1 lecture outline nold-fashioned racism ncontemporary theories of racism symbolic (modern) racism ...
Post on 18-Jan-2018
237 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Lecture OutlineOld-fashioned racismContemporary Theories of Racism
Symbolic (Modern) RacismAversive RacismAmbivalence-Amplification Theory
How prejudice affects targetsStereotype ThreatConsequences of positive prejudice
2
Old Fashioned Racism
Premise:
People are aware of their prejudice
But may try to conceal it from others
3
Symbolic (Modern) Racism
Premise:
People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized
harbor prejudice
believe racism and discrimination are wrong
4
Symbolic (Modern) Racism
Symbolic racists are caught between:
The prejudice they feel
The egalitarian values they espouse
Not consciously aware of prejudice
5
Symbolic (Modern) Racism
Symbolic racism manifested in disguised form:Protestant work ethnicopposition to affirmative action
Conservative values serve to keep disadvantaged groups disadvantaged
6
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Purpose: Test whether racial prejudice stems from:
conflict over scarce resources
belief that African Americans violate cherished values
7
Kinder & Sears (1981)Overview
Mayoral elections in Los Angeles:1969 and 1973
Candidates:Samuel Yorty: White conservativeThomas Bradley: African American liberal
What predicts voting behavior?competition over scarce resources symbolic racist beliefs
8
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Election Results:
1969: Samuel Yorty won with 53% of vote
1973: Thomas Bradley won with 56% of vote
9
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Prediction: Scarce Resources
If racial prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, then...
Those Whites who are in the more competition for resources with African Americans will show greater prejudice than those who are in less competition.
10
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Prediction: Symbolic Racism
If racial prejudice stems from symbolic racism, then.....
The more strongly Whites believe that African Americans violate traditional values, the more prejudice they will show.
11
Kinder & Sears (1981)Participants:
White residents of Los Angeles, CA1969 (n = 198); 1973 (n = 239)Most lived in suburbsHomeowners33% attended collegeMost were Protestant, others CatholicNearly all were marriedMost had children
12
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Prejudice:
Measured via voting behavior
13
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Competition over scarce resources:
Measured via questionnaire responses spanning four domains of racial threat.....
14
4 Domains of Racial Threat
1. Neighborhood desegregation & interracial social contact
Example QuestionHow strongly would you object if a member of your family
wanted to bring an African American friend home to dinner
15
4 Domains of Racial Threat
2. Economic competition
Example QuestionHave the economic gains of African Americans been
about the same, much greater than, greater than, or less than yours over the past 5 years?
16
4 Domains of Racial Threat
3. Racial Busing
Example QuestionHow likely is it that African American children will be
bused into the elementary schools of this neighborhood?
17
4 Domains of Racial Threat
4. Perceptions of African American violence
Example QuestionHow likely is it that African Americans will bring
violence to this neighborhood?
18
Kinder & Sears (1981)
Symbolic Racism:
Measured via questionnaire responses spanning two domains of value systems...
19
2 Domains of Value Systems
1. Expressive Racism
Example QuestionDo you think that most African Americans who receive
money from welfare programs could get along without it if they tried or do they really need the help?
20
2 Domains of Value Systems
2. Opposition to racial busing
Example QuestionBusing elementary school children to schools in
other parts of the city only harms their education
21
Kinder & Sears (1981):Results
-0.020.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.18
1969 1973
Var
ianc
e E
xpla
ined
Competition
Symbolicracism
Only symbolic racism significantly explained voting behavior
22
Kinder & Sears (1981)
For symbolic racists, prejudice is disguised as endorsement of conservative values
This enables them to believe they are non-prejudiced, while still supporting political positions that favor Whites over African Americans
23
Aversive Racism
Premise: Also proposes that people:
1. Feel ambivalence toward the stigmatizedharbor prejudiceendorse egalitarian values that oppose racism and discrimination
2. Are not typically conscious of prejudice
24
Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism
But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..
25
Symbolic vs. Aversive Racism
Aversive racists…
endorse liberal values suppress prejudice when it becomes
conscious
26
Symbolic and Aversive Racism
Symbolic and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control
27
Modern and Aversive Racism
Both Symbolic and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice
How do they do this?
28
Symbolic and Aversive Racism
Not aware of prejudice on conscious level
Access egalitarian values when cognitive resources are plentiful, and report low prejudice
Ingrained prejudice accessed on implicit measures or non-monitored behaviors
29
Ambivalence-Amplification Theory
Premise:
People are ambivalent toward the stigmatized.aversion and hostilitysympathy and compassion
30
Ambivalence-Amplification Theory
Proposes that...
1. Ambivalence causes threat to self-esteem
No matter how one feels, that feeling is in conflict with the other way one feels
31
Ambivalence-Amplification Theory
Proposes that...
2. People try to reduce threats to self-esteem
They justify or deny the way the feel at the moment, depending on the situation
32
Ambivalence-Amplification Theory
Proposes that...
3. Behavior toward the stigmatized is very unstable
4. People are aware of their ambivalence
33
Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1 and 2
Examined how the situation affects whether people will justify or deny feeling prejudice toward a stigmatized person
34
Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1
Prediction:
People will justify prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that
35
Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1
Procedure:
1.Male participants evaluated a confederate on 20 item impression questionnaire
likingwarmth conceit intelligenceadjustment
36
Katz & Glass (1979)Study 1
Procedure:
2.Participant was required to administer shock to confederate as feedback
3. Participant then evaluated confederate 2nd time on impression questionnaire
37
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1
Manipulations:
1. Confederate race:African AmericanWhite
2. Shock level: (no shock actually given)strong and painfulweak and not painful
38
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1
Prediction restated:
People justify prejudice by denigrating stigmatized other, making that person seem unworthy and deserving of dislike.
This means: Participants who gave “strong shocks” to the African American target should show greatest change in post-shock ratings (negative direction)
39
Results: African American
targetWhite target
Strong shock
Mild Shock
Strong shock
Mild Shock
Before Shock 19.2 14.3 16.3 15.4
Change score -11.9 7.2 00.0 -.80
Negative change = more negative impression after shockPositive change = more positive impression after shock
As predicted, impression of African American confederate became most negative after strong shock
40
Katz & Glass (1979)Study 2
Prediction:
People will deny prejudice toward a stigmatized other if the situation supports that
41
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2
Procedure:
1. Participant introduced to confederate
2. Participant required to insult confederate
3. Told confederate left before criticism was explained as part of the experiment
4. Participant believed experiment was over
5. Sent to office for $, where got letter from confederate.....
42
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 2
The letter: Doing an independent study projectNeeded one more participantStudy was on repetitionExperimental materials attachedMaterials asked participant to repetitively write the
same sentence over and over
43
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1
Manipulations:
1. Confederate race:African AmericanWhite
2. Insult level:Very hurtfulNot very hurtful
44
Katz & Glass (1979): Study 1
Prediction restated:
People will deny prejudice by going out of their way to help a stigmatized other whom they have harmed.
This means: Participants who gave “hurtful insult” to the African American target should work the hardest in the repetitive experiment.
45
Results: African American
targetWhite target
Hurtful Insult 44.21 21.20
Not hurtful insult 22.13 23.20
Values are the average number of times repetitive sentence was written in booklet.
As predicted, participants wrote the sentence more often after having harmed the African American target. No other significant differences.
46
Katz & Glass (1979)
Conclusion:
People feel ambivalence toward stigmatized others, and respond in extreme ways toward those whom they have harmed
Sometimes behave positively, sometimes negatively depending on the situation
47
How Prejudice Affects Targets
Stereotype Threat (Claude Steele)
Unintended consequences of positive prejudice (Madeline Heilman)
48
Stereotype Threat
Premise:Stigmatized groups are aware of
negative stereotypes
This awareness produces “stereotype threat”........
49
Stereotype Threat
Definition:
Fear that one will be viewed or treated in way consistent with stereotype, or that one will confirm the stereotype
50
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype threat is situationally induced.
Arises when target realizes that negative stereotype can explain their behavior or attributes
51
Stereotype Threat
Steele points to achievement gaps between African Americans and Whites:
National drop out rates: 70% AA; 42% W
College GPA: African Americans’ GPA two thirds of a grade lower than White’s
52
Stereotype ThreatDifferences typically explained by socio-economic
disadvantages faced by African Americans.
But, African Americans achieve lower than Whites even when they do not differ socio-economically from Whites
Steele argues that stereotype threat contributes to the achievement gap
53
Steele & Aronson (1995)Study 1 and 2
Purpose: Test theory of stereotype threat with respect to African American students and intellectual ability
54
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1Prediction:
African American students will perform worse than White students on a test said to be a valid measure of intellectual ability, but.....
Perform as good as Whites when test is said to be a laboratory exercise
55
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1Procedure: Given 30 item SAT-like verbal problems Completed the test
Manipulation:Race of participant: AA or WValidity of test: diagnostic; non-diagnostic
DV: number correct on test
56
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1
02468
101214
Diagnostic Non-Diagnostic
Test
Sco
res
African Americans Whites
African Americans performed just as well on the test as Whites in non-diagnostic conditions, but worse in the diagnostic conditions
57
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1
Conclusion:
Believing that a test was valid measure of intellectual ability undermined performance of African American but not White students
58
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2
Purpose:
Examine process by which stereotype threat operates
Focused on apprehension.....
59
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2
Research Question:
Did the diagnostic condition reduce African American participants’ performance by eliciting in them a fear that they would be judged in line with negative stereotype?
60
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2
Prediction:
If apprehension at work, then....
African Americans in the diagnostic condition should distance self from stereotype -- i.e., show it does not apply to them personally
61
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2
Procedures:Expected to complete SAT-like verbal
problems
Rated self-preferences: music: jazz, rap music, classical sports: baseball, basketball, boxing traits: extroverted, aggressive, humorous
Never actually took test
62
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 2
Manipulations:Race of participant: AA or WValidity of test: diagnostic; non-
diagnostic
DV: Extent to which participant rated self
consistent with African American stereotype
63
Steele & Aronson (1995): Study 1
15
20
25
30
35
Diagnostic Non-Diagnostic
Con
sist
ency
with
AA
S
tere
otyp
e
African Americans Whites
African Americans rates self less consistent with AA stereotype when test said to be diagnostic of their verbal ability
64
Steele & Aronson (1995)
Conclusion:
African Americans under perform on measures that assess intellectual ability because such measures create apprehension that they will confirm negative stereotype about their group
65
Untended Consequences of Positive Prejudice
Affirmative action designed to help minorities and underrepresented groups, but....
may undermine their self-views and job performance
66
Affirmative Action
Designed to:
“overcome the discriminating effect of past or present practices, policies, or other barriers to equal employment opportunity” (EEOC, 1970)
67
Affirmative ActionEEOC’s statement:
Says that group membership should be explicitly taken into account in hiring decisions
Unspoken assumption that non-discrimination not sufficient to counteract consequences of prejudice and inequality
68
Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)
Purpose:
Examine whether affirmative action damages the self-views of those who benefit from it
69
Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)
Prediction:
Women who believe they were preferentially selected have less confidence in their ability than those who believe they were selected on merit
70
Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)
Procedure:
1. Paired with opposite sex confederate
2. Task described; leader more important
3. Answered items assessing ability for leadership role
4. Manipulation occurred........
71
Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)
ManipulationMerit:
test scored script read participant selected on merit
Preference: test not scored script read participant selected on basis of gender
72
Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987)
Procedure continued:
5. Performed task6. Rated self on:
task performanceleadership abilitydesire to persist as leader in task 2
73
Results: Performance Leadership ability
Persist as leader
Men:MeritPreference 5.15
5.376.476.59
5.855.78
Women:MeritPreference
5.244.02
6.715.27
5.504.00
Men: Selection basis did not influence menWomen: Ratings same as men in merit,but worse than all other conditions in preference
74
Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)
Background:
Confidence influences job performancetake on less challenging tasks
Purpose: Examine if preferential selection causes
women to select easier tasks
75
Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)Procedures:
Similar to other study, but looked at managerial skills
Roles were financial services manager and subordinate
Inventory assessed managerial skills
Manipulation: selection based on merit or preference
76
Heilman, Rivero, & Brette (1991)
Participants then indicated which of two tasks they would most like to do
Easy taskDifficult task
77
Results: DifficultTask
Easy Task
Men:MeritPreference 87%
100%13% 0%
Women:MeritPreference
93% 47%
7% 53%
Values are the % in each condition that selected the difficult and easy task
78
Results: DifficultTask
Easy Task
Men:MeritPreference 87%
100%13% 0%
Women:MeritPreference
93% 47%
7% 53%
Men: Chose difficult task more often regardless of selection basisWomen: Same as men in merit, but chose easy task more often than any other condition in preference
79
Heilman et al., (1987; 1991)
Conclusion:
Preferential selection reduces confidence
Preferential selection causes people to select less challenging tasks at work
80
Affirmative Action: Good or Bad?
Does Affirmative Action always have unintended negative consequences?
No. When it is based on merit and group membership, many of the bad effects it
creates disappear
top related