Lectures Flashcards
intergroup relations
any aspect of human interaction that involves individuals perceiving themselves as members of a SOCIAL CATEGORY
or being perceived BY OTHERS as belonging to a social category
affect is connected to…
prejudice
cognition is connected to…
stereotype
behaviour is connected to…
discrimination
prejudice
affect
attitude (favour/disfavour) toward a group
broadly “good” or “bad”
stereotype
cognition
belief about a group of people
(can be accompanied by affect/emotional valence)
discrimination
behaviour
behaviours direct toward people on the basis of their group membership
2 dimensions of prejudice
- can be OVERT or HIDDEN
- can be POSITIVE or NEGATIVE
generalization is part of…
stereotypes
means extending beyond known group members
3 key aspects of stereotypes
- shared, cultural belief
- accuracy *
- inputs are often biased
- always overgeneralized - descriptive and prescriptive
- ‘they do this’, and ‘they should do this’
4 types of discrimination
- interpersonal
- organizational
- institutional
- cultural
examples of aspects of identity that may be subject to prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination
nationality
social class
racial/ethnic identity
gender
sexual orientation
religion
appearance
weight
disabilities
diseases
organizations you belong to
consumer preferences
social clique
4 levels at which intergroup relations operate
- systems and institutions
- groups and organizations
- interpersonal interactions
- individual minds
2 levels which psyc talks about the most
interpersonal interactions
individual minds
the 4 levels are “mutually constitutive”
not mutually exclusive
ie. legalization of gay marriage began with individual minds and then was reflected in systems of law
inequality within systems and institutions
laws that give diff opportunities/privileges to diff groups
at the institutional level
example of inequality within systems and institutions
DOMA
defence of marriage act: a US federal law passed by congress
defined marriage for federal purposes as the union of one MAN and one WOMAN
allowed states to REFUSE to recognize SAME-SEX marriages granted under the laws of other states
institutional discrimination
when norms, policies and practices associated with an institution result in different outcomes on the basis of a group distinction
example of institutional discrimination
different prison sentences for crack cocaine possession or powder cocaine
only 5 grams of crack cocaine = 5 years in prison
but 500 grams of powder cocaine is needed for equivalent sentence
and 82% of crack cocaine offenders are Black, while only 18% are White/Hispanic
organizational discrimination
when norms, policies and practices associated with an organization results in different outcomes on the basis of a group distinction
ie. banning dreadlocks at an elementary school
interpersonal discrimination
when one person treats another person differently on the basis of their group membership
ie. white versus black man attempting to steal a bicycle
4 components of individual minds
- personalities
- perceptions
- beliefs
- identity
cultural practices that reinforce inequality
inequality and discrimination can be embedded into regular cultural practices
bedspreads of princesses for little girls, and astronauts for little boys
t-shirt with “smart like daddy, sweet like mommy” written on it
lightening skin colour of people on magazine covers
making Cleopatra more conventionally attractive
cultural capital
social assets of a person that promote SOCIAL MOBILITY
ie. computer algorithm that looked for traits like being named Jared or having played high school lacrosse
social capital
value obtained from interpersonal relationships and social networks
nepotism
ranking of school correlates with ranking of job placements
selective exposure
prejudice and stereotype relationship
tendency to selectively seek info that reinforces one’s attitudes, while selectively avoiding info that contradicts one’s attitudes
ie. what news sources you tune in to
prejudices and stereotypes work together to…
justify discrimination
pictures of tough looking men with face tattoos and dark skin leads to increased support for more restrictive immigration policies
how can discrimination cause prejudice/stereotyping?
self-prejudice/stereotyping, in a way
self-fulfilling prophecy
self-fulfilling prophecy
- people have expectation about what a person/group is like
- this influences how they act toward the person/group
- this causes the person/group to behave consistently with the expectation
- this makes the expectation come true
- this provides “proof” that the og expectation was correct
self-fulfilling prophecy in action
phone call study
men and women had casual phone convo
men = randomly assigned to retrieve an attractive or unattractive photo of the woman beforehand
coders independently rated the woman’s recording (without seeing their appearance)
women who were thought to be attractive were perceived to be…
- more sociable, warm, funny, independent, outgoing, interesting
summary of lecture 1
3 processes that are the largest focus of intergroup relations research:
1. prejudice
2. stereotyping
3. discrimination
these processes can operate at level of:
1. individual minds
2. interpersonal interactions
3. group/organization
4. institution
these levels are “mutually constitutive” in that they influence each other, but psych mostly focuses on the first two
prof’s “briefest history of social psychology”
1875: William James starts first psyc lab ever
1945: Kurt Lewin becomes Director of ‘Center for Group Dynamics at MIT
William James’ lab details
first psyc lab ever
located at Harvard
studies sensation, perception, emotion
William James’ important book
The Principles of Psychology
published in 1890
why is Kurt Lewin important?
recognized as first social psychologist to use experimental approach to study:
- group dynamics on impact of one’s social environment
- group dynamics on impact of one’s individual behaviour
example of scientific racism
phrenology
scientific racism basic idea
people observed that some groups were on average more successful
attributed this to intrinsic differences between races
entire emphasis on internal racial characteristics
phrenology
popular scientific fad in early 19th century
believed that skull shape = reliable predictor of psychological traits
ie. two heads with diff shape, one labelled ‘a genuine husband’ and the other labelled ‘an unreliable husband’
scientific racism: McDougall (1921)
McDougall wrote one of the first textbooks on social psychology
lectured on his purported identification of a number of psychological qualities associated with “superior” groups
argued “Nordic” races were more likely to possess: curiosity, introversion, self-assertion
argued Black people were inherently submissive - which made it appropriate for them to subjected to lower status in society
publishing year of McDougall’s textbook on social psychology
1908
McDougall’s job title
prof at Duke University
department chair at Harvard
specific traits McDougall attributed to “Nordic” and Black people
curiosity, introversion, self-assertion
said Black people were “inherently submissive”
scientific racism: Johnson-Reed Act (1924)
- imposed cap of 165 000 immigrants from countries outside of the Western Hemisphere (~80% reduction)
- barred all immigrants from Asia
disproportionately favoured immigrants from Northern and Western Europe
justification for the Johnson-Reed Act drew from…
research on eugenics and other forms of scientific racism
social darwinism
Herbert Spencer: creator of the term “survival of the fittest”
existing disparities were then justified as reflecting INNATE DIFFERENCES between more and less worthy groups
ways in which social darwinism doesn’t make sense
- wrong from an evolutionary perspective - evolution selects at the INDIVIDUAL LEVEL, not the group level
- it’s a naturalistic fallacy
naturalistic fallacy
when people believe that simply because something is the way it is means that it should be the way it is
social darwinism informing laws
German sterilization law passed between WWI and WWII
NYT article
forcibly sterilized people with mental handicaps
reasoning came from prevailing social science of the times
justification: “should be working to create more productive and intelligent society in the future”
Virginia Sterilization Law of 1924
people with mental disabilities were forcibly sterilized
reasoning: “we owe it to society to ensure that future generations don’t carry on ‘innate defects’”
reviewed and widely upheld by the Supreme Court at the time
these were not fringe ideas
(some) changing tides: scientific racism and darwinism
many researchers were beginning to realize that any supposed biological differences between groups couldn’t be solely responsible for intergroup disparities seen across society
STRUCTURAL forces and PREJUDICE must also be contributors
influential figure in these changing tides
Floyd Allport
1924, he said: ‘The discrepancy in mental ability is not great enough to account for the problem which centres around the American Negro or to explain fully the ostracism to which he is subjected.’
William Graham Sumner
some consider him the founding father of social psychology
prof at Yale 1872-1909
first professor of sociology in NA
what did William Graham Sumner publish in 1906?
Folkways: a sociological study of how moral systems develop across different cultures
- spent time in diff cultures, tried to come up with general laws that groups followed in order to get along with one another
how did Folkways most influence the study of intergroup relations?
in Folkways, Sumner most influenced study of intergroup relations by coining the terms:
- ingroup
- outgroup
- ehtnocentrism
William Graham Sumners on ‘ingroups’ and ‘ougroups’
a differentiation arises between ourselves, the we-group or in-group, and everybody else, the others-groups or out-groups. the insiders in a we-group are in a relation of peace, order, law, government and industry to each other. their relation to all outsiders is one of war and plunder.
William Graham Sumners ‘on the fundamental need to be a part of a group’
if one is trying to carry on the struggle for existence with nature, the fact that others are doing the same in the same environment is an essential condition for him…we cannot describe mankind at all without categories.
your self identity is tied up with your group identity
Walter Lippman (1889-1974)
journalist, won 2 Pulitzer prizes
founding member of The New Republic newspaper
what did Walter Lippmann publish?
Public Opinion - a book
book with rather negative assessment of individuals’ ability to act rationally and self-govern
specifically looked at how people live and interact in big cities
what important term did Lippmann coin in Public Opinion?
stereotype
he adapted the term from the printing industry to describe the process through which someone hakes impressions towards one group member and applies them to all group members
in Public Opinion, what is suggested as the reason behind the creation of stereotypes?
modern world is too chaotic and disorderly, so people must (over) simplify it:
“we aren’t equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations. and although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it.”
Public Opinion: stereotypes arise from need to abstract
“inevitably our opinions cover a bigger space, a longer reach of time, a greater number of things, than we can directly observe. They therefore have to be pieced together out of what others have reported and what we can imagine.”
Public Opinion: cultural influences and expectations shape the way we view the social world
“for the most part we don’t first see and then define: we DEFINE FIRST AND THEN SEE. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world, we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped by our culture.”
we accumulate suggestions about how groups act through other people/media
results in over-exaggeration, misperception, skewed experience
confirmation bias
first empirical study on stereotypes
Princeton trilogy studies (1933)
asked people to list the stereotypes they hold about different people
purely descriptive
then made a checklist with lots of groups and some stereotypical traits
asked people t say YES or NO if they agreed the trait applied to the group
every 10-15 years someone replicates this study to see if the results change
Katz & Braly: Motivated Perception of Stereotypes
yet we find 78% of 100 students agreeing that one of the most typical characteristics of Germans is their SCIENTIFIC-MINDEDNESS
of course individual experience may enter into the student’s judgment but probably ONLY TO CONFIRM THE ORIGINAL STEREOTYPE which has been learned
ie. people have heard of Germany’s scientific progress and devotion to applied science. so when meeting a German will expect the scientific trait to appear, and things that confirm this view will stick out
confirmation bias
LaPiere (1934): Attitudes vs Actions was the first social science study on…
discrimination
LaPiere was annoyed about…
the state of scientific research at the time
it relied on SELF-REPORT scales or HYPOTHETICAL behaviours
LaPiere wanted to prove that people often say one thing and do another
LaPiere study setup
1934 - Attitudes vs Actions
for 2 years, LaPiere traveled around America with a Chinese immigrant couple
in total, the three of them visited 66 hotels and 184 restaurants
only refused service once
6 months after these visits, LaPiere contacted each establishment and asked whether they’d provide service to a Chinese couple
secured responses from 128 hotels or restaurants
what percentage of establishments said they would refuse service to a Chinese couple?
92%
possible reasons for the discrepancy:
- the couple was accompanied by the Stanford prof (old white guy)
- maybe diff person was providing the answer than who had served them
who was Gordon Allport?
Harvard prof from 1930 to 1967
published The Nature of Prejudice in 1956
The Nature of Prejudice
1956, published by Gordon Allport
arguably the first psychological analysis of issues related to prejudice and discrimination
laid foundations for many influential research topics in intergroup relations
what is The Nature of Prejudice most credited for?
- taking a “social cognitive” perspective of prejudice
- arguing for the importance of studying intergroup contact
Nature of Prejudice on why human beings slip so easily into ethnic prejudice
“because the two essential ingredients that we have discussed - erroneous generalization and hostility - are natural and common capacities of the human mind”
“once formed, categories are the basis of normal prejudgment. we cannot possible avoid this process. orderly living depends on it.”
how does The Nature of Prejudice depart from scientific racism?
recognize human tendency for erroneous generalization and hostility
very different from attributing differences to innate traits in different races
suggests instead that “natural ways” in which the mind works leads to BIASED perceptions of the world around us
Allport’s “Contact Hypothesis”
intergroup contact = effective means of reducing intergroup hostility and prejudice
Allport’s intergroup contact can take many forms, depending on factors like:
- quantity (frequency, duration)
- status (equal status groups? status differences?)
- goals (is the contact facilitating cooperative OR competitive behaviour?)
- social (is the contact formal or casual, voluntary or involuntary?)
- physical (is contact happening in employment, religious, residential context?)
3 characteristics of effective contact, for Allport
- based on ‘acquaintanceship’
- integrated
- communal
effective contact: “based on acquaintanceship’
knowledge about and acquaintanceship with members of minority groups make for tolerant and friendly attitudes….contacts that bring knowledge and acquaintance are likely to engender sounder beliefs concerning minority groups, and for this reason contribute to reduction of prejudice
effective contact: “integrated”
zonal residential contact makes for increased tension, whereas integrated housing policies, through encouraging knowledge and acquaintanceship, removes barriers to effective communication
effective contact: “communal”
contact must reach below the surface in order to be effective in altering prejudice. only the type of contact that leads people to DO THINGS TOGETHER is likely to result in changed attitudes
3 first studies on intergroup contact
- Singer (1948)
- Stouffer (1949)
- Deutsch & Collins (1951)
Singer: intergroup contact study
1948
sample of White military officers and enlisted men
77% reported their attitudes had become more favourable towards Black people after having SERVED IN THE SAME UNIT
0% said their attitudes became less favourable
here, status was manipulated and goals were aligned
Stouffer: intergroup contact study
1949
compared attitudes of men who did versus didn’t fight alongside Black soldiers in WWII
only White soldiers who fought alongside Black soldiers showed more favourable attitudes towards Black people
close proximity was required
Deutsch & Collins: intergroup contact study
1951
compared residents assigned to live in more versus less integrated public housing
residents in more integrated housing developed more positive attitudes towards Black people
what social policy did the Deutsch & Collins study lead to?
led many states t reverse policies about segregated housing
Muzafer Sherif
Turkish social psycholgist and former student of Gordon Allport
Left position in Turkey in 1944 due to political persecution - never able to return
eventually settled at Uni of Oklahoma
what experiment did Muzafer Sherif conduct?
Robbers Cave Experiment
what did Muzafer Sherif’s work give rise to?
Realistic Conflict Theory
Realistic Conflict Theory
argues that intergroup conflict is a reflection of social structural forces
specifically, conflict arises due to competition for desired resources
Robers Cave Experiment overview
3 week experiment at summer camp
22 eleven year olds who had no prior contact
randomly assigned to one of two teams, kept separate from other team at first
series of activities increased identification with one’s team
then competition stage: teams competed for prizes and bragging rights
finally, engaged in mutually cooperative events - to show how intergroup conflict could be reduced
Robbers Cave Experiment: thesis
“intergroup attitudes and behaviours are determined PRIMARILY by the nature of functional relations between groups in question…not by the deviate or neurotic behaviour of particular individual members”
Robbers Cave Experiment: three stages
Stage 1: experimental ingroup formation
Stage 2: friction between groups
Stage 3: integration between groups
Stage 1: forming ingroups
boys were placed in one of two groups (with no knowledge of other group’s existence)
then were presented with series of hard but solvable challenges - to increase identification with one’s group
activities = selected to not promote competition within one’s group (like sports)
examples of activities used during stage 1
going on a hike
building a tent
carrying canoes to river
when were the groups informed about the existence of the other groups?
once the groups had:
- formed a strong bond
- developed norms
group’s reaction to hearing about the other group and that they’d challenged them at baseball
“they can’t. we’ll challenge them first! they’ve got some nerve.”
stage 2: competition
boys now know about existence of other group
engaged in series of direct competitions, where there would be a CLEAR winner (baseball, tug of war, treasure hunt etc)
successful, as they soon began antagonizing each other
example of behaviour between groups during stage 2 (flag)
“an Eagles member noticed the Rattlers’ flag on the baseball field. He yelled they could take it down…tried to tear it up…found matches and set the flag on fire…decided to hang the scorched remnant back up”
Robber’s Cave: aside from studying intergroup conflict, was also one of the first studies to show how intergroup dynamics can influence…
processes like PERCEPTION
Eagles beat Rattlers in a 48 minute long tug-of-war
later the boys were asked how long the match had lasted
most Eagles felt like the time had flown by
the Rattlers felt the event lasted “a helluva long time”
- Eagles gave their time estimates in minutes
- Rattlers gave their time estimates in hours
(even though the same question was asked of both groups AND all boys were questioned individually)
stage 3: integration
boys were then lead to series of situations that would allow for POSITIVE CONTACT and COOPERATION between groups
specific trait of the activities used to integrate the groups
superordinate goals (shared by both groups)
examples of the activities used to integrate the groups
- truck was stuck and needed to be pulled free
- water tank for camp was broken and they had to work together to “fix” it
very effective:
“when the water came through, the boys rejoiced in common. the Rattlers didn’t object to having the Eagles get ahead of them when they all got a drink, since the Eagles didn’t have their canteens with them and were thirstier. no protests or “ladies first”-type remarks were made”
2 other lessons from Robbers Cave
- nature of intergroup relations - for good or evil - doesn’t stem from existence of tools and techniques: the same tools and techniques can serve harmony/integration as well as competition/conflict
- theories of intergroup relations that posit single factors (leadership, national character, individual frustrations) as sovereign determinants of intergroup conflict/harmony have only explained selective cases (there has to be something more structural at work - isn’t simply traits)
Henri Tajfel
Polish social psychologist who was a POW during WWII while serving in French army
Henri Tajfel: 3 important points
- founder of Social Identity Theory
- helped advance notion that stereotypes and prejudice rely on “normal” cognitive processes (like Lippman)
- advanced research on Minimal Groups Paradigm
Social Identity Theory
argued that individuals’ sense of identity and self-esteem = primarily determined by group memberships
minimal groups paradigm
take abstract processes and study them in lab context
now we can take people and randomly assign them to groups - don’t need to track down real life, pre-existing groups
can isolate characteristics - less confounding factors
background: mere classification into ingroups and outgroups = enough to create intergroup bias
minimal ingroup effect discovery
bit of a fluke
Tajfel = initially trying to find a “baseline condition” where group effects weren’t important (where ingroups and outgroups wouldn’t form)
to do so, divided school class arbitrarily into “over-estimators” and “under-estimators” for a dot-counting task
despite his intentions, even these arbitrary group levels = sufficient to create intergroup bias between under-estimators and over-estimators
book written by Henri Tajfel
Human Groups and Social Categories
2 insights from Human Groups and Social Categories
- intergroup processes can be studied in a controlled, lab setting
“a systematic study of social behaviour is an essential task…there is no evidence that other approaches present as much solidity as the experimental straw appears to have”
- on the interplay between group membership and individual identity
“an intensified affiliation with a group is only possible when the group is capable of supplying some satisfactory aspect of an individual’s social identity”
Frantz Fanon
psychiatrist and philosopher from Martinique
what did Fanon often write about?
how societal structures force marginalized groups to INTERNALIZE a sense of inferiority
“[The Black man] lives in a society that makes his inferiority complex possible, in a society that draws its strength by maintaining this complex, in a society that proclaims the superiority of one race over another”
which two psychologists further developed Fanon’s thinking? and what did they develop it into?
John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji
Systems Justification Theory
Systems Justification Theory
maintaining existing social structures is prioritized by people
even at the expense of personal or group interests
ie. Black people supporting Trump
study behind Brown vs Board of Education
1940’s - psychologists Mamie and Kenneth Clark
conducted series of ‘doll tests’ - asked Black children to choose between a White or Black doll
most children preferred the White doll
Brown vs Board of Education
Supreme Court trial that cited doll study - against segregated schools
majority opinion was broader conclusion that cultural messages create inferiority
“to separate African American children from others of similar age/qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status…affects their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone. we conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine “separate but equal” has no place. separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
social cognition
study of how mental processes like PERCEPTION, MEMORY and THOUGHT shape our understanding of the world
what does social cognition argue we need to do to improve understanding of how the human mind functions?
argues that in order to better understand processes related to bias, discrimination and prejudice, we must improve our understanding of how the human mind functions (ie. how it categorizes stimuli, how it groups objects)
implicit social cognition
investigates role of automatic (and often unconscious) processes in social psychological processes
example of implicit social cognition
evaluative priming
black or white face paired with negative or positive word
if black face is flashed quickly before negative word, will speed up verification
if flashed before positive word, verification is slower
experimental control
degree to which a researcher can determine the environment in which a research question is explored
generally, a “lab study” has high experimental control
surveys have low experimental control - can be taken in all sorts of diff contexts
psychological realism
degree to which a study simulates phenomena as experienced in everyday life
more immersive studies have higher psychological realism
internal validity
degree to which a study can rule out ALTERNATIVE HYPOTHESES
if a study has many alternative hypotheses that could explain the results (other than that proposed by the researcher), the study has low internal validity
external validity
degree to which the results of a study generalize to other contexts, samples and time periods
self-report measures
assessing attitudes, thoughts or beliefs
by presenting a question, several possible responses
and having participants select the response they believe to be most representative of their own attitudes, thoughts or beliefs
are there many self report scales that test ‘explicit’ racial attitudes? are they similar or differentiated?
there are tons
and they overlap a bunch - lots of redundancies
results from self reports about ‘explicit’ racial attitudes versus from priming for ‘implicit’ racial attitudes
explicit:
- 70% say they have no preference for Black or White people
- 20% say they prefer White people to some degree
- 10% say they prefer Black people to some degree
implicit:
- 15% of people have little/no negative associations with Black people
- 30% have some negative associations
- 55% have strong negative associations
self report doesn’t tell the whole story
indirect measures
inferring attitudes, thoughts or beliefs from some type of behaviour rather than from self-report
example of an indirect measure
evaluative priming (EP) procedure
(physiological measures) measuring heart rate while interacting with a White or Black person
evaluative priming
uses the reaction times of identifying positive versus negative words to infer ‘implicit’ racial attitudes
if certain stimuli facilitate the identification of negative words, then those stimuli are believed to hold a negative association
if certain stimuli facilitate the identification of positive words, those stimuli are believed to hold a positive association
weaknesses of self report measures
people are untruthful
response bias/social desirability
attitudes can be unconscious
ideas we have regarding our attitudes don’t always translate to our behaviours
weaknesses of indirect measures
consequential validity - why do we care about these results?
these associations may not really carry out to real world consequences
hard for them to explain systematic issues or biases - really are just pressing buttons on a keyboard
weaknesses of physiological measures
ie. heart rate
many factors affect heart rate
jury is still out on what exactly an elevated heart rate means
measuring behaviour: budget cut example
participants told to imagine that the student government had to make some severe budget cuts for the next year, and that the student government wanted wanted other students’ opinions on how to make budget cuts
participants would then be shown a list of several organizations and asked to propose some budget cuts (club sports, music groups etc)
one student organization would be specifically about Black people (ie. Black Students Association)
degree to which students cut funding to the Black Students Association could be used as a measure of how much they disliked Black people
weaknesses of hypothetical behavioural measures
(ones like the budget cut experiment)
no direct link
it’s a hypothetical task - people may not be taking it seriously
maybe cutting funds is due to a third variable (ie. you’re a band geek and don’t want funding to go anywhere else)
Frank Kachanoff: creation of a high-investment environment
Kachanoff uses a multi-hour long study where participants join a group, complete computer missions together, develop entire culture by selecting a flag and identifying group snacks
then, Kachanoff uses these ‘maximal group paradigms’ to look at questions related to how experiencing lower/higher status impacts group identity/behaviour
Kachanoff’s creation of high investment environment is a way of maximizing…
experimental control
weaknesses of intensive behavioural measures
still only a psychological study
may not reflect real world behaviours
disconnect between predicted and actual behaviour - setup
one condition: non-Black participants = asked to imagine seeing a White person use a racial slur towards a Black person
were then asked who they would choose to work with in a follow-up task
disconnect between predicted and actual behaviour - hypothetical condition results
20% of participants said they would choose the White person to work with in a follow-up task
disconnect between predicted and actual behaviour - witness condition
in another condition, non-Black participants actually SAW the interaction take place between a Black and White person (both were pretending to be participants)
now when choosing a partner for upcoming task, over 60% chose the White person
disconnect between predicted and actual behaviour - hypothetical versus actual percentages
20% in hypothetical
60% in actual
first-person shooter task is an example of a study that tries to capture…
more impactful behaviour that are also hard for participants to regulate in the moment
shows pictures of White or Black men, very quickly
all of them are holding various objects
task is to shoot if the object they’re holding is a gun
results of first-person shooter task
error rates for shooting an UNARMED person
- higher for photos of Black people
- lower for photos of White people
error rates for NOT shooting an ARMED person
- higher for photos of White people
- lower for photos of Black people
term we use to classify what kind of measure the first person shooter task is
real behavioural measure
weaknesses of real behavioural measures
although more rich and nuanced (realistic) than the ELP, still in the world of the hypothetical
how generalizable is it?
also, first person shooter task only includes men
measuring ‘realer’ behaviour study example
waiting room study
waiting room study setup
participants entered the psychology building and found a note asking them to take a seat in a waiting area
other participants (actually confederates) were strategically placed around the room
at one end of a string of empty seats was a Black confederate, at the other end was a White confederate
researchers analyzed where the participant chose to sit
waiting room study results
on average, the White participants sat closer to the White than the Black confederate
weaknesses of subtler behavioural measures
when thinking about waiting room study…
similarity/familiarity effect?
maybe there are systematic differences (say, in the approachability) of the confederates
psychology building and students - may be too obvious/they may catch on
what if they go two seats from the White person and three from the Black person? how do we draw meaning from that difference?
archival analyses: measuring real-world behaviour
uses existing datasets to understand how social forces might influence real-world behaviour
example of archival analyses
Voigt et al 2017
coded how police officers spoke to Black versus White drivers following a traffic stop
found that officers = much more polite and reassuring to White drivers, more disrespectful to Black drivers
archival analysis: cocaine example
2011 minimum amount of cocaine needed for a felony offense changed from 50g to 280g
Tuttle investigated how this change in policy impact racial discrimination in police reports and court sentencing
post-2011 - the amounts of cocaine people were reported to carry were much more likely to be exactly/right around 280 grams
police rounded up the amounts to the minimum 280 grams - so that they could sentence more people
archival analysis: traffic stop example
Pierson et al analyzed over 100 million traffic stops and found that the percentage of stops that were of Black drivers decreased after dusk
after dusk, it is harder to identify the race of the driver
suggests that officers are using race in deciding whether or not to stop a person
weaknesses of archival research
strongly constrained to who has access to these records - lots of things we want to study but that isn’t publicly available
but also, the data may not give the whole story
hard to explain WHY it’s really happening
- studying something that isn’t randomly assigned
- maybe different groups of cops patrol Black versus White areas
- if it’s something at an individual level (prejudiced cops) then you would want to train each officer on anti-prejudice topics, whereas if it’s a broader organization issue, would want to change the structure on a higher level
audit studies: measuring real-world behaviour
audit studies: attempt to combine the experimental control AND internal validity of a lab study while also measuring real-world behaviour
ie. find a real world behaviour, give people versions of it
- change only the relevant social dimension of interest
ie. randomly assign Black and White people to interact with the same cop (to isolate for race)
- or a woman versus man (to isolate for gender)
audit studies typically involve finding situations that involve…
judgment or behaviour that may be influenced by social information (such as race, gender, ethnicity)
fake ads or resumes may be created, trained actors may be hired, in an attempt to keep everything constant between conditions EXCEPT for social information
governments have been known to run audit studies to explore…
whether anti-discrimination laws are being respected (ie. for equal access to housing)
Butler and Brockman: audit study example
tested whether elected officials discriminate against their constituents based on race
state legislators in the US were randomly assigned to receive the same email
but the email was either from ‘Jake Mueller’ or DeShawn Jackson’
though not a large effect, the same mail was more likely to receive a response if from ‘Jake Mueller’ (61%) than from ‘Deshawn Jackson’ (55%)
Butler and Brockman audit study: results were only true when the email didn’t signal what?
only true when the email didn’t signal a political party affiliation
Kang et al: audit study example setup
investigated phenomena of ‘Whitening’ resumes, where minority applicants remove racial cues from resumes to avoid anticipated discrimination
they found real jobs and randomly sent each one a resume that was either low vs high in “Whitening” cues
Kang et al: audit study example results
despite having the same qualifications, the “UnWhitened” applicant only received a callback to 10% of jobs, compared to 25% of jobs for the “Whitened” applicant
“UnWhitened” resume versus “Whitened” resume
“UnWhitened”:
- Name: Lamar Smith
- Activities: Peer Counsellor, Black Students Association
“Whitened”:
- Name: L. James Smith
- Activities: Peer Counsellor, Students Association
Dietrich and Sands: audit study example setup
used traffic cameras in NYC to look at interpersonal forms of “racial avoidance”
confederates (either two White or two Black men) stood in the same spot on sidewalk and were trained to have a similar conversation for 15 minutes
Dietrich and Sands: audit study example results
on average, pedestrians showed a greater deviation in their walking paths towards the Black versus White confederates
this difference translated into roughly four more inches of space given to Black Confederates
Dietrich and Sands: audit study preliminary results indicate that the effect was stronger…
among women than men
weaknesses of audit studies
can’t control for every factor because it’s naturalistic observation
extremely expensive and resource intensive
would be hard to trial how best to reduce these things - because it’s so expensive
- to do the amount of trials needed to find solutions, would cost too much
is there a single “unified” theory of prejudice and discrimination?
no
partly because prejudice and discrimination has many different causes and explanations (individual, interpersonal, structural etc)
6 classes of theories of prejudice and discrimination
- scientific racism
- psychodynamic theories
- sociocultural theories
- cognitive theories
- evolutionary theories
- ‘intergroup relations theories’
scientific racism
postulates that ‘inherently inferior’ groups exist
attaches differences between racial groups to scientific ‘evidence’
commits naturalistic fallacy
scientific racism dominant time period
before the 1920’s
scientific racism context
use of scientific research to justify White cultural domination
scientific racism focus
identifying exotic and negative differences in non-White people
scientific racism view of prejudice
justified by “data”
when did phrenology grow in popularity?
in the US during the 1830s and 1840s
at a time when many Americans were looking for scientific justification to continue practicing slavery
phrenology
part of scientific racism
belief that brain has multiple “organs” that correspond to different abilities/traits
name of American doctor who popularized idea that race = correlated with skull size
Samuel Morton
thought that skull size (which he believed correlated with race) reflected group differences in intelligence
modern manifestations of phrenology
AI facial reading start-ups
- “job interviews…conducted by facial reading technology…to identify the best candidates”
^ but these algorithms are being trained to look for certain traits ie. whiteness
- “gaydar”
diagnosing people’s sexuality based on their facial features
worry here is that we’re picking up on on some other difference between groups
ie. if it’s being trained by dating profiles, then maybe it’s picking up on a certain hairstyle that is popular in gay men - only correlated with sexuality, not the root of sexuality
psychodynamic theories dominant time period
1920s-1950s
psychodynamic theories context
prevalence of explicit racism
aftermath of Holocaust
how can we explain things like the Holocaust?
psychodynamic theories focus
identifying WHY individuals are prejudiced
bad apples explanation: certain people have mal-adjusted personalities that cause them to err in their thinking
these errors = prejudice
psychodynamic theories view of prejudice
prejudice is irrational and unjustifiable
prejudice is rooted in individual differences
- personality
- unconscious defence mechanisms
- projection of frustration onto minorities
psychodynamic theories: displace frustration and aggression
- people get frustrated when their goal is blocked
- following frustration, people feel aggression, which creates an intention to harm
- however, aggression is usually displaced - because the source of the frustration is too powerful
- as a result, aggression i displaced onto a weaker target (even the self)
- the weaker the target, the more satisfying the release of aggression
the authoritarian personality
Adorno’s research is tied to the psychodynamic approach
set of personality traits associated with belief in obedience to authority and oppression of subordinate groups
psychodynamic explanation: the “id” produces negative impulses, which can’t be properly controlled by one’s “ego”
this psychic conflict then projects those negative impulses onto minority groups and creates greater respect for authority
the authoritarian personality approach thinks of prejudice as a…
personality trait
so some are more likely to be prejudiced than others
the authoritarian personality: sample items
‘young people sometimes get rebellious ideas, but as they grow up they ought to get over them and settle down’
‘an insult to our country’s honour should always be punished’
‘most people don’t realize how much our lives are controlled by plots hatched in secret places’
‘nobody ever learned anything really important except through suffering’
‘most of our social problems would be solved if we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feeble-minded people’
psychodynamic theories: state of research today
similar personality traits, but no “psychodynamic” explanations
- personality psych today has ditched the ‘id’ versus ‘ego’ dynamic
- but people still think about individual differences across people that are associated with prejudice
- ie. extent to which you think your values/current society is threatened (may affect your opinion on things like immigration laws)
new: authoritarians have increased sensitivity to societal threats
- ie. authoritarians are more likely to support Trump
sociocultural theories dominant time period
1960s-1970s
sociocultural theories context
Civil Rights Movement
sociocultural theories focus
social and cultural influences on prejudice
more systematic/organization-based/institutional view of how prejudice arises
prejudice as manifestations of social norms that we see around us
sociocultural theories view of prejudice
prejudice is a manifestation of cultural norms
Clark & Clark 1947
sociocultural theory
doll study - asked kids which doll they would prefer to play with
even kids of colour prefer to play with the white doll
assign negative traits to the black doll and positive ones to the white doll
more subtle manifestation of sociocultural prejudice: search bar
‘algorithms of oppression’
look up ‘why are black women so’ on Google
see the most frequent options that pop up
words like: angry, loud, mean, attractive, lazy, annoying, confident
exposure effect: we know that even seeing something (like an association between black women and these negative traits) makes you very subtly believe it
should tech companies step in and get rid of these autocompletes? imo yes
more subtle manifestation of sociocultural prejudice: search up ‘beautiful women’
like all of the results are white/light-skinned women
more subtle manifestation of sociocultural prejudice: google search for “person” across countries
global gender inequality index: uses many forms of data (educational attainment, income etc) for discrepancies between men and women regarding “life status”
different countries have varying degrees of inequality
basically use a VPN and access different country’s internets - search “person”
coded percentage of images that were men versus women
IN MORE UNEQUAL SOCIETIES, THERE ARE MORE MEN IMAGES IN RESPONSE TO SIMPLY SEARCHING THE WORD ‘PERSON’
cognitive theories time period
1980’s-present
cognitive theories context
prejudice appears to be a universal phenomenon that emerges from low-level mental processes
Allport’s lasting contribution
rejection of psychodynamic ‘bad apple’ perspective (says that ALL MINDS interpret info in a way that leads to development of prejudice)
cognitive theories focus
how prejudice arises from ‘ordinary’ aspects of cognition
cognitive theories view of prejudice
prejudice is a feature of the mind, not an unintended ‘bug’
everyone should actively work against these processes
cognitive theories: schema theory basics
schema theory argues that people organize information in their minds by unconsciously creating categories and scripts through experience or exposure
how does schema theory explain stereotypes?
as “schemas gone wrong”
argue that we naturally categorize people into groups and make generalizations about those groups
evolutionary theories time period
1990’s - present
evolutionary theories context
prejudice appears to be a universal phenomenon that emerged from challenges in evolutionary history
evolutionary theories focus
how prejudice may have been evolutionarily adaptive
to understand prejudice/discrimination, what was the environment like when our minds were first developing? what constraints existed and how are they reflected by our mind’s structure?
evolutionary theories view of prejudice
prejudice helped address social problems in our evolutionary past (and may or may not in the present)
one prediction of evolutionary theories of prejudice
across cultures, prejudice is stronger against social group members that are men than women
due to increased probability of men committing intergroup violence
because in the past, men fought and killed - was advantageous to be more prejudiced/wary of men
is the ‘men versus women degrees of prejudice’ take (from evolutionary perspective) airtight?
no
today, we don’t always see evidence of greater prejudice towards outgroup men as opposed to outgroup women
ie. wage disparities are higher for women than men
so it isn’t an airtight explanation
from the evolutionary perspective, all psychological phenomena have to begin with what question?
What ‘adaptations’ would have led our ancestors to reproduce?
evolutionary perspective: who would we want to approach versus avoid?
approach: friends, family, group affiliations
avoid: threats, foreign groups
approach/avoid task with negative/positive words
positive or negative words pop up on screen
told to either approach or avoid (press one key or the other)
for negative words
- faster avoidance response
- slower approach response
for positive words
- faster approach response
- slower avoidance response
approach/avoid task with Black/White faces
for white participants…
participants had faster avoidance than approach RTs for Black faces
participants were faster to avoid Black compared to White faces
approach/avoid task for Slavic/Italian names
done with Italian participants
- ingroup = Italian
- outgroup = Slavic
for Slavic names: avoidance movements were faster than approach movements
for Italian names: approach movements were faster than avoidance movements
difficulties with evolutionary approach
- alternative explanations for these results?
- maybe it’s just your experience/the socio-cultural world that is informing the behaviour
- might be socio-cultural and not genetic result of evolution
- how do we know this is related to an evolutionary-based threat?
- we don’t
- prof thinks it’s true on some level (evolution does reflect how the mind functions in terms of intergroup relations, but we can’t travel back thousands of years to validate ideas)
intergroup relations theories dominant time period
1970s
intergroup relations theories context
persistence of group conflicts in the US and around the world
we think we live in a modern, civilized world - yet so many group conflicts still exist
intergroup relations theories focus
how social structure reinforces prejudice
intergroup relations view of prejudice
prejudice is a manifestation of relationships between groups
ie. Robber’s Cave Study - about how social structure determines how groups feel about one another
prediction of intergroup relations theories
prejudice is weaker when groups are integrated and have the opportunity for friendship (compared to being segregated)
Salma Mousa and ‘social trust’ falls under which theoretical paradigm?
intergroup relations theories
Salma Mousa study setup
randomly assigned Iraqi Christian soccer players to teams:
1. with no Muslims
2. made up of 25% Muslims
followed for 4-5 months, surveyed them afterwards to see if/how their attitudes changed
explored whether intergroup relations can be changed following new forms of contact
context: Christians in Iraq are a minority
- not a lot of opportunity there for Muslim-Christian interaction
Mousa study: the 4 conditions for forms of contact that will change intergroup relations
- cooperative (training together)
- equal (no status differences on team)
- endorsed by community authorities (one’s church)
- has a shared goal (win the soccer league)
Mousa study results
measured a bunch of things
differentiated between ‘on the field’ and ‘off the field’ outcomes
those on mixed groups saw lots of change regarding ‘on the field outcomes’:
- more likely than controls to train with Muslims again, to vote for a Muslim to win an award, to sign up for a mixed team again
less differences between mixed and control groups for ‘off the field outcomes’:
- similar levels of likelihood to visit mosque, to attend a mixed event, to donate to a mixed NGO
interplay between cognitive and intergroup theories
theories we went over today focus on a range of levels: from individual to organization to group to systemic etc
can’t tease these apart neatly: society is made up of individuals, and individuals are influenced by society and its systems
MUTUALLY CONSTITUTIVE - must appreciate all of these levels
each intergroup relations theory applies vest on a different level
social identity
aspect of our self-concept that is derived from our GROUP MEMBERSHIPS
when it comes to social identity, people fundamentally want to…
- achieve and maintain a positive social identity
- distinguish our own social groups from other social groups
Tajfel on Social Identity theory
individuals have a repository of personal and social identities available to them, with each identity informing the individual of who they are
this perspective suggests that a person defines the self along a continuum that ranges from, at one extreme, the self as a distinct individual with personal motives, goals, and achievements, to the self as an embodiment of a social collective or group at the other extreme
a key premise of social identity theory is that people’s context-specific attention to their personal and social identities is DRIVEN BY THEIR MOTIVATION TO FEEL POSITIVELY ABOUT THEMSELVES. one way to achieve this end is to join social groups that elicit a positive identity; another is to increase the perceived worthiness of the social groups to which one already belongs
to the extent that people are motivated to regard themselves positively, THEY WILL ALSO BE MOTIVATED TO DIFFERENTIATE THEMSELVES FROM OUTSIDERS; that is, to see as much difference as possible between their in-groups and those groups to which they don’t belong
condensed: Tajfel’s 4 points on Social Identity Theory
- PERSONAL and SOCIAL identities inform the individuals people perceive themselves to be
- definition of the self is a CONTINUUM: one extreme is the self as distinct individual, other extreme is the social collective/group
- people’s attention to their identity composition = driven by motivation to feel good about themselves
- join groups feel positive about
- inflate worthiness of current groups - motivated to differentiate self from outsiders
could even meaningless groups produce bias?
yes, and this is what Tajfel discovered
tried to come up with a control group: group defined using characteristics that wouldn’t create in-/out-group divides
discovered that this isn’t possible
led to the MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM
minimal group paradigm
creating artificial and arbitrary in-groups and out-groups
discovered by Tajfel, by mistake
Klee vs Kandinsky manipulation
artists Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky
brought people into lab, asked them about their preferences
then told them based on their answers that their personalities = associated with either Klee or Kandinsky
in reality, were totally randomly assigned
then said there was leftover money after the study to distribute as bonuses
asked each participant who they should give the money to (only presented with ID numbers and Klee/Kandinsky status)
PEOPLE FAVOURED THEIR OWN GROUP
Klee/Kandinsky manipulation demonstrates
that people exhibit in-group favouritism even for meaningless differences
we use our social identity strategically to…
bolster our feelings of self worth
which group memberships we highlight in the moment are context-dependent
help you achieve positive self-regard
voting/class lecture: self-categorization is situational
voting focus: being a Canadian citizen
class lecture focus: being a student
American in MTL/Canadian in Denver
self-categorization is situational
when in Montreal, prof differentiates himself by bolstering his American identity
when in Denver, prof differentiates himself by bolstering his Canadian home
- he is “polite, kind, less crazy politically”
threats to the in-group make…
that identity salient
ie. 9/11 was followed by an increase in the importance of American identity
huge upsurge in people saying they were proud to be American post-9/11
once it was threatened, people really held on to their American identity
optimal distinctiveness theory
Brewer, 1993
people wan to strike BALANCE between their group identities and their personal identities
sweet spot: don’t want to be a lone wold with no group memberships, but don’t want to be just like everyone else in their group
images on slide associated with optimal distinctiveness theory
- four goths
- they’re unique in that their dress is atypical
- but they’re part of a larger group - man in suit with bright yellow socks
- has to wear a boring suit everyday
- but expresses individualism through his fun socks
“be a pepper” advertising campaign
example of optimal distinctiveness in practice
essentially says “express your individualism by joining this group!”
goes through a bunch of unique people with all sorts of appearances and interests and occupations
who are united in their love for Dr Pepper
2 other advertising campaigns that engage in optimal distinctiveness theory
- apple
- says people who use these extremely common products are their own unique individuals - burger king
- “have it your way”
not distinct enough VERSUS optimal distinctiveness VERSUS too distinct
not distinct enough:
- lack individuality
- too constraining
optimal distinctiveness:
- distinct, but not too distinct
too distinct:
- stigma
- not included
- undesirable deviant
optimal distinctiveness I personally engage in
I am a vegan
but a CHILL vegan
self-esteem hypothesis
Hogg and Abrams, 1990
self-esteem is intrinsically linked to group identity
implies that when you belong to a stigmatized group, this will negatively impact your self-esteem
t-shirts that say things like “Black Excellence” - deliberately working to draw value from these identities
implication of the self-esteem hypothesis… BIRG
basking in reflected glory (BIRGing)
celebrating in-group’s success as your own, but derogating it following failure
example of BIRGing
students = more likely to wear college apparel after a football win than loss
after a tough loss: “THEY blew OUR chance to win a championship!” versus “WE won!”
implication of self-esteem hypothesis…derogating…
derogating out-groups can increase self esteem
- derogate out-group
- increased relative standing for in-group
- more positive social identity
- increased self-esteem
implications of self-esteem hypothesis…lowered self-esteem increases the…
tendency to discriminate against out-groups
- threats to self-esteem increase out-group derogation
- people with chronically low self-esteem are more likely to derogate out-groups
relative deprivation theory
belief that one is getting less than they deserve RELATIVE to:
- other people/groups
- some other standard (the past, expectations)
relative deprivation theory: would you rather
option 1:
- make $40 000 while your co-worker makes $60 000
OR
option 2:
- make $39 000 while your co-worker makes $20 000
capuchins: first relative deprivation study
fairness study done using capuchin monkeys
- put two monkeys side by side
- give them a simple task (throw rock)
- if both get a cucumber, both are equally willing to do the task
- if you give one a grape instead, creates inequality between the two capuchins
- the one who gets the cucumber will get angry, shake the cage, slam the wall
capuchin receiving the less appealing reward was willing to do the task at first, but once aware that in relation to the other monkey they were getting a worse deal, refused/got upset
relative deprivation is RELATIVE. we’re more likely to compare ourselves against people who are…
- similar
- relevant
- proximal
2 things needed for relative deprivation to arise
- perceived discrepancy between desired outcome and actual outcome
- belief that discrepancy is undeserved
2 things that make people believe a discrepancy is undeserved
- distributive justice
- procedural justice
distributive justice
rewards and costs are justly allocated
ie. equal work = equal pay
procedural justice
fairness of procedures for distributing rewards and costs
ie. meritocracy
the “occupy” movement and distributive justice
from 1980’s to 2010’s, incomes were steadily increasing for the top 1%
not following distributive justice
increasing discrepancy, not justified by difference in quality/quantity of work
the “occupy” movement and procedural justice
the rich avoid paying taxes
the rich use their money to purchase political influence
preserves inequality
consequences of relative deprivation
- EMOTIONS of discontent, frustration, resentment
- HOSTILITY towards perceived source of deprivation
relative deprivation and anti-immigrant prejudice - participants and what did they measure?
7000+ European survey respondents, over 15 years
measure personal and group relative deprivation
anti-immigrant prejudice survey: personal relative deprivation measure
“how has immigration impacted you versus other British people like you?”
how have you been impacted
anti-immigrant prejudice survey: group relative deprivation measure
“how has immigration impacted British people like you versus West Indians living in Britain?”
how has your group been impacted
anti-immigrant prejudice survey: what measure was a better predictor?
group measure
group identity was driving prejudice
anti-immigrant prejudice survey: main point
group deprivation is relevant for prejudice
personal deprivation is not
line of thought is this: “maybe I haven’t been personally affected, but I’m sure someone from my group has”
this thinking justifies prejudice
anti-immigrant prejudice survey: example of personal versus group deprivation
- most people don’t think that undocumented immigrants have personally taken one of their jobs (personal deprivation)
- however, common concern is that undocumented immigrants are steadily taking jobs away from Americans like them as a group (group deprivation)
aside: empirical evidence suggests undocumented immigrants don’t take away jobs from Americans as a group
participants rated extent to which they felt Black and White people experienced discrimination for each of 5 decades…
example of relative deprivation and prejudice
White people thought that anti-Black bias = going down strongly
White people thought that anti-White prejudice was simultaneously increasing
the way that you think about other groups = tied to the way you think about your group
“according to a recent 2018 report, White homebuyers received roughly $386.4 billion in mortgage loans from banks, while Latinx homebuyers only received about $12.6 billion in mortgage loans overall”… CONDITIONS
- equality-enhancing condition
- several banks propose increasing total amount of mortgage loans to Latinx homebuyers by $7.3 billion and not changing the total amount of mortgage loans to White people
- status quo condition
- several banks propose not changing mortgage loan funding over the next year
Latino and White mortgage loan study: rating results
equality-enhancing policies were rated as MORE HARMFUL among White participants
even though funding for White people was the same across both groups
relative deprivation: eagles versus rattlers study setup
random assignment to on of two teams (eagles or rattlers)
but everyone was actually a rattler
rattlers received more bonuses (126) than eagles (79) in previous weeks
relative deprivation: eagles versus rattlers study 2 conditions
- win-win policy condition
- 50 more bonuses to eagles
- 5 more bonuses to rattlers - lose-lose policy condition
- 50 fewer bonuses to eagles
- 5 fewer bonuses to rattlers
relative deprivation: eagles versus rattlers study results
among rattlers, win-win policy was seen as more harmful than lose-lose policy
people preferred increasing intergroup inequality (but getting fewer rewards for their own group) than decreasing intergroup inequality (but getting more rewards for their own group)
in the eagles versus rattler study, prioritizing relative differences across groups was NOT consistently related to which 3 things?
- explicit racial preferences
- social dominance orientation
- political orientation
realistic conflict theory
intergroup prejudice and discrimination arises from conflicting goals and competition over limited resources
key here: prejudice/discrimination depend on COMPETITION
3 stages of Robber’s Cave study
- experimental in-group formation
- friction between groups
- integration between groups
according to realistic conflict theory, intergroup prejudice is amplified when which 3 things are true?
- the relationship between groups is perceived as “zero-sum”
- there is objective resource scarcity
- there is perceived resource scarcity
“zero-sum” activities
activities where one individual/group’s win means the other’s loss
realistic conflict and objective scarcity example
gave people a continuum of faces, with black ones on one end and white on the other
the faces are more ambiguous in the middle
ask people which face marks the divide between white and black
in economic recessions (objective scarcity), the face that is seen as black is lighter in skin tone
if white people are feeling threatened, they see less white people
realistic conflict and subjective scarcity example
subjective feeling that every job given to an out-group member takes one from a member of their own group
those who feel there is a fixed amount of jobs will have more restrictive immigration policy opinions
social identity theory: prejudice results from…
mere in-group/out-group distinction
relative deprivation: prejudice results from…
victimized in-group
(feeling you’re being done wrong)
realistic conflict: prejudice results from…
competition
N Derek Brown
his paper: “If you rise, I fall: Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups”
assistant prof at Columbia Business School
research focus: how inequality is created and maintained between groups and within organizations
lead author on article looking at how people would rather sacrifice some personal gain if it meant maintaining relative disadvantages between groups
example of more explicit versus implicit hierarchies
explicit: Indian caste system
- priests, academics
- warriors, kings
- merchants, landowners
- commoners, peasants, servants
implicit: racial composition of the Congress
perceptions of group hierarchies: how do White people rank status of different groups?
rank White people with highest status
then Asians, Latinx, Black people
perceptions of group hierarchies: how do Asian and Latinx and Black people rank status of different groups?
the same as White people do
Whites, Asians, Latinx, Black
(from highest status to lowest)
status hierarchies are largely ________
recognizable
social dominance orientation (SDO) 5 main tenets
- social identity theory can’t be the only contributor to discrimination
- group-based social hierarchies are universal (unavoidable)
- most intergroup conflict stems from the existence of these hierarchies
- both people and institutions exist along a continuum among those that are “hierarchy enforcing” or “hierarchy attenuating”
- hierarchies are a two-way street, requiring at least some coordination among both high-status and low status people
can people in low status groups have high SDO orientations?
yes
SDO is mostly concentrated in the upper class, but pervades downwards as well
sample items from the SDO
- it’s not a problem if some groups have more of a chance in life than others
- some people are just inferior to others
- inferior groups should stay in their place
- sometimes other groups should be kept in their place
distribution of SDO responses
doesn’t follow normal distribution - it’s right skewed
most responses STRONGLY DISAGREE with the items
some people kinda-sorta agree
and very few totally agree
SDO is strongly associated with what 3 things?
- political ideology (conservatism)
- explicit racial preferences (degree to which White people are preferred over Black people)
- gender
correlation between SDO and political ideology
r = 0.43
strong correlation, but not enough to make the two measures redundant (they’re still distinct)
correlation between SDO and explicit White over Black racial preferences
r = 0.27
correlation between SDO and gender
men are higher in SDO than women
r = 0.19
sample of 85 White police officers, greater SDO is associated with more…
actual uses of force while on patrol
higher SDO predicted greater likelihood of working in a _______-________ job…AND
hierarchy-enforcing
AND
working in a hierarchy-enforcing job was associated with long-term increase in SDO
does SDO cause support for hierarchies, or…
and who conducted a study to answer this question?
do people who find themselves in hierarchies develop SDO to support their current situation?
Kteily and Sidanius
Nour Kteily and Sidanius “cross-lagged” longitudinal design study SETUP
wanted to see if SDO causes support for hierarchies, or if people who find themselves in hierarchies develop SDO to support their current situation
tracked same individuals using “cross-lagged” longitudinal design
repeatedly measured SDO and forms of intergroup prejudice
did this in White college students during freshman orientation (1996) and each Spring semester (through 2000)
what kind of intergroup prejudice did Kteily and Sidanius measure?
negativity towards racial/ethnic groups
Kteily and Sidanius: if SDO is a cause of hierarchies, then changes in SDO should come…
before expressed negativity towards racial outgroups
Kteily and Sidanius RESULTS
SDO measured in 1996 was a stronger predictor of OUTGROUP PREJUDICE in 2000
than outgroup prejudice measured in 1996 was a predictor of SDO in 2000
so SDO seems to modulate prejudice
first there’s an abstract belief about how different groups should be treated in society
and then this translates into specific prejudices
how might SDO facilitate the maintenance of intergroup hierarchies
one route is through the experience (or lack thereof) of INTERGROUP EMPATHY
positive empathy
feeling positive after seeing someone else experience positivity
schadenfreude
feeling positive after seeing someone else experience negativity
SDO and hierarchy maintenance (study 2b) setup
White participants completed the SDO SCALE and and INTERGROUP EMPATHY TASK
empathy task: participants saw a White, Asian or Black person experience something mildly positive or negative (ie. eating a good sandwich or stubbing one’s toe)
after each story (one for each race, one for positive vs negative), participants reported both how GOOD and how BAD they felt upon reading the story
SDO and hierarchy maintenance study 2b results
- as SDO increased, participants generally felt less positive empathy, and this was PARTICULARLY TRUE towards racial outgroup members
- as SDO increased, participants generally felt more schadenfreude, and this was PARTICULARLY TRUE towards racial outgroup members
SDO and hierarchy maintenance study 2b takeaway
SDO may help maintain intergroup social hierarchies by blunting/muting empathy towards outgroup members
thereby making it easier to keep them in positions of lower social status
scarcity
having lower power and status
it isn’t only a resource problem
it also impacts our psychology
“scarcity is more than just the displeasure of having very little. it changes how we think. it imposes itself on our minds”
experience of a scarcity mindset…
is like being under consistent “cognitive load”
reduces bandwidth available to pay attention to other concerns in one’s life
“scarcity in one walk of life means we have less attention in the rest of life”
scarcity and gambling
- poorer people spend significantly higher portion of their income on lottery tickets
- households that bring in less than $10K annually put 3% of total income to lotteries
^ways we can see effects of scarcity in real world - scarcity leads people to make less rational choices (having less clouds our decision making process)
scarcity and gambling: poverty trap
from 1964-2003, average expected value of a lottery ticket is -0.47 per dollar spent
scarcity, debt and payday lending
in 2008 the US national credit card debt was 951.7 billion
overdue penalties as high as an additional 5%
low income individuals take HIGH INTEREST SHORT TERM LOANS with rates of 800%
so, if you’re low on money, you will take more risks to get it
scarcity and cognitive load: decisions without and with context
- put off paying next month’s phone bill TO BUY FOOD FOR THE FAMILY TODAY
- Neglect routine maintenance on house/car TO TRY TO KEEP UP WITH MORTGAGE/RENT
- Take out 800% short-term loan TO PAY OFF PRESSING DEBTS
essentially, there’s an enhanced focus on immediate issues, and an attentional neglect of long-term costs
5 effects of scarcity mindset
- resource scarcity creates a “different mindset”
- people lower in resources must make sporadic decisions and trade-offs
- increases focus on immediate short-term problems
- reduces focus on long-term global picture
- dilemmas related to poverty are distracting, and use cognitive resources
creating scarcity in the lab: wheel of fortune/family feud setup
participants play Wheel of Fortune
manipulation of resource scarcity: number of letter guesses participants are given per round
POOR: 6 guesses per round
RICH: 20 guesses per round
unspent guesses could be accumulated for the next round
then assessed effect of scarcity mindset using a COGNITIVE CONTROL DOT-PROBE TASK
dot probe task
the cognitive task used in the “scarcity in the lab” experiment
have a screen with a fixation point (cross) in the middle
have to identify as quickly as possible which side of the screen a picture appears on, by using keyboard commands
CONGRUENT TRIAL: see image on the same side of the screen as the keyboard button for that side is on (ie. on left side of screen and must press A key)
INCONGRUENT TRIAL: see image on the side of the screen opposite to the button you are meant to press (ie. on right side of screen and must press L key)
measure of your attentional ability: faster responses means better attention
creating scarcity in the lab: results
even though ‘poor’ participants made FEWER guesses in Wheel of Fortune, they performed WORSE in the Dot-Probe task
(on both congruent and incongruent trials)
the simple stress/distraction of having less made them struggle more with the task
stressors in the back of their minds steal cognitive energy
scarcity ‘in the real world’ - sugarcare farmers
Indian sugarcane farmers
are paid once annually, meaning there are times when they are comparatively rich (post-harvest) and comparatively poor (pre-harvest)
the SAME sugarcane farmers performed 10 points higher on an IQ test when taken right AFTER the harvest than right before the harvest
this is about 75% as effective as taking an IQ test well-rested versus after an all-nighter
Sa-Kiera Hudson
guest lecturer- SDO expert
Grad of Williams College, received PhD from Harvard in 2000
now a professor at University of California-Berkely Haas School of Business
but was a post-doctoral researcher at Yale when interviewed
scarcity ‘in the real world’ - income and math/reading
used natural variation across the years in earned income tax credit
different policies for how much you get based on how many kids you have (some years you’ll get 3K, other years 4K)
$1000 INCREASE in income raises combined MATH/READING test scores by 6% of a standard deviation in the short run
test gains = largest for kids from disadvantaged families
example of importance of individual differences: lightened/unaltered/darkened picture of political candidate HOLISTIC
47% say equally representative
17% say unaltered
18% say darkened
18% say lightened
doesn’t really seem like there’s an effect here
BUT this ignores individual differences
example of importance of individual differences: lightened/unaltered/darkened picture of political candidate AGREED/DISAGREED
divide the data into those who AGREED with the candidate and those who DISAGREED
AGREED:
Equally representative: 50%
Unaltered: 15%
DARKENED: 10%
LIGHTENED: 25%
DISAGREED:
Aqually representative: 44%
Unaltered: 19%
DARKENED: 26%
LIGHTENED: 11%
lightened/unaltered/darkened picture of political candidate TAKEAWAY
colourism working in both directions
- dislike politician: see the darkened version as most representative
- like politician: see the lightened version as most representative
points to importance of looking at individual differences within groups (in this case, whether or not they liked the politician’s platform)
colourism Obama individual differences
when we don’t look at individual differences (liberals vs conservatives) then there isn’t much difference on average between ratings of the unaltered, darkened or lightened photos
but when we separate into liberals and conservatives…
LIBERALS:
7% say darkened
33% say lightened
CONSERVATIVES:
42% say darkened
21% say lightened
Frances Likert
arguably one of the most influential people for the conduct of psychological research
Likert scale
- technique for measuring attitudes
- proposed that you can give people a self-report item
- assign numerical values to each response option
- from STRONGLY APPROVE (1) to STRONGLY DISAPPROVE (2)
SUBTLE self-report measures of explicit racial attitudes
Modern Racism Scale
Symbolic Racism Scale
symbolic/modern racism
- theory developed by political scientists in the 1970’s and 1970’s
- people were no longer willing to accept/report more blatant forms of prejudice
- people high in modern/symbolic racism no longer feel that discrimination is a significant problem
- other racial groups aren’t INHERENTLY inferior, but intergroup disparities can be attributed to GROUP DIFFERENCES IN ATTITUDES/MOTIVATIONS associated with success in life
ie. belief that certain racial groups don’t value hard work as much as White people do
sample items from the Modern Racism scale
“Black people are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights”
“discrimination against Black people is no longer a problem”
items allow people to report a prejudiced response, but JUSTIFIED on non-prejudiced grounds
response results from two examples on the Modern Racism scale
“Black people are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights”
- agree: 5%
- neutral: 6%
- disagree: 89%
“Discrimination against Black people is no longer a problem”
- agree: 9%
- neutral: 14%
- disagree: 77%
right-skewed distribution, like SDO
sample items from Symbolic Racism scale
“it’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Black people would only try harder they could be just as well off as White people”
“over the past few years, Black people have gotten more economically than they deserve”
response results from two examples on the Symbolic Racism scale
“it’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Black people would only try harder they could be just as well off as White people”
- agree: 18%
- neutral: 14%
- disagree: 68%
“over the past few years, Black people have gotten more economically than they deserve”
- agree: 8%
- neutral: 21%
- disagree: 71%
right skewed
examples of more DIRECT self-report measures of racial attitudes
- Prejudice Index
- Racial Stereotypes Measure
- Subtle and Blatant Prejudice
sample items from more direct self report measures for racial attitudes
“Black people come from a less able race and this explains why they’re not as well off as most White people”
“to what extent do you prefer White to Black people?”
response results from more direct self report measures for racial attitudes
“Black people come from a less able race and this explains why they’re not as well off as most White people”
- agree: 9%
- neutral: 7%
- disagree: 84%
“to what extent do you prefer White to Black people?”
- prefer White: 28%
- neutral: 62%
- prefer Black: 10%
how do we know which approach works better at measuring individual differences in racial attitudes? (subtle versus blatant self reports)
self-presentation and irrelevant factors WEAKEN THE CORRELATION between self-report and IAT measures
but people’s explicit self-report and implicit associations are both related to their overall construct regarding race attitudes
since both are related, we can test which measures are best at MAXIMIZING THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SELF-REPORTS AND IAT
can also assess which is the bigger detriment to getting correct correlations: self presentation or irrelevant factors?
in graph of “shared variance with race IAT”: three levels of directness for self report questions
0: the “old-fashioned ways and values” still show the best way to live
- most indirect
1: how much discrimination is there that hurts the chances of Black people to get good paying jobs?
2: I would be unwilling to have a Black person as a friend
- most direct
so the best predictors of IAT/real attitudes are the more __________ measures
direct
explicit, blunt measures seem to be the best
right-wing authoritarianism: who and when
Canadian psychologist Robert Altemeyer
1981
right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)
measure developed to identify people who:
- are particularly willing to submit to (perceived legitimate) authorities
- strongly adhere to societal norms
RWA is a strong predictor of…
intergroup prejudice
RWA’s connection to prejudice - likely to due RWA’s…
mental inflexibility
and attitudes towards groups that violate current conventions
these people struggle with uncertainty, they like to place everyone in a box
sample items from RWA scale
“the established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance”
“the only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas”
^nothing in here is directly related to prejudice
it is tapping into something more global, like valuing pre-existing social structures
correlations between RWA and prejudice towards 4 groups
Black people: r = 0.50
Gay people: r = 0.52
Feminists: r = 0.74
People with mental disability: r = 0.31
RWA and political orientation (conservatism) correlate at…
r = 0.65
political orientation
degree to which a person self-identifies as liberal or conservative
can be viewed as a psychological individual difference
research finds that political orientation is consistently related to…
psychological processes outside of just political attitudes and beliefs
one reason for these findings = relationship between political orientation and need for cognitive closure
need for closure
refers to an individual’s desire to arrive at a firm answer
or to avoid feelings of ambiguity
need for closure is found to be related to the degree to which someone identifies…
as conservative
r ~ 0.20
sample items for need for closure
I find that a well ordered life with regular hours suits my temperament
I don’t like to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it
When I have made a decision, I feel relieved
need for closure and need for stereotypical thinking fill a similar purpose…
they allow for a more simplified view of the world
greater reliance on stereotypes in judgment and perceptions means a lower need or ability to use “individualizing” information
need for closure: perceptions of androgyny SETUP
participants viewed targets varying in androgyny and had to categorize them as male or female as fast as possible
afterwards, participants reported how positive they felt towards each face
and finally, they reported their political ideology
need for closure: perceptions of androgyny RESULTS
for conservative participants, categorization time MEDIATED the relationship between target androgyny and the liking of each target
conservative participants evaluated androgynous targets more negatively partly because IT TOOK THEM LONGER TO CATEGORIZE more androgynous face (they created more ambiguity)
THE SAME PATTERN DIDN’T EMERGE FOR LIBERAL PARTICIPANTS
need for closure: use of physical appearance SETUP
participants reported how confident they were in inferring social group membership from physical appearance
- “it’s possible to know a person’s [race/religion/sexual orientation] once you take a look at them”
participants also completed a measure of Need for Structure
- “I enjoy having a clear and structured life”
need for closure: use of physical appearance RESULTS
in every category, conservatives were more confident that social group membership could be inferred from physical appearance
need for closure: use of physical appearance - need for structure mediated…
the relationship between political ideology (conservatism) and belief that social group membership can be inferred from physical appearance
conservatives viewed group memberships as more visible than did liberals, partly because they desire structure more strongly in daily life
can (partly) help inform ideological debates around political issues like racial profiling or “stop and frisk”
Chadly Stern
associate prof at Uni of Illinois
2019 Early Career Award winner for the International Social Cognition Network
leading expert on political psychology, particularly the social-cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives
prejudice continuum
old fashioned prejudice: more blatant
theories of contemporary prejudice: more subtle
a) symbolic prejudice
b) aversive prejudice
c) ambivalent prejudice
d) implicit prejudice
Jim Crow Racism
aka old fashioned racism
the prejudice of the era after Reconstruction until the 1960’s
- White’s absolute belief in their (biological) superiority over other races
- firm belief in racial separation (and subjugation)
- use of the government to establish a system of segregation and other forms of discrimination (curtailing voting rights)
over the past half-century, racial prejudice has often taken more…
subtle forms
either in attitudes or behaviour
theories of symbolic and aversive prejudice were originally developed to explain…
anti-Black prejudice on the part of White people
these theories have since extended to over fields
theories of symbolic and aversive prejudice assume that prejudice resides within…
most White people in some fashion
since WWII, there has been a shift in…
social norms
towards belief in the principle of equality for all people
however, not all people have accepted the norm of equality to the same degree
norms of equality are more accepted among…
- those with politically liberal values
- younger generations
theories of contemporary prejudice suggest that most people want to be at least…
PERCEIVED as non-prejudiced
consequence: people may express prejudices in ways that can be justified on seemingly unprejudiced grounds
prejudice couched in abstract principles
dog-whistle example: “welfare queen”
part of Ronald Reagan’s campaign
he created super influential ads, railing against people “taking advantage” of the welfare system - argued why should they raise taxes to increase welfare cheques if the money won’t be used deservingly?
used a Black woman - Linda Taylor - as the face of this campaign
says a lot that this was the face thought to be most resonant among voters
conceptualization of prejudice as a system of….
attitudes and beliefs
old fashioned, symbolic, aversive and ambivalent prejudice theories invest in this conceptualization
as opposed to implicit prejudice theories
symbolic prejudice
aka “modern prejudice”
set of beliefs about Black people as an ABSTRACT GROUP rather than as INDIVIDUALS
ie. “if only they would work harder”
symbolic prejudice: beliefs portray members of stigmatized groups as morally inferior because…
they violate traditional values like HARD WORK and SELF-RELIANCE
the beliefs expressed through specific acts that could (mostly) be justified on a non-racial basis, but that MAINTAIN THE RACIAL STATUS QUO
ie. opposition to welfare and affirmative action, pro-school choice
“I oppose affirmative action because everyone should have an equal chance of getting into school, not because I hold negative attitudes about Black people”
symbolic prejudice is characterized by five themes that:
a) justify policies that promote inequality, while
b) generally endorsing equality as an abstract principle
the five themes of symbolic prejudice
- racial prejudice/discrimination no longer exist (or aren’t barriers to success)
- differences in economic status result from lack of motivation
- anger over inequality and unfair treatment is unjustified
- rather than working to get ahead, Black people seek special favours from the government
- Black people are now getting more than they deserve economically
distribution for symbolic prejudice
is right skewed
the paradox of symbolic prejudice
people with symbolic prejudice endorse racial equality IN PRINCIPLE, but OPPOSE POLICIES that could bring it about
Sears, Henry & Kosterman argue the paradox of symbolic prejudice is resolved because there are two meanings of equality:
- equality of OPPORTUNITY: everyone deserves the same chance to succeed
- higher modern racism predicts agreement with this type of equality - equality of OUTCOME: everyone should have an equal share of successes
- higher modern racism predicts lower agreement with this type of equality
criticism of symbolic prejudice: how do you distinguish anti-Black prejudice from…
principled ideological views
2 summary points of symbolic prejudice
- symbolic racists endorse the idea that members of marginalized groups violate traditional values like hard work and independence
- symbolic racists express prejudices in ways that could be justified on “unprejudiced” grounds
Mahatir Mohamad (prime minister of Malaysia) when asked about affirmative action for ethnic Malays…
example of symbolic prejudice
he is saying he is against AA not because he doesn’t like Malays
but because they don’t work as hard
and that they would be sure to waste the opportunities they were given
3 broad components of symbolic prejudice
- move away from biological superiority
- focus on out-group violation of shared cultural values
- justification of inequality and unfair treatment due to negative internal characteristics of an out-group
aversive racism
having POSITIVE EXPLICIT attitudes toward Black people while holding NEGATIVE IMPLICIT attitudes
characterized by feelings of UNEASE/DISCOMFORT rather than hostility
partner discomfort study SETUP
aversive racism study
non-Black male participants
- did a word-find task with a partner (either White or Black)
- then interacted with a White or Black confederate
they measured their BLOOD PRESSURE to index level of discomfort
partner discomfort study RESULTS and TAKEAWAY
higher blood pressure after interacting with Black over White confederate
takeaway: people with aversive prejudice are uncomfortable and anxious around minorities
many aversive racists support equality and see themselves as egalitarian - this results in a strong motivation to…
appear unprejudiced
since aversive racists are motivated to appear unprejudiced, when are they most likely to discriminate?
aversive racism = discrimination under certain conditions
- clear “correct” behaviour: FAIR responses
- unclear “correct” behaviour: DISCRIMINATORY responses
in ambiguous situations, are more likely to be influenced by their prejudice
if they don’t know what the unprejudiced response is, they may rely on more IMPLICIT/GUT responses
aversive prejudice: White people default to favouring White over Black people in…
ambiguous situations
reason: less threat of appearing prejudiced
- when it’s ambiguous, decision is less likely to be seen as based on prejudice
aversive prejudice: hiring clearly (un)qualified versus ambiguous candidates
- with clearly qualified or unqualified candidates, both White and Black candidates were recommended/not recommended equally
- with ambiguous candidates, the White candidate is way more likely to be hired
meaning of ambivalence
“ambi” means BOTH
“valence” means GOOD/BAD
ambivalent prejudice
negative and positive feelings about a group
ambivalent prejudice: non-Black people see Black people as…
- DISADVANTAGED: which elicits a POSITIVE sympathy response
- CULTURALLY DEVIANT: which elicits a negative aversion response
being made aware of this mental conflict causes psychological discomfort, which people are motivated to reduce (cognitive dissonance)
ambivalent prejudice causes people to feel what psychological phenomenon?
cognitive dissonance
how do people fix the cognitive dissonance associated with ambivalent prejudice?
- increase positivity
- increase negativity
RESPONSE AMPLIFICATION
response amplification
ambivalent prejudice
more EXTREME behaviour towards a stigmatized group
a) more positive when receiving “good” information
b) more negative when receiving “bad” information
ambivalent persuasion study SETUP
ambivalent prejudice
- measured ambivalence towards indigenous people
- gave participants persuasive info
- PRO indigenous land grants
- ANTI indigenous land grants - measured attitudes again
ambivalent persuasion study RESULTS and TAKEAWAY
those who were non-ambivalent towards indigenous people in the first place WERE NOT AFFECTED by the persuasive info in either direction
those who were AMBIVALENT were much more affected by the PRO-LAND GRANT persuasive info
takeaway: to reduce conflict, ambivalent people swing more extremely to one side or the other
ambivalent prejudice: birthmark study SETUP
- participants interacted with a “control” confederate or a confederate who was facially stigmatized (port wine stain birthmark)
the interaction lasted for ~3 minutes and included some basic “get to know you” questions
- afterwards, participants’ physiological responses were tracked to assess the degree of a “threat response”
ambivalent prejudice: birthmark study RESULTS
- participants LOW in cardiovascular threat showed no differences in positive treatment to confederates with versus without a birthmark
- however, participants HIGH in cardiovascular threat showed GREATER behavioural positivity towards the confederate with a birthmark
- suggests some sort of response amplification
Get Out clip - example of what kind of prejudice?
ambivalent
quote examples for each form of prejudice
old-fashioned: “I hate minorities; they are biologically inferior; discrimination is justifiable”
modern-symbolic: “I don’t like minorities; they are morally inferior; discrimination no longer exists”
aversive: “I don’t like discrimination, but don’t like minorities either; they make me anxious”
ambivalent: “I don’t like discrimination; I have positive and negative beliefs about minorities”
explicit versus implicit prejudice: speed and controllability
explicit prejudice:
a) deliberate
b) slow
c) controllable
implicit prejudice:
a) automatic
b) fast
c) hard to control
implicit association test (IAT)
pairing task: participants must sort images from two categories (most commonly Black and White faces) and then must sort negative or positive words
incongruent block:
- White people key on same side as Good key
- Black on side side as Bad
congruent block:
- Black people key on same side as Bad key
- White on same side as Good
logic behind the IAT
uses reaction time data to infer participant’s implicit biases
the speed with which people respond maps onto the strength of their associations
if the pair is easier to form, this indicates a strong association
total IATs taken in 2023
3.08 million
one every ten seconds
IAT results: implicit preference for White versus Black people
among White participants:
a) pro Black: 11%
b) neutral: 16%
c) pro White: 73%
among Black participants:
a) pro Black: 41%
b) neutral: 25%
c) pro White: 34%
other racial backgrounds:
a) pro Black: 16%
b) pro White: 64%
takeaway from racial group’s results on implicit preference for White versus Black people
White participants are pro White
Black participants are more neutral: 41% pro Black and 34% pro White
other races are pro White: 64%
are IAT scores diagnostic?
no
IATs are a NOISY measure of mental content, that fluctuates over time
can’t predict an individual’s future behaviour
IAT: implicit gender-science stereotypes
male participants:
a) 70% have better association with men and science
b) 11% for women and science
female participants:
a) 71% have better association with men and science
b) 10% for women and science
results are the same across gender
looking at science-gender associations within people of different majors
range of majors from visual arts to engineering
(from most artsy to most science-y)
women:
the more science-related their major, the more their male-science association diminishes
men:
the more science-related their major, the more their male-science association increases
2 main sources of our implicit prejudices and stereotypes
- our understanding of SOCIAL HIERARCHY
- what groups in society are higher status
- learned component - our PERSONAL IDENTITY
- who we are, what our experiences have been
- ie. in-group biases
IAT with four racial groups taken into consideration
White, Asian, Black and Hispanic people
- ALWAYS have the most positive associations with the in-group (in-group favouritism)
- evaluations of other groups are in accordance with the status hierarchy perception of group status
ie. Black people have the most positive associations with Black people, followed by White, then Asian, then Hispanic people
IAT with four religious groups taken into consideration
looked at Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Muslim and Atheist participants
- always have most positive association with the in-group
- then it follows the societal perception of the groups’ statuses
(Christian -> Jewish -> Hindu -> Muslim)
can IAT predict behaviour?
meta-analyses show that IAT scores show a SMALL BUT CONSISTENT ability to predict wide variety of real-world behaviours
ie. White participants with higher implicit racial bias tended to have more awkward and stilted conversations with Black experimenter
study: implicit bias and employment SETUP
sample = 192 hiring managers in 12 occupation categories who handled job postings in Sweden
- responded to 1552 job ads from the Swedish Employment Agency
- manipulated name to be a typical Swedish or typical Arab Muslim title
- kept applications otherwise the same - measured the manager’s implicit and explicit stereotypes
study: implicit bias and employment RESULTS
weak correlation between explicit stereotypes and callbacks
stronger negative correlation between implicit stereotypes (IAT) and callback rate for Arab/Muslim participants
countrywide IAT: gender gap in 8th grade science and IAT
looked at many different countries
- gender gap in 8th grade science class
- IAT scores for male=science and female=arts
bigger gender disparities in grade 8 science performance correlates with higher IAT scores
so IAT picks up on cultural values present in society
correlation between IAT scores and demographics of high school suspensions
- plotted variation across the USA in race IAT scores
- plotted racial disparities in high school suspensions
magnitude of pro-White bias (highest IAT scores) maps on to areas where more Black kids are suspended
3 areas for segmenting when implicit prejudices are most influential
- motivation and ability
- discretion
- organizations and institutions
motivation and ability: when implicit prejudices are influential
when you don’t think things through
when you’re:
a) stressed
b) tired
c) drunk
d) lazy
e) on a deadline
time pressure and fatigue increases…
shooter bias in the IAT
example of when you rely on implicit prejudices because you’re low on motivation and ability
discretion: when implicit prejudices are influential
- when criteria for making a decision are unclear
- when information is ambiguous or incomplete
relying on implicit biases: Michelle and Michael
example of how we rely on implicit biases when information is incomplete
Michelle and Michael are candidates for next police chief
manipulation 1: Michelle is “formally educated” and Michael is “streetwise”
- people choose Michael, and when asked to explain why they say because being streetwise is more important
manipulation 1: Michael is “formally educated” and Michelle is “streetwise”
- people choose Michael AGAIN, and insist that it is because formal education is more important
Michelle and Michael follow up study
had people write out the values that are important for being a police chief in advance
in this case, people pick the police chief consistent with those values
regardless of gender
organizations and institutions: when implicit prejudices are influential
when policies and systems allow for it
example of when policies and systems allow for implicit bias
Julliard and other professional music admissions
used to be largely men
until they introduced blind auditions - used a curtain
but could still tell it was a female if they heard the click clack of high heels
so now have footwear regulations for auditions
ever since the introduction of blind auditions, there has been major increases in the amount of females in orchestras
interracial interactions can be challenging: stroop task study SETUP
- participants went through SAME RACE or CROSS RACE interaction for 15 mins
- after, completed measure of executive control (STROOP TASK)
- finally, completed an IAT
interracial interactions can be challenging: stroop task RESULT
participants who reported MORE IMPLICIT BIAS on IAT had the MOST DIFFICULTY on the Stroop Task following a CROSS-RACE INTERACTION
one strong predictor of quality of intergroup interactions is one’s…
motivation to control prejudiced responses
this idea is divided into:
a) INTERNAL MOTIVATION
b) EXTERNAL MOTIVATION
has now been used in more than 1500 papers, particularly in intergroup interactions literature
internal motivation to control prejudice examples
‘I am personally motivated by my beliefs to be nonprejudiced toward Black people’
‘because of my personal values, I believe that using stereotypes about Black people is wrong’
‘being nonprejudiced toward Black people is important to my self concept’
- left skewed distribution: most people are very high in internal motivation to control prejudice
external motivation to control prejudice examples
‘because of today’s politically correct standards, I try to appear non-prejudiced towards Black people’
‘I try to act non-prejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others’
‘I try to hide any negative thoughts about Black people in order to avoid negative reactions from others’
- normal distribution: most people are right in the middle
which has a more normal distribution? internal or external motivation to control prejudice?
external
has a pretty normal distribution
whereas internal has a left skewed distribution
is there a correlation between internal and external motivation to control prejudice?
nope
r = 0.03
white participants high in internal motivation are concerned with…
showing RESPECT towards Black interaction partners
white participants high in external motivation are…
more SELF-FOCUSED
concerned about NOT APPEARING PREJUDICED in the yes of the Black interaction partner
internal/external motivation to be unprejudiced: video creation study setup
- White participants first completed INTERNAL and EXTERNAL MOTIVATION TO CONTROL PREJUDICE SCALES
- a few weeks before coming into lab - they were led to believe they would soon interact with another student. saw a “get to know you” video made by the other student (who was ALWAYS BLACK)
- participants made their OWN ‘get to know you’ video
internal/external motivation to be unprejudiced: video creation study results
external motivation to control prejudice was associated with:
a) concerns about APPEARING PREJUDICED
b) SELF-FOCUSED behavioural intentions
internal motivation to control prejudice was associated with:
a) concerns about being RESPECTFUL
b) PARTNER-FOCUSED behavioural intentions
c) ACTUAL RESPECTIVE behaviour in the video (evaluated by independent coders)
contact hypothesis
interpersonal contact between groups will improve intergroup relations
5 benefits of intergroup contact
higher levels of intergroup contact have been previously associated with…
- increased KNOWLEDGE about out-group
- increased EMPATHY toward out-group
- reduced intergroup ANXIETY
- reduced IMPLICIT and EXPLICIT PREJUDICE
- reduced intergroup THREAT
5 conditions for optimal contact
- support of authorities
- equal status
- common goals
- cooperation
- contact as individuals
support of authorities
a condition of optimal intergroup contact
authorities support friendly and egalitarian contact/interactions between groups
equal status
a condition of optimal intergroup contact
members of groups have similar social status within a situation
status and contact study SETUP: Blanchard, Weigel and Cook
- White participants do a cooperative task with a Black actor
- partner was then made to be equal or lower in status (in terms of their level of competence with the task)
- partners then succeeded or failed
status and contact study RESULTS: Blanchard, Weigel and Cook
measured LIKING OF PARTNER
if EQUAL STATUS:
- similar liking regardless of success or failure
- like partner either way
if PARTNER IS LOWER STATUS:
- if you FAIL, you blame your partner for the failure
- like them less as a result
- scape-goating
common goals
one condition for optimal group contact
groups share a common goal
don’t have to be actively cooperating
just have to be working toward the same goal
ie. all writing the same test, all practicing the same skill (tennis serve)
cooperation
groups work TOGETHER to attain common goals
college athletics and intergroup contact study SETUP
Brown et al 2003
White college athletes
“contact” is the PERCENTAGE of non-White players in each sport
individual versus team sports
measured prejudice towards African Americans
athletics and intergroup contact study RESULTS
main point: least prejudice with contact and cooperation (team and high contact)
highest positivity in high contact team group
contact as individuals
opportunities to know out-group members as individuals in informal settings
ie. “Meet a Jew”
“Meet a Jew”
contact as Public Policy
program introduced by Cenrtal Council of Jews in Germany
introduces Jews to non-Jewish people at events throughout Germany
aim to HUMANIZE Jews among rising antisemitism
people hesitate to initiate intergroup friendships because they…
- worry they won’t know how to act
- anticipate anxiety
- worry about rejection
White versus Black people - reasons not to interact
White people: worry Black people will think they’re prejudiced
- fear of rejection
Black people: worry White people hold negative stereotypes about their group
- lack of interest
BOTH ASSUME THE OTHER ISN’T INTERESTED
after intergroup contact, do people experience MORE or LESS positive affect than they expect?
MORE
people experience more positivity than they expect they will as a result of intergroup contact
3 forms of indirect contact that can reduce prejudice
- extended contact
- imagined contact
- ‘parasocial’ contact
extended contact
having a friend with an out-group friend
associated with lower prejudice
3 explanations of how extended contact reduces prejudice
- reduces inter-group anxiety
“if Dave is friends with Muslims, maybe it’s not that big of a deal” - changes perceptions of norms
“It’s not weird to be friends with Muslims” - cognitive consistency
“the friend of my friend must also be my friend”
imagined conact
simply imagining meeting an out-group member reduces prejudice
“imagine that the interaction is relaxed, positive, comfortable… visualize it as specifically and vividly as possible”
parasocial contact
experiences with outgroup members via mass communication
also reduces prejudice
movies, TV, social media
negative intergroup contact
negative experiences with out-group members that result in INCREASED PREJUDICE
less common than positive contact, but MORE INFLUENTIAL ON PREJUDICE when it does happen
explanation for negative intergroup contact’s interesting effect
negative intergroup contact is more influential on prejudice than positive contact is
explanation: if you have a negative encounter with an out-group member, you’re more likely to GENERALIZE to their entire out-group
negative experience is more SALIENT
one potential downside to contact
for members of ADVANTAGED GROUPS, greater intergroup contact is associated with HIGHER support for SOCIAL CHANGE
for members of DISADVANTAGED GROUPS, greater intergroup contact is associated with LOWER SUPPORT for social change
for members of disadvantaged groups, intergroup contact may have a PACIFYING EFFECT on working for social change
study looking at downside to contact SETUP
examined 12 000 participants in nearly 70 countries
- support for social change = operationalized in many ways (willingness to sign online petition, attend demonstration, policies that address inequality etc)
- also looked at effects in 2 domains
a) among members of ethnic majorities vs minorities
b) among cis-heterosexuals and LGBTIQ+ individuals
study looking at downside to contact RESULTS
- for ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals:
positive relationship between intergroup contact and more support for social change for ethnic minorities
- for ethnic minorities and LGBTIQ+ people
here it’s more of a mixed bag - sometimes a negative relationship (more contact results in less support for change)
study looking at downside to contact OUTCOME THAT WAS POSITIVELY ASSOCIATED WITH CONTACT FOR BOTH DISADVANTAGED AND ADVANTAGED GROUP MEMBERS
willingness to work in solidarity
willingness to work in solidarity
the only measured which was positively associated with higher intergroup contact for BOTH groups
assessed degree to which group members would form intergroup connections TO BRING ABOUT JUSTICE
“among advantaged groups, willingness to work in solidarity might reflect a recognition that social change is the responsibility of many in the larger society as a whole, rather than a burden carried solely by members of disadvantaged groups”
shocking racial attitudes: Black G.I.s in Europe SETUP
long term effects of contact
looked at how TROOP PLACEMENT in WWII in England is associated with RACIAL ATTITUDES
shocking racial attitudes: Black G.I.s in Europe RESULTS
individuals in areas of UK where more Black troops were posted = more tolerant towards minorities 60 years after the last troops left
shocking racial attitudes: Black G.I.s in Europe
EXPLANATION
effects must be at least PARTLY DUE to:
- “intergenerational transmission”
- power of cultural norms
shocking racial attitudes: Black G.I.s in Europe OUTCOMES USED
IAT scores
self-reported attitudes
popularity of far-right political parties
David Schindler
associate prof of economics at Tilburg Uni in Netherlands
works in experimental economics, economic history
mostly uses archival data
lead author on “Shocking Racial Attitudes” paper (concerning effect of Black American troop placement in WWII on British racial attitudes)
Kate Ratliff
associate prof at Uni of Florida
expert on implicit biases and intergroup prejudice
former executive director of Project Implicit
Chadly Stern
associate prof at Uni of Illinois
2019 Early Career Award winner for international Social Cognition Network
leading expert on political psychology, particularly the social-cognitive differences between liberals and conservatives
