Lecture Outline

1. Lecture Outline • Old-fashioned racism • Contemporary Theories of Racism • Symbolic (Modern) Racism • Aversive Racism • Ambivalence-Amplification Theory • How prejudice affects targets • Stereotype Threat • Consequences of positive prejudice

2. Old Fashioned Racism Premise: • People are aware of their prejudice • But may try to conceal it from others

3. Symbolic (Modern) Racism Premise: People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized • harbor prejudice • believe racism and discrimination are wrong

4. Symbolic (Modern) Racism Symbolic racists are caught between: • The prejudice they feel • The egalitarian values they espouse Not consciously aware of prejudice

5. Symbolic (Modern) Racism Symbolic racism manifested in disguised form: • Protestant work ethnic • opposition to affirmative action Conservative values serve to keep disadvantaged groups disadvantaged

6. Kinder & Sears (1981) Purpose: Test whether racial prejudice stems from: • conflict over scarce resources • belief that African Americans violate cherished values

7. Kinder & Sears (1981) Overview Mayoral elections in Los Angeles: • 1969 and 1973 Candidates: • Samuel Yorty: White conservative • Thomas Bradley: African American liberal What predicts voting behavior? • competition over scarce resources • symbolic racist beliefs

8. Kinder & Sears (1981) Election Results: 1969: Samuel Yorty won with 53% of vote 1973: Thomas Bradley won with 56% of vote

9. Kinder & Sears (1981) Prediction: Scarce Resources If racial prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, then... Those Whites who are in the more competition for resources with African Americans will show greater prejudice than those who are in less competition.

10. Kinder & Sears (1981) Prediction: Symbolic Racism If racial prejudice stems from symbolic racism, then..... The more strongly Whites believe that African Americans violate traditional values, the more prejudice they will show.

11. Kinder & Sears (1981) Participants: • White residents of Los Angeles, CA • 1969 (n = 198); 1973 (n = 239) • Most lived in suburbs • Homeowners • 33% attended college • Most were Protestant, others Catholic • Nearly all were married • Most had children

12. Kinder & Sears (1981) Prejudice: Measured via voting behavior

13. Kinder & Sears (1981) Competition over scarce resources: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning four domains of racial threat.....

14. 4 Domains of Racial Threat 1. Neighborhood desegregation & interracial social contact Example Question How strongly would you object if a member of your family wanted to bring an African American friend home to dinner

15. 4 Domains of Racial Threat 2. Economic competition Example Question Have the economic gains of African Americans been about the same, much greater than, greater than, or less than yours over the past 5 years?

16. 4 Domains of Racial Threat 3. Racial Busing Example Question How likely is it that African American children will be bused into the elementary schools of this neighborhood?

17. 4 Domains of Racial Threat 4. Perceptions of African American violence Example Question How likely is it that African Americans will bring violence to this neighborhood?

18. Kinder & Sears (1981) Symbolic Racism: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning two domains of value systems...

19. 2 Domains of Value Systems 1. Expressive Racism Example Question Do you think that most African Americans who receive money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried or do they really need the help?

20. 2 Domains of Value Systems 2. Opposition to racial busing Example Question Busing elementary school children to schools in other parts of the city only harms their education

21. Kinder & Sears (1981):Results Only symbolic racism significantly explained voting behavior

22. Kinder & Sears (1981) • For symbolic racists, prejudice is disguised as endorsement of conservative values • This enables them to believe they are non-prejudiced, while still supporting political positions that favor Whites over African Americans

23. Aversive Racism Premise: Also proposes that people: 1. Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized • harbor prejudice • endorse egalitarian values that oppose racism and discrimination 2. Are not typically conscious of prejudice

24. Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..

25. Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism Aversive racists… • endorse liberal values • suppress prejudice when it becomes conscious

26. Symbolic and Aversive Racism Symbolic and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control

27. Modern and Aversive Racism Both Symbolic and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice How do they do this?

28. Symbolic and Aversive Racism • Not aware of prejudice on conscious level • Access egalitarian values when cognitive resources are plentiful, and report low prejudice • Ingrained prejudice accessed on implicit measures or non-monitored behaviors

29. Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Premise: People are ambivalent toward the stigmatized. • aversion and hostility • sympathy and compassion

30. Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that... 1. Ambivalence causes threat to self-esteem • No matter how one feels, that feeling is in conflict with the other way one feels

31. Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that... 2. People try to reduce threats to self-esteem • They justify or deny the way the feel at the moment, depending on the situation

32. Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that... 3. Behavior toward the stigmatized is very unstable 4. People are aware of their ambivalence

33. Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 and 2 Examined how the situation affects whether people will justify or deny feeling prejudice toward a stigmatized person

34. Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 Prediction: • People will justify prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

35. Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 Procedure: 1.Male participants evaluated a confederate on 20 item impression questionnaire • liking • warmth • conceit • intelligence • adjustment

36. Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 Procedure: 2.Participant was required to administer shock to confederate as feedback 3. Participant then evaluated confederate 2nd time on impression questionnaire

37. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Manipulations: 1. Confederate race: • African American • White 2. Shock level: (no shock actually given) • strong and painful • weak and not painful

38. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Prediction restated: People justify prejudice by denigrating stigmatized other, making that person seem unworthy and deserving of dislike. This means: Participants who gave “strong shocks” to the African American target should show greatest change in post-shock ratings (negative direction)

39. Results: Negative change = more negative impression after shock Positive change = more positive impression after shock As predicted, impression of African American confederate became most negative after strong shock

40. Katz & Glass (1979)Study 2 Prediction: • People will deny prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

41. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2 Procedure: 1. Participant introduced to confederate 2. Participant required to insult confederate 3. Told confederate left before criticism was explained as part of the experiment 4. Participant believed experiment was over 5. Sent to office for $, where got letter from confederate.....

42. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2 The letter: • Doing an independent study project • Needed one more participant • Study was on repetition • Experimental materials attached • Materials asked participant to repetitively write the same sentence over and over

43. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Manipulations: 1. Confederate race: • African American • White 2. Insult level: • Very hurtful • Not very hurtful

44. Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1 Prediction restated: People will deny prejudice by going out of their way to help a stigmatized other whom they have harmed. This means: Participants who gave “hurtful insult” to the African American target should work the hardest in the repetitive experiment.

45. Results: Values are the average number of times repetitive sentence was written in booklet. As predicted, participants wrote the sentence more often after having harmed the African American target. No other significant differences.

46. Katz & Glass (1979) Conclusion: • People feel ambivalence toward stigmatized others, and respond in extreme ways toward those whom they have harmed • Sometimes behave positively, sometimes negatively depending on the situation

47. How Prejudice Affects Targets • Stereotype Threat (Claude Steele) • Unintended consequences of positive prejudice (Madeline Heilman)

48. Stereotype Threat Premise: • Stigmatized groups are aware of negative stereotypes • This awareness produces “stereotype threat”........

49. Stereotype Threat Definition: Fear that one will be viewed or treated in way consistent with stereotype, or that one will confirm the stereotype

50. Stereotype Threat • Stereotype threat is situationally induced. • Arises when target realizes that negative stereotype can explain their behavior or attributes