1 3 Prejudice © @@ Causes and CuresN THE 1930S, WHEN THURGOOD MARSHALL WAS A YOUNG. lawyer working or the National Assocation fr the Advancement of Calored People (NAACP), he was sent toa small town in the South to defend a bleck san who was aceused ofa serious erime, When he arived, he wa shocked and dis- sayed to lean thatthe defendant was steady dead-—Iynched by an angry white sob, With a heavy heart, Marshall returned to the railroad station to wait for & train back to New York, While waiting, he realized he was hungry and noticed « frm. Walking toward the stand, he debated whether to sanall food stand om the pl 0 Fight up othe front and order a sandwich (as was his legal right) orto go around ta the back ofthe stand (as was the common practice for Afican Americans in the South st chat time) Bue ire he reached the stand, he was approached by larg hheayset white man who looked at him suspiciously. Marshall took hien to be a lawman of some sort because he walked with an air of authority and had a bulge in his pants pocket that could only have been made by a hundgua, “Hey, boy” the mat shouted at Marshal, “What are you doing here?” jst waling {ora sin,” Maral reli. The man scold, tok + few rep eos, led shin menacing ands, Gdn hear you, What id you sy boy ‘Marshall relied that is itl ely fad not been sficenly abveguios “I beg sourpundon, si, bot im wating for si.” There waa long lence, ring which he ‘man towly looked Marshall vp and down, an the sd, "And you's beter exch at tin, boyand soon, because in this own, he un bas never ston lve iggee” Ae Marsal ler recalled that point his debate aboot howto ge he sandwich proved academic, He decided not to geta sandwich tall bac to catch he very next 8 (Suto mater where ic wia headed Beis somchew be die feel ngryexytore (Witham, 1995) “Thurgood Marshall went on to become chief counsel forthe NAACP, in 1954, he argued the cate of Broun v. oad of Héscatim before the U.S. Supreme Court His vieory there put an end to legalized racial segregation in publi schools. Sub- sequently, Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court, where he served with distinesion uni his retirement ia 1991. We are not sute what became ofthe man vwth the bulge in his pocke “The Supreme Coure decision of 1954 st stage fora Murry of cul right legis: ation in the following decades, which opened the doors to sual opportnity for un Aerprvileged minorities in the United Suites. In 2008 the citizens of our country Lo Prejudice: The Ubiquitour Social Phenomenon Prejudice and Saleem ‘A Progress Report H Prejudice Defined Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component Discrimination The Behaviors Component Lo What Causes Prejudice? ‘The Way We Think: Soda How Wis Astign Mesning ‘Atrbutonl Bases Baring the Vin Competvor: Realtic Cont ‘The Way We Conform: Le How Can Prejudice Be Reduced? ‘The Comact Hypatesis When Contact Rathices Why Early Desearegtin Fabed tnd iterdaperdance: The Jigsaw Clastoom CONNECTIONS: A Latta from Cares" a9420. CHAPTER 13. Pre What does Obamas election sug (908 about the direction of ac lected an African American to the highest office in the Land. ‘This was a watershed event that could not have been predicted in 1958, when the ‘overwhelning majority of Americans were opposed to the desegregati ‘of schools, OF course, it would be nave to assume thatthe election [Barack Obama heralds the end of racial prejudice in the United States. But the importance of Obaanal election cannot be overstate, Indeed, even his candidacy has already had imporant ramifications. T cite just one xarn- ple, researchers found that Obamas candidacy produced a sharp reduction in bias against blacks (Plan, Devine eta, 2009), During the run-up tothe lection, in th presidential debates and countess additional televised ap- pearances, a great many Americans w able to se this highly intelligent, articulate, poised Afvican American in action, Arconding to Plant and her collegues, this exposure made it dif negative stercorypes they may have held about African American in gener But prejudice remains a serious problem. Of all the social behaviors we discus in this book, preadi ot them to maintain whatever ‘among the most common and the most dangerous. Prejudice touches nearly everyone’ life. We are all victims oF potential victims of stereotyping and discrimination, fr no other reason than our membership in an identifiable group, ‘whether on the bass of ethnicity, religion, gender, national origin, sexcal orientation, boy size, or disabiity-—to name afew. Even though manifestations of prejudice today tend to be both les frequen an les flagrant than they used tobe, prejudice continues to exact heavy tll om its vitims, ‘There are sll hae erimes, church burnings, and countless miscellaneous acts of prejudice. induced vi outrages like the futility of trying to get a cab to stop for you late at night in an American me- tropolis if you happen to bea black man (Fountain, 1997) “Moreover, on a wide varie of important social issues, huge racial divide exist in this county in terms of arsude and experience, Although sophisticated observers have long been aware ofthis divide, it was browght home with stunning force in the mid 1990s during the murder tial of), Simpson, The tial eapruted the rape attention of millions of Americans, but from the outset, it seed as if white Americans and Black Americans were watching two diferent rials, Overwhelmingly, whites believed Simp- som ws guilty; and overwhelmingly, blacks found the evidence uneanvincing at bes, ‘We cannot be sure whether this huge difference was dv to diflerences among the racial groups in their eespesive experiences with the criminal jsice system or dilfer- ences inthe degree to which they found the defendant to be atactve and sympathetic (Teobin, 1995)-In order to understand this phenomenon and others lik it, we must take 4 long look at prejudice a8 a social psychological phenomenon 2 as well 5 “esse Prejudice: The Ubiquitous Social Phenomenon Te would be wrong to conclude that only minority groups at the hands of the dominant snajority, OF course, this aspect of prejudice is both powerfl and poignant. But the truth is that prejudice is ubiquitous: in one form oF another, ic affects us all. Prejudice is a two-way street; often flows from the minori- ty group to the msjorty group aswell asin the other direction. And any group ean be atarget of prejudiceLetus take one ofthe most superordinate groups to which you belong-—your na tionality As you well know, Americans are not universally loved, respected, and ad ‘mired; at one time or another, we Americans have been the target of prejudice in just shout every corner of the world, Inthe 1960s and 1970s, North Vietnamese Commu nists referred to Americans as the “running dogs of capitalist imperial,” In the ‘wenty-first century: the majority of people living inthe Middle Fast think of Amer cas a ruthless, power-hungry, amoral nation, referring tous as “the great Satan” In ‘our own hemisphere, many of our neighbors tothe south conser us overfed eco- ‘some and military bullies. ‘Ona more subtle level, even our political allies do not always see us accurately. For ‘example, in research on stereotyping, it tums out that British citizens tend to label Americans as intrusive, pushy, and excessively patriotic. This is nota recent develop~ rent: Iistoran Simon Schama (2003) points out that the British and other Euro~ CHAPTER 13 Prejudice 421 ppeans have held such stereotypes of Americans fora east two hundred years, | pe ‘Bur stereotyping cus both ways: Americans tend to label the British as ead, ‘unemotional, and detached. Similarly, during the United Nations debates Alittle black girl yearns for the blue prior tothe invasion of rag in 2002, the French viewed Americans as brash eyes of 2 litle white gir, and the and bellicose, while Americans viewed the French 28 cowardly appeasers. jy ‘Your nationality is only one of a numberof aspects of your identity that can cause you tobe labeled and discriminated agains, Racial and ethnic iden- is exceeded only by the ev for at the heart of her yearning tiy isa major focal point for prejudiced attudes. Some white or European of fulfilment, American grovpe also experience prejudice: Note the long-standing negative stereotypes used over the past eentury to deserbe Italian Americans and Irish Americans, Other aspects of your identity also leave you vulnerable to prju= ice—for example, our gender, your sewal orientation, and your religion. Your ap- pearance or physical state can arouse prejudice as well obesity, disabilities, and diseases such a5 AIDS, for example, cause people to be treated unfairly by others. (Or consider the old stereotype that blondes are ditzy bibos. Finally, ven your profession or hobbies can lead to your being stereotyped. We all know the “dmb jock” and the "computer nerd” stereonypes. Some people have negative acinudes bout blue-collar workers; others, about bankers and Wall Strect executives. The point is that none of us emerges completely unscathed by prejudice: its a problem ‘common to all humankind, In addition to being widespread, prejudice is dangerous. Simple dislike of a group can be relentless and ean eselate vo extreme hatred, to thinking of its members as less than human, and to torture, murder, and even genocide. But even when murder oF genocide is not the culmination of prejudiced beliefs the targets of prejudice will suffer fn less dramatie ways. One frequent consequence of being the target of relentless pre tudie isa diminution of one self-esteem, As we discussed in Chapter 6, self-esteem i a vil aspect ofa person life. Who we think we are ia key determinant of how we be> have and who we become. A person with low self-esteem wil, by definition, conclude that he or she ie unworthy of a good edstion, a decent ob, an exiting romantic part rer, also on. Thus a person with low self-esteem is more likely to be wnhappy and “unsuccessful than a person with well-grounded high self-esteem, Ina democracy such 4 person is also les likely to take advantage of avatlable opportunites Prejudice and Self-Esteem For the targets of relentless prejudice, the seeds of low self-esteem are wually sown carly in lf, Ina classic experiment social psychologists Kenneth Clark and Mamie (Clark (1947) demonstrated that African American children—some of them only 3 years old—were already convinced that it was not particulary desirable to be black In this experiment, the children were offered a choice between playing with a white oll and playing with a black doll. The great majority of them rejected the black Goll, feeling that dhe white doll was prettier and generally superior. In is argument before the Supreme Courcin 1984, Thurgood Marshall cite this experiment as evidence that psyehologiealy, segregation did irreparable harm to the HF an Aican American git betaves shat ‘white dole are mere deabla then back dol, shoud we be concerned soouther seltarteem?422 CHAPTER 13. Pre le ths roughy the seroosypca Image that comer to mind wen you are asked to imagine ® New York Cry ab aver? self-esteem of African American children. "Taking this evidence into consideration, the Court ruled that separating black cildzen fom white children on the basis of race alone “generates a feling of inferiority asta their status in the community that may affect their hears and minds ina way unlikely ever ta be undone. Sepa rte educational faites are therefore inherently unequal” Gustice Fari Warren, speaking fr the majority in the ease of Brown v Bard ef Hduaton of Tpeka, 1954) [Lowered self-esteem has affected other oppressed groupe as well For example, Philip Goldberg (1968) demonstrated that like African Americans, women inthis calure had learned to consider themselves intellerually inferiarto mes. ls his ex- periment, Goldberg asked female college students to read scholarly articles and to tvaluate them in terms oftheir competence and writing sje, For sume students, specific articles were signed by male authors (e., “Jobs T: MeKay"), while others, che same articles were signed by female authors (eg, “Joan T. McKay") ‘The female stademts rated the articles much higher if they were atesbuted to a sale author than ifthe same articles were aributed toa female author. In other words, these women had! leamed their place; they egarded the ousput of other women as inferior to that of men, jst asthe Afican American youngsters leaned to regard black dolls as inferior to white dolls. This isthe legacy of prejudiced scciery. A Progress Report ‘Clark and Clarks experiment was conducted more than 60 years ago: Goldberg’, ‘over 40. Significant changes have taken place in American society since then. For ‘example, the number of blatant acts of overt prejudice and diserimination has de~ creased sharply, legislation on affirmative action opened the door to greater op- portunities for women and minorities, and the media have ineveased our exposure to woren and minorities doing important work in postions of power and in li tence. As one might expect, these changes are reflected in the gradual inereae in the self-esteem of people in these groups, an increase underscored by the fact that most recent research has failed to replicate the results of those earlier experi ‘ments. Afican American children have gradually become more content with black dolls than they were in the late 1930s (Gopaul-MeNicol, 1987; Por Porter & Washingcon, 1979, 1989), and people no longer discriminate against 3 piece of writing simply because itis atbuted to 4 woman (Swim, 1994; Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989), Similarly, recent research suggests that, there might not be any major differences in global self-esteem becween blacks and whites or between men and women (Aronson, Quing, & Spencer, 1998; Crocker Major, 1989; Steele, 1992, 1977). Although this progress is real, it would be a ‘mistake ro conclude that prejudice has ceased to be 2 serious problem in the Unit= ced States. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, prejudice exists in countess subtle and not-so-subtle ways. For the most part, in America, prejudice has gone under- ‘ground and become less overs (Pettigrew, 1985, 1998; Vala, 2009). During the past half-century, social psychofogists have contributed greatly to our understanding ‘of the psychological processes underlying prejudice and have begun to identity land demonstrate some possible solutions, What is prejudice? How does it come hour? How can it be reduced? Prejudice Defined Prejudice isan atrude, As we discussed in Chapter 7, attinudes are made up of three components: an affective or emotional component, representing both the type of ‘emotion linked with the artinude (e., anger, warmth) and the exremity of the arttude (e.g, mild uneasiness, outright hostility; 2 cognitive component, involving the beliefs or thoughts eogeitions) that make up the attude; and 3 beavioral co ponent, relating to one’ actions—people don simply hold acrudes; they usualy act fon them as welPrajudce refers so the general acicude structure and is affec- tive (emotional) component. Technically, there are postive and negative prejudices. For example, you could be prejudiced against ‘Tesans ot prejudiced in favor of Texans, In one case, your emo- tional reaction is negative; when a person is introduced to you as “This is Bob from Texas," you will expect him to atin particular ways that you associate with “those cbmoxious Texans.” Converse- Jy, if your emotional reaction is positive, you will be delighted to rect another one of "those wonderful, uninbibied Texans,” and you'll expect Bob to demonstrate many positive qualities, such ‘warmth and friendliness. While prejudice ean involve ether pos tive or negative alec, social psychologists (and people in general) tse the word prsiudce primarily when referring to negative atti= CHAPTER 13 Pwjatin 423 tues about others. In this contest, prejudice fs hostile or nega: S| tive attitude toward people in a dstngushable group, based sold eyoggthe Generations, | on their membership in that group. For extmpe, when we ay chat “(915 Haunts Armenians | someone is prejudiced against blacks, we mean that he or she is == = primed to behave coolly or with hostility toward blacks and chat hhe or she feels that al blacks ae pretey much the same, Thus the characteristics this individual asigns to blacks are negative and pplied to che group asa whole, The individual traits or behaviors of the individual target of prejudice will either go unnoticed or be dismissed. Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component Asheasinesshow many soups evens fpr. Close your eyes for a moment and imagine the looks and charac ‘crisis of the following people: a highschool cheerleader, a New York ab driver, a Jewish doctor, a black musician. Our guess is that this ask was nor difficult, We all walk around with images of various "types" of people in our heads, The distin- squished journalist Walter Lippmann (1922), who was the frst to introduce the term “tereeype, deseribed the distinction between the world out there and stereotypes — “the ttle pictures we cary around inside our heads.” Within a given culture, these pictures tend to be remarkably similar. For evap, we would he surprised if your Image of the high school cheerleader was anything but bouncy, peppy, prety, Bon- intellectual, and (of course!) female. We would also be surprised if the Jewish doctor for the New York cab driver in your head was female—or ifthe black musician was playing elatical musi. Te goes without saying that there are male cheerleaders, women doctors wha sre Jewish, and black classical musicians. Deep dawn, we know that New York eab dr vers come in every size, shape, race, and gender. But we tend to categorize accord ing to what we regard se normative. And within a given culture, what people regerd as normative is very similar, part because these images are perpetsated and broad= ‘ast widely by che media of chat culture. Stereotyping, however, goes a step beyond sSmple categorization, A stereotype is « generalization abovt « group of people ia ‘which identical characteristics are assigned ta virtually all members ofthe group, = gardless of acral variation among the members. When formed, stereotypes are re sistant to change on the bass of new information, But he aware that tereoryping i cognitive process, ot an emotional one, tere typing docs nor necesanly Iead to intentional acts of abuse. Often stereotyping i merely technique we use to simplify how we look atthe word—and we all do eto some extent. For example, Gordan Allport (1954) deseribed stereotyping a “the law of least effore” According to Allport, the world is just too compliated for us to have 3 highly differentiated atitade about everyhing. Instead, we maximize our cognitive time and energy by developing elegant, accurate atiudes about some topics while r= Jying on simple, sketchy belies for others, (Recall the many facets of socal cognition ‘hat we disused in Chapter 3) Given our limited eapacity fr processing information, Prejudice ‘Aosile or negative ate towards desnquihabie ja, based slay ont membership in tat group Stereotype ‘A generalization sbout «group of people in hich certain ls ae signed to vital all members the group, garden of actus! “aston among the membare424 CHAPTER 13. Priaie iis reasonable for human beings to behave like “cognitive mises”—to take shortcuts and adopt certain rues of thumb in our attempt to understand other people (Fiske, 1989b; Fiske & Depret, 1996; Jones, 1990; Taylor, 1981. To the extent tha the result- ing stercorype is based om experience and is tall accurate, ican he an adaptive short- hand way of dealing with complex events. However, if the stereotype blinds us to individual differences wide 4 class of people, tis maladaptive, unfair, and potentially abusive. See the Try It exercise) BAe ‘ated, and what, specfcaly i this person doing to exprese lawyer would have influenced the way you construed the aggression? Write all dow, being specie about the per- term aggression: Most ofthe study subjects imagined the sors actions, construction worker using physical aggression tnd the "Now imagine 2 very aggresive lanyer How isthe per- lawyer using verbal aggression (Kanda, Sina, & Grifin, son dressed, where iths person located, and what, spec 1997), ely is is person doing to express aggression? Wit tall dow, being specie about the persons action, ooee Sports, Race, and Attribution The potential abuse of stereotyping’s mental short ‘ats can be blatant and abvious—as when one ethnie group is considered lazy or an- ‘other ethnic group is considered greedy: But the potential abuse can be more subtle and it might even involvea stereotype about a postive attribute. For example, in 1992, Twentieth Century Fox produced an amusing film about rwo-on-two street Dasketball called I7bite Men Can't Jump. The implication is that Afican American sme are better at basketball than white men, Well i tars oat chat over 75 percent of the players inthe National Basketball Association have been Afscan American (Glad= ‘wel, 1997; Hoose, 1989) This Sgure is far greater than one would expect from com parative population statics (approximately 13 percent of the U.S. population i African American) ‘So what here i abusive tothe minority? What wrong with the implication that back men ean jump? ‘The abuse enters when we ignore the overlap inthe distribu ‘ions thats, when we ignore the fact that a great many Aftican American kids are ‘not adept at basketball and a great many white kids are, Thus if we meet a young. African American man and are astonished a is ineptitude om the basketball court, we ae, ina very real sense, denying him his individuality. And there is ample evidence ‘that this kind of potentially abusive stereotyping occurs (Brinson & Robinson, 1991, Ina clever experiment, college students listened to a 20-minute audiotape recording ‘of a college basketball game, They were asked to focus on one of the players, Marke Flick, and were allowed to look ata folder containing information about him, inclad= ing a photograph—allegedly of Flick. Half of the participants sw a photo of an Afsican American mae; the others saw a photo of a white male. After stning to the tgame, the students rated Flicks performance. Their ratings releced the prevailing Stereotypes: Students who believed Flick was Afican American rated him as having sore athletic ability and as having played a beter game than those who thought he was white, Those who thought he was white rated hitn as having greater hustle and areater basketball sense (Stone, Perry, & Darley, 1997)Stereotypes, Attribution, and Gender A particularly interesting manifestation ‘of stereotyping takes place in the perception of gender differences, Almost universil- ly, women are thought to be more nurtarant and less assertive Uhan men (Deaux & Lewis, 1984). vis possible that this perception may be entirely roe-related—that is, ‘women have traditionally been assigned the role of homemaker and thus may be sees 8 more nurturant (ee Deaux & La France, 1998). At che other end of the con lum, evolutionary social psychologists (Buss, 1995, 1996b; Buss & Kenrick, 1998) soggest tht female behatior and male bekavier differ in precisely those domains is Which the sexes have faced diferent adaptive problems. From a Darwinian perspec- tive, chere are powerful biological reasons why women might have evolved as more rparturant than men. Specifically, among our ancient ancestors, for anatomical rea sons, women were always the extly caregivers of infants; women who were not Murti rant did not have many babies who survived; therefore, their nonnurturing genes ‘were les likely to be passed on ‘Although there is no clear way of determining whether or not caregiving is more likely to be partof a woman's genetic nature than a man's, itdoes turn out chat the cle tural stereotype isnot far from realty. Research has showin that compared to men, ‘women do tend to manifest behaviors that ean best be described as more socially sen- tive friendlier, and more concemed with the welfare of others, ‘while men tend to behave in ways that are more dominant, com” trolling, and independent (Eagly, 1994; Eagly & Wood, 1991; ‘Swim, 1994). Indeed, sf anything, some of the data indicate that the stereotype tends to underestimate the actual gender differ- ences (Swim, 1994). Again, as with our basketball example, con- siderable overlap exists between men and women on these characteristics. Nonetheless, as Eagly (1995, 1996) has argued, the differences are too consistent to be dismissed as unimportant. ‘Neeless to say, the phenomenon of gender stereotyping often doesnot reflect realty and ean eut deeply. In one experiment, for ‘example, when confonted with a highly successful female physic cian, male undergraduate perceived eras being less competent ad having had an easier pats toward success than a succesful tale physician (Feléman-Summers & Kiesler, 1974). Female under sradaces saw things diferent: Although they saw the male physi- tan and the female physician as being equally competent, they sa” ‘he male as having bad an easier time of. Both males and females attsbuted higher motivation to the female physician, Te should be ‘noted that atributing a high degree of motivation to a woman can bbe one way of implying chat she has lee sal than her male coun- terpart (ie, "She not very smart, but she tries hard” "This possibility comes into clear focus when we examine a similar study (Deaur & Emsweiler, 1974). Male and female CHAPTER 13 Prin as426 CHAPTER 13. Pajusin Discrimination Unused negative or harméal scvon towaroa member of ‘roup imply Bocnure of m= orher ‘membership in that group students were shown a highly successful performance om a complex task by a fel- low student and were asked how itcame about, When s man succeeded, both male and female students attsibuted his achievement almost entirely to his ability: when {twas a woman who succeeded, tudents of btb genders thought the achievement was largely a matter of luck, Apparently ifthe sexual stereotype is strong enough, feven members of the stereotyped group tend to buy it in, this research was done three decades ago. American society has under- gone a great many changes since then, Have these changes affected the stereotypes Iheld af women? Not so you'd notice In a careful analysis of some $8 more recent ex- periments Janet Swim and Lawrence Sanna (1996) found thatthe results were re ‘markably consistent with the earlier research. Specifically, they fownd that i m was successful on a given task, observers of both sexes attributed his success to ab iy iF a woman was successful at that seme task, observers attributed her saccess to hhard work. I'a man filed on a given task, abservers atibuted his failure either to bad ck or to lower effort if a woman failed, observers fle the task was simply too hhard for her ability level, Even as children, giels have a tendency to downplay thee own ailty. In one ex- periment, while fourth-grade boys arributed their own successful outcomes on a ificuleintellectval tsk to their ability, girls tended to derogate their own success ful performance. Moreover, this experiment also showed that while boys had learned to protect their egos by ateibucing their own failures to bad luc, girs took more of th blame for fulures on themselves (Nichols, 1975) In a subsequent sty, the tendency girls have to downplay their own ability appeared most prevalent twadicionaly male domains like mati Stipek & Gralinski, 1991). Specifelly, junior Ibigh schoolgirls atteibuted their success on « math exam to hick, while boys ateib- ‘uted their success to ability: Gils also showed less feelings of pride than boys fol~ lowing success on a math exam. “These self-defeating beliefs do not develop in a vaewum. They can be influenced by the atinades of our society in general and, most powerfully bythe most important people in the young girl's life—her parents. In this regard, Jans Jacobs an Jacque- lynne Becles (1992) explored the influence of mothers gender stereotypical beliefs on the way these same mothers perceived the abilities of their I1- and 12-year-old sons snd daughters. The researchers then tested to see what impact this might have on the children’s perceptions of their owa abilities. As you might predict, mothers who held the srongest gender-stereotypical beliefs also believed tha their avm daughters had relatively low math ability and tht their sons had relatively high math abiby, Moth= cers who did not hold stereotypical beliefs did not see their daughters as less able in ‘math than their sons, How did the mothers’ belies afect the belies oftheir children? "The daughters of women with strong gender stereotypes believed that they had poor sath abiliys the opposite was true as well: Mothers who did aot hold strong gender stereotypes had daughters without this sel defeating mind-set. ‘This isan interesting variation on the self fuling prophecy discussed in Chapters 3 and 4: Here, if your mother doesn’ expect you to do wel, chances are you will not do as well a you ‘otherwise might. Discrimination: The Behavioral Component ‘This brings ws tothe final component of prjudice—the action component, Stereo typical belief often result unfair treatment. We eal this dlerimination: a8 unjust fied negative or hamnful action toward the members ofa group simply beeause oftheir, membership in that group, II you are a fourth-grade math teacher and you have the stereotypical belief that lite girls are hopeless at math, you might be less bkely to spend as much time in the classroom coaching a girl than coaching 2 boy. Ifyou area police offi= cer and you have the stereotypical belief that Afican Americans are more violent than whites, this might affect your behavior toward a specfie black man you are ying to arrest.CHAPTER 13 Pwijadn 427 In one study, researchers compared the treat- ® ment of patients ina paychiatri hospital rum by at all-white professional staf (Bond, DiCandia, & McKinnon, 1988). The results of she study are i+ patents 8 Istrated in Figure 13.1, The researchers exam ined the wo most common methods used by staff members to handle patients’ violent behavior: se- cluding the individual in a timeout room and re- ‘staining the individaal in a straijacket and sudministering trangulizing drupe. An examina- Percentage of offenses where ‘a used physical or chemical "estaintson ment tion of hospital reeords over 85 days revesied that the harsher method—physical and chemical re- sruint—was used with black patients nearly four tas L Wine times as often a8 with white patients. This was the te Tenet ‘ase despite the virtual lack of differences in the Duration of contact with staf rpumber of violent incidents committed by the black and the white patients. Moreover, this discriminatory treatment occurred ev ‘though the black patients, on being admired to the hospital, had been diagnosed as slightly less violent than the white patients. his study did uncover an important positive finding: After several weeks, eal- fay managed to overcome the effects ofthe existing stereotype. The staff eventual- Jy notieed thatthe black and the white patients did not differ in their degree of violent behavior and they began to treat black and white patients equaly. Although this ie encouraging, the overall meaning of the study is both clear and disconcere- ing: The existing stereotype resulted in undeserved, harsher intial treatment of black patients by tained professionals. At che same time, the fact uh reality over came the stereotype is a tribute to che professionalism ofthe staff beeause, as we shal see, in most cases deeply rooted prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination are spot easy wo change Use of atrame massures against bck mental pint During the fst 30 days of confine rman, thre appeared to be a Sumption ar biads woue be more valent than whites. (apne oe ards MK Discrimination against Homosexuals In the summer of 2003, he Supreme Cour struck down stat laws against sodomy, echoing the softening Prejudices are the props atiudes towards homosexuality in American society. Nevertheless, several ‘sudies during the pas tv deeades have shown that homosexuals face a good eal of discrimination and antipathy in their day-to-day lives Fernald, 1995; of civilization. Andee Gide, 1989 ‘Franklin, 2000; Herek, 1991), ———— ‘Unlike women, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities, homosex- uals are not protected by nacional laws banning discrimination in the workplace, and ‘only {1 states have such laws, So would seem that homosexuals would be vulnerable to job discrimination, Ifyou were applying for a job, how would you be treated by {your potendal eraployersf they had prior information that you were a homosexual? ‘Would they refuse to hire you? Would they teat you with ess warmth than they treat heteroneaual? ‘Ina field experiment, Michelle Hebl and her colleagues (Heb, Foster, Manni, & Dovidio, 2002) tried to find out. Sixteen college students (eight males and eight fe- male), who were aetwaly confederates ofthe experimenters, applied for jobs at local stores, In some oftheir interviews, they were portayed as being homosexual; in oth- ‘ers, they were not. To standardize the interactions, the applicants were ll dressed sm iasy ie jeans and pullover jackets "The researchers looked a two kinds of discrimination: formal discrimination and interpersonal discrimination, To gauge formal discrimination, they sought to deter- imine if there were differences in what the employer sai about the availability f jobs, ferences in whether the employer allowed them to fill outa job application, differ- ‘ences in whether or not they receved a eallback, and differences in the employers re> sponse toa request to use the bathroom, There was no evidence of discrimination Agtinstthote portrayed as homosexuals, The employers could not be accused of teat- ing “homosensal” applicants unjusty.428 CHAPTER 13. Pre ‘On the other hand, there were strong indications of interpersonal discrimination ‘against those porayed as homosexoals. Compared to the way they interacted with “aonhomosexuals,” employes were less verbally positive, spent les time interviewi them, used fewer words while chating with them, and made less eye contact with them, nother words, iewas clear from their behavior thatthe potential employers were ether ‘uncomfortable ot more distant with people they believed ta be homosexual What Causes Prejudice? [No one knows for sure whether or not prejudice is part of our biological makeup. Prejudice might be buit-in—pare of our biological survival mechanism inducing us favor our own family, tbe, or race and to express hostility oward outsiders. Con- versely it sal conceivable that homans are naturally inclined to be friendly open, and cooperative. IFths were the case, prejudice would not come naturally. Rather, the culture (parents, community the media) might intentionally or unintentionally in- ‘Struct us to assign negative qualities to people who are different from us. ‘While social psychologists do not agree on whether or not humans are naturally prejudiced, most would agree that the spaif of prejudice most be learned, Even when young children pick vp their parents’ prejudices, they do not necessarily retain those prejudices in adulthood, Indeed, when researchers examined the similarity of atnudes fnd values of parents and their adult children, they discovered an interesting pattern (Rohan 8 Zanna, 1996) They fond that when parents held egalitarian attitudes and values, their adule children did as well. Buc when parents held prejudice-related at tudes and values, their adult children were lee likely to hold the same views. Why ‘would this be true? It likely thatthe diserepaney occurs because the culture a8 3 ‘whole i more egalitarian than che bigoted parents, So when children of bigoted par- cents leave home (eg. 0 go off to college), they are more likely to be exposed to com- peting views, [A the same time, it is reasonably clear that children ean be taught prejudice. Jane Elli (1977), 2 third-grade teacher in Riceville, Towa, was concerned that her young students lives were too sheltered. The children all lived in rural lowa, they were all ‘white, and they were all Christan. Plot flt it was importanc for their development tw give them some direc experience about what stereotyping and discrimination felt like from both sides. To achieve this end, she divided her class by eye color. She wold her students that blue-eyed people were superior to brown-eyed people smarter, nicer, more eustworthy, and so on. The brown-eyed youngsters were required 0 ‘wear special cloth collars around their necks so that they would he instantly recog- ‘iuable as a member ofthe inferior group. She gave special privileges to the blue-eyed youngsters: They got to play Tonger a recess, could have second helpings atthe cafeteria, ‘were praised in the classroom, and so on, ow did the ei dren respond? In just hours, Elie created a microcosm ofa prejudiced society in her classroom. The ehildren had been a coopera- tive, cohesive group, but once the seeds of divisiveness were planted, there was trouble. The “superior” blue-eyed kids ‘made fun ofthe brown-eyed kids, refused to play with them, rattled on them to the teacher, thought up new restrictions and punishments for them, and even started a stfight in the schoolyard. The “inferior” brown-eyed kids became self- conscious, depressed, and demoralized. They performed poorly on classroom tests that day. "The nextday, Elliot switched the stereotypes about eye color She said she'd made a dreadful mistake that brow ted people were really che superior ones, She cold the Ciaran ote ear proj ‘rom parents and grandparenss. brownveyed kids to put ther collars on the bive-eyed KidsCHAPTER 13 Prjusice 429 "They gleefully did so, ‘The tables had turned—and the brown-eyed kids exacted their revenge. ® the moring ofthe thied day, Eliot explained to her students that they had been learning about prejudice and disrimination and how i feels co be a person of color in this society: The children diseusued the two-day experience and clearly understood its message. Ina fallow-up, Eliot met with these students aca class reunion, when they were in their mid-owentes. Their memories of |The world is fll of pots jeering the exercise were staring clear~they reported that the experience had had 35 oso 2 powerful and lasting impact on their hives. ‘They felt that they were less prejudiced and more aware of discrimination against others because of this — Fron childhood experience —_— The Way We Think: Social Cognition (Our frst explanation for what causes prejudice is that itis the inevitable by product of the way we process and organize information-—in other words, itis the dark side of Jhuman social cognition (see Chapter 3). Our tendency to categorize and group infor~ ration, to form schemas and use them to interpret new or unusval information, to rely on potentially inaccurate heuristics Ghorteuts in mental reasoning), and to de- pend on what are often faulty memory processes—all ofthese aspects of social cogai tion can lead us to form negative stereotypes and to apply them ina discriminatory vray, Let examine this darkside of socal cognition more closely. Social Categorization: Us versus Them The firs step in prejudice isthe creation fof groupe putting some people into one group based on certin characteristics ard others into another group based on ther different characteristics, This kind of eate> gorization isthe underying theme of human social cognition (Brewer & Brows, 1998 Roseh & Lloyd, 1978; Taylor, 1981; Wilder, 1986). For example, we make sense oxt of the physical world by grouping animals and plants into taxonomies based on their physical characteristics: similarly, we make sease out of our socal world by grouping people according to other characteristic, incing gener, nationality, ethnicity, and to on. When we encounter people with these characterises, we rely on our pereep= tions of what people with similar characterises have been like inthe past to help us Aetermine how to react to someone else withthe same characteristics (Andersen & Klateky, 1987). Thus socal exegorizatin is both usefil and necessary, however, this simple cognitive process bas profound implications For example, in Jane Elliot's third-grade classroom, children grouped according to eye color began to act differently hased on that socal categorization. Blue-eyed chil- Gren, the superior group, stuck together and actively promoted and used thei 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-cyed Kids ‘were the out-group the group with which the indvidaal doesnot identity. In-Group Bias Kurt Vonnegut captures the in-group versus out-group concept beauiflly in his novel Gar Cradle (1963). A woman discovers that a person she has jst mer, casually, on a plane is fom Indiana. Even though they have almost nothing. tse in common, a bond immediately forms between ther My God she sid “are you Hoosier? 1 ada Iwas "im a Hoosier 10, she erowed, "Nobody has tobe ashamed of being a Hoosier” “im nos" [si “never knew anybody who wa” (pp. 42-48) What is the mechanism that produces this in-group bias—positive feelings and special treatment for people we have defined as being part of our in-group and nega tive feelings and unfuir treatment for others simply because we have defied them 35430 CHAPTER 13. Pre bing in the out-group? The British socal psychologist Hens “Tafel (19824) discovered that the major underlying mocive i selfeesteem: Individuals seek to enhance their sel-esteet by’ identifying with specie social groups. Ye sel-estoem will be ‘enhanced only ifthe individual sees these groups ss superior tother groups, Thus, for members of the Ku klix Klan, ii ‘not enough to believe thatthe races should be kept separate: they must convince themselves ofthe supremacy of the white ‘ace in order to feel good about themselves. "To get at the pure, unvarnished mechanisms behind this phenomenon, Tafel and his colleges have erated entities that they ref to 28 minimal groups (el, 19823; Tafel & Bil lig, 1974; Tafel & Turmer, 1979) In these experiments, com plete strangers are formed into groups using the most evil Criteria imaginable. For example, in one experiment, parti ‘pants watched coin tos that randomly assigned them to ther group X or group W. In another experiment, participants were fist asked 10 express their opinions about artists they had never heard of and were then random assigned to group that appreciated either the “Klee style” or the “Kandinsky style,” ‘ostensibly due to their picture preferences, The striking thing about this research is that despite the fact that the participants were strangers before che experiment and dda’ interact with one another during it, they behaved as if those who shared the ‘some meaningles label were their dear friends or lone kin. They liked the members of their own group beter they rated the members of ther in-geoup as more likly to hnave pleasant personalities and to have done better work than out-group members, “Most striking, the participants allacated more money and other rewards to those who shared their label and did so in a rather hostile, cutthroat manner—for example, when given a clea choice, they preferred ro give themselves only two dollar, fit meanegiv- ing the out-group penon one dolar, over giving themselves three dellars, if that meant the out-group member received four dollars Brewer, 1979: Hoge & Abrams, 1988; Mullen, Brows, & Smith, 1992; Wider, 1981) short, even when the reasons for diflerentation are minimal, being in the group makes you want to win agtinst members ofthe out-group and leads you to teat the later unfairly Because such tactics build your self-esteem. And when your group does win, it strengthens your feelings of pride and identification with that group. How dd you feel about being a student of your university following a winning or losing football season? You probably think it doesn't mater much—and it probably does’, inthe long run. But Robert Cialdin and his colleagues (1976; Cialdini, 1998) disco. ced something very interesting. They simply counted the numberof college insignia “Tshirts and sweatshirts worn to asses on the Monday following a foutbll game at seven different universities, The results? You guessed it Students were more liely to ‘wear their university's insignis after victory than afer defeat Wiring our schol color is 2 way of demanstating that we txeamember of the ingroup. ‘OutGroup Homogensity Bess the in-group ban anthereonsoqunce of Sal categorisation the perception of ut grup homegenly,tetethatchey= Seal ake (Lille, Father & Salone, 1999; Guatoone, 1986) Ingroup members {end to perceive toa inthe outgroup 2 more smilar to cach cher Ghomogenas) than the ely ae sel as mece homogeneous than the in-grop memes ae Does your colege ave tdcooal iva whether a ales or scam? If e8 tani group menber you probably veut your stint more highly ha ise (Ghercby rang and protecting your self-cstem),and you probably perceive tents fr hs cho eobe more snare cach he (ga ven pe) tha Jon civ stdens your own clloge tobe Beoagroupae more seve Steer a sady of stents in two rial universes: Princeton and Rutgers Stench Comoaeneous har uantone & Jones, 1980). The rivalry between these colleges in based on athletes, ee ere este Seademics and crn das Conscousnes(bincewn spa and Reger publ. Soeur Male rocarch poricpans atthe to schools watched idetped eees in wich (Out-Group Homogenelty ‘The perception tha individuals in ‘he outgroup ate more smiar toCHAPTER 13 Prejudice 431 three different young men were asked to make a 1% Aecision—for example, in one videotape, an exper- i Jmenter asked a man whether he wanted to Bsten to rock music or clasical music while he partic- ed in an experiment on auditory perception. 6 The participants were cold thar the sian was either 4 Princeton or a Rutgers student, so for some of them the student in the videotape was an in-group member and for others an out-group member, ss Participants had to predict what the man in the videotape wosld choose. After they saw the man sake his choice (eg, rock or classical musi) they were asked to predict what percentage of male stu- s L i 3 s i I make similar choice a a ents at that institution would make the same seen choice, Did the predictions vary due to the in- or ‘outgroup status ofthe target men? As you can see in Figure 13.2, che results support the out-group homogeneity hypothesis: When the target person was an oxt-group rember, the participants believed his choice was more predictive of what his peers ‘would chooge than when he was an in-group member (a student t their own schoo. In other words if you know something aboot one out-group member, you are more likely to fel you know something about all of them, Similar results have been found in a wide variety of experiments inthe United States, Europe, and Australia (Duck, Hogg, & ‘Terry, 1995; Harstone & Augoustnos, 1995; Judd & Park, 1988; Ostrom & Sedikides, 1992; Park & Rothbart, 1982, ‘The Failure of Logie If you've ever argued with people holding deep-seated pre dices, you know how hard it isto get them to change their minds. Fven people who sre wstally sensible and reasonable about most topics become relatively immune 0 r- ‘ional, logical arguments when it comes ta the topic oftheir prejudice. Why is this so "There are ovo reasons, involving the affecave and cognitive aspects of an atiude. First, tis primarily the emotional arpect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person solhard co argue with logial arguments are not effetve in countering emotions. The ificuly of using reson vo change prejudiced atunudes i beautifully ilestrated by Gordan Allport in his landmark book The Nature of Prejadize (1958) Allport reports 3 dialogue between Mr. X and Me. ¥ ‘Mr. X: The trouble withthe Jews is that they only tke care of tir own group, ‘Mr. ¥ But the record of the Community Chest campaign shows that they gave ‘more generously, in proportion to thes numbers, to the general charities of the community than did non-Jews. Teen ea Figure 13.2 dudgments shast tegrog aed ‘outgroup member ‘Aer watching the target person trae «chats beter bo a ates particparts wore asked to ‘timate mhst porentage oF st dence at thew schoo tngroup) and ‘heir rvs schoo (out-group) would mate the same chowe, A {sup homogenaty bias was ound Stoders” seimatas fr out groun members were higher greats Tory than for r-group members ‘Ratton Outer ones 0) [Mr X: That shows they ate always tying to buy favor and intrude into Chrisian ats. They think of nothing bt moneys that swhy there are sa Qué minds thus grow in spots; anc any Jewish bankers like grease spots, the spots spread. Mr ¥: Buta recent study shows that he percentage of Jews inthe banking But we let them spread as litle as business acgigil, fr sale than te percentage of non-Jews. possible; we keep unaltered ae ‘Mr. X: Thats just they don't go in for respectable business: hey are only much inthe movie business or ran night clubs. (pp. 13-14) many beliefs, as w Because Me, X is emotionally caught up in his beliefs about Jews, his re- sponses are not logical In effect, che prejudiced Mr X is saying, “Don't trou: of our old knowledge, as of our old prejudices and ble me with fits; my mind is made wp.” Rather than refusing the powerful Gata presented by Mr, he dstors the fats so that they support his hatred of Jews, or he simply ignores them and inivatesa new line of attack. ‘The prejudiced aui- ‘ade remains intact, despite the fact thatthe specific arguments Mr. X began with are snow Iying in tatters at his feet.432 CHAPTER 13. Pre Second, as we discussed in earlier chapters, an attiude tends to onganize the way we process elevantinformation about he targets ofthat tude, Ths presents ficulties for the person trying to rekice a fiends prejudice. None af us is a 100 percent reliable ae= ‘ountant when i comes to procesing socal information we care about. The human mind simply doesnot tally events objectively. Accordingly, individuals who hold speci op jens (or sdhemas) abou erain groupe will proces information about those groups dif ently fom the way they process information about other groups. Specialy informacion consistent with ther notions about these target groups wil be given more attention, will he rehearsed (or reeled) more ofien, ad will cherefore be remembered beter than nt ation thar contradicts chese notions @Bodenbausen, 1988; Dovidio, Fvan, & “Tyler, 1986; O'Sullivan & Darso, 1984; Wyer, 1988) These are the familiar tof ehematicproesing that we discased in Chapter 4. Applying these effets of the eye; the more ligh to the topic of prejudice, we can sce chat whenever amember ofa group behaves upon it, the more itv ase expect, the behavior confirms and even srengthens ovr stereotype, Ths serves ces soy NEMPES Bee ltively nipevous to change afer proof hat hey ate accurate is always out there—when our bees guide usw set. The Persistence of Stereotypes Stereotypes reflect culteral beliefs within a given society, they are easly recognized descriptions of members of a particular sroup. For example, we all know the stereotype of the woman driver or the overemo~ ‘onal Female. Fven ifwe don't believe these stereotypes, we ca easly recognize then 4s common beliefs held by others. For example, in a series of studies conducted at 1ceton University over a span of 36 years (1933-1969), students were asked to a Sign tats to members of various ethnic and national groups (Gilbert, 19515 Karlins, Coffman, 8 Walters, 1969; Kavz & Braly, 1933). The participants could do so easy and toa lange extent they agreed with each other. They knew the stereotypes even for troups about whom they had litle real knowledge, such as Turks. Table 13.1 shows ‘TABLE 13.1 Some Common Stereotypes Held by Princeton Students over the Years Note the general stably a wal as changes in these stereotypes Group 1933) 1951 8 ‘Ameticans industrious matealave rmateiiste itoligent inoligent ambtiow mavenalste indstroue Pisssure-loving ambitous pesaue-lovng inauseious progressive Inavavatete conventional epanese iteligent iotatve Indusvious ndustrous sy ambiiows progressive exvemely erent shrewd ‘ations incaligent oy reaches progressive Sowa sheen deewd serous ‘mercenary ineligont rrateraiste ito ‘rset incaligent Steligent ambitious siren Negron (icon Americans) sipersitout supersitious musical ‘ay sca happy-go-lucky hapey-goluchy lazy lnsy ‘gnovans ignorant Pisssure-loxing musi Psssue-lovng ostntations ‘Adapted rom ibe (1951 Kins, Colman Wer (196M: Kat Bray 1958CHAPTER 13 some of the results of these studies. Note how negative the carly stereotypes were in 1933 and how they became somewhat less negative over time. What is particularly interesting about these studies i that participants in 1981 began to voice ciscom- fore with the task (iscomfore that dat exist in 1933), By 1969, many participants not only fet discomfort but also seemed reluctant to admit that these stereotypes even existed because they did not believe the stereotypes themselves (Kar- ling et al, 1969). A quarter of 2 century later, Patricia Devine and Andrew Flio (1995) showed thatthe stereotypes were not really fading a al; virally all che parcipants were fully aware ofthe negative stereotypes of African Americans, whether they believed them personally or not, ‘The Activation of Stereotypes, This brings vs to an ine triguing socal cognition puzzle: Ifyou know a stereotype, will iafece your cognitive processing about a target person, even if you neither beliewe the stereotype nor consider yourself preja> diced againse cis group? Imagine this scenario: You area mem ber of a group, judging another person's performance Someone in your group makes an ugly, stereatypial comment about the individual. Will the comment affect your judgment of his or her perfor= tance? “No,” yas are probably thinking. “'d disregard it completely” But would yor. be able to do so? Is i possible thatthe comment would trigger in your tin all the ‘other negative stercotypes and beliefs about people in that group and affect your judg sent about this particular person? [Attempting to find out, researchers had two confederates, one Affican American and one white stage a debate about nuclear energy for groups of participants (Greenberg ‘& Pyszczynski, 1985). For half he groups, the African American debater presented far better arguments and clearly won the debate; forthe other half the white debater per~ formed far borer and won the debate, ‘The pariipants were asked to rate both de- Dates’ sill; however, just before subjects were to do this the critical experimental ‘anipalaion oceurted. A confederate planted inthe group did one of thee things: (1) Te made highly racist remark about the Afscan American debater —"Theres no vay that nigger won the debate"; @) he made a nonracst remark about the African American debater—"There’ no way the pro (er con) debater won the debate"; or (3) he made no comment a al "The researchers reasoned that if those participants who heard che racist comment ‘were able to disregard it completely, they ‘would not rate the African American debater any differently from the way participants in the other conditions, who bad not heard such 4 comment, rated him, Was that the case? Figure 15.3 clearly shows that thea swer is no, The data compared the ratings of sill given to the Afriean American and 1 white debaters when they were each in the Necamnent — Anonnit losing role. As you can see, the pareipanes ‘smote amet rated the African American and white de- (ere group) mae bbaters equally slful when no comment FIGURE 13.3 was made; similarly, when a nonracist, non- Activation of stereotypes bl, stereotypical comment was made about the African American debate, he was rated as boeing just as skilfel as the white debater. — portamanca, Afier the racist comment evoked racial Smnlum meio &Fyco15) Ratings of debaters ski Pree 433 ‘when derogatory comment was made about the black debates activated he latent stereotype hel bythe coseres, causing them to lower tha rating of NS434 CHAPTER 13. Pre ‘The unleashing of prajucice against Aeon Americans. stereotypes, however, participants rated the African American debater significantly Jiser than participants in he other groups di, Why? The derogatory comment act vated other negative stereotypes about Aftican Americans so that those wha heard it tated the same performance by the debater as less skilled than those who had not heard the racist remark, This phenomenon has been referred to as implicit prey dice —where negative stereotyping operates below the pervon's level of conscious awareness (Greenwald, Nosck, & Bana, 2003), Ina similar seudy, all it took was one negative ation by one African American ( tually 2 confederate ofthe experimenters) to activate the negative stereotypes against blacks and to discourage the participants from wanting to interact with a different African American (Henderson-King & Nisbet, 1996). These findings suggest that in most af us, stereotypes lurk just beneath the surface. Ie doesn't take mvc to activate the stereotype, and once sctivsted, it can have dire consequences for how a particular ‘member of that out-group is perceived and treated "This process i demonstrated powerfully by an esperiment by Ragers and Prentice- ‘Dunn (1981): White students were told they would be infitingelecec shock on an~ ‘other student the *leamer” whom they were told was either whiter African American, ‘sparc ofan apparent study of biofeedback. The student initally gave a lower intensity ‘ofshock to black leerers than to white ones—reflecing 3 desire, perhaps to show they ‘were not prejudiced. The stent then overheard the learner making derogatory conn ‘meats about them, which, naturally, made them angry. Now, given another opportunity tw inflict electric shock, the students who were working with a black leamer adminis- tered higher levels of shock than did students who worked with a white one (se Figure 18.8)Thesame result appears in studies of ow English-speaking Canadians behave to- wan! French-speaking Canadians, smights toward hemesemsals, non-Jevish students twwand Jews, and men toward women. Participants sucessfully suppress their negative feelings under norinal conditions, but as soon 25 they become angry or frustrated, oF their selfestoom wobbles, they express their implicit predice direclly because now they an ju it Pe mo Ba prejudiced pero, but bey! Heinle me! ‘Automatic and Controlled Processing of Stereotypes Tow does this activation process work? Patricia Devine and er colleagues argue that members of society share an archive of accesible stereorypes, ven if hey do not believe them. Devine differen- tates between the automatie processing of information and the contrlled processing ‘of information (Devine, 19804; Devine, Plat, Amodio, Harmon-Janes, & Vance, 2002; Zawerink, Montieth, Devine, & Cook, 1996). An automatic process i one over ‘which we have no control For example, even if yow scare very low on 2 prejudice sale, you are familiar with certain stereotypes that exist in the culture, such as “Affican Americans are hostile," “Jews are materialist," or “homosemual men are ef- ferninate.” These stereotypes are automatieally triggered under ertan conditions they just pop into one’s mind. Because the process i automatic, you cant contra tar stop it from occuring. You know the stereotypes, and they simply come to mind—say, st 160 & A Dh us agp fie be 33g ° if nr 8 Lo . =when you are meeting someone ar rating a person’ performance. For people who are not deeply prejudiced, however, ther contol processes can suppress of override these stereotypes. For emmple, such a person ean think, "Hey, that stereotype is fae and itisn' righe—African Americane sre no more hostile than white. Ignore the stereo type abot this person's ethnicity” ‘What Devine’ theory suggests therefore, sa two-step model of cognitive process ing: The automatic processing brings up information—in this case, stereorypes—ut the controled (or conscious) processing en refute or ignore it But what happens ifyou are busy, overwhelmed, distracted, or not paying much atention? You may not initiate that controlled level of processing, meaning that the infortation supplied by dhe auto- ratie process—the stereotype—is sll in your mind and unrefuted. Devine (1989) set, ‘out to study exaely this process A stereotype is automatically activated when 2 member fof an outgroup is encountered, and the stereotype can be ignored through conscious processing for example, by people who are not prejdiced (Gee Figure 13.5) First, Devine administered a est of prejadice to a large number of students and, ac- cording to their sores, divided them into highprejudice and low-prejudce groups. Neat she demonstrated that regardles of prejudice, both gravps possessed equal Inowledge of racial stereotypes. Next came the test of automatic and conscious pro- cessing: She fashed stereotyped words (eg. flick, foil lazy, welfire) and neveral words (eg, bowever what, said) on asereen so quickly thatthe words were just below the participants’ perceptual (conscious) awareness. ‘They saw something, but they sweren't sure what™thatis, thei conscious processing couldn't identify the words; how- ever, their automatic processing could recognize the words; how could Devine be sure? CHAPTER 13 Pree 435436 CHAPTER 13. Pre ‘we ean bit both automatic and contoled processing of informe ton. So even though your aute- tate vespona tots man might Feflec prejudice, you cola ove Fide the stereotypes behind tht Feaponse by more contre ro After flashing the words, she asked the participants to read a story about “Donald” (hs ethnicity was not mentioned) and to rate thei impressions of him, Donald was described somewhat ambiguously; he did some things in the story that could be interpreced ether positively or negatively. The participants who had seen the words reflecting the stereotype of blacle Americans interpreted Donald significantly more negatively than those ‘who had seen the neutral words did. Thus for one group the negative stereotype hal been primed (activated unconsciously through automatic processing), without their awareness, the participants were affected by these hostle and negative words, 2s indicated in their ratings ofthe Donald character Becanse these stereotypes were operating ovtside their conscious cognitive contr, white students who were low in prejudice were just as in- fluenced by the cultural erootype (ef, that blacks are hostile) as the pre uudced sade, 1h her final esperiment, Devine gave the students a tak that involved ‘heir conscious processing: She asked them to is all the words they could fink ofthat are used to deseribe black Americans. The high-prejudice ts dents listed significantly more negative words than the low-prejudice st dents did, In other words, the less prejudiced participants used the ‘conscious processing to edit aut the negative stereotype and therefore were able wo respond in a manner that was relatively free of is influence. Devine’ work sheds a lot of light on stereotyping and the ways in which people deal with i According to Devin, almost all white people in American Society have learned the negative stereotype of Affican Americans. ‘This negative stereotypeis therefore activated automatically in just about everyone, Accordingly, to avoid behaving in prejudiced way, most people exert lot of efor to suppress this ‘The Justfication-Suppression Model of Prejudice ‘To explain findings from studies such as Devine’, Chnstan Crandall and Amy Eshleman (2003) put forth a convincing, overarching model of how the expression of prejudice works. According to this model, most people struggle herween their urge to expres prejudice and their red to maintain a postive self-concept (as someone who is nota bigot), both in cir town eyes and in the eyes of others. As we have seen, however, i routes energy to suppress prejudiced impulses. Hecause people are programmed to avoid the constant capendliture of energy, we are always on the lookost for information that wil enable tis to convince ourselves that there isa vabd justfeation for holding a negative tude toward a particular out-group. Once we find a valid justification for ditiking this group, we can act against them and sil fel as though we ae not bigots—thus avoid- ing cognitive dissonance. As Crandall and Eshleman put it, "Jostfcation undoes sup pression, it provides cover, and ic protects a sense of egalitarianism and a non-prejudiced self-image” (2003, p. 425). For example, suppose you dislike homo- sexoals and are inclined to deny them the same rights that heterosexals enjoy. But you are suppressing those feclings and ations hecause you want to preserve your se image 2 a fair-minded, nonbigoted person. How might you avoid the expenditure of all that energy soppresing your impulse? Asa jastifiation forthe expression of an hhomoserual thoughts and feelings, many people have used the Bible. ‘Through the lens ofa particular reading ofthe Bible, an antigay tance can be defended as Sghting for “family values” rather than against gays and lesbians. This eould help you preserve your self-image as a fair-minded person despite supporting actions that you might otherwise consider tobe unfir (see Myers & Seanzoni, 2006) ‘We should note that beeause the Bible isan historical as well as a sptital docu iment, ithas been used to justify several practices that we as a people no longer believe in, For example, in th nineteenth century, a great many American slave holders quot- th Bible (Fxovds 21:7) as a moral jstieation for slavery. Prominent among these ‘was the Reverend Thomton Stringfellow of Vngina, a distinguished theologian, who ‘wrote a reste (1841) designed to “rebut the palpable ignorance” of Northemers whowere denouncing slavery asa si. On the contrary, he wrote, "From Abraham’ day, cnt the coming of Chris, a period of two thousand years, tis institution found fvor with God." He went onto argue that Jesus accepted slavery and never spoke out against 2, Needless o say, biblial teachings about love and justice have alo informed and mo tivated the proliferation of hospital, che founding of universities, and the fight toabol fsb shaven. As Gordon Allport (1954, p. 444) wrote, “The role of religion is paradosical. Ie makes prejudice and it wnmakes prejudice.” The lilusory Correlation Another way that our cognitive procesing perpeteates stereotypical thinking is through the phenomenon of Musory correlation (Fiedler, 2000; Garein-Marques & Hamilton, 1996; Shavit, Sanbonmatss, Smitépatana, 8 Posavac, 1999). When we expect two dhings to be related, we fool ourselves into be- licsing tha they are—even when they are actually unrelated. Many illusory corzela- tions exist in our society: For example, there is common belief that couples who hhaven' been abi wo have children will conceive a child after they adopt a chld—ap- parently because after the adoption, they fel less anaious and stressed, Guess wht This correlation is entirely illusory. Occasionally, an “infertile” couple does conceive afr adopting 2 child, bt this occurs with no greater frequency than for “infertile” ‘couples who do not slope, The former event, because itis so charmingly vivid, imply inakes more ofan impression on us when it happens, creating the illasory correlation (Gilovich, 1999). ‘What doesall this have to do with prejudice and stereocypes? are most likely to aceur when the events or people are distinctive ot conspicuous that i, when they are different from dhe run-of-the-mill, ypical social scene we are accustomed to (Hamilton, 1981; Hamilton, Stoessner, & Mackie, 1993). Minority {group members—for example, as defined by race are, by definition, distinctive be ‘cause fewer of them are present inthe society. Ocher groups who are not distinctive in terms of numbers—such as women, who take up 50 percent of the species—may nonetheless become distinctive or conspicuous heenuse ofa nonstereotypieal profes son or talent—for example, a wornan member of the U.S. Senate. Davie Hamilton 1d Robert Gifford (1976) have shown that such distinctivenest leads tothe erestion ‘of and belief in an illusory correlation a relationship herween the distinctive eget person and the behavior he or she displays, This illsory correlation is then applied to all members ofthe target grovp, isthe storetype of Atcan Amrican women changing? CHAPTER 13 Prejsiee 437 llusory Correlation “The tandency 2 se ralatonshis, ‘hat are acai unelates438 CHAPTER 13. Pre ‘A fanatic is one who can't change "How does this workin everyday life? Ler say you don't know many Jews, so for you interacting with «Jew i a distinctive event an for you, Jows in general are dis- tinetive people. Le’s say you meet a Jewish individual who iv an investment banker Lets say you meet a second Jew who is an economist. An illusory correlation between Jews and money is created, If you also are aware of the stereotype that Jews are mate- Hialistic, the correlation you perceived based on your personal experiences seems ll ‘the more sound. The result is thacin the farue, you will be more likely to notice sit ations in which Jews are behaving materialistically, you wil be les likely to notice sit- ‘ations in which Jews are not behaving mateialistcally, and you willbe less likely © notice situtions in which non-Jews are behaving materiastically. You will have processed new information guided by your illusory correlation, seeing what you ex- pect to see. You will aso have strengthened your illusory corzelaton, confirming is ‘your mind that your stereotype is right Ulamalton & Sherman, 1989; Mullen ‘& Johnson, 1988), ‘We should note that illusory correlations are created in a fr mote passive his mind and won't change the fashion, so. Iie not necessary to have personal experience with people in a subject. stinetive group-televison, newspapers, and other media create slusory correlations when they portray women, minorities, and ocher groups in insion Churchill 1964 stereorypcal roles (Busby, 1975; Deaux &€ La France, 1998, Friedman, 1977; — MreArtir Resko, 1975), the resul ov fet conury ce fortes drastically reduces the effectiveness of logical argumer ‘Can We Change Stereotypical Boliofs? How do you get people to change their negative stereotypical belies? Would simply providing them with accurate informa- tion refute ther stereotypes? Unfortunately, i not that simple, Let sy your next- door neighbor believes that Asian Americans are unpatriotic. What if you informed him that the most highly decorated combat unit in World War Iwas composed sole= lof Asian Americans? Would this information affect your neighbor’ stereotypes? "Not necesarily. Researchers have found that when people are presented with an ex: ample or two tha ses to refute their existing stereotype, most of them do not change ‘their general bale. Indeed, in one experiment, some people presented wit this kindof ‘sconfinning evidence actually arengthened their stereotypical hele because the discon- Firming evidence challenged them to come up with additonal reasons far holding om that belie (Kunda & Oleson, 1997). Tir possible wo change a stereotype a great dal depends on how the disconfrming information is presented, Research has shown that when you present people with ony ‘mo or three powerful disconfiming pieces of evidence its not effective because par- ticipanes simply dismiss the disconrming examples ss “the exceptions that prove the rule But when the parscipans are bombarded with many examples that are inconss- tent withthe steroocype, che gradually modify their beits (Webber & Crocker, 1983). “To sun up this disewsion, two points need to he emphasized (1) Weal stereotype ‘others to some extent—itis pare of being 2 cognitive miser—and (2) eino- sional stinades are harder to change than nonemotional ones, This strong hhidclen, but I prejudiced person engages in stereotyping in a deeper, more thorough manner than the rest of us. Through this proces, prejudiced attudes be- come like a fortrese—a closed circuit of cognitions sf you will—and this ‘or seatered a lecss of iscontirming information, How We Assign Meaning: Attributional Biases Aswe discussed in Chapter 4, people and sitsations don't come with neon signs telling 1 everything we need to know abour them. Instead, we must rly on one aspeet of 0" Gal cognition ateibational processes—to try to understand why people behave as they do, Just as we form attributions to make sense out of one person's behavior, we also make autsbutions about whole groups af people. As you shal ec, the auribution- bases we discussed in Chapter 4 come back to haunt ws now ina far more damaging and dangerous form: prejudice and disriminationDispositional versus Situational Explanations One reason stereotypes ares insidious and persstentisthe human tendency to take dspsitional attibutions-that i to leap to the eonehsion thata person’ behavior i ve to seme aspect of hie or her personal- ity ther than to some aspect ofthe situation. This is the far fundamental atributionervor we discused in Chapter 4, Although aaibuting peoples behavior to their dispositions soften accurate, hhumnan behavior is also shaped by situtéonal fores, Reying too hhealy on dispositional atibutions, therefore, often leads us to sake actribuconal mistakes. Given chat this process operates on an individual level, you can only imagine the problems an complica tions that arse when we overealousy at our the fundamental a ‘mibucon exer for a whole group of people —an out-group, Stereotypes are dispositional attibutions—-negative ones Thomas Pettigrew (1979) bas ealed our tendeney to make dis- positional butions about an individuals negative behsvier to an entre group of people the ultimate attribution error, Forex ample, some ofthe stereotypes that characterize anti-Semitism are the result of Christians committing the fandamentalattribu- ‘ion error when interpreting the behavior of Jews. These stereo types have a long history, extending aver several centuries ‘When the Jews were first force to flee their homeland during the third Diaspora, some 2,500 years ago, they were not allowed tooown land ot become artisans inthe new regions in which they setied, Needing siveihoed, some eventoaly took to lending money—one ofthe few professions 10 which they were allowed easy acess. This choice of aceupation was a by-product of restrictive lawe in which Christians were not allowed to charge interest to Christians, bot Jews were allowed to, However, the fact chat Jews could lend money for interest but Christians could not led to a dispositional atribution about Jews They were interested only in dealing with money and notin “honest labor like farm ing, As this attribution became an ultimate attribution ervor, Jews were labeled com- niving, vicious parasites of the Kind dramatized and imortaiized by Shakespeare in the character of Shylock in The Merchant of Vnkeor of Fagin in Dickens's Oliver Tis ‘This dispositional stereotype undoubtedly comtribted to the barbarous consequences ‘of anti-Semitism in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s, when Hitlers Navi regime ‘murdered 6 millon European Jews, and has persisted even inthe face of clear, discon- firming evidence soch as that produced by the birth ofthe state of Israel, where Jews have tiled the soil and made the deser bloom ‘Similarly, ae we have seen, many Americans held a stereotype about African Amer~ jean and Hispanic men that involves aggression andthe potential for violence a very powerfl dispositional ausibuvon. In one study, college students, playing the role of Jurors ina mock eral, were mor likey wo finda defendant guily of given erime sim- ply if his name was Carlos Ramiter rather than Rebers Johnson (Bodenhausen, 1988) Thus, any situational information or extenuating circumstances chat might have ex- plained the defendants actions were gmored when the powerful dispesitional atribu- tion was stereotypically tiggered-—in this ease, by the Hispanie name Tn another study, researchers set up another dispositional versus situational poss- bility College students read ftinalized files on prisoners who were being comsil- cred for parole and used that information to make a parole decision (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985). Sometimes the erime matched the common stereotype ofthe oflender— for example, when a Mispanic male, Carlos Ramirez, committed assale and batery, oF when an upperclss Anglo-American, Ashley Chamberlain, committed embeczle rent. In othe instances, the erimes were inconsistent with the stereotypes. When the prisoners crimes were consistent with participants’ stereotypes, the students’ recom- mendations for parole were harsher, Most of the students alo ignored addivonal i formation that was relevant to a patole decision but was inconsistent with the stereotype, such as evidence of good behavior in prison, CHAPTER 13 Prejusice 439 "Ty Change oiineesype? Ultimate Attribution Error The tendency to make ‘one is mugged oF raped), we will undoubtedly Feel sory for the person but a the same ‘ume will fel relieved that this hormble ching didn't happen to us. We wil also feel, scared that sucha thing might happen tows inthe future: How can we cope with these fears and worries? We ean protect ourselves from the fea we fel by convincing our- selves that the person must have done something to cause the tagedy. We fel safe, then, beeause we world have behaved more eausously Jones & Aronson, 1973). ‘Most f us ate very good at reconstructing situations after the fatto support our Delfin a just world. I simply requires making 2 dispositional atribution—to the vic~ ‘imaand not sitational one to the scary, random events that can hapyen te anyone at any ime, Ina fascinating experiment, college students who were provided witha de ‘eription ofa young woman’ friendly behavior toward 2 man judged that behavior as ‘completely appropriate Janof-Bulman, Timo, & Cari, 1985). Another group of sa ‘dents was given the same description, plus the informacion thac che encounter ended with the young woman being raped by the man. This group rated che young woman's behavior as inappropriate; she was judged as having brought she rape on herself ‘Such findings ate not limited to American college students reading hypothetical cases Ine survey conducted in England, a striking 33 percent ofthe respondents be- Tievd that victims of rape are almost sways to blame fort Wagstaf, 1982). ‘How can we account for such harsh atributions? Most of us Sind i rghtening to ‘think that we lve in a world where people, through no fault oftheir own, can be rape, discriminated against, deprived of equal pay for equal work, or denied the basic necesses of lf, By the sarne token, if 6 million Jews ae exterminated for no appar ‘ent reson, itis, in some stringe way, comforting to believe that they mast have done something to bring those events on themselves. The irony is overwhelming: Such ‘thinking makes the world seem safer tous, SelfFulfling Prophecies All other things being equal, if you believe that Amy is stupid and treat her accordingly, chances are tht she will not say a lot of clever things in your presence, Thisis the well-known saffliling prophecy, discussed in Chapter 3. How does this come about? Ifyou believe that Amy s stupid, you probably will not ask her interesting questions, and you will not listen intently while she is talking n= ‘lead, you might even look out the window or yawn. You behave this way beeasse of ‘simple expectation: Why waste energy paying atention to Amy ifshes unlikely ca ay anything smart or interesting? This is bound to have an important impact on Amy's behavior, for if the people she i talking to arent paying much attention, she will feel uneasy and wil probably cam up and not come out with all the poetry and wisdom ‘within her. This serves to confirm the belief you had about her in the fist place. The Gree iseloseds the set ulilling prophecy is complet. Researchers demonstrated the relevance ofthis phenomenon to stereotyping and slscriminaton in an elegant experiment (Word, Zann, & Cooper, 1974), White col= lege undergraduates were asked to interview several jab applicants; some of the applic ‘ants were white and others were African American, Unwittingly, the college students ‘lsplayed discomfort and lack of interest when intersiewing Afican American appli= ‘ants. They sit farther away, tended to strmmer, and ended the interview far sooner than when they were interviewing white applicans. Can you guess how this behavior might have afected the African American applicants? To Sind out, the researchersconducted a second experiment in which they systematically varied the behavior ofthe interviewers (actualy confederates) so that coincided withthe way the real interview crs hal rested the African American or white interviewees in the fist experiment. But in the second experiment, al f the interviewees were white. The researchers video ‘ape che proceedings and had the applicants rated by independent judges. They found that those applicants who were interviewed the way African Americans had been iter viewed inthe first experiment were judged to be far more nervous and fr less effective than those who were interviewed the way whites had been interviewed in the frst ex periment, In sum, these experiments demonstrate clearly that when Africa Americans fre interviewed by whites, they ate unintentionally placed ata disadvantage and are [ikely to perform less well than their white counterpars (ee Figure 13.6) (On a societal level, the insidiousness ofthe self-fulfilling prophecy goes even fr ther Suppose that there isa general belief that a particular group is irtedeemably stu pid, unedueable, and ft only for menial jobs. Why waste educational resources on. them? Hence they are given inadequate schooling, ‘Thirty years later, what do yo find? An entte group that with few exeeptions isi only for menial jobs. "See? I was right all che while,” say che bigot “low fortunate tat we didn’ waste our precious ‘educational resources on such people! The self fling prophecy strikes again, Prejudice and Economic Competition: Realistic Conflict Theory (One ofthe most obvious sources of conflict and prejudice is compettion—for scarce resources, for political power, and for social status. Indeed, whatever problems result from the simple ingroup versus out-group phenomenon, they will be mag coonomic, politeal, or satus competion. Realistic confit theory hols that limited resourees lead to confict among groups and result in prejudice and discrtuination . W. Jackson, 1995, Shenf, 1966; White, 1977). ‘Thus, prejudiced attinides tend to increase when times are tense and conflict exists ver mutvallyexchve goal, Forex: ample, prejudice has existed between Anglos and Menican American migrant workers ‘over limited numberof jobs, beoween Arabs and Loraelis over disputed territory, and between northerners and southemers over the abolition of slavery ied by 1 CHAPTER 12 Prin 443 Realistic Conflict Theory The des tat ined resources fd est creased peje td dacrimination444 CHAPTER 13. Pre Economie competion dives = {900d Gea of prejudice, When um mployment ies, s0 does exert ment aganat marie, Economic and Political Competition In his classic say of prejudice in a small indostrial town, Join Dol- lard (2938) was among the frst ro document the relation ship between discrimination and economic competition. -Acfint, there was no discernible hostility toward the new German immigrants; prejudice Nourished, however, a8 js grew saree: Loca whites argely dsm from the surrounding fs manfeed corsidenble dec: aggression toward she newcomers Seomhl ted derogatry opinions were exrened above thee Germans and the ace whies hada ssshing seve of superior tomard them. "The cis elenentn the perma tle aggre pattie (Gorn was ray for obs and states a the focal woodeaze plans The nave whites fk deftly romded for tea by the entering German groups andi cave of bad ies ada chance to blame the Geman, who by thi presence proided mare com ptt Sr chexcarear oe. Therese to ben atonal a tern of prude agase Germans unles the seal susicion inal our grouper aways present can be invokes ples, Similarly, the prejudice, violence, and negative stereotyping directed against Chi- nese immigrants in the United States fluctuated wildly throughout the nineteenth ‘century as «result of changes in economic competition. Chinese who joined the Cal ioria gold rosh, eompeting directly with white miners, were deseribed a8 “depraved and vicious," "gross gluons," and “bloodthirsty and inhuman” (Jacobs & Landau, 1971, p. 71), Only afew years later, however, when they were willing to accept back breaking work as laborers on the transcontinental railtoad-work few white Amer cans were willing to do—they were regarded as sober, industrious, and law-abiding. ‘They were so highly regarded, in fact, that Charles Crocker, one ofthe great tycoons financing the railroad, wrote, "They are equal tothe best white men «.. They are very trasy, very intelligent, and they live up to their contracts” (p. 81). With the end ‘of the Civil War cae an in lux of former soldiers into an already tight job market This was immediately followed by a dramatie increase in negative atinides toward the Chinese: The stereotype changed to eriminal, conniving, crafty, and stupid Gacobs & Landav, 1971), ‘These changes suggest that when times are tough and resources ate scarce ‘group members will fel more threatened by the out-group, and incidents of prix dice, discrimination, and violence toward out-group members will increase. How might the hypothesis be tested? ‘in a lasic experiment, Muzafer Sheri and his colleagues (1961) tested group con flict theory using the natural environment af Boy Scout camp. The participants it the camp were normal, welladjusted 12-year-old boys who were randomly assigned twoone of two groups, the Fagles or the Raters. Fach group stayed in its own cabin; the cabins were located quite a distance apart to redoce contact between the twe ‘groups. The youngsters were placed in situations designed to inerease tse cohesive ness of their own group, This was done by arranging enjoyable activities such as bike ing and swimming and by having the campers work with their group on various building projects, preparing group meals, and so on After feelings of cohesiveness developed within each group, the researchers st up 4 series of competitive activities in which the two groups were pitted against each ‘ther —for example, in games like football, baseball, and tug-of-war, where prizes ‘were awarded to the winning team, These competitive games sroused feelings of can- flict and tension between the two groups In adtion, the investigators created other situations to farther intensify the conflce. For example, a camp party was arranged, ‘bat each group was tld ie started a a different time, thereby ensuring that he Eagles would arive well belore the Raters. The refreshments atthe party consisted of two Giflorent kinds of food: Half the food was fesh, appealing, and appetizing, while the ‘other half was quashed, py, and unappetizing. As you'd expect, the earijnarrivingEagles ate well and the laecoming Rattlers were not happy ‘wits what they found. They began to curse at the expoitive group. Because the Eagles believed they deserved what they got (rst come, fist served),chey resented the name-caling snd responded in kind, Name-calling escalated into food throwing, and within a shor time, punches were thrown and sa fullscae riot ensued Following this incident, che investigators tried to reverse the hostility they had promoted. Competitive games were eliminated, and 2 great deal of nonconficual social contact, was initiated, Once hostility had been aroused, hosever, Simply eliminating the competition did not eliminate the hostility, Indeed, hostility continued to escalate, even the two groups were engaged in such benign activites a3 watching movies together. Eventually che investigators did manage to reduce the hortity becween the two groups; ex actly how wil he discussed atthe end of this chapter The Role of the Scapegost A special cate of the confict- competition theory the apegsa then (Allport, 1954; Ges, 1989; Miler & Boge 1s, 148). As indicated cali, i times are rough and things ae going poodly individuals have a tendency to lsh out at members ofan outgroup with wham dhey compet drect- Iyfor saree rence. But there are stations in which a logical competitor dees not exist For example, in Germany following World War I, inflation was out of control, and people were exremely poor, demoralized and frustrated. When the Navisgsied power inthe 190s, they managed to focus the frustration of the German population on the Jews, an casi identifiable, powerless out-group. The Jews were not the reason the German coan- ‘my was in sich bad shape, bt who was? Tes hard to fig back agaist world events oF ‘ones governmentparticulaly when one’ government is evading responsiblity by bla fing someone else. Thus the Nazis ereated the illusion that if the Jews could be punished, priv of their civ rights, and ultimately eliminated, all of the problems then plaguing ‘Germany would disappear. The Jews served asa convenient seapegont because they we easy identifiable and were nor in a position to defend themselves or strike back (Berkowir, 1982, The research seapagoating shows that individuals, when Gustated or unbappy tend to displace aggression onto groupe that are dsiked, are visible, and are relacvely powerless. Moreower, che form the aggression takes depends on wht i allewed or ap- proved by the in-group in question. Since the 1940s and 1950s, lynchings of African Americans and pogroms agains Jews have diminished dramatically because these are now ‘eerned illegal by the deminant culture. But not all progress linear. In the past dead, \webaveszen many ester European counties emerge from the shadow ofthe former So- viet Union. Buc the new freedoms in the region have been accompanied by increased fee! ‘ngs of nationalism (“os vers them") that have in tur intensified feelings of rancor and prejudice against aut-groups. In che Bali States and the Balkans, the rise in nationalistic feelings has led to the outbreak of hostility and even war among Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, Azerainis and Armenian, and other groups. And there is evidence that an Semitsm i on the rise again in Fastern Europe (Poppe, 2001; Singe, 1990), ‘In recent years homorenuals have become an increasingly convenient scspegost. The Reverend Jey Falwell issued the fllowing warning: "If you and Ido no speak up now, this homosexual steamroller wll cerallyerush all dec Gren who get in its way... and ovr nation wil pay a terible price” (Falwell, quoted in The Columbia Spectator, Ail 4, 2006). The Reverend Pat Robertson declared: “When lawlesinessis abroad in the land, the same thing wil happen here tac happened in Nazi Germany. Many of those people involved with Adolph Elitler were Saamsts, Many of them were bomoseauals, ‘The two things seem to go wgether” (Pat Robertson, 700 Club, January 21,1993), Ironically of eouse, fr ftom being in league with Hider, bo- sosenvals were s prime target of Nav hosiiy men, women, and chil CHAPTER 13 Price 445 Scapegoating ‘The tendaney for indus, hen turtaced or unhappy, to space aggression onto groups ‘hate dsted, visbie, ane446 CHAPTER 13. Pre Institutionalized Racism Aacit rete that a0 hes by ‘he var mjory of people ving Ina socety whore stereotypes and discrimination are the nore Institutionalized Sexism Sexist atttudes that ae held by the van monty of people ving Inesocety where sterearypes and ‘discrimination are the nor Normative Conformity “The tondonc to go along with the group nore so il the group Sxpoctatons and gan acceptanes ‘The Way We Conform: Normative Rules ‘We've scen that prejuice is ereated and maintained by many forces in the social world. Some operate within the individual, such asthe ways we process information snd assign meaning to observed evens; some operate on whole groups of people such asthe effecs of competition, confit, and frustration. Our final explanation for what ‘causes prejudice also aceurs an the group leel—confarmity to normative standards or rules in the society. As we discussed in Chapter 8, conformity is a frequent part of eo {al life, whether we conform to gin information (informational conforms) or t ft Jn and be accepted (normative conformicy). Again, relatively innocuous social behav ‘grin this ease, conformity—becomes partculaly dangerous and debilitating when the conforming involves prejudiced beliefs and behaviors When Prejudice Is Institutionalized Norms are belief held by 2 society as to what is correct, aeceprale, and permissible. Obsiously, norms vary widely across el tutes, important regional differences in norms also occur within the same country. For example, not long ago, cal segregation in hotels eating places, motion picture theaters, drinking fountains, and toilet faites was normative in the America South but notin the North. Indeed, ic can be said that prior to 1954, segregation controlled most aspects of social life in the South, These norms do not have to be taught diretl. Simply by living i a society where stereotypical information abounds and where discriminatory behavior isthe norm, the vast majority of us will unwit- ‘ingly develop prejudiced aides and discriminatory ichavior to some extent. We call ths institutional diserimination or, more specifically, inatittionalzed racism and Insttutionalized sexism, For example, if you grow up ina sociesy where few minority coup members and women have professional careers and where most people i these groups hold menial jobs, simply living in that society will erease your like hood of developing certain (negative) attudes about the inherent abilities of minor ties and women. This state of affairs can come about without anyone actively teaching you that minorities and women ate inferior and without any law or decree Tbanning minorities and women from cellege faculties, boardrooms, ar medical schools, Instead, socal barriers have created a lack of opportunity for these groups that makes their success extremely unlikely. ‘ov dacs normative prejudice work? In Chapter 8, we discussed the strong ten= deney to go along with the grovp to fll the group expectations and gain accep- tance, a phenomenon knawn as normative conformity. Being a nonconformist can be painfl. As Thomas Pettigrew (1958, 1985, 1991) has noted, many people conse- ‘quently adopt prejudiced atiudes and engage in discriminatory behaviors in order to ‘conform ro, or fit in with, the prevailing msjority view of their clrur. Ie as if people say, “Tey, everybody else thinks Xs are inferior; if I behave cordially toward Xs, peo- ple will think Fm weird. They won't lie me. They'l sy bad Ukings about me. don't ned the hasl, I'l ust go along with everybody ele.” Petigrew argues convincingly that although economic competition, frustration, and socal cognition processes do account for some prejudice, hy far the greatest determinant of prejudice slavish co Formity o social norms For example, Ernest Campbell and Thomas Pettigrew (1959) studied the minis- ters of Little Rock, Arkamas, after the 1954 Supreme Court decision struck doen school segregation, Most minister favored integration and equality for all American Citizens, bur they Kept these views to themselves. They were afraid to support dese regation from their pulpts because they knew that their white congregations were vic ‘lenely opposed to it, Going agtinst the prevailing norm would have meant losing ‘church members and contributions, and under such normative pressure, even minis: ters found i dificult to do the right thing Another way to determine the rle of normative conformity ist track changes in prejudice and discrimination over time. As socal norms change, so should the Strength of prejudiced attitudes and the amount of discriminatory behavior For exam- ple, what happens when people move from one par of the country o another? If cox formity is a faetor in prejudice, we would expect individuals to show dramaticCHAPTER 13 Prejusiee 447 What a diference a decade makes! On the let n 1963, Governor George Wallace das fedora derby phys ‘aly blocking he entrance the est black student othe University of Alabama, On the ih ‘ror Wislace happily congatletes the University 9 Alabama homecoming gue, increases in their prejudice when they move to an area in which the norm is more prejuicial and to show dramatic decreases when they move to an area in which the form is less prejudicial, And thats just what happens, [Researchers have found that people who had recently moved to New York City snd ad come into direct contact with an anti-Semitic norm became moze ant-Semit- fe themselves. Similarly, when southerners entered the army and came into contact with a less prejudiced sex of social norms, their prejudice against African Americans gradually decreased (Pettigrew, 1958; Watson, 1950). Researcher in a svall mining town in West Virginia found even mote dramatic evidence af shifting norms: Over the years) African American miners and white miners developed a pattern of living that Consist of total integration while they were under the grosnd and total segregation while chey were above the ground (Minard, 1952; Reits, 1952). “Moreover, surveys conducted over the past 6 decades make it clear that what is going am inside the minds of Americans has changed a great deal. For example, in 1942, the overwhelming majority of white Americans believed tha it was a good idea tohave separate sections for African American and white people on buses. Two ot of ‘very three white Americans surveyed believed that schools should be segregated. In the South, the mumbers were even more striking: In 1942, fully 98 percent of the ‘white population was opposed to desegregating schools (Lyman & Sheatsey, 1956). Tn contrast, by 1988, only 3 percent of white Americans said they woulds't want their child to attend school with black children, That is a dramatic change indeed ‘Shifting eulkural norms are wel illustrated by the two photographs depicting Gow= temor George Wallace of Alabama, In one, the governor, along with his state mili, i blocking the door ofthe University of Alabama asthe first Atican American students seck to register for college. Only the intervention of heavily armed federal oops ‘used Governor Wallace to back down. And yet just a deeade later, the normative eli= sate of Alabama had changed tothe extent that Governor Wallace could be seen—as in the second photograph—congratoating the young Aftiean American woman whom the Universiy of Alabama stadent body had chosen w be homecoming queen (Knop- ke, Norell, & Rogers, 199). 'Modern” Prejudice As the norm swings toward tolerance for out-groups, many people simply become more carful-outwardly acting wnprejudiced yet mwardly ‘aimtaining their stereotyped views. This phenomena is known ss medern raciem, People have learned to hide prejudice in ander to avoid being labeled as racist, but rn the situation becomes “safe,” their prejudice willbe revealed (Dovidio & Gacrt= 1996; MeComahay, 1986) Modern Racism Oewardy acting unpejuiced ‘wile inary mantnnng prejudiced attedes448 CHAPTER 13 Pree For example, auhough itis rue that few Americans say they are generally op- posed to school desegregation, itis interesting that most white parents oppose bus- ing their own children to achieve racial halanee. When questioned, these parents insist chat their opposition bas nothing to do with prejudice, they simply don't want their kids to waste a lor af time on a bus. Bot as John McConshay (1981) has shown, most white parents are quite tranquil about busing when their kids are sim- ply being bused from one white school to another; most show vigorous opposition ‘oly when the busing is interracial, ven the properties of modern prejudice, i ean best be studied with suble or un ‘obsrusive measures (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980). One team of researchers ereated an ingenious contraption to get atthe real attudes—not simply the socially desirable ‘onesof thei research participants jones & Sigall, 1971). They showed research pa ticipans an impressive-looking machine, described as a kind ofie detector. Infact, this “boiz pipeline” was fst a ple of electronic hardware wiose diss the experimenter cou secretly manipulate Here’ how researchers use the pipeline: Parcipants are ran- ‘domly assigned to one of two conditions in which they indicate ther atinudes either om ‘ paperancipenell questionnaire (where it is eay to give socially correct responses) or by using the bogus pipeline (where they believe the machine will reveal their tue atti- ‘ues if they lis), The researchers found that student’ responses showed more racial prejudice when the bogus pipeline was sed (Sigal & Page, 19TI; Roese & Jamieson, 1993). Similarly, college men and women expressed almost identical postive attitudes bout women’ rights and women's roles in society on a paper-and-peneil meassre, ‘When the bogus pipeline was used, however, most ofthe men displayed fr less synpa~ ‘thy to Women’ isues than the women did (Tourangeau, Smith, & Rasinsi, 1997), ‘Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe We've been discussing preja> ‘ice and stercoryping inthe Unite States, but Americans have no franchise on pri ‘ice, Examples of blatant prejudice abound in daily newspaper headlines: ethnic

You might also like

• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4611)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (609)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5813)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (844)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1716)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brené Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2522)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1850)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)