Upload
victoria-holt
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Lecture Outline
Private v.s. public support
Prejudice reduction strategies
Discrimination
Causes of discrimination
Coping with a disadvantaged status
Allport (1954)
Private support: Private institutional support to reduce prejudice at the community level:
»National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
»Anti-Defamation League
Allport (1954)
Public support: Public (government) support to reduce prejudice through laws:
»Fair Housing Laws»Presidential decree:
example: desegregate military (Truman)
Allport (1954)
“The intent of laws is to equalize advantages and lessen discrimination. Legislation aims not at controlling prejudice, but only its open expression...when expression changes, thoughts too, in the long run, are likely to fall into line.”
Approaches To Prejudice Reduction
1. Education2. Colorblind approach
3. Multiculturalism4. Intergroup contact5. Common group identity
Education
Cause: prejudice resides in perpetrators of prejudice; a personal flaw
Premise: better understanding of minority groups will reduce prejudice
Solution: educate the prejudiced about other groups
Education
Biggest limitation:
Least prejudiced people most willing to seek out relevant information
– “Preaching to the choir”
Colorblind Approach
Cause: acknowledgement of group membership
Premise: pretend group membership doesn’t matter, and soon it won’t
Solution: ignore group membership and create a group-neutral society
Colorblind Approach
The color blind approach has been advocated as goal by civil rights leaders:
“I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character”
M.L. King, Jr., 8/28/63
The color blind approach has also been advocated by conservatives:
End the double standard of racial preferences in higher education admissions: “Avoid the politics of racialism and pursue an agenda
that is colorblind in law and
practice.”
William Bennett, 1/10/2003
Color Blind Approach
Biggest limitations:
1. Assumes level playing field for different social groups. But...
– Race does influence judgments
– Not all groups have same advantages
Color Blind Approach
Biggest limitations:
2. Suppressing stereotyping makes it more intense in future
– Stereotype rebound (suppression) effect
Color Blind Approach
Stereotype Rebound Study
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
Shown photo of skinhead
Composed passage
Manipulation:–no special instructions
–told not to use stereotypes
Shown photo of 2nd skinhead
Composed passage of 2nd skinhead
DV: Stereotypic content of passage
Passage Suppression Control Group Group
1 5.54 6.952 7.83 7.08
Stereotype Rebound Study
Macrae et al., (1994)
Implication:
A colorblind society may have opposite effect than intended
–By trying to ignore group member-ship, people may use it more
Stereotype Rebound Study
Macrae et al., (1994)
Multicultural Approach
Cause: Lack of assimilation
Premise: Assimilation of different cultures, traditions, customs, etc. will reduce prejudice
Solution: Make groups more similar
Multicultural Approach
Two versions:
1. One-way assimilation–minority groups take on customs, traditions, etc of majority group
Limitation: minority group has to abandon their own heritage and culture
Multicultural Approach
Two versions:
2. Melting pot assimilationMinority & majority groups take on each others’ customs, traditions, etc.
All contribute to newly emerging culture
Limitation: majority groups resist this kind of assimilation; takes very long time
Intergroup Contact
Cause: Stereotypes come from limited interaction between groups
Premise: Contact between minority and majority groups reduces prejudice by dispelling stereotypes
Solution: Increase contact between different social groups
Mere Exposure version:
Mere exposure in the absence of structure or institutional support is sufficient to (1) increase contact and (2) reduce prejudice
Intergroup Contact
Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)
Examined whether mere exposure increases intergroup contact
Participants: students, 10-13 yrs oldn = 120048% African American; 52% white
Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)
Procedures:
Examined seating patterns in the cafeteria for 1 year
Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)
Results:
1. Race and gender were both significant grouping criteria
»boys sat with boys»girls sat with girls»AA sat with AA»W sat with W
Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)
Results:
2. Racial segregation decreased during 7th grade, but increased during 8th grade where:
–students tracked into ability groups
–accelerated track mostly Whites
–regular track mostly African Americans
Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977)
Conclusions:
1. Mere exposure not sufficient to increase intergroup contact
Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)
Examined whether mere exposure increased amount and intimacy of contact
Participants: French and English speaking college students
24% French; 76% English
Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)
Procedure: –Kept diary of all interactions
–Rated interactions for intimacy
–Rated interactions for importance
Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)
Prediction: If ethnicity does not matter then:
% of interactions = base rates
same intimacy same importance
Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984)
Results:% interactions > base
rates
intimacy > w/i group interactions
importance > w/i group interactions
Mere Exposure
Does mere exposure increase contact?
No.
Does mere exposure reduce prejudice?
No.
Intergroup Contact
1954 Supreme Court ruling that segregated schools is
unconstitutional
Beyond Mere Exposure
Allport’s contact hypothesis:
Intergroup contact reduces prejudice if four characteristics are present:
–equal status between groups
–common goals–intergroup cooperation–support of institution or authority
Contact Hypothesis
Received mixed support
Researchers keep adding characteristics to make it work
Like...............
Contact Hypothesis
Intimate contactPossibility of friendshipsSuperordinate goalsNorms that favor group
equalityBehaviors must dispel
stereotypesIndividuals viewed as typical
And the list goes on, leading some to wonder whether contact works at all
Jigsaw Classroom
Provides strong support for the contact hypothesis
Jigsaw classroom:
Based on cooperation, not competition
Encourages intergroup contact
Satisfies many characteristics listed before
Jigsaw Classroom
Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids
learning about pets
Child 1Canaries
Child 2Hamsters
Child 3Goldfish
Child 4Dogs
Child 5Cats
Canaryexpertgroup
Hamsterexpertgroup
Goldfishexpertgroup
Dogexpertgroup
Catexpertgroup
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
1. Learning achieved through cooperation among small groups of children who are inter-dependent
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
2. Interaction among children is high. Interaction between teacher and student is low
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
3. Equal status between children of different ethnic and gender groups
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
4. Process is overseen and facilitated by teacher – i.e., process has institutional support
Jigsaw Classroom
In comparison to traditional classroom, jigsaw students:
Like students of other ethnicities and gender more
Have higher self-esteem
Learn just as much
Hold more positive intergroup attitudes
Show less prejudice and stereotyping
Jigsaw Classroom
What accounts for the success of the jigsaw classroom?
It may have something to do with a
Common Ingroup Identity
Common Ingroup Identity
Cause: Ingroup - outgroup designation
Premise: Prejudice stems from seeing others as belonging to an outgroup
Solution: Have different group form one big group
Common Ingroup Identity
Example of Common Ingroup Identity
Final state of the summer camp studies
–Through superordinate goal, boys came to see each other as one large group, rather than two smaller competing groups
Plane Wreck StudyGaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio
(1989)
Show that common ingroup identity reduces prejudice
Procedures: 1. participants met in groups of 32. selected name for group3. discussed items to salvage from
plane wreck4. two (3 person) groups became one
(6 person) group
Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)
Manipulation: Original groups retained their
names–maintained original group identities
Larger group chose new name for all
–created a common ingroup identity
Individuals chose new name for self
–reduced original group ties
Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)
Participants rated others in 6 person group
Dependent VariableRating of original group members minus their rating of new group members: (old - new)
Higher values indicate greater bias against new members
0.000.050.100.150.200.250.300.350.400.45
Originalname
IndividualNames
One newname
Deg
ree
of
Bia
s
•Greatest bias when in and outgroups salient
•Intermediate bias when group membership minimized.
•Lowest bias when groups formed common ingroup identity
Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989)
Discrimination
Unfair treatment of person/group in
comparison to others who are not members of that
group
Causes of Discrimination
1. Stereotypes bias impressions
2. Personal characteristics match a stereotype
3. Social Networks
Cause #1:Stereotypes Bias
Impressions
Stereotypes Impressions Decisions
Stereotypes bias impressions, impressions influence decisions, such as who to hire
Positive Stereotyping Study
Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto (1991)
Participants: 162 women, 162 men
Procedures: Participants rated women or men on 32 traits
16 were positive16 were negative
Higher value = more favorable rating
Positive Stereotyping Study
Eagly et al. (1991)
0.12
0.22
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Women Men
Group Rated by Participants
Fav
ora
bil
ity
of
Tra
its
Positive Stereotyping Study
Eagly, Mladinic, & Otto (1991)
Conclusion:
1. Sex stereotypes bias impressions of women in a favorable way
2. Individual women are then discriminated against for having these positive traits because the traits are devalued in high status/high paying professions
Diagnostic Case Information
Information that is relevant to a judgment
Reduces the effect that a stereotype has on impressions
Assertiveness Study (Locksley)
Diagnostic Case Information
Stereotypes should not lead to job discrimination because job applicant’s give lots of diagnostic case information when applying for a job.
This has led researchers to hypothesize a more complex relationship between stereotypes and discrimination.................
Cause #2: Match B/T Personal
Characteristics and a Stereotype
Premise: Job applicants are judged as more suitable for job when their personal characteristics match those associated with the job.
Example: Nurturing person will be judged more suitable as a child care worker than a lawyer.
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Participants: 467 men and 13 women business professionals in Northeast Wisconsin
Procedure: Mailed them a packet that included:
cover letter resume of job applicant questionnaire
Matching StudyGlick et al., (1988)
Cover letter:
Indicated that purpose of study was to examine the influence of resume styles on hiring decisions.
Instructed participants to read the resume carefully and then respond to the questionnaire
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Manipulations:
1. Gender of applicant: Kate NorrisKen Norris
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Manipulations: 2. Applicant’s personal characteristics
masculine: summer job in retail sales at sporting good store, work study job with maintenance crew, captain of varsity basketball team
feminine: summer job in retail sales at jewelry store, work study job as aerobics instructor at campus gym, captain of the pep squad
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Manipulations:
3. Type of job applying for:
masculine: sales manager for heavy machinery company
feminine: dental receptionist/secretary
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Dependent Variables:
1. Personality trait ratings on masculine and feminine traits
2. Likelihood of interviewing applicant for a position
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Stereotypes Impressions Decisions
Good matchto stereotype
Poor matchto stereotype
more likely to get
interviewed
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Stereotypes Impressions DecisionsX
Result:
Sex stereotypes did not bias impressions
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Result:
Greater likelihood of interviewing applicant when match between applicant’s personal characteristics and stereotype was good
Good matchto stereotype
Poor matchto stereotype
more likely to get interviewed
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Masculine manFeminine man
Masculine womanFeminine woman
More likely to be interviewed for masculine
job
More likely to be interviewed
for feminine job
Matching StudyGlick, Zion, & Nelson (1988)
Conclusion:
Discrimination can occur even when stereotypes do not bias impressions
Cause #3:Social Networks
Disadvantaged groups may be excluded from jobs at 3 different stages:
1. Job candidate stage: stage at which employers are recruiting pool of applicants
2. Job entry stage: stage at which one is hired
3. Job promotion stage: stage at which current employee is promoted with company
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Surveyed over 4000 employers about their hiring and promotion procedures
Here is what they found….
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Job Entry Stage
Principle method to identify applicants is
through informal social networks
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Job Entry Stage
Informal social networks hurt minorities/women because:
1. Companies are often segregated
2. On average, minorities/women have lower paying and lower status jobs
Upshot: Whites will learn about better jobs than minorities
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Job Selection Stage
Employers admit to using applicant’s group
membership (race, sex) to infer job relevant skills
when they are unable or unwilling to determine applicant’s actual skill
level
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Job Selection Stage
Use of group membership hurts minorities/women because:
1. Minorities/women perceived less competent
Upshot: Majority will be selected for job more often by virtue of being perceived as more competent
Social Networks StudyBraddock & McPartland (1987)
Job Promotion Stage
Employers were no more likely to promote Whites over minorities for internal
promotions
Upshot: Minorities/women fare best at this stage (though there is still a salary gap)
Five Stage ModelTaylor & McKirnan (1984)
Stages through which disadvantaged groups go through over time
Can take centuries to go through all the stages
Stage 1: Clearly stratified intergroup
relations
Groups are clearly differentiated
on basis of ascribed characteristics
Stage 1: Clearly stratified intergroup
relations
At this stage:
Stratification based solely on group membership
No social mobility whatsoever
Absence of social mobility accepted by advantaged and disadvantaged groups
Stage 2: Emerging individualistic
social ideology
Groups are supposedly differentiated
on basis of achieved characteristics
Stage 2: Emerging individualistic
social ideology
At this stage:Social mobility possible
Advantaged/disadvantaged groups attribute their status to individual characteristics
Attributing status of disadvantaged to their individual characteristics releases high status group from blame
Stage 3: Individual social mobility
Individuals from disadvantaged groups
try to move into advantaged group
Stage 3: Individual social mobility
1. Try to pass as member of the advantaged group:
change physical characteristics
change name change accent
Stage 3: Individual social mobility
2. Disadvantaged adopt some, but not all, characteristics of advantaged group
Stage 3: Individual social mobility
At this stage:Social mobility begins to occur, but only among most talented in disadvantaged group
If no members of disadvantaged group gain access to advantaged group, people attribute status to ascribed characteristics
When some members of disadvantaged group gain access to advantaged group, people attribute status to achieved characteristics
Stage 4: Consciousness raising
Most talented of disadvantaged group have moved into the advantaged
group.
The less talented remain disadvantaged.
Stage 4: Consciousness raising
At this stage:Social mobility serves two functions
confirms belief that social mobility based on achieved characteristics
those who do not gain access to advantaged group may raise awareness that talent is not as important as it appears and instigate collective action
Stage 5: Collective action
The consciousness raising from
Stage 4 creates collective action
Stage 5: Collective action
At this stage: The disadvantaged and advantaged compete
The disadvantaged redefine attributes once viewed as negative as positive
The disadvantaged create new dimensions on which their status should be evaluated
environmental hardships
Stage 5: Collective action
Status of disadvantaged group does not change, and both groups move back to Stage 2
Status of groups reverses and both groups move back to Stage 2 in reversed position
Groups become relatively, but not perfectly, equal and competition continues
Three outcomes of this stage:
Social Status StudyWright, Taylor, & Moghaddam
(1990)
Prediction #1:
Collective action most likely when disadvantaged believe that movement to higher status group is not based on talent
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Prediction #2:
Tokenism leads people to believe that social mobility possible and reduces collective action
Tokenism: when a select few from disadvantaged group gain access into advantaged group
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Procedures:
1. Cover story: told study about ability to make effective decisions
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Procedures:
2. Told that:As in real world, must
move up the social hierarchy
Social mobility possible
Benefits to being in advantaged group
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Procedures:
3. Read criminal case and answer 3 essay questions
4. Essays given to advantaged group for evaluation
5. Informed as to whether their essay was good enough for them to gain access to advantaged group
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Open condition: scored < 8.5 cutoff
Quota condition: scored > cutoff, but not among 30% selected
Token condition: scored > cutoff, but not among 2% selected
Closed condition: no mobility possible
Manipulation: Reason given for failure
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Participants rated extent to which different actions appealed to them: accept decision (no action)
request retest (individual action)
collective protest (individual action
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Number selecting collective action
Open Quota Token Closed
6 8 8 15
Collective action most likely when disadvantaged believe that
movement into higher status group not based on talent
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Number in Token condition selecting collective vs. individual action
Collective Individual
8 23
Tokenism reduces likelihood of collective action
Social Status StudyWright et al. (1990)
Conclusion:
Advantaged groups that allow token members in can avoid collective action and keep most disadvantaged members out, thereby largely maintaining the status quo