week 8 groups Flashcards

Question

Activation of stereotypes

Answer 1

 Stereotypes can be automatically activated • Even the mere presence of a social category cue (e.g., category label, salient category feature) can be enough to activate (make accessible) a range of stereotype content  Implicit Associations Test (IAT; Greenwald et al.,1998) • Implicit measure of associations between social categories and other concepts – IAT has also been used to measure attitudes (e.g., prejudice and self-esteem)

Answer 2

Stereotypes can bias judgments about individuals • Change the way that ambiguous behavior is interpreted

Answer 3

• White American participants witness an ambiguous shove (aggressive or playful) between confederates of different social categories • Stereotype of group to which shover belonged influenced interpretation • Aggression was (and perhaps still is) part of the African American stereotype; here it shapes interpretation of the ambiguous shove

Answer 4

• Stereotype: cognitive representations of impressions of groups that people form by associating the groups with particular characteristics (beliefs) • Prejudice: positive or negative evaluations of a social group or its members (attitudes) • Discrimination: positive or negative behaviour directed toward a social group or its members

Answer 5

 We tend to have more favourable attitudes and behaviours towards the groups to which we belong than to groups to which we don’t belong • Ingroups: groups to which we belong • Outgroups: groups to which we don’t belong  Ingroup favouritism, ingroup bias, intergroup bias, intergroup discrimination • Preference (in attitudes or behaviours) for ingroups over outgroups

Answer 6

® Our selves are composed of personal and group-related (social) aspects/identities. ® People prefer to have a positive self-concept (valuing me and mine) – in order to maintain positive self-esteem. ® We are motivated to increase the positivity of our own groups relative to outgroups. Thus, we favour ingroups. ® In a sense, we value our group (mine) as a way of valuing ‘me’

Answer 7

• Ingroup favoritism occurs under minimal conditions • Tajfel et al (1971) – Klee or Kandinsky – Point allocation task – Ingroup favoritism • Mere categorisation (based on minimal group conditions) elicited ingroup favoritism

Answer 8

 Oskamp & Hardy (1968): it’s positive when the ingroup does it  Ultimate Attribution Error (Pettigrew, 1979) • Ingroup positive behaviors – disposition; outgroup positive behaviors – situation • Ingroup negative behaviors – situation; outgroup negative behaviors - disposition – E.g., Ariyanto et al (2009)

Answer 9

 Categorization lays the groundwork  Other factors escalate us vs them framing into conflict • Competition • Threat

Answer 10

® Realistic conflict theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972) suggest that intergroup hostility arises from competition amongst groups for scarce (and thus valued) material resources. ® Taylor & Moriarty (1987) divided participants into two groups, and asked them to problem solve for reward (devise a marketing campaign). There were two conditions – interdependent vs competitive. Ingroup favouritism was exacerbated under the competition condition

Answer 11

Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) • Realistic threat: threats to the material well-being of the ingroup, such as their economic benefits, political power, and health • Symbolic threat: threats to the ingroup’s system of values • Intergroup anxiety: feelings of anxiety people experience during intergroup interactions associated with negative outcomes for the self (embarrassed, rejected, ridiculed)

Answer 12

Meta analysis • Aggregated across 95 studies • Realistic, symbolic and anxiety positively associated with negative outgroup attitudes

Answer 13

 ‘Contact’ • Extended contact • Imagined contact  Changing categorization  Superordinate goals

Answer 14

 The more contact one has with an outgroup, the less prejudice one expresses  Contact is most effective when: equal status, shared goals, authority sanction, absence of competition (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006)

Answer 15

 How? (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) • Knowledge of out group • Anxiety lower • Empathy/perspective taking increase

Answer 16

knowledge that other ingroup members have outgroup friends can reduce intergroup bias  Wright et al. (1997)  Phase 1: two groups formed (on the basis of “personality”) and labeled blue or green • Phase 2: one participant from each group • (both actually confederates) chosen to interact – Friendly, Hostile, Neutral • Phase 3: ingroup and outgroup evaluations– traits (e.g., intelligent, confident, inflexible, indifferent) and performance qualities (e.g., communicates effectively, effective problem solver) -evaluation depend on the quality of interaction

Answer 17

® Putting oneself in another’s shoes emotionally (empathy) or cognitively (perspective taking) decrease group favouritism. ® Galinsky & Moskowitz (2000) formed groups based on the minimal group paradigm, and found that taking the perspective of an outgroup member reduces ingroup favouritism

Answer 18

® Involves changing the cognitive representation of outgroup members so that it is no longer simply ‘us’ versus ‘them’. ® Re-categorization involves ‘us’ and ‘them’ becoming a superordinate ‘we’. ® De-categorization involves ‘they’ becoming individuals.

Answer 19

Participants initially form two 3 person groups (A and B) and interact within-groups (in spatial proximity) • Come up with group names  Next, come together to do a task  Manipulation: • Control: retain original two group structure and identity (aaabbb) • Re-categorization: form one new, superordinate group with new structure and identity (ababab) • De-categorization: separate individuals, with nicknames (ababab)  Evaluations of original ingroup and outgroup members Re>De>control

Answer 20

 Summer camp  Two groups: Eagles and Rattlers  Tournament (i.e., competition)• Intergroup conflict  But then, cooperative interaction • Superordinate goals: shared goals that can be achieved only if groups work together