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 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 role model that does well in 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 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 (Whether It’s There or Not)

Kraus et al. (2019)

  • In 1963, the average Black family had ___% of the wealth of the average White family?

  • Today (2016), the average Black family has ___% of the wealth of the average White family?

Estimates: ~50% (1963); ~90% (2016)

Reality: ~5% (1963); ~10% (2016)

Are Stereotypes/Prejudice Changing?

  • Optimistic Position

  • Pessimistic Position

  • Mixed Position

Optimistic: The Princeton Trilogy

Trait

1933

1951

1969

Superstitious

84%

41%

13%

Lazy

75%

31%

26%

Ignorant

38%

17%

11%

  • Numbers are % who checked the trait as characteristic of “African Americans”

Pessimistic: Duncan, 1976

  1. White participants view two men conversing, one man lightly pushing another.

  2. Two conditions:

    • White man pushes Black man

    • Black man pushes White man

  3. Answer whether push was violent or just “playing around”

Duncan Results

DV - Percentage of subjects indicating that the push was violent:

  • White man pushing Black man: 13%

  • Black man pushing White man: 73%

1990s 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

  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. Check adjectives representing Black stereotype

  2. Check adjectives you believe

  3. Measure explicit, self-reported prejudice

Devine & Elliot Results

Stereotype

Beliefs

Low prejudice:

prejudiced

nonprejudiced

High prejudice:

prejudiced

prejudiced

  • So even people low on prejudice are still aware of stereotype, even if they don’t believe it

Devine (1989)

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

  2. Shown brief flashes – two conditions:

    • Stereotype activation

    • Control

  3. Rate ambiguous person on hostility

Devine Results

DV: Hostility ratings: 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely)

Results:

  • Stereotype activated condition = 7.52

  • Control condition = 6.87

  • No difference for high/low prejudice

Chen & Bargh (1997)

  1. White participants shown brief flashes, asked whether occurred on left or right

  2. Two conditions:

    • Subliminally shown Black faces

    • Subliminally shown White faces

  3. Played game against another person; hostility coded

Chen & Bargh Results

DV: coded hostility – 1 (not at all) to 7 (a great deal)

Results:

  • Black face – 3.1

  • White face – 2.7

  • 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)

  • What do these do? Maintains 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 group (it’s a distinctive event)

  • Negative events are distinctive events

  • We overestimate the co-occurrence of distinctive events

3. Ultimate Attribution Error

  • Version of 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 shown photo of skinhead; write paragraph about a day in person’s life

  2. Two conditions:

    • Suppression – told not to use stereotypes

    • Control – no instructions

  3. Meet skinhead; choose where to sit

Macrae et al. Results

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

    • a. Suppression = 5.58

    • b. Control = 6.83

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

    • a. Suppression = 5.25

    • b. Control = 4.41

2. Reframe Task (as NOT Stereotype-relevant)

  • Approach: Modify the task description to ensure that it does not activate any stereotype that is relevant to the participants.

  • Study: Research by Quinn & Spencer (2001) demonstrated that when math tests were described as gender-fair, there was a significant reduction in the stereotype threat effect, showcasing the importance of framing in task performance.

4. Reduce Salience of Threatened Social Identity or Activate the Opposite

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

  • Studies:

    • Stricker & Ward (2004) found that moving demographic questions to the end of an AP calculus test notably reduced stereotype threat for female test-takers, suggesting that the visibility of demographic identity can impact performance.

    • Rydell et al. (2007) showed that reminding female undergraduates of their status as students at a prestigious university reduced stereotype threat effects, reinforcing the power of reminders related to identity.

    • Interestingly, individuals with a biracial identity were more likely to perceive race as a socially constructed concept, which correlated with a decrease in stereotype threat effects.

6. Provide Role Model

  • Approach: Introduce role models who excel in the stereotype-relevant domain, thereby countering negative perceptions.

  • Studies:

    • McIntyre et al. (2005) found that women who read essays about successful women in mathematics experienced a reduction in stereotype threat effects, implicating the influence of relatable role models.

    • Marx & Goff (2005) indicated that Black test-takers performed better when assessed by a Black administrator, highlighting the importance of representation and positive role models in mitigating stereotype threats.

8. Educate

  • Approach: Provide education on the stereotype threat effect and explicitly communicate that any resultant anxiety may stem from societal stereotypes rather than inherent ability issues.

  • Study: Johns et al. (2005) established that women who received an educational intervention about stereotype threats demonstrated reduced stereotype threat effects, emphasizing the role of awareness and knowledge in combating stereotype-related anxiety.

10. Reactance

  • Approach: When stereotypes are made explicit, encourage individuals to actively counter them by demonstrating their falsity through performance.

  • Study: Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky (2001) showcased that when women were made aware of the stereotype linking emotionality to poor negotiation performance, they put forth extra effort to defy this stereotype, resulting in outperforming their peers.

12. Growth Mindset

  • Approach: Foster an understanding among individuals that intelligence and abilities are not fixed but rather can grow through effort and perseverance.

  • Study: Aronson et al. (2002) illustrated that Black students who were encouraged to adopt a growth mindset showed higher levels of enjoyment in their studies and improved GPA compared to control groups, indicating the positive effects of mindset shifts in academic and social performance.

Bias Toward Seeing Change (Whether It’s There or Not)

  • Research from Kraus et al. (2019): In 1963, the average Black family possessed approximately 50% of the wealth of the average White family. However, by 2016, this number rose to 90%, showing a significant yet misleading perception of economic advancement compared to the reality of only about 5% in 1963 and 10% in 2016.

Are Stereotypes/Prejudice Changing?**
Optimistic Position

  • Noted for the Princeton Trilogy findings showcasing gradual decreases in stereotypical attributions over decades.

Pessimistic Position

  • Duncan (1976): In a study where White participants observed interactions between a White man and a Black man, responses differed significantly based on the race of the individuals involved.

  • Duncan Results: 13% perceived the act of a White man pushing a Black man as violent, whereas 73% did so in the reverse scenario, demonstrating racial bias in interpretations of behavior.

Mixed Position

  • Devine’s (1989) Dissociation Model: Highlights complexities in stereotype activation and the differences between stereotypes and beliefs, indicating that stereotypes can be automatically activated and can persist even among individuals with low explicit prejudice.

  • Devine & Elliot (1995): Research revealed that even individuals with low prejudice still exhibit awareness of stereotypes, reinforcing the need for continual efforts to combat stereotypes in society.\n

Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes
1. Subtyping and Subgrouping

  • Subtyping: Recognizing deviations from stereotypes as exceptions rather than indicative of the group overall.

  • Subgrouping: Creating new stereotypes about a subset of individuals that allow the original stereotype to persist.

2. Illusory Correlation

  • Overestimating the connection between two distinctive or unusual events, leading to biased perceptions, especially in minority-majority interactions.

3. Ultimate Attribution Error

  • This error refers to attributing negative behaviors of minority group members to their disposition while attributing their positive behaviors to situational factors.

4. Stereotype Suppression Effects

  • Macrae et al. (1994): Showed that participants instructed not to use stereotypes had higher ratings of non-stereotypic writing

2. Reframe Task (as NOT Stereotype-relevant)

  • Approach: Modify the task description to ensure that it does not activate any stereotype that is relevant to the participants.

  • Study: Research by Quinn & Spencer (2001) demonstrated that when math tests were described as gender-fair, there was a significant reduction in the stereotype threat effect, showcasing the importance of framing in task performance.

4. Reduce Salience of Threatened Social Identity or Activate the Opposite

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

  • Studies:

    • Stricker & Ward (2004) found that moving demographic questions to the end of an AP calculus test notably reduced stereotype threat for female test-takers, suggesting that the visibility of demographic identity can impact performance.

    • Rydell et al. (2007) showed that reminding female undergraduates of their status as students at a prestigious university reduced stereotype threat effects, reinforcing the power of reminders related to identity.

    • Interestingly, individuals with a biracial identity were more likely to perceive race as a socially constructed concept, which correlated with a decrease in stereotype threat effects.

6. Provide Role Model

  • Approach: Introduce role models who excel in the stereotype-relevant domain, thereby countering negative perceptions.

  • Studies:

    • McIntyre et al. (2005) found that women who read essays about successful women in mathematics experienced a reduction in stereotype threat effects, implicating the influence of relatable role models.

    • Marx & Goff (2005) indicated that Black test-takers performed better when assessed by a Black administrator, highlighting the importance of representation and positive role models in mitigating stereotype threats.

8. Educate

  • Approach: Provide education on the stereotype threat effect and explicitly communicate that any resultant anxiety may stem from societal stereotypes rather than inherent ability issues.

  • Study: Johns et al. (2005) established that women who received an educational intervention about stereotype threats demonstrated reduced stereotype threat effects, emphasizing the role of awareness and knowledge in combating stereotype-related anxiety.

10. Reactance

  • Approach: When stereotypes are made explicit, encourage individuals to actively counter them by demonstrating their falsity through performance.

  • Study: Kray, Thompson, & Galinsky (2001) showcased that when women were made aware of the stereotype linking emotionality to poor negotiation performance, they put forth extra effort to defy this stereotype, resulting in outperforming their peers.

12. Growth Mindset

  • Approach: Foster an understanding among individuals that intelligence and abilities are not fixed but rather can grow through effort and perseverance.

  • Study: Aronson et al. (2002) illustrated that Black students who were encouraged to adopt a growth mindset showed higher levels of enjoyment in their studies and improved GPA compared to control groups, indicating the positive effects of mindset shifts in academic and social performance.

Bias Toward Seeing Change (Whether It’s There or Not)

  • Research from Kraus et al. (2019): In 1963, the average Black family possessed approximately 50% of the wealth of the average White family. However, by 2016, this number rose to 90%, showing a significant yet misleading perception of economic advancement compared to the reality of only about 5% in 1963 and 10% in 2016.

Are Stereotypes/Prejudice Changing?**
Optimistic Position

  • Noted for the Princeton Trilogy findings showcasing gradual decreases in stereotypical attributions over decades.

Pessimistic Position

  • Duncan (1976): In a study where White participants observed interactions between a White man and a Black man, responses differed significantly based on the race of the individuals involved.

  • Duncan Results: 13% perceived the act of a White man pushing a Black man as violent, whereas 73% did so in the reverse scenario, demonstrating racial bias in interpretations of behavior.

Mixed Position

  • Devine’s (1989) Dissociation Model: Highlights complexities in stereotype activation and the differences between stereotypes and beliefs, indicating that stereotypes can be automatically activated and can persist even among individuals with low explicit prejudice.

  • Devine & Elliot (1995): Research revealed that even individuals with low prejudice still exhibit awareness of stereotypes, reinforcing the need for continual efforts to combat stereotypes in society.\n

Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes
1. Subtyping and Subgrouping

  • Subtyping: Recognizing deviations from stereotypes as exceptions rather than indicative of the group overall.

  • Subgrouping: Creating new stereotypes about a subset of individuals that allow the original stereotype to persist.

2. Illusory Correlation

  • Overestimating the connection between two distinctive or unusual events, leading to biased perceptions, especially in minority-majority interactions.

3. Ultimate Attribution Error

  • This error refers to attributing negative behaviors of minority group members to their disposition while attributing their positive behaviors to situational factors.

4. Stereotype Suppression Effects

  • Macrae et al. (1994): Showed that participants instructed not to use stereotypes had higher ratings of non-stereotypic writing