Stereotyping and Prejudice: I

1. Stereotyping and Prejudice: I • Prejudice is a ubiquitous social problem. • Soundtrack: Mr. Cab Driver (Lenny Kravitz)

2. Examples • Amadou Diallo • Auburn University students suspended for dressing up in Ku Klux Klan robes and blackface during a Halloween party (Oct., 2001)

3. 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…

4. What is prejudice? • Prejudice is an attitude. • Attitudes have 3 components: affective, cognitive, and behavioral

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. Stereotypes and prejudice • What are some common stereotypes on campus?

9. Stereotyping and Prejudice based on Race • What does “race” mean? (from Diamond, 1994, November, Discover) • Not a meaningful biological category • Human genome project: What percentage of our genes determine our external appearance? _____ 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”

10. What is race? • Classifying by skin color & related characteristics appears objective, but other equally valid ways to specify race. • Other ways yield different groups

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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.

14. What is race? • Race is an arbitrary SOCIAL category, not a biological one. • So, why is it such an important category for humans?

15. Cognitive factors • Categorization • Principle of least effort: the tendency to rely on over-simplified generalizations and to resist information that complicates our categorical distinctions.

16. 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.

17. Example of confirmation bias • Clip from “Hairspray” • Set in Baltimore 1963, beginning of Civil Rights movement

18. Illusory correlation • Illusory Correlation – the tendency to see relationships, or correlations, between events that are actually unrelated.

19. Illusory correlation • When we expect 2 events to be related, we may incorrectly believe that they are related, even if they are not.

20. Example • May hold belief that women who have a baby are more likely to leave their jobs. • How would you test this idea?

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Illusory correlation Group A Group B • (majority) (minority) • Behaviors • Desirable • Undesirable • 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 _______________the frequency with which the “minority” group acted undesirably. Demonstrated illusory correlation.

25. Exercise

26. 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”

27. 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?

28. 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.

29. 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. • DV: How people evaluated the job applicant • Results: • 1. People who received ___________feedback evaluated the Jewish applicant more _________ (ingroup favoritism). • 2. People who received ________feedback and evaluated the Jewish applicant (negatively) showed the largest __________in self-esteem.

30. Non-Jewish Candidate

31. Non-Jewish Candidate

32. 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.

33. 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 _____outgroup members would make choice similar to target; did not do this for ingroup members.

34. Video clip: Ingroup bias/negative view toward outgroup “Planes, Trains, and Automobiles”

35. Discussed cognitive factors  prejudice • Now, turn to social factors

36. Realistic conflict theory • Realistic Conflict Theory: Intergroup conflict develops from competition for limited resources.

37. 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

38. Creating ingroups • Divided into two groups.

39. Intergroup competition • Rattlers & Eagles – placed in competitive situations (baseball, treasure hunt, tug-of-war) and gave points to winning team • Ingroup favoritism (own members brave, friendly, tough) • Disliking for outgroup (sneaky, stinkers, smart alecks)

40. Competing for same resources (realistic conflict) breeds prejudice

41. Intergroup cooperation • Said nice things about other group • Put in situations together (e.g., dining hall) • Mere contact did not work!

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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.

45. Disappointing outcome • Research in the 1970's and 80's showed that contact between children from different ethnic/racial groups was not reducing prejudice.

46. Why was the outcome disappointing? • Contact hypothesis: proposes that contact reduces prejudice UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. • These conditions were not met in the desegregation efforts.

47. 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

48. 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)

49. 6. Existing norms must favor group equality • Not true during desegregation – in fact, much resistance.

50. Jigsaw technique • Jigsaw technique (Eliot Aronson):. A jigsaw classroom is a classroom setting designed to reduce prejudice and raise the self-esteem of children by placing them in small desegregated groups and making each child dependent on the other children in the group to learn the course material and do well in the class.