This document discusses several psychological theories related to diversity and diversity management, including: - In-group bias, where people view those in their own group more positively. This can lead to out-group bias and racial inequality. - Stereotypes, which are generalizations about groups that attribute characteristics. Stereotypes can be changed through bookkeeping, conversion, or subtyping models as new information is learned. - Out-group homogeneity, where out-groups are seen as more similar while in-groups are seen as more varied. This can lead to discrimination. - Propinquity effect, where interacting with others more frequently increases the likelihood of forming friendships with them. Arrangements

1. Psychology to deal with diversity and
diversity management.
By
Jayadeva de Silva.M,Sc,FIPM,FITD
We would like to discuss here some psychological theories to help
students of diversity management to appreciate the diversity among
people and orient them towards appropriate diversity management
practices and diversity training based on the psychological research
findings
In-Group Bias
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we believe that someone else is in a group to which we belong, we
will have positive views of them and give them preferential treatment.
This works because we build our self-esteem through belonging, and
the presence of someone from an in-group reminds us of that
belonging. The opposite of in-group bias is out-group bias where, by
inference, out-group people are viewed more negatively and given
worse treatment.
This is the basis of racial inequality. In-group linguistic bias is where
out-group people are described in abstract terms (which
deindividuates them) when they conform to the out-group
stereotype. Out-group people will be referred to in more specific,
concrete terms when they act in unexpected ways.
Psychologist Henri Tajfel visibly divided people in to random groups.
They rapidly found in-group people preferable to out-group people,
even finding rational arguments about how unpleasant and immoral
the out-group people were. Watch children in the school yard. Notice
how they form groups and how they treat those not in their gang.
Make yourself and the other person a part of the same group, and
1

2. they will be biased towards you (and away from anyone you cast as
out-group).
Stereotypes
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stereotypes are generalizations about a group of people whereby we
attribute a defined set of characteristics to this group. These
classifications can be positive or negative, such as when various
nationalities are stereotyped as friendly or unfriendly.
It is easier to create stereotypes when there is a clearly visible and
consistent attribute that can easily be recognized. This is why people
of color, police and women are so easily stereotyped. People from
stereotyped groups can find this very disturbing as they experience an
apprehension (stereotype threat) of being treated unfairly. We change
our stereotypes infrequently. Even in the face of disconfirming
evidence, we often cling to our obviously-wrong beliefs. When we do
change the stereotypes, we do so in one of three ways:
- Bookkeeping model: As we learn new contradictory information,
we incrementally adjust the stereotype to adapt to the new
information. We usually need quite a lot of repeated information for
each incremental change. Individual evidence is taken as the
exception that proves the rule.
- Conversion model: We throw away the old stereotype and start
again. This is often used when there is significant disconfirming
evidence.
- Subtyping model: We create a new stereotype that is a
sub-classification of the existing stereotype, particularly when we can
draw a boundary around the sub-class. Thus if we have a stereotype
for Americans, a visit to New York may result in us having a ‘New
Yorkers are different’ sub-type.
We often store stereotypes in two parts. First there are the
generalized descriptions and attributes. To this we may add
2

3. exemplars to prove the case, such as 'the policeman next door'. We
may also store them hierarchically, such as 'black people', 'Africans',
'Ugandans', 'Ugandan military', etc., with each lower order inheriting
the characteristics of the higher order, with additional characteristics
added. Stereotyping can go around in circles. Men stereotype women
and women stereotype men. In certain societies this is intensified as
the stereotyping of women pushes them together more and they
create men as more of an out-group.
Stereotyping can be subconscious, where it subtly biases our
decisions and actions, even in people who consciously do not want to
be biased. Stereotyping often happens not so much because of
aggressive or unkind thoughts. It is more often a simplification to
speed conversation on what is not considered to be an important
topic. Stereotyping goes way beyond race and gender. Consider
conversations you have had about people from the next town,
another department in your company, supporters of other
football teams, and so on. Find how others stereotype you (if
possible, getting them to stereotype you positively). They will have a
blind spot to non-stereotyped behaviors, so you can do these and
they will often ignore it. Thus if you are stereotyped as a ‘kind old
man’, you can do moderately unkind things which may be ignored.
To change a person’s view of your stereotype, be consistently
different from it. Beware of your own stereotyping blinding you to
the true nature of other individuals. Stereotyping can be reduced by
bringing people together. When they discover the other people are
not as the stereotype, the immediate evidence creates dissonance that
leads to improved thoughts about the other group.
(Lippmann (1922), Allport (1954))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Out-Group Homogeneity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We tend to classify people who are not in our in-group as being
3

4. similar to one another. ‘They’re all like that’ is a common reference
term. In contrast, we see people in out in-group as being more
individual. We thus tend to use a set of stereotypes for people from
different countries, cities and companies. These generalizations lead
us to discriminate uniformly towards people from these groups.
When visiting a new country or group, the behavior of the first few
people we meet will quickly be used to create a stereotype of the
others in the same group.
Much of the fighting around the world is based on differences of
religion. Zealots cast the other side as jointly and severally guilty for
the sins of their peers and equally likely to commit the same acts of
war. Thus genocide seems the only answer as they blindly fight on.
(Linville, Fischer and Salovey (1989), Quattrone (1986))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Propinquity Effect
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The more we meet and interact with people, the more likely we are to
become friends with them. As we meet people we become familiar
and find things we like about them. It is not so much 'birds of a
feather flock together' as 'birds who just happen to be near each
other grow similar feathers'. Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950)
followed friendships in a small two-floor apartment building.
Neighbors were mostly likely to be friends. Least likely were people
on separate floors. Those near ground-floor staircases and mailboxes
had friends on both floors.
Friendships appear in neighborhoods, workplaces, college classes and
other places where people get together. To build trust, make friends.
To make friends, ensure you meet up with the target people often.
To ensure you meet up, arrange your life so you repeatedly ‘bump
into’ them.
(Festinger (1954), Schachter and Back (1950), Zajonc (1968))
4

5. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Schema
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A schema is a mental structure we use to organize and simplify our
knowledge of the world around us. We have schemas about
ourselves, other people, mechanical devices, food, and in fact almost
everything. Schemas can be related to one another, sometimes in a
hierarchy (so a salesman is a man is a human). Schemas affect what
we notice, how we interpret things and how we make decisions and
act. They act like filters, accentuating and downplaying various
elements. We use them to classify things, such as when we ‘pigeon-
hole’ people. They also help us forecast, predicting what will happen.
We even remember and recall things via schemas, using them to
‘encode’ memories.
Schemas appear very often in the attribution of cause. Schemas are
often shared within cultures, allowing short-cut communications.
Every word is, in effect, a schema, as when you read it you receive a
package of additional inferred information. We tend to have favorite
schema which we use often. When interpreting the world, we will try
to use these first, going on to others if they do not sufficiently fit.
Schemas are also self-sustaining, and will persist even in the face of
disconfirming evidence. This is because if something does not match
the schema, such as evidence against it, it is ignored. Some schema
are easier to change than others, and some people are more open
about changing any of their schemas than other people.
Other types of schema include:
- Social schemas are about general social knowledge.
- Person schemas are about individual people.
- Idealized person schemas are called prototypes. The word is also
used for any generalized schema.
- Self-schemas are about oneself. We also hold idealized or projected
selves, or possible selves.
5

6. - Role schemas are about proper behaviors in given situations.
- Event schemas (or scripts) are about what happens in specific
situations.
- The plural of Schema is Schemas (USA) or Schemata (UK).
Schemas are also known as mental models, concepts, mental
representations and knowledge structures (although definitions do
vary--for example some define mental models as modeling cause-
effect only).
Cohen showed people a videotape of a scene including a librarian
drinking. The people recalled (reconstructed) it with the librarian
drinking wine, because their schemas for librarians classified them as
being more likely to drink wine. Some people dislike police because
they have a schema of police as people who perceive everyone as
guilty until proven innocent. Other people feel safe around police as
their schemas are more about police as brave protectors. Find
people's schemas around the area of interest, then either create trust
by utilizing their schema or reframe to change their schema.
Become more self-aware, knowing your own schemas and why there
are useful for you. When people try to change them, you can then
more rationally understand whether your or their schemas are better.
(Cohen (1981), Kelley (1972), Weiner (1979, 1986), Markus (1977))
Normative Social Influence
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is a fundamental human need to belong to social groups.
Evolution has taught us that survival and prosperity is more likely if
we live and work together. However, to live together, we need to
agree on common beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors that reduce
in-group threats act for the common good. We thus learn to conform
to rules of other people.
And the more we see others behaving in a certain way or making
particular decisions, the more we feel obliged to follow suit. This will
happen even when we are in a group of complete strangers. We will
6

7. go along with the others to avoid looking like a fool.
National culture also has a significant effect, and countries like Japan
are far more likely to be influenced by more individualistic cultures
such as in the USA (although it is a testament to the power of this
effect that it still has a massive impact here). Solomon Asch showed a
group of people a line on a card and asked them to find a matching
line from a group of three lines on another card, one of which was
pretty obviously the right choice. The catch was that all except one
person in the group were collaborators and chose the wrong line.
When it came to the ‘victim’s turn, guess what? In a range of
experiments, 76% of them followed suit. The presence of just one
supporter reduced this to 18%.
Fads and fashions lean heavily on normative social influence. So do
racial, political and other situations of persuasion. To change a
person’s behavior, put them in a group who (perhaps primed) clearly
all exhibit the desired behavior. Then engineer the situation so the
person must exhibit the behavior or face potential rejection or other
social punishment. If they do not comply, ensure the group gives
steadily increasing social punishment rather than rejecting the target
person immediately. When they do comply, they should receive social
reward (eg. praise, inclusion).
Where you want to do something and the group in which you
currently are socially punishes you for doing it, make a conscious
decision as to whether it is worth fighting back or just giving up and
leaving. If they mean nothing to you, just carry on and ignore them.
It can also be very heartening to watch other people resisting (and
your doing so may well give heart to other doubters).
(Asch (1951, 1956, 1966))
Minimum Group Theory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Even when a people are arbitrarily assigned to unimportant group
7

8. categories, they will still act in classic ways towards in-group and
out-group people.
Tajfel (1970) randomly allocated to schoolboys to groups who
‘preferred’ paintings by Klee or Kandinsky. When asked to allocate
points, they were biased toward their own group. People in a
crowded elevator will silently act together to dissuade additional
people from trying to get in. Find a minor point of similarity with the
other person and put yourself and the other person in it, with rivals
in outside. Talk about ‘us and them.’
(Tajfel (1970))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Social Identity Theory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When we belong to a group, we are likely to derive our sense of
identity, at least in part, from that group. We also enhance the sense
of identity by making comparisons with out-groups. Social identity is
different from personal identity, which is derived from personal
characteristics and individual relationships. Breakwell (1978) studied
teenage soccer fans, some of whom went to most games, whilst
others did not go to games. Those who did not go to games were the
most vehement about their loyalty and showed most in-group bias,
presumably as they had a greater need to prove themselves as fans.
When abroad, especially in countries which have particularly different
languages and cultures, we feel our nationality far more keenly than
when we are at home. We will tend to band together in national
groups, perhaps making comments about the strangeness of the
natives. Invite the other person into a group which has characteristics
that you want the other person to adopt.
(Tajfel and Turner (1986), Turner (1982), Breakwell (1978))
8

9. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Social Norms
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values,
beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit or
implicit. Failure to stick to the rules can result in severe punishments,
the most feared of which is exclusion from the group. A common
rule is that the some norms must frequently be displayed; neutrality is
seldom an option.
A common group norm amongst academics is that dress is casual
(with the underlying implication that what goes on in the mind is
more important than what goes on the body).
Other norms include:
Injunctive Norms are behaviors which are perceived as being
approved of by other people.
Descriptive Norms are perceptions of how other people are actually
behaving, whether or not these are approved of.
Explicit Norms are written or spoken openly.
Implicit Norms are not openly stated (but you find out when you
transgress them).
(Kelley (1955), Deutch and Gerard (1955))
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pluralistic Ignorance
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Groups all have norms of attitude and behavior which are shared and
which help form the identity of the group. Adopting these norms,
even if you do not agree with them, is a part of the individual
sacrifice that people accept as a price of group membership. It is thus
possible for groups to have norms which hardly anyone agrees with,
but with which everyone conforms. These situations typically occur
when the norms are older than all members of the group or when
9

10. one member or a small group is dominant and can force their
attitudes on the rest of the group. Prentice and Miller knew that
there was abnormally high levels of student alcohol consumption at
Princeton, through various eating clubs, rituals and parties that had
led to a number of deaths and injuries. When they questioned
students, they found many who were very worried but who joined
in the celebrations for fear of rejection.
When a lecturer asks a class 'Any questions?' there will often be a
deafening silence, even if nobody understands.
(Allport (1933), Prentice and Miller (1993)_
10