Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The nature and effects of Prejudice
PSY203S
Contact details
Dave Nunez
Email: [email protected] Phone: 650-2670 Web: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/~dnunez Space: Room 300, Computer Science Bldg.
Extra readings (SLC)
Required:
Allport, G. (1982/1954). Traits due to victimization. In G. Allport, The nature of prejudice (pp. 142-162). Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley
Strongly Recommended:
Allport, G. (1982/1954). What is the problem? In G. Allport, The nature of prejudice (pp. 3-16). Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company
Is there really a problem? 1965 British Gov. findings (mock job
application):
Interviewer’sResponse
WhiteEnglish Hungarian
Black West Indian
Offer of jobs or encouragement to apply
“No vacancy now" but details taken or asked to return
“No vacancy”
38%
38%
25%
25%
18%
58%
3%
5%
93%
Is there really a problem? Turner, 1991: White applicants in Washington and
Chicago received three times as many job offers as black or hispanic applicants (hispanics got slightly more than blacks)
Third wave foundation (www.thirdwavefoundation.org)
How many women's professional sporting events are broadcast by the major networks?
How many average-size or heavy women appear on your favorite sit-coms? Are they ever the central characters?
How many women artists are covered in your art history classes?
Is there really a problem?
Protest outsideHalliburtonInc’s AGM
(May 19, 2004)
Is there really a problem?
Defining prejudice
Allport (1954): Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed towards a group as a whole or towards an individual because he is a member of that group.
Gordon Allport
More definitions
Worchel et al. (1988): an unjustified negative attitude toward an individual based solely on that individual's membership in a group.
Brown (1995): the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership of that group.
Prejudice is difficult to define
Good idea of what it is, but hard to define operationally
Difficult partly because it changes over time
Common elements of definitions1. It is an intergroup phenomenon2. It is a negative orientation3. It is a bad thing4. It is an attitude
Elements of prejudice
1. Prejudice as an intergroup phenomenon Always involves comparison/judgement based
on group membership (he is a martian; martians are evil; thus he is evil)
Often involves comparisons between groups (martians enslaved us 5000 years ago; therefore we hate martians)
Rarely involve personal characteristics (mostly based on stereotyping and other processes which consider people as exemplars of groups rather than unique entities)
Elements of prejudice
2. Prejudice as negative orientation
Prejudice considered as being against or opposed to something
Can't I be prejudiced in favour of a group?
Social Problems school: social psychology should be about solving problems, so we deal with negative aspects (but can’t we learn something from positive prejudices?)
Which would yourather have asa lecturer? Why?
Elements of prejudice
3. Prejudice as a bad thing Social problems school: prejudice is bad because it
violates norms of thinking (it is rigid, overgeneralizes, etc.)
Del Boca’s (1981) argument against psychologists calling prejudice ‘bad’:
It is not scientifically parsimonious (gets you nowhere) The processes that lead to prejudice are natural and
normal There is no evidence to show that prejudice is more rigid
or pathological that other attitudes like liberalism
Elements of prejudice
4. Prejudice as an attitude An attitude is an enduring structure which
includes emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects, and changes with experience
Need to consider all three parts when discussing prejudice
Emotional – anger, fear, anxiety, etc Cognitive – knowledge about the group, inferences Behavioral – speech, avoidance and other external
behavior
Why worry about definitions?
Defining prejudice seems to be a lot harder than we thought!
Why so many definitions? ‘All things to all people’ Perhaps too complex for a simple definition Definitions are objects of research themselves Depends on what you want to do with your
definition Definitions are not incorrect, only incomplete –
each covers a particular aspect
The victims of prejudice
Who are the victims of prejudice?
Anything which identifies you as a member of a group can make you a victim
Prejudice for nothing
Very little is required to trigger prejudice: Elliot (1968) – Prejudice in
groups of children created on the basis on eye color
Tajfel (1971) – Prejudice in groups of boys created by whether they preferred Klee or Kandinsky paintings
Billig & Tajfel (1973) – Prejudice in groups formed by a coin toss (minimalist group paradigm)
Are you a Klee guy or a Kandinsky guy?
What do prejudiced people do?
Allport's (1954) hierarchy of prejudiced actions
ExterminationAntilocution
Discrimination PhysicalAttack
Avoidance
Least prejudiced Most prejudiced
These actions only affectthe prejudiced person
These actions affectthe targeted person
Notes on Allport’s hierarchy Only a rough guide
Actually many more types of actions Useful idea (intensity of prejudice related to violence of
action) Does not give enough importance to considerations
of group action Especially for slight actions All actions seem to be done by individuals!
Prejudiced action is complex – personal prejudice seems only to a minor determinant Group processes seem to bring about both prejudice and
action
The effects of prejudice
What effects does prejudice have?
On its victims Short term vs. long term effects Does the personality of the victim determine the effects of
prejudice?
On the perpetrator Positive effects (rewards / psychological benefits) Are there negative effects? (Is being prejudiced bad for
you?)
Allport’s 1954 model of compensatory behaviour
A model for predicting effects on victims of prejudice Strongly individual based
Short term effect of prejudice is always frustration Arises from helplessness in a particular situation If maintained, will lead to sensitization and concern
Long term effects determined by personality Intropunitive [tends to blame self / internal locus of control] Extropunitive [tends to blame outside / external locus of
control]
Allport’s 1954 effects model
-Obsessive concern / Suspicion-Slyness / Cunning-Strengthening in-group ties-Prejudice against other groups-Aggression and revolt-Enhanced striving
-Denial of group membership-Withdrawal and passivity-Clowning-Self-hate-In-group aggression-Sympathy with all victims-Symbolic status striving-Neuroticism
Sensitization and concern
Suffering from frustration induced by discrimination
Extropunitive individuals Intropunitive individuals
Effects on the prejudiced person: Positive effects
Intra-personal effects (personal effects) Increase in status in own group
provided prejudiced behaviour is a group norm Create a sense of belonging
emphasizes us/them distinction Avoid a sense of inferiority “At least I’m not a…”
Works because inferiority is a commonly perceived trait of target groups
Material group gains Specifically for majority groups Spoils of discriminatory economic practices
Effects on the prejudiced person: Negative effects
Curtailment of individual personality Won't adopt tendencies/attitudes perceived as
opposed to the group Fear of ostracism by group
Conflict with value systems Dilemmas set up by own values / group values Especially true for religious beliefs
Restriction of talent or social advances Disallowing oneself privileges by own actions Loss of freedom to pursue particular activities or hold
particular attitudes
Research on perpetrators: Explanation or excuse? Lack of research on topics which
emphasize humanity of the perpetrator Causes seen as excuses Often works to demonize subjects Research on prejudice itself brings
about victim/perpetrator group evaluations and prejudice
What is the goal of research? To create a description of a
phenomenon To add weight to a particular social
position
Does finding reasons forprejudiced actions explain
or excuse them?
Measuring prejudice: Scales
Many scales, eg Duckitt's Subtle Racism Scale; Landis' Social Climate Survey Likert type
statement agreement scales
27. Instructors predominantly used male pronouns in class
44. Racial/ethinc jokes were frequently heard at meetings of campus social organizations.
69. A white student said to a friend, "this would be a good school if we didn't have all those foreign students around.“
100. I dislike having an instructor of a race other than mine.
116. Minorities shouldn't feel offended by the symbols (eg. flags or songs) of school spirit even if those symbols have been associated in the past with racial segregation.
Examples from Duckitt’s scale
Is prejudice on the decline? Percentage of subjects selecting negative
traits to describe black Americans (student sample) (Davidio & Fazio 1992)
Trait
Superstitious
Lazy
Ignorant
Physically dirty
Unreliable
1933
84
75
38
17
12
1967
13
26
11
3
3
1990
3
4
5
0
4
Is prejudice on the decline?
Percentage endorsing prejudiced attitude statements (US surveys) (Davidio & Fazio 1992)
Statement
Object to family member bringing home black friend for dinner
Agree that there should be lawsagainst mixed marriages betweenblacks and whites
Think that blacks and whitesshould go to separate schools
1963
52
69
38
1976
26
35
20
1985
20
28
7
Hang on just a cotton-pickin’…
Is there an associated increase in tolerance?
Would you object to this person moving in as you neighbour? (1992) [percentage saying yes]
Minorities(black, hispanic, asian, etc)
AIDS sufferers
Homosexuals
“Emotionally unstable”
10%
26%
28%
25%
What is going on?
Changes in societal norms have led to prejudice not being expressed; buf beliefs still exist
Naturalistic studies have shown Helping behaviours are still mostly aimed at own
ethnic group. In situations where contact was necessary
between donor and recipient (and refusal would have been more visible), only 30% had own- group bias.
Prejudice hunting in the world
Questionnaires don’t work anymore! Time to get sneaky
The ‘bogus pipeline’ study (Sigall & Page, 1971) Connect subjects to a machine which “can tell
measure their true feelings” Tell them the study is about something else Tell subjects you need to “calibrate the machine”, and
that when you ask them a question, the subject must predict what the machine will say.
In the “calibration stage” ask them about their prejudiced beliefs
Notes on the Bogus Pipeline
No shame in admitting true feelings (“the machine can tell anyway”) Reduces social responsibility,
so prejudice becomes OK
Results from the pipeline: Not connected to machine:
Respond with positive statements to blacks and whites
Connected to the machine: Tended to respond about blacks in more negative terms
Am impressivelyuseless machine like a polygraph works well for bogus pipeline studies
Another sneaky idea: Interethnic proximity
lnterethnic proximity (Hendricks & Bootzin, 1976) Where will people sit in relation to members of
other groups?
Subjects (white) taken to a waiting room. All the chairs were empty except for one other “subject” [confederate] - either a black person or a white person
Notes on Hendricks & Bootzin
Results: When directly asked, ethnicity had no effect (social desirability was active).
But — subjects sat, on average, one seat further from black confederate than from the white (They didn't realize they were being watched).
Hendricks & Bootzin’s study tried to recreate a natural setting in whichto observe, to reduce the effect of the social desirability effect.
How do we explain these results?
Kelman (1961): We weigh the cost:benefit ratio of acting on internalized prejudice rather than in an externally desirable way.
This is why prejudice is not expressed in public - we gain a bigger reward by acting not prejudiced.
But, make it rewarding to act in a prejudiced way - and prejudice can be expressed in public more than in private.
Prejudice has a new face
"red-neck prejudice" is dying out - but it is being replaced. By symbolic or indirect expressions
“expression in terms of abstract ideological symbols and symbolic behaviour that [American] blacks are violating cherished values and making illegitimate demands for changes in the racial status quo” (McConahay & Hough, 1976)
The amazing “National Security” argument (racial profiling, Guantanamo Bay detentions, etc)
Why the change?
Changing societal norms Feel we should not violate abstract meritocratic values. Increasing rewards for not expressing prejudice
Is it symbolic racism to oppose a policy which specifically gives benefits only to one race? The impossible question Think about how you would feel depending on which race
gets the benefits How does history, morality, social values fit into this?
