soc 463/663 (social psych of education) - diversity, stigma, and affirmative action

Diversity, Stigma, and Affirmative Action

Melanie Tannenbaum, Ph.D. Spring 2015 SOC 463/663

Stereotyping and Prejudice

Do these all mean the same thing?

A. Yes

B. No

They are similar, but there are actually differences.

Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination


Stereotype Belief that certain attributes are characteristic of members of particular groups

Cognition

Prejudice A negative (or positive) attitude toward a certain group that is applied to its individual members

Emotion

Discrimination Unfair treatment of members of a particular group based on their membership in that group

Behavior

If someone is “racist” towards a certain racial group…

Stereotype: People in Racial Group are all bad/stupid/lazy/smart/athletic/rich.

Prejudice: I don’t like people in Racial Group, so I don’t like Bob because he is a member of this group.

Discrimination: Bob applied for a job in my company, but I won’t hire him, because he’s in Racial Group.


DQ: Stereotypes

How do young children even learn about the stereotypes that others have for their group(s)? How do we get stereotypes out of the

schools? Is it even possible or is it just a long dream that can not be accomplished?

People hastily assume the root of a person is ultimately one primary description. Why do we feel the need to instinctively define each other

at all? How helpful can these labels really be?

But what does it mean to be “racist”?

Does all prejudice look the same? NO!

There are two main types:

Traditional

Modern

This applies to all forms of prejudice (sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism...), not just racism.

Traditional Racism

Prejudice against a racial group that is consciously acknowledged and openly expressed by the individual

Relatively rare in contemporary society

Modern Racism

Prejudice against a racial group that exists alongside rejection of explicit racist beliefs

Example: Opposing racial segregation, but treating outgroup members differently in more subtle ways (e.g. sitting further away, being less likely to hire them).

More “subtle”…not necessarily verbalized

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM

Modern Racism

Hodson et al., 2002

Participants filled out a modern racism scale about African-Americans

Participants rated a sample of job applicants

Half were White, and half were Black

Results

When the applicant was either SUPER EXCELLENT or SUPER TERRIBLE, white and black applicants were rated the same.

When the applicant had a some-good-some-bad resume, people high in modern racism rated the white applicants higher.

Modern racism is suppressed when expressing it would clearly look “racist,”

but emerges when it seems “safe.”

Modern Racism

Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977 White participants entered the lab & told they would be interacting with a) 1 person or b) a group

All people were seated in single-person cubicles and spoke through an intercom system

At one point, one of the confederates indicated he was having a medical emergency

The confederate was either (a) White or (b) Black.

How many participants left their cubicles to go help?

When interacting 1-on-1, most help, whether Black (94%) or White (81%)

When interacting with group, most help the White victim (75%), but not the Black victim (38%)

“Oh, there are a bunch of people…someone else will help.”

Societal ContextWhy?

Realistic group conflict theory Conflict between groups over scarce resources Derogation of other groups Justification of own claims

Social status and power Justifying the status quo

Stereotype holder tend to hold advantaged status position Rationalization of existing social structure

Prejudice is never easy, unless in can pass itself off for reason. -- William Hazlitt (1778-1830)

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

LeVine & Campbell, 1972

When groups compete for limited resources, the groups experience conflict, prejudice, and discrimination.

What are limited resources?

Territory

Jobs

Power

Prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among groups that stand to lose the most if

another group succeeds.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Some of the strongest anti-black prejudice occurred shortly after the Civil Rights Movement became successful.

This prejudice was strongest among the white working class.

Why?

Working class jobs became a threatened commodity for White Americans once millions

of Black Americans were allowed to apply.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study

Sherif et al., 1961

22 fifth-grade boys (all strangers) participated in a 2 ½ week summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park in OK.

The boys were divided into groups of 11


Phase One

Groups independently engaged in activities designed to foster unity (preparing meals, pitching tents, etc.)

Neither group knew about the other group’s existence


Phase Two

Groups brought together for a five-day tournament; winners got medals and pocket knives

The other group is now an obstacle to resources (prizes)

This led to conflict, trash-talking, stealing, and in-group favoritism. Eek!


Phase Three

The researchers tried a few things in an attempt to “reverse” the prejudice and reduce conflict between the 2 groups

Attempt #1: Mere Exposure

The boys were brought together in noncompetitive settings

This failed…The boys insulted each other, fought, etc.


Attempt #2: Superordinate Goals

The researchers created larger goals that made the groups of boys have to depend on each other in order to succeed

Disrupted the camp’s water supply (boys had to fix the pipes together), supply truck “broke down” (boys had to jump start it together)…

Required both groups to work together for a common goal

This worked…Prejudice went away!

On the ride home, the boys took the same bus, shared candy, etc.


There were no differences in background, appearance, or history of conflict; intergroup hostility developed anyway

All that is required for conflict is economic competition

Economic Competition = Sufficient for intergroup bias

Competition against outgroups often increases cohesion

The intergroup conflict led the ingroups themselves to adopt group names, social norms, create a shared social identity, etc.

Superordinate goals help!


Intergroup conflict can be diminished by making groups work together

Certain groups (like the military) do this very well

Certain groups (like Fortune 500 companies) do...not.

How do you think universities do at this?

A) Good

B) Bad


Universities do surprisingly poorly…

This is one reason why there might be a lot of self-segregation and early integration efforts were difficult.

Grade curves and the classroom structure encourage competition

No real efforts to make people from different groups work together for a common goal.

The military does this very well; makes people from many different groups work together, breaks down barriers quickly.

Varieties of Prejudice

Blatant institutional prejudice

Explicitly discriminatory policies

Subtle institutional prejudice

Policies with race-discriminatory consequences

Perpetuate inequality1963: Alabama governor George Wallace

blocking African American students from entering the University of Alabama

Varieties of Prejudice

Blatant personal prejudice

Explicitly prejudiced, verbal use of stereotypes

Has generally decreased over the last 50 years

Subtle personal prejudice

Often unacknowledged, unknown, unconscious

Implicit prejudice

Aversive racism (Dovidio et al., 2002)

http://www.tolerance.org/hidden_bias/02.html

Aversive Racism

Beholders of prejudice think of themselves as egalitarian, fair

Discriminatory racial biases occur without awareness in ambiguous situations

Rationalization of own discriminatory behavior

Aversive Racism

Implicit attitudes (uncontrollable)

Nonverbal friendliness

Verbal friendliness

Explicit attitudes (controllable)

Perceived friendliness of the White participant

(observed by Black partner)

Perceived friendliness of the White participant

(observed by White participant)

One white student & one black student interact in initial “getting-to-know-you” meeting

Very little relationship between white participant’s self-perceived friendliness and the friendliness as perceived by Black interaction partner

Ambiguity & Distrust


Interpersonal Expectations

Self-fulfilling prophecies

Spontaneous biases

Nonverbal channels

“Interview study” (Word, Zanna & Cooper, 1974)

Internalized Expectations

Stereotype Threat

Interview Study (Word et al., 1974)


Interpersonal Expectations

Self-fulfilling prophecies

Spontaneous biases

Nonverbal channels

“Interview study” (Word, Zanna & Cooper, 1974)

Internalized Expectations

Stereotype Threat

DQ: Talking About Stereotypes

I think it’s interesting that Walton points out that inequality does not necessarily need to be objective poor treatment, but subjectively as well. If

that is the case, would merely not talking about racial differences in academic settings reduce the stereotype threats that exist today? Or would it require celebrating racial differences in order for minority groups to identify

with certain domains?

There was a quote I read that stated, "the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about it." Do you think this is true? If something is talked about

constantly it's clearly still going to be an issue, so if everyone just stopped making it an issue, would it just end?

Academic Disengagement & Oppositional Identity

Why don’t minority students perform as well as their majority peers?

Social structural disadvantages Poverty Lack of institutional resources Lack of knowledge to navigate the system

Stereotyping and prejudice Biases Low expectations

Interpersonal Institutional Intrapersonal — Internalization of other’s low expectations

Perceived Biases

Minority students’ response

Perspective of the stereotyped Subjective perspective Shaping of one’s social identity

What does it mean to be black in an academic setting? Who “owns” education?

Identity-shaping processes “Looking glass” self — Passive Identity negotiation and management — Active

Generation of identity that allows one’s own group to be Favorable Distinct

Avoid unfavorable social comparison Integrate subjective experience of intergroup relations

How do minorities respond to majority attitudes toward them?

Disengagement from mainstream domains of achievement

Contingencies of Self-Worth

People base their self-esteem on their “good” domains “I cannot succeed because the deck is stacked against me”

Blaming racism, the system ! “Academic success is not important to me” ! “I am not trying very hard”

American Caste System

John Ogbu (1939-2003) Majority groups Voluntary minority groups Involuntary minority groups

Caste-like

Possible Responses

Oppositional stance (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) Rejection of mainstream institutions and demands Likely in caste-like minorities

Low social mobility Rejectionist stance

Downplay importance of intergroup distinction Avoid tension between minority and mainstream “Racelessness” (Fordham, 1988)

Assimilationist stance Refashion identity to be compatible with mainstream High-mobility minorities

Dual Identity stance Be both member of mainstream and member of minority group Compatibility of aspects of one’s identity

Academic persistence following reminders of societal statusOyserman et al. (2003)

Participants: Arab Israelis in all Arab schools

Aca

dem

ic p

ersi

sten

ce

0

0.35

0.7

1.05

1.4

Dual RES Minority RES In-group RES RES Aschematic

Status not salientStatus is salient

RejectionistOppositionalDual identity

Fordham & Ogbu (1986)

Black oppositional identity to white mainstream education Disengagement from schooling

Forces generated within minority group Blaming the victim (?)

….but wait a minute:

Black students have exaggerated achievement expectations More favorable “abstract” attitudes toward education

Are Black students alienated from school?

Data from National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), nationally representative sample.

DQ: Acting White

Perhaps it's a matter of integrating different cultures within that school, because then high achievement won't be a matter of "acting white." Does this resemble multicultural education? Or should we be trying to address the problem of "acting white" by actively trying to reduce the stigma around academic success? Or is it a little of both, integrating culture while still breaking down the idea that academic

success is a white ideal?

Is there any way that the educational system can prevent the negative association of “acting white” for minorities?

Attributional Ambiguity

Members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain if the treatment they receive is due to themselves personally or due to their group membership

Why didn’t you get hired? Why did you get into that school? Why did you get that award?

Have you ever experienced this? A) Yes B) No


Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity

½ White participants, ½ Black participants

½ got positive feedback, ½ got negative feedback

½ thought other person could see them through one-way mirror, ½ did not


Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity

Self-esteem for White participants went up after positive feedback, down after negative feedback, no matter what.

Self-esteem for Black participants only changed if they thought the other person could not see them.

“Do they really feel this way, or just saying that because they know what I look like and are changing their response because of it?”

Stereotype threat

Seeing oneself as representative of one’s group in another’s eyes

Concern with confirming others’ (assumed) stereotypes

Stereotype Threat

The fear that we will confirm a stereotype that others have

because of a group we’re in

Group members typically know the stereotypes

that others hold about them/their groups

Stereotype Threat

In a performance situation, people often want to prove that the stereotype’s not true

This leads to anxiety about accidentally confirming it This actually makes it more likely one will confirm it

Claude Steele on stereotype threat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS2Bv8Yh1oU

Stereotype Threat

½ participants told that there’s “no gender difference”

½ told that men tend to do better

In the second condition, women do worse.

Stereotype Threat

White male students do worse on math tests when they are surrounded by Asian students.

Female Asian students do worse on math tests when prompted to think about being female, but better when prompted to think about being Asian.

Black students perform worse at golf when it’s described as a test of “sports intelligence,” but White students do worse on the same task when it’s described as a test of “natural athletic ability”

Black students perform worse on aptitude tests when asked to indicate their race on the test booklet before starting.

DQ: Interventions

It is proven that self-affirmations help reduce stress and threatening issues but my concern is, are there any negative side effects of over

self-affirming?

If the data shows that performance can change with implementing this kind of exercise how come it has not been implemented?

DQ: Interventions

How is the “control” group considered a control group when their assignment seemed so negatively biased (least important values and

why those values could be important to someone else)?

Why aren’t there already exercises implemented in classrooms that benefit students in this way? Why not use the intervention strategy for overall self-efficacy and self-worth? How do we make adequate material, social, and psychological resources available in schools to

equip students with the skills necessary to perform?

Video

A Class Divided: “Eye Of The Storm”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Affirmative Action

Controversial Views

History of Affirmative Action

Instituted during Civil Rights Era

First steps: John F. Kennedy

Signed into law: Lyndon B. Johnson

Addresses…

Public contracts

Public employment

Public education

Mandatory in public organizations, but most private ones have a voluntary AA policy

What is Affirmative Action?

Diverse set of programs aimed addressing and rectifying group inequality

Two goals

To remedy the effects of past discrimination

To prevent the occurrence of new disadvantages for certain groups

Two pronged approach

MONITORING

REMEDIATION

There is not one specific Affirmative Action policy, but many different policies

Necessity?

Is Affirmative Action necessary? “Is a systematic monitoring policy necessary?”

Difficulty in assessing systematic inequality Aggregate monitoring is essential

Denial of Discrimination (Crosby)Faye Crosby

Quotas

Does Affirmative Action provide quotas for women & minorities? NO.

Quotas were initially possible, if rare Bakke v. University of California (1978)

Prohibited the use of strict quotas Affirmed the right of educational institutions to take race/ethnicity into account as one criterion among many

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) / Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Most recent “big case” Affirmed previous opinions Struck down some AA approaches

No quotas, but…..

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)/Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Prohibited the use of procedures that amount to quotas

University of Michigan used a point system in admission, whereby minorities received more points for minority status (but this was only one of many ways to earn additional points)

Affirmed the right of educational institutions to take race/ethnicity into account as one criterion among many Affirmed that universities can claim a “compelling interest” to educate for diversity

Current Supreme Court case: Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345

How does Affirmative Action work in college admissions?

Monitoring of student body Admission goals Recruitment effort Admission decisions

“Tie breaker” Define minimum requirements, then take race/ethnicity into account

“Ole Miss” approach “Whole Picture” approach

Take ethnic/racial group membership into account along with other characteristics Grades, test scores Legacy status Region of the country Interest Values/goals expressed in application essays

“Pro” PositionCrosby et al. (2003)

Considering past and ongoing minority disadvantage, Affirmative Action… Monitors fairness Remedies unfairness Ensures that well-qualified minority applicants get their fair chance

! Affirmative action is compatible with a merit-based approach Test scores and grades are rarely (if ever) the only admissions criteria There is no “right” for admission based on test scores & grades. Schools are always (and should be) concerned with other aspects of students in order to create a good learning environment for everyone College, as part of society, is involved in creating and remedying unequal opportunities — societal responsibility Affirmative action policies show positive outcomes

“Anti” positionThernstrom & Thernstrom (1997)

Racial preferences are inherently unfair (with or without quotas) ! Affirmative action is not compatible with a merit-based approach

Admission decisions to selective colleges should ONLY be based on merit Merit = standardized test scores and high school grades.

An inferior minority student may be admitted whereas a superior white applicant (based on standardized test scores & grades) is rejected

Colleges cannot take responsibility for the failures of the K-12 school system that produce low-achieving minority students

DQ: Critiquing Affirmative Action

One of my biggest concerns that was not addressed in this article was whether or not universities have a fair and equitable system

*within* the affirmative action selection process. In my completely cynical eyes, it seems that schools use sports recruitment in

disproportionate quantities to recruit racial minorities. Do minority students that don’t play sports get a fair look as well? Do the groups

(athletic vs. non-athletic recruits) differ on important outcomes?

Eventually white people are going to be the minority – so would they then be able to get into college easier to add diversity? Or would it not be the case because of a history of structural privilege/advantages?

Do you think the structure will reverse?

Some implicit assumptions about educational access

“Deservingness is the only relevant criterion for educational access”

BUT… SAT & ACT have a small correlation with college academic performance College experience is multifaceted Educational goals are multifaceted

High academic performance? Learning about and becoming engaged in society? Preparation for the working world and adult life?

Some implicit assumptions about educational access

“Deservingness is something we can measure on college applications.” BUT…Stereotype threat impacts test performance

“Deservingness speaks for itself.” BUT…Test scores under-predict minority achievement

However… Test scores are still the best unbiased predictors of performance

Sackett et al., 2008, Am Psych

Arguments against Affirmative Action in College Admissions

Undermines meritocratic standards Selection based on characteristics outside individual control

At odds with American individualism? Sends the wrong signal to future generations of college applicants

Illusion of achievement among beneficiaries Lower standards

Affirmation of achievement gap Black students are less qualified than White students

Stigmatizing beneficiaries of AA in the eyes of the majority Attributional consequences of receiving help Stereotype threat (Stereotype vulnerability)

Is Affirmative Action Effective?

Thernstrom & Thernstrom: NO

AA lets non-qualified minority applicants access selective colleges Racial Test score gap among admits Lack of preparation works again minority students

“They cannot keep up” Higher drop-out rates among minority college students

True for selective and non-selective colleges alike


Bowen & Bock: YES

AA increased participation of historically underrepresented groups in school Enhanced academic performance of minority students No increases in drop-out rates Increased positive attitudes toward college & college experience Life outcomes for AA beneficiaries and European Americans often indistinguishable

Increase in income and status among minorities University of Michigan Law school study

Benefits of diversity College outcomes better for minority and majority groups Informal interracial interaction


Sander: NOT REALLY

Systematic analysis of Affirmative Action in American law schools Large racial preferences at elite U.S. law schools At the end of 1st year, 51% of black students in the bottom 10% of class

Students would be better of at non-elite law school 80% of White students pass the bar on 1st try…only 45% of Black students Elite pedigree is less important than GPA

Non-elite schools enables better grades & better learning for black students More black lawyers!

Fischer & Massey (2007)

How do AA admission policies at selective colleges affect minority GPA? Chance of dropping out? College satisfaction?

Mismatch Hypothesis (Thernstroms)

Stereotype Threat Hypothesis (Steele)

Mismatch Hypothesis

Some students have SAT scores lower than the college average

PREDICTION: Below-average students should struggle and have low GPAs, high dropout rates, low satisfaction

FINDING: Mismatched students have a higher GPA and lower dropout rate than expected, but lower college satisfaction.

Stereotype Threat Hypothesis

Minority groups have SAT scores lower than the college average

PREDICTION: Below-average groups should experience stereotype threat and have low GPAs, high dropout rates, low satisfaction

FINDING: Stereotyped students have higher dropout rates and lower college satisfaction, but no difference in GPAs.

Fischer & Massey (2007)

Net effects

Positive effect of mismatch stronger than negative effect of stereotype threat

Overall there is a positive effect supporting the intended consequences of affirmative action, but effect is pretty small

Alternatives

Class-based affirmative action? Seems more acceptable to U.S. public Gains for underrepresented minority groups

Admissions schemes that do not single out any particular group Texas “Admit top 10% from each high school” to U of Texas system

DQ: Alternatives?

How do we make up for structural disadvantages and how would we implement this change?

Should affirmative action be banned in college and university admission? Are there viable alternatives?

Does anyone have a better immediate solution than affirmative action? How do we fix the real problem rather than using a “band-

aid” like affirmative action?

soc 463/663 (social psych of education) - diversity, stigma, and affirmative action

Education

certain group

group behaviorif

white participants

white victim

racial segregation

black applicants

white applicants higher

traditional modern