Media in intergroup relations Implications for society.

Media in intergroup relations

Implications for society

Categorization

Though rarely discussed, the first and necessary step in the development of group evaluations (including prejudice) is the definition/social construction of a group/category of people All categories are in some sense constructed Basis for category may be biological,

ideological/cultural, personality-related Membership may be assigned or chosen

Categorization

No categories, even the most “obvious” are inherently and absolutely valid. Some degree of social construction always exists. Sex (gender) Race Class Religion Occupation Nationality

Categorization

The more distant from a biological basis group membership becomes, the more “constructed” one might say they are “Ideological work” must be done to make

categories “real”--that is, to give them meaning

Regardless of their original basis, categories take on “excess meaning” through the processes of formation and application

Excess meaning

Categories take on meaning beyond the original characteristics and/or reasons for their formation In-group bias Formation of the “other” Function/power value of representations

Factors that affect excess meaning

Personal experience with ‘member’ of group Upbringing Status hierarchy History of intergroup relations Cultural heritage

Religion

Intergroup interactions Frequency Goals Rules of interaction

Individual’s group position

Excess meaning Powerholder advantage in “naming” Universalizing of individual characteristics

of those in direct contact with majority, etc. Group actions interpreted

“Psychologizing” interpretations Group conflict

Assignment of blame to groups

Note: assigned characteristics may be false

Groups may be perceived in a false light Misinterpretation of behavior, actions Majority, power groups need for explanation

that jibes with social action either by ingroup or outgroup

Widespread distribution of biased depictions economic logic of media representations

Slight group tendencies magnified by categorization process

Blaming the victim

Assignment of group characteristics to individuals

Group characteristics are assumed to be inherent in “typical” group members

“Stereotyping” The expectation that individuals will exhibit

characteristics assigned to the category or group Overprediction from statistical tendencies

Tversky and Kahneman “Resonance” a la Gerbner “Function” of individual-level explanations

Attribution

Assigned group characteristics and consequent assumptions about individuals based on their perceived membership in a group serve as explanations for social events and actions

“Psychologizing” tendency in the U.S. “Fundamental attribution error”

A hierarchy of categories

Within memory, categories are assigned a position relative to each other Relative importance (salience)

situational salience social/historical salience

Relations among categories “cross pressures” mutual reinforcement

Positioning may be fluid

Categories have social influence

Subjects often are called upon to locate themselves as either members or nonmembers Widely observed attitudes and beliefs based on

group memberships Processes of bias in behavior seem to be nearly

automatic Theorists have tended to assume anti-outgroup biases, but

pro-ingroup may be more valid

Original categorizations may lead to spiraling effects

Sherif

Studying categorization schemes

One can study categorization and category schemes from a number of perspectives

Historical—every means of categorizing people has a history Events Historic forces

Political economy Classes (power distribution) Technological and social structures Government role in group power

Studying categorization schemes

Cultural analysis Embedded in culture/ideology

Religion

Cultural processes that make and remake ‘groups’ Psychological

Learning of group distinctions, characteristics Biologically based differences ‘Innate’ beliefs and actions based on group

membership, non-membership Impact of categorization on group members

Studying categorization schemes

Social psychological Attitudes and their learning, etc. Intergroup relations

Organizational Intergroup relations in the operation of

organizations Gender bias—glass ceilings

Elite theory

Power groups control means of societal communication, manipulate content in favor of prejudice, etc. to maintain their position. Marginal voices blocked from media/social communication structure.

Market bias theory

Media markets favor portrayals that cater to popular prejudices. Marginalized groups cannot develop economically viable media. Those with money will not invest in less profitable ventures that would cater to marginalized groups (not enough people/money to make advertising to them worthwhile).

Critical cultural study The definition of the “other” serves to justify

the distribution of power and wealth, reassure the majority and adjust minority groups to their fate. Political/social discussion takes place within presupposed “truths” of which race and ethnic categories are one significant part.

“Otherness” allows majority to explain inequality, ignore legitimate demands and blame victims for their own victimization. Exoticism

Mainstream, liberal pluralist research

Media depictions have varied impact on prejudice, with effects both supporting and opposing stereotyping. Prime-time depictions reflect rather than drive

overall cultural forces Media portrayals range from negative

stereotypical to liberatory depictions Critique of white racism Invisibility Subtle racism

Mainstream approach

Negative depictions lead to both prejudice against, and low self-esteem among, denigrated groups

Questions of categorization and media

Do media depictions lead, follow, both or neither nature of depictions

What impact do media have in group interactions, both cognitive and behavioral?

Is media fare “read into” a set of socially structured interpretations based on categorization?

Categorization schemes

Race Ethnicity

Gender Class Sexual preference Age Religion Nationality Subculture

‘Positive’ effects of media

Diffusion of information on race/sex, etc. topics

Exposure of segregation, bias, hate crimes, etc.

Pressure on government to address discrimination, etc.

Media campaigns against racism Modeling of positive intergroup

associations, attitudes, etc.

‘Positive’ effects of media

Production and dissemination of content opposing racism, genderism, heterosexism, etc. Exposure of hate crimes, etc. Depiction of groups in non- or counter-stereotypical

ways Preservation of subcultures Development of community among group

members In-group solidarity

‘Negative’ effects of media

Stereotypic characterizations Many content analyses have identified sexist,

racist, etc. depictions Generation of a culture of prejudice

Viewer acceptance of images Reduced concern over plight of minorities

Depiction of “causes” of group troubles “Explains” poverty, health and crime

problems, lower status jobs, etc.

Negative effects of media

Modeling of intergroup prejudice, discrimination and even violence Depictions may have antisocial effects if

perpetrators are attractive, rewarded, etc. Even negative depictions may have troubling

effects given that they still depict a certain reality, set of loyalties based on difference, etc.

Potential unintended effects

Acts to legitimize categories, maintain and disseminate meaning attached to them

Introduces categories, associated meaning to cultures, societies where they do not currently exist

Influences self-conception Imposition of positive/negative evaluations Choice of affiliations according to social

evaluation of groups

Potential unintended effects

Depicts intergroup conflict as deep-seated, basic, unending, and ‘natural’ Does in-group bias lead to discrimination

without prejudice? “Boomerang” effect of providing support

to racist/sexist ideas as content is “selectively” attended to, interpreted, etc. All in the Family

Historical change

Depictions of African Americans, especially, have increased and become more positive However, Entman points out that relatively

subtle forms of racism may well be at work

Gender

Change in gender roles has not been as significant, and more recent treatment of women has played to the ‘sex object’ depiction quite heavily Rather than put an end to such treatment for

women, depictions of men have begun to emphasize physical attractiveness to a much greater extent

Latinos/Hispanics

Latinos and Hispanics remain heavily underrepresented in the media With some notable exceptions, portrayals of

Latinos and Hispanics is concentrated in Spanish-language media

Some evidence of overrepresentation in law enforcement and criminal roles

Additional groups

Native Americans Often treated as pastoral, nature-worshiping

Rarely depicted

Asian groups Relatively rare appearances Heavy emphasis on martial arts

Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgender

Much more commonly depicted than in the past

Presentations now far less stereotypical Gay jokes, etc. still fairly common

The most stereotypical representations

Arabs are especially poorly represented in the media Despite clear attempts in nonfiction media

and, to a lesser extent in fictional media, to combat stereotypes Terrorists Exotics Religious fanatics