Final Paper Flashcards
Study
What is ethocentrism?
viewing one’s own group as the center of
everything, scaling and rating all others with reference to its groups’ standards/norms … nourishing its own pride and vanity, by boasting of its superiority, exalting its own divinities, and looking with contempt on
outsiders” (Sumner, 1906:
‘Folkways’)
What are the Components of Group
Antagonism?
Stereotypes (cognitive)
Prejudice (affective)
Discrimination (behavioral)
Define Stereotypes
Stereotypes as associations and beliefs about the characteristics and attributes of a group and its members that shape how people think about and respond to the group
Beliefs about the personal attributes shared by people in a particular group or social category. May have a “grain of truth.” Usually contain much inaccuracy Over-generalized Overemphasize negative attributes Underestimate group variability
what is self-fulfilling prophecy?
the knowledge that one may be stereotyped by others can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. which can be influenced by others’ behavior
-When our beliefs and expectations influence our behavior at the subconscious level
a belief or expectation that an individual holds about a future event that manifests because the individual holds it (Good Therapy, 2015).
(is, in the beginning, a false definition of the situation, evoking a new behavior which makes the originally false conception come true)
define stereotype threat
The threat of being evaluated, judged by, or treated in terms of a negative stereotype can cause individuals to perform worse in a domain in which negative stereotypes exist about a group of which they are a members.
The mere expectation of being stereotyped
The threat of confirming, as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one’s group (Steele & Aronson, 1995)
define Prejudice
Prejudice is an individual-level attitude (subjectively positive or negative) toward groups and their members that creates or maintains hierarchical status relations between groups
The evaluation of a group or an individual based mainly on group membership
Not necessarily negative:
ethnocentrism is positive prejudice
towards one’s in-group
examples of prejudice
Prejudice affects public policy preferences e.g; prejudiced whites oppose affirmative action and bilingual education prejudiced straights favor restrictions on HIV-positive individuals
define Discrimination
Discrimination by an individual as behavior that creates, maintains, or
reinforces advantage for some groups and their members over other
groups and their members.
Unjustified negative (sometimes
positive) behaviors towards
individuals based on their group
membership.
targets of discrimination
Racism Sexism Ageism Xenophobia Dis. of disabled people Dis. of poor people/social class segrega
Motives for Prejudice: what are the early
and contemporary approaches?
Mere exposure
Psychodynamic Approaches/Personality theories
Social dominance theory
Belief congruence
Social Learning theory
Social cognition/stereotype formation and change
Intergroup behaviour
a) Mere exposure effect (Zajonc,
1968) :
Repeated exposure to an object results in greater attraction to that object
b) Psychodynamic approach to prejudice /Frustration-Aggression hyp
Prejudice is viewed by some as displaced aggression onto a group that serves as a scapegoat.
Displaced aggression is often directed toward people from outgroups and toward people with less status and power than the aggressor.
Displacement occurs when an individual is frustrated or angered but cannot directly attack the source because of unavailability or fear. In those situations, people aggress against a scapegoat – someone whom they CAN attack and blame for their difficulties.
c) The authoritarian personality
theory treats prejudice as a
personality disorder (Adorno et
al., 1950)
prejudice develops in individuals with the Authoritarian Personality syndrome, characterized by hostility, rigid adherence to conventional patterns of behavior, belief in harsh punishment for deviant behavior, mysticism and superstition, and exaggerated submission to authority. e,g Blind submission to authority Middle-class conventionalism Aggression against those who do not live conventionally Tendency to think in rigid catego
d) Psychoanalysis
Status obsessed parents want to turn
their children (sexual, aggressive etc.)
into middle-class adults (self-controlled,
conformist etc.).
Strict, punitive, dominant parents expect
an obedient, conforming, submissive,
respectful child
Child’s unacceptable impulses become the
adult’s repressed aggression, fear and
sexuality
=> projection onto out-groups (stereotyped
as aggressive, sexually daring and bad)
what did Right-wing authoritarianism scale (RWAscale) (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988) predict? when measuring inter-individual differences in;
- Submission to authority
- Authoritarian aggression
- Conventionalism
- Together with intolerance against
ambiguity
=> Predicts stereotypes and prejudice
e)Cognitive approaces
define Dogmatism
Cognitive style that is rigid and
intolerant and predisposes people to
be prejudiced
explain Closed-mindedness theory (Rokeach,
1960)
Theory that people who have
dogmatic cognitive style are
predisposed to be prejudiced
f) Social dominance theory (e.g., Sidanius & Prato, 1999)
SDO is conceptualized as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination;
that is, it is a measure of an individual’s preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.
Asymetric social relations between social groups and categories Hierarchy enhancing or attenuating institutions (states, NGOs) Legitimizing myths and ideologies that justify hierarchies or equality Interindividual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO-scale)
Belief congruence (Rokeach, 1960)
The effect of shared beliefs on the reduction of prejudicial attitudes
Similar beliefs promote liking and social harmony and dissimilar beliefs, disliking and prejudice Does not apply if prejudice is institutionalized
Social learning theory
we learn prejudice the same way we learn other attitudes and values Socialization The Media
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
views prejudice as an inevitable consequence of conflict between groups for limited resources
arguing that when two groups are in competition for scarce resources, they threaten each other.
Threats create hostility and negative evaluations of each other.
Prejudice is therefore the inevitable consequence of a real conflict over resources desired by both groups. According to this theory, prejudice can be somewhat reduced if some needs are satisfied but never completely reduced because, given scarce resources, all needs of people in both groups will not be completely satisfied.
Relative Deprivation Theory
Fraternal Deprivation and Egoistic Deprivation.
when people perceive themselves to be deprived relative to others. this perception creates the intergroup hostility, rather than the actual relative status of the two groups. This often happens when conditions improve more slowly for one group than for another.
The two types of relative deprivation;
- Fraternal Deprivation; feeling that one’s group is deprived relative to another group. Fraternal deprivation is most closely linked with prejudice, social protest, and nationalism
- Egoistic deprivation; feeling that I am deprived relative to other people.
define Intergroup behaviour
"Whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identification, we have an instance of intergroup behavior" Sherif, 1966, p.
list the theories of intergroup
behaviour
Relative Deprivation
Realistic Conflict Theory
Social Identity Theory
Others…
Relative Deprivation (Gurr (1970, p. 24)
relative deprivation occurs when an individual feels entitled to a certain amount of goods (in absolute or relative terms), but feels to have only the capabilities to obtain less: the extent to which “value expectations” exceed “value capabilities”
3 types of deprivation
Decremental; No change expected but capabilities
diminish
Aspirational; Expectations increase but capabilities
remain the same
Progressive; Expectations increase faster than
capabilities
nature of Expectations in RDT
Discontent was as likely when economic
status was improving as when it was
declining Grofman & Muller (1973)
Folger (1977): certain conditions of
improvements produced some of the
angriest complains.
replacement effect
However: Crosby (1980): less resentment when future improvements were expected. => Hope can sometimes offset tendencies toward resentment (Replacement effect
hope and RDT
Abelson, 1983:
Hope is Presumed connection between desired
outcomes and causal instrumentalities
2 Types of improvment
Actual improvement (which is basis of reconstructed past)
b) Anticipated improvement (which can
serve as replacement)
Referent cognitions model (Folger)
Combines mental simulation with Relative
deprivation theory
Referent vs. likelihood outcomes Referent cognitions: things that people easily imagine having taken place, as contrasted with whatever actually took place Referent outcomes: What would have been the outcome, if…=> Frame of reference
RD and RE outcomes
RD is outcome of joint
- high referent outcome
- Low likelihood outcome
Replacement effect:
- high referent outcome, but also
- high likelihood outcome
Realistic conflict experimental outcomes
John Dollard (1938) found that hostility towards German immigrants in small American industrial town was based on rivalry for jobs
Perception, emotions, behavior
were affected by positive or
negative dependent goals
Experimental variation of goals led to predicted intergroup behavior (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1986; Rabbie et al., 1974…) Brewer and Campbell (1976) ingroup bias among 30 tribal groups in East Africa: bias increased with proximit
Realistic conflict theory critism
anticipated competition has effects only
when strong ingroup-outgroup
differentiation is present
- Ingroup identification necessary
- Bias doesn’t simply disappear if former
hostile groups cooperate
- Perceived conflicts are more important
than "objective" conflicts
- Results of the minimal-group studies
("mere categorization")explaim Minimal group paradigm
investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.
Strategies for mere categorization: MJP – Maximum joint profit MIP – Maximum ingroup profit MD – Maximum difference [F – Fairness (equallity)]
In 1971, Henri Tajfel conducted experiments to find out what the minimal conditions were for intergroup bias under the ftt condns
1.no face-to-face interaction
2. complete anonymity of group membership
3. no instrumental or rational link between
intergroup categorization and responses
4. no utilitarian value of responses to the
subject
5. ingroup favoring strategy should compete
with other, more “rational” strategies
6. responses should involve real decisions
about important issues and relevant
recourses
Minimal grp paradigm
investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.
simply affirms in-group favoritism.
All the groups shown significant favoritism for their in-group, and there was striking evidence for discriminatory in-group behavior. Similarly, experiment #2 resulted in significant in-group favoritism.
Social Identity Theory
(Tajfel and Turner, 1979; 1986). Based on interactionist meta-theory:
Social reality, groups, self and social context
are developed in social interactions. They
are meaningful and shared by group
members.
define Social group
collection of individuals who perceive themselves to be membersof the same social category,
share some emotional involvement, and achieve
some degree of social consensus about
the evaluation of their group and of their
membership in it. (Tajfel & Turner, 1986,
15)
2nd definition if Social group
They have a social and a psychological
reality
two or more people who share a common characteristic that is socially meaningful for themselves or for others
People within groups and groups
within people
They share an identity, have goals, are
interdependent and they have social
structures.
Social groups are social systems, a body of
real people that acts in the world.
what is Self-categories (Groups within people)
psychological representations in the mind
They are cognitive structures which
people use to define themselves and
to change their behavior
define Membership group(Defined by external criteria.)
Others and perhaps I consider myself to be a member of the certain category
Reference group:(Defined by internal criteria.)
Being a member of this group has a particular meaning for me. It provides the frame of reference for social
comparisons with others and is the basis of social identity.
=> Both aspects are related to each other, but
not the same
what is Social Identity:
that part of an individual’s selfconcept which derives from his/her knowledge of his/her membership of a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional significance attached to that membership. (after Tajfel, 1978,
p. 63)
Assumptions of Social identity
Theory
- People strive for positive self-esteem
- Membership in positive or negative social groups or categories (evaluation socially shared) is basis of positive or negative social identity
- Evaluation is based on social comparisons with
other social groups
Principles of Social identity Theory
1.People strive to achieve or maintain positive
social identity
2. Positive social identity is based to a large extent
on favorable comparisons that can be made
between the in-group and some relevant outgroups (“positive distinctiveness”)
3. When social identity is unsatisfactory,
individuals will strive either to leave their
existing group and join some more positively
distinct group and/or to make their existing
group more positively distinct. (“identity
management strategies”)
List some identity management strategies
depend on shared
belief-systems
depend on shared belief-systems about socio-structural variables: - Status relation between IG and OG - permeability of group boundaries - Stability of status relation - Legitimacy of status relatio
Individual strategies:
- Social mobility
- decategorization
Collective strategies:
- Social creativity (changing dimension, reevaluation, changing out-group);
Social mobility is only possible if group
boundaries are permeable. Level of
identification moderates the effect: More
mobility if identification is low.
- Social competition;
- If the intergroup situation is insecure (instable
and/or illegitimate) the probability of social
competition is higher - If the intergroup situation is secure (stable and
legitimate), social creativity is more likely
critism of SIT
-Social groups are not categories
-Relationship between IG-Identification and
Ingroup Bias is variable
-Self-Esteem does not predict ingroup
favoritism
-Prejudice and ingroup favoritism are not
universal (e.g., positive negative asymmetry
what is the self?Three aspects
theory of self
Social Comparison Theory
- Reflexive consciousness
- Interpersonal aspect of self
-Executive functions (agent,
controller, origin)
definition of the selfconcept.?
The set of beliefs we hold about
who we are is called the selfconcept.
The self-concept is an idea about something; the entity to which the self-concept refers is the self.
Although the self-concept is part of the self, the self is more
Reflexive consciousness means
The self in a situation is not perceived
directly, but always inferred or deduced
-The self can only be perceived in relation
to the world
Pragmatic self knowledge
Higgins, 1996: ‘Self Digest’ with
useful information about the self
Leading question is not “Who am I?”
but “What is my relation to the
world?”
Self-knowledge is pursued for the
sake of adaptive benefits.
Knowing the self is a means, not an
end in itself.
Why do we need to know who we are?
Self-knowledge is crucial in directing and regulating our
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors
Social comparison theory defined
individuals determine their own social and personal worth based by compariing themselves with others, the goal is to foster self-improvement, self-motivation, and a positive self-image.
humans are constantly evaluating themselves and others across a variety of domains, such as attractiveness, wealth, intelligence, and success.
These evaluations can also promote judgmental, biased, and overly competitive or superior attitudes
Goals of Social Comparison
Accurate Self-Evaluation
Self-Enhancement
leads to downward social comparisons
Self-Improvement
leads to upward social comparisons
Sense of Communion
Which dimensions do we compare
ourselves on?
Related attributes similarity:
We compare ourselves with others based on similarity
(e.g., of backgrounds and course preparation).
When a dimension is completely unfamiliar, people compare themselves to both the best and the worst cases
Dimensions of comparism
- assimilation
- (contrast).
Social comparison can lead us to see ourselves as similar to others
or different from them
what is the Multiple Selves concept?
self-knowledge is organized around multiple roles, activities, and relationships.when people see themselves in a wide range of situations and roles,
People vary in the number and diversity of ‘selves’ that they believe they possess (selfcomplexity, Linville, 1985)
what is Categories/prototype
The prototype is the most representative exemplar of the category
Self-categories are usually positive Evaluation based on intracategory comparisons
Evaluation depends on prototypicality
category membership is defined
by similarity to a category
prototype
Prototypes need not to be real. Category members differ in their prototypicality
“Categories are composed of a ‘core meaning’ which consists of the clearest cases (best examples) of a category, surrounded by other members of decreasing similarity to that core meaning.” Thus, objects in a category vary in their typicality leading to graded, internal structure within the category.
what is a Prototype; chacteristics
Prototypicality (or simply typicality), is a measure of how representative an object is of a category.
Prototypes need not to be real. Category members differ in their prototypicality
. Category members can be very dissimilar from each other, but at the same time somehow similar to the prototype
chacteristics
Are assumed to be hierarchically
ordered in different levels of
inclusiveness
levels of categories;
(superordinate, intermediate, subordinate)
Superordinate level as human being
(human identity)
Intermediate level of ingroup-outgroup
distinction (social identity)
Subordinate level of personal selfconcept (personal identity
what does level of default
categorization depends on?
context, culture, motivation etc.
synonym for categories/schema
schema
categories/prototype; differences in nature
Prototypes are more nebulous, unorganized, fuzzy
representations of a category
vs. schemas are highly organized specifications of features and their relationship
CCABP
4 models of mental representation/Category of schema:
Associative networks Category Prototypes (abstract) Category Exemplars (concrete events) Both, prototypes and exemplars Parallel distributive processes in neuronal networks
Summary of self
The self is partly cognitive (selfconcept).
build up on multiple processes and
components. …situation specific (switched on or of
Self-concept is partly categorical.
Self-categories are hierarchical
structured.
At least three levels of selfcategorization (superordinate, intermediate, subordinate)
Superordinate categories frame
Superordinate categories provide frame of
reference for inter-category comparisons
Meta-Contrast Principle
Intergroup is intragroup on the
superordinate level
Salience depends on frame of reference
frame of reference depends on salience
Salience depends on frame of reference
model summary;
Categorization => accentuation of intraclass similarities and interclass differences
Group formation meaing
That psychological group formation takes
place to the degree that two or more people
come to perceive and define themselves in
terms of some shared ingroup-outgroup
categorization
Depersonalization how?
Person – Group continuum
- Depersonalization as Self-Stereotyping
- Depersonalization is basis of Group phenomena
- Group formation
- Emergent group formation based on MCR
- No specific assumptions for internalization
- Accessibility x Fit (structural, normative)
Antecedent conditions of depersonalization
Group formation
Salience of self-categories
Consequences of depersonalization
All the group phenomena!
Cohesion
Interpersonal attraction
Ethnocentrism
Social Cooperation
Cohesion and mutual prototypicality
mutually perceived similarity (identity)
between self and others in terms of the
defining characteristics of the ingroup selfcategory leads to group cohesion or mutual attraction
between ingroup members
Cohesion and salience factors
Personal attractiveness
attractiveness of specific individual persons (including one’s personal self) depends upon their perceived prototypicality in comparison with other ingroup members (relative prototypicality
relative prototypicality
attractiveness of specific individual persons (including one's personal self) depends upon their perceived prototypicality in comparison with other ingroup members (relative prototypicality
Personal attractiveness depends on group membership
personal attractiveness of
an individual is not constant, but varies
with the ingroup membership
providing the frame of reference, the defining
dimensions of ingroup membership employed for interpersonal comparison and the specific others with whom the person is compared.
ethnocentrism and self
That ethnocentrism, attraction to one's own group as a whole, depends upon the perceived prototypicality of the ingroup in comparison with relevant outgroups (relative prototypicality)
in terms of the valued superordinate self-category that
provides the basis for the intergroup
comparison.
Ethnocentrism depends on superordinate category
Superordinate level as human being (human identity)
personal vs. group attraction
the more salient is some relevant ingroup-outgroup
categorization, the less will selfesteem and attraction to ingroup members reflect individuals’ relative
personal status within the group and
the more they will reflect the relative
status of the ingroup compared to the
outgroup.
interpersonal vs. intragroup attraction
interpersonal attraction and group cohesion tend to
be inversely related in the sense, that
the perception and evaluation of ingroup members in terms of their personal differences works against mutual attraction based on the mutual perception of identity as group members
group goals
the perception of identity between oneself and ingroup members leads to a perceived identity of interests in terms of the needs, goals and motives associated with ingroup membership.
cooperation and competition
factors which tend to enhance the salience of shared ingroup memberships will tend to increase the level of intragroup co-operation (and intergroup competition)
intragroup competition
factors which tend to personalize or individuate intragroup relations (or lead to the categorization of others as outgroup members) will decrease mutual co-operation (and increase interpersonal competition).
“Ingroup Projection Model”,
integrates three old themes in social psychology:
Self-relevance of social categorization and psychological group formation (G. Allport, 1954, Tajfel &
- the notion of prototypicality in intra-category
differentiation (Rosch, 1978) - social projection
Projection
). It is defined as the tendency to believe that one’s own thoughts, feelings and behaviors are shared by others (F. Allport, 1924; Krueger
2007).
intergroup discrimination
the conflict does not come from the fact that one group claims to be more
prototypical, but rather from the disagreement on this matter.
In a long tradition of
intergroup research, intergroup discrimination has often been operationalized as
simple ingroup favoritism, or as an unequal, mostly negative treatment of
members of certain groups
intergroup discrimination by Mummendey & Wenzel (1999
consider disagreement between the two groups involved as the essence of intergroup
discrimination, potentially resulting from the reciprocal process of projecting
ingroup attributes onto the more inclusive category.
They define social discrimination as “…an ingroup’s subjectively justified unequal, usually disadvantageous, evaluation or treatment of an outgroup, that the latter (or an outside observer) would deem unjustified” (p. 159
the allocation of resources
reference
Evaluations and decisions about the allocation of resources are done with
reference to expectations and standards, and those standards are often open for
debat are done with
reference to expectations and standards, and those standards are often open for
debat
purpose of ingroup projection model
not only developed to understand the evaluation of outgroups, but also to analyze conditions of intergroup tolerance
Theories Improving Intergroup Relations
MRCCCDD
Mutual Differentiation Model Reciprocal process model Contact hypothesis Cross-categorization Common Ingroup Identification Model Dual Identity De-categorization-Approach
Contact hypothesis:
Under the right conditions, contact between members of different groups will reduce hostility and promote more positive intergroup relations (e.g., Allport, 1954; early housing studies by Deutsch & Collins, 1951; Wilner, Walkley, & Cook, 1955)
Contact hypothesis:
Intergroup contact
Conditions of optimal contact:
1. Support by authorities => norms of tolerance 2. "acquaintance potential" => intimate contact +information about OG disconfirming neg. stereotypes 3. Equal status => prevent confirmation of stereotypes (e.g., Amir, 1976) 4. Cooperative interdependence (e.g., Sherif et al., 1961)
Intergroup contact
Moderators found in experimental
studies:
- Frequency and duration of contact
- Presence of intergroup anxiety
- Structure of cooperative tasks
- Outcome of cooperation
- Status equalization
Decategorization:
The personalization model
(Brewer & Miller, 1984)
- Undoing category-based depersonalization
- Intergroup interactions should structured
so as to reduce the salience of
category distinctions and promote
opportunities to get to know OG members
as individual persons - Generalization by repeated personalized
contact decreasing the salience and
usefulness of categorization (e.g, Miller,
Brewer, & Edwards, 1985)
Decategorization:
The personalization model
(Brewer & Miller, 1984)
Friendships reduce prejudice (e.g.,
Pettigrew, 1998) and increase tolerance
toward outgroups in general
(“Deprovincialization”, Pettigrew, 1997)
- Knowledge about friendships between IG
and OG members can reduce prejudice
(Wright et al., 1997)
Challenges to
de/re-categorization -
Both models rely on the reduction of
salience of ingroup-outgroup
categorization
=> Motivational (e.g., optimal distinctivness) or socio-structural factors may reestablish ingroup-outgroup categorization in the long run
The mutual differentiation
model
contact is not enuf
Encouraging groups to work together, both acknowledging their values in realtion superordinate goals
=> Groups can maintain their group identities For instance, tasks with distinct but
complementary roles
The mutual differentiation
model
Generalization should be more likely with
salient intergroup situation
The mutual differentiation
model
The model provides a more stable solution for
the cognitive representation of friendly
relationships between groups.
However, the affective component is perhaps
more fragile and in the long run might
undermine mutual cooperation (e.g., by
mutual distrust)
Multiple social identities
People are members of several groups at the
same time. Sometimes, more than one
group membership might be salient
Hierarchical dual identity
Studies with imposed identities have shown that
people don’t want to be forced into one
superordinate category if they have to give up
their subgroup identity
⇒ Relationships are better with dual than
with one-group representation (e.g.,
Hornsey and Hogg, 2000)
Dual identity
assumed to facilitate
generalization of positive contact
experiences to the whole category
(Gonzales, Dissertation)
Why? Dual identity
- reduced salience of ingroup/outgroup categorization - Reduced importance of each single category - Consistency motivated effects - Increased interpersonal interaction across category boundarie
Limitations:
- if one dimension is more meaningful or functional than the other: no effect - Combining dimensions can foster exclusion of the double outgroup
Reciprocal process model
(Pettigrew, 1998
All three models (decategorization, recategorization, mutual differentiation) can facilitate each other. People may fluctuate between different categorization levels Some sequences might be optimal for intergroup contact
Reciprocal process model
(Pettigrew, 1998
Tested by Eller, A. & Abrams, D. (2003). 'Gringos' in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 57-77. Special Issue on Intergroup Contact
Minimal Standards on the Evaluation
focus on an absolute cutoff point for appropriate behavior; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies dichotomously between acceptable or
unacceptable.
Maximal Standards on the Evaluation
focus on the degree of deviation from that standard; accordingly, the evaluation of others varies gradually from positive to less positive. .
defines standards
“a criterion or rule established by experience, desires, or authority for the measure
of quantity and extent, or quality and value” (
In the interpersonal realm,
people perceiving a minimal standard violation may tend to react harshly and aggressively because they may perceive violating a minimal standard as having a bad personality compared to people perceiving the same behavior as a deviation from a maximal
standard
In intergroup relations (e.g., Mummendey & Wenzel,
1999)
whenever an ingroup and an outgroup are evaluated
according to a common standard , these standards are conceived of according to ingroup attributes, which leads to the perception of outgroups as
deviating from this common standard
Here, it is of major importance whether such a common standard is conceived of as a minimal or a maximal standard (Berthold, Mummendey, Kessler,
Lücke, & Schubert, 2008).
In intergroup relations (e.g., Mummendey & Wenzel,
1999)
Whereas deviations from common
maximal standards lead to the devaluation of an outgroup, violations of minimal standards may lead to social exlusion
- (Social) categorization – attributing a group membership to
an individual - Stereotype activation - an increased accessibility of
knowledge about social groups - Stereotype applicati the use of the activated
knowledge in perception, judgment, and/or behavior
- (Social) categorization – attributing a group membership to
an individual
