The Power of the Cognitive Behavioral Approach to Stereotyping

by Mary Singleton, MEd, PLPC

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has been thinking about recent racial conflicts involving police officers and citizens.  We have all seen how an event, such as a police officer shooting someone, can inspire dramatically different reactions in people — reactions which often correlate to race and which elicit very different feelings and behaviors as a result of these thoughts.  Cultural messages and life experiences contribute greatly to the automatic thoughts an individual has in response to a significant event, and psychological responses are involved, as well. Many people have been conditioned, starting at an early age, to automatically respond to circumstances in a certain way. What we need to ask ourselves is whether the responses we have to our fellow citizens are appropriate and, if not, how we can change any that need to be changed.

When some people hear about a police officer shooting a young man, they may think of young persons in their own families or their circle of friends. When others hear about the same event, they may infer that the person who was shot probably did something to provoke the shooting. I know that my life experiences have led me, in general, to trust the judgment of police officers.  The few times in my life that I, or a family member, have had to interact with police in a negative way were when I, or the family member, had broken a law.  But then, to my knowledge, I’ve never been followed in a store because someone thought I was going to steal something.  I’ve never been pulled over by the police and wondered if it was because of my skin color.  I’ve never noticed anyone holding their purse closer when I walked by.  I’ve never thought anyone looked at me and worried that someone of my skin color might be more likely to commit a crime.

These kinds of responses are not, however, restricted to any particular race or social strata. Everyone is vulnerable to making generalizations of one kind or another. Most often, when we make generalizations, it is an attempt to protect ourselves, it is a primitive response, and based on heuristics. The mechanism that produces this response is fear, and it is produced in the mid-brain. That part of the human brain develops far more fully earlier in life, than does the prefrontal and superorbital cortex, which are associated with things such as logic and rational thought. The reason for this, is that, often, things that produce fear, have the potential to harm us, even kill us, and so it is adaptive to recognize things that are potential threats earlier in life, and then to develop the ability to make complex distinctions later in life.

For example, if we as a child, are frightened by an aggressive dog, or worse yet, bitten by one, we very quickly reach the conclusion that dogs are to be feared and avoided because they produce a terror response. If this happens early enough in life, the fear response is not just associated with dogs, but is generalized to anything that is of similar description. Young children may, at first, call every animal that they see, a “doggie.” Only later, do they learn to distinguish between dogs and cats. They may even say ‘doggie’ when they see  a cow until they learn that a cow is a hoofed animal, much larger than a dog. Then, they might generalize any large hoofed creature, such as a horse, as a cow, until they are instructed in the differences between cows and horses.

When a fear response is triggered, those generalizations become more rigid, and the responses more extreme. There was a famous experiment conducted over a hundred years ago, by a man named, Watson, on a subject called, Little Albert. Little Albert was taught to have a fear response when presented with a stuffed white rabbit. When the rabbit was presented to Little Albert, a loud startling noise was triggered at the same time. Once the presentation of the rabbit consistently produced a fear response, the experimenter went on to produce other things that were white, or fuzzy, etc. As one might expect, Little Albert became terrified of just about anything that was white or fuzzy. We may, as we get older, become somewhat more sophisticated in our thought patterns, but the part of the brain that is associated with fear, the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system), still functions in that way. We may learn to accommodate or differentiate in some circumstances, but in many others, if those fears go unchallenged, those generalizations remain to varying degrees.

This accounts for stereotyping, but it does not justify stereotyping.

In 1 Corinthians 13:11, it says, “When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put away childish thinking,” and that includes generalizations that are not supportable, and are damaging. If they cause us to assume the worst in others, to put distance between them and us, or view them as somehow less worthy, or less valuable, then we are mandated to challenge those thoughts and replace them with more mature, rational thoughts.

It leads me to ask these questions: Why is there such a difference in how people of different races interpret the same event?  What, if anything, can we do to direct or control our reactions to other people and events?

I teach my clients to use a cognitive behavioral approach for these types of issues. In cognitive behavioral psychology, the following method is called the ‘ABC Method.’ That stands for the Antecedent, the Behavior, and the Consequence. The antecedent is the triggering event– what happened, that then produced the behavior? The behavior, obviously, is our reaction. In this particular situation, it might be that we don’t show any external behaviors, but that they’re internal, in the form of thoughts — thoughts that are belittling, condemning, or in some way derogatory. The consequence, then, is what the reaction produces in us, which would be a secondary behavior.  This may be that we avoid an individual, that we change our posture or demeanor, or that in circumstances where we may be called to offer support or encouragement, we choose, based on faulty thinking, not to provide comfort or support. Secondary and tertiary consequences, would include things such as conflict, resentment, misunderstandings, and as we’ve seen, tensions on a broader social level. When a triggering event happens, it leads to a thought, based on an underlying belief, which produces a feeling, and is followed by a behavior. Changing one’s faulty thinking can result in changing the outcome of negative behavior. This is a simple formula, and very useful in helping people change feelings and/or behaviors they don’t want to have. The formula is easy to use. According to this theory, repeating this process in an appropriate way will lead to change.

When a problematic event happens:

1. Pay attention to your thoughts – Increase your awareness of the thoughts that you have, particularly, those that are driven by fear or that are converted into generalizations that on some level, we know, are not consistent with what the Bible says about those who are created in the image of God. When we have those thoughts, the next step is to examine them, to see what, if any, part of it is true, and to distinguish  parts that are true from the untruths that are interwoven. For example, it may be that we are in a place and at a time where we have a sense of danger. This may be based on multiple factors, such as seeing a group of people in a dark alley late at night when we are alone. It may be prudent, in that situation, to change how and where we are walking and to avoid a situation that could be potentially dangerous. This does not mean that we are trying and condemning the individuals in question, but just that we are taking into account multiple factors, and choosing a course of wisdom, rather than having the situation validate our worst fears. On the other hand, more often than not, the generalizations that we may have about individuals, for example, a person with piercings and tattoos, may have very little to do with what, if anything, we know about an individual that we may observe. We may know nothing of their lives or lifestyles, choices, practices, education, etc. So, thoughts which do not have a basis in fact or evidence, we must necessarily challenge and dispute. We should, along with this disputation, give good, solid reasons for why we do not have sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion that is otherwise based on assumption.
2. Practice alternative thoughts – Next, we replace our faulty thoughts with those that are more true, which may even include the thought that it is neither our place nor our business to render judgement about an individual. It may allow us to recollect examples of others who do not fit the stereotypical model we had previously entertained in our minds, and recognize that we may have many examples of people who do not fit the stereotype, people that because of our bias, we may have set aside as outliers.
3. Re-frame the situation in a more positive way – Finally, we focus on things that are true, recognizing that we can never know all of the various components that interact to produce the phenomenon of an individual. These not only include genetics and life experiences, but many other things that we would have neither the capacity, nor the access, to fully understand. We can remember that we are all broken people in a fallen world, desperately needing grace, and that we are all image bearers of God, and worthy of the dignity that this affords. We can remind ourselves that much of what we have was in no way the result of anything that we did, including our race, any genetic material that we carry, the fact that we were born at all, the availability of food, education, and even medical attention, to which much of the world will never have access. When we recognize that what we have is largely, by God’s grace, and that we are every bit as broken and in need of forgiveness and mercy as anyone else, it helps us to focus on the similarities with others rather than the differences.

A cognitive approach can work especially well for Christians as we “renew our minds,” (Romans 12:2)  and “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 10:5) When we experience a questionable thought, we should consider whether or not it lines up with what God says, and then practice thinking of Scripture as our alternative thoughts.  In other words, re-frame the situation in terms of what the Bible says.

As I think about recent events in Ferguson, and elsewhere in our country, I’m convinced that the cognitive behavioral approach can also be applied to racial issues.

Stereotypes are beliefs about groups of people that are created by our culture and by our experiences.  For example, if one or more people in a group do something or have a particular characteristic, and we attribute the same actions and characteristics to the entire racial or ethnic group by association, this is stereotyping. These beliefs can become a part of our automatic and unconscious life-scripts, and influence our behaviors if we don’t address them and refute them as a regular practice. We’ve seen that people in our community absorb these messages, often without thinking much about it.

I did some workshops on stereotypes with young teens and asked them to finish sentences with stereotypes such as “old people are…”, “people with tattoos/piercings are…”, “women/men are…”, “rich/poor people are…” etc. The teens were able to identify some stereotypes, but strongly resisted saying those stereotypes out loud and would say things like, “the stereotype is…” quickly followed by “but that isn’t true.” Acknowledging that we are influenced by stereotypes can be painful. We can’t control stereotypes that are pervasive in our culture, but we can control what we do with them when they intrude on our own thoughts.

When people become aware of stereotypical thoughts, they may experience feelings of shame, or guilt, or anger.  Instead of thinking that a stereotypical thought necessarily comes from a “bad” person, I suggest re-framing the situation. A stereotypical thought means a person is influenced by messages in our culture, but a person can choose what they do with that thought.  In other words, one can acknowledge a negative thought about a person based upon a generalization, challenge it, and then replace it with a different, more positive thought.

I believe we can minimize the effect of stereotypes on our thoughts, feelings and behaviors by applying the cognitive formula discussed above when a stereotypical thought intrudes on our thinking.

When driving through neighborhoods and seeing well-kept yards and homes, do we automatically assume those homes belong to a specific type of person? Why would the thought of what type of person owns the homes even come to mind? How is it relevant to the look of the homes? Making that connection is an example of a stereotypical thought.

Thoughts and feelings can happen so quickly that it is hard to separate them, but if we catch ourselves in thinking a stereotypical thought, we can replace it and tell ourselves that “This is a nice neighborhood,” period. It has nothing to do with generalized, often irrelevant, thoughts of the demographics of its residents. We are then choosing to reject a particular stereotype.

There are other stereotypes, and all of us are all too familiar with them, but let’s recognize them for what they are – stereotypes that should have no place in our thinking. If we are one who falls prey to such a thought, we should immediately check ourselves and remind ourselves that we are all equal in the eyes of God. There’s no reason we shouldn’t make every effort to treat all people that we encounter in the same Christ-like manner.

As a counselor, I need to always be aware of the intrusion of stereotypical thoughts that could create a bias with my clients.  As a Christian, I want to monitor my thoughts in a way that would honor Christ.  We all interact with people who are different from us.  Cognitive behavioral therapy can be a tool we can each use to help us address thoughts we don’t want to have, including thoughts that perpetuate fear, conflict, or a sense of detachment.

We know from Genesis that God made man – all men and women — in His own image. As ambassadors of Christ, let’s be those who lead the way in embracing our neighbors, regardless of their race, background, or superficial characteristics. Let’s all pray that these next months can be a time of healing in our community and let’s those of us who bear Christ’s image be those who lead the way in this healing.

 

About the Author

Mary is a behavioral therapist working out of the Hazelwood, Olivette and West County locations. She works with a variety of clientele including adolescents, adults, families, and couples. When she’s not counseling, Mary enjoys working with Stephen Ministry through her church.  Click on the picture to the left for Mary’s full bio.