How Essentialism Shapes, and is Shaped by, Social Realities

• In Event: 3-228 - The Essence of my Group and Yours: Using Research on Essentialism to Clarify Intergroup Processes

Integrative Statement

Criminal justice system contact is relatively common, but stigmatized (e.g., Alexander, 2012). We asked why this stigma arises and how it can be reduced. To answer these questions, we drew on theories of essentialism—the notion that some characteristics arise from innate, immutable, biologically-rooted “essences” (Medin & Ortony, 1989). Elementary-schoolers report high essentialism regarding many categories (Gelman, 2003), and these views can lead to bias against essentialized groups (Rhodes et al., 2018). We tested two hypotheses derived from this previous research: Elementary-schoolers will report essentialist views of people involved in the justice system, and providing non-essentialist frameworks will reduce stigma against incarcerated individuals. Further, while essentialism emerges across diverse cultures, social input influences essentialist views (e.g., Rhodes & Mandalaywala, 2017). The current work tests whether relationships with incarcerated individuals shape essentialist views of the justice system.

In Study 1, 24 6- to 12-year-olds with incarcerated parents and 39 children of the same age who did not know any incarcerated individuals answered open-ended questions regarding their perceptions of the justice system (e.g., “Why do you think people break the law?”) and completed a three-point essentialism scale adapted from Gelman, Heyman, and Legare (2007; Figure 1). Children in both groups reported some degree of essentialism regarding law-breaking, as demonstrated by one-sample t-tests comparing essentialism scores to the bottom of the scale (children with incarcerated parents: t(23)=8.31, p<.001; other children: t(36)=13.84, p<.001). However, children in both groups reported less essentialism regarding law-breaking than about doing “good things” (children with incarcerated parents: paired-samples t(23)=-5.06, p<.001; other children: t(36)=-5.13, p<.001). We did not find a significant difference in essentialism between children with and without incarcerated parents, a result that occurred both when we coded free responses for the presence of essentialist explanations (Χ2(1, n=57)=.075, p=.784) and when we compared responses to Gelman et. al.’s (2007) essentialism scale (t(59)=1.50, p=.138).

Study 2 sought to determine the consequences of providing essentialist versus non-essentialist explanations. This study compared 86 6- to 8-year olds and 123 adults to determine whether the influence of explanations—or the magnitude of this influence—changed across development. Participants learned about characters who were incarcerated for an essentialist reason (e.g., bad internal essence), a non-essentialist reason that attributed incarceration to the individual (e.g., bad behavior), or a non-essentialist reason that attributed incarceration to societal inequalities (e.g., poverty). Both children and adults reported more positive evaluations of people who were incarcerated for societal reasons than for individual non-essentialist reasons (children: t(85)=4.69, p<.001; adults: t(122)=4.28, p<.001) and more positive evaluations of people who were incarcerated for individual non-essentialist reasons than for essentialist reasons (children: t(85)=2.70, p=.008; adults: t(122)=4.22, p<.001). However, children also reported more favorable evaluations of the person who was incarcerated for societal reasons than did adults (t(136.41)=2.79, p=.006; Figure 2).

These findings demonstrate the tenacity of essentialist views across a range of personal experiences with the justice system. Results also suggest a potential intervention—providing non-essentialist frameworks for understanding incarceration—to reduce the stigma faced by people involved with the justice system.

Authors

• Larisa Heiphetz, Columbia University
  Presenting Author

• James Dunlea, Columbia University
  Non-Presenting Author