Stereotypes I: stereotypes as expectancies Flashcards
stereotypes as expectancies
“Stereotypes can be construed as category-based expectancies that we have learned from our own personal experiences and/or various socialising agents within the culture (parents, teachers, religion, friends, the Internet, TV, etc)” (Moskowitz, 2005)
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions
Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task
Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent
distractions in the real world
If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…
But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)
Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip
Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)
Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)
Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…
Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!
When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely
Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping
Form impression of old lady
Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility
Half told they would meet but not work with her
Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more
Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping
Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do
Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?
Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)
Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics
Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day
Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more
what is in these expectancies?
Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…
Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women
Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group
Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes
stereotyping as a functional cognitive process
“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act
Category-based processing = default option
Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play
Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…
When and why do we rely upon them most?
stereotypes as heuristics
Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)
Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy
applying heuristics to stereotypes
Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…
And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning
They are learned from experience (often)
therefore…
According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)
Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us
2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes
task complexity
resource depletion
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)
Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?
A. Easier to assess…tell me
Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task
Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript
After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements
Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions
Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…
Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript
likelihood of future aggressiveness
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of guilt
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
likelihood of future criminal assault
Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)
Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)
Hypothesis supported?
Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)
Dual task paradigm
Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)
Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)
stimuli used (name, label, traits)
In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent
