Components of Prejudice

1. Components of Prejudice Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

2. Prejudice • A biased, often negative, attitude about a group • Includes belief structures and expectations • Explicit versus implicit prejudice • Manifested in the various “isms” • Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism • Having a racist, sexist, etc. prejudice DOES NOT require power • We must separate the scientific concept of prejudice (isms) from cultural/political concept

3. Stereotype • A set of rigid beliefs, positive or negative, about the characteristics or attributes of a group • Extension of categorization and prototypes • A problem when categorization is rigid and overgeneralized • Often have a kernel of truth or are based loosely actual events

4. Explicit and Implicit Stereotypes • Stereotypes exist on two levels: Explicit and implicit • Explicit stereotype • Conscious level • Controlled processing • Direct effect on behavior • Implicit stereotype • Unconscious level • Automatic processing • Activated automatically when minority group member is encountered in the right situation • Subtle effect on behavior

5. Implicit and explicit stereotypes exist on two separate levels • Not different aspects of same process • Explicit stereotype can become implicit • Implicit and explicit stereotypes influence behavior differently • Explicit stereotype: Affects tasks that require cognitive effort • Implicit stereotype: Affects tasks that require little cognitive effort

6. Stereotypes as “Judgmental Heuristics” • A stereotype-consistent transgression • perceived to be likely to recur • results in a more severe punishment • causes fewer facts to be recalled • Stereotype used to infer reasons for a transgression • Judgments based on the inferences • Other information used if there is no stereotype information

7. Confirmatory information is sought • Stereotype-consistent transgression attributed to stable, internal characteristics • An enduring pattern of behavior • Punished more harshly than stereotype- inconsistent transgression

8. Stereotyping and Emotional Labeling • Stereotypes have an emotional component, • Based on a stereotype you LABEL a person (interpret, evaluate, or judge members of a social group) • Label influences perceptions and judgments of behavior • Emotion from label affects judgments

9. The emotional component is more crucial than the cognitive component when judging behavior • The cognitive component is NOT irrelevant • It forms the basis for the emotional label

10. DISCRIMINATION • Behavior directed toward individuals because they a members of a group • An extension of a general learning principle: Discrimination • Can exist without underlying prejudice • Prejudice can exist without discrimination • Discrimination does require some power over others

11. Ways of Expressing Prejudice Gordon Allport (1954). The Nature of Prejudice

12. ANTILOCUTION • Talking in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images • Common form seen as harmless: Jokes • Antilocution itself MAY not be harmful, but it may lead to more serious expressions of prejudice • AVOIDANCE • Actively avoid minority group • No direct harm is intended • Harm is done through isolation

13. DISCRIMINATION • Harming minority groups by preventing them from achieving goals, getting an education or job, etc. • PHYSICAL ATTACK • Physical harm to members of a minority group • e.g., lynching of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe, tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800s • EXTERMINATION • Systematic attempt to liquidate entire group • e.g., Native American population, Final Solution of Jewish Problem, Ethnic cleansing, etc. • Not all examples of prejudice go through all levels • Possible to “roll back” to lower level

14. Roots of Prejudice • Three “roots” of prejudice studied • “Personality”/individual difference variables roots • Cognitive roots • Social roots

15. The Roots of Prejudice I Individual Characteristics: Personality, Gender and Race

16. The Authoritarian Personality • Submissive, unquestioning attitude toward authority • Rigid beliefs resistant to change • PREJUDICED PERSONALITY • Racist, sexist, and have prejudicial attitudes towards minority groups • Highly ETHNOCENTRIC (see their own cultural/racial group as inherently superior) • Prejudice directed against a wide range of groups

17. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) • SDO = Extent to which you want your group to dominate other groups • High SDO score related to anti-black and anti-Arab prejudice (Pratto, et al., 1994) • SDO also relates to a wide range of other prejudices • High SDO persons see large status differences between own and other groups • SDO + RWA  Most prejudiced individuals

18. The “Big Five” and Prejudice • Big Five approach to personality • Five dimensions define personality • Extroversion/Introversion • Agreeableness (Friendliness) • Conscientiousness • Neuroticism (emotional stability) • Openness to experience and culture • Relationship between Big Five and Prejudice (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003) • Agreeableness and Openness are negatively correlated with prejudice

19. The “prejudiced personality” • Different forms of prejudice related (Akrami, Ekehammar, & Bergh, 2010) • Sexism, anti-immigrant, heterosexism, persons with disabilities all correlated with each other • Openness and agreeableness were more highly related to four prejudices as a whole than any one prejudice alone

20. The Dark Personality Triad (Hodson, et al., 2009) • The “Dark Personality Triad” is made up of: • Narcissism: Excessive self-love • Machiavellianism: Manipulating and exploiting others • Psychopathy: Callus affect, interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyles, anti-social behavior • All three components positively correlated with prejudice

21. Intergroup Threat Dark Triad SDO Prejudice • The dark personality triad relates indirectly to prejudice, operating via SDO and intergroup threat

22. Intergroup Threat Openness RWA Prejudice • Openness to new experience (one of Big Five) relates indirectly to prejudice operating via RWA and intergroup threat

23. Gender and Prejudice • Males are higher in SDO than females • Males and females differ on attitudes toward homosexuals • Males have a more negative attitude • More negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians • More negative attitudes toward homosexual and bisexual men than homosexual or bisexual women (Herek, 2002) • Female attitudes are not as clear • Some research: Female attitudes toward gays and lesbians don’t differ • Other research: Female attitudes more negative toward lesbians • More negative toward bisexuals (regardless of gender) than homosexuals (Herek, 2002)

24. Gender difference in implicit vs. explicit prejudice (Ekehammar, et al., 2003) • Women showed more implicit prejudice • Men showed more explicit prejudice • Gender difference in racial attitudes (Qualls, et al., 1992) • Women were more accepting than males of • Racial minorities, • Egalitarian gender roles, • Homosexuals

25. Gender and intervening in prejudice situations (Richman, et al., 2004) • Women report they are more likely to intervene when discrimination based on • Sexual orientation • Sexism • Religious intolerance • Men more likely to intervene in cases of racial/ethnic prejudice • Women most likely to intervene because it made them “feel good to speak their mind” • Men most likely to intervene because they “felt the behavior was wrong”

26. Race and Prejudice • White on black prejudice well documented • Black (minority group) on white (majority group) prejudice less well documented • Such knowledge is important to have (Stephan, et al., 2002) because it may affect • Blacks’ behavior towards whites (i.e., avoidance) • Black discrimination against whites • White justification for discrimination against blacks • Integrated threat theory • In-group members expect out-group members to behave in ways that harm in-group members

27. Results from research (Stephan, et al., 2002) show that • Compared to white students, black students: • Have more negative racial attitudes • Perceive the out-group as more threatening • Show stronger in-group identification • Perceive greater status differences between groups • Indicate more negative stereotypes of the out-group • For both races perceived threat was related to negative stereotypes and prejudice

28. Four dimensions underlying black on white prejudice (Johnson and Leci, 2003) • “Expectation of racism” from whites which includes beliefs such as: • whites would like to return to pre-civil rights days • whites support views of racist political groups • whites would harm blacks if given the opportunity • “Negative beliefs about whites” such as • whites destroying things made by blacks • the success of whites is due to their color • considering oneself as racist against whites

29. “Negative beliefs about inter-racial relationships” including • whites are responsible for the problems of blacks • looking negatively at inter-racial relationships • viewing mixed racial couples as sellouts • “Negative verbal expressions towards whites” including • having referred to whites as “crackers” • speaking negatively about whites • referring to whites as “honkeys” or “rednecks”

30. Skin tone bias (Maddox & Gray, 2002) • Race (black vs. white) and skin tone (ranging from light-skinned to dark-skinned blacks) serve as cues that black and white subjects use to categorize people • Black and white subjects ascribed more negative stereotypic traits to a dark-skinned than light-skinned black targets • Black and white subjects ascribed more negative traits to the dark-skinned than light-skinned Black target

31. Real world manifestations of skin tone bias (Brown, 1998) • Research shows the following differences between lighter skinned and darker skinned blacks • Lighter skinned more likely have a higher income (on average 65% higher) • Lighter skinned more likely to be employed, especially in a profession • Each increment in skin tone rating (toward lighter) resulted in an average of one-half year education • Lighter skinned women seen as more attractive • Lighter skinned males and females have higher self-esteem • Lighter skin viewed as a cue for higher status

32. The Roots of Prejudice II The Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

33. In-Groups and Out-groups • Define social world in terms of “in-groups” and “out-groups” • The in-group • People we perceive ourselves to be similar to (e.g., religion, gender, skin color, etc.). • Sense of solidarity with the in-group • Can be a large (nation) or small group (religious cult)

34. The out-group • Individuals who are perceived to be different from in-group members • Solidarity of in-group leads to defining others who are different as an out-group • Perceptions of out-group: • Out-group viewed negatively • Less empathy shown for suffering of member of out-group (Forgiarini, et al., 2010)

35. Positive reaction to misfortune befalling members of out-group (Cikara, et al., 2010) • Known as “Schadenfreude:” Feeling pleasure over another’s misfortune (Van Dijk, 2010) • Stronger for low self-esteem individuals • Stronger after own failure • Stronger if failure related to out-group member’s own behavior (Van Dijk, et al., 2008) • Stronger when out-group success is undeserved (Van Dijk, et al., 2009) • Self-affirmation reduces Schadenfreude • Schadenfreude is strongest after an initial out-group success • Most related to perceived in-group inferiority and the anger that results (Leach & Spears, 2008)

36. Prejudice and Categorization • SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY says that group identification • contributes to our self-concept • helps us maintain a positive self-concept • leads to pigeonholing others • Two key assumptions of social identity theory: • When threatened, more in- group bias is shown • In-group bias increases self-esteem

37. Self-categorization theory (SCT) • We need to reduce uncertainty and seek affirmation of beliefs from group members • Uncertainty is a threatening negative state • Uncertainty increases prejudice and discrimination • If uncertainty can be managed prejudice is less likely • Threat increases in-group identification and group solidarity (“rally around the flag” mentality)

38. Biology and the In-group Bias • The in-group bias: Favoring in-group members • Sociobiologists: Ethnocentrism rooted in biological evolution • Early in human history, the in-group was crucial for survival • Strong in-group ties helped individuals survive

39. Members of all cultures show a natural xenophobia (wariness of strangers) • Made early humans cautious of possible enemies • It was “natural” that humans developed a wariness of those who are different

40. In-group - Out-group Relationships • The OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY BIAS • Recognize diversity of the in-group • Out-group members perceived as more similar than they really are • We assume that the behavior of an out-group member represents of all members

41. The ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR • Bad behavior of an out-group member is attributed to internal characteristics ascribed to the out-group • The same behavior of an in-group member is attributed to personal characteristics

42. The in-group/out-group distinction contributes to segregation • This increases prejudice and stereotyping directed at the out-group • A “VICIOUS CIRCLE” (Myrdal, 1944) may develop • Prejudice forces minority to remain separate, • Separateness perceived by majority as evidence of stereotypes, • Leads to more prejudice, and the minority group becoming more isolated

44. The Roots of Prejudice III The Social Roots of Prejudice

45. Introduction • Prejudice has existed throughout history • Common roots to some forms of prejudice • Ethnic Chinese in Philippines and Jews in Poland • Despite changes, prejudices still exist • Pay lip service to equality • Blaming victims of prejudice • Believe out-group members have values different from those of in-group

46. Prejudice has existed throughout history • Attitudes toward blacks shaped by pre-Civil War stereotypes • Persecution of the Mormons in the late 1800s and early 1900s • Extermination of the Jews • Despite changes in interracial attitudes, prejudice still exists • Pay “lip service” to equality • See the out-group as getting a raw deal by the system • Partially blame the group for its own plight, • Believe that members an out-group have values different our own group

47. Social Acceptability and the Expression of Prejudice • Overt expression of prejudice is not socially accepted • Prejudice may exist on a more subtle level • MODERN RACISM • Prejudice is expressed in subtle ways (e.g., opposing civil rights laws)

48. Critics of modern racism point out that • It is illogical to equate opposition to a political idea with racism • The correlations between modern and old- fashioned racism are quite high • Aversive racism • Nonprejudiced individuals discriminate in subtle, easily rationalized ways • Nonprejudiced individuals may have negative racial attitudes • Conflict between egalitarian ideology and negative racial attitudes

49. Aversive racism is expressed subtly so person’s egalitarian ideology is not threatened • Works on an unconscious, automatic level • Aversive racism and social behavior (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000) • Black job candidate with “questionable” qualifications rated less qualified than white with same qualifications • Ambiguous qualifications rated stronger for white candidate • White candidate with ambiguous qualifications is more likely to be recommended for job

50. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice • Explicit prejudice • Affects carefully considered responses that a person has time to consider • Implicit prejudice • Automatic activation of prejudice and stereotypes • Affects behaviors that • are more difficult to control (e.g., nonverbal responses) • individuals try not to control (responses not seen reflecting one’s attitude)