September 22, 2010
What We Know Now about the Problem of the Century: Subtle and Blatant Prejudice
Susan Fiske
Professor of Psychology, Princeton University
What We Know Now about the Problem of the Century: Subtle and Blatant Prejudice
Susan Fiske
Professor of Psychology, Princeton University
Minutes of the Second Meeting of the 69th Year
President Varrin gaveled the 2nd meeting of the 69th year of the Old Guard to order promptly at 10:15. 98 members were present. Dick Scribner read minutes of the previous meeting. Four guests were introduced; Herb Kane introduced his wife Phyllis, Julia Coale and Lanny Jones introduced Annette Liberson and Cecilia Mathews. Membership Chairman John Schmidt explained that the packets which had been distributed to the members contained précis for 4 proposed new members, as well as corrections to previously distributed material. President Varrin informed us that Parking Permits for Lot 21 (valid 9:30-Noon on Wednesdays) were available. Next week’s speaker (a change) was announced; Margaret Geller will speak, her topic-“Click, The Universe.” Alison Lanston introduced our speaker, Susan Fiske, Higgins Professor of Psychology at Princeton and a 1973 graduate of Radcliffe, with a PhD from Harvard. She did not read the 15 pages listing papers Professor Fiske has written. In addition to her teaching and research, she has served as an expert witness in testimony cited by the Supreme Court in a landmark gender bias case, is or has been the president of several learned societies, has won several scientific awards, and in 2009 won an award for her graduate mentoring at Princeton.
Professor Susan Fiske, Higgins Professor of Psychology at Princeton presented a masterly detailed anatomy of prejudice; “The Problem of the Century.” Incorporated into the presentation were results of recent investigations as well as an experiment on the Old Guard audience itself.
She began by delineating 3 levels of prejudice; blatant, subtle, and egalitarian or absence of prejudice.
Blatant prejudice is hot and direct, and results from perceived threats to both economic status and traditional values of the in-group. The former involves issues such as jobs and welfare, and the latter touches on intimacy, and workplace hierarchy. Such bias is not just an American phenomenon involving people of color for example, but is seen in Germany versus the Turks, in France versus North Africans, in Holland versus Surinamers, and in England versus West Indians. The result of such prejudice is not only the choosing of jobs that enhance the current hierarchy but the approval of aggression to maintain the status quo. This leads to racist movements, hate crimes, and violence. Perceived threats to traditional values leads to a circle of ideas inculcated for example in right-wing authoritarianism. These include the perception of a dangerous world with collapsing authority and loss of current and past conventions. For example the idea that radical, immoral people are trying to ruin the country is present in this circle. Blatant prejudice follows, but it represents only about 10% of the population.
Subtle prejudice is a different animal. It is automatic, ambiguous and arouses ambivalent feelings. To demonstrate this automatic character, Professor Fiske engaged the audience in an experiment involving their instantaneous judgment, using favorite black and white first names, e.g. Aiesha and Bobbie-Sue, along with words describing pleasant and unpleasant things, e.g. honest and filthy. The experiment gave strong evidence to the audience of the presence of inherent bias absent conscious thought. Other evidence, including brain scans and the results of subliminal priming made it abundantly clear that there is a component to subtle prejudice that operates instantaneously and automatically. It was encouraging to hear that this component can in fact be changed, by education, and experience.
The ambiguity of subtle prejudice is illustrated by the evidence that it involves favoring the in-group more than disfavoring the out-group. In a zero-sum game, of course, this disadvantages the out-group.
Finally, the ambivalent character of subtle prejudice was argued through a diagram of random-sample survey results placing various classes of people such as rich, homeless, disabled, Irish, whites, etc. on a 2-dimensional field in which one dimension was warmth, the group’s perceived trustworthiness and friendliness, and the other, the perceived competence of the group. With the exception of the homeless, the groups fell roughly into 4 clumps. The four clumps corresponded to high and low values for each of the two dimensions. Ambivalence arises in emotions associated with the groups which have one dimension high and the other low. For example, pity, which is an emotion with both positive and negative connotations, is felt towards the disabled who are seen as warm but considered to have low competence. Envy, another ambiguous emotion, is felt for example towards the rich, who are considered competent but not regarded as warm. The homeless are a special case and they, along with drug addicts, are off the scale with respect to the 2 parameters. The groups that are seen as warm we want to help and protect; when they are not seen as warm, we are willing to attack. We want to associate with the high competence groups and tend to demean those characterized as low in competence.
These subtle prejudices are often manifest on an unconscious level, Remarkably, many of these reactions and attitudes may be observed as they occur by brain scans showing activity in various locations. Awkwardness of personal relations as well as policy decisions unfavorable to the out-group in say, housing, education and employment are well predicted in the presence of subtle prejudice.
The ideal of egalitarianism, founded on open, liberal, independent, and humanist notions is the result of experience, not just tolerance. It comes not only from education but also from truly meaningful intergroup contact, multicultural enthusiasm, shared goals, and equal status in a cooperative environment.
Questions following the talk included one on the correlation of age with prejudice (there seems to be less among the young), and another asking what human needs prejudice fills (needing to belong, making sense of the world, and establishing self-esteem). Others asked about the quality of evidence and methodology (assurances were given of the soundness and validity of a wealth of evidence for the material presented).
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Neuwirth
Professor Susan Fiske, Higgins Professor of Psychology at Princeton presented a masterly detailed anatomy of prejudice; “The Problem of the Century.” Incorporated into the presentation were results of recent investigations as well as an experiment on the Old Guard audience itself.
She began by delineating 3 levels of prejudice; blatant, subtle, and egalitarian or absence of prejudice.
Blatant prejudice is hot and direct, and results from perceived threats to both economic status and traditional values of the in-group. The former involves issues such as jobs and welfare, and the latter touches on intimacy, and workplace hierarchy. Such bias is not just an American phenomenon involving people of color for example, but is seen in Germany versus the Turks, in France versus North Africans, in Holland versus Surinamers, and in England versus West Indians. The result of such prejudice is not only the choosing of jobs that enhance the current hierarchy but the approval of aggression to maintain the status quo. This leads to racist movements, hate crimes, and violence. Perceived threats to traditional values leads to a circle of ideas inculcated for example in right-wing authoritarianism. These include the perception of a dangerous world with collapsing authority and loss of current and past conventions. For example the idea that radical, immoral people are trying to ruin the country is present in this circle. Blatant prejudice follows, but it represents only about 10% of the population.
Subtle prejudice is a different animal. It is automatic, ambiguous and arouses ambivalent feelings. To demonstrate this automatic character, Professor Fiske engaged the audience in an experiment involving their instantaneous judgment, using favorite black and white first names, e.g. Aiesha and Bobbie-Sue, along with words describing pleasant and unpleasant things, e.g. honest and filthy. The experiment gave strong evidence to the audience of the presence of inherent bias absent conscious thought. Other evidence, including brain scans and the results of subliminal priming made it abundantly clear that there is a component to subtle prejudice that operates instantaneously and automatically. It was encouraging to hear that this component can in fact be changed, by education, and experience.
The ambiguity of subtle prejudice is illustrated by the evidence that it involves favoring the in-group more than disfavoring the out-group. In a zero-sum game, of course, this disadvantages the out-group.
Finally, the ambivalent character of subtle prejudice was argued through a diagram of random-sample survey results placing various classes of people such as rich, homeless, disabled, Irish, whites, etc. on a 2-dimensional field in which one dimension was warmth, the group’s perceived trustworthiness and friendliness, and the other, the perceived competence of the group. With the exception of the homeless, the groups fell roughly into 4 clumps. The four clumps corresponded to high and low values for each of the two dimensions. Ambivalence arises in emotions associated with the groups which have one dimension high and the other low. For example, pity, which is an emotion with both positive and negative connotations, is felt towards the disabled who are seen as warm but considered to have low competence. Envy, another ambiguous emotion, is felt for example towards the rich, who are considered competent but not regarded as warm. The homeless are a special case and they, along with drug addicts, are off the scale with respect to the 2 parameters. The groups that are seen as warm we want to help and protect; when they are not seen as warm, we are willing to attack. We want to associate with the high competence groups and tend to demean those characterized as low in competence.
These subtle prejudices are often manifest on an unconscious level, Remarkably, many of these reactions and attitudes may be observed as they occur by brain scans showing activity in various locations. Awkwardness of personal relations as well as policy decisions unfavorable to the out-group in say, housing, education and employment are well predicted in the presence of subtle prejudice.
The ideal of egalitarianism, founded on open, liberal, independent, and humanist notions is the result of experience, not just tolerance. It comes not only from education but also from truly meaningful intergroup contact, multicultural enthusiasm, shared goals, and equal status in a cooperative environment.
Questions following the talk included one on the correlation of age with prejudice (there seems to be less among the young), and another asking what human needs prejudice fills (needing to belong, making sense of the world, and establishing self-esteem). Others asked about the quality of evidence and methodology (assurances were given of the soundness and validity of a wealth of evidence for the material presented).
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Neuwirth