Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYC 208 > Midterm #2 > Flashcards

Midterm #2 Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 4 intervention techniques?

A
  • Cognitive & Emotional Training
  • Value Consistency, Self-Worth
  • Peer Influence, Discussion, and Dialogue
  • Social Categorization
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Cognitive & Emotional Training

A

strategies to regulate thinking/emotional reactions

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

Group 1 - Classical Conditioning (Cognitive & Emotional Training)

A
  • when we see a group, we don’t naturally have a reaction
  • however, when media presents heavy stereotypes for these roles, it classically conditions us to form a reaction to (once neutral) groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Group 1 - Classical Conditioning: Changing How We Think (2 METHODS) (Cognitive & Emotional Training)

A

1: “If-then” scenarios (implementation intentions): planning for an intergroup encounter - anticipating what you would do in such a situation, rather than relying on implicit decisions (and biases)
2: Reappraisal Techniques - focus on situational explanations for other group’s behaviours rather than dispositional
- Alternative explanations - what are some other factors?
- Reframing outgroup behaviour like so should decrease anger
- Anger would typically lead to support for aggression. slows down progress towards reconciliation

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

Group 1 - Classical Conditioning: Changing how we feel (Cognitive & Emotional Training)

A

2: Changing how we feel: Guided meditation where you send love and gratitude to outgroup members, Trained emotion regulation in how to reduce negative emotions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Group 2 - Cognitive Emotional Training (Cognitive & Emotional Training)

A
  • Putting yourself in someone else’s shoes
  • Imagine self: imagine how you would feel if you were in their place
  • Imagine other: imagine how they are feeling in their situation
  • Perspective-taking is a precursor to empathy; empathy is a precursor to altruism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Group 3 - Perspective Talking (Cognitive & Emotional Training)

A
  • Promote empathy and altruism
  • Said to increase self-other overlap; Cognitive phenomenon
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Value Consistency, Self-Worth

A
  • Promoting self-worth and consistency motives
  • Combines research into a) the need for positive regard and b) the need to hold consistent attitudes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Method 1: Reminding People of What’s Important to Them (Value Consistency, Self-Worth)

A
  • If you can remind people of their group’s egalitarian preferences/moral exemplars/introspection about own beliefs (Values affirmation: what group values are important), this motivates them to behave in value-consistent ways
    (Need to hold consistent attitudes)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Method 2: Confronting People with their Prejudiced Attitudes (Value Consistency, Self-Worth)

A
  • Creates cognitive dissonance assuming people don’t want to be prejudiced (“you say you’re egalitarian, but what you’re actually doing is NOT egalitarian”)
  • This could backfire because people don’t want to hear that they are prejudiced - Can lead to a double-down
    (“oh I’m not racist!” then followed with a racist comment)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Peer Influence, Discussion, Dialogue

A
  • Main idea: social norms are powerful (social norms: what behaviours/attitudes are seen as desirable, acceptable, “correct”)
  • EX: You hear that members from your ingroup hold positive attitudes - motivated to adopt those attitudes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Peer Influence & Discussion - Poster Example

A

being exposed to a diversity poster at university resulted in significantly lower racist beliefs, more motivation to respond without prejudice, more likely to reject discrimination

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

2 Interventions Targeted at Social Norms - Peer Messengers:

A
  • Peer messengers

a) Being silent in times of prejudice further normalizes it (BYSTANDER EFFECT)

b) Hearing testimonies from ingroup members about outgroupers or positive interactions with them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

2 Interventions Targeted at Social Norms - Social pressure/social consensus:

A

a. Summaries of peer norms
b. Changing social norms changes the “rules” by which group members behave
i. Because we want to be good group members
ii. Norms about your friend’s behaviour
iii. VERSUS norms of what the group thinks about your friend’s behaviour
(DESCRIPTIVE VS. INJUNCTIVE)

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

2 Types of Social Norms

A

Descriptive & Injunctive

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

Descriptive Social Norms

A
  • norms and beliefs about what other people do (or how people behave)
  • EX: how many in-group members attend BLM
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Injunctive Social Norms

A
  • norms about what behaviours are approved
  • context-independent, have a bigger effect on behaviour
  • EX: whether or not it is okay to have outgroup friends
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Social Categorization

A
  • the process by which people categorize themselves and others into differentiated groups; questiostereotypingns if groups are important and how they lead to bias
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

2 approaches to social categorization

A
  • Changing boundaries of in-group/outgroup
  • Change the perception of the group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Changing in-group/outgroup boundaries (Social Categorization)

A
  • Ingroup bias is now extended to the outgroup, who becomes part of the ingroup
  • leverages in-group bias
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

PROBLEMS with changing in-group/outgroup boundaries (Social Categorization)

A
  • How do you support a super-ordinate identity while fulfilling someone’s need for differentiation?
  • How do you get people do relinquish their important “sub” identities for a broader “superordinate” identity?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Change the perception of the group (Social Categorization)

A
  • STEREOTYPE = What you hold towards an outgroup
  • META-STEREOTYPE = What stereotypes you think the outgroup has about your ingroup Leads to forecasting errors (incorrect assumptions)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Meta-Stereotypes (Change the perception of the group (Social Categorization))

A
  • Positive Meta-Stereotypes: What do you think are some positive stereotypes about your group that people from the outgroup hold?
  • Negative Meta-Stereotypes: What do you think are some negative stereotypes about your group that people from the other group hold?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Quantify Effect Size

A
  • measure of effect size - how strong was the experimental manipulation b between 0 and no upper limit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What role does cooperation play in RGCT (Robber’s cave example)?

A
  • Robber’s cave: when a conflict occurred that disadvantaged both groups, there was short-lived peace between them
  • RGCT: group hatred/tension arises over (perceived) competition for scarce resources (money, power, status, land); Zero-sum (incompatible goals)
  • Reduce conflict: positive, functional interdependence between two groups with superordinate goals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Contact & Race Relations in the US

A
  • The idea that contact should be used to diminish racism & segregation was debated
  • “…personal contacts may help to build understanding, appreciation, sympathy, and interest. Friendship between members of the races may help to prevent violence and rioting, or it may be used to help heal the wounds left by such a struggle”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice or increase conflict? (influenced by…) (7)

A

Williams: Contact will reduce prejudice but is influenced by…

  • Relative status of the participants
  • The social milieu
  • Level of prior prejudice
  • Duration of the contact
  • Amount of competition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

WILLIAMS: Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice or increase conflict? (works best when…) (5)

A
  • Two groups with similar status
  • Personal intimate climate
  • Personal level, meaningful contact
  • Defy group stereotypes
  • Activity cuts across group lines (Something you both want to do)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Allport’s Contact Hypothesis

A

Prejudice (unless deeply rooted in the individual) may be reduced by EQUAL STATUS CONTACT between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Difference between Allport and Williams in terms of ways contact can reduce prejudice:

A

Equal Status (Allport) VS. Similar Status (Williams)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Allport’s conditions for contact to reduce prejudice:

A
  • Equal status
  • Work collaboratively
  • Towards a common goal
  • Sanctioned by authorities
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Were Allport’s conditions essential or facilitating? (trends in meta-analysis numbers)

A

Not really, as numbers stayed the same:

  • Structured program meeting of all of Allport’s conditions: r = -.29
  • Only authority support: r = -.29 (Authority support = social norms)

- Two+ of Allport’s conditions: r = -.29

None of Allport’s conditions: r = -.29

33
Q

General understanding of the necessity of Allport’s 4 conditions for optimal intergroup contact:

A

The 4 conditions aren’t necessarily essential, but facilitate intergroup contact’s 4 effects

34
Q

Findings of meta-analysis when none of Allport’s conditions are present (correlation between prejudice and contact)

A
  • R = -.21
  • MORE CONTACT = LESS PREJUDICE
35
Q

Problems with contact hypothesis

A
  • Casual sequence problem (Don’t know where the cause exists; which is the independent, and which is the dependent variable?)
  • Contact reduces prejudice and prejudiced people avoid contact
  • Experimental evidence
  • Similar results found in an updated meta-analysis
36
Q

What type of study is best for intergroup relations?

A

longitudinal

37
Q

Does intergroup contact innoculate against violent crimes? (EX: Yugoslavia)

A

Not necessarily; in Yugoslavia, a place with heavy intermingling of families, there’s still crimes and violence within the intergroup

38
Q

When does contact prevent/promote atrocities?

A

Contact is necessary for reconciliation

39
Q

How do mediators help intergroup contact reduce prejudice?

A

Independent variable -> mediator -> dependant variable

40
Q

Types of Mediators

A
  • intergroup knowledge
  • intergroup anxiety
  • empathy
41
Q

Intergroup Knowledge (Types of Mediators) - Result of? Its consequences?

A
  • A function of IGNORANCE and/or incorrect stereotypes
  • We don’t know much about our outgroup counterparts
  • Consequences of ignorance:

a) Processing bias

b) Uncertainty in predicting or interpreting behaviour

c) Unwillingness to acknowledge past injustices (Shapiro - “if Black people need to work two jobs, why don’t they just get one better paying job?”)

42
Q

Correlations between knowledge and prejudice (Intergroup Knowledge (Types of Mediators))

A
  • Experimental Lecture: debunking biological explanations for differences between white/black Americans
  • Lecture: Saw the greatest drop in prejudiced attitudes
  • Transcript + discussion group: Drop in prejudiced attitudes
  • Only Transcript: NO CHANGE
  • Control: NO CHANGE
43
Q

2 Issues with Intergroup Knowledge (Types of Mediators)

A
  • Early research focused on similarities: Increasing similarities almost emphasize the size of difference, violating meritocracy, Violations of cultural norms are augmented, Threatens need for differentiation (SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY) (Threatened positive distinctiveness)
  • Backfire effect, General concern, Competitive victimhood
44
Q

What type of intergroup knowledge should interventions focus on developing?

A

Cultural Knowledge

45
Q

According to our discussions in class, what is the consequence of NOT focusing on the type of knowledge?

A

…leaves people to rely on cognitive biases and stereotypes when interpreting outgroup behaviour

46
Q

What’s the consequence of focusing on this type of knowledge? (CULTURAL)

A

…leads to more positive/accurate representations of supposed ambiguous outgroup behaviour

47
Q

Intergroup Anxiety:

A
  • Negative affective state that occurs in anticipation of an intergroup contact scenario (interpersonal level)
  • Realistic Threat: threats to power, resources, general welfare (group level/emotion)
  • Symbolic Threats: threats to culture, religion, values, belief system, language, morality, worldview (group level/emotion)
48
Q

How do intergroup anxiety & realistic vs. symbolic threat occur on different levels?

A
  • IA is a type of threat, but it’s interpersonal (How worried am I about being racist? Prejudiced?)
  • RT & ST function at the group level
49
Q

Threats:

A

…to resources:
□ Negative external event
□ Has the potential to cause harm (Ability to overcome it)
□ Fear, anxiety, sense of danger

50
Q

Challenge:

A
  • Challenge - something you look forward to, can meet eye-to-eye:
  • External event - overcome
  • Mobilize your resources/develop strategies to deal with it
51
Q

Results of Ventricular Contractivity (Does contact reduce anxiety on a physical level?)

A
  • DEF: heart tends to pump more
  • Higher = challenge
  • Lower = nervous/threatened
52
Q

Results of Cardiac Output - AKA Blood Flow (Does contact reduce anxiety on a physical level?)

A
  • DEF: blood flow through body/minute
  • More blood flow = challenge
  • Less blood flow = nervous/threatened
  • Intergroup contact modulating the body’s response to challenge state
53
Q

Results in Skin Conductance (Does contact reduce anxiety on a physical level?)

A
  • DEF: when you’re in an anxious/threatening state, your skin is more conductive
  • We learn to respond with fear to ingroup and outgroupers (conditioning)
  • This fear response is often stronger for outgroupers vs. ingroupers
  • When fear stimulus is removed, fear response for the ingroup goes to extinction, fear response for the outgroup persists
  • RESULT OF CONDITIONING BIAS
54
Q

Results in Cortisol (Does contact reduce anxiety on a physical level?)

A
  • Strong cortisol response at the first meeting, drop at the second and third meetings
55
Q

What’s the overall general finding when it comes to reducing anxiety/physiological reaction?

A
  • More contact = less anxiety/physiological reaction
56
Q

3 types of Intergroup Empathy

A
  • Perspective-taking
  • Emotion-matching
  • Empathic concern
57
Q

Perspective-Taking (Types of Intergroup Empathy)

A
  • DEF: cognitive variable (putting yourself in another’s shoes)

1: Imagine-Self Condition: imagine myself in your condition

2: Imagine-Other Condition: how is the other person feeling?

58
Q

Emotion-Matching (Types of Intergroup Empathy)

A
  • DEF: reflecting emotion of the other person
  • Emotion-Catching: feel similar emotions when viewing another person (feel the same
59
Q

Empathic Concern (Types of Intergroup Empathy)

A
  • DEF: congruent emotion; feel for another in need
  • Leads to greater prosocial emotion
60
Q

Perspective-giving vs. Perspective-taking - MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS

A
  • Perspective-giving (and not - taking) was associated with:
  1. Greater trust
  2. Favourable outgroup attitudes
  3. Greater empathy for the outgroup
61
Q

Perspective-giving vs. Perspective-taking - MAJORITY GROUP MEMBERS

A
  • Perspective-taking (and not - giving) was associated with:
  1. Greater trust
  2. Favourable outgroup attitudes
  3. Greater empathy for the outgroup
62
Q

Decategorization (When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A
  • Contact should de-emphasize group identities
  • Shift from an intergroup scenario to interpersonal scenario (take away ingroup identities and become the same)
  • Decreases anxiety - meeting someone as a person, rather than a member from a conflicting/opposing outgroup
63
Q

Differentiation (Decategorization: When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A
  • after several positive interactions with different group members, the outgroup is seen as more heterogeneous
  • AKA differentiation (you start learning that people of the outgroup can very much differ from the outgroup stereotype)
64
Q

As a result of differentiation, outgroup stereotypes: (Decategorization)

A
  1. Lose their usefulness altogether
  2. Gradually disconfirmed
65
Q

From differentiation comes… (Decategorization)

A

personalization: learning about idiosyncratic information about the individual

66
Q

Why is contact based on personal friendships especially effective at reducing prejudice?

A
  • (Friendships = most, if not all of Allport’s conditions)
  • Serve to decategorize & personalize intergroup contact
  • Positive contact decreases the salience of group identities
67
Q

Issues with differentiation: (Decategorization)

A
  • Subtyping (from lots of personalized contact)
  • HOWEVER, considered through the Bookkeeping Model of Stereotype Disconfirmation
68
Q

Bookeeping Model of Stereotype Disconfirmation (Decategorization)

A
  • While we do see confirmation bias in stereotypes, even if you look at pieces of stereotype-consistent information, you STILL keep a tally of each stereotype disconfirming piece of information
  • Overall, stereotype change is possible, but a gradual process
69
Q

3 Problems with Decategorization

A
  • More disclosure & empathy: Can lead to ingroup categorization (things about yourself that can still apply to your ingroup identity, going against decategorization)
  • More cultural knowledge: still a method of categorizing
  • Arguably friendships function at the “group level”
70
Q

Lack of positive distinctiveness… (3 Problems with Decategorization)

A
  • Individuals are resistant to give up important group identities
71
Q

If contact is truly recategorized… (3 Problems with Decategorization)

A
  • What is to stop “subtyping”?
  • How do you connect individual with the group?
72
Q

Common In-group Identity Approach (When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A
  • YOU VS. ME => MORE INCLUSIVE “WE”
  • Superordinate Identity: ingroup bias is now extended to the outgroup, who becomes part of the ingroup (all under one roof)
  • Leverages ingroup bias
  • Common goals creates superordinate identities
73
Q

Issues to Common In-group Identity Approach: NEED FOR DIFFERENTIATION

A
  • interferes with need for differentiation (Too many people in the ingroup that it isn’t exclusive anymore)
74
Q

Issues to Common In-group Identity Approach: DRAWBACKS

A
  1. Are new outgroup members encountered elsewhere immediately recategorized into the common identity? (BRITISH COLUMBIANS)
  2. Doesn’t require wholesale abandonment of identities …but it does require relinquishing important identities in favour of a different identity (you’re not necessarily groupless like in decategorization, but rather discovering a new ingroup identity that has been put upon you
  3. Superordinate identity may constitute a threat (Brewer, 2000)
  4. Conflict - common ingroup identities fracture
  5. Cognitively taxing: Forgetting about identities you’ve valued for so long; replacing it with this new common ingroup identity
  6. Majority groups less likely to accept superordinate identity if suggested by a minority group member
75
Q

Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Approach (When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A
  • We should use identities to our advantage
  • Only possible if we have Allport’s conditions
  • Groups aren’t required to give up identities
  • Less likely to resit contact interventions
  • More likely to achieve positive & optimal distinctiveness
  • Disconfirming information associated with an otherwise typical outgroup member should generalize to the whole group
76
Q

Issues with Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Approach (When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A
  • History of animosity between two groups, meeting a “group member” increases anxiety
  • Lead to worse contact outcomes
77
Q

3 Steps of Pettigrew’s Sequential Model of Intergroup Contact (When does Contact Work - Approaches)

A

1 - Decategorization: Pro - is good when there is a history of animosity - reduces anxiety; know the person as a person, Con: attitudes do not generalize

2: Mutual Intergroup Differentiation: Pro - is good to aid generalization of positive contact effects

3: Dual Identity: Pro - affords “ingroup” privileges to outgroup members”

78
Q

What is a threat (Blascovich)

A
  • Negative external event
  • Has the potential to cause harm
  • Ability to overcome harm
  • Fear, anxiety, sense of danger
79
Q

What is a challenge (Blascovich)

A
  • External event - overcome
  • Mobilize your resources/develop strategies to deal with it

PSYC 208 (11 decks)

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