Chapter 11 - Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination Flashcards
Is it possible for people to be prejudiced without being aware of it? How have researchers addressed this question, and what evidence have they found?
Research suggests that it is indeed possible for people to be prejudiced without necessarily being aware of it. Implicit measures, such as the implicit association test (IAT), can reveal subtle, nonconscious prejudice even among those who sincerely believe they are not prejudiced. In research described in this chapter, participants whose IAT scores showed implicit prejudice toward African-Americans were more likely to show activation in a brain area associated with fear when they viewed African-American faces, but they were not more likely to report prejudiced beliefs on the Modern Racism Scale. These results suggest that people may hold attitudes they are either unable or unwilling to acknowledge.
Suppose every year, the male CEO of a small company always asks a female employee to take care of organizing the company’s holiday party. When one female employee asks the CEO why he always gives this task to women, he says that women are better party planners than men. Is this an example of sexism? Why or why not? What adverse effects might the CEO’s positive stereotype regarding women’s party planning ability have on the female employees?
The CEO’s characterization of women as skilled party planners is an example of benevolent sexism, which refers to positive stereotypes of outgroup members that can nonetheless lead to discrimination and impede social progress. Although the CEO’s attitude toward women seems positive, it may also have negative components, such as the belief that women are not as effective as men in more important leadership roles. His attitude may also make his female employees feel they need to conform to traditional female gender roles in order to gain his approval. Another potential cost of the CEO’s behavior is that his female employees may have to devote valuable time, which they could be spending on other work, to tasks that are not part of their job description and not helpful for advancing their career.
Describe the Robbers Cave experiment, and outline three important points this study revealed about intergroup relations.
After intense screening, the researchers enrolled 22 average boys into their summer camp. The boys were split into two groups and spent the first phase of the study developing a strong group identity through participation in games and activities. In the second phase, the two groups were brought together for a camp competition. The winner of the competition would receive a desirable prize, while the loser would receive nothing. The researchers evaluated intergroup relations and found that hostility between the groups was rampant. Following this competition phase, the researchers brought the groups together under friendlier circumstances. Intergroup conflict did not dissipate. Subsequently, the researchers staged various camp “crises” the boys had to solve by working together. Cooperation, here induced by external demands, did mitigate the conflict between the groups.
This study contributed important insights to the economic perspective, specifically realistic group conflict theory. Three important points from this study include the following:
- Competition over resources fosters intergroup conflict. During the competition phase, the boys fought over material resources: a medal, along with a highly coveted pocketknife. Here, hostility abounded, involving name-calling, food fights, cabin raids, and challenges to fight.
- Defusing intergroup conflict cannot be accomplished through contact alone. During the third phase, the boys were brought together under noncompetitive circumstances, but name-calling and fighting persisted.
- Emphasizing superordinate goals relevant to both groups is necessary for contact to mitigate intergroup conflict. Once the boys worked together to solve the camp crises, including fixing a broken water pipe and pulling a broken-down supply truck with a rope, hostility dissolved and friendships developed among the group members.
Imagine that a conversation about race relations in the United States develops during a family dinner. One of your relatives argues that given how ubiquitous stereotypes are, prejudice and discrimination are inevitable. Using research from the cognitive perspective, and controlled and automatic processing in particular, how would you respond to this assertion? Are prejudice and discrimination inevitable? Under which conditions are they more likely to emerge?
As your relative argues, research finds that even nonprejudiced people are aware of cultural stereotypes. Moreover, these stereotypes are likely to be activated automatically, quickly, and reflexively. Research described in this chapter found that participants who were primed (outside of their conscious awareness) with words related to an African-American stereotype were more likely to perceive a target’s behavior as hostile in a subsequent task. This automatic stereotyping effect was found even among people who were nonprejudiced, as measured with the Modern Racism Scale. These results, however, do not suggest that prejudice and discrimination are inevitable under all circumstances. If people are motivated and have cognitive resources available, they can still engage in controlled processing to regulate these automatic tendencies. In a subsequent study, participants described characteristics of African-Americans. This task involved controlled processing. Participants had the time and energy to respond as they saw fit. Even though all participants were aware of negative African-American stereotypes (as demonstrated in the first study), nonprejudiced participants listed fewer negative characteristics than prejudiced participants. Collectively, these results suggest that although nonprejudiced people are aware of stereotypes, when controlled processing is possible they will take care not to use them; under such circumstances, prejudice and discrimination are not inevitable, contrary to your relative’s argument.
Suppose a woman named Taylor was applying for a job at an accounting firm, and applicants had to complete a math test as part of the onsite interview process. If Taylor met her older male interviewer just prior to taking the math test and he (inappropriately) exclaimed, “You’re Taylor? I was expecting, well, a man . . .,” what impact might that have on Taylor’s test performance, interview performance, and eventual likelihood of getting the job?
Taylor will likely experience stereotype threat during her math test, meaning she will become concerned that she will fulfill the stereotype that women are bad at math, and this concern will ultimately detract from her performance on the test, thus fulfilling the stereotype after all. She may also struggle during the interview if she believes that her interviewer is biased against her or if her interviewer is in fact biased against her, treating her differently than he would treat male applicants for the job. This may result in a self-fulfilling prophecy, wherein Taylor and/or her interviewer expects her to do poorly, causing her to do poorly and costing her the job.
Suppose you are a social psychologist and have been hired to help reduce prejudice and discrimination among students of different races, classes, cultures, and sexual orientations in a school system. What might you suggest in addressing this concern?
According to the contact hypothesis, bringing together students of different backgrounds is an important first step in reducing prejudice and discrimination. However, research suggests that simple contact between groups is not enough. For example, participants in the Robbers Cave experiment continued to display intergroup hostility after the competition phase, when the groups were brought together under friendlier circumstances. Additional conditions must be met for contact to work. Members of each group must have equal status. Teachers and administrators must not favor one group over another in the classroom or other institutional programs. Moreover, parents, teachers, and community members must support the contact and not endorse it begrudgingly. As the Robbers Cave experiment showed, superordinate goals that prompt cooperation between groups helps to reduce intergroup hostility and catalyzes the development of friendships. You may recommend that teachers institute a jigsaw classroom, in which students from different backgrounds are responsible for different parts of an assignment and must therefore work together to complete the assignment. In addition, one-on-one interactions help people to see others as more than just outgroup members. Assigning students from different backgrounds to work in pairs in the classroom or during other school activities could foster this kind of individualized contact.
stereotype
A belief that certain attributes are characteristic of members of a particular group.
prejudice
An attitude or affective response (positive or negative) toward a group and its individual members.
discrimination
Favorable or unfavorable treatment of individuals based on their membership in a particular group.
modern racism
Prejudice directed at racial groups that exists alongside the rejection of explicitly racist beliefs.
implicit association test (IAT)
A technique for revealing nonconscious attitudes toward different stimuli, particularly groups of people.
priming
The presentation of information designed to activate a concept (such as a stereotype) and hence make it accessible. A prime is the stimulus presented to activate the concept in question.
affect misattribution procedure (AMP)
A priming procedure designed to assess people’s implicit associations to different stimuli, including their associations to various ethnic, racial, occupational, and lifestyle groups.
realistic group conflict theory
A theory that group conflict, prejudice, and discrimination are likely to arise over competition between groups for limited resources.
ethnocentrism
Glorifying one’s own group while vilifying other groups.
