Post Midterm I: March 18-March 27 Flashcards
emotional & motivational responses to discrimination lead to…
behavioural responses
behavioural responses to discrimination
- concealment
- compensation
- confrontation
concealment and stigma
hiding or obscuring your stigma
can be PARTIAL or COMPLETE
example of concealing stigma
pictures of Ellen’s wife and then actor from Orange is the New Black
both are lesbians
but Ellen’s wife is straight-coded (stigma is concealed) whereas the other woman is much more gay-coded
benefit of concealment
you’re not judged negatively according to your stigma
ie. Sorry to Bother You movie
protagonist is a Black telemarketer
but he has a White sounding voice
so he escapes his stigma at work
2 cognitive costs of concealing stigma
- preoccupation
- increased vigilance
cognitive cost of concealing: eating disorder study SETUP
people with an ED role-played not having an ED
cognitive cost of concealing: eating disorder study RESULTS
- increased ACCESSIBILITY of eating disorder (measured through a word-completion task: ie. _OOD and _INGE)
- higher secrecy, suppression, intrusive thoughts about ED
- projection of ED thoughts onto interviewer
- ED participants who were assigned to not reveal their condition to a confederate later performed worse on a cognitive test
emotional costs of concealing a stigma
- anxiety (about being caught)
- shame (internalizing your stigma)
- ambivalence about identity (if I’m downplaying this part of myself, it must not be that important to my self-concept)
what percentage of participants who had a concealable stigma (LGBT, history of mental illness) agreed it was best to conceal this stigma when meeting a new person?
67%
study: conceal or not conceal stigma (university major) SETUP
participants = randomly assigned to conceal or not conceal their stigma
modified here to be a stigmatized major (ie. Desautels, eng)
study: conceal or not conceal stigma (university major) RESULTS
participants told to HIDE their identity reported:
a) LOWER LEVELS OF BELONGING
b) LESS POSITIVE INTERACTIONS with convo partner
these effects = mediated by LOWER FEELINGS OF AUTHENTICITY in hiding condition
behavioural implications of concealing
- avoiding social interactions
- impression management to conceal stigma
3 points: impression management to conceal stigma
a) counter-stereotypical behaviour
b) modifying mannerisms
c) lying/keeping quiet about certain topics
4 things that shape the decision to conceal or disclose
- threat of discovery (likely to be discovered?)
- self-verification motives (motivations to want others to see us as we see ourselves)
- context (work, family, friends?)
- degree of disclosure (full, partial?)
concealment is a ____ ___!
mixed bag
concealing can prevent discrimination
but can have cognitive, emotional and behavioural drawbacks
compensation and stigma
behaviours that reduce interpersonal discrimination towards oneself
(when stigma is visible or disclosed)
example strategies of compensation for a stigma
- acknowledgement
- increased positivity
- individuating information
acknowledgement
compensatory strategy for stigma
openly addressing one’s stigma
eases interactions because underlying tension is addressed
reduces ambiguity (recall: ambiguity makes people uncomfortable)
increased positivity
compensatory strategy for stigma
acting in a way to engender more positive attitudes
ie. acting likeable, friendly, approachable
what stigmatized group is likely to use increased positivity as a strategy?
people with disabilities
“disabled people are either inspirational, or benefit cheats”
to avoid being placed in the latter category, those with disabilities really try to seem inspirational/friendly
in order to feel you’re viewed positively, have to act in a way to align with other’s expectations - so that they ultimately treat you well
individuating information and stigma
compensatory strategy
divulging information that allows other to see one as an INDIVIDUAL rather than just a holder of a stigmatized identity
example of individuating information: Jennifer Richeson article
Richeson is a Black woman
first paragraph is about how she loves jelly beans
way of managing stereotypes associated with Blackness
playing up other aspects of people that are separate from typical categories
people read it and see her as a jelly bean liker (something they may have in common), as opposed to only having info that she’s a Black woman
expecting to be the target of prejudice: study SETUP
- manipulated stigma consciousness in ethnic minority individuals
EXPERIMENTAL: read article about how minorities are often targets of racist remarks in social interactions
CONTROL: read article about discrimination against elderly
- ethnic minorities then had convo with White partner
- reported on the experience
expecting to be the target of prejudice: study RESULTS
heightened stigma consciousness led ethnic minorities….
a) to have more NEGATIVE emotions
b) to feel LESS AUTHENTIC
c) to LIKE their convo partner LESS
CAVEAT: White people who had more stigma-conscious convo partners reported having more POSITIVE experiences
expecting to be the target of prejudice: study CAVEAT
White people who had more stigma-conscious convo partners reported having more POSITIVE experiences
why? prob because ethnic minorities who had their stigma consciousness raised went out of their way to behave in a way that conformed to the White person’s expectations
self-fulfilling prophecy
makes the interaction go smoothly - but also makes the stigmatized person feel worse about themself because they’re suppressing parts of their identity
confronting discrimination: 3 important questions
- why don’t people confront?
- when do people confront?
- what makes for an effective confrontation?
desert island confronting discrimination study SETUP
women participated in a “group decision making” study with 2 other people
problem: pick 12 people out of a list of 30 who would be best suited to survive together on a desert island
during group discussion, male confederate made sexist statements
desert island confronting discrimination study: sexist comments made by men
a) “yeah, we definitely need to keep the women in shape”
b) “let me see, maybe a chef? no, one of the women can cook”
c) “I think we need more women on the island to keep the men satisfied”
desert island confronting discrimination study RESULTS
55% of women didn’t confront the man
25% directly confronted (ie. said it was sexist)
20% indirectly confronted the man
desert island confronting discrimination study: examples of indirect confrontations
- comment about task (“you can’t pick for that reason. pick another person”)
- surprise (“oh my god, I can’t believe you said that”)
- humor/sarcasm
what aspects of the target will make us more or less likely to confront? reword this question
can the same comment coming from different people result in differences in confrontation?
confronting discrimination age manipulation study SETUP
non-Black participants read about a hypothetical scenario that involved a prejudiced expression
across conditions, AGE of target was either 42, 62 or 82
“yesterday, John (a 42/62/82 year old) White man was on the bus. After a few stops, a Black family boarded and sat down near John. Shortly after the family sat down, John muttered, “these Black people can’t even control their children.” He then got up, walked down the aisle, and held a handrail. John didn’t get off at the next stop.”
confronting discrimination age manipulation study RESULTS
- relative to when target was 42 or 62 years old, people were LESS WILLING to confront the 82 year old target
- also thought the incident was LESS OFFENSIVE and that the person was LESS INTENTIONAL ABOUT BEING OFFENSIVE when it was an 82 year old versus a 42 or 62 year old
confronting discrimination age manipulation study: FOLLOW UP ANALYSES SHOW…
this behaviour was driven by PERCEPTIONS OF MALLEABILITY
older people are seen as less malleable, so it makes less sense to confront them
judgments weren’t related to constructs like respect towards older adults or perceived social influence of adults
confronting discrimination - reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment STUDY SETUP
studied reactions of stigmatized group members (East or South Asian) to someone who confronted a prejudiced comment on social media
- studied whether the person used an AGGRESSIVE versus PASSIVE confrontation approach
- studied whether the person was an INGROUP versus OUTGROUP member
confronting discrimination - reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment STUDY EXAMPLE CONFRONTATIONS
- more aggressive, from outgroup member:
comment: “maybe if Asians opened their eyes wider, they’d be able to see the road”
confrontation: “I can’t believe you would post this, maybe you should open YOUR eyes and realize that what you’re saying is rude and racist”
- less aggressive, from ingroup member:
comment: “I don’t feel comfortable bringing my dog to my Asian friend’s house, his parents might steal and cook him”
confrontation: “people don’t just cook pets, I’m sure they shop at the grocery store”
reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment STUDY RESULTS
statements that received an AGGRESSIVE CONFRONTATION were seen as MORE OFFENSIVE than those receiving a passive confrontation
despite the fact that all statements were pre-tested to be equally offensive
shows that people are doing inference work here - infer that the comment must have been bad in order to merit aggressive reaction
reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment - RESULTS WERE PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR…
statements that were confronted by OUTGROUP members (these statements were seen as even more offensive)
outgroup members that responded in an aggressive manner were also LIKED MORE
reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment - outgroup members that responded in aggressive manner were also liked more…
despite outgroup confronters’ power to shape perceptions of the racist post…
they were ONLY seen positively if they confronted in an aggressive manner
reactions of stigmatized group members to online comment - under which sole condition were outgroup confronters seen positively?
only when they confronted in an AGGRESSIVE manner
study: using social media to confront online hate speech
used twitter bots to respond to hate speech using different strategies
researchers compared counter-messages based in:
a) humour
b) warnings of consequences
c) empathy
using social media to confront online hate speech study: response examples
humour:
“please sir, stop tweeting” bird meme
warnings of consequences: “remember that those you care about can see this post too…”
empathy:
“using language like this is just unnecessarily hurtful towards immigrants”
using social media to confront online hate speech study RESULTS
empathy-based approaches led to:
- more tweets being deleted
- less xenophobic tweets being made by the confronted account
so, reminding people about how hate speech will make others feel is the best approach
4 reasons why people don’t directly confront
- normative to not engage with prejudiced people
- social norm to be polite if you do respond
- concern about retaliation
- diffusion of responsibility (bystander effect)
the long road to confrontation
there are so many steps between witnessing/experiencing a DISCRIMINATORY EVENT and CONFRONTING the perpetrator
need to say “yes” 5 times in order to make it to the confronting behaviour
if you say “no” at any of these steps, you will not confront
so much easier to get a no response
5 steps in confronting discrimination
- event interpreted as discrimination
- discriminatory incident is “an emergency”
- take responsibility
- knowing how to help
- taking action
discriminatory incident is “an emergency”: confronting discrimination
a step that needs to be taken in order to confront discrimination
- is the incident serious enough?
- was the perpetrator blameworthy?
take responsibility: confronting discrimination
a step that needs to be taken in order to confront discrimination
diffusion of responsibility: each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help decreases as the number of witnesses increases
“someone else will handle this”
knowing how to help: confronting discrimination
a step that needs to be taken in order to confront discrimination
how to confront the perpetrator without escalating the conflict?
taking action: confronting discrimination
a step that needs to be taken in order to confront discrimination
weighing the risks, costs and benefits
example of confronting discrimination: Muslim woman at Texas bakery
paid actor woman and employee
employee refused service to her because of her ethnicity and religion
said blatantly racist things, called her a terrorist etc.
filmed bystander reactions
13 stood up for her
6 participated in the discrimination
22 did nothing - this is a real problem
what makes for an effective confrontation?
- focus on BEHAVIOUR/others’ reactions instead of a person’s CHARACTER
“that word made me feel uncomfortable” is better than “you’re racist”
- being a member of the non-stigmatized group
a) White confronter of anti-Black racism
b) male confronter of anti-female sexism
Kim Chaney
assistant prof at Uni of Connecticut
expert on stereotyping and prejudice, specifically on “lay theories of prejudice” (how people think prejudice works)
lead author on 2023 paper looking at age-related beliefs and likelihood of confronting prejudice
refresher: when contact works
- support of authorities
- equal status
- common goals
- cooperation
- contact as individuals
(Allport’s ideas)
review of social identity theory: basic principles
- we strive to achieve & maintain a POSITIVE social identity
- we strive to DISTINGUISH our own social groups from other social groups
how could we use social identity to reduce prejudice?
social categorization precedes prejudice, stereotyping & discrimination
KEY IDEA: change how we categorize, and intergroup biases will follow suit
categories are fluid: we can see someone we normally consider an outgroup member as an ingroup member in a specific context
leverage the malleability of categories to reduce prejudice
individuation
perceiving the person as a unique individual rather than as a group member
individuation is a bit different than re-categorization
re-categorization
changing the basis by which you socially categorize someone
- focusing on a different social category
- focusing on a common ingroup identity
black athletes & disliked white people study SETUP
IAT with an intentional confound - Good/Bad and Black/White
White disliked politicians and Black admired athletes
black athletes & disliked white people study RESULTS
OCCUPATION categorization: pro-Athlete bias
a) which indirectly translates to a pro-Black bias because all the athletes are black
RACE categorization: pro-White bias remains
black athletes & disliked white people study - focuses on what kind of re-categorization?
focusing on a different social category
on admired athlete as opposed to solely Black
re-categorization: focus on a common group identity
ingroup vs outgroup:
“I’m Black and you’re Asian”
COMMON group identity:
“we’re both part of this company”
reducing transphobia field experiment SETUP
canvassers attempted to encourage ‘ANALOGIC PERSPECTIVE TAKING’
- first asked each voter about a time when they themselves were judged negatively for being different
- then encouraged voters to see how their own experience offered window into transgender people’s experiences, hoping to facilitate perspective-taking
- then another attempt to encourage active processing by asking voters to describe if and how the exercise changed their mind
note: convos lasted around 10 mins on average
reducing transphobia field experiment - example of what kind of re-categorization?
creating a common identity
positive effects present 3 days, 3 weeks, 6 weeks and 3 months later
simply from a 10 minute interaction
perspective-taking really had an effect
social categorization paradox
for an individual to effectively change stereotypes about their group, they have to:
- be ATYPICAL (because they’re defying the stereotype)
- be PERCEIVED as TYPICAL of their group (so that the effects generalize to larger group)
social categorization paradox example
ellen degeneres
she defies gay stereotype - because she has this huge show that’s doing super well and is widely-liked
^atypical enough to challenger perception of gay identity
but she is also gay-typical enough that the effect can generalize to a larger group
social categorization paradox can also apply to how members of stigmatized groups think about…
role models
have to be counter-stereotypical enough to challenge negative perceptions of that identity/reach success/role model status
but also have to be similar enough to their group for other members to identify with them
role models study setup
sample of undergrad women
read profiles about women in leadership positions
after reading profile, students took survey about their:
a) accomplishments
b) life goals
c) personal characteristics
then, got “feedback” (random assignment)
a) similar and attainable
b) dissimilar and unattainable
then, took self-leadership IAT
role models study: example of a profile of a woman in a leadership position
“Jane Goodall’s brilliance distinguished her from her peers right after high school. recognizing her genius, Louis Leaky, the famous anthropologist, invited her to record the behaviour of chimpanzees in Tanzania where she started the very first and longest continuous field study of chimpanzees in their natural habitat”
role models study: two feedback conditions
- similar and attainable
“you are quite similar to the women leaders you read about earlier…likely to achieve similar success…achievement-oriented..powerful” etc.
- dissimilar and unattainable
“you are quite different from the women leaders…a nurturing individual…give others’ needs priority…suited for supportive positions” etc
role models study RESULTS
results of the self-leadership IAT
other/self and supporter/leader
women associated themselves more with supporters if given DISSIMILAR & UNATTAINABLE
women associated themselves more with leaders if given SIMILAR & ATTAINABLE
role models study FOLLOW-UP RESEARCH
higher perceived similarity with counter-stereotypical role models = greater aspirations to follow in their footsteps
study that takes a distinct approach: ‘moral’ role models
Thinking About God Encourages Prosociality Toward Religious Outgroups: A Cross-Cultural Investigation
Pasek et al
power of ‘thinking about god’ study SETUP
combined samples of:
1) Christians/Hindus/Muslims in Fiji
2) American Christians
3) Israeli Jews
4) Palestinian Muslims
participants played game measuring pro-social behaviour (the Dictator game - about money allocation)
^paired with either a religious ingroup or outgroup member
across rounds of game, participants were either told to “think carefully” or to “think about god” before responding
power of ‘thinking about god’ study SAMPLES
Christians/Hindus/Muslims in Fiji
American Christians
Israeli Jews
Palestinian Muslims
power of ‘thinking about god’ study GAME PLAYED
Dictator game
measures pro-social behaviour
money-sharing task
power of ‘thinking about god’ study - what were participants told to think about?
- “think carefully”
- “think about god”
power of ‘thinking about god’ study RESULTS
thinking about god made people MORE PROSOCIAL (generous) when INTERACTING with STRANGER
STRONGER results when stranger was a “fellow believer” (someone who was of a different religion)
but generosity ALSO INCREASED towards ATHEISTS
power of ‘thinking about god’ study RESULTS DIDN’T DEPEND ON…
didn’t depend on participants’ OWN perceptions of “ingroup commonality”
ingroup commonality: how similar they thought people from other religious groups were
power of ‘thinking about god’ study STRONGEST RESULTS
strongest results of increased prosocial behaviour was for FELLOW BELIEVERS (those from a different religion)
who were told to “think about god”
power of ‘thinking about god’ study CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS
thinking about god encouraged prosociality across religious divides. in contrast to the idea that belief in a god or gods fuels divisiveness between ethno-religious groups, such belief may encourage generosity beyond the ingroup.
since people view god as a supporter of all humanity, thinking about god may increase prosocial behaviour towards all people, regardless of whether they share the same religion as you, or whether they even believe in god at all
history of thinking about changing ‘implicit bias’
implicit bias here refers to things measured by the IAT
1985-2001 - viewed as STABLE and RIGID
2001-present - viewed as MALLEABLE and FLEXIBLE
now people think that at any individual moment, IAT scores depend on what is currently activated in one’s mind
how much prejudice is showing depends on what people are thinking about in the moment
although general implicit prejudice is pretty stable (it just has a range)
2 big questions when thinking about reducing ‘implicit bias’
- what are the most EFFECTIVE approaches?
- how DURABLE are intervention effects?
research contest: changing implicit biases
open call for ideas - think tank concept
18 teams of social psychologists each submitted a framework for changing IAT results
compared all 18 of the methods
implicit biases research contest GOAL
reduce implicit preferences for white over black people
implicit biases research contest DESCRIPTION
a) 4 studies
b) 18 interventions + 1 baseline control
c) interventions = 5 mins or less
d) assessment = right after intervention
implicit biases research contest SAMPLE
non-Black participants on Project Implicit
total N = 17 021
implicit biases research contest INTERVENTION CATEGORIES
- counter stereotypes
- values
- controlling bias
- perspective taking
implicit biases research contest COUNTER STEREOTYPE INTERVENTION
giving people a very disliked White person (famous criminal)
and a very liked Black person (Oprah)
OR
have a white person threatening you and posing as a danger
and then a black person saves you
implicit biases research contest PERSPECTIVE TAKING
imagine yourself in situation where you’re living experience of a black person
- show a pic of a black woman
- say this person just graduated from law school
- “imagine you are this person”
- “describe how you’re feeling”
implicit biases research contest VALUES
ie. multiculturalism/diversity
“understanding both similarities and differences among ethnic groups is an essential component of long-term social harmony in the US”
implicit biases research contest CONTROLLING BIAS/IMPLEMENTATION INTENTIONS
If I see a black face, then I will respond by thinking ‘good’
strategy for approaching the task
implicit biases research contest RESULTS
COUNTER-STEREOTYPES and STRATEGIES TO CONTROL BIAS are effective for reducing implicit prejudice
REFLECTING ON VALUES and PERSPECTIVE-TAKING aren’t effective for reducing implicit prejudice
MOST EFFECTIVE interventions were:
a) emotional
b) self-relevant
c) targeting ingroup favouritism & outgroup hatred
implicit biases research contest - most effective interventions were…
a) emotional
b) self-relevant
c) targeting ingroup favouritism & outgroup hatred
implicit biases research contest PHASE TWO question
how durable were these effects?
implicit biases research contest PHASE TWO goal
reduce implicit biases after 24 hour delay
implicit biases research contest PHASE TWO description
9 effective interventions from Phase 1
follow-up session after 24 hours
implicit biases research contest PHASE TWO sample
non-Black students from 18 universities
(partnered with researchers from tons of institutions - Yale, Purdue, UC Davis etc)
N = 5295
implicit biases research contest PHASE TWO results
time 1: right after intervention
a) interventions were effective in reducing bias in IAT scores
time 2: 24 hours later
a) the effects didn’t last
b) so IAT results really rely on what you’re thinking about in the short term
implicit bias is ___ in the short term and ___ in the long term
malleable
stable
interventions are overpowered by hardwired associations
long term changes in implicit bias
- intergroup contact
a) ie. freshman year roommate being part of a diff race/culture
- conditioning
a) but requires 13 sessions, with 225 trials per session
details on conditioning to change implicit bias
visually pairing something you have negative associations with and something positive (ie. cute puppy)
but time consuming
13 sessions, each with 225 trials
meta-analysis: short term changes in implicit bias SETUP
meta-analysis of 492 studies (> 87 000 participants)
looked at effectiveness of various interventions to change biases in implicit associations
intervention examples:
a) weaken association directly/indirectly
b) strengthen association directly/indirectly
c) goals to weaken bias
d) affirmation
e) threat
etc.
meta-analysis: short term changes in implicit bias RESULTS
do changes in implicit associations mediate changes in behaviour?
in the aggregate, procedures DIDN’T produce significant indirect effects
mediation results are NOT CONSISTENT with a causal relationship between change in implicit measures and changes in behaviour
meta-analysis: short term changes in implicit bias TAKEAWAY
changes in IAT scores don’t really translate into changing behaviour
an alternative approach to reducing discrimination
treat discrimination as a DESIGN problem rather than an ATTITUDE/BELIEF problem
changing the context so that pre-existing biases won’t operate
not allowing biases to emerge, through changing the environment/procedures (in hiring, for example)
when is discrimination likely to happen?
- information is UNCLEAR or COMPLEX
- decision-making criteria are SUBJECTIVE
example: ambiguity and subjectivity leading to discrimination
Michael versus Michelle police chief decision
if you don’t lay out the value you would prefer in police chief before the decision (educated vs street smart), then you choose Michael
but when you decide the value first, you choose the candidate that matches it
PICK POLICE CHIEF CONSISTENT WITH VALUE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER
extending subjectivity/ambiguity leading to discrimination to coffee shop
just a way of thinking about the concept
coffee shop sign: “are you having a good day? yes or no?”
arrows lead from each option to “treat yourself”
use second-order justification for a decision not based in objectivity or fact
ambiguity and subjectivity: “brilliance bias”
charting correlation between fields believed to rely on “innate genius” and proportion of women in these fields
more men in “genius” fields
“genius” qualities AND hiring process can be ambiguous and subjective
people may have a preference to hire men in this field
and say “he’s a genius, I just know it” to justify their decision to hire a man over a woman
not a strong definition of a good candidate, so implicit associations come in and influence hiring
beware of “cultural fit”
in hiring, some candidates will be hired or not chosen based on “fit” with the company
“fit” isn’t well defined/articulated
can be used to justify hiring/rejection of people that is really rooted in other biases
how to overcome the “cultural fit” phenomenon
- align your definition of “cultural fit” with your GOALS
- ask STRUCTURED interview questions
- create a CHECKLIST for indicators of fit
- put CONSTRAINTS on how much fit matters
how to prevent discrimination rooted in ambiguity and subjectivity?
- pre-commit to decision-making criteria
- remove irrelevant group-based info (ie. hometown, university, name)
Martin Luther King quote - downsides of prejudice reduction
“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice”
lots of interventions focus on getting people to think everything is fine
instead of highlighting deeper issues about intergroup biases
downsides of prejudice reduction
for disadvantaged group members, reducing prejudice toward the advantaged outgroup through intergroup contact
can REDUCE SUPPORT for collective action to ADDRESS INEQUALITIES
downsides of prejudice reduction: positive contact with advantaged outgroup leads to…
- REDUCED IDENTIFICATION with disadvantaged ingroup
- perception of outgroup ADVANTAGE as FAIR
- perception that STATUS QUO is LEGIT
Mikey Pasek
assistant prof at Uni of Illinois at Chicago
expert on intergroup relations (specifically prejudices and discrimination based in religion)
lead author on 2023 paper looking at how changing perception of god led to reduced religious prejudice
the problem with overconfidence
we are overconfident in our OBJECTIVITY
the bias blindspot SETUP
describe a prominent bias, then ask:
a) “to what extent do you think that YOU show this tendency?
b) “to what extent do you think that the AVERAGE AMERICAN shows this tendency?”
the bias blindspot RESULTS
kind of like the better than average effect
sample of 661
563 (85%) said they were LESS BIASED than average
97 (15%) said they were AVERAGE
0 said they were MORE BIASED
the bias blindspot EXPLANATION
when asked “to what extent do you think that YOU show this tendency”, we have ACCESS to our OWN THOUGHTS
a) we know/craft our justifications
when asked “to what extent do you think that the AVERAGE AMERICAN shows this tendency”, we only have access to OTHERS’ ACTIONS
possible solution to the bias blindspot
- self-auditing
- create practices to circumvent your biases
self-auditing
ask yourself, “if I was biased, what could I do to not act out my biases/use them to make decisions?”
you aren’t admitting to being biased
but you’re saying there’s a chance you are, and committing to act to limit biases
solution to bias blindspot applied to hiring process
- who sees our ADS?
- who APPLIES to the job?
- who gets PAST THE FIRST CUT?
- who gets an INTERVIEW?
- who gets an OFFER?
- who ACCEPTS the offer?
- who STAYS?
in many contexts, discrimination can arise not solely from BIAS but also from what?
noise!
more general inaccuracy in judgment or evaluation
noise and hiring example
say your hiring is 60% accurate
60% of hires are men, 40% are women
when you do make ERRORS, they AREN’T EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS GROUPS
ie. men: 75% of errors are BENEFICIAL (hired when under-qualified) and 25% are DETRIMENTAL (not hired when qualified)
ie. women: 25% of errors are BENEFICIAL, 75% are DETRIMENTAL
2 interventions: noise and hiring
- reducing gender-based favouritism (bias approach)
- increasing evaluation accuracy (methods approach)
noise and hiring: intervention 1 SETUP
give a workshop on how gender is an active bias in hiring process
this doesn’t really make your hiring more accurate (still at 60%) BUT it reduces impact of bias
noise and hiring: intervention 1 RESULTS
accuracy stays at 60%
but now the split of hires is more equal:
now it’s a 52% men to 48% women split
errors have been more evenly distributed across men and women
noise and hiring: intervention 2 SETUP
workshop on picking out qualified applicants
don’t mention gender biases
noise and hiring: intervention 2 RESULTS
accuracy rises from 60% to 92%
but retain the same split of errors across genders
75-25 beneficial-detrimental = men
25-75 beneficial-detrimental = women
bias isn’t impacted
Axt and Lai found that interventions impact bias and noise…
differently
used decision making task that produced discrimination based on PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS
- forcing participants to SLOW DOWN reduced noise but not bias
- WARNING participants to avoid using physical attractiveness reduced bias but not noise
example of an applied effort to reduce prejudice & discrimination
Life after Genocide - New Dawn Soap Opera
Life after Genocide SETUP
communities randomly assigned:
a) RECONCILIATION-FOCUSED soap opera
b) HEALTH soap opera
reconciliation-focused one:
a) featured TYPICAL RWANDANS as protagonists
b) roots of prejudice & violence = located in frustration of BASIC PSYCH NEEDS
c) trauma is NORMAL, HEALABLE
Life after Genocide RESULTS
- didn’t change personal beliefs about prejudice & violence
- changed perceived norms about how people do/should behave in situations related to prejudice, conflict, trauma
- increased empathy for genocide survivors
- more likely to share radio batteries at end of study
paradoxical thinking
more recent approach to reducing prejudice/discrimination
trying to change attitudes by presenting NEW INFO that is CONSISTENT with one’s beliefs
but SO EXTREME that it leads one to paradoxically PERCEIVE THEIR OWN BELIEFS AS IRRATIONAL
argument behind paradoxical thinking
argument is that “individuals who are provided with extreme information or instructions that are in line with their held beliefs may change them even when they are extremely negative and well-entrenched”
paradoxical thinking originates from what branch of psych?
clinical research
paradoxical thinking: Israeli Jew study SETUP
investigated attitudes/beliefs of 161 Israeli Jews over course of one election year
‘paradoxical thinking’ intervention: watching clips that each made argument for why it is essential to have a sustained conflict with Palestinians
example of a vid clip from Israeli Jew paradoxical thinking study
“we need conflict with the Palestinians in order to have the strongest army in the world”
“in order to feel moral, we need the conflict”
these lead to self-questioning
paradoxical thinking: Israeli Jew study RESULTS
participants in paradoxical thinking intervention were:
- more supportive of policy that evacuated Israeli settlements as means of achieving peace with Palestinians
- more likely to vote in elections for political candidates that had less “hawkish”/”pro-conflict” positions towards Palestinians
paradoxical thinking: Israeli Jew study - follow-up work suggests that these paradoxical thinking interventions are effective because…
of their ability to evoke feelings of:
a) IDENTITY THREAT
b) SURPRISE
among participants
hypocrisy induction is similar to…
paradoxical thinking
hypocrisy induction: reducing prejudice towards Muslims in Spain SETUP
HYPOCRISY CONDITION:
a) participants read summaries of acts of mass violence committed by White Europeans
b) then answered question about how responsible Europeans as a whole are for such acts
(said not responsible)
c) then completed the same measures, but now about 2015 Paris attacks led by Muslim extremists
hypocrisy induction: reducing prejudice towards Muslims in Spain RESULTS
gets people to recognize the inconsistency in their thinking
they don’t blame Europeans as a whole for mass violence committed by some White Europeans
so why do they generalize attacks headed by Muslims to all Muslims?
it’s irrational
hypocrisy condition REDUCED COLLECTIVE BLAME towards Muslims IMMEDIATELY, ONE MONTH and ONE YEAR LATER
hypocrisy induction: reducing prejudice towards Muslims in Spain - how long did the effects last?
effects were immediate
AND
persisted one month and one year later
hypocrisy induction-ish
ad in Montreal metro
“phobias are irrational fears”
then poster of chicken and someone screaming (chicken fear = irrational)
then poster of dropping phone (phone losing = irrational)
THEN poster of rainbow - says HOMOPHOBIA IS ALSO IRRATIONAL
reducing inequalities in education: the problem
large and persistent gaps in academic achievement based on DEMOGRAPHIC status
GPA gap
graduate rate gap
reducing inequalities in education: the causes
- structural causes
- psychological causes
structural causes for inequalities in education
a) unequal school funding
b) lack of access to opportunities
c) intergenerational transmission of social & cultural capital
psychological causes for inequalities in education
a) stereotype threat
b) dis-identification from stereotyped domains
5 interventions to reduce inequalities in education
increasing achievement among UNDER-REPRESENTED MINORITIES & FIRST-GEN students:
- academic value
- growth mindset
- social belonging
- personal values
- empathic discipline
academic value intervention
students reflect on why course topics are useful and important in their own lives
why it works:
increases INTRINSIC MOTIVATION to do well in class
academic value intervention study SETUP
9th grade science students sought to make connections between course material and everyday lives
randomly assigned within each class to write about either:
a. usefulness/utility value of the material in their own lives (intervention)
b. summary of material they were studying (control)
academic value intervention study RESULTS
divided into students with LOW versus HIGH EXPECTATIONS
INTEREST:
a) low expectations: higher interest in the class for intervention compared to control
b) high expectations: no difference between control and intervention
GRADES:
a) low expectations: higher increase in grades in intervention
b) less difference in high expectation group
academic value intervention study TAKEAWAY
if you have low expectations of how well you’ll do in a class…
writing about relevance of course material:
a. increases INTEREST
b. improves GRADES
growth mindset intervention
teaching students that intelligence is MALLEABLE, not fixed
why it works:
increases motivation to try harder when faced with adversity
growth mindset intervention study SETUP
6000+ high school students did a 1 hour online training session that sought to INSTIL GROWTH MINDSET
belief that “brain is like a muscle that grows stronger and smarter when it undergoes rigorous learning experiences”
pre-registered hypothesis: will intervention be particularly effective among LOW/MIDDLE-ACHIEVING kids?
growth mindset intervention study RESULTS
among lower-achieving students, receiving the intervention led to an average increase of:
0.10 points in 9th grade GPA
growth mindset intervention study: effects of intervention were HIGHER AMONG SCHOOLS THAT…
had more SUPPORTIVE NORMS in terms of challenge-seeking
as measured by percentage of students in that school who chose to complete a more difficult (but educational) worksheet when given choice
growth mindset intervention study: intervention effects were STRONGEST in…
medium-achieving, supportive schools
social belonging intervention
students read testimonials about how more senior students had worried whether they belonged in college in first year
but that it gets better over time
why it works:
reduces tendency to think “I don’t belong here” when faced with adversity
belonging uncertainty
common concern among Black college students
can lead students to perceive common challenges (like exclusion from social outing or receiving critical academic feedback) as CONFIRMING they don’t belong
perception becomes self-fulfilling
belonging uncertainty study SETUP
looked to intervene with belonging uncertainty
had racial minority college students watch video where older students from same racial background talked about their own college transition
tracked participants over time
belonging uncertainty study GOAL
represent challenging times in college as normal, as “due to the transition itself”
rather than evidence of permanent lack of belonging on the part of the self/one’s group
belonging uncertainty study RESULTS
despite only 8% remembering the video, being in treatment condition showed LONG-LASTING EFFECTS
Black participants reported:
a. greater SATISFACTION WITH EMPLOYMENT
B. greater overall WELLBEING
8 and a half years later!!
however, treatment condition members didn’t show significant gains in OBJECTIVE MEASURES of employment success (income)
belonging uncertainty study - how long did the effects last?
8 and a half years
belonging uncertainty study - potential mechanism
though not conclusive, one potential mechanism is that the intervention helped facilitate development of helpful MENTORING RELATIONSHIPS
personal values intervention
writing about strengths that one holds/personal values
why it works:
affirms self-worth broadly, diminishing impact of academic adversity on self-worth
personal values intervention study SETUP
asked 7th graders to “reflect on an important personal value, such as relationships with friends/family or musical interests”
writing practice is meant to reduce psychological stress and improve self worth
personal values intervention study RESULTS
if already a high-performer, intervention didn’t affect much
if LOW-PERFORMER, writing about personal strength INCREASED GPA
impact persisted for 2 years
empathic discipline intervention
essentially a FAE intervention
a. provide TEACHERS with NON-PEJORATIVE reasons for why students may misbehave at school (ie. changes in adolescence)
b. discourage labeling of students as ‘TROUBLEMAKERS’
why it works:
encourages teachers to view school discipline as an opportunity to develop MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING and BETTER RELATIONSHIPS with students
empathic discipline intervention adopts a different approach in that…
the TARGET of this intervention are TEACHERS/ADMINISTRATORS rather than students
empathic discipline intervention STUDY SETUP
assigned teachers to read an article supporting a “punitive mindset” or an “empathic mindset”
punitive mindset reminded teachers that “punishment is critical for teachers to take control of the classroom”
empathic mindset argued that “good teacher-student relationships are critical for students to learn self-control”
empathic discipline intervention: empathic mindset condition excerpt
“I would give the class some work to do and then I would talk to (the student) privately. he has a need that is not being met. I would try to understand the need and try to meet it”
empathic discipline intervention STUDY RESULTS
middle-school teachers who were randomly assigned to undergo a similar empathic mindset training showed a 50% REDUCTION in SUSPENSIONS given over the course of the following year
the 5 interventions to reduce inequalities in education each adopt different strategies, but each…
argues that psychological change can be achieved through RECURSIVE PROCESSES
recursive processes
what all 5 education inequality interventions have in common
interventions aren’t just useful during the study
their EFFECTS PERSIST - they last and CHANGE YOUR THINKING STYLE in a productive way that continues to build on itself
cement helpful strategies that will frame your future thinking
Shannon Brady
assistant prof at Wake Forest Uni
expert on social identity and interventions to reduce intergroup disparities
particular focus on reducing inequalities in EDUCATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
lead author on 2020 paper investigating how “social belonging” intervention improved academic achievement among Black students
