Post Midterm I: Feb 26-March 13 Flashcards
examples of identities that produce distinct forms of inequality
sexual orientation
weight
attractiveness
race
mental illness
disability
(SWARMD)
what makes sexism different? 3 things
- men and women are generally differentiated in biology and social roles
- relationships between men & women are complicated by sexual reproduction
- women aren’t a numerical minority, but…
men and women are generally differentiated in…
a) biology
b) social roles
relationships between men & women are complicated by sexual reproduction
a) creates dependency and intimacy between the sexes
b) way more interaction between the sexes than there is between racial groups
c) so sexism doesn’t result from lack of contact
women aren’t a numerical minority, but…
they are economically disadvantaged
earn way less
understanding female disadvantage: what two things don’t apply?
straightforward account of INGROUP FAVOURITISM
and OUTGROUP HATRED
think about:
1. ambivalent sexism
2. prescriptive gender norms
hostile sexism (misogyny)
antagonistic negative attitudes toward women
characterized by beliefs like:
a) women are enemies
b) women seek to control men
c) women use sex to exploit men
d) women demand too much
hostile sexism scale examples
agreement towards…
“women seek to gain power by getting control over men”
“once a woman gets a man to commit to her, she usually tries to put him on a tight leash”
“many women are actually seeking special favours, such as hiring policies that favour them over men, under the guise of asking for “equality””
“most women fail to appreciate all that men do for them”
conceptual opposite of hostile sexism
benevolent sexism
puts women on a pedestal, see them as needing to be protected
benevolent sexism
subjectively positive attitudes and beliefs about women that justify traditional gender roles
benevolent sexism is characterized by beliefs such as….
- women are pure and good
- women ought to be protected
- women ought to be cared for
- women nurture children and men through adversity
benevolent sexism scale examples
agreement towards…
a) women should be cherished and protected by men
b) women should be placed on a pedestal
c) women, compared to men, tend to have superior moral sensibility
d) men should be willing to sacrifice their own well-being in order to provide financially for the women in their lives
‘implicit’ benevolent sexism study in adults
adult men and women completed a male-female/good-bad IAT
both women AND men showed PRO-FEMALE ATTITUDES on the IAT
‘implicit’ benevolent sexism study in 4 year olds
four year old girls and boys completed a boy-girl/good-bad IAT
girl participants showed a pro-girl IAT effect, boys showed no reliable preference (but explicit measures clearly report an ingroup bias)
but adult men do - so somewhere between 4 years old and adulthood, boys lose the neutral association and swing to pro-female
why benevolent prejudices matter: first 4 points
- benevolent sexism’s underpinnings lie in STEREOTYPING women as inferior and men as superior
- HOSTILE and benevolent sexism are positively correlated (r = 0.52)
- countries with higher levels of benevolent sexism among population also have more GENDER INEQUALITY
- women with stronger benevolent sexist beliefs:
a) are less resistant to discrimination
b) have lower educational and career goals
c) take on more unpaid labour
women with stronger benevolent sexist beliefs…
- are less resistant to discrimination
- have lower educational and career goals
- take on more unpaid labour
COVID has robbed faculty parents of time for research, especially…
mothers
women with children have lost, on average, about an hour of research time per day on top of what childless scholars have lost
example: “Mercedes helps Mila go to the bathroom while on a call for work. Her husband works from the office next door.”
why benevolent prejudices matter: 2 other points
- benevolent sexism allows men to characterize their privileges as deserved
- benevolent prejudices are hard to change
how does benevolent sexism allow men to characterize their privileges as deserved?
this kind of thinking:
“I’m doing the hard work here so that the women don’t have to”
“I’m better fit to do this work”
why are benevolent prejudices hard to change?
a) they’re superficially positive
b) they’re hard to see
c) easy to be convinced that there’s nothing to feel guilty about
ambivalent sexism
combination of hostile and benevolent sexism
both forms of sexism work together to provide incentives for people to maintain traditional gender roles
- hostile sexism punishes women who challenge the status quo
- benevolent sexism rewards women who embrace traditional gender roles
prescriptive norms
how people SHOULD behave
examples of prescriptive norms for women
- Frieda Kahlo article title: “Wife of the Master Painter Gleefully Dabbles in Works of Art”
in the article, she is quoted “Of course”, she explains, “he does pretty well for a little boy. But it is I who am the big artist.”
- Yvonne Brill rocket scientist obituary
“she made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off to raise three children. The world’s best mom…”
^she’s a freaking rocket scientist! and they open with her homemaking capabilities!
prescriptive norms for women
kindness
warmth
communality
selflessness
prescriptive norms for men
leadership
competence
agency
(being proactive, autonomous, self-directed, “in charge”)
value of the masculine
stereotypes legitimize men’s greater status and power relative to women
masculine TRAITS and PURSUITS are more HIGHLY VALUED
looking at college majors with the highest/lowest earnings: positive correlation between number of men in a trade and its average salary
masculinity and “brilliance” study setup
Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer & Freeland (2015) studied association between GENDER DISPARITIES in PhD students and the degree to which the SUCCESS IN THAT FIELD was supposed to rely on innate “BRILLIANCE”
masculinity and “brilliance” study results
negative correlation between “brilliance” fields and women
as fields become increasingly associated with “innate brilliance”, there are more dominated by men
backlash
social and economic penalties for acting counter-stereotypically
backlash effects for women
women must disconfirm female stereotypes in order to be perceived as COMPETENT LEADERS
but…people have negative reactions towards ambitious and capable women
a) women who enact agentic behaviours = often seen as socially deficient
b) these deficiencies lead to punishment and discrimination
insights from stereotype content model
x axis goes from VERY COLD to VERY WARM
y axis goes from VERY INCOMPETENT to VERY COMPETENT
Hillary Clinton: very competent and very cold
Housewife: very incompetent and very warm
double-jeopardy in female perception
a DOUBLE-BIND in hiring and promotion
- warm women are seen as less capable, competent and committed
- competent women are seen as less likeable, more hostile and less of a team player
sex
an organism’s biological status, typically characterized as male, female or intersex
biological indicators:
- sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia
gender
thoughts, feelings, behaviours that a culture associates with masculinity and femininity
gender identity
person’s sense of their own gender
cisgender: gender identity that correspond with one’s birth sex
transgender: gender identity that differs from one’s birth sex
non-binary
gender identities that aren’t exclusively masculine or feminine
multiple genders, no gender, fluctuating gender, other genders
TransYouth project setup
first lab that actively studies gender development in transgender children
tracking socially-transitioned children longitudinally starting from 3-12 years old
compared against siblings and unrelated children on a bunch of outcomes
(sibling comparison can rule out effect of parenting environment)
TransYouth project research question
Do 5-12 year olds who identify with a gender that is opposite of their birth sex express preferences consistent with their gender, their birth sex, or something in the middle?
what did TransYouth project measure?
- gender-attitude IAT
- gendered object preferences
- gendered friendship preferences
TransYouth project results
transgender preferences for:
a) friendships and gendered objects
b) IAT scores
were VERY SIMILAR to siblings and age-matched cisgender kids
(note: higher scores = preferences consistent with gender)
TransYouth project main point
transgender children express preferences consistent with their gender identity
TransYouth project: a recent study using a larger sample (N > 300) and a greater number of outcomes…
reached a similar conclusion
there were no differences within transgender children based on how long they had been living as their current gender
no differences between transgender kids and cisgender controls - very genuine experience of gender identity for trans kids
TransYouth project concluding paragraphs
neither sex assignment at birth nor direct or indirect sex-specific socialization and expectations (e.g., rewarding masculine things and punishing feminine ones for assigned males) in alignment with early assignment necessarily define how a child later identifies or expresses their gender
these findings illustrate that children develop a sense of identity at an early age, that this identity is not necessarily determined by sex assignment at birth, and that children may hold on to this identity even when it conflicts with others’ expectations
implicit transgender attitudes study
compared…
- laws that pointed to how welcoming/discriminatory certain US states are towards transgender people
and…
- IAT scores from these same states
RESULTS: implicit and explicit anti-transgender attitudes were higher in states with more discriminatory laws
connection between LAW & POLICY and INDIVIDUAL ATTITUDES, BELIEFS & PERCEIVED NORMS
idea that people use laws and policies to help inform the acceptability of their beliefs and norms
law, policy and support for LGB rights STUDY SETUP
Tankard & Paluck, 2017
June 2015 Supreme Court case on same-sex marriage
study 1: experiment
a) being told that a favourable ruling was likely (in favour of pro same sex marriage)
study 2: longitudinal study
law, policy and support for LGB rights: being told that a favourable ruling was likely resulted in…
a) increased perception of norms supporting same-sex marriage
b) increased support for same-sex marriage
law, policy and support for LGB rights - study 2
longitudinal study
tracked perceptions of norms & attitudes over time
before and after the landmark supreme court decision
huge jump in PERCEPTION OF NORMS SUPPORTING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE occurred the day after the ruling
but OVERT POLICY SUPPORT didn’t change
law, policy and support for LGB rights TAKEAWAY
5 to 4 vote allowed this case to go through
only 9 people - not representative of the whole US population
yet people use these decisions to INFER what society supports more broadly
after supreme court same-sex marriage ruling, what changed and what didn’t?
perception of norms supporting same-sex marriage CHANGED
support for same-sex marriage DIDN’T CHANGE
what happened when the states passed same-sex marriage legislation?
prejudice outcomes did change after legislation change
before 2015, each state had opportunity to allow or not allow same-sex marriage
states that passed same-sex marriage legislation experienced GREATER DECREASE IN BIAS following legalization
changes in implicit sexuality attitudes
changing pretty quick! they’re still pro-straight though
should hit neutral by 2048
not the same change for age or disability attitudes
eligibility for TransYouth studies
child must live in a family where all other family members use pronouns for the child that don’t align with sex assigned at birth
might not result in the most representative sample
ageism as a “special case”
rules we generally use to understand prejudice may not apply to age
- EVERYONE experiences ageing: this in itself makes ageing different than other types of prejudice
- age is very SUBJECTIVE - people can have a huge discrepancy between how old they are and how old they feel
statistics for subjective age
34% experience a match between their objective and subjective age
28% feel OLDER
38% feel YOUNGER
what happens to subjective age as you get older?
age 27 is when objective and subjective age are most often the SAME
as you get older, your subjective age starts to be younger than your objective age
ageism as a “special case”: 7 points
- age is differentiated by BIOLOGY and EXPERIENCE
- SOCIAL ROLES are strongly differentiated by age
- age is complicated by FAMILIAL RELATIONS (cross-age contact)
- age is MALLEABLE (young people will be old, and old people were once young)
- age is CONTINUOUS, but can be perceived CATEGORICALLY
- older people tend to be MORE POWERFUL (to a point)
- there’s a difference between “AGE IDENTITY” and “GENERATIONAL IDENTITY” (may not identify with a 21 year old, but identify with a gen z)
benevolent ageism
SUBJECTIVELY POSITIVE attitudes and beliefs about people on basis of age that JUSTIFY PATERNALISTIC CARE and the status quo
benevolent ageism is characterized by beliefs like… for older people
a) older people are PHYSICALLY WEAK
b) older people are MENTALLY IMPAIRED
c) older people are LONELY
d) older people are SOCIABLE/WARM
lead to protective attitudes (like in benevolent sexism)
benevolent ageism is characterized by beliefs like… for younger people
a) young people are OUTGOING/FUN
b) young people succumb to PEER PRESSURE
c) young people LACK MENTAL FACULTIES/KNOWLEDGES
d) young people are EMOTIONALLY UNDERDEVELOPED
ageism in discrimination: field experiment SETUP
field experiment setup, researchers sent out FICTITIOUS RESUMES to companies that were hiring in either restaurant or sales industries
across resumes, applicants were listed as being either 31 or 46 years old
15 year gap in work experience: controlled for by saying they’d been in the military - this is a confounding factor
ageism in discrimination: field experiment RESULTS
sales assistant job: younger applicant was 4 TIMES AS LIKELY to receive an interview
restaurant job: younger applicant was 3 TIMES AS LIKELY to receive an interview
ageism in discrimination: field experiment - results held for whether…
- the job was full-time versus part-time
- the job was permanent versus temporary
the pattern for implicit attitudes about age is different…
than the overarching pattern for religion/race
overarching pattern for age IAT
rule: younger is better
most positive associations = for kids, then young adults, then middle-aged adults, then old adults
small ingroup effect for people in 40s (get a bit more negative towards young adults and more positive towards their age group - “parenting effect”)
although IAT shows that younger people are viewed more positively in society, this doesn’t mean that they…
hold the highest status
intergenerational tension - headline example
headline: “OK BOOMER marks the end of friendly generational relations”
^term is an antagonist way of discounting attitudes of older people
intergenerational tension - Senator John Thune example
tweet
“I started working by bussing tables at the Star Family Restaurant for $1/hour & slowly moved up to cook - the big leagues for a kid like me - to earn $6/hour. Businesses in small towns survive on narrow margins. Mandating a $15 minimum wage would put many of them out of business.”
he is ignoring inflation here LOL
older people dismissing younger people
more headlines that exemplify intergenerational tension
- “millennial generation could kill the NFL”
- “Is Gen Y’s Live-At-Home Lifestyle Killing the Housing Market?”
- “PROMISCUOUS Millenials are Killing McDonald’s”
- Milennials are killing a $1 billion diet staple”
millennials versus boomers
millennials and boomers don’t like one another very much
- chart of ATTITUDES towards each generation as a function of a participant’s generation
not linear - boomers especially dislike millennials, and millennials especially dislike boomers
- chart of PERCEIVED THREAT from outgroup generations as a function of a participant’s generation
same pattern, boomers especially see millennials as a threat, and vice versa
main takeaway from the charts about boomers and millenials
- boomers see millennials as more threatening and like them less than other outgroup generations
and same thing holds for millennials, just in the opposite direction
boomers and millennials see each other as different kinds of threats
- boomers see millennials through the lens of a SYMBOLIC THREAT
- millennials see boomers through the lens of a REALISTIC THREAT
evidence of boomers seeing millennials as symbolic threats
more likely to agree with items concerning whether millennials have a:
“different moral code”
“do not uphold the country’s values”
see millennials as threats to cultural values
evidence of millennials seeing boomers as realistic threats
more likely to agree with items concerning whether boomers:
“get more from this country than they give”
“take up more than their fair share of jobs and houses”
egalitarianism and ageism study: what measures did participants complete?
- egalitarianism advocacy
- anti-social dominance orientation
- hostile racism
- hostile sexism
- hostile ageism
egalitarianism advocacy
a measure from the egalitarianism and ageism study
“my motivation for almost every activity I engage in is my desire for an egalitarian world”
“I owe it to all people to work for greater opportunity and equality for all”
anti-social dominance orientation
a measure from the egalitarianism and ageism study
“some groups are inferior to other groups” (reversed)
hostile sexism
a measure from the egalitarianism and ageism study
“women are seeking to gain power by getting control over men”
hostile racism
a measure from the egalitarianism and ageism study
“black people are seeking to gain power by getting control over White people”
hostile ageism
a measure from the egalitarianism and ageism study
“most older workers don’t know when it’s time to make way for the younger generation”
egalitarianism and ageism study: correlation between EGALITARIANISM ADVOCACY and HOSTILE SEXISM
r = -0.33
egalitarianism and ageism study: correlation between EGALITARIANISM ADVOCACY and HOSTILE RACISM
r = -0.48
egalitarianism and ageism study: correlation between EGALITARIANISM ADVOCACY and HOSTILE AGEISM
r = 0.2
no relationship between egalitarianism advocacy and ageism
suggests there are people committed to egalitarianism who are ageist
correlation between anti-SDO and HOSTILE SEXISM
r = -0.55
correlation between anti-SDO and HOSTILE RACISM
r = -0.65
correlation between anti-SDO and HOSTILE AGEISM
r = -0.3
again, seems like even those high in anti-SDO can be ageist
explanation for lack of correlation between being HIGH ANTI-SDO / HIGHLY EGALITARIAN and NON-AGEIST
older people are seen as “opportunity blockers” that work to prevent other under-represented groups from getting ahead
easier to rationalize prejudice based o age, because you construe older people as “opportunity blockers”
frustration seem justified
experience of people with disabilities are diverse. they vary in…
- VISIBILITY: can you see it?
- CONTROLLABILITY: was it “your fault”?
- DISRUPTIVENESS: does it disrupt normal social living?
- AESTHETIC QUALITIES: does it impact perceptions of attractiveness?
- PERIL: are you seen as dangerous because of it?
the dimensions mediate how prejudice operates
what attitudes do people report toward people with disabilities (PWDs)?
positive general attitudes
but other measures show strong prejudice
other measures which report strong prejudice towards PWDs (people with disabilities)
- people are less willing to DATE/MARRY PWDs
- strong IMPLICIT PREFERENCES for ‘abled’ over ‘disabled’ people
- PWDs commonly REPORT DISCRIMINATION
mental illnesses are often seen as…
controllable
some forms of mental illness are highly linked to…
feelings of peril
fear-based associations with mental illness
ie. horror movie villains often have mental illnesses
what does stigma do to seeking treatment for mental illness?
stigma reduces the likelihood that people will seek treatment for their mental illness
<40% of people with mental illness have sought treatment
seeking mental illness treatment is stigmatizing in itself
halo effect
attractive people are thought to have more POSITIVE QUALITIES
sociable, extraverted, popular, happy, assertive
self-fulfilling prophecy
self-fulfilling prophecy related to attractiveness
the beautiful receive more social attention, which helps them develop good social skills
highly attractive people:
a) do develop good social interaction skills
b) report having more satisfying interactions with others
attractiveness and discrimination: audit study SETUP
job applications in Europe often include a photo of the applicant
only manipulated the degree of attractiveness of the applicant
attractiveness and discrimination: audit study RESULTS
- more attractive men: 35% receive a callback
less attractive men: 29% receive a callback
- more attractive women: 40% receive a callback
less attractive women: 32% receive a callback
same results across gender - physically attractive man gets better treatment from both men and women
lighter-skinned Black people are…
- perceived to be MORE COMPETENT/SOCIABLE
- less likely to be stereotyped
- have higher income, SES and occupational outcomes
explaining preferences for lighter skin tones
historically, darker skin tone was linked to working in sun all day as farmer/labourer
light skin tone meant you had a privileged position
EXCEPTION: “Western” White people today want to have darker skin tones on average
status reversal: being tanned means you have the privilege of going to the beach, vacationing etc.
skin tone of Black/White features and Afro-centric features and felony coding SETUP
King & Johnson (2016) coded the skin tone of Black and White features for 1110 felony defendants from Minneapolis area
also coded defendants by Afro-centric features based on prior literature (fuller lips, wider noses)
skin tone of Black/White features and Afro-centric features and felony coding RESULTS
some overlap between skin tones of Black and White people
some overlap of Afro-centric features between Black and White people
so what if you’re White but have more Afro-centric features?
a) your sentences will be MORE SEVERE than those given to average White person
skin tone of Black/White features and Afro-centric features and felony coding study CONTROLLED FOR WHAT?
criminal history, trial conviction, private attorney, crime type, county, age
skin tone of Black/White features and Afro-centric features and felony coding TAKEAWAY
not as simple as “I’m treating this person as White or Black”
skin tone, technology and norms
“in 2017, the global skin-lightening industry was worth $4.8 billion and it is predicted to grow to $8.9 billion by 2027, fuelled by a growing middle class in the Asia-Pacific region”
instagram might be removing plastic surgery filters, but what about the skin lightening ones?
what’s special about weight stigma?
- overweight people are assumed to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for their weight
- weight discrimination is common and not seen as personally problematic as discrimination in other domains (religion, race, etc)
what are stereotypes about people who are overweight?
lazy, lacking willpower, unintelligent, sloppy, dishonest
are men or women more vulnerable to weight stigma?
women
- greater pay discrimination
- greater connection to female roles
- judged to be “overweight” at lower weight levels
what mental health outcomes is weight stigma associated with?
low self-esteem
depression
suicide
greater acceptance of weight-based prejudice
showed scales of internal motivation to control prejudice for race, disability and weight
most people are VERY motivated to control prejudice based on RACE and DISABILITY
but there are WAY MORE MIDDLING RESPONSES for weight
people aren’t as strongly motivated to be unprejudiced about weight
ironic effects of weight stigma study RESULTS
participants higher in PERCEIVED weight later:
a) consumed more calories
b) had weaker beliefs in dietary control
following exposure to the weight stigma information
ironic effects of weight stigma study SETUP
female participants read a fake newspaper article highlighting weight or smoking stigma
[lose weight/quit smoking] or lose your job: doctors have established that being [overweight/a smoker] is bad for your health. people who [are overweight/smoke] are at an increased risk of contracting [diabetes/lung cancer] and heart disease. [being overweight/smoking] also affects a person’s joints, breathing, sleep, mood and energy levels. but there is now another risk of being [fat/a smoker]: it could cost you a job. an increasing number of US companies are considering [weight/smoking] as a factor in employment. people who [are overweight/smoke] are being denied jobs, or in some cases, fired.
study of female participants (higher in measures of subjective/objective weight) interacting with an explicitly anti-fat person SETUP
- participants completed a “get to know you” questionnaire for the person they believed they would soon be interacting with
- had a brief interaction with the person (actually a study confederate)
- looked at psychological and physiological consequences
study of female participants (higher in measures of subjective/objective weight) interacting with an explicitly anti-fat person WEIGHT-BIAS and CONTROL conditions
- weight-bias condition: the person indicated agreement with some anti-fat attitudes (like “some people are fat because they have no willpower” or “fat people make me somewhat uncomfortable)
- control condition: person disagreed with these items (at level that reflected the average of other students at the uni)
so going into the interaction, experimental group knew they were about to interact with someone who held prejudice against them
study of female participants (higher in measures of subjective/objective weight) interacting with an explicitly anti-fat person RESULTS
women exposed to the anti-fat peer showed both PHYSIOLOGICAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL changes:
- greater feelings of ANTICIPATED REJECTION from interaction partner, particularly for women higher in BMI
- greater feelings of ANGER
- greater HEART-RATE REACTIVITY (a measure previously connected to feelings of threat)
- worse COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE (finding words in game of Boggle)
persistence of age, weight, disability and skin tone biases
these biases aren’t changing all that much (unlike race and sexual orientation)
weight may even be going up
overall stable
4 growing areas of stigma research
- androgyny
- singlehood
- consensual non-monogamy
- “voluntary childlessness”
growing areas of stigma research: androgyny
novel IAT showed strong implicit biases in favour of gender-conforming over gender-nonconforming people
growing areas of stigma research: singlehood
single people reported greater discrimination both towards themselves and towards single people more generally compared to people in a relationship
growing areas of stigma research: consensual non-monogamy
participants reported monogamous relationships as more respectful, romantic, comforting and morally superior than consensual non-monogamous relationships
growing areas of stigma research: “voluntary childnessness”
couple described as choosing not to have children was viewed as less caring than couple with children or who wanted to but couldn’t have children
Jeffrey Hunger
leading expert on prejudice, particularly in regards to weight-based stigma
recipient of outstanding dissertation award for field of research on body image
lead author on 2018 paper looking at psychological and physiological consequences of interacting with an “anti-fat” peer
resumes: discrimination in real world - audit study
sent out resumes to companies, only manipulated the top of the resume
WHITE names: Emily Walsh, Greg Baker
BLACK names: Lakisha Washington, Jamal Jones
RESULTS: Black names were 50% less likely to get a callback
what prejudices are relevant for voting for giving undocumented Mexican immigrants a path to legal status
- GLOBAL ATTITUDE
“How much do you like Mexicans?” - ATTITUDE TOWARDS SPECIFIC TARGET
“How much do you like undocumented Mexican immigrants?” - ATTITUDE TOWARD BEHAVIOUR IN A GIVEN TIME, TARGET and CONTEXT
“For the upcoming election, how much do you support giving undocumented Mexican immigrants a path to legal status?”
the last one is the most relevant to behaviour - has a better fit because of it’s specificity
voting for giving Mexican immigrants path to legal status: tradeoff with the more specific option
the more specific the measure, the better fit it will have with the relevant behaviour
but this is a tradeoff because it becomes harder to generalize to other behaviours
increase in US hate crimes from 2016 to 2017
2016: 6,121 hate crimes
2017: 7,175 hate crimes
recent years have seen even larger growth
although hate crimes are statistically rare, they do a lot to signal…
social norms
people infer through incidence of hate crimes general feelings of people towards certain groups
hate crimes are indicators of
social norms
race-based hate crimes increased the day after the 2016 Trump election
almost tripled the day after Trump’s election
total of 3,489 race-based hate crimes in 2016 - up 5% from previous year
(archival analysis)
near tripling in hate crimes the day after Trump’s election signals what?
as people feel norms changing, they adjust their behaviour accordingly
Trump was vocal about his prejudice
this signalled to people that these prejudices were acceptable
what happened to Anti-Asian hate crime rates after COVID?
huge increase in all sorts of discrimination
social norms and the 2016 US election: Crandall, Miller & White study SETUP
participants took measures of PREJUDICE and PERCEIVED NORMS about prejudice at 2 times:
a) 9-12 days before Trump’s election (Oct 28-31)
b) 3 days after Trump’s election (Nov 11)
^only 2 weeks apart
Crandall et al study: measures of prejudice & prejudice norms assessed…
9 groups targeted in Trump’s campaign:
i) Asian Americans, disabled people, fat people, immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans, socialists, women considering an abortion
9 groups not targeted in Trump’s campaign:
i) alcoholics, atheists, Canadians, care salesmen, drug dealers, lazy people, NRA members, people who cheat on their taxes, politicians, porn stars, rich people
Crandall et al study: what happened to self-reported prejudice?
it DECREASED (when about targeted groups)
because people were COMPARING themselves to Trump and the SOCIAL NORMS he was breeding
saw themselves as less prejudiced than he was
self-reported prejudice towards non-targeted groups stayed the same
Crandall et al study: what happened to normative acceptability of prejudice?
prejudice was perceived to be MORE NORMATIVELY ACCEPTABLE
towards targeted groups
it’s not that norms change people’s individual levels of prejudice, but they…
lower the bar on when people feel they can express their prejudice
changing norms can make it more/less acceptable to act on prejudice
Crandall et al study: takeaway
perceived social norms surrounding the expression of prejudice matters
modulates whether or not people will act on their prejudice
laws as social norms - same sex marriage STUDY SETUP
Tankard & Paluck, 2017
longitudinal study
tracked perceptions of norms & attitudes over time - before and after the Supreme Court decision to legalize same-sex marriage
laws as social norms - same sex marriage STUDY RESULTS
- PERCEPTION of norms supporting same sex marriage INCREASED the day after the ruling
- SUPPORT for same sex marriage stayed the same
individual beliefs aren’t affected, but your perceptions of societal norms do change
in this case, higher threshold people have to jump over in order to be prejudiced towards same sex couples
University of Wisconsin - exposure to messages about social norms of combatting prejudice increased perceptions of…
an inclusive environment
video was presented to students, of fellow students and teachers attesting that they value diversity and try to make minorities feel accepted
Uni of Wisconsin video project obvious takeaway
perception of an inclusive climate results in higher beliefs that you live in a place that values diversity
Uni of Wisconsin video study: what did disadvantaged students who were exposed to the social norms video manipulation report two weeks later?
that their “advantaged student” peers:
a) treated them with more RESPECTand INCLUSIVITY
Uni of Wisconsin video study: what did disadvantaged students who were exposed to the social norms video manipulation report two weeks later? CAVEAT
participants who were “advantaged students” didn’t self-report actually behaving in a more respectful/inclusive manner after watching the social norms video
yet minority students reported they felt they were being treated better
why? maybe because their new beliefs were acting as a filter? maybe because they were particularly looking for/construing interactions as inclusive to achieve cognitive consistency?
Uni of Wisconsin video study: effect of video on actual CLASSROOM ACHIEVEMENT in STEM courses
randomly assigned different sections of the syllabus within the same course to see the video versus a short statement in the syllabus
for privileged students (White, Christian), GPAs were not really affected
for MARGINALIZED students, better GPAs resulted from watching the video
TRANSLATION INTO REAL WORLD CONSEQUENCES and BEHAVIOUR
internal motivation to respond without prejudice
motivation to be unprejudiced for its own sake
internal motivation to respond without prejudice EXAMPLE ITEMS
“I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways towards Black people because it is personally important to me”
“I am personally motivated by me beliefs to be non-prejudiced toward Black people”
“Being non-prejudiced toward Black people is important to my self-concept”
external motivation to respond without prejudice
motivations to appear unprejudiced to others
external motivation to respond without prejudice EXAMPLE ITEMS
“I try to act non-prejudiced toward Black people because of pressure from others”
“Because of today’s PC standards I try to appear non-prejudiced toward Black people”
“If I acted prejudiced toward Black people, I would be concerned that other would be angry with me”
relation between INTERNAL motivation to respond without prejudice AND prejudice
weakly to moderately negatively related
relation between EXTERNAL motivation to respond without prejudice AND prejudice
weakly positively related
correlation between internal and external motivations to respond without prejudice
not really correlated
r = 0.03
motivation to express prejudice
reliable but relatively small proportion of people
“my beliefs motivate me to express negative feelings about Black people”
“minimizing my contact with Black people is personally important to me”
motivation to express prejudice: percentage of participants above the scale midpoint when scale was about…
RACE: 7%
SEXUAL ORIENTATION: 6.5%
POLITICAL ORIENTATION: 14.3%
so most disagree, but there are definite chunks of population who are motivated to express prejudice in the above areas
importance of the ABILITY to REGULATE prejudiced behaviour
people are often regulating their prejudicial tendencies
when the ability to do so is impaired, people are more likely to discriminate
4 factors that impact ability to control prejudiced behaviour
- time of day
- age reduces ability to inhibit automatic impulses
- alcohol reduces inhibition
- cognitive resources
ability to control prejudiced behaviour: shooter task data 1
put shooter task on website and track racial bias that occurs throughout the day
those accessing the website have more racial bias at 1 like am (late in the day/early in morning)
BUT this is correlational - maybe due to a third variable
ability to control prejudiced behaviour: shooter task data 2
shooter task again
this time, randomly assign COGNITIVE LOAD
while you’re completing task, feed numbers at you
report whether the number you’re currently hearing is higher or lower than the previous one
all while doing shooter task
controls don’t have to do the task
those in the cognitive load condition SHOW MORE PREJUDICED BEHAVIOUR
BUT lacks consequential validity - pretty weak manipulation of cognitive resources
ability to control prejudiced behaviour study: with random assignment
another shooter task
randomly assigned participants either a FULL NIGHT’S REST or to STAY UP ALL NIGHT
bias increased for participants who lacked rest
less ability to inhibit automatic, prejudiced reactions
what was Milgram interested in trying to understand?
situations like Nazi Germany
was there something special about the Germans, or would most people behave that way in that kind of situation?
Eichmann in Jerusalem
passage that most inspired Milgram
essentially, judges of Eichmann (a massive Nazi who committed countless horrifying crimes) couldn’t “admit that an average, “normal” person…could be perfectly incapable of telling right from wrong.”
“must have been aware of the criminal nature of his acts, and Eichmann was indeed normal insofar as he was “no exception within the Nazi regime.”
“under…the Third Reich only “exceptions” could be expected to act normally.”
HOW CAN WE RECONCILE A NORMAL PSYCHOLOGICAL PROFILE WITH THESE INSANE BEHAVIOURS?
experimental setup: Milgram’s study of obedience
experiment described as a “study of learning”
participants instructed to shock other participants for any WRONG ANSWERS
the other participant is a confederate who never receives any real shocks
shock levels increased for each wrong answer
during experiment, confederate begins to scream in pain and demand the experiment end
later, confederate stops making any sounds (indicating possible injury/death)
Milgram’s study shock range
15 volts (slight shock) to 450 volts (danger: severe shock)
Milgram: what if participant doesn’t obey?
experimenter in white lab coat instructs participant to continue
“please continue. the experiment requires that you continue”
Milgram results
- everyone went up to at least 300 volts (when confederate began to POUND ON WALL)
- 65% went ALL THE WAY to the end
- everyone who reached 375 volts continued to the end
what would confederate do at 300 volts?
pound on wall
Milgram follow up studies found that obedience depends upon…
- PROXIMITY
- SOCIAL POWER
- SOCIAL STATUS
proximity and obedience
if you’re PHYSICALLY/SOCIALLY closer to victim, you’re less likely to comply
social power and obedience
if experimenter is perceived as LESS POWERFUL, you’re less likely to comply
experimenters that gave order over TELEPHONE or who were CONTRADICTED by another experimenter = less powerful
social status and obedience
if setting conveys AUTHORITY, you’re more likely to comply
Milgram’s results were surprising…
high percentages of Americans showed obedience to authority to the extent that they could have HARMED the other person
many people find it hard to believe that they’d ever personally be capable of this
but there are many historic examples of ordinary people acting in ways they’d never expect
Milgram: 5 reasons why people obeyed
- no exit
- participants were motivated to “follow the rules”
- feeling of responsibility is transferred to experimenter
- victim blaming
- escalating commitment
Milgram: “no exit”
a reason why people obeyed
attempts to leave situation = BLOCKED by AUTHORITY
participants called attention to the learner, said they didn’t want to continue…
but most did anyway
“no exit” reasoning translated to Nazi Germany
prejudicial norms against Jews and other minorities were universal across Nazi Germany
no way to escape without emigrating
Milgram: participants were motivated to “follow the rules”
reason why people obeyed
experimenter ignored reasons offered by the participant
confused participant conformed to OBJECTIVE rules established by the experimenter
note: once the rules were up for debate or if two authority figures were in disagreement, obedience dropped
Milgram: feeling of responsibility is transferred to the experimenter
reason people obeyed
experimenter stated he was responsible for everything that happened
experimenter provided a cover for their actions
ie. “it was his fault, I was following orders”
Milgram: victim blaming
reason people obeyed
“well, he volunteered for this”
Milgram: escalating commitment
step-by-step situation
slippery slope
each increment was only 15 volts, so each one seems like a small step
but step-by-step, reaches an extreme point
Rwandan Genocide
mass slaughter of Tutsi by Hutu majority
from April-June 1994
500,000- 1,000,000 Tutsi killed (70% of Tutsi population)
what “set the stage” for the Rwandan genocide?
radio stations
“life after genocide” study design
communities randomly assigned to:
a) reconciliation-focused soap opera
b) control soap opera about health
radio is commonly listened to in both communities
Rwanda study: reconciliation soap opera (New Dawn)
- featured typical Rwandans as protagonists
- roots of prejudice & violence were located in frustration of basic psychological needs (as opposed to abnormal/rare phenomena)
- trauma is normal and can be healed
“life after genocide” study RESULTS
- didn’t change PERSONAL BELIEFS about prejudice & violence (aligns with previous studies we’ve seen)
- changed PERCEIVED NORMS about how people do and should behave in situations related to prejudice, conflict & trauma
- increased EMPATHY for genocide survivors
- more likely to SHARE radio batteries at the end of the study
“life after genocide” study pattern we’ve seen before
changed behaviours more than attitudes
Sohad Murrar
assistant prof at Uni of Illinois
expert on intergroup contact and prejudice
diversity appreciation norm video study
prior work investigated effects of para-social contact on intergroup attitudes
lead author on 2020 paper using classroom norms to combat discrimination
stigma
possessing (or being believed to posses) a characteristic that conveys a DEVALUED SOCIAL IDENTITY
Goffman on stigma
“when a stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others…in the extreme, a person who is bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one…Stigma constitutes a special discrepancy between virtual and actual social identity”
Goffman’s 3 types of stigma
- physical
- mental
- tribal (group-based)
5 dimensions that capture meaningful differences between stigmas
- visibility
- controllability
- disruptiveness
- aesthetic qualities
- peril
visibility and stigma
a dimension of stigma
visible stigmas are easy to be judged by (skin tone, gender)
people with visible stigmas know that others are judging them based on that stigma
people with concealable stigmas…
may hide their stigmas
ie. sexual orientation, political affiliations
controllability and stigma
stigmas are controllable when either:
a) the individual is responsible for their condition
b) the stigma could be eliminated by the behaviour of the stigmatized individual
note: stigmas aren’t actually controllable, but people see certain ones as controllable
ie. weight, sexual orientation
people with stigmas that are perceived to be controllable…
are more likely to be discriminated against
people with stigmas that are perceived as controllable will do what to try to escape the stigma?
change their behaviour
ie. fat people will exercise more/change their diet
2 things that people with stigmas that are perceived as UNCONTROLLABLE are more likely to do
- focus on SELF-ACCEPTANCE
- CONFRONT those who express prejudice
study: manipulating controllability of a stigma SETUP
participants read about a hiring manager evaluating a qualified applicant who had a stigma that was portrayed as CONTROLLABLE or UNCONTROLLABLE
controllable: foul language use, poor grooming
uncontrollable: stutters, facial birthmark
manager decides to reject applicant based on this stigma
“doesn’t like being around people whose appearance he doesn’t like” or “doesn’t like being around people who have difficulty speaking”
study: manipulating controllability of a stigma RESULTS
subjects felt LESS NEGATIVITY towards the hiring manager when discrimination was based on features that were deemed more controllable
study: manipulating controllability of a stigma TAKEAWAY
if a stigma is seen as more controllable, we’re more accepting of discrimination rooted in that aspect of identity
disruptiveness and stigma
how much a condition makes social interaction LESS PREDICTABLE or MORE UNCERTAIN
familiarity decreases disruptiveness over time
ie. if you have a family member with a disability, you find it less disruptive
aesthetic qualities and stigma
how much a characteristic makes an individual “upsetting” to others
more attractive = less stigma
less attractive = more stigma
what does familiarity do to the relationship between aesthetic qualities and stigma?
decreases the impact
so having a stigma like being less attractive becomes less “upsetting” to others over time
peril and stigma
degree of danger that the stigmatizing condition poses to others
danger reminds people of their vulnerability
stigmatized identities that are perceived to be dangerous are discriminated against more
example of peril and stigma
HIV positive people
movie villains are often schizophrenic - identity is associated with threat
stigma by association
associating with a stigmatized individual can lead to one’s own stigmatization
ie. family members with mental illness
stigma by association: painting example
two women in forefront
one man in the back
assume the woman on the left is more attractive than the one on the right
then split the photo:
a) in one it’s only the woman on the left and the man
b) in the other it’s only the woman on the right and the man
man was rated as LESS ATTRACTIVE when presented next to woman on the right
stigma by association: painting example TAKEAWAY
you’re rated as less attractive if placed next to a person who is less physically attractive
perceptions of one person are carrying over to the other
contagion effect
stigma by association example: race manipulation job applicant photo
two applicants sitting next to one another
White applicant was rated as less qualified when viewed sitting next to a Black versus a White employee
stigma associated with one target gets passed on to the other target
is most discrimination blatant?
no
this is a problem for perceiving discrimination
it’s ambiguous
have to decide if you think the behaviour was based in prejudice or not
attributional ambiguity and stigma
difficulty that stereotyped groups have in interpreting treatment/feedback
“was their response to me about who I am as an individual or about my group membership?”
example of attributional ambiguity and stigma - evaluations of women by blatantly prejudiced versus unbiased people
- women who were evaluated unfavourably by a blatantly prejudiced evaluator experienced less negative affect than women who were rated unfavourably by an unbiased evaluator
easy to discount their opinion, say it’s because of their prejudice and not because of you
example of attributional ambiguity and stigma - attractive people
attractive participants were less likely to believe positive interpersonal feedback than were unattractive participants
not sure if their behaviour merits their treatment or if it is because of their looks
early study of attributional ambiguity: VR study SETUP
participants were assigned an ethnicity (independent of their real one) - either White or Latinx
then completed job interview and got positive/negative feedback
early study of attributional ambiguity: VR study RESULTS
participants (regardless of actual ethnic identity) were more likely to attribute feedback to discrimination when their avatar was made to look Latinx versus White
early study of attributional ambiguity: VR study - similar pattern emerged…
similar pattern emerged in follow-up study that gave POSITIVE feedback
means that attributional ambiguity buffered against negative feedback
but ALSO REDUCED BENEFITS of positive feedback
5 points: when is perceiving discrimination more likely to happen?
- if it’s coming from an OUTGROUP member
- in a CONTEXT linked to NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES
- when you IDENTIFY strongly with your INGROUP
- having STIGMA CONSCIOUSNESS
- when it’s BLATANT
perception of discrimination: more likely in context linked to negative stereotypes
ie. Black people will be more likely to perceive discrimination in a math setting
stigma consciousness
belief that your group is being judged based on stereotypes
higher stigma consciousness = more perceptions of discrimination
example questionnaire assessing stigma consciousness about being a woman
- when interacting with men, I feel like they interpret all my behaviours in terms of the fact that I’m a woman
- most men have a lot more sexist thoughts than they actually express
- most men have a problem viewing women as equals
perceiving discrimination and health
feelings of LOW CONTROL and increased feelings of EXCLUSION that are associated with pervasive discrimination are likely to UNDERMINE physical health
MINOR FORMS of discrimination may PRODUCE MORE STRESS because of their AMBIGUOUS NATURE
why do minor forms of discrimination potentially cause more stress?
because of their ambiguous nature
may be unclear as to what underlies subtle mistreatment
so appropriate coping responses may be hard to implement
flowchart: perceived discrimination > worse physical and mental health
perceived discrimination leads to:
a) heightened stress response
b) risky health behaviours (drinking, smoking)
results in: worse physical and mental health
greater perceptions of racial discrimination are linked with what measures of LOWER PHYSICAL HEALTH?
lower physical health
- self-reported health
- blood pressure
- smoking
- alcohol use
greater perceptions of racial discrimination are linked with what measures of LOWER MENTAL HEALTH?
lower mental health
- worse self-esteem
- worse wellbeing
- control over life
- depression
- anxiety
racial discrimination and health: note
racial discrimination is definitely associated with worse mental health
but also some evidence for the REVERSE DIRECTION as well
having worse mental health can result in more perceptions of discrimination
example: a depressed person may be more likely to attribute ambiguous negative events to discrimination
‘least desirable’: how racial discrimination plays out in online dating
why is it OK for online daters to block whole ethnic groups?
should we give people the ability to exclude whole swaths of people who they see online?
does this reinforce prejudice?
racial discrimination in online dating study SETUP
- heterosexual participants engaged in a mock Tinder task
200 faces they had to swipe on
- completed DEMOGRAPHIC measures related to personality characteristics
(attachment, anxiety, extraversion, conscientiousness, self-esteem)
racial discrimination in online dating study RESULTS
the ONLY consistent predictors of a “swipe” decision were:
- physical ATTRACTIVENESS (rated by outside people)
- whether the target belonged to the SAME RACE as the participant
all the other demographic personality characteristics didn’t predict anything
personal/group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD)
tendency for stigmatized group members to report higher levels of discrimination AGAINST THEIR GROUP IN GENERAL than against THEMSELVES PERSONALLY as members of their group
most people think they’re subject to less than average discrimination when compared with other members of their group
2 types of mechanisms for PGDD
- cognitive mechanisms
- motivational mechanisms
cognitive mechanisms behind PGDD
- comparison standard
- identification
- accessibility
CIA
motivational mechanisms behind PGDD
- denial
- affiliation
- distancing
DAD
cognitive mechanism for PGDD: identification
easier to identify general patterns across many people than to identify discrimination within any specific case
hard to abstract from less info
cognitive mechanism for PGDD: accessibility
group-level examples of discrimination are more accessible in mind than individual-level examples of discrimination
news = particularly focused on blatant and massive acts of discrimination
taint your concept, cause you to discount more subtle forms
cognitive mechanism for PGDD: comparison standard
who you’re comparing yourself against
- our group: “is our group discriminated against compared to other groups?”
- ourselves: “am I discriminated against compared to other group members?”
motivational mechanism for PGDD: denial
we’re motivated to deny or minimize our own experiences with discrimination
maybe to avoid negative health consequences
self-protection
tie to systems justification theory
PGDD denial: belief in a just world
“individuals have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get”
if you’re being discriminated against personally, that violates your belief in a just world
it’s easier to believe abstractly in discrimination in general
motivational mechanism for PGDD: distancing
motivated to distance ourselves from negative attributes associated with our ingroup
people who claim discrimination are disliked
distance themselves from people who play the “victim card”
motivational mechanism for PGDD: affiliation
claiming discrimination may harm relationships with others
ie. hurt friendships, job opportunities
experience sampling procedure
using a text-messaging service to sample participants repeatedly throughout days, weeks etc.
allows for participants to respond “in the moment”
used in studies on effect of stigma on health outcomes
daily diary method
having participants write down aspects of their day at the end of each day
allows for more longitudinal data collection
but prone to biases in participants’ own memories
used in studies on effect of stigma on health outcomes
Laura Smart Richman
associate prof at Duke University
expert on stigma and consequences of discrimination on health outcomes
prior work has investigated association between experienced discrimination (stress) and long-term health
lead author on 2018 paper outlining model between interpersonal discrimination and health
