Post Midterm 1: Feb 14-21 Flashcards
social category
mental representation of a group of people based on features that characterize that class of people
a) efficient, helpful for navigating social world
b) people can be perceived by many social categories, but they’re not all active in any given moment
social categorization versus stereotype activation versus stereotype application
social categorization:
a) classifying a person based on features you can INFER
stereotype activation:
a) extent to which a stereotype becomes accessible in one’s mind
stereotype application:
a) extent to which a stereotype is used in judging/acting toward members of a target group
categorization occurs first, followed by stereotype activation and then by application
most basic social categories in North America
gender, age, race
these groups are:
- easily observable
- have lots of social meaning
inferred first, quickly, effortlessly, spontaneously
how fast do adults encode race and gender?
within 300 ms
efficiency of social categorization ERP setup
white participants passively viewed images of MALE and FEMALE, BLACK and WHITE people
some categorized the images based on GENDER, others on RACE
ERPs were also tracked during the judgment process
efficiency of social categorization ERP study: ERPs revealed diffs in processing of race and gender within what times?
race: within 100 ms
gender: within 200 ms
we categorize by deciding whether a new stimulus resembles…
known EXEMPLARS from a category
hard to verbalize why certain stimuli are better/worse matches for certain categories
no airtight definition
people that are hard to categorize cause what two things?
- motivation to socially categorize
- discomfort for the perceiver
two groups we often divide people into
- ingroups: groups we identify with and belong to
- outgroups: groups we don’t identify with and don’t belong to
prototypicality
extent to which a person fits the observer’s concept of the essential characteristics of a social category
higher prototypicality:
i) easier, faster, more frequent social categorization
ii) increased stereotyping
prototypicality: death penalty or life in prison?
looked at photos from cases involving White victims and Black defendants in Philadelphia
faces higher in Black prototypicality got death penalty 56% of the time
faces lower in Black prototypicality got death penalty 24% of the time
controlling for: attractiveness, mitigating circumstances, murder severity, defendant SES, victim SES
lab studies: prototypicality and ‘shooter bias’
all faces were Black but ranged from high to low prototypicality
added in the moderator of prototypicality
higher biases in perception for more prototypical faces
most likely to get racial judgments for those high in prototypicality
identities that are more ______ are more likely to be socially categorized and stereotyped
visible
ie. black, 20s or younger, woman, long haired, brown eyed, human
versus invisible
ie. lesbian, conservative, canadian, cat person, likes country music
visible identities aren’t just about what we see with our eyes!
visibility is based on all our sense: vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell
visibility is based on cues in the situation
ie. “who sounds gay” video
the _______ determines what social categories are most salient
situation
and our GOALS determine what we’re looking for
situation and context examples: categories that are most salient
football game:
a) focus: what sports team a person supports (what jersey they’re wearing)
b) race and gender less easily categorized
looking for directions in a foreign city:
a) focus: people who look like they know the directions (locals vs tourists)
subtype
sub-categories within a social category
ie.
old people = warm
grandmothers = very warm
old men = crotchety
“re-fencing”
when counter-stereotypical information is concentrated in a single outgroup member, the person may be perceived to be an isolated exception
“when a fact cannot fit into a mental field, the exception is acknowledged, but the field is fenced in again and not allowed to remain dangerously open”
“re-fencing” example
there are different stereotypes for for “Black people” versus “Black politicians”
Black politicians are considered “exceptions” - they’re a subgroup
why Obama’s presidentship didn’t really change racial attitudes in the US
stereotype content model
all stereotypes form along 2 dimensions: warmth and competence
these dimensions are fundamental to person perception with evolutionary adaptive benefits
a) WARMTH: “will they harm or help me?”
b) COMPETENCE: “can they act on their intentions?”
example questions for rating competence and warmth
competence: “as viewed by society, how competent are members of this group?”
warmth: “as viewed by society, how warm are members of this group?”
competence warmth dimensions and the attitudes they inspire
high competence, high warmth:
ADMIRATION
low competence, low warmth:
CONTEMPT
high competence, low warmth:
ENVY
low competence, high warmth:
PITY
examples of groups/people that are typically associated with admiration, contempt, envy and pity
- admiration: Tom Hanks or ingroup
- contempt: homeless
- envy: the rich
- pity: children
new discovery - approach to see how people spontaneously stereotype
data-driven approach
one set of participants given a “pile” of groups and instructed to ORGANIZE them in space however they wanted
- closer = more similarly associated
another set was instructed to DESCRIBE what those clusters were
used fancy computations to see how block placement maps onto meaning
“the third dimension”
agrees that warmth and competence contribute to categorization
but ADDs a dimension: IDEOLOGY
a) conservative/progressive
b) traditional/non-traditional
relationships between ideology, warmth and competence
competence is largely independent from ideology
BUT warmth is connected:
a) groups more similar to your ideology as perceived as WARMER
b) groups less similar to your ideology are perceived as COLDER
ideology is related to ______, but not really to _________
related to WARMTH
but not really to COMPETENCE
racial position model
racial/ethnic minority groups within the US are perceived along two dimensions
- inferiority
- cultural foreignness
negativity towards a group will be expressed differently based on feelings of inferiority versus foreignness (or combo of both)
racial position model: races fit into what squares
foreign and superior:
ASIAN
foreign and inferior:
LATINX
american and superior:
WHITE
american and inferior:
BLACK
racial position model dimensions are important for understanding what three things?
- perceived discrimination
- perceptions of group threats
- strategic use of stereotypes
racial position model: helps us understand perceived discrimination
minority groups may be more likely to experience discrimination on one basis but not the other
“your are so articulate” [competence]
- towards a Black person
“you don’t share our values” [foreignness]
- towards a Muslim
racial position model: helps us understand perceptions of group threats
Latinx immigrants being perceived as an invading cultural threat to Black communities
- combo of foreignness and inferiority
Asian Americans are perceived as competing for high-paying jobs
- combo of superiority and foreignness
racial position model: helps us understand strategic use of stereotypes
Barack Obama was difficult to portray as inferior
but was often portrayed as foreign (ie. people saying he was born in Kenya - which he wasn’t)
Linda Zou
leading expert on intergroup relations
particularly concerning how shifts in group demographics may change intergroup beliefs, perceptions and behaviours
lead author on 2017 paper supporting the “racial position model”
“double jeopardy hypothesis”: Black women are more likely to be targets of prejudice than Black men
outgroup homogeneity effect
tendency to perceive more similarity in outgroups than in ingroups
if you see all outgroup members as similar, it’s easy to stereotype them
outgroup homogeneity effect: McGill and UofT students
rated students from rival uni as more similar to each other than members of their own uni were
rated members of their own uni as more diverse than members of other uni
mechanisms behind outgroup homogeneity
- quantity of contact
- quality of contact
- motivation to be distinct
- motivation to dehumanize
outgroup homogeneity mechanism: quantity of contact
people interact MORE with ingroup members
consequence: have more individuating information about ingroup members and their unique qualities
outgroup homogeneity mechanism: quality of contact
interactions with ingroup members are typically higher-quality
consequence: people have more individuating info about ingroup members and their unique qualities
outgroup homogeneity mechanism: motivation to be distinct
people are motivated to see themselves as at least somewhat distinct from the groups they belong to
nod back to social identity theory
consequence: LOOK for ways to distinguish themselves from their ingroup to maintain their individuality
outgroup homogeneity mechanism: motivation to dehumanize
in some cases, we want to dehumanize others to maintain sense that ingroup is SUPERIOR to others
consequence: outgroup members are seen as homogenous and not separate individuals
5 antecedents of stereotyping
- outgroup homogeneity effect
- cross-race effect
- ultimate attribution error
- illusory correlations
- social reality & stereotype accuracy
cross race effect (CRE)
tendency to more easily RECOGNIZE and REMEMBER own-race faces compared to cross-race faces
consequence of outgroup homogeneity
related both to one’s MOTIVATION and to one’s ABILITY to attend to outgroup faces
one famous study on the CRE compared facial memory of…
a) White, French citizens (~28 years old)
b) Native Koreans who lived in France for a number of years (~32 years old)
c) Children adopted from Korea living in France (arrived in France at ~6 years old, age testing at ~30 years old)
one famous study on the CRE compared facial memory… TAKEAWAY
for the ethnically Korean group who’d been adopted and raised in France
better recognition of Caucasian rather than Asian faces
strong support that it’s not just about a match in visual similarity
brain is being trained to recognize certain types of faces through exposure
CRE and police line-ups
eye witness testimony
already an unreliable measure - often wrong
and if people aren’t good at recognizing out-group faces, but must identify “who did it” - there will probably be more incorrect sentencing for other races
ie. White people choosing the wrong Black person for a crime because of their shoddy memory
implications of CRE: Innocence Project DNA Exoneration in the US
of cases that were overturned that involved eyewitness misidentification
42% involved instance of cross-racial misidentification
this number is prob partly driven by racial prejudice, but also by cognitive errors in perceiving differences in outgroup faces
attribution
process of explaining the causes of behaviours or events
ultimate attribution error
social world is ambiguous
this is especially true when we’re trying to figure out WHY something happened
dispositional vs situational attributions
fundamental attribution error (FAE)
tendency to explain our own and other people’s behaviour in terms of dispositional traits rather than situational characteristics
a) Oscar the Grouch
b) Oscar who behaves grouchily due to his living situation
aka ultimate attribution error (UAE)
FAE/UAE: attributions depend on
- ingroup versus outgroup
- positive versus negative behaviour
your team makes a great play - what attribution are you likely to make?
“the players are so talented!”
as opposed to “they were so lucky!”
membership - valence chart
ingroup membership and positive valence:
DISPOSITIONAL ATTRIBUTION
outgroup membership and positive valence:
SITUATIONAL ATTRIBUTION
ingroup membership and negative valence:
SITUATIONAL ATTRIBUTION
outgroup membership and negative valence:
DISPOSITIONAL ATTRIBUTION
when viewing video of someone shoving someone else: differences in attribution if the person is Black versus White
White person: situational attribution
Black person: “the person is violent”
^stereotypical beliefs about the whole group
UAE at elite consulting firm
recruiters concluded that Black and women candidates who failed a math test were “not rock stars” at math, but White men who failed were “having a bad day”
real world outcome - who gets given a job versus who doesn’t
illusory correlation
when people see two DISTINCTIVE events, they assume the events are correlated
note: the two most likely kinds of info to stick in our memory are 1) rare things and 2) negative things
^feeds stereotypes: because outgroups are comparatively rare, and when this is compared with negative info then it really sticks
group A versus group B statements - illusory correlation SETUP
participants read 39 statements about POSITIVE or NEGATIVE behaviours committed by members of Group A or Group B
Group A was the MAJORITY (26 statements) and Group B was the MINORITY (13 statements)
Group A had 18 positive and 8 negative behaviours
Group B had 9 positive and 4 negative behaviours
^SAME RATIO
group A versus group B statements - illusory correlation RESULTS
even though there was the same ratio of positive to negative behaviours
participants memory showed they OVER-ATTRIBUTED negative behaviours to Group B (minority group with less info)
when do people assume group membership and behaviour are associated?
- a person’s group stands out
- a person’s behaviour stands out
what 2 things stand out the most?
- smaller (minority) groups
- negative behaviours
illusory correlation Arab-Muslim example
- some Arab-Muslim people commit a terrorist attack
- illusory correlation: Arab-Muslims are very likely to be terrorists
- ACTUAL BASE RATE:
# of terrorists/350 million Arab-Muslims
transmission of stereotypes: social learning
parents and peers transmit stereotypes directly and indirectly
DIRECT: rewarded/punished for own behaviour
INDIRECT: seeing someone else’s behaviour
transmission of stereotypes: children watching attitudes towards 2 women actors study
5 year old kids showed:
a. greater EXPLICIT PREFERENCES for the preferred actor
b. indicated preferred actor should receive end of study REWARD
c. adopted LABEL provided by preferred actor
d. IMITATED object usage of preferred actor
transmission of stereotypes: media influence
films, magazines, TV, ads
present and reinforce stereotypes
ie. Arab characters: heartless, brutal, uncivilized
ie. Black men: poor and/or criminals
ie. Men: authorities or professionals
Dixon and Linz (2000): study of portrayal of African Americans in Media
analyzed 16 metropolitan news broadcats
Black people accounted for about 20% of criminal activity but about 40% of suspects pictured
conversely, White people were underrepresented as perpetrators and overrepresented as victims
more subtle example of media transmitting stereotypes: “the science of satire”
The New Yorker cover - cartoon of Michelle Obama shaking the hand of an Obama made to look like Osama Bin Laden
clearly satire - making fun of the “terrorist fist bump” (background: Michelle Obama had fist-bumped this guy and racist people freaked out)
but not everyone gets the nuance of this cover and don’t see it satirically - they just come to associate Black people with terrorism
portrayal of African Americans in media: poorness statistics
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 50% of the nation’s poor are Black
Dixon (2008) studied relationship between TV news-watching and perceptions of African Americans
network exposure was:
a. NEGATIVELY related to estimates of African American income (r = 0.37)
b. POSITIVELY related to negative stereotypes (r = 0.48)
transmission of stereotypes: children who watch more TV have
stronger GENDER and RACIAL stereotypes
but can’t make too much of these studies because they’re only correlational
transmission of stereotypes: adults who watch more news have
stronger stereotypes for Black and Muslim people
but can’t make too much of these studies because they’re only correlational
transmission of stereotypes: Gender and Advertising Experiment setup
commercials with traditional or non-traditional gender roles
“write an essay imagining your life 10 years from now” - write about CAREER AMBITIONS versus HOMEMAKING
transmission of stereotypes: Gender and Advertising Experiment results
seeing gender stereotypes caused women to reduce expressed career ambitions
women who saw commercials with more traditional gender roles wrote more about traditional gender roles in their essays about their futures
Gordon Moskowitz
Prof at Lehigh Uni
McGill undergrad
expert on social categorization and stereotyping
specifically known for his work on “chronic egalitarians” - people who are better able to limit stereotype activation and application
chronic egalitarians
people who have a CONSISTENT and AUTOMATIC goal of reducing activation of stereotypes
internal motivation to control prejudice
self-report scale that deals with extent to which limiting prejudice is personally important
implementation intentions
if-then plans given to people to help goal pursuit
ie. “If I see a Black person, then I’ll try to be non-biased”
dehumanization
perceptions of people as lacking the MENTAL or PHYSICAL capacities of regular human beings
Sumner on dehumanization, from Folkways (1906)
“When Caribs were asked whence they came, they answered “We alone are people. The meaning of the name Kiowa is “real or principle people”. The Lapps call themselves “men” or “human beings”…As a rule it is found that people call themselves “men”. Others are something else - perhaps not defined - but not real men. In myths the origin of their own group is that of the real human race. They do not account for the others.”
historical dehumanization of Black people in the US - two quotes
- “The Black man has no rights which the White man is bound to respect…He may justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery…and treated as an ordinary article of traffic and merchandise.”
- Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) - “Representatives…shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons…three fifths of all other Persons.”
- 13th Amendment (1868)
no-so historical dehumanization: Prince Harry Spare book quote
on killing 25 Taliban fighters…
“While in the heat of combat, I didn’t think of those 25 as people. You can’t kill people if you think of them as people.”
“They were chess pieces removed from the board, Bads taken away before they could kill Goods. I’d been trained to ‘other-ize’ them, trained well. On some level I recognized this learned detachment as problematic. But I also saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering.”
older approaches to measuring dehumanization took a more…
subtle approach
unlike the study of stereotypes, which began as more blatant and progressed to more subtle
emotion granting/denial: older approaches to measuring dehumanization
granting everyone “primary emotions”
- happiness, pleasure, excitement, sadness
denial of “secondary emotions” to outgroup
- compassion, tenderness, bitterness, shame
subtle dehumanization: ascription of “human” emotions
primary emotions (ie. fear, panic) versus secondary emotions (ie. remorse, embarrassment)
ascribe LESS SECONDARY EMOTIONS to outgroups
occurs for BOTH positive and negative emotions
study of emotion ascription: older approaches to measuring dehumanization SETUP
participants were presented with POSITIVE and NEGATIVE
a) PRIMARY emotions (happy/angry)
b) SECONDARY emotions (content/resigned)
were told to circle words that best repped their ingroup (Canadians) or outgroup (Spaniards)
study of emotion ascription: older approaches to measuring dehumanization RESULTS
ascribed more secondary emotions than primary emotions to ingroup
ascribed more primary emotions than secondary emotions to outgroup
effect existed for both positive and negative emotions
less subtle dehumanization: study with 5 year olds and artificial faces SETUP
5 year olds
task: presented a bunch of artificial faces
manipulation: the faces are from a foreign land, or they’re not
less subtle dehumanization: study with 5 year olds and artificial faces RESULTS
when kids think a face is foreign, considered less ‘human’
implicit dehumanization: 1st, 5th, 6th grade students IAT SETUP
samples of student from first, fifth and sixth grade completed an IAT
measuring associations between Spanish (ingroup) and Arab (outgroup) names
with “human” (logic, mature) versus “animal” (wild, feral) words
implicit dehumanization: 1st, 5th, 6th grade students IAT RESULTS
all three samples of students showed ingroup/human and outgroup/animal associations on the IAT
implicit dehumanization: 1st, 5th, 6th grade students IAT 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 outgroup members than for ingroup members
“blatant” dehumanization early work study SETUP
Bandura et al (1975)
participants “supervised” a 3-person group in other room
participants told to give the group a shock if they made the wrong decision in the task
participants overheard experimenter describing the groups
3 descriptions:
a) HUMANIZED: group is “perceptive and understanding”
b) DEHUMANIZED: group is “animalistic, rotten bunch”
c) NEUTRAL: no description
“blatant” dehumanization early work study RESULTS
humanized group got the least intense shocks
neutral group got was in the middle
DEHUMANIZED GROUP RECEIVED THE MOST INTENSE SHOCKS
takeaway: dehumanization led to more aggression (as measured by intensity of shocks given)
why is the shock study considered illuminating of a more “blatant” dehumanization?
because it shows that dehumanization has implications for blatant behaviours: the administration of shocks
big measure used in blatant dehumanization
ascent of man scale
from ape to man
showed the scale, and then had people use a slider to indicate the positions of various groups along it
ie. Arabs, Russians, Muslims, Australians, Americans, Swedes…
ascent of man scale: average levels of dehumanization
participants: Americans who weren’t members of any of these groups
Europeans, Swiss, Japanese, French, Australian, Austrian, Icelandic - all NOT RELIABLY DIFFERENT from Americans
but Chinese, South Korean, Mexican Immigrants, Arabs and Muslims are seen as RELIABLY MORE ANIMALISTIC
associations of blatant dehumanization: blatant dehumanization of Arabs and Muslims leads to higher likelihood of what 4 things?
- immigration opposition
- less helping
- support of militaristic aggression
- drone strike support
note: blatant dehumanization remains a predictor of policy beliefs after controlling for measures of explicit anti-Muslim prejudice
blatant dehumanization remains a predictor of policy beliefs after…
controlling for measures of explicit anti-Muslim prejudice
what happens to dehumanization when the ingroup is threatened?
its levels rise
ie. huge increase in Anti-Islamic hate crimes after 9/11 and after the Boston Marathon bombing
dehumanization and refugee crisis
super high levels of blatant dehumanization and prejudice towards especially Muslim refugees
blatant dehumanization of Muslim refugees is connected to what 3 things?
- support of anti-refugee policies
- less asylum support
- signing anti-refugee petition
note: results persist after controlling for more traditional measures of prejudice (ie. thermometers towards Muslim refugees)
subtle dehumanizing versus blatant dehumanizing versus prejudice
are related but distinct measures
they aren’t redundant
each are their own psychological construct
meta-dehumanization
how do you respond when you think others are dehumanizing you?
example: kid named Ahmed Mohamed - “they made me feel like I wasn’t human”
one day he brought a clock he’d been working on to school
teacher thought it was a bomb and called the cops
he was arrested
dehumanization and _____ can create a …
meta-dehumanization
vicious cycle
dehumanization vicious cycle: survey of 200 Muslims…
survey of 200 Muslims:
“Donald Trump sees people from Muslim backgrounds as sub-human”
“Donald Trump thinks of people from Muslim backgrounds as animal-like”
dehumanization vicious cycle: survey of 200 Muslims - AVERAGE RATING
on scale of 1 (didn’t feel dehumanized at all) to 7 (felt dehumanized intensely)
average = 5.66
dehumanization vicious cycle: survey of 200 Muslims RESULTS
Muslims who felt more dehumanized were
- more likely to DEHUMANIZE TRUMP (using the ascent of man scale)
- more likely to support VIOLENT ACTION
- less willing to assist COUNTER-TERRORISM efforts
correlation - ratings of meta-dehumanization and dehumanization of Donald Trump
r = 0.68
strong correlation
vicious cycle: high power groups can also feel meta-dehumanized
across multiple studies, Kteily and colleagues found that:
privileged high power groups feel meta-dehumanized by minority low power groups
and reciprocate with dehumanization
Jeff Yang: recent advances in dehumanization
mechanistic form of dehumanization towards Asian people
“you know how the caricature goes: We’re STEM-brained but inarticulate. Industrious but uninspired. Capable but lacking in creativity. We’re robots who can only copy and clone and grub and grind…”
media portrayals of Asian people often commit what kind of dehumanization?
mechanistic
ie. often cyborg/robot characters are visibly Asian
or the article about Nathan Chen (ice skater) in which he is described as ROBOTIC
blatant mechanistic dehumanization scale
just like the ascent of man scale
except instead of ape on one end, it’s a calculator
goes from calculator to computer, to abstract robot, to human-like robot, to human
when given to White sample, Asian targets are dehumanized more mechanically than Black targets are
blatant animalistic/mechanistic dehumanization: implications for hiring study SETUP
measuring dehumanization is hard in the lab - esp when testing hiring managers
often go out of their way to favour outgroup participants
so instead of saying “who should you hire”, ask “which job is the best fit for this person/which candidate is the best fit for this job?”
manipulated if job would be better performed by a techy/numbers/calculated person (mechanical) or personable/social/creative person (animalistic)
blatant animalistic/mechanistic dehumanization: implications for hiring study RESULTS
when position needed to avoid animalistic traits, Asian applicants were judged as more suitable
when position needed to avoid mechanical traits, Black applicants were judged as more suitable
Ntour Kteily
associate prof at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management
McGill alum
leading expert on intergroup relations, social categorization and dehumanization
recipient of multiple early career research awards and Gordon Allport prize for research on intergroup relations
lead author on 2015 paper introducing concept of “blatant dehumanization”
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
reverse correlation
new technique in social psych literature
for trying to subtly measure the way people mentally rep other groups
