In XYZ Corp., a case of prejudice and discrimination unfolded. Sarah, an ambitious and highly qualified African-American woman, faced biased treatment when she applied for a promotion. Despite her outstanding performance, Sarah was consistently overlooked in favor of less-qualified individuals. Her colleagues exhibited prejudice based on racial stereotypes, assuming she lacked leadership abilities. Furthermore, Sarah encountered systemic discrimination as she noticed a significant pay gap between herself and her white counterparts in similar positions. This wage disparity reflected the presence of institutionalized bias within the organization. Moreover, microaggressions compounded Sarah's daily challenges, with colleagues making insensitive comments and questioning her competence due to her race. These subtle acts of discrimination perpetuated a hostile work environment, affecting Sarah's well-being and job satisfaction. This case illustrates how prejudice, discrimination, systemic bias, and microaggressions intersect to create an oppressive workplace culture. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive diversity training, equitable policies, and fostering a culture of inclusion to ensure equal opportunities for all employees.

What is a potential outcome of increasing intergroup contact between two groups?

All of the above.

The initial step in effectively addressing prejudice involves gaining knowledge about its causes or origins. Consequently, the strategies employed to handle prejudice would be successful if they focus on:

(a) Minimizing opportunities that facilitate the acquisition of prejudiced beliefs.

(b) Altering such attitudes that contribute to prejudice.

(c) Deprioritizing a narrow social identity centered around the ingroup.

(d) Discouraging the inclination towards self-fulfilling prophecies among prejudice victims.

These objectives can be achieved through the following approaches:

1. Disseminating education and information to rectify stereotypes associated with specific target groups and addressing the challenge of a strong ingroup bias.

      2. Facilitating increased intergroup contact to enable direct communication, reduce distrust between groups, and even uncover positive attributes in the outgroup.

      3. Emphasizing individual identity over group identity, thereby diminishing the significance of evaluating others based on group affiliations (both ingroup and outgroup).