interviews Flashcards
bryce dietrich
racial difference in walking behaviour study
found that people gave Black people an extra 4 INCHES of space
he’s motivated by the psychology of people MOVING THROUGH SPACE
gets excited about problem solving in research
ie. making sure sidewalk demographics mapped onto study design, keeping track of walkers’ demographics…
4 inches of distance is meaningful when it happens all the time - you internalize this treatment
NEW ideas: replicate study using VR to get exact measurements
can also reverse the setup: have people be in convo and then experience people stepping further from them
VR, through inhabiting bodies, can trigger empathy
you can feel a bit of what it’s like to be in the body of someone else
Salma Mousa
Iraqi soccer teams - using social contact between Muslims and Christians to build cohesion
devastated social trust in this area because of 2014 ethnic cleansing - esp between Christians and Muslims
in Iraq, there’s strong INGROUP coheesion, but few bonding ties between groups
why soccer as an intervention? need grassroots approaches to complement policy
micro-foundation of social cohesion, and fits the 4 requirements of positive contact (cooperative, common goal, equal status, support from authorities)
3 classes of OUTCOMES:
a. on the field
b. off the field
c. intergroup attitudes
biggest change for ON THE FIELD
MUCH SMALLER, sometimes zero effect, for off the field behaviours
changes in BEHAVIOUR over attitudes
being on a WINNING TEAM resulted in the MOST POSITIVE EFFECTS across a broader range of outcomes
^points to importance of quality interactions
why were the Christians the majorities on these teams (they are minority in this area)
because this MITIGATED POWER DIFFS on national scale - done to create more equality and to avoid triggering vulnerable minority
N Derek Brown
research Qs: what’s preventing us from creating a more equitable society? what psychological barriers exist that keep us from this goal?
eagles vs rattlers study: relative deprivation
one group has lots of resources, the other has little
advantaged group makes choice between WIN WIN and LOSE LOSE condition
WIN WIN - your group gets a bit of an increase in resources and disadvantaged group gets a big increase
LOSE LOSE - both groups get a decrease
WIN WIN is seen as MORE HARMFUL
takeaway: when people think about their group, they’re much more tuned in to the RELATIVE POSITION of their group as opposed to the overall position
^preserves inequality
explicit racial attitudes, SDO and political affiliations didn’t predict decisions
potential explanation: maybe people are fine with inequality as long as they perceive the system as FAIR or MERITOCRATIC
even reframing the situation (by presenting it outcomes jointly and stressing equality) didn’t affect the misperception that one had been harmed by the equality-promoting policy
future ideas: cross-race coalitions and intergroup interactions
facilitating interactions across group boundaries
thinks ‘zero-sum’ (another group’s win means your loss) is super damaging - a lot to explore there
Sa-Kiera Hudson
research Qs: the formation, maintenance and intersection of social hierarchies
SDO in relation to hierarchies
SDO measures extent to which people accept/promote group based inequality
power is in everything, and people have different ideas about how they think power should work
we are fine with some groups being on top as long as we can justify it
ie. meritocracy is hierarchical, but most people say it’s better than monarchy
SDO can predict who likes one structure over another, it helps us understand people’s reasoning as to who should be on top and why this is justifiable in their minds
scale is right-skewed, most people highly disagree with the items
those who highly disagree are part of 2 groups
a. actual believers in equality
b. people who think they’re supposed to/have been conditioned to
the one time they got a normal distribution of SDO scores - when measuring Trump supporters
so developing an implicit SDO scale would revolutionize the field
SDO can predict all sorts of things
people high in SDO have increased schadenfreude when viewing other people suffer and decreased positivity when viewing others experience good things
true for all groups, but ENHANCED when groups are DIFFERENT (ie. from diff racial group)
lack of empathy at all? decreased empathy towards outgroups?
studies suggests people high in SDO can feel empathy
so lack of empathy is MOTIVATED, towards lower-status or outgroups
high SDO can actually POSITIVELY PREDICT EMPATHY towards high status groups
same relationship between SDO and empathy when looking at cross-race dynamics between MARGINALIZED groups?
messy results because there are 2 forces at work when you’re a low status person high in SDO
a. high SDO supports hierarchy
b. but complicated by your own low status
may be important differences in role of hierarchy 1) when hierarchies are ALREADY FORMED and 2) when they’re FORMING
high SDO prob means that when hierarchies are forming, you will be motivated to do things that support the formation
but race relations in US are already formed - so it’s more about maintenance
BUT race relations are changing, so may be moving towards hierarchy re-formation
future directions: INTERSECTIONALITY of identities (race, gender, sexual orientation)
Chadly Stern
political psychologist interested in questions that are socio-cognitive in nature
how does a person’s political belief system shape the way they see the world/engage in day-to-day interactions?
how do LIBERALS and CONSERVATIVES differ in the way they process and use info?
political group membership is very tied to self identity
political beliefs are important organizing principles in everyday lives
conservatives are much more confident in their ability to glean social category membership from someone’s appearance - stereotyping
roles of stereotyping in 2 domains
a. maintaining group hierarchy (SDO)
b. need for structure
conservatives stereotype general trait attributes based on physical characteristics
SDO: if you’re committed to upholding hierarchy, you’ll attribute negative stereotypes to low status people and positive stereotypes to high status people
if you want to oppress marginalized groups, you individuate people you encounter to find out who is an ingroup/outgroup member BASED ON THEIR APPEARANCE
need for structure: need organized, simple, structured, predictable world
doesn’t mean you feel super negative about certain groups, but have a need to place people in boxes
ie. gender reveal parties - attempt to organize ideas about a child’s future
people high in need for structure endorse stereotypes even if they don’t feel negatively about the group
cognitively efficient to make group judgments based on physical characteristics, even if you’re egalitarian
DISCOMFORT OVER A FALSE POSITIVE: when people categorize, have bias to not include someone in the ingroup unless they’re VERY SURE they’re part of the ingroup
people will categorize someone as Black if there’s even a hint of evidence that they might not be White
because of CONCERN FOR PRESERVING YOUR GROUP’S RESOURCES (don’t want to accidentally give to outgroup)
liberals include more identities within groups that conservatives do (recognize broader, more nuanced identities)
STRAIGHT CATEGORIZATION BIAS: people hesitate to categorize people as gay because of stigma associated with this identity
thinks that liberal/conservative distinction applies UNIVERSALLY and ACROSS TIME - it’s just the labels that change and measurements will need adjusting
CONSERVATIVE: sensitive, reactive, traditional, opposed to change
LIBERAL: support for novel change
future directions: psychological motivations over what liberals do
we usually focus on why conservatives act the way they do, know less about what drives liberals in everyday interactions
ie. reframe to “liberals are less likely to frame categories based on physical appearances” - so what are they doing instead to make inferences?
Kate Ratliff
how can we most effectively teach people about implicit bias?
keep defensiveness low while simultaneously making people feel accountable
exec director of Project Implicit for 5 years
she hopes people get what out of the IAT?
a. hopes people learn about implicit bias
b. understand that good (egalitarian, fair-minded) people carry biases of their society with them
biggest misconception she’d like to clear up regarding the IAT: that it measures something inaccessible/unconscious
she doesn’t use phrase ‘unconscious bias’ because there’s evidence that people do have a sense of the biases that they carry
role of IAT in prejudice/discrimination?
one of EDUCATION
people take IAT and realize they hold biases
“does the IAT predict behaviour?” - she isn’t sure
and she’s not sure this question matters - it’s clear that stereotypes impact behaviour and we don’t need the IAT to prove that
defensive responses to the IAT - some people derogate the IAT as non-scientific
people usually score a 2.5/4 out of defensiveness
higher in defensiveness if their results conflict with self-report
trait-reactance: some people are generally more defensive
strategies to lower defensiveness? framing implicit bias as a cultural phenomenon (not an individual one) doesn’t seem to make a huge difference
future: using IAT on a geographical scale, GEOLOCATING bias
geolocating bias is important for our understanding of implicit biases as an individual vs cultural phenomenon
where do subtle biases fit into broader pictures of structural/systemic racism?
David Schindler
paper “shocking racial attitudes” about WW2 Black troop placement
long-lasting correlations between placement of Black troops in WW2 and current prejudice/racial attitudes
weaving together of historical and modern day data (archival analysis)
what about these interactions allowed prejudice to be changed?
a. friendly
b. joint cause - common goal and enemy
c. support from authorities (UK and US govs)
d. equal status? no Jim Crow laws in UK, also the UK was poorer than US at the time and some locals had neg attitudes towards White US soldiers - maybe this boosted perceptions of Black soldiers?
OUTCOMES measured:
a. explicit identification with modern-day far right party with racist views
b. IAT
FINDINGS:
similar prejudice reduction correlated with both implicit and explicit measures - why do these two very different types of outcomes have similar results?
probably because they’re part of the same phenomenon
inter-generational transmission: parents’ beliefs pass onto children
neighbourhood sorting: internal migration patterns, those who are more prejudiced move out of areas that are becoming more diverse (but he doesn’t really think this is at work in this paper)
Linda Zhou
how do sociocultural changes to racial landscape (immigration, diversity) influence how people from different racial/ethnic groups relate to each other?
developed the racial position model
she noticed a gap in literature for intra-minority relations
theory is interestingly narrow: US and race specific
doesn’t think these dimensions apply only in America - apply also in other Western Nations, maybe with regards to religion (Jewish, Islamic)
certain historical conditions are needed for them to emerge:
a. history of exclusionary immigration policy
b. one dominant group
when breaking groups down by gender, patterns didn’t change much
for higher status groups (Whites and Asians) men were seen as above women
but for LOWER STATUS GROUPS (African American, Latinx) men and women are seen the same in terms of status level
why: because of DOUBLE JEOPARDY
racial minority women are seen as lower status but racial minority men experience more discrimination - maybe these two forces wash each other out
will relative positions of groups change over time? she thinks it’s possible, they have in the past
current model application: how these dimensions play out in LABOUR MARKET DISCRIMINATION
maybe jobs with high status are more likely to be mapped onto Asian applicants? and jobs with American status more mapped onto African American applicants?
how acceptable do people feel about discriminating against certain groups based on inferiority versus foreignness dimensions?
everyone knows you can’t use “inferiority” to justify choosing a candidate, but what about perceived foreignness - is this seen as more acceptable?
future: work on INTRA-MINORITY relations
especially as diversity increases and there’s more and more contact between minorities
ie. how do non-Black minorities interact with Black Americans?
more work on “White identity” - is the idea of who counts as White changing?
Gordon Moskowitz
how do we mitigate/reduce stereotyping and prejudice?
implicit stereotype control: some people chronically work to deactivate stereotypes
dispositional mindset can be activated where one works unconsciously to make sure stereotypes aren’t activated in the first place
chronic egalitarians: people who automatically and always work to not use stereotypes
^very rare, only 5% of people
maybe through practice you can become one
so few people are chronically egalitarian but most people self report very high on motivation to be egalitarian
reason for discrepancy: because bar is high for chronic egalitarianism and it relies on OPEN REPORT of hopes for future
they have to include egalitarianism as a hope, without being prompted
whereas modern racism scale explicitly asks if you have goals to not appear prejudiced/to be egalitarian
difference between saying you value something and having a strong commitment to it
self report like motivation to control prejudice doesn’t work for assessing chronic egalitarianism
counter-stereotype training, perspective-taking, implementation intentions
future directions: applying the science to solve real world problems
work in health domain (health, gender, race-based disparities)
interventions
subtleties of racism and sexism
Nour Kteily
Selin Gulgoz
Jeffrey Hunger
Sohad Murrar
Laura Richman
Kim Chaney
Michael Pasek
Shannon Brady
Frances Aboud
focus: prejudice in children
storybook intervention - attempt to reduce racial bias in kids
previously had been accepted that kids learn to be prejudiced as they age, but little research to support this
she noticed that:
a. children’s prejudice didn’t seem to follow gradual learning curve
b. children’s attitudes don’t correlate much with their parents’
prejudice is low at 3 years old, increases from 2-7, decreases a bit around 8 as they’re able to consider more internal qualities
changing attitudes in kids is about PERSPECTIVE TAKING and RECONCILIATION SKILLS
you can’t just transfer adult study methods to kids - they have different cognitive tools
are norms (and their affects of attitudes/prejudice expression) relevant to kids?
yes. kids thought story readers were biased - they held the norm that Wh people dislike Bl people
behaviours and attitudes are inconsistent in the young years: kids will play with racial outgroup members easily, yet say negative things about them when asked
most effective intervention: CROSS-RACE FRIEND
kids may not have the cognitive toolkit to generalize from a story that paints Bl people positively
but having a Black friend lays down positive foundation early on
so that WHEN the cognitive toolkit is stocked it will generalize to this friend
she was disappointed because kids weren’t interested in racial outgroups - they choose their ingroup in most cases
future directions:
a. explicit and implicit measures in children
b. brain recordings in younger years
(how does exposure to a racial group influence brain development during this flexible time?)
c. interventions to reduce prejudice in young age groups
Mina Cikara
neuroscience perspective on intergroup relations
study that measured higher DLPFC activation in cross-race, stereotype-relevant trials
research Qs:
how people’s thoughts, feelings, behaviours change when people go from thinking about me and you (individual level) to us and them (group level)
when people start thinking using US and THEM, it changes their EMPATHY, ATTRIBUTIONS, conceptions of others as human
neuroscience gets at things that self-report can’t reach
accumulated wisdom of entire neuroscience field - would be irresponsible to not integrate all this into our theories
micro-approach: breaking large intergroup processes down into very specific decisions/judgments
there’s a heavy emphasis on category membership in this field - but using categories as ways of predicting social behaviour can be fickle because what identity is active for a person depends on what room they’re walking into
target similarity/group formation study
ie. presence of 3rd person in room can change how you feel about 2nd person as a function of how similar they are to you
we don’t only compute similarity, we also pay attention to larger social structures in the room
she thinks current approaches don’t make quantitative claims about WHICH ASPECTS OF IDENTITY will be made most salient/motivationally pertinent in a given setting
she doesn’t think that categories don’t matter - they certainly do
it’s that categories aren’t doing the work - the YEARS OF SUBJUGATION are doing the work
advice: learn by doing
future directions:
understanding how shifting demographics will impact way that intergroup relations unfolds in next few decades
social-structural learning approach shows that how you feel about an agent/group depends on whose around
how people’s expectations of shifting demographics are changing their political preferences/who they see as allies
how do new groups arriving on the scene change your ideas of old outgroups?
Carolyn Parkinson
how do people understand the patterns of social relationships around them?
what neural machinery facilitates our ability to do this?
what downstream consequences does our knowledge of social relationships have on how we think, feel, behave?
we spend tons of our lives interacting with others and engaging in relationships, but we don’t know much about how this occurs mechanistically
unique things you can get from SNA:
a. popularity
b. avoids systemic biases in perceptions of social networks
we tend to estimate that social networks are more isolated (clumpy and segregated) than they really are
we often don’t explicitly recognize that we take into account twice or three-times removed relationships
but influences on behaviour/cognition/affect usually extend 3 nodes out
SNA extended to Robbers Cave
would first expect 2 very segregated networks
then with contact, edges slowly form
new networks would emerge, with different compositions to the original ones
importance of targeting people who are central in networks for interventions:
a. have more interactions - more effective dispersion
b. others pay more attention to certain people because they see them as more representative of group norms
exciting SNA applications: integrating individual cognition and social networks that people inhabit
evidence that people are consistent in their social positions across networks
socio-behavioural tendencies that aren’t captured by other methods, but that shape construction of people’s social worlds
future directions:
overcoming logistical challenge - to study people’s social network positions, you must rely on their own reports and what people around them say
makes this research well-suited to a pretty limited number of situations (classroom or school)
finding ways to capture people’s social footprints so that we can broaden this research, and look at it in more representative contexts
Molly Lewis
distributional language analysis
study that found that higher gender-career stereotype associations in language of certain countries maps onto the gender-career IAT scores of that country
developmental psychology by training
interested in understanding how word meanings are learned and how these processes change with different scales of analysis (time period, individual/group)
language in the social landscape
using text as measure for implicit associations and stereotypes
distributional semantics: looking at distribution of word co-occurrences across a corpus of text
using co-occurrence to estimate strength of stereotypes
causal direction: does language create or reflect stereotypes?
both
more important direction: is there a causal arrow from language to stereotypes/cognitive reps?
yes, but how strong is this effect?
similar results across Wikipedia and Subtitles - kinda surprising because wouldn’t you assume that Wikipedia is more objective than the media?
children books have even stronger stereotypes - concerning, maybe this is because storybooks have less nuance?
could use Alexa and Siri data - any linguistic input type can be used in these models
esp interesting because likely that spontaneous, spoken speech has more bias in it that written text does
future directions:
smaller corpora
trying to get at causality is hard in correlational studies - so maybe manipulating people’s language statistics?
hypothetical dream study: randomly assign kids to schools with diff curricula (one high on stereotypes)
training on linguistic input from teachers/peers
interdisciplinary
advice for interdisciplinary research: be willing to abstract away from the nitty gritty, look big picture
more future directions:
a. CAUSALITY: role language is playing in shaping biases
(does text source matter, is this a low or high level mechanism?)
b. measuring stereotypes in a BOTTOM-UP way
(going into text with no prior ideas og what stereotypes are in it and getting the model to extract them)
