Prejudice and Social Discrimination

Prejudice:

Definition: Prejudice is an unjustified or incorrect attitude towards an individual based solely on the individual's
membership of a social group.
Ubiquity: It affects all societal groups, including both majorities and minorities.
Generalization: It often overlooks individual differences within a group.

Common Bases for Prejudice:

Race
Caste
Sexual Orientation
Gender
Skin Color
Physical/mental Disabilities

Stereotypes and Subtypes: Key Points

Stereotypes: Overgeneralized beliefs about a group that disregard individual variability.
Subtypes: Categories for individuals who don’t fit a stereotype, serving as 'exceptions' without altering the overall
stereotype.

Sexism and Racism Examples:

Sexism: Women may be stereotypically viewed as passive, with assertive women categorized as “militant feminists.”
Racism: Successful individuals from stereotyped groups are often seen as exceptions, such as President Obama or
Attorney General Eric Holder being subtyped based on their background rather than accepted as counterexamples to the
racist stereotype.

Examples of Subtyping: Assertive women might be subtyped as "militant feminists," preserving the passive stereotype
of women. Successful individuals from minority groups may be viewed as exceptions rather than representatives of
their group.

Dehumanization: Central to prejudice, it strips away dignity and humanity, justifying mistreatment and persecution.

Consequences of Prejudice:
Damaged self-esteem
Persecution
Lowered social and economic opportunities
In extreme cases, can lead to genocide

Suppressed Group Response: May include violent backlash as a response to persistent discrimination.

Forms of Discrimination:
Reluctance to Help: Neglect in aiding disadvantaged groups to improve their societal standing.
Tokenism: Making minimal efforts for the sake of appearance to defuse claims of discrimination.
Reverse Discrimination: Overcorrecting to favor a minority group, sometimes at the expense of the majority.

Reverse Discrimination Concept: It is perceived as an extreme form of tokenism where individuals from majority
groups feel discriminated against in favor of minority groups.
Examples:
Preferential hiring or promotion of minority candidates over majority candidates, despite lesser qualifications.
Favoring women over men for positions simply due to gender considerations.
Perspective on 'Reverse': The term reflects the viewpoint of majority groups who feel disadvantaged by policies
intended to favor minorities.
Long-Term Effects:
May offer short-term benefits by diversifying workplaces or institutions.
Long-term outcomes could perpetuate prejudices or lead to resentment among majority groups.
May de-prioritize merit and qualifications in hiring and promotion processes.
Qualified individuals might be overlooked, potentially leading to inefficiencies or underperformance.

Consequences of Tokenism and Reverse Discrimination:

Can undermine self-esteem and job satisfaction among those hired as 'tokens'.
May result in the majority's talent leaving organizations, reducing overall competence.

Research Indications:
No clear evidence that reverse discrimination effectively diminishes the discriminators' biases.
Reverse discrimination may ultimately be counterproductive, causing discontent and a sense of unfairness.

Tokenism Study by Fajardo (1985):

Explored the effects of perceived tokenism on the evaluations by White teachers of essays written by Black and White
students.

The graphic depicts a study examining racial bias in the evaluation of students' essays by White teachers. The trend
shows that Black students' essays were rated more favorably, particularly when the quality was average, potentially
leading to less motivation for students to seek improvement due to the inflated feedback. This could be a manifestation
of "reverse discrimination," where affirmative actions or biases intended to counteract discrimination against minorities
unintentionally reinforce lower standards or expectations for the very groups they aim to support.

Here are key points on the broader topics:

Prejudice and Discrimination Overview:
Unfavorable attitudes towards individuals based on group membership.
Prevalent across various societal sectors affecting all group dynamics.

Reverse Discrimination:
Actions favoring minority members over majority members, even if less qualified.
Arises from intentions to correct historical inequalities but may lead to new forms of unfairness.

Long-Term Effects of Reverse Discrimination:

Might not change deep-seated prejudices.
Can lead to a lack of prioritization of talent and qualifications in critical roles.
Potential for creating conflict and division within majority groups.

Consequences of Tokenism and Reverse Discrimination:

Potential damage to self-esteem and job satisfaction of minority individuals.
Can result in an exodus of talent, lowering collective competence in organizations.

Modern Racism and Aversive Racism:

Covert forms of prejudice that coexist with a public rejection of racist beliefs.
Expressed through avoidance rather than direct discrimination.

Sexism in Societal Roles:

Stereotypes about gender roles persist, influenced by social role theory.
Stereotypes suggest men as competent but harsh, and women as nice but incompetent.

Glass Ceiling Effect:

Invisible barrier preventing women and minorities from reaching top leadership roles.
Results from subtle biases and systemic structures within organizations.

Stereotype Threat:
Fear of confirming negative stereotypes about one's group.
Can significantly impact an individual's performance and achievement.

Prosocial Behaviour

Empathy Definition: Ability to understand and share the feelings of another which drives compassionate action.

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis Origin: Developed by Batson and colleagues in 1981, the hypothesis suggests that
feeling empathy for a person in need can prompt altruistic behavior.

Mechanics of Empathy: When we empathize, we vicariously experience another's distress, which can be unpleasant.
Helping relieves not only their distress but also our own.

Nature of Altruism: Altruistic acts are seen as selfless from the perspective of helping someone without expecting
anything in return. However, they can also be considered selfish since they provide the helper with emotional relief.

Components of Empathy:
Emotional Empathy: Feeling what another person is feeling.
Empathic Accuracy: Understanding and perceiving another person’s feelings accurately.
Empathic Concern: Feeling concern for another person's welfare.

Empathy and Social Adjustment: Research by Gleason et al. (2009) indicates that individuals with higher empathic
accuracy tend to have better social adjustment, characterized by more friends and better peer acceptance.
Implications for Prosocial Behavior: People are motivated to help others based on their ability to empathize on these
three dimensions, which can lead to actions ranging from simple assistance to life-risking behavior for the sake of
others.

Negative-State Relief Model:

Premise: People help to alleviate their own distress.

Motivation: Self-improvement of mood, not solely concern for others.
Application: Effective regardless of the distress source; personal issues or empathic response to someone else's distress
can both spur helping behavior.
Study: Fultz et al. (1988) showed that prosocial actions can occur to mitigate personal negative feelings, regardless of
the distress's origin.

Empathic Joy Hypothesis:

Premise: Helping is motivated by the positive feelings that come from having a beneficial impact on someone else.
Importance of Feedback: The helper's knowledge of the positive outcome is crucial.
Study: Smith et al. (1989) found that high empathy combined with feedback about the positive impact of one's help
increased prosocial behavior.

Competitive Altruism:
Premise: People help others to increase their own social status and reputation.
Social Strategy: Prosocial behavior is seen as an investment for future personal benefits.
Perception: Costly helping signals personal resources or virtues to others.
Example: Large donors to institutions often receive public acknowledgment and prestige, reflecting the social benefits
of their altruism.

Kin Selection Theory:

Evolutionary Basis: Kin Selection posits that we're more likely to help relatives due to shared genetics.
Study by Burnstein et al. (1994): Participants chose to help close relatives over distant ones, aligning with the theory.
Preference for Helping the Young: Younger relatives are favored in assistance, presumably because of their greater
reproductive potential.
Reciprocal Altruism Theory:

Beyond Kinship: Explains why we might help non-relatives.

Mutual Benefit: We help with the expectation of help in return, which could indirectly aid our survival.
Defensive Helping:

Strategy Against Outgroups: Helping to reinforce stereotypes of incompetence, maintaining one's group status.
Social Dynamics: It's a way to manage outgroup threats and protect in-group distinctiveness.
Helping in Emergencies - Diffusion of Responsibility:

Kitty Genovese Case: Highlighted bystander effect where no one intervened in her murder despite many witnesses.
Less Likelihood With More Witnesses: As the number of bystanders increases, individual responsibility feels
diminished, leading to a lower chance of assistance

The image illustrates the concept of the "Diffusion of Responsibility" in the context of helping behavior in
emergencies. The bar graph shows the decreasing likelihood of people helping as the number of bystanders increases.
With only one bystander, there's an 85% chance of help being offered. This probability decreases to 62% with two
bystanders and further drops to 31% when there are five bystanders. This demonstrates how people are less likely to
intervene in an emergency as the responsibility for action is perceived to be shared among more individuals.

The Bystander Effect (Latane and Darley, 1970):

Overview: The likelihood of helping decreases as the number of bystanders increases due to diffused responsibility.
Five Steps to Helping:
Notice the Event: Recognizing something unusual is happening.
Interpret as Emergency: Understanding the situation as requiring intervention.
Assume Responsibility: Deciding it's your duty to act.
Capability Assessment: Believing you have the skills to help.

Situational (External) Factors Influencing Helping Behavior

Similarity and Responsibility

Empirical Evidence: Research indicates that individuals are more likely to assist others who resemble them in terms of
age, nationality, or other factors (Hayden et al., 1984). This is due to increased empathic concern.
Study Example: Hodges et al. (2010) showed that new mothers feel more empathy towards other new mothers
compared to pregnant women or those who have never been pregnant.

Condition of the Victim

Public Perception: People’s willingness to help is influenced by the perceived condition of the victim. For instance, a
well-dressed individual with visible injuries might receive more help compared to someone who appears homeless or
intoxicated.

Exposure to Prosocial Models

Social Modeling: Seeing others engage in helping behavior increases the likelihood of bystanders to help. An example
is the experiment by Bryan & Test (1967), where motorists were more likely to assist a woman with a flat tire if they
had just seen another motorist doing the same.

Gratitude and Reciprocity

Research Findings: Grant and Gino (2010) found that expressing gratitude can significantly increase the likelihood of
further assistance. Those thanked were more likely to help again, and this effect was linked more to an increase in
self-worth rather than self-efficacy.

Key Theoretical Insights

Diffusion of Responsibility: As the number of bystanders increases, the likelihood of any single person helping
decreases. This is explained by the bystander effect, where the presence of others diffuses personal responsibility.
Pluralistic Ignorance: Individuals fail to act because they misinterpret the inaction of others as a signal that no help is
needed.
Diffusion of Responsibility and Helping in Emergencies (Figure 9.5):
This graph shows how the presence of more bystanders reduces the likelihood of any single person helping in an
emergency. With only one bystander, the probability of help is very high (85%). This likelihood significantly decreases
as the number of bystanders increases, showing 62% with two bystanders and dropping to 31% with five. This pattern
exemplifies the diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less pressure to act because they believe that others
will intervene.
Empathic Concern Based on Similarity (Figure 9.9):
The graph measures levels of empathic concern among new mothers, pregnant women, and women who have never
been pregnant. It illustrates that new mothers show the highest empathic concern (5.0 on a scale) for another new
mother, more so than pregnant women (4.3) and much more than women who have never been pregnant (3.9). This
suggests that people feel more empathy towards others who are similar to them, particularly in shared experiences,
which can increase the likelihood of helping behaviors.

Positive Emotions and Prosocial Behavior

Influence of Positive Mood: People are more likely to engage in helping behaviors when they feel good due to various
influences like pleasant music, surprise gifts, or even enjoyable weather.
Impact of Environment: Retail environments use pleasant fragrances to enhance customer mood, indirectly increasing
the likelihood of prosocial behavior like making purchases.
Limitations: Positive moods can sometimes reduce the likelihood of helping, especially if the help required might spoil
the current good mood or if the situation is not perceived as serious.

Negative Emotions and Prosocial Behavior

General Trend: Typically, people in negative moods are less likely to help, but this can vary based on specific
conditions.
Conditions for Increased Helping: Negative moods may increase helping behaviors if the act of helping is likely to
improve the individual's mood, the situation is clear-cut, and the helping act is intrinsically rewarding.
Intensity of Emotions: Mild negative emotions are more conducive to sparking prosocial behavior compared to intense
negative emotions.

Feelings of Elevation and Helping Others

Emotional Elevation: Observing kind acts performed by others can trigger feelings of elevation, motivating individuals
to engage in similar behaviors.
Research by Schnall, Roper, and Fessler (2010): Studies showed that exposure to videos of prosocial actions increased
the likelihood of viewers engaging in similar helpful acts compared to those who watched neutral or humorous content.

Factors that Reduce Helping

Social Exclusion (Twenge et al., 2007)
Emotional Impact: Experiencing rejection may deplete emotional resources, leaving less capacity for empathy towards
others.
Behavioral Caution: Those who have been socially excluded may become wary of new social interactions to avoid
further rejection, impacting their willingness to engage in prosocial behaviors.
Darkness and Anonymity
Perceived Anonymity: In dark conditions, individuals may feel more anonymous and thus less accountable, affecting
their behavior.
Study Findings: Research has shown that people in darker environments reported higher performance than actual,
suggesting a decrease in honest, prosocial behavior.
Economic Value of Time (DeVoe & Pfeffer, 2010)
Time vs. Income: Considering the economic value of time may make people less likely to volunteer, as time spent
helping is time not spent earning.
Professional Transition Impact: Study on law students showed a decline in willingness to volunteer once they began
billing their time professionally.
Effects of Being Helped: Perceived Motives
Impact on Self-Esteem: Receiving help can sometimes negatively affect the recipient’s self-esteem, especially if there
is a perceived status differential between the helper and the recipient.
Perceived Motivation of the Helper:
Autonomous Motivation: Help received is viewed more positively if believed to be out of genuine concern or desire
from the helper.
Controlled Motivation: Help that appears to be given out of obligation or external pressures tends to elicit negative
reactions from recipients.
Inter-Group Dynamics: Members of lower-status groups might be reluctant to accept help from higher-status groups,
particularly in contexts where the lower-status group is striving for equality or enhanced status (Nadler & Halabi,
2006).