PSY301 w2d1

© 2013 AFP/Timothy Clary/Staff/Getty Images

Learning Objectives

By the end of the chapter you should be able to:

• Differentiate prejudice, bias, stereotypes, and discrimination

• Define stigma and stigma by association

• Describe how and why categorization occurs

• Define ingroup favoritism and the outgroup homogeneity effect

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

• Describe how stereotype threat affects performance

• Describe how interactions between people are affected by prejudice

• Explain how prejudice can be reduced

Prejudice 6

Chapter Outline

6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins • Categorization • Ingroup Favoritism • Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

6.3 Societal Origins • Norms • Competition for Resources • Social Inequalities

6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

6.5 Reducing Prejudice

Chapter Summary

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 123 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

Many social groups are the subject of stereotypes, as well as the prejudice and discrimination that often accompanies it. For years women have faced barriers in rising to leadership positions, and even today face a gap in pay of 23¢ on every dol- lar earned by a man (American Association of University Women, 2013; Wirth, 2001). In 2013, Jason Collins came out as the first openly gay NBA athlete. In his interview with Sports Illustrated, Collins describes his fear of being the target of prejudice and discrimination because of his sexual orientation (Collins & Lidz, 2013). Minority ethnic and racial groups face prejudice and discrimination as well. Just under half of the hate crimes committed in the United States are racially motivated (46.9%), with 72% of those motivated by anti-Black prejudice (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2013). Prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination are pre- dominant 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 dis-crimination. 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. Stereotypes are beliefs about the charac- teristics of particular groups or members of those groups. For example, stereotypes about people who are overweight are that they are lazy and unsuccessful, and that they are not as attractive or popular as people of average weight (Cossrow, Jeffery, & McGuire, 2001; Greenleaf, Starks, Gomez, Chambliss, & Martin, 2004). Our tendency to form judgments about people based on a characteristic such as skin color, sexual orientation, or personal characteristics is known as a bias. When people engage in weight bias, they make judg- ments about others based on their weight, not taking into account other characteristics of the person.

While stereotypes refer to our cognitive processes, prej- udice describes our emo- tional experience. Prejudice involves a negative attitude toward individuals based on their membership in a par- ticular group. Prejudice may be aimed at those from differ- ent racial or ethnic groups, those with a particular sexual orientation, or individuals with mental or physical chal- lenges, and many more. For example, prejudice against those who are overweight involves feelings of dislike or

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, 2012). 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 (Farrell, 2011). To read more about weight bias and stigma visit the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity website. The site offers a variety of resources and readings.

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 124 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.1 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

disgust toward a person who is heavy. As with attitudes, prejudice can come in an explicit form and as implicit prejudice. 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 hates that group is engaging an action because of explicit prejudice. Implicit prejudice is uncon- scious 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 expression of discomfort in the presence of someone from another racial group.

Similarly, discrimination is negative behavior toward individuals or groups based on beliefs and feelings about those groups. Job applicants who are obese are less likely to be hired than those who are of normal weight, and once they are employed they are often given less desirable assignments, paid less, and disci- plined more harshly (Fikkan & Roth- blum, 2005). Part of that discrimina- tion 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 car- rying the stigma. People who are overweight report feeling that their weight stigmatizes them, with the worst experiences of stigmatization coming from family and friends (Puhl & Brownell, 2006; Puhl, Moss-Racusin, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2008). 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.

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 HIV- positive carries the stigma of AIDS, and the family of the person would be seen as tainted or is shameful by association (Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012). Generally, the closer the association (family ver- sus friends versus acquain- tance), the greater the stigma by association experienced. However, researchers found that simply sitting next to someone who is overweight in a job interview leads to stigmatization of the job applicant of average weight (Hebl & Mannix, 2003).

SuperStock/SuperStock

Prejudice and discrimination towards African Americans sparked the Civil Rights Movement.

Expand Your Knowledge: Beyond Prejudice

The website Beyond Prejudice (http://www.beyond prejudice.com/) provides a great deal of interesting and accurate information on prejudice. The author differentiates between automatic prejudice and unin- tentional prejudicial responses, and conscious and intentional prejudicial responses. Suggestions are pro- vided for reducing prejudice.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 125 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

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 by association and stigma 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.

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 (All- port, 1954). Categories are helpful because they allow us to deal with large amounts of information in an efficient way. The cognitive energy-saving nature of categories was demonstrated in a study by Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1994). In their work, they asked participants to remember a list of characteristics of people that were flashed on a computer screen. The participants were simultaneously asked to remember information on an unrelated topic from a recorded message. The researchers were attempting to tax the participants’ ability to process all the information they were seeing and hearing. The researchers wondered if having category labels would be helpful in helping the partici- pants’ memory. To test this, half of the participants were shown a category label that might help them remember some of the characteristics on the list of names they were supposed to remember. For example, “Julian” was labeled as an artist, and then characteristics like “creative,” “temperamental,” and “sensitive” were flashed on the screen, to go along with our general stereotype of artist. Participants also saw characteristics that were not neces- sarily related to the category label, like cordial and generous. The other half of the partici- pants 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 character- istics, the researchers quizzed them on how many of the characteristics they remembered for each name. They also quizzed the participants on how much they remembered about the unrelated recorded message.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 126 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

Test Yourself

• How are categories helpful to people?

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

Did having a category label help participants remember more of the category-related words? Participants who saw a category label remembered 4.42 category-consistent words, on average, while those who did not see the label remembered only 2.08. This shows that the label helped people remember things 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 help us by saving us cognitive energy and allowing us to process more information. Therefore, we use categories liberally. That might not be a problem if all we did was categorize people, but it turns out that along with quickly and easily developing categories, we use them to make later decisions (Tajfel, 1970).

Ingroup Favoritism In 1970 Tajfel published some surprising research results. For his study, he brought boys age 14 and 15 into a psychological research laboratory. The boys were shown slides that had dots on them and 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 reality, the boys were assigned these two labels randomly. Later, 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 favorit- ism. 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 Kiwanis 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 members 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. Preference for an ingroup is not found among all groups that are targets of prejudice and stereotyping. People who are overweight show similar nega- tive prejudice toward other overweight people as those who are not overweight (Crandall, 1994; Robin, Cash, Jacobi, & Bubb-Lewis, 1997). One reason for this might be that those who are overweight may be attempting to distance themselves from membership in an attempt to escape some of the stigma associated with their weight status (Puhl & Brownell, 2003).

We see evidence of prejudice and preference for relating to those who are similar to one- self in dating. For example, people are most likely to form long-term commitments with

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 127 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.2 Social/Cognitive Origins

those from a similar racial group (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Harris & Kalbfleisch, 2000). In the past we might have attributed this to lack of access to potential partners of other races because of geographic boundaries, but today the Internet allows people to meet indi- viduals of diverse backgrounds. Even without the pressures of geography, people tend to prefer dating someone of their own race (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.

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect Beyond viewing one’s own group as more deserving than another group, individuals within a group tend to view their own group as more varied than someone outside the group. Someone describing an outgroup will describe the members in that group as being more homogeneous, or similar, than the members would describe themselves (Brauer, 2001; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992). This effect is called the outgroup homogeneity effect. One explanation for this effect may be our tendency to describe an outgroup based on what we know about the primary characteristics of that group. However, 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 with the group, we know more potentially different people; therefore, we judge our ingroup as being more diverse than the outgroup (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 par- ticipants were more accurate in differentiating between them (Ackerman et al., 2006). The outgroup homogeneity effect was evidenced in neutral circumstances, but largely disap- peared when the faces expressed an emotion that could signal danger to the individual.

©Getty Images/Hemera Technologies/AbleStock.com/Thinkstock ©Getty Images/Comstock Images/Comstock/Thinkstock

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 “addicts.” Members of the wealthy, upper class may be described with words like “greedy” and “self-serving.”

a b

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 128 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Societal Origins

Test Yourself

• For what type of groups do people show ingroup favoritism?

Ingroup favoritism is shown even for ingroups formed by random assignment; though, we do not tend to show ingroup favoritism when our 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

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 catego- rize a 275-pound woman as overweight, lazy, unmotivated, and unathletic, when that woman is Sarah Robles nothing could be farther from the truth. Robles was a 2012 Olym- pic weightlifter who placed seventh in the London Olympic games, overcoming a great deal of adversity to do so (Gregory, 2012).

6.3 Societal Origins

Our prejudice and stereotypes come not only from the way we take in and pro-cess information but also from the world around us. Societal origins of prejudice involve the norms in the world around us, the competition that exists 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 stereo- types. Ingroup favoritism leads to unequal treatment of those we have been categorized as part of the outgroup, and outgroup homogeneity bias blinds us to the uniqueness among individuals within the outgroup. Our beliefs about the 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

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 129 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Societal Origins

which stereotypes are appropriate. When participants in one study were led to believe that their stereotypes were different from their peers, those stereotypes were changed to be more in line with peer stereotypes (Stangor, Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). For example, partici- pants 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 others is particularly powerful when it comes from people in the ingroup (Puhl, Schwartz, & Brownell, 2005). When making judg- ments about others we tend to go along with the judgments of those in our ingroup, with- out critically evaluating the content of those judgments (Binning & 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. 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.

If social norms are accurate indicators of preju- dice, then there should be a correlation between existing prejudices, and what social norms would dictate. Crandall, Eshleman, and O’Brien (2002) found an almost perfect correlation between the norms about groups and people’s ratings of prejudice toward those groups. Social norms dic- tate 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 accept- able, individuals are less likely to express preju- dice. For example, as society has become more

open and accepting of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, individuals have been less likely to express prejudice.

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; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif, 1966; Sherif & Sherif, 1953). Competition is at the heart of realistic group conflict theory. Realistic group conflict theory proposes that struggles between groups over scarce resources or conflicting objectives can create hostility and prejudice. Competition may center on economic interests, political or military advantage, or even threats to the safety or status of the group. 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

Stock Foundry/Design Pics/Valueline/Thinkstock

We pick up prejudice and stereotypes from the norms in our social groups.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 130 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Societal Origins

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 com- ing at the expense of those already in the country. This competition for resources, real or perceived, may cre- ate tension, prejudice, and hostility. For the immigrant, lack of success could be just

as problematic. 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, & Arm- strong, 2001). Immigrants can also be scapegoats within a society. In European Union countries with struggling economies (low gross domestic product) and a high percent- age 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.

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 emphasize 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 particular racial group is the result of negative qualities found in that group (for example, lack of intelligence or initiative). Such views justify stereotypes and prejudice (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 tend to view social and economic status differences between people as more justified than those with fewer negative stereotypes (De Oliveira & Dam- brun, 2007).

Social inequalities are supported by the beliefs of people but also by the way they use language. At times, people in groups with higher social standing will tell jokes that sup- port 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). To stop such talk is difficult

than those who feel sadness or more neutral emotions (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994; DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett, & Cajdric, 2004). For example, when people feel like their jobs may be threatened, they show more prejudice toward immigrants than if they feel no threat (Zárate, Garcia, Garza, & Hitlan, 2003). Competition can certainly enhance prejudice, but is not necessary for prejudice to occur. People tend to show the social cogni- tive factors for prejudice, such as ingroup favoritism 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.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 131 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Societal Origins

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 predica- ment. 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. Elliot 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)

Elliot 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. Discrimi- natory 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 were 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.

continued

because of the guise of humor and can result in ostracism of the challenger. Guerin (2003) argues that changing this type of language must come from within the ingroup by, for example, interrupting the speaker with a different joke or story that is nonprejudiced, is natural, and holds attention.

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 between 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 dis- crepancies in what society expects of people and the freedoms they are allowed. Social dominance orientation is related to prejudice and racism across cultures (Pratto et al., 2000). For example, Serge Guimond and colleagues (2013) found that greater social domi- nance orientation in both Canada and Germany was related to greater prejudice toward those of lower social status. However, Canada’s greater national commitment to multicul- turalism decreased the overall endorsement of social dominance orientation than in Ger- many. 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).

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 132 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.3 Societal Origins

Test Yourself

• What term describes the source of prejudice as coming from clash between 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. Individu- als high in social dominance orientation tend to also show more prejudice than those low in social dominance orientation.

Social Psychology in Depth: Blue-Eyed and Brown-Eyed (continued)

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 reaction. 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.

Elliott’s website contains additional information and materials: http://www.janeelliott.com /index.htm.

Prejudice influences daily interactions between people. For example, research has shown that people desire less social contact with people who are overweight. Research partici- pants 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). This effect varies depending on the type of prejudice. Explicit prejudice, such as reported prejudice toward those who are overweight, individuals from different racial groups, or toward 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 interac- tion. 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 an African American 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 seemed to be displayed in the nonverbal, less-consciously controlled behaviors, like how close people sat or the naturalness of their movements and gestures. Because controlling our responses requires energy, interactions with a person from a minority group that is often the target of prejudice can leave a member of the majority group with lower self- regulatory capacity. If people are concerned about appearing prejudiced, they will use self-regulation and experience ego depletion, leaving fewer resources for subsequent tasks (Richeson & Shelton, 2007).

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 133 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

Do stereotypes influence our performance? Imagine you had to take a test to assess your performance 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 Steele and Aronson (1995), the researchers varied how much participants were thinking about a racial stereotype. The researchers told one group of African 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 researchers emphasized that this test was not diagnostic of ability. The researchers found that African American participants in the first group did worse than their White counterparts, but in the second group, African Americans and Whites did equally well (see Figure 6.1). Obviously, the African American participants were capable of doing just as well on the test as the White par- ticipants, so why the difference? Steele and Aron- son 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 might truly be 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 con- firming a negative stereo- type about their group. The stereotype predicts poor per- formance, so the person has to deal with the possibility of confirming that stereotype. Awareness that one is being evaluated based on member- ship in a stereotyped group can, therefore, interfere with performance.

Expand Your Knowledge: Stereotype Threat

The website ReducingStereotypeThreat.org (http:// www.reducingstereotypethreat.org/) 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 mecha- nisms contributing to stereotype threat. Some sug- gestions for reducing stereotype threat and some unresolved issues on the topic of stereotype threat are also provided.

Don Mason/Photolibrary

Stereotype threat suggests that the fear of confirming or flouting a given stereotype can cause performance anxiety, like a student driver failing a test.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 134 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.4 Influences on Those Stereotyped

Stereotype threat is not just present for African Americans on intelligence tests. Women college students perform worse on tests of mathematics when in the pres- ence of men (Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003). Huguet and 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, Lynch, Sjomeling, & Darley, 1999). When the stereotype was presented that White men do not have the same athletic ability as African Americans, the White men did much worse when they thought their natural athletic ability was being tested. Similarly, Latinos showed poorer intellectual performance under situations of stereotype threat (Gonzales, Blanton, & Williams, 2002). Also, 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 over- weight may avoid exercise because of ste- reotype threat (Seacat & Mickelson, 2009). 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 inter- ested in the area being tested. For exam- ple, women who describe math as being

important will feel more ste- reotype threat than women who report math is not important (Aronson et al., 1999; Inzlicht & Ben-Zeev, 2003). Dealing with stereo- type threat leaves people with less self-control, caus- ing the effects of the stereo- type to spill over into other aspects of life. Individuals who experience stereotype threat may engage in risky behaviors such as risky deci- sion making, overeating or even aggression. Over the

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 stereo- types affect people. It also provides some suggestions of what one can do about hidden biases. Learn more at http://www.tolerance.org/.

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.

From 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. Reprinted with permission.

M e a n

i te

m s s

o lv

e d

( a d

ju s te

d b

y S

A T

)

3

2

0

4

6

8

10

12

African Americans Whites

Stereotype Threat No Stereotype Threat

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 135 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

long term, these behaviors can be detrimental to physical and mental health (Inzlicht & Kang, 2010; Inzlicht, Tullett, & Gutsell, 2012).

Test Yourself

• How does stereotype threat affect behavior?

Stereotype threat results in poor performance on a stereotype related behavior.

• 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 behavior that one does not consciously control.

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 desegregation in schools and in the military. One hope of such a pol- icy 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, 1954), under certain conditions contact is more likely to reduce prejudice (Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux, 2005). Here are some of the conditions found by researchers to reduce prejudice:

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

When these conditions are met, contact with different people is most effective in reduc- ing prejudice. Yet even when the conditions are not met, contact can still reduce prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). One of the big 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 we should act, it is difficult for an interaction to go well (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Stephan et al., 2002).

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 contact is sufficient to reduce prejudice (Turner & Crisp, 2010). Research

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 136 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Section 6.5 Reducing Prejudice

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 inter- action. Although imagined interactions do not have as strong an impact on reducing prej- udice, the effect was still a positive one for such a low investment.

Common goals have long been viewed as important for the reduction of prejudice and conflict between groups. In the 1950s, Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues studied the effec- tiveness of shared goals—what he called superordinate goals—on the reduction of inter- group conflict (Sherif, 1958; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961). Superordinate goals are goals 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 categorization and ingroup favoritism, each group of boys quickly and easily bonded as a group. When the groups discovered that another group was at the camp, conflict between the groups quickly escalated. The researchers then provided both groups of boys with problems they could solve only if all of them 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 fix the problem and 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 goals of solving problems helped reduce the initial prejudice the boys felt toward one another.

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 incor- porates cooperative learning is the jigsaw classroom. A jigsaw class- room is a classroom in which differ- ent students have access to different pieces of the material to be learned. For example, if an elementary school class were learning about cells, one group of students might learn about the nucleus, another about mitochon- dria, another about ribosomes, and another about golgi body. Groups need to work together to gain exper- tise in each aspect of the material.

The expert groups disperse and share their expertise with a new group, each student pre- senting his or her own area of expertise (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snapp, 1978). In a study of Australian school children who used the jigsaw method while learning about nutrition, researchers found that children in classrooms using the jigsaw method showed greater liking for their outgroup and less stereotyped views of children from other ethnic groups (Walker & Crogan, 1998).

Big Cheese Photo/Thinkstock

Jigsaw classrooms encourage children to collaborate in diverse groups and rely on each other to carry out a project, aiming to reduce prejudice.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 137 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Chapter Summary

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. 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 inevitable and necessary may help us to learn about those in our outgroup, and reduce the prejudices we might have about them. The more the norms of a social group also focus on inclusivity, 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).

Test Yourself

• What are the factors of contact that need to be present for the contact to reduce prejudice?

The contact should be between people or groups of equal status, with common goals, that includes ingroup cooperation, and is supported by the social context.

• What is a superordinate goal?

A goal that can only be achieved when people work together to fulfill it.

Conclusion We all live with prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination every day. Although we natu- rally 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, stereo- types, and discrimination through our interactions with others.

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 membership 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.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 138 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Critical Thinking Questions

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 favorit- ism. We see members of the outgroup as all 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 the social inequalities through legitimizing beliefs that justify their superior position.

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 preju- dice also interfere with positive interactions between people.

Reducing Prejudice The contact hypothesis proposes that contact between members of groups that hold prej- udice against one another may reduce prejudice. Contact can reduce prejudice when a number of conditions are satisfied. Common goals, called superordinate goals, are par- ticularly 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?

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 139 7/16/13 9:57 AM

CHAPTER 6Key Terms

Key Terms

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

contact hypothesis The idea that contact between groups will lessen conflict.

discrimination Negative behavior toward individuals or groups based on beliefs and feelings about those groups.

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 group mates.

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.

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

social dominance orientation An individ- ual difference between people in their pref- erence for hierarchical power structures.

stereotype threat The threat people feel when they think they may be at risk of con- firming a negative stereotype about their group. The stereotype predicts poor per- formance, 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.

stereotypes Beliefs about the character- istics of particular groups or members of those groups.

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

stigma by association The transfer of stigma from a stigmatized person to some- one related to them in some way.

superordinate goals Goals held by both groups in conflict that transcend the con- flict and provide a common aim.

fee85798_06_c06_123-140.indd 140 7/16/13 9:57 AM