Lec 2: Stereotyping, Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism

Exam #1 for Multicultural Psych480A

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Suggests that people derive part of their self-concept from group memberships

Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1987)

Explains how people perceive themselves and others as members of groups rather than just as individuals; differentiates between personal identity & social identity

Social Categorization

Categorizing ourselves and others into groups (“us” vs “them”)

Social Identification

Adopting the identity of the group

Social Comparison

Comparing our in-groups with out-groups to maintain positive self-esteem

In-group favoritism & out-group bias

Favoring our group and sometimes devaluing others to enhance self-image

How Groups are Formed

Repeated direct interactions over time, shared membership in a social category, such as sex, race, or other defining attributes, common fate, identity, or collective goals

Why are Groups Formed?

Sense of belonging, self-concept and identity, safety and security, and support

Ingroup

Groups to which we belong

Outgroup

Groups to which we do not belong

Ingroup Bias (Favoritism)

Tendency to favor, have positive feelings (affect) toward, and attribute more positive characteristics to one’s ingroup

Outgroup Homogeneity

Belief that members of outgroups are more similar to each other (“the all look alike”)

Why do we perceive that outgroup members are alike

simplicity, self-concept enhancement, limited exposure

Minimal Group Paradigm

Groups formed on arbitrary on random criteria

Prejudice

“A biased evaluation of a group, based on real or imagined characteristics of the group members” (Nelson 2006). an evaluative component of categorization

Stereotype

A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people. Cognitive component of categorization

Positive Stereotype

Attribute desirable traits to a group

Negative Stereotype

Attribute undesirable traits to a group

Neutral Stereotype Examples

boys are more active, food preference

Dovidio et al. (1996)

Meta analysis on a dozen studies showed that stereotyping and prejudice are strongly related

Balance Theory (Heider, 1958)

One’s attitudes, behavior, and evaluation (and affect) should be cognitively consistent

Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)

Discomfort felt when an individual holds contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time

Discrimination

Unfair or prejudicial treatment of people/groups based on characteristics or group membership. Behavioral component of categorization

Racism

A discriminatory behavior that has institutional power behind it. One of the forms of oppression. Institutional component of categorization

Why do we Stereotype?

Cognitive efficiency, need to understand and anticipate others’ behaviors, social learning

The Categorization/Stereotyping Process

Automatic and quick, virtually becomes automatic, fast but flawed

Selective Attention to Stereotype-Relevant Information

Paying attention to stereotype-consistent information, while ignoring stereotype-inconsistent information.

More likely to remember stereotype-consistent information about outgroup

More likely to remember stereotype-inconsistent information about ingroup

Subcategorization (Subtyping)

process whereby a new category is created to accommodate stereotype-inconsistent members of a group about which one holds negative stereotypes

Illusory Correlations

Overestimating the association between variables that are in fact only weakly correlated or not correlated at all

Attribution Theory

Attempts to determine the cause of a behavior. The major dimensions are internal-external and stable-unstable

Fundamental Attribution Error

The tendency to overestimate dispositional (internal, stable) causes of behaviors and to underestimate external causes of behaviors

Ultimate Attribution Error

The tendency to ascribe the cause of a behavior to dispositional characteristics of the group rather than to an individual member

Old-Fashioned Prejudice

Open, hostile acts of aggression against people of color consciously and unapologetically. Based on belief in the “biological inferiority” of people of color. (e.g., slavery, legal segregation)

Contemporary: Modern-Symbolic Prejudice

Denies racism.

Inequality attributed to people of color’s lack of motivation/hard work

High opportunity-based egalitarianism

Low outcome-based egalitarianism

Against giving special treatment to minority groups

Motivated to not express prejudice

Only expressed when the individual believes it is safe, acceptable, or easily rationalizable

Contemporary: Aversive Prejudice

Similar to modern-symbolic…

• denies racism

• believes in equality

• motivated to not express prejudice

• only expressed when the individual believes it is safe, acceptable, or easily rationalizable

How Aversive Differs from Modern-Symbolic

Supports equality-enhancing social programs. More strongly motivated to appear unprejudiced. People high in aversive prejudice prefer to avoid interracial contacts as it arouses negative effect (anxiety, discomfort)

Aversive Prejudice

Overly positive intergroup behavior. Pro-white bias. Derogation of higher status minority group members

Changes in Racial Attitudes

Explicit biases have changed over time. Some support for changes in implicit attitudes over the past decade.

Implicit Measures

Response latency procedures following priming (e.g., IAT).

Psychophysiological Measures

Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald (1998))

Measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., African Americans) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic).

Based on responses that are beyond intentional control and awareness — taps into automatic processing.

Purpose: to combat social desirability responses to explicit measures

Do Implicit Measures Predict “True” Racial Attitudes

Association between implicit bias and behavior is generally small, but can vary depending on domain (e.g., greater for implicit political preferences)

Origins of Prejudice

Social identity theory, optimal distinctiveness theory, scapegoat theory, realistic conflict theory

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory

Social motives are governed by an alternating tension between our needs for uniqueness and belongingness

Scapegoat Theory

Prejudice provides an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame

Realistic Conflict Theory

Prejudice occurs when groups are in competition for scarce resources

Group Awareness in Children Prejudice

To be prejudiced, must first notice group differences

Awareness =/ prejudice, but prejudice cannot occur without awareness of group categories

In the US, awareness of gender comes before awareness of race

Babies as young as 3-4 months can distinguish men from women

By age 3-4: Aware of racial differences

Development of Racial Prejudice

Children begin to show prejudiced attitudes around age 4, with prejudice increasing until about age 7 and then decreasing (Aboud, 1988)

Social Influence

Little evidence that children acquire racial attitudes directly from parents and friends although indirect learning is plausible (Aboud and Doyle, 1996)

Generally non-significant correlation between children’s and their parents’ and friends’ racial attitudes

Black Children’s Racial Attitudes

Black kindergarten children showed some preference for whites, with age, children became more positive towards blacks, racial attitudes are not necessarily related to self-esteem (Aboud and Doyle, 1996)

The Doll Test (Clark and Clark 1947)

Children are presented with dolls of different races

Preference questions asked (e.g., which one is nice, which one is mean)

results: most children preferred a white doll

Limitations: how the questions are phrased implies that there is a mean doll and a nice doll (prejudice built into the questions)

forces choice; children have to pick one doll (no middle ground)

Preschool Racial Attitude Measure (PRAM) (Williams, Best, and Boswell, 1975)

Shown a series of line drawings of two children (African American and European American)

Select the figure that best completes the story: “Here are two girls: One of them is happy and smiles all the time. Which one is the happy girl?”

10-20 different qualities

More positive qualities = preference

Ambiguous Situations Task (McGlothlin, Killen, and Edmonds, 2005)

Two versions of identical cards, only difference is race (one kid on the ground, other standing behind the swing)

Jane Elliott: Blue Eyes Brown Eyes exercise

Had students day 1 have blue eyes be “superior” over brown eyes and then vice versa for day 2

Microagressions

Brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to people of color because they are a racial minority group (Sue et al., 2007)

More about Microaggressions

Perpetrators are often unaware, effects on the targets can be detrimental, perpetrated against any group on the downside of the power. Sexism, ageism, heterosexism, ableism, and the like can be subtly expressed in the form of microaggressions

Micro assaults

An explicit racial derogation characterized primarily by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory

Mostly expressed in private settings

Public expressions is possible if perpetrator feels safe to engage (e.g., internet)

Microinsults

Communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity

Microinvalidation

Communications that exclude, negate or dismisses the perceptions of the target person

Macroaggressions

Overt aggressions toward a certain social group that may be publicized and traumatic

Racial Battle Fatigue

Both macro and microaggressions can contribute to this. The term, coined by Dr William Smith “cumulative emotional, psychological, physiological, and behavioral effects of racial micro-level aggressions and macro-level aggressions have on racialized targets of racism”

Stigma Consciousness

Individual differences in the extend to which targets expect to be stereotyped or discriminated against

Stigma Consciousness Scale (Pinel, 1999)

When interacting with people of races/ethnicities different from my own, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors in terms of my race/ethnicity. My race/ethnicity does not influence how people act with me are sample items from this.