19 and 20 - Reducing Discrimination Flashcards
1- Intergroup contact
Refresher: When Contact Works
- Support of authorities: Authorities support friendly and egalitarian contact and
interactions between groups. - Equal status: Members of groups have similar social status within a situation
- Common goals: Groups have shared objectives.
- Cooperation: Groups work together to attain a common goal.
- Contact as individuals Opportunities to know outgroup members as individuals.
2- Social Categorization
Review of Social Identity Theory
Basic Principles:
* We strive to achieve & maintain a positive social identity
* We strive to distinguish our own social groups from other social groups
How could we use social identity to reduce prejudice?
Social categorization precedes prejudice, stereotyping & discrimination
Key Idea: Change how we categorize, and intergroup biases will follow.
- Individuation: Perceiving the person as a unique individual rather than as a group member
- Recategorization: Changing the basis by which you socially categorize someone
* Focusing on a different social category
Admired Black Athletes & Disliked White Politicians IAT (Mitchell et al., 2003)
* Focus on a common ingroup identity
Ingroup vs. Outgroup
“I’m Black and you’re Asian”
Common Ingroup Identity
“We’re both part of this company”
Study:
Anti-Muslim Prejudice Study
o Christian and Muslim volunteers
o Measure perceived common ingroup
* “Christianity and Islam have common roots”
o Measure stereotypes & prejudice of other group
o Results: perceiving commonality correlated with…
* Lower prejudice
* Lower stereotypes
Other study:
trying to reduce transphobia by talking about time were just negatively for being different
Social Categorization ‘Paradox’
For an individual to effectively change stereotypes about their
group, they have to:
1. Be atypical
2. Be perceived as typical of their group
* This paradox can also apply to how members of stigmatized groups understand role models
(Ex: Ellen Degeneres… well liked tv personality (atypical of stereotype), but still representative of lesbians, not unrealistic (typical))
Role Models Study
* Sample = undergrad women
* Read profiles of women in leadership positions
* After reading profile, students took a survey about their accomplishments, life goals, and personal characteristics
* Then, they got “feedback”.
Similar and Attainable Condition
vs.
Dissimilar and Unattainable Condition
Results: Higher
perceived similarity with
countersterotypical role models = Greater aspirations to follow in their footsteps
3- Reducing implicit prejudice
History of Thinking About Changing ‘Implicit Bias’:
1985-2001: stable and rigid
2001-now: flexible and malleable
What are the most effective approaches for changing implicit bias?
* Counterstereotypes (ex: think that you’re walking at night and a white man attacks you…then a black man saves you) & Strategies to Control Bias (implementation intentions… “if I see a black face I will think “good””) are
effective for reducing implicit prejudice
* Reflecting on Values (ex: reflect on multiculturalism and its importance) and Perspective-Taking (ex: imagine you are this black person graduating from law school…how are you feeling?) are not effective for reducing implicit prejudice
*Interventions that were most effective were:
* Emotional
* Self-relevant
* Targeted INGROUP favoritism & OUTGROUP hatred
But how durable are
intervention effects
for changing implicit bias?
Tested after 24 hour delay
Malleable in the short-term,
Stable in the long-term
Long-term changes in implicit bias:
Intergroup contact
Conditioning
Short-Term Changes in Implicit Bias
Forscher, Lai, Axt, et al., 2019
Do changes in implicit associations mediate changes in behavior?
In the aggregate, procedures did not produce significant indirect effects… These
mediation results are not consistent with a causal relationship between change in implicit measures and changes in behavior. (NO)
4- Discrimination as a design problem
An alternative approach: Treat discrimination as a design problem rather than an attitude/belief problem
When Discrimination is Likely to Happen:
Information is unclear or complex
Decision-making criteria are subjective
Ex of male vs female police officer
How to Prevent It:
Pre-commit to decision-making criteria
Remove irrelevant group-based info
Solution: Write out the values that are important for being a police chief in advance
-Ambiguity and Subjectivity: “Brilliance Bias”
Beware of “cultural fit”
1. Align your definition of “cultural fit” with your goals
2. Ask structured interview questions
3. Create a checklist for indicators of fit
4. Put constraints on how much fit matters
5- Downsides of prejudice reduction
For disadvantaged group members, reducing prejudice toward the advantaged outgroup through intergroup contact can reduce support for collective action to address inequalities.
Positive contact with advantaged outgroup leads to…
1. Reduced identification with disadvantaged ingroup (Wright & Lubensky, 2009)
2. Perception that advantaged outgroup as fair (Dixon et al., 2010)
3. Perception that the status quo is legitimate (Saguy & Chernyak-Hai, 2012)
6- Discrimination as a design problem:
Overconfidence
We are overconfident in our objectivity
The ‘Bias Blindspot’
“To what extent do you
think that you show
this tendency?”
“To what extent do you
think that the average
American shows this
tendency?”
Out of 661 Americans, 97 thought they were average, 563 thought they were less biased, and none thought they were more biased!
A Possible Solution: ‘Self-Auditing’
Example: Hiring
* Who sees our advertising?
* Who applies to the job?
* Who gets past the first cut?
* Who gets an interview?
* Who gets an offer?
* Who accepts the offer?
* …Who stays?
Possible Solutions to Overconfidence:
-Self-audit your practices
-Create practices to circumvent your biases
7- Discrimination as a design problem:
‘Noise’ and Discrimination
In many contexts, discrimination can arise not
solely from ‘bias’ but also from more general inaccuracy in judgment or evaluation.
SQUARES THING! REWATCH LECTURE THAT EXPLAINS
60% of hires are men, 40% are women
Intervention I: Reducing
gender-based favoritism:
52% of hires are men, 48% are women (see squares thing!!)
Intervention II: Increasing
evaluation accuracy
52% of hires are men, 48% are women (see squares!!)
Many prominent methods for reducing discrimination try to reduce bias in
judgment or evaluation (i.e., degree to which one group is favored).
Discrimination can also be reduced by reducing noise (i.e., the total number of
errors made in evaluation).
Axt and Lai (2019) found that different interventions impact bias and noise
differently. Using a decision-making task that produced discrimination based on
physical attractiveness, forcing participants to slow down reduced noise but not
bias, whereas warning participants to avoid using physical attractiveness reduced bias but not noise.
8- Applied Efforts on Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination:
Life after Genocide
Life after Genocide
Design: Communities randomly assigned to reconciliation-focused soap
opera or control soap opera about health
o Radio often listened to in group within communities
Reconciliation Soap Opera (New Dawn):
* Featured typical Rwandans as protagonists
* Roots of prejudice & violence were located
in frustration of basic psychological needs
* Trauma is normal and can be healed
Results:
* Did not change personal beliefs about prejudice & violence
* Changed perceived norms about how people do and should behave in situations related to prejudice, conflict, & trauma
* Increased empathy for genocide survivors
* More likely to share radio batteries at the end of the study
9- Applied Efforts on Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination:
‘Paradoxical Thinking’
One of the more recent approaches to reducing prejudice and discrimination has come from a line of reasoning called ‘paradoxical thinking’.
Drawing from research in clinical psychology, the designers of this new strategy argue that “individuals who are provided with extreme information or instructions
that are in line with their held beliefs or attitudes may change them even when
they are extremely negative and well-entrenched.”
Paradoxical thinking involves trying to change attitudes by presenting new information that is consistent with one’s beliefs, but is so extreme that it leads someone to paradoxically perceive their own beliefs as irrational.
One study investigated the attitudes and beliefs of 161 Israeli Jews over the course
of one election year.
The ‘paradoxical thinking’ intervention involved watching clips that each made an argument for why it is essential to have a sustained conflict with Palestinans.
For example, one clip argued that “we need conflict with the Palestinians in order
to have the strongest army in the world”, while another conveyed the message that
“in order to feel moral, we need the conflict.”
Results:
Participants in the ‘paradoxical thinking’
intervention were more supportive of a policy that
evacuated Israeli settlements as a means of achieving peace with Palestinians.
Participants in the ’paradoxical thinking’ condition were also more likely to vote in elections for
political candidates that had less “hawkish” or “proconflict” positions towards Palestinians.
Hameiri et al., (2017)42
Follow-up work suggests these ’paradoxical thinking’ interventions are effective because of their ability to evoke feelings of identity threat and surprise among participants.
10- Applied Efforts on Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination:
‘Hypocrisy Induction’
A similar approach was taken when attempting to reduce prejudice towards
Muslims in Spain.
In a ‘hypocrisy’ condition, participants read summaries of acts of mass violence
committed by White Europeans. They then answered a question about how responsible Europeans are for such acts.
They then completed the same measures but now about the 2015 Paris attacks
led by Muslim extremists.
This ‘hypocrisy’ intervention reduced collective blame towards Muslims immediately, one month later, and even one year later.
11- Applied Efforts on Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination:
Reducing Inequalities in Education
The Problem: Large and persistent gaps in academic achievement based on
demographic status
Causes:
o Structural causes e.g.,
* Unequal school funding
* Lack of access to opportunities
* Intergenerational transmission of social & cultural capital
o Psychological causes e.g.,
Stereotype Threat,
Disidentification from
Stereotyped Domains
Interventions that have shown to be effective for increasing achievement among
under-represented minorities & first-generation students:
* Academic value
* Growth mindset
* Social belonging
* Personal values
* Empathic discipline
- Academic Value Interventions
The intervention: Students reflect on why course topics are useful and important
for their own lives
Why it works: Increases intrinsic motivation to do well in the class
One study of ninth-grade science students sought to make connections between the course material and students’ everyday lives.
Students were randomly assigned within each classroom to either write about the usefulness
and utility value of the course material in their own lives (relevance condition, N = 136) or write a summary of the material they were studying (control condition, N = 126).
(see results graph) - Growth Mindset Intervention
The intervention: Teaching students that intelligence is malleable, not fixed.
Why it works: Increases motivation to try harder when faced with adversity
Another study of more than 6,000 high school students used a one-hour online training session seeking to instill a growth mindset… the belief that “the brain is like a muscle that grows stronger and smarter when it undergoes rigorous learning experiences.” In a pre-registered hypothesis, the researchers explored whether the intervention was
going to be particularly effective among low and middle-achieving adolescents. Among lower-achieving students, receiving the intervention led to an average increase of .10 points in a ninth-grade GPA.
The effect of the intervention was also higher among schools that had more supportive norms in terms of challenge-seeking, as measured by the percentage of students in that
school who chose to complete a more difficult (but educational) worksheet when given the opportunity - Social Belonging Intervention
The intervention: Students read testimonials about how more senior students
worried about whether they belong in college during the first year, but it gets
better over time.
Why it works: Reduces tendency to think “I don’t belong here” when faced with adversity.
One consistent concern among Black college students may be “belonging
uncertainty”, which could lead students to perceive common challenges in college, such as exclusion from a social outing or receiving critical academic feedback, as confirming that they do not belong. This perception can become self-fulfilling. A study looking to intervene on this process had college students that were a racial minority watch a video where older students from the same racial background
talked about their own transition to college. The goal was the represent challenging times in college as normal, and as “due to
the transition itself” rather than evidence of a permanent lack of belonging on the part of the self or one’s group.
Brady et al. (2020) tracked participants over time who had watched one of these
videos during their first year of college.
Results:
Despite just 8% of participants accurately remembering the video, being in the treatment condition still showed long-lasting effects. Specifically, Black participants reported greater satisfaction with their employment and greater overall well-being eight and a half years later. However, participants in the treatment condition did not show significant gains in more objective measures of employment “success”
(e.g., income).
Though not conclusive, one potential mechanism here is that the intervention helped facilitate the development of helpful mentoring relationships. - Personal Values Intervention
The intervention: Writing about personal values that one holds
Why it works: Affirms self-worth broadly, diminishing the impact of academic
adversity on self-worth
The most well-known study using this approach asked seventh-graders to “reflect on an important personal value, such as relationships with friends and family or musical interests.”
This writing practice is meant to reduce psychological stress and improve
self-worth. - Empathic Discipline
The intervention: Provide teachers with non-pejorative reasons for why students
may misbehave at school (e.g., changes in adolescence) and discouraged labeling
of students as ‘troublemakers’.
Why it works: Encourages teachers to view school discipline as an opportunity to develop mutual understanding and better relationships with students.
Empathic discipline adopts a different approach in that the target of the intervention are
teachers or administrators rather than students.
One field study assigned teachers to read an article supporting a “punitive mindset” or “empathic mindset” approach to discipline. The punitive mindset reminded teachers that “punishment is critical for teachers to take
control of the classroom”, whereas the empathic mindset article argued that “good teacher–student relationships are critical for students to learn self-control”
Results:
Middle-school teachers who were randomly assigned to undergo a similar empathic- mindset training showed a 50% reduction in suspensions given over the course of the following school year.
While all of these interventions adopt different
strategies, each argues that psychological change can
be achieved through recursive processes. (each step you take in x will feed into other steps)
