PSY2001 S2 W3 Reducing Prejudice & Discimmination Flashcards

1
Q

What is the Tri-component definitions of Prejudice?

A

Cognitive (belief about a group), Affective (strong feelings [usually negative] about a group), Conative (intentions to behave in certain ways towards the group)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the different types or levels of discrimination?

A

Indidividual and Institutional or Structural

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Allport’s Contact Hypothesis?

1954

A

Under certain conditions, contact between groups will reduce prejudice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What are conditions promoting prejudice-reduction?

A

Equal status (in the interaction), Common goals, Intergroup cooperation, Institutional support (from authorities, laws, social norms).
Direct contact involves face-to-face interaction between members of different groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Does direct intergroup contact reduce prejudice?

Empirical example

A

Meta-analysis: demonstrated that direct contact does reduce prejudice and greater reduction in prejudice are seen under the conditions specified by Allport, but these conditions are not essential for prejudice for prejudice reduction

Pettigrew & Tropp’s 2006

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What are issues and critiques with Allport Contact hypothesis?

A

Allport didn’t clearly explain the potential mechanism involved in reducing prejudice in the contact hypothesis (how contact reduces prejudice)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What are mechanisms underlying how direct contact works?

Pettigrew & Tropp’s 2008 meta-analysis

A
  • Reducing intergroup xiety ( anxiety about intergroup contact)
  • Increasing empathy and perspective taking
  • Increasing knowledge about the outgroup (though this was the weakest mediator)
    Direct contact isn’t always possible or appropriate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is an example of when direct contact isn’t always possible?

A

Northern Ireland, 1969 peace walls were built to separate catholic/Republican and protestant/loyalist communities in northern Ireland in order to reduce severe intergroup conflict and violence.
In 2022/2023: 92% of children in northern Ireland attend segregated schools

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What indirect (not face-to-face) intergroup contact intervention were developed?

A

Vicarious contact, extended contact, imagined contact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What interventions are popular?

A

A third of all prejudice reduction studies evaluate interventions based on second-hand and imagined contact with outgroups

Paluck et al. 2020

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is vicarious contact?

A

observation of an interaction between ingroup and outgroup members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Can vicarious intergroup contact reduce prejudice?

A

Yes
Vittrup & Holden, 2011
Vezzali et al. 2015

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is extended contact?

A

knowing that ingroup members have contact with outgroup members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Can extended intergroup contact reduce prejudice?

A

Yes
Wright et al. 1997
Zhou et al. 2019

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What did Vezzali et al. 2015 found on vicarious intergroup contact?

A

Exposure to passages from harry potter books, depicting intergroup friendship and intergroup prejudice predicted improved attitudes toward immigrants in children who identified more with harry potter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What did Vittrup & Holden (2011) found on vicarious intergroup contact?

A

Children exposed to racially diverse TV shows showed more positive outgroup attitudes than children not exposed to these shows.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What did Wright et al. 1997 found on extended intergroup contact?

A

White, Asian and African American undergraduate students who reported knowing more ingroup members with at least one outgroup friend reported less prejudice towards outgroups.

18
Q

What did Zhou et al. 2019 found on extended intergroup contact?

A

Meta-analysis supports that there is a positive relationship between extended contact and intergroup attitudes

19
Q

What is included in the mechanisms thought to drive the effects of extended contact on prejudice reduction ?

A

Reducing intergroup anxiety
Increasing empathy
Creating cognitive ‘overlap’ between the self and outgroup members
Changing perceptions of social norms

20
Q

What are issues with extending vicarious contact ?

A

Can’t easily extended contact as an intervention. Difficult to deliberately manipulate whether someone frm your ingroups has outgroup friend, though vicarious contact is a little easier to manipulate.

21
Q

What is imagined contact?

A

mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category

22
Q

What is the basic experimental method for imagined contact?

A

1) Imagery Task: Imagine contact vs control
2) measure of prejudice: imagined intergroup contact can reduce pejudice

23
Q

What mechanism underlie how imagined contact works?

A

Reduce intercrop anxiety
Increased trust in the outgroup

23
Q

What studies showed that imagined intergroup contact can reduce

A

West et al. 2011: PPTs who imagined positive interaction with individual with schizophrenia, reported more positive attitudes than PTT who imagined positive interaction with someone without schizophrenia.
Miles & Crisp, 2014: meta-analysis supports effectiveness of imagined contact in promoting more positive attitudes, emotions, intentions and behaviours to a range of different groups

24
What is an issue with imagined contact?
replication (difficult?)
25
Do imagined contact effects replicate?
Klein sought to replicate husnu & crisp and found a significant but small average effect of imagined contact on reducing prejudice across the samples. Conclusion: contact effects do not replicate BUT: the effect size was small in the study and replication which still means there's an effect
25
What is colourblind ideologies?
We shouldn’t see people in terms of the colour of their skin- we should see people as individuals and look beyond group differences “An approach to managing diversity in which intergroup distinctions and considerations are deemphasized” (Apfelbaum et al., 2010)
26
Is colourblind ideologies good strategies?
No, you can't ignore the colour of your skin makes a difference.
27
27
What is a critique of the colourblind approach?
if we ignore intergroup distinctions, we ignore actual intercrop disparities and differences in experience and we may be less likely to recognise intergroup disparities and discrimination s
28
What was the research by Apfelbaum et al. 2010
Method: children were given a digital storybook on equality where teacher took one of the following appraoches: colour blind approach and value diversity approach. They were given scenarios that varied in the degree to which they described racially biased behaviour (no bais, ambiguous bias and explicit bias). The children then reported which if any of the scenario showed racial discrimination Results: children were elss likely to perceive discrimination in the colourblind story condition relevative to the value diversit story conditions.
29
What are some educational strategies include?
Factual education to increase knowledge about different groups. Consciousness raising. Perspective taking
30
What was the Jane Elliot 'blue eyes/brown eyes' exercise ?
teach kids about discriminations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLAi78hluFc
31
What is the research of Hughes, Bigler & Levy, 2007?
Study 1 Method: White American elementary school children were exposed to history lession either Racism condition (explicit information about racism experienced by well-known African American), control conditions (identical lesson that omitted the information about raciosm) Measure attitudes towards African Americans Results: PPT who received history lessons talking about racism had significantly more positive and less negative attitudes towards African Americans than participants who received control lessons
32
Is education a effective prejudice-reduction technique ?
Mental Health Stigma: Meta-Analysis (Corrigan, 2012) found that educational interventions were successful at reducing mental health stigma. Prejudice and discrimination more broadly (Paluck, 2020) finds a small but significant multicultural anti-bias and moral education interventions no reducing prejudice.
33
# ``` ``` What is Confrontation of prejudice ? | Prejudice confrontation or Bystander anti-prejudice)
Directly confronting prejudice or discriminatory behaviour in tohers. Confrontation can be enacted by the target of prejudice or by an ally.
34
Is prejudice confrontation effective?
Wood et al. (meta-analysis) demonstrates that confronting prejudice significantly reduces intercrop bias, particularly reducing use of stereotypes and increasing intentions to control intercrop bias in the future
35
What was Czopp, Monteith & Mark (2006) research?
Metohd: white participant completed a task with white confederate which required them to take turns making inference about sentence paired with photo of white an black people. Critical trials: paired pictures of black men with sentences that could hae both stereotypical or nonstereotypical interpretation Feedback tasks: PTT randomly allocated to received a specific feedback: confrontation of prejudice, other confrontation control and no confrontatio ncontrol PTT Attitude scale
36
What was the result of the research by Czopp, Monteith & Mark 2006?
Participants confronted about use of stereotypes reported a greater reduction in prejudiced attitudes (i.e. a higher change score) than participants in the other confrontation and no confrontation control conditions
37
Do effects of confrontation of prejudice towards one group, extend to a reduction in prejudice against other groups? | Chaney 2020
Method: W PPT interpreted sentences parried with piture of W or B people. Critical trials: parried picture of B men with stereotypical or non-steroetypical interpretations. 1/2 PPT who responded stereotypically, were confronted by the experimenter: “I thought some of your answers seemed a little offensive. The Black guy behind bars could be a bartender. People shouldn’t use stereotypes, you know?” 1 week later: completed similar task but with Latino men in addition Results: W PPT confronted used fewer B stereotypes and fewer negative Latino stereotypes that W PPT that were nto confronted
38
Are techniques actually effective?
Most of these techniques we covered in the lecture are effective (to varying degrees) with the exception of approaches based on colourblind ideologies, which may do more harm than good
39
What reduces prejudice?
One thing that you can do to reduce prejudice and discrimination is to confront it when you observe it (particularly as an ally), as there is a building body of research suggesting that prejudice confrontation/bystander anti-prejudice is effective at reducing prejudice in those confronted.