A critical analysis of Jessica Salvatore and J PDF

Preview

Summary

Intro Psych; the cognitive effects of racial prejudice...

Description

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

A critical analysis of Jessica Salvatore and J. Nicole Shelton’s “Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice.” Miles, M. Emily. Douglas College PSYCHOLOGY 1100-011

1

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

2

Abstract In this essay I will be critically analyzing Jessica Salvatore and J. Nicole Shelton’s research article on the cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. In this article we are introduced to the issue of discrimination on ethnic minority groups and how it affects their social and cognitive functioning. They briefly describe and give examples of the differences in white and black people’s experiences and behavior when presented with racial prejudice. The main purpose of Salvatore and Shelton’s research article was to identify the effect of different types of racial prejudice and how it is linked to a depletion of cognitive functioning.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

3

A critical analysis of Jessica Salvatore and J. Nicole Shelton’s “Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice.” This essay will be analyzing and explaining the findings of Jessica Salvatore and J. Nicole Shelton’s 2007 study on how discrimination to minority groups is detrimental to cognitive social and functioning skills. We are first going to look at the different forms of prejudice that people are faced with in everyday life. To understand the societal effects on someone’s functioning, look at the three types of prejudice. There is either none, ambiguous or blatant prejudice. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] Ambiguous prejudice is focused on multiple different aspects and effects of environment and can sometimes be hard to critically dictate. Blatant prejudice would relate to direct cues and predecessors that would ultimately lead to social bias in situations of racial discrimination. Salvatore and Shelton then move on to explain the social disparities that lead to a very openended and vast difference in the inequities’ that white people face compared to those of black people. The findings of [ CITATION Pin99 \l 4105 ] show that due to white prejudice being less apparent than black prejudice, this has led to white people lacking the ability to perceive the two types of prejudice or if there is any at all. This makes sense because as a black person you are of higher susceptibility to facing racial discrimination than that of a white person. This susceptibility to the types of prejudices results in black people forming stigmatization of prejudices and avertedly forming and maintaining a coping function. [ CITATION Cro89 \l 4105 ] Thus, white people when compared to black people have shown an inability to recognize discrimination. This being due to the rate at which prejudice is more apparent in the lives of black people over white people. [ CITATION Pin99 \l 4105 ] It is apparent that insensitivity to the issue of these prejudice’s is of higher volume in white people’s

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

4

lives rather than black people’s. It also results in a higher rate of cognitive disruption [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] in black people compared to white people. The Stroop test, created to measure cognitive flexibility and selective attention in subjects [ CITATION Hom03 \l 4105 ] is used in this research study to help identify the cause of impairment of cognitive functioning when introduced to the different types of prejudice previously mentioned. Types of Prejudice Ambiguous and blatant prejudice. As previously explained in the introduction, these two types of prejudice will lead to a change in cognitive ability to cope, recognize and perceive racial discrimination. Ambiguity refers to the idea that there is a multifaceted experience when put in societal situations that involve racism. There are different aspects that come into play when someone is faced with ambiguous discrimination. One of them being the distrust or reservation of a minority group individual when dictating and perceiving peer’s actions. [ CITATION Cro89 \l 4105 ] As previously mentioned as well, forms of prejudice lead to the forming of coping mechanisms used to help minorities be psychologically prepared. [ CITATION Pin99 \l 4105 ] Blatant prejudice refers to direct and obtrusive racial discrimination that minorities will experience. And although you would think of blatant prejudice being the higher damaging psychological distressor, ambiguous prejudice is the more detrimental of the two. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] The reason for this comes from [ CITATION Maj02 \l 4105 ] findings from experimental social psychology. They stated that ambiguity causes “high levels of distress” and “consumption of cognitive resources”. It is easy to see the link between being unable to effectively identify prejudice and social/ psychological effects on people.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

5

White versus Black Experiences Since white people suffer from social racial discrimination far less than black people do [ CITATION Pin99 \l 4105 ], it is apparent of how these two racial groups differ in their ability to process prejudice. E.C Pinel states that white people’s experience with racial discrimination is very “infrequent” and leads to white people rarely “viewing themselves as social targets”. Even in modern times, insensitivity in advantaged groups is highly apparent. Now to look at minorities or disadvantaged groups abilities to recognize and deal with prejudice, you will see a drastic change in how the two groups differ on perception of prejudice. When faced with the inability to decipher prejudice, disadvantaged groups showed a depletion of cognitive effort and function in relation to coping mechanisms. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] Salvatore and Shelton continue to state that short term exposure to ambiguous form of discrimination is more detrimental than that of blatant discrimination. Processing Prejudice The reasoning for cognitive impairment in terms of different types of prejudice can be described best when speaking about emotional and psychological effects. Research conducted by G. Weary and J.A Edwards on causal uncertainty, along with Salvatore and Shelton’s study shows the direct link between negative effects on cognitive functionality and ambiguous prejudice. This is not to say that blatant prejudice is not an attributing factor as well [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] but the effects and rate of ambiguous discrimination is more prevalent than blatant discrimination. Cognitive Impairment in Comparison to Different types of Prejudice Now that the main idea and theory has been explained we can move to the study. The hypothesis of Salvatore and Shelton was that “higher-level cognitive function” would differ

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

6

greatly in different areas for advantaged and disadvantaged groups. As previously mentioned, the ambiguous prejudice compared to blatant was expected to have higher failings when attributed to the Stroop test. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] In the experimental procedure there were two main independent variables. The first being the use of the Stroop test to interfere with test subject’s cognitive interpretation and functioning, the second being the use of a black job candidate and a white evaluator or “human resources officer.” [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] By testing ambiguous discrimination alongside blatant discrimination this enabled the researchers to actively decipher the results from the 122 black test subjects and the 128 white test subjects. The experimental procedure that was used was a doubleblind procedure. This is when neither the participants nor the experimenter is aware of who is given which description. In this case it would have been the candidates and human resources officer, and what race they were. The subjects were told they would be helping choose a candidate for a job, along with descriptions made by the company’s human resources representative. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ] In Salvatore and Shelton’s study the experimenter leaves the room and the subjects then perform the Stroop test while the experimenter is gone, and it isn’t until the experimenter returns that they completed reviewing the job descriptions and were then debriefed. By creating four candidates varying in academic and employment skills and qualities, along with racial ques, the levels of the variables previously stated were manipulated, as you can see in Figure 1 of Salvatore and Shelton’s research article. The recommendations of the human resources representative also alluded to the decisions of the subjects. In Figure 1, Salvatore and Shelton’s predictions were right. That out of the subjects, the black subjects showed higher depletion of

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE

7

cognitive functioning when faced with ambiguous discrimination condition, whereas white subjects showed depletion higher when there was blatant discrimination condition. To add, the comments that subjects reviewed by the human resources representative was a contributing factor in the variance of results using a 2 x 2 x 3 evaluation of (subject’s race x evaluator’s race x prejudice condition). This alines well with the study by R.S Baron and M.L Inman’s Influence of prototypes on perceptions of prejudice, 1996. [ CITATION Sal07 \l 4105 ]

Conclusion Finally, the findings in Salvatore and Shelton’s study although brief, have proven to be sufficient and succinct in their findings. From my perspective, the implications on cognitive functioning of minority groups due to ambiguous racial prejudice is that by being a minority group and having to deal with not only blatant discrimination but ambiguous discrimination throughout a life time, does in fact set up a person or group for detrimental effects to not only one’s ability to actively identify and decipher racial discrimination in society but also the psychological effects that it may have on a person’s self-esteem, social skills and mental health. To inherently deal with such interference, it is clear why so many self-induced issues people deal with are stemming from their environmental setting and societal cues.

References

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF COGNITIVE COSTS OF EXPOSURE TO RACIAL PREJUDICE Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630. Homack, S., & Riccio, C. (2003). The meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of the Stroop color and Word test with Children. Archives of Clinical NeuroPsychology. Inman, M., & Baron, R. (1996). Influence of prototypes on perceptions prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,, 70, 727-739. Major, B., Quinton, W., & McCoy, S. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pinel, E. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128. Salvatore, J., & Shelton, J. N. (2007). Cognitive Costs of Exposure to Racial Prejudice. Weary, G., & Edwards, J. (1994). Individual differences in causal uncertainty. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 308-318.

8...