
• Affective=Prejudice: A hostile or negative attitude
toward a distinguishable group of people, based
solely on their membership in that group.
• Could be prejudiced in a positive way (e.g., toward
people from Massachusetts), but usually refers to a
NEGATIVE attitude.
Cognitive component
• Cognitive=Stereotype: A generalization
about a group of people in which
identical characteristics are assigned
to virtually all members of the group,
regardless of actual variation among
the members.
Behavioral component
• Behavioral=Discrimination: an
unjustifiable negative or harmful action
toward a member of a group, simply
because of his or her membership in
that group.
Stereotypes and prejudice
• Stereotypes and prejudice can be
based on any kind of group
membership: Your race, gender, or age;
your religion, where you go to college,
your sexual orientation, etc.
• Common stereotypes on campus?
Stereotyping and Prejudice
based on Race
• What does “race” mean? (from Diamond, 1994,
November, Discover)
• Not a meaningful biological category
• Human genome project: Percentage of our genes that
determine our external appearance about .01 percent
• Human species very young from an evolutionary
perspective; “it simply has not had a chance to divide
itself into separate biological groups or ‘races’ in any but
the most superficial ways”
What is race?
• Classifying by skin color & related
characteristics appears objective, but
other equally valid ways to specify race.
• Other ways yield different groups
In what other possible ways could we
categorize people into “races”?
• Race by Resistance
• Presence or absence of anti-malarial
genes
– Present: African blacks, Arabs living on
the Arabian peninsula
– Absent: Swedes, some black Africans (the
Xhosas)
What is race?
• Race by Digestion
• Presence or absence of the enzyme lactase
in adults (helps to digest milk)
– Present: Fulani of West Africa, Swedes, Central
Europeans
– Absent: East Asians, Native Americans, Australian
Aborigines, most black Africans
What is race?
• Race by types of fingerprints
– Type 1: Black Africans, most Europeans,
East Asians (loops)
– Type 2: Jews, some Indonesians (arches)
– Type 3: Australian Aborigines (whorls)
• Source: Jared Diamond (1994, Nov.). Race without
color. Discover, pp. 92-97.
Can you tell
somebody’s race
by looking at
them?
http://www.pbs.org/race/002_SortingPeople/002_00home.htm

What is race?
• Race is an arbitrary SOCIAL category,
not a biological one.
• So, why is it such an important
category for humans?
Cognitive factors
• Categorization
• Principle of least effort: the tendency to
rely on over-simplified generalizations
and to resist information that
complicates our categorical
distinctions.
Categorization
– Humans categorize their physical and social worlds
» People group together objects and people that have
similar features. Circles, triangles, people.
– It’s efficient – speeds up processing and helps us learn
about people and things.
– All categorization involves some distortion and
oversimplification. (principle of least effort )
– A stereotype is a schema about a group. Just like other
kinds of schemas, stereotypes will lead us to pay
attention to information that confirms them, to interpret
information in light of the stereotype, and to remember
information that fits w/the stereotype.
Example of confirmation bias
• Clip from “Hairspray”
• Set in Baltimore 1963, beginning of Civil
Rights movement
Illusory correlation
• Illusory Correlation – the tendency to
see relationships, or correlations,
between events that are actually
unrelated.
•
Illusory correlation
• When we expect 2 events to be related,
we may incorrectly believe that they are
related, even if they are not.
Example
• May hold belief that women who have a
baby are more likely to leave their jobs.
• How would you test this idea?
Example
Illusory Correlation
• Illusory correlation is most likely to happen
when an event stands out (e.g., rare
event)
– Woman who is a very aggressive CEO
– You may then notice women who are in
positions of power and who are aggressive
– Leads to illusory correlation between women
leaders and aggressiveness
Illusory Correlation
• Illusory correlation is most likely to happen
when an event stands out (e.g., rare
event)
– Woman who is a very aggressive CEO
– You may then notice women who are in
positions of power and who are aggressive
– Leads to illusory correlation between women
leaders and aggressiveness
Illusory correlation
• Study of illusory correlation (Hamilton &
Gifford, 1976)
• IV 1: Descriptions of Group A (majority) vs.
Group B (minority)
• IV 2: Positive vs. negative behavioral
descriptions
• DV: Estimate frequency with which Group A
and Group B members behaved in desirable
or undesirable way
Illusory Correlation
(Hamilton & Gifford,1976)
• Jane, a member of Group A, visited a sick friend in the
hospital.
• Kate, a member of Group B, cheated on a test.
• Sue, a member of Group A, helped a friend with her
homework.
• Mary, a member of Group B, was the lead in her school
play.
• Debby, a member of Group A, was arrested for drunk
driving.
• Group A = majority Group B = minority
• Presented twice as many statements about majority than
minority, and a ratio of 9:4 desirable to undesirable
behaviors
Illusory correlation
•
• Behaviors
• Desirable
• Undesirable
Group A
(majority)
Group B
(minority)
18
8
9
4
• 2x more statements for Group A and for desirable behaviors.
• Group B – fewer statements and undesirable acts were rare –
so, they stood out.
• Results: Students overestimated the frequency with which the
“minority” group acted undesirably. Demonstrated illusory
correlation.
Ingroups/outgroups
• Ingroup bias: positive feelings toward
those in our group, negative feelings,
unfair treatment for those not in our
group (i.e., in the outgroup)
– Happens in existing groups
– Can create in the lab (Group A, Group B) –
“minimal groups”
Minimal groups (Tajfel)
• Assign strangers to groups on the basis of
trivial criteria (e.g., Group X or W based on
coin toss)
– More liking for members of own group
– Rated ingroup members more positively (on
personality and work performance)
– Gave more money and rewards to ingroup
members
– Why?
Social identity theory
• Social identity theory (Henri Tajfel): People
favor ingroups over outgroups in order to
enhance their self-esteem.
• 2 hypotheses:
• (1) Threats to one’s self-esteem lead to more
ingroup favoritism.
• (2) Expressing ingroup favoritism enhances
one’s self-esteem.
Social identity theory
• Fein and Spencer (1997)
• IV 1: People received positive or negative feedback on a
test of their intellectual skills.
• IV 2: The job applicant to be evaluated was either
Jewish or not Jewish. (UMich, where most not Jewish)
• DV: How people evaluated the job applicant
• Results:
• 1. People who received negative feedback evaluated
the Jewish applicant more negatively (ingroup
favoritism).
• 2. People who received negative feedback and
evaluated the Jewish applicant (negatively) showed the
largest increase in self-esteem.
Non-Jewish Candidate
Non-Jewish Candidate
Outgroup bias
• Outgroup homogeneity: the perception
that individuals in the outgroup are
more similar to each other
(homogeneous) than they really are, as
well as more similar than members of
the ingroup are.
Outgroup homogeneity
• Quattrone & Jones, 1980: Watched video of man
choosing to listen to rock or classical music
• IV: Man labeled as ingroup or outgroup member
(Princeton or Rutgers students)
• Results: Estimated that more outgroup members
would make choice similar to target; did not do
this for ingroup members.
• Video clip: Ingroup bias/negative view
toward outgroup “Planes, Trains, and
Automobiles”
• Discussed cognitive factors  prejudice
• Now, turn to social factors
Realistic conflict theory
• Realistic Conflict Theory: Intergroup
conflict develops from competition for
limited resources.
Robbers Cave Study: Intergroup
competition and cooperation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Robbers Cave Study (Sherif et al., 1954)
11 yr. old boys, white, well-adjusted, middle-class
Two groups: Rattlers versus Eagles
3 phases
Phase 1: Creating in-groups
Phase 2: Intergroup competition
Phase 3: Intergroup cooperation
Creating common (superordinate) goals & mutual
interdependence
Creating ingroups
• Divided into two groups.
Intergroup competition
• Rattlers & Eagles – placed in competitive
situations (baseball, treasure hunt, tug-ofwar) and gave points to winning team
• Ingroup favoritism (own members brave,
friendly, tough)
• Disliking for outgroup (sneaky, stinkers,
smart alecks)
• Competing for same resources (realistic
conflict) breeds prejudice
Intergroup cooperation
• Said nice things about other group
• Put in situations together (e.g., dining hall)
• Mere contact did not work!
What worked?
• Shared, superordinate goal to overcome
adversity
– Ex: Arranged for camp truck to break down
and the only way to get back was for both
groups to work together to pull it up a steep
hill
Contact hypothesis
• Contact hypothesis: Direct contact
between hostile groups will reduce
prejudice under certain conditions.
– Note contact alone did not reduce
prejudice
– Needed superordinate goals
Application to school
desegregation
• 1954 in Brown vs. the Board of Education
of Topeka, the Supreme Court ruled that
racially separate schools were inherently
unequal and that they were in violation of
the Constitution.
Disappointing outcome
• Research in the 1970's and 80's showed
that contact between children from
different ethnic/racial groups was not
reducing prejudice.
Why was the outcome
disappointing?
• Contact hypothesis: proposes that contact
reduces prejudice UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS.
• These conditions were not met in the
desegregation efforts.
What are the conditions necessary for
reducing prejudice?
• 1. Equal status
– Not typical before 1954
– Unequal settings (lower status jobs, service
industry)
– In school, from different SES
• 2. Personal, informal contact
– Kids segregate on playground
– Tracking
– Desegregation did not create true integration
• 3. Contact w/ multiple group members
to breakdown stereotypes.
– Need to have multiple contacts so don’t
subtype
• 4. Mutual interdependence and 5.
Common goals
– Not typical in schools (competitive)
• 6. Existing norms must favor group
equality
– Not true during desegregation – in fact, much
resistance.