sam gaertner
DESCRIPTION
From Aversive Racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model. Sam Gaertner. University of Delaware. Prejudice. Can exist among well-intentioned people with liberal, egalitarian values and non-prejudiced self-images. Can function automatically, without intention such that people are not aware - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Sam Gaertner
University of Delaware
From Aversive Racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model
Prejudice
Can exist among well-intentioned people with liberal, egalitarian values and non-prejudiced
self-images.
Can involve unacknowledged negative feelings (anxiety, uneasiness) about outgroups as well as more acknowledged positive
feelings about ingroups (see Meertens and Pettigrew) and beliefs about ingroup superiority over people
in other groups.
Can function automatically, without intention such that people are not aware
that they are discriminating.
Prejudice
Can also exist among ill-intentioned people who represent the open flame of intergroup
conflict and hatred.
But the focus today is on Prejudiceamong the more well-intentioned
who are AVERSE to racism and sexismespecially their own
BUT who have not completely escaped cultural, cognitive and motivational forces.
Motivation in Intergroup situations
Don’t think bad thoughts Don’t have bad feelings Don’t behave improperly (Don’t Discriminate)
A costly strategy Interaction + Rebound
Avoid Acting Inappropriately i.e., in prejudicial ways
People Can DISCRIMINATE
In subtle, unintentional, rationalizable ways that preclude them from recognizing that they discriminated.
Predictions: No discrimination
In situations that have clear social norms to guide behavior.
Discrimination is more likely to occur: When social norms are weak or
ambiguous. When factors other race or sex
unintentionally can be used to rationalize unfavorable behavior.
“Sorry, Wrong Number” Study
Calls to Liberal and Conservative Party Members 1970 “Hello, Ralph’s Garage. This is George (or Mrs.)
Williams and I’m stuck out here on the parkway.”
When norms are STRONG and When norms are WEAK
“Sorry, you got the wrong number…this isn’t a garage.”
Predictions:
% Helping by Liberal and Conservative Party Members
0102030405060708090
100
Liberals Conservatives
Pe
rce
nt
He
lpin
g
Whites
Blacks
% Premature Hang-ups by Liberal and Conservative Party Members
02468
101214161820
Liberals Conservatives
Pe
rce
nt
Pre
ma
ture
Ha
ng
-up
s
White Motorists
Black Motorists
% Helping by Liberal and Conservative Party Members
0102030405060708090
100
Liberals Conservatives
Pe
rce
nt
He
lpin
g
Whites
Blacks
When Social Norms Are Strong
% Premature Hang-ups by Liberal and Conservative Party Members
02468
101214161820
Liberals Conservatives
Pe
rce
nt
Pre
ma
ture
Ha
ng
-up
s
White Motorists
Black Motorists
When Social Norms Are Weak
% Helping by Whites and Blacks
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Whites Blacks
Pe
rce
nt
He
lpin
g
Tom Scott
Israel Goldstein
Subtle Anti-Semitism?
% Premature Hang-ups by Whites and Blacks
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Whites Blacks
Per
cen
t Pre
mat
ure
Han
g-u
ps
Tom Scott
Israel Goldstein
A Test of the Normative Structure Hypothesis
When norms (to help) are weak -- DISCRIMINATION
When norms (to help) are Strong – NO DISCRIMINATION
That is, Whites would NOT discriminate when a failure to help would be inappropriate
What if someone needs help because:
A) She chose to play rather than work
B) She was working, but she had a very difficult task
In which instance are the norms to help stronger?
Why is help needed – and who asks for help?
0102030405060708090
100
Partner Asks 3rd Party Asks
BlackWhite
Partner Playing Rather than Working
0102030405060708090
100
Partner Asks 3rd Party Asks
BlackWhite
Difficult Task
Why is help needed – and who asks for help?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Partner Asks 3rd Party Asks
BlackWhite
Partner Playing Rather than Working
0102030405060708090
100
Partner Asks 3rd Party Asks
BlackWhite
Difficult Task
0102030405060708090
100
Accept Help Ask for Help
BlackWhite
Accepting or Asking For Help
Reversal – Participant Needs HelpAnd He Has a Black or White Partner
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Accept Help Ask for Help
BlackWhite
Accepting or Asking For Help
Reversal – Participant Needs HelpAnd He Has a Black or White
Partner
Presence of Other Bystanders:
A non-race related reason to remain inactive?
Diffusion of Responsibility During an Emergency
0102030405060708090
100
Alone Together
Per
cent
Hel
ping
White Victim
Black Victim
Changes In Heart-Rate: 1st Ten Seconds
-5
0
5
10
15
Alone Together
White Victim
Black Victim
Discrimination In Employment Decisions
Subtle attitudes can affect how qualificationsare perceived and weighted in a manner that
disadvantages minority applicants
No Discrimination when Black or White candidates’qualifications are clearly strong or clearly weak
Predictions:
Discrimination when candidates’ qualifications are moderate or ambiguous
Study 1: Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions
Percentage of students recommending a Black and
White candidate for a peer counseling position
Qualifications Strong
Moderate Weak
Self Descriptions
Leadership Experience
Advice to Pregnant Student
SensitiveIntelligentRelaxed
CaptainSwim Team
In High SchoolAnd
Member of Disciplinary Board
Explain options andAsk if she wants #Of Health Center
SensitiveIntelligentEmotional
Co-CaptainSwim Team
In High School
Ask if she wants #Of Health Center
IndependentForthright
Intense
Co-CaptainChess Team
In High School
It’s too personal andShe must talk with her
parents
Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000
0102030405060708090
100
Strong Moderate Weak
BlackWhite
Study 1: Subtle Discrimination and Selection Decisions:
Percentage of students recommending a Black and
White candidate for a peer counseling position
Percentage of students recommending a Black and
White candidate for a peer counseling position
0102030405060708090
100
Strong Moderate Weak
BlackWhite
1989
0102030405060708090
100
Strong Moderate Weak
BlackWhite
1999
Subtle Discrimination in Selection Decisions:
1989 and 1999
Credentials: SAT Scores Grades
Study 2: Black and White Applicants to College
Strong Qualifications High High_____
Weak Qualifications Low Low
_____
Ambiguous QualificationsHigh
Low
Low High__________
_____Mixed or
orAmbiguous QualificationsHigh
Low
Low High__________
Hodson, Dovidio & Gaertner (2002)
0102030405060708090
100
Strong Mixed Weak
BlackWhite
Subtle Prejudice amongCollege Students
College Admission Decisions
% who recommended admission
Higher Prejudice Scorers – who see themselves as non prejudiced
Did people weigh the admission criteria in a manner that disadvantaged the Black Candidate?
When Credentials Were Ambiguous
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4Strong Mixed Mixed Weak
SATGRADES
Grades SAT
HighHighLowLow
How important areSAT scores and Grades for
College Admission Decisions?
Black Candidates
LowLowHig
h
High
Rank orderin
importance
Is Resistance to Affirmative Action Subtle Racism?
Is this objection to affirmative action -- Myth or Reality?
“The problem with AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is that Blacks and other minorities (perhaps even an MBA
or Geologist :) with lower ability will be hired, or worse, become my supervisor.”
If this is Reality – then people should respond unfavorablyto Black supervisors who are lower in ability than themselves
--
But respond favorably to Black supervisors who are higher in ability than themselves
So we designed an experiment to find out?
We arranged for White male college students to interact with:
A Black or White male Partner who became their Supervisor or their Workerand who had either Higher or Lower job related ability than themselves.
Then we measured these students’ reactions to these situations
Pencils are not only for writing.
WHITE PARTNER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Supervisor Worker
% H
EL
PIN
G
Higher Ability
Lower Ability
Is Resistance to AA based primarily on Race, Role, or Ability?
BLACK PARTNER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Supervisor Worker
% H
ELP
ING
Higher Ability
Lower Ability
WHITE PARTNER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Supervisor Worker
% H
EL
PIN
G
Higher Ability
Lower Ability
BLACK PARTNER
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Supervisor Worker
% H
EL
PIN
G
Higher Ability
Lower Ability
Suggests: Resistance to AA based on Race and Role – Not Ability
FEMALE PARTNER
0102030405060708090
100
Supervisor Worker
% H
ELP
ING
Higher Ability
Lower Ability
How can we reduce this formof bias?
How can we create a connection to outgroup members
How can we bring people’s behavior intoalignment with their non-prejudiced
Self–images?
neighborhood
INDIVIDUAL GROUP
family
city
nation
race
humanity
Tajfel’s Identity Continuum and
Allport’s Circles of Inclusion
An Experiment:What if members of two groups
conceived of themselves as:
One Group
Two Groups
Separate Individuals
Predictions
or
“The attractiveness of an individual is not constant, but varies
with ingroup membership” (Turner, et al., 1987).
Two Groups
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
One Group
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
One Group
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
One Group
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
One Group
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
One Group
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++Self
One Group
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++Self
Two Groups
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
Separate Individuals
Self
Posi
tive
Evalu
ati
on
+++
videoA
AA
B
B
B
a
a
a
b
bb
One Group
Delaware
“The Ramboettes and the Lost-in-the-Woods
are merged together to Become the Stars.”
video
video AAA
BB
B
a
a
a
b
bb
Two Groups
“The Ramboettes and the Lost-in-the-Wodds”
video
A
AA
B
B
B
a
a
a
b
bb
Separate Individuals
Changing Perceptions of Group Boundaries
55.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.85.9
OneGroup
TwoGroups
SeparatePeople
Eva
luat
ion Ingroup members
Outgroupmembers
Toward Reducing Bias
Changing Perceptions of Group BoundariesWith 9 and 10-year-old Portuguese Black and White Children
2.5
3
3.5
One Grp Two Grps Individs
Sim
ilar
ity
to S
elf
In Group
Out Group
Rebelo, Guerra and Monteiro (2004)Rebelo, Guerra and Monteiro (2004)
ISCTE: Lisbon, Portugal
What factors increase theinclusiveness of group
boundaries?
Contact Conditions
Cooperation
Equal Status
Self-Revealing Interactions
Egalitarian Norms
More Positive
Beliefs
Feelings
Behaviors
Toward
Outgroup members
Favorable Contact Conditions lead to more positive attitudes toward outgroup
members – but how psychologically does this happen?
The Contact Hypothesis
?
One Group
Re-categorization
One Group Composed ofTwo SubgroupsRe-categorization(us & them) = WE
WE
Two Groups
Categorization
Us & Them
Individuals
Contact Conditions
Cooperation
Equal Status
Self-Revealing Interactions
Egalitarian Norms
More Positive Beliefs Feelings Behaviors TowardOutgroup Members
The Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Contact Hypothesis
Causes Mediators Consequences
Me & You
Dual Identity
One Group
Re-categorization
One Group Composed ofTwo SubgroupsRe-categorization(us & them) = WE
WE
Two Groups
Categorization
Us & Them
Individuals
Contact Conditions
Cooperation*
Equal Status
Self-Revealing Interactions
Egalitarian Norms
More Positive Beliefs Feelings Behaviors TowardOutgroup Members
The Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Contact Hypothesis
Causes Mediators Consequences
Me & You
Dual Identity
No Cooperation Cooperation One Two One Two Group Groups Group Groups
How does cooperation reduce bias?
No Cooperation One Two Group Groups
No Cooperation One Two Group Groups
How much does it feel like one group (1 – 7)two groups, separate individuals?
How much do you like (1 – 7) each person. How trustworthy, similar to self, valuable?
video
video AAA
BB
B
a
a
a
b
bb
Two Groups:
“The Ramboettes and the Lost-in-the-Woods”
No Cooperation
videoA
AA
B
B
B
a
a
a
b
bb
One Group:
Delaware
“The Ramboettes and the Lost-in-the-Woods
are merged together to Become the Stars.”
No Cooperation
No Cooperation Cooperation Two Two Groups Groups
If it would otherwise be TWO GROUPS --- what does Cooperative Interaction DO?
One Group
Re-categorizationWE
Cooperation
NO YES
More Positive Evaluation of
Outgroup Members
.69
The Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Contact Hypothesis
Causes Mediators Consequences
.47
.62
.09
One Group
Re-categorization
One Group Composed ofTwo SubgroupsRe-categorization(us & them) = WE
WE
Two Groups
Categorization
Us & Them
Individuals
Contact Conditions
Cooperation
Equal Status
Self-Revealing Interactions
Egalitarian Norms
More Positive Beliefs Feelings Behaviors TowardOutgroup Members
The Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Contact Hypothesis
Causes Mediators Consequences
Me & You
Dual Identity
Survey Studies
A Laboratory Experiment
Can a common ingroup identity change inter-racial evaluations and behavior?
Individuals Same Team
Common Team Membership and Evaluation
WhitePartner
BlackPartner
Individuals
Eva
luat
ion
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
Same Team
A (Football) Field Experiment
Fans (primarily White)FromWestchester State University University of Delaware
Surveyor’sRace Black White
UniversityAffiliation
WSUHat
U of DHat
WSUHat
U of DHat
A (Football) Field Experiment
WhiteInterviewer
BlackInterviewer
DifferentUniversity
Ag
ree
to B
eS
urv
eye
d
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
SameUniversity
Can Common Ingroup Identity change the Motivational Orientation toward
Racial Outgroup members?
From: Don’t Do Wrong (Aversive Racism) Stereotype Suppression After Suppression: Stereotype Rebound,
i.e., greater accessibility of negative relative to positive thoughts.
To: DO Right No Suppression No Rebound
Stroop Color-Naming Task
Premise: The more available the meaning of the word
the more interference it creates, and thus the longer it takes to recognize the color
the word is printed in.
IS THE WORD PRINTED IN RED OR YELLOW?
Stroop Test isAdministered – BEFORE and AFTER
the experiment
LAZY
SMART
GOOD
HOSTILE
Do The Right Thing: Benefits of a Common Ingroup Identity
Motivational Instructions
Avoid Do Same No
Doing Wrong Right Team Instructions
White Partner
-100
-50
0
50
100
White Partner
Avoid Do Same NoWrong Right Team Instructions
(-) WordsMore Available
(+) WordsMore Available
Black Partner
-100
-50
0
50
100
Black Partner
Avoid Do Same No Wrong Right Team Instructions
(-) WordsMore Available
(+) WordsMore Available
Can the principle of a more inclusive common identity have utility in the REAL
WORLD?
Cooperative Learning
Green Circle
GREEN CIRCLE: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL INTERVENTION
A GREEN CIRCLE facilitator usually pays four visits to each class for 40 minutes per visit over a four week period.
Guiding Assumption: Helping children bring people from different groups conceptually into their own circle of caring and sharing fosters appreciation of their common humanity as well as appreciation of group differences.
This program seems theoretically complementary to the Common Ingroup Identity Model. An Evaluation + Test of the Theory
Goals: Inclusion, self-esteem, similarities & differences, conflict resolution, decision making, feelings of empathy.
Delaware Region, National Conference for Community and Justice
School Intervention:
“Green Circle is a program that’s about you, people, the feelings we all have, and ways we are alike and ways we are different.”
“Whenever you see the Green Circle, I want you to think about your world
of people. The people you care about and the people who care about you.”
“This figure stands for the important person in your world of caring and sharing. This figure is YOU.”
“You each have the big job of deciding who’s going to be in your circle,how you treat people, and how big your circle will grow.”
“Now let’s talk about some of the people you may have included in your circle……”
“These figures represent your family..those who live with you and those who live in other places”
“How many of you have brothers? Sisters? How many of you live with your Grandmother? Grandfather?”
“How many of you have a Step-mother? Step-father? Step-sister?”
“Look! What has happened to your circle? It’s too small.”
“It needs to grow. Yes, your circle grows when you care about people. Here you are with your family.”
“Since you know how it feels to be outside the circle, perhaps you can understand how other people feel when they are outside the
circle.”
“Think about a time when you felt outside the circle ….. how did you feel?”
“One way people are different is their size and shape. Have you ever felt outside the circle because of your size or
shape? Have you ever been called a name because of your size or shape (e.g., fatso)?”
“Each of us has a skin color that is different and unique. Have you ever been treated differently because your skin color is
different?”
“Some of us are girls and some of us are boys. Have you ever been told you can’t do something because you’re a girl…or a boy?”
“All of us belong to one family – the human family.”
Pre Test Intervention Post Test
Evaluation Design899 1st and 2rd Grade children in
61 classes in 10 Elementary Schools in 3 school districts
X X X
X X
764 Children in 52 Classes
35 Reg. 17 Enhanced
135 Children in 9 classes
Control Condition
Regular & Enhanced
Control
Sample Characteristics
60% White
30% Black
6.0% Hispanic
2.5% Asian
1.0% American Indian
.5% Other
Group Enhanced Condition
Visual Similarity: Each child wore a vest with a green circle (front and back).
Interdependence: “At the end of our visits if most of the vests are neat, everyone can keep his or hers as a gift.”
Green Tape placed around the perimeter of the room encircling the class.
Poster with children’s names included within a Green Circle.
1
Very Little
2
A Little
3
A LittleBit More
4
A Lot
5
A Whole Lot
How much does your class feel like a team?
Manipulation Check
Regular = 4.37 Enhanced = 4.50 p = .16
EVALUATION SESSION
Each child was given a test booklet specially prepared for him or her which identified the child’s ethnicity, gender and body size.
Children were tested together in class and the session was conducted by a person who was experienced working with groups of young children.
This person was unaware that some classes received the Regular and others the Group Enhanced version of the Green Circle Program.
85% of eligible children’s parents provided informed consent for their children to participate.
very sad
a little sad
not sad or happy
a little happy
very happy
How would you feel about playing with this child who is the same age as yourself?
8 drawings are shown that vary: Race, Gender, and Body Size
Which child would you most like to play with?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
very sad
a little sad
not sad or happy
a little happy
very happy
How would you feel about playing with this child who is the same age as yourself?
8 drawings are shown that vary: Race, Gender, and Body Size
NONE
22. If you have 6 pieces of bubble gum, how many pieces of your gum would you give this child?
Sharing
Which child would you most like to play with?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Assume that I am a seven year old, white, average weight boy, how many characteristics in terms of Race, Gender and Body Size
do I have in common with this Child?
ZERO – In this regard we are very different
How many of these characteristics do I have in common with this child?
THREE. In this regard, we are very similar.
Scores can range from 0 – 3 characteristics in common
Number of Characteristics in Common with First Play Choice at Time 1 and Time 2
0
1
2
3
Regular Enhanced Control
Green Circle Condition
Nu
mb
er
of
Ch
ara
cte
ris
tic
s i
n
Co
mm
on
Pre
Post
nsp < .025 ns
Benefits of a Common Ingroup Identity
Increased positive thoughts, feelings and behaviors toward outgroup members (including racial
outgroup members).Appears to change the motivational orientation toward racial outgroup members from “Avoid Wrong-doing” to “Do Right.”
After Green Circle, children were more willing to consider a child different than themselves in ethnicity and gender as the child they would most want to play with (effect size r = .37).
The effects of Common Ingroup Identity are robust across
laboratory and natural groups, across people of different
ages, in different countries.And -- the effects seem to generalize to the
outgroup as a whole and across time
Future Plans
1. Understand the conflicting evidence regarding the dual identityrepresentation.
2. Understand the relation between the one group and dual identity representations and attitudes among racial majority
and minority students.
3. Extend the Common Ingroup Identity work into applied settings including the doctor-patient relationship – as well
as continue our work with the school intervention programs.