Lecture 19: Reducing Discrimination l Flashcards
when does intergroup contact work?
- support of authorities
- equal status
- common goals
- cooperation
- contact as individuals
social identity theory
- We strive to achieve & maintain a positive social identity
- We strive to distinguish our own social groups from other social groups
how does social categorization affect prejudice
social categorization precedes prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination
individuation
Perceiving the person as a unique individual individual rather than a group member
recategorization
Changing the basis by which you socially categorize someone
2 methods of recategorization
- focusing on a different social category
- focusing on a common ingroup identity
Mitchell et al., 2003 Black athletes IAT study
had participants complete a Black vs. white or athlete vs. politicians IAT about admired Black athletes and disliked white politicians. In the race IAT, there was a same-race effect. However, in the occupation condition, there wasn’t a racial prejudice effect
example of a common ingroup identity
both being part of the same company
Kunst et al., 2014 Christian and Muslim volunteers study
perceived ingroup commonality between Christian and Muslim volunteers was correlated with lower prejudice & stereotypes
Broockman & Kalla canvasser study
had canvassers go door to door and ask people about their experiences with unfair treatment. They then asked people about their support for transgender people at different time intervals following the treatment and found greater support, particularly immediately after the intervention
analogic perspective-taking
asking someone to recall an experience from their own lives and then sharing one’s own experience
social categorization paradox
For an individual to effectively change stereotypes about their group, they have to:
- Be atypical
- Be perceived as typical of their group
applications of the social categorization paradox
This paradox can also apply to how members of stigmatized groups understand role models
role models study method
had undergraduate women read profiles of women in leadership positions. After reading profiles, students took a survey about their accomplishments, life goals, and personal characteristics. They were assigned two conditions and then took a self-leadership IAT
two conditions of the role models study
- Similar and attainable condition: told participants they were similar to these women leaders and they had the potential to attain these positions
- Dissimilar and unattainable condition: told participants they were dissimilar to these women leaders and they didn’t have the potential to attain these positions
role models study findings
- People in the low similarity condition had higher self-stereotyping IAT scores
- People in the high similarity condition had lower self-stereotyping IAT scores
role models follow-up research
higher perceived similarity with counter-stereotypic role models & greater aspirations to follow in their footsteps
history of thinking about changing the implicit bias
1985-2001: stable & rigid
2001-present: malleable & flexible
4 main implicit bias intervention categories
- counter-stereotypes
- controlling bias
- values
- perspective-taking
counter-stereotypes
showing people positive depictions of marginalized groups
controlling bias
reminding people of the importance to not be biased
values
reminding people of their values toward multiculturalism
perspective-taking
have people take the perspective of a BLack person
what implicit bias intervention categories are effective immediately after the intervention?
- Counterstereotypes and strategies to control bias are effective in reducing implicit prejudice
- Reflecting on values and perspective-taking are not effective in reducing implicit prejudice
what implicit bias interventions are most effective immediately after the intervention?
- Emotional
- Self-relevant
- Targeted ingroup favouritism and outgroup hatred
how durable are intervention effects for changing implicit bias?
After 24 hours, these effects were no longer present
are implicit biases durable or malleable?
Implicit biases are malleable in the short-term and stable in the long-term
what strategies produced a long-term change in implicit bias?
- intergroup contact
- conditioning
Lai, Axt, et al. implicit bias interventions metaanalysis
Meta-analysis of 492 studies looking at the effectiveness of various interventions to change biases in implicit associations found that interventions did not produce significant indirect effects. This is not consistent with a causal relationship between change in implicit measures and changes in behaviour
alternative approach to discrimination
Treat discrimination as a design problem rather than an attitude/belief problem
when is discrimination likely to happen?
Information is unclear or complex
Decision-making criteria are subjective
cultural fit
candidates being accepted or rejected because they “don’t fit in”
ways to reduce cultural fit
- Align your definition of cultural fit with your goals
- Ask structured interview questions
- Create a checklist for indicators of fit
- Put constraints on how much fit matters
how to prevent ambiguity and subjectivity in decision-making
- Pre-commit to decision-making criteria
- Remove irrelevant group-based information
downside 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 groups leads to
Reduced identification with disadvantaged ingroup
Perception that the advantaged outgroup is fair
Perception that the status quo is legitimate
Deep canvassing is most related to _____
positive intergroup contact
