Outline of Lecture Sessions Regarding
Prejudice and Discrimination
Definition of the concepts of prejudice
and discrimination.
Prejudice: A negative prejudgement of a group
and its individual members. Prejudice is an
attitude.
.
Prejudice: A negative prejudgement of a group
and its individual members. Prejudice is an
attitude.
.
Stereotype: A belief about the personal
attributes of a group of people.
Prejudice: A negative prejudgement of a group
and its individual members. Prejudice is an
attitude.
.
Stereotype: A belief about the personal
attributes of a group of people.
Discrimination: Unjustifiable negative
behaviour toward a group or its members.
Attribute prejudice and discrimination to
thoughts and acts of stupidity or
immorality
Jackie Robinson, Branch Rickey, baseball, and the
Kiwanis Music Festival in Montreal, 1946.
Components of prejudice and the
relation of prejudice (attitude) to
discrimination (behaviour).
Prejudice as an Attitude
Components of prejudice (attitude)
1. Beliefs (may include stereotypes)
2. Emotions
3. Intended actions
The question of the relation
of prejudice (as attitude) to
discrimination (as
behaviour)
By definition, a positive attitude
toward your group is not prejudice.
Should we be concerned, nevertheless
(and the role of social identity theory).
Attitudes Towards Ingroup and Outgroup
neutral
unfavourable: ____________________________________:favourable
Outgroup
Ingroup
Attitudes Towards Ingroup and Outgroup
neutral
unfavourable: ____________________________________:favourable
Outgroup
Outgroup
Ingroup
The Power of Ingroup Favouritism
Majeed(1982)
Participants: 13 to 18 years old from a rural
district of India.
Trait Adjective Ratings
Ingroup
High Caste Adolescents
Low Caste
OutGroup
Trait Adjective Ratings
Ingroup
High Caste Adolescents
8.5
Low Caste
4.6
OutGroup
Trait Adjective Ratings
Ingroup
High Caste Adolescents
8.5
Low Caste
4.6
OutGroup
-1.8
Trait Adjective Ratings
Ingroup
OutGroup
High Caste Adolescents
8.5
-1.8
Low Caste
4.6
3.5
Perdue (1990)
Study was presented as a lexical decision making
task.
For example: XEH paired always with us or we or ours
(ingroup words).
YOF paired always with them or they or theirs
(outgroup words)
Participants were asked to rate the
nonsense syllables on:
Unpleasant :
:
:
:
:
:
:
: pleasant
Result:
Nonsense syllables paired with ingroup
words were rated more pleasant than
nonsense syllables paired with outgroup
words.
A study of systemic (institutional)
discrimination.
Report of the Commission on Systemic
Racism in the Ontario Criminal Justice
System
Community Summary
(1995)
Question police, lawyers, and
judges.
Is there discrimination in the
criminal justice system?
General Response was No.
Archival data (public
records:
a) Release and detained
data for total sample
Released by police: White -- 29%
Black -- 18%
Detained to trial:
White -- 23%
Black -- 30%
b) Release and detained data for drug
charges only
Released by police: White -- 60%
Black -- 30%
Detained to trial:
White -- 10%
Black -- 31%
c) Imprisonment after
conviction
Drug charge: White -- 36%
Black -- 66%
All charges:
White -- 57%
Black -- 69%
d) Imprisonment after conviction by
criminal record
0 convictions: White -- 38%
Black -- 52%
1 to 5 convictions: White -- 52%
Black -- 71%
6 or more convictions: White -- 77%
Black -- 88%
Assessment of Discrimination in
Renting An Apartment
A Paired Testing Study
Toronto, 2009
The first profile portrayed over the telephone was:
1. Female lone parent with one child
The control in all cases was a married female.
Both were applying for a one bedroom apartment.
2. Black female lone parent with one child
This profile was exactly the same as the previous,
except that the test volunteer had an accent that would
identify her as Black (Caribbean accent).
The control was a female lone parent with one child
and a “Canadian” accent
3. Single South Asian male
For this profile, the person had an identifiable
South Asian accent and name.
Control was a single male with a “Canadian”
accent and name.
Analysis
Once the completed scripts were collected,
researchers scored the responses by the person on
the other end of the phone based on whether the
interaction profiles indicated positive, negative or
no differential treatment.
Rate of Discrimination (Score of 2 or 3 on
Differential Treatment Scale)
Lone Parent
14%
Black Lone Parent
26%
South Asian Male
23%
Research by Esses
On the individual contribution of three
components of attitude to the overall
attitude we have toward some group.
The Components Studied Were:
i) stereotypes,
ii) emotions,
and an added component
iii) beliefs about the degree to which some
group facilitates or blocks your cherished
values in society
Overall attitude was measured using a
“thermometer” scale
Favourable
100
Neutral
50
Unfavourable
0
Target groups studied
English Canadian
French Canadian
Native Indian
Pakistani
Homosexual
Components of Attitude towards Group
1. Measuring the Stereotype Component
On a blank piece of paper, list the characteristics that you
would use to describe typical members of the group
Components of Attitude towards Group
1. Measuring the Stereotype Component
Indicate the value of each attribute:
if negative, indicate two minus signs or one minus sign;
if positive, indicate two plus signs or one plus sign;
if neutral indicate zero
Components of Attitude towards Group
1. Measuring the Stereotype Component
Indicate the percentage of the group to which each
characteristic applies (0% to 100%)
2. Measuring the Symbolic beliefs Component
List values, customs and traditions that you believe
are blocked or facilitated by the group.
Indicate the extent to which each was blocked or
facilitated:
if blocked, indicate two minus signs or one minus
sign;
if facilitated, indicate two plus signs or one plus sign
Indicate the percentage of the group to which this
applies (0% to 100%)
3. Emotions
List emotions and feelings that you experience
when you see, meet, or think about members of the
group.
Indicate the valence of each emotion:
if negative, indicate two minus signs or one minus
sign;
if positive, indicate two plus signs or one plus sign
Indicate the percentage of the group that make you
feel this way (0% to 100%)
Target group
Mean Attitude (as
measured on the
thermometer scale
English Canadian
81.4
French Canadian
69.1
Native Indian
66.2
Pakistani
58.9
Homosexual
44.1
The Relations between Individual
Stereotypes, Symbolic Beliefs, and Emotions
with Attitudes toward the Groups
Target group
Stereotype
with Attitude
Symbolic
Beliefs with
Attitude
English Canadian
.11
.09
.25*
French Canadian
.49***
.49**
.59**
Native Indian
.24*
17
.44***
Pakistani
.30*
.58***
.32**
Homosexual
.48***
.50***
.43***
Emotions with
Attitudes
For Judgements about the Target Group "Pakistani," the
Correlation Coefficient between the Symbolic Belief
Component and Overall Attitude was +.58
Overall Attitude
Score (0-100)
Subject 1
2
3
4
5
and so on
63
42
54
82
68
Symbolic Belief Score
(Higher the score, the
more the group is seen
to facilitate cherished
values)
12
05
07
16
12
Which Components Contributed to
the Prediction of Overall Attitude?
Target Group
Component
English Canadians
no component was
a unique predictor
Which Components Contributed to
the Prediction of Overall Attitude?
Target Group
Component
French Canadians
a) emotions and
b) symbolic beliefs
were unique
predictors
Which Components Contributed to
the Prediction of Overall Attitude?
Target Group
Native Indians
Component
a) emotions were
unique predictor
Which Components Contributed to
the Prediction of Overall Attitude?
Target Group
Component
Pakistanis
a) symbolic beliefs
was unique
predictor
Which Components Contributed to
the Prediction of Overall Attitude?
Target Group
Homosexuals
Component
a) symbolic beliefs
was unique
predictor
Components of a Stereotype and Meaning
The same trait term, for example, may have a different
meaning depending on the group being referred to.
My earlier example with judgements of FrenchCanadians-in-general when discussing stereotypes.
Components of a Stereotype and Meaning
Saenger (1954) -- there was overlap in terms ascribed by
university students to Americans (own-group) and to Jews
(outgroup).
Yet, common terms such as aggressive and materialistic
were evaluated more unfavourably in reference to the
category Jews.
Mood and Meaning of Components of a
Stereotype
Victoria Esses (1995) found that the meaning of a term
ascribed to a particular outgroup can vary with the mood
of the individual making the judgements.
Mood was experimentally manipulated.
In a negative mood, the evaluations of terms associated
with outgroups were more unfavourable.
The textbook considers the question
do we stereotype in the context of its
discussion of prejudice.
The textbook does not make any
distinction between stereotypes and
stereotyping.
Is stereotyping necessarily a product
of prejudice and is it behaviour
representing discrimination?
Page 455 of the textbook -- Do stereotypes bias
judgements of individuals?
Their answer is Yes.
But, there are exceptions.
Example of An Exception
Information provided about Nancy or Paul concerning
their assertive behaviour (information provided by
supposed transcript of one of their telephone
conversations).
Nancy or Paul speak about their recent behaviour in
which they behaved assertively or non-assertively.
A day later, participants in the study predicted how Nancy
or Paul would respond to other situations.
Their past behaviour influenced judgements about how
they would behave, but their gender did not.
The textbook goes on to remind us of a
principle discussed in Chapter 3.
Given general, base-rate information about a
group and trivial, but vivid information about a
particular member of the group, the vivid
information is relied on more in subsequent
judgements.
“People often hold expectations or
stereotypes, but ignore them when given vivid
information.”
On the other hand, the textbook indicates that
strong stereotypes can matter.
Examples in text: regarding specific information
about a group, males judged to be taller on
average than females; females expected to be
in nursing, males in engineering (even though
specific information provided to participants did
not indicate this).
Text conclusion: “When stereotypes
are strong and the information about
someone is ambiguous (unlike the
cases of Nancy and Paul),
stereotypes can subtly bias our
judgements of others.”
The Textbook Also Indicates That
When we have “Little to go on but our
stereotypes, we stereotype”
Bond, C.F., Jr., DiCandia, C.G., &
MacKinnon, J.R. Responses to violence in
a psychiatric setting: The role of patient’s
race. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 14, 448-458.
Using the archival method, 453 incidents of
reactions by staff to violence by psychiatric
adolescent patients were studied.
According to hospital rules, in dealing with violence,
patients can be secluded in time-out room or physically
restrained -- placed in a strait-jacket or tied to a bed with
sheets.
Restraint can only be ordered by a physician with
patients deemed dangerous and only after other
sanctions have failed.
Data were based on nurses’ reports at the end of their
shifts.
Concerning race, the nurses and aides were white. The
patients in the analyses were white or black.
There were 83 restraint cases.
Results:
1. Although Black patients committed no greater
number of violent offenses, they were nearly
four times as likely to be restrained (but
equally likely to be secluded).
2. On the other hand, Black patients were no
more likely to have been diagnosed at the
outset as violent or aggressive.
But this is not the whole story when decisions
by the nurses are examined over time..
Results (Continued):
3. In the first month as a patient, blacks were
restrained in 61% of their offenses, whites
restrained only 6% of the time.
4. But, after the first month and beyond, blacks
were restrained 13% of the time and whites
11%.
That is, there was no longer any evidence of
discrimination.
7. Various cognitive factors are
related to prejudice and
discrimination (see textbook).
One of these concerns the ultimate
attribution error (now referred to in the
textbook as the group-serving bias).
Hunter (1991)
Catholic Participants and Protestant Participants
Viewed Videotapes Depicting Acts of Violence by
Catholics or by Protestants
Number of Statements of Each Type Made by Catholic
and Protestant Participants (Hunter, 1991)
Violence by Catholics
Catholic S's Protestant S's
Internal Causes
External Causes
Violence by Protestants
Catholic S's
Protestant S's
Number of Statements of Each Type Made by Catholic
and Protestant Participants (Hunter, 1991)
Violence by Catholics
Catholic S's Protestant S's
Internal Causes
5
15
External Causes
21
6
Violence by Protestants
Catholic S's
Protestant S's
Number of Statements of Each Type Made by Catholic
and Protestant Participants (Hunter, 1991)
Violence by Catholics
Catholic S's Protestant S's
Violence by Protestants
Catholic S's
Protestant S's
Internal Causes
5
15
19
6
External Causes
21
6
5
15
Group Serving Bias Can Also Be
Illustrated in the Language We Use to
Describe Events
Study by Maasse
During a palio festival, research participants
were drawn from different neighborhoods
(contrada) who were competing in the horserace.
At this time, ingroup-outgroup (my
neighborhood, your neighborhood) distinctions
are heightened.
Participants were shown a line drawing of,
for example, one man hitting another man.
From the clothes worn, the man doing the
hitting was either an ingroup member or
an outgroup member.
Participants were asked to describe what
was "going-on“
a) the person hit the other person b) the
person hurt the other person, c) the
person hates the other person, or d) the
person is a violent person
Another Cognitive Bias Linked
to Prejudice
The Question of the Perceived
Homogeneity or Heterogeneity of
Ingroups and Outgroups
Perceived homogeneity refers to
judgements about the degree of similarity
between all members of some group
regarding the group’s attributes.
Perceived heterogeneity refers to
judgements about the degree of diversity
between all members of some group
regarding the group’s attributes
Homogeneity ………………Heterogeneity
(Viewed as a continuum)
The Ingroup-Outgroup Bias
We tend to see the make-up of ingroup
members as heterogenous.
We tend to see the make-up of outgroup
members as homogeneous
Henderson-King, E.I., & Nisbett, R.E.
(1996).
Anti-Black prejudice as a
function of exposure to the negative
behavior of a single Black person.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 654-664.
Henderson-King & Nisbett
(1996)
Will observing the negative behavour of a
single Black person result in more negative
attitudes towards Blacks in general?
Some possible reasons for predicting
"yes":
1. Law of small numbers: people rely too
heavily on small samples, often failing to
recognize that their observations can be
attributed to sampling variability.
2. Research has shown that person-to-group
generalization is more likely to occur in observing
the behaviour of an outgroup member.
This is likely to occur because "people perceive
outgroups as less variable and therefore see individual
outgroup members as prototypical of the larger group."
In comparison, in viewing the behaviour of an
ingroup member, we are less likely to make
individual-to-group generalizations because:
a) Negative behaviour is likely to be
attributed to situational factors.
b) The ingroup is perceived to be highly
variable.
White participants witnessed either a white
male or a black male behave in a negative way
or in a positive way. In the control condition, no
behaviour was observed.
Dependent variables in the Study
1. Where participant chose to sit (next
to a white or black confederate).
2. Presented with a word pair consisting of a group and
a trait (e.g., Blacks-hostile). Rated the extent to which
they believed that American society believes that the
group and trait are associated and also rated their
own belief on this association.
Results:
1. Participants were less likely to sit beside the Black
confederate after viewing the other Black man behave
in a hostile manner.
2. Participants were more likely to associate the
category of Black people with the trait hostile after
viewing another Black man behave in a hostile manner.
Results:
3. Witnessing the positive behaviour of the Black
confederate was unrelated to where participants chose
to sit or to the rated association between the category
Black and the trait hostile.
4. Witnessing the White confederate behave in a
positive manner or in a hostile manner was unrelated
to where participants chose to sit or to their rated
association between the category White and the trait
hostile.
5. In other words, the only behaviour that seemed to
matter was when the single Black man behaved in a
hostile manner.
Toronto Police Service, 31 Division advises of the following incidents
that occurred off-campus:
On Monday, September 30, 2002 at approximately 8:50 P.M., two male
suspects approached a male student from behind while walking alone
on Shoreham Drive, near the intersection of Jane Street and Finch
Avenue. The suspects demanded the victim’s wallet and CD player.
The victim complied. The suspects were described as male, white, 20
years of age.
On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at approximately 7:45 P.M., three male
suspects approached four male students walking west across the
bridge on Shoreham Drive near Black Creek. The suspects grabbed
two of the victims, threatened them and demanded they open their
wallets. The victims complied and the suspects took the cash and fled
the scene. The suspects were described as male, white, 5’10” in
height, between 140 to 150 lbs., and 17 to 18 years of age.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Toronto Police, 31 Division
at 416.808.3100 or Crime Stoppers at 416.222.TIPS.
Toronto Police Service, 31 Division advises of the following incidents that
occurred off-campus:
On Monday, September 30, 2002 at approximately 8:50 P.M., two male
suspects approached a male student from behind while walking alone on
Shoreham Drive, near the intersection of Jane Street and Finch Avenue.
The suspects demanded the victim’s wallet and CD player. The victim
complied. The suspects were described as male, black, 20 years of age.
On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at approximately 7:45 P.M., three male
suspects approached four male students walking west across the bridge
on Shoreham Drive near Black Creek. The suspects grabbed two of the
victims, threatened them and demanded they open their wallets. The
victims complied and the suspects took the cash and fled the scene. The
suspects were described as male, black, 5’10” in height, between 140 to
150 lbs., and 17 to 18 years of age.
Anyone with information is asked to contact Toronto Police, 31 Division at
416.808.3100 or Crime Stoppers at 416.222.TIPS.
Vanbeselaere (1991)
Participants were 12-16 years old in groups of six.
They viewed slides of various scenes, including seashore
scenes and forest scenes and made preference ratings.
Randomly, three of them are later told publicly that they
prefer the seashore scenes and the other three that they
prefer the forest scenes.
This was the first independent variable, in terms of
promoting group membership – I am in the seashore group,
or I am in the forest group.
The second independent variable was the
supposed level of homogeneity of the composition
of the outgroup (homogeneous or heterogeneous).
For example, information presented to the Seashore group about
the composition of the Forest group in terms of the outgroup’s
average liking of forest scenes would look like one of the
following (randomly determined)
Homogeneous outgroup Forest Group
Very little :
:
:
:
: xxx
:
: very much
Heterogeneous outgroup Forest Group
Very little :
:
:
: x : x : x : very much
Result:
Evidence for ingroup favouritism only when
participants were led to believe that the
outgroup was homogeneous.
Some Confirming Evidence
Simon (1990)
In manipulating information about both the supposed
homogeneity (low or high) of the outgroup and
supposed homogeneity of the ingroup (low or high) in
the study, he found that:
1. Level of outgroup homogeneity was positively related
to ingroup favouritism, that is, more ingroup favouritism
was evident with high homogeneity.
2. Level of ingroup homogeneity was unrelated to
ingroup favouritism
Can we alter our view of the level of
homogeneity of an outgroup?
Some conclusions based on two studies (groups
were construction workers and lawyers) suggest
yes.
1. The presentation of stereotype-incongruent information can have
an impact on perceived variability of the group ("I didn't realize
that group members could be so different from one another”).
2. The presentation of highly variable stereotype-congruent
information also increased perceived variability of the group.
8. Social psychology and the reduction of
prejudice.
a) Example with two young children making joint
judgements about the attributes of an outgroup. The
possible role of perceived heterogeneity
b) The contact hypothesis: To reduce prejudice, bring
people into contact with members of the outgroup in
question. Do this under ideal conditions.
(c) Canada's multicultural program and the "multicultural
hypothesis.”
Paluck, E.L. & Green, D.P. (2009).
Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review
and Assessment of Research
and Practice
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–67
The Annual Review of Psychology is online
at psych.annualreviews.org
Abstract
This article reviews the observational, laboratory, and field experimental
literatures on interventions for reducing prejudice. Our review places
special emphasis on assessing the methodological rigor of existing research,
calling attention to problems of design and measurement that
threaten both internal and external validity. Of the hundreds of studies
we examine, a small fraction speak convincingly to the questions
of whether, why, and under what conditions a given type of intervention
works. We conclude that the causal effects of many widespread
prejudice-reduction interventions, such as workplace diversity training
and media campaigns, remain unknown. Although some intergroup
contact and cooperation interventions appear promising, a much
more rigorous and broad-ranging empirical assessment of prejudice reduction
strategies is needed to determine what works.
8. Social psychology and the reduction
of prejudice.
a) Example with two young children
making joint judgements about the
attributes of an outgroup. The
possible role of perceived
heterogeneity
Aboud & Doyle (1996)
Developed a method to measure attitudes of young children
toward ethnic/racial groups.
The Multi-Response Racial Attitude Test
Ten positive and 10 negative attributes with three copies of each.
Children sorted the cards into three boxes labeled White child, black
child, and Chinese child.
“For each set of three cards, place the card or cards in the boxes of
people who are that way."
Reducing prejudice through discussion and joint
decisions by two children regarding characteristics
of outgroups.
Participants: White children, 8 to 11 years old.
One child has been identified at Time 1 as high in prejudice
and the other child as low in prejudice using the measure
just described.
At Time 2, children make joint decisions.
Their discussion was taped, transcribed, and analyzed.
For example, the number of statements made by either child
concerning:
i)
cross race similarity (people in all groups get into fights)
ii) negative statements regarding outgroups
iii) negative statements about ingroup (Whites)
At Time 3, children individually, as in
Time 1, make judgements about the
same outgroups.
This was the post-discussion measure
of their attitude.
Results
1. Child with more negative attitude towards the outgroups
became less negative.
2. Low prejudice child more likely to make cross race
similarity statements and negative ingroup statements.
More likely to say (about one of the groups) "Everyone
can be mean” or "They all play fair.“
High prejudice children rarely made these comments.
Contact hypothesis
Bring people with negative attitudes toward some
outgroup in general into contact under ideal
conditions with specific members of that outgroup
and their level of prejudice will be reduced.
Contact hypothesis
Although often not mentioned specifically, in the
original statement by Allport the hypothesis is in two
parts:
(a) positive shift in attitude towards specific outgroup
member(s) in the interaction
(b) positive shift in attitude towards the relevant
outgroup in general.
Here is A Historical Overview by Dovidio,
Gaertner, & Kawakami (2003): “Intergroup
contact: The past present, and future.”
1. The idea that intergroup contact could reduce prejudice
and discrimination began in the mid-1930s.
2. In World War II the situation offered a natural laboratory
when conditions required black soldiers and white
soldiers of the United States to work together.
White soldiers who had integrated combat experiences
later had more positive racial attitudes compared to
those without this contact.
3. Researchers began to outline optimal conditions within
the contact experience. Allport’s (1954) book on the
nature of prejudice formulated many of these ideas and
was a very influential source.
4. Pettigrew (2000) reviewed 203 studies and concluded
that appropriate contact was related to a decrease in
intergroup biases.
Different Procedures Have Been Used To
Assess the Contact Hypothesis
1. Indirect assessment
for example, by assessing relations between attitudes
towards various ethnic groups in a country and level of the
group’s presence in the population.
Kalin (1996), using Canadian census data and a
national survey, examined the relation between attitudes
toward a particular ethnic group and the proportion of
members of that group in a census tract (neighborhood).
e.g., correlation coefficient analysis re
attitudes towards Polish people-in-general
variable 1
Mean Attitude
tract 1
tract 2
tract 3
and so on
variable 2
% of pop. Who are Polish
Another Indirect Assessment
Wagner (2003)
Basic condition: Living in West Germany provided more
opportunity for contact with foreigners, compared to
living in East Germany.
Study found higher levels of prejudice exhibited by
people in East Germany compared to West Germany.
Another Method to Assess the Contact
Hypothesis
By Examining Reported Contact and Attitudes in
a Field Setting
Levin (2003)
Participants were over 2000 White, Asian, Latino, and
African American college students attending ULCA.
The following measures were assessed
near the end of their first, second, third, and
final years.
1. Friendship variable: At UCLA how many of your
closest friends are Asian American; how many are
African American, how many Latino, how many
Caucasian. (1=none, 2= few .. 5=all)
2. Ingroup bias variable: How positively or negatively do
you feel toward each of the groups.
This measure was the degree of difference between
your rating of your own group minus your average
rating of the outgroups.
The following measures were assessed
near the end of their first, second, third, and
final years.
3. Intergroup anxiety scale:
e.g., “I feel uneasy being around people of different
ethnicities.”
And reverse-keyed item
e.g., “I feel competent interacting with people from
different ethnic groups.”
Results
1. Students who exhibited more ingroup bias and
intergroup anxiety at the end of their first year had
i) fewer outgroup friends and
ii) more ingroup friends during their second and third
years.
Results
2. Students with more outgroup friendships and fewer
ingroup friendships during their second and third years
showed
i) less ingroup bias and
ii) less intergroup anxiety at the end of college
These results controlled (statistically) for their prior
attitudes and pre-college friendships) and supports
the contact hypothesis.
Controlling for the pre-measures suggests that it was the
outgroup contact experience that “led” to reduced
intergroup bias and outgroup anxiety.
Direct assessment through experimental
design
1. by systematically bringing individuals into contact with a
member of the outgroup – e.g., research of Cook.
2. by changing the nature of the contact experience
e.g., Aronson (1978)
Cook (1969, 1971) - Contact studies.
Part I: Administered a questionnaire to White women to
measure their attitudes towards Blacks-in-general
Part II: Women who had been identified as highly
prejudiced were asked to take part in a study in another
lab.
One at a time, these women played a simulation game —
the running of a freight railroad company — with two other
women, confederates, one White and one Black.
There were two half-hour periods separated by one halfhour period for lunch.
Cook (1969, 1971) - Contact studies.
Part III: Attitudes towards Blacks-in-general were
measured again.
Experimental group took part in Parts I, II, and III.
Control group took part in Parts I and III, that is, without the
treatment or contact experience.
Ideal Conditions of Intergroup Contact Used by
Cook
1. Members of the two groups are of equal status.
2. Insertion of cooperative interdependence with common goals.
The premise here is the rewarding properties of achieving
success may become associated with the members of the other
group.
3. The contact occurred within the context of acceptance between
members of the two groups.
4. Opportunity for personal acquaintance between the members,
especially when the attributes of the other group members do not
confirm stereotypic expectations.
5.
Development of intergroup friendships.
Results
1. In reference to the Black person in contact with: Attitude
toward single Black confederate became more positive
over the duration of the game sessions (100% change).
2. In reference to the Black women’s racial group-in
general: More attitude change in positive direction for
experimental group, compared to the control group.
3. Forty percent of experimental group showed a
large positive shift.
Aronson(1970’s)
Cooperative reward structure: The "jigsaw puzzle method“
1. The children's ethnic/racial background was Anglo, Black,
or Chicano
2. Divide grade five class into groups of six students. Give
each student in a group one sixth of the material that
needed to be learned. Students' task was to learn all of
the material. To do so, they would each need to
cooperate with the other members of their group.
3. This method was instituted in 10 classes for one and onehalf hours per day for six weeks. Outcome compared
with a control group of three classrooms.
Results
1. Children liked each other more (compared to control
group children).
2. More positive attitudes toward school.
3. Children felt better about themselves.
4. No reduction in prejudice (that is, attitudes towards
the outgroups in question did not become more
positive).
In the Canadian context, the multicultural
hypothesis states that,
as a result of the multicultural program’s
intentions to enhance people’s understanding
and appreciation of their own ethnic/cultural
heritage,
they will feel better about themselves and their
ethic group and
in turn view more favourably other ethnic/racial
groups in the Canadian society.
Other social psychologists have suggested that the
opposite result could occur, that, as individuals view their
own ethnic group/heritage all the more positively, they may
become less tolerant of other groups.
John Berry (Queen’s University) stated that this would
depend on whether the group’s view of their own group
reached the point of over-glorification.
Glorification -- to make glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or
admiration
Multiculturalism and the multicultural
hypothesis
Lambert (1986)
Participants were male and female Greek-Canadians living
in Montreal. They had in Canada, on average, for 21 years.
1. Made six trait-adjective ratings regarding different groups
Ingroup: Greek-Canadians
Outgroups: English-Canadians, French-Canadians, JewishCanadians, Black-Canadians, Italian-Canadians, and
Portuguese-Canadians
2. Made social distance ratings regarding
each of these groups
How willing are you to accept a member of each
of these groups
as a family member,
as a friend,
a neighbour,
a co-worker,
a citizen of Canada?
Very unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very willing
3. Made judgements about how secure
they felt about
i)
the economic standing of Greek-Canadians
ii) the ability of Greek-Canadians to maintain their
culture/language
iii) the ability of Greek-Canadians to maintain their
status in the larger Canadian context.
Mean Social Distance Ratings
Greeks
English
Family member
6.8
3.0
Friend
6.7
4.4
Neighbour
6.4
5.1
Test of the Multicultural Hypothesis: Correlation
Coefficients between Security Ratings and Outgroup
Ratings
Security Rating Regarding
economic culture status
Mean trait
Adjective rating
.30*
.20*
.25*
Social distance
Family
-.10
.03
.04
Friends
.04
.14
.08
Neighbours
.07
.08
.02
* Signifies statistically significant