1 / 86

Components of Prejudice

Components of Prejudice. Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination. Prejudice A biased, often negative, attitude about a group Includes belief structures and expectations Explicit versus implicit prejudice Manifested in the various “isms” Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism

ashton
Download Presentation

Components of Prejudice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Components of Prejudice Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination

  2. Prejudice • A biased, often negative, attitude about a group • Includes belief structures and expectations • Explicit versus implicit prejudice • Manifested in the various “isms” • Racism, Sexism, Heterosexism • Having a racist, sexist, etc. prejudice DOES NOT require power • We must separate the scientific concept of prejudice (isms) from cultural/political concept

  3. Stereotype • A set of rigid beliefs, positive or negative, about the characteristics or attributes of a group • Extension of categorization and prototypes • A problem when categorization is rigid and overgeneralized • Often have a kernel of truth or are based loosely actual events

  4. Explicit and Implicit Stereotypes • Stereotypes exist on two levels: Explicit and implicit • Explicit stereotype • Conscious level • Controlled processing • Direct effect on behavior • Implicit stereotype • Unconscious level • Automatic processing • Activated automatically when minority group member is encountered in the right situation • Subtle effect on behavior

  5. Implicit and explicit stereotypes exist on two separate levels • Not different aspects of same process • Explicit stereotype can become implicit • Implicit and explicit stereotypes influence behavior differently • Explicit stereotype: Affects tasks that require cognitive effort • Implicit stereotype: Affects tasks that require little cognitive effort

  6. Stereotypes as “Judgmental Heuristics” • A stereotype-consistent transgression • perceived to be likely to recur • results in a more severe punishment • causes fewer facts to be recalled • Stereotype used to infer reasons for a transgression • Judgments based on the inferences • Other information used if there is no stereotype information

  7. Confirmatory information is sought • Stereotype-consistent transgression attributed to stable, internal characteristics • An enduring pattern of behavior • Punished more harshly than stereotype- inconsistent transgression

  8. Stereotyping and Emotional Labeling • Stereotypes have an emotional component, • Based on a stereotype you LABEL a person (interpret, evaluate, or judge members of a social group) • Label influences perceptions and judgments of behavior • Emotion from label affects judgments

  9. The emotional component is more crucial than the cognitive component when judging behavior • The cognitive component is NOT irrelevant • It forms the basis for the emotional label

  10. DISCRIMINATION • Behavior directed toward individuals because they a members of a group • An extension of a general learning principle: Discrimination • Can exist without underlying prejudice • Prejudice can exist without discrimination • Discrimination does require some power over others

  11. Ways of Expressing Prejudice Gordon Allport (1954). The Nature of Prejudice

  12. ANTILOCUTION • Talking in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images • Common form seen as harmless: Jokes • Antilocution itself MAY not be harmful, but it may lead to more serious expressions of prejudice • AVOIDANCE • Actively avoid minority group • No direct harm is intended • Harm is done through isolation

  13. DISCRIMINATION • Harming minority groups by preventing them from achieving goals, getting an education or job, etc. • PHYSICAL ATTACK • Physical harm to members of a minority group • e.g., lynching of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe, tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800s • EXTERMINATION • Systematic attempt to liquidate entire group • e.g., Native American population, Final Solution of Jewish Problem, Ethnic cleansing, etc. • Not all examples of prejudice go through all levels • Possible to “roll back” to lower level

  14. Roots of Prejudice • Three “roots” of prejudice studied • “Personality”/individual difference variables roots • Cognitive roots • Social roots

  15. The Roots of Prejudice I Individual Characteristics: Personality, Gender and Race

  16. The Authoritarian Personality • Submissive, unquestioning attitude toward authority • Rigid beliefs resistant to change • PREJUDICED PERSONALITY • Racist, sexist, and have prejudicial attitudes towards minority groups • Highly ETHNOCENTRIC (see their own cultural/racial group as inherently superior) • Prejudice directed against a wide range of groups

  17. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) • SDO = Extent to which you want your group to dominate other groups • High SDO score related to anti-black and anti-Arab prejudice (Pratto, et al., 1994) • SDO also relates to a wide range of other prejudices • High SDO persons see large status differences between own and other groups • SDO + RWA  Most prejudiced individuals

  18. The “Big Five” and Prejudice • Big Five approach to personality • Five dimensions define personality • Extroversion/Introversion • Agreeableness (Friendliness) • Conscientiousness • Neuroticism (emotional stability) • Openness to experience and culture • Relationship between Big Five and Prejudice (Ekehammar & Akrami, 2003) • Agreeableness and Openness are negatively correlated with prejudice

  19. The “prejudiced personality” • Different forms of prejudice related (Akrami, Ekehammar, & Bergh, 2010) • Sexism, anti-immigrant, heterosexism, persons with disabilities all correlated with each other • Openness and agreeableness were more highly related to four prejudices as a whole than any one prejudice alone

  20. The Dark Personality Triad (Hodson, et al., 2009) • The “Dark Personality Triad” is made up of: • Narcissism: Excessive self-love • Machiavellianism: Manipulating and exploiting others • Psychopathy: Callus affect, interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyles, anti-social behavior • All three components positively correlated with prejudice

  21. Intergroup Threat Dark Triad SDO Prejudice • The dark personality triad relates indirectly to prejudice, operating via SDO and intergroup threat

  22. Intergroup Threat Openness RWA Prejudice • Openness to new experience (one of Big Five) relates indirectly to prejudice operating via RWA and intergroup threat

  23. Gender and Prejudice • Males are higher in SDO than females • Males and females differ on attitudes toward homosexuals • Males have a more negative attitude • More negative attitudes toward gay men than lesbians • More negative attitudes toward homosexual and bisexual men than homosexual or bisexual women (Herek, 2002) • Female attitudes are not as clear • Some research: Female attitudes toward gays and lesbians don’t differ • Other research: Female attitudes more negative toward lesbians • More negative toward bisexuals (regardless of gender) than homosexuals (Herek, 2002)

  24. Gender difference in implicit vs. explicit prejudice (Ekehammar, et al., 2003) • Women showed more implicit prejudice • Men showed more explicit prejudice • Gender difference in racial attitudes (Qualls, et al., 1992) • Women were more accepting than males of • Racial minorities, • Egalitarian gender roles, • Homosexuals

  25. Gender and intervening in prejudice situations (Richman, et al., 2004) • Women report they are more likely to intervene when discrimination based on • Sexual orientation • Sexism • Religious intolerance • Men more likely to intervene in cases of racial/ethnic prejudice • Women most likely to intervene because it made them “feel good to speak their mind” • Men most likely to intervene because they “felt the behavior was wrong”

  26. Race and Prejudice • White on black prejudice well documented • Black (minority group) on white (majority group) prejudice less well documented • Such knowledge is important to have (Stephan, et al., 2002) because it may affect • Blacks’ behavior towards whites (i.e., avoidance) • Black discrimination against whites • White justification for discrimination against blacks • Integrated threat theory • In-group members expect out-group members to behave in ways that harm in-group members

  27. Results from research (Stephan, et al., 2002) show that • Compared to white students, black students: • Have more negative racial attitudes • Perceive the out-group as more threatening • Show stronger in-group identification • Perceive greater status differences between groups • Indicate more negative stereotypes of the out-group • For both races perceived threat was related to negative stereotypes and prejudice

  28. Four dimensions underlying black on white prejudice (Johnson and Leci, 2003) • “Expectation of racism” from whites which includes beliefs such as: • whites would like to return to pre-civil rights days • whites support views of racist political groups • whites would harm blacks if given the opportunity • “Negative beliefs about whites” such as • whites destroying things made by blacks • the success of whites is due to their color • considering oneself as racist against whites

  29. “Negative beliefs about inter-racial relationships” including • whites are responsible for the problems of blacks • looking negatively at inter-racial relationships • viewing mixed racial couples as sellouts • “Negative verbal expressions towards whites” including • having referred to whites as “crackers” • speaking negatively about whites • referring to whites as “honkeys” or “rednecks”

  30. Skin tone bias (Maddox & Gray, 2002) • Race (black vs. white) and skin tone (ranging from light-skinned to dark-skinned blacks) serve as cues that black and white subjects use to categorize people • Black and white subjects ascribed more negative stereotypic traits to a dark-skinned than light-skinned black targets • Black and white subjects ascribed more negative traits to the dark-skinned than light-skinned Black target

  31. Real world manifestations of skin tone bias (Brown, 1998) • Research shows the following differences between lighter skinned and darker skinned blacks • Lighter skinned more likely have a higher income (on average 65% higher) • Lighter skinned more likely to be employed, especially in a profession • Each increment in skin tone rating (toward lighter) resulted in an average of one-half year education • Lighter skinned women seen as more attractive • Lighter skinned males and females have higher self-esteem • Lighter skin viewed as a cue for higher status

  32. The Roots of Prejudice II The Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

  33. In-Groups and Out-groups • Define social world in terms of “in-groups” and “out-groups” • The in-group • People we perceive ourselves to be similar to (e.g., religion, gender, skin color, etc.). • Sense of solidarity with the in-group • Can be a large (nation) or small group (religious cult)

  34. The out-group • Individuals who are perceived to be different from in-group members • Solidarity of in-group leads to defining others who are different as an out-group • Perceptions of out-group: • Out-group viewed negatively • Less empathy shown for suffering of member of out-group (Forgiarini, et al., 2010)

  35. Positive reaction to misfortune befalling members of out-group (Cikara, et al., 2010) • Known as “Schadenfreude:” Feeling pleasure over another’s misfortune (Van Dijk, 2010) • Stronger for low self-esteem individuals • Stronger after own failure • Stronger if failure related to out-group member’s own behavior (Van Dijk, et al., 2008) • Stronger when out-group success is undeserved (Van Dijk, et al., 2009) • Self-affirmation reduces Schadenfreude • Schadenfreude is strongest after an initial out-group success • Most related to perceived in-group inferiority and the anger that results (Leach & Spears, 2008)

  36. Prejudice and Categorization • SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY says that group identification • contributes to our self-concept • helps us maintain a positive self-concept • leads to pigeonholing others • Two key assumptions of social identity theory: • When threatened, more in- group bias is shown • In-group bias increases self-esteem

  37. Self-categorization theory (SCT) • We need to reduce uncertainty and seek affirmation of beliefs from group members • Uncertainty is a threatening negative state • Uncertainty increases prejudice and discrimination • If uncertainty can be managed prejudice is less likely • Threat increases in-group identification and group solidarity (“rally around the flag” mentality)

  38. Biology and the In-group Bias • The in-group bias: Favoring in-group members • Sociobiologists: Ethnocentrism rooted in biological evolution • Early in human history, the in-group was crucial for survival • Strong in-group ties helped individuals survive

  39. Members of all cultures show a natural xenophobia (wariness of strangers) • Made early humans cautious of possible enemies • It was “natural” that humans developed a wariness of those who are different

  40. In-group - Out-group Relationships • The OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY BIAS • Recognize diversity of the in-group • Out-group members perceived as more similar than they really are • We assume that the behavior of an out-group member represents of all members

  41. The ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR • Bad behavior of an out-group member is attributed to internal characteristics ascribed to the out-group • The same behavior of an in-group member is attributed to personal characteristics

  42. The in-group/out-group distinction contributes to segregation • This increases prejudice and stereotyping directed at the out-group • A “VICIOUS CIRCLE” (Myrdal, 1944) may develop • Prejudice forces minority to remain separate, • Separateness perceived by majority as evidence of stereotypes, • Leads to more prejudice, and the minority group becoming more isolated

  43. The Roots of Prejudice III The Social Roots of Prejudice

  44. Introduction • Prejudice has existed throughout history • Common roots to some forms of prejudice • Ethnic Chinese in Philippines and Jews in Poland • Despite changes, prejudices still exist • Pay lip service to equality • Blaming victims of prejudice • Believe out-group members have values different from those of in-group

  45. Prejudice has existed throughout history • Attitudes toward blacks shaped by pre-Civil War stereotypes • Persecution of the Mormons in the late 1800s and early 1900s • Extermination of the Jews • Despite changes in interracial attitudes, prejudice still exists • Pay “lip service” to equality • See the out-group as getting a raw deal by the system • Partially blame the group for its own plight, • Believe that members an out-group have values different our own group

  46. Social Acceptability and the Expression of Prejudice • Overt expression of prejudice is not socially accepted • Prejudice may exist on a more subtle level • MODERN RACISM • Prejudice is expressed in subtle ways (e.g., opposing civil rights laws)

  47. Critics of modern racism point out that • It is illogical to equate opposition to a political idea with racism • The correlations between modern and old- fashioned racism are quite high • Aversive racism • Nonprejudiced individuals discriminate in subtle, easily rationalized ways • Nonprejudiced individuals may have negative racial attitudes • Conflict between egalitarian ideology and negative racial attitudes

  48. Aversive racism is expressed subtly so person’s egalitarian ideology is not threatened • Works on an unconscious, automatic level • Aversive racism and social behavior (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000) • Black job candidate with “questionable” qualifications rated less qualified than white with same qualifications • Ambiguous qualifications rated stronger for white candidate • White candidate with ambiguous qualifications is more likely to be recommended for job

  49. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice • Explicit prejudice • Affects carefully considered responses that a person has time to consider • Implicit prejudice • Automatic activation of prejudice and stereotypes • Affects behaviors that • are more difficult to control (e.g., nonverbal responses) • individuals try not to control (responses not seen reflecting one’s attitude)

More Related