Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Group development wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
System justification wikipedia , lookup
Self-categorization theory wikipedia , lookup
Communication in small groups wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Prejudice Theories and research Definitions (from previous lecture) Stereotypes Specific traits attributed to people based on group membership (stereotypes are protypes!) Prejudice (opposite of allophilia) Negative attitudes toward the members of a specific group Discrimination Negative behaviors directed toward members of a specific group Types of prejudice Discrimination can be institutional or interpersonal, but prejudice is always interpersonal Prejudice has two components Emotional (how you feel about a group) Cognitive (what you think about a group) especially the group’s intent and competence to pursue it Prejudice has many targets Racism Linguicism Ageism Religious intolerance Heterosexism Political intolerance Classism Ableism Sexism Racial Intergroup Relations Declining Four types of outgroups Perception of outgroups (measures) As viewed by society, how _________ are members of this group? Competent Confident Independent Competetive Intelligent As viewed by society, how __________ are members of this group? Tolerant Warm Good natured Sincere Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902 Perception of outgroups Student sample Paternalistic prejudice Allophilia Contemptuous prejudice Envious prejudice Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902 Perception of outgroups Student sample Fiske et al., 2002, JPSP, 82, 878-902 Community sample in Amherst, MA Perceptions of outgroups Allport’s Scale of Prejudice intensity Antilocution (1) Antilocution (or hate speech) means a majority group freely makes jokes and refers to a minority group in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images. Harmful or not? Avoidance (2) People in a minority group are actively avoided by members of the majority group. Harmful how? Discrimination (3) Minority group is discriminated against through the denial of opportunities and services (prejudice in action). Physical Attack (4) The majority group vandalizes minority property and carries out violent attacks on individuals or groups. Extermination (5) The majority group seeks extermination of the minority group. Theories of prejudice Who/what do we blame for prejudice? A few “bad apples”? Morally neutral cognitive wiring (information processing)? A morally corrupt society? Theories of prejudice formation Psychodynamic theory Realistic Conflict theory Social Identity theory Social Learning theory Cognitive theory Classical conditioning theory Theories of prejudice (psychodynamic) The prejudiced personality Process: Growing up in authoritarian families Evidence Some support (high submissiveness, high conformity) Many limitations Ignores situational factors (1952 Virginia mine study) Ignores sociocultural influences (Princeton study) Fails to explain uniformity (were all Nazis authoritarian?) Fails to explain why specific targets are chosen Fails to explain why most people are capable of out-group prejudice given the right conditions Theories of prejudice (realistic conflict) Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1961) Process We compete over scarce resources During competition, the “other” is considered an enemy to justify trying to “win” Enemy is then dehumanized and scapegoated Evidence 1958 Southern State lynching study Sherif’s Robber’s Cave study (next 3 slides) Some limitations Doesn’t explain why there is no inter-occupation conflict Doesn’t explain why prejudice occurs when there is little competition Robbers Cave Experiment Robbers Cave Study Stage 1: In-group formation Robbers Cave Study Stage 2: Group competition Robbers Cave Study Stage 3: In-group formation Theories of prejudice formation/change Social Identity Theory Identity derived from group affiliation People tend to attribute positive characteristics to own group and view the other group more critically (ultimate attribution error) But why does this happen? Self worth (self-esteem) derived from group achievement and favorable comparisons with other groups Result: People automatically favor in-group members Evidence Minimum group experiments show in-group favoritism But they don’t show out-group derogation Theories of prejudice formation/change Social Learning Theory Allport’s notion of lack of information coupled with hostility Lack of information makes people rely on stereotypes Hostility makes them look for a group to scapegoat Stereotypes lead to prejudice Social modeling of prejudice (parents/friends/teachers/media) Few models of anti-racism Active and Passive Racism Antilocution (1) Hate speech Avoidance (2) People in a minority group are actively avoided by members of the majority group Discrimination (3) Minority group is discriminated against through denial of opportunities and services Physical Attack (4) Majority group vandalizes minority property and carries out violent attacks Extermination (5) Majority group seeks extermination of minority group. Allport’s model only describes active prejudice Note: The chart on left is far from comprehensive. There is a lot missing. Theories of prejudice formation/change Socialization (see social learning theory) Classical conditioning theory Process: Fear conditioned through secondary conditioning (e.g., walking down street with mom) Even the Well-Intentioned Have Bias Fiske (2002) - in Western cultures: about 10% of individuals show blatant racism about 80% show subtle racial biases Subtle racial biases: avoidance of interactions awkwardness slips of the tongue stereotypic assumptions and judgments Three theories of subtle prejudice Modern or symbolic racism Blaming the victim Support of policies that all happen to disadvantage racial minorities Ambivalent racism (Katz & Hass, 1988) High scores on pro-Black attitudes (pity for the disadvantaged) High scores on anti-Black attitudes (hostility toward the deviant) Aversive racism (Kinder & Sears, 1981) (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) A desire to be egalitarian and non-racist Unconscious racist cognitions that are manifested during stress or ambiguity Scenes from Crash: Aversive Racism Character development Racism or not racism Reducing Prejudice, Increasing Allophilia Hard to get beyond “preaching to the choir” Almost no interventions proven effective in the field (Paluck & Green, 2009) Diversity training in companies ineffective (Dobbin & Kalev, 2013) Discussion-based approaches polarize groups (Brauer et al., 2001) Read full (2015) report Fighting prejudice Contact theory (antidote to realistic group conflict) Equal status contact Contact should have high acquaintance potential Out-group members must not conform to stereotypes Contact situation must encourage cooperation Group contact must be supported by authority Fighting prejudice: Can media help? Public health research suggests it may Awareness focus (e.g., smoking causes cancer) not effective But entertainment education highly effective in many domains (Singhal & Rogers, 2004; Singhal, Cody, Rogers, & Sabido, 2014) Theoretical promise for prejudice reduction Characters with whom people can identify (Cohen, 2001) Characters who can serve as social models Opportunities for indirect forms of contact (Mazziotta et al., 2011) Narratives to help overcome resistance (Kreuter et al., 2007) (Bandura 2004) Fighting prejudice: Can media help? Study 1 (Sohad Murrar) National sample, 193 white Americans, 18-60 years old Randomly assigned to Entertainment education or Control condition Prejudice measured at baseline, immediately after, and 4-6 weeks later Explicit measure: Feeling thermometer (0 to 100) Campbell, 1971 Implicit Measure: Arab-Muslim IAT (-2 to 2) Greenwald et al., 2003 Process measures Identification with outgroup (0 to 100) Murphy et al., 2011 Perceived variability, group malleability, emotional reaction Fighting prejudice: Can media help? Fighting prejudice: Can media help? Fighting prejudice: Can media help? Study 2 (Sohad Murrar) National sample, 310 non-Muslims, 18-60 years old Randomly assigned to one of four conditions (next slide) Intervention 1: Entertainment education Intervention 2: Imagined contact Intervention 3: Group malleability Control Process and outcome measures immediately after Explicit measures of prejudice Feeling thermometer (0 to 100) Campbell, 1971 Trait ratings (1 to 7) Osgood et al., 1957 Process measures Identification with outgroup (0 to 100) Murphy et al., 2011 Perceived variability Intergroup anxiety The three intervention conditions Fighting prejudice (continued) Work on yourself Become aware of personal (and societal) stereotypes Get to know people as individuals who are part of groups Avoid just-world beliefs Be aware of self-fulfilling prophecies Avoid blaming the victim Work on others Do not tolerate prejudicial remarks, including jokes Share what you think and believe, without attacking Promote multiculturalism Change the metaphor Educate yourself Learn a foreign language Diversify circle of friends