SOC 463/663 (Social Psych of Education) - Diversity, Stigma, and Affirmative Action
-
Upload
melanie-tannenbaum -
Category
Education
-
view
91 -
download
1
Transcript of SOC 463/663 (Social Psych of Education) - Diversity, Stigma, and Affirmative Action
Diversity, Stigma, and Affirmative Action
Melanie Tannenbaum, Ph.D. Spring 2015 SOC 463/663
Stereotyping and Prejudice
Do these all mean the same thing?
A. Yes
B. No
They are similar, but there are actually differences.
Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination
Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination
Stereotype Belief that certain attributes are characteristic of members of particular groups
Cognition
Prejudice A negative (or positive) attitude toward a certain group that is applied to its individual members
Emotion
Discrimination Unfair treatment of members of a particular group based on their membership in that group
Behavior
If someone is “racist” towards a certain racial group…
Stereotype: People in Racial Group are all bad/stupid/lazy/smart/athletic/rich.
Prejudice: I don’t like people in Racial Group, so I don’t like Bob because he is a member of this group.
Discrimination: Bob applied for a job in my company, but I won’t hire him, because he’s in Racial Group.
Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination
DQ: Stereotypes
How do young children even learn about the stereotypes that others have for their group(s)? How do we get stereotypes out of the
schools? Is it even possible or is it just a long dream that can not be accomplished?
People hastily assume the root of a person is ultimately one primary description. Why do we feel the need to instinctively define each other
at all? How helpful can these labels really be?
But what does it mean to be “racist”?
Does all prejudice look the same? NO!
There are two main types:
Traditional
Modern
This applies to all forms of prejudice (sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism...), not just racism.
Traditional Racism
Prejudice against a racial group that is consciously acknowledged and openly expressed by the individual
Relatively rare in contemporary society
Modern Racism
Prejudice against a racial group that exists alongside rejection of explicit racist beliefs
Example: Opposing racial segregation, but treating outgroup members differently in more subtle ways (e.g. sitting further away, being less likely to hire them).
More “subtle”…not necessarily verbalized
Modern Racism
Hodson et al., 2002
Participants filled out a modern racism scale about African-Americans
Participants rated a sample of job applicants
Half were White, and half were Black
Results
When the applicant was either SUPER EXCELLENT or SUPER TERRIBLE, white and black applicants were rated the same.
When the applicant had a some-good-some-bad resume, people high in modern racism rated the white applicants higher.
Modern racism is suppressed when expressing it would clearly look “racist,”
but emerges when it seems “safe.”
Modern Racism
Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977 White participants entered the lab & told they would be interacting with a) 1 person or b) a group
All people were seated in single-person cubicles and spoke through an intercom system
At one point, one of the confederates indicated he was having a medical emergency
The confederate was either (a) White or (b) Black.
How many participants left their cubicles to go help?
When interacting 1-on-1, most help, whether Black (94%) or White (81%)
When interacting with group, most help the White victim (75%), but not the Black victim (38%)
“Oh, there are a bunch of people…someone else will help.”
Societal ContextWhy?
Realistic group conflict theory Conflict between groups over scarce resources Derogation of other groups Justification of own claims
Social status and power Justifying the status quo
Stereotype holder tend to hold advantaged status position Rationalization of existing social structure
Prejudice is never easy, unless in can pass itself off for reason. -- William Hazlitt (1778-1830)
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
LeVine & Campbell, 1972
When groups compete for limited resources, the groups experience conflict, prejudice, and discrimination.
What are limited resources?
Territory
Jobs
Power
Prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among groups that stand to lose the most if
another group succeeds.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Some of the strongest anti-black prejudice occurred shortly after the Civil Rights Movement became successful.
This prejudice was strongest among the white working class.
Why?
Working class jobs became a threatened commodity for White Americans once millions
of Black Americans were allowed to apply.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Sherif et al., 1961
22 fifth-grade boys (all strangers) participated in a 2 ½ week summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park in OK.
The boys were divided into groups of 11
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Phase One
Groups independently engaged in activities designed to foster unity (preparing meals, pitching tents, etc.)
Neither group knew about the other group’s existence
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Phase Two
Groups brought together for a five-day tournament; winners got medals and pocket knives
The other group is now an obstacle to resources (prizes)
This led to conflict, trash-talking, stealing, and in-group favoritism. Eek!
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Phase Three
The researchers tried a few things in an attempt to “reverse” the prejudice and reduce conflict between the 2 groups
Attempt #1: Mere Exposure
The boys were brought together in noncompetitive settings
This failed…The boys insulted each other, fought, etc.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Attempt #2: Superordinate Goals
The researchers created larger goals that made the groups of boys have to depend on each other in order to succeed
Disrupted the camp’s water supply (boys had to fix the pipes together), supply truck “broke down” (boys had to jump start it together)…
Required both groups to work together for a common goal
This worked…Prejudice went away!
On the ride home, the boys took the same bus, shared candy, etc.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
There were no differences in background, appearance, or history of conflict; intergroup hostility developed anyway
All that is required for conflict is economic competition
Economic Competition = Sufficient for intergroup bias
Competition against outgroups often increases cohesion
The intergroup conflict led the ingroups themselves to adopt group names, social norms, create a shared social identity, etc.
Superordinate goals help!
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Intergroup conflict can be diminished by making groups work together
Certain groups (like the military) do this very well
Certain groups (like Fortune 500 companies) do...not.
How do you think universities do at this?
A) Good
B) Bad
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: The “Robber’s Cave” Study
Universities do surprisingly poorly…
This is one reason why there might be a lot of self-segregation and early integration efforts were difficult.
Grade curves and the classroom structure encourage competition
No real efforts to make people from different groups work together for a common goal.
The military does this very well; makes people from many different groups work together, breaks down barriers quickly.
Varieties of Prejudice
Blatant institutional prejudice
Explicitly discriminatory policies
Subtle institutional prejudice
Policies with race-discriminatory consequences
Perpetuate inequality1963: Alabama governor George Wallace
blocking African American students from entering the University of Alabama
Varieties of Prejudice
Blatant personal prejudice
Explicitly prejudiced, verbal use of stereotypes
Has generally decreased over the last 50 years
Subtle personal prejudice
Often unacknowledged, unknown, unconscious
Implicit prejudice
Aversive racism (Dovidio et al., 2002)
Aversive Racism
Beholders of prejudice think of themselves as egalitarian, fair
Discriminatory racial biases occur without awareness in ambiguous situations
Rationalization of own discriminatory behavior
Aversive Racism
Implicit attitudes (uncontrollable)
Nonverbal friendliness
Verbal friendliness
Explicit attitudes (controllable)
Perceived friendliness of the White participant
(observed by Black partner)
Perceived friendliness of the White participant
(observed by White participant)
One white student & one black student interact in initial “getting-to-know-you” meeting
Very little relationship between white participant’s self-perceived friendliness and the friendliness as perceived by Black interaction partner
Ambiguity & Distrust
Ambiguity & Distrust
Interpersonal Expectations
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Spontaneous biases
Nonverbal channels
“Interview study” (Word, Zanna & Cooper, 1974)
Internalized Expectations
Stereotype Threat
Interview Study (Word et al., 1974)
Ambiguity & Distrust
Interpersonal Expectations
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Spontaneous biases
Nonverbal channels
“Interview study” (Word, Zanna & Cooper, 1974)
Internalized Expectations
Stereotype Threat
DQ: Talking About Stereotypes
I think it’s interesting that Walton points out that inequality does not necessarily need to be objective poor treatment, but subjectively as well. If
that is the case, would merely not talking about racial differences in academic settings reduce the stereotype threats that exist today? Or would it require celebrating racial differences in order for minority groups to identify
with certain domains?
There was a quote I read that stated, "the only way to stop racism is to stop talking about it." Do you think this is true? If something is talked about
constantly it's clearly still going to be an issue, so if everyone just stopped making it an issue, would it just end?
Academic Disengagement & Oppositional Identity
Why don’t minority students perform as well as their majority peers?
Social structural disadvantages Poverty Lack of institutional resources Lack of knowledge to navigate the system
Stereotyping and prejudice Biases Low expectations
Interpersonal Institutional Intrapersonal — Internalization of other’s low expectations
Perceived Biases
Minority students’ response
Perspective of the stereotyped Subjective perspective Shaping of one’s social identity
What does it mean to be black in an academic setting? Who “owns” education?
Identity-shaping processes “Looking glass” self — Passive Identity negotiation and management — Active
Generation of identity that allows one’s own group to be Favorable Distinct
Avoid unfavorable social comparison Integrate subjective experience of intergroup relations
How do minorities respond to majority attitudes toward them?
Disengagement from mainstream domains of achievement
Contingencies of Self-Worth
People base their self-esteem on their “good” domains “I cannot succeed because the deck is stacked against me”
Blaming racism, the system ! “Academic success is not important to me” ! “I am not trying very hard”
American Caste System
John Ogbu (1939-2003) Majority groups Voluntary minority groups Involuntary minority groups
Caste-like
Possible Responses
Oppositional stance (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) Rejection of mainstream institutions and demands Likely in caste-like minorities
Low social mobility Rejectionist stance
Downplay importance of intergroup distinction Avoid tension between minority and mainstream “Racelessness” (Fordham, 1988)
Assimilationist stance Refashion identity to be compatible with mainstream High-mobility minorities
Dual Identity stance Be both member of mainstream and member of minority group Compatibility of aspects of one’s identity
Academic persistence following reminders of societal statusOyserman et al. (2003)
Participants: Arab Israelis in all Arab schools
Aca
dem
ic p
ersi
sten
ce
0
0.35
0.7
1.05
1.4
Dual RES Minority RES In-group RES RES Aschematic
Status not salientStatus is salient
RejectionistOppositionalDual identity
Fordham & Ogbu (1986)
Black oppositional identity to white mainstream education Disengagement from schooling
Forces generated within minority group Blaming the victim (?)
….but wait a minute:
Black students have exaggerated achievement expectations More favorable “abstract” attitudes toward education
Are Black students alienated from school?
Data from National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS), nationally representative sample.
DQ: Acting White
Perhaps it's a matter of integrating different cultures within that school, because then high achievement won't be a matter of "acting white." Does this resemble multicultural education? Or should we be trying to address the problem of "acting white" by actively trying to reduce the stigma around academic success? Or is it a little of both, integrating culture while still breaking down the idea that academic
success is a white ideal?
Is there any way that the educational system can prevent the negative association of “acting white” for minorities?
Attributional Ambiguity
Members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain if the treatment they receive is due to themselves personally or due to their group membership
Why didn’t you get hired? Why did you get into that school? Why did you get that award?
Have you ever experienced this? A) Yes B) No
Attributional Ambiguity
Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity
½ White participants, ½ Black participants
½ got positive feedback, ½ got negative feedback
½ thought other person could see them through one-way mirror, ½ did not
Attributional Ambiguity
Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity
Self-esteem for White participants went up after positive feedback, down after negative feedback, no matter what.
Self-esteem for Black participants only changed if they thought the other person could not see them.
“Do they really feel this way, or just saying that because they know what I look like and are changing their response because of it?”
Stereotype threat
Seeing oneself as representative of one’s group in another’s eyes
Concern with confirming others’ (assumed) stereotypes
Stereotype Threat
The fear that we will confirm a stereotype that others have
because of a group we’re in
Group members typically know the stereotypes
that others hold about them/their groups
Stereotype Threat
In a performance situation, people often want to prove that the stereotype’s not true
This leads to anxiety about accidentally confirming it This actually makes it more likely one will confirm it
Claude Steele on stereotype threat
Stereotype Threat
½ participants told that there’s “no gender difference”
½ told that men tend to do better
In the second condition, women do worse.
Stereotype Threat
White male students do worse on math tests when they are surrounded by Asian students.
Female Asian students do worse on math tests when prompted to think about being female, but better when prompted to think about being Asian.
Black students perform worse at golf when it’s described as a test of “sports intelligence,” but White students do worse on the same task when it’s described as a test of “natural athletic ability”
Black students perform worse on aptitude tests when asked to indicate their race on the test booklet before starting.
DQ: Interventions
It is proven that self-affirmations help reduce stress and threatening issues but my concern is, are there any negative side effects of over
self-affirming?
If the data shows that performance can change with implementing this kind of exercise how come it has not been implemented?
DQ: Interventions
How is the “control” group considered a control group when their assignment seemed so negatively biased (least important values and
why those values could be important to someone else)?
Why aren’t there already exercises implemented in classrooms that benefit students in this way? Why not use the intervention strategy for overall self-efficacy and self-worth? How do we make adequate material, social, and psychological resources available in schools to
equip students with the skills necessary to perform?
Affirmative Action
Controversial Views
Controversial Views
Controversial Views
History of Affirmative Action
Instituted during Civil Rights Era
First steps: John F. Kennedy
Signed into law: Lyndon B. Johnson
Addresses…
Public contracts
Public employment
Public education
Mandatory in public organizations, but most private ones have a voluntary AA policy
What is Affirmative Action?
Diverse set of programs aimed addressing and rectifying group inequality
Two goals
To remedy the effects of past discrimination
To prevent the occurrence of new disadvantages for certain groups
Two pronged approach
MONITORING
REMEDIATION
There is not one specific Affirmative Action policy, but many different policies
Necessity?
Is Affirmative Action necessary? “Is a systematic monitoring policy necessary?”
Difficulty in assessing systematic inequality Aggregate monitoring is essential
Denial of Discrimination (Crosby)Faye Crosby
Quotas
Does Affirmative Action provide quotas for women & minorities? NO.
Quotas were initially possible, if rare Bakke v. University of California (1978)
Prohibited the use of strict quotas Affirmed the right of educational institutions to take race/ethnicity into account as one criterion among many
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) / Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Most recent “big case” Affirmed previous opinions Struck down some AA approaches
No quotas, but…..
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)/Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Prohibited the use of procedures that amount to quotas
University of Michigan used a point system in admission, whereby minorities received more points for minority status (but this was only one of many ways to earn additional points)
Affirmed the right of educational institutions to take race/ethnicity into account as one criterion among many Affirmed that universities can claim a “compelling interest” to educate for diversity
Current Supreme Court case: Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 11-345
How does Affirmative Action work in college admissions?
Monitoring of student body Admission goals Recruitment effort Admission decisions
“Tie breaker” Define minimum requirements, then take race/ethnicity into account
“Ole Miss” approach “Whole Picture” approach
Take ethnic/racial group membership into account along with other characteristics Grades, test scores Legacy status Region of the country Interest Values/goals expressed in application essays
“Pro” PositionCrosby et al. (2003)
Considering past and ongoing minority disadvantage, Affirmative Action… Monitors fairness Remedies unfairness Ensures that well-qualified minority applicants get their fair chance
! Affirmative action is compatible with a merit-based approach Test scores and grades are rarely (if ever) the only admissions criteria There is no “right” for admission based on test scores & grades. Schools are always (and should be) concerned with other aspects of students in order to create a good learning environment for everyone College, as part of society, is involved in creating and remedying unequal opportunities — societal responsibility Affirmative action policies show positive outcomes
“Anti” positionThernstrom & Thernstrom (1997)
Racial preferences are inherently unfair (with or without quotas) ! Affirmative action is not compatible with a merit-based approach
Admission decisions to selective colleges should ONLY be based on merit Merit = standardized test scores and high school grades.
An inferior minority student may be admitted whereas a superior white applicant (based on standardized test scores & grades) is rejected
Colleges cannot take responsibility for the failures of the K-12 school system that produce low-achieving minority students
DQ: Critiquing Affirmative Action
One of my biggest concerns that was not addressed in this article was whether or not universities have a fair and equitable system
*within* the affirmative action selection process. In my completely cynical eyes, it seems that schools use sports recruitment in
disproportionate quantities to recruit racial minorities. Do minority students that don’t play sports get a fair look as well? Do the groups
(athletic vs. non-athletic recruits) differ on important outcomes?
Eventually white people are going to be the minority – so would they then be able to get into college easier to add diversity? Or would it not be the case because of a history of structural privilege/advantages?
Do you think the structure will reverse?
Some implicit assumptions about educational access
“Deservingness is the only relevant criterion for educational access”
BUT… SAT & ACT have a small correlation with college academic performance College experience is multifaceted Educational goals are multifaceted
High academic performance? Learning about and becoming engaged in society? Preparation for the working world and adult life?
Some implicit assumptions about educational access
“Deservingness is something we can measure on college applications.” BUT…Stereotype threat impacts test performance
“Deservingness speaks for itself.” BUT…Test scores under-predict minority achievement
However… Test scores are still the best unbiased predictors of performance
Sackett et al., 2008, Am Psych
Arguments against Affirmative Action in College Admissions
Undermines meritocratic standards Selection based on characteristics outside individual control
At odds with American individualism? Sends the wrong signal to future generations of college applicants
Illusion of achievement among beneficiaries Lower standards
Affirmation of achievement gap Black students are less qualified than White students
Stigmatizing beneficiaries of AA in the eyes of the majority Attributional consequences of receiving help Stereotype threat (Stereotype vulnerability)
Is Affirmative Action Effective?
Thernstrom & Thernstrom: NO
AA lets non-qualified minority applicants access selective colleges Racial Test score gap among admits Lack of preparation works again minority students
“They cannot keep up” Higher drop-out rates among minority college students
True for selective and non-selective colleges alike
Is Affirmative Action Effective?
Bowen & Bock: YES
AA increased participation of historically underrepresented groups in school Enhanced academic performance of minority students No increases in drop-out rates Increased positive attitudes toward college & college experience Life outcomes for AA beneficiaries and European Americans often indistinguishable
Increase in income and status among minorities University of Michigan Law school study
Benefits of diversity College outcomes better for minority and majority groups Informal interracial interaction
Is Affirmative Action Effective?
Sander: NOT REALLY
Systematic analysis of Affirmative Action in American law schools Large racial preferences at elite U.S. law schools At the end of 1st year, 51% of black students in the bottom 10% of class
Students would be better of at non-elite law school 80% of White students pass the bar on 1st try…only 45% of Black students Elite pedigree is less important than GPA
Non-elite schools enables better grades & better learning for black students More black lawyers!
Fischer & Massey (2007)
How do AA admission policies at selective colleges affect minority GPA? Chance of dropping out? College satisfaction?
Mismatch Hypothesis (Thernstroms)
Stereotype Threat Hypothesis (Steele)
Mismatch Hypothesis
Some students have SAT scores lower than the college average
PREDICTION: Below-average students should struggle and have low GPAs, high dropout rates, low satisfaction
FINDING: Mismatched students have a higher GPA and lower dropout rate than expected, but lower college satisfaction.
Stereotype Threat Hypothesis
Minority groups have SAT scores lower than the college average
PREDICTION: Below-average groups should experience stereotype threat and have low GPAs, high dropout rates, low satisfaction
FINDING: Stereotyped students have higher dropout rates and lower college satisfaction, but no difference in GPAs.
Fischer & Massey (2007)
Net effects
Positive effect of mismatch stronger than negative effect of stereotype threat
Overall there is a positive effect supporting the intended consequences of affirmative action, but effect is pretty small
Alternatives
Class-based affirmative action? Seems more acceptable to U.S. public Gains for underrepresented minority groups
Admissions schemes that do not single out any particular group Texas “Admit top 10% from each high school” to U of Texas system
DQ: Alternatives?
How do we make up for structural disadvantages and how would we implement this change?
Should affirmative action be banned in college and university admission? Are there viable alternatives?
Does anyone have a better immediate solution than affirmative action? How do we fix the real problem rather than using a “band-
aid” like affirmative action?