Prejudice-An Overview of Psychological Factors on Discrimination

Prejudice: 

Prejudice An overview of psychological factors in discrimination

Agenda: 

Agenda The Structure of Attitudes Definitions What causes Prejudice? Social Cognition Attribution Errors Resource Conflicts Normative Rules How can we reduce Prejudice? The Jigsaw Class The Contact Hypothesis Six Important Factors

The structure of attitudes: 

The structure of attitudes Attitudes consist of three components An affective/emotional component Defines the sort of emotion and its most intense effect A cognitive component The way information gets processed in our brain and the resulting „thoughts“ A behavioral component The behavior and actions

Definitions: 

Definitions Affective component: Prejudice A negative or hostile attitude towards people that are members of a certain group, that bases only on their membership in that group Cognitive component: Stereotypes A generalization about a group of people, where you ascribe the same characteristics to all members of that group without regards of their individual variation Behavioral component: Discrimination Unjustified negative or harmful action towards a member of a certain group, just based on that persons affiliation with that group

What causes prejudice?: 

What causes prejudice? Evolution might have established a mechanism to survive (prefer own clan and keep strangers on distance) Our environment (society, parents, media) might „teach“ us that people that are different from us have negative characteristics People in all cultures seem to show a naturally occurring Xenophobia - the fear of strangers  let‘s take a closer look!

Social Cognition- information processing in the human brain: 

Social Cognition- information processing in the human brain We tend to categorize information and built schemes we group stimuli based on their similarity we separate them from different stimuli this helps us to interpret new information and choose our reaction Example: water, oil, milk, blood = grouped in our head as liquids Stones, glass, wood, salt = grouped in our heads as solids We see juice and easily classify it as a liquid, assuming it has the same characteristics like the liquids we know (flowing, dropping, being wet) We treat it as a liquid, we make sure it doesn‘t drop etc.

Social Cognition: 

Social Cognition We categorize people the same way according to characteristics such as gender, color, age national origin We use short cuts because they cause less effort than dealing with each individual individually Stereotypes come to our mind automatically, if we don‘t actively try to blank them out, they influence us When a situation gets more complicated, and less cognitive capacity is available, people tend to fall back on available stereotypes This can lead to inaccurate heuristics and have a huge impact on our behavior and on society

Social Cognition: 

Social Cognition The group we identify ourselves with is called in-group The group we don‘t identify ourselves with is the out-group Examples: GGU students vs. Stanford students Electronic music fans vs. Heavy metal fans Dog lovers vs. Cat lovers Apple users vs. PC users Parents vs. People without children Why do rivaling football fans get in fights with each other? Certainly not because of personal conflicts!

Social Cognition: In-Group and Out-Group: 

Social Cognition: In-Group and Out-Group Why do we favor members of the in-group and treat them better? Our groups help us establish a positive social identity The human being tends to protect its identity strongly, even against logical argumentation and by treating others badly We want the group we identify with to be superior to other groups to sustain our self esteem We try to boost our self-worth People of other groups seem more homogeneous to us The membership can be based on minimal differences (Minimal group paradigm) All the above may lead us to try to keep the out-group inferior by treating them in a bad way (discriminate against them)

Social Cognition: The Failure of Logic: 

Social Cognition: The Failure of Logic Prejudices are strongly emotional Emotions are almost immune against logical reasoning „I don‘t know why, I just don‘t like him.“ Information that supports our opinion is noted more often, is repeated or used more often and thereby remembered better than contradicting information If a member of a group acts the way we expect him to, we see the stereotype proven and strenghened

Attribution Errors The Fundamental Attribution Error: 

Attribution Errors The Fundamental Attribution Error The fundamental attribution error describes the human tendency of overestimating the influence of internal attributes, and underestimating the effect of the situation (external attribution), on the behavior of an individual This might lead to stereotypes and prejudice, when people of a group act in a certain way, because they have no other choice, but people of other groups think the behavior is caused by traits „That‘s the way those people are!“

Attribution Errors The Ultimative Attribution Error: 

Attribution Errors The Ultimative Attribution Error People are more likely to make internal attributions for their group’s positive behavior, and external attributions for the same positive behaviour displayed by out-groups Negative in-group behaviour is usually explained externally, whereas negative outgroup behaviour is more frequently explained internally We tend to assume that whole groups of people have similar dispositions They‘re all the same!

Attribution Errors Confirmation Bias: 

Attribution Errors Confirmation Bias If people expect somebody to act a certain way, they might unconsciously provoke that behavior Stereotypes can influence social interactions in ways that lead to their confirmation If a man holds a stereotype of brazilian women being very provocative, he might act in a flirty way around a brazilian woman because he thinks they are flirty and easy to get and thereby feels more confident. That might flatter a brazilian woman which might make her react in a flirty way. At the end of the night the man sees his prejudice confirmed.

Attribution Errors The Stereotype Threat: 

Attribution Errors The Stereotype Threat Stereotype threat is the experience of anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group If you know the pressure is on you to show that a stereotype about your in-group is not true, you might perform poorly because the pressure handicaps you

Resource Conflicts: 

Resource Conflicts Limited resources lead to conflicts among groups and result in increased prejudice and discrimination

Resource Conflicts: 

Resource Conflicts When times are difficult, but there is no rival, people tend to act their frustration out against minorities or out-groups that are relatively powerless (scapegoating) A tragic example is how the nazis managed to focus the frustration of the poor and demoralized Germans after the first world war on the Jews, although the Jews were not the reason for their situation

Normative Rules: 

Normative Rules Conformity is a part of social life We assimilate in order to be accepted The society trains us in the norms of our culture t hrough explicit and implicit Socialization we get a lot of stereotype information We get used to discrimination as part of the social norms and culture we learn stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes

Normative Rules: 

Normative Rules Normative conformity describes the tendency of people to assimilate with the group to fulfill the group’s expectations and gain recognition by the group Institutionalized discrimination refers to the discriminatory attitudes that are held by the vast majority of people because we live in a society where stereotypes and discrimination are the norm.

Normative Rules: 

Normative Rules

Normative Rules: 

Normative Rules Nowadays being a “racist” is frowned upon Prejudice and stereotypes still exist They are more subtle and indirect They are kept under the surface and just expressed in a “safe” environment, like among like-minded people Acting unprejudiced but inwardly retaining the stereotypes is called “modern racism”

How can we reduce Prejudice?: 

How can we reduce Prejudice? Prejudice is still omnipresent and harms the lives of millions of people The cases of discrimination in the workplace reveal how urgent this problem still is in our society Children learn the prejudice through society Isn‘t there a possibility to reduce prejudice?

The Jigsaw Class Setting: 

The Jigsaw Class Setting Pupils are put in diverse groups of six children The course material is divided into six parts Each pupil has to teach the other ones his/her part They are dependent on each other They need to help and encourage each other The have a common goal

The Jigsaw Class Outcomes: 

The Jigsaw Class Outcomes Increased respect & attention for each other Children are more relaxed and responsible Ability to communicate increases Self-confidence rises Grades get better Children like school better Less fights in the schoolyard Real integration Decrease of prejudice and stereotypes Increase of sympathy and empathy

The Jigsaw Class Explanation: 

The Jigsaw Class Explanation The boundaries of the in- and out-group vanish Helping and supporting each other strengthens sympathy Approaching everyone in an individual way that helps him to contribute, allows to see the individual, not the stereotype Empathy decreases the likelihood of hurting somebody (e.g. through discrimination)

The Contact Hypothesis: 

The Contact Hypothesis Assumption: Merely bringing members of different groups into contact with each other will erode prejudice. In fact, a meta-analysis conduced in 1978, 24 years after the end of segregation in schools showed (percentage of the studies): Significant Decrease of self-respect: 25% Increase of prejudice: 53% Same level of prejudice: 34% Decrease of prejudice: 0%

Six important factors: 

Six important factors Mutual interdependence A common goal Equal status of group members Informal interpersonal contact Multiple contacts with several members of the out-group Social norms that promote equality

Sources: 

Sources Special thanks to Darron Smith for drawing the cartoon on the second slide. Inspiration taken from Aronson et al. (2009) Allport. (1954): The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Aronson, E., Wilson,T.D., Akert, R.D. (2009): Social Psychology . 7th Edition. Prentice Hall. Augoustinos, M., Reynolds, K.J. (2001): Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social conflict. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Bordens, K. S., Horowitz, I. A. (2000): Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Nelson, T. D. (Editor)(2009): Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination . Psychology Press. Pennington, D. C. (2000): Social Cognition. London: Routledge. Stephan, W. G. (1978): School desegregation: An evaluation of predictions made in Brown v. Board of Education. Psychological Bulletin, Vol 85(2), Mar 1978, 217-238. Tuffin, K. (2004): Understanding Critical Social Psychology. London: SAGE Publications Inc. Contact: julia.pracht@bits-iserlohn.de +1 415 900 6500