Many people don’t even realise that they are discriminating based on race or gender. And they won’t believe that their unconscious actions have consequences until they see scientific evidence. Here it is.
The country in which I live has laws forbidding discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, religion, sexuality or sex. We’ve come a long way since the days when the reverse was true – when homosexuality was illegal, for instance, or when women were barred from voting. But this doesn’t mean that prejudice is over, of course. Nowadays we need to be as concerned about subtler strains of prejudice as the kind of loud-mouthed racism and sexism that makes us ashamed of the past.
Subtle prejudice is the domain of unjustified assumptions, dog-whistles, and plain failure to make the effort to include people who are different from ourselves, or who don’t fit our expectations. One word for the expressions of subtle prejudice is ‘microaggressions’. These are things such as repeating a thoughtless stereotype, or too readily dismissing someone’s viewpoint – actions that may seem unworthy of comment, but can nevertheless marginalise an individual.
The people perpetrating these microaggressions may be completely unaware that they hold a prejudiced view. Psychologists distinguish between our explicit attitudes – which are the beliefs and feelings we’ll admit to – and our implicit attitudes – which are our beliefs and feelings which are revealed by our actions. So, for example, you might say that you are not a sexist, you might even say that you are anti-sexist, but if you interrupt women more than men in meetings you would be displaying a sexist implicit attitude – one which is very different from that non-sexist explicit attitude you profess.
‘Culture of victimhood’
The thing about subtle prejudice is that it is by definition subtle – lots of small differences in how people are treated, small asides, little jibes, ambiguous differences in how we treat one person compared to another. This makes it hard to measure, and hard to address, and – for some people – hard to take seriously.
This is the skeptical line of thought: when people complain about being treated differently in small ways they are being overly sensitive, trying to lay claim to a culture of victimhood. Small differences are just that – small. They don’t have large influences on life outcomes and aren’t where we should focus our attention.
Now you will have your own intuitions about that view, but my interest is in how you could test the idea that a thousand small cuts do add up. A classic experiment on the way race affects our interactions shows not only the myriad ways in which race can affect how we treat people, but shows in a clever way that even the most privileged of us would suffer if we were all subjected to subtle discrimination.
In the early 1970s, a team led by Carl Word at Princeton University recruited white students for an experiment they were told was about assessing the quality of job candidates. Unbeknown to them, the experiment was really about how they treated the supposed job candidates, and whether this was different based on whether they were white or black.
Despite believing their task was to find the best candidate, the white recruits treated candidates differently based on their race – sitting further away from them, and displaying fewer signs of engagement such as making eye-contact or leaning in during conversation. Follow-up work more recently has shown that this is still true, and that these nonverbal signs of friendliness weren’t related to their explicit attitudes, so operate independently from the participants’ avowed beliefs about race and racism.
So far the the Princeton experiment probably doesn’t tell anyone who has been treated differently because of their race anything they didn’t know from painful experience. The black candidates in this experiment were treated less well than the white candidates, not just in the nonverbal signals the interviewers gave off, but they were given 25% less time during the interviews on average as well. This alone would be an injustice, but how big a disadvantage is it to be treated like this?
Word’s second experiment gives us a handle on this. After collecting these measurements of nonverbal behaviour the research team recruited some new volunteers and trained them to react in the manner of the original experimental subjects. That is, they were trained to treat interview candidates as the original participants had treated white candidates: making eye contact, smiling, sitting closer, allowing them to speak for longer. And they were also trained to produce the treatment the black candidates received: less eye contact, fewer smiles and so on. All candidates were to be treated politely and fairly, with only the nonverbal cues varying.
Next, the researchers recruited more white Princeton undergraduates to play the role of job candidates, and they were randomly assigned to be nonverbally treated like the white candidates in the first experiment, or like the black candidates.
The results allow us to see the self-fulfilling prophesy of discrimination. The candidates who received the “black” nonverbal signals delivered a worse interview performance, as rated by independent judges. They made far more speech errors, in the form of hesitations, stutters, mistakes and incomplete sentences, and they chose to sit further away from the interviewer following a mid-interview interruption which caused them to retake their chairs.
It isn’t hard to see that in a winner-takes-all situation like a job interview, such differences could be enough to lose you a job opportunity. What’s remarkable is that the participants’ performance had been harmed by nonverbal differences of the kind that many of us might produce without intending or realising. Furthermore, the effect was seen in students from Princeton University, one of the world’s elite universities. If even a white, privileged elite suffer under this treatment we might expect even larger effects for people who don’t walk into high-pressure situations with those advantages.
Experiments like these don’t offer the whole truth about discrimination. Problems like racism are patterned by so much more than individual attitudes, and often supported by explicit prejudice as well as subtle prejudice. Racism will affect candidates before, during and after job interviews in many more ways than I’ve described. What this work does show is one way in which, even with good intentions, people’s reactions to minority groups can have powerful effects. Small differences can add up.
This is my BBC Future column from last week. The original is here.
5 thoughts on “The mechanics of subtle discrimination: measuring ‘microaggresson’”
The question is: what do we do about it? Prejudices are not simply based on skin color or gender either. Our brain makes a judgement on a person the first time we see that person and makes associations with other people we experienced, not just based on physical features but voice and speech features and body movements. And even when we are aware of our prejudices, it’s very difficult to fight that gut feeling…
If we look at this aspect of human behaviour from the more fundamental platform of psychophysiology, training the empathetic side of our human social networking system (Porges, Stephen) by deploying favourable balance in the autonomic nervous system e.g. breathing rhythm, spaciousness in eye scope, a ‘closed mind’ and ‘closed heart’ (heart rate variability) can be rapidly changed with better social interaction outcomes as in say, interviewing.
Just stop Judging. 🙂
When we judge someone. We judge ourselves as well. What goes around, comes around. Judgement is of the ego. Drop the ego, Judgement is dropped automatically. 🙂
So this is what BBC Future is doing now? Paying columnists for digging up bits and pieces of support for the latest fashionable concepts in liberal politics? It reminds me of how eugenics was fashionable to support in the 19th century, or how curing homosexuality was fashionable to support in the 50’s, or how unearthing “scientific” evidence of psychological differences in people of color is still fashionable on alt right websites.
If there’s one thing that’s certain in cognitive science it’s that most lay ideas stemming from political agendas, whatever the agenda is, are almost guaranteed to be vastly inaccurate. But these days it seems that the moment said ideas align with contemporary left-wing politics, they immediately gain scientific support. What are the chances?
Just last year a post by Vaughan Bell brought up J. L. Duarte’s concerns about lack of ideological diversity in social psychology having pretty bad impact on methodology. I was sceptical of it back then, but I’m starting to think he had a point.
Yes, social psychology has an ideological diversity problem (amongst others). Yes, it is easier to publish results which align with fashionable ideas. But whilst fashionable ideas with experimental evidence to support them can turn out to be wrong, this happens less often than it does for fashionable ideas without experimental evidence to support them.
I note that you don’t mention any specific claims in this piece that you think won’t stand up to scrutiny.