109 Flashcards
PASS
There is a 3 number sequence. I have a rule in mind. Try to find the rule. You can give me a set of three and I will confirm or deny. Most people will:
Hypothesize that the rule is doubling then offer numbers that double to test the rule.
Why is there a hierarchy of scientific methods ?
Methods further up the hierarchy are more reliable at detecting causation.
Hierarchy of evidence (11)
1.Meta-analyses of exp research 2.Experiments 3.Trial Error 4.Surveys 5.Ethnography 6.Qualitative 7.Systemic observation 8.Logic 9.Conspiracies 10.Pseudoscience 11.Idelogical dogma
Science vs Pseudoscience
Science = Logic + Observation vs Pseudoscience is a term for a field of study that appears to be scientific but lacks scientific standards
Why Science? (3)
Interactive method study of the universe, core of education, always beneficial
Human biases (2)
Perceptual bias and confirmation bias
Cognitive Bias
Thinking the wrong thing when your brain tries to simplify information (confirmation, group think, fomo).
The issue with Intuition (3)
“Facts” are Counter-intuitive, “Common sense”, People hold different contradicting views
The issue with Authority
“So and so said so” Authority figures are often wrong/biased
The issue with consensus
Group think, majority fallacy, biases
The issue with logic
Logic alone is not enough a lot of people don’t follow logic
Scientific Method (3)
Getting knowledge by using testable hypotheses, systematic observations, theories, etc
Feyman’s Science
1.Guess 2.Compute consequences 3.Compare computations 4.Experiment
3 Steps of Science
1.Use or create a theory/hypothesis 2.Deduce what must be true if it is correct 3.Devise and use a test that collects date to prove it
Hogg’s uncertainty reduction theory (Why people believe conspiracies?)
A1: People don’t like feeling uncertain about themselves and try to reduce it.
A2: Joining a strong group helps reduce uncertainty.
A3: Identifying with a group makes you follow its rules, but this doesn’t happen with other groups.
Tajfel’s Social identity theory (2 parts)
Social psychological theory that explains how people’s sense of self is based on their membership in social groups and the patterns of cooperation and competition (and its changes over time)
Forms of Intergroup Behavior (3 Social)
Social Competition, Social Creativity, Social Mobility
Social competition (IGB)
e.g., intergroup violence, riots,
language revival movements -> Compete over power/prestige/status
High identification, illegitimate and/or unstable status, and non-permeable
boundaries
Social creativity (IGB)
e.g., slogan “Black is beautiful”; some
forms of bilingualism, diglossia -> Avoid competition,“create” positive identity by other means
High identification, legitimate and/or stable status, and non-permeable
boundaries
Social mobility (IGB)
(e.g., the American dream; learn the
dominant group languages -> Gain status by personally joining a dominant group
Low identification, legitimate and/or stable status, and permeable boundaries
Social identity theory relies on the following psychological mechanisms to explain prejudice and discrimination
Striving to be different from and better than the outgroup
The Social Identity Mechanism (3)
- Intergroup behavior is caused by the motive for positive identity. It is constrained by how group status is viewed. 2.This desire for a positive identity leads to groups competing for status. 3.High-status groups try to keep their status, while low-status groups try to gain it or take it out on others.
The Minimal Group Paradigm: The Origins of SIT
People can favor their own group, even when the group is randomly created and doesn’t really mean anything. This idea led to Social Identity Theory (SIT), which explains that people get part of their identity from the groups they belong to, and this can lead to liking your own group more and disliking others.
Minimal groups
Trivial or random basis for group assignment
No prior history
No self-interest
Anonymity
People give more $ to them than their outgroup
Minimal Group Paradigm explained
(1) People categorize using the minimal categories
provided
(2) Identify with their category
(3) Compare with the outgroup in terms of $
(4) Strive for positive distinctiveness (i.e., positive
identity—different from, yet better than) by giving
relatively more $ to the ingroup (i.e., maximum
difference)
Minimal Group Paradigm conclusion
Members of novel and arbitrary groups are prone to
show intergroup bias/favor even when there is no material self-interest (rewards) to be gained
Categorization is sufficient to induce intergroup
discrimination
Self interest and realistic conflict of interest can induce intergroup discrimination not just bias
Psychological groups (SIT)
sports teams, nations, genders, religions,
occupations, ethnicity, aesthetic preferences . . . . . Any
psychologically significant group (mac vs. PC; Ford v. Chevy . . .)
Social Identification (Cognitive, Affective) (SIT)
how people mentally (cognitive) and emotionally (affective) connect with their group. It’s about how you see yourself as part of the group and how that makes you feel.
Legitimacy of Status Relation (SIT)
refers to whether the way groups are ranked (high status vs. low status) feels fair or justified. If people believe the status difference is deserved, it’s seen as “legitimate.”
Stability of Status Relation (SIT)
whether the status difference between groups is seen as likely to stay the same or change over time. A stable status relation means people expect the group rankings to remain unchanged.
Permeability of Group Boundaries (SIT)
how easy it is to move between groups. If group boundaries are permeable, people can move from a lower-status group to a higher-status group more easily. If they are impermeable, it’s hard or impossible to change groups.
MGP Support
Turner: Coin Toss, Macdonald et al: 4 year olds with crayons
Theories of Prejudice (5)
1.Authoritarian personality, see Adorno et al.
2.Social dominance theory, see Sidanius and Pratto.
3. System justification theory, see Jost
4.Interdependence theory, see Sherif
5. Culture, see Pettigrew
Prejudice (SIT)
Favorable or most likely unfavorable
attitudes towards a social group and its members
Prejudice is a positive or negative attitude regarding members of groups, assumed to cause
discrimination, but evidence for a direct association weak;
Discrimination (SIT)
Behavioral actions of unequal
treatment between groups and individual
members of groups, likely based on prejudice
Ingroup favoritism (SIT)
Attitudes or behaviors (i.e.,
prejudices and discrimination) that favors one’s
ingroup over other groups
Outgroup favoritism
Attitudes or behaviors that
favors an outgroup over one’s ingroup
3 Parts of Social Identity Theory
People extract positive social identity from ingroup
status in comparison to rival outgroups
Status striving is governed by: Identification, legitimacy,
stability, permeability
Leading to social: -mobility, -creativity, -competition
Lambert 1960 Language Attitudes (SIT)
Lambert et al. (1960) matched guise technique
French and Anglo-Canadians rate bilingual speakers
French seen low on all dimensions except kindness and religiosity,
Anglos high on all—IQ, competence, attractiveness etc.
What intergroup context promotes this pattern?
Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam (1990) SIT
Test on Group Permeability - Keep trying the test -> People in power keep the power with tokenism only letting 1-2% in
Tokenism (SIT)
Dominant groups can use tokenism to control subordinate groups
Competition and conflict within the subordinate group is a likely
result of tight quotas
aka: “divide and conquer
Terrorism (SIT)
Behavior is directed at social change by disrupting the
dominant group and increasing support for extremism. Group lacks power, doesn’t see permeable boundaries, communication information to potential follwers. Relationship between groups is unstable
Dominant group social
competition (sit)
Valence (negative + some positive) and complexity (classifying by traits)
Allen and Scott’s H statistic, (ethnophalisms) SIT
Allen (1983) categorized ethnophaulisms (negative terms for groups) into six types: physical traits, personal traits, names, food habits, group names, and others to determine complexity
Scott’s H is a measure that shows how much agreement there is between raters about these categories, compared to what would happen by chance.
Mullen and Rice (2003): Complexity over
valence (SIT)
Ethnic immigrant groups in U.S. described with lower
complexity ethnophaulisms (Stereotypes and negatives)
Social Identity Strategy
Moderates relationship between prejudice and discrimination
Linguistic prejudices and discrimination SIT
are normative
performances and reactions to groups competing for
status and power
Leader, Mullen, & Rice (2009) Malgravians (SIT)
conducted an experiment where they varied negative labels for “Malgravians” in different ways:
Moderate vs. highly negative labels (e.g., calling someone a “yack” for being stupid vs. naïve)
*Slur is used for stronger word (stupid is stronger)
High vs. low complexity labels (e.g., made-up words for intellect, appearance, and character)
(High: strong details of persons character) (Low: More general)
They used the Bogardus social distance scale to measure how willing people were to form close relationships with Malgravians (e.g., marriage, friendship, being neighbors). They found that more negative or complex labels increased social distance and willingness to avoid Malgravians.
Experiments in the minimal group paradigm show
Categorization alone is enough to cause intergroup discrimination
Social Psychological theories on prejudice and discrimination believe that
Prejudice causes discrimination
Research on ethnophaulisms suggests that
Groups that have simple ethnophalisms recieve more discrimination
Semin & Fiedler’s (1988) Linguistic Category Model
Descriptive Interpetative State Adjectives
Descriptive Action Verbs LCM
Objective, specific, observable with
clear beginning and end. Refers to specific object and situation.
Usually neutral valence
Kiss, Look, Run,Visit, Call, Punch, Kill
Interpretative Action Verbs LCM
Actions with clear beginning and end.
Provides interpretation beyond mere description. Has valence Help, Offend, Inhibit, Cheat,Threaten
State Verbs LCM
Enduring states (emotional, affective) beyond specific
behaviors or situations. No clear beginning and end Believe, Love, Admire, Desire, Envy, Hate
Adjectives LCM
Abstract personal dispositions. No object or
situational reference. Detached from specific behaviors
Describing In group vs Outgroup (IPANC OPCNA)
In group: Positive Abstract Negative Concrete
Outgroup: Positive Concrete Negative Abstract
“I panic. Oh please come nullify anxiety.”
Maass, Salvi, Arcuri, & Semin (1989) LIB/LCM
Maas says: The LIB implies that stereotypical deatures of a group are stable dispositions
Subjects: Members of rival cities in Italy during horse
racing competitions
Equal status rivals: San Giorgio, San Giacomo
Procedure: 16 single-frame cartoons depicted socially
desirable and undesirable behaviors
Choose the most appropriate description (E 1),
complete a sentence (E 2
Abstract negative and actions and specific langauage for positive
Dragojevic, Sink, & Mastro (2016) LCM
Concrete implies: Situational, unstable, one off
Abstract implie: Dispositional stable repeatable
Social Identity Threat? LCM
Ss: Hunters versus Environmentalists
Threat to environmentalists: “Hunters are right there in the field in order to
intervene without getting lost in endless political discussions (like
environmentalists)”
Threat to hunters: “We have obtained positive results in the area of civil
education regarding the environment and in their battles against categories that
endanger the natural patrimony of all (such as the hunters)”
No threat: “A need for x, y, to cooperate and collaborate. . .
linguistic intergroup bias
Intergroup biases
biased language
maintenance of
existing biases
People tend to use more positive language for their own group (ingroup) and more negative or neutral language for others (outgroup), even if the actions are similar.
This bias helps maintain a favorable view of one’s own group and a negative or less favorable view of others.
Reid, Alimahomed, Heinz, & Myers LIB
challenged Maas et al.’s expectancy-based bias, which suggested bias would appear in both mobile and non-mobile groups ->They found that the bias (using abstract, negative language) only appeared in the mobile group, not in the non-mobile
linguistic intergroup bias
People describe positive ingroup and negative outgroup actions using more abstract language than when describing negative ingroup and positive out group action
ABS:PIN NOA
This bias helps maintain a favorable view of one’s own group and a negative or less favorable view of others.
linguistic expectancy bias
when people use language in ways that align with their expectations or beliefs about a group, even if those beliefs are inaccurate or exaggerated. Essentially, people’s expectations shape how they describe others.
For example, if someone expects a group to be aggressive, they might describe any behavior from that group as hostile, even if it isn’t. This bias reinforces stereotypes and can influence how people perceive and talk about different groups.
Maas et al 1995 studied north and south italian stereotypes and claimed to find evidence of a linguistic expectancy bias - Reid says their findings could be interpreted as showing
Social identity theory would explain the pattern of social creativity
If you are attempting to critize a group you are not a member of research suggests you are less likelt yo elicit sensitivity if
You use inclusive language, the group has a norm of reacting favorably to criticsm, you are percieved to identify with the group you are criticisizing
Intergroup sensitivity effect is the finding that
Criticism are recieved less defensively when made up by an ingroup member than when made by an outgroup member
Hornsey, Oppes, & Svensson (2002) ISE
Australian students what they think of australian students (smart and friendly or racist and intolerant)
Avoid sensitive reactions using: We vs They
Mediator vs Morderator ISE (Why vs Effect)
Mediator: An ‘intervening’ variable. A variable that explains why an
effect occurs.
Moderator: A variable that alters the effect of another variable. E.G:
Group membership moderates the effect of comments directed at
the ingroup.
Intergroup Sensitivity Effect
People are more sensitive (e.g., offended) when outgroup
(than ingroup) members say negative things about the
ingroup
Group membership cues people in to the motives of the
critic—ingroup critics are assumed to be more
constructive and legitimate than outgroup critics
ISE is not driven by group membership, per se, but by
both group membership and the degree to which the
critic is invested in the group;
Outgroup critics may get away with criticizing a group by
using inclusive language (promoting a common ingroup
identity)
There are likely to be many explanations for offense
Offense taking is likely to be largely normative
Almagro et al. (2022): Whose words hurt? OFNS
People say they want free expression, but endorse govt.
control over racist speech, e.g., neo-Nazi ideology.
People also claim that intent matters (e.g., contrast pre-
meditated murder vs. manslaughter), as well as outcome
Gave 8 scenarios manipulating statements:
Identity (subordinate ingroup v. dominant outgroup) (confound!?)
Intent (negative vs. neutral)
Outcome (negative vs. neutral)
Measured perceived offense
Self-Categorization Theory (5)
Designed to explain when and how different aspects of the self concept become salient
Self-categorization is fluid and context-dependent
Human minds maximize meaning
Meaning is extracted by putting things into categories
Meaning maximization is automatic, not motivated
Perceive information in the environment, & categorize
(following fit);
(2) Perceive the content of categories as prototypes;
(3) Internalize the ingroup prototype (self-stereotype)
(4) Prototype describes/prescribes attitudes, beliefs, and
behavior
(5) If the prototype changes, people change to new prototype
Meta-Contrast SCT
People congitively macimixe the ratio of within category similarities to intercategory differences in stimuli
meaning we emphasize the differences between groups and the similarities within groups.
We as humans make sense of the world by putting things into categories/separating them by features (colors, shapes, this is this because it’s not that)
We try to make things within the same group (like all chairs) seem as similar as possible.
We also make things from different groups (like chairs and tables) seem as different as possible
This is why we fight over things like: A hotdog is a sandwhich but a quesadilla is not a sandwhich.
Salience SCT
Salience = Activating a component of the self-concept
Depersonalization, or “self-stereotyping”
We define ourselves as representative of social categories:
“I am an American”
John goes to a party and doesnt want to drink anymore but Roger insists he does so he does. John has
Is complying on beer drinking
The Fit Hypothesis SCT
Comparative fit Accessibility Normative
Comparative - FH
(the meta-contrast process)
Meta-contrast stimuli in the environment
How well a person’s behavior or identity matches the group’s characteristics compared to other groups. If you act like most members of a group, you fit well.
If you’re part of a sports team, your behavior (like being active and competitive) should match the typical behavior of that group.
Accessibility FH
(“perceiver readiness”)–experience
Social values/task demands/identifications/ideologies
How easily a person’s behavior or identity can be linked to the group’s typical traits or characteristics. It’s about how easy it is to relate to the group in that moment. (I can do this? Of couse I can I’m a ____.”
If you wear a team jersey, it’s easy for others to recognize that you’re part of the team.
Normative fit
A discussion of attitudes towards life—happy-go-lucky vs.
save-for-a-rainy-day
Correlation of stimuli with normative expectations
(correspondence with norms and
expectations within a given society)
. . . Because we have a working model with assumptions, and sometimes we cannot overcome our model assumptions:
How well a person’s behavior or identity aligns with the group’s social norms or accepted behaviors. It’s about matching what the group expects or thinks is appropriate.
Example: A sports team expects players to train hard, so if you do that, you fit the team’s norms.
Categories are activated FH
When they fit
Prototype FH/SCT
A fuzzy set of features that best defines a category in
relation to background categories.
According to SCT prototype shift with the frame of
reference in which they are perceived.
In Self-Categorization Theory, a prototype is the ideal or typical image of a group member. It’s the set of characteristics or behaviors that represent the “average” or most common features of a group.
Prototypes Enable us to make Rapid and
Complex Judgments about Ourselves,
Ingroups, and Outgroups
Descriptive and
prescriptive
U.S. Nationalism after September 11, 2001 -FH/SCT
Perceiver Readiness:
Someone who already values being American.
Comparative Fit:
US. compared to Terrorists (Islamists?)
Normative Fit:
Freedom loving Americans vs. evil Terrorists
Referent Informational influence process
People conform to prototypes that are accumulated norms (that follow the meta contrast principle)
People conform to the “ideal” group image (prototype) because it reflects the group’s accumulated norms (the group’s usual behaviors or traits).
“I am a ____ and therefore it is my duty to be ___,___,___.
Self categorization explanation departs from most other social cognitive approaches to stereotyping in that it describes stereotypes as
Subject to change
Social Influence as Conformity
Body image
Styles and fashions
Catch phrases
Verbal tics (like, like, . . .)
Accents
Age appropriate behaviors
Political opinions
Conspiracy beliefs
Wine descriptors and perceptions
Conformity SI
The process of bringing your perceptions, attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors into line with group norm
Social influence: Types
Conformity, Independence, Compliance, Obedience
Conformity SI
Private attitude change persuasion
Independence SI
Pursuit/maintenance of personal difference from others
Not well explained. Question is largely
avoided
Compliance SI
Superficial going along in public because of a request
Obedience
Going along with a legitimate authority obeying fear of reprisal
Referent Informational Influence
When people conform to a group’s norms or behaviors because they identify with the group and want to belong to it
Explains conformity in attitude beliefs and behaviors
Social categorization (the fit process)
(2) Perceive associated norms as prototypes (i.e.,
cognitive accentuation)
(3) Internalize and subscribe to the prototypical definition
of the group
Moreland (1985) SI
An experiment on categorization and communication
5-person same-sex groups, meet over 3 weeks
Discuss topical issues
Code discussions:
Positive behaviors: e.g., agreement/approval
Neutral behaviors: e.g., questions/answers
Negative behaviors: e.g., disagreement/disapproval
Categorization SI
Psychological categorization into ingroup and outgroup leads
to verbal discrimination between groups
i.e., people categorize, and use language to create a self-fulfilling
prophecy
What about part 2: Cognitive accentuation?
Mackie (1986) Polarization SI (Testing into college)
Mackie (1986) found that when people try to fit in with their group, they exaggerate their group’s views to match what they believe is the group’s norm, especially when making decisions like applying to college.
Social Norms
Regularities in attitudes and behavior that characterize a
social group and differentiate it from other social groups
Norms, prototypes and salience
Why we conform
Informational influence
Look to others for information
A norm develops.
Initially, they differ; but over trials, they converge
Abrams, Wetherell, Cochrane, Hogg, & Turner (1990)
a study where they looked at how people form norms (what’s “normal” behavior) and how they influence others (called referent informational influence).
They had confederates (people working with the researchers) and real subjects (participants).
The illusion part means people start to believe something is true, even if it isn’t, just because others (whom they see as similar to themselves) believe it too.
People go along with what others in their group think or do, especially when they feel connected to them.
Perceptual Magnet Effect
Conformity
without
conscious decision
and even with
strong attempt
at resistance
The leash model
The Leash Model in social influence suggests that people’s self-esteem or self-enhancement (like how they view their IQ, strength, or leadership) is influenced by how well they “fit” with group norms, and this “fit” keeps their self-view in check (or on a leash). In simple terms, your self-image is guided by how much you match what the group values.
Self-enhancement judgments:
IQ, leadership abilities, physical strength
‘Fit’-based judgments
Largely consensual, reflect norm clarity
Fit keeps self-enhancement on a leash
Tajfel’s 1982 typology - Social function of stereotypes
Social casuality, social justification, social differentation
The Hostile Media Effect
Vallone, Ross, Lepper (1985
Partisans on both sides of an issue think that media coverage of
relevant events are biased in favor of the other side
e.g., Left and right political positions think that the media is composed of, respectively, right wing nuts, and bleeding heart liberals.
Polarized world-view caused by biased assimilation (uncritically
accept information that confirms your view, but ignore or
discount contrary information)
Selective recall (opposing arguments that are more salient and memorable than confirming arugments)
Selective categorization
Different standards
Media perceptions in mass media context are influenced
Motivated reasoning associated with activiations of prefrontal cortex
Social identity and in group bias
Hostile media phenomenon Vallone, Ross, Lepper (1985)
Involves 3 processes: biased assimilation, selective categorization, selective recall
People take all information and mold it to fit their own views and beliefs
Biased assimilation: People interpret information to support their beliefs.
Selective categorization: People categorize information in ways that favor their views.
Selective recall: People remember information that aligns with their beliefs and forget what doesn’t.
HME Partisans perceive media differently because either
Partisans see the media differently because they remember arguments that support their views more, and often view opposing or neutral content as hostile to their beliefs.
Memorable than confirming arguments; and/or
B. they categorize both opposing and neutral content as hostile to their
views
Matheson & Dursun (2001) Bosnia and Muslim
1994 market bombing - Cognitive differentiation of ingroup and outgroup
Prior evidence for social identification (Duck et al.
Reid 2012 Study 1 Conditions HME (political identity)
Reid’s 2012 study found that political identity becomes more important when political differences are stronger, and that American identity is becoming more prominent due to globalization.
1.Low political identity salience
2.Political differences salience (rep vs dem becoming more polarized)
3.American identity salient (increasing globalization)
Cohen (2003) HME Generous and Stringent
Research on policy prefrences show that policy prefrences follow what they think leaders in their group believe
Reid 2012 Study 2 Media Bias
assumed that partisans are biased, but that the
media is not (not a strong assumption!)
Source effect (ingroup vs. outgroup)
Measure perceived bias
Myside bias
Occurs when people evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test
hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own prior opinions and attitudes”
“THATS NOT TRUE! BECAUSE (evidence)”
“Yep that sounds true about my group so it must be”
We critique opinion incongruent information more harshly than opinion-congruent
information
E.g., Smokers are less likely to acknowledge negative health effects of secondhand smoking.
Stanovich and West (2007), does intelligence moderate the size of the myside bias?
no Effect persists even when participants are explicitly instructed to ignore their prior beliefs in
presenting argument
Levendusky (2017).
Can Self-Categorization Principles Explain De-
Polarization?
Levendusky (2017) found that promoting American identity through reading about America’s strengths and writing about what makes people proud to be American helped reduce political polarization, compared to a control group reading and writing about apolitical topics.
American identity promoted:
Read article about strengths of America
People wrote paragraph on what they like most about being American,
and why they are proud to identify as American
Control: Read apolitical news story, and wrote a paragraph about an
apolitical topic
Processing social information (including political information
using our
group identification, and cues to intergroup conflict
Hostile vs. non-hostile media biases driven by
Hostile vs. non-hostile media biases occur because people either exaggerate differences (contrast) or minimize differences (assimilation) based on how they define their ingroup vs. outgroup views of social reality.
assimilation and contrast
effects for ingroup vs. outgroup definitions of social reality
Polarization biases
A polarization bias refers to the tendency for people’s views or beliefs to become more extreme or divided over time, especially in response to social or media influences
strong, likely best ameliorated through strong norms
around free expression, avoiding the conditions that promote elite
polarization (i.e., democracy, transparency, small government and checks
and balances on power
Hurwitz and Prefferys 2005 work suggest that using the code word inner city (compared with not using the code word) when describing criminality would lead to
Stronger attitudes in favor of stringent prison sentences
Andris et al. (2015) is consistent with the hypothesis that
Media bias may have roots in elite political polarization
People have media bias because their views are so extreme
Myside biased assimilation, ingroup vs outgroup source cues have effects on persuasion because they are examples of
confirmation bias ( the tendency to search for, interpret, or remember information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs, while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them.) “Well I know this for a fact because when I….”
