Strategies for Reducing Prejudices - Research Paper Example

Strategies for reducing prejudices Larry Barras Statistics for the Behavioral & Social Sciences PSY 325 Prof Art Talentino STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING PREJUDICES 1. Introduction The aim of this paper is the provision of representative quantitative studies that focus on strategies for the reduction of prejudicial behaviours. These strategies are inclusive of publicity campaigns, response strategies, anti-prejudice education, and prejudice awareness training. The categorization is based on each strategy’s focus. Prejudice can be defined as an attitude that is rigid, emotional, and directed at a selected group of people. These people may only exist in the mind of the prejudiced person. Despite the distinct possibility that they have limited similarity or interaction, the prejudiced person puts them together in a category. While all prejudices are attitudes, not all attitudes can be classed as prejudices. Several theories are used to define prejudice. These are cultural, and racial difference theory that focuses on a person’s dislike or fear for those they perceives to be different either culturally or physically. The economic competition theory contends that the competition for jobs and economic rewards gives rise to prejudice. The projection theory contends that persons may attribute motives to others that they are culpable of, but do not willingly express themselves. There are no straightforward solutions to the problems arising from prejudice (Pedersen & Walker, 2007). No strategy will be successful if there is the lack of social and political will. If it is not visible that everyone wishes to reduce prejudice, or that these issues are worth community investment of resources and time, then it will not be successful. It is indeed of note that several sections of society like politicians generally benefit from inter-group hostilities and tensions that are prevalent in their communities. Any perceived attempt to reduce prejudice will be resisted by these sections of society if the community stand either to lose their advantage or even sense that they will lose it (Judith & Meece, 2009). In addition, moral exhortation of society to be good and nice to the other members of society is not enough. Any attempt to portray specific groups as different but nice will not work especially given the recent divisions in society over such issues as terrorism, and immigration. Any successful strategy will need to include political, structural, and social change. Another determinant of success is the articulation of strategies to meet local needs and specificity of these strategies to target particular issues and be aimed at specific sub-populations. The strategies must also not be expectant of instant results since prejudice has been in society for a long time. This paper will expound on all these points. Modern society has been exalted as a tolerant society, which accepts different peoples and cultures and integrates them into their society. However, evidence of prejudice is still prevalent. Aside from being offensive ideologically, it also results in negative effects for the prejudice victim and for society itself. Prejudice destabilises community relations, national unity, social cohesion, decreases productivity and is socially disruptive. It is thus of benefit for all societal groups to eliminate all forms of prejudice, even as some groups stand to lose from this development. Strategies are involved in eliminating or at the very least modifying prejudicial beliefs. Some research, however, indicates the limited effectiveness of these strategies. However, no conclusions can be made until additional studies are done and examined using different theoretical emphases and perspectives. 2. Methods This paper seeks to review peer-reviewed sources that review anti-prejudice strategies. Retrieval of the sources was done by searching educational, sociological, and psychological databases for book chapters and journal articles on the internet that have the word anti-prejudice, antiprejudice, strategy, or strategies published in Standard English between 1999 and 2012. Reference lists found on these articles were then searched on the internet via the Google search machine book section. 2.1 Individual Strategies Three major issues are covered under this strategy. These include provision of specific information regarding issues on culture, creation of dissonance about possessing different values, and about the role of empathy invoking. a) Provision of knowledge on issues of culture Some researchers argue that reduction of stereotypes is an effective method of prejudice reduction. A prejudice reduction workshop conducted in Australia shows that even though there was no post or pre test evaluation, the researchers got such responses, as I do not judge the book by the cover anymore (Louw-Potgieter et al, 2001). It is, however, of note that changing stereotypes is easy to say but difficult to pull off. Stereotypes are completely change resistant, even when evidence tends to suggest that the contrary is true. The false beliefs held by these groups should be challenged. There is a strong relationship between prejudice and false beliefs such as African Americans are on welfare only and feed off the sweat of the taxpayer (Louw-Potgieter et al, 2001). There exists an even more powerful relationship between prejudice against refugees and the discussed false beliefs. An example of a false belief was that seekers of asylum are financially well off to remunerate human smugglers. The increased false beliefs reliance regarding refugees is indicative of the basis of views on what people hear and not, unfortunately, what they know. However, that which has been learnt can, to a degree, be unlearned. A Victorian study found that debunking these false beliefs acted to reduce prejudice view reporting. b) Dissonance Prejudice can be combated by making participants experience dissonance, which is discomfort psychologically that stems from what is a perceived incompatibility between their given beliefs. A Canadian study targeted what they referred to as aversive prejudicial characters. These are those who still harbor feelings of negativity towards outward groups, even though they endorse attitudes of egalitarianism outwardly (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). University participants were required to make a declaration publically about non-prejudice and wrote an essay on the importance of fair treatment of Asian students on campus grounds with the essays made public. They were then later asked to pinpoint two incidents during which they reacted negatively to a person of Asian descent. Those who had high scores concerning aversive racism had increased discomfort and guilt feelings in their responses, which caused a prejudicial behavior reduction. This procedure, conversely, had no effect on low scoring participants who seemed to have more difficulty with the provision of examples regarding discriminatory behavior. c) Empathy Research is indicative of a vibrant relationship between prejudice levels and empathy toward indigenous peoples in Australia (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). Some research found that prejudice levels are reduced via invoking empathy. However, experimental manipulation of empathy is not particularly straightforward. Empathy levels are not affected by manipulation of empathy. Empathy involves cognitive approach. Jane Elliot, a schoolteacher, did a study in the 1960’s, in an American primary school located in an Iowa rural white community. The study, the Blue Eyes- Brown Eyes, separated children in the 3rd grade, in two groups based on their eyes’ color. She then proceeded to discriminate actively against both, but at different times. There was a little follow up done on the study. One study was done in America, in which 3 weeks prior to the experiment, the research team administered University students with a test. The test gauged how likely it was for them to stand against behavior deemed discriminatory, to African Americans and how comfortable they were with African American dance partners, roommate, or doctor (Tanner, 2011). Half of the students took the Elliot procedure, with half attending cultural awareness classes where they viewed the film by Elliot. 4 weeks after this, there was re-administration of the scales. Results were indicative of a higher score for the experimental group compared to the other control group. There was no detectable difference with respect to distance socially to African American students. Most of the students reported feeling stressed from the procedure. Another study gave University students of Anglo- American descent information on discriminative incidents on African Americans (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). These were administered, with either instructions, to induce empathy, or none. Empathy was used in two versions; parallel empathy and reactive empathy. The results were indicative of scenarios that aroused parallel empathy not compassion for African Americans. They hypothesized that there may have been interference with positive emotion experiences by the emphasis on negativity. The researchers made a conclusion that empathy takes several forms that relate to change in attitude and is an emotion that is complex. Individual strategies like knowledge imparting, therefore, can be effective. However, knowledge will not lead to prejudice reduction by its own; rather it is a prerequisite to the reduction of prejudice (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). Knowledge is impossible sans pre-judgment. Creation of dissonance also appears to be a tool of great use, as is empathy use. However, given the varied forms of the latter, it has to be utilized with care. 2.2 Interpersonal Strategies a) Intergroup contact Contact hypothesis remains the social, psychological change model that is most compelling (Louw-Potgieter et al, 2001). The model gives specifications for conditions where groups with conflicts have to maintain contact when they aim at bringing down prevalent intergroup tensions. The model has four conditions: There has to be an equal status given to all conflicting groups in the contact situation. In the contact situation, there should exist no competition on group lines In the contact situation, super ordinate goals must be seeked by the groups. There must be endorsement of intergroup tension reduction and sanctioning of intergroup contact by relevant authorities. The contact hypothesis was believed to work because of its creation of forces of the situation, which compel cooperation between groups (Louw-Potgieter et al, 2001). Many interventions that are designed for the reduction of prejudice give very limited effects that are not persistent over time and are not general across groups and situations. Instead of attempting to re-do a certain out-group’s views, a more effective manner would be re-do of the in-group’s views. Intergroup contact does provide positive results. In a research examining intercultural effects of contact between Australian and Chinese students in a University for 6 months, results were indicative of increased acceptance and knowledge of each other’s culture (Louw-Potgieter et al, 2001). All four conditions were in place, thus any anti-prejudice campaign using contact must be careful concerning the conditions prevalent. This quantitative research is indicative of contact alone being inadequate. b) Providing Consensus information There exists a relationship between prejudice and belief that these views are common in society (Tanner, 2011). Prejudiced people are thus more likely to believe that most of society has the same feeling that they have. Belief that one’s views are the norm aids one to find justification. Studies have determined that information on consensus may aid in prejudice reduction. Provision of feedback to native- American students that views they held on African American students were not common to all decreased negative attitudes after a week (Pedersen & Walker, 2007). Another study found the possibility of a number of outspoken people affecting anti-prejudices without regard to cultural background (Pedersen & Walker, 2007). In this study, three American universities found that participants, simply by hearing a person speak against racism caused them to express opinions that were significantly anti-racist. This study was indicative of ethnic attitude malleability. 3. Results One of the studies reviewed was about empathy and the role it played in programs on intergroup relations (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). Its conclusion was that while it is hard to hate those who one is empathic to, empathy requires to be utilized with clear an understanding and goals. Empathy could cause such unwanted outcomes like defensive avoidance, decreased self-esteem, hurt feelings, increased hostility and tension, negative stereotype confirmation, and further creation of distance in the group. The research also points out that empathy’s effect could be blunted, for example, when empathy activation fails to factor in that the subjects being researched are implicit in prejudiced society’s machinations. In their opinion, empathy used irresponsibly takes a risk of de-contextualization of particular moral issues. More research prejudice reduction interventions in adolescents and children and concluded that information provision, bilingual education, and intergroup contact were not adequate by themselves (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). While empathy was promising, the skills used had yet to become programs targeting broad interventions using enough, large numbers for proper evaluation. Another review covered intercultural harmony fostering in school pupils in the US (Son Hing & Zanna, 2002). It was noted that contact of various cultural groups could be of use when done under specific circumstances, though it could potentially do less good than harm were the conditions discussed not be included. In addition, cooperative learning was successful where teams that were culturally heterogeneous cooperated in tasks. The jigsaw classroom appeared to be a strategy with more effect; however, the research also linked prejudice and empathy, while noting that some practices are better suited to reduce prejudice than others. Finally, it noted that critical thought skills development aimed at dealing with overgeneralization-reduced prejudice. 4. Discussion Most reviews in this paper have methodological adequacy that is reduced. Some of the problems include: Small participant pool. Use of middle- class white students who are often more able to change attitude than the rest of society. The research contains more information about the working examples than the non-working ones. Studies with less significant results are unlikely to be published. Prejudice strategies normally involved training as a one off which obviously can not cause reversal of prejudicial mentalities, rather only producing a stimulant. Researchers took into account the fact that a strategy to reduce prejudice had a bigger chance of less effect than those that were audience tailored. Most interventions failed to examine any differences between participants that were lowly racist and those that were highly racist. Prejudice is viewed as a problem that is resident in a given individual and fails to account for the fact that some are more prejudiced than others are and that prejudice is affected by various reasons. Lack of any form of follow up or performance of follow-up a week or two following the intervention. An exception measure of; stereotypes and prejudice about indigenous people in Australia and their knowledge on issues affecting them. They were then reassessed on the same attitudes after the program, during which knowledge of indigenous people and their issues had increased, and prejudice & stereotyping had gone down. References Judith L. Meece J. (2009). Handbook of Research on Schools, Schooling and Human Development: . London: Taylor & Francis. Louw-Potgieter R, Kamfer L, Boy R. (2001). Stereotype reduction workshop. South African Journal of Psychology, 21(4), 219-224. Pedersen A, &. Walker I. (2007). Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: Old fashioned and Modern Forms. The European Journal of Psychology, 27, 561-587. Son Hing S, Li W. (2002). Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists. Journal of Experimental Social Psychological, 38(1), 71-78. Tanner D. (2011). Statistics for the behavioral & social sciences. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Read More