CHAPTER6 Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination, Lecture notes of Social Psychology

Download CHAPTER6 Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination and more Lecture notes Social Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

CHAPTER

Stereotyping, Prejudice,

and Discrimination

Focus

Questions

1. What purpose does stereotyping serve as a cognitive process for humans?

2. What is modern racism?

3. Why do social scientists contend that sexism has both a hostile side and a

benevolent side?

4. Can prejudice be reduced, or is it so ingrained in our species’ evolutionary

heritage that it is impossible to reduce?

chapter

Outline

Introduction

6.1 What are the components of

Intergroup conflict?

6.1a Stereotypes are beliefs about

social groups.

6.1b Prejudice is an attitude and

discrimination is an action.

6.1c There are three basic forms of

prejudice.

6.2 Who are common targets of

Intolerance?

6.2a Race-based appearance cues can

trigger discrimination.

6.2b Modern racism is more

ambivalent than openly hostile.

6.2c Sexism has both a hostile and a

benevolent component.

6.2d Intolerance based on weight,

sexual orientation, and mental

illness is often accepted.

6.2e Stigmatized groups can

experience stereotype threat.

6.3 What shapes prejudice and

Discrimination?

6.3a Ingroup members are favored

over outgroup members.

6.3b Intergroup competition can lead

to prejudice.

6.3c Prejudice can serve as a

justification for oppression.

6.3d Authoritarianism is associated

with hostility toward outgroups.

6.4 can We reduce Intergroup Bias and

Intolerance?

6.4a Prejudice and discrimination

can be reduced by monitoring

stereotyped thinking.

6.4b Targets of prejudice can become

agents of positive social change.

6.4c The contact hypothesis identifies

social conditions that reduce

intergroup conflict.

Social psychology 213

those in America: fear of job loss, fear of crime, fear of social welfare depletion, and fear of national identity loss. In all these countries, resentment toward immigrants has been strongly fueled by economic problems and unemployment. Yet Dartmouth business professor Vijay Govindarajan (2010) contends that the reasoning underlying the belief that foreign immi- grants take jobs from a country’s existing citizens is often both flawed and shortsighted. Govindarajan states that many immigrants have skills and capabilities that are unique and not readily available among most current residents of a country. Further, these talented immigrants regularly create innovation that builds new industries and thereby create more jobs in their host countries. For example, in the United States, Govindarajan notes that the founders or cofounders of the following recently created high-tech companies were all recent immigrants: Google, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Juniper Networks, YouTube, Yahoo!, and Intel. These new companies—in which highly skilled immigrants played a lead role— have generated hundreds of thousands of new jobs for Americans. Despite evidence that immigrants can strengthen and help to rejuvenate their host countries, hostil- ity toward these people persists; for many citizens in countries around the world, immigrants are “those people” who threaten “us” and “our way of life.” In this chapter, we examine the social psychology of intergroup bias and intoler- ance—including the type of prejudice and discrimination experienced by immigrants around the world—as well as intergroup intolerance based on other social identities. We also analyze the many social, cognitive, and developmental causes of prejudice and discrimination, and the consequences that bias and intolerance have for those who are targeted. Finally, we explore research and theory concerning possible remedies. The three most important social psychological terms associated with the bias and conflict that occur between members of different social groups are stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. These three terms are closely tied yet still distinct. Very few of us view these terms positively, but they are a part of all human cultures. We generally go to great lengths to avoid being accused of stereotyping, being prejudiced, or discriminating against others; and most of us realize that being the target of prejudice and discrimination is almost never a good thing. Yet what is prejudice? How is prejudice different from discrimination? Is stereotyping sometimes a good thing, or is it always wrong? Can you be prejudiced without knowing it? What causes prejudice, both at the intergroup level and at the interpersonal level? Can you fix a prejudiced mind? These and other important questions will be addressed in this chapter.

6.1 What arE thE comPonEntS of

intErgrouP conflict?

Chapter 5 examined how attitudes and beliefs are related to behavior. In this chapter we examine how some specific types of attitudes and beliefs about members of other social

When you think of a recent immigrant to this country what is the most typical image that comes to mind for you? Mexican migrant workers and Chinese high- tech entrepreneurs often elicit very different stereotypes among Americans, but both immigrant groups are targets of prejudice and discrimination. (Wikimedia Commmons, iStock)

214 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

groups are related to specific types of antisocial behavior. On the most basic level, stereo- types involve beliefs about specific groups; prejudice involves attitudes toward those groups; and discrimination involves actions toward those groups. Thus, in understanding intergroup conflict and intolerance, stereotyping is the cognitive component, prejudice is the affective component, and discrimination is the behavioral component.

6.1a Stereotypes Are Beliefs About

Social Groups. As you recall from Chapter 4 (pp. 113–114), we naturally and automatically develop social categories based on people’s shared characteristics. Once categorized, we begin to perceive people differently. Often the nature of these different perceptions is deter- mined by whether the individuals are ingroup members or outgroup members (Deaux, 1996). An ingroup is a group to which we belong and that forms a part of our social identity, while an outgroup is any group with which we do not share membership.

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect How many times have you heard a woman say, “Well, you know men … They’re all alike and they all want the same thing!”? Likewise, how often have you heard men describ- ing women in similar terms? This tendency—seeing members within a given outgroup as being more alike than members of one’s ingroup—is found in children as well as in adults (Guinote et al., 2007). Research has shown that merely assigning people to differ- ent social groups can create this outgroup homogeneity effect , but it is stronger when directed toward well-established groups (Boldry et al., 2007). Bernadette Park and Charles Judd found that on college campuses, sorority members, business majors, and engineering students all tended to perceive students in other campus social groups (those in other sororities or those with other majors) as more alike than those in their ingroup (Judd et al., 1991; Park & Rothbart, 1982). Perhaps you have witnessed some of your own college professors making homogeneous assumptions about certain minor- ity groups by asking minority students in their classrooms to represent their group’s attitudes and beliefs. Do you think those students—perhaps you were one of those students—might have felt uncomfortable and even stigmatized by being singled out? Brain-imaging studies indicate that this tendency to notice differences among ingroup members while perceiving outgroup members as being more alike is due to the fact that we engage in less thorough neural processing when attending to outgroup members (Ambady & Adams, 2011; Van Bavel & Cunningham, 2012). In other words, we invest less cognitive effort when attending to outgroup members compared to ingroup members, relying more on group-based stereotypes when making social judgments (Amodio, 2011). Although we tend to perceive outgroups as being fairly uniform, our view of ingroup members is generally that they are relatively distinct and complex. For example, young adults tend to perceive others of their age as having more complex personali- ties than the elderly, whereas older adults hold exactly opposite beliefs (Brewer & Lui, 1984). Interestingly, the outgroup homogeneity effect actually reverses and becomes an “ingroup homogeneity effect” when members of small groups or minority groups compare their own group with the majority outgroup on attributes central to their social identity (Castano & Yzerbyt, 1998). This reversal is especially likely to occur when the ingroup members strongly identify with one another (Simon et al., 1995). In such instances, by emphasizing their similarities with fellow ingroup members, minority group members affirm their social identity and perceive themselves as a unified, similar group in comparison to the larger and seemingly more diverse comparison group.

ingroup A group to which we belong and that forms a part of our social identity

outgroup Any group with which we do not share membership

outgroup homogeneity effect Perception of outgroup members as being more similar to one another than are members of one’s ingroup

Flashcards are available for this chapter at www.BVTLab.com.

216 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

actions by Jews as reflecting sinister intentions. Numerous studies have found that people’s preexisting attitudes and beliefs can predispose them to perceive associations that are truly illusory (Berndsen et al., 2002). Once the stereotype is activated, the person engages in biased processing of social information by attending to information consistent with the stereotype and ignoring contradictory information. A second factor contributing to the development of illusory correlations is shared distinctiveness , in which two variables are associated because they share some unusual feature. According to this view, Harriet might have developed an illusory correlation about Jews and dishonesty because both the minority group and the unfavorable trait are “infrequent” or “distinct” variables in the population. These two distinct variables are more likely associated in Harriet’s memory simply because of their shared distinctiveness. In an experiment demonstrating this effect, David Hamilton and Robert Gifford (1976) asked participants to read information about people from two different groups, “Group A” and “Group B.” Twice as much information was provided about Group A, making Group B the smaller or “minority group” in the study. In addition, twice as much of the information given about both groups involved desirable behaviors rather than undesirable actions. Desirable information included statements such as, “John, a member of Group A, visited a sick friend in the hospital.” An example of an undesirable statement was, “Bob, a member of Group B, dropped litter in the subway station.” Even though there was no correlation between group membership and the proportion of posi- tive and negative information, participants perceived a correlation. As Figure 6.1 shows, participants overestimated the frequency with which Group B, the “minority group,” behaved undesirably. In this study, the members of the “minority group” (who were described only half as much as the “majority group”) and the undesir- able actions (which occurred only half as often as the desirable behaviors) were both distinctive. This shared distinctiveness resulted in their illusory correlation, a finding replicated in later studies (Mullen & Johnson, 1995). Together, these studies indicate that although stereotyping may be beneficial because it allows us to redirect our ener- gies to other pressing cognitive activities, the cost appears to be that we run the risk of making faulty social judgments about whomever we stereotype. Such biased informa- tion-processing often occurs unconsciously (Payne et al., 2004).

Stereotype Content and Intergroup Relations Although research has traditionally focused on the inaccuracy of stereotypes, Lee Jussim and his coworkers (2009a) contend that their review of studies examining stereotype accu- racy strongly suggests that it is false to characterize stereotypes as inherently inaccurate. The truth is that stereotypes can lead to accurate social judgments (Ashton & Esses, 1999). However, because stereotypes develop in a social environment in which groups are regularly interacting with one another, each group’s beliefs about the other are shaped and distorted by the interaction. For example, the negative stereotypes that African Americans and white Americans have about each other have been shaped by the history of their intergroup relations and the resulting mutually shared feelings of threat (Stephan et al., 2002). While many African Americans perceive white Americans as powerful, dominating, threatening, and intentionally oppressive, many white Americans perceive African Americans as irrational, hostile, destructive, and out of control (Alexander et al., 2005). These findings illustrate how stereo- types often reveal a good deal more about the nature of the relationship between groups than they reveal about the groups themselves.

Media commentators in the United States often use the terms “red” and “blue” to refer to perceived cultural differences in America and American politics. Why might the increased use of these terms increase prejudice and conflict between political groups in America?

cr tIcal

t h I n k I n g

Social psychology 217

As we will discuss in more detail later (pp. 220–222), within a society the stereotypes that are commonly held about a particular group of people are shaped by the group’s social status (low or high) and whether it is perceived to have a competitive or cooperative relationship with mainstream society. Doctors, for example, are generally perceived as a high-status, cooperative group because they possess valuable skills that are used to maintain and improve the lives of other people in society. As a result, most people view them with respect and even admiration, and doctors are often stereo- typed as being intelligent, hardworking, and caring, although perhaps sometimes arrogant. In contrast, high-status groups that are perceived as having a competitive relationship with many mainstream groups within society are stereotyped as being highly competent but also as having sinister or selfish motives. The stereotype of Jews being clever, good with money, but devious in their financial dealings with other members of society is an example of this envy-based stereotyping. Recent immigrants from such countries as India and China are similarly labeled with envy-based stereotypes.

Figure 6.1 Illusory Correlations and the Persistence of Stereotypes In Hamilton and Gifford’s (1976) study of illusory correlations, participants read sentences in which a person from Group A or Group B was associated with either a desirable or an undesirable behavior. Both groups were described with the same proportion of desirable and undesirable behaviors, but only half of the provided information was about Group B members, making them the “minority group.” Participants later overestimated the number of undesirable behaviors in the minority group (Group B), suggesting that people tend to perceive an illusory correlation between variables that stand out because they are unusual or deviant.

20

Number of desirable and undesirablebehaviors that describe each group

Desirable behaviors

16

12

8

4

0

Actual correlation

Group A Group B Group A^ Group B Illusory correlation

Undesirable behaviors

Within our society there are many different positive and negative stereotypes associated with various groups. Doctors, for example, are favorably perceived as a high-status, cooperative group. (iStock)

Social psychology 219

some members of minority groups, some women’s prejudice toward men, and some working-class resentment and envy of the upper social classes—all are examples of this upward-directed prejudice. Beyond recognizing prejudice in others, is it possible to harbor prejudice toward another group without being aware of it? The overwhelming scientific opinion is that it is indeed possible (Amodio et al., 2004a; Levy & Banaji, 2002). In other words, prejudice can be either explicit or implicit. Explicit prejudice involves consciously held prejudicial atti- tudes toward a group, while implicit prejudice involves unconsciously held prejudicial attitudes. This perspective on prejudice mirrors similar developments in attitude research in general (see Chapter 5, pp. 162–164). People with low explicit prejudice but high implicit prejudice toward a particular outgroup may not be aware of their negative bias. Therefore, while responding in negative ways toward members of outgroups, these low explicit/high implicit prejudice individuals might honestly believe that they are nonpreju- diced. In general, research suggests that implicit prejudice is more stable, enduring, and difficult to change than explicit prejudice (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001). Despite the hidden nature of implicit prejudice, scientists study it using various techniques, including the Implicit Association Test and brain-imaging technology (see Chapter 2, p. 61). Researchers often employ both techniques in one study: using the Implicit Association Test to identify white individuals with high implicit racial preju- dice and then using functional magnetic resonance imaging to scan their brains while they look at photos of familiar and unfamiliar black and white faces (Amodio & Lieberman, 2009). As depicted in Figure 6.2, these studies find that the unfamiliar black faces are

explicit prejudice Prejudicial attitudes that are consciously held, even if they are not publicly expressed

implicit prejudice Unconsciously held prejudicial attitudes

Figure 6.2 Measuring Implicit Prejudice Using Brain Scans When white participants with high scores on an implicit measure of racial preju- dice (but low explicit prejudice scores) were shown photos of familiar and unfa- miliar black and white faces, the unfamiliar black faces were much more likely than the unfamiliar white faces to activate brain regions associated with arousal and emotional responses and the brain’s “alarm” system for threat, pain, and danger (Phelps et al., 2000). What implications does the existence of implicit prejudice have for attempts at reducing intergroup hostility?

Source: “Performance on Indirect Measures of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation,” by Phelps et al., 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 12 , pp. 729–738.

220 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

much more likely than the unfamiliar white faces to activate the amygdala in both the right and left cerebral hemispheres and the anterior cingulate in the frontal lobes. These brain structures are involved in arousal and emotional learning and play a crucial role in detecting threat and triggering fear (Phelps et al., 2000). No heightened amygdala and cingulate activity occurs when these high implicit/low explicit prejudiced partic- ipants view familiar black faces. These findings suggest that, despite not consciously reporting any negative racial attitudes toward African Americans, implicitly prejudiced whites perhaps unknowingly experience heightened arousal associated with some level of anxiety and negativity toward blacks. Similar findings have also been obtained from African American students when they viewed photos of white faces (Hart et al., 2000). In contrast to prejudice, there is relative consensus in social psychology when defining discrimination. For our purposes, we define discrimination as a negative and/or patron- izing action toward members of specific groups. Disliking, disrespecting, and/or resenting people because of their group membership are examples of prejudice. Physically attacking them or failing to hire them for jobs because of their group membership are examples of discrimination. As we learned in Chapter 5, behavior does not always follow attitude. Similarly, discrimination is not an inevitable result of prejudice. For example, a storeowner who is prejudiced against blacks might not act on this negative attitude because most of his customers are black and he needs their business. In this case, the subjective norm (see Chapter 5, p. 186) dictates against the storeowner acting on his prejudice. It is also true that discrimination can occur without prejudice. Sometimes people who are not prejudiced still engage in institutional discrimination by carrying out the discriminatory guidelines of institutions. For instance, due to new state immigra- tion laws, police officers in Georgia can demand at traffic stops that people of Hispanic descent show documentation of their citizenship while not making similar demands of drivers whose facial features fit the European American prototype. Similarly, real estate agents in large urban settings may show African American clients only houses located in black or racially mixed neighborhoods even though they have no animosity toward African Americans (and may be black themselves). They carry out this institutional prac- tice, known as redlining , because they are following the guidelines of their superiors, who believe that integration will lower property values.

6.1c There Are Three Basic Forms of Prejudice. Consistent with the updated conception of prejudice and our previous discussion of stereotypes, Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (2001) propose that there are three basic forms of prejudice that account for the different ways in which groups are perceived and treated. According to these theorists, which form of prejudice is directed toward a particular group is determined by two social factors. The first social factor is whether the target group is perceived as having a competitive or cooperative relationship with mainstream society. A group has a competitive relation- ship if they are perceived as intentionally grabbing resources for themselves at the expense of other groups. Examples of competitive groups would be rich and poor people, who are often perceived as unfairly taking or receiving societal resources, respectively. In contrast, a group has a cooperative relationship with mainstream society if they are perceived as undemanding (such as self-sufficient elderly people), contributing (such as homemakers raising children), or needing help through no fault of their own (such as the disabled). The second social factor is whether the target group is of relatively low or high social status within mainstream society. Examples of relatively low-status groups in the United States are poor people, women in general, homeless people, working-class people, obese individuals, gay men and lesbians, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, the disabled, house- wives, and the elderly. Examples of relatively high-status groups are rich people, men in

discrimination Negative and/or patronizing action toward members of specific groups

222 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

Finally, a low-status group that has a cooperative or noncompetitive relationship with mainstream society may become the target of paternalistic prejudice. Paternalism is the care or control of subordinates in a manner suggesting a father’s relationship with his children. The ambivalent attitudes expressed in this form of prejudice might involve patronizing affection and pity mixed with condescension and disrespect. Sociologist Mary Jackman (1994) refers to paternalistic prejudice as the “velvet glove” approach to dominance, because dominant groups emphasize rewards rather than punishments in maintaining their control over subordinate groups. Although paternalism in inter- group relations often conjures up the 19th century ideology of the “white man’s burden,” Jackman contends that it is still an identifiable and influential form of prejudice. The elderly, the disabled, housewives, women in general, and adolescents and young adults are often the targets of paternalistic prejudice.

• The outgroup homogeneity effect is the tendency to perceive people in outgroups as more similar to one another than ingroup members.
• Stereotypes are social beliefs typically learned from others and maintained through regular social interaction.
• Two qualities of stereotyped thinking are that it is fast and efficient, but often faulty.
• Prejudice involves attitudes toward members of specific groups that directly or indirectly suggest that they deserve an inferior social status.
• Explicit prejudices are consciously held, while implicit prejudices are unconsciously held.
• Discrimination is a negative and/or patronizing action toward members of specific groups.
• The form of prejudice directed toward a group is determined by two social factors: whether the target group is perceived as having a competitive or cooperative relationship with mainstream society whether the target group is of low or high social status within mainstream society
• Contemptuous prejudice occurs when the target group has a competitive relationship with mainstream society and has low social status.
• Envious prejudice occurs when the target group has a competitive relationship with mainstream society and has high social status.
• Paternalistic prejudice occurs when the target group has a cooperative relationship with mainstream society and has low social status.

Section

Summary

6.2 Who arE common targEtS of

intolErancE?

In all societies, some social groups are valued while other groups are stigmatized. A stigma is an attribute that discredits a person or a social group in the eyes of others (Shana & van Laar, 2006; Ullah, 2011). Stigmatized persons are not simply different from others; society also judges their difference to be discrediting. Individual members of society may vary in how they personally respond to a particular stigma, but every- one shares the knowledge that the characteristic in question—the “mark”—is negatively valued; having it “spoils” the person’s full humanity (Major & O’Brien, 2005). Being marginalized because of a stigma induces feelings of threat and a loss of social power;

stigma An attribute that serves to discredit a person in the eyes of others

Social psychology 223

the stigma engulfs the person’s entire identity (Oswald, 2007). It becomes a central trait for that person (see Chapter 4, p. 138), shaping the meaning of all other traits. In his classic monograph, Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity , Erving Goffman (1963) distinguished the following three different categories of stigma:

1. Tribal identities : race, sex, ethnicity, religion, and national origin 2. Blemishes of individual character: mental disorders, addictions, homosexuality, and criminality 3. Abominations of the body: physical deformities, physical disabilities, diseases, and obesity

The concept of stigma is related to prejudice and discrimi- nation because people who are stigmatized are almost always the targets of intolerance, which can be either subtle or blatant. While anyone can be stereotyped, research indicates that members of stigmatized groups are more frequently stereotyped than members of nonstigmatized groups (Adams et al., 2006). In one such investigation, Jonathan Cook and his colleagues (2011) conducted a 7-day experiential-sampling study in which they measured stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals’ reac- tions to being stereotyped while they engaged in normal daily activities. Some of the participants were members of stigmatized groups in American society (African Americans, gay men, and lesbians), while other participants were members of the domi- nant group in the country (heterosexual Caucasian Americans). As expected, participants who were members of stigmatized groups reported more frequent stereotyping than did nonstigmatized participants. For members of all groups, being stereotyped was associated with feeling more socially anxious and inhibited in “being oneself,” as well as feeling low in social power. In essence, rather than feeling in control of the situation, stereotyped people felt like they were controlled by the situation and by the stereotyped role they had been cast into. Although many societal groups fall into one of the stigma categories, let us examine examples from three different categories that are of particular importance in contempo- rary society. First we will examine intergroup intolerance associated with race-based and sex-based tribal identity stigmas; then we will analyze intolerance based on perceived blemishes of individual character (homosexuality/bisexuality and mental illness) and perceived abominations of the body (obesity).

6.2a Race-Based Appearance Cues Can

Trigger Discrimination.

Prejudice and discrimination based on a person’s racial background is called racism. Blatantly negative stereotypes based on a belief in the racial superiority of one’s own group coupled with open opposition to racial equality characterize old-fashioned racism. Old-fashioned racism involves contemptuous prejudice and often leads to movement against the despised group, including physical violence. Although old-fashioned racism is far less common in contemporary American society than a generation ago, racial stereotypes continue to provide fuel for volatile expressions of prejudice and discrimination. Due to socialization about what constitutes different racial categories, a person’s skin color and facial characteristics (such as the shape of the eyes, nose, and lips) are physical features that often automatically activate racial

Do you have an attribute that discredits you in the eyes of others? Members of stigmatized groups face social challenges that nonstigmatized individuals do not encounter. (iStock)

racism Prejudice and discrimination based on a person’s racial background

Social psychology 225

Motivated by this high-profile case and the resulting charges of racism and racial profiling by law enforcement officers, Keith Payne (2001) conducted a series of studies to understand how the mere presence of a black face could cause people to misidentify harm- less objects as weapons. In his research, Payne showed pictures of guns or tools to white participants and asked them to classify the objects as quickly as possible. Just prior to seeing an object, participants were primed by a brief presentation of either a white or a black face (see Figure 6.3). Results indicated that when a black face immediately preceded a tool, the tool was significantly more likely to be mistaken for a handgun compared with conditions in which this same tool was preceded with a white face. This stereotype difference emerged mainly when participants were required to react quickly, a condition that mimics the time pressure involved in real-world police confrontations like the Diallo shooting. As you recall from our previous discussion of implicit prejudice (p.218), when whites with high implicit but low explicit race prejudice see an unfamiliar black face, brain regions that trigger fear and threat responses are activated. Combined with the present results, this research suggests that simply seeing a black man may auto- matically and nonconsciously trigger a fear response in police officers due to racial stereotypes. Further, under conditions that require quick and decisive action, this race-based reaction may result in police officers misperceiving harmless objects as weapons. This perceptual bias does not simply reflect explicit prejudice toward African Americans. Instead, this effect appears to be caused by the racial stereotypes that exist in our culture (Judd et al., 2004).

Figure 6.3 Race and the Misperception of Weapons After being primed by black or white faces, white participants were shown pictures of guns or tools and asked to classify the objects (Payne, 2001). When participants were required to react quickly, they were more likely to misidentify tools as guns after being primed with black faces rather than with white faces. How does this research provide insight into police shootings of unarmed suspects in real-world confrontations?

Source: “Prejudice and Perception: The Role of Automatic and Controlled Processes in Misperceiving a Weapon,” by B. K. Payne, 2001, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 , pp. 181–192.

(Dreamstime, iStock)

226 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

Subsequent studies using computer-simulated “shooter/nonshooter” scenarios have verified these findings and have also found evidence suggesting that if a suspected criminal is black (versus white), people generally require less certainty that he is, in fact, holding a gun before they decide to shoot him (Greenwald et al., 2003; Ito et al., 2006). Importantly, this race-based bias was found in both African American and white participants (Correll et al., 2002). Thus, African American police officers may be as likely as white officers to misperceive that a black man is holding a weapon and respond by shooting in self-defense. The tendency for racial biases to shape quick decisions—and even to alter what we think we have seen—is due to the fact that negative racial stereotypes are often readily accessible from long-term memory. For example, Vaughn Becker and his coworkers (2010) asked participants to view a white face and a black face—one angry and one neutral—for one-tenth of a second and then asked them to add two numbers that had accompanied the faces (see Figure 6.4). When later asked to describe what they could recall about the faces they had briefly seen, participants’ memories reflected racial bias: They were almost twice as likely to falsely recall anger on a black face than to falsely recall anger on a white face. Overall, these studies suggest that race-based bias is very difficult to monitor and control because it is operating below a person’s level of conscious awareness. However, results also indicate that when given ample time, people make few stereotypical misiden- tifications of weapons because their automatic, reflexive response is controlled and altered by more deliberate cognitive analysis. Of course, the problem here is that urging a police officer to react slowly during a confrontation with a potentially armed suspect can be extremely dangerous for the officer. In considering the implications of these studies, it must be kept in mind that partici- pants were not actual members of a police force. Is it possible that police training reduces or eliminates this race-based shooter bias by teaching officers to focus on the presence of a weapon during confrontations rather than fixating on the target’s race? Joshua Correll and his coworkers (2007) tested this possibility in a series of studies comparing police officers to similarly matched community members. Results indicated that the police officers were significantly faster in correctly identifying the presence of a weapon, and

Figure 6.4 Racial Biases Can Shape Our Social Perceptions. When briefly shown a black face and a white face, one neutral and the other angry, participants more often recalled the black rather than the white face as angry (Becker et al., 2010).

(Shutterstock)

228 chapter 6 Stereotyping, prejudice, and Discrimination

to others—that they have these negative feelings. Because interacting with members of these other racial groups tends to make whites aware of their negative—though not fully under- stood—racial feelings and beliefs, they avoid such interactions; thus they avoid confronting their hidden prejudice (Nail et al., 2003). This is why the combination of both positive and negative beliefs and feelings about a particular racial group is called aversive racism. Interracial encounters make salient the attitudinal conflict, and this awareness threatens one’s self-concept as a fair- minded person. One study, conducted by Katz and Hass (1988), suggests that many white Americans may indeed have conflicting attitudes regarding African Americans. In this research, white college students first completed a questionnaire that either contained items measuring adherence to the individualist Protestant ethic of self-reliance, initiative, and hard work or contained egalitarian and humanitarian items stressing equal treatment of all people and empathy for those who are less fortunate (see Table 6.2). When participants completed the questionnaire, the researchers administered a second questionnaire that measured their explicit prejudice toward blacks. Because Katz and Hass believed that both sets of values were part of the participants’ worldview, they predicted that participants’ explicit prejudice would be influenced by whichever of these two values was made salient. Consistent with this hypothesis, when whites were first primed by egalitarian statements, their subsequent prejudice scores went down. When they were primed by individualist work ethic state- ments, their prejudice scores went up. This is what one would expect if the participants held both value orientations. In any given situation, whichever value is made salient will exert the most influence over attitudes and behavior.

table 6.2 Conflicting American Values Related to Racial Ambivalence

People with a strong Protestant ethic would agree with the sample items from the first scale, while those with a strong humanitarianism-egalitarianism value orientation would agree with the sample items from the scale bearing its name. according to katz and hass (1988), if a white american believes in both of these value orientations, what sort of attitudinal conflict might this create in his or her overall perceptions of african americans or american indians?

The Protestant Ethic (Sample Items from Katz & Hass, 1988)

Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism (Sample Items from Katz & Hass, 1988)

1. Most people who don’t succeed in life are just plain lazy. 1. One should find ways to help others less fortunate than oneself.
2. Anyone who is willing to work hard has a good chance of succeeding. 2. There should be equality for everyone—because we are all human beings.
3. If people work hard enough they are able to make a good life for themselves. 3. Everyone should have an equal chance and an equal say in most things.
4. Most people spend too much time in unprofitable amusements. 4. Acting to protect the rights and interests of other members of the community is a major obligation for all persons.

Katz and Hass believe that another consequence of whites having ambivalent attitudes toward minority groups is that it can cause them to act in a more extreme manner toward minority members than they would to other whites (Katz et al., 1986).

“He flattered himself on being a man without any prejudices;

and this pretension itself is a very great prejudice.”

—Anatole France, French novelist and poet, 1844–

aversive racism Attitudes toward members of a racial group that incorporate both egalitarian social values and negative emotions, causing one to avoid interaction with members of the group

Social psychology 229

This tendency for responses to become more extreme when one holds ambivalent atti- tudes is called response amplification ; and it can occur in either a favorable or an unfavorable direction, depending on the social context (Hass et al., 1991). Thus, whites with ambivalent attitudes toward blacks may act overfriendly and solicitous when being introduced to African Americans whom they perceive to be competent and ambitious. This is because such encounters discredit the negative components of their ambivalent attitudes. Likewise, they may react with great annoyance and anger when interact- ing with blacks whom they judge to be incompetent and lazy because the encounter discredits the positive component of their ambivalent attitudes. When either one of these components has been discredited in a given situation, the person’s evaluative response is likely to be exaggerated in the opposing direction. As you might guess, when aversive racists cannot easily avoid interacting with African Americans or with members of other minority groups for whom they hold simi- larly ambivalent attitudes, the resulting exchanges are often uncomfortable for both parties (Dovidio, 2001). During such interactions, aversive racists—who generally sincerely believe that they are not prejudiced—consciously focus on their egalitarian attitudes and actively monitor and regulate their self-presentations to convey warmth and friendliness. Simultaneously, they try to ignore the feelings of discomfort that are induced by their implicit prejudice. In contrast, based on past interactions with aversive racists, many minority group members have learned to attend not just to white individuals’ consciously constructed self-presentations but also to their nonverbal behavior for evidence of implicit prej- udice. Nonverbal behavior related to negative arousal and tension in face-to-face interactions includes such things as excessive blinking, gaze aversion, and forced smiles. When minority group members detect these behaviors, they feel more uncomfortable and less satisfied with the interaction than the aversive racists do (Vorauer & Kumhyr, 2001). In other words, the research evidence suggests that because aversive racists pay most attention to their consciously held egalitarian attitudes and overtly friendly self-presentations, whereas their minority partners pay most attention to aversive racists’ less consciously controlled—and less friendly—nonverbal behav- iors, these two conversational partners often have different reactions to their interracial exchange (Dovidio et al., 2002). While aversive racists often walk away feeling relieved that things “went well” and comforted by the belief that they indeed are nonprejudiced, minorities often walk away feeling angry and certain that they have just encountered another prejudiced white person (Penner et al., 2010).

What About Racial Prejudice Among

Minority Group Members?

Because minorities are much more likely than whites to be the targets of racial discrimi- nation, minority race bias is often overlooked in the larger culture (Shelton, 2000). One important finding is that, just as whites’ racial attitudes vary from positive to negative, so too do the racial attitudes of minorities. Despite being the target of prejudice from whites, not all blacks, Asians, Latinos, and American Indians are prejudiced against whites (Shelton, 2000). Studies also suggest that although many whites’ negative atti- tudes toward blacks are related to their perception that blacks are not living up to cherished values (such as industriousness and perseverance), many blacks’ racial atti- tudes originate primarily from perceptions of threat or conflict and from their reaction to white racism (Monteith & Spicer, 2000).

“You learn about equality in history and civics,

but you find out life is not really like that.”

—Arthur Ashe, professional tennis player, 1943–