Reducing Prejudice Flashcards
Sherif et al.’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study
> > Sherif was able to create hostility and prejudice - by introducing a scarce resource
Sherif et al.’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study - reducing prejudice
Sherif asked whether having created this prejudice and discrimination - can they
reduce the hostility
» Thus ‘sheer contact’ is not enough
> They found that working together for a shared goal, somewhat diffused the hostility between the groups
> When friendship choices were measured - boys even suggested they had friends across the group divide
Sherif et al.’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study - reducing prejudice - water supply
- The researchers informed the boys that the water supply had been sabotaged by vandals
- They had to pull a water cart with a tug of war rope - they could only pull this is both groups of boys worked together
» Created situations where the boys had to work in harmony for a shared
goal
» Boys from other groups even sat next to each other on the bus home - they still preferred people from their own group but held must less negative attitudes towards the out group
Sherif et al.’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study - reducing prejudice - test ‘sheer contact’
- Many people in society suggest that prejudice towards other groups is largely do to ignorance and lack of understanding/lack of contact of different people
- Idea of ‘sheer contact’ is that - just putting people together should reduce ignorance and therefore a reduction in prejudice
- Therefore Sherif tested this by getting the two groups of boys to socialise together - however it was disastrous
- Arguments occurred during dinner, when they tried to watch a film together - clearly sheer contact is not enough, and if anything could escalate tensions
Introduction of Superordinate goal
> > Simply forcing the boys to interact causes fights/arguments but - creating
a shared positive goal in which both groups could benefit meant they worked together
Researchers introduced a superordinate goal
Created a positive goal relationship between the groups - where both
groups could benefit
One theory of reducing predudice is - sheer contact ✘ Stroebe et al (1988) argues against this
European work on foreign exchange students
- When people go to study abroad, they go there with stereotypes they have formed about the country they are visiting
- Measure these stereotypes before and after time in the country - you can observe whether spending time in the country influenced these stereotypes
- Stroebe et al (1988):- Looked at German students going to study in other contries e.g. the USA - stereotypes made by the foreign students become considerably more negative after spending time in the country
✘ This goes against ‘sheer contact theory’
- Furnham & Bochner (1986) - exchange students tend not to integrate
- English researchers report the same findings as Stroebe - with English students studying abroad and immediately seeking out other people similar to them
- They suggest that when we are in a new environment we have a natural tendency to seek out other people like us
Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A.
- 1950s segregated America - different toilets, seats for different races
- Education was also segregated by race
- Eventually these segregations were abandoned - meaning children suddenly ended up being schooled with children of different ethnicities
- Did their attitudes to those children who they categorised differently change - was it -ve or +ve
Brewer & Miller (1984) - ‘re-segregation’
- report there was a lot of re-segregation
- In the playground, people would socialise with people of the same race
- unofficial re-segregation within a school setting
Schofield (1970;1986) - lack of ‘acquaintance potential’
- as re-segregation happened Schofield claimed there was a lack of acquaintance potential
- Although classrooms were mixed, as children were socialising with their same background, the children were’t able to socialise with other ethnicities and learn the background of other people
Schofield (1970;1986) - ‘banding’ leads
to re-segregation
- Banding - Schools divided classes into bands of ability e.g. for maths etc
- Therefore black children typically found themselves in the lower bands - this sparked people to draw conclusions that IQ is higher in white people
- However, these are not true, typically it was actually down to the fact that black children were coming from underfunded schools
- Coming from poorer areas
- White children had better SES so typically found themselves dominating the higher tiers of the bands - causing re-segregation
Stephan (1978) - meta-analysis
- Meta-analysis into the de-segregation
- little evidence that de-segregation was a good experience for black and latino children in America
- If anything it decreased their self-esteem
Negative impact of de-segregation
- Regardless of whether de-segregation impacted self-esteem
- It tended to make black/latino children feel worse
Aronson (1988) - minority students feel threatened in de-segregated environment
- May rebel against ‘white’ norms and values in education and develop counter-norms and values
- It’s possible that ethnic minorities turn to gangs and other ways of finding themselves value rather than school
Rupert Brown’s (1995) criticisms of de-segregation research - only during the school day
- De-segregation in school can have limitations and it appeared to be in a bubble
- Kids often bussed back to their own separate ethnic communities at the end of the day
- De-segregation only lasts from 9am-3pm during school then they are sent back to their segregated parts of town
- This is a problem if you are really trying to in still change in the way different groups of people see each other
Rupert Brown’s (1995) - Too much emphasis on short-term effects
Too much emphasis on short-term effects - expectation that simply putting children together from different backgrounds would have an instant effect
- Often if you really want to change the attitudes within people it involves long-term observations of gradual changes
Rupert Brown’s (1995) - A ‘no differences’ approach is stressed too much
- Expectation that the best approach is a no difference one - be blind to ethnicity
- People always say ‘I’m not prejudice, I’m blind to where people come from etc’
- However research shows it’s very hard to turn a blind eye to people that are different
- E.g. how we process faces - race effect
Rupert Brown’s (1995)
- Ideal contact conditions are rarely met
- The ideal conditions for contact to work are rarely met
Other examples of contact research - Northern Ireland
Trew (1986) Intergroup attitudes are no more positive in mixed schools.
Cairns (2003) – Contact hypothesis never been properly tested in N.I.
Trew (1986) Intergroup attitudes are no more positive in mixed schools.
- Northern Ireland - bitter rivalry and conflict between catholics and protestant
- Segregation
- Riots, shootings
- Reports various examples of governments of trying to build bridges between groups
- Identifying that the best way to do this
- Governments organised adventure trips involving children from both backgrounds
- When they returned to their segregated schools, they maintained the attitudes and hatred they previously had
Cairns (2003)
- Suggested that none of the schemes that the government implemented were informed by psychology
- Contact hypothesis never been properly tested in N.I.
Other examples of contact research - Israel
Ben-Ari & Amir (1986) - Arab & Jewish Israelis:-
- Various contact scenarios set up by the Israeli government to bring Muslims together with Jewish Israelis - in a setting where they could learn about each other
- They report some of the dangers of contact encounters
- Bringing two prejudice groups together can be dangerous as if it went wrong it could make things a lot worse - Ben-Ari & Amir (1986) report this:
(1) Sometimes the contact was seen as unpleasant
(2) Organisers often the most keen
(3) High expectations can be hard to meet
(4) Too many one-off contact attempts
(5) Too little preparation
(6) Language barriers
Contact Hypothesis
Proposes that increasing the exposure to members of various groups, can increase positive evaluations of the out-group and thus reduce prejudice.
- This hypothesis was especially appealing at the time it was introduced during the segregation of blacks and whites in USA.
Brophy (1949) ✓ Contact Hypothesis
- When whites and blacks were brought into contact in the work arena (after desegregation efforts began) - each group reported more positive feelings about the other
Allport (1954): The contact hypothesis
If we want to engineer situations which are most likely to reduce prejudice - what properties do these situations need
- Allport found that in many situations of mere contact - 50% of people felt more positive towards the out-group and 50% felt more negative
- Equal Status
- Common Goals
- Social & Institutional support
Allport (1954) - Equal Status
- For the best chance of it working, it requires people in contact settings to have equal status, because if you have people of different status you already have a problem
Allport (1954) - Common Goals
- We need to give them common goals to establish connections between groups
- This reflects RCT slightly
Allport (1954) - Social & Institutional support
- There needs to be wider social & Institutional support
- We should expect governments to play it’s role in reducing prejudice
Aronson et al.’s ‘Jigsaw Classroom’ (1978) - school is competitive
- A method of teaching with the intend of reducing prejudice
- In western societies, focusing on US, we set up schools as a too competitive learning environment
- > > School is a toxic environment as it is too competitive - it makes children compete rather than actually work together
- Therefore he suggested trialing a way of teaching to get over this
- You would deliberately construct the groups to contain opposing backgrounds
- Would not allow children to choose their own groups or re-segregation is likely to occur
22
Aronson et al.’s ‘Jigsaw Classroom’ (1978) - Change behaviour first
- Sometimes we try to change attitudes, however this is difficult hence when it fails we give up
- If we change behaviour, attitudes will then follow
- If we can get children of different backgrounds interacting in a way that is successful, they might then shift their attitudes
- Try and change the behaviour first
- Therefore Aronson is forcing to children to work with other children from other backgrounds in the hope that it will change their attitudes through cognitive dissonance reduction
Based on Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Festinger
> > Sometimes we are in the situation when we hold incompatible beliefs/attitudes this makes us feel uncomfortable
Cognitive Dissonance will encourage change in attitudes
They have a choice of shifting their attitudes in various ways - if we assume that we change our cognitive dissonance in a good way - this removes cognitive dissonance
Festinger - Cognitive Dissonance is an aversive state and it will motivate change
Based on Allport’s model of contact
Aronson devised collaborative learning techniques e.g. the Jigsaw model, based on Allport’s model of contact - and the criteria that it must meet
- The Jigsaw method demands cooperation, in order to learn the complete lesson e.g. children all learn different paragraphs on a topic
- Children work in groups on projects
- It involves breaking down a task - e.g. individual children learn about something then return to teach the rest - therefore they are reliant on the others to teach them - working together for the common goal
- It involves breaking down a task - e.g. individual children learn about something then return to teach the rest - therefore they are reliant on the others to teach them - working together for the common goal
- Issue if someone doesn’t pull their weight - social loafing
- Enhances self-esteem and empathy?
Does working in groups enhance self-esteem and give them empathy for children of other backgrounds.
- Traditionally, children of different backgrounds are likely to taunt another child if they are struggling but with the common goal, children are going to be more motivated to support and help them
- Even through achieving the goal is individually motivated, as it isn’t a competition, you can find things in other people that you find attractive and thus improve your attitudes
Evaluation of the Jigsaw model - Aronson’s own view
✅ According to Arsonson; The record is good for the Jigsaw classroom
✅ Children not only shift their attitudes
✅ they learn their material better therefore superior to competitive lessons
✅ children of minorities feel better about themselves
✅ Children learn respect
✖ Argyle (1992)
✖ However the evidence from other researchers is more controversial than that…
✖ Actually the effects are small, we rarely see someone completely abandon a severe prejudice just because they have taken part in Jigsaw exercises - might see shifts in people with low to moderate prejudice
If someone of the ethnic minorities is seen to be letting the group down - this could backfire and see increased prejudice - RISKY strategy
✖ The effects are often small, and the whole thing can go badly wrong (esp. when shared goals are not achieved)
✅ Miller & Davidson-Podgorny (1987) - meta analysis
✅ There is evidence that cooperative learning can reduce prejudice - between pp’s as log as NO competition between groups
?? Devries et al (1979)- is there generalisation of effects from JSC?
- Is there generalisation effects of Jigsaw Classroom model…
- How do we get these changes in attitudes to generalise outwards beyond the classroom and the children they have worked with…
Cook (1978, 1984): a re-formulation based on similarity-attraction theories
One of the issues with Allport’s contact hypothesis is that its a bit unrealistic (e.g. guaranteeing that people are the same status) that we can meet all the criteria
- cook tinkered with the contact hypothesis to make it easier to apply and integrate into society
Cook (1978, 1984): equal status
As psychologists, we cannot create equal status of people in society…
- Yet Cook suggested we can attempt to create equal status within a contact situation (that we create)
Cook (1978, 1984): Disconfirm stereotypes
We should seriously consider the people selected form groups, (don’t want to include people that confirm stereotypes)
- So should select out-groupers that disconfirm stereotypes we are trying to shift
de-categorisation approach (Miller & Brewer, 1984)
- If we want to reduce prejudice, we need
people to forget categories, and see others as individuals - This is known as the de- categorisation approach (Miller & Brewer, 1984)
- We should try to turn categories off in the way people perceive others
- According to SIT, categorisation is inevitable
Hewstone & Brown (1986): criticisms of contact research
- There is a lot of emphasis placed on the role of ignorance and prejudice HOWEVER Hewstone & Brown argue…
- Over-estimation of role of ignorance - it isn’t simply about giving information
- Is it really just a lack of understanding…
Direction of causality hard to ascertain
If it’s not going on then what is it?
Hard to disentangle causality, if we see contact happening and changes in attitudes
- Are we seeing contact because attitudes are changing or are we seeing attitudes change because of contact?…
-
Interpersonal or intergroup contact ideal?
Should contact be at an interpersonal or should we maintain categories and have contact at an intergroup contact level
- Do we term those social identities on or off?
Generalisation of positive attitudes (e.g. Minard, 1952)?
- Minard 1952 conducted research in SA,
when it was very segregated - He reported when observing miners, mining deep under ground, all miners relied on each other for their survival and no evidence of prejudice
- when they took the lift to the surface they socialised in separate groups indicating that prejudice can be switched on and off
- Prejudice is complex, it can be present in one setting and not in another
- Humans are sophisticated
Hewstone & Brown (1986): their suggestions
- Intergroup contact during which relevant social identities remain salient
- In contact settings, people have to actively think about the groups they belong too rather than forget them like (Miller & Brewer, 1984)
- Promote distinct but complementary roles - e.g. Deschamps & Brown (1983)
- Deschamps & Brown (1983) looked at Uni students, created groups from different schools and gave them tasks to perform together but made sure none of the roles overlapped
- Removed the potential for threat, encouraged to have different roles that complement each other and reduce the likelihood of conflict
See positively evaluated outgroup members as typical (Wilder, 1984) to prevent ‘sub- typing’
Generalisation problem - If we really want to remove prejudice, we have to shift the way people see a whole group and not single individuals
- One risk is sub-typing, when we meet someone from an out-group, we compare them to the stereotypes that we hold of their out-group
Sub-typing cont…
- If we have a stereotype that someone is lazy and meet someone from that background and they are indeed lazy - this will strengthen out stereotypical beliefs
- If we meet someone from a certain background and they oppose the stereotype (are not lazy) faced with a dilemma
- We could say they are okay, that one person was okay but they must be different from the rest of them (this person is an anomaly - they don’t represent their group - our stereotype remains intact)
- This way of thinking is natural, as our stereotypical beliefs are embedded within us
- Hence we create a new sub-type - there is a certain kind of person from that background that are ok (will let them off) and few of them
Sub-typing to change beliefs…
- In creating a new sub-type, we make the stereotype more complex but do not shift our beliefs
- Ideally, to change our beliefs one has to see this individual that oppose stereotypes as someone that IS typical of this out-group
- If they do this they have to modify their steretypes
- See out-group as varied (Hamburger, 1994)
- We need to see the out-group as varied
- This counteracts the out-group homogeneity effect
- If we can stop people thinking this, then we begin to challenge the stereotype
Generalisation problem
Within prejudice, people tend to claim that they aren’t prejudice because “I have a gay friend etc”… however just because they aren’t prejudiced to their friend doesn’t mean they aren’t to the wider group
- A ‘dual identity’ approach
Hewstone & Brown (1986) propose a ‘dual identity’ approach
- Social identity is at the for-front of their approach to reducing prejudice
- People’s social identity is a crucial part of our self concept thus to expect people to just switch it off is unrealistic
- It is naive to expect that everyone can be blind to real world differences of religion, race, gender - there are real differences
- Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals
Therefore we can allow people to maintain their social identity, but give people superordinate goals that bring identities together and encourage people to appreciate the differences without making the differences connected to putting down the out-group
- Encourage to see their group in a positive way but that is not dependent on seeing the out-group as negative
- Find ways for people to be proud of their background but without feeling the need to like this pride to prejudice
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Meta-analysis on studies of contact on field and lab settings
- Concluded that bringing people together in contact settings can reduce prejudice
- However these effects are strongest in lab settings/experiments
- Experiments present the issue of ecological validity - lab studies might show reduced prejudice but there is the issue of extrapolating this to a real world setting can be tricky
- Also most people that would volunteer for studies are not likely to be people who have exceedingly strong prejudice
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Meta-analysis of over 600 studies - Conclude there IS evidence for prejudice reduction following contact - Evidence strongest from experiments - 96% of studies reviewed showed reduction of prejudice - Generalisation DOES happen - Pettigrew and Tropp argue Allport's 3 requirements for contact are helpful but he was wrong to suggest they are required - Allport’s optimal conditions are most effective, but they are not essential
- Possibly explained by familiarity breeding liking (Zajonc, 1968)
- Possibly explained by familiarity breeding liking
- (Zajonc, 1968) suggested that the more familiar we are with an object the more we like something
- Suggests that the more we have contact with other backgrounds the more we might like them
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) page - Uncertainty reduction important
- Reduction of uncertainly - one of the motives that drives social identity
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) - Group salience is still advisable
- Pettigrew & Tropp support Hewstone & Brown in that we shouldn’t switch off social identities instead there is a large amount of research to suggest contact works when social identities remain salient/active
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) - Need more longitudinal studies
There is an issue as not enough research is longitudinal
- Few studies track prejudice over time - as this is expensive
- But we could probably learn the most from this kind of study
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) - Need multi-level models outlining
inhibitors and facilitators of
positive contact
- Need a better understanding of the inhibitors and the facilitators of contact working to reduce prejudice
- We know some of the things that help facilitate contact
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) - Start early, with children
- Ideally we start with children because their attitudes are more malleable
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) - Reduce intergroup anxiety
- We need to reduce anxiety between groups
- When we find ourselves in stressful/anxious situations is to tend to shut down and preserve cognitive resources
- By preserving cognitive resources we revert to using stereotypes which mean we don’t need to see people as unique individuals
- Hence when you meet someone from an out-group, in an anxious setting, you’re more likely to be thinking in a stereotypical way
The Recategorisation approach (e.g. Gaertner et al., 1989;1990)
- Changing the way we categorise
- Also known as ‘common in-group identity’ model
- The idea is that if you can give people a common identity then you can undermine prejudices that exist
- Encourage perception of higher-level identities/categories
- Turner (1981) - superordinate categories/identities - e.g. aided by common perception of an enemy
- Layers of our identity, higher levels of identity e.g. human, female, student
- If you are at a level where identities are in conflict with another person, then focus on higher levels where people have common shared identities and encourage them to focus on that level
✖ Easier to encourage this to happen if you are given a common enemy to hate - therefore aren’t reducing prejudice but replacing one inter-group conflict with another
Approaches
De-categorisation
Dual Identity
Recategorisation
Augmenting the effects of contact - Cross-cutting ties (e.g. Deschamps, 1982)
- Recent years - we have developed ideas of how to augment and increase the effects of contact
- If we remind people that although they have different backgrounds, people do have things in common - cross cutting ties
- This has shown to reduce prejudice in labs
- ‘Status compensation’ and positive discrimination (e.g. Norvell & Worchell, 1981)
- Compensate for uneven surface, is positive discrimination a good thing?
- E.g. businesses sometimes have to recruit people from a certain background because statistics show people from that background are underrepresented e.g. women
- USA are actively trying to show positive discrimination
- Research does suggest that if done sensitively it can reduce prejudice
- Reducing (intergroup) anxiety
- We should strive to reduce inter-group anxiety as it encourages stereotyping
- When we forge contact settings we should create settings that don’t encourage anxiety
- Extended contact hypothesis (Wright et al, 1997),
2009)
- Recent research even shows that contact doesn’t have to be direct
- Extended contact hypothesis - if we learn our friends have successful contact and shifted their views - in time we can shift our attitudes - even though we didn’t experience that contact directly
- Extended contact hypothesis (Wright et al, 1997), - imagined (Crisp & Turner,
- (Crisp & Turner, 2009) Even just imagining successful contact can be enough to start the process of changing their views
- Extended contact hypothesis (Wright et al, 1997), and para-social (Ortiz & Harwood, 2007) contact
Para-social contact, which happens through our exposure to the media
- Maybe we encounter people of different backgrounds through the media, e.g. films, TV
- Research has shown that this contact can influence positive change
Extended contact: the media - Jaspal & Cinnirella (2010)
- Media portrayal of Islam as a religion is skewed
- Muslims tend to be portrayed as the ‘other’ rather than an in-group member
- For para-social contact to work - you have to have positive role models in the media
- Muslim religiosity nearly always only mentioned in ‘bad news’ items
- Lack of positive Muslim role models in mass media
- E.g. Crime reporting- when a crime is committed by someone from an ethnic minority background, the media tends to report their ethnicity as well but not if the person was a white christian
- This builds a link within the minds of individuals between people of a certain background and certain negative things
Pettigrew (1998)
Has argued these 3 approaches could be fitted together in a chronological model
- Start with Decategorisation switching the social identities off and get people to know each other as individuals
- Next - Dual Identity - switch them back on and remind people that they are from a particular background and we accept that its an important part of their identity - as them to try and respect people from the other background as well
- Conclude with Recategorisation - giving people a new superordinate identity, at a higher level that they could all share
Decategorisation
Acquaintance as individuals, leading to liking and friendship
Dual Identity
Reminded of ingroup and outgroup identities to promote stereotype change
Recategorisation
A new superordinate identity is eventually formed
Pettigrew (1998) 3 models together
- He argued we go through a chronological process and bring all the 3 competing models together
