How to Cook Rice: A Review of Ingredients for Teaching

anti-Prejudice ap_15 55..64

Anne Pedersen,1 Iain Walker,1 Yin Paradies,2 and Bernard Guerin3

1
Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia, 2University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, and 3University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia

There is a pressing need to address prejudice, racism, and discrimination against marginalised groups in Australia. This involves change from the
structural to the individual level. In this article, we discuss the merits of individual anti-prejudice mechanisms within the Australian context. First,
we expand on nine mechanisms described in a previous paper and then review five new mechanisms. We conclude that while some mechanisms
are likely to be useful regardless of location, others need to be tailored to the local context. We also conclude that effective interventions need
to utilise multiple mechanisms. It is hoped that the synthesis of the different mechanisms provided here will assist anti-prejudice researchers,
practitioners, and policymakers striving to improve relations among different groups in our society.
Key words: attitudes—beliefs and values; inter-group processes; peace psychology—peace education; political psychology; social issues;
racism.

In a previous article, Pedersen, Walker, and Wise (2005) wrote in precisely the same way in other nations (Dunn, Forrest,
of an old Chinese proverb, “Talk does not cook rice.” By this, Burnley, & McDonald, 2004; Forrest & Dunn, 2007).
they suggested that instead of just talking or theorising about
prejudice reduction, social action should be taken. Many prac- Fourteen Mechanisms to Reduce Prejudice
titioners, however, are not familiar with effective mechanisms
to reduce prejudice. In this present article, we review the We now present 14 mechanisms for reducing prejudice and
primarily Australian literature on how to reduce prejudice racism in individual and interpersonal contexts. We update
successfully. In other words, we write of the “ingredients” what we now know about the first nine that were first pre-
(mechanisms) of successful anti-prejudice interventions. sented in Pedersen et al. (2005) and provide a more detailed
Pedersen et al. (2005) pointed to nine primary mechanisms discussion of the remaining five.
that could be employed in anti-prejudice interventions. The
present article significantly updates that review, presenting The Provision of Information
more evidence of the effectiveness of these nine identified
mechanisms. The present article then discusses five new mecha- While giving people correct information about marginalised
nisms, not outlined in the earlier article, along with evidence of groups usually seems the most sensible way of reducing preju-
their effectiveness. dice (for instance, through some approaches to cultural aware-
For the purposes of this article, we use the term “prejudice” to ness training), there are various limitations to consider with this
refer to “a negative evaluation of a social group or a negative approach. First, this mechanism rarely works when delivered in
evaluation of an individual that is significantly based on the isolation; just giving information does not change behaviour.
individual’s group membership” (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003, Such a mechanism has also been criticised for homogenising
p. 414) and “racism” as race-related forms of such prejudice. and essentialising cultural and minority groups, and can have
Although beyond the scope of this article, we note that the an unintended effect of confirming negative stereotypes or
structural elements of oppression are considered elsewhere (see inventing new ones (Fozdar, Wilding, & Hawkins, 2009).
Donovan & Vlais, 2006; Paradies et al., 2009). The focus here is However, in conjunction with other mechanisms, it has the
therefore mostly on education; that is, how to implement indi- potential to be effective.
vidual and interpersonal interventions to reduce prejudice. As Providing accurate information is also known as dispelling
much as possible, we concentrate on Australian research since “false beliefs” (Pedersen, Contos, Griffiths, Bishop, & Walker,
prejudice and racism are contextual and will not be experienced 2000) or as myth busting (Wise & Ali, 2008). To update this
mechanism, three examples will be given. First, anti-indigenous
prejudice includes a number of pervasive false beliefs such as
Correspondence: Anne Pedersen, School of Psychology, Murdoch Univer-
sity, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia. Fax: 61 (08) 9360 6492; email:
“being Indigenous entitles a person to more social security ben-
[email protected] efits.” These beliefs correlated with prejudice (e.g., Pedersen
et al., 2000), and research indicates that providing accurate
Accepted for publication 13 April 2010
information decreases acceptance of these beliefs (Batterham,
doi:10.1111/j.1742-9544.2010.00015.x 2001; Hill & Augoustinos, 2001; Issues Deliberation Australia,

Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63 55

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
How to cook rice A Pedersen et al.

2001; Pedersen & Barlow, 2008), at least in the short term (see when information was fed back to participants, one participant
the seventh mechanism, “evaluation”). informed the workshop leader that one of the key factors that
Second, prejudiced people are significantly more likely to changed her mind about this controversial issue was being
accept inaccurate information such as “Muslims want Australia encouraged to think for herself.
to be an Islamic country” and other simplistic, negative, media- Further, if there are a number of minority group members
related beliefs than non-prejudiced people (Pedersen & Hartley, within the intervention, and if small-group work is being under-
2009). These authors found an overall correlation of 0.88 taken, it is important for minority members to have the option
between prejudice and these negative beliefs. Other research to break into a group of their own where a “safer” environment
indicates that providing accurate information on this topic sig- is more likely (Malin, 1999).
nificantly decreases acceptance of those negative media-related A related issue is the open labelling of people who display
beliefs and marginally decreases prejudice (Pedersen, Aly, prejudiced behaviours as being prejudiced or “racists” (Guerin,
Hartley, & McGarty, 2009). Similarly, Issues Deliberation Aus- 2005a; Hollinsworth, 2006). First, people who report them-
tralia (2001) found that providing information about Muslim selves as prejudiced are few and far between. Forrest and Dunn
issues decreased negativity about Muslim immigrants as well as (2008) found that across Australian states and territories,
the perception that Muslims have a negative impact on Austra- 8–17% of approximately 12,000 respondents in phone surveys
lia’s security and harmony. Participants also reported an reported themselves as prejudiced compared with 83–93% who
increase in knowledge about Muslim-related issues. acknowledged that racial prejudice exists in Australia. Further,
Third, evidence indicates that prejudice is linked with accept- majority group members often distance themselves from overt
ing false beliefs such as “asylum seekers are queue jumpers” prejudice, rationalise their outgroup negativity, and position
(Pedersen, Watt, & Hansen, 2006). Although we are not aware themselves as being non-prejudiced (Augoustinos & Every,
of any studies that have done so, there is certainly a wide range 2007).
of accurate information that could be given in an intervention to In view of these points, it is therefore important to examine
dispel false beliefs such as this. For example, asylum seekers are the social context of “racism” in terms of the issue at hand, the
often unaware that there is a “queue” that needs to be joined, motivations behind the comment, and the likely social effects.
and even if they were aware they may not have the capacity to Thus, accusing a participant of being prejudiced can be alienating
join the “queue”. and reduce the likelihood of a positive result from the interaction
While dispelling “myths” is a useful mechanism for change, it (see third mechanism, “emotions”). When implementing an
should not be used in isolation. Barlow, Louis, and Pedersen anti-prejudice intervention, we argue that it is ill-advised to
(2008) found that giving accurate information about the Indig- publicly label a participant in an anti-prejudice intervention as
enous issues described above (e.g., about social security, etc.) “racist” or “prejudiced” but it is instead preferable to identify the
significantly reduced false beliefs. However, they also found that source of their behaviour and address this appropriately.
prejudice remained constant. Similarly, in another study,
researchers found that simply presenting facts about older Choose Emotions to Tackle Wisely
workers did not increase positive attitudes towards that group
(Gringart, Helmes, & Speelman, 2008). Yet they found that Research indicates a significant inverse relationship between
presenting facts, coupled with a cognitive dissonance mecha- prejudice and collective guilt (Halloran, 2007). In other words,
nism, resulted in more positive attitudes (see the sixth mecha- the more people report feelings of collective guilt in relation to
nism, “dissonance”). a group, the less likely they are to feel prejudice against them
(we note the relationship is likely to be bidirectional). However,
Involving the Audience With Respect From as noted by McGarty et al. (2005), few people report feelings
Both Sides of collective guilt at all, perhaps because guilt is an aversive
emotion and people will attempt to avoid it at all costs (Leach,
Rather than simply “preaching” information at participants in Snider, & Iyer, 2002). This leads us to recommend that it may
anti-prejudice interventions, it is important to involve them in be more appropriate to tap into other emotions in anti-
the process. For example, it may be that the triggers for preju- prejudice interventions. For example, moral outrage is also
dice may not be the same for all people. This suggests that it is linked with prejudice (Barlow, Pederson, & Louis, 2008), but
advisable to listen and respond appropriately to participants given this is more of an other-focused emotion, it may be more
(also see Hollinsworth, 2006, on being ready to “shift focus,” useful within anti-prejudice interventions. Empathy may also
p. 50). Also, it is important that participants be given space to air be a more appropriate emotion to encourage. Prejudice and
their ideas, even when some of their views are perceived as empathy have been found to be negatively related in a number
“racist”. The chance of overt hostility or resistance within an of studies (e.g., Pedersen, Beven, Walker, & Griffiths, 2004).
anti-prejudice intervention can be diminished by encouraging Empathy can lead to increased liking for, and altruism towards
participants to act respectfully towards one another. One suc- others (also see Paradies et al., 2009), as well as a reconsidera-
cessful anti-prejudice intervention involved an in-depth discus- tion of the appropriateness of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman,
sion on Indigenous people and the issue of “special treatment” 2003). We differentiate between empathy and other related
(Pedersen & Barlow, 2008). It was stressed that with this par- emotions such as pity or sympathy by defining empathy per
ticular issue; there were no “right” or “wrong” responses, that is, Thomas, McGarty, and Mavor (2009) as the compassion
participants should make up their own minds based on an involved in attempting to vicariously place oneself in somebody
in-depth analysis of the issue. At the end of the intervention else’s shoes.

56 Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
A Pedersen et al. How to cook rice

Returning to the distinction between collective guilt and mainstream Australia as the implicit norm with which all
empathy, Pedersen and Barlow (2008) note that there is a fine other groups should be compared (see the 10th mechanism,
line between introducing guilt-related topics and avoiding “Whiteness”).
them. Collective guilt and empathy are in fact strongly corre-
lated (e.g., Pedersen et al., 2004). However, the extent to which
an intervention should focus on any given emotion depends on Meet Local Needs
the style adopted, the target group, and, more generally, the
context. Also, if one’s goal is social action rather than prejudice It is important to be aware of potential differences in partici-
reduction, research indicates that moral outrage may be more pants’ attitudes, or strength of attitudes, across location and
appropriate (Thomas, 2005, with regard to strategies to combat situation. Research across disciplines has found geographical
poverty). Finally, it is also worth noting that most anti-prejudice differences in prejudiced attitudes (e.g., Forrest & Dunn, 2007;
interventions aim for their participants to “walk in somebody Markus & Dharmalingam, 2008; Pedersen et al., 2000). Some
else’s shoes,” that is, invoke empathy (e.g., Malin, 1999) even if geographical differences can be quite subtle. For example, in
they do not explicitly state this. one Western Australian study, the correlation between preju-
dice against asylum seekers and the fear of terrorism was stron-
Emphasise Commonality and Difference ger in a location where asylum seeker issues were more salient
(Pedersen, Watt, & Griffiths, 2007). As argued by Guerin and
Anti-prejudice interventions relevant to specific cultural groups Guerin (2007), we are likely to have much more of an effect if
often must address issues of difference or diversity among (as we are specific about the needs of a particular locality, and spend
well as within) groups. While it is important for participants in time with local communities to learn about their situations.
an intervention to feel some similarity with members of the Some mechanisms such as consensus effects (see the sixth
target group, there are risks involved in concentrating on either mechanism) and white privilege (see the 10th mechanism) will
commonality or difference alone. Some researchers argue that be more applicable in some locations than others.
there are problems assuming a causal relationship between per-
ceiving strong inter-group differences and inter-group bias and
that as it is unfeasible and undesirable to eliminate social cat- Dissonance
egories, these distinctions should be valued (Park & Judd,
2005). Park and Judd (2005) make the further point that a Anti-prejudice researchers have often argued that pointing out
multicultural society is a strength across a number of dimen- incompatibility among beliefs can be influential in reducing
sions including creativity, productivity, problem-solving tech- prejudice (e.g., Gawronski, Peters, Brochu, & Strack, 2008).
niques, and intellectual capabilities. While this does not present new information, it does highlight
An Australian example comes from Tilbury (2007), who incompatible information. Although a promising avenue of
examined the way that asylum-seeker advocates emphasised research, dissonance may not always be a useful tool as “people
similarity in an attempt to turn around negative attitudes can readily hold apparently contradictory beliefs” (Donovan &
towards asylum seekers in Albany, Western Australia. Tilbury Vlais, 2006, p. 116). It is argued that people are able to reduce
argued that by concentrating on their similarity to mainstream dissonance by trivialisation (Simon, Greenberg, & Brehm, 1995)
Australia this may have reinforced the notion of homogeneity— and ingroup support for one’s position (McKimmie et al., 2003).
“be like us or you won’t fit in.” It is a difficult situation, Older people are more likely to seek cognitive consistency
however, because negative “difference” between asylum seekers (Brown, Asher, & Cialdini, 2005) and dissonance is also affected
and Australians generally had been strongly emphasised in the by the salience of the issue to participants (McKimmie et al.,
media at that time (Pedersen, Watt et al., 2006). 2003)—if the issue is not important to the perceiver, why bother
Another notable issue is “special treatment” regarding Indig- reconciling inconsistencies (Guerin, 2001)? Finally, non-
enous Australians—the need to see disadvantage as well as Western cultures may not be as concerned with consistency as
difference. This is particularly important given that many Aus- Western cultures (Heine & Lehman, 1997).
tralians espouse the value of treating all Australians the same It has been suggested that dissonance may be most effective
(Cowlishaw, 2006; Pedersen & Barlow, 2008). It is often neces- with highly prejudiced individuals (Fozdar et al., 2009) or those
sary to discuss the lack of “a level playing field” between indig- who had not previously considered their own prejudices. Three
enous and non-indigenous people, in other words, disadvantage factors enhance the effectiveness of this mechanism: recognition
between groups. But it is also essential to stress the common- of inappropriate past behaviour, commitment to appropriate
alities between groups. For example, given the relatively small future behaviour, and declarations of non-prejudice to others,
proportion of Indigenous people in Australia (and other mar- especially in public (Gringart et al., 2008).
ginalised groups such as Muslim Australians and asylum In short, while there are caveats to cognitive dissonance as a
seekers), much information originates from the media. mechanism, in Western settings at least, it would appear that
However, as will be discussed later, the press often emphasises there is a tendency or social push (Guerin, 2001) for people to
negative behaviour (e.g., terrorism, vandalism, and anti-social strive for attitudinal consistency (Draycott & Dabbs, 1998).
behaviour). Thus, it would be worthwhile to use this mechanism within an
In summary, it is important for anti-prejudice interventions anti-prejudice intervention. However, it is more effective in
to include a sophisticated approach to both the commonalities association with other mechanisms rather than in isolation
and the differences including, where possible, a decentring of (Gringart et al., 2008).

Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63 57

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
How to cook rice A Pedersen et al.

Evaluation they have an influence that is disproportionate to their actual

numbers. Anti-prejudice interventions therefore need to
One of the problems for those wanting to facilitate prejudice account for attitudes towards marginalised groups and in par-
reduction is that although informal feedback by participants in ticular the fact that participants who are highly rejecting of
Australian studies is often extremely promising (e.g., Malin, “outgroups” are likely to overestimate their support in the com-
1999; Ranzijn, McConnochie, Day, Nolan, & Wharton, 2008; munity. Being convinced that this is not the case appears to be
Roberts & Fozdar, in press), there are few studies that properly a useful anti-prejudice mechanism.
evaluate anti-prejudice interventions in Australia. We are aware
of just eight Australian studies reporting pre-test and a post-
test assessment of an anti-prejudice intervention, which in the Arranging Appropriate Contact
absence of a control group is not in itself a strong form of
evaluation (Hill & Augoustinos, 2001; Issues Deliberation Aus- The contact hypothesis
tralia, 2001, 2007; Mooney et al., 2005; Pedersen et al., 2009; Allport (1954) argued that inter-group contact under the right
Pedersen & Barlow, 2008; Pederson et al., 2010; Teague, 2010). circumstances is useful in combating prejudice. Four conditions
Only Hill and Augoustinos (2001) and Pedersen et al. (2010) were said to facilitate positive attitudes: conflicting groups must
conducted a delayed post-test. It is likely that addressing preju- have equal status within the contact situation, there should be
dice is a long-term process involving critical awareness of the no competition along group lines within the contact situation,
issue, and engagement over time. groups must seek superordinate goals within the contact situa-
Therefore, one of the mechanisms that practitioners can tion, and relevant institutional authorities must sanction the
develop is to evaluate anti-prejudice interventions. If possible, inter-group contact and must endorse a reduction in inter-group
this should be replicated in other contexts and over time. tensions. Allport argued that unless these conditions are in
place, negativity may increase.
Consensus: Building and Invoking Social Norms Some evidence, however, suggests that most contact leads to
less prejudice regardless of whether all four of these conditions
Social norms are powerful and can legitimise attitudes (e.g., are in place (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). These authors suggested
Terry, Hogg, & Blackwood, 2001). Research in the USA has that the conditions may facilitate the reduction of prejudice
found that giving feedback to students that their negative views rather than being necessary to such reductions. However, other
were not consensually shared can reduce prejudice (Stangor, research finds that contact does not always lead to positive
Sechrist, & Jost, 2001). In another US study, simply hearing attitudes—at least in the Australian setting (Pedersen, 2009).
another person oppose racism publicly increased anti-racist Such negativity can also lead to what is known as “contact
views (Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, & Vaughn, 1994). Con- valence asymmetry”; in one study, white Australians attended
versely, hostile group norms can increase prejudice even within to ethnic background more in the future when prior inter-group
prejudice-reduction interventions (Myers & Bishop, 1970). contact was negative (Paolini, Harwood, & Rubin, 2009). Also,
However, as found by Zitek and Hebl (2007), prejudice is more Vorauer (2007) found that participants who were relatively low
likely to be reduced when clear social norms exist (e.g., with in prejudice were unresponsive to contact with an outgroup
respect to prejudice against African-Americans as opposed to member, presumably because of a “switching off” of generalisa-
prejudice against ex-convicts). tions (p. 916) and seeing contact more in terms of themselves
Recent Australian research suggests that highly prejudiced rather than the outgroup.
individuals are significantly more likely to overestimate their Despite the large body of evidence in support of the contact
support in the community compared with low prejudice people. hypothesis, it has been noted by Fozdar et al. (2009) that many
This was found regarding attitudes towards Indigenous Austra- of the studies in this area have been conducted in “experimen-
lians and asylum seekers (Pedersen, Griffiths, & Watt, 2008), tal” rather than “real world” contexts and, as already noted,
mandatory detention (Hartley & Pedersen, 2007), and Muslim contact can at times lead to more prejudice. For example, at
Australians (Pedersen & Hartley, 2009). It may be best to use times severe disadvantage can lead some people—regardless of
injunctive norms (involving approval/disapproval) rather than cultural background—to engage in what some would consider
simply descriptive norms (involving common attitudes or behav- anti-social behaviour (see Pedersen et al., 2000). There are often
iour) (Masser & Phillips, 2003). Masser and Moffat (2006) found cultural or contextual reasons why contact may not reduce
that where there was no clear social norm regarding attitudes prejudice (Guerin & Guerin, 2007). Similarly, Putnam (2007)
towards gays, prejudiced attitudes translated into subtle dis- found in a large-scale American study that, in the short term,
criminatory behaviour. They concluded that “it may just be immigration and ethnic diversity can reduce social solidarity
sufficient for those with prejudiced attitudes to be sure that it is and inter-racial trust. As he put it, “people living in ethnically
not the ‘wrong thing to do’ for their attitudes to predict some diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’—that is, to pull in like
form of discrimination” (p. 138). In a recent Brisbane study it a turtle” (p. 149). Forrest and Dunn (2010) further indicated
was found that attitudes towards Muslim Australians were that there are locations where inter-group friction has lasted a
improved by hearing that others had positive attitudes (Rand- long time and a range of antecedents (e.g., stereotyping of
jelovic, 2008). Believing oneself to be in the majority can lead to “outgroups” in popular culture) are likely to be responsible for
people being more forthright in their opinions, less willing to contact in isolation being unable to reduce prejudice.
compromise, and less likely to modify their views (Miller, 1993). Given that positive contact has the potential to change atti-
Thus, as argued by Pedersen, Griffiths et al. (2008), as a result tudes for the better, including marginalised groups into the

58 Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
A Pedersen et al. How to cook rice

attitude change process should be beneficial. However, preju- In the Australian context, people who score higher on
diced “mainstream” Australia should not expect marginalised nationalism are more prejudiced against Indigenous Austra-
groups to reduce their prejudice for them. Although represen- lians (Pedersen & Walker, 1997), asylum seekers (Nickerson
tatives of target groups should be invited to, and ideally & Louis, 2008) and Muslim Australians (Pedersen & Hartley,
involved, in anti-prejudice interventions, it may be more appro- 2009). Thus, it would be useful for anti-prejudice interven-
priate in some circumstances to include representations and tions to examine what being Australian means, and whether
voices of the target group by other means such as digital video- this national identity is in fact one that includes all
discs (e.g., Pedersen & Barlow, 2008). The primary responsibility Australians.
lies with the perpetrators, not the groups that are negatively
targeted, to rectify issues of prejudice.
Group identity—whiteness
Experiential-schemata function Whiteness studies examine the unearned and often uncon-
Relatedly, we now briefly describe some related research on scious privileges afforded white people in many countries (see
the function of attitudes, more particularly, the experiential- McIntosh, 1990). Whiteness is often invisible to white people;
schemata function (Herek, 1987). As touched on above, it is unlike other marginalised ethnocultural groups, it is not seen as
important to consider people’s own experience in addressing a salient racial identity by white people and is thus uninterro-
prejudice; these experiences can be both positive and negative. gated (Saxton, 2004). Although exploration of white privilege
For example, personal experience (or the experiential- in pedagogy is increasingly common in Australia and elsewhere
schemata function) is a major factor with regard to attitudes (e.g., Green & Sonn, 2005), little research examines the effec-
towards Indigenous Australians and Muslim Australians (Grif- tiveness of this approach using a pre-test/post-test, with the
fiths & Pedersen, 2009). As noted, it may be that because of exception of a couple of American college interventions
serious disadvantage, some anti-social behaviour is witnessed showing inconsistent results (Boatright-Horowitz, 2005; Case,
(Pedersen et al., 2000). It is important to acknowledge that 2007; Johnson, Antle, & Barbee, 2009). Unfortunately, there is
negative experience is a real “lived” experience for some par- not enough research to analyse the effects of this type of inter-
ticipants, and one that needs to be dealt with respectfully in vention with any certainty. However, it is likely that a white
anti-prejudice interventions. It is beyond the scope of this privilege intervention will be more useful in some contexts than
article to discuss this issue in detail, but possible solutions in others. As noted by Fozdar et al. (2009) among others, many
include highlighting the fallacy of stereotyping and essential- intersecting factors are related to oppression, including age,
ising whole groups of people based on individual experiences class, disability, gender, and sexuality.
as well as presenting broader facts/figures without invalidating We argue therefore that in an anti-prejudice intervention,
the participants’ lived experiences. using the concept of White privilege is likely to be more effective
with a generally privileged group of participants than another
group who may be white but disadvantaged in other respects.
Group Identities Also, whiteness interventions are more likely to be useful when
the participants are primarily white people. Although there is
As noted by Hollinsworth (2006), when addressing issues such some debate on the utility of addressing non-white prejudice,
as prejudice and racism, we need to reflect on our own identity. it may be necessary to do so when strategists are working with
We briefly describe below two identities that have been linked a primarily non-white group. It is also important to note that
with prejudice: a sense of national identity, and the hidden the little research on this topic finds no difference in prejudice
identity of whiteness. in “white” versus “non-white” participants (e.g., Pedersen &
Barlow, 2008; White & Abu-Rayya, 2009).
Group identity—nationalism In short, it would appear that the jury is still out on the use of
highlighting white privilege in anti-prejudice interventions. We
One group identity that is often linked with prejudice is national also note that we have interpreted “whiteness” literally—to do
identity. While there are many, and at times contradictory, defi- with white skin and associated structural advantages. However,
nitions of national identity, the relationship between such iden- a number of researchers such as Colic-Peisker (2005) argue that
tity and prejudice have been noted (e.g., Gale, 2004). The “whiteness” is also about class, language, status, and other indi-
discourse of nationalism is frequently used to undermine the vidual characteristics that can be observed in social interactions.
legitimacy of minority group identifications with minority iden- It is often not clear within individual studies which interpreta-
tities such as Indigenous viewed as divisive and threatening to tion of whiteness has been used; that is, whether whiteness
national unity (e.g., Augoustinos, Tuffin, & Rapley, 1999). As incorporates other factors (e.g., class) under the general
noted by Every and Augoustinos (2008), the discourse regard- umbrella or whether such factors complicate whiteness. It has
ing national identity can be used to include “outgroups” (in their been noted elsewhere that anti-prejudice researchers can take a
case, Australian asylum seekers) as well as exclude them. Hage “whole-of-community approach,” which takes into account
(1998, p. 52) argues that racist strategies of exclusion and inclu- prejudice across all peoples regardless of culture (Paradies et al.,
sion should be represented as nationalist practices with some 2009). However, depending on the context, it is also important
people perceiving themselves as more or less national than to explore the privilege enjoyed by white Australians in
others. particular.

Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63 59

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
How to cook rice A Pedersen et al.

Finding Alternative Talk Australians report that they resent what they see as Indigenous
people receiving preferential or “special” treatment (Pedersen,
We need to appreciate how important social relationships are, Dudgeon, Watt, & Griffiths, 2006). Australians who are anti-
both generally and contextually, with respect to prejudice— Muslim report that they have concerns about what they see as
people wish to maintain status and reputation within their gender and equity issues (Pedersen & Hartley, 2009).
social groups (Guerin, 2003a, 2004). Thus, we need to examine
the role of language in maintaining relationships as well as Indirect experience
regulating them. People use talk about the weather, medical
misadventure stories, rumours, jokes, and many other language The media is a primary source of indirect experience. This infor-
strategies to keep other people in good relationships with them mation can be either negative or positive. However, it is often
(Guerin, 2003b). negative with respect to asylum seekers (Gale, 2004), Muslim
Of most relevance here, however, is that people often increase Australians (Aly, 2006), and Indigenous Australians (Meadows,
or maintain their relationship status by using prejudiced (often 2001). Informal social networks are also a key source of indirect
seen as prohibited or “politically incorrect”) conversations or experience. What may start out as an unverified source may
jokes. Such racist discourses include strategies to resist anti- become part of mainstream discourse (Balvin, 2007).
racist interventions including questioning the intervener’s sense In order to change prejudiced attitudes, it is useful to know
of humour (Guerin, 2003a, 2003b) as well as disclaimers such as the source and function of such attitudes (it is also useful to
“I’m not prejudiced, but . . .”. There is a need for further know the source and function of non-prejudiced attitudes). The
research on conversational skills or strategies that are effective sources that are most relevant are values, direct experience, and
in dealing with prejudiced talk (see Every & Augoustinos, 2008; indirect experience.
Fozdar, 2008; Guerin, 2003a, 2003b; Teaching Tolerance, 2007).
This also links to what is known as “bystander anti-prejudice.” Length of Interventions
This involves bystanders speaking up in the face of discrimina- Anti-prejudice interventions are best run over the medium to
tion (see, for example, Dunn & Kamp, 2009). Some recent long term to allow time for in-depth analysis and sustained
research found that after an anti-prejudice intervention, partici- behaviour change. As found by Malin (1999) in her anti-
pants were significantly more likely to engage in positive prejudice work with teachers, participants feel a degree of denial
bystander action in three out of four hypothetical scenarios and resistance at first. Thus, having some time to reflect on the
(Pederson et al., 2010). Thus, it would be useful in an interven- issues is ideal. In fact, seven out of eight of the successful
tion to give participants such skills. anti-prejudice reduction interventions described above used a
relatively lengthy format (Hill & Augoustinos, 2001; Issues
The Source and Function of Attitudes Deliberation Australia, 2001, 2007; Pedersen et al., 2009, 2010;
Pedersen & Barlow, 2008; Teague, 2010). Mooney et al. (2005)
As briefly touched on above, the source and function of atti- (see the 7th mechanism above) suggested that their interven-
tudes is relevant to understanding why people think the way tion’s lack of effect may have been due to its half-day workshop
they do (Herek, 1987). Research indicates that participants’ format and a review of multicultural and racism awareness
values are important functions of people’s attitudes while their programmes for teachers found that a longer format was more
experiences and what they learn indirectly are important effective (McGregor & Ungerleider, 1993).
sources (Griffiths & Pedersen, 2009). If one is attempting to
change attitudes, it is a good idea to know both the source and Multiple Voices From Multiple Disciplines
the function of such attitudes. While people’s attitudes may
It is preferable to have multiple voices giving information,
stem from politician rhetoric; for example, “asylum seekers
leading discussions, and repeating major points. With respect to
are queue jumpers,” the function may be a perceived value
receiving information from multiple sources, traditional psy-
violation—“queue-jumpers take away Australian spots for
chology may be limited because of its individualistic focus. Yet
‘genuine refugees’”. Values, direct experience, and indirect
its rigorous quantitative statistical methods can be useful in
experience have been shown to be particularly relevant in Aus-
evaluations and experiments while non-traditional fields of psy-
tralian research. Direct experience was detailed above with
chology, such as community psychology and discourse analysis,
regard to the ninth mechanism above with a brief discussion of
can add a breath of understanding and meaning above and
values and indirect experiences provided below.
beyond quantitative methods. Moreover, other disciplines, such
as sociology and cultural geography, provide a wider picture
Addressing people’s violated personal values from an alternative view. Thus, more than one discipline allows
for a more rounded and sophisticated approach. Prejudice and
The most common function of attitudes relates to participants’
racism need to be tacked from a number of angles—individual,
values—this is the case whether participants are prejudiced or
cultural, and institutional (Jones, 1997)—and as such any one
non-prejudiced in their views (Griffiths & Pedersen, 2009;
discipline does not have all the answers.
Khan, 2009; Pedersen, Watt, & Griffiths, 2008). Of course,
values will not be the same across the target groups. For Conclusions
example, Australians who are anti-asylum seekers report that
they are outraged by what they see as “queue-jumping” (Ped- We have outlined 14 mechanisms that should be considered
ersen, Watt et al., 2006). Australians who are anti-Indigenous when conducting anti-prejudice interventions. It is important to

60 Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
A Pedersen et al. How to cook rice

bring the discussion back to the context of such interventions. Aly, A. (2006). Australian Muslim responses to the discourse on terrorism
Location or situation can affect the antecedents and extent of in the Australian popular media. Australian Journal of Social Issues,
prejudice. Some of the mechanisms are likely to be useful 42, 27–40.
regardless of location, in particular, the provision of informa- Augoustinos, M., & Every, D. (2007). Contemporary racist discourse:
Taboos against racism and racist accusations. In A. Weatherall, B.
tion, the use of respect, careful choice of emotion, emphasis on
Watson, & C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology
commonality and difference, dissonance, evaluation, national
(pp. 233–254). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
identity, alternative talk, the length of interventions, and use Augoustinos, M., Tuffin, K., & Rapley, M. (1999). Genocide or a failure to
of multiple voices from multiple disciplines. However, some gel? Racism, history and nationalism in Australian talk. Discourse &
mechanisms are more context dependent, that is, local needs, Society, 10, 351–378.
consensus, contact, whiteness and privilege, and the function of Balvin, N. (2007). Influencing prejudice and stereotype communication:
attitudes. The case of Aboriginal Australians. Unpublished Honours thesis,
At this time, it is not possible to separate out the different Melbourne: Australia.
mechanisms to establish which were successful. Such a separa- Barlow, F. K., Louis, W. R., & Pedersen, A. (2008). The impact of
tion would certainly be a fruitful avenue for future research. challenging false beliefs vs inciting collective guilt, on a range of
intergroup attitudes. Unpublished data set.
However, we can say which mechanisms were used in successful
Barlow, F. K., Pedersen, A., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Worshipping false idols:
interventions: the provision of accurate information, involving
Moral outrage mediates the relationship between false beliefs and
the audience with respect (including allowing participants to prejudice reduction in a longitudinal intervention study. Unpublished
make their own mind up based on careful analysis), being document: Sydney, Australia.
careful of emotions used, emphasising both commonality and Batterham, D. (2001). Modern racism, reconciliation and attributions for
difference for “ingroups” and “outgroups,” taking context into disadvantage: A role for empathy and false beliefs? Paper presented
account, using cognitive dissonance, evaluating properly, allow- at the 2nd Victorian Postgraduates in Psychology Conference.
ing contact with “outgroup” members, dealing with the three Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology.
function of attitudes, having longer rather than shorter inter- Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994).
ventions, and using multiple voices from multiple disciplines. Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to
interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 993–997.
This does not mean the other mechanisms were unimportant;
Boatright-Horowitz, S. L. (2005). Teaching antiracism in a large
indeed, it may be that they were used but not reported on. For
introductory psychology class: A course module and its evaluation.
example, as we have touched on, the use of empathy (in par- Journal of Black Studies, 36, 34–51.
ticular, perspective taking) is likely to be implicit in many of the Brown, S. L., Asher, T., & Cialdini, R. B. (2005). Evidence of a positive
interventions. relationship between age and preference for consistency. Journal of
Apart from the details of specific mechanisms, there are two Research in Personality, 39, 517–533.
main points to emerge from this review: multiple mechanisms Case, K. A. (2007). Raising white privilege awareness and reducing racial
should be utilised and these need to be adjusted to the local prejudice: Assessing diversity course effectiveness. Teaching of
context (Guerin, 2005b; Guerin & Guerin, 2007). Racism and Psychology, 34, 231–235.
prejudice have nefarious effects on both individuals and the Colic-Peisker, V. (2005). “At Least You’re the Right Colour”: Identity and
Social Inclusion Bosnian Refugees in Australia. Journal of Ethnic and
community, resulting in ill health as well as reduced productiv-
Migration Studies, 31(4), 615–638.
ity, social inclusion, and community cohesion (Paradies et al.,
Cowlishaw, G. K. (2006). Cultures of complaint: An ethnography of rural
2009). As argued by Lawrence (2008), it is time for racism to be racial revelry. Journal of Sociology, 42, 429–445.
“named up” by policy makers as a contributor to health dispari- Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model
ties and other social disadvantages. To combat the detrimental of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin,
effects of prejudice and racism, solutions need to be multi- 129, 414–446.
layered; furthermore, the mechanisms described above are not Donovan, R., & Vlais, R. (2006). A review of communications components
mutually exclusive. There are links between them such as vio- of anti-racism and pro-diversity social marketing/public education
lation of values and imparting of accurate information. As campaigns. Report to VicHealth, Melbourne, Victoria: RJD Consulting
Fozdar et al. (2009) notes, anti-prejudice interventions involve Pty Ltd.
Draycott, S., & Dabbs, A. (1998). Cognitive dissonance 1: An overview of
networks of influences. Structural and political strategies need
the literature and its integration into theory and practice in clinical
to be implemented along with individual interventions
psychology. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 341–353.
(Donovan & Vlais, 2006; Paradies et al., 2009). Dunn, K. M., & Kamp, A. (2009). The hopeful and exclusionary politics
However, the mechanisms above may provide some sense of Islam in Australia: Looking for alternative geographies of
guidance to anti-prejudice researchers, practitioners, and policy “Western Islam.” In R. Phillips (Ed.), Muslims spaces of hope:
makers wishing to improve relations among different groups in Geographies of possibility in Britain and the West (pp. 41–66). London:
our society. Multiculturalism is a great strength of Australia and, Zed Books.
as Putnam (2007) puts it, to “create a novel “one” out of a Dunn, K. M., Forrest, J., Burnley, I., & McDonald, A. (2004). Constructing
diverse “many” can only be a good thing (p. 165). racism in Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(4),
409–430.
Every, D., & Augoustinos, M. (2008). Constructions of Australia in pro-
References and anti-asylum seeker discourse. Nations and Nationalism, 14,
562–580.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Forrest, J., & Dunn, K. M. (2007). Constructing racism in Sydney,
Doubleday. Australia’s largest ethni-city. Urban Studies, 44(4), 699–721.

Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63 61

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
How to cook rice A Pedersen et al.

Forrest, J., & Dunn, K. M. (2008; October). Challenging racism: Are Hollinsworth, D. (2006). Confronting racism in communities: Guidelines
Australians tolerant of cultural diversity? Paper presented at the and resources for anti-racism training workshops. Brisbane, Qld:
Rights, Reconciliation, Respect and Responsibility Conference. Sydney: Centre for Multicultural Pastoral Care, Paddington, QLD and the
New South Wales. University of the Sunshine Coast.
Forrest, J., & Dunn, K. M. (2010). Attitudes to multiculturalism in diverse Issues Deliberation Australia (2001). Australia deliberates:
spaces in Australia’s immigrant cities, Sydney and Melbourne. Space Reconciliation—Where to from here? Retrieved 28 January 2011, from
and Polity, 14, 81–102. http://www.ida.org.au/UserFiles/File/Australia%20Deliberates_
Fozdar, F. (2008). Duelling discourses, shared weapons: Rhetorical Reconciliation_FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
techniques used to challenge racist arguments. Discourse and Society, Issues Deliberation Australia (2007). Australia deliberates: Muslims and
19(4), 529–547. non-Muslims in Australia—Final report summary. Retrieved May 19,
Fozdar, F., Wilding, R., & Hawkins, M. (2009). Anti-racism. In F. Fozdar, R. 2008, from http://www.ida.org.au/UserFiles/File/
Wilding, & M. Hawkins (Eds.), Race and ethnic relations (pp. 256–285). AUSTRALIA%20DELIBERATES%20-%20FINAL%20REPORT%20SUMMARY.pdf
Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press. Johnson, L. M., Antle, B. F., & Barbee, A. P. (2009). Addressing
Gale, P. (2004). The refugee crisis and fear: Populist politics and media disproportionality and disparity in child welfare: Evaluation of an
discourse. Journal of Sociology, 40, 321–340. anti-racism training for community service providers. Children and
Gawronski, B., Peters, K. R., Brochu, P. M., & Strack, F. (2008). Youth Services Review, doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.01.004.
Understanding the relations between different forms of racial Jones, J. J. (1997). Prejudice and racism. Sydney, NSW: McGraw-Hill.
prejudice: A cognitive consistency perspective. Personality and Social Khan, S. (2009). The function of attitudes and prejudice relating to Black
Psychology Bulletin, 34, 648–665. African Immigrants. Unpublished Honours thesis, Perth: Australia.
Green, M. J., & Sonn, C. C. (2005). Examining discourses of whiteness and Lawrence, C. (2008). Us and them: Breaking down the barriers. Paper
the potential for reconciliation. Journal of Community & Applied Social presented at the Fulbright Conference: Healthy People Prosperous
Psychology, 15, 478–492. Country. Adelaide: Australia.
Griffiths, B., & Pedersen, A. (2009). Prejudice and the function of attitudes Leach, C., Snider, N., & Iyer, A. (2002). “Poisoning of the Consciences of
relating to Muslim Australians and Indigenous Australians. Australian the Fortunate”: The experience of relative advantage and support for
Journal of Psychology, DOI: 10.1080/00049530902748275. social equality. In I. Walker & H. Smith (Eds.), Relative Deprivation:
Gringart, E., Helmes, E., & Speelman, C. (2008). Harnessing cognitive Specification, Development and Integration (pp. 136–163). Cambridge:
dissonance to promote positive attitudes toward older workers in Cambridge University Press.
Australia. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 751–778. Malin, M. (1999). I’m rather tired of hearing about it . . .’: Challenges in
Guerin, B. (2001). Replacing catharsis and uncertainty reduction theories constructing an effective anti-racism teacher education program.
with descriptions of the historical and social context. Review of Curriculum Perspectives, 19, 1–11.
General Psychology, 5, 44–61. Markus, A., & Dharmalingam, A. (2008). Attitudinal divergence in a
Guerin, B. (2003a). Combating prejudice and racism: New interventions Melbourne region of high immigrant concentration: A case study.
from a functional analysis of racist language. Journal of Community People and Place, 15(4), 38–48.
and Applied Social Psychology, 13, 29–45. Masser, B., & Moffat, K. B. (2006). With friends like these . . . The role of
Guerin, B. (2003b). Language use as social strategy: A review and an prejudice and situational norms on discriminatory helping behavior.
analytic framework for the social sciences. Review of General Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 123–140.
Psychology, 7, 251–298. Masser, B., & Phillips, L. (2003). What do other people think? The role of
Guerin, B. (2004). Handbook for analyzing the social strategies of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay
everyday life. Reno, NV: Context Press. men. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 184–190.
Guerin, B. (2005a). Combating everyday racial discrimination without McGarty, C., Pedersen, A., Leach, C. W., Mansell, T., Waller, J., &
assuming racists or racism: New intervention ideas from a contextual Bliuc, A. M. (2005). Group-based guilt as a predictor of
analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 14, 46–69. commitment to apology. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4),
Guerin, B. (2005b). Handbook of interventions for changing people and 659–680.
communities. Reno, NV: Context Press. McGregor, J., & Ungerleider, C. (1993). Multicultural and racism
Guerin, B., & Guerin, P. (2007). Lessons learned from participatory awareness programs for teachers: A meta-analysis of the research. In
discrimination research: Long-term observations and local K. McLeod (Ed.), Multicultural education: The state of the art (pp.
interventions. The Australian Community Psychologist, 19, 137–149. 59–63). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Association of Second Language
Hage, G. (1998). White nation: Fantasies of white supremacy in a Teachers.
multicultural society. Sydney, NSW: Pluto Press. McIntosh, P. (1990). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack.
Halloran, M. (2007). Indigenous reconciliation in Australia: Do values, Retrieved October 15, 2008, from http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/
identity, and collective guilt matter? Journal of Community and emc598ge/Unpacking.html
Applied Social Psychology, 17, 1–18. McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R.,
Hartley, L., & Pedersen, A. (2007). Asylum seekers: How attributions and & Doosje, B. (2003). I’m a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group
emotion affect Australians’ views on mandatory detention of “the support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics:
other.” Australian Journal of Psychology, 59(3), 119–131. Theory, Research and Practice, 7, 214–224.
Heine, S. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1997). Culture, dissonance, and self- Meadows, M. (2001). Voices in the wilderness: Images of Aboriginal
affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 389–400. people in the Australian media. London: Greenwood Press.
Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on Miller, C. T. (1993). Majority and minority perceptions of consensus and
the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, recommendations for resolving conflicts about land use reform.
285–303. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 389–398.
Hill, M. E., & Augoustinos, M. (2001). Stereotype change and prejudice Mooney, N., Bauman, A., Westwood, B., Kelaher, B., Tibben, B., &
reduction: Short- and long-term evaluation of a cross-cultural Jalaludin, B. (2005). A quantitative evaluation of Aboriginal cultural
awareness program. Journal of Community and Applied Social awareness training in an urban health service. Aboriginal Islander
Psychology, 11(4), 243–262. Health Worker Journal, 29, 23–30.

62 Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society
A Pedersen et al. How to cook rice

Myers, D. G., & Bishop, G. (1970). Discussion effects on racial attitudes. of racism: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on
Science, 169, 778–779. “Racisms in the New World Order”. Qld: University of the Sunshine
Nickerson, A. M., & Louis, W. R. (2008). Nationality versus humanity? Coast.
Personality, identity and norms in relation to attitudes towards asylum Pedersen, A., Aly, A., Hartley, L., & McGarty, C. (2009). An intervention to
seekers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 796–817. increase positive attitudes and address misconceptions about
Paolini, S., Harwood, J., & Rubin, M. (2009; April). Investigating the effects Australian Muslims: A call for education and open mindedness. The
of contact valence on category salience: Directional evidence for a Australian Community Psychologist, 21, 76–88.
contact valence asymmetry. Paper presented at the Conference of the Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup
Society of Australasian Social Psychologists. Melbourne, Australia. contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
Paradies, Y., Chandrakumar, L., Klocker, N., Frere, M., Webster, K., Burrell, 751–783.
M., & McLean, G. (2009). Building on our strengths: A framework to Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the
address race-based discrimination and support diversity in Victoria. twenty-first century 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian
Full report, Melbourne, Vic.: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation. Political Studies, 30, 137–174.
Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization Randjelovic, V. (2008). The value of consensus information in reducing
and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and prejudice towards Muslims in Australia. Unpublished Honours thesis.
Social Psychology Review, 9, 108–130. University of New England.
Pedersen, A. (2009; September). Harmony in Australia: An Ranzijn, R., McConnochie, K., Day, A., Nolan, W., & Wharton, M. (2008).
evidence-based analysis of prejudice, contact, location, and Towards cultural competence: Australian Indigenous content in
disposition. Paper presented at Institute of Australian Geographers undergraduate psychology. Australian Psychologist, 43, 132–139.
Conference. Cairns: Australia. Roberts, K., & Fozdar, F. (2009). Islam for fire fighters—An education
Pedersen, A., & Barlow, F. (2008). Theory to social action: A university program for emergency services. Australian Journal of Emergency
based strategy targeting prejudice against Aboriginal Australians. The Management, 52, 47–53.
Australian Psychologist, 43, 148–159. Saxton, A. (2004). Whiteness and reconciliation: A discursive analysis.
Pedersen, A., & Hartley, L. (2009). Unpacking prejudice against Muslim Australian Psychologist, 39, 14–23.
Australians: The role of values, gender, and other social-psychological Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten
variables. Unpublished document: Perth, Australia. mode of dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social
Pedersen, A., & Walker, I. (1997). Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: Psychology, 68, 247–260.
Old-fashioned and modern forms. The European Journal of Social Stangor, C., Sechrist, G., & Jost, J. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by
Psychology, 27, 561–587. providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology
Pedersen, A., Contos, N., Griffiths, B., Bishop, B., & Walker, I. (2000). Bulletin, 27, 486–496.
Attitudes toward Aboriginal-Australians in city and country settings. Teaching Tolerance (2007). Responding to everyday bigotry: Speak up!
The Australian Psychologist, 35(2), 109–117. Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Centre.
Pedersen, A., Beven, J., Walker, I., & Griffiths, B. (2004). Attitudes toward Teague, N. (2010). Increasing positivity towards Aboriginal Australians:
Indigenous-Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of The effect of positive contact. Unpublished Honours thesis. Murdoch
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 14, 233–249. University, Perth, Western Australia.
Pedersen, A., Walker, I., & Wise, M. (2005). “Talk does not cook rice”: Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & Blackwood, L. (2001). Prejudiced attitudes,
Beyond anti-racism rhetoric to strategies for social action. The group norms, and discriminatory behaviour. In M. Auguoustinos & K.
Australian Psychologist, 40, 20–30. J. Reynolds (Eds.), Understanding prejudice, racism, and social conflict
Pedersen, A., Dudgeon, P., Watt, S., & Griffiths, B. (2006). Attitudes (pp. 140–155). London: SAGE Publications.
toward Indigenous Australians: The issue of “Special Treatment.” Thomas, E. F. (2005). The role of social identity in creating positive beliefs
Australian Psychologist, 41(2), 85–94. and emotions to motivate volunteerism. Australian Journal on
Pedersen, A., Watt, S., & Hansen, S. (2006). The role of false beliefs in the Volunteering, 10, 45–52.
community’s and the federal government’s attitudes toward Thomas, E. F., McGarty, C., & Mavor, K. I. (2009). Transforming “apathy
Australian asylum seekers. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41, into movement”: The role of prosocial emotions in motivating action
105–124. for social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13,
Pedersen, A., Watt, S., & Griffiths, B. (2007). Prejudice against asylum 310–333.
seekers and the fear of terrorism: The importance of context. In V. Tilbury, F. (2007). We are family’: The use of family tropes in refugee/
Colic-Peisker & F. Tilbury (Eds.), Settling in Australia: The social advocate talk. Journal of Social Identities, 13, 627–649.
inclusion of refugees (pp. 38–55). Perth: Centre for Social and Vorauer, J. (2007). Unprejudiced and self-focused: When intergroup
Community Research, Murdoch University. contact is experienced as being about the ingroup rather than the
Pedersen, A., Griffiths, B., & Watt, S. (2008). Attitudes toward outgroups outgroup. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 912–919.
and the perception of consensus: All feet do not wear one shoe. White, F., & Abu-Rayya, H. (2009; April). Anglo-Australians’ acculturation
Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 543–557. orientations and outgroup attitudes towards Australian Muslims.
Pedersen, A., Paradies, Y., Dunn, K., & Hartley, L. (2010; July). Attitudes Paper presented at the Conference of the Society of Australasian
towards asylum seekers, Indigenous Australians and Muslim Social Psychologists. Melbourne, Australia.
Australians: An intervention to increase positivity and bystander Wise, A., & Ali, J. (2008). Muslim-Australians and Local Government:
anti-prejudice action. Paper presented at the 10th International Grassroots strategies to improve relations between Muslim and
Conference on Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations. non-Muslim-Australians. Sydney, NSW: Centre for Research on Social
Belfast, Northern Ireland. Inclusion. Macquarie University.
Pedersen, A., Watt, S., & Griffiths, B. (2008). Prejudice against Australian Zitek, E. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). The role of social norm clarity in the
asylum seekers and their function: Suggestions for anti-prejudice influenced expression of prejudice over time. Journal of Experimental
strategies. In H. Babacan & N. Gopalkrishnan (Eds.), The complexities Social Psychology, 43, 867–876.

Australian Psychologist 46 (2011) 55–63 63

© 2011 The Australian Psychological Society