reducing prejudice and discrimination

Question 1

Allport (1954) contact hypothesis

Answer 1

under certain conditions, contact between groups will reduce prejudice (intergroup contact)

Question 2

allport - conditions promoting prejudice reduction (4)

Answer 2

1. equal status (in the interaction)
2. common goals
3. intergroup cooperation
4. institutional support (e.g., support from authorities, laws, social norms)

Question 3

direct intergroup contact

Answer 3

face-to-face interaction between members of different groups

Question 4

direct intergroup contact to reduce prejudice meta-analysis

Answer 4

Pettigrew & Tropp’s (2006)

meta-analysis - 515 studies examining whether direct contact between groups reduces prejudice

found it does reduce prejudice - very effective

greater reductions in prejudice are seen under the 4 conditions specified by Allport, (but these are not essential for prejudice reduction)

Question 5

critique of Allports contact hypothesis (2)

Answer 5

didn’t clearly explain the potential mechanisms involved in reducing prejudice in the Contact Hypothesis

direct contact isn’t always possible or appropriate

Question 6

mechanisms underlying direct contact

Answer 6

Pettigrew & Tropp (2008) meta-analysis found direct contact reduces prejudice by:

• reducing intergroup anxiety (about intergroup contact in the future)
• increasing empathy and perspective taking.
• increasing knowledge about the outgroup (though this was the weakest mediator)

Question 7

example of when direct contact isn’t possible/appropriate

Answer 7

Northern Ireland

1969: walls bult to separate Catholic/Republican and Protestant/Loyalists to reduce violence

2014/15: 93% of schools in NI are segregated still

Question 8

indirect intergroup contact intervention types (3)

Answer 8

not face-to-face contact

3 interventions:

• Vicarious contact - observation of an interaction between ingroup and outgroup members
• Extended contact - knowing that ingroup members have contact with outgroup members
• Imagined contact - mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category

some think of vicarious contact as a subtype of extended contact - lots of overlap between them

1/3 of all prejudice reduction studies evaluate interventions based on second-hand or imagined contact with outgroups (Paluck et al., 2020)

Question 9

vicarious contact + 2 studies in children

Answer 9

observation of an interaction between ingroup and
outgroup members

can reduce prejudice

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

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

Question 10

extended contact + 2 studies

Answer 10

knowing that ingroup members have contact with outgroup members - often as meaningful contact e.g. very close friendships

extended intergroup contact can reduce prejudice

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.

Zhou et al. (2019)

• Meta-analysis supports that there is a positive relationship between extended contact and intergroup attitudes

Question 11

mechanisms underlying extended and vicarious contact on prejudice reduction (4)

Answer 11

• 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 - want to think of self positively and as they become part of it you think of them positively
• changing perceptions of social norms (i.e. that ingroup and outgroup members support intergroup contact)

Question 12

critiques of extended and vicarious contact

Answer 12

can’t easily use extended contact as an intervention –> difficult to deliberately manipulate whether someone from your ingroup has outgroup friends

vicarious contact is easier to manipulate

Question 13

imagined contact + study (racial prejudice)

Answer 13

mental simulation of a social interaction with a member or members of an outgroup category

Husnu & Crisp (2010)

Imagery task - 2 tasks:

• Imagined contact: “imagine yourself meeting a British Muslim stranger for the first time. During the conversation imagine you find out some interesting and unexpected things about the stranger.”
• Control: “imagine you are walking in the outdoors. Try to imagine aspects of the scene about you.”

then a measure of prejudice was done and two groups were compared

Question 14

imagined intergroup contact reducing prejudice studies (2)

• schizophrenia
• meta-analysis

Answer 14

West et al. (2011):

• Participants 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

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

Question 15

mechanisms underlying imagined contact (3)

Answer 15

• reduced intergroup anxiety (anxiety experienced during or at the prospect of interactions with the outgroup)
• increased empathy
• increased knowledge about the outgroup

Question 16

critiques of imagined contact (replications)

Answer 16

replication crisis of studies in psychology:

Many Labs’ replication project (Klein et al. 2014) (replicate study in many locations globally)

• sought to replicate Husnu & Crisp’s (2010) study on effects of imagined contact on reducing religious prejudice (amongst other studies)
• found a significant (but very small) average effect of imagined contact on reducing prejudice across the 36 samples (>6000 participants) vs. the large effect found in Husnu & Crisp, 2010
• therefore argued that imagined contact effects do not replicate

Crisp et al. (2014) argues this result wasn’t unexpected:

• the effect size for imagined contact effects on religious prejudice in their meta-analysis were also small

Question 17

colourblind ideology

Answer 17

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

Question 18

critiques of colourblind ideologies

Answer 18

ignoring intergroup distinctions = ignoring disparities and differing experiences (microinvalidation)

therefore less likely to recognise disparities and discrimination

it’s more than just about skin colour - other associated barriers and inequalities

Question 19

Apfelbaum et al (2010) - colourblind ideology study - method

Answer 19

children given a digital storybook on equality where a teacher took one of the following approaches:

• colour blind approach: “race is not important and that we’re all the same”
• value diversity approach: “recognize how we are different from our neighbours and appreciate those differences”

children then told scenarios varying in degree to which they described racially biased behaviour:

• no bias
• ambiguous bias
• explicit bias

children then reported which scenarios showed racial discrimination

Question 20

Apfelbaum et al (2010) - colourblind ideology study - results

Answer 20

children were less likely to perceive discrimination in the colourblind story condition relative to the value diversity story condition (even when discrimination was explicit those reading the colourblind story didn’t see it as much)

shows colourblind approach can lead to ignorance

Question 21

3 educational strategies

Answer 21

educational strategies:

• Factual education to increase knowledge about different groups
• Consciousness raising (education about the existence of prejudice and discrimination, implicit bias etc).
• Perspective taking

e.g. brown and blue eyes classroom study (questions over ethics

e.g. the school that tried to end racism documentary - educating year 7s about racial bias

Question 22

Hughes et al (2007) - education of primary school children about history

Answer 22

exposed kids to history lessons (20 mins per day for 6 days) in either:

• racism condition: Explicit information about racism experienced by well-known African Americans
• control condition: Identical lessons that omitted the information about racism

1-2 days later:
participants completed the Black/White Evaluative Trait Scale (BETS: Hughes & Bigler, 2007) as a measure of attitudes towards African Americans
5 point scale from “none” to “all” people, rated on positive, negative, and neutral traits e.g. nice, selfish, curious, trusting

results:

• racism history lessons = more positive and less negative attitudes than control group

Question 23

education and consciousness - reduce mental health stigma study

Answer 23

Corrigan et al. (2012)

meta-analysis

found that educational interventions were successful at reducing mental-health stigma

Question 24

education and consciousness - reduce prejudice and discrimination more broadly study

Answer 24

Paluck et al.’s (2020)

meta-analysis

small but significant effect of multicultural, anti-bias and moral education interventions on reducing prejudice

Question 25

prejudice confrontation

Answer 25

action taken 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

bystander anti-prejudice = confrontation of prejudice by a non-target individual

Question 26

confronting prejudice study - Czopp et al (2006) - method

Answer 26

White participants completed a task with a White confederate - take turns making inferences about sentences paired with photos of White and Black people

Critical trials (only ever on the participant’s 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 interpreted as ‘criminal’ (stereotypical) or ‘bartender’ (non-stereotypical)

then did a feedback task - received one type of feedback from the confederate:

• confrontation of prejudice: “i thought some of your answers seemed a little offensive”
• other confrontation control: “i thought some of your answers seemed a little goofy”
• no confrontation control: “i thought you typed fast. good job.”

participants did a 20 item attitudes towards blacks scale (Brigham, 1993) at the beginning of semester and at the end of the study

Question 27

confronting prejudice study - Czopp et al (2006) - results

Answer 27

confronted about prejudice = greater reduction in prejudiced attitudes than other confrontation and control

Question 28

chaney et al (2000) - confrontation of prejudice extended to other groups

Answer 28

method:

white participants 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 participants who responded stereotypically were confronted by the experimenter

1 week later:

participants completed a similar sentence inference task where sentences were paired with photos of White, Black, and Latino men

results:

participants who were confronted for using negative black stereotypes AND fewer negative latino stereotypes than when not confronted