Reducing Intergroup Bias and Dsicrimination

Racial disparities have been prevalent for centuries between perceived racial groups whether these perceptions were physical in nature (such as skin color) or more psychological/philosophical in nature (as in religion, politics, etc.). recently a New York Times article put a spotlight on a study by the National Institute of Health, published in Science, which found that the awarding of research grants and research awards were affected by the racial background of the researcher, despite the fact that this type of discriminatory practice is forbidden in academia and research by both research organizations and he federal government.

The study by Ginther et al. (2011) examined the association between an applicant’s self-identified racial category (applicant to the National Institute of Health research awards) and the probability of receiving a grant from the NIH. Results of the study showed that black applicants were 10 percentage points less likely to be chosen for investigator-initiated grants from the NIH than their white counterparts, even after controlling for potential confounds such as “educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics” (Ginther et al, 2011).

This specific current event can be viewed through both the intergroup emotions theory (IET) and the intergroup threat theory (ITT). First, intergroup emotions theory claims that emotions are primarily social in nature (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2016). Following this premise, IET posits that emotions are socially functional reactions to specific events, situations, and entities. These reactions are them made psychologically important through the activation and acceptance of a social identity (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2016). The primary theoretical assumption of IET is that social categorization is the premise that dictates intergroup emotional experience (i.e., with the in-group or out-group) as people are not only unique individuals, but are also a part of multiple groups that interact on both the face-to-face level and the social category level (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2016). Emotions, in the intergroup emotions theory, are the criteria through which intergroup appraisal, and ingroup and outgroup evaluation, are performed (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2016). IET can be utilized to evaluate the potential emotional reactions to specific intergroup relations.

Applying IET to the current event mentioned above, we an see specific emotional reactions that may occur. First, the research study by Ginther et al. (2011) found that black researchers are 10 percentage points less likely to receive research grants and funding than white research counterparts. Here we can see two groups that interact with one another in the current event’s situational factors: white researchers and black researchers. We can break this down further into multiple groups. For example, we have white versus black, but everyone is a part of the group of “researchers”. So, what does IET say about the consequences of this ingroup/outgroup dynamic in the situation of receiving funding? Well, receiving funding is not necessarily the topic of focus for these ingroups and outgroups. For IET, researchers may categorize themselves via racial differences (e.g. white and black) and may evaluate their emotional reactions to not receiving funding through the interpretation of resources and advantages given to the “opposing” group.

In Ginther et al. (2011) black researchers have fewer resources and advantages applied to them for receiving funding, causing the disparity between the groups. By perceiving the awarding of research funding to the “white researchers” group as a negative action, the “black researchers” engage in an action appraisal, contemplating potential advantages the “white” group had over the “black” group, and resulting in an emotional reaction of anger or appall. The perceived appraisal of the action, according to IET, determines the final emotional reaction. In this instance, the study controls for potential confounding factors such as educational background, publication history, etc. to ensure the only difference between the groups is race, and yet, the percentage disparity remains between awards to both groups (Ginther, et al., 2011). Intergroup emotions theory states that emotional reactions to these perceived disparities come from an appraisal of stereotypes and social concepts, resulting in specific emotional reactions based on the positivity or negativity of the appraisal (Fiske & Taylor, 2017). For the black researchers in Ginther et al. (2011), perceived bias or stereotypes about their group, and the resulting positivity or negativity of the appraisal of these biases or stereotypes and their effects on awards, would illicit specific emotions such as anger or outrage, according to IET (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2016).

The other theory that can be applied to this current event is intergroup threat theory. Intergroup threat theory, or ITT, states that membership in specific social groups (and the polarization of these groups) is evolutionary in nature (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016). ITT stands on the basic premise that there are two different types of threat: symbolic and realistic (Stephan & Renfro, 2002). Symbolic threat is a threat to the meanings of the ingroup by the outgroup. These threats are challenges to another group’s morals, beliefs, and norms (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016).

On the other hand, realistic threats are challenges or concerns over a loss of power, resources, or potential harm (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016). Intergroup threats are powerful, and can activate emotions such as anger, fear, and hatred. These emotions can manifest themselves through prejudice, discrimination, biases, and stereotypes (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016). In ITT, emotions are one part of a circular model of causality in which certain characteristics of the ingroup or individual react together (or in multiple or other ways) with threats and consequences (such as emotions, cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors) to form an intergroup threat model (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016). Within ITT, emotions are both causes and consequences of intergroup threats, where certain characteristic evaluations, lead to threats, which lead to specific emotions, or specific emotions can influence the perceptions of threats, which can influence the appraisal of certain characteristics within the ingroup or between the ingroup and outgroup (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016).

Regarding the current event of black researchers receiving less research funding than white researchers, ITT can explain the way that both groups view each other before, during, and after the awarding of the funds. Furthermore, since the study by Ginther et al. (2011) controlled for a large number of confounding variables, ensuring race was the only possible difference between the groups of researchers, ITT can potentially be used to explain why the disparity in funding awards exists in the first place. According to the National Institute of Health, who commissioned the study by Ginther et al. (2011), funding awards are determined by a peer-review system in which a board of reviewers gauge the merit of potential research to provide funding to. Through intergroup threat theory behavior is a consequence of threat, and if ITT is applied to the reviewers, potential threat-behavior causality could become apparent in the award decisions by the reviewers, since the social, or “tribal”, nature of humanity is well documented (Stephan, Ybarra, & Rios, 2016).

Modern research show many approached to dealing with intergroup bias, prejudice, and stereotypes, especially on the topic of race and racism. For example, following the publication of Devine (1989), the topic of self-regulation and prejudice began to gain a wide array of attention from researchers. According to Monteith, Parker, and Burns (2016), self-regulation of prejudice focuses on the motivation, learning, monitoring, and replacement processes (among others) in recognizing and dealing with prejudicial attitudes and cognitions. Specifically, the self-regulation model of prejudice focuses on the fact that stereotypes and implicit biases can be automatically activated and used as the basis for decisions and behaviors (Monteith, Parker, & Burns, 2016). Through this self-regulation model, individuals take control of their cognitions and actively attempt to alter their automatic stereotypes and biases to create more positive biases and stereotypes to determine their behaviors (Monteith, Parker, & Burns, 2016).

A second way in which individuals can reduce intergroup bias and prejudice is through finding a common ingroup identity. As mentioned before, human beings are tribal animals and engage in social-categorization efforts automatically (possibly as a result of evolutionary benefit). By finding a common ingroup identity, the threats posed through an ingroup-outgroup comparison is replaced. Thus, the new ingroup identity, common to both individuals, becomes the primary precedent (Gaertner et al., 2016). I mentioned this strategy ins way earlier through the breakdown of black researchers versus white researchers into one group simply defined as “researchers”. The black versus white dichotomy then turns into a single ingroup of which to compare each other.

Finally, a third way to reduce intergroup bias and prejudice is to hit it early, that is, in childhood and adolescence. It is widely accepted that children and adolescents imitate what they see being performed by parents, peers, media, and others. This is known as social learning theory, that is learning through social interaction (Levy et al., 2016). This theory of learning how to engage in prejudice and bias cam from Allport in his 1954 work title The Nature of Prejudice. Research, according to Levey et al. (2016) shows that children and adolescents may not have the opportunity to engage in open discussion about topics such as race and prejudice, but that they still pick up on social cues from parents, mentors, and others on these topics, thereby influencing their behaviors. To help combat this teaching of racial bias and prejudice, social learning theory can be used to create interventions and educational programs that focus on open discussion about these topics and can facilitate positive social learning about prejudice, bias, and stereotypes.

References

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2017). Social cognition: from brains to culture (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Guerra, R., Hehman, E., & Saguy, T. (2016). A Common Ingroup Identity: Categorization, Identity, and Intergroup Relations. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 433-454). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Ginther, D. K., Schaffer, W. T., Schnell, J., Masimore, B., Liu, F., Haak, L. L., & Kington, R. (2011). Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards, Science, 333(6045), 1015-1019. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1196783

Levy, S. R., Lytle, A., Shin, J. E., & Hughes, J. M. (2016). Intergroup Emotions Theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 455-483). New York: Psychology Press.

Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2016). Intergroup Emotions Theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 149-174). New York: Psychology Press.

Monteith, M. J., Parker, L. R., & Burns, M. D. (2016). The Self-Regulation of Prejudice. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 409-432). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie and E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups, 191-207. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=b_mrvTUjjLoC&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=stephan+and+renfro+2002&ots=KGq5V-fCJG&sig=5d2xOkQQ0v2McYJa8jJfyTqGncM#v=onepage&q=stephan%20and%20renfro%202002&f=false

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup Threat Theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.) Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 255-278). New York, NY: Psychology Press.