reducing prejudice and discrimination Flashcards
are interventions for all types of prejudice & discrimination the same?
- no
- the type of interventions designed to tackle individual vs institutional/structural intergroup bias can be very different
- e.g. affirmative action policies
- e.g. behaviour or attitude change techniques on individuals
Paluck et al (2020) - individual interventions
- individual level interventions
- covered a range of interventions and contexts
–> field-based programme evaluations of anti-bias and diversity training
–> experimental evaluations of cognitive and emotional training; values-based and self-worth affirming interventions; peer-influence; social categorisation; entertainment-based strategies; and direct and indirect intergroup contact
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis
under certain conditions, contact between groups will reduce prejudice
what are the conditions in Allport’s contact hypothesis?
- equal status (i.e., equal status in the interaction)
- common goals
- intergroup cooperation
- institutional support (e.g. support from authorities, laws, social norms)
what is direct intergroup contact?
- direct contact involves face-to-face interactions between members of different groups
does direct intergroup contact reduce prejudice?
- Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
- highly cited meta-analysis included 515 studies examining whether direct contact between groups reduces prejudice
- demonstrated that direct contact does reduce prejudice
- greater reductions in prejudice are seen under the conditions specified by Allport, but these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction
issues and critiques of the contact hypothesis
- Allport didn’t clearly explain the potential mechanisms involved in reducing prejudice in the contact hypothesis
- direct contact isn’t always possible or appropriate
–> e.g. separation peace walls in Ireland (1969)
–> e.g. 93% of schools in northern Ireland are segregated
what are the mechanisms underlying how direct contact works?
- direct contact reduces prejudice by:
1. reducing intergroup anxiety (i.e. anxiety about intergroup contact)
2. increasing empathy and perspective taking
3. increasing knowledge about the outgroup (though this was the weakest mediator)
what is indirect contact? types?
- not face to face intergroup contact
- types:
–> vicarious contact
–> extended contact
–> imagined contact
is indirect contact common/popular?
- very popular
- a 1/3 of all prejudice reduction studies evaluate interventions based on second-hand or imagined contact with outgroups
what is vicarious contact?
observation of an interaction between ingroup and
outgroup members
vicarious intergroup contact (Vittrup & Holden, 2011)
children exposed to racially diverse TV shows (e.g. an episode of Sesame Street showing interracial friendships) showed more positive outgroup attitudes than children not exposed to these shows
vicarious intergroup contact (Vezzali et al., 2015)
exposure to passages from Harry Potter books (depicting intergroup friendships and intergroup prejudice) predicted improved attitudes toward immigrants in children who identified more with Harry Potter
what is extended contact?
knowing that ingroup members have contact with outgroup members
extended intergroup contact (Wright et al., 1997)
White, Asian and African American undergraduate students who reported knowing more ingroup members with at least one outgroup friend reported less prejudice towards outgroups
extended intergroup contact (Zhou et al., 2019)
Meta-analysis supports that there is a positive relationship between extended contact and intergroup attitudes
the mechanisms underlying how extended and vicarious contact reduces prejudice
- reducing intergroup anxiety
- increasing empathy
- creating cognitive ‘overlap’ between the self and outgroup members (inclusion of other in the self)
–> close ingroup members are considered part of the self, so this then extends to outgroup friends of close ingroup members - changing perceptions of social norms (i.e. that ingroup and outgroup members support intergroup contact)
issues and critiques of extended and vicarious contact
- can’t easily use extended contact as an intervention, as it would be difficult to deliberately manipulate whether someone from your ingroup has outgroup friends
- though vicarious contact is a little easier to manipulate
what is imagined contact?
mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or
members of an outgroup category
basic experimental method to test imagined contact (Husnu & Crisp, 2010)
- imagery task
–> imagine yourself meeting an outgroup stranger for the first time, new and surprising info is imagined in the convo
OR
–> just imagine walking somewhere outdoors control)
- measure of prejudice
imagined intergroup contact (West et al., 2011)
Ps who imagined a positive interaction with an individual with schizophrenia, reported more positive attitudes than participants who imagined a positive interaction with an individual who didn’t have schizophrenia
imagined intergroup contact (Miles & Crisp, 2014)
meta-analysis supports effectiveness of imagined contact in promoting more positive attitudes, emotions, intentions and behaviour to a range of different groups
the mechanisms underlying how imagined contact reduces prejudice
- reduced intergroup anxiety (i.e. anxiety experienced during or at the prospect of interactions with the outgroup)
- increased empathy
- increased knowledge about the outgroup
issues and critiques of imagined contact
- ‘Many labs’ replication project (Klein et al., 2014) of Husnu & Crisp (2010) study on effects of imagined contact on reducing prejudice
- small effect of imagined contact on reducing prejudice found vs previous large effect
- imagined contact effects thus does not replicate
–> but Crisp doesn’t think this is unexpected at their 2014 study also had small effects
what is colourblind ideology?
- we shouldn’t see people in terms of the colour of their skin
–> we should see people as individuals and look beyond group differences - an approach to managing diversity in which intergroup distinctions and considerations are deemphasized
critiques of the colourblind approach
- if we ignore intergroup distinctions, we ignore actual intergroup disparities and differences in experiences (microinvalidation)
- we may be less likely to recognise intergroup disparities and discrimination
Apfelbaum et al (2010) - method
- teacher takes 1 of 2 approaches when given children a digital storybook on equality
1. colourblind approach = we want to show everyone that race is not important and that we’re all the same
2. value diversity approach = we need to recognize how we are different from our neighbors and appreciate those differences
Apfelbaum et al (2010) - method continued
- children were then told about some scenarios that varied in the degree to which they described racially biased behaviour
1. no bias
2. ambiguous bias
3. explicit bias - children then reported which (if any) of the scenarios showed racial discrimination
Apfelbaum et al (2010 - results
children were less likely to perceive discrimination in the colourblind story condition relative to the value diversity story condition (even when discrimination was explicit)
educational strategies and consciousness raising
- factual education to increase knowledge about different groups
- consciousness raising (i.e. education about the existence of prejudice and discrimination, implicit bias)
- perspective taking
Elliott’s blue eyes / brown eyes exercise
- April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr
- US Primary School Teacher Jane Elliott held an exercise in her Year 3 classroom, to teach children about discrimination
- manipulated race using different eye colours (e.g. blue eyes are superior to brown eyes)
- kids discriminated against the other eye colour and became quite vile
‘the school that tried to end racism’
- example of education and consciousness raising in practise
- Channel 4 documentary set in a South London school undertaking the UK’s first trial of a programme to educate children (Year 7) about racial bias
Hughes, Bigler & Levy (2007) - study 1 method
- white American primary school-aged children elementary-aged children were exposed to history lessons (20 mins per day for 6 days) that included either:
1. racism condition
–> explicit information about racism experienced by well-known African Americans
2. control condition
–> identical lessons that omitted the information about racism - then a day or two later Ps completed a black/white evaluative scale as a measure to attitudes towards African Americans
Hughes, Bigler & Levy (2007) - results
Ps who received history lessons talking about racism had significantly more positive and less negative attitudes toward African Americans than participants who received control lessons
meta-analyses on the effects of education as a prejudice reduction technique
- mental health stigma
–> meta-analysis by Corrigan et al. (2012) found that educational interventions were successful at reducing mental-health stigma (i.e. prejudice and discrimination) - prejudice and discrimination more broadly
–> Paluck et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis finds a small but significant effect of multicultural, anti-bias and moral education interventions on reducing prejudice
what prejudice confrontation?
- action taken by a person to confront prejudice or discriminatory behaviour in others
- confrontation can be enacted by the target of prejudice (or someone from the same group) or by an ally
–> i.e. someone who isn’t from the target group
what is ‘bystander anti-prejudice’?
confrontation of prejudice by a non-target individual
Czopp, Monteith & Mark (2006) - study 3 method
- white Ps completed a task with a white confederate which required them to take turns making inferences about sentences paired with photos of White and Black people
- critical trials (only ever on the Ps turn) paired pictures of Black men with sentences that could have both stereotypical or non-stereotypical interpretations
–> e.g. this person can be found behind bars could be seen as a criminal (stereotype) or a bartender (non-stereotypical)
Czopp, Monteith & Mark (2006) - study 3 method continued
- feedback task where Ps were given a piece of feedback from the confederate
1. confrontation prejudice = you seemed a little offensive
2. other confrontation control = you seemed a little goofy
3. no confrontation control = you typed fast, well done - Ps completed the 2-item attitudes towards Blacks scale at the beginning of the semester and at the end of the study
Czopp, Monteith & Mark (2006) results
Ps confronted about use of stereotypes reported a greater reduction in prejudiced attitudes (i.e. a higher change score) than participants in the other confrontation and no confrontation control conditions
Chaney et al (2020) study 1 method
- do effects of confrontation of prejudice towards one group, extend to a reduction in prejudice against other groups?
- white Ps interpreted sentences paired with pictures of White or Black people
- critical trials paired pictures of Black men with sentences that could have both stereotypical or non-stereotypical interpretations
- half of the Ps who responded stereotypically, were confronted by the experimenter
- a week later, Ps completed a similar sentence inference task where sentences were paired with photos of White, Black, and Latino men
Chaney et al (2020) - results
white Ps confronted for using negative black stereotypes used fewer negative black stereotypes AND fewer negative Latino stereotypes than white participants who weren’t confronted
