Those high in RWA may equally dislike the outgroup member moving into the neighborhood but for different reasons. RWA respects group unity over individual preferences, wanting to maintain group values in the face of differing opinions. Despite its name, though, RWA is not necessarily limited to people on the right conservatives. Like SDO, there does appear to be an association between this personality scale i. Extreme scores on RWA predict biases against outgroups while demanding in-group loyalty and conformity Notably, the combination of high RWA and high SDO predicts joining hate groups that openly endorse aggression against minority groups, immigrants, homosexuals, and believers in non-dominant religions Altemeyer, Fortunately, old-fashioned biases have diminished over the 20th century and into the 21st century.
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.
Most people like themselves well enough, and most people identify themselves as members of certain groups but not others. Logic suggests, then, that because we like ourselves, we therefore like the groups we associate with more, whether those groups are our hometown, school, religion, gender, or ethnicity. Liking yourself and your groups is human nature. The larger issue, however, is that own-group preference often results in liking other groups less.
Essentially, the IAT is done on the computer and measures how quickly you can sort words or pictures into different categories.
However, imagine if every time you ate ice cream, you got a brain freeze. See Table For example, if two classes of children want to play on the same soccer field, the classes will come to dislike each other not because of any real, objectionable traits about the other group.
However, to justify this preferential treatment, people will often exaggerate the differences between their in-group and the outgroup. In turn, people see the outgroup as more similar in personality than they are. Spontaneously, people categorize people into groups just as we categorize furniture or food into one type or another. The difference is that we people inhabit categories ourselves, as self-categorization theory points out Turner, Because the attributes of group categories can be either good or bad, we tend to favor the groups with people like us and incidentally disfavor the others.
In-group favoritism is an ambiguous form of bias because it disfavors the outgroup by exclusion. And this life-changing decision stems from the simple, natural human tendency to be more comfortable with people like yourself.
As a result, the White person may give a good excuse to avoid the situation altogether and prevent any awkwardness that could have come from it. However, such a reaction will be ambiguous to both parties and hard to interpret. That is, was the White person right to avoid the situation so that neither person would feel uncomfortable?
Indicators of aversive racism correlate with discriminatory behavior, despite being the ambiguous result of good intentions gone bad. Not all stereotypes of outgroups are all bad. Another example includes people who feel benevolent toward traditional women but hostile toward nontraditional women.
Or even ageist people who feel respect toward older adults but, at the same time, worry about the burden they place on public welfare programs. When people learn about a new group, they first want to know if its intentions of the people in this group are for good or ill. These two simple dimensions—warmth and competence—together map how groups relate to each other in society. There are common stereotypes of people from all sorts of categories and occupations that lead them to be classified along these two dimensions.
This is not to suggest that actual housewives are not competent, of course, but that they are not widely admired for their competence in the same way as scientific pioneers, trendsetters, or captains of industry. At another end of the spectrum are homeless people and drug addicts, stereotyped as not having good intentions perhaps exploitative for not trying to play by the rules , and likewise being incompetent unable to do anything useful.
These groups reportedly make society more disgusted than any other groups do. Some group stereotypes are mixed, high on one dimension and low on the other. Groups stereotyped as competent but not warm, for example, include rich people and outsiders good at business. The other mixed combination is high warmth but low competence.
Groups who fit this combination include older people and disabled people. Others report pitying them, but only so long as they stay in their place. In an effort to combat this negative stereotype, disability- and elderly-rights activists try to eliminate that pity, hopefully gaining respect in the process.
These maps of the group terrain predict specific types of discrimination for specific kinds of groups, underlining how bias is not exactly equal opportunity. 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.
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. Web: Website exploring the causes and consequences of prejudice. Creole society developed in the port city of New Orleans, where a mixed-race culture grew from French and African inhabitants.
It is now common for the children of racially mixed parents to acknowledge and celebrate their various ethnic identities. While this is the trend, it is not yet evident in all aspects of our society. For example, the U. Census only recently added additional categories for people to identify themselves, such as non-white Hispanic. A growing number of people chose multiple races to describe themselves on the Census, paving the way for the Census to provide yet more choices.
To some, the Confederate flag is a symbol of pride in Southern history. In January , two girls walked into Burleson High School in Texas carrying purses that displayed large images of Confederate flags.
School administrators told the girls that they were in violation of the dress code, which prohibited apparel with inappropriate symbolism or clothing that discriminated based on race. Why did the school ban the purses, and why did it stand behind that ban, even when being sued?
Why did the girls, identified anonymously in court documents as A. The issue, of course, is not the purses: it is the Confederate flag that adorns them. In the end, the court sided with the district and noted that the Confederate flag carried symbolism significant enough to disrupt normal school activities. If the Confederate flag is synonymous with slavery, is there any place for its display in modern society?
Those who fight for their right to display the flag say such a display should be covered by the First Amendment: the right to free speech. But others say the flag is equivalent to hate speech, which is not covered by the First Amendment. Do you think that displaying the Confederate flag should considered free speech or hate speech? Stereotypes are oversimplified ideas about groups of people. Prejudice refers to thoughts and feelings, while discrimination refers to actions. Racism refers to the belief that one race is inherently superior or inferior to other races.
How far should First Amendment rights extend? Learn more about institutional racism at www. Bouie, Jamelle. August 19, Herring, C. Keith, and H. Hudson, David L. Klonoff, E. Explaining the Skin Color-Hypertension Relationship. Landor, Antoinette M. Simons, Gene H. Brody, Chalandra M. Bryant, Frederick X. On the other hand, as we have seen in many places in this book, perceived similarity is an extremely important determinant of liking.
Members of culturally diverse groups may be less attracted to each other than are members of more homogeneous groups, may have more difficulty communicating with each other, and in some cases may actively dislike and even engage in aggressive behavior toward each other. The principles of social psychology, including the ABCs—affect, behavior, and cognition—apply to the study of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, and social psychologists have expended substantial research efforts studying these concepts Figure 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 group.
In addition to our stereotypes, we may also develop prejudice — an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an outgroup or toward the members of that outgroup. Prejudice can take the form of disliking, anger, fear, disgust, discomfort, and even hatred—the kind of affective states that can lead to behavior such as the gay bashing you just read about.
Our stereotypes and our prejudices are problematic because they may create discrimination — unjustified negative behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership.
Stereotypes and prejudice have a pervasive and often pernicious influence on our responses to others, and 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.
In one particularly disturbing line of research about the influence of prejudice on behaviors, Joshua Correll and his colleagues had White participants participate in an experiment in which they viewed photographs of White and Black people on a computer screen.
Across the experiment, the photographs showed the people holding either a gun or something harmless such as a cell phone. Discrimination is a major societal problem because it is so pervasive, takes so many forms, and has such negative effects on so many people. Even people who are paid to be unbiased may discriminate.
Price and Wolfers found that White players in National Basketball Association games received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game were White, and Black players received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game where Black. The implication is—whether they know it or not—the referees were discriminating on the basis of race.
You may have had some experiences where you found yourself responding to another person on the basis of a stereotype or a prejudice, and perhaps the fact that you did surprised you.
Perhaps you then tried to get past these beliefs and to react to the person more on the basis of his or her individual characteristics. And yet, despite our best intentions, we may end up making friends only with people who are similar to us and perhaps even avoiding people whom we see as different. In this chapter, we will study the processes by which we develop, maintain, and make use of our stereotypes and our prejudices. We will consider the negative outcomes of those beliefs on the targets of our perceptions, and we will consider ways that we might be able to change those beliefs, or at least help us stop acting upon them.
Correll, J. The influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37 6 , — Across the thin blue line: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot.
0コメント