FSD / Psychology / Literature Review / HD Literature Review(1)

Running head: PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

Pernicious Bridging Effects: The Effects Facilitating the Links between Stereotypical Attitudes and Harmful Behavioural Outcomes

…………….. …………………..

Bond University

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

Pernicious Bridging Effects: The Effects Facilitating the Links between Stereotypical

Attitudes and Harmful Behavioural Outcomes

Stereotypes are perceptual distortions used to make sense of individuating information when information is limited, when there are strains on time, as well as in situations where we lack motivation (Ashburn-Nardo, 2008; Fiske, 1993). However, despite these constructive purposes, stereotyping also can have pernicious consequences. Research on stereotyping predominantly focuses on the origins and consequences. However, the most pivotal research is that which emphasises the pernicious bridging effects that facilitate the connection between stereotypical attitudes and negative behavioural consequences such as discrimination. These bridging effects include the self-fulfilling prophecy, prejudice, and counter-stereotypical effects. This review is significant for researchers in this discipline because it appears that, up until now, these three concepts have not been studied as having a common ‘bridging’ role. The purpose of this review is to explain how these concepts have the potential to be pernicious as bridging effects and to critically examine the current knowledge of these concepts. Furthermore, it aims to inspire future research to shift its focus from the origins and consequences of stereotyping to the bridging effects of stereotyping.

The self-fulfilling prophecy is pernicious as it reinforces the perceiver’s initial stereotypical attitudes. The self-fulfilling prophecy is the act of creating one’s own reality by eliciting behavioural confirmation (Jussim, Harber, Crawford, Cain, & Cohen, 2005). This is pernicious as it reinforces the perceivers ‘reality’ and the stereotypes they hold (Snyder & Klien, 2005). The self-fulfilling prophecy thus can be viewed as a pernicious bridging effect as these reinforced realities can lead to discrimination. In the first experimental testing of this effect, Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) found that teacher expectations of students impacted the student’s academic performance in line with these expectations (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968). This has been replicated in more recent studies such as in Shapiro, King, and

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

Quinones’ (2007) study that identified stereotypes as a precursor to the self-fulfilling prophecy in workplace training situations. This study examined trainers’ perceptions of their trainees by breaking up the training groups according to weight. The researchers found that trainers lower expectations of their group, based on the stereotype that weight compromises performance, resulted in reported lower quality training (Shapiro et al., 2007). For inflexible trainers, these low expectations led to reduced performance (Shapiro et al., 2007). Despite this research, there are other researchers who claim that the existence of the self-fulfilling prophecy is not supported by the general pattern of research (Jussim et al., 2005). A metaanalysis of the literature on the self-fulfilling prophecy found that the results substantiating this phenomenon, on average, were only moderately significant; p < .15 (Jussim et al., 2005). Other researchers suggest that there are notable limitations to the exiting methodologies that invalidate its existence (Landy, 2008; Snyder & Klien, 2005). Such limitations are that many studies do not use face-to-face interaction, thus, are too reliant on ‘paper’ people (Landy, 2008). Contrastingly, other researchers suggest that researchers overemphasise the limitations of lab research and that these critical studies fail to recognise the importance of classical face- to-face studies such as Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) and Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) in validating the self-fulfilling prophecy (Ashburn-Nardo, 2008). Although research needs to continue in order to substantiate either claim, it is rational to deduce that the self-fulfilling prophecy must exist in some capacity due to its prominence in the literature. As such, future researchers should endeavour to determine in what capacity it exists.

Although prejudice in itself is not pernicious, threats to our positive self-image can lead to pernicious behavioural outcomes. Stereotypes are taught to us at a young age by social agents namely our family and peers, as well as through immediate culture (Fein & Von Hippel, 2005). A study by Augoustinos and Rosewarne (2001), demonstrated that children between the ages of eight and nine are able to form their own preconceived opinions based on

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

knowledge of stereotypes; prejudice. Thereby researchers suggest that prejudice is employed from a young age to maintain a positive self-image (Collange, Fiske, & Sanitioso, 2009). Researchers further argue that threats to this image can evoke pernicious negative stereotyping (Collange et al., 2009). Thus, prejudice can be viewed as a pernicious bridging effect as these threats to our self-image can result in discrimination. This is substantiated by Collange et al. (2009) who observed that threatened individuals negatively stereotyped and discriminated targets deemed competent but cold on their perceived suitability for the job, but did not discriminate the warm and incompetent targets. This is thought to occur because the perceiver viewed the competent individual as threatening and negatively stereotyping them reinforced their position of power (Ashburn-Nardo, 2008). Fiske (1993) claimed that the people most vulnerable to the influence of stereotypes and prospective prejudice are those in power. Prejudice in this situation can be pernicious when a superior assigns their subordinates to stereotypical roles that limit their opportunities for personal growth (Ashburn-Nardo, 2008; Pittinsky, Shih, & Trahan, 2006). While the aforementioned researchers view prejudice as a product of stereotyping, some researchers claim that stereotypes are the product of prejudice (Crandall, Bahns, Warner & Schaller, 2011). These researchers believe that stereotypes emerge to justify prejudice by helping to explain why different people are treated in different ways (Crandall et al., 2011). However, the predominant research in this area endorses the argument that prejudice as a product of stereotyping and thus research in this area needs to persist in order to substantiate which origin is more accurate.

Counter-stereotypical effects can be pernicious when the attitudes to consciously avoid stereotyping cause individuals to discriminate the subject not initially susceptible to the stereotype. Moskowitz (2010) asserted that stereotype activation is controlled and that the goals of the perceiver, either promoting or preventing, can determine the activation of

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

stereotypes. This research indicates that individuals can prevent stereotypical bias. However, these conscious efforts can be equally pernicious when these efforts lead to counterstereotypical effects. These effects occur when an individual contradictorily stereotypes a subject not initially susceptible to the stereotype (Biernat, 2003). Counter-stereotypical effects thus can be viewed as a bridging effect as these conscious efforts to not stereotype can lead to negative behavioural outcomes toward the not initially stereotyped individual. This was demonstrated in an early study where researchers observed that black employees working in a predominantly white environment were more likely to be commended for their completion of perfunctory tasks than their white counterparts (Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). Biernat (2003) attributes these counter-stereotypes to the shifting standards model. This model accounts for how we shift our perceptions for stereotyped individuals according to individual information, to create a seemingly equal reflection of the actual existence of that stereotype (Biernat, 2003). However, these often result in over attribution of the stereotyped individual (Biernat, 2003). For example, if asked to judge athleticism using the stereotype that men are more athletic than women, people wanting to avoid stereotyping will shift the scale of the woman up to account for her stereotypical athletic deficiencies and shift the man’s scale down accordingly (Biernat, 2003). This often results in overestimation of the female’s abilities (Biernat, 2003). This research begs the question if we truly have control over our prejudices. Presumably, if we had complete control then we would be less likely to respond to our attitudes by counter-stereotyping. However, as this is a fairly new area of research, continued research needs to be conducted in order to better understand the extent to which we control our prejudices and stereotype inhibition.

The bridging effects have pernicious effects each in their own unique way. The selffulfilling prophecy is pernicious as it reinforces the perceiver’s initial stereotypical attitudes, prejudice is pernicious when threats to our self-image provoke negative behavioural

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

outcomes and counter-stereotypical effects are pernicious when the attitudes to avoid stereotyping causes individuals to discriminate the subject not initially susceptible to the stereotype. Overall, the existing research poses a number of conflicting views on the existence, origin and the level of control that we have of each of the effects. Thus, further research needs to be conducted to further confirm the positions of these factors. Furthermore, it appears that up until now, these three concepts have not been studied as having a shared common ‘bridging’ role. Thus, future research should look toward shifting its focus from the origins and consequences of stereotyping to the bridging effects. Finally, as the term ‘bridging effects’ has only been employed as a prototype term to group the three concepts with this common ‘bridging’ role, future researchers may wish to develop a more fitting term.

References

Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2008). Fairly Representing the Stereotyping Literature?. Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 412-414. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00076.x

Augoustinos, M., & Rosewarne, D. L. (2001). Stereotype knowledge and prejudice in children. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 143-157.

Biernat, M. (2003). Toward a broader view of social stereotyping. American Psychologist, 58, 1019 –1027.

Collange, J., Fiske, S., & Sanitioso, R. (2009). Maintaining a positive self-image by stereotyping others: self-threat and the stereotype content model. Social Cognition, 27(1), 138-149.

Crandall, C. S., Bahns, A. J., Warner, R., & Schaller, M. (2011). Stereotypes as justifications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(11), 1488–1498.

Fein, S., & Von Hippel, W. (2005). Stereotypes. In L. Nadel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of cognitive science. Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Retrieved from EBL: http://www.credoreference.com.ezproxy.bond.edu.au/entry/wileycs/stereotypes

Fiske, S. T. (1993). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.

Jussim, L., Harber, K. D., Crawford, J. T., Cain, T. R., & Cohen, F. (2005). Social reality makes the social mind: Self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotypes, bias, and accuracy.

Interaction Studies, 6(1), 85-102.

Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotypes, Bias, and Personnel Decisions: Strange and Stranger.

Industrial & Organizational Psychology, 1(4), 379-392. doi:10.1111/j.17549434.2008.00071.x

PERNICIOUS BRIDGING EFFECTS

Moskowitz, G. B. (2010). On the Control Over Stereotype Activation and Stereotype Inhibition. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 140–158.

doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00251.x

Pettigrew, T., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41–78.

Pittinsky, T. L., Shih, M. J., & Trahan, A. (2006), Identity Cues: Evidence From and for Intra-Individual Perspectives on Positive and Negative Stereotyping. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2215–2239. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00101.x

Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectations and Pupils’ Intellectual Development. Austin, Tex.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,

Snyder, M., & Klein, O. (2005). Construing and constructing others: On the reality and the generality of the behavioral confirmation scenario. Interaction Studies, 6(1), 53-67.

Shapiro, J. R., King, E. B., & Quinones, M. A. (2007). Expectations of Obese Trainees: How Stigmatized Trainee Characteristics Influence Training Effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (1), 239–49.

Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10(2), 109-120.