Midterm 2 - Lectures Flashcards
what is the outgroup homogeneity effect?
tendency to perceive more similarity in outgroups than in in-groups
(more acceptable to stereotype others if you think they have less variations, easier to generalize)
explain how the outgroup homogeneity effect affects how similar/different members of our own vs rival universities are?
similar: own = 3.28, rival = 3.74
different: own = 3.70, rival = 3.40
what is the “danger of a single story”?
show people as a single thing (single story) where they take one big group and condense them to a single story of an outgroup as an abstract thing (outgroup homogeneity effect!!!)
since we only get single stories with little variability, we might passively accept these stories which can create the outgroup homogeneity effect and make it easier for us to stereotype
**ex: Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie story ab roommate who thought she couldn’t use a stove
what are the mechanisms behind the outgroup homogeneity effect? (4)
- quantity of contact
- quality of contact
- motivation to be distinct
- motivation to dehumanize
what is the quantity of contact?
- mechanisms behind the outgroup homogeneity effect
- people interact more with in-group members (easier for you to appreciate the variety of your own group)
what is the consequence of quantity of contact?
people have more individuating info abt ingroup members and their unique qualities
what is the quality of contact?
- mechanisms behind the outgroup homogeneity effect
- interactions with ingroup members are typically of higher quality
what is the consequence of quality contact?
people have more individuating info abt ingroup members and their unique qualities
what is the motivation to be distinct?
- mechanisms behind the outgroup homogeneity effect
- people are motivated to see themselves as at least somewhat distinct from the groups that they belong to
what is the consequence of motivation to be distinct?
people look for ways to distinguish themselves from their ingroup to maintain their individuality
what is the motivation to dehumanize?
- mechanism behind the outgroup homogeneity effect
- in some cases, we want to dehumanize others to maintain sense that the ingroup is superior to others (special case when there’s high cases of intergroup conflict)
what is the consequence of motivation to dehumanize
outgroup members are seen as homogenous and not separate individuals
explain the study on the cross race effect (face memory)
had white and Black Ps look at white and Black faces and remember them, then asked if they had seen face before
people have better memory for ingroup than outgroup members
looking at hits/misses/errors
memory score: hits/false alarms
having a worse memory for other groups can make it easier for you to stereotype since you can’t remember them as different
what is the cross-race effect?
the tendency to more easily recognize and remember own-race faces compared to cross-race faces
what is the cross-race effect a consequence of?
outgroup homogeneity
what is the cross-race effect related to?
one’s motivation and ability to attend to outgroup faces
explain the famous study on the cross race effect done by sangrigoli in 2005
compared the facial memory of 1) white French citizens (28yo) 2) native Koreans who had been living in France for a few years (32yo) and 3) children adopted from Korea living in France (arrived at 6yo, test at 30yo)
can see who shared cultural context and who shared racial identity
adoptees had better memory for French people (living in environment creates that), this shows the effect of the cross-race effect (culture thing) and how malleable it is
**it’s not about your own race, it’s about what faces are deemed psychologically/socially important in env.
what is the cross-race effect in law enforcement?
police line ups: the cross race effect sheds doubt on police line ups
explain the innocence project (DNA exonerations in the US)
of cases that were overturned that involved eyewitness misidentification, 42% involved an instance of cross-racial misidentification
disproportionate!!! (not the case that 42% of crimes had cross-race component…)
cross race effects thus increases the chances of eyewitness misidentification
Attribution is the process of ______ the ______ of behaviour or events
explaining the causes of behaviour or events
what is the ultimate attribution error?
proposed to explain why attributions of outgroup behavior is more negative than ingroup behavior
**diff from fundamental attribution error bc it describes behaviour of entire groups of ppl
“Jason was late for his date because his boss made him work overtime” is an example of a (dispositional/situational) attribution
situational!
“Susie got arrested because she’s aggressive” is an example of a (dispositional/situational) attribution
dispositional
what is the fundamental attribution error?
the tendency to explain our own and other people’s behaviour in terms of dispositional traits rather than situational characteristics
what do the attributions of the ultimate attribution error depend on? (2)
ingroup vs outgroup (membership)
positive vs negative behaviour (valence)
we use self-serving bias to explain behaviours of in-groups and we use more neg attributions to explain the behaviour of outgroups
When your team makes a good play, you are most likely to make a (dispositional/situational) attribution
dispositional (ingroup, +valence)
When your rival makes a good play, you are most likely to make a (dispositional/situational) attribution
situational (outgroup, +valence)
When your team makes a bad play, you are most likely to make a (dispositional/situational) attribution
situational (ingroup, -valence)
When your rival makes a bad play, you are most likely to make a (dispositional/situational) attribution
dispositional (outgroup, -valence)
according to ultimate attribution error, we form beliefs about groups’ _____ traits
negative
according to ultimate attribution error, when viewing a video of someone shoving another, how do we explain white vs black people behaviour?
white person: situational attribution
black person: dispositional attribution (leads to stereotypes abt the whole group)
explain the example of selection tests at employment agencies
people thought there was a lot of promise in using these objective measures to increase diveristy
problem: can be selective interpretation of these results
—more likely to make a dispositional attribution for outgroups while making situational attributions to ingroups (Black+women candidates failed math test bc “not rockstars”; white+men failed bc “having a bad day”)
—-found that it makes stereotyping more easy and leads to discrimination
what is the illusory correlation?
when people see two distinctive events, they assume the events are correlated
according to illusory correlations, people assume group membership and behaviour are associated when what?
a person’s group stands out (minority) and a person’s behaviour stands out (negative)
**makes info more salient (“sticky”) in memory
Explain Dave Hamilton’s 1977 study on illusory correlations
participants read 39 statements abt positive or negative behaviours committed by members of group A or B
group A was the majority (26 statements) and group B was the minority (13 statements) –> both groups had the same ratio, but participants heard more positive/negative statements from group A than B
participants’ memory showed they over attributed negative behaviours to group B
explain illusory correlations and terrorism
- some arab-muslim people commit a terrorist act
- illusory correlation: arab-muslims are very likely to be terrorists
- actual base rate much lower
what are the ways in which we transmit stereotypes? (2)
social learning and media influences
what is social learning?
parents and peers transmit stereotypes directly and indirectly (prevalent and common stereotypes in your culture)
directly: rewarded or punished for own behaviour
indirectly: seeing someone else’s behaviour
Explain Allison Skinner’s study on social learnign and stereotyping
looks at how kids learn behaviour modelled by social learning: 6-8yo look at adults interact
not so subtly, the person is very warm for one person and cold towards the other
unknown object introduced
kids showed:
—greater explicit preferences for the preferred actor, indicated preferred actor should receive end of study reward, adopted the label provided by the preferred actor, imitated the object usage of the preferred actor
shows that based on how people around them behave, kids will be influenced and will model their own behaviour towards those (they adopt these stereotypes)
what are the diff types of media influences? (+ 3 examples)
films, magazines, TV and ads present and reinforce stereotypes:
arabs: heartless, brutal, uncivilized
blacks: poor/criminals
men: authorities and professionals
explain this statement: “there’s no pop cultural image of muslims who are open-minded really”
- comedian Kumail Nanjiani
- people are blinded to certain representations bc of the media they consume
- dont always stop to think abt why u only see one side of a group
explain the portrayal of African Americans in news broadcasts (Dixon & Linz)
Dixon and Linz content analyzed 16 metropolitan news broadcasts (archival data)
black people accounted for abt 20% of the criminal activity but abt 40% of the suspects pictured
conversely, white people were underrepresented as perpetrator and overrepresented as victims (overt)
explain the subtle example of media influences
- fist bump btw Barack and Michelle –> terrorist fist bump
- newscaster who says country isn’t racist and then play clips of Black ppl as violent/w guns
- just having these associations, even if passive, can be harmful
explain why white people think there’s so many poor American blacks
27% of poor Americans are black, but black people make up 63% of poor people portrayed in the top news networks
two national surveys found that white respondents believe that more than 50% of the nations poor are black
what did Dixon find in his study on relationships btw TV news watching and perceptions of African americans
network news exposure was negatively related to estimates of African American income (r = .37) and positively related to negative stereotypes (r = .48)
what type of stereotypes do children who watch more TV show?
stronger gender/racial steroetypes
what type of stereotypes do adults who watch the news show?
stronger stereotypes for blacks and muslims
why cant we make too much of the studies on media influences?
- strictly correlational
- are people who are racist choosing to watch prejudiced media?
explain the gender and avertising experiment (does media influence rly make a difference?)
commercials with traditional or non traditional gender roles
write an essay imagining your life 10 years from now (write abt career ambitions vs homemaking)
seeing gender stereotypes caused women to reduce expressed career ambitions
who is Gordon moskowitz?
- an expert on social categorization and stereotyping
- known for work on chronic egalitarians (ppl who are better at limiting stereotype activation and application)
What is chronic egalitarianism
people who have a consistent and automatic goal of reducing activation of stereotypes
what is the internal motivation to control prejudice?
self report scale that deals with the extent to which limiting prejudice is personally important
what are implementation intentions?
if-then plans given to people to help goal pursuit (ie if I see a black person, then ill try to be non-biased)
What is dehumanization?
perceptions of people as lacking the mental or physical capacities of regular human beings (downward consequences of social categorization)
What was Sumner’s view on dehumanization? (Folkways, 1906)
- see own group as ‘real’ humans
- means that outgroups are necessarily ‘less than’
give an example of not so historical dehumanization
Prince Harry on serving in the army: people need to engage in dehumanization in order to exhibit intergroup violence on other groups
what are the older approaches to measuring dehumanization?
granting everyone “primary emotions”: happiness, pleasure, excitement, sadness
Denial of “secondary emotions” to outgroup: compassion, tenderness, bitterness, shame
what is subtle dehumanization?
ascription of human emotions: primary emotions (fear, panic) vs secondary emotions (remorse, embarrassment)
ascribe less secondary emotion to outgroups (occurs for both positive and negative emotions)
Explain cortes’ study on older approaches to measuring dehumanization
- Ps presented w positive and negative primary emotions and secondary emotions
- told to circle words that best represented ingroup (Canarians) or outgroup (Spaniards)
- attributed less secondary emotions to outgroup!
explain Rai’s study on the consequences of dehumanization
participants read a vignette in which they were told to imagine they had the opportunity to anonymously break a stranger’s thumb (either to earn 2 million or bc this person was clearly immoral)
humanized condition: described as a 29yo man with brown hair and brown eyes named John, who is ambitious and imaginative, but also high-strung and insecure
dehumanized condition: simply described as a man
participants were significantly more likely to report that they would break the stranger’s thumb for money when he was described in dehumanized rather than humanized terms
explain the study on less subtle dehumanization in kids
- asked 5yo how many of following faces were human (lineup of doll/human faces)
- when kids think faces are foreign, less images are considered human
explain Chas’ study on implicit dehumanization
samples of students from first grade, fifth grade, and sixth grade completed an IAT measuring association btw Spanish (ingroup) and arab (outgroup) names with human (logic, mature) vs animal (wild, feral) words
all threes samples of students showed ingroup/human, outgroup/arab associations on the IAT
a follow up study asked students to connect each name (either Spanish or arab) with a single word (human or animal) – participants chose more animal-related words for the outgroup members than ingroup
explain Bandura’s early work on blatant dehumanization
participants supervised 3-person group in other room, if group made wrong decision they were given a shock
manipulation: they overheard experimenter…..1) humanized: group is perceptive and understanding, 2) dehumanized: group is animalistic, rotten, 3) neutral: no description
dehumanization lead to more aggression (as measured by intensity of shocks given) note that humanized group was lowest
what is the most dominant measure of blatant dehumanization?
ascent of man measure (self-report)
explain the study on the ascent of man and blatant dehumanization
- participants: Americans who were not members of these other groups
- asked to rate groups on scale
- Muslim: 77.6/100
- Arab: 80.9/100
- Mexican Immigrant: 83.7/100
- South Korean: 86.9/100
- American: 91.5 (European, Swiss, Japanese, French, Australian, Austrian, Icelander, Chinese all not reliably diff from American)
(T/F): Blatant dehumanization is no longer a significant predictor of policy beliefs after controlling for measures of explicit anti-muslim prejudice
FALSE
blatant dehumanization remains a predictor of policy beliefs after controlling for measures of explicit anti-muslim prejudice
When is dehumanization more likely to occur?
- when ingroup is threated
- ex: more anti-islamic hate crimes after 9/11; more dehumanization of Arabs immediately following Boston Marathon bombing
Explain dehumanization and the refugee crisis
blatant dehumanization of muslim refugees led to 1) anti-refugee policy support, 2) less asylum support, 3) sign anti-refugee petition
these results persist after controlling for more traditional measures of prejudice
What is meta-dehumanization
- perceiving being dehumanized
Differentiate Subtle Dehumanization, Blatant Dehumanization, and Prejudice
- Subtle: primary vs secondary emotions
- Blatant: human vs non-human
- Prejudice: like vs dislike
what was the example given in class for meta-dehumanization?
Ahmed Mohamed: built a clock and brought it to school to show it and the teacher called the cops since she thought it was a bomb
“they made me feel like I wasn’t human”
explain how dehumanization and meta-dehumanization can create a vicious cycle
might start to engage in dehumanization, prejudice and discrimination towards the group inflicting the dehumanization to begin with
explain the study on dehumanization as a vicious cycle
- survey of 200 muslims
- measured feelings of dehumanization by Donald Trump: avg score 5.7/7
- muslims who felt more dehumanized were more likely to dehumanize Trump AND more likely to support violent collective action AND less willing to assist counter-terrorism efforts
** r = .68 correlation between meta-dehumanization and dehumanization of Donald Trump!!!
can only low status groups feel meta-dehumanized? explain
high power groups can also feel meta-dehumanized
across multiple studies Kteily and his colleagues also find that privileged high power groups feel meta-dehumanized by minority low power groups and reciprocate with dehumanization
who introduced the concept of blatant dehumanization?
Nour Kteily
what are WEIRD samples?
Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic
what is the motivation to express prejudice?
related to internal/external motivation to control prejudice
recent research finds that some people have a real desire to express their prejudices
what is reverse correlation?
a new technique in the social psychology literature for trying to subtly measure the way people mentally represent other groups
What makes sexism different from other types of stigma/discrimination?
- relationships btw men and women complicated by sexual reproduction (dependency, intimacy)
- higher inter-group contact!
- women not numerical minority (but still economically disadvantaged and have less power)
Ambivalent sexism
- combo of hostile and benevolent sexism
- work together to keep ppl in traditional gender roles
- hostile: punish women who challenge status quo
- benevolent: rewards women who embrace trad. roles
Hostile Sexism (misogyny)
- antagonistic negative attitudes towards women (eg women use sex to exploit men, women demand too much)
- ex Elliot Rodger, mass shooting bc he hates women bc they aren’t interested in him
Benevolent Sexism
- subjectively positive attitudes/beliefs ab women that justify traditional gender roles (eg women need to be protected, women are nurturing)
Implicit Benevolent Sexism
- both men and women show pro-female attitudes on IAT
- 4yo: girls showed pro-girl effect, boys no reliable preference
Why do benevolent prejudices matter? (sexism)
- underpinnings lie in stereotyping women as inferior
- pos correlated w hostile sexism (r = .52)
- countries w higher levels of benev. sexism have more gender inequality
- allows men to characterize privileges as deserved
Women w stronger benevolent sexist beliefs: (3)
- are less resistant to discrimination
- have lower educational and career goals for themselves
- take on more unpaid labour
3 reasons benevolent prejudices are hard to change
- superficially positive
- difficult to see
- easy to be convinced there’s nothing to feel guilty ab
What is a prescriptive norm (+ examples for women)
- how ppl SHOULD behave
- women: kindness, warmth, communality, selflessness
- ex Frida Kahlo not taken seriously as artist while her husband was
- ex Yvonne Brill rocket scientist obituary focused on her role as wife and mother before scientific achievements
Masculinity and Brilliance
- PhD programs in areas that emphasized brilliance ass. w less women in program!
Backlash effects and sexism
- social and economic penalties for acting counter-stereotypically
- women need to disconfirm female stereotypes to be perceived as competent leaders
- BUT ppl have neg reaction toward ambitious/capable women
- warmth/competence trade off – think stereotype content model
Double-Jeopardy in female perception
- double-bind in hiring and promotion
- women seen as less capable, competent, committed
- competent women seen as less likeable, more hostile, less of a team player
TransYouth Project longitudinal study
- track socially transitioned children starting from 3-12y
- compared w siblings and unrelated children
- trans kids expressed gendered object preferences consistent w their gender (using IAT)
- reinforces transness as real bc you can’t fake IAT
- more recent study w larger sample and more outcomes found no diff within trans children based on how long they had been living as their current gender!
Implicit transgender attitudes in US
- implicit and explicit anti-trans attitudes higher in states w more discriminatory laws
Relationship between individual attitudes/beliefs/perceived norms and law/policy when it comes to LGBTQ rights
- causal effect goes BOTH ways
Tankard & Paluck study on law, policy and support to LGBTQ rights (June 2015 Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage)
STUDY 1
- being told favourable ruling likely increased perception of norms supporting same-sex marriage AND increased support for same-sex marriage
STUDY 2
- longitudinal study
- perceptions of norms supporting it went up a bit after ruling
- personal attitudes didn’t rly change?
**states that passed same-sex marriage legalization experienced greater decrease in bias following legalization
What is a possible reason for positive change in sexuality IAT but NOT age/disability?
- might be bc there are benefits to structural/legal change!
Age at which actual age and felt age match most
25
- ppl start feeling younger after that (% increases as ppl get older, 88% of 65+!!!)
7 factors that make ageism a special case
- age is differentiated by biology and experience
- social roles strongly differentiated by age
- complicated by familial relations
- malleable (we will all be each age at some point)
- continuous but can be perceived categorically
- older ppl more powerful (to a point)
- difference between age identity and generational identity
Benevolent ageism
- subj. pos. attitudes/beliefs ab ppl on basis of age that justify paternalistic care and status quo (eg older ppl are lonely, weak, warm; young ppl are outgoing, mentally/emotionally undeveloped)
Study on ageism in hiring
- field experiment
- sent out fake resumes to companies hiring in restaurant/sales industries
- applicants either 31 or 46, everything else same (said older were in military for 15y)
- younger 4x more likely to get interview for sales assistant
- younger 3x more likely to get interview for restaurant
Age IAT results
- highest for kids, then young adults, middle-aged, old
- patterns stay same throughout lifetime
- except from 40-50 ppl rate YA slightly lower and MA slightly higher
Correlations btw Egalitarianism Advocacy and:
- Hostile Sexism:
- Hostile Racism:
- Hostile Ageism:
Correlations btw Egalitarianism Advocacy and:
- Hostile Sexism: r= -.33
- Hostile Racism: r= -.48
- Hostile Ageism: r= .02 !!!!!
Correlations btw Anti-SDO and:
- Hostile Sexism:
- Hostile Racism:
- Hostile Ageism:
Correlations btw Anti-SDO and:
- Hostile Sexism: r= -.55
- Hostile Racism: r= -.65
- Hostile Ageism: r= -.03 !!!!!!
What is one explanation for the lower correlations between Egalitarianism Advocacy + Anti-SDO and hostile ageism (vs hostile sexism or racism)
- older ppl seen as opportunity blockers that work to prevent other under-represented groups from getting ahead
- see old ppl as root for ageism
5 factors by which experiences of ppl with disabilities can vary
- Visibility
- Controllability
- Disruptiveness
- Aesthetic Qualities
- Peril (are you seen as dangerous)
General attitudes ab disability vs implicit attitudes
- report positive general attitudes
- less willing to date or marry
- strong implicit preference for abled vs disabled
- PWD commonly report experiences of discrimination
In lecture, which of these factors were discussed in ass w mental illness?
- Visibility
- Controllability
- Disruptiveness
- Aesthetic Qualities
- Peril
- often seen as controllable
- some forms highly linked to peril
< ___% of ppl w mental illness have sought treatment
- <40%!
- stigma reduces likelihood ppl will seek treatment
Attractiveness and self-fulfilling prophecy
- get more social attention so develop good social skills and have better interactions w others
Study on attractiveness and callbacks for job
- 35% of more attractive men
- 29% of less attractive men
- 40% of more attractive women
- 32% of less attractive women
Skin Tone preferences
- historically darker skin linked to working in sun all day (white = privilege)
- Exception: western white ppl want to be tan; status reversal, being tanned means you have privilege of going on vacation!
lighter-skinned Black ppl are perceived more _________, are less likely to _________ and have higher _________ (vs darker-skinned Black ppl)
- perceived more competent and sociable
- less likely to b steretyped
- have higher income, SES, occupation outcomes
King & Johnson study on skin tone in 1100 felony defendents
- coded skin tone of black and white
- coded afro-centric features
- Black w dark skin highest probability to be imprisoned (0.42)
- then Black (0.33)
- then white w afrocentric features (0.24)
- then white (0.11)
**controlled for criminal history, trial conviction, private attorney, crime type, county, age
Are men or women more vulnerable to weight stigma?
- women!
- greater pay discrimination, greater connection to gender roles, judged overweight at lower levels
What mental health outcomes is weight stigma ass w?
- low self-esteem
- depression
- suicide
Study on overweight women interacting w anti-fat person
- did get to know you questionnaire
- saw questionnaire of P they were gonna interact w (some reported explicitly anti-fat attitudes)
- interaction w other P (confederate)
- women exposed to anti-fat peer:
- greater feelings of anticipated rejection (esp higher BMI)
- greater feelings of anger
- greater heart-rate reactivity (threat)
- worse cognitive performance (Boggle)
List 4 kinds of biases that are persisting over time
- Implicit Body-Weight Attitudes
- Implicit Disability Attitudes
- Implicit Skin-Tone Attitudes
- Implicit Age Attitudes
Growing areas of stigma research: Androgyny
- novel IAT showed strong implicit biases in favour of gender-conforming ppl
Growing areas of stigma research: Singlehood
- single ppl reported greater discrimination toward selves and single ppl generally vs ppl in a relationship
Growing areas of stigma research: Consensual non-monogamy
- Ps reported monogamous relationships as more respectful, romantic, comforting, and morally superior
- Axt things this is thing we will see biggest positive change for
Growing areas of stigma research: Voluntary childlessness
- couple described as choosing not to have kids viewed as less caring vs couples w kids or who wanted kids but couldn’t
Study on white vs black names on resume and callbacks
- Emily Walsh/Greg Baker or Lakisha Washington/Jamal Jones
- black names 50% less likely to get a callback
3 kinds of prejudice measures relevant for behaviour
- global attitude (studies often use this, gives some info but too broad to acc predict behaviour)
- Attitude toward specific target (strong predictor)
- Attitude toward behaviour in given time, target, & context (strong predictor; often can’t ask this kind of Q to large group bc it won’t apply to everyone)
Dovido et al. 2002 study: White Ps had convo w Black confed
measured implicit + explicit prejudice and coder ratings of verbal + nonverbal friendsliness
- explicit prej. + verbal friendliness r= -.36*
- implicit prej. + verbal friendliness r= .17
- explicit prej + nonverbal friendliness r= -.04
- implicit prej + nonverbal friendliness r= -.41*
**implicit maps onto less controllable behaviours, explicit–> controllable
Hate crime rates have gone (up/down) in recent years in US and canada
UP!
- almost tripled in US day after Trump elected
- higher hate crimes against Chinese ppl during covid
- ppl are using social norms to act on prejudice!
Crandall et al study on US 2016 election and prejudice + perceived norms ab prejudice
- measured 9-12d before election and 3d after
- assessed groups targeted by Trump campaign (Asian Americans, immigrants, Muslims, disabled, fat, women considering abortion, mexicans, socialists) AND non-targeted groups (alcoholics, atheists, canadians, drug dealers, lazy ppl)
- self-reported prejudice non-targeted stayed same
- self-reported prejudice targeted went down (maybe comparing self to Trump??)
- prejudice perceived more normatively acceptable after
**perceived norms surrounding expression of prejudice matters!
University of Wisconsin study on social norms ab prejudice
- showed some classes video saying school and students support an inclusive environment
- disadvantaged students exposed to social norms manipulation reported 2w later that advantaged peers treated them w more respect and behaved more inclusively
- Ps who were advantaged did not report behaving in more respectful/inclusive manner after manipulation
- marginalized students did better in STEM classes that got manipulation
Internal vs External motivation to respond without prejudice + correlations w prejudice
- internal weak-mod negatively related to prejudice
- external weakly positively related to prejudice
- not rly correlated w each other (r = .03)
Motivation to express prejudice
- reliable but very small proportion of ppl
- % of Ps above midpoint of scale when scale was about:
- race: 7%
- sexual orientation: 6.5%
- political orientation: 14.3% (April 2015)
Factors that impact ability to control prejudiced behaviour
- time of day
- age reduces ability to inhibit automatic impulses
- alcohol reduces inhibition
- cognitive resources
Study on sleep and shooter task
- randomly assigned Ps to get full night’s rest or stay up all night
- racial bias increased for Ps who lacked rest
Milgram study:
_____% Ps went up to at least 300v (“intense shock”; when confed started pounding wall)
_____% Ps went all the way to the end
_____% Ps who reached 375v (“Danger: severe shock”) went all the way to the end
100%
65%
100%
Follow-up studies after Milgram have found that obedience depends on: (3)
- Proximity
- Social Power
- Social Status (eg setting like Yale campus conveys authority)
Milgram Study: Why ppl obeyed (5)
- no exit (attempts to leave situation blocked by authority)
- motivated to follow rules
- responsibility transferred to experimenter (obedience close to 0% when 2 exp. disagreed)
- victim blamed for situation (they volunteered to participate)
- escalating commitment (eg 15v at a time)
Rwandan Genocide general info
- mass slaughter of Tutsi by Hutu majority from April-June 1994
- 500, 000 - 1,000,000 Tutsi killed (70% of Tutsi population)
- radio stations “set the stage” for genocide
Study: Post Rwandan Genocide Radio Soap Opera
- communities randomly assigned to reconciliation-focused or control soap opera ab health
- (radio often listened to in group within communities)
- exp condition opera featured typical Rwandan protagonists; roots of prej/violence located in frustration of basic psychological needs; trauma is normal and can be healed
- did not change personal beliefs ab prejudice/violence
- changed perceived norms ab how ppl do and should behave in situations related to prejudice/conflict/trauma
- increased empathy for genocide survivors
- more likely to share radio batteries at end of study
Stigma
- possessing (or being believed to possess) a characteristic that conveys a devalued social identity
3 types of stigma identified by Goffman
- physical
- mental
- tribal (belonging to devalued outgroup; eg political views at thanksgiving dinner)
5 dimensions that capture meaningful differences between stigmas
- Visibility
- Controllability
- Disruptiveness (makes social interaction less predictable)
- Aesthetic Qualities
- Peril
Stigmas are perceived to be controllable when either: (2)
- individual is responsible for their condition
- stigma could be eliminated by the behaviour of stigmatized individual
**ppl w stigmas perceived to be controllable more likely to be discriminated against
Ppl w stigmas perceived to be controllable are more likely to…
- try and escape stigma by changing behaviour
Ppl w stigmas perceived to be UNcontrollable are more likely to…
- focus on self-acceptance
- confront ppl who express prejudice
Study on controllability of stigma
- Ps read ab hiring manager evaluating qualified applicant who had a stigma perceived as controllable (uses foul language, poor grooming) or UNcontrollable (stutters, facial birthmark)
- manager rejects applicant based on stigma
- Ps felt less negativity to hiring manager when discrimination based on controllable stigma
Stigma by association
- associating w stigmatized indiv can lead to stigmatization
- ex family members w mental illness
- ex study where man in painting rated less attractive when presented next to less attractive person (negative halo effect)
- ex study where white applicant rated less qualified wehn sitting next to Black vs white employee (negative halo effect)
Attributional Ambiguity (+3 examples)
- difficulty stereotyped groups have in interpreting feedback
- ex videoclip from Crash, Black men talk ab stereotypes in cafe, one thinks not served bc Black, thinks white woman grabs bfs arm bc scared of black men
- ex women evaluated unfavourably by blatantly prej evaluator exp less negative affect vs unbiased evaluator
- ex attractive Ps less likely to believe positive interpersonal feedback
VR study on attributional ambiguity
- mock job interview
- think other ppl are real and also subjects doing VR
- cool way to kinda randomly assign race!
- Ps more likely to attribute feedback to discrimination when avatar made to look Latinx vs White
- attributional ambiguity also reduced benefits of positive feedback!
5 factors making it more likely we will perceive discrimination
- If it’s an outgroup member
- In context linked to negative stereotypes (eg ster. threat)
- When you identify more w ingroup
- Having stigma consciousness
- When it’s blatant
Stigma consciousness
- belief that your group is being judged based on stereotypes
- higher stigma consciousness –> more perc. discrimination
- not same as accuracy but can be high on this and be right!
Perceiving discrimination and health - model
Perceived discrimination –> heightened stress response/risky health behaviours –> worse physical and mental health
Physical health outcomes associated w greater perceptions of racial discrimination:
- lower self-reported health
- higher blood pressure
- more smoking
- more alcohol use
Mental health outcomes associated w greater perceptions of racial discrimination:
- worse well-being
- less self-esteem
- less control over life
- depression
- anxiety
Causal relationship btw racial discrimination and health?
- racial discrim ass w worse mental health
- BUT some evidence for reverse direction too (eg depressed person more likely to attributre ambiguous negative events to discrimination
Racial discrimination in online dating study
- Hetero Ps engaged in mock tinder task for ab 200 faces
- only consistent predictors of swipe decision were physical attractiveness (rated by others) and if same race as P (decently blatant!!)
Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy (PGDD)
- tendency for stig. group members to report higher levels of discrimination against group in general vs against themselves personally as members of group
Cognitive and Motivational mechanisms for the PGDD
COGNITIVE
1. Identification (easier to ID patterns)
2. Accessibility (group-level more in media so sticks)
3. Comparison Standard (more likely to see group as discrim against vs others than self vs group members)
MOTIVATIONAL
1. Denial (own but not group – belief in just world)
2. Distancing (from neg attributes ass w ingroup)
3. Affiliation (claiming discrim. might harm relationships)
3 key behavioural responses to discrimination
- concealing
- compensation
- confrontation
Costs and benefits of concealing stigma
- not judged negatively bc of stigma! (ex Sorry to Bother You movie clip Black man uses white voice on phone)
- cognitive costs: preoccupation and increased vigilance
emotional costs: anxiety, shame, ambivalence ab identity - behavioural implications: avoiding social situations, impression management
Study on cognitive costs of concealing stigma
- ppl w ED role-played not having ED
- increased accessibility of ED (word-completion task)
- higher secrecy, suppression, intrusive thoughts ab ED
- projection of ED thoughts onto interviewer
- ED Ps assigned to hide condition to confederate later did worse on cognitive test (think scarcity studies/cognitive load)
Study on emotional costs of concealing stigma
- 67% of Ps w concealable stigma agreed it’s best to conceal stigma when meeting someone new
- follow-up: randomly assigned to conceal or not (stigma modified to be ab a particular major)
- Ps hiding ID reported lower levels of belonging and less positive interactions w conversation partner
- effects mediated by lower feelings of authenticity
4 factors that shape the decision to conceal or disclose
- Threat of discovery
- Self-verification motives (want others to see us as we see us)
- Context (work, family, friends)
- Degree of disclosure
3 compensation strategies for stigma
- Acknowledgement (openly address, eases ppls anxiety bc they can put you in a box)
- Increased Positivity (eg acting extra friendly/approachable)
- Individuating Information (so ppl see you as indiv rather than someone w stigmatized identity; ex Jennifer Richeson skittles preferences)
Study on stigma consciousness
- exp: read article ab racism
- control: read ab discrimination against elderly
- ethnic minorities had convo with white partner
- heightened stigma consciousness led minorities to have more neg emotions, feel less authentic, like convo partner less
- white ppl w stigma conscious partners had MORE po. exp.
Study on confronting discrimination: women in group decision making task w sexist male confederate (Swim & Hyers, 1999)
- pick 12/30 ppl best suited to survive together on desert island
- a male confed made sexist comments ab women
- 55% of women did not confront
- 25% directly confronted (ie that’s sexist)
- 20% indirectly confronted (you can’t pick for that reason, surprise, humour/sarcasm)
Study on confronting discrimination: racial slurs (Kawakami et al., 2009)
- introduced to Black and white confederates
- Black confed left room and bumped knee of white confed
- control: no comment
- moderate slur: “Typical, I hate it when Black ppl do that”
- extreme slur
- also had forecasters predict how they would feel if they were P and which confed they’d choose as a partner
- forecasters predicted more negative emotional distress for moderate and extreme conditions but in reality not very diff from control!!! (maybe maintain pos self-image after not acting by making excuses for racist P?)
- forecasters predicted huge decrease in choosing white confed but in reality there was no change!
Study on confronting discrimination on social media: minority Ps reactions to confrontational comment (Meyers et al., 2020)
- looked at reactions of East/Southeast Asian Ps to someone who confronted prejudiced comment on social media
- looked at whether person used AGGRESSIVE vs PASSIVE approach and whether person was INGROUP vs OUTGROUP
- statements receiving aggressive confrontation seen as more offensive! (despite all being pretested as equal)
- especially true for statements confronted by outgroup
- outgroup who responded more aggressively liked more
Study on confronting hate speech on social media (bot) (Hangartner et al., 2021)
- compared counter-messages based in HUMOUR, WARNINGS OF CONSEQUENCES, or EMPATHY
- empathy led to more tweets being deleted and less xenophobic tweets being made by confronted account
4 reasons ppl might not directly confront discrimination
- normative to not engage w prejudiced person
- social norm to be polite if you do respond
- concern about retaliation
- diffusion of responsibility
5 steps needed for someone to confront discrimination
- event interpreted as discrimination
- discriminatory incident is “emergency” (serious)
- take responsibility (risk of bystander effect)
- knowing how to help
- taking action (weigh risks, costs, benefits)
Describe the video shown in class as an example of confronting discrimination
- What Would You Do show
- actor in bakery denies service to Muslim woman, see how ppl react
- many don’t help even when asked directly by woman
- some explicitly support actor (eg say she’s not American, she’s a terrorist)
- some ppl speak up and walk out (usually when in dyad/group)
- two young women especially persistent
What makes for an effective confrontation? (2)
- focus on behaviour or other’s reactions over a person’s character (that word made me uncomfortable vs you’re racist)
- being member of non-stigmatized group
5 factors for effective intergroup contact
- Support of authorities
- Equal status
- Common goals
- Cooperation
- Contact as individuals
2 basic principles of social identity theory
- we strive to achieve and maintain a positive social identity
- we strive to distinguish our own social groups from others
Recategorization as a way to reduce discrimination research findings
- when change social category (admired black athletes vs disliked white politicians) ppl score better on race IAT
- ex freshman orientation (focus on identity as student)
Anti-Muslim Prejudice Study (common ingroup identity)
- christian and muslim volunteers
- perceiving commonality correlated with lower prejudices and lower stereotypes
- can manipulate this by teaching ab common roots!
Field study on canvassing and transphobia
- canvassers encouraged analogic perspective taking
- helped ppl see how own experiences offer window into trans ppls experiences (facilitate perspective taking!)
- only 10 min convo durably changed attitudes!!! (3m later)
Social categorization paradox
To effectively change stereotypes ab their group, individuals have to:
- Be atypical
- Be perceived as typical of their group (need to avoid refencing)
**can also apply to how members of stigmatized groups understand role models
Undergrad women role model study
- read profiles of women in leadership positions
- next did survey ab accomplishments, life goals, personal characteristics
- got feedback (similar/attainable or dissimilar/unattainable)
- did self-leadership IAT
- low similarity –> higher implicit stereotyping
- high similarity –> lower implicit stereotyping
- follow-up: higher perceived similarity w counter stereotypical models –> greater aspirations to follow in footsteps
History of thinking ab changing implicit bias
- 1985-2001: stable and rigid
- 2001-now: malleable and flexible
**truth: malleable in short-term, stable in long-term
Implicit biases are (malleable/stable)
malleable in the short-term, stable in the long-term
Research contest study: reducing implicit racial biases
- what were the 4 categories of interventions? which were effective? what factors made them effective?
- what were the findings for phase 2?
- ran 18 interventions, all 5mins or less, right before giving IAT
- 17k non-Black participants on project implicit
- 4 categories of interventions: counterstereotypes, controlling bias (implementation intentions), values (multiculturalism), perspective-taking
- most effective was a counterstereotype intervention where you get attacked at night by white guy and black guy saves you
- counter-stereotypes and strategies to control bias are effective
- reflecting on values and perspective-taking NOT effective
- most effective interventions were: emotional, self-relevant, targeted INGROUP favouritsim and OUTGROUP hatred
- phase 2: tested after 24h delay (used 9 effective interventions from phase 1)
- 5k non-black students from 18 universities
- interventions worked 5m after but NOT 24h later!
Do changes in IAT mediate changes in behaviour?
- NO!
- not very useful to try to change ppls IAT scores
An alternate approach to reducing discrimination is to treat it as a _______ problem rather than an _______ problem
design; attitude/belief
**rather than changing prejudices, change their potential impact!!!
How to prevent discrimination in ambiguous/subjective situations (cultural fit in hiring process)
- pre-commit to decision-making criteria
- remove irrelevant group-based info
- Align definition of cultural fit w goals
- Ask structured interview Qs
- Create checklist for indicators of fit
- Put constraints on how much fit matters
Downside of prejudice reduction
Positive contact w advantaged outgroup lead to: (3)
- for minorities, reducing prejudice toward advantaged group through intergroup contact can reduce support for collective action to address inequalities
Positive contact w advantaged outgroup lead to:
1. Reduced identification w disadvantaged ingroup
2. Perception of advantaged outgroup as fair
3. Perception that status quo is legitemate
What is the issue with confidence?
We are overconfident in our objectivity
Explain the bias blindspot
- ppl don’t have accurate self-insight into degree to which they’re biased
- nobody says they’re more biased than avg person which is statistically impossible
what is self-auditing
- possible solution for bias blindspot
- can use in hiring to find disparities in practices and figure out what kind of structural change is needed
what are possible solutions to overconfidence?
self-audit your practices
create practices to circumvent your biases (ie blinding)
what is the relationship between noise and discrimination?
in many contexts, discrimination can arise not solely from bias but also form more general inaccuracy in judgment or evaluation
here bias means an uneven distribution of errors (signal detection theory)
What is a beneficial type of error in hiring?
being hired but not actually being that qualified (given more to men)
What is a detrimental error in hiring?
you are qualified but rejected (for female applicants)
what happens when you try to remove the gender-based favouritism in hiring rates?
still 60% accuracy, but when making errors, the errors are more evenly distributed
reduces the rate at which errors accumulate and advantage one group over another
what happens in hiring rates when you try to increase evaluation accuracy?
less noise, but doesn’t do anything to the gender bias, so when errors arise, they still accumulate at the same rate relative to the initial example
increased accuracy from 60 to 92% (fewer errors), but we arrive at the same place
what methods are used for reducing discrimination? (in hiring)
- try to reduce bias in judgment or evaluation
- by reducing noise (total number of errors in evaluation)
what did Axt and Lai find in terms of interventions impacting bias and noise?
diff interventions impact bias and noise differently
using a decision-making task that produced discrimination based on physical attractiveness, forcing participants to slow down reduced noise but not bias, whereas warning participants to avoid using physical attractiveness reduced bias but not noise
explain paradoxical thinking
take someone’s base assumption, present them with an argument that is consistent with that assumption but is so ridiculous on its face, that then forces them to question their baseline assumption
involves trying to change attitudes by presenting new info that is consistent with one’s beliefs but is so extreme that it leads someone to paradoxically perceive their own beliefs as irrational
explain the study on paradoxical thinking (Israel-palestine)
- attitudes/beliefs of 161 Israeli Jews over course of election year
- paradoxical thinking intervention: watch clips that made arguments for why it is essential to have sustained conflict w Palestinians (ie having strongest army in world, to feel moral we need the conflict)
- Ps in paradoxical thinking condition more supportive of policy that evacuated Israeli settlements as means of achieving peace w Palestinians
- also more likely to vote in elections for candidates that had less ‘hawkish’ or ‘pro-conflict’ positions toward Palestinians
- follow-up work suggests these interventions are effective bc of their ability to evoke feelings of identity threat and surprise among participants
explain the study on paradoxical thinking in muslims in spain
a similar approach was taken when attempting to reduce prejudice towards muslims in spain
in a hypocrisy condition, participants read summaries of acts of mass violence committed by white europeans –> then answered a question about how responsible europeans are for such acts
they then completed the same measures but now about the 2015 Paris attacks led by muslim extremists
results: the hypocrisy intervention reduced collective blame towards muslims immediately, one month later, and even one year later
what is the problem with inequalities in education?
large and persistent gaps in academic achievement based on demographic status
what are 2 types of causes for inequalities in education?
structural causes (ie unequal school funding, lack of access to opportunities, intergenerational transmission of social/cultural capital)
psychological causes (ie stereotype threat, misidentification from stereotyped domains)
From 2003-2017, how did the degree to which white students outperformed black or hispanic students changed?
has gone down a bit but not significantly
what interventions have shown to be effective for increasing achievement among under-represented minorities and first-generation students (inequalities in education)? (5)
- academic value
- growth mindset
- social belonging
- personal values
- empathic discipline
what is the academic value intervention? why does it work?
- students reflect on why course topics are useful and important for their own lives
- increases intrinsic motivation to do well in the class
explain the study on academic value interventions
- 9th gr science students
- tried to make connections btw course material and students’ everyday lives
- randomly assigned within each classroom to write ab usefulness/utility value of course material in own lives or write summary of material
- people who had to write about how the material is relevant for their own lives did better in the class –> suggests a high benefit to cost ratio
what is the growth mindset intervention? why does it work?
- teaches students that intelligence is malleable
- increases motivation to learn harder when faced w adversity
- changes default explanation that when something is too hard they can’t do it to something that can be overcome!
explain the growth mindset intervention study
- HS students
- 1h online training session seeking to instill growth mindset
- in a pre-registered hypothesis, the researchers explored whether the intervention was going to be particularly effective among low and middle-achieving adolescents
- in lower-ach. students, intervention led to avg increase of 0.10pts in 9th grade GPA
- effect of intervention also higher among schools that had more supportive norms in terms of challenge-seeking as measured by the % of students in that school who chose to complete a more difficult, but educational worksheet when given the opporutinity
what is the social belonging intervention? why does it work?
- students read testimonials about how more senior students worried about whether they belong in college during the first year, but it gets better over time
- reduces tendency to think “I dont belong here” when faced with adversity
explain the social belonging intervention study
- racial minority students watched video where older students from same background talked ab own transition to college
- goal to represent challenges as normal and due to transition vs evidence of permanent lack of belonging
- tracked Ps over first year of college
- despite only 8% accurately remembering video, Ps in exp condition showed long-lasting effects (Black Ps reported greater satisfaction w employment and overall WB 8y later)
- did not show sig gains in more objective measures of employment success
- potential mechanism here is that intervention helped development of helpful mentoring relationships (if you feel more accepted maybe more likely to reach out)
what is the personal values intervention? why does it work?
- writing ab personal values that one holds
- works bc affirms self-worth broadly, diminishing impact of academic adversity on self-worth
explain the personal values intervention study
- most well-known study using this approach asked 7th gr to reflect on an important personal value
- meant to reduce psych. stress and improve self-worth
- for students experiencing the most amount of academic adversity, bc they’re not doing so well in their GPA, having this broader set of values to rely on seems to improve their overall GPA bc they’re less impacted/discouraged when experiencing academic adversity
what is the empathic discipline intervention? why does it work?
- provide teachers with non-pejorative reasons for why students may misbehave at school and discouraged labeling of students as troublemakers
- encourages teachers to view discipline as opportunity to develop mutual understanding and better relationships
- associates behaviour to external vs internal drives
explain the empathic discipline intervention study
- targets teachers/administrators rather than students
- read an article supporting a punitive mindset or empathic mindset approach to discipline
- punitive mindset reminded teachers that punishment is critical for teachers to take control of the classroom, whereas the empathic mindset article argued that good teacher-student relationships are critical for students to learn self-control (were less likely to use suspension as a form of discipline, reducing noise less so than bias)
- middle-school teachers who were randomly assigned to undergo a similar empathic-mindset training showed a 50% reduction in suspensions given over the course of the following school year
explain the following sentence: while all of these interventions to reduce discrimination adopt diff strategies, each argues that psychological change can be achieved through recursive processes
- interventions build on themselves, repeated in self-driven way
- snowball effect over time
- slight nudge in right direction, changes habit and thought style so it becomes more effective over time
