Lecture Outline

1. Lecture Outline • Private v.s. public support • Prejudice reduction strategies • Discrimination • Causes of discrimination • Coping with a disadvantaged status

2. Allport (1954) • Private support: Private institutional support to reduce prejudice at the community level: • National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) • Anti-Defamation League

3. Allport (1954) • Public support: Public (government) support to reduce prejudice through laws: • Fair Housing Laws • Presidential decree: example: desegregate military (Truman)

4. Allport (1954) • “The intent of laws is to equalize advantages and lessen discrimination. Legislation aims not at controlling prejudice, but only its open expression...when expression changes, thoughts too, in the long run, are likely to fall into line.”

5. Approaches To Prejudice Reduction • 1. Education • 2. Colorblind approach • 3. Multiculturalism • 4. Intergroup contact • 5. Common group identity

6. Education • Cause: prejudice resides in perpetrators of prejudice; a personal flaw • Premise: better understanding of minority groups will reduce prejudice • Solution: educate the prejudiced about other groups

7. Education • Biggest limitation: • Least prejudiced people most willing to seek out relevant information • “Preaching to the choir”

8. Colorblind Approach Cause: acknowledgement of group membership Premise: pretend group membership doesn’t matter, and soon it won’t Solution: ignore group membership and create a group-neutral society

9. Colorblind Approach • The color blind approach has been advocated as goal by civil rights leaders: “I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” M.L. King, Jr., 8/28/63

10. Color Blind Approach • The color blind approach has also been advocated by conservatives: End the double standard of racial preferences in higher education admissions:“Avoid the politics of racialism and pursue an agenda that is colorblind in law and practice.” William Bennett, 1/10/2003

11. Color Blind Approach Biggest limitations: 1. Assumes level playing field for different social groups. But... • Race does influence judgments • Not all groups have same advantages

12. Color Blind Approach Biggest limitations: 2. Suppressing stereotyping makes it more intense in future • Stereotype rebound (suppression) effect

13. Stereotype Rebound StudyMacrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994) • Shown photo of skinhead • Composed passage • Manipulation: • no special instructions • told not to use stereotypes • Shown photo of 2nd skinhead • Composed passage of 2nd skinhead

14. Stereotype Rebound StudyMacrae et al., (1994) • DV: Stereotypic content of passage • Passage Suppression Control • Group Group • 1 5.54 6.95 • 2 7.83 7.08

15. Stereotype Rebound StudyMacrae et al., (1994) • Implication: • A colorblind society may have opposite effect than intended • By trying to ignore group member-ship, people may use it more

16. Multicultural Approach • Cause: Lack of assimilation • Premise: Assimilation of different cultures, traditions, customs, etc. will reduce prejudice • Solution: Make groups more similar

17. Multicultural Approach • Two versions: • 1. One-way assimilation • minority groups take on customs, traditions, etc of majority group • Limitation: minority group has to abandon their own heritage and culture

18. Multicultural Approach • Two versions: • 2. Melting pot assimilation • Minority & majority groups take on each others’ customs, traditions, etc. • All contribute to newly emerging culture • Limitation: majority groups resist this kind of assimilation; takes very long time

19. Intergroup Contact • Cause: Stereotypes come from limited interaction between groups • Premise: Contact between minority and majority groups reduces prejudice by dispelling stereotypes • Solution: Increase contact between different social groups

20. Intergroup Contact • Mere Exposure version: • Mere exposure in the absence of structure or institutional support is sufficient to (1) increase contact and (2) reduce prejudice

21. Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977) • Examined whether mere exposure increases intergroup contact • Participants: • students, 10-13 yrs old • n = 1200 • 48% African American; 52% white

22. Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977) • Procedures: Examined seating patterns in the cafeteria for 1 year

23. Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977) • Results: • 1. Race and gender were both significant grouping criteria • boys sat with boys • girls sat with girls • AA sat with AA • W sat with W

24. Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977) • Results: • 2. Racial segregation decreased during 7th grade, but increased during 8th grade where: • students tracked into ability groups • accelerated track mostly Whites • regular track mostly African Americans

25. Cafeteria StudySchofield & Sagar (1977) • Conclusions: • 1. Mere exposure not sufficient to increase intergroup contact

26. Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984) • Examined whether mere exposure increased amount and intimacy of contact • Participants: • French and English speaking college students • 24% French; 76% English

27. Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984) • Procedure: • Kept diary of all interactions • Rated interactions for intimacy • Rated interactions for importance

28. Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984) • Prediction: If ethnicity does not matter then: • % of interactions = base rates • same intimacy • same importance

29. Language StudyBellerose & Taylor (1984) • Results: • % interactions > base rates • intimacy > w/i group interactions • importance > w/i group interactions

30. Mere Exposure • Does mere exposure increase contact? • No. • Does mere exposure reduce prejudice? • No.

31. Intergroup Contact • 1954 Supreme Court ruling that segregated schools is unconstitutional

32. Beyond Mere Exposure • Allport’s contact hypothesis: • Intergroup contact reduces prejudice if four characteristics are present: • equal status between groups • common goals • intergroup cooperation • support of institution or authority

33. Contact Hypothesis • Received mixed support • Researchers keep adding characteristics to make it work • Like...............

34. And the list goes on, leading some to wonder whether contact works at all Contact Hypothesis • Intimate contact • Possibility of friendships • Superordinate goals • Norms that favor group equality • Behaviors must dispel stereotypes • Individuals viewed as typical

35. Jigsaw Classroom • Provides strong support for the contact hypothesis • Jigsaw classroom: • Based on cooperation, not competition • Encourages intergroup contact • Satisfies many characteristics listed before

36. Jigsaw Classroom Group 1: Ethnic/gender mix of 5 kids learning about pets Child 1 Canaries Child 5 Cats Child 4 Dogs Child 2 Hamsters Child 3 Goldfish Cat expert group Dog expert group Goldfish expert group Hamster expert group Canary expert group

37. Jigsaw Classroom • Four key characteristics 1. Learning achieved through cooperation among small groups of children who are inter-dependent

38. Jigsaw Classroom • Four key characteristics 2. Interaction among children is high. Interaction between teacher and student is low

39. Jigsaw Classroom • Four key characteristics 3. Equal status between children of different ethnic and gender groups

40. Jigsaw Classroom • Four key characteristics 4. Process is overseen and facilitated by teacher – i.e., process has institutional support

41. Jigsaw Classroom • In comparison to traditional classroom, jigsaw students: • Like students of other ethnicities and gender more • Have higher self-esteem • Learn just as much • Hold more positive intergroup attitudes • Show less prejudice and stereotyping

42. Jigsaw Classroom • What accounts for the success of the jigsaw classroom? • It may have something to do with a • Common Ingroup Identity

43. Common Ingroup Identity • Cause: Ingroup - outgroup designation • Premise: Prejudice stems from seeing others as belonging to an outgroup • Solution: Have different group form one big group

44. Common Ingroup Identity • Example of Common Ingroup Identity • Final state of the summer camp studies • Through superordinate goal, boys came to see each other as one large group, rather than two smaller competing groups

45. Plane Wreck StudyGaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio (1989) • Show that common ingroup identity reduces prejudice • Procedures: • participants met in groups of 3 • selected name for group • discussed items to salvage from plane wreck • two (3 person) groups became one (6 person) group

46. Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989) • Manipulation: • Original groups retained their names • maintained original group identities • Larger group chose new name for all • created a common ingroup identity • Individuals chose new name for self • reduced original group ties

47. Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989) • Participants rated others in 6 person group • Dependent Variable • Rating of original group members minus their rating of new group members: (old - new) • Higher values indicate • greater bias against new members

48. Plane Wreck StudyGaertner et al. (1989) • Greatest bias when in and outgroups salient • Intermediate bias when group membership minimized. • Lowest bias when groups formed common ingroup identity

49. Discrimination Unfair treatment of person/group in comparison to others who are not members of that group

50. Causes of Discrimination 1. Stereotypes bias impressions 2. Personal characteristics match a stereotype 3. Social Networks