Stereotypes II: Stereotypes as Expectancies

Question 1

MOSKOWITZ (2005)

Answer 1

• stereotypes = category-based expectancies learned via personal experiences/socialising agents in culture (parents/teachers/religion/friends/internet/TV)

Question 2

WHAT ARE EXPECTANCIES MADE OF?

Answer 2

• prob that certain traits/features/characteristics/opinions/behs seen in certain groups
• ie. used car salesman = shifty/sly/”fox”
• extending expectancies from group -> individuals
• accuracy = variable

Question 3

STEREOTYPES = FUNCTIONAL COGNITIVE PROCESS

Answer 3

• category based processing = default option
• certain categories (ie. stereotypes) = functional play role
• assess view of stereotypes = cognitive tools aka. when/why do we rely on them

Question 4

STEREOTYPES = HEURISTICS

Answer 4

SIMON (1979)
- heuristic = well used/non-optimal rule of thumb to arrive at effective judgement BUT not all cases
HOLYOAK & NISBETT (1988)
- rule-driven processing (ie. heuristic strategising) constrains inferential choices available number

Question 5

THE HEURISTIC HYPOTHESIS

Answer 5

BODENHAUSEN & WYER (1985)
- heuristics bias social inference process to make it more manageable -> optimise social perceiver’s mental functioning
- often learned via experience
- people look for alternative interpretations ONLY if stereotype-based interpretation = inapplicable

Question 6

FACTORS INCREASING STEREOTYPE RELIANCE

Answer 6

1. task complexity; ie:
   - BODEN HAUSEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987)
2. resource depletion; ie:
   - MACRAE, MILNE & BODENHAUSEN (1994)
   - PENDRY (1998)

Question 7

BODEN HAUSEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987)

Answer 7

• easier to assess guilt/aggressive beh?
• pps read about criminal; asked to assess guilt/aggression
• hispanic/ethnically non-descript target
• pps made judgements post evidence review

Question 8

BODENHAUSEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987): PREDICTIONS

Answer 8

• pps faced w/complex task (guilt) use stereotype -> simplify task
• ^ guilt/aggressive future criminal assault judgements likelihood if target = hispanic

Question 9

BODENHAUSTEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987): FUTURE AGGRESSION RESULTS

Answer 9

• trait judgement objective (hard):
  1. hispanic = 4.22
  2. nondescript = 4.77
  = aka. NO DIF
• guilt judgement objective (hard):
  1. hispanic = 4.19
  2. nondescript = 3.28
• aka. p < 10

Question 10

BODENHAUSTEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987): GUILT RESULTS

Answer 10

• trait judgement objective (easy):
  1. hispanic = 4.70
  2. nondescript = 4.97
  = aka. NO DIF
• guilt judgement objective (hard)
  1. hispanic = 5.27
  2. nondescript = 3.38
  = aka. p < .05

Question 11

BODENHAUSTEN & LICHTENSTEIN (1987): CRIMINAL ASSAULT RESULTS

Answer 11

• trait judgement objective (easy):
  1. hispanic = 4.22
  2. nondescript = 3.67
  = aka. NO DIF
• guilt judgement objective (hard):
  1. hispanic = 3.96
  2. nondescript = 2.92
  = aka. p < .05

Question 12

MACRAE, MILNE & BODENHAUSEN (1994)

Answer 12

• dual task paradigm
• pps formed target impressions while monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)
• 1/2 = name (Julian); stereotype (doctor); traits
• 1/2 = name (Julian); traits; NO STEREOTYPE
• rationale = stereotype -> easier info organisation = leftover attention for other tasks

Question 13

MACRAE, MILNE & BODENHAUSEN (1994): PREDICTIONS

Answer 13

• stereotype pps = easier target impression AND easier attendance to prose monitoring task
• results = improved prose monitoring performance w/present stereotype labels

Question 14

REAL WORLD DISTRACTIONS

Answer 14

• if stereotypes save resources -> ^ usage inclination when cognitively depleted
  GILBERT (1995)
• countless thoughts constantly compete for attention in most everyday interactions
• distractions are natural

Question 15

PENDRY (1998)

Answer 15

• gossip focus
• pps formed impressions of old lady Hilda
• overheard illicit gossip in Tesco/Guild4
• pps overhearing more relevant info = more distracted; impressions = ^ stereotypical; remembered less about her BUT more about gossip
• self-interested engagement of mind -> ^ likely stereotyping

Question 16

PENDRY & MACRAE (1994)

Answer 16

• involvement w/target -> stereotype prevention
• pps formed old lady impression
• 1/2 = told they’d later meet/work w/her
• 1/2 = told they’d meet BUT not work w/her
• lower expected involvement = ^ stereotyping
• greater expected involvement = less stereotyping

Question 17

BODENHAUSEN (1990)

Answer 17

• does stereotyping occur more at non-optimal schedule time?
• pps did morningness/eveningness questionnaire
• given stereotype task at optimal/non-optimal time
• non-optimal tests = ^ stereotyping

Question 18

BLANCHAR & SPARKMAN (2020)

Answer 18

• is low cognitive effort only linked to ability/motivation OR to individual reflecting thinking difs too?
• Cognitive Reflection Task (CRT) assessed individual difs/motivation/ability
• 2 studies = stereotype endorsement -> individual difs correspondence
• the less cognitive reflection pps showed -> ^ racial/ethnic stereotype endorsement independent of cognitive ability/epistemic motivation

Question 19

! SUMMARY !

Answer 19

• stereotypes are common/frequent
• can sometimes be functional
• factors ^ likelihood include:
• task complexity/resource depletion/motivation lack/circadian variations