1 lecture outline nold-fashioned racism ncontemporary theories of racism symbolic (modern) racism ...

1

Lecture OutlineOld-fashioned racismContemporary Theories of Racism

Symbolic (Modern) RacismAversive RacismAmbivalence-Amplification Theory

How prejudice affects targetsStereotype ThreatConsequences of positive prejudice

2

Old Fashioned Racism

Premise:

People are aware of their prejudice

But may try to conceal it from others

3

Symbolic (Modern) Racism

Premise:

People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized

harbor prejudice

believe racism and discrimination are wrong

4


Symbolic racists are caught between:

The prejudice they feel

The egalitarian values they espouse

Not consciously aware of prejudice

5


Symbolic racism manifested in disguised form:Protestant work ethnicopposition to affirmative action

Conservative values serve to keep disadvantaged groups disadvantaged

6

Kinder & Sears (1981)

Purpose: Test whether racial prejudice stems from:

conflict over scarce resources

belief that African Americans violate cherished values

7

Kinder & Sears (1981)Overview

Mayoral elections in Los Angeles:1969 and 1973

Candidates:Samuel Yorty: White conservativeThomas Bradley: African American liberal

What predicts voting behavior?competition over scarce resources symbolic racist beliefs

8


Election Results:

1969: Samuel Yorty won with 53% of vote

1973: Thomas Bradley won with 56% of vote

9


Prediction: Scarce Resources

If racial prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, then...

Those Whites who are in the more competition for resources with African Americans will show greater prejudice than those who are in less competition.

10


Prediction: Symbolic Racism

If racial prejudice stems from symbolic racism, then.....

The more strongly Whites believe that African Americans violate traditional values, the more prejudice they will show.

11

Kinder & Sears (1981)Participants:

White residents of Los Angeles, CA1969 (n = 198); 1973 (n = 239)Most lived in suburbsHomeowners33% attended collegeMost were Protestant, others CatholicNearly all were marriedMost had children

12


Prejudice:

Measured via voting behavior

13


Competition over scarce resources:

Measured via questionnaire responses spanning four domains of racial threat.....

14

4 Domains of Racial Threat

1. Neighborhood desegregation & interracial social contact

Example QuestionHow strongly would you object if a member of your family

wanted to bring an African American friend home to dinner

15


2. Economic competition

Example QuestionHave the economic gains of African Americans been

about the same, much greater than, greater than, or less than yours over the past 5 years?

16


3. Racial Busing

Example QuestionHow likely is it that African American children will be

bused into the elementary schools of this neighborhood?

17


4. Perceptions of African American violence

Example QuestionHow likely is it that African Americans will bring

violence to this neighborhood?

18


Symbolic Racism:

Measured via questionnaire responses spanning two domains of value systems...

19

2 Domains of Value Systems

1. Expressive Racism

Example QuestionDo you think that most African Americans who receive

money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried or do they really need the help?

20

2 Domains of Value Systems

2. Opposition to racial busing

Example QuestionBusing elementary school children to schools in

other parts of the city only harms their education

21

Kinder & Sears (1981):Results

-0.020.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18

1969 1973

Var

ianc

e E

xpla

ined

Competition

Symbolicracism

Only symbolic racism significantly explained voting behavior

22


For symbolic racists, prejudice is disguised as endorsement of conservative values

This enables them to believe they are non-prejudiced, while still supporting political positions that favor Whites over African Americans

23

Aversive Racism

Premise: Also proposes that people:

1. Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatizedharbor prejudiceendorse egalitarian values that oppose racism and discrimination

2. Are not typically conscious of prejudice

24

Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism

But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..

25

Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism

Aversive racists…

endorse liberal values suppress prejudice when it becomes

conscious

26

Symbolic and Aversive Racism

Symbolic and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control

27

Modern and Aversive Racism

Both Symbolic and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice

How do they do this?

28

Symbolic and Aversive Racism

Not aware of prejudice on conscious level

Access egalitarian values when cognitive resources are plentiful, and report low prejudice

Ingrained prejudice accessed on implicit measures or non-monitored behaviors

29

Ambivalence-Amplification Theory

Premise:

People are ambivalent toward the stigmatized.aversion and hostilitysympathy and compassion

30


Proposes that...

1. Ambivalence causes threat to self-esteem

No matter how one feels, that feeling is in conflict with the other way one feels

31


Proposes that...

2. People try to reduce threats to self-esteem

They justify or deny the way the feel at the moment, depending on the situation

32


Proposes that...

3. Behavior toward the stigmatized is very unstable

4. People are aware of their ambivalence

33

Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 and 2

Examined how the situation affects whether people will justify or deny feeling prejudice toward a stigmatized person

34

Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1

Prediction:

People will justify prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

35


Procedure:

1.Male participants evaluated a confederate on 20 item impression questionnaire

likingwarmth conceit intelligenceadjustment

36


Procedure:

2.Participant was required to administer shock to confederate as feedback

3. Participant then evaluated confederate 2nd time on impression questionnaire

37

Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1

Manipulations:

1. Confederate race:African AmericanWhite

2. Shock level: (no shock actually given)strong and painfulweak and not painful

38


Prediction restated:

People justify prejudice by denigrating stigmatized other, making that person seem unworthy and deserving of dislike.

This means: Participants who gave “strong shocks” to the African American target should show greatest change in post-shock ratings (negative direction)

39

Results: African American

targetWhite target

Strong shock

Mild Shock

Strong shock

Mild Shock

Before Shock 19.2 14.3 16.3 15.4

Change score -11.9 7.2 00.0 -.80

Negative change = more negative impression after shockPositive change = more positive impression after shock

As predicted, impression of African American confederate became most negative after strong shock

40


Prediction:

People will deny prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that

41


Procedure:

1. Participant introduced to confederate

2. Participant required to insult confederate

3. Told confederate left before criticism was explained as part of the experiment

4. Participant believed experiment was over

5. Sent to office for $, where got letter from confederate.....

42


The letter: Doing an independent study projectNeeded one more participantStudy was on repetitionExperimental materials attachedMaterials asked participant to repetitively write the

same sentence over and over

43


Manipulations:

1. Confederate race:African AmericanWhite

2. Insult level:Very hurtfulNot very hurtful

44


Prediction restated:

People will deny prejudice by going out of their way to help a stigmatized other whom they have harmed.

This means: Participants who gave “hurtful insult” to the African American target should work the hardest in the repetitive experiment.

45

Results: African American

targetWhite target

Hurtful Insult 44.21 21.20

Not hurtful insult 22.13 23.20

Values are the average number of times repetitive sentence was written in booklet.

As predicted, participants wrote the sentence more often after having harmed the African American target. No other significant differences.

46

Katz & Glass (1979)

Conclusion:

People feel ambivalence toward stigmatized others, and respond in extreme ways toward those whom they have harmed

Sometimes behave positively, sometimes negatively depending on the situation

47

How Prejudice Affects Targets

Stereotype Threat (Claude Steele)

Unintended consequences of positive prejudice (Madeline Heilman)

48

Stereotype Threat

Premise:Stigmatized groups are aware of

negative stereotypes

This awareness produces “stereotype threat”........

49

Stereotype Threat

Definition:

Fear that one will be viewed or treated in way consistent with stereotype, or that one will confirm the stereotype

50

Stereotype Threat

Stereotype threat is situationally induced.

Arises when target realizes that negative stereotype can explain their behavior or attributes

51

Stereotype Threat

Steele points to achievement gaps between African Americans and Whites:

National drop out rates: 70% AA; 42% W

College GPA: African Americans’ GPA two thirds of a grade lower than White’s

52

Stereotype ThreatDifferences typically explained by socio-economic

disadvantages faced by African Americans.

But, African Americans achieve lower than Whites even when they do not differ socio-economically from Whites

Steele argues that stereotype threat contributes to the achievement gap

53

Steele & Aronson (1995)Study 1 and 2

Purpose: Test theory of stereotype threat with respect to African American students and intellectual ability

54

Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1Prediction:

African American students will perform worse than White students on a test said to be a valid measure of intellectual ability, but.....

Perform as good as Whites when test is said to be a laboratory exercise

55

Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1Procedure: Given 30 item SAT-like verbal problems Completed the test

Manipulation:Race of participant: AA or WValidity of test: diagnostic; non-diagnostic

DV: number correct on test

56

Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1

02468

101214

Diagnostic Non-Diagnostic

Test

Sco

res

African Americans Whites

African Americans performed just as well on the test as Whites in non-diagnostic conditions, but worse in the diagnostic conditions

57


Conclusion:

Believing that a test was valid measure of intellectual ability undermined performance of African American but not White students

58


Purpose:

Examine process by which stereotype threat operates

Focused on apprehension.....

59


Research Question:

Did the diagnostic condition reduce African American participants’ performance by eliciting in them a fear that they would be judged in line with negative stereotype?

60


Prediction:

If apprehension at work, then....

African Americans in the diagnostic condition should distance self from stereotype -- i.e., show it does not apply to them personally

61


Procedures:Expected to complete SAT-like verbal

problems

Rated self-preferences: music: jazz, rap music, classical sports: baseball, basketball, boxing traits: extroverted, aggressive, humorous

Never actually took test

62


Manipulations:Race of participant: AA or WValidity of test: diagnostic; non-

diagnostic

DV: Extent to which participant rated self

consistent with African American stereotype

63


15

20

25

30

35

Diagnostic Non-Diagnostic

Con

sist

ency

with

AA

S

tere

otyp

e

African Americans Whites

African Americans rates self less consistent with AA stereotype when test said to be diagnostic of their verbal ability

64

Steele & Aronson (1995)

Conclusion:

African Americans under perform on measures that assess intellectual ability because such measures create apprehension that they will confirm negative stereotype about their group

65

Untended Consequences of Positive Prejudice

Affirmative action designed to help minorities and underrepresented groups, but....

may undermine their self-views and job performance

66

Affirmative Action

Designed to:

“overcome the discriminating effect of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity” (EEOC, 1970)

67

Affirmative ActionEEOC’s statement:

Says that group membership should be explicitly taken into account in hiring decisions

Unspoken assumption that non-discrimination not sufficient to counteract consequences of prejudice and inequality

68

Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)

Purpose:

Examine whether affirmative action damages the self-views of those who benefit from it

69


Prediction:

Women who believe they were preferentially selected have less confidence in their ability than those who believe they were selected on merit

70


Procedure:

1. Paired with opposite sex confederate

2. Task described; leader more important

3. Answered items assessing ability for leadership role

4. Manipulation occurred........

71


ManipulationMerit:

test scored script read participant selected on merit

Preference: test not scored script read participant selected on basis of gender

72


Procedure continued:

5. Performed task6. Rated self on:

task performanceleadership abilitydesire to persist as leader in task 2

73

Results: Performance Leadership ability

Persist as leader

Men:MeritPreference 5.15

5.376.476.59

5.855.78

Women:MeritPreference

5.244.02

6.715.27

5.504.00

Men: Selection basis did not influence menWomen: Ratings same as men in merit,but worse than all other conditions in preference

74

Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)

Background:

Confidence influences job performancetake on less challenging tasks

Purpose: Examine if preferential selection causes

women to select easier tasks

75

Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)Procedures:

Similar to other study, but looked at managerial skills

Roles were financial services manager and subordinate

Inventory assessed managerial skills

Manipulation: selection based on merit or preference

76

Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)

Participants then indicated which of two tasks they would most like to do

Easy taskDifficult task

77

Results: DifficultTask

Easy Task

Men:MeritPreference 87%

100%13% 0%


93% 47%

7% 53%

Values are the % in each condition that selected the difficult and easy task

78

Results: DifficultTask

Easy Task

Men:MeritPreference 87%

100%13% 0%


93% 47%

7% 53%

Men: Chose difficult task more often regardless of selection basisWomen: Same as men in merit, but chose easy task more often than any other condition in preference

79

Heilman et al., (1987; 1991)

Conclusion:

Preferential selection reduces confidence

Preferential selection causes people to select less challenging tasks at work

80

Affirmative Action: Good or Bad?

Does Affirmative Action always have unintended negative consequences?

No. When it is based on merit and group membership, many of the bad effects it

creates disappear

1 lecture outline nold-fashioned racism ncontemporary theories of racism symbolic (modern) racism ...

Documents