Lecture Outline Theories of Racism Stereotype Threat Positive prejudice

Old Fashioned Racism People are consciously aware of their prejudice, but may try to conceal it from others

Symbolic (Modern) Racism People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized l Prejudice comes out as the endorsement of conservative values l Not conscious of their prejudice

Symbolic (Modern) Racism The prejudice they feel vs. The egalitarian values they espouse

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Examined whether racial prejudice stems from:  conflict over scarce resources  belief that African Americans violate cherished values

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Mayoral elections in Los Angeles:  1969 and 1973 Candidates:  Samuel Yorty: White conservative  Thomas Bradley: African American liberal

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Election Results: 1969: Samuel Yorty won with 53% of vote 1973: Thomas Bradley won with 56% of vote

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Scarce Resources Prediction If racial prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, then... Whites who are in greater competition for resources with African Americans should be more prejudiced than those who are in less competition.

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Symbolic Racism Prediction If racial prejudice stems from symbolic racism, then..... The more strongly Whites believe that African Americans violate traditional values, the more prejudice they will show.

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) White residents of Los Angeles, CA 1969 (n = 198); 1973 (n = 239) Most lived in suburbs Homeowners 33% attended college Most were Protestant, others Catholic Nearly all were married Most had children Prejudice = Voting behavior Participants:

Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Competition over scarce resources: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning four domains of racial threat.....

Domains of Racial Threat 1. Interracial social contact Example Question How strongly would you object if a member of your family wanted to bring an African American friend home to dinner Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Domains of Racial Threat 2. Economic competition Example Question Have the economic gains of African Americans been about the same, much greater than, greater than, or less than yours over the past 5 years? Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Domains of Racial Threat 3. Racial Busing Example Question How likely is it that African American children will be bused into the elementary schools of this neighborhood? Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Domains of Racial Threat 4. Perception of violence committed by African Americans Example Question How likely is it that African Americans will bring violence to this neighborhood? Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Symbolic Racism: Measured via questionnaire responses spanning two domains of value systems...

Domains of Value Systems 1. Expressive Racism Example Question Do you think that most African Americans who receive money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried or do they really need the help? Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Domains of Value Systems 2. Opposition to racial busing Example Question Busing elementary school children to schools in other parts of the city only harms their education Mayor's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981)

Only symbolic racism significantly explained voting behavior

Mayor 's Race Study Kinder & Sears (1981) Symbolic (modern) racism disguised as endorsement of conservative values Enables symbolic racists to believe they are non- prejudiced, while still supporting political positions that favor Whites over African Americans

Aversive Racism People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized l Prejudice comes out in subtle behaviors that are not under people’s conscious control l Endorse liberal values l Not usually conscious of prejudice – suppress prejudice when it become conscious

l Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized l Not typically conscious of prejudice l Endorse liberal values l Strongly l Strongly believe racism is wrong Symbolic RacismAversive Racism l Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized l Not conscious of prejudice l Endorse conservative values l Believe racism is wrong

Symbolic and Aversive Racism Explicit Measures Implicit Measures Both exhibit low prejudice Both exhibit high prejudice Both theories can explain dissociation between explicit and implicit reports of prejudice

The belief that racism is wrong Racist values learned early Egalitarian values learned later Accessing egalitarian values requires cognitive resources People cannot access egalitarian values when completing implicit measures due to low cognitive resources Egalitarian Values

Symbolic/Aversive racists: l have internalized egalitarian values l access those values on explicit measures, and report low prejudice l cannot access those values on implicit measures, and exhibit high prejudice Egalitarian Values

Ambivalence-Amplification Theory People are ambivalent toward the stigmatized.  aversion and hostility  sympathy and compassion

Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that Ambivalence causes threat to self-esteem No matter how one feels, that feeling is in conflict with the other way one feels

Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that People try to reduce threats to self-esteem They justify or deny the way the feel at the moment, depending on the situation

Ambivalence-Amplification Theory Proposes that Behavior toward the stigmatized is very unstable 4. People are aware of their ambivalence

Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979) Examined how the situation sometimes leads people to justify and other times to deny their prejudice

Prediction: People will justify prejudice against a stigmatized other if the situation encourages that response Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979)

Procedure: 1. Male participants rated confederate on 20 item impression questionnaire  liking  warmth  conceit  intelligence  adjustment Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979)

Procedure: 2. Participant administered shock to confederate as feedback 3. Participant evaluated confederate 2nd time on impression questionnaire Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979)

Manipulations: 1. Confederate’s race: l African American l White 2. Shock level: (no shock actually given) l strong and painful l weak and not painful Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979)

Prediction Restated: People justify prejudice by denigrating stigmatized others. This makes those people seem unworthy and deserving of dislike. This means: Participants who gave “strong shocks” to the African American target should show greatest change in post- shock ratings (negative direction) Justify Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 1, 1979)

African American target White target Strong shock Mild Shock Strong shock Mild Shock Before Shock After Shock Change score Negative change = more negative impression after shock Positive change = more positive impression after shock As predicted, impression of African American confederate became most negative after strong shock

Deny Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 2, 1979) Prediction: People will deny prejudice against a stigmatized other if the situation encourages that response

1. Participant introduced to confederate 2. Participant required to insult confederate 3. Told confederate left before criticism was explained as part of the experiment 4. Participant believed experiment was over 5. Sent to office for $, where got letter from confederate..... Deny Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 2, 1979)

Doing an independent study project Needed one more participant to finish up Study was on repetition Experimental materials attached Materials asked participant to repetitively write the same sentence over and over The letter: Deny Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 2, 1979)

Manipulations: 1. Confederate race: l African American l White 2. Insult level: l Very hurtful l Not very hurtful

Prediction Restated: People will deny prejudice by going out of their way to help a stigmatized other whom they have harmed. This means: Participants who gave “hurtful insult” to the African American target should work the hardest in the repetitive experiment. Deny Prejudice Study Katz & Glass (Study 2, 1979)

African American target White target Hurtful Insult Not hurtful insult Values are the average number of times repetitive sentence was written in booklet. As predicted, participants wrote the sentence more often after having harmed the African American target.

Conclusion: People feel ambivalence toward stigmatized others People respond in extreme ways toward those whom they have harmed Sometimes behave positively, sometimes negatively depending on the situation Justify/Deny Prejudice Studies Katz & Glass (1979)

How Prejudice Affects Targets Stereotype Threat Consequences of positive prejudice

Stereotype Threat Premise: Stigmatized groups are aware of negative stereotypes This awareness produces “stereotype threat”

Stereotype Threat Definition: Fear that one will be viewed or treated in way consistent with stereotype, or that one will confirm the stereotype

Stereotype Threat Stereotype threat is situationally induced Arises when target realizes that negative stereotype can explain their behavior or attributes

Stereotype Threat Study Steele & Aronson (Study 1, 1995) Purpose: Test theory of stereotype threat with respect to African American students and intellectual ability

Stereotype Threat Study Steele & Aronson (Study 1, 1995) Valid measure intellectual ability Laboratory exercise AA < WAA = W

Stereotype Threat Study Steele & Aronson (Study 1, 1995) Participants:  African American  White Procedure:  Completed a 30 V-SAT items Manipulation:  Valid test  Invalid test (laboratory exercise) DV: number correct on test

Stereotype Threat Study Steele & Aronson (Study 1, 1995)

Purpose: Examined whether stigmatized targets distance themselves from a negative stereotype when stereotype threat is activated Distancing Study Steele & Aronson (Study 2, 1995)

Valid measure intellectual ability Laboratory exercise Show that negative stereotype does not apply to them

Participants:  African American  White Expected to complete V-SAT items Rated self-preferences:  music: jazz, rap music, classical  sports: baseball, basketball, boxing  traits: extroverted, aggressive, humorous Never actually took test Distancing Study Steele & Aronson (Study 2, 1995)

Manipulation:  Valid test  Invalid test (laboratory exercise) DV:  Extent to which participant rated self consistent with African American stereotype Distancing Study Steele & Aronson (Study 2, 1995)

Untended Consequences of Positive Prejudice Affirmative action designed to help minorities and underrepresented groups, but.... may undermine their self- views and job performance

Affirmative Action Designed to: “overcome the discriminating effect of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity” (EEOC, 1970)

Affirmative Action EEOC’s statement: Says that group membership should be explicitly taken into account in hiring decisions Unspoken assumption that non-discrimination not sufficient to counteract consequences of prejudice and inequality

Affirmative Action Study 1 Heilman, Simon, & Repper (1987) Purpose: Examine whether affirmative action damages the self-views of those who benefit from it

Prediction: Women who believe they are preferentially selected have less confidence in their ability than those who believe they are selected on merit Affirmative Action Study 1 Heilman et al. (1987)

Procedure: 1. Paired with opposite sex confederate 2. Task described; leader more important 3. Answered items assessing ability for leadership role 4. Manipulation occurred

Affirmative Action Study 1 Heilman et al. (1987) Manipulation Merit: l test scored l script read l participant selected on merit Preference: l test not scored l script read l participant selected on basis of gender

Affirmative Action Study 1 Heilman et al. (1987) Procedure continued: 5. Performed task 6. Rated self on: l task performance l leadership ability l desire to persist as leader in task 2

PerformanceLeadership ability Persist as leader Men: Merit Preference Women: Merit Preference Men: Selection basis did not influence men. Women: Selection basis did influence women. Lower perceived performance, and ability, and less desire to remain as leader when preferentially selected. No different from men in merit condition.

Purpose: Examine if preferential selection causes women to select easier tasks Affirmative Action Study 2 Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991) Confidence Job Performance

Affirmative Action Study 2 Heilman et al. (1991) Tasks:  Financial service manager  Subordinate Procedures:  Test assessed managerial skills Manipulation:  Merit or preference based selection

Affirmative Action Study 2 Heilman et al. (1991) Participants then indicated which of two tasks they would most like to do l Easy task l Difficult task

% Selecting Difficult Task % Selecting Easy Task Men: Merit Preference 87% 100% 13% 0% Women: Merit Preference 93% 47% 7% 53% Men: Chose difficult task more often regardless of selection basis Women: Selection did influence task choice. Women selected easy task more often when preferentially selected. No different from men in merit condition.

Affirmative Action Study 2 Heilman et al. (1987, 1991) Conclusion: Preferential selection reduces confidence Preferential selection causes people to select less challenging tasks at work

Affirmative Action: Good or Bad? Does Affirmative Action always have unintended negative consequences? No. When it is based on merit and group membership, many of the bad effects it creates disappear