Stereotypes and Prejudice Notes

Ways to Reduce Stereotype Threat Effect

1. Reframe Task (as NOT Stereotype-relevant)

   • Approach: Modify task description so that stereotype isn’t activated.

   • Study: Describing math test as gender-fair reduced ST effect (Quinn & Spencer, 2001).

2. Reduce Salience of Threatened Social Identity or Activate Opposite

   • Approach: Eliminate procedures that activate stereotype-relevant identity or include procedures that activate counter-stereotypic identity.

   • Studies:

     • Moving demographics Q to end of test reduced ST effect for women taking AP calculus test (Stricker & Ward, 2004).

     • Reminding female undergrads they are students at a prestigious university reduced ST effect (Rydell et al., 2007).

     • Biracial identity à more likely to believe race is socially constructed -- don’t show ST effect.

3. Provide Role Model

   • Approach: Provide a role model that does well in the stereotype-relevant domain.

   • Studies:

     • Women reading essays about successful women show reduced ST effect (McIntyre et al., 2005).

     • Blacks less affected by ST when given test by Black administrator (Marx & Goff, 2005).

4. Educate

   • Approach: Explain ST effect and explicitly state anxiety may be due to stereotypes, not ability issues.

   • Study: Women given education intervention showed reduced ST effect (Johns et al., 2005).

5. Reactance

   • Approach: When a stereotype is explicit, react against it by doing everything possible to show it is false.

   • Study: When women à emotional à poor negotiation performance is made explicit, females work hard to show that this isn’t true and outperform others (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001).

6. Growth Mindset

   • Approach: Encourage individuals to view intelligence as malleable, not fixed.

   • Study: Black students encouraged toward growth mindset had higher enjoyment and GPA than controls (Aronson et al., 2002).

Bias Toward Seeing Change

Kraus et al. (2019) investigated bias toward perceiving change in wealth disparity between Black and White families.

• In 1963, the average Black family had approximately 5% of the wealth of the average White family.

• In 2016, the average Black family had approximately 10% of the wealth of the average White family.

• Estimates provided by individuals often overestimate these percentages, with averages around ~50% for 1963 and ~90% for 2016.

Are Stereotypes/Prejudice Changing?

• Optimistic Position

• Pessimistic Position

• Mixed Position

Optimistic Position: The Princeton Trilogy

The Princeton Trilogy examined the prevalence of stereotypes about African Americans over time.

• The numbers represent the percentage of respondents who checked the trait as characteristic of “African Americans”.

Pessimistic Position: Duncan, 1976

This experiment investigated how stereotypes influence the interpretation of ambiguous social interactions.

1. White participants viewed a scene of two men conversing, with one man lightly pushing the other.

2. The study had two conditions:

   • A White man pushes a Black man.

   • A Black man pushes a White man.

3. Participants were asked to judge whether the push was violent or just “playing around.”

Duncan Results:

The dependent variable (DV) was the percentage of subjects indicating that the push was violent:

• White man pushing Black man: 13%

• Black man pushing White man: 73%

0s Archival Data

• Computer analysis of all 1992-93 federal court convictions (80,000).

• Compared white sentences to black sentences, statistically controlling for actual crime/criminal background:

• On average, white sentence = 33 months

• On average, black sentence = 36 months

Mixed Position: Devine’s (1989) Dissociation Model

Devine's Dissociation Model proposes that stereotypes and beliefs are distinct cognitive structures.

1. Stereotypes and beliefs are different cognitive structures (stereotype = association only; belief = accept as true).

2. Stereotypes can be automatically activated.

3. An activated stereotype will influence behavior unless it is inhibited.

4. Reducing prejudice is a long, difficult process.

Devine & Elliot (1995)

1. Participants checked adjectives representing Black stereotypes.

2. Participants checked adjectives they personally believe.

3. Explicit, self-reported prejudice was measured.

Devine & Elliot Results

• Even individuals low in prejudice are aware of stereotypes, even if they don’t personally endorse them.

Devine (1989)

1. For White participants, explicit, self-reported prejudice was measured, and participants were categorized as prejudiced or non-prejudiced.

2. Participants were shown brief flashes in two conditions:

   • Stereotype activation

   • Control

3. Rated an ambiguous person on hostility.

Devine Results

The dependent variable (DV) was hostility ratings on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).

• Stereotype activated condition = 7.52

• Control condition = 6.87

• There was no significant difference based on high/low prejudice levels.

Chen & Bargh (1997)

1. White participants were shown brief flashes and asked whether they occurred on the left or right.

2. Two conditions:

   • Subliminally shown Black faces

   • Subliminally shown White faces

3. Participants played a game against another person, and their hostility was coded.

Chen & Bargh Results

The dependent variable (DV) was coded hostility on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal).

• Black face: 3.1

• White face: 2.7

• This illustrates the difference between stereotype activation vs. application.

Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes

1. Subtyping and subgrouping

2. Illusory correlations

3. The ultimate attribution error

4. Stereotype suppression effects

1. Subtyping and Subgrouping

• Subtyping: "Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s stereotype by thinking of them as ‘exceptions to the rule’" (Myers)

• Subgrouping: "Accommodating individuals who deviate from one’s stereotype by forming a new stereotype about a subset or group'" (Myers)

• These processes maintain the original group stereotype.

2. Illusory Correlation

• "Overestimating the strength of a relation between 2 distinctive or unusual events."

  • Majority group members have few interactions with minority groups (it’s a distinctive event).

  • Negative events are distinctive events.

  • We overestimate the co-occurrence of distinctive events.

3. Ultimate Attribution Error

• A version of the Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE).

• UAE: "Tendency to attribute the negative behavior of a minority group member to dispositional characteristics and positive behavior to situational factors."

4. Stereotype Suppression Effects: Macrae et al. (1994)

1. British participants were shown a photo of a skinhead and asked to write a paragraph about a day in the person’s life.

2. Two conditions:

   • Suppression – told not to use stereotypes.

   • Control – no instructions.

3. Participants met the skinhead and chose where to sit.

Macrae et al. Results

• DV: On writing task, coder’s ratings – 1 (not at all stereotypic) to 9 (very stereotypic)

  • Suppression = 5.58

  • Control = 6.83

• DV: Distance from skinhead: # chairs away (1 - 7)

  • Suppression = 5.25

  • Control = 4.41

2. Reframe Task (as NOT Stereotype-relevant)

Approach: Modify task descriptions to eliminate activation of stereotypes, creating an environment where individuals feel more secure in their abilities.
Study: Describing math tests as gender-fair significantly reduced stereotype threat effects (Quinn & Spencer, 2001) by framing the task in an inclusive manner that promotes confidence among participants.

4. Reduce Salience of Threatened Social Identity or Activate Opposite

Approach: This involves eliminating procedures that trigger stereotype-relevant identities and introducing components that activate counter-stereotypical identities.
Studies:

• Moving demographics questions to the end of tests diminished stereotype threat effects for women taking AP calculus tests (Stricker & Ward, 2004), suggesting that focusing less on identity can alleviate anxiety associated with performance.

• Reminding female undergraduates that they are part of a prestigious university reduced stereotype threat effects significantly, as it reinforced their identity as scholars rather than gender stereotypes (Rydell et al., 2007).

• Students identifying as biracial were more likely to view race as a social construct, which correlated with a decreased likelihood of experiencing stereotype threat effects.

6. Provide Role Model

Approach: Presenting successful role models in the stereotype-relevant domain can have a profound impact on individuals’ performance and confidence.
Studies:

• Women reading essays about successful women in STEM fields demonstrated reduced stereotype threat effects, thus inspiring self-efficacy (McIntyre et al., 2005).

• Black students were less affected by stereotype threat when tested by a Black administrator, illustrating the significance of representation (Marx & Goff, 2005) and the benefits of seeing individuals who succeed in the same domain.

8. Educate

Approach: Providing education on stereotype threat clearly articulates that any anxiety experienced may stem from stereotypes rather than actual ability.
Study: Women who underwent an educational intervention regarding stereotype threat exhibited a significant reduction in its effects, demonstrating the efficacy of awareness and knowledge (Johns et al., 2005).

10. Reactance

Approach: When stereotypes are made explicit, individuals may react against them by striving to disprove negative beliefs associated with their identity.
Study: When women were made aware that emotional responses could skew negotiation performance, they proactively worked to counter this perception and outperformed their counterparts (Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky, 2001).

12. Growth Mindset

Approach: Encouraging individuals to view intelligence and abilities as malleable rather than fixed fosters resilience against stereotype threat.
Study: Black students who were encouraged to adopt a growth mindset reported higher levels of enjoyment in academic pursuits and achieved improved GPAs compared to control groups, signifying the impact of perspective on performance (Aronson et al., 2002).

Bias Toward Seeing Change

Kraus et al. (2019) examined biases in perceiving wealth disparities between Black and White families.

• In 1963, the average Black family had approximately 5% of the wealth of an average White family, a statistic that has only modestly improved to about 10% by 2016.

• Public estimates regarding these disparities often exaggerate the reality, with averages reported around ~50% for 1963 and ~90% for 2016, revealing significant gaps in public perception vs. actual data.

Are Stereotypes/Prejudice Changing?

• Optimistic Position: The Princeton Trilogy
  The Princeton Trilogy studies assessed changes in stereotypes about African Americans over decades:

  • Traits Assessed:

  • Superstitious: 84% in 1933 to 13% in 1969

  • Lazy: 75% in 1933 to 26% in 1969

  • Ignorant: 38% in 1933 to 11% in 1969
    These results illustrate a decline in stereotypical beliefs over time.

• Pessimistic Position: Duncan, 1976
  This study explored how stereotypes influence interpretations of social interactions:

  • White participants observed interactions between two men (one man lightly pushing the other) under different racial pairings.

  • Results showed a significant bias in perceptions of violence based on race, with 73% viewing the Black man pushing a White man as violent compared to only 13% for the reverse situation.

• Mixed Position: Devine’s (1989) Dissociation Model
  This model suggests that stereotypes and beliefs are distinct cognitive entities:

  • Stereotypes can be automatically triggered and influence behavior unless explicitly inhibited.

  • Reducing prejudice remains a complex process, often requiring significant effort and time to change deeply ingrained beliefs.

Devine & Elliot (1995)

• Participants identified adjectives that referred to Black stereotypes vs. personal beliefs about them, noting even those with low prejudice were aware of stereotypes, demonstrating the automatic nature of stereotype activation.

Chen & Bargh (1997)

• Participants displayed hostility differing significantly based on subliminally shown racial images, providing further evidence of stereotype activation's impact on behavior.

Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes

• Subtyping and Subgrouping: Differentiating individuals who deviate from stereotypes by regarding them as exceptions or forming new stereotypes, respectively, creates resilience in the original stereotypes.

• Illusory Correlation: The tendency to overestimate the correlation between distinctive events, often leading to a skewed perception of reality.

• Ultimate Attribution Error: A tendency to attribute negative behavior to individual dispositions in minority group members while attributing positive behavior to situational factors.

• Stereotype Suppression Effects: Macrae et al. (1994)'s experiment demonstrated that suppressing stereotypes does not necessarily diminish their influence in social contexts, suggesting a complicated interaction between awareness and behavior.

By employing these methods, individuals and institutions can work progressively towards diminishing the effects of stereotype threat and fostering an inclusive environment conducive to success and equity.