ch6: social identity Flashcards
(90 cards)
1
Q
fake test 80% vs 20% experiment
A
- Ex: participants took a fake test putting them into one of two groups, one was for 80% of college students, the other was for 20% + watched a tape of a person talking about their achievements
o When the videotaped person was a member of the larger group participants felt bad if the performance was great and good if it was terrible regardless of their own group membership
o For a majority group participant, a videotape of minority had no effect on their self-concept
o Minority group participants who saw a minority interviewee reacted in the opposite way – felt good if their fellow group member gave a great performance
2
Q
self-categorization
A
the process of seeing oneself as a member of a social group
o Flexible, can readily shift depending on the context
3
Q
social identity
A
those aspects of self-concept that derive from an individual’s knowledge and feelings about the group membership they share with
4
Q
sorority pledges experiment
A
- Ex: tracker sorority pledges’ perceptions of their groups over an academic year – as they got to know them better, these women saw their groups in increasingly stereotypic terms – they learned the stereotypes
5
Q
do people still enact their roles
A
yes, they do enact their roles, acquire role-related skills, develop tendencies to behave in certain ways -> make those behaviours and those self-inferences more likely
6
Q
reminders of group membership
A
- Sometimes directly reminded of group membership – slurs, “senior citizen” discount
o Most often, more subtle – just the presence of other in-group members can be a potent reminder – powerful enough to overcome alternative categorizations that might be important in other circumstances
7
Q
presence of out-group member experiment
A
Belgian uni students were asked to write descriptions of typical students of Belgian and North African origin
o For some the experimenter was Belgian, for some he was North African
o Those who had a North African experimenter had greater identification with their Belgian in-group
8
Q
when are people more likely to think of themselves in terms of their membership
A
in smaller groups than in larger ones + especially when they are solo representatives of their group in a situation
9
Q
asked grade-school children to talk about themselves
A
o Boys and girls from households where their gender was in the minority, more likely to mention gender + children whose ethnic groups were a minority at school were more likely to mention their ethnicity
10
Q
what the most potent reminder of group membership
A
ongoing conflict or rivalry between groups
11
Q
discussion on social issue - gender experiment
A
discussion on a social issue either between a male and female participant who disagreed on the issue or between two men or two women who disagreed along gender lines
o Second condition – participants identified more strongly with their groups, rating themselves as more typical of their sex
12
Q
humanities vs science majors experiment
A
- Ex: on campus, exposure to newspaper headline “Humanities, Science Majors at Odds over Core Program”
o Enough to increase the accessibility of student’s identity as scientists or humanists
o People identify more strongly with groups that they learn are targets of discrimination from society at large
13
Q
collectivist views of group vs individualist
A
- Collectivist cultures foster and reinforce views of the self in group terms – people tend to see themselves as members of groups or categories
o Individualist cultures – see themselves in comparatively idiosyncratic terms – view group memberships as temporary and changeable, high divorce rates and seem comfortable switching churches or employers
But groups are still important
14
Q
what does seeing oneself as a group member mean
A
the group’s typical characteristics become norms or standards for one’s behaviour
o People tend to think and act in group-typical ways
15
Q
pro-environmental experiment
A
- Ex: some students listened to a discussion in which one group presented pro-environmental attitudes – some students were about to join the group voicing the positive attitudes and others knew they wouldn’t be joining
o Those who were going to join the group rated themselves higher in environmental awareness – their own opinions moved toward the group’s position
16
Q
psychology vs physics experiment
A
Dutch university students were presented with a comparison that was potentially threatening to their group – psychology students asked to compare themselves to physics students on intelligence
o Those who identified only weakly avoided the threat by dissociating themselves from the in-group
o Those who strongly identified with their group tended to show group solidarity by rating themselves as highly typical of their group
17
Q
hat happens when lab groups include men
A
women speak more tentatively – makes the women’s identity as female accessible, causing them to act in ways that they regard as typical of women (avoiding asserting speech)
18
Q
BIRG
A
bask in reflected glory) – a way of boosting self-esteem by identifying oneself with the accomplishments or good qualities of fellow in-group members
19
Q
merch study
A
at 7 universities, students wore more school merch if the football team won than if it lost
20
Q
general knowledge test experiment
A
gave students a brief general-knowledge test and temporarily raised or lowered their self-esteem by manipulating the results
o Students asked to describe the outcome of the recent game
o Those who thought they had failed the test were more likely to associate themselves with winning teams (“we”) and to dissociate themselves from losing teams (“they”)
21
Q
told about students treated unfairly experiment
A
- Ex: psychology students were told about another psychology student at a different university who had been treated unfairly by authorities
o One condition: subtly reminded of their common identity with the victim -> reported feeling less happy and more angry
22
Q
what’s an integral part of group membership
A
- People experience anger, fear, pride, guilt or other emotions to events that affect their groups – identification with the group makes the group part of the self, giving the group emotional significance
23
Q
group-level emotions as a predictor experiment
A
- Ex: students reported how much they felt emotions as an individual and as a member of various groups + reported their feelings about other groups and the actions they would like to enact towards them
o More reliably than their individual-level emotions, group-level emotions predicted their feelings and desires for action toward other groups
24
Q
how does group membership satisfy the needs to be unique and to belong
A
o Perceiving differences between our group and other groups provides feelings of being unique, but seeing the similarity among members within our group can make us feel connected and similar
o The best balance for most people – membership in relatively small groups – one that’s too small might not be adequate for group pride, but when they’re too large people might feel too anonymous to attain much respect
25
musical styles questionnaire
UK 18-21 age group had to pick three favourite musical styles + asked how much they expressed their favoured musical styles
o Fans of styles that were most and least popular – fewer behaviours
26
what do we think about when group membership is accessible
the features we believe we share with the group (causing us to see other in-group members as similar to ourselves)
27
students assigned to groups based on art preference experiment
o Asked to guess the extent to which other in-group members shared their own personal characteristics and preferences
o Assumed that all members of the group would be very similar in art preferences + their interests, activities, and personality traits to match their own
o Anything that increases the accessibility of group membership further enhances the assumed similarity
28
if it described them and their gender experiment
- Ex: for each of 90 traits people rated if the trait described them personally and if it described their gender group on 5-point-scales
o Later task, they made yes/no responses for each trait – judging if it described both the self and the in-group
o When participants were certain that a trait characterized the in-group but were uncertain about whether it described themselves personally – used their group knowledge as a basis for their response for the self
o When they were certain that a trait characterized the self, but were uncertain about the group, used self-knowledge to generate their responses for the in-group
29
evaluate essays group vs not group experiment
asked to evaluate essays or creative solutions to problems – people treat their own group’s work more generously than out-group products
30
we vs they experiment
- Ex: when people have seen nonsense syllables pared with “we” they had more positive feelings when compared to “they”
o Respond more quickly to positive words when they follow the prime “we” even when the prime words are flashed to quickly to be consciously read
o “we” automatically activates positive associations that facilitate the recognition of other positive words
31
had to perform a task we vs they experiment
students asked to read a description of the task that they were to perform with other individuals
o One group – “the task is something we all have to do our best on”, other group – “the task is something they have to do their best on”
o Those exposed to the in-group pronouns had more positive expectations of other participants
32
what does attraction in a group depend on
the knowledge of shared group membership
o People often prefer those who’re typical members of an in-group – representatives of the liked group and not individuals
33
cartoons depicting positive actions - language experiment
- Ex: cartoon drawings depicting positive actions by in-group and out-group members + asked to describe the actions
o Concrete and specific descriptions of out-group behaviour (he talked to the child) and more abstract and general for in-group (he helped, he cared for the child)
o Concreteness of the out-group descriptions – casts the behaviour as ungeneralizable, one-of-a-kind + more abstract terms emphasize their links to the actor’s positive general characteristics such as helpfulness or caring
34
when do groups prosper
when their members are willing to subordinate personal interests to the group and to help other members in times of need
o When group membership is uppermost in people’s minds, they often act in altruistic ways (more concern for treating others fairly than for getting the largest share of rewards)
35
what's the basis for fair and altruistic behavior
I becoming we - the distinction between self-interest and group-interest vanishes
36
out-group homogeneity effect
the tendency to see the out-group as relatively more homogeneous and less diverse than the in-group
37
familiarity
we usually know more in-group members than out-group members + more aware of their diversity
o + relatively constrained nature of typical interactions with out-group members, settings where no individual interaction is even possible
38
the need to feel unique in group vs outgroup
o Within the in-group, this means that we learn a lot about others’ characteristics in the process of finding out what differentiates us from them
o But we can feel unique and different from out-group members just by noting their group-defining characteristics (ethnicity, gender, nationality, university affiliation)
39
newspaper about women and men experiment
people had to read brief newspaper stories about men and women – later asked to recall as much they could
o Remembered more personal details about same-sex individuals
40
cross-race identification bias
- People can recognize the faces of members of their own ethnic group more easily than the faces of members of other groups
o Typically no motivation to pay close attention to the distinguishing features of other-race faces
41
white students to recognize faces experiment
white students were shown pictures of white and black faces during an initial exposure task and later tried to recognize these faces – some students warned about the bias and told to pay close attention to the distinguishing features of faces, especially those of different race
o Those who weren’t told anything recognised white faces better, but those who got instructions did equally well
42
texas convenience store clerks experiment
Texas convenience store clerks asked to identify three male customers – black, Mexican-American, Anglo-American
o The clerks made more accurate identifications of the customer belonging to their own group than they did of the customers from the other two groups
43
green vs red personality experiment
white students give an alleged personality test and told they were a “green” or “red” personality type
o Saw a series of white faces appearing on red or green backgrounds that supposedly identified the personality type of the individual
o Students had better memory for faces that matched their won personality types
44
what do ethnic conflicts include
negative stereotypes, mutual ignorance and fear, unjust distribution of resources, history of conflict
o Discrimination can occur when a dividing line simply creates two groups, even in the absence of these common sources of antagonism
45
x or w group experiment
- Ex: English boys aged 14-16 were assigned to group x or group w based on a coin toss
o Each boy then given the opportunity to distribute rewards worth a small amount of money to two other individuals, one in his group and another outside
o Planned to go beyond merely categorizing participants, but this was enough
o They awarded more points to members of their in-group, but not a lot: 8.08 to in-group and 6.92 to out-group – the bias was consistent and replicated
46
minimal ingtergroup situation
a research situation in which people are categorized, on an arbitrary or trivial basis, into groups that have no history, no conflicts of interest, no stereotypes
47
studies on minimal groups
members give their own group higher ratings on positive traits, evaluations of performance, and inferences of morality
48
giving out points experiment
choice between option A 11 points to in-group and 7 to out-group or B: 17 points each
o Many preferred option A
49
social identity theory
the theory that people’s motivation to derive self-esteem from their group memberships is one driving force behind in-group bias
o Preferring the in-group over the out-group becomes a way of expressing regard for the in-group and is a way of feeling good about oneself, of valuing me and mine
50
do people in minimal intergroups discriminate when giving out negative outcomes
no, distinction between in-group favouritism and out-group hostility
51
how can people increase their self-esteem
by discriminating against out-groups
52
false negative feedback + gay
- Ex: participants were given false negative feedback on an intelligence test and then read a description about a young actor’s struggles to begin a career, some told that he’s probably gay
o Those who had been made to feel bad about themselves rated the actor in highly negative and stereotypic terms, more positive if he was heterosexual or if they didn’t receive negative feedback
53
what happens if an out-group is perceived to be competing with us
intergroup discrimination
o The effects differ depending on the relative status positions of the group
54
higher-status groups threatened
they tend to discriminate on dimensions that are centrally relevant to the group distinction
o The economically successful view their own groups as superior to out-groups on dimensions such as hard work, ambition, intelligence
o Lower status group discriminate on traits that are less relevant for status – friendliness, cooperativeness, likability
55
prejudice from dislike to hatred
it reflects the perception that what “they” stand for threatens everything that “we” stand for
o See our in-group as very virtuous and out-group as posing a threat
56
how do people respond to threat
o Exalt in-group symbols and values – group leaders, flags, slogans, group’s historical accomplishment are glorified and cast in a positive light
o Begin to hate the out-group – hate in connection with the exaltation of in-group symbols
57
moral exclusion
viewing out-groups as subhuman and outside the domain in which the rules of morality apply
o Often labelling them as vermin, barbarians or germs “infecting” the pure group
o Allows people to suspend behaviours people consider human and humane such as helping others and treating them fairly and justly
58
stigmatized
negatively evaluated by others
59
stereotype threat
the fear of confirming others’ negative stereotype of your group
60
stereotype threat examples
- Ex: gave black and white people a difficult test, telling some that it was highly related to IQ and telling others that it’s “just a lab exercise”
o When described as unimportant exercise or when the research participants weren’t asked to record their race on experimental materials – black ppl performed as well as white ppl
o But stereotype threat – black ppl scored more poorly
- Same effect found for women when they’re presented with very difficult math tests
o Difference vanishes if the participants are simply told that on this particular test there were no sex differences
61
can white men stereotype threat
yes, natural athletic ability
62
how does stereotype threat form
- The very knowledge that others hold a negative stereotype about your group’s performance can bring the stereotype to mind
o The result may be anxiety and reduced performance
o Worry that any mistakes will not harm just you, but also the whole group
63
intervention - self-affirmations
o Ex: white and black seventh-graders complete writing assignments early in the year – had to describe either a personal value and its importance or neutral information
o Black students who self-affirmed had better GPAs in the semester, reduced by half the percentage of black students receiving a grade of D or worse – effects even 2 years later
64
how can some people avoid stereotype threat + ex
by focusing on other group identities that are stereotyped positively in that same domain
- Ex: female college students might be able to avoid stereotype threat effects on math performance if their college identity is highlighted
- Ex: female college students took a math test after having no identity highlighted, only their female identity highlighted, or both
o Women whose female identity only was highlighted – performed worse
o Other two conditions – no deficits in their performance
65
challenge vs threat stereotype threat
- Ex: black schoolchildren took a math test and reported their race before starting or after finishing
o Some were told that the test would accurately assess their abilities (threat), others told it would be a helpful learning opportunity (challenge)
o Those who reported their race prior scores much higher when it was framed as a challenge
66
personal self-esteem experiment
- Ex: black and white students’ personal self-esteem, their feelings about group memberships and symptoms of depression
o White ppl – low self-esteem was the key factor that increased the risk of depression
o Black ppl – collective self-esteem was more strongly related to depression
67
when can dominant groups have their self-esteem lowered
feelings of guilt when reminded of their privileges
68
victory or defeat 3 experiments
- Ex: on the day following a game in the US national football league, consumption of fatty and high-calorie foods increases in cities whose teams lost – strongest in cities whose teams were ranked as having the most devoted fan bases
- Ex: French adults assigned to write about a victory or defeat of their favourite athlete or sports team
o Invited to eat healthy or unhealthy good – those who wrote about loss were more likely to eat chips and chocolate
- Ex: a self-affirming manipulation eliminated the effect of a sports defeat on unhealthy eating
69
attributing negative outcomes to prejudice - self-esteem
protect self-esteem against the negative effects of failure
o Making attributions to group-based prejudice appears to be uniquely effective, more than attributions to external factors
70
garlic vs mint experiment
- Ex: male students in conversations with an attractive women – had to eat a mint or clove of raw garlic
o Women gave negative feedback – those who ate garlic tended to attribute their rejection to that
o But this didn’t elevate their self-esteem
71
costs of mis-attributing self-esteem
o Negative feedback is sometimes realistic, discounting it can prevent accurate self-assessment and self-improvement
o Breed a sense of hopelessness and a loss of control
o May face social penalties
o Can destroy trust in positive feedback – praise due to sympathy, pity, resigned affirmative action?
72
leadership role experiment
- Ex: men and women were told that they were selected for a leadership role because they had scored well on a leadership potential test or because they needed more of their gender in those positions
o Then told they either succeeded or failed
o Women who were told they were selected based on gender – devalued their own leadership ability, regardless of how they performed + less interest in persisting as leaders
o Men didn’t show such self-doubts
73
comparison experiment (2)
- Ex: black children who compared themselves mainly with other black people had higher self-esteem than those who compared themselves with white children
o Intragroup comparisons can remind us of in-group members who’re doing particularly well
- Ex: schoolchildren from low-status groups in New Zealand and the US often name other in-group members who’re high performers in the social, academic or athletic domains
74
more long-term solutions
o Individual mobility, social creativity, social change
75
individual mobility
the strategy of individual escape, either physical or psychological, from a stigmatized group
o Disidentification – creating a psychological distance between oneself and the group
o Dissociation – physically escaping the group
76
social creativity and social change
direct efforts to improve society’s evaluation of the entire group
o Large amounts of individual mobility may also create social change over time – roles typically held by group members often shape stereotypes
77
badges experiment
- Ex: students did a group problem-solving session and each group received success feedback, failure feedback or no feedback at all
o They could take home team badges that advertised their group membership
o Over half of the members of groups that succeeded or received no feedback took badges, only 9% of those on a losing team
78
black sheep effect
- People can also disidentify by publicly criticizing and devaluating an in-group member’s performance –
79
third way of disidentifying
consider oneself to be an exception rather than a typical group member
80
women discrimination misidentifying experiment
- Ex: many women acknowledge that women in general are discriminated against but insist that discrimination doesn’t affect them personally
o Held more often by those who identify least strongly with their groups
81
dissociating examples
- Dissociating involves actual escape from a disadvantaged group or concealment of group membership
o Immigrants who cast off their cultural and linguistic heritage
o Mixed blessing – personal benefits such as freedom from discrimination, but often suffer isolation because as new members aren’t being thought of the same as those “born to it”, concealing group membership can be lonely and dangerous
82
how can internet help
- Potential anonymity provided by the internet can help
o Online discussions as group support can be an important source of identity
o More important to the lives of their members and had greater impact on their members’ emotions and behaviour + increased members’ acceptance of their identity
83
social creativity
the strategy of introducing and emphasizing new dimensions of social comparison, on which a negatively regarded group can see itself as superior
- Ex: players on the last-place team in an ice hockey league cannot make a claim on skill, but can think of themselves as more sportsmanlike
- Some women – accepting society’s definition of femininity and seeking a positive group identity through its distinctive positive characteristics
o May emphasize dimensions of achievement that they view as specially feminine
- These strategies may not lead in any direct way to lasting changes in a group’s position in society
o They may unintentionally provide rationales and justifications for the continued exclusion of women from certain spaces
- Ex: women reminded of their economic disadvantages and then answered questions about how women compared to men in terms of social warmth
o Women in this condition reported that women were warmer than men
o This led them to report fewer intentions to engage in actions to eliminate women’s inequality – like attend a demonstration or sign a petition
84
social change
– the strategy of improving the overall societal situation of a stigmatized group
o Generally preferred by people who strongly identify with their group, see individual mobility as impossible, and respond with anger to unjust situation of their group
o They wish to, and believe they can change the way society regards their group as a whole
85
social competition
the strategy of directly seeking to change the conditions that disadvantage the in-group, for example by building group solidarity and challenging the out-group
o In-group bias – a group member allocates their group more resources, evaluating the in-group products more positively, judging the in-group to be morally and socially superior
- Likely to provoke backlash from powerful groups
o Even claiming to have been subject to discrimination can lead to bad treatment
86
when are collective actions more effective
when group members stick together, emphasizing their homogeneity in attitudes and values
87
why can positive intergroup interactions be effective
because they encourage the groups to re-conceptualize themselves as members of one group
o But focusing on similarities may mean ignoring true differences – may shift attention away from the inequitable conditions facing the disadvantaged group
88
similarity vs not groups experiment
- Ex: 2 three-person groups in the lab
o One was randomly assigned to an advantaged position, able to decide how an important resource, extra research credits would be allocated between groups
o Some were told to discuss “similar steps the groups went through in the study”, others “differences between the tasks the groups will do next”
o Similarity-focused groups led to better intergroup attitudes but fewer thoughts about group inequality
o In the similarity-focused group members expected to be treated fairly – unrealistic expectations of fairness
89
israeli arabs experiment
- Ex: Israeli Arabs asked to rate how much contact they had with Jews, how they felt about them, how fair they perceived them to be, how unjust they considered the inequality between the groups, how much they supported various social change initiatives to create more equitable treatment for Arabs living in Israel
o More contact went with better attitudes towards Jews and greater perceptions that they’re fair + less intense feelings that the inequality between the groups was unjust – less desire to work for social change
90
two factors that affect people's choice of strategies
o Strength of group identification
o Perceptions of the possibility of individual mobility
