Dec 19, 2017 · Question 38 0 out of 2 points Most organizations find they can decrease group prejudices most effectively by what? Selected Answer: emphasizing that “we treat all people the same” Answers: organizing a series of competitions between one group and another urging all people to avoid seeming prejudiced emphasizing that “we treat all people the same”
Oct 14, 2015 · Section Four: Prejudice-Reduction Interventions . Having summarised some of the important theoretical contributions to prejudice-reduction, I will now present a summary of the main types of interventions with evidence on effectiveness, drawing on case studies and suggesting some principles which may be usefully applied elsewhere.
Jan 24, 2022 · Prejudice in Society. Sometimes it feels like prejudice is everywhere, regardless of the groups involved, the degree of conflict, and the openness or secretiveness of prejudiced beliefs and actions.
for each of the following strategies for reducing prejudice, understand: A. the strategy. B. whether the strategy targets cognitive processes, cultural messages, emotions, or a combination. C. why the strategy is effective. 1. cross- group friendship: - targets cultural messages and cognitive processes. - one outgroup friend/family member creates a more positive attitude.
Educational prejudice-reduction initiatives build on contact theory through the premise that activities such as cooperative learning; discussion and peer influence; instruction; and multi-cultural curriculum will help to reduce prejudice in a way that contact alone might not be sufficient to . Educational initiatives are concerned with promoting positive relations through challenging stereotypes and 'myths' about out-groups. This may involve groups being in direct contact with each other, for example pupils from different faith schools taking part in shared learning, or peer discussion between different groups on topics that might be said to create divisions and tensions (such as certain historical events).
Emphasising the links between the different prejudice-reduction techniques, Aboud et al (2012) suggest that media could represent a useful alternative or addition to contact, for instance in cases in which direct contact between different groups is not feasible:
For the purposes of summary and analysis, the interventions that are most frequently studied and that are useful for this report can be roughly divided into three categories: 1 Educational strategies (including but not limited to school-based interventions) 2 Short-term diversity training courses 3 Media campaigns
In many ways, the interventions discussed in the previous section could be termed 'diversity training' because the objective is to help people value diversity, as opposed to fearing difference - a key cause of prejudice. This section, however, looks at more short-term and isolated diversity training programmes, rather than focused and longer term interventions targeted at certain populations. These often take place in corporate workplaces, and with adults as opposed to children and adolescents, though some do focus on younger people. This type of training comes in many forms, with some 'instructional' in nature such as showing movies or delivering lectures, and others encouraging interactive activities such as role plays and discussions. Diversity training may involve group discussions about 'difference', based on the same values which are at the heart of educational initiatives: overcoming ignorance; expressing hidden assumptions; and feeling empathy for other groups or individuals (Paluck 2006: 581). Diversity training is an industry with huge levels of investment, yet as Abrams (2010) comments, there is "almost no adequate evaluative research" (74). Following a discussion of the general theoretical concerns with short-term diversity training, this section will draw on two case studies of applied prejudice-reduction interventions to explore the strengths and weaknesses of this type of approach. The first empirical example took place in Australian workplaces with adults, and the second in the UK with children and adolescents in school and community settings.
The final real-life case study is an intervention developed and tested as part of a psycho-educational initiative at various universities across the United States. Souweidane's (2012) 'An Initial Test of an Intervention Designed to Help Youth Question Negative Ethnic Stereotypes' was based on perspective-taking principles and the idea of reducing prejudice by challenging stereotypes. 192 high school students (from two schools with high concentration of Arab American and Jewish American students) took part, and were divided into 'immediate intervention', 'delayed intervention', and 'control group'. Pre and post-test surveys as well as observations were used to test effectiveness of the intervention. Part of the activities included using media to talk about stereotypes - for example, looking at websites such as 'Facing History and Ourselves' to learn more about the history of anti-Semitism.
It is reasonable to suggest that, at best, media campaigns might be deemed effective in relatively 'vague' ways. However it is possible to draw from the available evidence some suggestions of what is most likely to have positive effects and least likely to potentially 'backfire'. Given the popularity of such campaigns, effectiveness might be increased by taking into account some of the lessons discussed in this section.
The campaign's objectives were to celebrate multiculturalism, create empathy for victims of racism, and state a moral appeal for equality and tolerance. However, a retrospective evaluation carried out by Sutton et al (2007) found that the campaign was not based on the key theories and evidence from the social-psychological literature and empirical studies. One significant consequence of this was that the campaign conformed to minority ethnic stereotypes, such as 'Asian shopkeepers and doctors and Black footballers' (47). Theory tells us that prejudice-reduction interventions can backfire if they are regarded as 'favouring' certain groups, or if they reinforce stereotypes, yet this does not appear to have been fully appreciated. This is a common problem with media interventions in general. The authors also discuss some of the media campaigns on racism in football, noting that:
There are also many techniques that work to decrease prejudice through emotional methods: 1 Perspective asking uses role-playing to help members of one group act out and argue the perspective of a conflicting group. In doing so, they gain a sense of understanding and even allegiance with that group. 2 Empathy is a technique that involves asking someone to imagine their life as if they were part of the other group.
The contact approach is a group-based technique that increases contact between members of conflicting groups in a positive environment. Social psychologists testified before Congress regarding the contact approach, which helped end segregation.
Cooperative learning teaches different parts of a lesson or process to different groups, then requires them to teach each other. Competitive cooperation breaks up groups to form diverse teams. Then people from the different groups must work together to win against the other teams.
Self-affirmation is a technique that helps raise a biased person's self-esteem so they don't need to put others down to feel better. Lesson Summary. While prejudice is a problem we face in society, there are ways to address it and improve cooperation among many different groups.
Prejudice in Society. Sometimes it feels like prejudice is everywhere, regardless of the groups involved , the degree of conflict, and the openness or secretiveness of prejudiced beliefs and actions. Too often, we may hear others agree to the problem but say there's nothing that can be done to change it. Fortunately, they are misinformed.
Communication is the basic tool that the organization can use to unite people. Use inclusive and valuing language and quote diverse sources. Learn and apply the cultural etiquette of your members. Learn to read different nonverbal behaviors. Do not assume common understanding and knowledge of unwritten rules. Prohibit disrespectful name -calling and use of stereotypes. Respect and use personal names. Use humor appropriately -- laugh with each other, not at each other. If humor strikes a sour note, the person bothered should make their feelings known.
Integrate aspects of different cultures into all activities, rather than holding isolated "international dinners," for example. Most activities lend themselves to a multicultural approach: social events, sports, street fairs, talent shows, campaigns, neighborhood improvement projects, demonstrations, and lobbying efforts. Consciously develop projects that people from different cultures can work on together. Conduct special activities to educate everyone about different cultural concerns -- e.g. forums, conferences, panels, and organized dialogues. If activities are not attracting a diverse crowd, try running special events geared specifically to different groups, led and organized by representatives of these groups. The organization or community populations should determine the issues and events that they feel are important, so don't assume you know what is best.
Organizations have a "culture" of policies, procedures, programs, and processes, and incorporate certain values, beliefs, assumptions, and customs. Organizational cultures largely echo mainstream culture in its sense of time orientation, perception, and use of time.
It can also minimize real or perceived tokenism, paternalism, and inequality among the people who join later. Recognize that changing the appearance of your membership is only the first step in understanding and respecting all cultures. Develop and use ground rules that establish shared norms, reinforce constructive and respectful conduct, and protect against damaging behavior. Encourage and help people to develop qualities such as patience, empathy, trust, tolerance, and a nonjudgmental attitude.
The most important actions to be conscious of are usually the ones we take for granted. For instance, physical distance during social interactions varies by culture. If a staff member of an organization routinely touches the arm of whomever she is talking to, this might be misread in some cultures.
Become aware of the cultural diversity of the organization. Try to understand all its dimensions and seek the commitment of those involved to nurture cultural diversity. Address the myths, stereotypes, and cultural differences that interfere with the full contribution of members .
Share the work and share the power. Create systems that ensure equity in voice, responsibility, and visibility for all groups. The usual hierarchy with a group or leader in charge may create a power inequity, so create a decision-making structure in which all cultural groups have a voice at all levels. Find ways to involve everyone using different kinds of meetings, such as dialogue by phone, mail, or e-mail. Structure equal time for different groups to speak at meetings. Develop operational policies and programs that confront and challenge racism, sexism, and other forms of intolerance. Conduct criticism/self-criticism of meetings to build a common set of expectations, values, and operating methods.
By drawing from a culturally diverse talent pool, companies benefit from hiring professionals with a broad range of skills that are often not accessible when hiring locally. Globally oriented companies can add to their service range by leveraging the skills and experience their international employees bring to the table.
Colleagues from different cultures can also bring with them different workplace attitudes, values, behaviors, and etiquette. While these can be enriching and even beneficial in a diverse professional environment, they can also cause misunderstandings or ill feelings between team members.
Local market knowledge and insight makes a business more competitive and profitable. Cultural sensitivity, insight, and local knowledge means higher quality, targeted marketing. Drawing from a culturally diverse talent pool allows an organization to attract and retain the best talent.
Written by Hult contributing blogger Katie Reynolds who is a freelance writer based in London. Originally from Michigan in the U.S., she relocated to the U.K. in 2010 to pursue a master’s degree at Hertford College, Oxford. Today, she writes on topics including business, higher education, healthcare, and culture.
A multicultural workforce can give an organization an important edge when expanding into new markets. Often, a product or service needs to be adapted to succeed overseas. Understanding local laws, regulations, and customs, as well as the competitive landscape, can help a business to thrive.
Diverse teams are more productive and perform better. Greater opportunity for personal and professional growth. Challenges: Colleagues from some cultures may be less likely to let their voices be heard. Integration across multicultural teams can be difficult in the face of prejudice or negative cultural stereotypes.
Professional communication can be misinterpreted or difficult to understand across languages and cultures. Navigating visa requirements, employment laws, and the cost of accommodating workplace requirements can be difficult. Different understandings of professional etiquette. Conflicting working styles across teams. 1.
Bypassing rational and logical thinking, we rapidly sort people into groups, thinking we are using these processes effectively and often calling them “intuition.” However, the categories we use to sort people are not actually logical and perhaps not even legal.
About the author: Kathy is the Director of Leadership and Organizational Development for InfoPro Learning. Prior to InfoPro Learning, she was the founder and senior partner of a global leadership development company for more than 20 years.
Group polarization. You'd think that a group would tend to moderate individual points of view. In fact, the opposite often occurs: In a phenomenon known as group polarization, deliberation can intensify people’s attitudes, leading to more extreme decisions.
Devil’s advocate. A person or team charged with taking the less popular side of an issue can help guard against mindless conformity. Diversity in decision-making meetings. People from different functions or with different backgrounds may help counter conformity and group polarization. Advance collection of opinions.