intergroup relations- cognitive appraoches to stereotyping Flashcards
1
Q
what did Lippmann 1924 describe steretypes as
A
- pictures in the head
- a form of perception
2
Q
what did bartlett 1932 carry out
A
- gave students a folk tale, of ghostly symbolism
- cultural references, means very little to students
- serial transmission of narrative to others
- in process story changed massively
- ghostly illusions dropped out of story, no stereotyping of supernatural elements
3
Q
what did Bartlett 1932 conclude
A
- pre existing knowledge structures how incoming info is processed
- shows we do not absorb info, we pay attention and ignore certain aspects
- story changes in a way we are able to understand and comprehend it
4
Q
cantril 1966
A
- ‘The war of the worlds’, presented as breaking news coming in
- people believed it, panicked
5
Q
conclusion of cantril 1966
A
- said they were using senses to prior expectations
- they interpreted the world in their expectations, and so confirmed what they expected to see
6
Q
what did Tajfel 1969 say about stereotypes
A
A product of ‘the mind rather than the guts’
7
Q
what is concluded about perception
A
it involves selection and interpretation, we dont just absorb it
8
Q
pendry 1998 task
A
- participants asked to form impression of an older woman Hilda 65 years
- told ‘Hilda is …’ several times to make impression of her at the end
- while doing task a tape was overheard with interesting or boring conversation
- participant distarted by interesting tape to show how focus shifts
- two conditions: closure of supermarket, others heard of closure of student union
9
Q
what did results of hilda study show
A
- attention shifted to union convo, falled back on stereotype of old women to Hilda
- steretype inconsistent traits showed students neglected stereotype inconsistent material
10
Q
duncan 1976 task and conclusion
A
- perception of ambiguous shove
- when a black harm doer shoved another, behaviour attributed to aggressive disposition
- when a white harm doer shoved another, behaviour attributed to situational factors
11
Q
hunter et al 1991 study aim
A
- to find how catholic and protestant children interpret violence, and how they interpret their own groups whether violence was part of their group or not
12
Q
hunter et al 1991 study procedure
A
- children shown video of protestants attacking catholic funeral and catholics attacking soldiers
- children asked to write a small paragraph about how they interpret the violenve (if its apart of their own group or not)
- focused on internal and external factors and how each group viewed the other group
13
Q
hunter et al 1991 conclusion to study
A
- catholics came up with interal attributions to their violence
- protestants tributes violence to external situational factors compared to internal factors
14
Q
conclusion of hunter et al study in different studies
A
- projection (adorno et al. and Freud)
VS cognitive approach - conflict, each party confliting violence of other group, your own violence seen as understandable and reasonable
15
Q
adorno et al 1950
A
- emphasises personality
- perceptions of outgroups are irrational and reflect needs of perceivers personality
- (Authoritarian study, use of f-scale)
