Stereotypes and Social Influence: A High School Experience

One experience during my four years at my Catholic high school is incredibly applicable to the content of Psych 280 especially the lectures about Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination and Social Influencing. Us female students had to participate in “skirt checks”. Basically, the school secretary would go to each of the classrooms and tell us girls to go in the hallway. She would then make us get on our knees and proceeded to measure the distance between the bottom of our skirts and the ground. If this length was less than a certain number of inches, our skirts were deemed too short and we would get a warning (a certain period of time to adjust our skirt length). If we did not do this on time or if we refuse to take part in the check itself,

we would have to spend a brief period of time in detention. The reason behind these skirt checks, according to the administration, was to expose us to the concept of dressing modestly (in the context of the Catholic Church) and not be a “distraction” to the other students and teachers, especially male ones. A few social psychological concepts can be applied to the skirt checks such as stereotypes, discrimination, and obedience. By analyzing this particular event with these three terms, negative and harmful insights are brought to the surface.
The first social psychological concept that can explain my high school skirt checks is stereotyping.

Stereotypes themselves consist of presumed beliefs and characteristics about all members of a certain social group (people who share a common characteristic that is meaningful in some way). They can also be positive or negative and can be either true or false (depends on the person currently being scrutinized). The entire premise of my high school skirt checks is a stereotype. The administration believes that all of the girls in my high school who wear skirts are so immodest that they will be a “distraction” to the male students. Immodesty, is a typical characteristics of the female students. It is so prevalent that every girl needs to have her skirt checked, according to my high school administration. By interpreting the skirt checks in terms of stereotyping, it is revealed that the administration views female students in quite an overarching light. Our merit is based on a single assumption that may or may not be true. As a result, we are all clumped together in a single social category, despite the fact that we have multiple differences between us, clothing-related or

not.
Stereotyping can result in discrimination. In other words, discrimination is the behavioral result of stereotyping. It can be defined as a negative or hurtful action towards individuals due to their membership in a group. Individual characteristics/behaviors are completely ignored. A skirt check is an act of discrimination based on two characteristics. First off, every girl in my high school who is wearing a skirt is required to have it measured. We are partaking in this only because we are females who happen to wear skirts as a part of our school uniform. In other words, we are forced to participate because of our group status: skirt-wearing students. Also, many of us complained about having our skirts measured and potentially going to detention for it which fits the criteria of it being a negative act in the eyes of the “victims”. By framing the skirt checks in terms of discrimination, a significant problem arises. Even though the skirt check example is not as severe as many large-scale discriminatory acts, it still serves as an example of discrimination at the institutional level. This is especially problematic because places like schools are supposed to teach students certain moral values such as respect and equality. If one significant group is being treated in an unfair manner, the students and teachers might see this behavior as acceptable or even commendable. In other words, institutional discrimination may lead to more casual discrimination.
The final social psychological term that can be applied to the skirt checks is obedience.

Obedience occurs during an unequal power relationship between an authority figure and a less powerful individual. The individual then submits to a demand that the authority figure makes. The less powerful person has no choice but to submit to the demand in fear of negative consequences. The skirt checks are quite obvious examples of obedience. First of all, it is the authority figures that set the rules and give the demands. The school administration set the requirements about skirt length and the consequences of breaking school policy. The orders that the school administration give are straightforward demands with negative consequences; if you refuse to have your skirt checked or if your skirt is too short, you get a detention. In short, if you do not follow or refuse to follow the rules, you will be punished. It is that simple. Obviously, large-scale instances of obedience have proved detrimental to the well-being of the world such as the Holocaust. Placing the skirt checks in the same general category as the Holocaust is clearly jarring and unnecessary, given they do not have too much in common. However, like the two other terms previously mentioned, framing the skirt checks in the context of obedience gives them a harsher tone than what the school administration wants us to believe. They are not just preventative measures to lessen distraction and to increase modesty, they are a

way for school authority figures to mold the female students to what they think is appropriate.
In short, the potentially negative rationale and consequences behind my high school skirt checks are brought to light by framing them in social psychological terms. Insights such as institutional discrimination and social categorization have varying levels of negativity attached but in this instance, all contribute to this controversial component of my high school education.