Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Challenging Prejudice

Changing Prejudicial Norms is Possible

Dr. H. C. Sinclair

on 16 October 2018

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Challenging Prejudice

Challenging Prejudice
So what...now
(Bias Awareness)
vs. "Not a problem"
(Intrinsic Motivations)
vs. "Not MY problem"
(Egalitarian Optimism)
vs. "Nothing I can do"

The Contact Hypothesis
Changing Norms
The Tolerant Social Norm Effect
Confronting Prejudice
The Power of One
Internal Motivations to Suppress Prejudice
vs. External
Egalitarian Optimism
vs. the Indifferent Egalitarian
Need for Cognition
Consider yourself a work in progress
Recognize your confirmation biases
Look for counter-stereotypes
See individuals (but acknowledge social identity as a part of their individuality)
Approach goals (Avoid avoidance)
Don't fear mistakes, course correct
Listen, don't compete
Equal status contact
Sustained close contact
Intergroup cooperation
Positive affect
Social norms favor equality
Jigsaw Classroom
Superordinate goals & Interdependence
And remember Robber's Cave
Targets vs. Non-targets (In-group members)
Self-interest rules
Manage the message
Persuasion rules apply
Address the act not the person
Appeals to values of egalitarianism and individualism
Reject zero sum fallacies
-Swim et al., 2009
What's the Content of Yours?
First, let's forget being "color blind"
Confronting & Changing Own Biases
Because if you aren't part of the solution...
In asymmetrical power relationships, the more outcome-dependent partner is likely to engage in careful and effortful processing of information about the more powerful partner in order to construct an accurate impression, but the less outcome-dependent partner is not as likely to do so.

Powerful people do not need to form detailed and accurate impressions of their subordinate relationship partners in order to maximize their benefits and minimize their costs in interactions.

A mouse interacting with an elephant must keep a careful eye on an elephant and predict the elephant's next moves to avoid getting crushed, accidentally or intentionally. Elephants, gorillas, and powerful people can sit wherever they want. - Berscheid & Regan, 2005, pg. 166
Apathy is a Privilege
Doesn't work
Ignores an important aspect of other's social reality
"I don't see YOU."
And yet doesn't really ignore it...
Those endorsing "colorblind" ideologies MORE likely to exhibit discriminatory behaviors & be seen as biased.
Recognizing social categories is also a necessity to activate egalitarian beliefs.
Attempts to ignore social categories deplete self-regulation resources and triggers:
Ironic Processes
And it isn't actually good for you
Does it really make a difference?
"Greater engagement with diverse peers in the classroom in turn was related to greater intellectual ability, social ability, and civic interest" (Haserlig et al., 2013, pg. 160)
EX: Where brainstorming exercises can often suffer from social loafing, diverse groups reduced this likelihood and increased quality and creativity of ideas produced (Roberge & van Dick, 2010).
Finnegan et al., 2013
No correlation between IMS & EMS, but EMS r = .23 with IAT and IMS r = -.31 with IAT (DSO = -.40, BAS -.36, CBI = .25) And I checked...NFC = -.55 with IAT
Lai et al., 2014
Brooks & Neville, 2016
In fact, even if you aren't directly affected...
And don't care about those who are...
Evidence About the Literal Costs of Bias to ALL is Growing
Disparities in health alone are costing the U.S. $82 billion per year in excess medical costs and lost productivity
Plus health costs associated with discrimination, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, and other psychological disorders cost an estimated 3.6% of the GDP
Inequities in education, housing, and hiring cost the American economy $1.9 trillion in spending potential
Also, permitting discriminatory lower wages for some, keeps wages lower for all.
Biased policies in the legal system cost the American taxpayer over $43 billion a year in unnecessary incarceration, court costs, unneeded policing, and discrimination suits.
"this is likely a gross underestimation, because it does not factor in the social costs of incarceration."

Do we really need to put price tags on human lives to get people to care?
Bring on the cortisol & anxiety!
1) Person Perception
2) Person Categorization
3) Stereotype Activation
4) Stereotype Inhibition
5) Stereotype Application
The Prejudice Process
Inhibition Activation
First....a game:
Which of the following is an example of ironic processing?
A. Eric is on a diet, so while at his friend's birthday party he tries really hard to avoid the cake and ice cream.
B. Shonda just found out her brother-in-law is having an affair, she tries to make it through Thanksgiving dinner without saying something, but when he goes for second helpings she can't help but ask if the first wasn't good enough.
C. Darren tries not to notice the massive piece of spinach stuck between his interviewer's teeth, and so ends up spending much of the interview looking away.
D. All of the above

Often groups get involved in prolonged conflicts with one another because each group  is strongly motivated to establish that their ingroup has been subjected to equal or greater, worse, more recent, or worsening injustice than the outgroup rather than the other way round and it blinds them to the injustices the outgroup may have suffered (especially those at the hands of the ingroup). This is known as:
A. Ingroup heterogeneity
B. A colorblind ideology
C. Competitive victimhood
D. Realistic conflict theory
Full transcript