Components of Prejudice

PREJUDICE

A biased, often negative, attitude formed about a group of people.
Includes belief structures about the group of people along with expectations concerning how those members should behave.

Components of Prejudice

STEREOTYPE

A set of rigid beliefs, positive or negative, about the characteristics or attributes of a group.
An extension of our predisposition to categorize.
Becomes a problem when categorization is rigid and overgeneralized.

Components of Prejudice

DISCRIMINATION

Overt behavior directed toward individuals simply because they belong to a particular group.
An extension of a general learning principle.
Occurs even in the absence of underlying prejudice. Also, prejudice can exist without discrimination.

Ways of Expressing Prejudice I

ANTILOCUTION

Talking in terms of negative stereotypes and negative images.
Common form seen as harmless: Jokes
Antilocution itself MAY not be harmful, but it sets the stage for more severe outlets for prejudice.

AVOIDANCE

Members of a majority group actively avoid members of a minority group. No direct harm is intended. Harm is done through isolation.

Ways of Expressing Prejudice II

DISCRIMINATION

Behaviors that have the specific goal of harming minority groups by preventing them from achieving goals, getting an education or job, etc. Discrimination is actively trying to harm minority.

PHYSICAL ATTACK

Doing physical harm to members of a minority group (e.g., lynchings of blacks, pogroms against Jews in Europe, tarring and feathering Mormons in 1800s).

EXTERMINATION

Attempt to liquidate entire group of people (e.g., Native American population, Final Solution of Jewish Problem, Ethnic Cleansing in Bosnia, etc.).

Personality Roots of Prejudice

The Authoritarian Personality

Submissive attitude toward authority-tendency to accept what an authority figure says.
Rigid beliefs that are not easily changed.
Tendency to be racist, sexist, and have prejudicial attitudes towards minority groups.
Highly ETHNOCENTRIC, authoritarians see their own cultural/racial group as superior to others.
Tendency towards a PREJUDICED PERSONALITY. Authoritarians tend to be prejudiced against a wide range of groups.

Tend to have been raised in a home where the authoritarian parenting style was used.
Although a compelling idea, the authoritarian personality cannot account for the wide range of prejudices expressed. Generally, there is a low relationship between personality traits and overt behavior.

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice I

In-Groups and Out-groups

We tend to define our social world in terms of "in-groups" and "out-groups." An in- group comprises people we perceive ourselves to be similar to (e.g., religion, gender, skin color, etc.). We feel a sense of solidarity with members of the in-group.
An out-group is defined as those who don't fit in the in-group. The solidarity and cohesiveness of the in-group inevitably leads to defining others different from ourselves as an out-group. Members of the out-group are seen in negative ways.

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice II

This tendency to categorize people is powerful (e.g., Tajfel's minimal group experiments discussed in CH. 1).
The basis for SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY is that identification with a group contributes to our self-concept. Identification with a group helps us maintain a positive self-concept.
Identifying with a group confers on us a social identity. Pigeonholing others is a part of the social identity process.
Two key assumptions of social identity theory:

1. When we feel threatened, we will show more in-group bias.
2. In-group bias increases an individual's self-esteem.

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice III

The OUT-GROUP HOMOGENEITY BIAS: Because we have information about members of our own group, we recognize differences between members. However, for the out-group, we perceive members to be more similar to one another than they really are.
As a consequence of the out-group homogeneity bias, we assume that the behavior of a member of an out-group is representative of all members of that group.
The ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR

If a member of an out-group does something bad, we attribute the behavior to the characteristics ascribed to the out-group.
If a member of an in-group does the same thing, we are not likely to blame group characteristics. Rather, we attribute it to the specific person's characteristics

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice IV

The in-group/out-group distinction is further reinforced when a "minority group" remains separate from the "majority group." This increases prejudice and stereotyping directed at the out-group.
A "VICIOUS CIRCLE" (Myrdal, 1944) may develop. Prejudice forces minority to remain separate, separateness perceived by majority as evidence the stereotypes are correct, leads to more prejudice, and ultimately to the minority group becomes more isolated.

Social Roots of Prejudice I

Historically, there has been much prejudice (e.g., attitudes toward blacks shaped by pre-Civil War stereotypes, persecution of the Mormons in the late 1800s and early 1900s, extermination of the Jews, etc.).
Despite changes in interracial attitudes, prejudice still exists and surfaces at various times. Prejudices persist because

1.We pay"lip service" to the idea of equality and see a group as getting a raw deal by the system, but also partially blame the group for its own plight,
2.We tend to see members of a different group as having values different than members of our own group.

Social Roots of Prejudice II

Currently, prejudice is not as overt as it once was. It is no longer socially acceptable to express prejudices. However, prejudice may exist on a more subtle level.
The concept of MODERN RACISM suggests that prejudice is expressed in subtle ways (e.g.,believing that a minority group is "pushing too hard," or opposing civil laws).
Critics of modern racism suggest, however, that it is illogical to equate opposition to a political idea with racism and that the correlations between modern and old-fashioned racism are quite high.

Stereotypes as "Judgmental Heuristics" I

A transgression is perceived to be more likely to recur when it is stereotypic than nonstereotypic.
Recommended discipline for a transgression was more severe when the transgression was stereotypic than nonstereotypic.
Individuals recall fewer facts/less information about a case involving a transgression when the transgression is stereotypic than nonstereotypic.
Individuals use stereotype information to infer reasons for a transgression and then base judgement on those inferences. Other information considered only if there is no stereotype information.

Stereotypes as "Judgmental Heuristics" II

Once a stereotype-based explanation is formed, individuals look for evidence to confirm that explanation.
Transgressions that are stereotype-consistent are attributed to stable internal characteristics. Hence, they are likely to be seen as an enduring pattern of behavior and punished more harshly than stereotype-inconsistent transgressions.

Stereotyping and Emotional Labeling

Although stereotypes are cognitive categories that include beliefs about attributes of members of groups, they also have an emotional component,
Based on a stereotype you LABEL a person (interpret, evaluate, or judge members of a social group).
The label we apply may affect how we perceive a person and how we judge that person's behavior.
The affect generated by the label attached mediates our judgements of a person's behavior.
The affective component (liking/disliking) of a stereotype is more crucial when judging behavior than the cognitive component of a stereotype, although the cognitive component is NOT irrelevant.

Consequences of Prejudice I

Jokes playing on stereotypes are common and often funny. However, they can have negative effects on the targeted group.
Women find sexist jokes less funny than nonsexist jokes (LaFrance & Woodzicka, 1998).

Female subjects report feeling angry, upset, disgusted, and hostile.
They also touch their faces more to sexist jokes (embarrassment) and roll their eyes more (disgust) compared to nonsexist jokes.

Consequences of Prejudice II

Compared to men, women enjoy sexist jokes less, find it less acceptable, and more offensive (Ryan & Kanjorski, 1998).

Men and women did not differ in actually telling sexist jokes.
For men there was a positive correlation between enjoyment of sexist humor and acceptance of the rape myth, adversarial sexual beliefs, and the likelihood of engaging in forced sex or sexual aggression
This may confirm Allport's idea that antilocution sets the stage for more extreme expressions of prejudice.

Consequences of Prejudice III

Recipients of perceived prejudice feel aggressive, sad, and anxious (Dion & Earn, 1977)
Attributing one's failure on a task to prejudice generates strong negative emotion and high levels of stress (Dion & Earn, 1977)
When a stereotype about one's group is activated, members of that group perform more poorly than if no stereotype is activated.

Black subjects perform more poorly than whites on a test if it said to be "diagnostic" of one's academic skills (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Blacks and whites perform equally well on the same test if it is nondiagnostic (Steele & Aronson, 1995).

Consequences of Prejudice IV

The Stereotype Threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995)

Presenting a test as diagnostic activates a stereotype about blacks and a greater tendency to self-handicap.

Activation of the stereotype causes apprehension and a sense of "stereotype threat" that inhibits performance (Steele & Aronson, 1995).
If individuals know that their race will be known to a test administrator, performance drops.

This is likely because the stereotype becomes readily available and creates a stereotype threat.

Generally, existence of a negative stereotype about your group leads to self- confirmation of that stereotype, stereotype threat, and poor performance

Consequences of Prejudice V

Steele and Aronson have extended the findings on the stereotype threat to other groups.

Women perform more poorly than men on a math test if the subjects are told that there were past results indicating a gender difference in math performance.

If no gender discrepant instructions are given, men and women performed equally well on the test.

Stereotype threat can also operate by reducing positive expectations that a person has about his/her performance.
Stereotype threats also lower one's expectations about performance

Once negative expectations form, a self-fulfilling prophecy is activated and behavioral confirmation occurs.

Coping with Prejudice I

Raising the value of a stigmatized group

Convince members of own self-worth and then the rest of society

Ways of raising self-esteem among members of a stigmatized group

Attribute negative outcomes to prejudice of the majority
Comapre oneself to members of your own group rather than members of another group

Anticipating situations in which prejudice will be encountered.

The individual can decide how to react and minimize the impact of prejudice

An individual could confront the prejudice directly
An individual could decide to avoid the situation

Coping with Prejudice II

Compensation for Prejudice

Members of a stigmatized group could use compensation to cope with prejudice.
There are two types of compensation (Miller & Myers, 1998):

Secondary compensation involves changing one's mode of thinking to psychologically protect oneself from prejudice.

Minimizing the importance of a goal (e.g., a college education is not that important)
Disidentifying with the goal (members of my group don't often go to college)

Coping with Prejudice III

Primary compensation involves reducing the actual threats posed by prejudice.

Coping strategies are developed to help a person achieve his or her goals (e.g., studying harder, becoming more persistent, developing new skills)
Using primary compensation reduces the need for secondary compensation
In the long run, primary compensation is more productive than secondary compensation.