Unboxing people: How to de-construct clichés and counter prejudice in reporting

When I, Katja, ask my students in social psychology courses how prejudices emerge, they will often name “the media” as an important factor, along with upbringing and peers. Movies and TV shows — especially old ones — are often teeming with clichés. But journalism also plays a role: news reports are never just portrayals of “reality”, but are inevitably a selection and reflection of what the journalist or media company considers “newsworthy”. And the way media set and frame issues has a direct impact on the thoughts, feelings and actions of the audience (1). My students often also emphasise that news and documentaries contribute to perpetuating stereotypical ideas, e.g. through the labels they use or narratives that blame the victim.

The media co-create reality: They may inspire and empower, but their stories can also fuel social divisions, hate speech and crimes between and among social groups, up to and including genocide between social groups (2). The challenge for media professionals is to inform in a way that is comprehensive and nuanced, critical and complete, but never dehumanising, never implicitly feeding xenophobia, misogyny, racism or anti-religious hatred — let alone explicitly, as happens in propaganda or disinhibited social media channels (3).

This is not new. But while journalists often talk about fighting to counteract stereotypes and prejudices, they may not even be aware that they themselves (and their audiences) are being impacted by implicit biases. Deeper knowledge on the psychology of categorisation, stereotyping, prejudice, discriminatory behaviour; the consequences of these; and well-researched possible solutions could help. The topic is complex, as it involves many different psychological processes that are interconnected.

In this article…

• We present an overview of the functions of social categorisation, and its “companions” (stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination), including multiple category memberships;
• We explain different ways in which stereotypes and prejudice emerge and how everyday journalism may inadvertently contribute to each of these processes;
• We review some of the consequences prejudice has on thoughts, feelings and behaviour — including self-protective mechanisms that affect journalistic research, interviewing and reporting;
• Finally, we provide an overview of the primary established approaches for solutions from the social sciences based on this research, including tips and tools on how journalists can reduce pejorative, polarising and simplistic storytelling through more sensitive and nuanced reporting.

The world is an extremely complex place. Due to our limited mental capacity, we humans have a need to bring order to the continuous stream of sensory input, to reduce complexity and make sense of it all (4). One way we do that is by forming categories — boxes — that group similar objects together and efficiently reduce the amount of information we need to process. If I know that an animal is a bird, I “know” that it has feathers and is able to fly. These are characteristics I’ve learned and I don't have to check this again with each and every bird. Categorisation thus helps us to condense observations and structure the world. However, these characteristics don’t always apply: ostriches and penguins are birds, but can’t fly. And in some cases, categorisation might be misleading — like in the case of bats, which are flying mammals, not birds. However, we still stick to categories in many cases, because in addition to ordering chaos, categorisation processes also contribute to self-esteem: living in a well-structured and thus somewhat predictable world fulfils our need for control and mastery. It makes us feel that we understand what is going on and are able to handle things (see our article on self-efficacy). In addition, as helpful and self-serving as they are, we should keep in mind that categories are often somewhat arbitrary or oversimplified (e.g. the idea of gender as binary).

Once we have category labels, cognitive research shows that differences within each category tend to be largely ignored and differences between different categories tend to be overemphasised. This so-called accentuation effect applies both to simple objects, as well as biological or social categories, and it gets stronger when judgements are made under uncertainty (5). Labelling is thus by itself a powerful tool to alter perception and judgement, even before it comes to whatever characteristics might be associated with belonging to a certain category (see below).

By mentioning some social category memberships (usually considered to be the “extraordinary” ones) and not others (usually those seen as the “default”, e.g. being heterosexual, employed, or physically able and healthy), media creators render some features more salient than others. Moreover, highlighting a person’s group membership in a particular context suggests that it matters for the topic reported about (e.g. a criminal act or special achievement). Finally, labelling suggests which trait dimensions might be considered relevant for the audiences’ own personal identity within a given society, and thereby can heavily affect social climates of community versus division.

The accentuation effect is stronger for groups we ourselves do not belong to — so-called “outgroups” — as compared to our own so-called “ingroup”. This outgroup homogeneity effect (10) makes it harder for us to distinguish people who are not in our group (“they all look the same”), suggesting that “they are all the same” (see also article 3). One explanation for the effect is that we usually spend more time with ingroup rather than outgroup members, naturally making us more attune to their variety and individual differences. At the same time, perceived outgroup homogeneity seems to legitimise simplifications and derogating judgements about all its members.

Journalists can try to mitigate the outgroup homogeneity effect in at least two ways: First, especially when portraying social groups the audiences might be less familiar with, show a broad, diverse, and balanced spectrum, e.g. of migration biographies in order to counter dehumanisation (11, for further reading see a study about the European media discourse on migration and this series’ article 5 on Power of Images). Second, diversity and representation within newsroom teams are very likely to have corrective and sensitising effects on nuanced research and reporting about marginalised or minority groups.

Finally, all of us belong to not one but multiple social categories due to our gender, profession, native language, political stance, ethnic identity, family situation, certain music style, soccer club preferences, etc. Different people may identify strongly with some categories and not others (12). Whether a particular "box" seems meaningful and therefore applicable to oneself or to others depends very much on the context (13). Lab research shows that we are not only “cognitive misers” that categorise due to scarce mental resources (14), but also “motivated tacticians”'(15): We use certain boxes and labels when it makes us feel good to do so, and we actively suppress them when it doesn’t. For instance, if a doctor from a low status minority gave us positive feedback about our health, concepts associated with their minority group are temporarily less likely to come to mind than normal, and the person is primarily perceived as being a doctor. Conversely, if the feedback was negative, we suppress associations linked to the respectable profession and perceive the person primarily as a low status minority member, which allows us to downgrade their competence or credibility (16).

Clearly, social categories are hardly ever neutral, even if we focus on just one dimension at a time. The process of categorisation often automatically activates stereotyping, prejudice and even discriminatory behaviour, all of which we will elaborate on below.

For journalists, the fact that all people belong to many different groups at the same time raises the question which of those should be mentioned in reporting, if any at all, and in what way. For example, we are more likely to present someone as belonging to a minority group than a majority group (as this appears literally more noteworthy), and thus this category is more likely to be linked with newsworthy — and often negative — events and behaviours, such as crime. Research shows that even a single exposure to a media report may suffice to establish negative attitudes (18).

Even the use of specific words makes a difference. One example: research has shown that the use of nouns to indicate group membership (“a male Roma”) had stronger negative effects than the use of adjectives (“a Roma man”). Adjectives make a feature appear less “essential”, while nouns imply stability and invite stronger stereotypic inferences and intergroup bias (18). At the same time, failing to note the group memberships of crime suspects may lead to accusations of “censorship”, and in Germany, the debate about according press codex is ongoing (19, 20, 21).

At the same time, mentioning more attributes may add nuance to a story, broadening and enriching perspectives and mental associations. When we describe people in a multi-faceted way, we give audiences more opportunity to connect with them. Acknowledging that we all have something in common on some level is a powerful tool to overcome prejudice (22). Moreover, while we mostly think of primary categories such as gender, ethnicity, or age when we talk about diversity and representation, we often omit aspects like living in an urban vs. rural area, regional differences within a country, health status, level of education, socioeconomic background, having kids or not, etc. Many of these “secondary” categories may have a stronger influence on the lifestyle and values that matter for a story than the “primary” categories, and may also help audiences relate.

Journalists need to be aware that they may be choosing categories based on their own associations. In the first step, categories “just” structure the world; they only gain meaning in the next step, when stereotypic ideas of further “typical” characteristics kick in and are applied to a person just because they belong to that group. In the next section, we take a look at how these associations are learned and what role the media play in establishing and reinforcing them.

We have already seen that stereotypes may be defined as associations between a category label and what we believe to be typical of its members. Prejudice is the associated feeling towards them. But how do such associations evolve in the first place? The following table lists some classic psychological processes that lead stereotypes to emerge, though it is of course far from complete. For each process, we have a brief general description on the left and a spotlight on how they work in media contexts on the right.

Media contribute to evaluative conditioning wherever news, public discourse or ironic prototypes repeatedly present certain attributes or issues in the context of a category, which helps to form attitudes without the person even being aware of it (24, for further reading see a recent study by the Global Strategy Group that shows massively biased wording, framing, and pictures in US media reports about criminal courtroom trials).

In media contexts, such social reinforcement can also work indirectly. For instance, if pejorative views are presented by respected celebrities or as the predominant opinion, this may be “encouraging” to those who subtly sympathise, since consensus fulfils our fundamental need to belong and feels better than being alone with one’s — otherwise “strange” or “extremist”— views (26).

In media contexts, guests in talk shows or protagonists in documentaries are likely to serve as role models and may inspire prejudiced or egalitarian attitudes by making these appear more or less acceptable and worth adopting for the audience, depending on the feedback they get. Similarly, an online post that gets lots of hate comments or “likes” can have strong effects on the audience's attitudes and uttered opinions (28).

Media professionals should be careful not to reiterate narratives of polarising competition thoughtlessly or give them an (inappropriate) stage. The same line of research shows that intergroup hostility can be overcome by a meaningful common goal, even more so, if that goal is only achievable through cooperation between groups. We will talk more about that below.

Journalists should avoid framing in ways that invite ingroup-outgroup dynamics (like “us” vs. “them” or “group A” vs. “group B”). Remember that categories are not only arbitrary in themselves, but that it is also often arbitrary — or at least an editorial decision — which of the multiple available group memberships are mentioned how and where, and which are not, and that there are multiple possible axes of similarity (“us”) and dissimilarity (“them”).

Given that some counterevidence or counterviews cannot be blended out entirely, people are very creative in explaining other people’s statements or behaviour in a way that allows them to maintain their prior beliefs or clichés. For example, if someone from one’s ingroup founded a successful small start-up company, it is usually attributed to their inner virtues (e.g. hard work, creativity, or entrepreneurial spirit). If a member of an outgroup is similarly successful, it is often attributed to favourable (external) circumstances. This so-called ultimate attribution error (43) perpetuates negative prejudices about an outgroup, even if they have just been refuted. Conversely, if an ingroup member fails, this is attributed to external factors (e.g. market volatility), while outgroup failure is typically blamed on personal characteristics (such as laziness or low management competence). See article 4 on Causal Attribution).

Journalists…

• should take care not to imply causal attributions that perpetuate prejudices (e.g. by framing some groups as active, others as passive; or as “lucky” rather than having “earned it” when introducing interviewees or reporting about them);
• must be aware that their own memberships are likely to subtly affect such framing. When journalists from marginalised groups report on issues they are “involved in”, they are often accused of a lack of objectivity. From a scientific point of view, this is just equally likely to affect reporting by privileged majority members, as the strong dominance of views from the global North in reporting illustrates (44);
• are likely to profit from more diversity, equity and inclusion in newsrooms when it comes to overcoming or at least balancing out such attribution biases in interpretation of counterstereotypic information.

Other ways of reinterpreting evidence that contradicts one’s prejudices are subtyping and recategorization: For instance, men who are sensitive (contradicting the stereotype of “manly men”) might be dubbed not “real men” or even called slurs. Similarly, a professionally successful female who is rational and analytic may be denied her femininity, and be predominantly perceived according to professional background (e.g. being a scientist or engineer), thus shifting the focal category dimension from gender to professional education. Both processes allow one to maintain stereotypic beliefs (in this case about men or women), even in the face of clearly contradictory evidence (45).

Journalists should be careful…

• In research: to be aware of their own category schemes when searching for protagonists meant to represent a particular group;
• In interviews: not to unwittingly invite subtyping or re-categorisation processes by representing counterstereotypic protagonists as “interesting” or “special”, i.e. atypical;
• Prior to and in editing and storytelling: reflect the personal relevance of each feature for the person’s identity and make clear that whatever makes them interesting does not make them less “typical”.

Vicious circles in co-creating stereotypic realities

What we think and feel affects our behaviour, and our behaviour affects the behaviour of others around us. Therefore, it does not really come as a surprise that stereotypes and prejudice have the power not only to filter or reinterpret realities, but also to create them in social interaction.

Self-fulfilling prophecies emerge in many everyday situations (42), such as between teachers and pupils (48, 49) or recruiters and job applicants (41). They can also affect interactions between journalists and their interviewees or guests. In one study (41), real-life job interviews were observed. It was found that the Caucasian recruiters treated candidates of different ethnicities in systematically different ways, and that the non-White candidates on average presented themselves in a less professional manner. In a second study, actors were trained to present the two interview styles in the role of the recruiter. Only Caucasian candidates were randomly assigned to one of these two experimental conditions. This study revealed that successful self-presentation of the candidates was a direct result of the atmosphere created by the recruiter: less immediacy (e.g. more distant sitting arrangements and body position) and shorter interview time led to more insecure behaviour on the part of the applicants (e.g. more speech errors per minute). To sum up: In real life, if a recruiter’s interaction style varies based on candidates’ ethnicity or other stereotypically stigmatising factors, an independent observer is likely to conclude that those candidates indeed behaved less competently and were passed over for “objective” reasons, i.e. that the prejudice is actually true.

In journalism, self-fulfilling prophecies are most likely to emerge during interaction phases in research and reporting, so one should take great care…

• to create fair, non-discriminatory general conditions for interviews and conversations (e.g. give them equal amounts of time, similar room arrangements, exhibit equally appreciative non-verbal behaviour), in particular when hosting more than one guest at a time;
• to pose interview questions fairly, e.g. not to “interrogate” members of minority or low status groups with closed or leading questions vs. asking open-ended questions of privileged group members, providing them with the power to co-direct the course of the conversation;
• to become more sensitive to one’s own unconscious biases, including for instance whether celebrities or experts are treated differently than “normal people”, who tend to be underrepresented in public debate and therefore less media savvy, which might make them in turn appear less suitable for future invitations and further promote underrepresentation.

Last but not least, stereotypes can even affect performance without any discriminatory behaviour. Simply knowing that a negative stereotype exists about one's own group (e.g. “girls aren’t good at maths”, “white men can’t jump”) can be enough to give someone anxiety that they could confirm the stereotype and thereby discredit their ingroup. The more important that group membership is to them, the more important it will be for their self-esteem (e.g. to perform well at an intelligence test, to give a crisp presentation). This feeling of stereotype threat — similar to test anxiety — can induce stress and restrict cognitive capacity, thereby leading to objectively worse task performance… which then ironically confirms the stereotype (50). Please note: once participants are told that what they are going to do is not relevant for the stereotype (e.g. a test that only measures “some skills”, not “mathematical intelligence”), people perform just as good as the other, non-stereotyped group. Conversely, when group labels are made very visible, performance of the stereotyped group suffers more strongly. Thus, worse performance is likely a product of feeling social threat, not of any “real” deficit whatsoever (51).

Journalists may mitigate stereotype threat by…

• framing questions in a way that does not highlight the person’s social group membership(s) when it is not relevant for the topic at hand (e.g. “What do you, as a single mom…”);
• doing a “pre-interview” in order to reduce pressure.

A major goal of all the research we have reviewed so far is to find strategies to prevent and/or overcome stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination.

If stereotypic associations affect behaviour regardless of people’s personal attitudes and best intentions, the safest way to overcome negative effects is to systematically unlearn them and/or establish new associations. The human brain adjusts more flexibly than we often expect and unlearning stereotypes actually works quite quickly and sustainably in the lab (52). Eliminating prejudiced associations from everyday life, however, is a job for society as a whole — for parents, teachers, the authors of (children’s) books, films and series, etc. Considerable change has taken place over the last decade for instance with regard to normalising representation of diversity, non-conventional, non-heteronormative gender roles and relationships (53). Documentaries that portray people in ways usually not associated with their social category will support those changes. The more often counter- or non-stereotypic associations are established under different conditions, the less that confirmation or attribution biases, re-categorisation or subtyping “protect” from a change in mental knowledge structures. 
 

Nuanced representation of multiple social category membership provides potential for social inclusion, empathy, and more individualised person perception (see 22 for a comprehensive review). Or put another way: the more diverse, nuanced representations we have, the harder it will be to keep people, places, and ideas locked in “boxes”. Journalists can support this by reporting about people’s intersectionality. This is especially true in the case of “gateway groups” in conflicts that identify with both of two conflicting parties.

Sherif’s work on realistic conflict theory (29) has shown that competing groups reconcile when they pursue a common goal they can only achieve in full cooperation (see also 54). Focussing on eventual common goals (“we’re in this together”) when reporting about conflict might help to shift focus in narratives and even inspire polarised communities to organise events (especially powerful in local journalism; 55).

• When researching, mind the keywords you use in your searches and how they set the stage for confirmation bias and selective facts, viewpoints or potential experts, protagonists, etc.
• When doing interviews or hosting guests, make sure to create equal, fair, appreciative conditions for all and not fall into traps of unconscious bias, self-fulfilling prophecy dynamics or create stereotype threat (find more strategies in the according text section above).
• In interviews as well as storytelling, use sensitive language and avoid metaphors, labels or visualisations that dehumanise groups of people in any way, (such as “waves of x group flooding in”, etc.). When showing victims of war, catastrophe or hardship, avoid framing that only evokes pity, as pity implies a status difference and denies them agency or the ability to cope. Report about individual experiences to give protagonists more substance and show variety (57). When reporting about people from the LGBTQIA* community, make sure you have their consent to indicate their gender identity or sexual orientation, and double-check with them or consult professional guidelines to use the proper terms. If you are looking for solid tips on how to amplify women’s voices at each stage of the news value chain check out this comprehensive resource.
• In storytelling, think hard about which social group memberships you need to mention at all and at what point (headline, lead, text; see article 7 on Order Effects). Use adjectives rather than nouns (see above), as they imply less stable “essence” of category labels and allow more flexibility for “un-boxing” people.

• In storytelling, consider that each person belongs to many different groups at the same time — which ones can you mention to add nuance, invite a shift in perspective or create a relatable similarity for your audience, if appropriate? How can you use different angles or layers to break or at least open boxes and invite audiences to see the person as an individual at the intersection of all those layers, without creating an exotic subtype that “does not count”? How can you, in a similar way, report differently about ingroup issues and members, and eventually add nuances?
• When you tell stories about interesting counter-stereotypic protagonists, avoid suggesting causal attributions that “protect” general prejudices because the inconsistency can be blamed on very special conditions. The more numerous and the more various the “exceptions from the rule”, the lower the chance that they are explained away and end up reinforcing the bias. The platform “Wir sind der Osten”, for instance, is an initiative founded to give voice to (progressive) Eastern Germans with many different biographies, lifestyles and viewpoints.
• When you research and report about conflict between groups, try to look out for any possible common goals or even a superordinate common category membership they share. In reporting, dig deeper to explore to what extent seemingly competitive situations might be reframed so that a cooperative approach could allow for win-win instead of win-lose results. What else can you add (data, perspectives) that might make people come up with win-win perspectives on the issue? (see also our upcoming article on mediation and negotiation)

• At the same time, journalistic events can be created to acknowledge that conflicting positions exist and still do not necessarily need to polarise. Contact among individuals is one of the most powerful ways to understand different positions, bridge divides instead of ignoring them and foster empathy. The initiative “The World Talks” is an outstanding example of a journalistic initiative pairing up people with different views on controversial issues. It is very successful, scientifically evaluated, and has gone global. Local and community journalism provides lots of opportunities to create contact within neighbourhoods (for Bonn Institute’s suggestions on “Lösungsjournalismus im Lokalen”, 55)
• Reflect on your own social category affiliations: Which ones do you consider relevant to your personal identity, which ones not so much? Which ones are associated with privilege in the society you live in, which ones subjected you to (unconscious) bias or even open discrimination? How might this affect your research and reporting, the way you interact with different people and frame issues, maybe even how you tackle research, the keywords you use? What might you have come across if you used other terms or portals?

Stereotypes and prejudice create social divides and fuel polarising, extremist forces within societies. Frustration due to lack of opportunities, not feeling seen, heard or respected as a result demotivates people to participate in democratic processes and breeds hatred and violence. Journalists have a very high responsibility when it comes to shaping the climate of public discourse in news, talk shows, and social media. Subtle reiteration of stereotypes of ingroup vs. outgroup in storytelling, of only slightly different treatment of guests from different backgrounds, etc., can be overcome with better knowledge about these phenomena and their impact. The decisive factor here is the will to change century-old narratives and embrace the treasures of diversity — and to enable more conciliatory and respectful journalism in editorial practice with constructive know-how, patience and daily training.

• Elliot Aronson: Nobody left to hate. Teaching compassion after Columbine.
• Jane Elliot: Blue Eyed. Documentary on anti-racism workshops aiming for experience-based learning.
• Irshad Manji: Don't label me: an incredible conversation for divided times.
• Trevor Noah: Born a crime. Stories From a South African Childhood.

Margarida Alpuim is a Portuguese psychologist and journalist. She completed her master's in Community Psychology at the University of Miami, where she focused on issues of collective well-being. As a journalist, Margarida wants to explore more constructive ways to tell stories that consider both the audience and media professionals. Margarida currently works from Lisbon on innovative projects that unite psychology and journalism.

Katja Ehrenberg holds a PhD in psychology and is professor at Fresenius University of Applied Sciences in Cologne. For almost 25 years, she has conducted research, taught and published on topics of social, communication, organisational and health psychology. As a freelance systemic consultant, she advises teams and individuals and enjoys applying social science findings to the various challenges of everyday human (work)life.