Download Slide 1

Stereotyping, Prejudice,
and Discrimination
Lecture Outline
Components of intergroup bias
 Theories of prejudice and discrimination


cognitive, realistic conflict, motivational,
cultural, evolutionary
Consequences: Stereotype threat
 Strategies of overcoming prejudice and
discrimination

The ABC of Intergroup Bias
Stereotypes (Cognition) beliefs about attributes that
are thought to be characteristic of members of
particular groups
Prejudice (Affect) a negative attitude or affective
response toward a certain group and its individual
members
Discrimination (Behaviour) negative behaviour
towards members of a particular group based on
their membership in that group
The Cognitive Perspective
Emphasizes the cognitive processes
that produce and maintain
stereotypes, and how stereotypes in
turn affect prejudice and
discrimination
The Cognitive Perspective
implicit (automatic) processes processes that occur outside of our
awareness, without conscious control
explicit (controlled) processes processes that occur with conscious
direction and deliberate thought
Implicit and Explicit
Stereotypes and Prejudice
1) Explicit Attitudes: what people consciously
endorse or believe
2) Implicit Attitudes: associations that are outside
of conscious awareness
a. Implicit Association Test (IAT) meaures
unconscious stereotypes and prejudices toward
particular groups (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995)
b. Priming and Implicit Prejudice
Priming - procedure used to increase the accessibility of
a concept or schema (for example, a stereotype)
Implicit and Explicit
Stereotypes and Prejudice




If I an E are different, which one is the “true”
attitude?
Better question: under which conditions each
type of attitude predicts behaviour?
Implicit attitudes predict discrimination esp.
when cognitive resources are taxed, ex,
fatigue, time pressure
Explicit attitudes predict discrimination better
otherwise
On misperceiving a weapon (Payne, 2001)
200
ms
OR
OR
Decision:
Weapon or
tool?
.5 second
200
ms
The Cognitive Perspective
Some cognitive biases make stereotypes
resistent to discomfirmation
 Outgroup
homogeneity effect - tendency to
assume that within-group similarity is much
stronger for outgroups than for ingroups
 Illusory correlations – biased perception and
memory for connection between unusual
(negative) acts and minority groups
 Counter-stereotypic examples are
subtyped
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
group conflict, prejudice, and
discrimination are likely to arise over
competition between groups for limited
desired resources
Correlation between cotton prices and # of
lynchings of Blacks in US South
Cotton
Prices
# of
Lynchings
Similar pattern for unemployment rate and
opposition to immigration in Canada
Realistic Conflict Theory
The Robber’s Cave Experiment (Sherif et al. 1961)
a. Competition and Intergroup Conflict
b. Reducing Intergroup Conflict Through
Superordinate Goals
superordinate goals - goals that transcend the
interests of one individual group, and that can be
achieved more readily by two or more groups
working together
Example: “Earthquake diplomacy”
Evaluating RCT
Minimal Group Experiments
Participants are assigned to groups
on meaningless criteria
 Then they are given the opportunity to
distribute resources (e.g., money)
 Participants show ingroup favoritism!
 Cannot be explained by RCT
 We need a motivational perspective

The Motivational Perspective
Prejudice and discrimination can be a tool to
boost our self-esteem and repair
perceived threats to our self-esteem
The Motivational Perspective
Social Identity Theory
a person’s self-concept and self-esteem
not only derive from personal identity and
accomplishments, but from the status
and accomplishments of the various
groups to which the person belongs
After negative personal feedback, ppts
derogate outgroups (A), which restores
their self-esteem (B) (Fein & Spencer, 1997)
Belief systems to rationalize
inequality & discrimination

System justification (Jost et al, 2004)


Similar to just world beliefs, applied to groups: “different
groups deserve what they get”
Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius & Pratto)



Belief that their own groups are “destined” to dominate
other less worthy, groups
Members of more privileged groups endorse SDO more
(men, EuroCanadians, high caste Hindus, Ashkenazi
Israelis, Maronite Lebanese, Mainlainder Taiwanese)
High SDO scores predict overt prejudice and more
stereotyping towards lower-status groups
Distal Explanations of
prejudice and discrimination
Evolutionary account #1




Innate tendency for “us vs. them thinking” or
coalitional psychology
Intergoup psychology evolved (in ancestral times)–
small cohesive, mutually hostile bands
But what counts as ingroup vs. outgroup is flexible,
socially constructed
Explains why bases of discrimination is radically
different across time and place, but us-them
mentality is so resilient
Distal Explanations of
prejudice and discrimination
Evolutionary account #2




Intergoup psychology is misapplication of
our innate understanding of species with
“essences”
We tend to think of different social groups
as if they are different biological species
Explains why many social categories are
essentialized
And why the more essentialized, the
easier to stereotype
Distal Explanations of
prejudice and discrimination
Cultural account


Cultural dissimilarity breeds dislike
Brewer & Campbell (1976): study of intercultural
attitudes
• 30 East African societies in in Uganda, Kenya,
and Tanzania
• Measures of cultural similarity, familiarity, liking,
and personality traits
• People felt the most positive towards groups that:
(1) Were geographically nearer (2) Culturally
most similar to themselves
Being a Member of a
Stigmatized Group
1. Attributional Ambiguity
2. Stereotype Threat
- fear that one will confirm the stereotypes
that others have regarding some salient
group of which on is a member
Stereotype Threat in Intellectual
Abilities
ST can occur
for any social
group for
which there
is a negative
stereotype
on a skill
Stereotype Threat in Intellectual
Abilities
 African Americans and intellectual abilities
 Women and math
 White men and athletic abilities
 Etc.
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype Threat
Slide 25 of 28
Stereotype threat vs. boost
(Shih, Pittinski & Ambady, 1999
Reducing Stereotype Threat in
Educational Settings




Developing awareness
Communicating (and having) high
expectations
Social support
Positive role models
Reducing prejudice and
conflict
Superordinate goals
 Superordinate identity
 Equal status contact
 Perceived similarity between groups
 Multiculturalism
