Transcript Rosenhan

Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Social Psychology
Chapter 5
September 17, 2004
Class #4
He fit the description…

Case Study:
 February 4, 1999 –
Amadou Diallo, 22,
died in a hail of 41
bullets outside his
Bronx apartment in
what the officers
testified was a
tragic error
Stereotypes and Prejudices



Stereotypes
 The generalized perceptions, beliefs, and expectations a
person has about members in some group
 Schemas about entire groups of people
 Effects of stereotypes on behavior can be automatic and
unconscious
Prejudice
 A negative attitude toward an individual based solely on
the person’s membership is some group
 Includes an irrational hostility toward a particular race or
group
 In one word…prejudgment
Discrimination
 Differential treatment of individuals who belong to
different groups
Stereotype

Stereotypes about racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation
groups are schemas.




Generalized belief about members of a group
May or may not be accurate
Most researchers believe it is even possible
to have a schema that you don't personally
believe (OTHER PEOPLE think that Group x
has qualities y... but I don't)…
Lets try this:
 What are the characteristics of:





A
A
A
A
A
typical
typical
typical
typical
typical
New Yorker?
Californian?
white male?
“career woman”
“stay-at-home” mom
How Stereotypes Form:
Social Categorization

The classification of persons into groups
on the basis of common attributes.


Helps us form impressions quickly and use
past experiences to guide new interactions.
Serious drawback: By categorizing people,
we often:



Overestimate the differences between groups
Underestimate the differences within groups
Can bias our perceptions
Stone et al. (1997)

Radio broadcast played to
participants
 They are shown a “photograph” of the
player to be analyzed
 Participants rated the player better if
they thought he was black
How Stereotypes Form:
In-groups vs. Out-groups
Strong tendency to divide people into
ingroups and outgroups
 Such group identifications can promote an
ingroup bias…

 Often
it becomes an “Us vs.
Them” attitude

Consequences


Exaggerate differences between ingroups and
other outgroups.
Outgroup homogeneity effect
Perceived Outgroup Homogeneity
 Phenomenon
of overestimating the
extent to which members within
other groups are similar to each
other

Example: “They all look the same to
me”
How Stereotypes Form:
Maybe they become automatic…

Devine (1989)

Suggests that our parents and media may
have started an early process that has now
become automatic
Racial Bias Study:
Sagar & Schofield (1980)

Purpose:


Participants:


Demonstrate that stereotypes bias interpretation of
ambiguous events
40 African American; 40 White
Procedures:

Participants presented with four ambiguous drawings:
 Bumping
 Requesting food
 Poking
 Taking a pencil
Sagar & Schofield (1980)
 Participants
were to rate actor’s
behavior as.....
 Mean
 Threatening
 Playful
 Friendly
Sagar & Schofield (1980): Experimental Set-Up
Actor Race
African
American
Participant Race
African
American
White
White
Sagar & Schofield (1980): Results
Subject
Actor
Mean & Threatening
White
W
AA
8.28
8.99
African
American
W
AA
7.38
8.40
Conclusion: White and African American participants rated
identical behavior as more mean and threatening when
actor was African American. Schemas influence the
interpretation of events.
Who has the razor???

Allport and Postman's (1947)




Subjects were shown a picture depicting two
men, one black and one white, confronting
each other on a subway car
The white man has a straight razor in his hand
After viewing the picture, the first subject
describes it to a second subject, who in turn
describes it to another, and so on
After a few retellings, the straight razor ends
up (is inferred to be) in the hand of the black
man
Interesting replication…

Boon & Davies (1987)


Subjects see a cartoon story of 2 men interacting on the
subway. At the end of the interaction, one man pulls a
knife.
Different subjects see one of three different versions:
 1) Both men are white:
 Man A has the knife (wearing a suit)


2) Both men are white:
 Man B has the knife (wearing work clothes)
3) One is black, one is white:
 White man has the knife
Boon & Davies (1987)

Retrieval phase

Both recall and recognition tests

Recall test:
 No stimuli, just "describe the man who pulled the
knife“

Recognition test:
 See two versions of the critical picture (correct knifeholder, or knife in the OTHER man's hand): instructions
are "pick the one you saw before“
 There is a correct and an incorrect version for the
participants who saw the original story with two white
men, AND also for those participants who saw the
original story with one white man and one black man
Results???
What do you think happened???
 Explanations???

Can stereotypes actually create selffulfilling prophecies???

Wood et al. (1974)


White male University students interviewed white and black
male high school students seeking employment
White interviewers of black applicants (relative to white
interviewers of white applicants)





Sat further away
Conducted shorter interviews
Made more speech errors
Appeared to cause black applicants to become
uncomfortable
Follow-up Experiment



While males were applicants
Treated like black applicants were treated in the first experiment
They performed similarly (to black applicants in exp. 1) during the
interview
Three Levels of Stereotypes

Public


Private


what we consciously think about a group, but don’t say to
others
Implicit


What we say to others about a group
unconscious mental associations guiding our judgments
and actions without our conscious awareness
Public stereotypes have decreased in North
America recently (“political correctness”)
Well, there are exceptions…

“The biggest
thing I don't
like about
New York are
the foreigners”
Explicit versus Implicit Prejudice
 If
you were asked your opinions
about Irishmen, Californians, or
fraternity men, that would tap:
Explicit prejudice – positive or
negative feelings of which you are
aware
 But not implicit prejudice – feelings
of which you are not aware

Intergroup Competition

Sherif (1961):
The Robbers Cave Experiment
 Two groups of eleven year-old boys were sent
to a remote summer camp in Robbers Cave
State Park (Oklahoma)
 Initially unaware of their fragile co-existence,
they formed tribalistic bonds, and having a
great time…and then…
 These middle class boys placed into competing areas in a
summer camp:
 They competed for medals and attention
Competed in a variety of contests…
Soon the rivalry became violent…
 Raided
one another’s cabins
 Stole and burned one another’s flags
 Came to view one another as “stinkers” “smartalecks” and “sneaks”
Verbal prejudice became apparent,
spiraling downward towards aggressive
territorial violence
 The groups eventually had to be separated

So how did experimenters try to reduce
the prejudice they had created???

Propaganda: No


Contact: No


Positive propaganda about one
group directed to the other by
the experimenters did not help
Doing non-competitive
activities together (e.g.,
watching movies) did not help
Cooperative action: Yes



Experimenters arranged for
camp truck to break down
Both groups needed to pull it
uphill
Intergroup friendships began to
develop
Realistic Conflict Theory
 Proposal
that intergroup conflict, and negative
prejudices and stereotypes, emerge out of
actual competition between groups for desired
resources

Example: Members of different ethnic groups may
compete for the same jobs, or the same farmland
Realistic Conflict Theory



Competition for valuable but limited resources
breeds hostility…
 Loser: becomes frustrated
 Winner: becomes threatened
 Result: Much conflict
Example: Women and immigrants joining the
workforce
When conflict arises there is a higher tendency to
rely on stereotypes…”they’re all the same”
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
 Rubin
& Hewstone (1998)
Comparing our ingroups with outgroups that are
less well off can raise our self-esteem
 We desire to feel good about ourselves
 Part of our identity comes from the groups to
which we belong

Discrimination
Behaviors directed toward people on
the basis of their group membership
 Unfair treatment

History Repeats Itself
Who is more likely
to get harassed at
the airport security
check?
Who is more likely to get harassed at
an airport security check???

Note: Several of the previous slides
were prepared by the following
website:
http://instruct.uwo.ca/psychology/023
/pdfs/
Discrimination

Do you know anyone who has, because of
their membership in a group, been:
 Denied a job or promotion?
 Insulted or harassed?
 Ignored or poorly served in a restaurant
or other business?
 Denied an apartment or house?
Herek (2000)
On the one hand, people surveyed seemed
to think that homosexuals deserved
similar job opportunities
 But when we got to specifics, old attitudes
surfaced


See next two slides…
Do you think homosexuals should or
should not have equal rights in
terms of job opportunities?
100
Percentage
Should Have Equal Rights
50
Should NOT Have Equal Rights
0
1977
1982
1989
YEAR
1992
1996
Percentage Saying “Should”
Do you think homosexuals should or
should not be hired for the following
occupations?
100
Salespersons
50
Doctors
Clergy
Elementary School Teachers
0
1977
1982
1989
YEAR
Many still believe
homosexuals should
be excluded from
some jobs.
1992
1996
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination

Fitzgerald (1993)


As many as 50% of women are sexually
harassed during their academic or working
lives
Faley et al. (1999)

U.S. Army spent $250 million in one year to
deal with problems related to sexual
harassment
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination

Pryor & Day (1988)


Sheets & Braver (1993)


Behavior seen as more harassing when
performed by person in power
Less harassing when performed by an
attractive single individual
Terpstra & Baker (1986)

Women more likely than men to define staring
and flirting as sexually harassing
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination
Men are more likely to harass than are
women
 But whether men harass or not depends
on the man, and on the situation
 In one study, male students were asked to
train a young woman on a complex wordprocessing task

Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)

Male participants were introduced to the
female trainee (confederate) by a male
graduate student (confederate) who acted
either:

Sexist


Put his arm around trainee, visually checked out her
body
Professional

Respectful of trainee
Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)




DV:
 The amount of sexuality expressed by the
male student while instructing the female
trainee
IV:
 Amount of exposure to sexual harassment
Results did not depend on the IV but rather
depended on the participant’s chronic
disposition to harass
So the situational factor here was relatively
unimportant
Costs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and
Stereotyping

Schulman et al. (1999)


Physicians were only 60% as likely to suggest
a top-rated diagnostic test for black “heart
patients” as for whites
Even when blacks presented same symptoms,
and gave identical information about
themselves
Costs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and
Stereotyping
Ayres

& Siegelman (1995)
This study found that white men were offered
better deals on cars:
 $109 less than White women
 $318 less than Black women
 $935 less than Black men
Stereotype threat…

Can you see how a stereotype threat can
develop…

You go to ATM and woman in front looks at you
and seems nervous
Reducing Prejudice
 One
hypothesis is - negative stereotypes and
prejudice are due to ignorance
 From this perspective, simply exposing people
to members of different groups should reduce
prejudice
 But merely putting different groups together
has not generally worked
Reducing Prejudice

Contact Hypothesis



Stereotypes and prejudice toward a group will
diminish as contact with the group increases
Getting to know and hopefully to understand a
group
Get two groups to work towards a common
goal

Cooperation helps; competition hurts
Effective group contact…
Outgroup members have traits and abilities
challenging negative stereotypes
 Contact is supported by local authorities and norms
 Groups are of equal status, at least in contact setting
 Contact is at individual level
 Contact is rewarding
 Groups work toward common goals

Jigsaw Classroom
 Each
student in a mixed race group is given a
different, and essential, task to complete
towards a class project

This intervention takes advantage of each of the
six principles of effective group contact
Back to the Rattlers and Eagles…

Importance of common goals was shown in the study
of the Rattlers and Eagles…
 When their only contact involved competitive
games, interactions became increasingly negative
 But then researchers forced the boys to cooperate
towards common goals (such as starting a bus to
take them all to a movie)
100
Percentage of
Rattler and
Eagle Ratings
That Were
Unfavorable
80
Ratings of Own Group
Ratings of Other Group
60
40
20
0
After
Competition
After
After Cooperation
competing, the Rattlers’ impressions
of the Eagles were highly unfavorable, as
were the Eagles’ impressions of the
Rattlers
100
Percentage of
Rattler and
Eagle Ratings
That Were
Unfavorable
80
Ratings of Own Group
Ratings of Other Group
60
40
20
0
After
Competition
The
After Cooperation
hostility between the groups eventually
turned into friendship and acceptance after
they were induced to begin cooperating with
each other
Finally, maybe we should just
eliminate these altogether…