Prejudice
Defined as negative feelings toward person based solely on their group memberships. Most theorists agree that prejudice is determined by many factors. This complexity has led prejudice to becoming a phenomenon that is simultaneously fascinating and frustrating. For example, even if we narrow our focus to a psychological analysis of prejudice (i.e., an analysis at the individual level), various cognitive, motivational, social, cultural, and historical factors come into play and can operate simultaneously. That is, according to Devine (as cited in Tesser, 1995), these factors are not independent, and they can have dynamic and reciprocal effects.
Defined as negative feelings toward person based solely on their group memberships. Most theorists agree that prejudice is determined by many factors. This complexity has led prejudice to becoming a phenomenon that is simultaneously fascinating and frustrating. For example, even if we narrow our focus to a psychological analysis of prejudice (i.e., an analysis at the individual level), various cognitive, motivational, social, cultural, and historical factors come into play and can operate simultaneously. That is, according to Devine (as cited in Tesser, 1995), these factors are not independent, and they can have dynamic and reciprocal effects.
Common Types of Prejudices in the Workplace
Ageism
Sexism
Racism
Xenophobia
Classism
Religious Discrimination
Ageism
Sexism
Racism
Xenophobia
Classism
Religious Discrimination
Origins of Prejudice
Inherent Human Potential for Prejudice
The human mind must think with aid of categories. Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid the process. Orderly living depends on it (Allport, 1954, p. 20). That is, just as it is necessary in order to reduce the complexity of the physical world, it is also necessary to use social categorization strategies in order to reduce the complexity of the social world (Devine, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). Responding to all persons as individuals would quickly overload social perceivers’ cognitive processing and storage capabilities. Human beings are cognitive misers and we do not like to take a lot of time and trouble to think if we don’t have to. So we take a lot of shortcuts and we create a lot of approximations (Fiske, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). This in turns leads to a set of rules that people use if they are not very good at going through all the normative stages of making an inference. These mental shortcuts are called heuristics, which involves making judgments under uncertainty, and many pertain to probability judgments (Fiske, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). Under some conditions, people conserve mental resources and rely on a prior schema or expectancy, namely, when they are oriented toward interaction and when they are distracted, anxious, or defensive (Fiske, 1995, as cited in Tesser 1995). These conditions promote category-based process which occur when people are overloaded which makes them more likely to form superficial judgments.
Learned Prejudices
According to Jim Cole (n.d.), there are many stereotypes we learn as children. We do not test these and many times we do not have the opportunity to test them. We learn them as facts and behave as if they are the truth. Then, later in life, when situations come up, we behave automatically out of the earlier stereotyped learning. This type of learning is not easily accessible for discussion or awareness, but it simply stays with us for later effortless, seemingly automatic application. Since the learning is not tested and not challenged, it is not evaluated and not likely to be changed. Later in life, we learn and acquire belief systems in a more active way. We discuss, evaluate, and decide upon these new learned beliefs. These are systems of standards and codes of behavior which are easily re-evaluated. While they are clearly knowable and readily accessible to evaluation, they are not automatic in application. Like mentioned earlier about heuristics, to behave out of these decided beliefs one must devote a minimal amount of time and attention to the situation and then apply the decision. Instead, one must be fully aware of the cues and indicators that this is, indeed, a situation where the rule or belief does apply. This leads to the conflict between two systems of earlier learning and later learning, where early learning pertains to the untested stereotypes learned as children and later learning pertains to stereotypes one actively engages in and is aware of their stereotype (Cole, n.d.). According to Jim Cole (n.d.), this type of behavioral conflict between the later learning and the earlier learning is what he refers to as an unintentional prejudicial response. People who purely rely on their later learning will engage in intentional prejudice. More specifically, the intentional prejudicial response is a more integrated form of behavior. It has more purpose and is more an integral part of the individual's identity. Acts of intentional prejudice are often planned. They are acts that are very much a part of the individual's identity and are expressions of that identity. To the individual who is behaving through intentional acts of prejudice, the acts might be experienced as acts of defense--acts that are needed to defend one's identity and way of life (Cole, n.d.). Unintentional prejudicial actions do not allow the observer to really know the intentions of a person. They are actions that are automatic and not decided upon by the individual at the moment of behaving. Many people seem to hold fewer later learning prejudicial beliefs or convictions, but they do still have earlier learning prejudicial reactions or perceptions. The result is a situation where people report that they are not prejudiced, yet when conditions come up, they often behave in prejudicial ways, based on their earlier learning. According to Jim Cole (n.d.), it has been shown that this internal conflict within people produces some personal discomfort when they behave in prejudicial ways. It has also been shown that the greater the difference between the later learning beliefs and the behaviors which come from the earlier learning, the greater the personal discomfort.
Intergroup Dynamics
Intergroup bias refers to the systematic tendency to evaluate one’s own membership group (the in-group) or its members more favorably than a nonmembership group (the out-group) or its members. Bias can encompass behavior (discrimination), attitude (prejudice), and cognition (stereotyping)(Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Realistic conflict theory holds that direct competition for valuable but limited resources is responsible for the development of prejudice (Levine & Campbell, 1972). These limited resources and reward structures can foster intergroup conflict by making the differences in group goals more apparent. Differences in perceptions among gropus regarding time and status, when coupled with different group goals, can also create conflict. These group conflicts which create differences in group status or power, help determine which groups are the disliked groups. Although, the realistic conflict analysis cannot be applied to all situations and this analysis falls short in its ability to account for intergroup attitudes and hostilities (Devine, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). For example, realistic conflict theory would suggest that those who believe that the quality of their life is being threatened by members of another group would be the most prejudiced people. In a study of white Americans, parents living in school districts where children were bused to distant desegregated schools were not more prejudiced against blacks than adults who were not parents or parents whose children were not affected by busing (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Sears & Kinder, 1985). Furthermore, because of intergroup dynamics, this leads to the basis for ethnocentrism. This is the belief that one’s own group is superior to other groups. Just the mere categorization of people into in-groups and out-groups leads social perceivers to differentiate between members of the in-group members of the out-group in ways that most often favor the in-group. Intergroup conflict causes changes to occur, both within the groups in conflict and between them. Within the groups, members will usually overlook individual differences in an effort to unite against the other side, and with this concerted effort the focus is on the task. The group can become more efficient and effective at what they do, and members can become more loyal, closely following group norms. Problems can occur, however, when the group loses focus of the organization’s goals and becomes closed off from other groups. Haughtiness and isolation quickly lead to decreased communication. Communication is the key between groups in reciprocal interdependence, and these have the highest negative consequences for lack of effective communication.
Structural, Situational, and Individual
Like intergroup discrimination, the causes of intergroup prejudice involve all three levels of analysis: structural, situational, and individual. Historical conflict and such institutions as slavery create at the societal level norms of discrimination, hatred, and resentment that last for years. Most people conform to these long-established societal norms and develop prejudicial attitudes simply as part of their adaptation to their life situation. In other words, many people who are prejudiced are simply conforming to prejudicial norms because it is in the air they breathe. If the societal norms are changed, conforming people often shift their intergroup attitudes with surprising ease. This fact is the basis of most remedial procedures for reducing prejudice. Conforming prejudice is enhanced by societal barriers to intergroup contact. A classic example is the American South in the 1930's and 1940's when racist beliefs and practices against African Americans were at their height. Those African Americans that opposed these racist beliefs and practices were swiftly punished and learned that violating the current norms would lead to even more punishments. These same negative societal norms also poison intergroup situations. The dominant group is expected to be commanding, the less powerful group subservient. Blatant forms of discrimination are likely to become established. If there is threat, especially threat to the dominant group itself, then greater discrimination and prejudice are typically invoked. Such situations are likely to increase the power of the societal norms and make them seem justified.
But not all prejudice derives from conformity to societal norms. Social psychologists have shown that some people seem especially prone to intergroup prejudice. One clear indication of this fact is that these individuals tend to be prejudiced against an array of quite different types of groups: social class, racial, religious, and national heritage. Prejudice for them obviously serves deep personality needs apart from the norms that operate for intergroup relations. Two personality syndromes have been uncovered that are especially prone to intergroup prejudice in countries all over the world. The first is authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1988). Three personality traits characterize this syndrome: deference to authorities, aggression toward outgroups, and rigid adherence to cultural conventions. Typical items used to measure authoritarianism are: crime should be punished more harshly and two of the most important characteristics should be obedience and respect for one's superiors. Authoritarianism rises in times of societal threat, and recedes in times of calm. Crises invoke authoritarian leadership and encourage equalitarians to accept such leadership, as has been since the 9/11 tragedy in the United States. The global consistency of research results suggests that the authoritarian personality is a general personality syndrome with early origins in childhood that center on universal issues of authority. Recent work on the syndrome's origins connects authoritarianism with attachment theory. Rejection by an early caregiver, often the mother, leads to an avoidance attachment style that closely resembles the authoritarian personality. Recent survey data with a probability sample of German adults reveal a strong relationship between the syndrome and a desire to avoid interpersonal closeness (Pettigrew, Wagner, Christ, & Stellmacher, 2007).
Inherent Human Potential for Prejudice
The human mind must think with aid of categories. Once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid the process. Orderly living depends on it (Allport, 1954, p. 20). That is, just as it is necessary in order to reduce the complexity of the physical world, it is also necessary to use social categorization strategies in order to reduce the complexity of the social world (Devine, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). Responding to all persons as individuals would quickly overload social perceivers’ cognitive processing and storage capabilities. Human beings are cognitive misers and we do not like to take a lot of time and trouble to think if we don’t have to. So we take a lot of shortcuts and we create a lot of approximations (Fiske, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). This in turns leads to a set of rules that people use if they are not very good at going through all the normative stages of making an inference. These mental shortcuts are called heuristics, which involves making judgments under uncertainty, and many pertain to probability judgments (Fiske, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). Under some conditions, people conserve mental resources and rely on a prior schema or expectancy, namely, when they are oriented toward interaction and when they are distracted, anxious, or defensive (Fiske, 1995, as cited in Tesser 1995). These conditions promote category-based process which occur when people are overloaded which makes them more likely to form superficial judgments.
Learned Prejudices
According to Jim Cole (n.d.), there are many stereotypes we learn as children. We do not test these and many times we do not have the opportunity to test them. We learn them as facts and behave as if they are the truth. Then, later in life, when situations come up, we behave automatically out of the earlier stereotyped learning. This type of learning is not easily accessible for discussion or awareness, but it simply stays with us for later effortless, seemingly automatic application. Since the learning is not tested and not challenged, it is not evaluated and not likely to be changed. Later in life, we learn and acquire belief systems in a more active way. We discuss, evaluate, and decide upon these new learned beliefs. These are systems of standards and codes of behavior which are easily re-evaluated. While they are clearly knowable and readily accessible to evaluation, they are not automatic in application. Like mentioned earlier about heuristics, to behave out of these decided beliefs one must devote a minimal amount of time and attention to the situation and then apply the decision. Instead, one must be fully aware of the cues and indicators that this is, indeed, a situation where the rule or belief does apply. This leads to the conflict between two systems of earlier learning and later learning, where early learning pertains to the untested stereotypes learned as children and later learning pertains to stereotypes one actively engages in and is aware of their stereotype (Cole, n.d.). According to Jim Cole (n.d.), this type of behavioral conflict between the later learning and the earlier learning is what he refers to as an unintentional prejudicial response. People who purely rely on their later learning will engage in intentional prejudice. More specifically, the intentional prejudicial response is a more integrated form of behavior. It has more purpose and is more an integral part of the individual's identity. Acts of intentional prejudice are often planned. They are acts that are very much a part of the individual's identity and are expressions of that identity. To the individual who is behaving through intentional acts of prejudice, the acts might be experienced as acts of defense--acts that are needed to defend one's identity and way of life (Cole, n.d.). Unintentional prejudicial actions do not allow the observer to really know the intentions of a person. They are actions that are automatic and not decided upon by the individual at the moment of behaving. Many people seem to hold fewer later learning prejudicial beliefs or convictions, but they do still have earlier learning prejudicial reactions or perceptions. The result is a situation where people report that they are not prejudiced, yet when conditions come up, they often behave in prejudicial ways, based on their earlier learning. According to Jim Cole (n.d.), it has been shown that this internal conflict within people produces some personal discomfort when they behave in prejudicial ways. It has also been shown that the greater the difference between the later learning beliefs and the behaviors which come from the earlier learning, the greater the personal discomfort.
Intergroup Dynamics
Intergroup bias refers to the systematic tendency to evaluate one’s own membership group (the in-group) or its members more favorably than a nonmembership group (the out-group) or its members. Bias can encompass behavior (discrimination), attitude (prejudice), and cognition (stereotyping)(Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002). Realistic conflict theory holds that direct competition for valuable but limited resources is responsible for the development of prejudice (Levine & Campbell, 1972). These limited resources and reward structures can foster intergroup conflict by making the differences in group goals more apparent. Differences in perceptions among gropus regarding time and status, when coupled with different group goals, can also create conflict. These group conflicts which create differences in group status or power, help determine which groups are the disliked groups. Although, the realistic conflict analysis cannot be applied to all situations and this analysis falls short in its ability to account for intergroup attitudes and hostilities (Devine, 1995 as cited in Tesser, 1995). For example, realistic conflict theory would suggest that those who believe that the quality of their life is being threatened by members of another group would be the most prejudiced people. In a study of white Americans, parents living in school districts where children were bused to distant desegregated schools were not more prejudiced against blacks than adults who were not parents or parents whose children were not affected by busing (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Sears & Kinder, 1985). Furthermore, because of intergroup dynamics, this leads to the basis for ethnocentrism. This is the belief that one’s own group is superior to other groups. Just the mere categorization of people into in-groups and out-groups leads social perceivers to differentiate between members of the in-group members of the out-group in ways that most often favor the in-group. Intergroup conflict causes changes to occur, both within the groups in conflict and between them. Within the groups, members will usually overlook individual differences in an effort to unite against the other side, and with this concerted effort the focus is on the task. The group can become more efficient and effective at what they do, and members can become more loyal, closely following group norms. Problems can occur, however, when the group loses focus of the organization’s goals and becomes closed off from other groups. Haughtiness and isolation quickly lead to decreased communication. Communication is the key between groups in reciprocal interdependence, and these have the highest negative consequences for lack of effective communication.
Structural, Situational, and Individual
Like intergroup discrimination, the causes of intergroup prejudice involve all three levels of analysis: structural, situational, and individual. Historical conflict and such institutions as slavery create at the societal level norms of discrimination, hatred, and resentment that last for years. Most people conform to these long-established societal norms and develop prejudicial attitudes simply as part of their adaptation to their life situation. In other words, many people who are prejudiced are simply conforming to prejudicial norms because it is in the air they breathe. If the societal norms are changed, conforming people often shift their intergroup attitudes with surprising ease. This fact is the basis of most remedial procedures for reducing prejudice. Conforming prejudice is enhanced by societal barriers to intergroup contact. A classic example is the American South in the 1930's and 1940's when racist beliefs and practices against African Americans were at their height. Those African Americans that opposed these racist beliefs and practices were swiftly punished and learned that violating the current norms would lead to even more punishments. These same negative societal norms also poison intergroup situations. The dominant group is expected to be commanding, the less powerful group subservient. Blatant forms of discrimination are likely to become established. If there is threat, especially threat to the dominant group itself, then greater discrimination and prejudice are typically invoked. Such situations are likely to increase the power of the societal norms and make them seem justified.
But not all prejudice derives from conformity to societal norms. Social psychologists have shown that some people seem especially prone to intergroup prejudice. One clear indication of this fact is that these individuals tend to be prejudiced against an array of quite different types of groups: social class, racial, religious, and national heritage. Prejudice for them obviously serves deep personality needs apart from the norms that operate for intergroup relations. Two personality syndromes have been uncovered that are especially prone to intergroup prejudice in countries all over the world. The first is authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1988). Three personality traits characterize this syndrome: deference to authorities, aggression toward outgroups, and rigid adherence to cultural conventions. Typical items used to measure authoritarianism are: crime should be punished more harshly and two of the most important characteristics should be obedience and respect for one's superiors. Authoritarianism rises in times of societal threat, and recedes in times of calm. Crises invoke authoritarian leadership and encourage equalitarians to accept such leadership, as has been since the 9/11 tragedy in the United States. The global consistency of research results suggests that the authoritarian personality is a general personality syndrome with early origins in childhood that center on universal issues of authority. Recent work on the syndrome's origins connects authoritarianism with attachment theory. Rejection by an early caregiver, often the mother, leads to an avoidance attachment style that closely resembles the authoritarian personality. Recent survey data with a probability sample of German adults reveal a strong relationship between the syndrome and a desire to avoid interpersonal closeness (Pettigrew, Wagner, Christ, & Stellmacher, 2007).
Ways of Reducing Prejudice
Hiring and Educating Diverse Employees
Actively recruit and hire a racially and ethnically diverse staff. While it's not enough just to fill your staff with a variety of people from different backgrounds, representation from a variety of groups is an important place to start. Contact minority organizations, social groups, networks, media, and places where people of different ethnic and cultural groups congregate or access information. If you use word-of-mouth as a recruitment tool, spread the word to members of those groups, or key contact people. Also, consider writing an equal-opportunity policy for hiring and promoting staff.
Actively recruit culturally and ethnically diverse board members, executives, and managers. Racial prejudice can be reduced if the staff becomes divers and raises the awareness of each other, but racism is reduced when power is shared by leadership. In order to move beyond racial prejudice and ensure inclusiveness, your organization's board members and executives should reflect the communities or constituencies it serves. For instance, one group decided to reserve a certain number of slots on its governing board for representatives of the cultural and ethnic groups in the community.
Talk to the people of color on your staff and ask them what barriers or attitudes they face at work. Examine your newsletter or other publications and look out for negative portrayals, exclusion, or stereotypes. Find out how you can improve your workplace for members from diverse racial and ethnic groups that work there. This will not only give you some practical ideas about what you need to work on, but it will also signify that the needs of every group are taken seriously. Look around at any artwork you have in your offices. Are any groups represented in a stereotypical way? Is there diversity in the people portrayed? For example, if all the people in the clip are used in your newsletter are African American, you should make an effort to us clip art that shows a larger variety of people.
Form a permanent task force or committee dedicated to forming and monitoring a plan for promoting inclusion and fighting racism in your workplace. Racial prejudice is reduced by developing relationships and ensuring that materials are culturally sensitive, but racism is reduced when there is a permanent task force or committee that becomes part of the governance structure to ensure inclusive and just institutional policies.
Self-Confrontation Technique
This strategy, proposed by Rokeach (1973), is another way for changing highly prejudiced attitudes. Rokeach's work was heavily influenced by Gunner Myrdal's (1944) characterization of the American dilemma. According to Myrdal (1944), many white Americans who are committed to the general egalitarian tenets of the "American Creed" but simultaneously have specific prejudiced tendencies experience and internal moral conflict. According to Devine (as cited in Tesser, 1995), Rokeach reasoned that self-dissatisfaction should arise when people are encouraged to realize that their egalitarian self-conception (i.e, their view of themselves as fair-minded, tolerant, compassionate) is inconsistent with their prejudiced values, attitudes, and/or behaviors. This self-dissatisfaction should then motivate individuals to change the prejudiced aspects of their belief system and bring their behaviors more in line with their egalitarian self-image.
Below are some ways we can do as individuals to help reduce prejudices within ourselves and in those around us.
Leadership Based vs Training Based Strategies
Leadership Based Strategies
Those who are the most prejudiced and the most likely to act in prejudicial ways are also the most concerned about the opinions of the authority figures within their environment. While we all pay attention when those who might be able to threaten us are speaking, this is a stronger characteristic of those who are highly prejudiced. The leader of the organization makes his/her personal opposition to prejudice clear and overtly apparent. The leader supports activities which will value difference and responds publicly to any overtly prejudiced acts as an attack upon the organization as a total. This approach is most effective with those who are intentionally prejudiced because of their heightened sensitivity to authority figures. The methods used do not require the involvement or consent of those who are most effected by the method. This method does not approach the most widely practiced form of prejudices, the unintentional prejudicial responses. While this approach alone may not result in lasting changes it may make possible other activities which will have lasting effects. For example, the Army had only rarely promoted women and minorities at the same rate as the overall rate of promotion. Since the goal was announced to promote minorities and women at an equal rate to the overall promotion rate, it has been met on a consistent basis (Cole, n.d.).
Training Based Strategies
Many of the habitual ways in which we see the world are prejudicial and were learned before we were able to evaluate them or make decisions. To change these ways of viewing others we need to not only become aware of these reactions as prejudiced, but we also need to practice new responses. Training is provided that will increase the participants' awareness of the dynamics of prejudice, increase their exposure to those they might be prejudiced toward and provide them with methods to use in an ongoing approach to their own prejudice reduction. This training cannot function effectively without the support of the leadership withing the organization (Cole, n.d.). This approach aims to heighten the awareness of, and the reduction of, unintentional prejudices which are the most widely used and the most overall damaging to society (Cole, n.d.). These methods are able to reduce prejudices that are not measurable or easily observable. Sometimes this method may have negative effects on the most actively prejudiced individuals and may cause or encourage prejudicial behavior from them. This problem can be avoided by not requiring participation in this training. For an example in training, engaging employees in sensitivity training can help make them more aware of their own prejudices and more sensitive to others around them.
Hiring and Educating Diverse Employees
Actively recruit and hire a racially and ethnically diverse staff. While it's not enough just to fill your staff with a variety of people from different backgrounds, representation from a variety of groups is an important place to start. Contact minority organizations, social groups, networks, media, and places where people of different ethnic and cultural groups congregate or access information. If you use word-of-mouth as a recruitment tool, spread the word to members of those groups, or key contact people. Also, consider writing an equal-opportunity policy for hiring and promoting staff.
Actively recruit culturally and ethnically diverse board members, executives, and managers. Racial prejudice can be reduced if the staff becomes divers and raises the awareness of each other, but racism is reduced when power is shared by leadership. In order to move beyond racial prejudice and ensure inclusiveness, your organization's board members and executives should reflect the communities or constituencies it serves. For instance, one group decided to reserve a certain number of slots on its governing board for representatives of the cultural and ethnic groups in the community.
Talk to the people of color on your staff and ask them what barriers or attitudes they face at work. Examine your newsletter or other publications and look out for negative portrayals, exclusion, or stereotypes. Find out how you can improve your workplace for members from diverse racial and ethnic groups that work there. This will not only give you some practical ideas about what you need to work on, but it will also signify that the needs of every group are taken seriously. Look around at any artwork you have in your offices. Are any groups represented in a stereotypical way? Is there diversity in the people portrayed? For example, if all the people in the clip are used in your newsletter are African American, you should make an effort to us clip art that shows a larger variety of people.
Form a permanent task force or committee dedicated to forming and monitoring a plan for promoting inclusion and fighting racism in your workplace. Racial prejudice is reduced by developing relationships and ensuring that materials are culturally sensitive, but racism is reduced when there is a permanent task force or committee that becomes part of the governance structure to ensure inclusive and just institutional policies.
Self-Confrontation Technique
This strategy, proposed by Rokeach (1973), is another way for changing highly prejudiced attitudes. Rokeach's work was heavily influenced by Gunner Myrdal's (1944) characterization of the American dilemma. According to Myrdal (1944), many white Americans who are committed to the general egalitarian tenets of the "American Creed" but simultaneously have specific prejudiced tendencies experience and internal moral conflict. According to Devine (as cited in Tesser, 1995), Rokeach reasoned that self-dissatisfaction should arise when people are encouraged to realize that their egalitarian self-conception (i.e, their view of themselves as fair-minded, tolerant, compassionate) is inconsistent with their prejudiced values, attitudes, and/or behaviors. This self-dissatisfaction should then motivate individuals to change the prejudiced aspects of their belief system and bring their behaviors more in line with their egalitarian self-image.
Below are some ways we can do as individuals to help reduce prejudices within ourselves and in those around us.
- Acknowledge that you have learned prejudicial information about other people. Without this acknowledgment, nothing can change. Only through an acknowledgment of the prejudicial learning can the misinformation be openly discussed and dealt with in a way which is likely to bring about change.
- Confront without guilt or blame the stereotypes you have learned. To focus on either blame or guilt distracts one from the need for change. It also focuses one's attention from the present into the past and leaves one feeling helpless or powerless to make any changes.
- Make a commitment to change and make a commitment to a process of change. The commitment made to others is a stronger commitment than the one made alone or to oneself. The commitment should be to working on a change process. Simply making a commitment to change is not as likely to result in the modification of behavior as a commitment to change that includes a commitment to a process.
- Become aware of your own "self-talk" about other groups of people. Talk about where those messages came from and the messages' limiting effect with a person who will be accepting and non-judgmental. Knowing what those messages are is critical to changing them and replacing them with positive messages.
- Challenge the irrationality of the prejudicial thoughts or "self-talk" statements. Get information to disprove each prejudicial thought. Most general statements about a population of people are untrue. One only needs to look more closely to see that almost any statement about "them" will fall apart under examination. Take the time to examine and challenge the thoughts that limit or devalue other people.
- Increase your exposure to or contact with those who belong to the group(s) toward which you have learned some prejudicial stereotypes. It is always helpful to increase your exposure to people that belong to the group about which you have stereotyped thoughts. When you are doing this, be sure that you are not making contact in a way which will only affirm your stereotyped beliefs.
- Thought-stopping is a valuable process for changing one's "self-talk" about others. It is often helpful to have a pleasant image to focus upon to use as an abrupt interruption to your thoughts whenever you discover that you have started to think stereotypical thoughts about a member of another group. If you plan what image to focus upon and shift to that image very suddenly each time you think the stereotyped thought, it weakens the stereotyped thought. Your replacement image might be of something strongly positive about this group of people or about the absolute absurdity of the stereotype you learned.
- Learn how other groups see your own identity group. Learn from those in other groups how your own group is seen. This may take time because one needs to develop a trusting relationship. When their stereotypes about your own group are shared, don't defend or deny them; instead, hear them as being as likely and as valid as your own stereotypes about other groups. Let yourself understand and accept how this view might be shared and believed by those who don't have your experience.
- Learning about other groups is an important way to develop understanding. We need to learn about those groups we might feel prejudice toward. It is helpful to read about these groups in books the members of the groups have written, and it's also helpful to go out of our way to visit with members of these groups.
- Responding to prejudicial jokes is critical if we are to stand for something and identify ourselves. Initially, we need to respond to prejudicial jokes in a way that clearly communicates that we do not believe the person intended harm to others and that we personally find meaning in the joke that is harmful. It is most effective to use a "minimal non-response." That means that we make it clear that we do not appreciate the humor or find it funny, but we do not alienate the person or lose our position for future influence by overreacting.
Leadership Based vs Training Based Strategies
Leadership Based Strategies
Those who are the most prejudiced and the most likely to act in prejudicial ways are also the most concerned about the opinions of the authority figures within their environment. While we all pay attention when those who might be able to threaten us are speaking, this is a stronger characteristic of those who are highly prejudiced. The leader of the organization makes his/her personal opposition to prejudice clear and overtly apparent. The leader supports activities which will value difference and responds publicly to any overtly prejudiced acts as an attack upon the organization as a total. This approach is most effective with those who are intentionally prejudiced because of their heightened sensitivity to authority figures. The methods used do not require the involvement or consent of those who are most effected by the method. This method does not approach the most widely practiced form of prejudices, the unintentional prejudicial responses. While this approach alone may not result in lasting changes it may make possible other activities which will have lasting effects. For example, the Army had only rarely promoted women and minorities at the same rate as the overall rate of promotion. Since the goal was announced to promote minorities and women at an equal rate to the overall promotion rate, it has been met on a consistent basis (Cole, n.d.).
Training Based Strategies
Many of the habitual ways in which we see the world are prejudicial and were learned before we were able to evaluate them or make decisions. To change these ways of viewing others we need to not only become aware of these reactions as prejudiced, but we also need to practice new responses. Training is provided that will increase the participants' awareness of the dynamics of prejudice, increase their exposure to those they might be prejudiced toward and provide them with methods to use in an ongoing approach to their own prejudice reduction. This training cannot function effectively without the support of the leadership withing the organization (Cole, n.d.). This approach aims to heighten the awareness of, and the reduction of, unintentional prejudices which are the most widely used and the most overall damaging to society (Cole, n.d.). These methods are able to reduce prejudices that are not measurable or easily observable. Sometimes this method may have negative effects on the most actively prejudiced individuals and may cause or encourage prejudicial behavior from them. This problem can be avoided by not requiring participation in this training. For an example in training, engaging employees in sensitivity training can help make them more aware of their own prejudices and more sensitive to others around them.