Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Counteracting prejudice<br />Some strategies:<br /><ul><li>Contact hypothesis
Spotlighting Value Conflicts
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Q3L09 - counteracting prejudice

696

Published on

Published in: Technology, Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
696
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Q3L09 - counteracting prejudice"

  1. 1. Counteracting prejudice<br />Some strategies:<br /><ul><li>Contact hypothesis
  2. 2. Spotlighting Value Conflicts
  3. 3. Planned, Personal Experience of Discrimination</li></ul>Allport and the contact hypothesis:<br /><ul><li>Argued that intergroup contact would only lead to decreased prejudice under the following four conditions:
  4. 4. Equal status between groups in the situation
  5. 5. Cooperative activity toward common goals
  6. 6. Personalised acquaintance (“that leads to the perception of common interests and humanity”)
  7. 7. Support for the contact by authorities or local norms</li></ul>Support for theory<br /><ul><li>Has received support in many studies, conducted in various situations and with stigmatised social groups (from foreign students to the elderly).
  8. 8. Pettigrew and Tropp conducted a meta-analysis of 203 studies on intergroup contact as an influence on varied measures of prejudice.
  9. 9. 94% of these studies found an inverse relationship between contact and prejudice.
  10. 10. Findings also showed that the intergroup contact’s prejudice-reducing effects can generalise to new social situations, whole outgroup or to other outgroups</li></ul>Different models of contact<br />* 3 related, but different, views as to the most effective way to conduct intergroup contact interventions:<br />1) Decategorisation: initial ingroup-outgroup catergorisations are weakened and taken over by other cross-cutting similarities between members. E.g. that outgroup member is like me in doing, thinking, or feeling<br />2) Recategorisation: ingroup-outgroup categorisation is weakened by uniting both groups in a common superordinate identity. E.g. We are all Australians<br />3) Mutual differentiation: recommends maintaining the initial social catergory but explicitly emphasising that the groups are mutually interdependent. E.g. our groups are different, but we need to work together to accomplish this goal.<br />Spotlighting Value conflicts<br /><ul><li>Combines cognitive and motivational bases for reducing prejudice.
  11. 11. Focused on showing inconsistencies in the person’s values.
  12. 12. This engages their self-concept and often develops guilt motivation.
  13. 13. Aims to motivate people to change their beliefs and behaviour in the direction of consistency with key underlying values such as fairness and equality.</li></ul>Planned, Personal Experience of Discrimination<br /><ul><li>An interactive, experiential method
  14. 14. Majority group members exposed to prejudice and discrimination that minority-group individuals undergo every day.
  15. 15. Expectation: more empathy and better understanding of the problems of minorities.
  16. 16. Jane Eliot’s Brown Eyes, Blue Eyes exercise...

×