Lecture 7 Flashcards
What is social psychology:
Related to com science and org science
Quantitative methods
It takes a narrower/micro focus. Three levels of analysis
- -> Cognitive: what happens in people’s mind
- -> interpersonal: what are consequences of stereotypes for interactions between individuals
- -> intergroup: how do tensions between different groups emerge
Social categories and stereotypes
Social category: a perceived collection/group of people that have certain characteristics or traits (visible or invisible) in common.
Stereotype: cognitive representation people hold about a social category, consisting of beliefs and expectancies about probable behaviors, features and traits.
We learn to categorize because it is a basic of our developmental world. We try to form categories and associate because of the complexity of the world. Learning language is also learning categories.
Categories can be based on visible and non-visible commonalities (you can’t see directly if someone it vegetarian – non-visible)
- How/Why do we categorize people?
It is usually functional:
Makes the environment more predictable;
Draw on existing knowlegde and experiences in new situations
Frees mental capacity
Functional, but also negative consequences
Stereotyping (deduction): applying stereotypic belifs to categorized individuals
Prejudice (usually for negative) = affective response / attitude (pos/neg) about social category
Influences judgments and behaviors towards categorized individuals
Fundamental variables in (shared) social category cognition (see Beukeboom & Burgers, 2019):
Category entitativity (Campbell)
The extent in which a category Is perceived as a meaningful, unified and coherent group, as opposed to a loose set of individuals.
Stereotype content
The content of the set stereotypic characteristics associated with a given category
Category essentialism
The extent in which this is associated set of characteristics is perceived to be essential to category members:
–> ummutable, dispositional, stable over time and across situations
High entitativitity:
Similarity among group members in visible and or un-visible aspects (common origin, goals, experiences)
Particularly with high category entitativity: Stereotype formation –> within group similarities
–> Or between group differences (will be exaggerated)
Consequences of social categorization
Are there gender differences in height/length - yes there are,
The problem with generic stereotypes:
A stereotypic expectation can be totally detached from reality
Still, even if there is a connection with reality (length), then:
By definition, the expectation does not apply to all individual members of a category
Some characteristics are stable (LENGTH) across situations others vary much more (assertiveness, sensitivity) and express themselves in different ways
Effects on how men and women are judged and how they are expected to behave
Stereotypes are resilient to change
We have a tendency to see stereotype confirming evidence
–> seen as more real, reliable, and informative than counter-stereotypical observations
An activated stereotype can evoke the behavior you expect;
- Self-fulfilling prophecy
- Self-stereotyping: categorizing oneself can also induce behavior that confirms the stereotype (cf. Stereotype threat)
- Stereotypes prescribe how men and women should behave
- -> motivation to be a ‘good’ group member
- -> devaluation of a-typical group members (e.g. modest men; ambitious, competitive women)
- -> relate this to anti-gender responses
Link to intersectionality
Social psychological approach
Compartmentalized perception:
Perceivers have a repertoire of distinct social categories in their minds
Perceivers attend to just one identity (or one intersection of identities) at a time, as a function of the social context.
Category and stereotype activation
Which category is activated depends on:
- -> Cognitive accesibility: chronic salience and situational salience (context!)
- -> fit (overlap between observed features and category stereotype)
People seek the category with the most information fain in a given situation, to maximize the accuracy of predictive inference
Category labels: maintaining categories
Once a group is labeled:
- similarities within categories + differences between categories exaggerated
- perceived as a unified and coherent whole that is distinguish from other categories within a conceptual hierarchy/
e.g. gender labels strenghten gender entitativity
Exclude individuals who do not fit in binary categories
Linguistic content
Label content: “soccer specators”, fans, supporters or hooligans
Immigrants, fortune-seekers, aliens, outsiders, parasites, newcomers, kolonisten
Sissy, slut, bitch, whore (sexist derogatory sluts)
Subtypes: marking exceptions: nurse and male nurse.
male generics: firefighter, surgeon, farmer, lawyer
Marking exceptions also occurs in longer texts
Explanations of inter-category differences typically focus on the atypical category
- differences between gay and straight men
- gender differences (female professors are..)
A. Placing the atypical category in sentence subject position
B. Mentioning it first in a comparison with a referent
C. Simply in more frequent use of the minority (vs. Majority) category label.
Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics
Biases in communication content (what);
Privileging stereotype consistent information
Stereotype consistency bias
- Sharing of category/label congruent info more likely
- Particularly when already part of common ground
- increased accessibility
- relationally beneficial
- more exposure to congruent information of shared stereotypes
Stereotype content (+essentialism)
Biases in linguistic form (how)
Differences in formulation of stereotype consistent vs inconsistent behaviors
Linguistic intergroup/expectancy bias
- language abstraction:
- the women is emotional vs the man is crying
- the woman is quarreling vs the man is tough
- He is smart vs she did well on the test
Stereotypic explanatory bias; because he has a rough day
Category essentialism
Negation bias
- The junk brings the found money to the police
- He is not deceitful (vs. He is honest
- The priest puts the found money in his own pocket
- He is not honest (vs. He is deceitful)
Stereotype content + essentialism
Stronger with increasing entitativity
Social categories and stereotypes:
Social category is a perceived collection/group of people that have certain characteristics or traits (visible or invisible) in common.
Stereotype: cognitive representation people hold about a social category, consisting of beliefs and expectancies about probable behaviors, features and traits.
Categories can be based on visible and non-visible commonalities
Social categorization:
1 How/why do we categorize people?
n Why? It is (usually) functional: - makes the environment more predictable;
- draw on existing knowledge and experiences in new situations (=deduction); - frees mental capacity.
Social categorization:
1 How/why do we categorize people?
Functional, but also negative consequences
Stereotyping (deduction): applying stereotypic beliefs to categorized individuals
Prejudice (usually for negative) = affective response/ attitude (positive/negative) about social category
Influences judgements and behaviors towards categorized individuals
(discrimination) o Including subtle (less-monitored) behaviors o E.g., nonverbal behavior in interracial interactions o Ellemers (2017): at the implicit level, gender stereotypes continue to shape our judgments and behaviors
Particularly with high category entitativity:
Between group differences ↑
Within group similarities ↑
The problem with generic stereotypes:
Ø A stereotypic expectation can be totally detached from reality Still, even if there is a connection with reality (e.g., length), then:
Ø By definition, the expectation does not apply to all individual members of a category
Ø Some characteristics are stable across situations (e.g. length), others vary much more (e.g., assertive, sensitive), and express themselves in different ways.
n Stereotypes are resilient to change (Ellemers, 2017) Ø We have a tendency to see stereotype confirming evidence
seen as more real, reliable, and informative than counter-stereotypicalobservations
Ø An activated stereotype can evoke the behavior you expect;
1) self-fulfilling prophecy
2) self-stereotyping: categorizing oneself can also induce behavior that confirmsthe stereotype (cf. stereotype threat).
3) stereotypes prescribe how men and women should behaveo Motivation to be a ‘good’ group member o Devaluation of a-typical group members (e.g., modest men; ambitious, competitive women)
o Relate this to response to trans-people (see story Irina)
Category and stereotype activation Which category is activated depends on:
¤ Cognitive accessibility
¤ Chronic salience and situational salience (context!)
¤ Fit (overlap between observed features and category stereotype) ¤ People seek the category with the most information gain in a given situation, to maximize the accuracy of predictive inference
The role of language
Perceived category entitativity + stereot. content + essentialism
Language Use Perceived category entitativity + stereot. content + essentialism
Linguistic labeling
Describing behavior and characteristics
Category Labels: maintaining categories
n Once a group is labeled:
similarities within categories + differences between categories areexaggerated
perceived as a unified and coherent whole that is distinguished from othercategories within a conceptual hierarchy
Ø E.g., Gender labels strengthen gender entitativity Ø Exclude individuals who do not fit in binary categories Ø Label content:
‘soccer spectators’, ‘fans’, ‘supporters’ or ‘hooligans’
‘immigrants’, ‘fortune-seekers’, ‘aliens’, ‘outsiders’, ‘parasites’, ‘newcomers’,‘kolonisten’
‘Sissy’, “slut”, “bitch,” “whore” (sexist derogatory slurs, see Fasoli et al., 2015)
Category Labels: Linguistic form
Ø Biases in linguistic form of labels:
Generic (women are…) vs subtypes vs. specific (this woman is…) - Generic (immigrants) vs subtype (e.g., non-western vs. western immigrants), vs more specific subtype (e.g., second generation Turkish immigrants)
vs focus on individual person
Ø Generics: plural nouns (or gen. singulars) + present tense verbs - Boys play with trucks; Girls are sweet; The hipster eats quinoa.
Recipients infer: qualities are stable (non-accidental), enduring, and persistentacross time and situations (i.e., essential).
implies that category is a coherent, stable entity
Ø Relates to category entitativity + essentialism
Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics
Ø Biases in communication content (what):
Ø Privileging stereotype consistent information (see Ellemers, 2017, Beukeboom & Burgers, 2019)
Ø Biases in communication content (what):
Ø Stereotype consistency bias
Sharing of category/ label congruent info more likely
Particularly when already part of common ground
increased accessibility
relationally beneficial
more exposure to congruent information of shared stereotypesØ stereotype content (+ essentialism)
Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics
Ø Biases in linguistic form (how):
Ø Differences in formulation of stereotype consistent vs inconsistent behaviors
Ø Linguistic intergroup/ expectancy bias - Language abstraction:
The woman is emotional vs. the man is crying
The woman is quarreling vs. the man is tough- “He is smart” versus “She did well on the test
Stereotypic explanatory bias
…because he has a rough day
Ø category essentialism
Ø Biases in linguistic form (how):
Ø Negation bias
The junky brings the found money to the police.
He is not deceitful (vs. he is honest)
The priest puts the found money in his own pocket
He is not honest (vs. he is deceitful)
She is not sweet, He is tough
Ø stereotype content + essentialism
Ø Stronger with increasing entitativity
Describing categorized individuals and their behavior Consistent with stereotype -> More generalization
generic labels
more abstract behavior descriptions
Inconsistent with stereotype -> Less generalization
subtype labels, individual
concrete behavior descriptions
explanations
negations, irony
Beukeboom (2019) How stereotypes are shared through language
Language use plays a crucial role in the consensualization of stereotypes within cultural groups. Based on an integrative review of the literature on stereotyping and biased language use, we propose the Social Categories and Stereotypes Communication (SCSC) framework. The framework integrates largely independent areas of literature and explicates the linguistic processes through which socialcategory stereotypes are shared and maintained.
We distinguish two groups of biases in language use that jointly feed and maintain three fundamental cognitive variables in (shared) social-category cognition: perceived category entitativity, stereotype content, and perceived essentialism of associated stereotypic charac- teristics. These are: (1) Biases in linguistic labels used to denote categories, within which we discuss biases in (a) label content and (b) linguistic form of labels; (2) Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics of categorized individuals, within which we discuss biases in (a) communication content (i.e., what information is communicated), and (b) linguistic form of descriptions (i.e., how is information formulated).
Together, these biases create a self-perpetuating cycle in which social-category stereotypes are shared and maintained. The framework allows for a better understanding of stereotypes and maintaining biases in natural language.
The SCSC framework
Biases in the type of linguistic labels used to denote and distinguish categories, in which we distinguish biases in:
label content (i.e., meaning of the used terms)
linguistic form of labels
Biases in describing behaviors and characteristics of catego- rized individuals, in which we distinguish biases in
communication content (i.e., what information about cat- egorized individuals is communicated (i.e., topic prominence).
linguistic form of descriptions (i.e., how is information about categorized individuals formulated (e.g., grammar, predicate types).
Shared category recognition
We distinguish three fundamental variables in social-category cognition:
a. perceived category entitativity: the extent in which a category is perceived as ameaningful, unified and coherent group, as opposed to a loose set of individuals.
b. stereotype content: the content of the cognitive representation people hold about a socialcategory, consisting of beliefs and expectancies about probable behaviors, features, and traits
c. perceived category essentialism: refers to the extent in which an associated set ofcharacteristics is perceived to be immutable to its members, and stable across time and situations.
Ellemers (2018) Gender stereotypes
There are many differences between men and women. To some extent, these are captured in the stereotypical images of these groups. Stereotypes about the way men and women think and behave are widely shared, suggesting a kernel of truth.
However, stereotypical expectations not only reflect existing differences, but also impact the way men and women define themselves and are treated by others.
This article reviews evidence on the nature and content of gender stereotypes and considers how these relate to gender differences in important life outcomes. Empirical studies show that gender stereotypes affect the way people attend to, interpret, and remember information about themselves and others.
Considering the cognitive and motivational functions of gender stereotypes helps us understand their impact on implicit beliefs and communications about men and women. Knowledge of the literature on this subject can benefit the fair judgment of individuals in situations where gender stereotypes are likely to play a role.
How to change our stereotypical associations?
Acknowledge the pervasive nature and the cognitive and motivational functions of gender stereotypes. This constitutes an important step in combating their negative side effects.
Lift the burden of proof from those who may be disadvantaged. This makes us less dependent on their ability to recognize unequal treatment and their willingness to complain.
Educate people about the descriptive and prescriptive nature of stereotypes. Knowledge of the pervasiveness and implicit effects of stereotypes releases people from the conviction that all gender differences are biologically determined and hardwired.
Support employees in reconciling stereotypical male and female role expectations regarding work and family demands. Male and female workers experience stress when work and family roles seem incompatible.
Reconsider and re-evaluate the nature of different social roles and job types. The unidimen- sional distinction between masculine roles that rely mainly on competition and achievement and feminine roles that require empathy and care does not do justice to contemporary requirements in social interactions or in the workplace.
