Exam 3 Prejudice and Stererotype

Discrimination

behaving differently toward

people based on their membership in a social

group

 What are some factors that you think would predict if

someone would discriminate (i.e., behave in a

prejudiced manner)?

Discrimination

Predicting Discrimination

When do explicit attitudes predict controllable

biased behavior?

Prejudice/Discrimination relation is relatively weak,

r = .27 for self-report attitudes

Why so low?

People’s motivation to respond without prejudice may influence when/why they discriminate

Predicting Discrimination

Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice: INTERNAL

Internal (IMS) item “I am personally motivated by my

beliefs to be nonprejudiced toward Black people.”

(More successful if internal)

Motivation to Respond

Without Prejudice: External

– External (EMS) item “I attempt to appear

nonprejudiced toward Black people in order to avoid

disapproval from others.”

Motivation to Respond

Without Prejudice: Internal & EXTERNAL

• Scales are independent & modified to address to

various forms of bias

Motivation &

The Control of Prejudice

Motivation influences when and whether people

control prejudiced behavior (i.e., discrimination)

• The more self-determined a goal, the more

successful people are at meeting goal

The Control of Prejudice

Prejudiced responses in public vs. private (any

motivation leads to less prejudice)

• As control becomes more difficult, only the most

internalized respond without prejudice

The Control of Prejudice

High internally(IMS)/low externally (EMS)

motivated people respond with little or no implicit or

affective bias

Controlling Automatic Prejudice

High IMS/low EMS people respond with less

prejudice even when control is impaired

– Schlauch et al. (2009) examined responses when

people were intoxicated (vs. control and placebo

How do People Regulate Prejudice?

What can motivation tell us about how people

treat outgroup members?

• What are the goals people might pursue in

interracial interactions?

– Get to know person – approach good

– Avoid making a bad/biased impression – avoid bad

Internal motivation (IMS)

results in approaching a good interaction

External Motivation (EMS)

Results in avoiding a bad (prejudiced) impression

Motivation and Interactions

NonBlack pps of varying IMS/EMS engaged

in a “getting to know you” interaction with

Black confederate

• Were told to spend as much time as they felt was

necessary to get to know their partner

• Interactions were timed and videotaped

Internally motivated pps

Had longer interactions

– Used more approach, other-focused strategies

– Had a better interactions (according to self and

partner

Externally motivated pps

Reported using more avoidance strategies

– Focused on themselves (not partner)

– Partners rated them as more biased

Social Support

There is a stronger relationship between attitude

and discrimination, if people think others support

their views

Prejudice is more “acceptable” toward certain groups

– some examples?

e.g., child abusers 97% approve vs. blind people

2% approve

Social Support

Perceived Social Support

White pp’s pre-screened for attitudes toward Black

people

Told 81% or 19% of students agree with them

Design: 2 (racial attitude: high vs. low) X 2 (social

support: others agree vs. not)

Asked to sit in hall to wait - Black confederate is

seated in 1st seat

Where does the pp sit?

Perceived Social Support

Results Sechrist & Stangor

1.Overall Effect of racial attitude

2.Perceived Social Support influenced high prejudice pp’s only

Social pressure

is the impact of social pressure on behavior

due to a change in attitude?

Social pressure: Blanchard et al., 1994

White pps asked how racism on campus should be

handled (should a blatantly racist act result in

expelling the student?)

Social pressure

Confederate provided response first

(condemning or condoning racism)

Pps then responded in public or private

Design: 2 (confederate: condemn vs. condone) X

2 (pp response: public vs. private)

Did pp’s responses conform to confederates?

On graph : suggests a change in attitude

Shift occurred whether pp response given in

public or private

Higher scores indicate harsher punishment

Implications of Social Pressure

Compliance with nonprejudiced pressure can

be easily elicited from the highly externally

motivated

 What are the potential consequences of such

compliance if low in internal motivation?

 Internalization

 Mere compliance

 Reactance and Backlash

Backlash Study

Pps induced to write an essay supporting a pro-

affirmative action policy they did not favor (Plant

& Devine, 2001)

 Assessed anger

 Given 20 ballots to vote for or against policy

(direction and strength)

((Note: High EMS/low IMS – high external, low internal motivation)

Social Support

There is a stronger relationship between attitude and discrimination, if

people think others support their views

Prejudice is more “acceptable” toward certain groups – some examples? (Politicians, colleges, sports teams)

((e.g., child abusers 97% approve vs.

blind people 2% approve))

Perceived Social Support

Sechrist & Stangor (2001)

White pp’s pre-screened for attitudes toward Black people

Told 81% or 19% of students agree with them

Sechrist & Stangor

Design: 2 (racial attitude: high vs. low) X 2 (social support: others agree vs. not)

Asked to sit in hall to wait - Black confederate is seated in 1st seat Where does the pp sit?

(Can you wait in the hallway , the first seat always have black confederate and they look to see where the participants will sit)

Results Sechrist & Stangor

1. There was an overall effect of racial attitudes

   (If there low in prejudiced it can be a bias of them trying to show that they aren’t=They sit about 1 sit away) If they are high in prejudice they will feel like they can act like it too= they sit towards the end)

2. Perceived Social Support influenced high prejudice pp’s only

   (For the high it matters to see if others supported their views. (if they agree they are more likely to act prejudiced)

Motivation & Social Pressure

Compliance with nonprejudiced pressure can be easily elicited, particularly from externally motivated (high EMS) people

Motivation & Social Pressure

What are the potential consequences of such compliance of high EMS, if low in internal motivation?  Internalization(take on beliefs as there on)  Mere compliance (go along but don’t accept it)  Reactance and Backlash

(you can comply but not accept, i might go along with it for a while then become biased

Motivation & Social Pressure

 Pp’s induced to write an essay supporting a pro-affirmative action policy they did not favor (Plant & Devine, 2001)  Assessed anger  Given 20 ballots to vote for or against policy (direction and strength)

(Giving them the chance to submit votes , if your in favor or against and submit anonymously and we saw the implications of it.

(Pressure to respond without prejudice may have resentment)

Graph for Voting study essay

High EMS/low IMS – high external, low internal motivation

(No one was in favor and it made the ither group really mad )

It suggest that people feel pressured and don’t agree but they feel pressured to do it

(if you push people they will become angry and eventually will have backlash towards it))))))

Being Confronted as Prejudiced :Czopp et al (2006)

Induced pps to respond in a way that could be interpreted as prejudiced

This person can be found behind bars (with picture of Black man) ((Most people would say prisoner but the confederate would say thats racists its someone who works at the bar))

Confederate comments that the pp was being prejudiced (in hostile or less hostile manner)

Czopp et al (2006) continues:

People felt angrier with the confronter who was hostile

But, people in both conditions responded with less stereotypical answers on a similar subsequent task

Swim & Hyers (1999): Responding to Sexism

Situational forces can influence whether people confront prejudice Swim and Hyers (1999)

– Who were the participants in Studies 1 & 2?

study 1: 108 undergrad and 113 on average same age

– What was the study design in Study 1?

Manipulated: 2 by 2 (solo vs no solo then (sexist vs non sexist)

– What did the participants do in Study 1?

Activity where they picked people on deserted island about 12 people to help survive and you learn a little about them

A man suggested a chef: “ the women could cook” (SEXISTS) also “ we have women here to entertain us”

Swim and Hyers (1999)

What % ignored the sexist comments in their public responses in Study 1?

55% did nothing and didn’t say anything

• Which individual difference predicted whether pp’s confronted in Study 1?

Whether they considered themselves activists

• In their private responses (thoughts and feelings), how did the participants respond in Study 1?

The women were saying its horrible, not a positive experience (100%)

Swim and Hyers (1999) continues:

What did the participants do in Study 2?

There reading about it and hearing what happened

What % imagined that they would ignore the sexist comments in Study 2?

1% said they’ll stay silent

• Thoughts, questions, concerns? • The vast majority in Study 2 imagined they would confront sexism, but when put in situation (Study 1)

99% said that they would do something

Confronting Discrimination

 What would you do? ABC series featuring Jack Dovidio

What were the different ways that people responded to the expression of prejudice?

Some people agreed with the man who was displaying discrimination towards the muslim women

Some people stood up and voiced their opinions to stand up to the muslim women

someone cursed the man out which was least effective because he showed his emotions but it didn’t help anything