Lecture Outline
Allport: Private v.s. public support
Prejudice reduction strategies
 Education
 Colorblind approach
 Multiculturalism
 Intergroup contact
 Common group identity
Allport (1954)
The nature of prejudice (Allport, 1954)
Private
support: Private
institutional support to reduce
prejudice at the community level
»NAACP;
»Anti-Defamation League
Allport (1954)
The nature of prejudice (Allport, 1954)
Public
support: Public
(government) support to reduce
prejudice thru laws
»Fair Housing Laws
»Presidential decree:
example: desegregate military
(Truman)
Allport (1954)
“The intent of laws is to equalize
advantages and lessen
discrimination. Legislation aims not
at controlling prejudice, but only its
open expression...when expression
changes, thoughts too, in the long
run, are likely to fall into line.”
Reducing Prejudice
Allport’s ideas have greatly
influenced the field’s thoughts
about prejudice reduction
strategies.
Currently, there are five major
approaches to prejudice
reduction....
Approaches To Prejudice Reduction
1. Education
2. Colorblind approach
3. Multiculturalism
4. Intergroup contact
5. Common group identity
Education
 Cause: resides in perpetrators of
prejudice; a personal flaw
 Premise: Better understanding of
minority groups will reduce
prejudice
 Solution: Educate the prejudiced
about other groups
Education
 Biggest limitation:

Least prejudiced people most
willing to seek out relevant
information
– “Preaching to the choir”
Colorblind Approach
 Cause: acknowledgement of group
membership
 Premise: pretend group membership
doesn’t matter, and soon it won’t
 Solution: ignore group membership
and create a group-neutral society
Colorblind Approach
 The color blind approach has been
advocated as a goal by civil rights
leaders:
I have a dream that my four children
will one day live in a nation where
they will not be judged by the color of
their skin but by the content of their
character (M.L. King, Jr., 8/28/63)
Colorblind Approach
The color blind approach has also
been advocated by conservatives:
"For supposedly noble reasons-including
the wish to instill ethnic and racial prideuniversities are drawing more and more
attention to race. Increasingly we've gone
from putting a premium on being colorblind to putting a premium on being color
conscious." William Bennet
Colorblind Approach
 Biggest limitations:
1. Assumes the playing field is level
for different social groups. But...
– Race
– Puts
does influence judgments
minorities and women at a
disadvantage as a result
Colorblind Approach
 Biggest limitations:
2. Suppressing stereotyping makes it
more intense in future
– Stereotype Rebound Effect
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
Purpose: show stereotype rebound
effect
Procedures & Manipulations
Step 1: shown photo of skinhead
Step 2: composed passage of
typical day in this skinhead’s life
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
Procedures & Manipulations
Step 3: Participants either given:
–no special instructions
–told not to use stereotypes
Step 4: given picture of 2nd skinhead
Step 5: composed passage of typical
day in 2nd skinhead’s life
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
DV: Stereotypic content of passage
Results:
Passage
1
2
Suppression
Group
Control
Group
5.54
7.83
6.95
7.08
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
Conclusion:
Instructing people NOT to use
stereotypes temporarily reduced bias,
but ultimately increased it
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne & Jetten (1994)
Implication:
A colorblind society may have opposite
effect than intended
–By trying to ignore group membership, people may use it more
Multicultural Approach
Cause: Lack of assimilation
Premise: Assimilation of different
cultures, traditions, customs, etc.
will reduce prejudice
Solution: Make groups more similar
Multicultural Approach
Two versions:
1. One-way assimilation
–minority groups take on customs,
traditions, etc of majority group
 Limitation:
minority group has to
abandon their own heritage and
culture
Multicultural Approach
Two versions:
2. Melting pot assimilation
–Minority and majority groups take
on each other’s customs,
traditions, etc.
–All contribute to a newly emerging
culture
 Limitation:
majority groups resist such
assimilation; takes very long time
Intergroup Contact
Cause: Stereotypes come from
limited interaction between groups
Premise: Contact between minority
and majority groups reduces
prejudice by dispelling stereotypes
Solution: Increase contact between
different social groups
Intergroup Contact
Mere Exposure version:
Mere exposure in the absence of
structure or institutional support is
sufficient to increase contact and
reduce prejudice
Intergroup Contact
Example of Mere Exposure
1954 Supreme Court ruling that
segregated schools is unconstitutional
–Resulted in African Americans and
Whites in close proximity.
–Can mere exposure alone increase
contact and reduce prejudice?
Schofield & Sagar (1977)
Purpose: Examined whether mere
exposure increased intergroup
contact
Participants:
students, 10-13 yrs old
n = 1200
48% African American; 52% white
Schofield & Sagar (1977)
Procedures:
Examined seating patterns in the
cafeteria for 1 year
Schofield & Sagar (1977)
Results:
1. Both race and gender were
significant grouping criteria:
–students self-segregated by race
–students self-segregated by gender
Schofield & Sagar (1977)
Results:
2. Racial segregation decreased over time
during 7th grade, but increased during 8th
grade where:
–students tracked into ability groups
–accelerated track mostly Whites
–regular track mostly African Americans
Schofield & Sagar (1977)
Conclusions:
1. Mere exposure not sufficient to
increase contact
2. Institutional support also needed
Bellerose & Taylor (1984)
Purpose: Examined whether mere
exposure increased intergroup
contact and intimacy of contact
Participants:
French and English speaking college
students
24% French; 76% English
Bellerose & Taylor (1984)
Procedure:
–Kept diary of all interactions
–Rated interactions for intimacy
–Rated interactions for importance
Bellerose & Taylor (1984)
Prediction: If ethnicity does not
matter than:
%
of interactions = base rates
 same intimacy
 same importance
Bellerose & Taylor (1984)
Results:
 % interactions > base rates
 intimacy
> w/i group interactions
 importance
> w/i group interactions
Mere Exposure
Can it increase contact and reduce
prejudice?
No.
Mere exposure does not
lead to intergroup contact
Beyond Mere Exposure
Allport’s contact hypothesis:
Intergroup contact reduces prejudice
if four characteristics are present:
–equal status between groups
–common goals
–intergroup cooperation
–support of institution or authority
Allport’s Contact Hypothesis
Received mixed support
Researchers keep adding
characteristics to make it work
Like...............
Allport’s Contact Hypothesis
Intimate contact
Possibility of friendships
Superordinate goals
Norms that favor group equality
Behaviors must dispel stereotypes
Individuals viewed as typical
And the list goes on, leading some to
wonder whether contact works at all
Jigsaw Classroom
Provides strong support for the
contact hypothesis
Jigsaw classroom:
 Based on cooperation, not
competition
 Encourages intergroup contact
 Satisfies many characteristics listed
before
Jigsaw Classroom
Group 1:
Ethnic/gender
mix of 5 kids
learning about
pets
Child 1
Canaries
Child 2
Child 5
Cats
Child 4
Dogs
Hamsters
Child 3
Goldfish
Canary
expert
group
Hamster
expert
group
Goldfish
expert
group
Dog
expert
group
Cat
expert
group
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
1. Learning is achieved through
cooperation among small groups
of children who are
interdependent on one another
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
2. Interaction among children is
high whereas interaction between
teacher and student is low in
comparison to traditional
classroom
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
3. Equal status between children of
different ethnic and gender
groups because each child has
information of equal importance
as other children
Jigsaw Classroom
Four key characteristics
4. The process is overseen and
facilitated by the teacher. As a
result, investment in the process
has institutional support
Jigsaw Classroom
In comparison to traditional classroom,
jigsaw students:
 Like students of other ethnicities and gender
more
 Have higher self-esteem
 Learn as much or more
 Hold more positive intergroup attitudes
 Show less prejudice and stereotyping
Jigsaw Classroom
What accounts for the success of the
jigsaw classroom?
It may have something to do with a
Common Ingroup Identity
Common Ingroup Identity
Cause: Perceive in- and out-groups
Premise: Prejudice could be reduced
if people saw others are part of their
in-group
Solution: Have different group form
one big group
Common Ingroup Identity
Example of Common Ingroup Identity
Final state of the summer camp
studies
–Through superordinate goal, boys
came to see each other as one large
group, rather than two smaller
competing groups
Gaertner, Mann, Murrell,
& Dovidio (1989)
Purpose: Demonstrate that a
common ingroup identity reduces
prejudice
Procedures:
1. participants met in groups of three
2. selected name for their group
Gaertner, Mann, Murrell,
& Dovidio (1989)
Procedures:
3. Discussed which items they should
salvage from plane wreck in woods
of N. Minn. in mid-January
4. Two (3 person) groups formed one
(6 person) group
Gaertner, Mann, Murrell,
& Dovidio (1989)
Manipulation:
Original groups retained their names
–maintained original group identities
Larger group chose new name for all
–created a common ingroup identity
Individuals chose new name for self
–reduced original group ties
Gaertner, Mann, Murrell,
& Dovidio (1989)
Procedure:
5: Participants rated all others in the 6
person group
DV: rating of original group members
minus new group members: (old - new)
Degree of Bias
Results: Gaertner et al. (1989)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Original
name
Individual
Names
One new
name
•Greatest bias when in and outgroups salient
•Intermediate bias when group membership minimized.
•Lowest bias when groups formed common ingroup
identity