Upgrade to remove ads
PSYC 260 Chapter 12: Stereotypes and Discrimination
Terms in this set (55)
the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the characteristics of social groups
an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an outgroup or toward the members of that out group; may take the form highly affective states such as disliking, anger, fear, disgust, or hatred and thus highly influence behavior; leads to discrimination; may influence our academic performances, the jobs we pick, how we are payed for our work
unjustified negative behaviors toward members of outgroups based on their group membership; outward violence is rare however this may take many forms of behavior
performance decrements that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotypes; i.e., women who are reminded that "women are bad at math" will subsequently perform more poorly on math tests than when they are not reminded of this stereotype
Correll et al. (2007)
> researchers had white participants participate in an experiment in which they viewed photographs of White and Black people on a computer screen
> Across the experiment, the photographs showed the people holding either a gun or something harmless such as a cell phone.
> The participants were asked to decide as quickly as possible to press a button to "shoot" if the target held a weapon but to "not shoot" if the person did not hold a weapon.
>Overall, the White participants tended to shoot more often when the person holding the object was Black than when the person holding the object was White, and this occurred even when there was no weapon present
similar to ourselves
prejudice and stereotypes may lead us to select companions and surround ourselves with people who are ....
the natural cognitive process by which we place individuals into social groups; once we do so, we begin to respond to those people more as members of a social group than as individuals; may create potential for misperception or even hostility depending on how yours differs with that of others
spontaneously, much thought
social categorization occurs .... without ...; it occurs all the time, and we often do not even realize it
pros of social categorization
> social categorizations have a degree of truth; this is why we use them when viewing others
> stereotypes may be helpful in categorizing the different roles that certain groups take on in society
> allows us to evaluate others when we cannot do anything more thorough in a situation
> allows us to reduce complexity of others
cons of social categorization
> social categorization can distort our perceptions of others so that we exaggerate differences of members outside our social group and minimize differences of members within our own group
> we tend to see people belonging to one social group as more similar than they actually are, and we tend to treat them the same
> outgroup homogeneity
the tendency to view members of outgroups as more similar to each other than we see members of our own ingroups; occurs in part b/c we do not have many quality experiences with others outside our ingroups; also occurs b/c we routinely group these individuals together, increasing the appearance of their group being cognitively similar
stereotypes become linked to the group through mental representations (so they seem natural and right, even if they are actually distorted)
what is the outcome of outgroup homogeneity?
communications with peers and family, behaviors portrayed in the media, perpetuation through culture
what are some ways we learn stereotypes?
enduring , better remembered
once stereotypes have been developed, they are ...; people who have stronger stereotypes ask less questions of those in out groups, as if they already know the answers; further, stereotypes are maintained because information that confirms stereotypes are .... than information that disconfirms them
important social norms that are part of our culture
stereotypes and prejudice are powerful largely because they are....
highly accessible, seem correct
stereotypes influence our behavior, judgements, and responses so strongly because they are ...
bogus pipeline procedure
> in this procedure, the experimenter first convinces the participants that he or he has access to their "true" beliefs, for instance, by getting access to a questionnaire that they completed at a prior experimental session
> once the participants are convinced that the researcher is able to assess their "true" attitudes, it is expected that they will be more honest in answering the rest of the questions they are asked because they want to be sure that the researcher does not catch them lying.
> this procedure suggests that people may frequently mask their negative beliefs in public—people express more prejudice when they are in this procedure than they do when they are asked the same questions more directly
implicit associations test
> participants are asked to classify stimuli that they view on a computer screen into one of two categories by pressing one of two computer keys, one with their left hand and one with their right hand. Furthermore, the categories are arranged such that the responses to be answered with the left and right buttons either "fit with" (match) the stereotype or do not "fit with" (mismatch) the stereotype.
> then the participants categorize the photos and answer questions about the stereotypes by pressing either the yes button or the No button using either their left hand or their right hand.
> When the responses are arranged on the screen in a "matching" way, such that the male category and the "strong" category are on the same side of the screen (e.g., on the right side), participants can do the task very quickly and they make few mistakes. It's just easier, because the stereotypes are matched or associated with the pictures in a way that makes sense.
> But when the images are arranged such that the women and the strong categories are on the same side, whereas the men and the weak categories are on the other side, most participants make more errors and respond more slowly.
> The basic assumption is that if two concepts are associated or linked, they will be responded to more quickly if they are classified using the same, rather than different, keys (this happens out of conscious awareness)
the stereotypes we hold about a social group are inaccurate overall (and particularly when they do not apply to the individual who is being judged)
stereotyping is problematic when... ; i.e., they are unfair
self-fulfilling prophecies (i.e., we treat people according to stereotypes and this makes them more likely to act accordingly)
stereotypes eventually become ....
under time pressure, distracted
our tendencies to use stereotypes become stronger when we are...
when we are with members of other groups than we do when we are with people from our own groups, and we need to use more .... to control our behavior because of our anxiety about revealing our stereotypes or prejudices; when we know that we need to control our expectations so that we do not unintentionally stereotype the other person, we may try to do so—but doing so takes effort and may frequently fail
evolutionary basis of social categorization
> because our ancestors lived in small social groups that were frequently in conflict with other groups, it was evolutionarily functional for them to view members of other groups as different and potentially dangerous
> differentiating between "us" and "them" probably helped keep us safe and free from disease, and as a result, the human brain became very efficient in making these distinctions
> the problem is that these naturally occurring tendencies may lead us to prefer people who are like us, and in some cases even to unfairly reject people from out groups (in-group favoritism)
the tendency to respond more positively to people from our ingroups than we do to people from out groups; result of self-concern interacting with group perceptions; groups exist simply because individuals perceive those groups as existing, so even in a case where there really is no group (at least no meaningful group in any real sense), we still perceive groups and still demonstrate
outcomes of in-group favoritism
> develops very quickly, from years 3-6, and immediately influences behavior
> people like people who express ingroup favoritism better than those who are more egalitarian
> found for many different types of social groups, in many different settings, on many different dimensions, and in many different cultures
> occurs on trait ratings, such that ingroup members are rated as having more positive characteristics than are out group members
> people also take credit for the successes of other ingroup members, remember more
positive than negative information about ingroups, are more critical of the performance of outgroup than of ingroup members, and believe that their own groups are less prejudiced than are out groups
> describe the ingroup and its members as having broad positive traits but describe negative ingroup behaviors in terms of the specific behaviors of single group members (allows us to protect view of our ingroup)
ultimate attribution error
tendency to make trait attributions in ways that benefit our ingroups, just as we make trait attributions that benefit ourselves; results in the tendency for each of the competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and unrealistically negatively
causes of ingroup favoritism
> natural part of social categorization—we categorize into ingroups and outgroups because it helps us simplify and structure our environment
> we belong to the ingroup and not the out group; we like people who are similar to ourselves, and we perceive other ingroup members as similar to us
> simple self-enhancement (most important); we want to feel good about ourselves, and seeing our ingroups positively helps us do so
the positive self-esteem that we get from our group memberships
in-group is threatened, worried about self-concept
when are we most likely to show in-group favoritism?
when the members of the ingroup are clearly inferior to other groups on an important dimension, when a member of one's own group behaves in a way that threatens the positive image of the ingroup
situational factors that cause in-group favoritism to NOT occur?
black sheep effect
the strong devaluation of ingroup members who threaten the positive image and identity of the ingroup
a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer things to be simple rather than complex and who tend to hold traditional and conventional values; tend to be more in-group favoring b/c it simplifies thinking about your in-group
social dominance orientation
a personality variable that refers to the tendency to see and to accept inequality among different groups; believe that there are and should be status differences among social groups, and they do not see these as wrong; also show greater ingroup favoritism
anger and anxiety among stigmatized group members (and may lead to stress and other psychological problems)
everyday "minor" forms of discrimination can be problematic because they may produce...
education (new social norms), intergroup contact
factors that make us less prejudiced?
the idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice due to increased other-concern; i.e., if children from different ethnic groups play together in school, their attitudes toward each other should improve; more effective with interdependence
> mutual inderdependence
> a common goal
> equal status
> informal, interpersonal contact
> multiple contacts
> social norms of equality
a state in which the group members depend on each other for successful performance of the group goals
an approach to learning in which students from different racial or ethnic groups
work together, in an interdependent way, to master material. The class is divided into small learning groups, where each group is diverse in ethnic and gender composition. The assigned material to be learned is divided into as many parts as there are students in the group, and members of different groups who are assigned the same task meet together to help develop a strong report; effective in reducing prejudice and stereotypes
extended contact hypothesis
prejudice can also be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the outgroup, even if the individual does not have direct contact with the outgroup members himself or herself
common in-group identity
the attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization; interdependence and cooperation → common ingroup identity → favorable intergroup attitudes
goals that are very important to both groups and require the cooperative efforts and resources of both groups to attain; increases interdependence and thus reduces prejudice and stereotyping
affect, behavior cognition
prejudice refers to an ..., discrimination refers to a ..., and stereotyping refers to a ....
stereotypes lead to prejudice and discrimination
limited observation > negative stereotype > negative affect > negative behavior
cognition and categorization
> any cognitions are activated alone with a stereotype
> stimulus automatically activated relevant categories
> person perception is highly salient and activated relevant schemas
we feel confused, scared, or anxious, may try to pigeon-hole
what happens when we are faced with ambiguous stimuli that we cannot categorize into a group?
increase interaction with different social groups, challenge own stereotypes, realize the system
how can we reduce stereotyping?
Devine (Dissociation Model, 1989)
STEP 1) encountering a stimulus: automatically activates stereotype and category information that is applied to that person and floods the cognitive system
STEP 2) individuating step: act of controlling a stereotype by seeing the person as an individual; this takes up considerable cognitive energy and resources related with executive control
3) according to this model, a more diversified social category (i.e, the # of outcomes associated with a group) should reduce prejudice through more experience with the social group as well as common goal-based actions within the group
time pressure, stress, low motivation, cognitive load
situational factors that increase the use of category information over individuation?
Steele and Aronson (stereotype threat, 1995)
> 2 groups of women were asked to take an important math test
> one group of women were asked to select their gender before taking the test
> the women that had to select their gender showed decreased performance on the math test than women who were not reminded of their gender; demonstrates stereotype threat
> this occurs due to anxiety that arises due to the stereotype, and this anxiety inhibits cognitive performance
> * self-affirmation will cause performance to go back to baseline levels
realistic conflict theory
the idea that stereotyping is evolutionarily advantageous; this is b/c the conflict over limited resources (like food, water, energy, etc.) makes it beneficial to discriminate agains people outside of your in-group; however, this adaptiveness has "worn off" due to modern times
social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner)
the idea that categorizations lead to ingroups through favoritism and heterogeneity, as well as the derogation and perceived homogeneity of outgroups
authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, collectivism, decrease in humanism and egalitarianism
personal factors that predict prejudice/discrimination?
conformity, group think, group polarization (for this to work, the group norms must already be prejudiced)
situational factors that predict prejudice/discrimination?
characteristics of hate groups
> institutionalized stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
> outgroup derogation is an injunctive social norm (i.e., it is seen as the moral thing to do)
> deindividuation of members (including hiding face, same clothes/appearance)
> perceive that they are on the "side of good"
false consensus bias, confirmation bias, assimilation, avoidance of cognitive dissonance
why do hate groups stay so consistent when there is evidence against their claims?
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE...
Social Psychology | Bordens, Horowitz
Prejudice, Chapter 6
Chapter 14 - part 2
OTHER SETS BY THIS CREATOR
ARTH 160 Midterm
AMST 110: Final Exam
PSYC 225: Gustation and Olfaction
PSYC 225: Pain Perception