1. Social Influence: Reducingthe Impact of Prejudice on Behavior Lindsey C. Levitan, PhD
Heather D. Jones
Introduction
Prejudice isoftendefinedasnegativebeliefs,
emotions,orbehavioral intentionsregardinganother
personbasedonthat person’smembershipinasocial
group(Aboud, 1988). Prejudice strengthismeasuredin
termsof itspersistence overtime,resistance to
persuasion,influence onthought,andinfluence on
behavior(Levitan,2007).
Priorresearchhas suggestedthatautomaticracial
attitudesare subjecttoaffiliative socialtuning(Sinclair,
Hardin,Lowery,& Colangelo,2005).Recentresearchhas
alsodemonstratedthe powerof social networks,orthose
close to uswithwhomwe interactregularlyanddiscuss
importantmatters.Studiessuggestthatthose inmore
heterogeneoussocial networksthoughtfullyconsider
counter-attitudinal arguments(Levitan&Visser,2008),
and have lessattitude stabilityandare lessresistantto
persuasion(Levitan&Visser,2009).It has alsobeen
suggestedthatnetworkheterogeneitydecreasesthe
likelihoodof one actingontheirviews(Levitan,2007).
Prejudices,like attitudes,are formedand
maintainedinpartthroughsocial processes.The current
researchsoughtto understandhowsocial network
compositionisrelatedtoprejudice strength.Specifically,
we examinedthe attitudinal compositionof the social
networksinwhichpeople are embeddedandexplored
howthiswas relatedtoindividual-level prejudice
strength.
Takentogether,the priorresearchsuggeststhat
the range of viewsheldbythe membersof one’ssocial
networkplaysapart in the formation,evolution,
strength,andexpressionof one’sprejudice.
Method
Participants:
 107 undergraduate studentsenrolledinan
introductorypsychologyclass
Initial Prejudice Measure:
 Attitudestowardsdifferentgroupsmeasured
usinga feelingthermometer
Social NetworkMeasure:
 Participantsnominated5social network
members,thenusedfeelingthermometersto
ate eachmember’sperceivedfeelingstowards
certaingroups
 Average perceiveddisagreementacrossnetwork
memberswasusedasan index of social network
heterogeneity
Attitude Change Manipulation:
 Participantsperformedan“editorial
evaluation.”
 Editorialscontainedpersuasive message
oppositionaltoprejudice againstAfrican
Americans
 Attitude towardAfricanAmericanswasre-
assessed,andattitude change was
determined
Political Attitude Measure:
 Participantsrankedtheirsupportof political
initiatives(ex.Implementingasmokingban)
Results
Resistance toPersuasionandSocial Network
Heterogeneity
 Regressionanalysisrevealedthatof the
participantswhowere highinprejudice,
networkheterogeneityhadapositive
relationshipwithprejudicechange (i.e.,
those inmore heterogeneoussocial
networkswere lessresistantto persuasion
than were those inmore congruentsocial
networks).
 Participantswhowere low inprejudicedid
not show anysignificanteffectof network
composition.Thisispotentiallydue toa
flooreffect.

2. Social Influence: Reducingthe Impact of Prejudice on Behavior Lindsey C. Levitan, PhD
Heather D. Jones
 Regressionanalysisrevealedthat prejudice
predictedfeelingstowardasmokingbanfor
those inmore congruentsocial networks.
However,forthose inmore heterogeneous
social networksprejudice wasnota good
predictorof feelingstowardasmokingban.
Discussion
These resultssuggestthatthose inmore
heterogeneoussocial networkshave weakerprejudices
than dothose in more congruentsocial networks.Inthe
case of prejudice againstAfricanAmericans,this
relationshipbetweennetworkheterogeneityand
prejudice strengthseemsto be particularlytrue of those
withhighlevelsof prejudice.
Those whohad higherlevelsof prejudice against
AfricanAmericanswere lessresistanttochangingtheir
viewswheninaheterogeneoussocial network.However,
presumablybecause thosewithlowlevelsof prejudice
againstAfricanAmericanswere alreadyatthe lower
thresholdof ourscale,theydidnotshowany significant
effectof networkcomposition.
For prejudice involvingsmokers,itwasfoundthat
prejudice wasonlyapredictorof feelingstowarda
smokingbanfor those inmore congruentsocial networks.
Thisindicatesthatan individual’sprejudice hasmore of
an influence onthoughtif the personisimbeddedina
more congruentsocial network.Inotherwords,havinga
more heterogeneous social networkdecreasesthe
probabilitythatanindividual’sprejudice will influence
theirthoughts/attitudes.
These resultsindicate thatthe processesinvolvedinthe
formation,maintenance,evolution,andexpressionof
prejudicesare notsolelyindividual-level processes,butalso
complex social processesinwhichthe prejudicesandbeliefs
heldbymembersof the social networkinwhichthe individualis
imbeddedare animportantcomponent.
References
Aboud,F.(1988). Children&Prejudice:The Development
of EthnicAwareness&Identity.NewYork,NY:
Blackwell.
Levitan,L.C., & Visser,P.S.(2009). Social network
compositionandattitude strength:Exploringthe
dynamicswithinnewlyformedsocial networks.
Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology,45(5),
1057-1067.
Levitan,L.C., & Visser,P.S.(2008). The impactof the
social contextonresistance topersuasion:Effortful
versuseffortlessresponsestocounter-attitudinal
information.Journal of ExperimentalSocial
Psychology,44(3),640-649.
Levitan,L.C. (2007). Givingprejudice anattitude
adjustment:The implicationsof attitude strength
and social networkattitudinal compositionfor
prejudice andprejudice reduction.The Universityof
Chicago.
Sinclair,S.,Hardin,B.S.,Lowery,C.D.,& Colangelo,A.
(2005). Social Tuningof AutomaticRacial Attitudes:
The Role of Affiliative Motivation.Journalof
PersonalityandSocial Psychology,89(4),583-592.