Final - Lectures Flashcards
All ordinary people are prejudiced, what process explains this?
Categorization!!
We love to categorize things, including people, automatically (ex. gender, age, legal status, etc.)
Within our categories of people, what two things do we exaggerate that creates a recipe for prejudice?
- We exaggerate the differences between categories!
- We exaggerate similarities within categories! (within groups, everyone appears similar)
What is ingroup favoritism/ingroup bias?
We tend to think more highly of people who are a part of us (ingroup) and less highly of people who do not belong to us (outgroup).
AKA: we think of people close to us as good, and those around us as not so good
Is it possible to overcome ingroup favoritism?
It is very hard, but not impossible to overcome.
3 strategies we talked about in class to try and reduce it:
- other forms of self-affirmation
- decategorization
- recategorizaion
In research that use oxytocin to study ingroup bias, what has been the main finding?
Administering oxytocin does NOT lead to a reduction in ingroup prejudice, but actually leads to MORE ingroup prejudice
More trust for the ingroup, but not for those in the outgroup.
Explain the “other forms of self-affirmation” strategy for reducing ingroup favoritism
People have a motive to percive themselves positively - can do so through prejudice favoring ingroup over outgroup (the group I belong to is better than the groups I don’t belong to - more positive impression of themselves)
Other forms of self-affirmation could lead to the same outcome.
STRAGETY 1 (other forms of self-affirmation): If people are provided with some other way to feel good about themselves, then they may be less motivated to achieve that goal through prejudicial perceptions of ingroup and outgroup.
Explain the “decategorization” strategy for reducing ingroup favoritism.
Decategorization = information identifies people not just as members of us and them, but as individuals in their own right (people have their own names, features, etc.)
By highlighting those individual factors, you can break down category barriers
STRATEGY 2 (decategorization): If people are encouraged to perceive group members as distinct individuals, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between us and them.
Explain the “recategorization” strategy for reducing ingroup favoritism.
Recategorization = create a superordinate category for “us” that overarches everyone in a broad way.
Reduces differences between us and them because we are all part of a larger group.
STRATEGY 3 (recategorization): If people are encouraged to perceive that both ingroup and outgroup are part of some bigger superordinate category, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between “us” and “them”.
Looking at these results, what can we infer about recategorization and decategorization in real life?
Decategorization shows that it does not really change our opinion of “them”, but it does reduce this biased positive impression of “us”.
Recategorization does not change the ways we view “us”, but increases the way we positively view “them” because they now belong to this larger overarching group.
What is the outgroup homogeneity effect?
people tend to perceive members of out groups are similar and indistinguishable from each other.
(exaggerate similarities of out groups)
What is a consequnce of the outgroup homogeneity effect?
Relatively poor recognition memory for faces of outgroup members (the “they all look alike effect”)
- Real consequences in law enforcement (ex. Identifying criminals) → especially for members of outgroups, where there is a bigger risk of misidentifying an innocent person as being a criminal.
The “they all look alike effect”, refering to poorer recognition memory for outgroup faces, is exaggerated when….
people are especially concerned about fitting in with and belonging to their ingroup!
When people are concerned about belonging in their in group, they are especially focused on the ingorup and do not have the motivation to make the distinction for outgroup members.
When people feel like this, they are worse at recognizing out groups.
How can the “they all look alike” effect be reduced?
- Intergroup contact
(with more contact with people in outgroups, we develop an expertise at recognizing the distinguishing features of outgroups and reduce the outgroup homogeneity effect) - Can be reduced and disapear when people are perceiving angry faces
Explain the findings from this study in the context of the “they all look alike” effect.
Study resented for a short period of time with faces that were either black or white (with either neutral or angry facial expressions) and then tested for how they could recognize those faces later.
FINDINGS:
Neutral expressions = there is a very clear “they all look alike” effect → people had better recognition memory for faces of their ingroup not their outgroup
Angry expressions = very different outcome, no difference for ingroup members, but they did a lot better for out group members (just as accurately as ingroup)
Explain the process that is happening as to why we recognize outgroup members faces more when they are angry?
Whether someone is an ingroup or outgroup member, if they have an angry expression on their face, they are pretty relevant to me! (may be violent, do something, etc) → will motivate us to pay attention to who they are more!
We devote the additional cognitive effort to encode their facial features, which leads to increased accuracy.
OVERALL: we pay attention more to people when they have more relevance to us.
Explain the process that is happening as to why we recognize ingroup members faces more than outgroups when they both have neutral expressions?
If no threat, we do not find a need to encode outgroup faces because they are “irrelavent to us”
What is Benevolent Sexism?
Attitudes about women that seem positive in tone (e.g., women should be cherished) but nonetheless connote inferiority to men based on fragility, lack of competence, or need of help and protection.
*example of a stereotype that may seem positive, but is still problamatic
This attitude could lead to discrimination even though it comes from a positive stereotype
In general, what is a prejudice?
a negative evaluation of a social group or a negative evaluation of an individual that is significantly based on the individual’s group membership.
*very broad - it is helpful to look at prejudice plurals because they come in lots of different forms (contents of stereotypesprejudices matter!)
What is the stereotype content model?
Two big things people generally want to know about other people:
1. Friendly or unfriendly intentions (warmth)
2. Capability to carry out those intentions (competence)
Stereotype content model is focused on this idea that we care whether someone is nice or not and whether someone can carry out their intentions.
The stereotype content model involves what 3 things?
- Different stereotypes are attached to different categories of people
(ex. citizens, middle class, etc. are attached to high warmth, high competence stereotype, promoting admiration) - Different stereoypes evoke different emotional responses
(ex. if a group is stereotyped to be highly competent but low warmth → we create resentment or envy to that person) - Different emotions evoked from stereoypes have implications for different forms of prejudices and discriminations
Which of the 4 emotions from the stereotype content model would be evoked with benevolent sexism?
Pity! (high warmth, low competence).
Society views women as very kind and warm, but also in a way that connotes inferiority to men with a lack of competence and need of help/protection.
What does the emotion “contempt” mean withint the stereotype content model?
Contempt (low competence, low warmth)
form of discrimination where you might just ignore them/pretend they don’t exist
Some groups are associated with specific threats when people encounter them. When is the consequence of this?
When someone sees a member of a group and I associate that group with threats, alarm bells go off → can cause a bunch of emotional responses, including prejudicial beliefs that go along with that type of threat.
Will influence actions, potential forms of discriminatory behaviour!
When someone percives another group to pose threat, the level of emotional response/prejudicial beleif is influenced by what?
influenced by how vulnerable someone feels to that specific threat!!
**More vulnerable to threat = strongly prejudiced attitude
Less vulnerable to threat = less strong prejudicial attitude
What 3 percived threats were provided as examples for threats that might occur when someone thinks about a group?
threat to economic resources, threat of infection, threat of physical harm
Explain the process after percieving a group to pose a threat to economic resources
Last box is important - the emotional responses to a threat depend to the extent to which people feel vulnerable to this kind of threat.
Ex.
- If I feel economically secure, then I may not experience this kind of prejudice so much
- BUT if I am worried about my economic resources and I think this group poses a threat to that, then I will experience an emotional response from prejudice more strongly.
Explain the process after perciving a group to pose a threat of infection.
This threat elicits disgust more so than other emotions. This kind of prejudicial belief associated with it is just “keep those people away from me”
Common groups where these prejudicial beliefs arise → people with disabilities, people who are overweight, older people.
Prejudices towards these categories of people will be amplified for those who feel especially susceptible to the transmission of diseases.
People who are percived to be “exotic” or foreign tend to elict a prejudice from threat of infection. Why?
Exotic people may have more exotic diseases, which poses more threat:
- A lot of the norms that develop in a group are ways to buffer the spread of disease → so if there are people from outside the group, they are likely to have different norms
- People outside out group are more likely to have a tendency to violate our norms which can lead to problems of disease transmission.
May be a link between the threat of disease and xenophobia responses to people who are different than us.
In the example of Donald Trump in class, what did the quotes show?
That his germophobia is related to his xenophobia.
How did the threat of infection during COVID impact prejudices towards foreign people?
Americans who were highly worried about the pandemic expressed stronger prejudices against “people from China” and “Asian Americans” and there were more strongly xenophobic attitudes in general.
What might be a useful implication for reducing prejudice from a disease threat?
If you can do something to make people feel less vulnerable to disease, they’re prejudices can decrease.
Explain the process after perciving a group to pose a threat of physical harm?
If a group is associated with harm, that will elicit fear and will make me scared of them causing violence or harm to me.
This form of prejudice can be amplified under conditions where people feel more or less susceptible to physical harm.
In a study testing how people respond to being in the dark, as it makes them vulnerable, revealed what about perceived threat?
When people were in the dark, it exaggerated stereotypical beliefs about African-Americans.
This effect was specific to stereotypical beliefs about African-Americans being aggressive and untrustworthy
People feel vulnerable in the dark, therefore beleive to be more suseptible to physical harm, increasing beleifs about african-americans being aggressive.
Explain the study of how being outnumbered (or feeling that way) makes people feel more vulnerable to physical harm
Sri Lanka vs all of South Asia
War going on in Sri Lanka → the war was involving two different ethnic groups that both of which perceived themselves to be outnumbered minority groups (double minority)
Within Sri Lanka: Sinhalese outnumber Tamils.
Within South Asia more broadly: Tamils outnumber Sinhalese
STUDY:
Researchers showed either a map of just the island of Sri Lanka, or Sri Lanka within a bigger map of all of South Asia (manipulated whether they felt outnumbered or not).
Finding:
When people found that their ingroup was outnumbered, they had a reduced interest in a peaceful resolution to the civil war (likely because peaceful resolution would need compromise with the outgroup they find dangerous)
Vulnerability is often a basis for agression, as demonstrated in the study in Sri Lanka. What useful implications can we use from that study?
Useful implications for conflict resolution in conflicts characterized by “double-minority” situations
Prejudices may be reduced when interventions lead people to feel less ———— to the specific threats that give ride to those prejudices
vulnerable!
*could be a useful implication for reducing prejudice
People who are the targets of stereotypes have worse ——– outcomes.
HEALTH
Because it is stressful living life when belonging to a group that experiences prejudice
Explain the experiment of Latina women in Californa on the effects of stereotypes on health?
Women came into lab anticipating an interaction with another participant.
Experimental manipulation:
C1: provided information about the other person that may make them seem like they are prejudiced against ethnic minority groups.
C2: no information was given regarding that.
Took measures of emotional stress (e.g., fear, worry, feeling overwhelmed) and took measures of cardiovascular responses (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure).
FINDING: Anticipating interactions with a prejudiced person led to increased emotional stress, increased heart rate, increased blood pressure.
Physical and emotional stress from simply anticipating!!
anticipating is the important thing to remember here.
What is minority stress?
the stress that occurs as a result of being in a marginalized group.
What is social safety?
access to reliable social connections/having some sense of inclusion
social safety buffers against the stressful and health-imperiling effects of prejudice and stigmatization!
social safety is an opportunity for intervention.
Insufficient ———– ———- is a primary cause of stigma-related health disparities and a key target for intervention.
social safety!!
What was the main finding of the study on the health effects of sexually diverse and gender diverse populations?
social safety can buffer the minority stress these folks experience
Explain how prejudice relates to fitting in?
If someone is member of a group that has stereotypes against it, that can lead to some increased concerns about being perceived about “one of them” and not “one of us”
What experiment illustrates how people react when they are concerned with confirming the stereotypes around them.
Asian Americans and White Americans in California were approached on the street by an experimenter who asked them to do rank different cuisines.
Experimental manipulation:
C1: “Do you speak English?” or not.
C2: Not asked an additional question
Measure:
% participants saying “American food” is their favorite food
FINDINGS:
Control C = 20% of Asians prefer american food
Experimental C = 80% of Asians prefer american food
WHY?
When Asain americans are asked if they speak english or not it makes them feel like the experimenter does not think they are from here… act in ways that broadcasts that they do belong here as a result of being made feel that they do not.
What is another study example, like the “American food is my favourite food” study, that reveals the same patterns in wanting to fit in.
All asian american participants given restaurants with lots of different options (american food & other cuisines)
Experimental Manipulation:
Experimenter said “actually you have to be an American to be in this study” (threatens their sense of fitting in)
FINDINGS:
The experimental condition who got asked this question ordered more american food. Calories were also calculated, where experimental condition ingested many more calories.
What is a potential health consequence from Asian Americans feeling they need to “fit in”
To fit in, they will eat more american food with more calories, potentially causing health problems later.
What is stereotype threat? (simply)
*does not relate to self-fulfilling prophecies (its a whole new system)
Looking at academic underachievement by African Americans → developed this theory that the underachievement results from the stereotypes that african americans underachieve
Groups that have stereotypes about them, there is extra pressure to do well on a task because it makes me look like I am not good at this AND makes my entire group I belong to look bad.
If I do bad at math, people are going to say “just like I’ve heard, women are bad at math”
What concept does this situation represent?
Stereotype threat
What is a deeper explination of stereotype threat?
(expanded chart)
Multiple things happening to account for the disruption in performance:
- Self-concious attention: person is not just focusing on the task, but thinking about themselves taking a test (ex. as a women)
- Negative thoughts and emotions
- Psychological stress response: more stress in the body physically.
All three things consume working memory, causing people to be longer and make more mistakes on tasks, worsening performance.
What are the 3 things that contribute to to worsened performance according to the stereotype threat model?
- self-concious attention to own behaviour
- Negative thoughts and emotions
- Physicological stress response
*all contribute to consuming working memory away from the task at hand.
What are 4 intervention opportunities to reduce stereotype threat?
1. Academic task is presented as something that is non-diagnostic of ability
2. Membership in stereotype group is less salient (asking for gender, race, etc. before a study can make someone think of stereotypes against them –> ask for information after)
3. The stereoype itself is less salient (presented as a problem solving task rather than a test)
4. Awareness of the “stereotype threat” phenomenon (add a lesson before the task about what stereotype threat is, causes reduction in stereotype threat)
Describe what is happening in these findings
Shows some of the intervention opportunities for reducing stereotype threat.
- Stereotype itself is made less salient by presenting the math test as a problem solving task - women’s performance increased
- A lesson about the stereotype threat - women’s performance increased
Note: men’s performance does not change for any of the conditions.
What are two definitions of altruism?
- Any form of helping/cooperative behaviour counts as “altruism”
- Any form of helping/cooperativ behaviour counts as “altruism” only when it isn’t motivated by some underlying selfish goal
(people are not truly altruistic)
What is the “empathy - altruism hypothesis”?
Empathy leads to increased helping even when it would be easy to not help.
Some research supports this, and it may be true is a smaller set of circumstances
What is a better, less philosophical question to seek to answer instead of “are people ever truly altruistic?”
“Under what conditions are people more or less altruistic?”
What is reflexive altruism?
That altruistic behaviour is a naturally occuring process.
Due to our species depending on engaging in prosocial behaviour with those arouns us, we evolve to be more prosocial people that naturally show altruistic behaviour.
What is the reflective model of prosociality?
The idea that selfishness comes naturally and it is intuitive.
Claims that in order to be altruistic, we need to engage in slower thinking to overcome that tendency to be selfish.
(not true - intutive model is more accurate)
What is the intuitive model os prosociality?
Prosocial behaviour is a result of intuitive, system 1 preferences.
Ex. “thoughtless” acts of real-life heroism
Explain how “thoughtless” acts of real-life heroism support the intuitive model of prosociality
Carnegie Hero Fund honors people who have risked their lives to save the lives of others
When the recipients of this fund are interviewed about their acts, they say things like: “I did what I felt like I needed to do”, “I was thankful I was able to act and not think about it”
Data shows that what real life altruists, did indicated that their actions were pretty automatic:
How do studies of “thoughtless cooperation” support the intuitive model of prosociality?
People are given some money, and are asked to give some of their money to a common pool for the whole group, that MAY be multiplied for everyone (selfishly keeping money OR giving money for the benefit of everyone, but with some risk)
Asked people to give money under 3 conditions:
C1: No time pressure (take as much time as you want to answer)
C2: Time pressure (encourage people to rely on automatic processing)
C3: Time delay condition (encourage people to rely on slow thinking, deliberate thinking)
RESULTS:
The more time people had to think about their choice in C3, the less cooperative they were!
PEOPLE ARE MORE ALTRUISTIC WHEN RESPONDING AUTOMATICALLY.
How does feeling happy impact altruistic behaviour?
When people are happy, they are more helpful and more altruistic.
This is because it is a reflexive response! (if happy, automatic to help vs if neutral mood, people think more about helping)
What are some study examples of altruistic behaviour being increased when a person is happy?
- When people find money, they are happy, which makes them help others more.
- People listen to a 5 funny minute youtube video, that makes them in a more positive mood, which makes them help others more.
- When it is sunny out, it makes people happier, and more likely to help others.
How can the intuitive model of prosociality explain why the bystander effect occurs?
When people are bystanders, there is uncertainty as to whether or not to help others makes people think a lot about the situation
When people are EFFORTLY thinking about helping, they talk themselves out of actually helping others because they are thinking about it more, rather than leaning into their automatic response.
What is strategic altruism?
People are strategic about helping others rather than altruism being reflexive.
AKA: people are more likely to help more when they perceive greater personal benefits of doing so.
This is demonstrated in 3 lines of research:
- liking, mating, and mood management
How does research on liking demonstrate strategic altruism?
Helpful people are liked by others, and obtain social rewards that accrue from being liked.
Implication: people strategically engage in altruistic behaviour under conditions in which they believe that other people are aware of their actions.
(more likely to be altruistic in public than I am in private)
Ex. People are more likely to give money when “eyes” are “watching” them. (even painted eyes on buildings)
How does research on mating demonstrate strategic altruism?
Helpful people are more desirable mates
Implication: people strategically engage in altruistic behaviour under conditions in which they are motivated to impress potential mates
Example:
- When mating motives are temporarily aroused (“mating mindset”), people express greater willingness to do helpful things and are more inclined to spend money in altruistic ways (ex. charity)
How does research on mood management demonstrate strategic altruism?
Helping people also makes them more happy. (ex. people are happier when they spend money on other people)
Implication: people in a negative mood state sometimes (not always) strategically engage in altruistic behaviour in order to eliminate that negative mood state.
A sad mood sometimes leads to increased altruistic behaviour… but NOT if the mood is perceived to be ——— OR ————
unchangeable
OR
if there are other easier ways to improve mood (ex. watching funny video online)
What is an alternative interpretation of the “empathy-altruism” hypothesis based on research on strategic altruism?
Feeling empathy for someone in need → make people feel saddened → non-altruistic motive to help that person (not because I am solely interested in helping them, but as a way to improve my own mood) → “altruistic” behaviour.
What is the tragedy of the commons?
A consequence of the commons dilemma, where resources disappear after people take too much.
What is the commons dilemma?
People share some type of renewable resource (known as a commons)
If some people take some of it, and share it, people can keep benefiting from it day after day, year after year, etc.
BUT → it is not an infinite resource if people take too much, then the resource depletes and disappears.
What is a classic illustration of the commons dilemma?
People who have livestock and sharing a common field where their livestock is.
There is this shared grazing area → it is a finite resource as you can’t put too much cattle.
Temptation for one of the people to stick one more cattle on there (what’s one more cow?”)
If this person has this temptation, the other people who are sharing this area have the same thought.
Too many cattle on field→ causes the grass to be turned into dirt, and you are left with just dirt that is not renewable.
What are other examples of how the commons dilemma can be applied?
Fish in the dea
Cod fishery in atlantic ocean (cod no longer exist due to over fishing)
Amazon rainforest
Water
these conseqences may be environmental, but it is caused by human decision making –> therefore a problem of social psychology… wise interventions?
What 3 things characterize a wise intervention?
Wise interventions…
- are psychologically percise
- target recursive processes to cause lasting change (one thing leads to the other)
- are context dependent (will not always produce the same effects)
What are 3 examples of wise interventions highlighted in lecture but are also in the reading?
1. Voter Turnout
- asked “how important it is for you to vote in tomorrow’s election” VS “how important is it for you to be a voter in tomorrow’s election” (11% increase in voter turnout!)
- “to be a voter” is an identity valued by others (rather than the action of voting)
2. Healthy Relationships
- During their 2nd year of marriage, couples asked to think about how “neutral third party who wants the best for all” would view a conflict in their marriage. (resulted in higher levels of love, satisfaction, intimacy, trust, and passion)
3. Health Outcomes
- Participants are people hospitalized following “self-poisoning” and either got usual treatment or usual treatment plus 8 postcards from hospital staff over next 12 months (those who got postcards had a 50% decrease in rehospitalizations over next 5 years)
What is happening in people’s heads when they are in the common dilemma?
- Incentive to exploit others trust
- Concern about being exploited
- Focusing on short-term outcomes
What 4 intervention strategies have bee shown to reduce the tragedy of the commons?
1. Incentives→ as people are incentivized to exploit others’ trust, create an incentive system that counteracts that and focuses on the benefits of cooperating/conserving.
2. Information → provide information of the consequences if you take too much and how others would be affected by it.
3. Identity→ enhance a sense of community for everyone who is sharing the resource to reduce the incentive to exploit people that are in your community.
4. Institutions → helpful to have governing bodies that make people do the smart thing, and not the short-term bad decision. This works by enhancing trust in authority
What are the labels for each of these discriptions of interventions to reduce the tragedy of the commons?
What is the difference between injunctive and descriptive norms?
Injunctive Norms:
- What people think you “ought” to do
- People’s beleifs about what other people approve/disapprove of doing
- Ex. speed limit signs, don’t litter signs
Descriptive Norms:
- Norms describing what others are doing/cues
- People’s beleifs about what others are doing
- Ex. looking out of car window to see how fast people are going, seeing trash on the beach
What study on voting demonstrates the psychological power of descriptive norms?
Same message about voting but framed in two versions:
C1: “voter turnout was the lowest it has been in over 30 years”
(% of people garunteed they will vote = 69%)
C2: “it was the highest election turnout in decades” (% of people garunteed they will vote = 76%)
Shows that the popular norm of what others are doing makes people want to align with that.
What impression does the saying: “are you only cleaning 1/3 of your teeth? 22% og people say they floss daily” imply?
Gives the impression that no one flosses their teeth since 22% is low
Demonstrates the influence on descriptive norms.
What does the study on recycling looking at descriptive norms demonstrate?
3 ad versions of the same message:
C1: majority engaged in recycling
C2: majority spoke highly of recycling
C3: majority spoke bad of people who do not recycle
RESULTS:
- prior attitudes on recyling has a weak effect on intention to recycle
- Ad conveys prevalence of recycling (descriptive norm) correlates to a bigger intention to recycle
(descriptive norms > own prior attitude)
ALSO participants asked if a recycling ad that is informative/funny or that shows the prelevance of reclying (descriptive norm) was more persuastive:
- People think funny, and informative ads are more persuasive, when really, ads that show prelevance of reclycing are more persuasive
PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE HOW INFLUENCIAL DESCRIPTIVE NORMS ARE!
What two things explain people’s need to conform with descriptive norms?
need to belong +
need to know = conformity with majority
need to belong = motivation to act in ways that will be approved by others in the environment
(conform the most when worried about other’s approval!)
need to know = motivation to act in ways that are objectively smart/sensible in the environment
(conform he most when people experience more uncertianty!)
How do disease threats impact conformity to descriptive norms?
People are more likely to conform when a disease threat is prominent!
More generally… people conform more when there is a salient threat.
How does culture impact conformity to descriptive norms?
Lots of evidence that there are stronger conformity pressures and higher levels of conformity in collectivistic cultures!!!
Are tightness-looseness the same as collective-individualistic?
NO, different descriptions for cultures
Where are tighter cultures more likely to be?
in places that have experienced more threats, especially infectious diseases
creating more encouragement of conformity in a context that was benefitial
——— cultures respond more effectively to big new threats
tighter!
What are the stats in covid cases and deaths in loose vs tighter countires
looser countries had 5x more covid cases and 9x more deaths than tighter countries
What is the difference for tight-loose cultures?
tight = strong norms and low tolerance for devient behaviour
loose = weak norms and high tolerance for deviant behaviour
