Prejudice
Chapter 13
Prejudice

Prejudice is ubiquitous.
◦ It affects us all.

Prejudice often flows from the
minority group to the majority
group.
◦ Can also flow in the other direction

Any group can be a target of
prejudice
Who can be the victim of prejudice?

Many aspects of your identity can cause
you to be labeled and discriminated
against:
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Nationality
Racial and ethnic identity
Gender
Sexual orientation
Religion
Appearance
Physical state
Weight
Disabilities
Diseases
Hair color
Professions
Hobbies
What is Prejudice?

Prejudice
◦ General attitude structure and its
affective (emotional) component

Social psychologists use the
word prejudice primarily when
referring to negative attitudes
about others.
◦ But we have have positive
attitudes too.
Prejudice is an Attitude
◦ Affective (emotional) component
 Type of emotion linked with the attitude (e.g., anger,
warmth)
 Extremity of the attitude (e.g., mild uneasiness,
outright hostility)
◦ Behavioral component
 How people act on emotions and cognitions
◦ Cognitive component
 Beliefs or thoughts that make up the attitude
—
Prejudice is a Process
Social Categorization
 The first step in prejudice
◦ Creation of groups
 Putting some people into one group
based on certain characteristics
 This kind of categorization—an
underlying theme of human social
cognition
 Useful and necessary
 But can have profound implications

In-Group Bias

Positive feelings and special treatment for
people we have defined as being part of
our in-group and negative feelings and
unfair treatment for others simply because
we have defined them as being in the outgroup

The major underlying motive is selfesteem
◦ Individuals enhance self-esteem by identifying
with specific social groups.
◦ Self-esteem is enhanced only if the individual
sees these groups as superior to other groups.
In-Group Bias

Researchers have created entities that they refer to
as minimal groups.
◦ Strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial
criteria imaginable.
 In one experiment, participants watched a coin toss
that randomly assigned them to either group X or
group W.
◦ Despite being strangers before the experiment, group
members behaved as if those in the same group were
friends or family.
 They liked members of their own group better.
 They rated members of their in-group as more likely
to have pleasant personalities and to have done
better work than out-group members.
 They allocated more rewards to those who shared
their label.
Out-Group Homogeneity Effect
“They all look alike to me.”
 In-group members tend to
perceive out-group members as
being more similar
(homogeneous) than they really
are.
 If you know something about one
out-group member, you are more
likely to feel you know something
about all of them.

Social Categorization
—Us Versus Them





For example, in Jane Elliot’s third-grade
classroom, children grouped according to eye
color began to act differently based on that
social categorization.
Blue-eyed children, the superior group, stuck
together and actively promoted and used their
higher status and power in the classroom.
They formed an in-group, defined as the
group with which an individual identifies.
The blue-eyed kids saw the brown-eyed ones
as outsiders—different and inferior.
To the blue-eyed children, the brown-eyed
kids were the out-group, the group with which
the individual does not identify.
Stereotype



Stereotype (people prototype)
Cognitive Shortcut (Representativeness
Heuristic)
◦ A generalization about a group of people
in which identical characteristics are
assigned to virtually all members of the
group, regardless of actual variation
among the members.
Once formed, stereotypes are resistant to
change on the basis of new information!
Stereotyping


Stereotyping is a cognitive process, not
an emotional one.
◦ Stereotyping does not necessarily lead
to intentional acts of abuse.
◦ Stereotyping is a technique we use to
simplify how we look at the world.
 We all do it to some extent.
Potential abuse of stereotyping can be
more subtle—and might involve a
stereotype about a positive attribute.
◦ Example—race and sports ability
Denies Individuality


Denies individuality of person
◦ Ignore the fact that plenty of African
American kids are not adept at
basketball and a plenty of white kids are
If we meet a young African American man
and feel astonished at his ineptitude on
the basketball court, we are denying him
his individuality
Gender Stereotypes

Traditional Stereotypes
◦ Women
 More socially sensitive, friendlier, and
more concerned with the welfare of others
◦ Men
 More dominant, controlling, and
independent

Hostile sexism
◦ Stereotypical views of women that
suggest that women are inferior to men
 E.g., that they are less intelligent, less
competent, and so on
Benevolent sexism
◦ Stereotypical, positive views of women

Microaggressions

Microaggressions
◦ Slights, indignities and “putdowns”
directed at minorities and people with
disabilities
Is this going too far?

People hide prejudice.
◦ When situation becomes “safe,” their
prejudice will be revealed.
 Example
 Questioning President Obama’s
Americanism, not his race per se
Implicit Prejudice

Is there implicit prejudice?

Can you tell it b observing behavior?
Implicit Prejudice


Automatic processing of information
◦ Do not have control over
 Stereotypes may be automatically
triggered under certain conditions.
Controlled processing of information
◦ Have control over
 Ignore or refute stereotype that was
automatically activated
Cultural Prejudice
◦ If a society believes that a particular group
is stupid, uneducable, it will act in
accordance with beliefs.
 Educational resources will not be
provided to that group.
 The Consequence—The group will not
attain adequate education.
 The Result—The society’s original belief
will be confirmed.
Positive Stereotyping


Potential abuse of stereotyping can be more
subtle—and might involve a stereotype about
a positive attribute.
◦ Example—race and sports ability
Denies individuality of person
◦ Ignore the fact that plenty of African
American kids are not adept at basketball
and a plenty of white kids are
Institutionalized Prejudice

If everyone believes that a group is stupid,
uneducable, it will act in accordance with
beliefs.
 Educational resources will not be
provided to that group.
 The Consequence—The group will not
attain adequate education.
 The Result—The society’s original belief
will be confirmed.
Institutional Discrimination

Institutional discrimination
◦ Practices that discriminate, legally or
illegally, against a minority group by virtue
of its ethnicity, gender, culture, age, sexual
orientation, or other target of societal or
company prejudice.
Institutional Prejudice


Institutionalized racism
◦ Racist attitudes that are held by the vast
majority of people living in a society
where stereotypes and discrimination are
the norm
Institutionalized sexism
◦ Sexist attitudes that are held by the vast
majority of people living in a society
where stereotypes and discrimination are
the norm
Normative Conformity

Normative conformity
◦ The strong tendency to go along with the
group in order to fulfill the group’s
expectations and gain acceptance
Stereotype Threat



Victim of prejudice may internalize
stereotypes
Experience anxiety about confirming
stereotype
The apprehension experienced by members
of a group that their behavior might confirm
a cultural stereotype
Stereotype Threat
(Stone et al.,
1999)

Participants played a game of miniature golf.
◦ One half were told the game measured “sport
strategic intelligence.”
 Black athletes performed worse than white athletes.
◦ One half were told the game measured “natural
athletic ability.”
 Black athletes better than white athletes.

Stereotype—Men are better at math than women.
◦ IV = Information given to women about a math test
◦ DV = women’s performance on the test
◦ When told the math test was designed to show
gender differences in math abilities women did not
perform as well as men
◦ When told the math test did not detect male-female
differences, women and men performed equally well
Stereotype Threat

How can the effects of stereotype threat be
reversed?
◦ Simply understanding stereotype threat
can improve performance.
◦ Reminding participants they were
“selective northeastern liberal arts college”
students eliminated the gender gap on a
spatial ability test.
Dispositional Versus Situational Explanations
or Attributions



One reason stereotypes are so insidious and
persistent is the human tendency to make
dispositional attributions.
Relying too heavily on dispositional
attributions often leads us to make
attributional mistakes (fundamental
attribution error).
Ultimate attribution error: Our tendency to
make dispositional attributions about an
individual’s negative behavior to an entire
group of people.
Dispositional Vs. Situational Explanations
Researchers had college students read
fictionalized files on prisoners to make a
parole decision.
 Sometimes the crime matched the
common stereotype of the offender.

◦ Hispanic male—assault and battery
◦ Upper-class Anglo-American—embezzlement
When crimes were consistent with
stereotypes, students’ recommendations
for parole were harsher.
 Most students ignored additional
information that was relevant to a parole
decision but inconsistent with the
stereotype (such as evidence of good
behavior in prison).

Social Categorization—Us Versus Them





For example, in Jane Elliot’s third-grade
classroom, children grouped according to eye
color began to act differently based on that
social categorization.
Blue-eyed children, the superior group, stuck
together and actively promoted and used their
higher status and power in the classroom.
They formed an in-group, defined as the
group with which an individual identifies.
The blue-eyed kids saw the brown-eyed ones
as outsiders—different and inferior.
To the blue-eyed children, the brown-eyed
kids were the out-group, the group with which
the individual does not identify.
Other Social-Psychological Factors


Cognitive Dissonance
Crandall and Eschleman’s (2003) model
◦ Struggle between urge to express prejudice and the need to
maintain positive self-concept (as a non-bigot) To conserve energy,
seek valid justification for holding a negative attitude toward a
particular out-group

Can then act against that group and still
feel like a non-bigot: avoids cognitive
dissonance

Defensive attribution/Just World:
Blaming the victim serves a selfprotective function
◦ Can’t happen to me, wouldn’t behave that way
Economic/Resource Competition

Prejudice increases when times are tense and
conflict exists over mutually exclusive goals.
Example: Economic recession and violence against
Latinos
◦ Realistic conflict theory: The idea that limited resources
lead to conflict between groups and result in increased
prejudice and discrimination
◦ Limited resources  conflict among groups  prejudice
and discrimination

When times are tough and resources are scarce:
1.
2.
3.
In-group members will feel more threatened by the
out-group.
Incidents of prejudice, discrimination, and violence
toward out-group members will increase.
Sherif’s classic study—Eagles versus Rattlers
The Role of the Scapegoat


Scapegoating
◦ When frustrated or unhappy, people tend to
displace aggression onto groups that are
disliked, visible, and relatively powerless
Form of aggression dependent on what in-group
approves of or allows
The Contact Hypothesis

Mere contact between groups
not sufficient to reduce
prejudice
◦ Can create opportunities for
conflict that may increase it

Prejudice will decrease when
two conditions are met:
◦ Both groups are of equal status.
◦ Both share a common goal.
When Contact Reduces
Prejudice—Six Conditions

Sherif and colleagues (1961) found:
◦ Once hostility and distrust were established, simply
removing a conflict and the competition did not
restore harmony.
◦ In fact, bringing two competing groups together in
neutral situations actually increased their hostility
and distrust.
Mutual Interdependence
The need to depend on each other to accomplish a
goal that is important to each group.
When Contact Reduces
Prejudice—Six Conditions

Sherif and colleagues (1961) found:
◦ Once hostility and distrust were established, simply
removing a conflict and the competition did not
restore harmony.
◦ In fact, bringing two competing groups together in
neutral situations actually increased their hostility
and distrust.
◦ The key is mutual interdependence, the need to
depend on each other to accomplish a goal that is
important to each group.
Figure 13.7
How Cooperation Fosters Intergroup Relations
When the Eagles and the Rattlers were in competition, very few of the boys in each group had
friends from the other side. Intergroup tensions were eased only after the boys had to
cooperate to get shared privileges and the boys began to make friends across “enemy lines.”
(Based on data in Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961)
When Contact Reduces
Prejudice—Six Conditions
Mutual interdependence
2. Common goal
3. Equal status
4. Friendly, informal setting
5. Knowing multiple out-group
members
6. Social norms of equality
1.
Jigsaw Classroom

Classroom setting designed to reduce
prejudice and raise the self-esteem of
children
◦ Placing children in small, desegregated
groups
◦ Make each child dependent on the other
children in the group to learn the course
material and do well in the class

Reduces prejudice and promotes
integration
Jigsaw Classroom

Why does the jigsaw work?
◦ Breaks down perception of in-group and outgroup, creates feeling of “one-ness”
◦ People must do each other “favors” by sharing
information
◦ Develop empathy for others

One of the most effective ways of improving
race relations, improving empathy, and
improving instruction
Implicit Prejudice


Often aren’t aware of our prejudices.
How can it be prejudice if we aren’t
even aware of it?
◦ Can manifest in dangerous
consequences.
◦ Example
 Studies have shown people more likely to
accidentally shoot an unarmed African
American than a White person