slides Flashcards
describe the 7 distinctive periods through which opinions on prejudice has changed
why is this important
up to the 1920s
colonial rule - white domination - not on the radar to be studied - no need to be explained - just a natural way of life to ensure white hierarchies - eugenics popular
20’s - 30’s
forces that nudged scientists to recognizing that prejudice is something to be studied
civil right
minority scholars into psychology
nazi germany
anti-colonial movements
30’s - 40’s
freud: prejudice as a result of unconscious mechanisms
(explains scapegoating - nazi germany)
50’s
who is prejudice (why is someone prejudiced)
goal to explain holocaust
prejudice as psychopathic
authoritarian personality
60’s
group - societal level info
prejudice comes from lack of contact (increase contact !!!!)
70’s
desegregation - increased conflict
SO increased contact does not work
(prejudice actually about competing group interests) - but psychologists not invested in this (let sociologists figure it out)
80’s
idea of symbolic racism - idea that racism is not over anymore - now subtle and complec
idea of social categorization - us and them - social cognitive process (so ! prejudice is the outcome of natural processes)
not yet focused on emotions, individual differences
important because current events and historical conflicts shape THE QUESTIONS WE LOOK TO SOLVE THE ASSUMPTIONS WE BRING WHOSE PERSPECTIVE WE PAY ATTENTION TO ETC.
what is stigmatization
3 types of stigmatization
definition
a stigma is an attribute that is deeply discrediting
types
bodily disfigurements
blemishes of character
tribal
definition:
attribute that describes a social identity - perceived group membership that is devalued in a particular context
people don’t need to actually identify with the group to experience stigma
theory to explain stigma vs. prejudice. what did researchers find ???
researchers surveyed the literature - goal to see what people are focusing on when considering prejudice or stigma - found a difference the groups people are researching for when doing research on prejudice vs. stigma
prejudice - racial
stigma - illness disability
found that the difference between stigma and prejudice is a matter of FOCUS - not the phenomena being studied
stigma research - focus is more on the target (what it’s LIKE to experience stigma)
prejudice research - focus on perceiver (why do people hold the prejudices they do)
what is categorization ? why does it matter ?
we detect a persons gender - age - race in less than a second as well as CUES (expression skin tone etc.)
can happen even with minimal info
MATTERS BECAUSE
precursor to stereotyping - prejudice
once a categorization is made - stereotypes come to mind and feelings become salient
describe realistic group conflict theory - robbers cave study - strengths - major implications
issues ?
intergroup conflict emerges when groups have actual conflicts of interest - ex. compete over resources
so - categorized in different groups - competing groups - group conflict
robbers cave (bond competition reduce tension)
strengths - can understand intergroup conflicts when there is concern over limited resources ex. stanley cup
implication - competition leads to prejudice (no competition - no prejudice)
issues:
- minimal group paradigm - people would rather take a hit to their own earnings if it maxes group differences (ex. 200 vs. 150 - 150 vs. 10)
social identity theory (how can it explain group conflict)
people strive to maintain a positive - distinctive - social identity
this is accomplished through SOCIAL COMPARISON
- comparing on aspects that make group look REALLY GOOD - EX. malta is the best because it has the best beaches (implication that beaches are the most important dimension to compare)
SO - intergroup conflict comes out of just social categorization (necessarily US and THEM - and we are better)
optimal distinctiveness theory - how do we choose the groups that are right for us ???
our motivations:
to assimilate (belong feel similar)
be different from others (distinctive)
SO we choose the identity of groups that allow us to satisfy both needs at once - not too big or too small
outgroup homogeneity - other race effect (reasons)
people are better at telling apart people their own group vs. others
other race effect: more accurate recognition for same-race than other-race flavours
implications for legal system
reasons other race effect:
perceptual expertise. -more likely to encounter people of same race - more experience telling them apart
social cognitive effects - interpreting out-group members categorical vs. in group as individuals (okay - you go to brock - i know everything i need to know about u)
illusory correlations - one-shot correlations.
stereotypes arise from faulty workings of human memory:
negative behaviours are RARE
so are MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS
so - when we see a minority group act badly - more notable to us - association between negativity and that group become strong
one shot correlations:
we have a lifetime of experience of what we consider to be normative - so IF we see a person of a separate group doing something completely weird and random - we will associate that with their group - huh why is that indian person eating rats - maybe its just their culture
every time minority group members engage in behaviour outside the norm they are at risk of generating illusory correlations about the group (jew)
social role theory
we notice when groups are prominent in a certain role - all men are in the military
we assume that the attributes of this group (strong aggressive) must be typical attributes of the whole group
justifications of prejudice ?
different from knowledge function of prejudice
prejudice helps us rationalize observed or experienced group differences - my group is just better then this other group, this is why i have certain resources and they do not
how can stereotypes change (based on illusory correlations - social role theory - justifications)
1 - more exposure to group (reduces beliefs about correlations)
2 - change proportion of people in these roles
3 - give reason for differences - so their is no need to justify the prejudice
stereotype content model ?
idea that all stereotypes consist of a warmth element (how much they want to hurt me) and a competence element (how well they can act on their intentions) - very universal
examples of each ?
homeless (low low)
rich (high C low W)
middle class (high c high w)
elderly (low c high w)
affordance management approach
groups pose different threats and positive opportunities to us
seen to pose different threats NOT just warmth or competence
- nuances that are hard to observe
ex. gay men - threat to health and values
mexicans - threat to property - reciprocity
question of HOW can this group help or hurt me - not just IF
racial position model
focus on target’s experience of discrimination to build the model - based on racial stereotypes in the USA
four dimensions
inferior - superior
american - foreign
white - S A
black - I A
latino - I F
asian - S F
