Prejudice: Definitions, Manifestations, and Influencing Factors
Week 8: Prejudice (Part 1)
Introduction to Prejudice
Definition of Prejudice (Gordon Allport): An unfavorable attitude held towards a social group or an individual member of that group, purely due to their group membership.
Targets and Sources: Any group can be a target (recipient) or a source (perpetrator/harborer) of prejudice. The definition focuses on attitudes.
Enduring Targets: Certain groups are consistent targets:
Racial minorities: Targets of racism.
Women: Targets of sexism.
Gay and bisexual people: Targets of sexual prejudice.
Transgender and gender non-conforming people: Targets of prejudice due to gender identity.
Individuals with visible/hidden disabilities: Targets of ableism.
Focus of Research: Most research studies prejudice perpetrated by non-marginalized (majority/dominant) groups towards marginalized (minority) groups, as marginalized groups are disproportionately targeted.
Prejudice and Power: A problematic combination is when individuals holding prejudice also hold power in society.
Majority/Dominant Groups: Tend to hold greater power and privilege, influencing systems, institutions, and structures.
Negative Implications: Prejudice harbored by higher-status groups can become embedded in systems, constraining opportunities and leading to victimization/persecution of other groups.
Historical Example - White Australia Policy (1901):
Strict immigration laws passed by Australian colonies from 1901 to perpetuate a mainly white population.
Targeted non-white groups, especially those from Asian backgrounds, for exclusion.
Exercised by the government, leading to long-term impacts on Australia's demographics.
Discrimination
Definition: Negative treatment of particular social groups who are targets of prejudice.
Manifestations of Discrimination:
Interpersonal Discrimination: Behaviors from one individual to another, expressing underlying prejudice due to group membership.
Overt/Violent Manifestations:
Verbal aggression: Slurs, taunts, explicit threats.
Physical aggression: Shoving, kicking, punching, overt acts of violence.
Hate crimes: Assault, murder.
COVID-19 Example: Spike in hate crimes targeting the Asian community worldwide (Western contexts like the U.S., Canada, Australia) due to unfair association with the virus. Cases included verbal aggression and other behaviors targeting those perceived as 'Asian enough'.
Subtle Manifestations: Less overt and violent, more ambiguous.
Avoidance/Ostracism: Avoiding being in the same room or areas, ostracizing individuals due to group membership (e.g., physically sitting further away, measured in research).
Nonverbal behaviors: Lack of warmth, not smiling, avoiding eye contact, standoffish communication.
Absence of prosocial behavior: Withholding help or compassion (e.g., not intervening in bullying perceived as discrimination), downplaying severity of situations.
Denial of prejudice: Avoiding talking about prejudice, discomfort with topics, lacking recognition when others share experiences, explaining away incidents as isolated or blaming the victim.
Ambiguity: People harboring prejudiced attitudes are more likely to dismiss ambiguous situations as 'not prejudice'.
Structural Discrimination: Discrimination embedded in societal structures and laws, linking prejudice and power.
Examples: Access to job opportunities, media representation, healthcare treatment, education access/training, justice system treatment, broader policies.
Interplay with Interpersonal Discrimination: Not either/or; discriminatory systems are created and maintained by individuals with prejudiced attitudes and power, then become institutionalized. Individuals within these systems don't all harbor interpersonal discrimination, but structural outcomes persist.
Example - Marriage Equality: Historically, same-sex marriage was illegal, a structural manifestation of prejudice against gay and bisexual people, maintained by those in power. Legalization (as in Australia) represented a change in structural discrimination.
Organizational Context: Higher rates of discrimination experienced by marginalized groups in the workplace.
Manifestations: Job selection, performance evaluation, promotion likelihood (less likely for marginalized), termination likelihood (more likely), etc.
Correspondence Study (Job Applications in Australia):
Method: Fake job ads sent to employers for entry-level positions (hospitality, data entry, customer service).
Manipulation: Varied names on resumes to signal ethnic identity (Anglo-Saxon/English, Italian, Indigenous Australian, Chinese, Middle Eastern). Assured all education was Australian.
Outcome: Callback rates for the next step (e.g., interview).
Results: Evidence of discrimination favoring Anglo-Saxon names across Brisbane, Melbourne, and Sydney. Italians performed slightly more favorably than other ethnic minority groups. These effects were consistent.
Consequences: Pervasive discrimination solely based on names. Meta-analyses show little-to-no change over time. Minorities who 'whiten' their names (Anglo-Saxon sounding) are more likely to get callbacks.
Discrimination Report Card: Scores firms on likelihood to discriminate.
Cross-Country Evidence: Meta-analyses of 97 field experiments with over 200,000 job applicants across countries show consistent bias against people with non-white names (e.g., Asian, African, Middle Eastern/North African names).
Equal Opportunity Schemes: Policies to counteract historic/ongoing organizational discrimination, aiming to equalize outcomes.
Example (Australia): Identified positions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to improve underrepresentation in roles, aiming to level the playing field.
Gender-Specific Organizational Discrimination:
Glass Ceiling: Systematic, often hidden, barriers preventing women from attaining top leadership positions, especially in male-dominated fields (government, business). Women rejected based on group membership rather than qualifications.
Glass Cliff: When women do gain high-status leadership positions, they are often appointed to precarious roles (e.g., during economic downturns, financial crisis) where failure is more likely. This invites criticism and may lead to continued financial loss for the company. Evidenced by archival and experimental studies.
Factors Influencing Prejudice
1. Social Identity Theory
Recap: Sense of self derived from group membership. Categorizing self in a group leads to motivation to see that group as better (in-group favoritism).
Categorization Process: Seeing oneself as part of one group (in-group) but not another (out-group) can lead to intergroup hostility.
Minimal Groups Paradigm: Studying group identity formation and discrimination in artificial, conflict-devoid lab settings.
Arbitrary Criteria: Group assignment based on random criteria (e.g., shirt color) still leads to in-group/out-group dynamics.
Classic Study (Klee/Kandinsky preferences):
Method: Schoolboys rated paintings, randomly allocated to 'Klee' or 'Kandinsky' groups (though told it was based on preference).
Task: Distributed 'coins' (resources) to in-group and out-group members using matrices with predefined distributions.
Dilemma: Choices affected both in-group and out-group resources.
Results: Participants showed:
In-group favoritism: Maximized rewards for their in-group (e.g., giving 16 coins to in-group vs. 7 to out-group).
Out-group derogation/Punishment: Willingness for their in-group to receive less (e.g., 10 coins) to ensure the out-group received even less (e.g., 7 coins), effectively punishing the out-group, even at a cost to the in-group.
Theoretical Mechanisms:
In-group favoritism: Attitudinal and behavioral preference for one's own group.
Out-group derogation: Negative attitudinal and behavioral inclination towards the out-group.
Intergroup differentiation: Emphasizing differences between in-group and out-group, valuing in-group identity more positively.
Out-group Homogeneity Effect: Seeing in-group members as unique and differentiated, but out-group members as 'all the same'.
Cross-Race Effect: More accurate recognition of faces from one's own racial in-group; out-group members may look similar. Facilitates out-group stereotyping.
2. Stereotyping
Definition: Belief systems held about social groups and their members (cognitive basis of prejudice).
Characteristics:
Quick and Automatic: Often below conscious control, people may be unaware.
Oversimplified: Seeing all members of a group as the same (e.g., 'women are bad at video games').
Socially and Culturally Prescribed: Specific stereotypes vary across societies (e.g., 'Asians good at math' in Western contexts, not in Asian countries).
Pervasive and Widely Shared: Understood in a community, allowing for study via surveys.
Elicit Feelings: Stereotypes can evoke specific emotional reactions (e.g., sympathy, pity, disgust for homeless people), forming a basis for prejudice.
Stereotype Content Model: Stereotypes vary on two fundamental dimensions:
Warmth: Perceived as friendly, easy to get along with (less competitive groups).
Competence: Perceived as successful, productive, efficient (higher status groups).
Power and Status Relations: Determine representation on these dimensions.
Competitive groups: Lower in warmth.
Cooperating groups: Higher in warmth.
Higher status groups: High in competence.
Lower status groups: Low in competence.
Four Quadrants of Prejudice:
High Competence & High Warmth (Admiration): Groups eliciting pride, admiration (in-group, close allies, students). Minimal prejudice.
Low Competence & High Warmth (Paternalistic Prejudice): Groups eliciting pity, empathy (older people, people with disabilities, housewives). Seen as low status, non-competitive.
Low Competence & Low Warmth (Contemptuous Prejudice): Groups eliciting contempt, anger, disgust (people on welfare, poorer individuals). Seen as low status, competitive.
High Competence & Low Warmth (Envious Prejudice): Groups eliciting jealousy, envy (Asians, rich people, feminists). Seen as high status, competitive.
Problematic Nature of Stereotypes: Can form the basis for discrimination.
Gender Example: Women seen as 'too emotional/incompetent' for leadership (sexism). Men expected to lack emotion, leading to less help-seeking for mental health.
Difficulty in Changing Stereotypes:
'Forever Foreigners' Study (Asian Australians):
Method: Australian participants viewed Facebook profiles of either a white Australian or an Asian Australian.
Manipulation: Varied 'acculturation' to Australian culture via 'likes' (Vegemite, AFL, etc.). Individuals stated they were born in Australia.
Outcome: Perceived 'true Australian-ness'.
Results: White targets consistently viewed as more Australian than Asian targets, even when Asian targets showed strong acculturation. Acculturation didn't significantly boost the 'Australian-ness' perception for Asian targets. This illustrates stereotype persistence.
Mechanisms for Stereotype Change:
Gradual Change: Slow process from accumulating stereotype-inconsistent information over time through repeated exposure/interactions.
Conversion: Quick change after a sudden, intense stereotype-inconsistent experience (e.g., intimate friendships, falling in love with out-group member).
Mechanisms for Stereotype Persistence:
Subtyping: Creating subcategories to accommodate stereotype-inconsistent evidence, leaving the core stereotype intact. (e.g., 'black professionals' as a subtype of 'black people'). Subtypes are flexible and numerous, but the core stereotype remains, making stereotypes pervasive and difficult to change.
Class Activity (Women vs. Female Politicians): Demonstrated subtyping. Participants rated women in general as emotional, compassionate, caring (core stereotype). When asked about 'female politicians', traits like confident, assertive, ambitious received higher scores, indicating a specific subtype for women in politics.
Positive Stereotypes: Positive traits at face value, but with negative consequences.
Examples: Black people good at athletics; Asian people academically gifted (in Western contexts).
Negative Consequences:
Frustration/Psychological Distress: For targets aware of and unable to conform to stereotypes.
Pressure to conform: Individuals may perform worse when reminded of positive stereotypes about their group.
Constrained roles/opportunities: Women expected to take on more childcare duties; men expected to be unemotional.
Coexistence with negative stereotypes: People can hold both (e.g., black people as athletic and aggressive).
Elicit prejudice-related feelings: Envy/jealousy if a group is perceived to outperform one's own, leading to competition and discrimination.
3. Threat
Perceived Threat: Subjective feeling that a group is threatening, rather than actual threat.
Integrated Threat Theory: Stereotypes induce two primary types of perceived threat, leading to out-group anxiety and prejudice.
Realistic Threat: Perceived danger to the in-group's resources, opportunities, vitality, and success. About economic, political power or health.
Examples: 'Asian invasion' rhetoric (perceived threat of buying houses/resources), Asians unfairly blamed for spreading COVID-19 (perceived health threat).
Symbolic Threat: Threat posed by perceived differences between in-group and out-group values, customs, and traditions (different belief systems, morals, norms).
Examples: Muslim community's customs seen as 'too different' from Australian culture; LGBT+ community seeking rights seen as having 'different moral values' incompatible with cis-heteronormative norms.
4. Ideologies
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO):
Characteristics: Comfort with social/unequal hierarchy, legitimizing group hierarchies, belief it's natural, comfortable with inequality. Rejects egalitarianism.
Endorsement: Mostly by higher-power/privileged, dominant/majority groups who perceive their own group as superior.
Fundamental Belief: World is fundamentally competitive (limited resources).
Sensitivity: High SDO individuals are most sensitive to realistic threat.
Authoritarianism (Right-Wing Authoritarianism - RWA):
Three Key Components: Adherence to traditional norms, submission to traditionally conservative authority figures, authoritarian aggression (support for aggression against social deviants who challenge traditional systems).
Fundamental Belief: Out-group norms/values are different and threatening to the in-group.
Sensitivity: High RWA individuals are most sensitive to symbolic threat.
5. Zero-Sum Thinking
Definition: Belief that one group's gain (e.g., power, progress towards equality) is inherently perceived as a loss for another group.
Nature: Independent of actual resource distribution; it's a perceived sense that 'the pie is shrinking' or one group is 'taking something away'.
Drivers: Perceived lack of valued resources, leading to a competitive outlook.
Targets: Competitive out-groups that might gain political or economic power.
Research Summary: People endorsing zero-sum thinking tend to show:
Greater prejudice towards marginalized groups.
Lower support for equity-enhancing policies.
Support for discrimination and violence towards marginalized groups.
Contextual Examples:
Race: Gains in racial equality are perceived as 'anti-white bias'.
LGBT+ vs. Religious: Gains for the LGBT+ community are viewed as 'threatening/taking away rights' of religious people.
Gender: Women gaining more rights/equality is perceived as 'going too far' and a 'threat to men', leading to 'anti-male bias'.
Gender Context Study Illustration: Graph showing perceptions of anti-women discrimination decreasing over decades correlating negatively with increased perceptions of anti-men discrimination among U.S. men and women, implying a zero-sum view where women's gains are perceived as men's losses, leading to a belief that men and women now experience equal discrimination.