reducing prejudice and discrimination Flashcards
Allport (1954) contact hypothesis
under certain conditions, contact between groups will reduce prejudice (intergroup contact)
allport - conditions promoting prejudice reduction (4)
- equal status (in the interaction)
- common goals
- intergroup cooperation
- institutional support (e.g., support from authorities, laws, social norms)
direct intergroup contact
face-to-face interaction between members of different groups
direct intergroup contact to reduce prejudice meta-analysis
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)
critique of Allports contact hypothesis (2)
didn’t clearly explain the potential mechanisms involved in reducing prejudice in the Contact Hypothesis
direct contact isn’t always possible or appropriate
mechanisms underlying direct contact
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)
example of when direct contact isn’t possible/appropriate
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
indirect intergroup contact intervention types (3)
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)
vicarious contact + 2 studies in children
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
extended contact + 2 studies
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
mechanisms underlying extended and vicarious contact on prejudice reduction (4)
- 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)
critiques of extended and vicarious contact
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
imagined contact + study (racial prejudice)
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
imagined intergroup contact reducing prejudice studies (2)
- schizophrenia
- meta-analysis
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
mechanisms underlying imagined contact (3)
- reduced intergroup anxiety (anxiety experienced during or at the prospect of interactions with the outgroup)
- increased empathy
- increased knowledge about the outgroup
critiques of imagined contact (replications)
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
colourblind ideology
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 colourblind ideologies
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
Apfelbaum et al (2010) - colourblind ideology study - method
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
Apfelbaum et al (2010) - colourblind ideology study - 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 those reading the colourblind story didn’t see it as much)
shows colourblind approach can lead to ignorance
3 educational strategies
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
Hughes et al (2007) - education of primary school children about history
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
education and consciousness - reduce mental health stigma study
Corrigan et al. (2012)
meta-analysis
found that educational interventions were successful at reducing mental-health stigma
education and consciousness - reduce prejudice and discrimination more broadly study
Paluck et al.’s (2020)
meta-analysis
small but significant effect of multicultural, anti-bias and moral education interventions on reducing prejudice
prejudice confrontation
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
confronting prejudice study - Czopp et al (2006) - method
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
confronting prejudice study - Czopp et al (2006) - results
confronted about prejudice = greater reduction in prejudiced attitudes than other confrontation and control
chaney et al (2000) - confrontation of prejudice extended to other groups
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
