Bogus peer consensus information shifts people’s reported racial attitudes

Evidence

Although Allport thought that the combined influence of extrafamilial pressure (e.g., peer groups, social institutions, and mass media) might sway prejudiced people’s opinions, he underestimated the power of social consensus as a force for change. Recent research suggests that changing the perception of social norms (to create consensus) can result in immediate and long-lasting changes in prejudice. Stangor, Sechrist, and Jost (2001a, 2001b) had White/European American students first indicate their beliefs about positive and negative stereotypes of African Americans, and then estimate the beliefs of fellow students at their university. One week later, they provided participants with (false) information indicating that, according to research, they had either underor over-estimated the prejudice of their peers. Because of a (bogus) “computer error,” the students were told their initial data had been lost and were asked to report their racial beliefs again. As expected, participants attitudes moved substantially in the direction of the bogus social consensus information – becoming either more positive or more negative toward African Americans depending on what the local consensus was said to be. These changes were strong and persisted for up to two weeks (Stangor et al., 2001b). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 1915

Categorization

• SEED: Article angle: how easily stated peer consensus — even fake — moves prejudice, and why this makes manufactured social proof a lever against bigotry.