COM 263 ASU Prejudice Discrimination and Stereotyping Discussion

Watch the PBS video

Hacking Your Mind

Respond to the five questions below. Be sure to use key terms in your answers, and also that you refer to the important concepts from the lesson and the video as you write your answers. If you write using only your own ideas, your answers will not be complete, and it will be difficult to assess your learning of the lesson content. Write 6-10 sentences for each answer, and provide examples, analysis, and evidence from your text to support your ideas (citing when appropriate, using APA style).

Please number your responses and be sure to answer all the questions.

Lesson 5 Prejudice, Stereotyping, and
Discrimination
Instruction
View Glossary
Part 1: Social Comparison
One pleasant Saturday afternoon, Ashley arrives home from the car dealership in a
brand-new Mercedes-Benz C-Class, the entry-level sedan in the Mercedes family of
cars. Although Mercedes-Benzes are common in Europe, they are often viewed as
status symbols in the US. Excited, Ashley immediately drives around the block and into
town to show it off. She is thrilled with her purchase for a full week—that is, until she
sees her neighbor across the street, Sofia, driving a brand-new Mercedes S-Class, the
highest tier of Mercedes sedans. Sofia notices Ashley from a distance and waves to her
with a big smile. Climbing into his C-Class, Ashley suddenly feels disappointed with her
purchase and even feels envious of Sofia.
Ashley is experiencing the effects of social comparison. Occurring frequently in our
lives, social comparison shapes our perceptions, memory, and behavior—even
regarding the most trivial of issues. In this lesson, we will take a closer look at the
reasons we make social comparisons and the consequences of the social comparison
process.
Social Comparison Theory
According to psychologist Leon Festinger (1954), people compare themselves to others
in order to fulfill a basic human desire: the need for self-evaluation. He called this
process social comparison theory. At the core of his theory is the idea that people
come to know about themselves—i.e., their own abilities, successes, and
personality —by comparing themselves with others. These comparisons can be
divided into two basic categories.
In one category, we consider social norms and the opinions of others. Specifically,
we compare our own opinions and values to those of others when our own selfevaluation is unclear. For example, you might not be certain about your position on a
hotly contested issue, such as illegal immigration. Or, you might not be certain about
which fork to use when the president of your company visits from Europe and invites
you to a multi-course meal at a high-end French restaurant. In these types of instances
people are prone to look toward others—to make social comparisons—to help fill in the
gaps.
Imagine an American exchange student arriving in India for the first time, a country
where the culture is drastically different from his own. He notices quickly through
observing others—i.e., social comparison—that when greeting a person, it is normal to
place his hands together with palms touching in front of his chest rather than shaking
the other person’s hand. He also notices that greetings are formal, with people often
using “Miss,” “Mrs.,” or “Mr.” along with a surname. This comparison informs him
of how he should behave in the surrounding social context.
The second category of social comparison pertains to our abilities and performance.
In these cases, the need for self-evaluation is driven by another fundamental desire: to
perform better and better—as Festinger (1954) put it, “a unidirectional drive
upward.” In essence, we compare our performance not only to evaluate
ourselves but also to benchmark our performance related to another person. If
we observe, or even anticipate, that a specific person is doing better than us at some
ability then we may be motivated to boost our performance level.
People compare themselves to those who are similar rather than dissimilar.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/dADao9r5QbM(opens in a new tab) by Deddy
Yoga Pratama, Unsplash
Relevance and Similarity
There are important factors, however, that determine whether people will engage in
social comparison. First, the performance dimension has to be relevant to the
self (Festinger, 1954). For example, if excelling in academics is more important to you
than excelling in sports, you are more likely to compare yourself with others in terms of
academic rather than athletic performance. In this case, we are asking, “To what do
people compare themselves?” If the issue at hand is relevant to you, you will compare
your opinion to others; if not, you most likely won’t even bother. Relevance is thus
a necessary precondition for social comparison.
A secondary question is, “To whom do people compare themselves?” Generally
speaking, people compare themselves to those who are similar (Festinger,
1954; Goethals & Darley, 1977), whether similar in personal characteristics (e.g.,
gender, ethnic background, hair color, etc.) or in terms of performance (e.g., both
being of comparable ability or both being neck-and-neck in a race). For example, a
casual tennis player will not compare her performance to that of a professional, but
rather to that of another casual tennis player. The same is true of opinions. People will
cross-reference their own opinions on an issue with others who are similar to them
(e.g., ethnic background or economic status).
Direction of Comparison
Social comparison is a bi-directional phenomenon where we can compare ourselves to
people who are better than us—“upward comparisons”—or worse than us—“downward
comparisons.” Engaging in either of these two comparisons on a performance
dimension can affect our self-evaluation. On one hand, upward comparisons on relevant
dimensions can threaten our self-evaluation and jeopardize self-esteem (Tesser,
1988). On the other hand, they can also lead to joy and admiration for others’
accomplishments on dimensions that are not relevant to the self, where one’s selfevaluation is not under threat. For example, an academic overachiever who
distinguishes himself by having two advanced degrees, both a PhD and a law degree,
may not enjoy meeting another individual with a PhD, a law degree, and an MBA, but
may well enjoy meeting a fellow overachiever in a domain that is not self-relevant, such
as a famous NASCAR racer or professional hockey player.
Downward comparisons may boost our self-evaluation on relevant dimensions, leading
to a self-enhancement effect (Wills, 1981), such as when an individual suffering from
an illness makes downward comparisons with those suffering even more. A person
enduring treatment for cancer, for instance, might feel better about his own side effects
if he learns that an acquaintance suffered worse side effects from the same treatment.
More recent findings have shown that downward comparisons can also lead to feelings
of scorn (Fiske, 2011), such as when those of a younger generation look down upon the
elderly. In these cases, the boost to self-evaluation is so strong that it leads to an
exaggerated sense of pride.
People tend to admire others based on the beliefs, values, accomplishments, lifestyle, or
attributes that are important to them personally.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/jxUuXxUFfp4(opens in a new tab) by Mimi
Thian, Unsplash
Examples of Upward Comparison
While most Americans deeply embrace the concept of equality, think for a moment of
who you might perceive to be of a higher social status than you, someone you perceive
in a positive or favorable way and you might want to emulate. In other words, who do
you admire based on their beliefs, values, accomplishments, lifestyle, or personal
attributes?
Students who have responded to these questions often look to their role models:
celebrities and athletes who are “beautiful,” rich and famous; people who are successful
in the occupation they aim to pursue; or people who are on the forefront fighting for a
cause in which they strongly believe and support. Examples include Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr., Hillary Rodham Clinton, Serena Williams, Ellen DeGeneres, Michelle Obama,
Mark Zuckerberg, Malala Yousafzai, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Donald Trump
These types of individuals—e.g., celebrities, athletes, entrepreneurs, and social
activists—are those to which most people will make an “upward comparison.”
Unlike upward comparisons, downward comparisons are made for social groups who tend to
oppose our personal values.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/IWJH-l-vb4k(opens in a new tab) by Ev,
Unsplash
Examples of Downward Comparison
Now, let’s take the same question and turn it around. Who would you not want to be
like because you associate negative qualities with this type of person?
Students who responded to this question tended to identify individuals or groups of
people who challenge our values. Can you recall the values we identified as
representative of American culture in Lesson 3? A few of them relevant to our
discussion here include freedom, equality, the future, change and
progress, achievement, action, work, and materialism. Would it be fair to say that, as
human beings, we look down upon those who challenge the values we embrace as a
culture, those who do not meet the expectations we have of ourselves and others,
those who represent something with which we do not identify?
Interestingly, the direction of comparison and a person’s emotional response can also
depend on the counterfactual—“what might have been”—that comes most easily to
mind. For example, one might think that an Olympic silver medalist would feel happier
than a bronze medalist. After all, placing second is more prestigious than placing third.
However, a classic study by Victoria Medvec, Scott Madey, and Thomas Gilovich (1995)
found the opposite effect: bronze medalists were actually happier than silver medalists.
The reason for this effect is that silver medalist’s focus on having fallen short of
achieving the gold (so close!), essentially turning a possible downward comparison into
an upward comparison; whereas the bronze medalists recognize they came close to not
winning any medal, essentially turning a possible upward comparison (to another
medalist) into a downward comparison to those who did not even receive a medal.
Upward Comparison
Downward Comparison
Positive Effects
Hope, Inspiration
Gratitude
Negative Effects
Dissatisfaction, Envy
Scorn
Consequences of Social Comparison
Self-Esteem
The social comparison process has been associated with numerous consequences. For
one, social comparison can impact self-esteem (Tesser, 1988). Self-esteem
denotes an individual’s overall perception of value or worth. For example, having the
best final score in a class can increase your self-esteem quite a bit. Social comparison
can also lead to feelings of regret (White, Langer, Yariv, & Welch, 2006), as when
comparing the negative outcome of one’s investment strategy to the positive outcome
of a different strategy taken by a neighbor. Social comparison can also lead to
feelings of envy (Fiske, 2011; Salovey & Rodin, 1984), as when someone with
thinning hair envies the thick hair of a colleague.
Comparing your behavior to that of other people might make you jealous,
regretful or more motivated. Lapel stickers and online badges that proclaim “I voted” or
“I gave blood” are common examples of leveraging social comparison to achieve
positive social outcomes.
Behavior
Social comparison can also have interesting behavioral consequences. If you were to
observe a discrepancy in performance between yourself and another person, then you
might behave more competitively (Garcia, Tor, & Schiff, 2013), as you attempt to
minimize the discrepancy. If, for example, you are among the top 10% on your class
mid-term you might feel competitive with the other top students. Although competition
can raise performance it can also take more problematic forms, as someone who is
feeling envy may make inappropriate comments or even inflict actual harm. These
kinds of behaviors are likely to arise when the situation following the social comparison
does not provide the opportunity to self-repair, such as another chance to compete in a
race or retake a test (Johnson, 2012). However, when later opportunities to selfrepair do exist, a more positive form of competitive motivation arises, whether that
means running harder in a race or striving to earn a higher test score.
Assumptions
Another consequence of social comparison is the possibility that we evaluate others
based on our own cultural framework.
Ethnocentrism is the tendency to look at the world primarily from the perspective of
your own ethnic culture and the belief that that is, in fact, the “right” way to look at the
world. This leads to making incorrect assumptions about others’ behavior based on your
own norms, values, and beliefs. For instance, reluctance or aversion to trying another
culture’s cuisine is ethnocentric. Social scientists strive to treat cultural differences as
neither inferior nor superior. That way, they can understand their research topics within
the appropriate cultural context and examine their own biases and assumptions at the
same time.
This approach is known as “cultural relativism.” Cultural relativism is the principle
that an individual person’s beliefs and activities should be understood by
others in terms of that individual’s own culture. A key component of cultural
relativism is the concept that nobody, not even researchers, comes from a neutral
position. The way to deal with our own assumptions is not to pretend that they don’t
exist but rather to acknowledge them, and then use the awareness that we are not
neutral to inform our conclusions.
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social comparison theory suggests that people come to know about
themselves—i.e., their abilities, successes, personality, strengths, and
weaknesses—by comparing themselves with others.
Social comparison occurs relative to the social norms and the opinions of others
as well as to our perception of our abilities and performance relative to others.
Social comparison is bi-directional; we can compare ourselves to people who are
better than us—“upward comparisons”—or worse than us—“downward
comparisons.”
Self-esteem denotes an individual’s overall perception of value or worth, which
can also be influenced through social comparison.
Ethnocentrism entails the belief that one’s own race or ethnic group is the most
important or that some or all aspects of one’s culture are superior to those of
other groups.
Within this ideology, individuals will judge other groups in relation to their own
particular ethnic group or culture, especially with concern to language, behavior,
customs, and religion.
Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual person’s beliefs and
activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual’s own
culture.
Social Identity
Have you even considered where and how we establish our social identities? This
“Crash Course Sociology” video focuses on the socialization process. Click below to view
this interesting video to find out what Sweeney calls the “hidden curriculum” and how
schools, families, peers, social media, and even YouTube videos impact our selfconcept:
In our discussion of social comparison, we have seen that who we compare ourselves to
can affect how we feel about ourselves, for better or worse. Another social influence on
our self-esteem is through our group memberships. For example, we can gain selfesteem by perceiving ourselves as members of important and valued groups that make
us feel good about ourselves. Social identity theory asserts that we draw part of
our sense of identity and self-esteem from the social groups we belong to (Hogg, 2003;
Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Tajfel, 1981).
Normally, group memberships result in positive feelings, which occur because we
perceive our own groups, and thus ourselves, in a positive light. If you are a Tom Brady
fan, or if you are an Australian, or if you are a Muslim, for example, then your
membership in the group becomes part of what you are, and the membership makes
you feel good about yourself.
Which of our many identities is most accessible for us will vary from day to day as a
function of the particular situation we are in (Yakushko, Davidson, & Williams, 2009).
Seeing our national flag outside a government office may remind of us our national
identity, whereas walking past our local soccer stadium may remind us of our
identification with our team. Identity can also be heightened when it is threatened by
conflict with another group—such as during an important sports game with a rival
team. We each have multiple social identities, and which of our identities we
draw our self-esteem from at a given time will depend on the situation we are
in, as well as the social goals we have.
When outperformed by a member of our in-group, we rebuild our self-esteem through one of
three ways: by creating distance from the person in question, by redefining the importance of
the trait or skill in question, or by improving our ability to compete.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/atSaEOeE8Nk(opens in a new tab) by Steven
Lelham, Unsplash
In particular, we use occasions when our social groups are successful in meeting their
goals to fuel our self-worth. Robert Cialdini and his colleagues (Cialdini et al.,
1976) studied the idea that we can sometimes enhance our self-esteem by basking in
the reflected glory of our in-groups, which occurs when we use and advertise our ingroups’ positive achievements to boost our self-esteem. To test this idea, they
observed the clothes and clothing accessories that students at different US universities
wore to classes on Mondays. They found that when the university’s football team had
won its game on Saturday, students were likely to emphasize their university
membership by wearing clothing, such as sweatshirts and hats, with the symbols of the
university on them.
However, they were significantly less likely to wear university clothing on the Mondays
that followed a football loss. Furthermore, in a study in which students from a
university were asked to describe a victory by their university team, they frequently
used the term “we,” whereas when asked to describe a game in which their school lost,
they used the term “we” significantly less frequently. Emphasizing that “we’re a good
school” and “we beat them” evidently provided a social identity for these students,
allowing them to feel good about themselves.
When people in our in-groups perform well, social identity theory suggests that we tend
to make intergroup social comparisons, and by seeing our group as doing better than
other groups, we come to feel better about ourselves. However, this is not generally
what happens when we make intragroup comparisons—those between ourselves and
other in-group members. In this case it is often not advantageous to bask in the glory
of others in our in-groups, because in some cases the other person’s successes may
create an upward comparison and thus more negative emotions.
Self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser, 1988) asserts that our self-esteem can
be threatened when someone else outperforms us, particularly if that person is close to
us and the performance domain is central to our self-concept. This theory leads to the
interesting implication that these threats will often occur in the context of our family
relationships, and they have been shown to be an integral part of both family
functioning in general (Tesser, 1980) and marital relationships in particular (Beach et
al., 1996).
Click here to understand how to repair your self-esteem
People in collectivistic cultures value cohesion and harmony above personal achievements.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/_UIN-pFfJ7c(opens in a new tab) by Sorasak,
Unsplash
Individual Differences
It is also worth mentioning that social comparison and its effects on self-identity and
self-evaluation will often depend on personality and individual differences. For
example, people with mastery goals (Poortvliet, Janssen, Van Yperen, & Van de Vliert,
2007 ) may not interpret an upward comparison as a threat to the self but more as
challenge, and a hopeful sign that one can achieve a certain level of performance.
Another individual difference is whether one has a “fixed mindset” or “growth
mindset” (Dweck, 2007). People with fixed mindsets think their abilities and talents
cannot change; thus, an upward comparison will likely threaten their self-evaluation
and prompt them to experience negative consequences of social comparison, such as
competitive behavior, envy, or unhappiness. People with growth mindsets, however,
are likely to interpret an upward comparison as a challenge, and an opportunity to
improve themselves.
Cultural Differences
Let’s take a moment to briefly review the differences between individualistic and
collectivistic cultures, which we discussed in Lesson 3. As you will
recall, individualistic cultures focus on the individual person as the core component
of society. They see themselves as separate from others and define themselves not
from the perspective of their culture or the groups to which they belong but based on
their individual characteristics, in other words, the qualities or traits that make them
“unique.”
Collectivistic cultures focus on group interdependence. People value cohesion and
harmony within the groups to which they belong and place the priorities of the group at
a higher level than their own. While individualistic cultures value personal
achievement—i.e., the completion of tasks—because achievement adds to an
individual’s perceived value, collectivistic cultures focus on one’s interconnectedness to
other. While the achievement of tasks is important, people place a higher value on
relationships and any accomplishments will usually be credited to the group as a whole,
not the individual.
As you will recall, here are the basic differences between individualistic and collectivistic
cultures:
Individualistic Culture
Collectivistic Culture
Achievement oriented
Relationship oriented
Focus on autonomy
Focus on group autonomy
Dispositional perspective
Situational perspective
Independent
Interdependent
Analytic thinking style
Holistic thinking style
Additionally, people in collectivist cultures have an increased desire to compare
themselves not only within their own groups but also with other groups. They also
demonstrate a need to make upward comparisons. Why would a member of collectivist
culture that values group cohesion and interdependence among group members have a
desire for self-improvement? The speculation for this trend is that one desires to
improve their abilities and talents for the benefit of the status and reputation of their
own group—not for themselves as an individual. While people in collectivistic cultures
are individually proud of their personal accomplishments, it is undesirable to call
attention to oneself. Just as people in individualistic cultures go back to school to get a
college degree and work hard to move up the “corporate ladder” for the benefit of their
families, those in collectivistic cultures do the same for the larger groups to which they
belong.
Table 5.2 reminds us of the differences between individualistic and collectivist cultures.
Using this list, can you decipher how individualistic and collectivistic cultures might
compare themselves to others relative to what each considers important?
Situational Factors
Situational factors that can likewise influence degrees of social comparison include:
1. NUMBER OF COMPARISON TARGETS
2. LOCAL DOMINANCE EFFECT
3. PROXIMITY OF A STANDARD
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
•
Social identity theory asserts that we draw part of our sense of identity and selfesteem from the social groups that we belong to.
When people in our in-groups perform well, social identity theory suggests that
we tend to make intergroup social comparisons, and by seeing our group as
doing better than other groups, we come to feel better about ourselves.
According to self-evaluation maintenance theory, our self-esteem can be
threatened when someone else outperforms us, particularly if that person is
close to us and the performance domain is central to our self-concept.
When threats occur, the theory states that we will typically try to rebuild our
self-esteem using one of three main strategies: outdistancing, redefining how
important the trait or skills is, or improving on the ability in question.
Individual and cultural differences also factor in relative to social comparison and
its effects on self-esteem.
Situational factors can likewise influence degrees of social comparison based on
the number of comparison targets, the local dominance effect, and the proximity
of a standard.
Part 2: Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping
Even in one’s own family, everyone wants to be seen for who they are, not as “just
another typical X.” But still, people put other people into groups, using that label to
inform their evaluation of the person as a whole—a process that can result in serious
consequences. This module focuses on biases against social groups, which social
psychologists sort into emotional (affective) prejudices, behavioral discrimination
(behavior), and mental (cognitive) stereotypes. These three aspects of bias are
related, but they each can occur separately from the others (Dovidio & Gaertner,
2010; Fiske, 1998). For example, sometimes people have a negative, emotional
reaction to a social group (prejudice) without knowing even the most superficial
reasons to dislike them (stereotypes).
The ABCs of Prejudice, Discrimination, and Stereotyping
The ABCs—Affect, Behavior, and Cognition—apply to the study of stereotyping,
prejudice, and discrimination, and scholars have expended substantial research efforts
studying these concepts (see the “ABCs of Social Psychology” Figure below). The
cognitive component in our perceptions of group members is the stereotype—
the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the characteristics of social
groups. We may decide that “French people are romantic,” that “old people are
incompetent,” or that “college professors are absent minded.” And we may use those
beliefs to guide our actions toward people from those groups. In addition to our
stereotypes, we may also develop prejudice—an unjustifiable negative attitude toward
an out-group or toward the members of that out-group. Prejudice can take the form of
disliking, anger, fear, disgust, discomfort, and even hatred. Our stereotypes and our
prejudices are problematic because they may create discrimination—unjustified
negative behaviors toward members of out-groups based on their group membership.
“ABCs of Social Psychology” Figure
Creative Commons https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/wpcontent/uploads/sites/21/2014/10/bd4241eb08da4de692e6b975647f75a0.jpg(opens in a new
tab) by Dr. Rajiv Jhangiani and Dr. Hammond Tarry is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0(opens in
a new tab).
“ABCs of Social Psychology” caption:
Relationships among social groups are influenced by the ABC of social psychology. Humans rely on the 3 capacities of affect, behavior, and cognition, which work together to h
interactions.
As a result of holding negative beliefs (stereotypes) and negative attitudes
(prejudice) about a particular group, people often treat the target of prejudice poorly
(discrimination), such as excluding older adults from their circle of friends. The
following table summarizes the characteristics of stereotypes, prejudice, and
discrimination. Have you ever been the target of discrimination? If so, how did this
negative treatment make you feel?
Item
Function
Connection
Example
Stereotype
Cognitive;
thoughts about
people
Overgeneralized beliefs
about people may lead to
prejudice.
“Yankees fans are
arrogant and
obnoxious.”
Prejudice
Affective;
feelings about
people, both
positive and
negative
Feelings may influence
treatment of others, leading
to discrimination.
“I hate Yankees fans;
they make me angry.”
Discrimination
Behavior;
positive or
negative
treatment of
others
Holding stereotypes and
harboring prejudice may lead
to excluding, avoiding, and
biased treatment of group
members.
“I would never hire
nor become friends
with a person if I
knew he or she were a
Yankees fan.”
This table uses the New York Yankees baseball team as an example to show how a
stereotype can lead to prejudice, which in turns leads to discrimination. Can you think
of any other examples from your own life experience? As an exercise, the next time you
watch or read the local or national news, listen for examples of stereotypes and
consider how they lead to prejudice and discrimination within our society.
This “Crash Course Sociology” video focuses on prejudice, racism, and discrimination. It
is just 10 minutes in length and will help put the material we cover in Lesson 5 into
better perspective.
Stereotypes and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
When we hold a stereotype about a person, we have expectations that he or she will
fulfill that stereotype. A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person
that alters his or her behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold
stereotypes about a person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations.
This treatment can influence the person to act according to our stereotypic
expectations, thus confirming our stereotypic beliefs.
Stereotypes and prejudice have a pervasive and often pernicious influence not only on
our responses to others but also, in some cases, on our own behaviors. To take one
example, social psychological research has found that our stereotypes may in some
cases lead to stereotype threat—performance decrements that are caused by the
knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Spencer, Steele, and Quinn (1999) found that when
women were reminded of the (untrue) stereotype that “women are poor at math,” they
performed more poorly on math tests than when they were not reminded of the
stereotype; other research has found stereotype threat in many other domains as well.
Here is a short but powerful 3-minute video that further explains a “stereotype threat.”
Negative stereotypes devalue people and deter us from open communication.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/OyGWAqgjXBc(opens in a new tab) by Sharon
Garcia, Unsplash
Can you think of any examples from your own life experience wherein you were treated
based differently based on how you were stereotyped? How did they impact your
thought process and thus your ability to perform?
Stereotypes reduce and ignore a person’s individuality and the diversity present within
a larger group of people. Stereotypes can be based on many factors. Here are a few
common examples:
Cultural identities – Race, ethnicity, skin tone, generation or age, sexual orientation
Physical appearance – Weight, height, choice or quality of clothing, birth defects
Behavior – Volume of voice, communication style, lifestyle,
Speech –Accent, dialect, language ability, speech impediment (such as stuttering)
Beliefs – Religion, food choices, how to raise one’s children, health care
Values – Education, political views, community service
Possessions – Where one lives, type of car one drives, brand names of clothing
Personal life circumstances – Social class, personal history (e.g., convicted felon),
marital status, educational background (e.g., high school drop-out)
‘Stereotypes are often caused by a lack of information about the target person or group
(Guyll et al., 2010). Stereotypes can be positive, negative, or neutral, but all run the
risk of lowering the quality of our communication.
While the negative effects of stereotypes are pretty straightforward in that they devalue
people and prevent us from adapting and revising our schemata, positive stereotypes
also have negative consequences. For example, the “model minority” stereotype has
been applied to some Asian cultures in the United States, characterizing Asian
Americans as hardworking, intelligent, and willing to adapt to “mainstream” culture.
These stereotypes are not always received as positive and can lead some people within
these communities to feel objectified, ignored, or overlooked.
Stereotypes can also lead to double standards that point to larger cultural and social
inequalities. There are many more words to describe a sexually active female than a
male, and the words used for females are disproportionately negative, while those used
for males are more positive. Since stereotypes are generally based on a lack of
information, we must take it upon ourselves to gain exposure to new kinds of
information and people, which will likely require us to get out of our comfort zones.
When we do meet people, we should base the impressions we make on describable
behavior rather than inferred or secondhand information. When stereotypes negatively
influence our overall feelings and attitudes about a person or group, prejudiced thinking
results.
Another dynamic that can reinforce stereotypes is confirmation bias. When interacting
with the target of our prejudice, we tend to pay attention to information that is
consistent with our stereotypic expectations and ignore information that is inconsistent
with our expectations. In this process, known as confirmation bias, we seek out
information that supports our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent
with our stereotypes (Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972).
Have you ever fallen prey to a self-fulfilling prophecy or confirmation bias, either as the
source or target of such bias? How might we stop the cycle of the self-fulfilling
prophecy?
Attitudes and Cognitive Dissonance
Feeling good about ourselves and maintaining positive self-esteem is a powerful
motivator of human behavior. Let’s take a look at how attitudes can be changed
through cognitive dissonance. As mentioned earlier, cognitive dissonance refers to the
discomfort we feel when our beliefs are not aligned with our actions, causing us to
rationalize our behavior.
Attitudes are our evaluations or feelings toward a person, idea, or object and typically
are positive or negative. Our attitudes and beliefs are influenced not only by external
forces, but also by internal influences that we control. An internal form of attitude
change is cognitive dissonance or the tension we experience when our thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors are in conflict. When we experience cognitive dissonance, we
are motivated to decrease it because it is psychologically, physically, and mentally
uncomfortable. We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions,
attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious.
In order to reduce dissonance, individuals can change their behavior, attitudes, or
cognitions, or add a new cognition. Consider the example of a person who has adopted
the attitude that they will no longer eat high fat food, but eats a high-fat doughnut
anyway. They might attempt to alleviate this cognitive dissonance through one of the
four cognitive reduction techniques:
1. Change behavior or cognition (“I will not eat any more of this doughnut”)
2. Justify behavior or cognition by changing the conflicting cognition (“I’m allowed
to cheat every once in a while”)
3. Justify behavior or cognition by adding new cognitions (“I’ll spend 30 extra
minutes at the gym to work this off”)
4. Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs (“This
doughnut is not high in fat”)
Can you think of times in your own life when you experienced cognitive dissonance, and
what you did to reduce the internal conflict?
If you are still having a hard time with the definition and significance of cognitive
dissonance, take a look at this YouTube video, which explains cognitive dissonance in
less than seven minutes.
The ABCs of Attitudes
We can apply the Affect, Behavior, and Cognition (ABCs) of social groups relative to
prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes as we saw in Figure 5.1 to attitudes to help
us understand how attitudes function in a cultural context. For the sake of simplicity,
the figure is repeated here to show the correlation between attitudes and affect,
behavior, and cognition.
“ABCs of Attitudes” Figure
The power of the situation has a significant influence on our attitudes and beliefs.
Attitude is our evaluation of a person, an idea, or an object. We have attitudes for
many things, ranging from products that we might pick up in the supermarket, to
people around the world, to political policies. Typically, attitudes are favorable or
unfavorable, positive or negative (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). As we already noted, they
have three components: an affective component (feelings), a behavioral component
(the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a cognitive component (belief and
knowledge) (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960).
For example, you may hold a positive attitude toward recycling. This attitude should
result in positive feelings toward recycling (such as “It makes me feel good to recycle”
or “I enjoy knowing that I make a small difference in reducing the amount of waste that
ends up in landfills”). Certainly, this attitude should be reflected in our behavior: You
actually recycle as often as you can. Finally, this attitude will be reflected in favorable
thoughts (for example, “Recycling is good for the environment” or “Recycling is the
responsible thing to do”).
Our attitudes and beliefs are not only influenced by external forces, but also by the
internal influences we control. Like our behavior, our attitudes and thoughts are not
always changed by situational pressures, but they can be consciously changed by our
own free will.
Key Takeaways
•
Cognitive dissonance refers to the discomfort we feel when our beliefs are not
aligned with our actions, causing us to rationalize our behavior.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Like stereotypes, attitudes have three components: an affective component
(feelings), a behavioral component (the effect of the attitude on behavior), and a
cognitive component (belief and knowledge).
Stereotypes refer to the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the
characteristics of social group.
Stereotypes can be positive, negative, or neutral, but all run the risk of lowering
the quality of our communication.
Prejudice is an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an out-group.
Discrimination relates to unjustified negative behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership.
A self-fulfilling prophecy is an expectation held by a person that alters his or her
behavior in a way that tends to make it true. When we hold stereotypes about a
person, we tend to treat the person according to our expectations.
A stereotype threat refers to a decrement in one’s performance as a result of the
knowledge of cultural stereotypes. If one is led to believe they are not intelligent
because they are overweight, they may perform poorly in school.
Confirmation bias is a process in which we seek out information that supports
our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent with stereotypes.
Having a strong preference for our in-group leads to prejudice and discrimination toward people
who are members of out-groups.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/j9nEtaHsNkw(opens in a new tab) by Rommel
Davila, Unsplash
Liking “Us” More than “Them”: In-Group Favoritism
In his important research on group perceptions, Henri Tajfel and his colleagues (Tajfel,
Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971) demonstrated how incredibly powerful the role of selfconcern is in group perceptions. He found that just dividing people into arbitrary groups
produces in-group favoritism—the tendency to respond more positively to people
from our in-groups than we do to people from out-groups.
The tendency to favor their in-group develops quickly in young children, increasing up
to about six years of age, and almost immediately begins to influence their behavior
(Aboud, 2003; Aboud & Amato, 2001). Young children show greater liking for peers of
their own sex and race and typically play more with same-sex others after the age of
three. And there is a norm that we should favor our in-groups: people like people who
express in-group favoritism better than those who are more egalitarian (Castelli &
Carraro, 2010). Amazingly, even infants as young as nine months old prefer those who
treat similar others well and dissimilar others poorly (Hamlin, Mahajan, Liberman, &
Wynn, 2013). In-group favoritism is found for many different types of social groups, in
many different settings, on many different dimensions, and in many different cultures
(Bennett et al., 2004; Pinter & Greenwald, 2011). In-group favoritism also occurs on
trait ratings, such that in-group members are rated as having more positive
characteristics than are out-group members (Hewstone, 1990). People also take credit
for the successes of other in-group members, remember more positive than negative
information about in-groups, are more critical of the performance of out-group than of
in-group members, and believe that their own groups are less prejudiced than are outgroups (Shelton & Richeson, 2005).
People also make trait attributions in ways that benefit their in-groups, just as they
make trait attributions that benefit themselves. This tendency, known as the groupserving bias (or ultimate attribution error), results in the tendency for each of the
competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and unrealistically negatively
(Hewstone, 1990).
When an in-group member engages in a positive behavior, we tend to see it as a stable
internal characteristic of the group as a whole. Similarly, negative behaviors on the part
of the out-group are seen as caused by stable negative group characteristics. On the
other hand, negative behaviors from the in-group and positive behaviors from the outgroup are more likely to be seen as caused by temporary situational variables or by
behaviors of specific individuals and are less likely to be attributed to the group.
What causes in-group favoritism?
20th Century Biases: Subtle but Significant
Fortunately, old-fashioned biases have diminished over the 20th century and into the
21st century. Openly expressing prejudice is like blowing second-hand cigarette smoke
in someone’s face: It’s just not done any more in most circles, and if it is, people are
readily criticized for their behavior. Still, these biases exist in people; they’re just less
in view than before. These subtle biases are unexamined and sometimes unconscious
but real in their consequences. They are automatic, ambiguous, and ambivalent,
but nonetheless biased, unfair, and disrespectful to the belief in equality.
AUTOMATIC BIASES
AMBIGUOUS BIASES
AMBIVALENT BIASES
by Rawpixel, Unsplash
Conclusion: 21st Century Prejudices
As the world becomes more interconnected—more collaborations between countries,
more intermarrying between different groups—more and more people are encountering
greater diversity of others in everyday life. Just ask yourself if you’ve ever been asked,
“What are you?” Such a question would be preposterous if you were only surrounded by
members of your own group. Categories, then, are becoming more and more uncertain,
unclear, volatile, and complex (Bodenhausen & Peery, 2009). People’s identities are
multifaceted, intersecting across gender, race, class, age, region, and more. Identities
are not so simple, but maybe as the 21st century unfurls, we will recognize each other
by the content of our character instead of the cover on our outside.
Here is a summary of the relationship between automatic, ambiguous, and ambivalent
biases relative to the IAT, social identity theory, and the SCM.
Type of
Bias
Example
What it Shows
Automatic
Implicit Association Test
People link “good” & ingroup, “bad” &
outgroup
Ambiguous
Social identity theory
Self-categorized theory
Aversive racism
People favor ingroup, distance from outgroup
Same but emphasizes self as a member of
ingroup
People avoid outroup, avoid their own
prejudices
Ambivalent
Stereotype Content
Model
People divide groups by warmth and
competence
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
An in-group is a group that we identify with or see ourselves as belonging to.
Being a member of a group that has positive characteristics provides us with
feelings of social identity, i.e., the positive self-esteem we get from our group
memberships.
We want to feel good and protect our in-groups. We seek to resolve threats
individually and at the in-group level. This often happens by blaming an outgroup for the problem.
An out-group is a group we do not belong to, a group we view as fundamentally
different from us.
People also take credit for the successes of other in-group members, remember
more positive than negative information about in-groups, are more critical of the
performance of outgroup than of in-group members, and believe that their own
groups are less prejudiced than are out-groups.
We categorize into in-groups and out-groups because it helps us simplify and
structure our environment.
In-group favoritism is caused by a variety of variables, but particularly important
is self-concern: we experience positive social identity as a result of our
membership in valued social groups.
In-group favoritism develops early in children and influences our behavior toward
in-group and out-group members in a variety of ways.
The Stereotype Content Model identifies four possible kinds of stereotypes based
on two dimensions: competence and warmth. The combination of these two
traits identifies groups that are more and less desirable within a society, thus
leading to prejudice and discrimination.
Negative stereotyping can be controlled but it takes time to remove them completely.
(opens in a new tab)https://www.rawpixel.com/image/537910/free-photo-image-african-africanamerican-association(opens in a new tab) by Rawpixel
Part 3: Reducing Discrimination
We have seen that social categorization is a basic part of human nature and one that
helps us to simplify our social worlds, to draw quick (if potentially inaccurate)
conclusions about others, and to feel good about ourselves. In many cases, our
preferences for in-groups may be relatively harmless—we may prefer to socialize with
people who share our race or ethnicity for instance, but without particularly disliking the
others. But categorizing others may also lead to prejudice and discrimination, and it
may even do so without our awareness. Because prejudice and discrimination are so
harmful to so many people, we must all work to get beyond them.
Discrimination influences the daily life of its victims in areas such as employment,
income, financial opportunities, housing and educational opportunities, and medical
care. Blacks have higher mortality rates than Whites for eight of the 10 leading causes
of death in the United States (Williams, 1999) and have less access to and receive
poorer-quality health care, even controlling for other variables such as level of health
insurance. Suicide rates among lesbians and gays are substantially higher than rates for
the general population, and it has been argued that this in part due to the negative
outcomes of prejudice, including negative attitudes and resulting social isolation
(Halpert, 2002). And in some rare cases, discrimination even takes the form of hate
crimes such as gay bashing.
More commonly, members of minority groups also face a variety of small hassles, such
as bad service in restaurants, being stared at, and being the target of jokes (Swim,
Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). But even these everyday “minor” forms of
discrimination can be problematic because they may produce anger and anxiety among
stigmatized group members and may lead to stress and other psychological problems
(Klonoff, Landrine, & Campbell, 2000; Klonoff, Landrine, & Ullman, 1999). Stigmatized
individuals who report experiencing more exposure to discrimination or other forms of
unfair treatment also report more depression, anger, and anxiety and lower levels of
life satisfaction and happiness (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001).
Of course, most of us do try to keep our stereotypes and our prejudices out of mind,
and we work hard to avoid discriminating (Richeson & Shelton, 2007). But even when
we work to keep our negative beliefs under control, this does not mean that they easily
disappear. Neil Macrae and his colleagues (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten,
1994) asked British college students to write a paragraph describing a skinhead (a
member of a group that is negatively stereotyped in England). One half of the
participants were asked to be sure to not use their stereotypes when they were judging
him, whereas the other half simply wrote whatever came to mind. Although the
participants who were asked to suppress their thoughts were able to do it, this
suppression didn’t last very long. After they had suppressed their stereotypes, these
beliefs quickly popped back into mind, making it even more likely that they would be
used immediately later.
But stereotypes are not always and inevitably activated when we encounter people
from other groups. We can and we do get past them, although doing so may take some
effort on our part (Blair, 2002). There are a number of techniques that we can use to
try to improve our attitudes toward out-groups, and at least some of them have been
found to be effective. Kawakami, Dovidio, Moll, Hermsen, and Russin (2000) found that
students who practiced responding in non-stereotypical ways to members of other
groups became better able to avoid activating their negative stereotypes on future
occasions. And a number of studies have found that we become less prejudiced when
we are exposed to and think about group members who have particularly positive or
non-stereotypical characteristics. For instance, Blair, Ma, and Lenton (2001) asked their
participants to imagine a woman who was “strong” and found that doing so decreased
stereotyping of women. Similarly, Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, and Wanke
(1995) found that when White American students thought about positive Black role
models—such as Oprah Winfrey and Michael Jordan—they became less prejudiced
toward Blacks.
Prejudice can be reduced through education.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/OyCl7Y4y0Bk(opens in a new tab) by
Element5 Digital, Unsplash
1. Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms
One variable that makes us less prejudiced is education. People who are more educated
express fewer stereotypes and prejudice in general. This is true for students who enroll
in courses that are related to stereotypes and prejudice, such as a course on gender
and ethnic diversity (Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001), and is also true more
generally—education reduces prejudice, regardless of what particular courses you take
(Sidanius, Sinclair, & Pratto, 2006).
The effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to the new
social norms that people are introduced to in school. Social norms define what is
appropriate and inappropriate, and we can effectively change stereotypes and prejudice
by changing the relevant norms about them. Jetten, Spears, and Manstead
(1997) manipulated whether students thought the other members of their university
favored equal treatment of others or believed that others thought it was appropriate to
favor the in-group. They found that perceptions of what the other group members
believed had an important influence on the beliefs of the individuals themselves. The
students were more likely to show in-group favoritism when they believed that the
norm of their in-group was to do so, and this tendency was increased for students who
had high social identification with the in-group.
Interested in another fascinating study related to prejudice?
Prejudice and discrimination thrive in environments in which they are perceived to be the norm,
but they die when the existing social norms do not allow it.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/G7b7Ldc-zXQ(opens in a new tab) by Brandon
Couch, Unsplash
The influence of social norms is powerful, and long-lasting changes in beliefs about outgroups will occur only if they are supported by changes in social norms. Prejudice and
discrimination thrive in environments in which they are perceived to be the norm, but
they die when the existing social norms do not allow it. And because social norms are
so important, the behavior of individuals can help create or reduce prejudice and
discrimination. Discrimination, prejudice, and even hate crimes such as gay bashing will
be more likely to continue if people do not respond to or confront them when they
occur.
What this means is that if you believe that prejudice is wrong, you must confront it
when you see it happening. Czopp, Monteith, and Mark (2006) had White participants
participate in a task in which it was easy to unintentionally stereotype a Black person,
and, as a result, many of the participants did so. Then, confederates of the
experimenter confronted the students about their stereotypes, saying things such as
“Maybe it would be good to think about Blacks in other ways that are a little more fair?”
or “It just seems that you sound like some kind of racist to me. You know what I
mean?” Although the participants who had been confronted experienced negative
feelings about the confrontation and also expressed negative opinions about the person
who confronted them, the confrontation did work. The students who had been
confronted expressed less prejudice and fewer stereotypes on subsequent tasks than
did the students who had not been confronted.
As this study concluded, taking steps to reduce prejudice is everyone’s duty—having a
little courage can go a long way in this regard. Confronting prejudice can lead other
people to think that we are complaining and therefore to dislike us (Kaiser & Miller,
2001; Shelton & Stewart, 2004), but confronting prejudice is not all negative for the
person who confronts. Although it is embarrassing to do so, particularly if we are not
completely sure that the behavior was in fact prejudice, when we fail to confront, we
may frequently later feel guilty that we did not (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill,
2006).
People will be more favorable toward others when they learn to see those other people as similar
to them.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/lbLgFFlADrY(opens in a new tab) by Perry
Grone, Unsplash
2. Reducing Prejudice Through Intergroup Contact
One of the reasons people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they view the
members of out-groups as different from them. We may become concerned that our
interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant, and these
anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from those groups (Mallett,
Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). What this suggests is that a good way to reduce prejudice is
to help people create closer connections with members of different groups. People will
be more favorable toward others when they learn to see those other people as more
similar to them, as closer to the self, and to be more concerned about them.
The idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice, known as the contact
hypothesis, is simple: If children from different ethnic groups play together in school,
their attitudes toward each other should improve. And if we encourage college students
to travel abroad, they will meet people from other cultures and become more positive
toward them.
One important example of the use of intergroup contact to influence prejudice came
about as a result of the important US Supreme Court case Brown v. Board of
Education in 1954. In this case, the US Supreme Court agreed, based in large part on
the testimony of psychologists, that busing Black children to schools attended primarily
by White children, and vice versa, would produce positive outcomes on intergroup
attitudes, not only because it would provide Black children with access to better
schools, but also because the resulting intergroup contact would reduce prejudice
between Black and White children. Busing improved the educational and occupational
achievement of Blacks and increased the desire of Blacks to interact with Whites by
forming cross-race friendships (Stephan, 1999).
Although student busing to achieve desegregated schools represents one prominent
example of intergroup contact, such contact occurs in many other areas as well. Taken
together, there is substantial support for the effectiveness of intergroup contact in
improving group attitudes in a wide variety of situations, including schools, work
organizations, military forces, and public housing. Pettigrew and Tropp
(2006) conducted a meta-analysis in which they reviewed over 500 studies that had
investigated the effects of intergroup contact on group attitudes. They found that
attitudes toward groups that were in contact became more positive over
time. Furthermore, positive effects of contact were found on both stereotypes and
prejudice for many different types of contacted groups. For more information on contact
hypothesis, watch this short video by Adjunct Faculty Member Carol Gray.
Contact Hypothesis Transcript
The more contact we have with people of different cultural backgrounds, the more likely we are
to reduce negative feelings.
(opens in a new tab)https://unsplash.com/photos/Tn224epst1E(opens in a new tab) by Ali
Yahya, Unsplash
The positive effects of intergroup contact may be due in part to increases in otherconcern. Galinsky and Moskowitz (2000) found that leading students to take the
perspective of another group member—which increased empathy and closeness to the
person—also reduced prejudice. And the behavior of students on college campuses
demonstrates the importance of connecting with others and the dangers of not doing
so. Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, and Sinclair (2004) found that students who joined
exclusive campus groups, including fraternities, sororities, and minority ethnic
organizations (such as the African Student Union), were more prejudiced to begin with
and became even less connected and more intolerant of members of other social
groups over the time they remained in the organizations. It appears that memberships
in these groups focused the students on themselves and other people who were very
similar to them, leading them to become less tolerant of others who were different.
Although intergroup contact does work, it is not a panacea because the conditions
necessary for it to be successful are frequently not met. Contact can be expected to
work only in situations that create the appropriate opportunities for change. For one,
contact will only be effective if it provides information demonstrating that the existing
stereotypes held by the individuals are incorrect. When we learn more about groups
that we didn’t know much about before, we learn more of the truth about them, leading
us to be less biased in our beliefs. But if our interactions with the group members do
not allow us to learn new beliefs, then contact cannot work.
When we first meet someone from another category, we are likely to rely almost
exclusively on our stereotypes (Brodt & Ross, 1998). However, when we get to know
the individual well (e.g., as a student in a classroom learns to know the other students
over a school year), we may get to the point where we ignore that individual’s group
membership almost completely, responding to him or her entirely at the individual level
(Madon et al., 1998). Thus contact is effective in part because it leads us to get past
our perceptions of others as group members and to individuate them.
When we get past group memberships and focus more on the individuals in the groups,
we begin to see that there is a great deal of variability among the group members and
that our global and undifferentiating group stereotypes are actually not that informative
(Rothbart & John, 1985). Successful intergroup contact tends to reduce the perception
of out-group homogeneity. Contact also helps us feel more positively about the
members of the other group, and this positive affect makes us like them more.
Only when we get to know another person as a unique individual are we able to see beyond the
“category” in which we consciously or unconsciously placed them.
(opens in a new tab)https://pxhere.com/en/photo/976448(opens in a new tab) by Providence
Doucet, pxhere
License: Public Domain
Intergroup contact is also more successful when the people involved in the contact are
motivated to learn about the others. One factor that increases this motivation
is interdependence—a state in which the group members depend on each other for
successful performance of the group goals (Neuberg & Fiske, 1987).
We can conclude that contact will be most effective when it is easier to get to know,
and become more respectful of, the members of the other group and when the social
norms of the situation promote equal, fair treatment of all groups. If the groups are
treated unequally, for instance, by a teacher or leader who is prejudiced and who
therefore treats the different groups differently, or if the groups are in competition
rather than cooperation, there will be no benefit. In cases when these conditions are
not met, contact may not be effective and may in fact increase prejudice, particularly
when it confirms stereotypical expectations (Stangor, Jonas, Stroebe, & Hewstone,
1996). Finally, it is important that enough time be allowed for the changes to take
effect. In the case of busing in the United States, for instance, the positive effects of
contact seemed to have been occurring, but they were not happening particularly fast.
Moving Others Closer to Us: The Benefits of Recategorization
The research on intergroup contact suggests that although contact may improve
prejudice, it may make it worse if it is not implemented correctly. Improvement is likely
only when the contact moves the members of the groups to feel that they are closer to
each other rather than further away from each other. In short, groups are going to
have better attitudes toward each other when they see themselves more similarly to
each other—when they feel more like one large group than a set of smaller groups.
Want to see this principle in action? Read about the famous Robbers Cave Experiment.
Key Takeaways
•
•
•
•
•
•
The effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to
the new social norms that people are introduced to in school.
The influence of social norms is powerful, and long-lasting changes in beliefs
about out-groups will occur only if they are supported by changes in social
norms.
Discrimination, prejudice, and even hate crimes such as gay bashing will be
more likely to continue if people do not respond to or confront them when they
occur. This means that if we believe that prejudice is wrong, we must confront it
when we see it happening.
A good way to reduce prejudice is to help people create closer connections with
members of different groups. People will be more favorable toward others when
they learn to see those other people as more similar to them, as closer to the
self, and to be more concerned about them.
When we get past group memberships and focus more on the individuals in the
groups, we begin to see that there is a great deal of variability among the group
members and that our global and undifferentiating group stereotypes are
actually not correct.
Intergroup contact is also more successful when the people involved in the
contact are motivated to learn about the others. One factor that increases this
motivation is interdependence—a state in which the group members depend on
each other for successful performance of the group goals.