Exam 3 Flashcards
Prejudice
evaluative reaction (typically negative) to a social group
- affective component
- Attitudes, emotions
Stereotypes
Generalized beliefs about the characteristics of social groups
-cognitive component
-Beliefs, expectations, experiences
• Criminality, violence, emotionality, intelligence
Discrimination
Differential treatment based on group membership
-behavioral component
-Nonverbal behaviors, deliberate behaviors
• Aggression
• Avoidant behavior
• Hiring/Firing
• Mortgage rejection
Stereotypes as a heuristic
-Allows for fast judgments
-Frees cognitive resources for other tasks
-Because stereotyped thinking is fast and efficient, it is often used.
-Causes people to ignore information that does not fit the stereotype
Negatives: racial profiling
Socio-Cultural Perspective
- parental transmission , peer groups
- border cultural context (mass media)
Parental transmission & Peer groups
We tend to hold the same attitudes and beliefs as our parents + peers
Border cultural context (mass media)
Subtle Transmission (Weisbuch et al., 2009) -White actors showed nonverbal avoidance of black actors -Even WATCHING the interracial interactions created bias in viewers
Early development: modeling
Children learn prejudices from cultural models.
-Clark & Clark (1939;1940)
• Children’s books - gender roles
The _______ is in distress.
The _______ is in shining armor.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RCT)
structure of relations between groups
-(perceived) competition for limited resources
-an evolutionary adaptation?
-Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study (1966)
a case study in the toxic potential of intergroup competition
determines intergroup attitudes
Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study (1966)
5th grade boys summer camp, Split into 2 groups (didn’t know about each other at first)
Phase 1 – team building
Phase 2 – team competitions between Eagles and Rattlers
Phase 3 – common crisis
What helps to prevent and reduce prejudice and increase liking of other groups.
Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study (1966)
- Mutual interdependence and cooperation
-Common goals - Equal status with friendly, informal interactions
-Social norms and agents that value equality
-Opportunities to learn that stereotypes are incorrect
Social Identity Theory Two Core Ideas:
1.)Preference for positive self-definitions
2.)Social Categorization is a byproduct of cognition
we split the world up into “us” and “them”
Social Identity Theory: Two consequences
- ingroup bias
- outgroup homogeneity
- research example: Miami vs Ohio state- results: People will even forego benefits to create advantage over outgroup
Social Identity Theory:
The Minimal Group Paradigm
Even division into groups based on a completely arbitrary dimension elicits ingroup bias
Individual approach in reducing SPD
Approach/ Avoidance training (Kawakami et al.)
“Joy stick training” used a stick to push forward for white and good pulled back for black and bad.
Results : lowered racism by approaching minority races rather then avoiding them
Group
two or more individuals who influence each other
Entitativity
seeing a group as a meaningful social entity
more entitativity = more perceived group-ness
Common fate
Similarity
Permeability
Shared values
Social Cognition Perspective
-Biases in info processing plays a role in ST formation and maintenance
-ST represent “quick,” relatively automatic ways of dealing with a complex social environment
Stereotypes as a heuristic for JUDGEMENT
When motivation or capacity are low, people may prefer to rely on general ST rather than think carefully about an individual (aka individuate)
Stereotypes as Heuristics for Judgment continued
It’s easier to think of someone as a member of a category rather than as an individual
• Merely categorizing things exaggerates group differences
– Overperceive between group variability (“We’re so different than them”)
– Underperceive within group variability (“They’re all the same”)
Categorization distorts memory
• Own race bias in face memory
Implicit Prejudice
negative attitudes that may not be consciously acknowledged
Implicitly, negative associations linger below the surface of awareness
Explicit prejudice
we assert our egalitarian values
The Implicit Association Test
a dual-categorization task:
Face categorization (Black vs. White) Word categorization (good vs. bad)
ST Congruent trials:
use left hand for “good” and “White”
Use right hand for “bad” and “Black”
ST Incongruent trials:
Use left hand for “good” and “Black”
use right hand for “bad” and “White”
The Implicit Association Test results
The IAT is relative, not absolute measure of prejudice
-Must interpret in terms of two groups (e.g., Black vs. White)
-IAT = “incongruent ST” trials – “congruent ST” trials
-Score is reduced by making RTs for “incongruent ST” trials and “congruent ST” trials similar
Does the IAT predict behavior?
YES!
-implicit prejudice predict uncontrolled behaviors
-explicit prejudice predicts consciously controlled
behavior
Contact Hypothesis
Contact with counterstereotypic group members should reduce ST
Jigsaw Puzzle classrooms
Classrooms comprised of small, desegregated groups that work on projects with high interdependence (Aronson & Patnoe, 1997)
○ Decreased prejudice
○ Increased liking
○ Better classroom performance
Contact Meta-analysis
Contact reduces prejudice (515 studies)
○ Effects found across targets, ages, nations, and decades
○ Equal status, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and legitimate support each help, but not essential
○ Key mediators:
○ Anxiety (strongest factor) ○ Empathy
○ Knowledge
Categorization
- Common intergroup identity model
- Alter the perception of intergroup boundaries
-Encourage superordinate identities (e.g., Americans, humans) rather than rely on lower- level identities (e.g., Blacks, Jews)
Perspective taking
-Decreases in stereotype accessibility and
expression
-Ingroup favoritism eliminated
Trigger dissonance
focus people on the times when they transgress against their egalitarian standards
Egalitarian values->use stereotype->aware of discrepant response->Guilt->inhibition of prejudiced response
What motivates us to belong to groups?
1.)Need to Belong
-Fundamental human need
-Motivates adherence to Intimacy Groups (and Social Categories)
2.)Need to Achieve Goals
-Motivates adherence to Task Groups (and Social Categories)
Does diversity facilitate performance?
-diverse groups generate wider range of solutions to problems
-members of diverse groups tend to be less committed to group and miss work more often
Social Facilitation
- Tendency to perform well when others are present
Triplett’s Classic Study (kids pulling in string) - Sometimes the presence of others makes performance worse (social inhibition)
Social Loafing
group-induced reduction in individual output when efforts are pooled
Why does this happen?
Diffusion of responsibility
-belief that presence of others makes one less
personally responsible for the outcomes
- no accountability
Deindividuation
We will often do things in groups that we would not do as individuals
-In a group we lose our identity (e.g., our personal values)
Deindividuation can result in…
- reductions of normal inhibitions and constraints on behavior
- increases in impulsive and deviant behavior
Antecedents of Deindividuation
Anonymity reduces our perception of accountability to others and ourselves
-Feel less accountable to ourselves
-Feel less accountable to others
-Anonymity
-white hoods and violence (Zimbardo, 1970)
-uniformity among group members
Antecedents of Deindividuation continued
- Anonymity
-white hoods and violence (Zimbardo, 1970) - uniformity among group members
- Reduced Responsibility Physiological Arousal
-Group Size
-provides a basis for other factors
Experience of Deindividuation
- Loss of Self-Awareness
- spontaneous rather than planned action
-lack of concern about other’s evaluations
-losing track of time and context
-low accessibility of personal values and loss
of associated inhibitions
-feelings of connection to the group
Deindividuated Behaviors
Extreme, Atypical or Polarized Behaviors
-replacement of reasoned and ordered with impulsive or chaotic behavior
-Positive behaviors can emerge in some conditions
-intense feelings of happiness, belonging and love may result
Majority Influence
how does the average majority position tend to influence discussion?
1. Informational Social Influence
2. Normative Social Influence
Informational Social Influence
Confirmation Bias in Group Discussion
-discussion tends to focus on info that confirms the group majority’s position
-we are convinced by the group norm b/c of our desire to be right
Normative Social Influence
Group discussion highlights group norm
-we are motivated to conform to the group norm because of our desire to be liked
Majority Influence in real life
- )Doctors fail to pool info ->bad diagnoses
_3 docs saw slightly different videos of patients
_Each doc had some shared and some unique info - )Juries also only discuss shared info
- Read about in book - )WHY?
- Informational Social Influence,Normative Social Influence, TOGETHER facilitate Group Polarization
Minority Influence
If the majority is commonly very convincing, how may minorities come to influence the majority?
- difficult but not impossible to accomplish
-occurs through informational social influence
1. stable minority views (certainty, confidence and
commitment)
2. uncompromising but reasonable minority position
3. vocal minority
4. minority disrupts established normuncertainty in majority
Implications of Groupthink
In groups, we seek harmony
-Dissent is discourage
-Group members self-censor
-This has several implications for how people make decisions in groups
1.)Undue loyalty
2.)Overestimating how rational the group is 3.)Illusions of unanimity
Implications of Groupthink continued
We task groups, not individuals, to make the most important decisions
-Groupthink can contribute to disastrous outcomes
_Pearl Harbor
