Lecture 8 -> Impacts of discrimination and reducing prejudice Flashcards
(18 cards)
Overview
Discrimination from a target’s perspective
Coping with stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination
Reducing prejudice
Definitions
Stimgae
- characteristics (often negative) that distinguish a group from others
- includes race, ethnicity, gender, age, mental illness and physical disability
- early conceptualisation by Erving Goffman (1963)
Master status
- characteristic seen as most importance to once’s social identity
- stigmatised groups are often see as their stigmatising attribute
~ race
~ gender
~ sexuality
When people are conscious of being stigmatised, they become more vigilant to sings of prejudice
Perceiving prejudice
Sensitivity to perceiving bias and discrimination depends on the extent to which one identifies with their group
- lower gender indignity reduced effects of sexism
Members of minority groups also differ in their stigma consciousness (awareness of prejudice and discrimination)
- lower stigma consciousness reduces effects of sexism
- ignorance is bliss?
Leaving groups (disidentifying)
People leave groups because they no longer successfully serve one or more basic psychological needs, such as:
- promoting survival
- reducing uncertainty
- bolstering self-esteem
- managing morality concern
Consequences of prejudice
Experiencing more prejudice in daily life leads to
- poor psychological health
- increased depression
- lower satisfaction
Long-term consequences of prejudice have also been found
- elevation of the body’s physiological stress response
- poorer cardiovascualr functioning
- arterial plaque built and artery calcification
Stereotypic expectations can affect your actions and lead the stereotypes person to behave as you expect
- self-fulfilling prophecy
~ interviewer study (Word et al, 1974)
~ Woman engineering students study (Logel et al, 2009)
Mechanisms of conformity
Conforming to stereotypes help people get along with others
- when motivated to get along with someone who holds stereotypes, they may behave accordingly
- people get along better when they confirm other’s expectations
Consequences of prejudice cont.
Objectification -> results from the strong focus many cultures place on women’s bodies
Self-objectification -> occurs when women too view themselves as objects to be viewed and judged
- increases body sham, appearance anxiety and self-disgust
- disrupts concentration and interferes with cognitive performance
- feelings of shame make women vulnerable to disorders eating, depression, and sexual dysfunction
Stereotype threat -> the concern that one might confirm a negative stereotype
- undermines test performance when stereotypes made salient
- often ends up as self-fulfilling prophecy
- impairs:
~ memory performance of older adults
~ driving performance of women
~ men’s emotional sensitivity
~ women’s maths skills
Stereotype threat
The effect is strongest under these conditions
- stigmatised identity is made salient in the situation
- identify is chronically salient, due to high group identification
- the task is a diagnostic of ability relevant to the stereotype
- individuals believe their perofmance will be comapred with members of a group stereotypes as superior on a task
- individuals are explicitly reminded of stereotype
Exposure to stereotype threat can lead to disindentification
- the process of disinventing in any areas in which one’s group has been negatively stereotyped
- e.g. women in male-dominated STEM degrees reduce importance of their gender identity
Coping with prejudice
Confronting those with biases
- even thought most say they would confront prejudice, few do
- the “do-nothing” effect
Why?
- social cost of confronting
- what if it doesn’t go to plan -> embarrassment, backlash
Costs of concealing
- concealing stigmatised identity -> in some instances, concealment can be beneficial, but in others the emotional and social consequences are serious
The It Gets Better Project is a campaign to provide gay and lesbian youth with psotive role models of gay and lesbian adults who live happy and successful lives, even if they too, experienced discrimination as adolescents
Social support
- negative consequences if being targeted by stigma can be offset by strong identification with group
- rejection identification theory (Branscombe et al, 1999)
Attributional ambiguity
- members of stigmatised group uncertain if negative experiences are based on own actions to the result of prejudice
- attributing to bias and not oneself may be adaptive
Oppositional culture
- opposing majority group and its behaviours, ideas and practised
- devaluing perpetrators of stigma may help discount prejudice
Reducing prejudice
Reducing prejudice requires changing of values and beliefs
Challenges to this change
- values and beliefs are integral to psychological security
- prejudice often serves specific psychological functions for people
- established prejudiced contributes to self-perpetuating schemas
- some people are unaware of prejudices and their influences
Prejudice exists in legitimised systems
Significant challenges in reducing prejudice lie in changing these laws, customs and norms
Requires change in institutional structure (e.g. Brown v, Board of Education)
Role of counter stereotypic images in media effective in changing prejudice
Dual-process view of prejudice:
- Process 1: stereotypes and prejudice are automatic processes elected through a reflexive or experiential process
- Process 2: we use reflective or cognitive processes to control the degree to which those attitudes affect behaviour and judgment
Neurological mechanism support these processes
Limitations when controlling our biases
- congtive control is impaired when tired, aroused or upset
- regulation of automatic thoughts can be difficult when people are pressed for time, cognitively engaged or distracted
Controlling biases can have negative effects
- exerting control makes it difficult to suppress other behaviours
- suppression of stereotypes can backfire (stereotype rebound)
Theory of planned behaviour
Perceived control
- behaviour intention
- behaviour
- controllability of behaviour
The contact hypothesis
Ingredients for psotive intergroup contact (Allport, 1954):
- equal status between groups in situation
- intimate contact that allows people to get acquainted
- intergroup cooperation toward a superordinate goal
- institutional or authority support
Robber’s Cave study employed these to resolve conflict
Mechanisms by which contact creates positive change
- reducing stereotyping (decategorising)
- reducing anxiety
- fostering empathy
Often applied in the classroom (jigsaw)
- children showed increased self-esteem, motivation for learning and increased peer liking across racial and ethnic groups
Stages go on over time
Stage 1:
- initial contact
- decategorisation
- initial anxiety, but can lead to liking the individual
Stage 2:
- established contact
- salient categorisation
- can lessen prejudice against the outgroup
Stage 3 :
- common in-group identity
- recategorisation
- maximum reduction on prejudice and fosters cooperation
Indirect contact
Extended contact
- having an in-group friend who has outgroup friend(s) is associated with lower prejudice and reduced intergroup anxiety
- demonstrate intergroup relationships are permissible and possible
- show outgroup members are open to such relationships
Media contact
- seeing outgroups in media is a for of extended contact
- positive portrayals in the media can improve intergorup attitudes
- works for “real life” and fictional characters
- watching characters in media is a form of perspective taking
Imagined contact
- mentally practising a “positive, relaxed and comfortable” first meeting with an outgroup member
- rehearsal these interactions plays key role in self-regulation of emotions and planning of behaviour during potential contact
- allows people to develop a script for the interaction
Reducing prejudice without contact
Perspective taking and empathy
- white ppts kept their distance form a black interviewer
- after having vividly imagined the day in the life of a young black man, this bias was eliminated
Collective action
Social identity model of collective action (van Zomeren)
- attitude/behaviour change more difficult in groups
- must mobilise majority of group members for change
- three factors
~ perceived injustice
~ self-efficacy
~ social identity
Perceived injustice
Pluralistic ignorance
- inaccurate perceptions of social or cultural norms
- assumptions others in group hold different opinion
- in reality, they probably share same opinion
Self-efficacy
Confidence in your ability to complete a specific task or achieve a particular goal
Linked to social facilitation vs inhibition
- if self-efficacy is high = facilitation
- if self-efficacy is low = inhibition
If group’s self-efficacy is low, no one will have confidence to engage in collective action to enact change
Social identity
Social identity theory
- issues linked to your social identity promote action
- if targeted, behaviour is unrelated to group, action unlikely
How to promote relevance to social identity
- blame
- promoting sense of guilt effective in linking action to identity
- however, may cause backlash against collective action
