A good prejudice reduction strategy is the fast friends technique that was developed for people from different social groups. This method helps reduce prejudice among people because it implies strangers asking one another questions that allow them to develop closeness. Moreover, the questions with the fast friends method encourage people to share personal information about themselves, which is an important factor for developing closeness. The idea behind this method is that by engaging in a personal conversation, people can develop a bond that allows them to rethink their attitudes towards different things, people, events, or social groups. For example, by spending 45 minutes engaged in a discussion using the close friends protocol, people can develop a sense of friendship.
The fast friends approach is a good option for prejudice reduction since it has been tested multiple times and studies proved its effectiveness. According to Lytle and Levy (2015), “an extensive body of research increasingly points to intergroup contact in the form of friendship as a particularly effective means for reducing ethnic, racial, religious and sexual prejudice” (p. 447). Moreover, the authors’ research has proven that this approach is helpful when trying to reduce prejudice among heterosexuals towards gay people. This strategy can be implemented at a workplace, and the population at which this prejudice reduction strategy may be directed is older adults. By using this approach at the workplace, the companies, especially those who employ diverse populations or populations with different interests. However, it should be noted that the fast friends method is universal and can be applied in other settings as well, to work with some pressing incidence of prejudice, such as community centers, where younger people can talk to older individuals to reduce the age bias.
Reference
Lytle, A., & Levy, S. R. (2015). Reducing heterosexuals’ prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women via an induced cross-orientation friendship. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 447–455.