Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology II > Impression Formation II: Social Categorisation > Flashcards

Impression Formation II: Social Categorisation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

CATEGORISING

A
  • assigning objects/people to discrete groups based on common characteristics
  • consequences can be harmful BUT we can’t always do otherwise
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

WHY IS CATEGORISING EASY?

A

MACKNIK & MARTINEZ-CONDE (2011)
- thinking requires expensive brain activity
- energy = limited resource
- takes time/attention away from other tasks (ie. food/finding a mate/avoiding danger)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

CHAOS

A
  • categorisation prevents chaos, which humans are naturally wary of
  • if everything is unique, we experience info overload
  • categorisation = simplification
  • categorisation = important fundamental cognitive ability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

INITIAL CATEGORISATION

A
  1. AUTOMATIC
  2. UNINTENTIONAL
  3. EFFORTLESS
  4. UNCONSCIOUS
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

CATEGORISATION EVIDENCE

A
  • we encode on the basis of physical cues (ie. age/ethnicity/gender)
  • we add contained knowledge (aka. stereotypes/schemas)
  • this affects judgement of/beh towards social groups and their members
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

MACRAE ET AL (1995)

A

PHASE 1. parafoveal priming aka. woman/Chinese person
PHASE 2. video aka. Chinese woman reading book
PHASE 3. LDT (Lexical Decision Task)
- prediction of priming influencing LDT

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

! CRITICAL !

A
  • the categories we activate are influenced what is salient
  • those that are less useful may be inhibited
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

PENDRRY & MACRAE (1996)

A
  • role of motivation in categorisation (superordinate/subordinate categories)
  • video of woman at work
  • processing goal (accountability/clarity/height)
  • LDT (women/business/female-coded language)
  • more involved categorised at a deeper level
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

THE SHOOTER BIAS: BACKGROUND

A

CORRELL (2002)
- US black oppression
- research prompted by high police shootings of (particularly male) black people; speedy racial categorisation processes impacting such behs
- pps played videogame; photos of young men (1/2 white; 1/2 black) in a range of settings; 1/2 w/gun, 1/2 w/harmlesss object

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

TBS: PROCEDURE

A

CORRELL (2002)
- pps asked to press button saying if man was holding/not holding gun (aka. “shoot”/”don’t shoot”) on gut reaction
- pps most likely to his “shoot” for black males regardless of if they had a weapon
- reveals how accessible schemas can bias interpretation given to social events when time/processing capacity is limited

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

TSB: META-ANALYSIS

A

MEKAWI & BRESIN (2015)
- not all researchers study it in the same way
- different shooter bias definitions/method usage/interpretations
- contextual factors may affect outcome (ie. community racial make-up/state gun laws/individual prejudice)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

TSB: M-A: FINDINGS

A
  • all studies compared w/white males
  • pps shot black armed targets fast, unarmed slower
  • more likely to have liberal shooting threshold for shooting black targets = SHOOTER BIAS FOUND
  • studies in more premissive gun law states found bigger effects
  • studies in high POC neighbourhoods showed bigger effects (aka. contact hypothesis link theory)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

MODERATING FACTORS OF THE SHOOTER BIAS

A
  1. EXPERTISE
  2. MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF SOCIAL CATEGORIES
  3. ECOLOGICAL VALIDIY OF 2D DEPICTIONS
  4. CONTEXT
  5. PREVALENCE OUTSIDE US
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

MFOTSB: EXPERTISE

A

CORRELL ET AL (2014)
JOHNSON ET AL (2018)
- experts (police officers) VS novices
- same effects not always found

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

MFOTSB: MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF SOCIAL CATEGORIES

A

BODENHAUSEN & PEERY (2009)
FRABLE (2007)
TODD ET LA (2020)
- results attenuated when dif categories are salient (ie. age)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

MFOTSB: ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY OF 2D DEPICTIONS

A

TAYLOR (2011)
- improved simulations to create more realistic depictions
JAMES, KLINGER & VILLA (2014)
JAMES, VILLA & DARATHA (2012)
- generally failed to find SB evidence

17
Q

MFOTSB: CONTEXT

A

KAHN & DAVIES (2017)
- SB more prevalent in threatening neighbourhoods when target has “threatening” clothes
SADLER & DEVOS (2020)
- ethnic diversity on areas impacts SB

18
Q

MFOTSB: PREVALENCE OUTSIDE US

A

ESSIEN ET AL (2017)
- other ethnicities/countries also prey to SB (ie. Arab-Muslim, Turkish)

19
Q

SHOOTER BIAS METHODOLOGY EVALUATION

A

CESARIO (2022)
- issues of applying SB lab findings to real world settings
- most lab research tightly controls stimuli (ie. varying only one variable; rest held constant)

20
Q

MISSING INFORMATION FLAW

A
  • many vital info pieces are missing in standard lab-based paradigms that officers are trained to notice/use to inform decision, like:
    1. why the officer has been called to scene
    2. what the neighbourhood is like
    3. past citizen encounters
    4. citizen compliance
    5. citizen movement
    6. if non-lethal tactics have been used
21
Q

MISSING FORCES FLAW

A
  • neglect of contextual factors that may impact findings
  • black/white targets shown equally for stats BUT doesn’t reflect IRL
  • violent crime context is overwhelming influence on officers decision to shoot
  • violent crime rates differ across racial groups
22
Q

MISSING CONTINGENCIES FLAW

A
  • possible motivation/ability between experimental and IRL decision makers difs
  • race of target usually known to police in advance; lab pps told little beforehand
  • few fatal shootings are due to misidentified objects as guns
  • naive undergraduates used; decision inconsequential/no training; police officers receive 1000+ hours force training
23
Q

FAITH IN EXPERIMENTAL RESEARCH ON SB

A

CESARIO (2021)
- little overlap between experimental parameters and IRL decision parameters
- concept of uncontrollable bias in humans is premature
- concerned that this gap isn’t being explored

24
Q

CESARIO (2021) SUGGESTMENT

A
  1. Talk to relevant people outside lab (ie. police officers); researchers should complete training protocols.
    REASON: To reveal that context/beh of target citizen is critical; context of violent crime is central in officer’s decision to shoot.
  2. Analyse groups more/less likely to be associated w/SB (ie. beh/personality/individual difs)
    REASON: Recognition of sizeable difs across violent crime groups; biasing effects of race on decision must be places in beh context.
  3. Design experiments informed by obtained data resulting in more engaged/difficult studies w/non-student sample.
25
Q

! SUMMARY !

A
  • social categorisation = fast/automatic perceptual first step
  • spotlight on very salient issue: shooter bias research (widely critiqued)

Social Psychology II (18 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions