Overcoming Stereotypes and Prejudice

Question 1

Stereotypes

Answer 1

generalized beliefs about a group

often their characteristics, e.g., traits, intelligence

Question 2

Prejudice

Answer 2

biased evaluations (good-bad) of a group and its members (“pre-judging”)

Question 3

Discrimination

Answer 3

differential behaviour towards a group and its members

usually refers to negative behaviour

Question 4

Typical working model

Answer 4

Stereotypes → Prejudice

Prejudice → Discrimination

Question 5

Other plausible models

Answer 5

Stereotypes ← Prejudice

Prejudice ← Discrimination

Question 6

Components of stereotypes (see Haines, Deaux & Lofaro, 2016)

Answer 6

Traits: e.g., skilled, friendly
Roles: e.g., decision-maker, emotional support provider
Physical characteristics: e.g., strong, pretty
Occupations: e.g., firefighter, teacher

Question 7

Stereotypes>Implicit

Answer 7

Associations we may be unaware of or outwardly deny we hold
e.g., associate men with science and women with humanities
Can also reflect implicit prejudice: “unconscious bias”
e.g., associate “good” with the young and “bad” with the old
BUT
Having an association does not always mean being prejudiced, or lead to discrimination
May reflect exposure to stereotypes/prejudice in society

Question 8

Are stereotypes valid?

Answer 8

Are stereotypes valid?

Groups differ in real ways
e.g., practices, norms, beliefs
stereotypes may contain “grains of truth”

Weaknesses
Over-generalisation
applied to ALL group members
where exceptions occur, ignore these or “bracket them off” (subtyping)
Motivated reasoning
invoke particular stereotypes to justify group treatment

Question 9

Over-generalisation

Answer 9

applied to ALL group members

where exceptions occur, ignore these or “bracket them off” (subtyping)

Question 10

Motivated reasoning

Answer 10

invoke particular stereotypes to justify group treatment.
(e.g., by prejudice/ discrimination goals)
-e.g., stereotyping to justify poor treatment
-stereotypes may lead to
biased hypothesis testing – we look for information that confirms stereotype

Question 11

Motivated Reasoning example

Answer 11

Stereotype employee as incompetent–> employee succeeds on Task 1/Employee struggles on Task 2–> Task 1 success is a fluke/Task 2 struggle is diagnostic–> Conclusion: Employee is incompetent
Another example:
Stereotype employee as lazy-> Treat employee as lazy-> employee motivation and performance declines-> employee actually becomes lazy

Question 12

Motivated Reasoning example

Answer 12

Stereotype employee as incompetent–> employee succeeds on Task 1/Employee struggles on Task 2–> Task 1 success is a fluke/Task 2 struggle is diagnostic–> Conclusion: Employee is incompetent
Another example:
Stereotype employee as lazy-> Treat employee as lazy-> employee motivation and performance declines-> employee actually becomes lazy

Question 13

Women in gaming stereotypes

Answer 13

men’s and women’s capacities and interests

Question 14

Women in gaming

Prejudiced attitudes

Answer 14

Prejudiced attitudes
Men = interested in and good at games
Women = not interested in and bad at games

Question 15

Women in gaming: Discrimination

Answer 15

women’s fewer job opportunities

greater workplace harassment

Question 16

Women in gaming: Broader influence on society

Answer 16

• industry practices and outcomes (e.g., lost economic opportunities)
• product development and marketing (which games get made)
• greater social inequality

Question 17

Is discrimination valid?

Answer 17

• Often easier to interact/exchange with ingroup members than with outgroup members
• -for outgroups, we may need to understand and negotiate different rules and expectations
• But ingroup bias can undermine benefits to society
• -power differentials, marginalised groups, stratified society
• -lose access to useful ideas and perspectives
• Discrimination may contrast with other cultural values
  e. g., in Australia: equality and tolerance

Question 18

Is discrimination valid?

Social identity perspective

Answer 18

–Our group memberships contribute to how we feel about ourselves (self-esteem or positive self-regard)
-Group memberships are defined in relation to other groups
–“ingroup” implies “outgroup”
—a specific comparison group (e.g., Australians v. New Zealanders)
—a more general “not us”
-We favour ingroups over outgroups
good ingroup outcomes contribute to our positive self-regard
findings in real settings are mixed-we don’t always favour ingroups

Question 19

Reducing prejudice: Intergroup approaches

Answer 19

Changing group interactions and boundaries
Contact hypothesis
Social identity approach
Interdependence

Question 20

Reducing prejudice: Individual approaches

Answer 20

Target prejudiced beliefs and emotions
Counter-stereotypes
Awareness raising
Perspective-taking
Normative influence
Dissonance
Self-affirmation

Question 21

The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)

Answer 21

having members of antagonistic groups interact

Optimal conditions of contact
Equal status between groups
Common goals
Intergroup cooperation/no competition context
Support of legitimate authorities, laws or customs

Question 22

Review of research (Pettigrew, 1998): The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)

Answer 22

Review of research (Pettigrew, 1998)
prejudice reduction greatest when all conditions present
some reduction is achieved when only some conditions present
the potential to become friends with outgroup members is an additional contact condition

Question 23

Social identity approaches: Decategorisation

Answer 23

downplay group identity and focus on individual identity

Question 24

Social identity approaches:

Recategorization

Answer 24

Recategorization: downplay separate group identities by focusing on shared superordinate group

QUT psych students/ QUT fashion students: Shared Group: QUT students

Question 25

To become ‘french’ abandon who you are

Answer 25

To bind together this diverse population, France continues to demand a degree of assimilation that expressly seeks to homogenize all immigrants into a shared mold of “frechness”. This is one key meaning of French fratenite- a brotherhood that erases all differences to create the “french people”.

Question 26

Crossed-categorization

Answer 26

identify shared/common characteristics and identities

Question 27

Integration

Answer 27

recognize both group differences and commonalities

*youtube link

Question 28

Interdependence

Answer 28

• people can overcome prejudice in the short-term when their own outcomes depend on it
• -e.g., performing on a joint work-task
• repeated experiences over time can change long-term prejudiced views

Question 29

Counter-stereotypes

Answer 29

-Present different, non-stereotypical images of group members
–highlight group members who don’t fit stereotypes
–highlight activities common in group that don’t fit stereotypes
“Here come the habibs photo”

Question 30

Counter-stereotypes

Answer 30

Present different, non-stereotypical images of group members
Dwarf swimming
Youtube link

Question 31

Awareness raising

Answer 31

-make people aware of their own stereotypes or prejudice

Tell people to suppress stereotypes (often counterproductive)

Tell people to remember their past prejudiced behaviour
can induce guilt and hence willingness to repair relationships

Make people aware of stereotypes they take for granted…

Question 32

Awareness raising:

Answer 32

make people aware of their own stereotypes or prejudice

picture of the female walk signs

Question 33

Perspective-taking

Answer 33

encourage understanding of experiences of other groups

Question 34

Normative influence

Answer 34

-conveying that prejudice against target is not normative for a relevant ingroup
-conveying general norms for tolerance in ingroup
“Violence against women, Australia says no”

Question 35

Dissonance

Answer 35

Highlight how their prejudice is inconsistent with their other views and actions
e.g., after being required to write a statement in favour of pro-black policies, white participants weakened anti-black attitudes

Question 36

Self-affirmation - increased self-worth

Answer 36

When people feel good about themselves they’ll be less likely to derogate others
People given feedback that they were intelligent made more positive attributions about a Jewish job candidate

Question 37

Intervention strategies vary in their focus:
Public communication (media)

Answer 37

entertainment (e.g., sit-coms, performances)

advertisements

Question 38

Intervention strategies vary in their focus:

Interactions between prejudice agents/targets

Answer 38

joint activities

Question 39

Intervention strategies vary in their focus: Targeting prejudiced group members

Answer 39

perspective taking interventions
cultural awareness and diversity training
one-on-one (conversations, counselling)
Are some intervention strategies more suited to different prejudice reduction approaches?