1. Prejudice and Racism Dr. Steve Hays Spring 2014
From:
Notes: Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup conflict takes many forms, but the simple experiment by the Sherifs and their colleagues offers an oddly compelling overview of the causes, consequences, and resolutions of conflict.
Why not visit Robbers Cave? Robbers Cave State Park!
1. Subjects: normal, well-adjusted boys of the same age, educational level, from similar sociocultural backgrounds and with no unusual features in their personal backgrounds. All paid a small fee to enroll in a summer camp held at Robbers Cave State Park.
2. Group formation: Children came to camp in two separate groups (the Rattlers and the Eagles) and remained apart for one week while they camped, hiked, swam, and played sports. Leaders and group structure emerged during this time.
3. Ingroup/outgroup rivalry: Occurred spontaneously when each group realized it was sharing the camp facilities with another group (those guys, they, and outsiders). Spurred on by the Sherif's who set up a competitive tournament.
4. During the tournament conflict escalated: cool rejection verbal insults and name calling physical violence. The staff had to intervene to prevent the boys from seriously injuring one another.
SOURCES OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT
Psychological Sources of Prejudice
1.Intergroup conflict as ego-defense: boys who felt threatened and uncertain about their own worth could defend their ego by rejecting the outgroup: Am I any good? I'm better than an Eagle.
2.Scapegoating: blame frustrations, setbacks on others
Losing a contest was frustrating for the boys, and they vented their hostility by attacking other group
In scapegoating, the group attacked is usually not the cause of the frustration (an Eagle could have turned on a weaker Eagle with, say, a different ethnic background)
Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
We are categorizers: we segment people up into groups (us and them) and then differentially evaluate the members of these two groups
1.Ingroup-outgroup bias: we favor our own group, its members, and products and derogate the outgroup, its members, and its products.
At the Robbers Cave ingroup favoritism went hand in hand with outgroup rejection. When asked to name their friends, Eagles picked Eagles and Rattlers picked Rattlers.
When the boys described members of their own group and members of the other group using such adjectives as "brave," "friendly," and "sneaky," the boys tended to use the more negative characteristics to describe the outgroup, but rated their own group more favorably.
2.Outgroup homogeneity bias: we assume individuals in other groups all possess similar qualities and characteristics.
The Rattlers thought Eagles were all cut from the same clothþall cheaters, liars, etc; "They all look alike".
3.Ingroup differentiation bias: we assume our group is complex and diverse
Eagles thought each Eagle had unique, distinctive qualities that set him apart from the others
4.Extremity bias: we make more extreme judgments about people in other groups
Eagles thought they were teasing and making fun of the Rattlers, but they thought the Rattlers were abusive, cheating, and dangerous
5.Law of small numbers: we base judgments about another group based on observations of a small number of individuals from that group
If one Eagle made a negative remark, the Rattlers assumed that all the Eagles were abusive
"You seen one, you seen them all."
6.Group attribution error: we base judgments about individuals on the general characteristics of the whole group
Only a small segment of the Eagles attacked the Rattlers, but the Rattlers held the entire Eagle group responsible, calling them all cheats.
7.Stereotypes: we rely on cognitive generalizations about the qualities and characteristics of the members of a particular group or social category. They tend to be
negative rather than positive
rigidly held and not changeable
perceptually self-fulfilling: Allport and Postman (1947) showed whites ambiguous pictures of blacks and whites interacting. Prejudiced individual's stories about the pictures often suggested that the whites and blacks were arguing or fighting with one another, and they usually blamed the black for starting the dispute;
behaviorally self-fulfilling: people are treated differently and they respond in ways that are consistent with the way they are treated
Interpersonal Sources of Prejudice
1.Social learning: The leaders of each group expressed hostile, negative opinions of the other group, and soon the others copied this hostility.
Racism and prejudice are taught, rather than caught.
2.Social norms and prejudice: one group had a norm that prohibited profanity, but not a norm that prohibited aggression against the other group.
Racism and prejudice are still "ordinary, normal" behaviors, whereas acceptance of others is unexpected, standard-violating
3. Reciprocity of Contentious Influence Strategies
Hatfield/McCoy feud, for example, began with the theft of some hogs by Floyd Hatfield (Rice, 1978).
verbal abuse
avoidance
discrimination
physical assault
Intergroup Sources of Prejudice
1.Competition between groups for resources.
On the ninth day of the Robbers Cave Experiment the Rattlers and the Eagles saw the tournament-prize exhibit for the first time: the shining trophy, medals for each boy, andþbest of allþfour-bladed camping knives.
Realistic conflict theory maintains that intergroup conflict is caused by competition among groups over limited resources.
Insko and his colleagues find that groups are more influenced by competition than individuals.
Individual PDG: 6.6% competitive
Triads, but no interaction: 7.5%
Triads, interaction: 36.2%
Triads, representatives: 53.5%
2.Social identity
Once the groups solidified, there was a tendency for the boys to view all non-group members with suspicion and hostility.
Tajfel's studies using the minimal group situation.
Even in minimal group situation, evidence of bias
Social identity theory suggests that we ridicule members of other groups to raise the value of our own groups, and, thereby, raise our own value.
3. Deindividuation
4.Sociobiology: May be genetically ready to reject members of other groups
CHANGES CAUSED BY CONFLICT
A. INDIVIDUAL LEVEL CHANGES
1. Ingroup-Outgroup Bias: ethnocentrism
a tendency to favor our own group, its members, and products,
a tendency to derogate the outgroup, its members, and its products
seen in attraction ratings, ratings of products, etc.
2. Stereotypic thinking When we see people through eyes clouded by stereotypes, we look upon diversity and see uniformity, we jump to simple conclusions when the facts require complexity, and we make extreme judgments when uncertainty is the only rational alternative.
simplified, ingroup tends to be complex and extremely differentiated, our outgroup stereotype is often simplistic and nonspecific.
outgroup stereotypes are too extreme; judgments about outgroup members are often polarized, whereas our appraisals of our fellow group members are more guarded.
outgroup-homogeneity bias: the tendency for people to assume that the outgroup is much more homogeneous than the ingroup
law of small numbers, variability bias
confirmatory biases, memory distortions, self-fullfilling prophecy
3. White's mirror-image thinking
The diabolical-enemy image.
moral group image.
virile group image
all mirror images
Biases and Misconceptions ____________________________________________________________ Bias Conception of Conception of Outgroup Ingroup Ingroup-Outgroup Bias Negative Positive Extremity Extreme Moderate, unpolarized Complexity Simple Complex Homogenity Homogeneous Heterogeneous Law of small Can Cannot #s generalize generalize Confirmatory bias Remember Remember negatives positive Diabolical enemy Enemy, evil Good, defensive Moral group image Morally wrong Morally right Virile group image Weak Strong _______________________________________________________________ 3. Differentiation: clearer boundaries between groups, groups seem to become more and more diffeerent from each other, uniqueness, distinctions stressed
4. Tension building, arousal: Contagion of emotion
5. Commitment and reactance, entrapment,
6. Reciprocity, rough & exact exchange, under/overmatching
7. Cohesion: intergroup conflict tend to go hand-in-hand with increases in intragroup cohesion
INTERGROUP CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Peaceful Co-existence Through Benign Contact
1.The contact hypothesis assumes that frequent contact between groups reduces conflict between those groups: basis of student exchange programs, Olympics, desegregated schools, etc.
2.The Sherifs brought the boys together in pleasant contact situations: watching films, lighting fireworks, eating
3.Failed: During all these events the lines between the two groups never broke, and antilocution, discrimination, and physical assault continued unabated. When contact situations occurred during meals, food fights were particularly prevalent.
Cooperation
1.The superordinate goals hypothesis: situations that encourage groups to work together to achieve a common goal can reduce conflict between these groups. Basis of science-fiction movies in which all wars stop when others invade us.
2.The Sherifs used this method in an earlier study by having the groups band together in competition against a third group. Worked to some extent, but merely enlarged the conflict.
3.At the Robbers cave they created a series of emergencies that could only be handled by the groups working together.
How Does Cooperation Work?
1.Removes the competitive element from the intergroup situation. (If cooperative venture fails, problems will arise).
2.Inhibits categorization: breaks down the cognitive processes that create us and them categories. All part of a group.
3.Changes stereotyping from an automatic process to a controlled process: Stereotypes appear to be automatically activated, but unprejudiced people can inhibit the impact of stereotypic beliefs so that they do not influence their subsequent judgments and evaluations.
Did It Work?
1.After six days of cooperation the original tensions between the groups were fairly well wiped out. When it came time to return to Oklahoma City, several of the group members asked if everyone could go in the same bus: When they asked if this might be done and received an affirmative answer from the staff, some of them actually cheered. When the bus pulled out, the seating arrangement did not follow group lines. Many boys looked back at the camp, and Wilson (Eagle) cried because camp was over [Sherif et al., p. 182].
2.Through the power of superordinate goals the Robbers Cave experiment had a happy ending.
General Conclusions: How Can We Eliminate Prejudice
1.Remove the factors that promote prejudice
Psychological Sources: therapy?
Cognitive Sources: undo categorization, violate stereotypes at every turn
Interpersonal Sources: schools, media, parents can teach equality, not hatred
Intergroup Sources: minimize competition between groups; break up groups (homogenize society)
2.Augment the factors that promote intergroup cooperation
Cooperative settings are needed rather than mere contact
educate people about the value of multiculuralism

2. What is the difference between:
Race?
Ethnicity?
Minority Group?

3. Race
Different characteristics are physical, innate, and biologically inherited
Classifications are socially defined

4. Ethnic Group Different characteristics are cultural
Language, food, values, religion, art, music, etc.

5. Minority Group
Disadvantaged: Members excluded from full participation in society
Held in low esteem: Socially isolated
Membership is involuntary, ascribed
Self-conscious: See themselves as set apart

6. A Sociological View of Intergroup Relations
Amalgamation
Melting pot; new cultural/genetic blend

7. A Sociological View of Intergroup Relations
Assimilation
Racial and ethnic minorities absorbed into the culture; differences disappear

8. A Sociological View of Intergroup Relations
Pluralism
Racial and ethnic groups maintain distinct identity; participate jointly in politics and economy

9. A Sociological View of Intergroup Relations
Exploitation
Racial and ethnic differences used to rationalize exploitation

10. A Sociological View of Intergroup Relations
Ethnic Conflict
Ethnocentrism combined with struggle for resources

11. We categorize others In-Group Out-Group
Social group to which a person belongs (“us”)
We care about others’ welfare, cooperate with
We feel we are alike
Out-Group
Social group to which a person does not belong (“them”)
We don’t care about group members’ welfare
We feel we are very different

12. Categorization Assimilation Contrast
Differences within a category are minimized
Contrast
Differences between categories are exaggerated
Robert Goldstone (1995) even found an assimilation effect in color perception. In this study, students were shown a random series of letters and numbers that ranged in color from very red to very violet. Results showed that even when a letter and number had exactly the same hue, students rated the letter as being similar in color to other letters, and the number as being similar in color to other numbers (e.g., in the diagram below, they saw the "L" as redder than the identically-colored "8").

13. Prejudice
Positive or negative attitude towards individuals based on their membership in a particular social group
Prejudgment

14. Prejudice is an Attitude
Affect
Emotions

15. Prejudice is an Attitude
Affect
Behavioral Tendencies
Inclination to act according to prejudice
Discrimination: Positive or negative behavior directed toward the persons or groups who are targets of prejudice

16. Institutional Discrimination
Systematic discrimination against a group of people (includes racism, sexism)
Not necessarily the result of prejudice!

17. Institutional Discrimination
Children of alumni receive preference for admission into some private colleges.
Employees of a particular university are allowed free tuition, as are their spouses.
A public hearing is held on the third floor of building without elevators.
A fire department requires that applicants for the position of firefighter be 5'8" or taller.
From
Contributed by Susan Goldstein, University of Redlands
Institutional Discrimination Exercise
As a group, discuss each of the following situations and determine:
which policies listed are forms of institutional discrimination, that is SYSTEMATIC discrimination against a particular group of people,
against what group(s), if any, does the policy discriminate,
what is the purpose of each of the policies below,
if the purpose is a valid one, how else might it be achieved.
1. Children of alumni receive preference for admission into some private colleges.
2. Persons accused of a crime who cannot post bail are imprisoned and thus appear in court dressed in prison uniform, often in handcuffs.
3. An employment agency advertises for an "All-American type" to fill a public relations position.
4. Employees of a particular university are allowed free tuition, as are their spouses.
5. A corporation decides to fill an opening "in-house" rather than advertise.
6. A teacher requires an oral presentation as part of the final grade.
7. A public hearing is held on the third floor of building without elevators.
8. A Caucasian actor is chosen to play the part of an Asian man.
9. The YWCA/YMCA offers a reduced family membership rate.
10. A fire department requires that applicants for the position of firefighter be 5'8" or taller.

18. Prejudice is an Attitude
Affect
Behavioral Tendencies
Cognition
Thoughts and beliefs
Stereotypes: A cognitive framework that generalizes certain characteristics to all members of a specific social group

19. Stereotypes Often work as mental shortcuts Stereotype threat:
Implicit stereotyping can ‘prime’ relevant behavior and attitudes (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996)
Media stereotypes: Cumulative effect over time
Stereotype threat:
Anxiety that behavior might confirm a negative stereotype; hampers performance
(From Understandingprejudice.org)
Priming: college students are exposed to stereotypic words and images relating to old age, they later walk more slowly and perform more slowly on a word recognition task (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Kawakami, Young, & Dovidio, 2002)
n addition to the effects of priming, people who are stereotyped face a second burden: the threat that their behavior will confirm a negative stereotype. Claude Steele and his colleagues have shown that this burden, known as "stereotype threat," can create anxiety and hamper performance on a variety of tasks (Steele, 1997). For example, female math students taking a difficult test show a drop in performance when told that the test reveals gender differences in math ability (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). An especially interesting study along these lines found that when Asian women were made aware of their ethnicity, their math performance improved (in keeping with the stereotype of Asians as good at math), but when they were made aware of their gender, their math performance declined (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). And the same pattern occurred with young children: When Asian girls were made aware of their ethnicity (by coloring a picture of Asian children eating with chopsticks), their math performance improved, but when they were made aware of their gender (by coloring a picture of a girl with a doll), their math performance declined (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001).
(media stereotypes)

20. Racial Prejudice
Overt racial prejudice and discrimination are have declined significantly in the last 60 years
Subtle prejudice: Non-obvious, arises when it’s ‘safe’ to express

21. Racial Prejudice
Study: Applying stereotyping and prejudice to an ambiguous behavior
Participants observe a videotape of a man lightly shoving another man during conversation
White man
Black man
13%
Black man
White man
73%

22. Gender Prejudice Stereotypes of men and women
Overt gender bias has been declining
Subtle gender bias still exists
On the board the instructor will write a table with two columns. One column will say "Girls are . . ." and the other column will say "Boys are . . ." Think of the stereotypical gender characteristics related to girls and boys and share it with the class. The instructor will write what the class shares on the board. The instructor will collect responses in a round robin fashion where you can only contribute one idea at a time. From the characteristics that are written on the board, the instructor will facilitate a discussion on: (1) if there are any characteristics that are shared among genders, (2) if there are any characteristics that are direct opposites, and (3) how students suspect the gender-related stereotypical characteristics developed.

23. Where does prejudice come from?
Social Sources
Emotional Sources
Cognitive Sources

24. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Study 1:
Do Whites treat African Americans and Whites differently?
Participants interviewed a confederate for a job
Confederate: African American or White

25. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Results: Study 1
Interview length: AA < W
Distance: AA > W
Eye contact: AA < W
Speech dysfluencies: AA > W

26. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Study 2
Does differential treatment influence behavior?
Confederates interviewed participant for job
Treated participant like African Americans or Whites were treated in Study 1

27. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
Self-fulfilling prophecy
Results Study 2:
Participants treated like African Americans performed worse than participants treated like Whites

28. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
In-Group Bias
Viewing our in-group positively helps us feel good about ourselves
Natural tendency to view out-group negatively

29. Social Sources of Prejudice
Social inequalities
In-Group Bias
Institutional Supports
Reflect a culture’s assumptions
Reinforce culture’s attitudes and stereotypes

30. Emotional Sources of Prejudice
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Frustration brings out hostility
When cause of frustration is vague, hostility can be redirected
Competing for resources brings out frustration and hostility
Scapegoating: Group blamed for problems

31. Emotional Sources of Prejudice

32. Emotional Sources of Prejudice
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Authoritarian Personality Theory
Authoritarian submission
A high degree of submission to authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate
Authoritarian aggression
A general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.
Conventionalism
A high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.

33. Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
Categorization
In-Groups and Out-Groups
The Minimal Group Paradigm
Out-Group Homogeneity Effect
Members of an out-group perceived as similar

34. Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
Categorization
Distinctiveness
Distinctive occurrences, vivid examples are easily remembered

35. Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
Categorization
Distinctiveness
Attribution
Fundamental Attribution Error and Group-Serving Bias
Just-World Phenomenon

36. Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study

37. Can prejudice be reduced?
Contact Hypothesis
What kind of intergroup contact would increase prejudice? Decrease prejudice?
Cooperative contact
Jigsaw classroom
Formal education
Selective perception
Diversity training