Stereotypes II Flashcards
Socially shared stereotypes
Lyons & Kashima (2001) -> examined the transmission of stereotypes in communication chains -> A few rungs down the chain – inconsistent information disappears but consistent remains intact -> Highlights the,” shared” nature of stereotypes – if we all held different stereotypes, these would counter one another along the chain.
* Stereotype consistent -> drinks beer, goes to parties, gets angry.
* Stereotype inconsistent -> listens to classical, buys flowers.
Cognitive processes
Cognitive processes -> we remember better stereotype-consistent info, pay more attention to it etc. Social processes -> we want to establish common ground with others. So, we share info with them that’s likely to be expected. We signal we’re on the same page.
Not just what gets communicated is important, but also how…
Linguistic abstraction
Linguistic category model (Semin & Fiedler, 1988)
Descriptive action verb (DAV) -> ‘beavis hit butthead’. -> Interpretative action verb (IAV) -> ‘beavis hurt butthead’. -> State verb (SV) -> ‘Beavis hates butthead’. -> Adjective (Adj) ‘Beavis is aggressive’.
Lingustic intergroup bias
Maas et al., 1989 -> Examined how language abstraction used to describe ingroup and out-group members can transmit & sustain stereotypes.
Context: Ferrara, Italy. Horse racing competition -> Participants: Supporters of the competing teams -> Task: Describe cartoon scenes: desirable and undesirable actions -> Ingroup or outgroup actors shown -> How abstract is the language used? e.g. a) drugged… b) damaged… c) detests… d) unfair…
More abstract language is used for positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviours.
Ingroup actor -> drugging a horse, outgroup actor -> being a fraud.
Consequences of LIB
Participants read descriptions of behaviours generated in Study 1 (without seeing the cartoons) In your opinion, how much information does the phrase reveal about the protagonist? In your opinion, how likely is it that the same action or attribute will be repeated in the future?
Results -> Increasing level of abstraction = a) more informative about the actor and b) more likely to be repeated. More abstract behaviour perceived that the behaviour is more likely to be repeated.
Language abstraction propagates stereotypes
Positive ingroup and negative outgroup behaviour is presented as enduring and typical -> Applied to members of a group repeatedly, this leads to stereotyping.
Feeling stereotyped
Historically, research has focused on documenting/ describing stereotypes and the use of stereotypes -> i.e., the focus is on the stereotype -> Research subsequently began to consider the effects of stereotypes on the people they refer to: -> i.e., a focus on the stereotyped -> Because stereotypes are a shared, cultural phenomenon, the targets of stereotypes are often aware of how they are seen -> (How) does this affect them?
Stereotype threat
Stereotype threat occurs when people believe they might be judged in light of a negative stereotype about their social identity and that they may inadvertently act in some way to confirm a negative stereotype of their group -> Awareness that one’s group is negatively stereotyped in a given domain can give rise to concerns about whether the self will be judged against those standards: Women in maths -> Some ethnic minorities and academic performance -> Straight men and emotionality -> Social class and intelligence testing
Steele & Aronson (1995) examined performance on an intellectual ability test among Black and White participants with ethnicity made salient or not -> Ethnicity made salient by asking participants for demographic information immediately before taking (ostensible) verbal ability test -> In non-salient condition this demographic information wasn’t collected -> They found that black students who were race primed performed more poorly -> affected confidence from pre-existing stereotypes.
Women in stem (stereotype threat)
Spencer et al. (1999) -> Male and female participants selected with the same math ability (e.g., completed calculus course at B grade or higher, self-reported being good at math) -> Participants asked to take a math test that was either described as being diagnostic of gender differences in math or not -> Study 2 – 30 women, 24 men -> Study 3 – 36 women, 31 men -> All university students. They found that women performed poorly in the gender-difference test due to pre-existing stereotypes.
Stereotype threat -> process
Stereotype threat performance decrements can be prevented by -> Affirming the self in another way -> Distancing from aspects of the stereotype that are incompatible with high performance -> Transforming negative aspects into positive aspects.
Preventing stereotype threat?
Growth mindset -> our mindset is flexible and can change. Fixed mindset -> interchangeable mindset on pre-existing stereotypes.
Aim: to counter the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students’ performance in academic tests -> Participants: Stanford undergraduates, 42 Black, 37 White -> Method: Intervention focused on conceptions of intelligence as malleable (” growth mindset”) or fixed (” fixed mindset”) -> Three conditions: * Pen Pal – Growth Mindset * Pen Pal – Control * No Pen Pal – Control
“Because intelligence is malleable, humans are capable of learning and mastering new things at any time in their lives. This message is especially important to get across to young, struggling students. If these students view intelligence as a fixed quantity, they may feel that they are incapable of learning if they encounter difficulty with their schoolwork. If, however, students can be convinced that intelligence expands with hard work, they may be more likely to remain in school and put effort into learning”.
Findings -> Short term beliefs, long-term beliefs, enjoying academics, knowing importance on academics, GPA, all correlated more with growth mindset condition.
