Your Donation To FR Is The Fuel
That Keeps It Running!!
Click here to Donate!!
Posted on 07/07/2011 7:31:19 PM PDT by decimon
Organizations and programs have been set up all over the globe in the hopes of urging people to end prejudice. According to a research article, which will be published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, such programs may actually increase prejudices.
Lisa Legault, Jennifer Gutsell and Michael Inzlicht, from the University of Toronto Scarborough, were interested in exploring how one's everyday environment influences people's motivation toward prejudice reduction.
The authors conducted two experiments which looked at the effect of two different types of motivational intervention – a controlled form (telling people what they should do) and a more personal form (explaining why being non-prejudiced is enjoyable and personally valuable).
In experiment one; participants were randomly assigned one of two brochures to read: an autonomy brochure or a controlling brochure. These brochures discussed a new campus initiative to reduce prejudice. A third group was offered no motivational instructions to reduce prejudice. The authors found that, ironically, those who read the controlling brochure later demonstrated more prejudice than those who had not been urged to reduce prejudice. Those who read the brochure designed to support personal motivation showed less prejudice than those in the other two groups.
In experiment two, participants were randomly assigned a questionnaire, designed to stimulate personal or controlling motivation to reduce prejudice. The authors found that those who were exposed to controlling messages regarding prejudice reduction showed significantly more prejudice than those who did not receive any controlling cues.
The authors suggest that when interventions eliminate people's freedom to value diversity on their own terms, they may actually be creating hostility toward the targets of prejudice.
According to Dr. Legault, "Controlling prejudice reduction practices are tempting because they are quick and easy to implement. They tell people how they should think and behave and stress the negative consequences of failing to think and behave in desirable ways." Legault continues, "But people need to feel that they are freely choosing to be nonprejudiced, rather than having it forced upon them."
Legault stresses the need to focus less on the requirement to reduce prejudices and start focusing more on the reasons why diversity and equality are important and beneficial to both majority and minority group members.
###
For more information about this study, please contact: Lisa Legault at lisa.legault@utoronto.ca.
The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "Ironic Effects of Anti-Prejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but also increase) Prejudice" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Divya Menon at 202-293-9300 or dmenon@psychologicalscience.org.
Apparently it makes people hate whites and jews. Just judging from this country in the last 20 years
“before” (see pre-) + judicium “judgment
At some point it is prudent to make a judgment.
So there really should be a word postjudice.
I am postjudiced about Islam.
Sometimes I like to play a mind game where I try to imaging the most politically incorrect, offensive thing I could possibly say in a given situation, and imagine the reaction. I don't think such a thing would have ever occurred to me without the Janeane Garofalos of the world constantly informing me how racist I inherently am.
Perhaps that's the intent. That people can arouse emotion should be enough to arouse suspicion.
I have noticed that the earlier the government schools foist info on homosexuality onto kids, the more kids make fun of it and find it a total gross-out.
Really. Kids who do not want to imagine their parents kissing on the lips have some propagandist at school describing all sorts of naturally repulsive things. And then they wonder why one of the most common sayings of insult among kids is “that’s so gay.”
Hello. No kind of sex needs to be taught in a classroom. In fact, what a way to kill any buzz. Once it’s officially a “subject” at school, it’s viewed as just as ridiculous, stupid, worthless and worthy of mocking as every other subject crammed down unwilling students’ throats.
Does anyone not think about what it means to have millions of youngsters thinking inside “they do WHAT??” when this garbage is thrown at them. It doesn’t make them go, “Oh, I feel so tolerant now when just a few minutes ago, I was going to throw up.”
>> Article: “such programs may actually increase prejudices.”
No surprise to me.
The control freaks decided decades ago that harmless humor was no longer a laughing matter.
Every time I see a no smoking sign I want to light up....guess I’m a racist....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh yea, thanks for reminding me...
True Democrats and other libreals using the race card for the last 20 years didn’t help anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.