RACE AND PSYCHOLOGY

This brochure explains why we dislike, stereotype and hate other groups and what to do about it.

What is prejudice?

"My team is the best...yours stinks."

Simply put, prejudice is bias. Prejudice refers to the Psychologist Muzafer Sherif and colleagues created an negative opinions, judgments, beliefs, and feelings we hold about individuals because of their membership in certain groups or categories. When these negative views lead us to act in certain ways toward these individuals and groups, the result is discrimination. Racial prejudice is one form of prejudice. Racial in racial groups. The issue of whether humans are grouped into "races" naturally, or whether "race" is a concept which we use to categorize people but which has no scientific basis, is addressed below. experiment that demonstrated just how quickly we form alliances within a group against another group and how seriously we take these group differences. The experiment involved 3-week-long group experiences for 11- and 12-year-old boys at campsites in Oklahoma. The boys were initially grouped together and allowed to choose friends freely. Then, the boys were split into two groups: For each boy, about one-third of the new group-mates were part of their old friend networks and two-thirds were new. In friends now came from the current group. More dramatically, when the boys engaged in a sports tournament, sportsmanship declined, and the boys ended up in aggressive, angry competition, including physical fighting. Competition was eliminated only after the two groups were asked to work cooperatively on a task of mutual interest (i.e., a superordinate goal). prejudice is prejudice that is based on membership a week, the boys changed their friendships so that most of their

What is Racism?
Racism is racial prejudice that has been incorporated into the activities and procedures of major institutions, corporations, social systems (such as those related to housing, education, and health), and other arenas of major social activity (such as politics, the media, finance, and banking). Racism serves both to discriminate against ethnic minorities and to maintain advantages and benefits for White Americans.

Why should we keep talking about prejudice and racismaren't they on the way out? Hasn't there been so much change in society already?
It would be nice if prejudice and racism were on the decline. But it doesn't seem to be that way. A 1990 study found that a majority of Whites rated African Americans and Hispanics as less intelligent than themselves. A majority of Whites also thought African Americans and Hispanics are prone to violence and would rather be on welfare than

work. These attitudes are not harmless. These prejudices not only are the basis for individual acts of discrimination, but they also allow people to justify unfair and destructive institutional and corporate practices.

Racists are not necessarily prejudiced

What can psychology tell us about prejudice, discrimination, and racism?

Prejudice and racism are about real power, they're not just something that is in people's heads. Social issues like prejudice are complex and operate at many levels. At one level, issues of economics, political power, and domination are important. But individuals must perceive, interpret, and value differences in these "real-world" factors in order to act on them. Some psychologists have been interested in how people come to define real-world situations in terms of competition.

So any difference can be the basis of prejudice?

Any difference could be used to make distinctions between groups. But evidence shows that we tend to emphasize those aspects of stereotypes that relate to our most closely held values. For example, if we value intelligence, then we may be quick to see another group as stupid. Or if hard work is valued by a group, then it may label others as lazy. Other values and their corresponding negative stereotypes are: clean/dirty, honest/liar, fair/exploitive, strong/weak, reasonable/emotional, mature/childlike. It seems that one function of stereotypes, or prejudice, is to help us feel good about ourselves and our group by focusing on comparisons with other groups on issues that are most important to our personal and group identity. There are a variety of mechanisms that we employ to help us feel better about ourselves and our group. For example, we like to believe our group is unique, and we tend to it comes to our negative qualities, we like to share these with others and, thus, overestimate how widespread these features are among others. Consider the situation in which the same small percentage of minority group members and majority group members have some negative characteristic such as mental retardation. The infrequency of the negative characteristic and the infrequency of the minority group members will lead us to the illusory belief that a higher characteristic. So, we interpret our experience as telling us that the minority group actually has a higher percentage of mentally retarded individuals than the majority group. We notice the minority group members because they are infrequent, and we notice the mentally retarded individuals because they are infrequent, and we The illusory correlation phenomenon is an example of how our mental processing can play tricks on us (Jones, 1997). The illusory correlation refers to our tendency to believe that two things are more highly correlated (or associated) than they actually are. This illusion is based on our tendency to notice things more when they are rare or infrequent. In contrast, we become habituated toor take for grantedthings that are common. Optical Illusions of the Mind

overestimate the uniqueness of our good features. But when percentage of minority group members have the negative

tend to believe the two are related more strongly than they actually are.

But do all stereotypes represent a way of feeling better about ourselves? Can't we hold stereotypes just because we have limited information or experience?
Yes, stereotypes can develop because of limited information. At the most basic level, stereotypes are related to the basic mental process of categorization. Our brains are very good at forming categories: good versus bad, edible versus nonedible, friend versus foe. Without these generalized concepts and categories, getting through the day would demand an overwhelming amount of analysis and careful consideration of every object and person we came into contact with. Categorization helps us take shortcuts and helps us become more efficient in making decisions and acting. When a waiter at a restaurant comes to our table with a small pad and pencil, we prepare to give him our order. We don't have to spend much mental effort wondering: "Are you our waiter? Can we give you our order?" In recent years, psychologists have been recognizing just how much of this processing takes place automatically without our even being aware that we are doing it. Stereotypes in the sense of categories and concepts help us organize our thinking, helping us to perceive and remember more than we would without these aids. The problem with the stereotypes about social groups that underlie prejudice is that the categorization processes do not result in accurate generalizations. While the man in the restaurant with a pad and pencil is most probably a waiter, the African American, old, Jewish, gay, disabled, Hispanic, Catholic, Irish, or obese person to whom we apply a stereotype probably does not fit that stereotype as well as we assume.

But if the brain is so efficient at categorization, why doesn't experience correct inaccurate stereotypes?
Before answering that question, it is important to note that we may not be exposed to very much experience in our daily life that would contradict our stereotypes. For example, residential segregation keeps the home lives of different racial groups separate to some degree. But also, our stereotypes of other groups ("out groups") often lead to feelings of anxiety when we encounter the members of an out group. One of the oldest insights of psychology is that a main way we deal with anxiety is through avoidance: We simply avoid contact with individuals by crossing the street, turning our heads, talking to someone else, hiring someone else for a job, striking up friendships with someone else we feel more comfortable with, sitting down at the lunch table with those who seem to be more like us. Returning to the question of why stereotypes persist in the face of contradictory experience, we find two main answers. The first is that because stereotypes may help us feel better about ourselves, we avoid challenging these stereotypes. In other words, we become defensive and protective of our worldviews and only reluctantly question our deepest assumptions. And these worldviews help protect not only our self-esteem, but also real-world privileges and

benefits that accrue to us as members of an in group. For example, racist discrimination by banks that hurts African American communities by limiting mortgages to these areas also benefits White neighborhoods by making more money available to them. Discrimination which in the past has limited slots available to Jews or African Americans or Asian Americans at universities has benefitted the majority population by making more slots available to its members. So, maintaining our prejudiced views of others allows us to feel better about our own group and to avoid challenging unfair social practices that benefit us. Psychologists have found that we put energy into various mechanisms that help us maintain our view of the world. For example, we can seek out and pay attention to information that supports our views. Evidence suggests that the more strongly we hold a stereotype, the more we tend to remember confirming information about the group. There is a kind of circular process here: For example, the more we believe stereotypes about gay men being effeminate, the more likely we will remember incidents which seem to support these views. We also discount or rationalize information that is contradictory to our beliefs. The Black person who is intelligent and articulate, the gay man who is not effeminate, or the Jewish person who is not pushy become exceptions to the rule, but the rule remains. And we may look more closely for grammatical mistakes in the Black person's speech than in a White person's; or we may think that the gay man has developed a public persona designed to fool us; or that the Jewish person is especially clever in working his or her exploitive influence behind our back.

So stereotypes persist because we want them to?

That's one answer. But the second answer to the question of why stereotypes persist despite contradictory experience has to do with how we think in general--what psychologists call our cognitive processes. While the brain is a powerful information processor, it is not perfect. The brain operates in a way to achieve probable accuracy, not perfect accuracy, and certain kinds of errors or "conceptual illusions" are preferred over other errors.

So, even if we wanted to, it would be impossible to change our prejudices?

Not impossible, just difficult. And it's not enough to want Do they all look alike? to change our attitudes. The surest route to changing attitudes is changing behavior (Pettigrew, 1997). Although that might sound backward, research into attitude change has shown it to be true: Our attitudes follow our behavior. By changing our behavior, for example, putting ourselves in close situations with members of out groups, we increase our familiarity with these individuals. As we become more familiar with them, we a group. Not all contact will lead to such attitude Out-group homogeneity is another psychological mechanism that reinforces our stereotypes about other groups. We tend to perceive other groups, "out groups," as more homogenous than our own group, or "in group." We see members of other groups as less variable, clustered closely around one standard profile. While we see members of our in group as having a lot of variation in behavior, looks, and personality, we tend to see members of an out group as having little variation. In other words, we come to view these other group membership and actually just in terms of our

naturally see more individuality and variation within such persons less as individuals and more just in terms of their

changesit seems the contact is best if structured as encounters among equals who are cooperating to achieve a superordinate goal. But these kinds of behavioral activities are some of the most effective ways to change prejudice. The operation of naturally biasing processes, such as the illusory correlation and out-group homogeneity bias, when combined with our motivation to view other groups stereotypes about the group characteristics. This process negatively as a way to enhance our own self-esteem, are powerful influences for maintaining stereotypes and may be what leads to embarrassing situations that occur when we confuse members of an out group with each other

prejudice. The desire to change our attitudes plus actual and have trouble differentiating them in terms of what they behavioral change on our part can counter these forces. said, what they look like, or even their names

It sounds like a lot of work. Is it okay to harbor stereotypes if I just keep them to myself and treat everybody the same anyway?
The problem with keeping our own prejudices to ourselves and just trying not to act on them is that stereotypes influence us even when we do not realize it. Several psychological experiments have shown this quite clearly. In one (Bargh and Chen, 1996), subjects were given a long, boring task on a computer screen. Before each trial, a White or Black male face was shown on the screen so quickly that the subject did not have conscious awareness of the image. When an error message flashed and the subject was told he or she would have to begin the task again, those subjects (White) who had been subliminally shown a Black face showed more hostility than those who had been shown a White face. Our emotional reactions are so automatic that we do not even have to be aware of the stimuli that provoke our prejudices. However, just because stereotypes can operate automatically and outside of awareness, that does not mean that there is nothing we can do about them. Keeping prejudice and stereotypes to ourselves is not a good way to deal with them. One of the best things to do is to confront themto push through the anxiety we feel about being prejudiced and racist and discuss these issues honestly with others. Groups like the National Coalition Building Institute have designed ways to discuss these issues in ways that members of different groups talk about their personal experiences and thoughts about their own group and other groups. APA's program of Conversations on Race represents another forum in which these topics can be broached. We list these groups and others, as well as other things people can do to counter prejudice and racism in "Ten Things You Can Do" later in this publication.

Is everybody prejudiced? Are some people more prejudiced than others? If so, how do they get that way?
"But I am a fair person ...really!"

It would be hard to imagine being able to undo all the layers of conditioning-the internalized messages from our families, social groups, and culture (e.g., media) about our group and other groups. But it does seem that individuals with certain personality traits seem to demonstrate higher levels of prejudice toward other groups. One study found that children who were rated as "high bias" at 6 years of age showed differences from "low bias" children as early as the age of 6 months (Katz & Barrett, 1997). The infants who later were rated as "high bias," for example, paid less attention to the race of adults who came in and out of the room than the children who were later rated as "low bias." This difference was noted at an age that predates the assumed influence of parents on children's ideas and prejudices and points to the possibility that personality differences may lead some persons to be more prejudiced than others. While commonsense may suggest that parents' specific attitudes toward other groups directly influence their children's views, studies have not shown this to be the case. But parents do seem to play a role. For example, more socially homogenous environments than low bias children, and their parents did not value diversity as highly as "low bias" children. Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a recently developed concept which focuses on individuals' attitudes toward intergroup relations. Individuals with a high social dominance orientation (SDO) are thought to believe that hierarchical relations are necessary and orientation which prefers equal relations among groups. One experiment (Darley and Gross, 1983) showed that are careful to try to be fair. Subjects were given the task of evaluating the academic performance of a fourth-grade girl. When subjects were told only that her socioeconomic status (SES) was high or low, they generally expected her to perform at grade level, although some said they did not have enough information to form a judgment. Knowing that people should not act on their stereotypes of others, then, seemed to prevent these subjects from being discriminatory. But when they watched a videotape of the girl performing some better-off circumstances rated her as doing better than did in the study just mentioned, the high bias children lived in prejudice can affect our judgments of others even when we

natural and prefer their group is on top, as opposed to an academic work, subjects who were told she came from Individuals high in SDO tend to be political conservatives subjects who thought she came from a low SES situation. and to have higher levels of sexism and racism (Pratto et So, trying to be fair is not enough to counter the unconscious al., 1994). influence of our prejudices.

I understand it's important to deal with prejudice, but it makes me nervous talking about it.

Dealing with this issue is anxiety provoking. And the anxiety is a signal that we have to keep dealing with it. In addition to encouraging avoidance of unfamiliar others, anxiety may play another role in maintaining the psychology of prejudice. Anxiety generally interferes with our more complex and subtle thought processes and motivates us to resolve a situation quickly. For example, anxiety prompts the fight-or-flight response. Both responses-fight and flightimply a hierarchical view of an encounter: Either I'll fight the other and try to come out on top or I'll give up and run away and avoid being dominated. When anxious, we tend to return to primitive, simplistic, and automatic thoughts and behaviors, such as dichotomous thinking characterized as all-or-nothing, us-versus-them, win-or-lose, or blackand-white. It is in this kind of thinking in terms of dichotomies that stereotypes thrive.

Speaking about black and white, what about racism? Why is it still such a hot issue in our society despite decades of progress?
First, let's define "race." Many definitions of race have been used in the last few hundred years in the Western world, and there remains some confusion about what is meant by the word. According to one definition, a race is a group of individuals who share some common physical characteristics that distinguish them from other individuals in the species. Although members of different races are members of the same species and can breed together, some kind of separation--usually geographichas prevented them from doing so for some period. During that period, the distinctive differences between the groups emerged. This definition implies that differences between groups are based in biological differences. Many of the most extreme racist doctrines of the past have been based on the assumption of biological differences between groups. Controversy over these issues, such as whether genetic differences between groups are the cause of group differences on IQ test scores, still swirls through academic and public debates. Scientists generally believe that this concept of race--as based on biological differencesdoes not fit the case of human groups. Biological distinctions are quite minor compared with the commonalties at the biological level. Of the variation in genetic material among humans, only a small part of the variation is accounted for by "racial" group membership. The majority of the variation occurs within groups. Differences in skin pigmentation, facial features, and so on may seem visually significant, but such physical differences between groups represent only a small proportion of human genetic variation. Instead, "races" are groups with primarily different histories, cultures, and social organizations. The notion of "race," with the underlying assumption of biological differences, is probably not the best way to categorize different groups. But the use of the terms "race" and "racial group" is so common that it is hard to avoid.

Does your personality make you prejudiced? In adults, individuals with an authoritarian personality appear to have high levels of negative prejudices about other groups. An authoritarian personality describes a person who views relations between individuals or groups in terms of

hierarchy-control from the top, obligations due from the bottom-and not primarily in terms of open, mutual exchanges among equals. Authoritarian personalities emphasize control, rules, and discipline.

If race refers to groups of peoples with different histories and cultures, what is racism?
Racism is based on prejudice toward so-called racial groups. But racism goes beyond simple prejudice. What makes racism so powerful and destructive is that the negative prejudice is the basis for discrimination against "racial groups." The discrimination can take place in the job market, housing market, educational system, health care service system, or some other arena. What this definition of racism implies is that one group has the power to discriminate against another. For example, in the housing market, discrimination against African Americans leads to greater difficulty renting apartments, taking out mortgages, and buying houses in certain areas. In most instances, White people have not sat down and agreed upon a plan about how to exert power and discriminate against African Americans (although this has happened, for example, in some White neighborhoods where there is fear of African Americans moving in). Instead, it is the biases of individual Whites (who are reluctant to rent apartments or sell houses or loan money to African Americans) that lead to individual acts of discrimination. These individual acts of discrimination, however, add up and become larger patterns, resulting, for example, in racial segregation in housing. And this racial segregation at the neighborhood level prevents people from different groups from getting to know each other. The lack of contact among groups makes it easy for stereotypes to continue, and, thus, prejudice at the individual level is maintained. This view of racism as emerging from the actions of many individuals is a view of bottom-up racism. But racism can also result from top-down processes, for example, from institutional or corporate policies. Decisions within media corporations about the portrayal of minorities in advertising, television, newspapers, and movies, for example, are top-down decisions that can result in racial stereotypes persisting at the cultural level. Informal corporate policies and procedures that interfere with minority hiring and promotion can lead to racist employment patterns. It is important to note that it is the power of White individuals, both through individual and institutional decisions, that results in the racism that makes it hard for African Americans and other people of color, for example, to obtain equal housing opportunities. The power of White individuals in this respect is not complete power, but relative power. That is, it is Whites rather than African Americans who are more likely to make decisions about mortgages as loan officers in banks; or Whites rather than African Americans who are more likely to own rental property in higher socioeconomic areas. The relative power of Whites is based, in part, on racial differences in educational systems, job markets, and wealth, which result in Whites' being more likely to attain positions which allow them to have higher incomes and to control corporate and public resources. And, like the housing market, the educational and employment arenas embody their own complex webs of racism: Individual prejudice and acts of discrimination add up to form larger, institutional patterns of racism, which then reinforce the individual level of prejudice.

The point is that racism is a complex, interlocking mechanism at many levels of society. Racism in the different spheres of societywork, home, education, government, media, religionis interwoven. Racism in one area cannot be understood without understanding the racist patterns in other areas. In addition, in each area, racism at the individual or micro-level cannot be understood without taking into account the racism at the institutional or macrolevel. And, to make it more complex, the specific forms and assumptions of prejudice and bias will vary for different ethnic minority groups based on the history of contact between minority and majority groups. As a result, different ethnic minority groups will vary in their positions of marginality in society.

I understand the importance of challenging my own prejudices, but I can't really take responsibility for the larger, macro-level institutional racism that you are describing. It's not my fault.
No, institutional racism is not any one person's fault, but it is the responsibility of everyone participating in that system. It is especially the responsibility of those benefiting from institutional racism. It is the individual, psychological level of prejudice that allows us to justify the unfairness and destructiveness of institutionalized racism. Individuallevel prejudice allows us to justify the outcome of unfair systems ("those people deserve what they get...they're lazy and have to work harder," or even "I don't really care what happens to them"). Challenging our own prejudices at the psychological level then means that we also have to challenge larger structures of racism in society, as well as the prejudices of other individuals which support those structures. This is why people used to say 20 years ago, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Haven't we made progress on racism in this country in the last 30 or 40 years? Some people say we've done enough; it's time to give up thinking in terms of race because that's what's keeping racial divisions alive now.
The argument that racism is over is reminiscent of the notion put forth in recent years that the end of the Cold War has brought us to a period of international stability that represents the "end of history." Or that economic prosperity over the last decade or so reflects the end of the ups and downs of the business cycle. But history continues with its conflicts and wars, and the business cycle does not seem to be exhausted yet. The notion that racism is over in this country is also wishful thinking. However, there do seem to have been some changes in the form and manifestation of racism over the past decades. Several observers, such as psychologist David Sears (1997), discuss a new version of racism--symbolic, modern, or subtle racism, it is called--which has grown in the place where the old racism used to be. Sears and others say that the old-fashioned racism of Jim Crow, which used explicit biological theories of White superiority to support legal segregation and discrimination, is indeed gone. But the negative stereotypes and negative emotions toward African Americans and other ethnic minority groups remain. Sears' version of the new racism describes a more elusive, political, almost abstract language of race which avoids blatantly negative racist statements in favor of political codewords and symbols. This new racism is partly based on a

view of racial discrimination as being outdated and puts the onus of achievement and equality on African Americans and other ethnic minority people. If African Americans would, for example, stop clamoring for special treatment and simply work harder, they could achieve the American Dream. The idea is that it is African Americans' own deficiencies--whether they be greed, laziness, violence, and so on--that are the cause of their problems, not the history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, prejudice, and racism which is assumed to have come to an end. The new racism is thought to be most visible in White persons' views on affirmative action, crime, drugs, welfare, teenage pregnancy, and unemployment. Conversations on these topics often are dominated by an unspoken subtext of racial attitudes. Consistent with the theory of illusory correlation, it is often assumed (despite statistics to the contrary) that the majority of persons involved in such activities are ethnic minorities. Consequently, unspoken racial attitudes shape our definition of such problems and their resolutions. The Willie Horton commercials from George Bush's presidential campaign are an example of the symbolic racist code used to advance political positions. This new racism also integrates racial prejudice and core traditional American values. For example, the values of hard work and moral behavior are thought to be violated by stereotypes of African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians as lazy and violent. In short, the theory of the new racism holds that some blatant forms of racism have declined in recent decades, and the label "racist" has become something that most individuals want to avoid. However, even while trying to avoid the label of being "racist," individuals continue to hold deep, underlying negative stereotypes and feelings toward African Americans and other ethnic minorities. These more hidden stereotypes are symbolized in coded political views that seem to uphold respectable values, but continue to support institutionalized forms of racism.

...Some people say we've done enough.

Ten Things You Can Do To Fight Prejudice and Racism

1. Be honest: Recognize your own biases and biases through open discussion with others. Examine your own
prejudices, biases, and values. Discuss your own experiences of being hurt by prejudice as well as the ways you have benefitted from discrimination. Be secure: Explore and find realistic pride in your own group identity. Having a sense of your own background and group identity will help reduce anxiety and defensiveness in relation to others. Knowing your own strengths will also help you to see strengths in others.

2.

3. Be a partner: Work on projects with members of groups different from your own. Working as an equal
alongside others from different groups on a common project is one of the best ways to undo prejudice and increase familiarity with others. Be an anti-racist parent: Expose your children to diversity at a young age. Children can benefit from knowing other children from different groups at very early ages, before prejudices and biases get in the way

4.

5.

of their making contact. Be a role model: Be vocal in opposing racist views and practices. And don't just criticize, but help educate others about issues and about your own experiences.

6. Be an ally: Support victims of discrimination and prejudice. Offer support on whatever level you can. For 7.
example, offer yourself as a mentor for someone in your field of work. Be an activist: Challenge "top-down" or institutional racism. Work to reduce institutional discrimination and prejudice in government, corporations, the media, and other institutions.

8. Be a member: Support anti-prejudice and anti-racist organizations. Following is a partial list of a some 9.
organizations or find one that addresses an issue particularly important to you. Be a teacher: Teach tolerance. Fight prejudice and racism by proactively teaching understanding, openness, and conflict resolution skills. (The Teaching Tolerance magazine is one resource for teachers and others to get ideas and resources--it is put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center. 10. Be a student: Educate yourself and others. Reading books, seeing movies, going to hear speakers about the experiences of other groups is an enjoyable way to increase understanding and empathy.

11. References
12. Bargh, J. A., & Chen, M. (1996). The chameleon effect: Automatic social perception produces automatic social behavior. Unpublished manuscript, cited in Jones (1997). 13. Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-33. 14. Katz, P. A., & Barrett, M. (1997). The development of prejudice in children and adolescents. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August 18, 1997. 15. Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism. USA: McGraw Hill Companies, Inc. 16. Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Combatting racism: Creating norms for intergroup harmony. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August 18, 1997. 17. Pratto, F. Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763. 18. Sears, D. (1997). White racism in contemporary American mass politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, August 18, 1997. 19. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, J. B., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup Conflict and Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange. 20. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79-97.