No abstract

Prejudice researchers have proposed a number of methods to reduce prejudice, drawing on and, in turn, contributing to our theoretical understanding of prejudice. Despite this progress, relatively few of these methods have been shown to reliably improve intergroup relations in real-world settings, resulting in a gap between our theoretical understanding of prejudice and real-world applications of prejudice-reduction methods. In this article, we suggest that incorporating principles from another field, social marketing, into prejudice research can help address this gap. Specifically, we describe three social-marketing principles and discuss how each could be used by prejudice researchers. Several areas for future research inspired by these principles are discussed. We suggest that a hybrid approach to research that uses both theory-based and problem-based principles can provide additional tools for field practitioners aiming to improve intergroup relations while leading to new advances in social-psychological theory.

Discrimination has persisted in our society despite steady improvements in explicit attitudes toward marginalized social groups. The most common explanation for this apparent paradox is that due to implicit biases, most individuals behave in slightly discriminatory ways outside of their own awareness (the dispersed discrimination account). Another explanation holds that a numerical minority of individuals who are moderately or highly biased are responsible for most observed discriminatory behaviors (the concentrated discrimination account). We tested these 2 accounts against each other in a series of studies at a large, public university (total N ϭ 16,600). In 4 large-scale surveys, students from marginalized groups reported that they generally felt welcome and respected on campus (albeit less so than nonmarginalized students) and that a numerical minority of their peers (around 20%) engage in subtle or explicit forms of discrimination. In 5 field experiments with 8 different samples, we manipulated the social group membership of trained confederates and measured the behaviors of naïve bystanders. The results showed that between 5% and 20% of the participants treated the confederates belonging to marginalized groups more negatively than nonmarginalized confederates. Our findings are inconsistent with the dispersed discrimination account but support the concentrated discrimination account. The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Our results suggest that the Pareto principle also applies to discrimination, at least at the large, public university where the studies were conducted. We discuss implications for prodiversity initiatives.

Discrimination has persisted in our society despite steady improvements in explicit attitudes toward marginalized social groups. The most common explanation for this apparent paradox is that due to implicit biases, most individuals behave in slightly discriminatory ways outside of their own awareness (the dispersed discrimination account). Another explanation holds that a numerical minority of individuals who are moderately or highly biased are responsible for most observed discriminatory behaviors (the concentrated discrimination account). We tested these two accounts against each other in a series of studies at a large, public university (total N = 16,600). In four large-scale surveys, students from marginalized groups reported that they generally felt welcome and respected on campus (albeit less so than non-marginalized students) and that a numerical minority of their peers (around 20%) engage in subtle or explicit forms of discrimination. In five field experiments with eight different samples, we manipulated the social group membership of trained confederates and measured the behaviors of naïve bystanders. The results showed that between 5 and 20% of the participants treated the confederates belonging to marginalized groups more negatively than non-marginalized confederates. Our findings are inconsistent with the dispersed discrimination account but support the concentrated discrimination account. The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Our results suggest that the Pareto principle also applies to discrimination, at least at the large, public university where the studies were conducted. We discuss implications for pro-diversity initiatives. This paper has not been published.

Purpose Despite more than half a century of academic research, relatively few methods have been shown to reliably improve intergroup relations in the real world. This paper aims to use a social marketing approach to design a pro-diversity intervention in a university setting. Design/methodology/approach We conducted extensive qualitative, quantitative and observational background research to identify elements that would increase the effectiveness of the intervention. Focus groups and surveys allowed us to identify a target audience, target behaviors and the relevant barriers and benefits. Findings The background research suggested increasing inclusive behavior would have a greater impact than reducing discriminatory behavior. Based on this research, this paper determined an optimal target audience was students who had relatively positive attitudes toward diversity but engaged in few inclusive behaviors. This paper used relevant theories from the behavioral sciences to design an intervention that promoted a small set of inclusive behaviors and that addressed the relevant barriers and benefits. The intervention took the form of a single page of targeted messages that instructors can add to their course syllabi. The page communicates injunctive and descriptive norms, highlights the benefits of behaving inclusively and provides concrete behavioral advice. Originality/value The research applies the social marketing approach to a novel domain. This approach represents a new way to advance diversity, equity and inclusion through promoting inclusive and reducing discriminatory behavior.