Michael E. Levin, Jason Lillis, Jack Haeger & Benjamin Pierce

TARGETING PREJUDICE/STIGMA AT A

PUBLIC HEALTH LEVEL

Prejudice and stigma aff ects anyone we can group and apply evaluative labels to Race, religion, sexual orientation, culture,

mental/behavioral health problems, illness, body type, political affi liation…

Discrimination comes in many Forms: Enacted stigma, covert/overt racism, institutional,

microaggressions, self stigma… Settings: Social, employment, housing, judicial, healthcare,

education… And costs: conflicts, war, terrorism, physical health,

psychological health, access to resources…

THE BREADTH OF HUMAN SUFFERING…

Values:Clarifying values related to interactions with stigmatized groups

Committed action: Building patterns of behavior that support cultural awareness/ competency and reduce discrimination

ACT APPROACH TO PREJUDICE/STIGMA

Present moment: Increased awareness of prejudiced reactions

Self-as-context: Flexible perspective taking and compassion towards self and others

Acceptance: Reduce avoidant prejudiced behaviors, increased acceptance of unwanted reactions.

Defusion: Reduce literal, evaluative functions of prejudiced thoughts and ineff ective rules.

What are the mechanisms for delivering ACT at this broad scale level?

Who would participate?

Why would people participate and in what contexts?

HOW DO WE SCALE ACT TO A PUBLIC HEALTH LEVEL?

Addressing psychological processes underlying breadth of prejudiced behaviors.

Changing the dominant cultural approach to prejudice.

Integrating with other prejudice reduction eff orts.

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF ACT IN LARGE SCALE PREJUDICE

REDUCTION EFFORTS?

Intervening on prejudice towards each group separately may be impractical at a public health level

Research shows prejudice can be conceptualized as a generalized process Measures of prejudice are highly correlated and load onto a

latent variable

Could ACT be applied to target prejudice as a generalized process?

TARGETING PREJUDICE AS A GENERALIZED PROCESS

Online survey with 604 college studentsTested SEM model of predictors of generalized

prejudice

INFLEXIBILITY AND GENERALIZED PREJUDICE STUDY

African American

s

Gay menObese

individuals

Neosexism

Substance Abuse

.56.8

1.39

.72

.74

Generalized Prejudice

.28 -.31

-.10 -.14

Perspective Taking

Empathic Concern

AAQ-S Flexibility

AAQ-S Inflexibilit

y

Emphasize external contingencies/motivations for being non-prejudiced Legal/social punishment for discrimination and prejudiced

statements Injunctive norms regarding prejudice

External motivation to control prejudice can increase: Prejudice attitudes and behaviors Ineffective suppression of prejudiced thoughts Anxiety, anger and perceived threat from interracial

interactions Avoidance: sensitive topics, looking away from faces etc…

CHANGING THE CULTURE’S APPROACH TO PREJUDICE

For a review see Butz & Plant, 2009

Internal motivation to control prejudiced reactions Decreases prejudiced attitudes and behaviors Increased quality and quantity of intergroup contact More effective at inhibiting prejudiced reactions and making

repairs

Values work can Elaborate on internal, personally meaningful motivators

related to intergroup relations Clarify discrepancies between personal values and

intergroup relations Reduce “dead man” goals with intergroup relations

USING VALUES TO INCREASE INTERNAL MOTIVATION

Automatic prejudiced reactions are common Spontaneous, outside of awareness, and diffi cult to control

Implicit bias + social pressure = aversive racism Explicitly supporting egalitarian values and Being motivated not to seem prejudiced While continuing to have automatic prejudiced reactions

Overt forms of discrimination may have decreased But more subtle forms of discrimination persist

(employment, social, helping behaviors, legal, etc…) Making prejudice more diffi cult to detect, ambiguous,

chronic

AVERSIVE RACISM AND IMPLICIT BIASES

1. Increase awareness of automatic prejudice reactions

2. Explore negative consequences of trying to suppress these reactions

3. Accept these reactions, without denying or acting on them

4. Defusing from the content of these thoughts

5. Re-orienting to chosen values and making commitments to guide intergroup interactions

You are having prejudiced thoughts, it’s okay to and part of your history, and you can choose how to respond to them.

INCREASING MINDFULNESS AND ACCEPTANCE OF PREJUDICED

REACTIONS

Access points Structured interventions in schools, worksite, etc… Community-based efforts

Overt discussions in the culture: Negative effects of social pressure, personal values for

prejudice reduction Acknowledging prejudiced reactions from accepting and

defused stance

Media: TV shows, books, movies, PSAs modeling these processes Internet: “going viral”, hashtag campaigns, youtube clips,

Ted talks

SOME INITIAL THOUGHTS FOR SCALING

We need to collaborate and integrate with other social justice eff orts that Provide the content/context that ACT then help augment Have access points already developed, with integrated,

ongoing contact Have engaged local communities and stake holders Have systems/methods for implementation

ACT could provide deeper psychological components Enhance intrinsic motivation to engage in such programs Increase awareness of and flexibility responding to

psychological reactions they might elicit

IMPORTANCE OF INTEGRATING WITH OTHER EFFORTS

Intergroup contact is eff ective in contexts that support equality, cooperation and working towards a shared goal

Other research shows Intergroup contact is not effective if not meaningful to the

person (Van Dick et al., 2004) Internal motivation can improve quality and quantity of

intergroup contact, even when anxious or expecting it to go badly (Butz & Plant, 2009)

Values could help people identify and connect with personally meaningful reasons for engaging in intergroup interactions Other flexibility skills could help with reactions during

contact events

ENHANCING INTERGROUP CONTACT EFFORTS

Foster welcoming and supportive university environments for LGBTQIAP (LGBT) students, faculty, and staff Engaging community partners (e.g., students, faculty,

organizations)

Ally: Has awareness, knowledge, and skills to support those experiencing discrimination, and advocates for social justice Post “ally” or “safe zone” stickers

Balance of experiential & didactic exercises, with the goal of situating allyship in personal values and cultivating empathy Cover knowledge (what), awareness (why), and skills (how to)

ACT might reduce reactivity to knowledge, support awareness, and enhance skills

ALLY TRAINING PROGRAMS

Education eff orts include Raising awareness of prevalence, forms, and costs of prejudice Issues of privilege and potential of being prejudiced

Maladaptive responses might occur Defensiveness: “I’m not racist”, getting angry, etc… Lack of responsibility: The problem is too prevalent and big for

me to do anything about it Avoidance: Feeling ashamed, avoiding the topic or certain groups

Integrating ACT methods might promote a fl exible response Acknowledging these factors and issues Without denying, avoiding, defending or giving up

ACT for stigma among care providers is particularly promising

DIVERSITY TRAINING

How to talk to these groups Avoid: “you are doing it wrong and we know what you should do” Explore what works, what the challenges are, where ACT might

help Address misconceptions and pitfalls (e.g., “accepting racism”)

How to promote these conversations Attend conferences Publish in relevant journals, blogs and related outlets (e.g.,

upworthy) Provide trainings and disseminate training materials

What kind of data would engage others doing diversity work? Identify the outcomes that matter to these groups Consider other sources of information – training experiences, case

examples, etc..

HOW CAN WE COLLABORATE?

ACT has a key role in prejudice reduction eff orts How individuals can effectively respond to psychological

reactions How to support internal motivation for prejudice reduction

There are challenges in adapting and scaling up ACT to eff ectively target prejudice

We propose to focus on strategic partnerships with other scaled eff orts And conducting research, training and other work that

would help build that

DISCUSSION