Social Psychology - prejudice

Describe a Schema

• A cognitive structure

• Implicitly invoked

• Containing information about the social world

• Sued to understand and interpret information/encounters

• Influence how we: behave; process information; make attributions, inferences and judgements; how we encode, recall, and respond to stimuli

• Self-schemas and other schemas

What are stereotypes?

• Stereotypes are specific types of schemas applied to social groups

• Providing information on how to behave towards; process information about; make attributions; inferences, and judgements about; how to encode, recall, and respond to said group

• Guides our first impressions of others

What types of functions do stereotypes have?

• Cognitive

• Motivational

What is the cognitive function for stereotypes?

• Save energy: Simplifies how we think about social world

• Make predictions: Use category to make dispositional inferences about others

What is the motivational function for stereotypes?

Maintain a positive self-esteem: For social identity & self-concept through comparison with less competent others

Illusory correlation - as perception:

• A relationship when none exists or exaggeration of relationship

• Associative meaning - based on schemas

• Minority groups and negative attributes

• Paired distinctiveness

• Minority groups (less of them) and negative events (occur less)

What are some limitations of the Illusory correlation?

• Only with memory based judgements as memory required?

• Perhaps not illusory, but rational and functionally adaptive to favour the in-group

• Laplace: Rule of Succession

• Bayesian reasoning

Stereotype function - Certain information more important in forming an impression

• Asch’s Configural model - Gestalt based

• Central and peripheral traits

• Some details are more important in allowing us to form an opinion or ‘stereotype’ on a person'

Stereotype formation - First vs more more recent impressions

• Accounting for the primary-recency effect

• Earlier information is the ‘real’ person - most typical

• Attention greatest when making initial impressions

• Early information affects ‘meaning’ of later information

Stereotype formation - Model of unified impression formation

• Central and Peripheral traits. 

• Algebraic model:  Average information received.

• Configural model:  Certain elements dominate and can influence interpretation of others.

• Cognitive dissonance:  Reappraise discrepant elements.

• Drive for unified and organised impression shapes mental processing

How did Hilton & Von Hippel, 1996 define stereotypes?

“.....widely shared generalisations about members of a social group....”

How did Amodio and Devine 2005 define stereotypes?

“...stereotypes function to organise and facilitate the processing of information about members of different social and/or ethnic groups”

(Haire & Grune, 1950) Describe a ‘working man’ from stereotype consistent information

• Difficult to integrate one piece of stereotype inconsistent information - intelligence

• Information ignored, distorted, participants took a long time or promoted him to supervisor

Stereotype processes

• Stereotypes are acquired at an early age. 

• People use stereotypes to readily categorise others, particularly when ambiguities, social tensions, or conflict exist. 

• Change is slow and generally in response to wider social change. 

• Stereotypes are not necessarily inaccurate or wrong and help to make sense of particular intergroup associations. 

Stereotype processes - Assigning individual to a group - categorise

• Based on salient and/or accessible characteristic e.g. gender, race, age, clothing...  

• Activate belief that all members of this group behave in same way.  

• Infer that individual member must posses stereotypical characteristics of the category.  

• Respond to individual on this basis.  

The Princeton trilogy procedure and results

Assign traits to embers of ethnic and national groups

• 84 adjective traits checklist:

• e.g. lazy, fastidious, conscientious

High consensus in stereotype attribution

• Even if groups generally unfamiliar

Favourable evaluation of own group (consistent with Ethnocentrism and Social Identity theory)

Describe the Princeton trilogy replication

• Same procedure and same set of adjectives

• participants were reluctant to participate

• Stereotypes communicated much less negative

What did the Princeton trilogy replication mean?

• Increased intergroup contact

• Stereotypes have faded over the years

Limitations of the Princeton trilogy replication

• Ambiguous instructions given

• No assessment of prejudice

• Adjective list outdated

Describe Stereotype content model

• Identifies universal principles regarding aspects of content. 

• Primary dimensions of warmth and competence underlie emotional and behavioural responses. 

• Perceived Status -> Competence.  

• Competition -> Warmth. 

• Different combinations produce different emotional and behavioural responses. 

What does the Stereotype content model look like?

Describe Implicit bias

A universal feature of social cognition, which varies by individual and group

Shows preference for in-group:

• Especially against disadvantaged out-group

• Affects behavioural choices

• Reflects social desirability

• Maintaining group status

Amongst minority group members, implicit preferences exist towards majority group members too

Is responsive to interventions

Project Implicit

• 68% participants implicit preference for white race.

• Generally stronger effect sizes than self report measures. 

• Controversial – as people often find racism

• Anthony Greenwald on many TV and radio shows.

Implicit bias - Results driven by either of two categories

• Own race preference, or more?

• European-American preference also found in Asians, Hispanics and Mixed race participants.

• African-American participants often do not demonstrate implicit preference for own race.  

• Implicit in-group preferences can ahem real world implications e.g. CV studies (Hiring bias)

Diversity benefits organisations

• 1996–1997, USA, National Organisations Survey. 

• H1 – H8:  All variations on “as race / gender diversity increases, profit too increases”. 

• All supported. 

• Limitation for Implicit bias - hiring bias

How many studies did Devine do for prejudice?

3

Study 01 - Devine (1989)

Deliberate or automatic?

Study 01:

• Knowledge of black cultural stereotype:

• No difference between high and low

• Prejudice participants.

Study 02 - Devine (1989)

• Subconscious priming of Black stereotype to lesser or greater degree. 

• Then - interpretation of ambiguous hostile behaviour – ‘Donald paragraph’. 

• E.g., Donald demands his money back from a store clerk immediately after a purchase; would go somewhere else if mechanic could not fix his car the same day. 

• Evaluative judgements about Donald. 

Study 03 - Devine (1989)

• List thoughts about Black people under anonymous conditions:

• High prejudice – reported primarily negative traits. 

• Low prejudice – reported beliefs that contradicted cultural stereotypes and emphasised equality. 

• Low prejudice – motivated to inhibit automatic stereotype and replace them with equality relevant thoughts.

• So – everyone holds the same stereotypes?

Stereotype processes: Category activation avoidable?

• Schema activation is dependent on processing goals and general attitude towards the category (central vs peripheral processing). 

• Bigots and humanitarians categorical representations differ in automatic

Stereotype processes: Automatic stereotype

• Once activated, it might be:

• Consciously endorsed or consciously adjusted.

• Automatic stereotypes can change or develop through learning, so may be (or become) positive at associational level.

What is prejudice?

• Prejudice:  Prae judicium (pre judgement)

• Prejudice: An unfavourable attitude towards a social group and its members (Crandall & Warner, 2005).

What is Discrimination?

Singling out members of a social group for prejudice based on attributes of their group membership (Kite & Whitley Jr, 2016)

What is Dehumanisation?

Stripping people of their dignity and humanity (Haslam & Loughnan, 2014; de Ruiter, 2023)

What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?

Prejudice and the bystander effect

• Participants heard an ‘emergency’ in the next room.

• Victim either Black or White. 

• Participant either alone or with two

• Helpers. 

• Bystander effect greatly magnified if victim

• Was different ethnicity.

Prejudice and the bystander effect: Tokenism (Chacko, 1982; Hauret & Williams, 2020; Krimmel & Gormley, 2003)

• If you believe your role in society is tokenistic – employed as a categorist

• No job satisfaction

• Woman thought they were hired because they were woman not because they had the skills for the job – commitment plummeted and job satisfaction

• Looked at policewoman and another job mainly

‘New racism’: Theories of new racism e.g., aversive racism

• Conflict between prejudiced attitudes and modern egalitarian values.

• Racism expressed when egalitarian values are weak and people are in homogenous groups where prejudiced values are accepted.  

‘New racism’: Detecting new racism  

• Unobtrusive measures, e.g. racism and bystander effect.  

• Language use, e.g. linguistic intergroup bias effect. 

• Indirect measures, e.g. reaction time tasks (IAT). 

• Non-verbal behaviour.  

Aversive racism and bystander intervention - real world example

• George Floyd murdered by a US police officer kneeling on his neck for ~9 minutes. 

• No other officer / bystander intervened to save him. 

• Aversive racism maintains the differential access to power, resources, opportunities, institutions, etc, and thus allows oppression to flourish. 

• Subconscious biases automatically activate and inhibit their behaviours. 

• Cost-benefit analysis skewed. 

• IAT:  incongruent information harder to process. 

• Schematic processing:  Let the police deal with it.  

• Biased reasoning:  Defer to hierarchy to cede responsibility. 

Aversive racism and employment decisions

• Discrimination in hiring practices is global and widespread (though can vary across countries). 

• Driven by implicit attitude measures. 

• Aversive racism influences might include:

• Adjusting the weighting given to qualifications vs experience,

• Favouring majority-sounding names,

• Selecting based on implicit attitudes,

• Selecting for perceived ‘cultural fit’,

• Selecting based on stereotypes, 

• Based on ambiguity, distraction, emotion, time pressure.  

Bias

A preferred way of doing things

Bystander effect

• Avoiding helping

• Can be motivated by prejudice

Theories of prejudice and discrimination: Mere exposure effect (Zajonc, 1968)

Familiarity increases liking.  More exposure to group increases liking of that group (Perlman & Oskamp, 1971).

Theories of prejudice and discrimination: Social learning theory (Bandura & Walters, 1977)

• Young people use obvious perceptual cues to categorise into groups.  

• Internalise prejudice observed in adults as appropriate behaviour.  

Theories of prejudice and discrimination: Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 2004)

• Group membership an automatic process. 

• Maximise inter-group difference. 

Frustration-aggression hypothesis

Frustration always causes aggression.  

Aggression always caused by frustration.  

• If target of frustration is unavailable - scapegoat someone

• Generalisation to other members of scapegoat group. 

Limitations to Frustration-aggression hypothesis

• Frustration possible without aggression and vice-versa (Berkowitz, 1989).  

• Offers no understanding of social processes.  

The authoritarian personality

• A trait theory. 

• Respect for authority, obsession with rank / status.  

• Developed in childhood through harsh disciplinarian practices.  

• Anger / resentment displaced onto weaker groups.  

• Can be left or right-wing.  

Limitation for the authoritarian personality

Few differences between racists / non-racists (Pettigrew, 1958).  

Personality theories

Fail to account for:

• Sudden attitude changes.

• Socio-political drivers.  

• Situational factors.  

Aggregates individual behaviours without accounting for social processes. 

Social dominance theory

• Most societies have one group with disproportionate power and privileges:

• Stable inequality maintained through oppressive actions and discrimination. 

• Discrimination hidden through legitimising myths e.g. national security.  

• Desire for own group to be dominant and superior to other groups – high social dominance orientation.  

• Some will maintain status quo even if part of subordinate group.  

• Low status might result in low academic success

Belief congruence theory

• Similar beliefs – liking and social harmony.

• Dissimilar beliefs – dislike and prejudice. 

–Beliefs as more important than race.

• Only operates where ‘institutionalised’ prejudice doesn’t exist:

–Very restrictive assumption. 

• Empirical support weak (Insko, Nacoste & Moe, 1983):

–Belief similarity just one contributing factor, others may be   stronger.

Why is the difference between Personalty theories and Social theories

• Social theories:  There’s something wrong with your interactions. 

• Personality theories:  There’s something wrong with your attitude. 

Social dominance theory briefly described

Protecting the majority group

Belief congruence briefly described

‘Flocking together’

Describe Sexism

• Women:  Nice, but not competent. 

• Men:  Competent, but not nice. 

• People don’t describe themselves in stereotypic terms (Martin, 1987):

• Often don’t notice discrimination.  

• People traditionally represent the sexes as 'subtypes':  

• Sexy woman / Macho man. 

• Feminist / athlete / lesbian.

• Housewife / Businessman.

• Career woman.

• Women seen as more homogenous than men (gender essentialism)(Lorenzi-Cioldi Eagly & Stewart 1995).  

Persistence of sex stereotypes

Sex roles:

• Men:  Breadwinners. 

• Women:  Home makers.  

Do differences reflect roles rather than sex?

Are there intrinsic personality differences between men and women?

• Minor differences which are exaggerated. 

Certain roles are ‘sex typed’:

• E.g. role assignment in jobs.  

• Warm-but-incompetent jobs for women.  

Sexism and discrimination

• Glass-ceiling effect (Purcell, MacArthur & Samblanet, 2010; Taparia & Lenka, 2022; Swigger & Meyer, 2019):

• Stereotypes prevent promotion due to competence perceptions. 

• e.g. female in upper management, males in flight attendants. 

• Maintaining sex stereotypes: Media largely responsible.  

• Some obvious but also more subtle. 

• Face-ism - Greater prominence to the head and less prominence to the body for men and vice-versa for women (Archer, Iritani, Kimes & Barrioset, 1983; Ellemers, 2018).  

Sexism and the law

• Overt sexism now illegal, and therefore much reduced.

• Sex stereotypes are more subtle. 

• Ambivalent sexism inventory. 

• Sexists hold benevolent and hostile attitudes towards different ‘subtypes’:

• Benevolent attitudes towards traditional women.

• Hostile attitudes towards non-traditional women.

• Recent reviews highlight reduced tendencies to devalue women’s work: 

• Positive female stereotype is emerging.

• Only in W.E.I.R.D. countries.  

Gender essentialism

Belief that there are essential characteristics of males & females

Reducing prejudice: systematic reviews

A collection of systematic reviews looking at the effectiveness of prejudice reduction interventions.

Applied interventions, such as:  

• Anti-bias, multicultural, and moral training. 

• Target socialisation of prejudice. 

• Measure explicit attitudes. 

• Rarely actually applied. 

What is Diversity training?

Any educational program designed to improve intergroup relations, reduce prejudice and bias, and teach employees how to work together effectively across different backgrounds

How is Cognitive and emotional training used for reducing prejudice?

Using evaluative conditioning, schemas, and scripts

How is Value consistency motivation used for reducing prejudice?

Assume people are motivated to be not-racist / prejudicial / discriminatory and remind them of this

How is Peer-influence, discussion, dialogue used for reducing prejudice?

To advocate for peace, tolerance, love and understanding

How is Social (re)categorisation used for reducing prejudice?

Manipulate group memberships and / or boundaries to reduce prejudice

How is entertainment used for reducing prejudice?

Tell a coherent, positive narrative about a given group

Name 3 distinct strategies derived from Gordon Allport’s Intergroup Contact Theory for reducing prejudice?

Face to face (F2f), extended, imagined contact

How is Evaluative conditioning used for reducing prejudice?

Repeatedly pairing target social groups with positive or negative stimuli

What is Vivid counter-stereotypical scenarios for reducing prejudice?

An intervention method that uses detailed, highly memorable stories, videos, or mental imagery to challenge and inhibit automatic implicit biases

What is Perspective taking for reducing prejudice?

The cognitive and emotional process of perceiving a situation, feeling, or social reality from an alternative point of view, particularly that of an out-group member

What is stereotype negation for reducing prejudice?

A cognitive training or communication strategy where people explicitly deny or reject a negative stereotype in an effort to weaken biased associations

What interventions have been tested to reduce prejudice?

Diversity training - too few studies to draw conclusions

Cognitive and emotional training

Value consistency motivation

Peer-influence, discussion, dialogue

Social (re) categorisation

Entertainment

F2f, extended, imagined contact

What is the problem with knowing the effectiveness of diversity training at reducing prejudice?

Too few studies to draw conclusions

What is exposure to counter stereotyping exemplars for reducing prejudice?

A psychological strategy that reduces prejudice and unconscious bias by presenting real-world individuals, images, or stories that actively defy or reverse established social stereotypes

What is face to face (F2f) and how is it used for reducing prejudice?

• Direct, in-person interaction between members of different social groups.

• Reduces fear, builds empathy, and humanises the "out-group" through real, lived experiences.

• Environments where groups are integrated and direct communication is physically safe and possible

What is extended contact and how is it used for reducing prejudice?

• Knowing an "in-group" friend (a member of your own group) who is friends with an "out-group" member.

• Seeing an in-group member model positive behaviour reduces the perceived threat and shows that cross-group closeness is socially acceptable

• Highly segregated communities where direct interaction is rare, but overlapping social networks exist.

What is imagined contact and how is it used for reducing prejudice?

• Mentally simulating a positive, cooperative social interaction with an out-group member.

• Activating cognitive schemas; mental imagery elicits emotional responses similar to real-life encounters, preparing the brain for future contact.

• Early-stage interventions, highly hostile environments, or contexts with extreme structural segregation.

How effective are the reducing prejudice approaches?

Exposure to counter stereotypic exemplars: an effective approach.

Evaluative conditioning: also effective. 

Vivid counter-stereotypical scenarios were effective. 

If-then plans (schemas): Only moderately effective. 

Perspective taking: Only moderately effective

Stereotype negation: not very effective. 

All approaches showed immediate effect, but no long-term effect.

How many studies looked at implicit biases?

17%

What is most effective at reducing prejudice based on studies?

Intergroup contact

What did the studies o implicit bias show?

Small effect sizes, weak outcomes suggest low efficacy

• i.e. prejudice reductions studies do not reduce prejudice

• Especially true in larger studies

Interventions tor educe bias can ironically increase inequality by?

• Implying a loss of ‘merit’. 

• Signalling the uneven culture within the organisation.

• Generating resentment amongst the in-group members through the perception of favouritism. 

Reducing implicit bias

• Despite avowed preferences for egalitarianism, implicit biases for in-group members persist.

• Consequently, activities like positive recruitment drives etc. might not actually result in greater diversity. 

What is the problem with prejudice reduction techniques?

• Rarely applied

• Rarely look at implicit prejudice

• Often small effect sizes

What happens if interventions are poorly implemented?

Prejudice can increase

Conclusions of prejudice

• Overt prejudice explained through cognitive biases, personality factors, attribution styles.  

• No one explanation, but a constellation of factors which perpetuate discrimination.

• Common critique of theories:  Explaining, but not understanding, the phenomenon. 

• Interventions generally do not seem very effective. 

• Laws against prejudice make it subtle, not disappear - it is now back