lecture outline prejudice theories of prejudice measures of prejudice explicit v.s. implicit...

Lecture Outline

Prejudice

Theories of Prejudice

Measures of Prejudice

Explicit v.s. Implicit Prejudice

Prejudice

Definition:

A positive or negative attitude, belief, or feeling about a person generalized from attitudes, beliefs, or feelings about the person’s group

Components of Prejudice

Stereotypic beliefstypical attributes

Symbolic beliefsvalues, traditions, customs

Emotionsaffective reactions (e.g., disgust)

Theories of Prejudice

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Minimal Group Paradigm


Group: social unit; members inter-

dependent

In-group: group person belongs to

Out-group: group person does not belong to

Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification


Competition between groups

causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

The Summer Camp Studies

Sherif and Colleagues

Purpose: Test whether competition causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

Summer Camp Studies

Created situations that fostered: group identityintergroup conflictgroup harmony

Four stages

Spontaneous interpersonal friendships

Group formation

Intergroup conflict

Intergroup harmony

Summer Camp Studies

Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal

FriendshipsStudies 1 and 2

Boys from whole camp

interacted

Developed friendships

naturally

Listed close friends

Two groups created

Stage 2: Group Formation

Studies 1 and 2

Boys developed in-group identity

•interacted only with own group

•activities fostered liking

Listed close friends 2nd time

95% listed friends from in-group

Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave)

Began at group formation stage

Two groups - different locations

Boys developed in-group identity

•interacted only with own

•activities fostered liking

Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict

Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prizebaseballtouch football tug of wartreasure hunt

Intergroup conflict: name calling stealing flagsfights


Bean TossCollected as many beans as

they couldPut beans in sack Supposedly shown each boy’s

sackEstimated number of beans in

each sackKnew group membership only


Bean Toss

Same sack shown to each boy

Results: overestimated beans for in-group

underestimated beans for out-group

Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony

Reduce conflict & prejudice

1. Contact hypothesis

2. Superordinate goalswater supply malfunctionedbus broke down


Challenged idea that competition required for intergroup conflict

A simple distinction between

groups is sufficient to cause bias


People assigned to groups

Groups have no history, norms, or values

Members have no contact

Membership based on trivial criteria


Goal of these experiments:

Show that group membership ALONE

produces in-group bias

Minimal Group Paradigm1. Group members alone and anonymous

2. 14-15 yr. old boys

3. Boys estimated dots on a screen

4. Boys labeled as over- or underestimators

5. Boys completed series of pay off matrices where

they gave points to individual boys who would later

receive the points and trade them in for fun stuff


Payoff Matrix

#26, one of the:overestimators(in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

19

#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

underestimators(out-group)

Boys most often selected 12:11 strategy

Fairness combined with ingroup profit


The Big Point

In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources

Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias

Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice

Old Fashioned Racism Scale

Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites?

If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?

Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice

Modern Racism Scale

Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve

Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights

Self-Reported Prejudice

General pattern:

Prejudice is subsiding

Explanations

People are less prejudiced now

Social Desirability

Social Desirability

People lie about their prejudiced to appear unbiased to others

Bogus Pipeline

An experimental paradigm

Experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached

-3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3

Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971)

Completed survey about self

Rated African Americans on traits by turning wheel

-3 (very uncharacteristic)+3 (very characteristic)

-3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3



Manipulation

Bogus pipeline group

Control group

If people lie on self-report measures to appear unbiased then….

Attributes Negative Positive

Bogus Pipeline > Control Control > Bogus

Pipeline


Neg. Attributes: Bogus Pipeline Control

Happy-go-lucky .93 -.13Ignorant .60 .20Stupid .13 -1.00Physically dirty .20

-1.33Unreliable .27 -.67Lazy .60 -.73Aggressive 1.20 .67


Pos. Attributes Bogus PipelineControl

Intelligent .00 .47Ambitious .07 .33Sensitive .87 1.60


Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Explicit Measures Implicit Measures

Responses more easily

modified


Explicit Measures Implicit Measures

More vulnerable to

social desirability

Taxonomy of Prejudice Measures

Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000)

Controlling Responses Easy Difficult

Old fashioned racism

Open discrim

ination

Racial slurs

Modern racism

Subtle prejudice scale

Seating distance

Subtle language bias

Eye contact

Non-verbal behaviors

Who-said-w

hat

Fam

ous person task

Implicit association test

Stroop-like task

RT

following prim

ing

Physiological reactions

IAT: Implicit Association Test

The IAT measures RT:how quickly people categorize stimulus words.

Faster RT = stronger association

IAT responses correlate mildly with explicit responses

Dissociation

A lack of correspondence between what

people report on explicit measures and how

they respond on implicit measures

Causes of Dissociation

Social desirability:People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased

This would produce dissociation

Causes of Dissociation

Internalized egalitarian values:People genuinely endorse egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them

This too would produce dissociation

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals


Logic:

2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings

i.e., prejudice is unconscious


Logic:

3. Internalized egalitarian values are newer associations & require more cognitive resources to access than ingrained prejudice.

These resources are not available when completing implicit measures


Logic:

4. Egalitarian values only accessible when completing explicit measures.

When completing implicit

measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge


Social DesirabilityInternalized

Egalitarian Values

Know they are prejudiced

Know they are lying

Do not know they are prejudiced

Believe they are telling the truth

Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989)

1. Measure prejudice

2. Subliminal

priming

3. Rate Donald

Manipulation:

Percent of primes presented

•80% of primes associated with AA

•20% of primes associated with AA

Subliminal Priming Study

Devine (1989)

Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989)

Results:

1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition

2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

•Primes presented outside of awareness

•As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald

•Unconscious prejudice dominates

Subliminal Priming Study

Devine (1989)

lecture outline prejudice theories of prejudice measures of prejudice explicit v.s. implicit...

Documents