2.  Prejudice is a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group on the basis of generalizations derived from faulty or incomplete information Note: prejudice is an attitude; it is hard to eliminate However, in the last few decades, American society has become less prejudiced against women and some minorities – hate crimes and overt expression of prejudice tend to be less flagrant and frequent than they used to be  Components of prejudice Cognitive component = a stereotype or set of beliefs about a group Emotional component = dislike of or active hostility toward the group Behavioral component = a predisposition to discriminate against the group whenever possible  The nature of prejudice leads us to generalize from individuals to the group as a whole

3.  When most people think of prejudice, they imagine overt behavior; however, many otherwise decent people are capable of subtle acts of prejudice Today, most people probably think of themselves as unprejudiced, yet they may continue to discriminate against minority group members in less obvious ways  Hostile vs. benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 2002) Hostile sexism = reflects an active dislike of women  Hostile sexists hold stereotypic views that suggest that women are inferior to men (e.g., that they are less competent or less intelligent than men) Benevolent sexism = appears favorable to women but is actually patronizing  Benevolent sexists hold stereotypically positive views of women, but underneath it all they assume women are the weaker, less competent sex (e.g., idealizing women as cooks and mothers, wanting to protect them even when it is not needed – the underlying assumptions are that they are different, weaker, and less competent in other domains than men)

4.  Pager (2003) Study: Had well-groomed, smart college grads with identical resumes apply for 350 jobs – ½ were white, ½ were African-American, and of each group, half admitted to having served 18 months in prison for cocaine possession Employers called back white ex-convict job applicants 2x as often as their black counterparts White applicants with a clean record were called back 3x as often as their black counterparts  Hebl et al. (2002) Study: (same method as study above) No evidence of blatant discrimination against “homosexual” job applicants; however, employers engaged in subtle acts of prejudice (they were less verbally positive, conducted shorter interviews, used fewer words, and made less eye contact when interviewing the “homosexual” students)

5.  At the core of prejudice is stereotyping  A stereotype is a simplistic generalization about a group of people— assigning them identical characteristics consistent with one’s prejudices (regardless of the actual variation among members of that group) However, stereotyping is hard to avoid – it is basically a cognitive heuristic that helps speed up our thinking, so it is a byproduct of how we all naturally think!  We learn to assign characteristics to other groups at a very young age When 5 th and 6 th graders were asked to rate their classmates, they rated children of upper-class families more positively than children of lower-class families on every desirable quality (Neugarten, 1946)  Not all stereotypes are negative at face value – for example, stereotypes that Asians are good at math Are there negative consequences to positive stereotyping?

6. Stereotypes and attributions  The ultimate attribution error = in an ambiguous situation, people tend to make attributions consistent with their prejudices (Pettigrew, 1979)  For example, if people believe women are less competent than men, how will they interpret evidence of a woman’s doing well on a difficult task? (Swim & Sanna,1996) They will attribute the woman’s success to hard work (rather than to her ability), whereas they will attribute a man’s success to his ability Similarly, they will attribute a woman’s failure on a task to her lack of ability, whereas they will attribute a man’s failure to bad luck or low effort  Prejudice causes particular kinds of negative attributions, which can, in turn, strengthen and intensify the prejudice

7. Self-fulfilling prophecies  When we hold strong beliefs or stereotypes about other people, our behavior toward them often causes them to behave in ways that validate our original assumptions  The self-fulfilling prophecy insures that we create a social reality in line with our expectations; thus, our stereotypes are resistant to change  We tend to notice and recall instances that confirm the stereotype and not count instances that are inconsistent with the stereotype

8.  Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Example:  Imagine that a mutual acquaintance warned me that you are cold, aloof, and reserved. When we do meet, I would likely keep my distance and not try too hard to engage you in a lively conversation. Suppose that in reality, you are generally warm and outgoing. My behavior would not give you the opportunity for you to show how warm and outgoing you are. In response to my behavior, you would probably keep your distance from me, and my expectations that you are not warm or friendly would be confirmed! This also frequently happens with children in class – if a teacher has heard that a child is badly behaved or not smart, they often will not give the child the opportunity to prove otherwise!

9. Self-fulfilling prophecies (cont.)  People who are targets of negative stereotypes can end up confirming those very stereotypes due to the phenomenon of self- fulfilling prophecies Steele and Aronson administered the GRE to black and white college students. Half were told it was an intelligence test; the other half were told that the test did not have to do with intellectual ability White students performed equally well in both conditions. However, black students performed significantly more poorly when told the test measured their intelligence The reason is that there is a negative stereotype in our culture that African Americans are less intelligent. This may make them so anxious about fulfilling that stereotype that they actually perform below their ability level on tests of intelligence

10. Stereotypes and Prejudice  Stereotype Threat (cont.) In fact, African Americans who merely have to check a box signifying their race before taking tests of intelligence perform significantly worse than when they report their race following the test  The reason is that checking the box primes them to think about their race, which increases the level of anxiety about confirming negative stereotypes about their race by performing poorly on the test  Thus, many prominent researchers have fought to move the demographics page to the end of important tests such as the SAT. Stereotype threat also applies to other groups with significant stereotypes such as:  Women working on math problems  Latinos working on tests of verbal ability  Asian women actually performed worse on a math test when first primed with a reminder that they were women but performed much better when primed with a reminder that they were Asian

11. Blaming the victim  Blaming the victim = the tendency to blame individuals for their victimization; This tendency is typically motivated by a desire to see the world as a fair place We find it frightening to think about living in a world where people through no fault of their own can be deprived of what they deserve or need. It is slightly comforting to believe they might have done something to warrant such treatment

12. Five basic causes of prejudice (these are not mutually exclusive!):  Economic and political competition or conflict  Displaced aggression  Maintenance of status or self-image  Dispositional prejudice  Conformity to existing social norms

13.  Competition and conflict breed prejudice  Prejudiced attitudes tend to increase when times are tense and there is conflict over mutually exclusive goals (e.g., when competition for scarce jobs increases) When this is the case, the dominant group may attempt to exploit or derogate the minority group to gain some material advantage For example, in 1938, Dollard found that as jobs became scarce in a small town, the level of prejudice towards minorities increased We can see a possible recent example in this in the increase in hostility toward undocumented immigrants in America during the recent economic downturn

14. Causes of Prejudice: Economic and Political Competition  Sherif et al. (1961) Sought to determine whether competition itself causes prejudice Healthy, well-adjusted 12-year-old boys in a Boy Scout camp were randomly assigned to be in a group: either the Eagles or the Rattlers Each group did cooperative activities to build a sense of group cohesiveness within that group such as building a diving board for a pool or sharing group meals Next, they engaged the groups in a series of competitive activities in which the two groups were pitted against each other such as sports games with prizes for the winning team This resulted in hostility during the competitions; in one instance a riot broke out! After this, competitive games were eliminated, and social contact between groups was encouraged However, between-group hostility continued to escalate even when the competition was eliminated and groups were encouraged to socialize with each other This demonstrates how competition can breed prejudice that is difficult to extinguish

15.  Scapegoating refers to the process of blaming a relatively powerless innocent person for something that is not his or her fault Often the cause of a person’s frustration is too big or too big for direct retaliation, so anger is taken out on an easier target For example, if a 6-year-old boy is humiliated by his teacher, he cannot fight back because the teacher has too much power. However, he might be able to bully his younger sibling to release his hurt feelings Another example: if there is mass unemployment, it is too difficult to retaliate against the whole economic system, so people might increase their level of prejudice toward a minority group (as in the example for competition), or they might take out their anger on their partners  Individuals tend to displace aggression onto groups that are disliked, visible, and relatively powerless For example, in the rural south, African Americans were often scapegoated (in the past and to a slightly lesser extent today)

16. Causes of Prejudice: Displaced Aggression  Miller and Bugelski (1948) White students were asked to state their feelings about various minority groups Two conditions: some students were frustrated by being deprived of an opportunity to see a movie and were given a difficult series of tests. Participants in the control group did not have the frustrating experience and got to watch the movie. Students who went through the frustrating experience showed an increase in prejudice when they were then asked to restate their feelings about the minority groups; the control group did not undergo any change in prejudice This is an example of students displacing their anger at being frustrated onto an innocent group

17.  Prejudice can come from our need to justify our behavior and sense of self For example, if we convince ourselves that a group is unworthy, subhuman, stupid, or immoral, it helps us to keep from feeling immoral for subsequent brutality (e.g., enslaving members of that group, depriving them of education, or aggressing against them)  If our socioeconomic status is low, we might need the presence of a downtrodden minority group to feel superior to somebody Research has shown that those whose social status is low or declining are more prejudiced than those whose social status is high or rising (Dollard, 1987)

18.  Some people are predisposed toward being prejudiced because of their inborn disposition as well as their early childhood environments  These individuals are authoritarian personalities (Adorno et al., 1950). They tend to be: Rigid in their beliefs Possess conventional attitudes Intolerant of weakness in themselves and others Highly punitive Suspicious Respectful of authority to an unusual degree

19.  Recent research has shown that authoritarian personalities: Believe that it is natural for some people to dominate others Believe that equality of races is neither natural nor desirable Believe that political conservatism is superior to liberalism Sources: Jost et al., 2000; Jost et al., 2003; Sidanius et al., 1999  Authoritarian personalities tend to show a consistently high degree of prejudice against all minority groups

20.  Many people simply learn a wide array of prejudices by conforming to the lessons they learn from their parents and from their subculture  Pettigrew (1958) argued that, although economic competition, frustration, and personality needs to account for some prejudice, the great majority of prejudiced behavior is driven by conformity to social norms For example, a study of interracial tension in South Africa found that those individuals who were most likely to conform to a great variety of social norms also showed a higher degree of prejudice against black people (Pettigrew, 1958)

21.  People are usually deeply committed to their prejudicial behavior; prejudice is not easily changed by an information campaign The reason is that people are inclined not to take in information that is dissonant with their beliefs  If people are forced to listen to information that is inconsistent with their deep-seated attitudes, they will reject it, distort it, or ignore it For example, if most white South Africans believe that black people commit virtually all the crimes, and you show them evidence that there are white convicts, they will discount that evidence, distort it, or ignore it altogether

22. Effects of equal-status contact  Equal-status contact between groups can change attitudes Changes in behavior can affect changes in attitude:  If people who are prejudiced against one another are brought into direct contact, they come into contact with real people and not simply a stereotype. Eventually, this can lead to greater understanding, but only if the people are of equal status. For example, a slave master who had contact only with blacks who were slaves would not show a decrease in the level of prejudice Equal-status contact can increase understanding and decrease tension (Pettigrew, 1997)

23.  Equal-Status Contact Example: Deutsch and Collins (1951) found that when housing projects were segregated, stereotypes prevailed, and there were high levels of prejudice However, when housing projects were integrated, there was an increase in positive attitudes about other races

24.  The vicarious effects of desegregation  Desegregation can affect the values of people who do not even have the opportunity to have direct contact with minority groups Just the knowledge that all groups have the same access to everything is enough to decrease stereotyping. We assume that if there is segregation, the other group must be inferior  Dissonance reduction: If I know that you and I will inevitably be in close contact, and I do not like you, I will experience dissonance To reduce dissonance, I will try to convince myself that you are not as bad as I had previously thought; a reduction in hostile feelings will result

25.  Inevitability is a crucial factor (Clark, 1953): if I think I can get out of contact with other races, I will not feel the need to re-examine my negative beliefs; I will just try to avoid them. Immediate desegregation was far more effective than gradual desegregation Violence occurred in places where ambiguous or inconsistent policies were employed or where community leaders tended to vacillate

26. Complications to reducing prejudice  Economic conflict and competition can lead to increased prejudiced attitudes For example, integrated private housing is associated with increased prejudiced attitudes among the white residents. This is different from public housing because there is competition for limited resources involved (Kramer, 1951)  School desegregation may result in a competitive situation, which may lead to increased hostility at least partially due to an attempt to regain some lost self- esteem

27. Interdependence—a possible solution  Putting people in a situation in which they have to cooperate with each other to accomplish a goal may help reduce prejudice Sherif and Sherif (1956): when boys (Eagles and Rattlers) had to work together toward a common goal, there was a decrease in hostile feelings and negative stereotyping  The key factor seems to be mutual interdependence—a situation wherein individuals need one another to accomplish their goal

28. Why does mutual interdependence work?  It places people in a favor-doing situation: when people act in a way that benefits others, they feel more favorably toward the people they helped (Leippe et al., 1994)  Cooperation lowers barriers between groups by changing our tendency to categorize the out-group from “those people” to “us people” This results from empathy—the ability to experience what your group member is experiencing

29. The End