Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Social PsychologyChapter 5

September 17, 2004Class #4

He fit the description… Case Study:

February 4, 1999 – Amadou Diallo, 22, died in a hail of 41 bullets outside his Bronx apartment in what the officers testified was a tragic error

Stereotypes and Prejudices

Stereotypes The generalized perceptions, beliefs, and expectations a

person has about members in some group Schemas about entire groups of people Effects of stereotypes on behavior can be automatic and

unconscious Prejudice

A negative attitude toward an individual based solely on the person’s membership is some group

Includes an irrational hostility toward a particular race or group

In one word…prejudgment Discrimination

Differential treatment of individuals who belong to different groups

Stereotype Stereotypes about racial, ethnic, gender, or sexual orientation groups are

schemas.  Generalized belief about members of a group May or may not be accurate Most researchers believe it is even possible to

have a schema that you don't personally believe (OTHER PEOPLE think that Group x has qualities y... but I don't)…

Lets try this: What are the characteristics of:

A typical New Yorker? A typical Californian? A typical white male? A typical “career woman” A typical “stay-at-home” mom

How Stereotypes Form: Social Categorization The classification of persons into groups

on the basis of common attributes. Helps us form impressions quickly and use past

experiences to guide new interactions. Serious drawback: By categorizing people,

we often: Overestimate the differences between groups Underestimate the differences within groups Can bias our perceptions

Stone et al. (1997) Radio broadcast played to

participants They are shown a “photograph” of the

player to be analyzed Participants rated the player better if

they thought he was black

How Stereotypes Form: In-groups vs. Out-groups

Strong tendency to divide people into ingroups and outgroups

Such group identifications can promote an ingroup bias…Often it becomes an “Us vs.

Them” attitude Consequences

Exaggerate differences between ingroups and other outgroups.

Outgroup homogeneity effect

Perceived Outgroup Homogeneity

Phenomenon of overestimating the extent to which members within other groups are similar to each other Example: “They all look the same to

me”

How Stereotypes Form: Maybe they become automatic… Devine (1989)

Suggests that our parents and media may have started an early process that has now become automatic

Racial Bias Study: Sagar & Schofield (1980)

Purpose: Demonstrate that stereotypes bias interpretation of

ambiguous events Participants:

40 African American; 40 White Procedures:

Participants presented with four ambiguous drawings: Bumping Requesting food Poking Taking a pencil

Sagar & Schofield (1980)Participants were to rate actor’s

behavior as.....MeanThreateningPlayfulFriendly

Sagar & Schofield (1980): Experimental Set-Up

Actor Race

African American

White

Participant RaceAfrican

American

White

Sagar & Schofield (1980): Results

Subject Actor Mean & Threatening

White W 8.28 AA 8.99

African W 7.38American AA 8.40

Conclusion: White and African American participants rated identical behavior as more mean and threatening when actor was African American. Schemas influence the interpretation of events.

Who has the razor??? Allport and Postman's (1947)

Subjects were shown a picture depicting two men, one black and one white, confronting each other on a subway car

The white man has a straight razor in his hand After viewing the picture, the first subject

describes it to a second subject, who in turn describes it to another, and so on

After a few retellings, the straight razor ends up (is inferred to be) in the hand of the black man

Interesting replication… Boon & Davies (1987)

Subjects see a cartoon story of 2 men interacting on the subway.  At the end of the interaction, one man pulls a knife.

Different subjects see one of three different versions: 1) Both men are white: 

Man A has the knife (wearing a suit)   

2) Both men are white:  Man B has the knife (wearing work clothes)

    3) One is black, one is white: 

White man has the knife

Boon & Davies (1987) Retrieval phase

Both recall and recognition tests Recall test: 

No stimuli, just "describe the man who pulled the knife“ Recognition test: 

See two versions of the critical picture (correct knife-holder, or knife in the OTHER man's hand): instructions are "pick the one you saw before“

There is a correct and an incorrect version for the participants who saw the original story with two white men, AND also for those participants who saw the original story with one white man and one black man

Results??? What do you think happened??? Explanations???

Can stereotypes actually create self-fulfilling prophecies??? Wood et al. (1974)

White male University students interviewed white and black male high school students seeking employment

White interviewers of black applicants (relative to white interviewers of white applicants)

Sat further away Conducted shorter interviews Made more speech errors

Appeared to cause black applicants to become uncomfortable

Follow-up Experiment While males were applicants Treated like black applicants were treated in the first experiment They performed similarly (to black applicants in exp. 1) during the

interview

Three Levels of Stereotypes Public

What we say to others about a group Private

what we consciously think about a group, but don’t say to others

Implicit unconscious mental associations guiding our judgments

and actions without our conscious awareness

Public stereotypes have decreased in North America recently (“political correctness”)

Well, there are exceptions… “The biggest

thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners”

Explicit versus Implicit Prejudice If you were asked your opinions

about Irishmen, Californians, or fraternity men, that would tap: Explicit prejudice – positive or

negative feelings of which you are aware

But not implicit prejudice – feelings of which you are not aware

Intergroup Competition Sherif (1961):

The Robbers Cave Experiment Two groups of eleven year-old boys were sent

to a remote summer camp in Robbers Cave State Park (Oklahoma)

Initially unaware of their fragile co-existence, they formed tribalistic bonds, and having a great time…and then…

These middle class boys placed into competing areas in a summer camp:

They competed for medals and attention

Competed in a variety of contests…

Soon the rivalry became violent… Raided one another’s cabins Stole and burned one another’s flags Came to view one another as “stinkers” “smart-

alecks” and “sneaks” Verbal prejudice became apparent,

spiraling downward towards aggressive territorial violence

The groups eventually had to be separated

So how did experimenters try to reduce the prejudice they had created???

Propaganda: No Positive propaganda about one

group directed to the other by the experimenters did not help

Contact: No Doing non-competitive

activities together (e.g., watching movies) did not help

Cooperative action: Yes Experimenters arranged for

camp truck to break down Both groups needed to pull it

uphill Intergroup friendships began to

develop

Realistic Conflict Theory Proposal that intergroup conflict, and negative

prejudices and stereotypes, emerge out of actual competition between groups for desired resources Example: Members of different ethnic groups may

compete for the same jobs, or the same farmland

Realistic Conflict Theory Competition for valuable but limited resources

breeds hostility… Loser: becomes frustrated Winner: becomes threatened

Result: Much conflict Example: Women and immigrants joining the

workforce When conflict arises there is a higher tendency to

rely on stereotypes…”they’re all the same”

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Rubin & Hewstone (1998)

Comparing our ingroups with outgroups that are less well off can raise our self-esteem

We desire to feel good about ourselves Part of our identity comes from the groups to

which we belong

Discrimination Behaviors directed toward people on

the basis of their group membership Unfair treatment

History Repeats ItselfWho is more likely to get harassed at the airport security check?

Who is more likely to get harassed at an airport security check???

Note: Several of the previous slides were prepared by the following website: http://instruct.uwo.ca/psychology/023/pdfs/

Discrimination Do you know anyone who has, because of

their membership in a group, been: Denied a job or promotion? Insulted or harassed? Ignored or poorly served in a restaurant

or other business? Denied an apartment or house?

Herek (2000) On the one hand, people surveyed seemed

to think that homosexuals deserved similar job opportunities

But when we got to specifics, old attitudes surfaced See next two slides…

19771977 19821982 19891989 19921992

Do you think homosexuals should or should not have equal rights in terms of job opportunities?

19961996

YEARYEAR

Per

cen

tage

Per

cen

tage

Should Have Equal RightsShould Have Equal Rights

Should NOT Have Equal RightsShould NOT Have Equal Rights

5050

100100

00

ClergyClergy

19771977 19821982 19891989 19921992

Do you think homosexuals should or should not be hired for the following occupations?

19961996

YEARYEAR

Per

cen

tage

Say

ing

“Sh

ould

”P

erce

nta

ge S

ayin

g “S

hou

ld”

SalespersonsSalespersons

Elementary School TeachersElementary School Teachers

5050

100100

00

DoctorsDoctors

Many still believe Many still believe homosexuals should homosexuals should be excluded from be excluded from some jobs. some jobs.

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Fitzgerald (1993)

As many as 50% of women are sexually harassed during their academic or working lives

Faley et al. (1999) U.S. Army spent $250 million in one year to

deal with problems related to sexual harassment

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Pryor & Day (1988)

Behavior seen as more harassing when performed by person in power

Sheets & Braver (1993) Less harassing when performed by an

attractive single individual Terpstra & Baker (1986)

Women more likely than men to define staring and flirting as sexually harassing

Sexual Harassment as Gender Discrimination Men are more likely to harass than are

women But whether men harass or not depends

on the man, and on the situation In one study, male students were asked to

train a young woman on a complex word-processing task

Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993) Male participants were introduced to the

female trainee (confederate) by a male graduate student (confederate) who acted either: Sexist

Put his arm around trainee, visually checked out her body

Professional Respectful of trainee

Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993) DV:

The amount of sexuality expressed by the male student while instructing the female trainee

IV: Amount of exposure to sexual harassment

Results did not depend on the IV but rather depended on the participant’s chronic disposition to harass

So the situational factor here was relatively unimportant

Costs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping

Schulman et al. (1999) Physicians were only 60% as likely to suggest a

top-rated diagnostic test for black “heart patients” as for whites

Even when blacks presented same symptoms, and gave identical information about themselves

Ayres & Siegelman (1995) This study found that white men were offered

better deals on cars: $109 less than White women $318 less than Black women $935 less than Black men

Costs of Prejudice,

Discrimination, and Stereotyping

Stereotype threat… Can you see how a stereotype threat can

develop… You go to ATM and woman in front looks at you

and seems nervous

Reducing Prejudice One hypothesis is - negative stereotypes and

prejudice are due to ignorance From this perspective, simply exposing people

to members of different groups should reduce prejudice

But merely putting different groups together has not generally worked

Reducing Prejudice Contact Hypothesis

Stereotypes and prejudice toward a group will diminish as contact with the group increases

Getting to know and hopefully to understand a group

Get two groups to work towards a common goal

Cooperation helps; competition hurts

Effective group contact… Outgroup members have traits and abilities

challenging negative stereotypes Contact is supported by local authorities and norms Groups are of equal status, at least in contact setting Contact is at individual level Contact is rewarding Groups work toward common goals

Jigsaw Classroom Each student in a mixed race group is given a

different, and essential, task to complete towards a class project This intervention takes advantage of each of the

six principles of effective group contact

Back to the Rattlers and Eagles… Importance of common goals was shown in the study

of the Rattlers and Eagles… When their only contact involved competitive

games, interactions became increasingly negative But then researchers forced the boys to cooperate

towards common goals (such as starting a bus to take them all to a movie)

After competing, the Rattlers’ impressions of the Eagles were highly unfavorable, as were the Eagles’ impressions of the Rattlers

After competing, the Rattlers’ impressions of the Eagles were highly unfavorable, as were the Eagles’ impressions of the Rattlers

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

2020

0 0 After CooperationAfter Cooperation

After CompetitionAfter Competition

Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable

Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable

Ratings of Own GroupRatings of Own GroupRatings of Other GroupRatings of Other Group

The hostility between the groups eventually turned into friendship and acceptance after they were induced to begin cooperating with each other

The hostility between the groups eventually turned into friendship and acceptance after they were induced to begin cooperating with each other

100 100

80 80

60 60

40 40

2020

0 0 After CooperationAfter Cooperation

After CompetitionAfter Competition

Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable

Percentage of Rattler and Eagle Ratings That Were Unfavorable

Ratings of Own GroupRatings of Own GroupRatings of Other GroupRatings of Other Group

Finally, maybe we should just eliminate these altogether…