Stereotypes and Prejudice

Question 1

Stereotype definition

Answer 1

the idea of underlying cognitive processes (schemas) influencing our judgements of others

Lippman, 1922
- widely shared generalisations about members of a social group
- simplified mental images helping to interpret the diversity of the social world
Cardwell, 1996
- a fixed, over generalised belief about a particular group or class of people

Question 2

Stereotype content

Answer 2

research about specific characteristics people attribute to different groups/categories of people
Early approach to examining prejudice = the Princeton Trilogy
> Karlins, Coffman and Walters, 1969
– present individuals with adjectives & select 5 that best describe different ethnic groups
– replicated at different points in time (1951, 1969)
– showed national, ethnic stereotypes within, across time periods
– criticism - reflect American stereotypes but Princeton university students only
– could be stereotypes operate at more than the individual level - perhaps influenced by social and cultural changes affecting language used to describe other groups
> Maddon, 2001
– carried out the Princeton study again
– found more changes in stereotypes attached to different groups

Question 3

Prejudice

Answer 3

judgements made relatively quickly or before comprehensive information has been given about others

Question 4

Schema

Answer 4

cognitive structure that represents information about a category and shapes our cognitive processes

Question 5

Cognitive miser

Answer 5

humans value mental processing resources so find ways to save time and effort when processing information

Question 6

Stereotype content model

Answer 6

Cuddy et al., 2009

• • across 10 very different countries there are apparent common principles about content of stereotypes
• • near universal trend to derogate groups we don’t belong to as ‘lacking warmth’ or ‘lacking competence’
• • stereotype content identify universal principles about what determines aspects of stereotype content

Question 7

Advantage and disadvantage of stereotypes

Answer 7

Advantage = enables us to respond quickly to situations due to potential similar previous experience

Disadvantage = results in differences between individuals being ignored so broad generalisations are made that are often not true of an individual

Question 8

Cognitive approaches to formation of stereotypes

Answer 8

how are stereotypes formed in the first place?
cognitive approaches = more individualistic approaches
>Impression formation model
(algebraic model, configural model)
>The illusory correlation
(paired distinctiveness)

Question 9

Impression formation model

Answer 9

Asch, 1946
interested in how perception of individual traits is combined into some form of overall impression
series of 12 studies
pps given a list of personality traits of hypothetical person and asked to form an impression of this person
two groups of lists - all the same apart from one trait (warm vs cold)
findings showed that the one different word resulted in major differences in reported impressions
two models account for how we form unified impressions from separate bits of information about others - algebraic model, configural model

Question 10

Algebraic model

Answer 10

part of impression formation model

there is some mathematical respect for separate values of individual traits that we are aware of
we add up the positive and negative traits - some traits are more weighted than others
these are combined to form overall impressions

Question 11

Configural model

Answer 11

part of impression formation model

individual elements not unchanged when combined
traits combine with each other and change in the process
form an overall impression t
his reappraises potentially discrepant elements to make them consistent with our overall impression
the whole is not simply a sum of its parts - something more active/dynamic is at work

Question 12

The illusory correlation

Answer 12

Hamilton, 1979
there is a bias in perception that means we sometimes perceive links or correlations that are not actually present or perceive them to have a stronger relationship than they actually have

part of this is paired distinctiveness

Question 13

Paired distinctiveness

Answer 13

part of illusory correlation
idea that items share distinctive properties that are unrelated to the meaning
Chapman, 1967
- if words thought of as having associative meaning then they will be perceived as co-occurring more
the link to stereotypes is more notable when considering characteristics or categories - not words
Johnson et al., 2001
- affect plays important role in illusory correlation
- supports idea of paired distinctiveness in IC
- challenge notion that IC is an information-processing bias
- affective responses to relevant group shape perceptions of correlations
(positive affect = lower estimate of undesirable)
(negative affect = higher estimate of undesirable behaviour)

Question 14

Criticisms of cognitive approaches

Answer 14

Asch’s approach cannot say how/why perceptions of people occur in terms of collections of traits
procedure of Asch’s study not reflective of real situations
IC criticised for cognitive-mechanistic approach but Johnson et al., 2001 re-address this with emphasis on the affective components
cognitive approaches argue that stereotypes form away from any social context - but earlier work showed that social dimensions played an important role in formation of stereotypes

Question 15

Categorisation and prejudice

Answer 15

the idea of categorising individual people, things, events, experiences is key to prejudice
Adorno et al., 1950
Allport, 1954
Tajfel, 1959

Question 16

Adorno et al., 1950

Answer 16

the authoritarian personality

• idea developed as an attempt to explain fascism in Germany
• 9 attributed identified as part of authoritarian personality
• rigid categories for judgement
• individual level differences

Question 17

Allport, 1954

Answer 17

part response to Adorno
categorisation is a hallmark of prejudice
prejudice perhaps consequence of a particular style of rigid categorical thinking
universal tendency to prejudice because we all use categorical thinking
– contact between different groups of people will mean they begin to see each other in a better light and thus reduce prejudice
prejudice = by-product of a thinking style that is universally shared
prejudice = simplification of the environment

Question 18

Tajfel, 1959

Answer 18

challenged ideas of irrational, biologically based impulses explaining human behaviour
- suggested instinct to be universal cause of aggression
- so cannot explain variations in social conflict or individual acts of aggression across contexts
- Lorenz (original model) implied aggression is instinct and nothing we can do about it
Tajfel developed deeper understanding - people influenced by category labels
- causes distorted perceptions -> exaggerations made between differences in stimuli from different groups
categories are essential to simplify all the information we receive
Tajfel and Wilkes, 1963
—- different length lines, imposed categories (a or b) -resulted in people accentuating categories
we categorise people into in-groups and out-group
- minimise differences within groups
- exaggerate differences between groups

Question 19

Criticisms of categorisation approaches

Answer 19

Billig, 2002 - categorisation treated as necessity in thinking and prejudice being unavoidable because of this - means prejudice is not a morally accountable choice but an inevitable consequence
Billig, 2002 - Tajfel separates himself from instinctual categorisation (Lorenz) but still treats prejudice as an inevitable consequence - almost justifies prejudice thinking
Tajfel does note that there are limits to his theory - also points to de-personalisation and de-humanisation
Billig, 1985 - extreme prejudice has more than categorisation at work

Question 20

Schemas and cognitive processing

Answer 20

concerned with notion that cognitive processes are shaped by schema-based expectations
labels can shape and distort what we perceive as important in social cognition research
schemas thought to influence encoding, memory and judgement - helps us to think less about new stimuli when first encountered
cognitive miser paradigm
can result in schema-induced errors

Question 21

Which schema will people use?

Answer 21

Fiske and Taylor, 1991 (role schemas)
- some schemas are more likely to be used than others
- notably role schemas are used more than trait schemas
- perhaps role schemas are more readily available categories
- maybe even more informative
Fiske and Cox, 1979 (visual information)
- physical cues can also determine what type of schema we use
- visual cues are important for person perception in general
Priming
- frequently used schemas are more predisposed to be used again

Question 22

How do schemas shape encoding?

Answer 22

information about a stimuli presented relates to a particular schema before you even encounter it
so upon the encounter you have a preconceived, positive or negative, view of the stimuli
done unconsciously
Linville, 1982
- stereotypes of an out-group are narrower than stereotypes of an in-group
- example of in-group for young people being young people and their out-group being old people
so info that is inconsistent with stereotypes is thought to be processed more slowly

Question 23

How schemas shape memory

Answer 23

people are more likely to remember schema-consistent behaviour
Cohen, 1981
- showed pps video of lady at birthday dinner with husband
- one group told she was a waitress, others a librarian
- those told she was a waitress more likely to remember her drinking beer and watching TV
- those told she was librarian recalled her wearing glasses and listening to classical music
- suggests info is consistent with schemas
alternative idea is that this information is relevant to our schemas - so look at relevancy of information to schema not what is consistent

Question 24

How schemas shape inference and evaluation

Answer 24

schema-based ideas may lead us to infer things that are not true
– same may be said of our interpretations of ambiguous behaviours
we have ideas about how things should be, how people should behave etc. and we make judgements based on these things we do know, not what is actually happening

Question 25

Problems with categorisation

Answer 25

Billig, 1985

• process of applying and maintaining category-based prejudices, there is much more flexible, active and effortful thinking than thought
• particularisation often occurs to maintain a prejudice - thinking about what differentiates a particular stimuli from other stimuli category or categories

Question 26

Problems with categorisation and schemas as an approach to understanding prejudice

Answer 26

Billig, 2001

• theories pay insufficient head to content
• looked at how to improve investigation of prejudice
• to do this we must assess prejudice talk
• prejudice is seen by Billig as constructed in talk that results in creation of negative stereotypes

Question 27

Can self-perpetuating stereotypes ever be adaptive?

Answer 27

perhaps not because they may prevent the individual seeing the world as it actually is

• • due to misinterpretations
• • could be more of a hindrance to survival than an adaptive response

Question 28

Stereotypes and disconfirming stimuli

what does an individual do when they encounter stimuli that appear to contradict their stereotype?

Answer 28

Lockslet et al., 1982

• presented disconfirming evidence to groups
• people abandoned their stereotypes completely and based their evaluation on evidence presented
• raised serious questions about how stereotypes were understood

Re-thinking stereotypes post-Lockslet et al.,

• increased emphasis on subtypes
• — Eckes, 1994
• selective use of stereotypes
• —Fiske and Taylor, 1991
• attention to contextually located constructions

Question 29

Increased emphasis on sub-types

Answer 29

Eckes, 1994

• shouldn’t look at global categories but focus on sub-types
• sub-type = smaller categories within larger categories
• pps asked to describe types of people they met in a two week period
• females included - chic, punk, housewife
• males included - hippy, yuppie, punk, macho
• factor analysis revealed identifiable clusters about subtypes for men and women
• suggests categories are still at work but used mostly subtly and fragmented

Question 30

Selective use of stereotypes

Answer 30

Fiske and Taylor, 1991

• evidence presented to pp that cannot fit into their schematic categories then we pay more attention to the particular individual attributes
• more elemental, attribute-by-attribute process takes place
• continuum starts - attempting to categorise, if disconfirmed, leads to re-categorisation then piecemeal approach based on attributes

Question 31

Attention to contextually located constructions

Answer 31

Locksley studies based in highly ununsual locations from everyday life
discourse analytic perspectives suggest cognitive based approach to prejudice and stereotype is not appropriate - should focus instead on conversation as prejudice as constructed in talk

Question 32

Discourse and prejudice

Answer 32

focus on prejudice talk - talk as action in interaction
associated with Billig
people use:
-disclaimers - utterances denying accountability of the talk
-sympathetic denigration - ways in which talk may disempower others while appearing to be sympathetic towards them
-rhetoric commonplaces - ways in which talk can can mobilise points of consequences - making it seem normal
-constructions of difference - differences can be built up and used in talk
-interactional context - sequence of vocal and non-vocal communication

Question 33

Critical review of discourse and prejudice

Answer 33

social cognitive perspective - only provides descriptions of forms of prejudice
much research relies on interview data - discourse talk is always collaborative action so if silent or not they are collaborating in prejudice talk
- Potter and Hepburn, 2005 - whatever the interviewer does, the pp will attend to that in their talk
little research pays attention to sequential organisation of talk
discourse analysis studies try to adopt anti-individualistic stance but are individualistic in methods
- Condor and Figgou, 2011 - methodological individualism