PSYC12H3S Lecture 10
Reducing Prejudice and its Effects
Pessimism in Prejudice Research
This class has focused almost exclusively on the dark side of psychology
Stereotypes are functional & adaptive
Our world conspires to make us more prejudiced
Stereotypes are automatic, implicit; inevitable?
Prejudice have long term effects on targets
What about the bright side? What can we do to improve situation?
-Cognitive structures of how we categorize the world and therefore there is consequence.
-The environment we r in determines how it makes us more prejudices.
-The prejudice is still around but it is not as explicit as it use to be.
Context & Associations
Implicit stereotypes change depending on context
Wittenbrink et al., 2001
(a) Movie and IAT
(b) Priming in context
Implicit stereotypes change after training
Kawakami & Phills (2007) Joystick study
-Individual approaches means approaches that target any one person.
-Study: they measured implicit attitudes towards black ppl.
-There was good movie based on black pl being mature, family oriented and bad movie they r in gang in
-Priming is black face with a background; either good background like church and bad background like a
wall of graffiti.
-These pictures and such can affect white ppl towards black and also how black ppl look at themselves.
-Kawakami and Phills used game and believed that ppl’s gestures or muscles movement predicting their
motivation (19 mins).
Counter-stereotypic role models
Can exposure to counter-stereotypic people reduce implicit prejudice?
How do positive role models affect prejudice?
Women’s colleges present natural experiment into how women’s beliefs are shaped by exposure
to women in counter-stereotypic leadership positions
Compare women in co-ed vs. all women’s colleges
-Police officer whether they r women or men or black or white can affect the ppl -Seeing a positive role model of the same gender can affect the person?
Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004
Women in women’s colleges will have less stereotyped views of women than women in co-ed
This difference is due to exposure to counter-stereotypical women, not to pre-existing differences
Women in women’s vs. co-ed colleges
Women in math vs non-math classes
IAT Male + Leader/Female + Supporter vs. Female + Leader/ Male + Supporter
-Study: it is not an actual experiment bc the ppl who go to private and public academic they r different
status and that has to be taken into account.
Exposure to counter-stereotypical role models can reduce stereotypical associations
This is especially the case in stereotyped domains (e.g. women in math/science)
Is this due to role models?
…or peers? Its both
-Women who go to women’s college: 1 yr they show smaller selective IAT than women who self select
to co-ed college; they are more likely to associate male as leaders than the 1 yr of co-ed college women.
-Women who go to women’s college: 2 year show favorite women as leader and not male with
leadership and the opposite for the co-ed college.
-The more classes they took in math class by male teacher the more they show more affect this is seen in
co-ed college than women’s college (30 mins).
Positive contact between group members isn’t enough (i.e. subtyping), need sustained change
How does change come about