Prejudice Notes

Definitions of Prejudice

• G. Allport: "Antipathy based on faulty and inflexible generalization."
• R. Ashmore: "A negative attitude toward a socially defined group, and any person perceived to be a member of that group."
• E. Jones: "A faulty generalization from a group characterization to an individual member of that group irrespective of either (1) the accuracy of the group characterization or (2) the applicability of the group characterization of the individual in question."

Cognitive and Behavioral Components of Prejudicial Attitude

• Stereotypes: Beliefs about social groups used to make inferences, predictions, and attributions about individuals.
  • Distinction is made between stereotypes and individuating information.
• Discrimination: Differential treatment based on perceived group membership.
  • Negative behavior toward outgroup or preferential treatment of ingroup.

Are Stereotypes Inaccurate, Negative, Irrational, Resistant to Change, and Always Problematic?

• Accuracy vs. Inaccuracy: Beliefs about within and between group variability.
  • Swim (1994): Gender stereotypes are generally accurate; when not, underestimation of gender difference is more likely.
• Evaluative Tone: Can be positive or negative.
• Preference for individuating information.
• Stereotypes may sometimes be helpful.

Theories of Prejudice: Social Sources

• Unequal status: Prejudice as a justifying ideology.
• Institutional Supports:
  • Segregation
  • Education
  • Language
  • Media sources
• Conformity to social norms.
• Social Identity Theory (Tajfel):
  • Self-esteem needs and group identity.
  • In-group bias (Wilder).
• "Minimal group paradigm" research (e.g., "overestimators vs. underestimators").

Theories of Prejudice: Affective Sources

• Frustration-Aggression Theory (Hovland & Sears): Scapegoating data.
• Realistic Group Conflict.
• Evolutionary: Adaptive "xenophobia".
• Personality Factors:
  • Status needs - Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto & Sidanius).
  • The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al.).

Theories of Prejudice: Cognitive Sources

• Categorization & Stereotyping.
• Outgroup homogeneity effect.
• Accentuation: Overestimating between-group differences.
• Illusory correlation & confirmation bias (Hamilton & Gifford’s Group A & B study).
• Similarity-attraction & group polarization.
• Ultimate Attribution Error.

Theories of Prejudice: Sustaining Interactive Sources

• Self-Fulfilling Prophecy.
• Internalization of negative stereotypes (Clark & Clark’s “doll preference” study).
• Stereotype threat (C. Steele):
  • Impairing task performance by activating negative stereotypes about in-group performance.

Blue Eyes and Brown Eyes Experiment

• Create “minimal groups”.
• "Stigmatize" one group by creating negative stereotypes.

Assessing Racial Prejudice: Subtle Self-Report Measures

• Modern Racism Scale:
  • Denial of continuing discrimination.
  • Antagonism toward demands.
  • Resentment about special favors.

The Role of Automaticity in Intergroup Attitudes

• Explicit (Conscious) Attitudes.
• Implicit (Non-Conscious) Attitudes.

Experiments on Race-Based Prejudice – Indirect Measures and Implicit Prejudice

• “Stereotypes & Prejudice: Automatic and Controlled Components” (Devine, 1989).
• “Variability in Automatic Activation as an Unobtrusive Measure of Racial Attitudes: A Bonafide Pipeline?” (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995).
• “On the Nature of Prejudice: Automatic and Controlled Processes” (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson & Howard, 1997).

Devine (1989) – Automatic Stereotype Activation and Use in Low Prejudice Subjects

• Identified High and Low Prejudice Subjects.
• Knowledge of Stereotypes =, but Lows don’t endorse.
• Subliminal priming of social category "Black Americans".
• Evaluation of ambiguous target on ‘hostility’.
  • High & Low Prejudice Subjects do so equally.
• 1st study to show difference between automatic and controlled processes in prejudice.

Fazio et al.’s “Bonafide Pipeline” Study

• Design & Method:
  • Supraliminal priming with Black & White Faces
  • Classify words as good or bad
• Results:
  • Opposite facilitation effects for White and Black subjects.
  • No correlation between self-reported prejudice and facilitation effects
  • Facilitation scores predicted quality of subsequent interaction w/ Black experimenter

Dovidio et al.’s Automatic vs. Controlled Processes

• Design & Method:
  • Subliminal Priming w/ Black and White faces
  • Word categorization task
  • Participate in a jury-decision task (Black defendant)
  • Interview w/ Black experimenter
• Results:
  • Priming effects found for positive and negative words related to the race of prime
  • No relation between self-reported prejudice and priming effects
  • Self-reports related to juridic decisions
  • Priming related to non-verbal indicators of arousal (eye contact, eye-blinking, speech errors) during interview

Measuring Implicit Prejudice/Stereotypes: The IAT

• DV: Reaction time to pairings of +/- words and stimuli associated with category (e.g., faces or names of target group).

Expression of Prejudice: Interpreting Social Ambiguity (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000)

• Black Applicant vs White Applicant
• Strong, Weak, Ambiguous Qualifications

Expression of Prejudice: Aggression When "Justified" (Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1981)

• Intensity & Duration of Shock administered to White vs Black victim after No insult vs Insult condition.

Conditions Under Which Stereotyping & Prejudice Are Most Likely

• When ambiguity is high.
• Excessive cognitive demands.
• Situational “excuses” are present.
• When self-esteem is threatened or reduced.
• Emotional arousal.
• Group (vs. individual) interactions.
• Unfamiliar vs. familiar targets.

Eliminating Prejudice

• The “contact hypothesis”.
• Limiting conditions:
  • Common goals.
  • Mutual interdependence.
  • Equal status.
  • Goal attainment.
• Example: Aronson’s “Jigsaw Classroom”.