Intergroup Relations: Types of Prejudice

Types of Prejudice PSY322 Intergroup Relations Jonathan Cadieux Outline †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Model of Prejudice Sexism Overweight Sexual Orientation Ageism Fiske Prejudice Model ? 4 Types of Groups ? Based on Competence and Warmth ? Competence: perceived group status ? Warmth: perceived competition ? Group 1: Incompetent but warm ? Low status, not competitive ? Results in Paternalistic Prejudice ? Group 2: Incompetent and not warm – Low status, competitive – Results in Contemptuous Prejudice Group 3: Competent but not warm – High status, competitive – Results in Envious Prejudice Group 4: Competent and warm – High status, not competitive – Results in Admiration ? Fiske Prejudice Model Competence Envious Prejudice Jews, Asians, Feminists, Wealthy people Warmth High Admiration In-group, Close allies Low High Welfare recipients, Poor people Contemptuous Prejudice Elderly, Disabled, Housewives Low Paternalistic Prejudice What A bout Working Moms? Competence Envious Prejudice Jews, Asians, Feminists, Wealthy people Warmth High Admiration In-group, Close allies Low High Welfare recipients, Poor people Contemptuous Prejudice Elderly, Disabled, HousewivesLow Paternalistic Prejudice Stereotypes of Working Moms Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick (2004) †¢ How are working moms viewed compared to working dads and working women without children? †¢ Ps rated fictitious targets – Competence, warmth, likelihood of professional rewards – Target: either male/female with a child or not †¢ Predictions from Fiske Prejudice Model – Working moms would be viewed as housewives are viewed: warm & incompetent – Working moms: warmer but less competent than working women without kids – Fewer professional rewards for working moms Stereotypes of Working MomsCuddy, Fiske, & Glick (2004) Gender Gap in the Workplace †¢ Women accounted for only 14. 4% of executive positions – Source: 2010 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Board Directors and the 2010 Catalyst Census: Fortune 500 Women Executive Officers and Top Earners †¢ Women continue to earn less than men. For example, female managers earned 81 cents for every dollar earned by male managers in 2007 (Source: U. S. Govt Acctountability Office) On the other hand†¦ Sexism and gender roles †¢ Differences in wages are due to sexism, but this appears to operate differently than through overt discrimination. Sexism in the definition of gender roles seem to be at the root of discrepancies in wages. †¢ Potential solutions : – Encouraging women to enter higher paying fields (currently â€Å"male-dominated†) †¢ Stereotype threat? – Encouraging more equitable share of household chores and family caretaking . †¢ Maternity = Paternity leaves? Sexism †¢ Definition †¢ Types of sexism – Old-fashioned †¢ Endorse traditional gender roles & gender stereotypes à ¢â‚¬ ¢ Believe in different treatment of men & women – Modern †¢ Less blatant; denial of discrimination against women †¢ Nonsupport of programs & legislation to help women Benevolent vs. Hostile †¢ Benevolent: positive but stereotyped views; paternalistic †¢ Hostile: negative attitudes; belief in inferiority Old-fashioned sexism Old fashioned sexism For those of you who think it was half a century ago†¦ For those of you who think it was half a century ago†¦ Stigma of Overweight †¢ Overweight stereotype – Lazy, lack self-control, unattractive, slow †¢ Stigma is experienced differently – Seen as controllable †¢ Outcomes for overweight – Held accountable for negative outcomes – More openly derogated – Prejudiced against own group Well-being of the Overweight Quinn & Crocker (1999) Exp. †¢ †¢ †¢ †¢ Role of Protestant Ethic (PE) Implications for overweight women Exp. 1: Correlationa l Study Independent Variables – Protestant Ethic, weight status (normal, somewhat overweight, very overweight) †¢ Dependent Variable: well-being Quinn & Crocker (1999) Exp. 1 Results Well-being of the Overweight Quinn & Crocker (1999) Exp. 2 †¢ Primed PE or inclusion – Mood effects of media messages – Read paragraph that primed PE or inclusion – Read another article that discussed negative social effects of being overweight †¢ Independent Variables – Prime condition, weight status (normal, overweight) Dependent Variables: well-being (post – pre), appearance SE (post only) Quinn & Crocker (1999): Psychological Well-Being Exp. 2: Well-being 1. 5 1 0. 5 Normal Weight Overweight 0 -0. 5 -1 -1. 5 Protestant Ethic Prime Inclusive Prime Quinn & Crocker (1999): Appearance Self-Esteem Exp. 2: Appearance Self-Esteem 3. 6 3. 5 3. 4 3. 3 3. 2 3. 1 3 2. 9 2. 8 2. 7 Normal Weight Overweight Protestant Ethic Prime Inclusive Prime Obesity in Canada Antigay Prejudice †¢ Forms of discrimination – Legal rights, hate crimes †¢ Heterosexism †¢ Current attitudes – Sex differences – Characteristics of high prejudicedAntigay prejudice in the Real World †¢ ‘The Voice’ Coach Makes â€Å"anti-gay† slur 34-year old The Voice Coach and country singer, Blake Shelton has gotten himself into hot water for making an anti-gay slur. It all started on Tuesday, when Shelton, Tweeted his own version of Shania Twain’s Any Mine of Mine: †Any man that tries touching my behind, he’s gonna be a beaten, bleedin’, heaving kind of guy. † Antigay prejudice in the Real World †¢ Tracy Morgan Apologizes for Anti-Gay Slurs †¢ (†¦)the alleged remarks during the show included how he would react violently if his son were gay and used â€Å"a gay oice,† that the gay community should â€Å"not be whining about something as insignificant as bull ying,† and he allegedly added, â€Å"Gay is something that kids learn from the media and programming. † Antigay prejudice in the Real World †¢ Gay rights group to launch complaint over ‘homophobic' comments by RDS (TV Sports) analysts †¢ Mailhot, a former provincial assistant deputy minister, and Goldberg, were discussing the skating of Johnny Weir, the flamboyant 23-year-old and three -time U. S. champion . – â€Å"This may not be politically correct, but do you think he lost points due to his costume and his body language? – â€Å"They'll think all the boys who skate will end up like him,† he said. â€Å"It sets a bad example. † – â€Å"We should make him (Weir) pass a gender test at this point,† Goldberg said, and Mailhot then jokingly suggested Weir should compete in the women's competition. Impact of Antigay prejudice †¢ Suicide risks – Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youth 4 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers (Massachusetts Youth Risk Survey 2007). – More than 1/3 of LGB youth report having made a suicide attempt (D’Augelli AR – Clinical Child Psychiatry and Psychology 2002) LGB youth who come from highly rejecting families are more than 8 times as likely to have attempted suicide than LGB peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection (Ryan C, Huebner D, et al. , 2009) – Visit http://www. thetrevorproject. org/ for more info on this issue. Canadian Students’ Attitudes toward Homosexuals (Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999) †¢ University of Windsor students †¢ Completed short version of Attitudes toward Lesbians & Men scale – E. g. â€Å"Female homosexuality is a sin†, â€Å"I think male homosexuals are disgusting† †¢ Did attitudes vary by: – Gender, faculty, year in school? Predictions – Science or Business < Arts & Social Science – Men < W omen – 1st Year < 4th Year Canadian Students’ Attitudes toward Homosexuals (Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999) Canadian Students’ Attitudes toward Homosexuals (Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999) Stereotype Threat and Sexual Orientation Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel (2004) †¢ Gay and heterosexual male undergrads †¢ Primed sexual orientation or not †¢ Interacted with 4-6 year old children for 5 min – Interaction videotaped and coded for: †¢ Non-verbal anxiety †¢ Childcare performance †¢ Prediction? Non-verbal Anxiety Bosson et al. 2004) Childcare Performance Bosson et al. (2004) How can we change this? †¢ One way could be by confronting anti-gay behaviour/speech whenever we see/hear it. CONFRONTATION OF PREJUDICE †¢ â€Å"Verbally or nonverbally expressing one’s dissatisfaction with prejudicial and discriminatory treatment to the person who is responsible for making the remark or behavior ’’ (Shelto n, Richeson, Salvatore, & Hill, 2006, p. 67). Confrontation of Prejudice – Previous Work †¢ Almost exclusively with Sexism and Racism confrontation †¢ Little work done with anti-gay prejudice Confrontation of racial and gender biasCzopp, Monteith (2003) Study 2 †¢ Imagined setting (read scenario) †¢ IV : Racist remark or Sexist remark †¢ Testing for moderating role of the race or gender of the person confronting. Results Czopp, Monteith (2003) PERSUASIVE LIKEABLE THREAT GUILT AND NEG. SELF PERSUASIVE LIKEABLE THREAT Results Czopp, Monteith (2003) PERSUASIVE LIKEABLE THREAT GUILT AND NEG. SELF PERSUASIVE LIKEABLE THREAT Results Czopp, Monteith (2003) GUILT AND NEG. SELF Confrontation of racial and gender bias Czopp, Monteith (2003) †¢ General conclusion – Sexism and racism not equal – Non-target group members have a unique pportunity for prejudice reduction Other Findings Czopp, Monteith (2006), Rasinski, Czopp (2010) LIKEABLE LIKEAB LE Other Findings †¢ Confrontation is effective : reduces further biased responses in all participants (Czopp, Monteith, Mark, 2006) †¢ Witnesses rate non-target confronters as more persuasive, and more positive than target confronters (Rasinski & Czopp, 2010) Cadieux & Chasteen (2013) †¢ 136 Participants recruited from PSY100 (47 males, 89 females; Age M=18. 9, SD=1. 92) †¢ Read a script of an IM chat log and were told that we are looking at how social media affects everyday communication Scripts included either an antigay comment that : 1) 2) †¢ The confronter was either gay, straight, or did not have his orientation divulged and this was hinted to the participant on a profile page (Facebook) : †¢ A) †¢ B) †¢ C) †¢ Profiles were pilot tested to get baseline evaluations of likeability, masculinity, femininity, attractiveness, etc. Experimental conditions Sexual orientation Scenario – Straight – Comment WITH Confrontation â €“ Gay – Comment WITHOUT Confrontation – Undisclosed Results MAIN EFFECT (c) F(1,130)=3. 77, p=. 05 ? 2=. 028 Results MAIN EFFECT (o) F(2,130)=76. 31, p