Reducing Bias:
Changing
Stereotypes and
Prejudice
Like attitudes/beliefs
in general,
prejudice/stereotypes
are hard to change;
maintained by --
1. Behavior (discrimination)
2. Inertia of belief systems
(selective exposure to opinions
of likeminded people)
(internet facilitates both
diversity and homogeneity)
3. Disconfirmations are often
sporadic/piecemeal and
easily dismissed as
“exceptions”
4. Social support for
prejudice/stereotypes
(similarity/attraction; my
friends are like me)
Reducing Bias:
Tactics based
on Changing
Information and
Behavior
1.
Information: present
counterstereotypic or
disconfirming information
2.
Behavior: legislate against
discrimination (use of
injunctive norms)
3.
Behavior and
Information: personal
contact between ingroup
and outgroup members
leading to a change in
affect, beliefs, and behavior
Stereotypes and Disconfirming Information:
When it works
Disconfirming information works under certain conditions:
a. Counterstereotypic examples are otherwise typical of the group
b. Counterstereotypic information occurs frequently
c. Counterstereotypic information is dispersed across many
members of the group
(e.g., Weber & Crocker; Wilder, Simon, & Faith)
Example: Changing Stereotype of Librarian
• Librarian: serious, “bookish”, old
• Counterstereotypic information:
Ineffective Librarian Jill is
fun loving
Jill
TV addict
young
Librarians
(easy to subtype)
More Effective –
Jill is fun loving
bookish, old
Rob is serious
TV addict, old
Helen is serious
bookish, young
J
H
R
Reducing bias through Intergroup
Contact
• Merely bringing people who dislike one
another together will not reduce bias
– E.g., Sherif summer camp studies
– (see discussion of realistic conflict)
Effective Intergroup Contact
• Cooperation (superordinate goals)
– Success
• Equal Status
• Intimacy (personal familiarity beyond group
labels)
• Outside Support
• Repetition (multiple contact experiences)
Jigsaw Classrooms (Aronson)
• Method:
– Teacher divided children into 6 person teams (mixed
race, ethnicity) to work on class projects (Texas &
California)
– Each team member was given different information
to contribute to group product (e.g., Chile: history,
culture, geography; Solar system…)
• Results:
– Compared to traditional classrooms learning
same material, “jigsaw” classrooms yielded:
• Greater cross-racial and cross-ethnic liking
• Increased cross-racial and cross-ethnic positive
interactions
• Reduced prejudice
• Similar results in replications with college
undergraduates (Desforges et al)
Jigsaw procedure has all the elements for
successful intergroup contact:
• Superordinate goal desired by all
(cooperation)
• Completion of project (success)
• Personal contact
(intimacy)
• Roughly equal participation (equal status)
• Multiple projects
(repetition)
• Backing by teacher (outside support)
Why Intergroup Contact can be effective?
• Breaks down simplistic ingroup/outgroup (we/they)
categorization
• Invokes norm of reciprocity
• Encourages empathy

generates positive affect
disconfirms unfavorable stereotypes
commits group members to positive behavior
Summary
• Prejudice and
Discrimination – social
psych explanations
• Stereotypes
• Bias reduction
– Important: bringing
people together is
NOT sufficient to
reduce bias
Intergroup Bias and Conflict: Prejudice,
Stereotypes, Discrimination
(Ch. 9 & 13)
• Prejudice: negative judgment of persons because
of the group(s) to which they belong (pre-judge)
(affect)
• Stereotype: a belief about the attributes of a group
of people
(cognition)
• Discrimination: unjustified negative behavior
toward members of a group
(behavior)
Prejudice: sometimes clear; sometimes ambiguous
A traffic cop stops a man for speeding?
Prejudice?
_____________________________________
…pulls over 3x as many men for speeding as
women.
Prejudice?
Stereotyping (profiling)?
--Maybe but suppose
3x more men drive on that road as women
or
3x more men speed on that road than
women
Is it prejudice and discrimination?
• Suppose men and women are equally likely to speed on
that highway but the cop pulls over more men than women
because men have more speed related fatal accidents in
general ?
• Stereotyping - using a person’s group
membership or pattern of behavior to make
an inference about him/her
Examples:
– FBI creates profile of a serial killer based on
patterns of other killers
– DJ recommends a song playlist based on age of
wedding party
Prejudice, Stereotypes, Discrimination
• Consistency among affect, cognitions,
behavior
– If I’m prejudiced against a group, I’m likely to
have negative stereotypes of the group and
behave unjustly toward its members
But discrimination does not always indicate
prejudice and prejudice does not always
produce discrimination
• Historically, social psych research has
focused on 2 identities as targets of bias:
– Race and ethnicity
– Gender
– Why? – 2 highly salient categories in social
interactions
Trend in Ethnic/Racial Prejudice in U.S.
• Self-reported prejudice has generally declined
over past 50 years (explicit measure)
• Have people become less biased?
Or are people not telling the truth?
(disguising explicit attitudes)
Or are people not consciously aware of biases?
(implicit attitudes and stereotypes)
Racial Prejudice in U.S.: Voting Intentions
Differences in Perception of Racial Prejudice in U.S.
Eibach & Erlinger (2006)
Whites generally report that racial prejudice is less
than do Blacks
Why?
– 1. Whites less likely to be victims of bias, so
prejudice less salient.
– 2. Difference in temporal orientation:
• Whites more likely to compare present to past and see much
progress
• Blacks more likely to compare present to ideal and see less
progress
– 3. Whites more defensive about acknowledging
prejudice; threat to self-image/self-esteem
“Modern Racism”
• Idea that prejudice today is expressed in a
more subtle manner.
Why?
– 1. Normative pressure against explicit
prejudice
– 2. Institutional and cultural forces that are slow
to change perpetuate bias
(see text)
Implicit Prejudice
• Bias can develop through associations that
are largely unconscious (implicit).
• Implicit bias can influence behavior that is
“mindless” (automatic, not involving
deliberate thinking)
(Recall the study by Payne demonstrating implicit
association between skin color and guns/tools )
Implication
• Implicit associations can influence behavior
when individuals make judgments/decisions
“automatically” without careful thinking.
E.g., two resumes for accounting job (John Smith or
Jennifer Stone); pick one now, no time for extensive
interview
young guy (black or white) pulls small dark object
from pants pocket – phone or gun?
Sources of Prejudice
1. Learning –
from family, friends, culture (socialization) (see attitudes)
2. Frustration –
from competition (realistic conflict)
from displacement of hostility (see aggression)
3. Justification (Explanation) of Behavior -from need for consistency (dissonance), fairness (equity)
(see attitudes and behavior)
4. Social Identity -from desire for a positive sense of self
(see self-esteem)
Some Sources of Prejudice
1. Learning –
from family, friends, culture (socialization) (see attitudes)
2. Frustration –
from competition (realistic conflict)
from displacement of hostility (see aggression)
3. Justification (Explanation) of Behavior -from need for consistency (dissonance), fairness (equity)
(see attitudes and behavior)
4. Social Identity -from desire for a positive sense of self
(see self-esteem)
1. Learning: Socialization
• Parents/caregivers:
1. Models (world view)
2. Parenting style (e.g., authoritarian personality)
• Culture/institutions/peers:
1. Conformity to prejudiced attitudes (normative or
informational pressure)
2. Values/ethical beliefs (e.g., political, religious dogma)
3. Institutionalized prejudice
Authoritarian Personality
(Adorno et al)
Based on the premise (from both Psychoanalytic and Behavioral
perspectives) that early childhood experiences set personality.
Formation of “Authoritarian” personality:
1. Harsh childrearing 
2. Strong love/hate (ambivalent) relationship with
parents/caregivers 
3. Identification with authority
figures and displacement of rage
onto weak targets
(scapegoating).
Data – mixed
Socialization: Prejudice and Institutions
(beyond family/friends)
– Government
– Religions
– Schools
– Media
2. Frustration and Prejudice
– 1. Realistic Conflict
– 2. Displacement of Hostility
(see aggression unit –
frustrationaggression and aversive
stimulusaggression theories)
Frustration: Realistic Conflict
• Competitive (zero sum) relationship between two
groups
– Two examples:
1. Economic downturn  increased bias against
immigrants (frustrationaggression)
“Great Recession” (2007-09) and increase in
nationalism and xenophobia in Europe and U.S.
2. Sherif’s studies of competition at summer camps
Sherif summer camp studies
Method:
• Grade school kids at summer camps
assigned to groups.
• Create group identity by team activities
• Bring groups together for competitions
Results:
• Groups developed prejudices and engaged
in discrimination against each other
Frustration: Displacement of Hostility
• Scapegoat theory of prejudice
– Frustration  Anger  Retaliation
– When frustrating agent unknown or
powerful, hostility redirected at a
substitute
(see Authoritarian personality)
Characteristics of Scapegoats
•
•
•
•
Weak
Already disliked
Visible
Strange, unusual
– For example, hostility toward immigrants might result
from competition (realistic conflict) or from
displacement of frustration; immigrants are
“convenient” targets because they often fit one or more
of the above criteria
Displacement of Hostility (Scapegoating) Example
Bettleheim & Janowitz
• Method:
– Subjects were veterans of World War II who were
returning to their civilian jobs.
– Measured prejudice toward Jews and Blacks as a
function of whether veteran returned to a
• Better
• Same or
• Worse
job than the veteran had before the war.
• Results: Anti-Jew
Tolerant
Mild Bias
Strong Bias
Social Mobility
Down No change Up
11%
39%
50%
17
38
18
72
25
32
B & J (cont.)
• Results: Anti-Black
Social Mobility
Down No change
Tolerant
28%
26%
Mild Bias
28
59
Strong Bias 44
15
Up
50%
39
11
3. Prejudice from Justifying Behavior
Actions that harm members of another group can
threaten one’s self-image; derogation of the group
can reduce that threat
(see dissonance and just world research)
e.g., (a) kill civilians in war  probably collaborators, can’t
trust them, bad people deserving of their fate
(b) justifications for slavery in religious scriptures 
reinforces belief that slaves are inferior
•
Biblical justifications of slavery by 19th century
American slave owners and supporters:
– “The Curse of Ham” Noah’s rejection of Ham
(son whose descendants were
Africans)
– Mining the Old Testament for pro-slavery
examples (practice of slavery among
Israelites)
– Paul in New Testament: “Servants be
obedient to them that are your masters…”
– There are scriptural passages that promote
humane, kind treatment of others and
forgiveness of enemies, etc. But those, of
course, cannot be used to justify slavery.
Explanations of Prejudice
1. Learning –
2. Frustration –
3. Justification (Explanation) of Behavior -4. Social Identity -from desire for a positive sense of self
(see self-esteem)
Explanations of Prejudice
1. Learning –
from family, friends, culture (socialization) (see attitudes)
2. Frustration –
from competition (realistic conflict)
from displacement of hostility (see aggression)
3. Justification (Explanation) of Behavior -from need for consistency (dissonance), fairness (equity)
(see attitudes and behavior)
4. Social Identity -from desire for a positive sense of self
(see self-esteem)
4. Prejudice as a means of creating a Positive
Social Identity
• Desire for a positive sense of self
• Positive self-identity can be obtained
through belonging to valued groups
Actions that favor one’s own group
(ingroup) over other groups (outgroups)
contribute to a positive social identity
Ingroup favoritism: A Self-serving bias
– Individual success enhances personal selfesteem
– Self-serving bias protects and enhances
personal self-esteem
In a parallel manner:
– Ingroup success enhances the value of group
membership (social identity)
– Ingroup favoritism protects and enhances the
value of our social identities.
Evidence for Social Identity Theory
1. Downward Social Comparison and Basking in Reflected
Glory
feel better about oneself when one’s group is better than others
2. Minimal group research
demonstrates ease of obtaining ingroup favoritism
3. Self-esteem and bias
demonstrates how ingroup bias contributes to a positive identity
4. Values and Identity
value and belief differences between groups
contributes to prejudice
Downward Social Comparison and BIRG
(some examples)
• Sports teams and fans
• Creation myths that favor the group making the
myth
• Caste systems within societies:
– Japan: mainstream Japanese society’s sense of
superiority over social outcasts such as the Burakumin
(“hamlet people”).
– India: caste system with Dalits (“untouchables”) as
inferiors.
– American slavery: superiority of white/European race
over Africans and Asians
Minimal group research
• Method:
– subjects assigned to groups on basis of trivial
task (e.g., estimation of dots, preference for
artists)
– actual random assignment to groups
– divide rewards among ingroup and outgroup
members
Minimal group research (cont.)
• Results: significant ingroup favoritism even
though know nothing about others. Compared to
members of the outgroup, ingroup members were
–
–
–
–
Allocated more rewards
Liked better
Thought to have more pleasant personalities
Judged to have done better work
• Persons don’t simply favor the ingroup; act
to separate ingroup from outgroup.
For example, suppose the choice is between giving
A. 8 to Ingroup and 3 to Outgroup
B. 12 to Ingroup and 10 to Outgroup
C. 15 to Ingroup and 16 to Outgroup
Subject selections: A>B>C
Social Identity vs. Similarity
(Allen & Wilder)
• Method: Subjects divided
into groups (preference for
Klee or Kandinsky) and given
feedback indicating similarity
or dissimilarity with members
of their own group (ingroup)
or the other group (outgroup).
Then divided rewards.
• Design: 2 (Ingroup: similar,
dissimilar) x
2(Outgroup: similar,
dissimilar)
Allen & Wilder (cont.)
• Results:
– Subjects favored ingroup over outgroup in
division of rewards
• Ingroup favoritism stronger when ingroup was
similar to the subject
• Outgroup similarity or dissimilarity did not affect
division of rewards
Implication: social categorization can be a powerful
determinant of bias
Positive Social Identity: Self-esteem and Bias
(Fein & Spencer)
• Method:
1. Subjects were given
positive (raise self-esteem) or
negative (lower self-esteem) feedback
on a test of social and verbal skills.
2. Then they saw a resume and video interview of
a job applicant who was either a member of their
ethnic group or an outgroup.
• Results: Subjects whose self-esteem had been
lowered
(1) rated the outgroup job applicant more poorly
than the ingroup applicant
and
(2) showed a subsequent increase in self-esteem
• Results can be explained by:
– Aversive stimulation  Aggression theory
+
– Social Identity theory of prejudice (desire for
positive self-identity)
• (Recall study in which those who suffered a selfesteem setback were more likely to BIRG.)
Dissimilarity of Values and Beliefs as a basis for
Prejudice
• Social identity is defined by the groups we belong
to or aspire to
– We tend to join groups with similar beliefs and
values to our own
– We dislike groups with dissimilar beliefs and
values -- see them as a threat
(Return to topic of similarity and attraction later)
Example: American cultural “war” between social
Conservatives and Liberals
• Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt)
• 5 basic morals that are universal
– Provide a survival advantage and can be seen in
religious and cultural norms
– Manifestation is culture and time specific
(similar to argument made for human language)
Moral Foundations
Moral Value
Manifestation
Care/Harm
Kindness, Helping
Nurturance
Justice, Equity
Origin
Evolution of
Attachment
Fairness/
Evolution of
Cheating
Reciprocity
Loyalty/
Sacrifice for group Tribal Survival
Betrayal______________________________________
Authority/
Enacting social roles Evolution of Social
Subversion
and obligations
Hierarchies
Sanctity/
Purity of behavior
Avoidance of
Degradation
Contamination
Characteristics of the 5 moral values
• Universal – all cultures have norms of
behavior regarding the 5 morals
• Variations across cultures and individuals in
definition and weight given to each
• Variations can lead to conflict and prejudice
For example,
In American culture, political conservatives
and liberals have the same 5 moral
foundations but give them different weight
or importance when making judgments
Differences in importance of the values 
conflict and prejudice
• Difference between American conservatives and liberals in
weight given to moral values  policy conflicts between
the groups such as
– Role of organized religion in society (sanctity)
• E.g., prayer in schools, funding for religious schools
– Tolerance of individual deviance
(loyalty/sanctity)
• E.g., conscientious objectors, homosexuality
– Questioning of authority (authority)
• E.g., support for wars, police
Summary: Why discuss social theories of conflict
and prejudice?
• To understand why prejudice against groups
occurs.
• To point to some ways to reduce bias
• To bring course topics together -- social theories
of prejudice reflect concepts discussed throughout
the course – these theories based on
1. principles of learning
2. explaining our behavior to ourselves –
making sense of the world
3. quest for positive self-identity
Stereotypes
• Stereotype: a belief about a common
attribute of people in a group
– Stereotypes are generalizations based on
• (a) limited experience or
• (b) information from others
(inductive reasoning)
– What functions do stereotypes serve?
– When are stereotypes likely to be used?
– How are stereotypes be changed?
Stereotypes are schemas or “mental
structures” that are based on limited
information.
1. inevitable that they develop
2. not inevitable that they influence
judgments of specific individuals
Stereotypes: Functions
• Simplify a complex world (cognitive miser)
• Provide expectations to guide our behavior
(best guess)
• Provide a context in which to evaluate or interpret
another’s behavior
(e.g., assertiveness and women in traditional male roles)
• Provide an explanation or justification for our
attitudes and behavior
Stereotype Provides a Context for
Interpretation of Behavior
(Stone, Perry, & Darley)
• Method:
(1) subjects listened to 20 min. tape of
play-by-play from a basketball game
(2) focus on one player (Mark Flick)
who was African-American or
European-American
Dependent measure: ratings of Flick’s
performance
• Results: Subjects who thought Flick was
A-A rated him as
(a) more athletic
and
(b) having played a better game
Subjects who thought Flick was E-A rated
him as having greater
(a) hustle
and
(b) basketball sense
Why those findings?
• Stereotype (belief) –
–A-A have basketball ability
–E-A must use “smarts” and
“hustle” to compensate for less
of ability
• Possible bases for stereotype –
(a) 2020 – 69% in NBA are black, 13%
mixed race (mostly half black/half white),
18% white, and 1% other
(b) basketball associated with urban
areas which are more associated with A-A
• 80% of Whites live in suburban and rural areas
• 70% of Blacks and Latins live in urban areas (cities and
inner suburbs)
(cognitive heuristics – availability)
Gender Stereotypes
(Swim & Sanna)
• Method:
Reviewed 58 experiments in which
subjects (males and females) made
attributions for another’s success
or failure on problem solving tasks.
• Results:
Pattern of Attributions
Success
Failure
Male Actor
Ability Effort/Luck
Female Actor Effort
Lack of Ability
Reflects stereotype that men are more competent at
problem solving (task focused) than are women;
women are more relationship focused
• Overt bias (discrimination) against women has
declined in studies conducted with American
students over past 20 years.
(e.g., greater access by women to areas once thought as
“male” such as college, careers in science, business)
• But attributions for male and female
success/failure have changed less over that time.
Stereotypes: When use?
•
•
•
•
As a default value
Under conditions of ambiguity
When emotionally aroused
To explain or to justify behavior
When are stereotypes likely to be
used?
• As a default in the absence of
other specific information -- “best
guess”
Using Stereotypes to Reduce Ambiguity
(Sagar & Scofield)
• Method: Subjects viewed an ambiguous
interaction between high school students who
were either Black or White.
Subjects rated how “mean or
threatening” (hostile/aggressive) the behavior was.
• Design: 2 (Black, White subject) x 2 (Black,
White actor) x 2 (Black, White target)
2 (subject race) x 2(race of person who “bumps”) x 2(race of person
“bumped”)
• 8 Experimental conditions:
Subject
Videotape
– Black
Black student “bumps” Black student
– Black
White student “bumps” White student
– Black
White student “bumps” Black student
– Black
Black student “bumps” White student
– White
Black student “bumps” Black student
– White
White student “bumps” White student
– White
Black student “bumps” White student
– White
White student “bumps” Black student
• Results: Subjects rated the aggressiveness
of the actor in the tape:
– Black actor rated significantly more
aggressive than the white actor.
– No effect for race of subject or target
Stereotypes: When use?
•
•
•
•
As a default
Under conditions of ambiguity
When emotionally aroused
To explain or to justify behavior
Affect Induced Stereotyping
(Wilder & Shapiro)
• Method:
– Subjects were either made anxious or not
• (e.g., threat of embarrassment, electric shock)
– Then they viewed a group in which one member
behaved contrary to stereotypes of the group
• (e.g., one person acted incompetent in a group of intelligent
people)
– Subjects then evaluated that person; rated the person’s
behavior.
• Results: Anxious subjects rated him more
stereotypically than did non-anxious
subjects.
Anxiety distracted subjects, so they relied on
their stereotypes when describing the target
person. (similar to peripheral processing)
Using Stereotypes to Justify Negative Attitudes and
Behavior
Why?
Readily available explanations that externalize
or justify negative behavior or harm
Deflects responsibility from self and avoid
dissonance
For example: Stereotypes can enable a self-fulfilling
prophecy that perpetuates bias
1. Suppose there is a general belief (stereotype) that a group
is uneducable and fit only for menial jobs.
2. Why waste educational resources on them? Hence they
are given inadequate schooling.
3. Years later the group members occupy menial jobs.
4. “See? I was right all along; good thing we didn’t waste
our educational resources on those people.”