Durham E-Theses
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Durham E-Theses How can K12 Education reduce prejudice? HUGHES, CONRAD,LAWRENCE,MARQUARD How to cite: HUGHES, CONRAD,LAWRENCE,MARQUARD (2018) How can K12 Education reduce prejudice?, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/12796/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Durham University School of Education Hatfield College EdD Doctoral Thesis Academic Year: 2017-2018 Name: Conrad Hughes ID No: Z0933010 Supervisors: Professor Steve Higgins (Principal Supervisor) Dr Anna Llewellyn (Secondary Supervisor) Title of Thesis: How can K12 Education reduce prejudice? Word Count: 59799 1 Abstract This thesis investigates how K-12 education can reduce prejudice. Firstly, I define what I mean by prejudice and explain what my research methodology is for the study. Through a conceptual examination of existing research, including theories on why people are prejudiced and what we know about prejudice reduction from social psychology, I go on to propose four areas of individual cognitive and social development in which educational strategies can act on prejudicial thinking and lessen it. These are: - Understanding beyond the other; - Critical Thinking; - Metacognitive thought; - Empathy. I also synthesise findings into two institutional approaches that are effective. These are: - The contact hypothesis; - Specific pedagogical principles that are embedded in international education. These six areas are brought together in a multi-facetted response to the problem of prejudice. The thesis problematises the construct of prejudice reduction by grappling with its complexity through a critical account of the substantial literature on the subject. This means not only contextualising studies according to the parameters of their method but also engaging with prominent discourses in associated fields in a reflexive manner. The thesis is an original contribution to knowledge in that it builds a bridge between work on prejudice in the schools of social psychology, cognitive psychology and neurobiology and K-12 education. My study offers a framework synthesising effective classroom interventions that can be adapted and adopted in a variety of contexts to combat the central operating system of prejudice formation. 2 Table of Contents Page Chapter One: Introduction 4 Chapter Two: Transcending Otherness 34 Chapter Three: Critical Thinking 71 Chapter Four: Metacognition 99 Chapter Five: Empathy 130 Chapter Six: The Contact Hypothesis 161 Chapter Seven: Principles of International Education 192 Conclusion 222 Works Cited 227 Annexes 318 3 Chapter One: Introduction This introductory chapter will take the reader through a definition of prejudice, a literature review on major publications on prejudice, theories of why people are prejudiced, how we can reduce prejudice and what the role of education might be in this reduction. The chapter gives the reader a clear idea of my ontological and methodological approach, which I justify. Definition: what is prejudice? The etymological root of the word prejudice is the Latin praejudicium, meaning ‘‘precedent’’ (Allport, 1954, p. 6) but in a modern sense the term more accurately denotes a priori, unwarranted and usually negative judgement of a person due to his or her group membership: it is a “unified, stable, and consistent tendency to respond in a negative way toward members of a particular ethnic group” (Aboud, 1988, p. 6). Prejudice comes about because of the mind’s intuitive categorisation and oversimplification of experience into manageable information (for a synthesis of studies in cognitive science that point this out, see Kahneman, 2011). This can lead to stereotyping, especially when dealing with human beings and the social categories we might use to define them (gender, ethnic origin, creed, nationality, class, political beliefs for example). Stereotyping becomes prejudice when it is hardened into a stable, judgemental and negative belief about individuals based on perceived properties of the group to which they belong. Prejudice and cognition Cognitive psychology has discussed the mind’s predisposition to overgeneralisation (Allport, 1954, pp.7-9; Kahneman, 2011; Amadio, 2014). For example, Dhont & Hodson (2014), suggest that the prejudiced person has lower cognitive ability and overgeneralises in 4 cognitively challenging situations such as ambiguity. However, this comes from a literature review of mainly self-reported cases of prejudice and is not the result of direct empirical research, it should therefore be appreciated with caution. This much said, a 2017 study in Belgium by De Keersmaeker et al. compared 183 IQ scores and self-reported racial prejudice results to show a positive corollary between lower cognitive ability and prejudice. An idea that has been investigated more thoroughly is not that which suggests that prejudice comes from lower cognitive ability but more cognitive bias that leads to over-generalisation as a type of sloppy thinking. Concepts associated with this over-generalisation include the “illusory correlation” (perceiving unfounded or untrue relationships between groups and behaviours) and the “ultimate attribution error” (mistakenly attributing negative traits to entire groups). Devine (1989) outlined a two-step model of cognitive processing whereby initial stereotype formation needs to be tempered with a conscious, cognitive effort. As such, reducing prejudice requires cognitive functioning that resists “the law of least effort” (Allport, 1954, p. 391). However, the cognitive constituents of prejudice are complex. Since prejudice begins with an exaggerated or false premise, the syllogistic thinking to elaborate arguments for the premise can be valid without the premise ever becoming true: the prejudiced mind will rationalise “beliefs held on irrational grounds” (Thouless, 1930, p. 150). Pettigrew & Meertens (1995) have suggested that one can distinguish between “subtle” and “blatant” prejudice, the former being more insidious, carefully justified and therefore less easily detectable than the latter. In other words, prejudice can disguise itself behind rational arguments. Coenders et al. (2001) criticised the study on the basis of methodological flaws, 5 most especially a neglect of interdependent items in their research. They conclude that Pettigrew & Meertens did not separate blatant and subtle prejudice in any satisfactorily empirical way, making a claim that has not been tested carefully enough. This is but one of many examples of the problems that are inherent in numerous claims about prejudice since it is a difficult construct to operationalise, most especially if one attempts to find sub-divisions of prejudice. Yet, Pettigrew & Meertens’ claim seems to ring true anecdotally since it is not difficult to think of examples of what one might term subtle prejudice (slightly negative overgeneralisations, equivocal jokes, over deterministic use of language). Prejudice and emotions Neuropsychological studies on prejudice (Olson & Fazio, 2006; Amodio & Hamilton, 2012; Amodio, 2010, 2014) have pointed to correlations between brain activity and intergroup contact that suggest strong corollaries between emotions (essentially linked to the amygdala) and perception of other groups that happen automatically and at a subconscious level. Prejudice is linked to a lack of careful self-reflection as it tends to be self-gratifying in its function (Allport, 1954, p. 12; Fein & Spencer, 1997); it is a ‘‘will to misunderstand’’ (Xu, 2001, p.281) that one uses to protect a ‘‘deep-seated system of emotions’’ (Thouless, 1930, p. 146). Prejudice often masks fear and/or anger, often with the self and as such masks ‘‘beliefs held on irrational grounds’’ (Thouless 1930, p. 150). Fiske, Cuddy, Glick and Xu (2002) have suggested that stereotyping is often predicated by strong emotional states ranging from pity and sympathy to contempt, disgust, anger and resentment (p. 881). Therefore, reducing prejudice implies a degree of self-regulation, self-criticism but also emotional regulation and emotional self-awareness. The chapter on empathy comes back to this point in more detail. 6 Prejudice and culture Prejudice is also very much embedded in cultural constructs such as language, tradition, symbolic representation and historical discourse. Critical approaches to mainstream master narratives of “Otherness”, framed in postmodern notions of power relations and alterity point out that prejudice is hidden in many cultural norms. There is theoretical and qualitative research to suggest that a necessary step towards undoing prejudicial thinking is undoing unspoken assumptions and biased representations that lurk in textbooks, language and power constructs (Radke & Sutherland, 1949; JanMohamed, 1985; Steele, 1992; Johnston & Macrae, 1994; Appia, 2005; Sen, 2006; Simandiraki,