PSY220 - 5. Stereotyping & Prejudice Flashcards
AUTOMATICITY
Automatic processes:
- occur outside of awareness
- without intention (given an intention to begin, carry on without intention)
- are efficient (cognitive resources) – able to do under high/low cognitive load
Bargh (1990)
Many activities start out controlled, but become automatized with practice.
Drive, or learning how to type
Unconscious as something boring
Freud says unconscious is filled with repressed ideas
Can see through dreams + Freudian slips
Bargh (1990)
Contemporary psychologists sees the unconscious as filled with automatized processes that are well practiced which don’t take up a lot of memory
Behavioural measures: reaction times – longer the reaction time, more difficult it is to perform
Fast reaction time – less cognitive resources needed + easier to perform
Implicit Association Test
measures automatic associations
dv: reaction time
pair 4 categories up in 2 diff ways
logic: if 1 of those pairings matches the way categories are paired up in one’s head, the person should be quicker to respond to that pairing
Implicit Association Test
1 of the conditions: object as positive or negative
longer reaction time to categorize something as black + positive
association between black + negative – produces a slight hesitation
Told to shoot ppl with weapons: greater tendency to shoot black ppl without weapons
Can also tell us about any other unconscious preference: political views, coke vs pepsi
Fazio et al.: Sequential priming
Prime (Black or White face)→target word (positive or negative)→was the target word positive or negative?
when there’s a mismatch take longer to respond – black face + positive target word
Kawakami et al (2000)
Just as practice causes stereotypes to be learned, practice can cause them to be unlearned.
Used classical conditioning to “unlearn” stereotypic associations.
1. presented with photographs of Blacks and Whites with stereotypic or nonstereotypic trait words presented underneath.
Kawakami et al (2000)
- For Black-stereotypic and White-stereotypic combinations, Ps told to say “NO!” outloud. For Black-counterstereotypic and White-counterstereotypic combinations, told to say “YES!” outloud. (480 trials, approx. 45 min.)
- Control condition: opposite instructions.
DV: Stereotype Stroop task. (rationale: If you are processing stereotypic content very easily, it will be harder for you to inhibit that and name the color of the ink.)
Kawakami et al (2000)
effects lasted up to 24 hours. Reduced anti-black bias compared to control conditions BUT: Consider other, less intensive, less “brute force” methods: (superordinate recategorization, cooperative interdependence) Incremental Theory (Levy, Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998)
Devine (1989)
If stereotyping is automatic…is it inevitable? Is discrimination legally acceptable?
Stereotyping has two components.
1.Automatic activation
2.Controlled application
Activation is largely automatic, application is largely controllable.
Devine (1989)
Study 1: Earlier in semester, subjects filled out Modern Racism Scale. In experimental session, subjects (white only) asked to (anonymously and confidentially) write down all the components of the stereotype of African-Americans they could think of.
Results: everyone knew what the stereotypes were regardless if they were racist or not
Devine (1989)
- stared at computer screen. Asked to report when flash appeared in corner.
- For ½ of subjects, the flash actually a subliminal prime (80 ms) of words stereotypically having to do with African-Americans (e.g., “athletic,” “jazz,” “Harlem”). Important: none of the words had to do with aggression.
Devine (1989)
- Subjects read passage about Donald (race unspecificed). Donald engaged in series of behaviors that prior subjects rated as slightly hostile/aggressive (“Donald demanded his money back from a store clerk immediately after a purchase.”
- Rated Donald on several trait scales.
Devine (1989)
Results: primed with black stereotypes rated Donald as more aggressive, but priming some stereotypic words activated the whole concept of African American which activated the concept of aggression. Effect was true for everyone regardless of degree of prejudice.
Stereotyping inevitable…outside of awareness?
Devine (1989): Study 3
1.write an essay simply describing their honest thoughts about Af-Ams. Extensive measures taken to ensure anonymity.
2.Essays content-analyzed for stereotypic content by blind coders.
Results: high in prejudice used more anti-black stereotypes than those low in prejudice. The difference was in their application of stereotype.
Devine (1989): Important distinctions between
- knowledge vs. belief
2. automatic vs. controlled
What are high and low-prejudice people doing differently?
Question of willingness to apply stereotypes to stimuli. Low in prejudice unwilling to apply stereotypes. Motivation.
Lepore and Brown’s 1997 critique
Devine didn’t just prime the category label “black”. She also used negative aspects of the stereotype such as “poor” and “lazy” as primes. So of course the negative stereotype was accessed given that it was primed directly.
They repeated using Devine primes [e.g. Lazy] in one condition and a more general category prime [Black] in a second condition.
Lepore and Brown’s 1997
Type of Prime:
General Category Stereotypic traits
Hi–prej more aggressive attribution more aggressive attrib
Lo–prej no signif. diff more aggressive attrib
Lepore and Brown’s 1997
Devine’s original primes lead to her resultsr of no diff betw high/low prej subjects.
Whereas devine suggested activation is the same regardless of prejudice
Low in prejudice: able to stop activation of prejudiced stereotypes in the first place
PLANT & DEVINE (1998, 2001): Distinction between internal and external motives to control prejudice and stereotypes.
Internal Motive Scale =IMS
External Motive Scale=EMS
E.G. Items: “I attempt to act nonprejudiced towards blacks because it is personally important to me.” – intrinsic value [versus—“…in order to avoid disapproval from others.” – external motivation]
IMS and EMS are related to other prej scales and to measures of self presentation.
PLANT & DEVINE (1998, 2001): Distinction between internal and external motives to control prejudice and stereotypes.
Predictions: High IMS will try to control prej regardless of scrutiny.
High EMS but Low IMS will only try to control prej in public or under scrutiny. These folks most resentful and reactive regarding PC pressure to be nice.
PLANT & DEVINE (1998, 2001): Distinction between internal and external motives to control prejudice and stereotypes.
developed scale and test public private predictions.
High in IMS: less likely to apply + show stereotype activation
High in EMS: more likely to show application + stereotype activation
How exactly does control enter the picture? What strategies do low-prejudice people use?
Motivation + cognitive load
Wegner: Ironic rebound effect
more we try to suppress a thought, more it plagues us.
Dieters spend more time thinking about food than nondieters. Suppressing makes it harder to go away.
Wegner: Ironic rebound effect
1.Accessibility – control component
2.cognitive load
control component: only works when finding a distraction which requires cognitive resources.
We can’t avoid it, we have to be more vigilant
Additional layer of thought looking at our own thought - metacognition
Process model
- intentional (controlled) search for distracters
2. automatic search for examples of unwanted target
Wegner: Ironic rebound effect
(BIG IRONY: to avoid something, you have to be constantly vigilant for its presence!)
“Early warning system” – thought that “looks at” our thought (metacognition).
Wegner: Ironic rebound effect
Low cognitive load: process #1 and process #2 work together successfully. – distractors work well, vigilant system works in the background
Wegner: Ironic rebound effect
High cognitive load: process #1 knocked out, but process #2 continues. – process 1 requires cognitive resources not available. Process 2 continues to work, but process 1 can’t do anything about it so that unwanted thought becomes accessible.
Result: hyperaccessibility of unwanted thought!
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten (1994)
PART 1 -
1.asked subjects to imagine + write essay about typical day in life of a skinhead.
2.½ told “avoid using stereotypes in your essay.
PART 2 –
1.asked subjects to write a second essay about another skinhead.
2.freedom to write whatever they wanted
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten (1994)
suppression worked initially in part 1 yielded rebound effect once instructions had been lifted. Telling ppl not to stereotype can backfire once their guard is down. not an effective way to reduce prejudice.
What happens to the target of stereotypes?
powerful when domain is important for person
Chronic: can disassociate with the domain + no longer see it as part of their self-esteem
Stereotype threat
When individuals fear being reduced to the stereotype…leading to:
1) anxiety –
2) distraction
3) decline in performance.
Stereotype threat
for female student taking hard math test: extra concern about confirming stereotype
threat of being reduced to a stereotype
produces a self-fulfilling prophecy
starting out equal, but ending up unequal
The Empirical Evidence
Steele & Aronson (1995)
Black and White subjects at Stanford University (highly selective)
Took difficult standardized verbal test. (All subjects expected to do poorly.)
The Empirical Evidence
For some subjects: test introduced as a test of underlying intelligence, intellectual ability.
For others: test introduced as a lab problem-solving task unrelated to any real-world underlying ability.
DV: subjects’ score on test, statistically controlling for SAT score.
The Empirical Evidence
Test: Not IntelligenceTest: Intelligence
White 9.0 10.5
Black 8.9 4.9
dramatic drop for black studies – higher scores when framed as non-intellegence test
The Empirical Evidence
stereotype lift: superior group members in situation where predicted to succeed helps improve performance
did a demograpic quiz, ½ had race question
those who had race question showed the decline
those who didn’t have the race question showed no drop in performance
Spencer and colleagues (1999)
male and female good at math and felt that math was important to their identities.
Gave a very difficult standardized math test, one that led all subjects to perform poorly.
Spencer and colleagues (1999)
Before taking test, subjects given some background on the test: some subjects told that the test generally showed no gender differences (negative stereotype of women’s ability in math was not relevant to this particular test). Others told that the study did generally show gender differences
Spencer and colleagues (1999)
Results: women did poorly on the same test only when the test was framed with gender differences
No one is immune: white males will feel stereotype threat when test is framed in terms of race (math test where other participants were asian)
Women performed worse than men only when they believed that the test typically yielded gender differences.
Frederickson and colleagues:
Male and females asked to evaluate and sample various consumer products. Among the products was an item of clothing that they were supposed to actually try on. For some participants that item of clothing was a crewneck sweater. For others: a bathing suit
Frederickson and colleagues:
As they were wearing that item of clothing, brought to a second room to take a challenging math test. In the room was a mirror. What results do you predict?
Frederickson and colleagues:
Sweater Bathing Suit
Men 4.9 5.5
Women 4.0 2.4
(Evidence of Steele’s anxiety explanation: Women made to feel more anxiety about body – disrupted performance)
body image much more of a concern for female undergrads
White males can be made to experience stereotype threat. How?
Race/sports (freethrows)
How ST impairs performance: Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson (2005):
Mental fatigue
- Black and White Ps either had race made salient or not.
- DV#1: normal Stroop color-naming task. DV#2: Squeezing a handgrip.
Inzlicht, McKay, & Aronson (2005)
Only Black/race salient Ps (and not Black/race not salient Ps) showed poorer performance on both tasks.
Making race salient cause mental fatigue causing them to perform poorer on the cognitive + physical task
Interpretation: Being the target of stigma is mentally and physically exhausting.
Incremental (vs. entity) theory of human intelligence
Literacy tests
Incremental: malleable
Entitiy: traits as fixed
Some white/black read traits as malleable/entity
When test with fixed traits then devalued
