Discrimination often occurs based on visible characteristics rather than individual attributes (i.e., skills, knowledge).
People level attributes (aptitude, skills) are more relevant but often overlooked in favor of surface characteristics.
A study from the University of Chicago conducted by John Levitt and Yuri Gee examined discrimination based on surface characteristics during interactions (asking for directions).
Actors (confederates) dressed similarly but differed in age, gender, and ethnicity to test public response.
Characteristics:
Age: 20 vs. 50 years
Gender: Male vs. Female
Ethnicity: White vs. Black
Measures:
Percentage of people providing helpful feedback
Duration of interactions in seconds
Female Confederates:
Feedback from the public varied little by age or ethnicity (positive interactions).
Consistent helping rates and interaction times.
Male Confederates:
Black, young males received less helpful feedback (drop by 50%).
Shorter interactions with less engagement from the public.
Indicates a clear bias against young black males, attributed to stereotypes (statistical discrimination).
Statistical discrimination describes decision-making based on group stereotypes rather than individual merit.
Stereotypes lead to preconceived notions affecting interpersonal interactions.
A BBC satire presented biases in security interactions, highlighting how individuals are judged based on appearance or ethnicity, reinforcing stereotypes.
A subsequent study replicated previous results, showing that individuals dressed in business attire experienced no discrimination, regardless of their ethnic background.
It emphasizes the influence of dress on how individuals are perceived and treated in public settings.
The tragic case of Trayvon Martin illustrates potential dangers stemming from biases based on appearance (wearing a hoodie).
The misperception of threat led to fatal confrontations, raising questions about racial profiling and systemic discrimination in society.
Exploratory studies at University of Chicago replicated findings in high-stakes environments like car dealerships.
Scenario: Young men role-playing as either a gay couple or friends looking to purchase a vehicle.
75% of the time, the gay couple received worse offers than heterosexual counterparts.
Disparity in treatment included fewer offers for amenities like beverages or test drives, indicating systemic bias.
Ethnic diversity among sales staff influenced discriminatory behavior.
Hypothesis: White sales staff might possess less experience with discrimination, thus displaying more bias, while minority staff may empathize due to personal experiences.
Study showed consistent patterns of discrimination in high-end car purchases, with black males receiving worse offers than white males.
Analyzed through the lens of statistical rationalization versus personal dislike.
No discriminative behavior noted in lower-priced transactions (e.g., Toyota), suggesting potential bias linked to profit perception.
Students tasked with role-playing discriminatory scenarios, intending to unearth biases based on surface characteristics.
This exercise fosters understanding of the underlying assumptions and practices that perpetuate discrimination in hiring processes.
A study using fictitious resumes (black-sounding names vs. white-sounding names) revealed significant discrepancies in callback rates:
White females received a 50% higher callback rate than black females.
White males received 30% higher callbacks than black males.
Even applicants with advanced degrees experienced bias: white master's degree holders had a higher callback than their black counterparts.
A study on disabled customers receiving car repair quotes showed they were charged up to 30% higher than able-bodied customers.
Potential Interventions:
Implement standard pricing policies to prevent discrimination.
Encourage customers to mention multiple estimates to rebuild bargaining power.
Societal biases are deeply embedded; systematic practices are required to counter discrimination, whether in public interaction or business transactions.
Future discussions will focus on other forms of discrimination, such as gender differences in acceptance in various domains.