Final Material Flashcards
What’s stereotyping?
- cognitive component (beliefs)
- belief that certain attributes are characteristic of a group of people
- involves thinking about a person not as an individual, but as a member of a group, and projecting your beliefs about the group onto that person
- form of schema that helps us categorize people
- occurs automatically
- can be positive, negative, or neutral
What’s prejudice?
- affective component (attitudes)
- an attitudinal and affective judgment/evaluation of a group and its members
- negative feelings and beliefs associated with a stereotype
- can be positive or negative, but typically refers to to negative, unfavourable judgments
- more affective/emotional
- prejudice = pre-judgment of others
What’s discrimination?
- behavioural component (behaviours)
- differential treatment of individuals based on their membership in a particular group
- involves behaviour and some sort of action and it can take many forms (be very mild or severe)
- typically used to refer to negative behaviour directed against a group
How could stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination occur simultaneously?
- stereotypes can lead to prejudice, or can be used to justify prejudice, which may in turn lead to negative behaviour (i.e., discrimination)
- people are more inclined to injure those they hold in low regard
How could stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination occur independently?
- attitudes (prejudice) do not always predict behaviour (discrimination)
- laws, cultural norms, and egalitarian values may prevent people from acting on their prejudices
- not all instances of discrimination derive from prejudice
- ingroup favoritism can arise even when there isn’t any hostility (prejudice) toward different outgroups
How can ingroup favouritism contribute to discrimination?
- many cases of discrimination are driven by desire to help member of ingroup rather than hurt member of outgroup
- however, linking of our own group (ingroup) may lead to hatred of the outgroup
What’s the evolutionary perspective on outgroup prejudice?
- we tend to prefer the familiar over the unfamiliar (probably adaptive)
- Safest when staying with the group you know: ingroup is predictable, provide protection, share resources
- Outsiders are a potential threat: carry disease, can kill or hurt, steal precious resources
- we use appearance-based cues of “outsiderness” to identify danger, trigger ingroup favouritism and cohesion
Describe the Robber’s Cave experiment
- Study of 11-12 yr boys at summer camp
- White, middle-class, Protestant background (no notable ethnic group differences among them)
- Divided into two groups: separate cabins, given different tasks, etc.
- 3 phases to experiment:
- Ingroup formation
- Intergroup conflict
- Integration/conflict resolution
Describe the ingroup formation phase (1st phase) of the Robber’s Cave experiment
- Groups kept separate from each other, not aware of each other’s existence
- Given tasks that required co-operative discussion, planning, & execution
- Activities were designed to foster group unity
- Developed group norms, leadership & group structure, attachment to group (cohesion to group)
- Chose names and made shirts & flags
Describe the intergroup conflict phase (2nd phase) of the Robber’s Cave experiment
- The groups were then made aware of each other’s presence and a series of competitions were orchestrated
- The competitive nature of the tournament was designed to encourage each group to see the other as an obstacle to obtaining the reward and hence as an enemy
- Increased group solidarity
- Negative stereotyping of the other group
- Hostile intergroup interactions
Describe the integration/conflict resolution phase (3rd and final phase) of the Robber’s Cave experiment
- Sherif and team tried a bunch of interventions to get the 2 groups to reconcile
- Ex: Peace meetings, individual competitions, pleasant activities
- What ended up working was getting them to work on superordinate goals
- The hostility produced by five days of competition was erased by the joint pursuit of common goals
What are superordinate goals and how can they be used to reduce conflict?
- Mutually desired goals that could only be achieved through cooperation between the two groups
- By working towards a common goal, intergroup conflict can be reduced as they have to put their joint efforts together and realize that they are not as different as they may seem
- By working towards a common goal together, they may grow a liking for the other group
- It’s the pursuit of bigger, shared, superordinate goals that keeps everyone’s eyes on the prize and away from troublesome subgroup distinctions
Describe what’s the jigsaw classroom
- Teacher divides class into small, diverse lesson groups
- Students within a group are tasked with becoming experts in different parts of the lesson
- Must rely on each other to complete the full lesson
- Students from different groups in charge of learning the same part meet
- Experts go back to and teach their original groups
- Reduces competitiveness between classmates
- By focusing on the common goal of learning the material and doing well in the class, classmates depend on each other for success and work together to learn the material which relates to the idea of superordinate goals
- Jigsaw classroom can boost academic performance and facilitate positive racial and ethnic relationships
What’s the realistic group theory?
- Competition for resources can lead to negative intergroup attitudes
- Prejudice and discrimination should increase under conditions of economic difficulty, such as recessions and periods of high unemployment
- Negative feelings can be culturally transmitted from generation to generation, so intergroup hostility may persist even when original realistic conflict is no longer relevant
- Ex: heightened hostility towards immigrants during tough economic times
- Groups often compete not just for material resources, but over ideology and cultural supremacy as well
Describe the minimal group paradigm?
- An experimental paradigm in which researchers create groups based on arbitrary and seemingly meaningless criteria and then examine how the members of these “minimal groups” are inclined to behave toward one another
- Random assignment of participants to groups
- The categories for groups were arbitrary and members of each group did not know who the others members were
- After learning their group membership, the participants were taken to separate cubicles and asked to assign points, redeemable for money, to pairs of their fellow participants, without knowing the identity of who they were assigning points to
Findings:
- The participants in many of these studies favoured members of one’s own group over members of other group
- They were more focused on maximizing difference in outcome between ingroup and outgroup (relative gain) than on maximizing absolute value of ingroup outcome
What does the minimal group paradigm teach us about ingroup favouritism?
The ingroup favoritism that emerges in this context demonstrates how easily we slip into thinking in terms of US versus THEM, to the point where we would rather “beat” the outgroup than maximize our own groups gains
What’s the Social Identity Theory?
- People derive their self-esteem and sense of identity not only from their individual status and accomplishments but also from those of the groups to which they belong
- We may therefore be tempted to boost the status and fortunes of these groups and their members
- Ingroup favouritism -> doing everything we can to feel better about the ingroup leads us to feel better about ourselves
- Taking criticism about the group as criticism about the self
What’s basking in reflected glory?
- We tend to take pride in the group’s accomplishments even when we had nothing to do with the group’s accomplishment
- People go to great lengths to announce their affiliation with a group when that group is doing well
- Can boost self-esteem by associating with successful groups
- We want to identify with such groups when they do well but to distance ourselves from them when they lose
- “We won!” vs. ”They lost”
How could threats to self-esteem promote prejudice & discrimination?
- We may partake in scapegoating
- May denigrate members of outgroups to bolster our self-esteem
Summarize research by Fein & Spencer (1997) on how threats to self-esteem promote prejudice & discrimination
- Researchers recruited non-Jewish American participants
- They threatened the self-esteem of half the participants by telling them they had just performed poorly on an intelligence test; while the other half were told they had done well
- Participants then had to rate a candidate
- Participants in self-esteem threatening condition rated woman more negatively if they thought she was Jewish
- The more negatively they evaluated the (purportedly) Jewish American woman, the more their self-esteem increased
What are explicit measures of prejudice?
- Explicit prejudice is conscious and deliberate
- People who are explicitly prejudiced know that they are prejudiced
- Can be measured via self-report
- “I don’t like those people”
Summarize research by Sinclair & Kunda (1999) on how threats to self-esteem promote prejudice & discrimination
- Study where non-black participants were either praised or criticized by a white or black male doctor
- Participants were particularly fast at recognizing words related to black stereotypes after getting criticized by the black doctor and slow at recognizing those words when praised by the black doctor
- Participants were fast at recognizing medical words when praised by the black doctors and slow when criticized by the black doctor
- Conclusion: when the black doctor criticized the participants, they saw him as a black man but when he praised them, they saw him as a doctor
What’s old-fashioned traditional prejudice?
- Conservative outdated views
- Explicit prejudice
- Traditional patriarchal and racist views
- “Black people are generally not as smart as white people”
- “Women are generally not as smart as men”
What’s contemporary, modern/aversive prejudice?
- More subtle and less explicit racism/prejudice
- People may not be consciously aware that they are prejudiced
- Rejection of explicitly racist beliefs can co-exist with unacknowledged prejudice and in-group bias
- People will try to behave in line with egalitarian values
- “Discrimination against [Black people/women] is no longer a problem in North America”
- “[Black people/Women] are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights”
- “Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect to [Black people/women] than they deserve