Psychology to deal with diversity and diversity management.ByJayadeva de Silva.M,Sc,FIPM,FITD

We would like to discuss here some psychological theories to help students of diversity management to appreciate the diversity among people and orient them towards appropriate diversity management practices and diversity training based on the psychological research findings

In-Group Bias~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~If we believe that someone else is in a group to which we belong, we will have positive views of them and give them preferential treatment. This works because we build our self-esteem through belonging, and the presence of someone from an in-group reminds us of that belonging. The opposite of in-group bias is out-group bias where, by inference, out-group people are viewed more negatively and given worse treatment.

This is the basis of racial inequality. In-group linguistic bias is whereout-group people are described in abstract terms (which deindividuates them) when they conform to the out-group stereotype. Out-group people will be referred to in more specific, concrete terms when they act in unexpected ways.

1

Psychologist Henri Tajfel visibly divided people in to random groups. They rapidly found in-group people preferable to out-group people, even finding rational arguments about how unpleasant and immoral the out-group people were. Watch children in the school yard. Notice how they form groups and how they treat those not in their gang. Make yourself and the other person a part of the same group, and they will be biased towards you (and away from anyone you cast as out-group).

Stereotypes~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stereotypes are generalizations about a group of people whereby weattribute a defined set of characteristics to this group. Theseclassifications can be positive or negative, such as when variousnationalities are stereotyped as friendly or unfriendly.

It is easier to create stereotypes when there is a clearly visible andconsistent attribute that can easily be recognized. This is why people of color, police and women are so easily stereotyped. People fromstereotyped groups can find this very disturbing as they experience anapprehension (stereotype threat) of being treated unfairly. We change our stereotypes infrequently. Even in the face of disconfirming evidence, we often cling to our obviously-wrong beliefs. When we do

2

change the stereotypes, we do so in one of three ways:

- Bookkeeping model: As we learn new contradictory information, we incrementally adjust the stereotype to adapt to the new information. We usually need quite a lot of repeated information for each incremental change. Individual evidence is taken as the exception that proves the rule. - Conversion model: We throw away the old stereotype and start again. This is often used when there is significant disconfirming evidence. - Subtyping model: We create a new stereotype that is asub-classification of the existing stereotype, particularly when we candraw a boundary around the sub-class. Thus if we have a stereotype for Americans, a visit to New York may result in us having a ‘New Yorkers are different’ sub-type.

We often store stereotypes in two parts. First there are the generalized descriptions and attributes. To this we may add exemplars to prove the case, such as 'the policeman next door'. We may also store them hierarchically, such as 'black people', 'Africans', 'Ugandans', 'Ugandan military', etc., with each lower order inheriting the characteristics of the higher order, with additional characteristics added. Stereotyping can go around in circles. Men stereotype women and women stereotype men. In certain societies this is intensified as the stereotyping of women pushes them together more and they create men as more of an out-group.

3

Stereotyping can be subconscious, where it subtly biases our decisions and actions, even in people who consciously do not want to be biased. Stereotyping often happens not so much because of aggressive or unkind thoughts. It is more often a simplification to speed conversation on what is not considered to be an important topic. Stereotyping goes way beyond race and gender. Consider conversations you have had about people from the next town, another department in your company, supporters of otherfootball teams, and so on.  Find how others stereotype you (if possible, getting them to stereotype you positively). They will have a blind spot to non-stereotyped behaviors, so you can do these and they will often ignore it. Thus if you are stereotyped as a ‘kind old man’, you can do moderately unkind things which may be ignored.

To change a person’s view of your stereotype, be consistently different from it. Beware of your own stereotyping blinding you to the true nature of other individuals. Stereotyping can be reduced by bringing people together. When they discover the other people are not as the stereotype, the immediate evidence creates dissonance that leads to improved thoughts about the other group.

(Lippmann (1922), Allport (1954))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Out-Group Homogeneity~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~We tend to classify people who are not in our in-

4

group as being similar to one another. ‘They’re all like that’ is a common reference term. In contrast, we see people in out in-group as being more individual. We thus tend to use a set of stereotypes for people from different countries, cities and companies. These generalizations lead us to discriminate uniformly towards people from these groups. When visiting a new country or group, the behavior of the first few people we meet will quickly be used to create a stereotype of the others in the same group.

Much of the fighting around the world is based on differences of religion. Zealots cast the other side as jointly and severally guilty for the sins of their peers and equally likely to commit the same acts of war. Thus genocide seems the only answer as they blindly fight on.

(Linville, Fischer and Salovey (1989), Quattrone (1986))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Propinquity Effect~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The more we meet and interact with people, the more likely we are tobecome friends with them. As we meet people we become familiar and find things we like about them. It is not so much 'birds of a feather flock together' as 'birds who just happen to be near each other grow similar feathers'. Festinger, Schachter and Back (1950) followed friendships in a small two-floor apartment building. Neighbors were mostly likely to

5

be friends. Least likely were people on separate floors. Those near ground-floor staircases and mailboxes had friends on both floors.

Friendships appear in neighborhoods, workplaces, college classes andother places where people get together. To build trust, make friends. To make friends, ensure you meet up with the target people often. To ensure you meet up, arrange your life so you repeatedly ‘bump into’ them. (Festinger (1954), Schachter and Back (1950), Zajonc (1968))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Schema~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A schema is a mental structure we use to organize and simplify ourknowledge of the world around us. We have schemas about ourselves, other people, mechanical devices, food, and in fact almost everything. Schemas can be related to one another, sometimes in a hierarchy (so a salesman is a man is a human). Schemas affect what we notice, how we interpret things and how we make decisions and act. They act like filters, accentuating and downplaying various elements. We use them to classify things, such as when we ‘pigeon-hole’ people. They also help us forecast, predicting what will happen. We even remember and recall things via schemas, using them to ‘encode’ memories.

6

Schemas appear very often in the attribution of cause. Schemas are often shared within cultures, allowing short-cut communications. Every word is, in effect, a schema, as when you read it you receive a package of additional inferred information. We tend to have favorite schema which we use often. When interpreting the world, we will try to use these first, going on to others if they do not sufficiently fit. Schemas are also self-sustaining, and will persist even in the face of disconfirming evidence. This is because if something does not match the schema, such as evidence against it, it is ignored. Some schema are easier to change than others, and some people are more open about changing any of their schemas than other people.

Other types of schema include:

- Social schemas are about general social knowledge.  - Person schemas are about individual people.  - Idealized person schemas are called prototypes. The word is also used for any generalized schema. - Self-schemas are about oneself. We also hold idealized or projectedselves, or possible selves.  - Role schemas are about proper behaviors in given situations.  - Event schemas (or scripts) are about what happens in specificsituations. - The plural of Schema is Schemas (USA) or Schemata (UK). Schemas are also known as mental models, concepts, mental representations and

7

knowledge structures (although definitions do vary--for example some define mental models as modeling cause-effect only).

Cohen showed people a videotape of a scene including a librariandrinking. The people recalled (reconstructed) it with the librariandrinking wine, because their schemas for librarians classified them asbeing more likely to drink wine. Some people dislike police because they have a schema of police as people who perceive everyone as guilty until proven innocent. Other people feel safe around police as their schemas are more about police as brave protectors. Find people's schemas around the area of interest, then either create trust by utilizing their schema or reframe to change their schema.

Become more self-aware, knowing your own schemas and why there are useful for you. When people try to change them, you can then more rationally understand whether your or their schemas are better.

(Cohen (1981), Kelley (1972), Weiner (1979, 1986), Markus (1977))

Normative Social Influence~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~There is a fundamental human need to belong to social groups. Evolution has taught us that survival and prosperity is more likely if we live and work together. However, to live together, we need to

8

agree on common beliefs, values, attitudes and behaviors that reduce in-group threats act for the common good. We thus learn to conform to rules of other people.And the more we see others behaving in a certain way or making particular decisions, the more we feel obliged to follow suit. This will happen even when we are in a group of complete strangers. We will go along with the others to avoid looking like a fool.

National culture also has a significant effect, and countries like Japanare far more likely to be influenced by more individualistic culturessuch as in the USA (although it is a testament to the power of thiseffect that it still has a massive impact here). Solomon Asch showed agroup of people a line on a card and asked them to find a matching line from a group of three lines on another card, one of which was pretty obviously the right choice. The catch was that all except one person in the group were collaborators and chose the wrong line. When it came to the ‘victim’s turn, guess what? In a range of experiments, 76% of them followed suit. The presence of just one supporter reduced this to 18%.

Fads and fashions lean heavily on normative social influence. So doracial, political and other situations of persuasion. To change aperson’s behavior, put them in a group who

9

(perhaps primed) clearly all exhibit the desired behavior. Then engineer the situation so the person must exhibit the behavior or face potential rejection or other social punishment. If they do not comply, ensure the group gives steadily increasing social punishment rather than rejecting the target person immediately. When they do comply, they should receive social reward (eg. praise, inclusion).

Where you want to do something and the group in which you currently are socially punishes you for doing it, make a conscious decision as to whether it is worth fighting back or just giving up and leaving. If they mean nothing to you, just carry on and ignore them. It can also be very heartening to watch other people resisting (and your doing so may well give heart to other doubters). (Asch (1951, 1956, 1966))

Minimum Group Theory~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Even when a people are arbitrarily assigned to unimportant groupcategories, they will still act in classic ways towards in-group andout-group people.

Tajfel (1970) randomly allocated to schoolboys to groups who ‘preferred’ paintings by Klee or Kandinsky. When asked to allocate points, they were biased toward their own group. People in a crowded elevator will silently act together to dissuade additional people from trying to get in. Find a minor

10

point of similarity with the other person and put yourself and the other person in it, with rivals in outside. Talk about ‘us and them.’

(Tajfel (1970))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Social Identity Theory~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~When we belong to a group, we are likely to derive our sense of identity, at least in part, from that group. We also enhance the sense of identity by making comparisons with out-groups. Social identity is different from personal identity, which is derived from personal characteristics and individual relationships. Breakwell (1978) studied teenage soccer fans, some of whom went to most games, whilst others did not go to games. Those who did not go to games were the most vehement about their loyalty and showed most in-group bias, presumably as they had a greater need to prove themselves as fans. 

When abroad, especially in countries which have particularly differentlanguages and cultures, we feel our nationality far more keenly than when we are at home. We will tend to band together in national groups, perhaps making comments about the strangeness of the natives. Invite the other person into a group which has characteristics that you want the other person to adopt.

(Tajfel and Turner (1986), Turner (1982), Breakwell (1978))

11

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Social Norms~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The rules that a group uses for appropriate and inappropriate values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors. These rules may be explicit orimplicit. Failure to stick to the rules can result in severe punishments, the most feared of which is exclusion from the group. A common rule is that the some norms must frequently be displayed; neutrality is seldom an option.A common group norm amongst academics is that dress is casual (with the underlying implication that what goes on in the mind is more important than what goes on the body).

Other norms include:

Injunctive Norms are behaviors which are perceived as being approved of by other people. Descriptive Norms are perceptions of how other people are actuallybehaving, whether or not these are approved of. Explicit Norms are written or spoken openly. Implicit Norms are not openly stated (but you find out when youtransgress them).

(Kelley (1955), Deutch and Gerard (1955))

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Pluralistic Ignorance

12

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Groups all have norms of attitude and behavior which are shared and which help form the identity of the group. Adopting these norms, even if you do not agree with them, is a part of the individual sacrifice that people accept as a price of group membership. It is thus possible for groups to have norms which hardly anyone agrees with, but with which everyone conforms. These situations typically occur when the norms are older than all members of the group or when one member or a small group is dominant and can force their attitudes on the rest of the group.  Prentice and Miller knew that there was abnormally high levels of student alcohol consumption at Princeton, through various eating clubs, rituals and parties that had led to a number of deaths and injuries. When they questioned students, they found many who were very worried but who joinedin the celebrations for fear of rejection.

When a lecturer asks a class 'Any questions?' there will often be adeafening silence, even if nobody understands.  (Allport (1933), Prentice and Miller (1993)_

13