Discussion post (300 words)

lovely me

06CH_Feenstra_Social_Psych_2e.pdf

Home >Psychology homework help >Discussion post (300 words)

6 Prejudice

FotografiaBasica/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

By the end of the chapter you should be able to

• Differentiate among prejudice, bias, stereotypes, and discrimination.

• Evaluate the social and cognitive origins that lead to conscious or unconscious prejudice and stereotypes.

• Summarize how stereotypes and prejudice originate in social norms, conflict, and social inequalities.

• Describe how stereotype threat and stereotype lift affect performance.

• Explain how prejudice can be reduced.

156

Section 6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

Many social groups are the subject of stereotypes, as well as the prejudice and discrimination that often accompany them. For years, women have faced barri- ers in rising to leadership positions, and even today face a gap in pay of 20 cents on every dollar earned by a man (American Association of University Women, 2019; Forbes Coaches Council, 2018). In 2018, the golfer Tadd Fujikawa came out as the first openly gay pro. Fujikawa deliberately timed his announcement to coincide with Suicide Prevention Day. In his announcement on Instagram, he wrote about the ridicule and discrimination lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans- gender, and questioning (LGBTQ) people face (Cyrgalis, 2018). Minority ethnic and racial groups face prejudice and discrimination as well. Over half of the hate crimes committed in the United States are racially motivated (58.1%) (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017). Prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination are predominant issues in our world today, affecting many lives in profound ways.

6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination Most people know about and have experienced prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Social psychologists differentiate among these terms by focusing on whether they involve feelings (affect), cognition, or behaviors. The judgments we make about others can result in stereotypes, beliefs about the characteristics of particular groups or members of those groups. For example, stereotypes about people who are overweight are that they are lazy, unsuccessful, and unhappy and that they are not as attractive or popular as people of average weight (Grant & Mizzi, 2014; Grant, Mizzi, & Anglim, 2016; Greenleaf, Starks, Gomez, Cham- bliss, & Martin, 2004). Our tendency to form judgments about people based on a characteris- tic such as skin color, sexual orientation, or personal characteristics is known as a bias. When people engage in weight bias, they make judgments about others based on their weight, not taking into account other characteristics of the person.

Expand Your Knowledge: Weight Bias and Stigma

Excess weight affects more than one-third of the U.S. population, causing a number of health problems (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018b). Those who are overweight (with a body mass index over 25 and under 30) and obese (with a body mass index over 30) do not just deal with weight issues; they are also targets of prejudice and discrimination. Being overweight or obese is a stigmatizing condition linked to ridicule and shame (Tomiyama et al., 2018). To read more about weight bias and stigma visit the UConn Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity website: http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/. The site offers a variety of resources and readings.

http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/

157

Section 6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

While stereotypes refer to our cognitive processes, prejudice describes our emotional expe- rience. Prejudice involves a negative attitude toward individuals based on their membership in a particular group. Prejudice may be aimed at those from different racial or ethnic groups, individuals with a particular sexual orientation, people with mental or physical challenges, and many more. For example, prejudice against those who are overweight involves feelings of dislike or disgust toward a person who is heavy (Tomiyama et al., 2018; Vartanian, Thomas, & Vanman, 2013). As with attitudes, prejudice can come in both explicit and implicit forms. Explicit prejudice is prejudice that is conscious and can be reported. Someone who engages in a hate crime and states that he did so because he despises that group is engaging in an action because of explicit prejudice. Implicit prejudice is unconscious and requires tests like the Implicit Associations Test described in Chapter 4 to assess. Implicit prejudice tends to control unconscious and nonverbal behavior, such as nonverbal expressions of discomfort in the presence of someone from another racial group.

Similarly, discrimination is differential behavior toward individuals or groups based on group membership. This dis- crimination can be perpetrated by indi- viduals, such as when a boss gives less desirable jobs to a particular person based on her membership in a particular group. Discrimination can also be part of a larger social system, often known as institutional discrimination, such as when an employment policy selectively disadvantages individuals because of a particular personal characteristic. Indi- viduals who are transgender or gender non-binary often face institutional rac- ism in accessing health services (Bowl- ing, Baldwin, & Schnarrs, 2019). Such dis- crimination can have real consequences for people’s lives. Individuals from minority groups who perceive discrimination in the health care system do not have much trust in their doctors or the system and may, therefore, not get the care they need (Guerrero, Mendes de Leon, Evans, & Jacobs, 2015; Hausmann, Kwoh, Hannon, & Ibrahim, 2013). Racism and sexism are sometimes considered prejudice toward a particular racial group (racism) or toward individ- uals of a particular gender (sexism), but prejudice can also be used to describe discriminatory behaviors performed by individuals or institutions toward individuals or the entire group.

Discrimination may come from a stigma associated with membership in a particular group. A stigma is a sign of disgrace or shame that taints the entire person. Others might avoid or limit contact because of a stigma or ridicule or denigrate the person carrying the stigma (Beames, Black, & Vartanian, 2016). People who are overweight report feeling that their weight stig- matizes them, with the worst experiences of stigmatization coming from family and friends (Puhl & Brownell, 2006; Puhl, Moss-Racusin, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2008; Vartanian, Pinkus, & Smyth, 2014). Stigmatization from friends and family might come in the form of denigrating remarks or ridicule of eating, exercise, or dieting habits as well as other negative behaviors.

Jennifer Kovalevich/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images Prejudice, discrimination, and racism toward Blacks sparked the civil rights movement and, more recently, the Black Lives Matter movement.

158

Section 6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

Stigmatization can interfere with how people feel about themselves and prevent them from seeking help for potentially important issues. Individuals who have experienced weight stigma may experience greater psychological distress and loneliness and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction (Forbes & Donovan, 2019; Hayward, Vartanian, & Pinkus, 2018; Vartanian & Novak, 2011). Weight stigma can stand in the way of positive health behaviors among those who are heavier and have internalized the stigma. They may be more likely to avoid exercise and engage in maladaptive eating behaviors that lead to additional weight gain (Vartanian & Novak, 2011; Wellman, Araiza, Newell, & McCoy, 2018). Similarly, individuals who feel that mental illnesses are associated with stigma are less likely to label themselves as mentally ill despite having symptoms and, therefore, have a lower likelihood of seeking help (Corrigan, Druss, & Perlick, 2014; Fox, Smith, & Vogt, 2018; Schomerus et al., 2018; Stolzenburg et al., 2017).

Interventions designed to reduce stigma have shown some promise (Livingston, Milne, Fang, & Amari, 2012). When children were exposed to stories about people with severe mental illnesses who interacted well with their friends and family, they had more positive schemas for those with mental illness (Greenwood et al., 2016). An intervention involving hearing per- sonal stories of mental illness reduced stigma in medical students (Aggarwal et al., 2013). Narrative messages surrounding a variety of stigmatized issues showed reductions in stigma for most of those issues in a sample of adults in the United States (Heley, Kennedy-Hendricks, Niederdeppe, & Barry, 2019). It seems when we get to know something about the real people who are part of a stigmatized group, we engage in less stigmatization.

Expand Your Knowledge: Beyond Prejudice

The website Beyond Prejudice (http://www.beyondprejudice.com/) provides a great deal of interesting and accurate information on prejudice. The author differentiates between automatic prejudice and unintentional prejudicial responses, as well as conscious and intentional prejudicial responses. Suggestions are provided for reducing prejudice.

Stigmas do not just affect the stigmatized target. If you were associated with a person who has been stigmatized, that stigma is partially transferred to you. This phenomenon is called stigma by association. For example, in some cultures, someone who is positive for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) carries the stigma of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and the family of the person would be seen as tainted or shameful by association (Gamarel, Kuo, Boyes, & Cluver, 2017; Mason, Sultzman, & Berger, 2014). Families with a member struggling with mental illness also feel stigma by association (van der Sanden, Stut- terheim, Pryor, Kok, & Bos, 2014). Generally, the closer the association (family versus friends versus acquaintances), the greater the stigma by association experienced. The stigma can also be associated with the products a salesperson sells or the organization a person represents (Ruggs, Hebl, & Williams, 2015).

http://www.beyondprejudice.com/

159

Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins A variety of factors are responsible for our prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination. One group of factors relates to how we cognitively process information. Overall, our processes lead to generalizations about other people—generalizations that do not take into account the uniqueness of the individual. In this section, we will examine the ways in which our processes lead to conscious or unconscious prejudice and stereotypes.

Categorization Sorting people into categories has long been related to stereotyping and prejudice (Allport, 1954b). Categories are helpful because they allow us to deal with large amounts of informa- tion in an efficient way. The cognitive energy-saving nature of categories was demonstrated in a study by Neil Macrae, Alan Milne, and Galen Bodenhausen (1994). In their work, they asked participants to remember a list of characteristics of people that were flashed on a com- puter screen. The participants were simultaneously asked to remember information on an unrelated topic from a recorded message. The researchers were attempting to tax the partici- pants’ ability to process all the information they saw and heard. The researchers wondered if having category labels would be helpful in helping the participants’ memory. To test this, half of the participants were shown a category label that might help them remember some of the characteristics of the people they were supposed to remember. For example, Julian was labeled an “artist,” and then characteristics like creative, temperamental, and sensitive were flashed on the screen, to go along with the general stereotype of artist. Participants also saw characteristics that were not necessarily related to the category label, like cordial and gener- ous. The other half of the participants saw the same names and characteristics, but they were not shown a category label such as “artist.” When all the participants had seen all the different names and characteristics, the researchers quizzed them on how many of the characteris- tics they remembered for each name. They also quizzed the participants on how much they remembered about the unrelated recorded message.

Test Yourself

• How do affect (feeling), behavior, and cognition match up with prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination? Affect relates to prejudice, behavior relates to discrimination, and cognition relates to stereotypes.

• How are stigma and stigma by association related? Stigma involves a stain or sign of disgrace for an individual. With stigma by association, that sign of disgrace is transferred because of an association, either by relationship or proximity, to others.

160

Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

Participants who saw a category label remembered 4.42 category-consistent words, on aver- age, while those who did not see the label remembered only 2.08. This shows that the label helped people remember characteristics related to the label. In addition, the participants who saw a label also did better on the quiz about the unrelated message they heard. This suggests that being able to categorize freed up energy to listen to and process the unrelated message.

Categories save us cognitive energy and allow us to process more information. Therefore, we use categories liberally. However, categorizing leads to stereotypes (Jones & Fazio, 2010; Zhang, Li, Sun, & Zuo, 2018). We quickly and easily develop categories and use them to make later decisions, particularly with the most typical of the category (Kleider, Cavrak, & Knuycky, 2012; Tajfel, 1970). When we are exposed to information that does not fit in a particular cat- egory, it slows our responses (Bartholow & Dickter, 2008).

The categorization we do also includes ourselves (Rabinovich, Morton, Postmes, & Verplan- ken, 2012). According to social identity theory, we quickly and easily categorize ourselves and use those categories as part of our self-concepts (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When we do self- categorize, we may then act in a way that fulfills the stereotype for our group (Hundhammer & Mussweiler, 2012). In one study, older adults who self-categorized as “older” performed worse on cognitive tests than older adults who self-categorized as “younger” (Haslam et al., 2012). Categorization is clearly powerful and has effects on how we think of ourselves and others .

Although categorization saves us cognitive energy, there are dangers in these tendencies. Categorization denies the unique characteristics of individuals. For example, Germans may typically value timeliness and be prompt, but Hans may defy the stereotype and arrive late. Our judgments about people may be skewed because of these tendencies. We may perceive and make judgments based on similarities that do not actually exist or place individuals in categories in which they do not actually fit (Dotsch, Wigboldus, & van Knippenberg, 2011; Kosic & Phalet, 2006). Although people might automatically categorize a 350-pound woman as overweight, lazy, unmotivated, and nonathletic, when that woman is Sarah Robles nothing could be further from the truth. Robles competed in the 2012 and 2016 Olympic games and received a bronze medal in weightlifting in 2016, overcoming a great deal of adversity to do so (Mazziotta, 2016).

Test Yourself

How are categories helpful to people?

Categories make it possible for people to more efficiently process information.

161

Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

Ingroup Favoritism In 1970, Henri Tajfel published some surprising research results. For his study, he brought 14- and 15-year-old boys into a psychological research laboratory. The boys were shown slides that had dots on them, and they were asked to estimate the number of dots. The boys were then told that they were either “over-estimators” of dots or “under-estimators.” In real- ity, the boys were assigned these two labels randomly. Later, when the boys were asked to assign money to other participants, they assigned more money to those who shared their group membership. This tendency to show preferential treatment toward members of one’s own group is called ingroup favoritism. A group that you are a part of is called your ingroup . Ingroups might include gender, race, or city or state of residence, as well as groups you might intentionally join, like an online support group or a bowling league. A group that you do not identify with is called your outgroup .

In later work, Tajfel (Billig & Tajfel, 1973) found that even when participants were told that assignment to groups was random, they would still show preferential treatment toward mem- bers of their own group. Ingroup favoritism appears to work even when the reason for group categorization is relatively arbitrary (being an over-estimator or under-estimator of dots) or simply random. A meta-analysis that pulled together a variety of studies on ingroup favorit- ism showed that even in situations of minimal importance, favoritism was still present just as Tajfel had predicted (Balliet, Wu, & De Dreu, 2014). Greater ingroup favoritism was shown when groups were more dependent on one another, regardless of group size or what helping the ingroup member would cost.

Preference for an ingroup is not always found. For instance, among groups that are targets of prejudice and stereotyping, ingroup favoritism—or discrimination against the outgroup— is frowned upon by people within the ingroup. When a member of that group engages in ingroup favoritism, the person shows a lowering in self-esteem (Iacoviello, Berent, Frederic, & Pereira, 2017). Ingroup favoritism helps people feel like they belong (Hunter et al., 2017), something that may not happen if they are going against a group norm. People who are over- weight show similar negative prejudice toward other overweight people, comparable to that shown by those who are not overweight (Crandall, 1994; Lewis, Cash, Jacobi, & Bubb-Lewis, 1997). One reason for this might be that overweight individuals are distancing themselves from membership in this group in an attempt to escape some of the stigma associated with their weight status; thus they do not want to feel like they belong to that particular ingroup (Puhl & Brownell, 2003).

We see evidence of prejudice and preference for relating to those who are similar to oneself in dating. For example, people are most likely to date and form long-term commitments with those from a similar racial group (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Brimeyer & Smith, 2012; Harris & Kalbfleisch, 2000). In the past, we might have attributed this to lack of access to poten- tial partners of other races because of geographic boundaries, but today the Internet allows people to meet individuals of diverse backgrounds. Even without the pressures of geography, many people tend to prefer dating someone of their own race (Mendelsohn, Shaw Taylor, Fiore, & Cheshire, 2014; Sweeney & Borden, 2009). Research suggests that even when we have equal access to individuals from other racial groups, we tend to still be attracted to, and form intimate relationships with, those from our own group.

162

Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect Beyond viewing one’s own group as more favored than another group, indi- viduals within a group tend to view their own group as more varied than would someone outside the group. Someone describing an outgroup would describe the members in that group as being more homogeneous, or similar, than the mem- bers would describe themselves (Brauer, 2001; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992). This effect is called the outgroup homogene- ity effect .

One explanation for this effect may be our tendency to describe an outgroup based on what we know about the pri- mary characteristics of that group. How- ever, when we are asked to describe our own groups, we access information about the individual people within the group (Park & Rothbart, 1982). It is also possible that we simply know more people in our ingroup. Because we know more people as part of our membership in the group, we know more poten- tially different people; therefore, we judge our ingroup as being more diverse than the out- group (Linville, Fischer, & Salovey, 1989). This effect only happens for naturally occurring groups, not groups that are temporarily formed, like the groups supposedly formed because of dot estimation (Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992).

Some circumstances can minimize the outgroup homogeneity effect. In one research study, White participants showed the outgroup homogeneity effect for Black faces with neutral expressions. When the Black faces were shown with an angry expression, the participants were more accurate in differentiating among them (Ackerman et al., 2006). The outgroup homogeneity effect was evidenced in neutral circumstances but largely disappeared when the faces expressed an emotion that could signal danger to the individual. At times, people are motivated to believe their own group is more homogeneous such as when they want to emphasize a positive trait their group possesses, or it is a stereotypical trait of their group (Rubin & Badea, 2012).

monstArrr_/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images Individuals tend to view outgroup members as being very similar to one another. For example, someone might describe all homeless people with words like “lazy” and “addict.” Members of the wealthy upper class may be described with words like “greedy” and “self-serving.”

163

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

6.3 Societal Origins Our prejudice and stereotypes come not only from the way we take in and process informa- tion but also from the world around us. Societal origins of prejudice involve the norms in the world around us, the competition between groups, and the social inequalities that exist in the world. Because categorizing happens naturally and is a helpful tool in many ways, all human cultures are likely to have stereotypes. Ingroup favoritism leads to unequal treatment of those we have categorized as part of the outgroup, and outgroup homogeneity bias blinds us to the uniqueness among individuals within the outgroup. Our beliefs about the particular characteristics of those outgroups are largely determined by the culture in which we reside.

Norms Prejudice and stereotypes have origins in the norms of our social groups. Norms are our beliefs about what a group is thinking or doing. People learn negative attitudes toward groups by learning the norms of their social context (Sherif, 1936). We learn from our peers which stereotypes are appropriate. When participants in one study were led to believe that their stereotypes were different from their peers, those participants changed their stereotypes to be more in line with peer stereotypes (Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). For example, participants who learned that their peers had more positive attitudes toward people who are obese increased the positive stereotypes about this group and decreased their negative stereotypes.

Information about the attitudes of oth- ers is particularly powerful when it comes from people in the ingroup (Puhl, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2005). When mak- ing judgments about others, we tend to go along with the judgments of those in our ingroup without critically evaluating the content of those judgments (Binning

Test Yourself

• For what type of groups do people show ingroup favoritism? Ingroup favoritism is shown even for ingroups formed by random assignment, though favoritism may be less likely if the ingroup does not approve of ingroup favoritism or the ingroup is a stigmatized group.

• People tend to view the people in their outgroup as all __________one another and those in their ingroup as ________ one another. Similar to; different from .

Courtney Hale/iStock/Getty Images Plus/Getty Images We pick up prejudice and stereotypes from the norms in our social groups.

164

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

& Sherman, 2011). Employees might pick up a stereotype about the salespeople from their own department but would discount or carefully evaluate that same information if it came from another department. Media also provide us with stereotype messages (Burmeister & Carels, 2015; Savoy & Boxer, 2019). Overall, we seem to believe as others do, particularly those we identify with; we change our stereotypes and prejudice to fit with that shown or expressed by our friends.

Individuals who engage in the behavior expected by a norm for their group have more posi- tive experiences than those who violate those norms. For example, norms for women are that they are calm, sensitive, and sociable. Norms for men involve more agentic qualities. Assess- ment of female political candidates tends to drop when they engage in more assertive non- verbal behavior (Everitt, Best, & Gaudet, 2016). Male political candidates experience a boost in assessments when engaging in these same behaviors. A calm, self-contained female candi- date is more likely to get votes from men than if she is more forceful. Women who engage in more agentic behavior in the workplace—behavior that is often necessary to get ahead—are at greater risk for gender harassment (Leskinen, Rabelo, & Cortina, 2015). Norms may also present a barrier for men who want to engage in more sensitive and caring behavior and take on more communal roles (Croft, Schmader, & Block, 2015). Knowledge of the impact of norm violation begins early. In a study of children’s attitudes toward gender norms, researchers found that while children were willing to engage in norm-defying behavior, they expected that exclusion from the group might be a consequence of those actions (Mulvey & Killen, 2015).

If social norms are accurate indicators of prejudice, then there should be a correlation between existing prejudices and what social norms would dictate. If negative norms exist within a culture, prejudice should follow (Orosz et al., 2018). Christian Crandall, Amy Eshleman, and Laurie O’Brien (2002) found an almost perfect correlation between the norms about groups and people’s ratings of prejudice toward those groups. Social norms dictate that we dislike child abusers, terrorists, and members of the Ku Klux Klan, so these groups are ones toward which people feel the strongest prejudices. On the other hand, norms dictate that farmers, family men, and those with physical challenges are people toward whom one should not have negative prejudice; therefore, people report less negative prejudice toward these groups.

The level of expressed prejudice toward different racial groups in the United States has been parallel to the perceived acceptability of prejudice over the years (Dowden & Robinson, 1993). As society views prejudice as less acceptable, individuals are less likely to express prejudice (Forscher, Cox, Graetz, & Devine, 2015). For example, as society has become more open and accepting of LGBTQ people, individuals have been less likely to express prejudice toward those individuals.

Competition for Resources When groups exist together in a society, they may be at odds with one another in competi- tion for resources, which can create prejudice (Butz & Yogeeswaran, 2011; Jackson, 1993; Maxwell-Smith et al., 2016; Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). Competition is at the heart of realistic group conflict theory. Realistic group conflict theory proposes that struggles among groups over scarce resources or conflicting objectives can create hostility and preju- dice. Competition may center on economic interests, political or military advantage, or even threats to the safety or status of the group.

165

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

A strong factor in creating prejudice is anger. When in competition, we may feel angry that a rival group is taking away resources or prestige from our group. Individuals who feel angry are more likely to feel prejudice than those who feel sadness or more neutral emotions (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994; DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett, & Cajdric, 2004a). For example, when people feel resources are scarce or that another group poses a threat, they are less likely to be inclusive in their judgments of others and more likely to show prejudice toward that group (Aberson, 2019; Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2016; Rodeheffer, Hill, & Lord, 2012). Competition can certainly enhance prejudice, but it is not necessary for prejudice to occur. People tend to show the social cognitive factors for prejudice, such as ingroup favorit- ism and outgroup homogeneity effect, even when competition is not in play (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1991).

Expand Your Knowledge: United Nations Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice

To learn more about the international response to prejudice, read the United Nations Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice, approved in 1978. The statement can be found at http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13161&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_ SECTION=201.html

This competition between groups can lead to problems for groups like immigrants. When immigrants do well in their new country, their success may be seen as coming at the expense of those already in the country. This competition for resources, real or perceived, may create tension, prejudice, and hostility. For the immigrant, lack of success could be just as problem- atic. An immigrant who requires social services or is not fully contributing to society may also be a target of prejudice and hostility (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). Immi- grants can also be scapegoats within a society. In European Union countries with struggling economies (low gross domestic product) and a high percentage of minorities, anti-immigrant sentiment is high (Quillian, 1995). When things are not going well, having a group that can be blamed for the problems may make people feel better about themselves or their ingroup. Overall, greater inequality creates more comparisons between groups, enhancing the ten- dency for people to differentiate the ingroup from the outgroup (Jetten et al., 2010).

Social Inequalities Social inequalities are maintained, to some extent, by legitimizing myths, beliefs, and atti- tudes that keep low-status groups in their place. Prejudice is created through a specific set of beliefs to support that prejudice. For example, the place of those of higher status may empha- size some aspect of the lower-status group that, according to the stereotype, indicates a flaw or weakness. People might argue that the low socioeconomic status of a person from a par- ticular group is the result of negative qualities found in that group (for example, lack of intel- ligence or initiative). The economic disadvantage of overweight women might be justified by a belief that these women are too lazy to work hard, as evidenced by their inability to control their weight (Magallares, 2014; Mason, 2012). Such views justify stereotypes and prejudice

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13161&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

166

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

(Fiske, 2001); individuals feel justified in their privileged position, and the status quo in the social system is maintained (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004). Individuals who have more negative stereotypes and prejudice tend to view social and economic status differences among people as more justified than those with fewer negative stereotypes and prejudice (De Oliveira & Dambrun, 2007; Hindriks, Verkuyten, & Coenders, 2014).

Social inequalities are supported by the beliefs of people but also by the way they use lan- guage. At times, people in groups with higher social standing will tell jokes that support the negative views they have of those of lower social standing. These jokes allow the dominant group to maintain and legitimize their position of power while supposedly simply being humorous (Hodson, Rush, & MacInnis, 2010; Saucier, O’Dea, & Strain, 2016; Saucier, Strain, Miller, O’Dea, & Till, 2018). To stop such talk is difficult because of the guise of humor and can result in ostracism of the challenger. However, not all racial humor supports prejudice. Some racial humor may help raise awareness of societal issues that need to be addressed (Saucier et al., 2016).

Some of the prejudice toward men and women might also be part of supporting social inequality. Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (1996) hypothesized that overly positive and pater- nalistic attitudes toward women or maternalistic attitudes toward men may have a place in supporting inequality. They named this type of sexism benevolent sexism and contrasted it with hostile sexism, involving competitive and antagonistic attitudes toward women or men. Benevolent sexism toward women appears, on the surface, to be kind and caring but can be used to justify inequalities. For example, sample items on a scale that measures benevo- lent sexism toward women read: “Women should be cherished and protected by men” and “Despite accomplishment, men are incomplete without women” (p. 500). These may sound nice to some people, but they suggest a weakness or incompleteness in women that must be fulfilled by men—women have warmth but not competence (Ramos, Barreto, Ellemers, Moya, & Ferreira, 2016). Similar items are present in the Ambivalence Toward Men inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1999), ascribing men incompetence in some domains and suggesting that men and women are incomplete without each other.

In cultures with greater inequality, women are more likely to endorse benevolent sex- ism toward women than hostile sexism toward women (Glick & Fiske, 2001). This idea is strengthened by the finding that benevolent sexism toward women is endorsed to a greater extent when women have a greater fear of crime (Phelan, Sanchez, & Broccoli, 2010). Across 16 nations, gender inequality is correlated with benevolent and hostile sexism (Glick et al., 2004), as benevolent sexism can serve as a legitimizing ideology for inequality (Mosso, Bri- ante, Aiello, & Russo, 2013).

Individuals who prefer more hierarchical power structures, what researchers call social dominance orientation, also tend to have prejudiced and racist views (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Hierarchical power structures support differences among people, with those at the bottom having less power and prestige than those at the top. Such power structures provide a reason, or perhaps more accurately an excuse, for discrepancies in what society expects of people and the freedoms they are allowed. Social dominance orientation is related to prejudice and racism across cultures (Cantal, Milfont, Wilson, & Gouveia, 2015;

167

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

Pratto et al., 2000). For example, Serge Guimond and colleagues (2013) found that greater social dominance orientation in both Canada and Germany was related to greater prejudice toward those of lower social status. However, Canada’s greater national commitment to mul- ticulturalism decreased the overall endorsement of social dominance orientation more than in Germany. Greater emphasis on ideologies that reduce endorsement of hierarchies, such as multiculturalism, tend to reduce social dominance orientation (Levin et al., 2012). Social dominance orientation interacts with realistic group conflict theory; when an economic downturn occurs, creating a threat and therefore more perceived conflicts between groups, those who are high in social dominance orientation are less supportive of policies that would benefit an outgroup (King, Knight, & Hebl, 2010).

Social Psychology in Depth: Blue-Eyed and Brown-Eyed

How can a teacher teach about prejudice in a classroom with little diversity? Jane Elliott, a third-grade teacher in a small Iowa town in the late 1960s, was faced with this predicament. Shortly after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Elliott decided to teach her students about the dangers of prejudice and discrimination by having them experience it. Elliott said,

We’ve all been told those things. We know them, at least in the sense that we mouth them at appropriate times. Yet we continue to discriminate, or to tolerate it in others, or to do nothing to stop it. What I had racked my brain to think of the night before was a way of letting my children find out for themselves, personally, deeply, what discrimination was really like, how it felt, what it could do to you. Now the time had come to try it. (Peters, 1987)

Elliott divided the class by the color of their eyes: blue-eyed versus brown-eyed students. On the first day, the blue-eyed students were told they were smarter and better. Discriminatory policies were instituted for the brown-eyed children. Children with brown eyes got less recess time, were forbidden to use the drinking fountain, and could not play with the blue- eyed children. The next day roles were switched. The children quickly and easily joined in the game, and it swiftly became reality for them. A normally friendly, cooperative group of children became mean to one another and fought. The lower-status children became sad, withdrawn, and angry. By the end of the second day, the children had a taste of prejudice and a sense of what discrimination feels like.

Since her lesson, Elliott has traveled around the world giving lectures and doing the same exercise with adults. The adults’ reactions are similar to the children’s reactions. Both the children in Elliott’s class and the adults in her seminars reported a profound long-term change in their understanding of prejudice and discrimination. Elliott received multiple awards for her work and has been the subject of a number of documentaries.

To view a PBS special on this exercise, visit https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-class -divided/. Elliott’s website contains additional information and materials: https://janeelliott .com/

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-class-divided/

https://janeelliott.com/

168

Section 6.3 Societal Origins

Prejudice influences daily interactions among people. For example, research participants have reported less of a desire to get to know or to become friends with, to work with, or do a favor for a person who is overweight (Brochu & Morrison, 2007). When people feel fear or anxiety toward those who are different from themselves they avoid interactions (Savoy & Boxer, 2019). This effect varies depending on the type of prejudice. Explicit prejudice—such as reported prejudice toward those who are overweight, those from different racial groups, or those of different sexual orientations—tends to affect consciously controlled behavior, such as the words people say and the degree of comfort people report feeling in the interaction.

Implicit prejudice, as would be measured through the Implicit Associations Test, is related to behaviors that are less consciously controlled, such as nonverbal behavior. In one study, the explicit attitudes of White participants indicated what they said and their self-reported friendliness toward a Black interaction partner. Implicit prejudice, however, was revealed by their nonverbal behavior, the ratings of observers, and the interaction partner (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002). Implicit prejudice seems to be displayed in the nonverbal, less consciously controlled behaviors, like the openness of posture, how close people sit, or the naturalness of their movements and gestures (Meadors & Murray, 2014).

Because controlling one’s responses requires energy, interactions with a person from a minor- ity group can feel taxing to those who have a strong implicit prejudice toward that group. If people are concerned about appearing prejudiced, they experience greater stress responses, both over the short term, in a particular contact, and over a longer period of time (Trawalter, Adam, Chase-Lansdale, & Richeson, 2012). The interaction is also problematic for the target of the prejudice. When tested for what they learned, those who were taught by an individual with higher implicit prejudice toward their group did poorly on a test (Jacoby-Senghor, Sin- clair, & Shelton, 2016). Genetic counselors with greater implicit prejudice had poorer qual- ity interactions with their outgroup clients than those with lower implicit prejudice (Schaa, Roter, Biesecker, Cooper, & Erby, 2015).

Expand Your Knowledge: Test Yourself for Hidden Bias

The Southern Poverty Law Center provides a solid explanation of prejudice, focusing most thoroughly on implicit prejudice, or what they term “hidden bias.” One of their resources for professional development is an article called “Test Yourself for Hidden Bias.” This article describes the connection between hidden bias and behavior, as well as how prejudice and stereotypes affect people. It also provides some suggestions of what one can do about hidden biases. Learn more at https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/test-yourself -for-hidden-bias

One form this nonverbal behavior may take is microaggression, which includes subtle forms of discrimination. Although often unintentional, microaggressions include indirect but pur- poseful activities that discriminate against others, as well as insensitivity to the identities of others or behavior that displays exclusion or denial of the thoughts, feelings, or experiences of others (Sue et al., 2007). Individuals who experience microaggression tend to have greater psychological distress, potentially leading to depression (Lui & Quezada, 2019).

https://www.tolerance.org/professional-development/test-yourself-for-hidden-bias

169

Section 6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

There is some debate about microaggression research (Lilienfeld, 2017). The term is not well defined in research and may not be interpreted and validly assessed. To some degree, micro- aggression depends on the subjective interpretation by the target of the aggression, which means that the same act may be considered microaggression by one person and not as micro- aggression by another, creating issues in clearly identifying what is and is not microaggres- sion (Tao, Owen, & Drinane, 2017).

Test Yourself

• What term describes the source of prejudice as coming from clashing among groups over resources or power? Realistic group conflict theory .

• What is social dominance orientation and how is it related to prejudice? Social dominance orientation is a preference for hierarchical power structures. Individuals high in social dominance orientation tend to also show more prejudice than those low in social dominance orientation .

• How does the effect of explicit prejudice differ from the effect of implicit prejudice on behavior? Explicit prejudice tends to affect consciously controlled behavior like what a person says, while implicit prejudice tends to affect nonverbal behavior or other behaviors that one does not consciously control.

6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped Do stereotypes influence our performance? Imagine you had to take a test to assess your per- formance that, based on the stereotype about your group, suggests you may not perform well. For example, there is a stereotype that women are not as good at math as men. If you are a woman and were thinking about the stereotype while you took a math test, would that affect your performance? Research suggests it would.

In a classic study by Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson (1995), the researchers varied how much participants thought about a racial stereotype. The researchers told one group of Afri- can American and White participants that the test they would take would be diagnostic of intellectual ability, tapping into the stereotype for African Americans that they are not as intelligent as those from other racial groups. For a second group of participants, the research- ers emphasized that this test was not diagnostic of ability. The researchers found that Afri- can American participants in the first group did worse than their White counterparts, but in the second group, African Americans and Whites did equally well (Figure 6.1). Obviously, the African American participants were capable of doing just as well on the test as the White participants, so why the difference? Steele and Aronson explain that the possibility that one is going to be evaluated on an ability about which others show a stereotype creates anxiety. This anxiety distracts people from doing as well as they are capable of doing. The researchers named this phenomenon stereotype threat . Stereotype threat refers to the threat people feel when they think they may be at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group. The stereotype predicts poor performance, so the person has to deal with the possibility of confirming that stereotype.

170

Section 6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

Awareness that one is being evaluated based on membership in a stereotyped group can, therefore, interfere with performance. This increased pressure interferes with performance by bringing automated tasks to conscious awareness, making difficult tasks more difficult to perform, and causing depletions in the capacity of working memory (Spencer, Logel, & Davies, 2016). At times, people also try to protect their self-worth by engaging in self-handicapping behaviors.

Figure 6.1: Effects of stereotype threat

African Americans primed with the stereotype threat—that the test was a measure of intellectual ability—scored lower on the test than African Americans who were not primed with the stereotype threat.

Source: Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797. Copyright ©1995 by the American Psychological Association.

M ea

n it

em s

so lv

ed (

ad ju

st ed

b y

S A

T )

African Americans Whites

Stereotype threat No stereotype threat

Expand Your Knowledge: Stereotype Threat

The website Reducing Stereotype Threat (https://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org /home) was developed by two social psychologists to describe and provide resources on the topic of stereotype threat. The site provides a very good introduction to stereotype threat and describes situations where stereotype threat occurs, the individuals who are vulnerable, the consequences of stereotype threat, and the mechanisms contributing to stereotype threat. Some suggestions for reducing stereotype threat and some unresolved issues on the topic of stereotype threat are also provided.

https://www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/home

171

Section 6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

Stereotype threat is not just present for Blacks on intelligence tests. Women college students perform worse on math tests when in the presence of men (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003). Pas- cal Huguet and Isabelle Regner (2007) found similar results in sixth- and seventh-grade girls (girls 11 to 13 years old). Stereotype threat is also realized in athletic performance (Stone, Sjomeling, Lynch, & Darley, 1999). When the stereotype was presented that White men do not have the same athletic ability as Blacks, the White men did much worse when they thought their natural athletic ability was being tested. Latinos showed poorer intellectual performance under situations of stereotype threat (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002). Individuals who are overweight show a stress reaction when asked to do something that is related to weight stigma (Major, Eliezer, & Rieck, 2012). For example, women who are overweight may avoid exercise because of stereotype threat (Seacat & Mickelson, 2009). Older adults also experi- ence stereotype threat when engaging in cognitive and physical tasks (Barber & Lee, 2016; Lamont, Swift, & Abrams, 2015). As part of various social groups, we all have the potential for our performance to be disturbed by stereotype threat.

Stereotype threat seems particularly strong when people have a vested interest in the area being tested. For example, women who describe math as being important will feel more ste- reotype threat than women who report math as not important (Aronson et al., 1999; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003). Dealing with stereotype threat leaves people with less self-control, causing the effects of the stereotype to spill over into other aspects of life. Individuals who experience stereotype threat may engage in risky behaviors such as risky decision making, overeating, or even aggression. Experiencing stereotype threat also saps a person’s motivation to engage in activities that might improve performance on the relevant domain (Fogliati & Bussey, 2013). Women who experienced stereotype threat regarding their math ability were less likely to report wanting to attend mathematics tutorials. Over the long term, these behaviors can be detrimental to physical and mental health and may lessen the investment of individuals in relevant arenas (Inzlicht & Kang, 2010; Inzlicht, Tullett, & Gutsell, 2012; Silverman & Cohen, 2014). For example, women who feel stereotype threat concerning math, science, technology, and engineering may be less likely to go into those fields than men (Deemer, Thoman, Chase, & Smith, 2014; Woodcock, Hernandez, Estrada, & Schultz, 2012).

Reduction of stereotype threat is possible. Unfortunately, knowing about stereotype threat is not protective (Tomasetto & Appoloni, 2013). However, if people learn about stereotype threat, believe a stereotype is not accurate, and are told that any anxiety they feel is due to ste- reotype threat, they can perform well (Johns, Schmader, & Martens, 2005). If people believe that a task is not related to the domain for which they experience a stereotype—for example, if older adults are told that people show no age decline with a particular memory test—they will feel no stereotype threat and show no memory test detriment (Spencer et al., 2016).

For interventions to be successful, they need to focus on the type of threat people experience (Shapiro, Williams, & Hambarchyan, 2013). Some threats are focused on the group, known as group-as-target stereotype threats. For example, if a woman was concerned that her poor performance on the calculus test would reflect poorly on women, she would be experiencing group-as-target stereotype threat. When group-as-target stereotype threat is at play, having a role model who defied the stereotype can be positive for people of that group in fighting stereotype threat. Threats can also be focused on individuals. At times, people experience self-as-target stereotype threat, such as when a person is concerned poor performance will reflect negatively on them. For example, a Black student might be concerned that his SAT score will reflect poorly on his academic abilities. Receiving affirmation about oneself reduces

172

Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

the effects of self-as-target stereotype threat. Researchers find that, for both types of intervention, being tested in a single-sex group reduced the effect of stereotype threat on women’s perfor- mance (Pennington & Heim, 2016).

Stereotypes can have a positive effect on individual performance. When members of a non-stereotyped group are in the presence of those who are in the stereotyped group, they may expe- rience a boost in performance called a stereotype lift (Walton & Cohen, 2003). For example, in Germany, a ste- reotype exists that Turkish-origin stu- dents have lower verbal ability than native German students (Froehlicher, Martiny, Deaux, Goetz, & Mok, 2016). When students from both groups were put into a situation where the stereo- type was activated, the Turkish-origin students performed worse on a test they thought was diagnostic of verbal intelligence, as would be expected from stereotype threat. The native German students did better, showing a stereotype lift.

Test Yourself

• How does stereotype threat affect behavior? Stereotype threat results in poor performance on a stereotype-related behavior.

• How can the negative effects of self-as-target stereotype threat be reduced? When individuals face self-as-target stereotype threat, receiving affirmation about oneself is effective in reducing the negative effects. When the situation involves something like testing, being among other people who are part of the stereotyped group can also reduce self-as-target stereotype threat. This technique is also effective with group-as-target stereotype threat.

6.5 Reducing Prejudice How do we reduce prejudice and discrimination? During the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government instituted policies of deseg- regation in schools and in the military. One hope of such a policy was that putting people of different groups together would reduce prejudice, an idea called the contact hypothesis . While contact might increase prejudice in some situations (Allport, 1954b), under certain conditions contact is more likely to reduce prejudice (Dovidio, Love, Schellhaas, & Hewstone,

FangXiaNuo/E+/Getty Images Stereotype threat suggests that the fear of confirming or flouting a given stereotype can cause performance anxiety. It can also be the case that those who are not a part of a stereotyped group may experience stereotype lift, or an increase in performance, when in the presence of a stereotyped group.

173

Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

2017; Lemmer & Wagner, 2015). Here are some of the conditions found by researchers to reduce prejudice:

• People or groups are of equal status • Common goals • Intergroup cooperation • Support by the larger social context (e.g., authorities)

In addition, the contact needs to be positive or it will backfire and increase, rather than decrease, prejudice (Aberson, 2015; Alperin, Hornsey, Hayward, Diedrichs, & Barlow, 2014; Barlow et al., 2012), particularly if the contact includes emotions like anger or disgust (Seger, Banerji, Park, Smith, & Mackie, 2017). When these conditions are met, contact with differ- ent people is most effective in reducing prejudice. Yet even when the conditions are not met, contact can still reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). One of the determining factors in the success of prejudice reduction is the level of anxiety individuals feel when interacting. When we feel anxious and uncertain about how to act, it is difficult for an interaction to go well (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Keith, Bennetto, & Rogge, 2015; Koball & Carels, 2015; Stephan et al., 2002; Techakesari et al., 2015). When individuals feel admiration for the people with whom they are interacting, contact can reduce prejudice (Seger et al., 2017).

One interesting extension of the work on contact has been studying the effects of indirect intergroup contact. Even if people have no real contact with people from another group, their own prejudice can be reduced if they have a friend who does have contact with people from that group (Wright, Aron, McLaughlin-Volpe, & Ropp, 1997). It seems that even imagined con- tact is sufficient to reduce prejudice (Turner & Crisp, 2010; West, Husnu, & Lipps, 2015). Research participants who were asked to imagine interacting with an older adult for two minutes showed less prejudice toward older adults than those who did not imagine such an interaction (Turner & Crisp, 2010). Although imagined interactions do not have as strong an impact on reducing prejudice, the effect is still a positive one for such a low investment. For those with strong prejudice toward another group or when contact with those of the target group is difficult, imagined contact may be more effective than other forms of contact (West, Hotchin, & Wood, 2017; West et al., 2015).

Common goals have long been viewed as important for the reduction of prejudice and con- flict among groups. In the 1950s, Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues studied the effectiveness of shared goals on reducing intergroup conflict (Sherif, 1958; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Sherif called these shared goals superordinate goals, objectives held by both groups in a conflict that transcend the conflict, providing a common aim. Sherif’s study brought two groups of boys to a summer camp setting. For a week each group did not know the other group existed. As you might imagine from the previous discussions of categoriza- tion and ingroup favoritism, each group of boys quickly bonded as a group. When the groups discovered that another group was at the camp, conflict between the groups quickly esca- lated. The researchers then provided both groups of boys with problems they could solve only if they all worked together. In one such instance, researchers caused the camp’s water supply to be cut off. The two groups of boys had to work together to restore water to the camp. After several such events, conflict between the groups reduced significantly and the boys became friends without respect to the original grouping. The superordinate goal of solving problems helped reduce the initial prejudice the boys felt toward one another.

174

Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

Superordinate goals can be part of very different types of experiences. In a study of collabora- tive video game play, after playing with a member of the outgroup as a partner in a collabora- tive video game, researchers found that players had more positive feelings toward the out- group (Stiff & Kedra, 2018). A conference that brought together people from different Middle Eastern countries and territories, including Israel, and from the United States to discuss sub- stance use found that individuals from these different nations continued to collaborate five years later (Urada, Rawson, & Onuki, 2014). The contact around a common cause allowed for friendship and continued collaboration among people from diverse nations.

Social Psychology In Depth: Harry Potter and Stigma

Differences in habit and language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts are open. (Rowling, 2010, p. 723)

J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series has been wildly popular among children and adults. Around 500 million of the books have been sold around the world, 1 for every 15 people on the planet (Pottermore News Team, 2018). Harry Potter’s Wizarding World is one of the most popular features of the Universal Studios theme parks. Children can go to a Harry Potter– themed summer camp or join Harry Potter–inspired clubs.

Some of the themes of these books relate to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In the books, those without magical powers experience discrimination in the wizarding world, and those who are not fully human are stigmatized. Only the pure-blooded wizards and witches—those with both parents having magical powers—should have authority, according to evil wizard Voldemort. Harry Potter, the main character in the series, often fights against the inequalities he sees in his worlds, as a result of contact with stigmatized groups and the prejudice and discrimination he has experienced himself.

Given that even imagined contact can have a positive effect on prejudice, might people who read the Harry Potter novels have more positive attitudes toward stigmatized groups? Loris Vezzali and colleagues (2015) looked into this possibility through several studies. In their first study, they read and discussed passages from the Harry Potter series with Italian elementary schoolchildren. Half of the children read and discussed passages relating to prejudice. The other half read and discussed passages not related to prejudice. When later surveyed about their attitudes toward immigrants, the children who had read the prejudice- related passages showed improved attitudes toward immigrants. The other group showed no difference in their attitudes.

In their second and third studies, they assessed how many of the Harry Potter books and films the participants had read or watched. They also asked how much the participants identified with Harry or with Voldemort. In the second study, within the group of Italian high schoolers surveyed, Harry Potter fans showed more positive attitudes toward gay and lesbian people than those with less exposure to the books. In the third study, a group of undergraduate students in England had more positive attitudes toward refugees if they had experienced more of Harry Potter’s world, particularly if they did not identify with Voldemort.

Overall, these studies show that even imagined contact with stigmatized others in a fantastical world can be positive for reducing prejudice toward stigmatized people. Harry Potter may not just be entertaining us but may also be making us better people.

175

Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

Cooperative learning experiences in the classroom have also been shown to reduce prejudice. Learning can provide a superordinate goal that the group can only reach if it works together. One technique that incorporates coopera- tive learning is the jigsaw classroom . In a jigsaw classroom, different stu- dents have access to different pieces of the material to be learned. For exam- ple, if an elementary school class were learning about cells, one group of stu- dents might learn about the nucleus, another about mitochondria, another about ribosomes, and another about the Golgi body. Groups need to work together to gain expertise about their particular aspect of the material. The expert groups disperse and share their expertise with a new group, with each student presenting his or her own area of expertise (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). Groups that involve taking turns and having specific prompts for students to answer are best in making sure the group engages in positive interdependence (Theobald, Eddy, Grunspan, Wiggins, & Crowe, 2017). In a study of Australian schoolchildren who used the jigsaw method while learning about nutrition, researchers found that children in classrooms using this method showed greater liking for their outgroup and less stereotypic views of children from other ethnic groups (Walker & Crogan, 1998).

On the individual level, reducing prejudice is, in part, dependent on committing to think- ing about and approaching the world in a way that honors individuality and diversity. When people believe that one’s level of prejudice can be changed, they are more likely to engage in activities that will reduce prejudice and are comfortable and friendly within interactions with those who are different from themselves (Carr, Dweck, & Pauker, 2012). The more interaction we have with a variety of people, the better off we are likely to be.

People are motivated to learn about others when it is important to living successfully in the world (Fiske, 2004). Placing ourselves in situations where interactions with others are inevi- table and necessary may help us to learn about those in our outgroup and reduce the preju- dices we might have about them. The more the norms of a social group also focus on inclusiv- ity, the more individuals will do the same (Fiske, 2004). It also helps to realize that all people are part of a variety of social groups. For example, someone might be a woman, a Korean American, an artist, and a runner. By thinking about this person not just based on gender— with the stereotypes and prejudice that may come with that—but also her race, occupation, and hobby, one may be inclined to show less prejudice and be more tolerant (Brewer, 2000).

FatCamera/E+/Getty Images Jigsaw classrooms encourage children to collaborate together in diverse groups and rely on one another to carry out a project, aiming to reduce prejudice.

176

Summary & Resources

Conclusion We all live with prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination every day. Although we naturally form the categories that lead us to form stereotypes, show discriminatory behavior toward those outside of our groups, and are part of societies that—intentionally or not—support prejudice and discrimination, we can still work hard to reduce prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination through our interactions with others.

Summary & Resources

Chapter Summary

Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

Prejudice includes the attitudes we have about individuals of a particular group based on their group membership. Bias leads us to form judgments about people based on their mem- bership in a group. Stereotypes are the beliefs we hold about individuals based on their group membership. Discrimination involves actions toward individuals or groups based on group membership.

Social/Cognitive Origins

Our cognitive systems naturally categorize others. This categorization saves us cognitive energy. When we categorize others as members of our ingroup, we show ingroup favoritism. We see all members of the outgroup as similar, while we acknowledge that members of our ingroup are quite different from one another.

Societal Origins

Societies support stereotypes and prejudice, and therefore discrimination, through norms. All members of a group generally learn those norms. Groups develop negative views of one another when they are in conflict over resources. Groups in power maintain social inequali- ties through legitimizing beliefs that justify their superior position.

Test Yourself

• What are the factors of contact that need to be present for the contact to reduce prejudice? The contact should be among people or groups of equal status, with common goals, including ingroup cooperation, and be supported by the social context.

• What is a superordinate goal? A superordinate goal is a goal that can only be achieved when people work together to fulfill it.

177

Summary & Resources

Key Terms benevolent sexism A type of sexism involving overly positive and paternalistic attitudes toward women or maternalistic attitudes toward men. Contrast with hostile sexism.

bias The tendency to form judgments about people based simply on a characteristic such as weight, skin color, or personal characteristics .

contact hypothesis The idea that contact among different groups will lessen conflict.

discrimination Differential treatment toward individuals or groups based on group membership.

hostile sexism A type of sexism involving competitive and antagonistic attitudes toward women or men. Contrast with benevolent sexism.

ingroup The group to which one belongs.

ingroup favoritism The tendency to show preferential treatment toward members of one’s own group.

jigsaw classroom A cooperative learning technique in which different students have access to different pieces of the material to be learned. Groups work together to gain expertise in their piece of the material and then work with another group to share their expertise and learn about the other pieces from their groupmates.

Influences on Those Stereotyped

Stereotypes can interfere with performance. When people perform a behavior knowing their group is stereotypically not very good at that behavior, their performance may be less than their best. This phenomenon is called stereotype threat. Stereotypes and prejudice also inter- fere with positive interactions between people.

Reducing Prejudice

The contact hypothesis proposes that contact between members of groups that hold preju- dice against one another may reduce prejudice. Contact can reduce prejudice when a number of conditions are satisfied. Common goals, called superordinate goals, are particularly helpful in bringing groups in conflict together.

Critical Thinking Questions

1 . Humans naturally categorize; it is good for memory and saves cognitive energy. But categorization also leads to stereotyping. If we could somehow reverse our tendency to categorize, should we? What are the tradeoffs?

2 . Have you seen ingroup favoritism or the outgroup homogeneity effect in your own experiences?

3 . What effect would changing societal norms have on stereotypes and prejudice? 4 . In your environment, in what ways do you see a justification of a social system to

maintain status for the privileged and keep those with lower status in their place? 5 . Everyone is part of a social group that has certain stereotypes that go along with

it. What stereotypes exist for your social groups? How might that affect your performance?

178

Summary & Resources

microaggression Subtle forms of discrimination the recipient interprets as discriminatory, including insensitivity to the identity of the individual or exclusion or denial of the experience of the person.

norm Belief about what the group is thinking or doing.

outgroup The group to which one does not belong.

outgroup homogeneity effect Members of outgroups, groups an individual is not a part of, are viewed as more similar, or homogeneous. Individuals tend to view members of their own group as more varied.

prejudice Negative attitudes toward individuals based on their membership in a particular group.

racism Prejudice or discrimination toward members of a particular racial group or toward the racial group as a whole.

realistic group conflict theory A theory that proposes that conflict and competition among groups over resources or power creates prejudice.

sexism Prejudice or discrimination toward members of a particular gender or toward all members of a particular gender.

social dominance orientation An individual difference between people in their preference for hierarchical power structures.

social identity theory A theory that proposes that individuals categorize themselves and then use the categories to define themselves.

stereotype A belief about the characteristics of a particular group or members of that group.

stereotype lift Improvement in performance found in members of a non-stereotyped group on a task relevant to a stereotype when members of the non- stereotyped group are in the presence of the stereotyped group.

stereotype threat The threat people feel when they think they may be at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about their group. The stereotype predicts poor performance, so people have to deal with the possibility of confirming that stereotype. Awareness that one is being evaluated based on membership in a stereotyped group can, therefore, interfere with performance.

stigma A sign of disgrace or shame that taints the entire person .

stigma by association The transfer of stigma from a stigmatized person to someone related to the individual in some way .

superordinate goal A goal held by both groups in conflict that transcends the conflict and provides a common aim.