Textbook 12. Prejudice & Intergroup Flashcards
Modern prejudice
People have learned to hide their prejudice to avoid being labelled a racist or sexist four instance participants rated various ethnic groups much more positively without experimenter was in the room then they did win alone in the room in fact they raided various groups even more positively than their own group presumably to show just how unprejudiced they were
Participants watched A debate between a black person and a white perso. A Confederate made a racist comment about the black debater
It’s rated the black to Peter’s performance lower than the white beaters when they heard the races can’t win no racist remark was made the black and white beaters work equally skilled in other words the derogatory comment activated other negative stereo typical believes about black people so that the participant who heard it read it the same performance as lass skilled than those who did not hear it
Controlling stereotypes
Automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes
-When you think of a stereotype you can think to yourself hey that stereotype isn’t fair and it isn’t right Jews are no more hungry than non-Jews
Motivation to control prejudice
- Weather we want to be non-prejudiced
- Show participants either a black or white face and either a church or in jail background when the participant was high and motivation to control their prejudice they were less likely to show automatic negative responses to black face then those who were in low motivation
The need to feel good about oneself
- Will we get a self-esteem boost by doing so
- Michael gets a bad grade from his black professor Michael stereo type of black people is that they are not competent by activating the stereotype he get a self-esteem boost that his bad grade was not his fault. Chris has the same stereotype but got a good grade in order to get a self-esteem boost he would push out of his mind the stereo type of black people and allow him to revel in the praise he received
Study participants either got positive or negative feedback from the black manager or a white manager they then did a Word completion of task Bl_ _ _.
The participants with the white manager we’re not motivated to either activate or inhibit their story type of black people the participants who received a negative feedback from the black manager generated more resources than those who received a negative feedback from a white manager this is evidence of stereotype activation. those who are praised by the black manager push the stereo type of black people out of their minds and came up with even if you were racial Word completions the end of the participants praised by the white manager. This is stereotype inhibition
Meta stereotype
A persons beliefs regarding the stereotype that outgroup members hold about their own group. For example why Canadians believe that need of Canadians perceive them as prejudiced unfair selfish arrogant wealthy materialistic phoney and so on. When white people expected to have an interaction with an aboriginal person who thought that they personally would be perceived in terms of the meta-stereotype anticipated that the interaction would be unpleasant. These participants also expressed the greatest amount of prejudice
What do we do when we encounter a person so contrary to our stereotype that is impossible to interpret the behaviour in stereotype consistent terms
Week three I New some type of the stupid number for example you’re told that a gay man is monogamous and an accountant so now your stereo type goes something like this game in general or promiscuous the one exception is gay men who are accountants
Researchers induced a positive negative or neutral mood and then when asked to describe various ethnic groups
Participants in a bad mood describe vVarious ethnic groups as more negative than those in a good or neutral mood
Injunctification .Students were reminded of Of the important impact that either country where there are university had on their lives next to the students were given information that the system distributed it’s Fun unequally for participants in the Canada condition that I need for treatment was directed at provinces for participants in the University condition the unequal treatment was directed at academic departments
Participants who had just been reminded how dependent they were on their country were more likely to regard the Canadian governments distribution of funding to the provinces of being more fair and reasonable (the way it should be) Then the universities distribution of funding to departments. Participants who had just been just reminded of how dependent they were on the University for their life outcomes did just the opposite they defended the universities and allocation of funds but not the government unequal funding decisions
When interacting with outgroup members we believe that is obvious that we are showing interest and friendliness when it actually may not be all that obvious to our interaction partner
This set up a vicious cycle the other person doesn’t seem to be reciprocating are friendly gestures and therefore we are very keen on pursuing a friendship little prejudiced people are more likely to overestimate their friendliness that they’ve shown leading to the counter intuitive result that their interactions with her group members can actually be more negative and those of high prejudice people
When does contact lead to less prejudice
The first is mutual interdependence and the second is common goal. The third condition is equal status the fourth is friendly and informal setting the fifth is interactions with multiple members of the group it is crucial for the individual to believe that the oh remember is typical other group otherwise the stereotype can be labelled as the exception six is social norms that promote and support equality.
1) mutual interdependence
2) common goal
3) equal status
4) informal
5) interpersonal contact
6) multiple contact
7) social norms of equality
At the beginning of a four day study in university students were assigned to either the blue group or the green group. over the next few days the groups engage in activities that were designed to create conflict and hostility between them then one member of the group was selected to participate in our supposedly unrelated to experiment which was actually a friendship building exercise. Later this participants were asked to describe the experience to the group.
Remarkably the discovery that one of the group members was now friends with the enemy because their meaning group members to adopt more positive attitudes towards Group as a whole. They also became more generous to the group on allocating money rewards.
