New Recording 62

Key Concepts in Prejudice and Bias

Study on Outgroup Effects

• Study Background: Participants from Rutgers University shown a video claiming to depict either a student from Rutgers or Princeton.

• Ingroup vs. Outgroup: Participants viewed those from Princeton as more similar to the individual in the video, showcasing the outgroup homogeneity effect.

  • People tend to minimize the differences among outgroup members while exaggerating the differences among ingroup members.

Cross Race Effect

• Perceptual Expertise: Research shows better recognition of faces from ingroups vs. outgroups, leading to difficulties in differentiating features of outgroup members.

• Example: Asian participants struggle to identify white and black faces, indicating perceptual biases.

Prejudice Explanations

• Innate Group Bias:

  • Humans may be predisposed to categorize the world into ingroups (with shared characteristics) and outgroups (those different from us).

  • This categorization may provide evolutionary advantages, aiding in survival by recognizing threats.

Evolutionary Perspective on Prejudice

• Understanding Fear:

  • Fear of outgroup members may have roots in early human survival strategies (e.g., seeing outgroup as threats).

• Classical Conditioning:

  • Associations can be made between neutral stimuli (e.g., a face) and fear-inducing stimuli (e.g., shock), with studies showing a quicker response to outgroup faces when associated with danger.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

• Theory Overview: Suggests competition for limited resources increases prejudice and hostility between groups.

• Robbers Cave Study:

  • Conducted by Sherif with two groups of boys who developed group identities and hostility when competing over rewards.

  • Interventions requiring cooperation shifted group dynamics positively, showing that common goals can reduce conflict.

Evidence of Competition Leading to Conflict

• Societal Applications:

  • Increased prejudice against outgroups correlates with perceived competition, especially during economic downturns (e.g., job scarcity inflating negative perceptions of immigrant groups).

Implicit vs. Explicit Bias

• Explicit Bias: Conscious attitudes that individuals can report; influenced by social desirability biases.

• Implicit Bias: Automatic, often unconscious attitudes shaped by experiences; harder to detect since individuals may not be aware of them.

• Measuring Implicit Bias: Tools like the Implicit Association Test (IAT) help identify unconscious associations between social groups and positive/negative traits.

Applications of Implicit Bias

• Real-world Impacts:

  • Studies show implicit bias significantly influences behaviors, such as hiring decisions and actions in critical situations (e.g., the "Shoot/Don't Shoot" experiment).

Reducing Bias

• Strategies to Mitigate Bias:

  • Positive Intergroup Contact: Engaging with outgroup members positively can reduce bias.

  • Awareness of Implicit Bias: Raising consciousness about one’s implicit biases can lead to behavioral change.

  • Perspective Taking: Understanding the experiences and motivations of others can foster empathy and decrease biases.

Example from Research

• Josh Perel's Studies: Investigated biases in split-second decision-making, showing implicit bias predicting likelihood of shooting unarmed individuals based on race.

Overall, the material presented here highlights the complexities of prejudice, the influences of evolutionary history, societal contexts, and the implications of both implicit and explicit biases in shaping human interactions.