Social Categorization

Question 1

Consequences of social categorization

Answer 1

• exaggeration of differences between categories
• exaggeration of similarities within categories
• ingroup favouritism/bias

Question 2

rudimentary recipe for group stereotypes

Answer 2

Exaggeration of differences between categories + Exaggeration of similarities within categories

Question 3

Redimentary recipe for prejudice

Answer 3

• “us” vs “them”
• think highly of ingroup than outgroup

Question 4

oxytocin and intergroup prejudice

Answer 4

• hormonse associated with love, trust, etc
• people administered oxytocin during trust games tend to be more trusting
• BUT leads to increased intergroup prejudice

Question 5

Potential strategies for reducing ingroup facouritism

Answer 5

• other forms of self-affirmation
• decategorization and recategorization

Question 6

Other forms of self-affirmation

Answer 6

• if people are provided with some other way to feel good about themselves, they may be less motivated to achieve that goal through prejudicial perceptions of ingroup and outgroup

Question 7

Decategorization

Answer 7

• if people are encouraged to perceive group members as distint individuals, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between “us” and “them”
• reduced biased porsitive impression of “us”

Question 8

Recategorization

Answer 8

• of people are encouraged to perceive that both ingroup and outgroup are part of some bigger superordinate category, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between “us” and “them”
• increase people’s positive perceptions of “them”

Question 9

Categorization and facial recognition

Answer 9

• exaggeration of similarities within outgroups (Outgroup Homogeneity Effect)
• consequence: poor recognition memory for faces of outgroup (They all look alike Effect)

Question 10

Poorer recognition memory for outgroup faces

Answer 10

• exaggerated when people are especially concerned about fitting in with and belonging to their group
• need to belong: sociometer
• focus on their ingroup more, not motivated to make distinctions in outgroups
• can be reduced by Intergroup Contact

Question 11

Angry faces experiment

Answer 11

• neutral expressions: more recognition memory for ingroup
• angry expressions: more recognition memory for outgrouo but equivalent to ingroup

Question 12

Relevant vs irrelevant faces

Answer 12

1: ingroup member — relevant — encode features — accurate recognition
2: outgroup member — irrelevant — minimal encding — poor recognition

• devote extra cognitive effort to encode their facial deatures so can identify them later
• anything that can lead to the perception that an outgroup member is relevant to me, makes it more likely for me to attend to them as an individual person and not a part of an outgroup

Question 13

People report low estimates of their categorization ability…

Answer 13

suggests that they may not be conscious of the extent to which they categorize others

Question 14

Categorization-idividuation model

Answer 14

addresses how categorization and experience interact to explain differences in memory for in- vs out-group faces

people first attend to facial features that differentiate categories and only sometimes attemp to individuate them

Question 15

Ingroup favouritism: Reputational concern

Answer 15

people avoid and punish those with bad reps

Question 16

Ingroup favouritism: Expected cooperation

Answer 16

people assume ingroup members are more cooperative

Question 17

Money exchange study

Answer 17

• online study
• no reputational concern
• BUT expected partners to be more cooperative when belong to same group
• creates a self-fulfilling prophecy