The nature and effects of Prejudice

1. The nature and effects of Prejudice PSY203S

2. Contact details • Dave Nunez • Email: dave@cs.uct.ac.za • Phone: 650-2670 • Web: http://www.cs.uct.ac.za/~dnunez • Space: Room 300, Computer Science Bldg.

3. Extra readings (SLC) • Required: Allport, G. (1982/1954). Traits due to victimization. In G. Allport, The nature of prejudice (pp. 142-162). Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley • Strongly Recommended: Allport, G. (1982/1954). What is the problem? In G. Allport, The nature of prejudice (pp. 3-16). Reading, Ma: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

4. White English Interviewer’s Response Black West Indian Hungarian Offer of jobs or encouragement to apply 38% 25% 3% “No vacancy now" but details taken or asked to return 38% 18% 5% “No vacancy” 25% 58% 93% Is there really a problem? • 1965 British Gov. findings (mock job application):

5. Is there really a problem? • Turner, 1991: White applicants in Washington and Chicago received three times as many job offers as black or hispanic applicants (hispanics got slightly more than blacks) • Third wave foundation (www.thirdwavefoundation.org) • How many women's professional sporting events are broadcast by the major networks? • How many average-size or heavy women appear on your favorite sit-coms? Are they ever the central characters? • How many women artists are covered in your art history classes?

6. Is there really a problem? Protest outside Halliburton Inc’s AGM (May 19, 2004)

7. Is there really a problem?

8. Defining prejudice • Allport (1954): Ethnic prejudice is an antipathy based upon a faulty and and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed towards a group as a whole or towards an individual because he is a member of that group. Gordon Allport

9. More definitions • Worchel et al. (1988): an unjustified negative attitude toward an individual based solely on that individual's membership in a group. • Brown (1995): the holding of derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negative affect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards members of a group on account of their membership of that group.

10. Prejudice is difficult to define • Good idea of what it is, but hard to define operationally • Difficult partly because it changes over time • Common elements of definitions • It is an intergroup phenomenon • It is a negative orientation • It is a bad thing • It is an attitude

11. Elements of prejudice • Prejudice as an intergroup phenomenon • Always involves comparison/judgement based on group membership (he is a martian; martians are evil; thus he is evil) • Often involves comparisons between groups (martians enslaved us 5000 years ago; therefore we hate martians) • Rarely involve personal characteristics (mostly based on stereotyping and other processes which consider people as exemplars of groups rather than unique entities)

12. Elements of prejudice • Prejudice as negative orientation • Prejudice considered as being against or opposed to something • Can't I be prejudiced in favour of a group? • Social Problemsschool: social psychology should be about solving problems, so we deal with negative aspects (but can’t we learn something from positive prejudices?) Which would you rather have as a lecturer? Why?

13. Elements of prejudice • Prejudice as a bad thing • Social problems school: prejudice is bad because it violates norms of thinking (it is rigid, overgeneralizes, etc.) • Del Boca’s (1981) argument against psychologists calling prejudice ‘bad’: • It is not scientifically parsimonious (gets you nowhere) • The processes that lead to prejudice are natural and normal • There is no evidence to show that prejudice is more rigid or pathological that other attitudes like liberalism

14. Elements of prejudice • Prejudice as an attitude • An attitude is an enduring structure which includes emotional, cognitive and behavioral aspects, and changes with experience • Need to consider all three parts when discussing prejudice • Emotional – anger, fear, anxiety, etc • Cognitive – knowledge about the group, inferences • Behavioral – speech, avoidance and other external behavior

15. Why worry about definitions? • Defining prejudice seems to be a lot harder than we thought! • Why so many definitions? • ‘All things to all people’ • Perhaps too complex for a simple definition • Definitions are objects of research themselves • Depends on what you want to do with your definition • Definitions are not incorrect, only incomplete – each covers a particular aspect

16. The victims of prejudice • Who are the victims of prejudice? • Anything which identifies you as a member of a group can make you a victim

17. Prejudice for nothing • Very little is required to trigger prejudice: • Elliot (1968) – Prejudice in groups of children created on the basis on eye color • Tajfel (1971) – Prejudice in groups of boys created by whether they preferred Klee or Kandinsky paintings • Billig & Tajfel (1973) – Prejudice in groups formed by a coin toss (minimalist group paradigm) Are you a Klee guy or a Kandinsky guy?

18. Most prejudiced Least prejudiced Antilocution Extermination Avoidance Discrimination Physical Attack What do prejudiced people do? • Allport's (1954) hierarchy of prejudiced actions These actions affect the targeted person These actions only affect the prejudiced person

19. Notes on Allport’s hierarchy • Only a rough guide • Actually many more types of actions • Useful idea (intensity of prejudice related to violence of action) • Does not give enough importance to considerations of group action • Especially for slight actions • All actions seem to be done by individuals! • Prejudiced action is complex – personal prejudice seems only to a minor determinant • Group processes seem to bring about both prejudice and action

20. The effects of prejudice • What effects does prejudice have? • On its victims • Short term vs. long term effects • Does the personality of the victim determine the effects of prejudice? • On the perpetrator • Positive effects (rewards / psychological benefits) • Are there negative effects? (Is being prejudiced bad for you?)

21. Allport’s 1954 model of compensatory behaviour • A model for predicting effects on victims of prejudice • Strongly individual based • Short term effect of prejudice is always frustration • Arises from helplessness in a particular situation • If maintained, will lead to sensitization and concern • Long term effects determined by personality • Intropunitive [tends to blame self / internal locus of control] • Extropunitive [tends to blame outside / external locus of control]

22. Allport’s 1954 effects model Suffering from frustration induced by discrimination Sensitization and concern • Obsessive concern / Suspicion • Slyness / Cunning • Strengthening in-group ties • Prejudice against other groups • Aggression and revolt • Enhanced striving • Denial of group membership • Withdrawal and passivity • Clowning • Self-hate • In-group aggression • Sympathy with all victims • Symbolic status striving • Neuroticism Extropunitive individuals Intropunitive individuals

23. Effects on the prejudiced person: Positive effects • Intra-personal effects (personal effects) • Increase in status in own group • provided prejudiced behaviour is a group norm • Create a sense of belonging • emphasizes us/them distinction • Avoid a sense of inferiority “At least I’m not a…” • Works because inferiority is a commonly perceived trait of target groups • Material group gains • Specifically for majority groups • Spoils of discriminatory economic practices

24. Effects on the prejudiced person: Negative effects • Curtailment of individual personality • Won't adopt tendencies/attitudes perceived as opposed to the group • Fear of ostracism by group • Conflict with value systems • Dilemmas set up by own values / group values • Especially true for religious beliefs • Restriction of talent or social advances • Disallowing oneself privileges by own actions • Loss of freedom to pursue particular activities or hold particular attitudes

25. Does finding reasons for prejudiced actions explain or excuse them? Research on perpetrators: Explanation or excuse? • Lack of research on topics which emphasize humanity of the perpetrator • Causes seen as excuses • Often works to demonize subjects • Research on prejudice itself brings about victim/perpetrator group evaluations and prejudice • What is the goal of research? • To create a description of a phenomenon • To add weight to a particular social position

26. Measuring prejudice: Scales • Many scales, eg Duckitt's Subtle Racism Scale; Landis' Social Climate Survey • Likert type statement agreement scales • 27. Instructors predominantly used male pronouns in class • 44. Racial/ethinc jokes were frequently heard at meetings of campus social organizations. • 69. A white student said to a friend, "this would be a good school if we didn't have all those foreign students around.“ • 100. I dislike having an instructor of a race other than mine. • 116. Minorities shouldn't feel offended by the symbols (eg. flags or songs) of school spirit even if those symbols have been associated in the past with racial segregation. Examples from Duckitt’s scale

27. Trait Superstitious Lazy Ignorant Physically dirty Unreliable 1933 84 75 38 17 12 1967 13 26 11 3 3 1990 3 4 5 0 4 Is prejudice on the decline? • Percentage of subjects selecting negative traits to describe black Americans (student sample) (Davidio & Fazio 1992)

28. Statement Object to family member bringing home black friend for dinner Agree that there should be laws against mixed marriages between blacks and whites Think that blacks and whites should go to separate schools 1963 52 69 38 1976 26 35 20 1985 20 28 7 Is prejudice on the decline? • Percentage endorsing prejudiced attitude statements (US surveys) (Davidio & Fazio 1992)

29. 10% 26% 28% 25% Minorities (black, hispanic, asian, etc) AIDS sufferers Homosexuals “Emotionally unstable” Hang on just a cotton-pickin’… • Is there an associated increase in tolerance? Would you object to this person moving in as you neighbour? (1992) [percentage saying yes]

30. What is going on? • Changes in societal norms have led to prejudice not being expressed; buf beliefs still exist • Naturalistic studies have shown • Helping behaviours are still mostly aimed at own ethnic group. • In situations where contact was necessary between donor and recipient (and refusal would have been more visible), only 30% had own- group bias.

31. Prejudice hunting in the world • Questionnaires don’t work anymore! • Time to get sneaky • The ‘bogus pipeline’ study (Sigall & Page, 1971) • Connect subjects to a machine which “can tell measure their true feelings” • Tell them the study is about something else • Tell subjects you need to “calibrate the machine”, and that when you ask them a question, the subject must predict what the machine will say. • In the “calibration stage” ask them about their prejudiced beliefs

32. Notes on the Bogus Pipeline • No shame in admitting true feelings (“the machine can tell anyway”) • Reduces social responsibility, so prejudice becomes OK • Results from the pipeline: • Not connected to machine: Respond with positive statements to blacks and whites • Connected to the machine: Tended to respond about blacks in more negative terms Am impressively useless machine like a polygraph works well for bogus pipeline studies

33. Another sneaky idea: Interethnic proximity • lnterethnic proximity (Hendricks & Bootzin, 1976) • Where will people sit in relation to members of other groups? • Subjects (white) taken to a waiting room. All the chairs were empty except for one other “subject” [confederate] - either a black person or a white person

34. Notes on Hendricks & Bootzin • Results: When directly asked, ethnicity had no effect (social desirability was active). • But — subjects sat, on average, one seat further from black confederate than from the white (They didn't realize they were being watched). Hendricks & Bootzin’s study tried to recreate a natural setting in which to observe, to reduce the effect of the social desirability effect.

35. How do we explain these results? • Kelman (1961): We weigh the cost:benefit ratio of acting on internalized prejudice rather than in an externally desirable way. • This is why prejudice is not expressed in public - we gain a bigger reward by acting not prejudiced. • But, make it rewarding to act in a prejudiced way - and prejudice can be expressed in public more than in private.

36. Prejudice has a new face • "red-neck prejudice" is dying out - but it is being replaced. By symbolic or indirect expressions • “expression in terms of abstract ideological symbols and symbolic behaviour that [American] blacks are violating cherished values and making illegitimate demands for changes in the racial status quo” (McConahay & Hough, 1976) • The amazing “National Security” argument (racial profiling, Guantanamo Bay detentions, etc)

37. Why the change? • Changing societal norms • Feel we should not violate abstract meritocratic values. • Increasing rewards for not expressing prejudice • Is it symbolic racism to oppose a policy which specifically gives benefits only to one race? • The impossible question • Think about how you would feel depending on which race gets the benefits • How does history, morality, social values fit into this?