4.3 An Integrative approach to prejudice and discrimination

1. 4.3 An Integrative approach to prejudice and discrimination

2. Why does prejudice & discrimination continue? • Prejudice and discrimination can be considered the result of complex interactions of different factors: • Biological • Cognitive • Sociocultural

3. Key Terms • Stereotyping • A cognitive process in which people categorize others i.e. in terms of belonging to a social group, appearance etc. • Prejudice • Attitude – a combination of emotions and cognition. • Individuals judge others on attributes and apply an emotional component to their view of the individual. • Discrimination • Behavior – an individual treats someone differently based upon his/her membership of a group, rather than their merits.

4. Biological Research on the origins of prejudice • Hart (2000) Assessed neurological region of the brain associated with prejudice • Procedure: White and Blacks given brief subliminal glimpse of faces of individuals of different ethnic origins. MRI monitored activity. • Findings: Activity observed in the amygdala (emotional center). • Phelps (2000) found similar results in activation of amygdala when individuals were exposed to stimuli and scores on a standardized test for ethnic prejudice.

5. Implicit association Test • http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/ • Banaji and Greenwald – test subconscious prejudice. • Friske – 16 min. 49 sec. • MRI, showed photos of disabled, rich, athletes, disabled, homeless. • Homeless images resulted in the insula lighting up (associated with disgust) • Warm, productive images triggered dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

6. Dehumanization • Friske – supports ideas that dehumanization of groups leads to changes in the way the brain works. • How does Friske in the documentary explain how changes in the brain can be overcome?

7. Evolutionary Arguments • This behavior may be a way to protect the gene pool. • Being able to detect a threat from an out-group, may have evolutionary advantages for the gene pool. • How does this idea fit in todays society?

8. Strengths and Limitations of evolutionary theory (+) can link prejudice to a brain function (+) Out groups trigger immediate response to amygdala (+) Cognitive control of emotion reacts in frontal lobe (-)Prejudice has an emotion component which means there must be a cognitive factor in how one responds Bettelheim and Janowitz (1964) one’s stereotypes do not predict one’s feelings of prejudice or discrimination. (-) Cunningham (2004) longer exposure to the images results in frontal lobe activity in addition to the amygdala. (-) Phelps – can not conclude is the activation of the amygdala was innate response or learned response.

9. Cognitive research on prejudice. Pages 130- 132

10. Cognitive research on the origins of prejudice • What role does hostility, as an emotion, play in stereotypes? • And, how does it become connected to stereotypes that develop in a culture? • Tversky and Kahnemaa (1982) – people make judgments based upon the availability heuristic, that is, based upon what information is readily available to them. • Cognitively this may be seen as schema processing.

11. “cognitive miser” • Friske and Taylor – described the term “cognitive miser” • People have limited capacity to process social information and therefore use shortcuts or develop simple rules (heuristics) in order to make complex issues more simple. • Example – Darley and Gross (1983)

12. Darley and Gross • Method: laboratory experiment • Often called the Hannah Study • Aim: to test the hypothesis that schematic processing result in distorted perceptions of people when they have to make judgments about their ability. • Procedure: Participants saw 2 videos of a girl. • First experiment – participant viewed both videos • Follow-up experiment participants viewed either video 1 or video2 • In video 1, girl was playing in a poor environment. • In video 2, girl was playing in a middle class environment. • Then they saw a video of the girl taking what looked to be an intelligence test and answering the questions inconsistently.

13. Darley and Gross cont., • Findings: • Experiment 1: When the participant were asked to predict the academic prospects of the two girls ALL said they would do fine and have an education • Researchers interpreted this as USA fundamental belief • Experiment 2: • When participants were asked to judge the future of the girls, they all said the “rich” girl would do well and the “poor” girl would do less well. • On average they judges the “rich” Hannah as having a 5th grade academic level, and “poor” Hannah at a 4th grade level.

14. Darley and Gross cont., • Results: • The study demonstrates that participants probably used pre-stored schemas of what it means to be poor and rich. • They then interpreted the rest of the scene based on these schemas. • Due to ambiguous information about the girl in the testing scenario, the participants used the information from the first video to form an impression

15. What schema processing did the participants assume in the follow-up experiment? • What is the problem with this kind of processing? • Can this lead to self-fulfilling prophecy? • What would Rosenthal and Jacobson say?

16. Principles of sociocultural levels of analysis • Humans are social animals ( need to belong) • Culture influence behavior • Social Self • Peoples views of the world are resistant to change • To overcome stereotyping , individuals must overcome “conformational bias” • Looking for information that confirms their prejudice. • How do you do this? • PROOF, EVIDENCE must be presented to the individual holding the prejudice.

17. Impression management theory • Tedeschi and Rosenfield (1981) – attitude change is seen as an attempt to avoid social anxiety and embarrassment, or to protect the positive veiw of one’s own identity. • Jane Elliot (1960) (14:36)

18. How do you think people estimate the future of a child coming from either one off these areas? • Explain why it is so, arguing on evidence. • What are the implications of this? • What could a member of society do to prevent that prejudice about poor children’s academic capacity becomes true?

19. Sociocultural research on the origins of prejudice Pg 133 - 134

20. Is ones behavior based on Gender, sexuality or ethnicity? • To base ones behavior on gender, sexuality or ethnicity would be attribution error. • Actor-observer bias confirms the belief in a group that • In-group members are successful because of who they are • Out-group is not successful because of who they are • Any success by the out group is purely luck, outside assistance or circumstance.

21. Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory: roots to prejudice & discrimination • Robbers’ Cave Experiment ( Sherif 1961) • Group identity on intergroup conflict • Realistic Conflict Theory – when there is competition for limited resources negative feelings will arise. • Method: Field Experiment (created ecological validity) • Procedure: 2 groups – Eagles and the Rattlers • Hypothesis: when two groups have conflicting aims, their members will become hostile to each other.

22. Diminishing the hostility • Superordinate goals – an urgent situation was created • e.g. natural disasters, 911, impact on survival • Contact Hypothesis – the reduction of prejudice as observed through superordinate goals. • Prejudice is reduced when the groups are perceived are equal.

23. Evaluating Contact Hypothesis • When contact is positive: prejudice is reduce • When contact is natural vs forced it brings about the strongest results in prejudice reduction. • Limitations of Sheif’s study: • Homogenous group • No long history of oppression • All participants came to the camp voluntarily • Group had equal status when they arrived.

24. Summary • The origin of prejudice is multi-factorial. • Must take a holistic approach to understand the problem. • Biological • response from the amygdala • evolutionary advantageous to protect the genes form the out-group • Cognitive • Availability heuristics • The role of perception • Cognitive dissonance • Sociocultural factors • Stereotyping (social cognition) • Fundamental attribution error • Contact hypothesis