Self Recategorization of Euro-Americans & Its Effects on Prejudice & Racial Perceptions

1. Self Recategorization of Euro-Americans & Its Effects on Prejudice & Racial Perceptions Presented at the University of California, Irvine By Regina Kibodeaux May 15, 2004

2. CATEGORIZATION Things People Places

3. WHO ARE YOU?

4. Social Identity Theory Group identity determine ingroup versus outgroup members Primary determinant of positive or negative affective response Ingroup (+) Outgroup (-) *Prejudice: an unfair (-) attitude toward a group or a person perceived to be a member of that group

5. PREJUDICE BEGETS VIOLENCE

6. RACIAL CATEGORIZATION Immediate and automatic (Brew & Brown, 1998; Fiske, 1998) Functional values attributed to group differences increase prejudice (Bigler, Jones & Lobliner, 1997) Especially relevant to social relations when the categories imply definitions of “us” versus “them” (Tajfel & Turner, 1976; Tafjel, 1981)

7. COMMON INGROUP IDENTITY MODEL Separate groups equal higher prejudice - Categorization One group or different groups on the same team increases positive behavior toward former outgroup members - Recategorization Ingroup favoritism is reduced when members are seen as individuals of one’s own group - Decategorization (Dovidio, Kawakmi & Gaertner, 2000) White Blacks American Same Team White

8. PREJUDICE AND RACIAL PERCEPTIONS Prejudice persons label racially mixed individuals as out group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, Tafjel, 1981; Young, B. 2000)

9. RESEARCH QUESTIONS • Since recategorization and decategorization work well separately, can both be used in conjunction to maximize the reduction of prejudice? • If so, can a dual/ethnic identity be activated in a highly prejudice white population? • If so, would it result in lower measure of prejudice and higher measure of inclusiveness when assigning race to ambiguous photos?

10. SELF RECATEGORIZATION HYPOTHESISED TO REDUCE PREJUDICE AND INCREASE INCLUSIVENESS Prejudice (H1) The priming of a dual/ethnic identity will result in lower scores of prejudice compared to those primed for a single identity Inclusiveness (H2) The priming of a dual/ethnic identity will result in assigning greater measures of ingroup heritage when viewing racially ambiguous photos compared to those primed for a single identity

11. RESEARCH SITE Southern California High School Predominantly Euro-American(81%) History of youth hate motivated violence District mandated postings regarding hate activity Proximate to research

12. HATE MOTIVATED YOUTH VIOLENCE “IN APRIL OF 1999, THE BODY OF A MEXICAN MAN WAS FOUND LYING IN A DRAINAGE DITCH NEAR THE CENTER OF (SoCal City). - HE HAD BEEN ROBBED AND BADLY BEATEN - TO MOST PEOPLE IT WAS QUICKLY FORGOTTEN - A RANDOM MURDER - A NAMELESS PERSON - BUT IT BECAME THE FIRST IN A SERIES OF VIOLENT, RACE-RELATED EVENTS TO TAKE PLACE IN (SoCal City) THAT YEAR.”kpbs.org

13. PARENTS SPEAK OUT (April 2003)"Not safe for other ethnic groups than white due to extreme racism! " (August 2003) “Yes (school name) has a bit of a reputation for being racist…. "

14. DISTRICT MANDATED POSTINGS IN EVERY CLASS AND OFFICE In our classrooms and on our campus there will be no room for hatred, violence, or put-downs meant to harm someone physically, mentally, or emotionally because of: Race/Ethnicity Religion Physical appearance Intellectual ability Gender Sexual orientation (actual or perceived)

15. METHODOLOGY School selected for awareness of racial problems and willing to participate Students participation was a result of convenience sampling - Participation was voluntary - Consent/Assent forms sent home prior to participation Experimental/Control condition was randomly assigned

16. SAMPLE POPULATION Gender: 63 49 Total 112 Grades:Sophomore –Senior Ethnicity: White 75 Non-White 20 White/Mixed 17 Condition: Single Identity 55Total 40White Dual/Ethnic Identity 57Total 35White

17. METHODOLOGY SURVEY TITLED: PERCEPTIONS OF ETHNICITY Racial Ambiguous Photos (pre-test inclusiveness measure) Social Distance Measure (pretest prejudice measure) Experimental Condition (single or dual identity condition) Feeling Thermometer (post-test prejudice measure) Racial Ambiguous Photos (post-test inclusiveness measure)

18. DUAL IDENTITY MEASURE Ethnicity: ____African American ____Hispanic American ____Asian American ____Middle Eastern American ____Euro-American ____Native American ____Pacific Islander American If Euro-American please identify: Father’s Ethnicity: select all that apply ____ French ____ Swedish ____ English ____ Irish ____ Dutch ____ Italian ____ Polish ____ Finnish ____ Russian ____Belgian ____ Icelandic ____Slovakian ____ Irish ____ Hungarian ____ Norwegian ____ German ____ Bulgarian ____ Danish ____ Romanian ____ Swiss ____Austrian ____ Australian ____Scottish ____ Welsh ____ Lithuanian ____ Other: name specifically _________________________________________ If Euro-American please identify: Mother’s Ethnicity:select all that apply ____ French ____ Swedish ____ English ____ Irish ____ Dutch ____ Italian ____ Polish ____ Finnish ____ Russian ____Belgian ____ Icelandic ____Slovakian ____ Irish ____ Hungarian ____ Norwegian ____ German ____ Bulgarian ____ Danish ____ Romanian ____ Swiss ____Austrian ____ Australian ____Scottish ____ Welsh ____ Lithuanian ____ Other: name specifically _________________________________________

19. SINGLE IDENTITY MEASURE Ethnicity: ___White ___Hispanic ___Asian ___Middle Eastern ___Black ___Indian ___Pacific Islander Father’s Ethnicity: ___White ___Hispanic ___Asian ___Middle Eastern ___Black ___Indian ___Pacific Islander Mother’s Ethnicity: ___White ___Hispanic ___Asian ___Middle Eastern ___Black ___Indian ___Pacific Islander

20. Social Distance

21. Feeling Thermometer

22. Racially Ambiguous Photos % Asian Heritage Assigned

23. Dual Identity 35 – White 22 – Other 57 - Total # of Ethnicities selected

24. RESULTS Prejudice (H1) – Failed to reject the null hypothesis. Inclusiveness (H2) – Failed to reject the null hypothesis.

25. Experimental Considerations Unrealistic researcher expectations Manipulation was not understood Students were aware of objective Conversations, etc. Stereotype threat – fear of confirming a known stereotype

26. Discussion Scores were more (+) than (-) Positive comments: “This really made me think” “Pics were confusing, but I get the point” Confirmed other areas of research (ie. Contact hypothesis) Doors open for more research

27. Mentors Peter Ditto, UCI Brandy Young, UCI Chuansheng Chen, UCI Valerie Jenness, UCI Research Site Principal Teachers Students Research Assistants Winnie Tam, UCI Jenna Albanese, UCI Cheri Ford, UCI Technical Assistance Rob Carpenter Bob Jamieson Funding Source University of California, Irvine Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Acknowledgments

28. For Further InformationContact Regina Kibodeaux Department of Psychology and Social Behavior Department of Criminology, Law and Society University of California, Irvine rkibodea@uci.edu