The equal opportunity illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on information seeking, employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee success

Heidenreich, Swen

Titel: The equal opportunity illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on information seeking, employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee success

The equal opportunity illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on information seeking, employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee success

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltsangabe:Abstract:
This study tested the effects of individual variables (prejudice level) and situational factors (power instructions) on information seeking strategies, employee evaluation, estimation of likely success, and task assignment in an employer employee, ethnicity relevant experimental design, with subjects always assigned the role of employer and an ostensibly other person (a same gender black individual depicted in a photograph) assigned the role of employee. Subjects (N=60) were categorized into groups that varied on power (exclusive or inclusive leadership instruction) and prejudice (quartile split of MRS scores). Participants were asked to select a subset of questions and tasks from various lists for the ostensibly other subject to answer. Participants at a later point in the experiment rated selected questions and tasks. At the end of the experiment the participants were asked to give a final employee evaluation and estimation of likely success for a future project.
Next to the attempt of replicating generally accepted and expected interrelations of power and prejudice with certain attention (information seeking) strategies and the use of stereotypes and their effect on evaluation and estimation, one of the main focuses of this study is on the effects of the above variables on behavior (final task assignment).
Consistent with predictions participants with a low prejudice level assigned more valued tasks, focused more on strength of the employee and estimated greater employee success than did high prejudice participants. Also participants with inclusive leadership instructions assigned relatively more skill tests with supporting help and estimated greater
employee success than participants with exclusive leadership instructions. Interaction -
effects across the skills test- information seeking-, employee evaluation-, final task assignment-, and estimated success- variables showed that high prejudiced participants in the exclusive leadership style condition respond in stereotype consistent ways significantly more often than participants in the inclusive leadership condition and low prejudice participants.
Zusammenfassung:
Diese Studie untersuchte den Einfluss individueller (Vorurteilslevel) und situationaler Faktoren (induzierter Machtstatus) auf Strategien der Informationssuche, der Bewertung eines Bewerbers in einer Bewerbungssituation, der Einschätzung von Erfolgschancen, sowie der Aufgabenverteilung. Das […]

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

ID 8380

Heidenreich, Swen: The equal opportunity illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on

information seeking, employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee

success

Hamburg: Diplomica GmbH, 2004

Zugl.: Philipps-Universität Marburg, Diplomarbeit, 1931

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von

Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der

Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,

bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung

dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen

der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich

vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des

Urheberrechtes.

Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in

diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,

dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können

Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden, und die Diplomarbeiten Agentur, die

Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine

Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.

Diplomica GmbH

http://www.diplom.de, Hamburg 2004

Printed in Germany

Equal Opportunity Illusion

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements... 3

Abstract ... 4

Introduction... 5

Method... 33

Results... 45

Discussion... 48

References... 57

Author's Note... 64

Tables...

Table 1. The effects of participant prejudice level and social influence strategy

on selection of leading questions, skills test assignment, final task assignment,

employee evaluations and estimated success.

Appendices...

A: Informed Consent Form

B: Leadership questionnaire

C: Background questionnaire

D: Written Introduction

E: Experimental Manipulation: Reward Focused Instruction

F: Experimental Manipulation: Punishment Focused Instruction

G: Reward Structure

H: Interview Questions

I: Minor Task Problem Example1: Stereotypic White

J: Minor Task Problem Example2: Stereotypic Black

K: Final Task Problem Example1: Stereotypic White

L: Final Task Problem Example2: Stereotypic Black

M: Employee Evaluation Sheet

N: Estimation of employee success

Equal Opportunity Illusion

Acknowledgments

I am especially grateful to Dr. Theresa K. Vescio for her continuous support and help

throughout the completion and revision of this thesis.

Her knowledge, guidance and commitment of time as well as her contribution of ideas and

different points of view helped me gain new insight and inspiration.

Equal Opportunity Illusion

Abstract

This study tested the effects of individual variables (prejudice level) and situational factors

(power instructions) on information seeking strategies, employee evaluation, estimation of

likely success, and task assignment in an employer employee, ethnicity relevant

experimental design, with subjects always assigned the role of employer and an ostensibly

other person (a same gender black individual depicted in a photograph) assigned the role of

employee. Subjects (N=60) were categorized into groups that varied on power (exclusive or

inclusive leadership instruction) and prejudice (quartile split of MRS scores). Participants

were asked to select a subset of questions and tasks from various lists for the ostensibly other

subject to answer. Participants at a later point in the experiment rated selected questions and

tasks. At the end of the experiment the participants were asked to give a final employee

evaluation and estimation of likely success for a future project.

Next to the attempt of replicating generally accepted and expected interrelations of

power and prejudice with certain attention (information seeking) strategies and the use of

stereotypes and their effect on evaluation and estimation, one of the main focuses of this

study is on the effects of the above variables on behavior (final task assignment).

Consistent with predictions participants with a low prejudice level assigned more

valued tasks, focused more on strength of the employee and estimated greater employee

success than did high prejudice participants. Also participants with inclusive leadership

instructions assigned relatively more skill tests with supporting help and estimated greater

employee success than participants with exclusive leadership instructions

Interaction -

effects across the skills test- information seeking-, employee evaluation-, final task

assignment-, and estimated success- variables showed that high prejudiced participants in the

exclusive leadership style condition respond in stereotype consistent ways significantly more

often than participants in the inclusive leadership condition and low prejudice participants.

Equal Opportunity Illusion

The Equal Opportunity- Illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on information seeking,

employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee success

The front page of the New York Times on Friday, March 30

2001 read "California

Census Confirms Whites Are In Minority State now most diverse". National projections

further indicate that in the United States "persons of color will constitute a numerical

majority sometime between the years 2030 and 2050" (D.W. Sue & D. Sue, 1999, quoting the

U.S. Census Bureau, 1992; D.W. Sue et al., 1997).

Despite the fact that immigration factors and differential birth rates will soon lead to

equivalent numeric representation among members of different ethnic groups in the United

States (D. W. Sue & D. Sue, 1999), there are still large differences in the relative social status

and social power conferred to members of different social groups. Members of dominant

groups (e.g., White men) more often hold high social status, high power positions than do

members of disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, people of color). For example, 95% of all

senior management positions (vice president and above) and 85% of faculty members at

institutions of higher education are held by white males (Sklar, 1999).

Similar differences in social status can be found among ethnic groups in societies

around the world. As Sidanius, Levin, and Pratto (1998) note, most "societies tend to be

stratified along at least one salient social dimension (e.g., along racial, ethnic, tribal,

socioeconomic, religious lines)" and systems of social stratification tend to be remarkably

stable. For example, the Indian caste system has remained intact for over 3,000 years,

whereas White European Americans have dominated and oppressed African-Americans for

hundreds of years (Smith, 1991). More importantly, some social stratification systems have

endured for hundreds of years despite the fact that members of oppressed groups actually

Equal Opportunity Illusion

represented a numeric majority (e.g., the Apartheid regime remained in tact in South African

until 1994).

Thus, it seems unlikely that a shift in the numeric representation of various ethnic

groups in the United States will dismantle the well established and longstanding confound

between social group membership and social power. Instead, repeating historical trends, it

seems more likely that the distribution of power will remain stable regardless of the numeric

representation of people from various ethnic groups; Whites will continue to be conferred

power over individuals who belong to disadvantaged social groups.

Given these realities, much recent attention has focused on the relationship between

power and stereotyping. The questions of primary interest in nearly all of this research lies on

who stereotypes whom and why. Consistent with foundational assumptions of the more

general models of impression formation (for instance Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), power and

stereotyping researchers have generally assumed that stereotyping is a default tendency. It

has been assumed that social perceivers process information in the least effortful and/or

cognitively demanding way (e.g., category-based processing) unless motivated to do

otherwise. Building upon this assumption, it has been suggested that low power individuals

should individuate and carefully process information about high power individuals because

outcomes of interest to low power individuals are highly dependent upon high power others.

In contrast, it has been theorized that high power individuals should stereotype low power

others either because they lack the cognitive resources and/or motivation to individuate low

power others (e.g., stereotyping by default) or they do so in order to maintain status

differences (e.g., stereotyping by design; see Goodwin et al., 2000).

Although this line of reasoning still enjoys wide recognition today, the narrowness of

this focus overlooks the social influence dynamics of power relations. While it is true that the

powerful are often less dependent on low power others for valued outcomes, the outcomes of

Equal Opportunity Illusion

the powerful are rarely completely independent of low power others. Outcomes for powerful

people often depend on successful interactions with and successful influence of low power

others. For example, a high power manager may want to achieve a certain level of sales

within his department, but can he do so without successfully motivating and influencing the

sales representatives who sell the goods? Likewise, the head of an academic department may

want to produce an internationally visible program, but can she do so without inspiring a high

degree of quality work from the faculty over whom she has power? And if a person in such a

position of power ineffectively or inappropriately exerts power, might such attempts to

influence others actually undermine one's goals?

Taking the above considerations into account one goal of the present research was to

more thoroughly consider the motives and social influence techniques of the powerful and to

consider the possibility that stereotyping is not a default. Instead the present work was

designed to examine the possibility that stereotyping is a consequence of particular kinds of

power situations and results in interactions with some kinds of high power people. To provide

a background for the consideration of this possibility, I first consider the way in which power

has traditionally been conceptualised. I then review the contemporary power and stereotype

literature, both noting the way in which the powerful may perceive and act in stereotypic

ways that maintain the status quo and noting the limitations in the conceptualisations of

power characteristic of most contemporary work.

Conceptualizations of Power

Historically, power has been conceptualised in terms of one person's ability to exert

social influence, or control, over another person's fate (Copeland, 1994; French & Raven,

1959; Imai, 1993; Manz & Gioia, 1983; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). For example, Weber

(1947) defined power as "the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in

Equal Opportunity Illusion

a position to carry out [his or her] own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on

which this probability rests ". Importantly, a person does not actually have to influence others

to have power. The potential for person A to influence person B in meaningful psychological

ways, regardless of whether that influence was actually exerted, confers power to person A

(Raven & French, 1959; see also Copeland, 1994). Furthermore, the ability to influence

others is not limited to interpersonal exchanges. One group of people may have power over

another group of people, as Sachdev and Bourhis's (1991) definition of power stresses (i.e.,

the degree of control that one group has over its own fate and the fate of outgroups).

Taking the above mentioned points into consideration I propose the following

definition of power, which adheres to the historical conceptualisation of power as social

influence, but at the same time acknowledges the importance of considering the group vs.

individual as well as the potential vs. actual influence aspects, as mentioned in the above

definitions.

The following definition of power is offered:

"Power is the relative, potential or actual unilateral outcome control of one person or group

over its own or another person's or group's fate in a social relationship".

Power and Stereotyping

Given the traditional and present emphasis on the social influence aspect of power, as well as

social psychologists' long standing interest in the issue of stereotyping and prejudice, much

recent attention has focused on the relationship between power and stereotyping. It has been

suggested that cultural stereotypes and the stereotyping of subordinates justify and maintain

the status quo (e.g. Jost & Banaji, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Furthermore, it has been

proposed that high power people both exhibit stereotype consistent perceptual biases and

Equal Opportunity Illusion

behave in ways that make it more likely that they will elicit evidence of stereotype

confirmation from low power others. At a societal level it has also been suggested that

stereotyping is a major contributor to the stratification and maintenance of power differentials

in both modern societies (e.g. European Americans' dominance over African Americans in

the U.S.A.) and ancient societies (e.g. caste system in India). Simply stated, "stereotyping

subordinate group members is the mechanism through which dominant groups maintain the

status quo" (Jost & Banaji, 1994, 1998).

Perceptual and Behavioral Confirmation

There are two means by which the powerful can come to behave in ways that justify

and maintain the status quo. First, high power people may form erroneous and stereotype

consistent impressions of low power others, which has been referred to as perceptual

confirmation. For example, high power (as compared to low power) individuals are perceived

as more fair when using punishment strategies (Molm, Quist and Wiseley, 1994) and

perceived to be more accurate judges of others when, in fact, they are less accurate judges

(Ebenbach and Keltner, 1998). Beyond being more likely to perceive others in a stereotypic

and inaccurate manner, high power people may also behave or interact in ways that elicit

stereotypic behaviors from low power others, which is referred to as behavioral confirmation.

For example, Word, Zanna and Cooper (1974) demonstrated, that when interviewer

participants interacted with a Black confederate interviewee, participants sat further away

from the confederate, conducted shorter interviews, made less eye contact and made more

speech errors as compared to those in the White confederate interviewee condition. In a

second study, confederate interviewers were trained to act either like the participants in the

White confederate or Black confederate conditions of the first study. Trained confederates

then interviewed participants. Demonstrating that the behaviors of the relatively powerful

Equal Opportunity Illusion

have meaningful consequences for those low in power, independent raters evaluated the

performance of the interviewee participants. Participants who were treated like the Black

confederate of Study 1 (e.g., less eye contact, more speech errors) were evaluated as

performing more poorly than those treated like the White confederate of Study 1.

Importantly, as power, status, and group number increase, discriminatory behaviors have

been found to increase (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991). In fact, Operario and Fiske (1998) have

suggested that merely having power, and thus control, motivates bias and the tendency to

stereotype and discriminate against others. According to these authors, "racial oppression

derives from a) power the disproportionate ability of some individuals or groups to control

other people's outcomes; and b) prejudice the universal tendency to favor the in- group

over the out- group. Racism functions additively from asymmetrical power and racial

prejudice" (p.49). Importantly, it has been suggested that this occurs both automatically, as

soon as perceivers can place others within a category, and unintentionally, even among the

most well-intentioned and egalitarian people" (Operario and Fiske, 1998).

The vicious circle of perpetual power and stereotype reinforcement

The preceding consideration might have made one thing already clear: Both

stereotypes (or cognitive representations of outgroups) and prejudice (or one's negative

feelings about outgroups) may initiate a vicious circle in which biased perceptions and biased

feeling reinforce one another. More specifically, sometimes power may enhance the use of

stereotypes, with the latter surfacing in perceptual and/or behavioral biases. At other times

the reliance on stereotypes contributes to a stratification of existing power differentials.

Therefore, on top of one-way effects of power on stereotyping and vice versa, as

described above, we find that power and the two forms of stereotyping (perceptual and

behavioral) may also continuously reinforce each other. Various studies (e.g. Goodwin,

Equal Opportunity Illusion

Operario and Fiske, 1998) show that situational control and interpersonal dominance (power)

are conditions that promote motives to stereotype, leading to cognitive and judgment biases

that in turn cumulatively reinforce the status quo and thereby exaggerating preexisting power

differentials.

Given that power has traditionally been defined in dynamic social influence terms and

that there is ample evidence that the powerful perceive and behave toward low power others

in ways that make it likely that low power others will confirm (or be perceived as confirming)

expectations, much recent attention has been directed to attempts that explain the relationship

between power and stereotyping. The most influential model of power and stereotyping has

been Fiske's (1993) power as control (PAC) model, which is reviewed below.

The Power as Control (PAC) Model

In their investigation of the interaction between power and stereotyping, Fiske and her

colleagues argue that the powerless carefully attend to the powerful who control their

outcomes in an effort to enhance prediction and control. As a result, powerless people form

relatively complex and non-stereotypic impressions of others who have control over them. In

contrast, the powerful, pay less attention, and thus are more vulnerable to stereotyping. Fiske

and her colleagues' (e.g., Fiske, 1993; see also Dépret & Fiske, 1999; Goodwin et al., 1998;

Goodwin et al., 2000) model assumes three main reasons for perceivers' increased (as

compared to targets') use of stereotypes. These reasons are: a) high power people have more

demands on their attention (lack of cognitive resources) than do low power people, b) low

power people are more dependent on high power others for outcomes than the reverse, and c)

the kind of people that come to hold high power positions might tend to be high on certain

individual difference variables such as social dominance. Importantly, this theorizing is

mainly based on the assumption that cultural stereotypes are universally known and

Equal Opportunity Illusion

internalized, providing a source of the expectations that the powerful bring to bear on a

situation.

Interestingly, this model considers individual factors to be only of minor importance,

exerting merely indirect influence on stereotype use. According to the PAC model, individual

variables, such as social dominance or prejudice, are linked to people in high power

positions, which might have a tendency to be high on such variables, as the theory points out

(see above). Whereas Fiske et al. in their discussion about why a certain group of individuals

(powerful) stereotype others more than another group of individuals (powerless) regard

individual factors only relevant in this indirect way, other authors, e.g. Christiansen, Kaplan

and Jones (1999), do mention such an individual factor, namely prejudice. However, in the

discussion of their findings the authors agree that participants' different prejudice levels were

irrelevant for the way they represent certain groups and categories internally: Findings

showed that evaluations by high-prejudice participants were more negative than those of low-

prejudice participants only when the target applicant was described by a single negative

stereotype. The authors concluded from these findings that both groups had similarly

negative predispositions toward minorities, with those of more prejudiced individuals

requiring less negative stereotypical information to be activated.

The most imperative evidence supporting Fiske's (1993) assumptions seems to be

Devine's (1989) dual process model of racial prejudice. According to Devine's model all

White Americans are aware of and have internalized the dominant cultural stereotype of

African Americans and these stereotypic representations can be activated automatically.

More specifically, according to Devine, this automatic activation happens in both, high and

low prejudice White individuals given the mere presence of a Black individual or mere

activation of the category "Black". This, so the model continues, would lead both high and

low prejudiced perceivers to judge African American individuals in relation to the cultural

Equal Opportunity Illusion

stereotypes. Fiske's reasoning relies on this model; Fiske assumes that stereotypes are

accessible to all high power perceivers and those in high power positions are especially prone

to rely on stereotype -based expectations that guide information seeking, behavior and

inferences. While highly influential and having impetus on a great deal of research, the power

as control (PAC) model equates outcome control (or one's ability to have relative greater say

in an outcome) with power. The theoretical statements of the PAC model and tests of that

model omit the dynamic social influence components of power relations, as noted at the

outset. Also problematic are three additional points. First, as noted previously, the theory

assumes that stereotypes are universally internalized, i.e., stereotyping is a default tendency.

Second, hypotheses derived from this model and tests of those hypotheses have focused

simply on the descriptive question of "who stereotypes whom" omitting a consideration of

"why" stereotyping occurs. Thirdly, Fiske's primary tool of measuring stereotyping is

attention. This indirect method by which stereotyping has been measured most predominantly

does constitute a major problem as this focus on attention has lead to a neglect of other

perhaps more suitable variables, like motivation, for instance. More will be said in this regard

later (see "the aspect of motivation in stereotyping", p.20). These three points are problematic

in light of the fact that there is a growing literature showing that not all individuals internalize

the cultural stereotypes and numerous situations have been shown to influence stereotyping. I

will review the relevant literature illustrating the problems with these assumptions in the

sections that follow.

Universally internalized stereotypes?

A common feature to several theories of racial prejudice is the notion that White

Americans internalize the negative cultural stereotype of Black Americans (e.g., Devine,

1989; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Presumably, as a result of shared socialization experiences,

Equal Opportunity Illusion

all Whites are aware of the cultural stereotype, which gets represented cognitively and can be

activated automatically. From this perspective the difference between high and low

prejudiced people lies not in the presence or absence of the cognitive representations (all

people have stereotypic representations), but in the conscious control that is exerted in

attempts to control stereotypic responding. It has been suggested that low prejudiced people

"put on the brakes" and try to limit the influences of stereotypes in situations in which they

have the resources and awareness to control stereotypic responding.

While there is no disputing the fact that White Americans tend to be universally

knowledgeable of the cultural stereotypes of Black Americans, recent findings question the

notion that such knowledge is similarly internalized by both high and low prejudiced people

and automatically activated. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence noting that

situational factors importantly influence whether stereotypic perception and behavior ensues.

All of these findings stand in contrast to the assumption that stereotypes are universally

internalized, thus questioning a fundamental assumption upon which Fiske's (1993) PAC

model was derived.

Individual Differences in stereotyping

While many theories have assumed that all people have cognitive representations of

the dominant cultural stereotype, which is automatically activated in the mere presence of an

African American individual, recent research demonstrates that there are critical differences

in the cognitive representations that high and low prejudiced Whites have of African

Americans. Lepore and Brown (1997), for example, showed that the relations among

categorization, stereotyping, and prejudice are more flexible than is often assumed. It was

shown that differences in responses between high- and low- prejudice people occurred when

a category, rather than stereotypic traits, was subliminally primed. When the category Blacks

Equal Opportunity Illusion

was subliminally primed high -prejudice participants formed a more negative and less

positive impression of the target person than did participants in the no prime condition, with

low -prejudice people tending in the opposite direction. But when valenced stereotype

content was primed, high- and low- prejudice people increased negative ratings. These

differences were found despite the fact that the two groups of high-and low prejudice people

share the same knowledge of the stereotypes of Black people, as could be shown in an earlier

study (study 1).

Thus, high-and low-prejudice people differ in their automatic responses to category

activation, which suggests that they hold different representations because of their beliefs and

despite their common stereotype knowledge. This directly opposes the notion of many

authors that most White Americans hold negative stereotypes of Black Americans (e.g.

Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), which are activated automatically when confronted with a

member of that category, as Devine's (1989) "mere presence" -argument states (see page 12)

or Fiske & Neuberg (1990) conclude.

Taking the above arguments of Lepore and Brown into consideration we can no

longer talk about universally internalized stereotypes, but instead state that high and low-

prejudiced individuals have different stereotypes. According to Vescio and Biernat (1999),

both high and low prejudiced people have internalized representations of group differences in

social status (e.g., blacks lower social status, lower income, less educated), but high and low

prejudice people differ in their explanation of such differences in social status. Whereas low-

prejudiced individuals primarily regard situational components of stereotypes as the cause

(discrimination, prejudice etc. lead to blacks' lower social status), high-prejudiced individuals

believe in a dispositional causation for those differences (e.g., blacks are lazy, unmotivated,

unintelligent...). That is, only high prejudiced people have the traits consistent with the

cultural stereotype. As a result both groups have different expectations, which eventually can

Equal Opportunity Illusion

be violated. Supporting evidence for this line of reasoning of differing stereotype content

between high- and low prejudice people comes from various studies. Vescio & Biernat

(1999), for example showed that individual differences in prejudice level affect conditions

under which evaluations of outgroup targets are more extreme and stereotypic. The authors

hypothesized that high prejudiced White perceivers, having internalized the negative cultural

stereotype of Black Americans, would expect a lack of intellect as well as lack of motivation

in Blacks. On the other hand, low prejudiced Whites, rejecting the cultural stereotype, were

hypothesized to expect academic achievement and success. Violations of these expectations

were assumed to lead to more extreme appraisals in such that evaluations become more

extreme in the direction of the expectancy violation. The results showed precisely that. High

prejudiced perceivers evaluated an expectancy violating high-quality lecture given by a Black

professor more extremely favorable (i.e., rated much more favorably than a similar lecture

administered by a White professor). In contrast, low prejudiced Whites evaluated an

expectancy violating poor quality lecture given by a Black professor much more extremely

and in a negative direction.

Another study, supporting the idea of differences between high- and low prejudiced

individuals' representations and explanations of stereotypes was offered by Larsen et al. 1980

(cited by Jones 1997, p.156). In this study, participants who scored high on the Modern

Racism Scale (MRS; McConahay, 1986), unlike low scoring subjects, did not suppress the

effects of stereotypes on their judgments when given a chance to do so. Moreover, when they

received feedback suggesting they were biased toward either black males or gay men, those

with negative attitudes (as measured by the MRS for Blacks or the Heterosexual Attitude

toward Homosexuals [HATH] for gay men) felt no compunction about their biases, but those

low in modern racism or anti-gay attitudes felt emotional distress when made aware of their

biases.

Equal Opportunity Illusion

Extending and investigating even further the idea of different stereotype

representations, others have proposed (based on various studies investigating prejudices

against Blacks, homosexuals, and fat people) that low prejudiced people might have such

situational explanations as a result of humanitarian/egalitarian self-concepts, which are

negatively associated with all measures of prejudice and discrimination. This self-concept, so

the authors argue, does serves as a ,,prejudice antidote", as was demonstrated by the

association of Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) values with increased prejudice toward Blacks

homosexuals, and fat people (e.g. Biernat, Vescio, Theno & Crandall, 1996).

The importance of inter-individual differences and their influence on the accessibility

of and the willingness to use stereotypes is further highlighted by social dominance theorists

(e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) and their proposition of a construct, which is called "Social

Dominance Orientation" (SDO); an individual difference variable, defined as "the degree to

which individuals desire and support group-based hierarchy and the domination of `inferior'

groups by `superior' groups" (p.48). People high in SDO, for example more strongly endorse

racial stereotypes, attributing the lower social status of racial outgroups to characteristics of

individual group members.

Differences between high- and low- prejudiced people appear at an automatic level,

supporting the idea of a flexible link between categorization and stereotyping. "It is

endorsement, not knowledge that is likely to shape the representation in memory,

strengthening the links between the category label and certain stereotypic features instead of

others. Prejudice does not resemble a habit that has to be broken (referring to Devine's

assumption, 1989) but one that is, for some people, already broken" and "it is not knowledge

which strengthens the links between category and stereotype, it is rather the endorsement"

(Lepore and Brown, 1997). The contemporary findings contemplated above, argue against the

universal internalization theory and clearly support the idea that high prejudice persons and

Equal Opportunity Illusion

low prejudice persons have different representations of groups. Moreover, this is the case

because of their beliefs and despite their common knowledge about stereotypes!

Situational differences in stereotyping

Historically, there have been various approaches to the understanding the concept of

prejudice (for an overview see Jones, 1997, p.143ff). Social psychology has mainly regarded

prejudice as an individual-level phenomenon. Zanna (1994), for instance proposed four

sources of influence on the development and occurrence of prejudice, all lying within the

individual:

1) Stereotypical beliefs (the notion that typical members of the group possess certain

characteristics or traits),

2) Symbolic beliefs (the notion that typical target group members violate cherished majority-

or dominant-group traditions, customs, and values),

3) Emotions that are aroused by a member or members of the group, and

4) Past experiences with members of the group.

Other theories for explaining prejudice that also stress the individual level of

prejudice are 1) terror management theory (cf. Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski, 1991;

Greenberg, Pyszczynski et al., 1990), which regards prejudice as a terror management

reaction to perceived threat and heightened awareness of one's very own mortality, 2) ego-

defensiveness theory (Dollard & Miller,1941), 3)Adorno at al.'s (1951) authoritarian

personality theory, or 4)Altemeyer's (1993) right wing authoritarian personality theory (in

Jones, 1997, p.145ff), to name a few.

Although, this focus on the individual level is not surprising, conceiving that we

generally speak of "a prejudiced person" or "individuals who are prejudiced", there are, apart

Equal Opportunity Illusion

from individual differences, also situational variables, which also have strong effects on

prejudiced behavior.

Thus, an often-neglected fact is that individuals usually do not exist in isolation.

Human beings are social beings, socialized in communities with certain norms and values,

constantly interacting with other individuals. In trying to understand the reasons for and

influences on prejudice, society itself, in providing manifold situations and contexts for

interactions, has to be considered and regarded as a major source of influence on prejudice.

Sidanius and Pratto's social dominance theory (SDT, 1999), for instance, by integrating

models from various fields (see previous page), does take this important aspect into account

and puts much emphasis on the interface of individual and society.

Thus, situational norms, as part of situational factors in general, influence stereotyping,

prejudice and/or discriminatory behavior. Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) for instance,

demonstrated very clearly how ambiguity as a single situational factor might offer an excuse

for aversive racists to rationalize their discriminatory behavior on the basis of some other

factor than race. Ambiguity, as the situational factor in this case, therefore, can be thought of

as a window, facilitating to show individuals' true attitudes and feelings.

Another example is the already mentioned study by Vescio and Biernat (1999), in

which the authors argue that low prejudiced -and high prejudiced individuals' different

stereotype-based expectancies and their respective violations may affect own performance as

well as judgment of a high status target. Situational variables in that study were ethnicity of

the target person (lecturer) and quality of the lecture, which demonstrably affected

perceiver's judgment and performance. In sum, a consideration of situational factors is

important for a deeper understanding of the concept and mechanisms of prejudice.

Equal Opportunity Illusion

The aspect of motivation in stereotyping

As pointed out above, when reviewing Fiske's PAC model (see p.11), stereotyping is

normally assessed via perception or behavior. This reliance on attention as the major means

of measuring stereotyping has lead to a neglect of other, possibly more valid assessment

techniques. While attention has been proposed the major measurement of stereotypes, the

aspect of motivation has been completely omitted when talking about the intentional reliance

on stereotypic information (stereotyping by design). As noted above, Fiske and her

colleagues (Fiske, 1993; Dépret &Fiske, 1999; or Goodwin et al., 1998 and Goodwin et al.,

2000) do talk about cognitive load as reasons for powerful individuals' reliance on

stereotypes, but omit the aspect of motivation when attending to some but not other

information.

Other authors have tried to integrate both, attention and motivation variables in their

discussion of stereotyping. Supporting the cognitive load argument as a reason for

stereotyping, Bodenhausen (1993) for instance, sees affect as a possible influence on our

judgment processes in that arousal limits our cognitive capacity and therefore make us more

susceptible to rely on simpler and more dominant processing strategies like stereotypes. On

the other hand, and more in line with the motivational aspect argument, Bodenhausen

hypothesizes, the second way affect influences the use of stereotypes to be by means of

motivational influences. These, so the author argues, affect our willingness to use certain

cognitive capacities and result in more or less use of stereotypes, depending on the emotion

involved.

More support for a stronger inclusion of motivational factors into the discussion of

stereotyping by design, comes from various other studies. Reviewing literature on dissonance

theory (Festinger, 1957), for example, asks for caution in the use of attention as a measure for

stereotyping. Many "selective exposure" experiments (see for example Frey, 1986), have

Details

Seiten
Erscheinungsform: Originalausgabe
Erscheinungsjahr: 2003
ISBN (eBook): 9783832483807
ISBN (Paperback): 9783838683805
DOI: 10.3239/9783832483807
Dateigröße: 1 MB
Sprache: Englisch
Institution / Hochschule: Philipps-Universität Marburg – Psychologie
Erscheinungsdatum: 2004 (November)
Note: 2,0
Schlagworte: vorurteile rassismus macht diskriminierung stereotypen
Produktsicherheit: Diplom.de

Autor

Swen Heidenreich (Autor:in)

The equal opportunity illusion: The effects of prejudice and power on information seeking, employee evaluation, task assignment, and estimates of employee success

Zusammenfassung

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Details

Autor

Swen Heidenreich (Autor:in)