Lecture outline
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 105

Lecture Outline PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 81 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Lecture Outline. Types of stereotypes Assumptions of stereotypes Definition of stereotypes Measurement of stereotypes Stereotypes: inaccurate, exaggerated, and resistant to change?. Stereotypes. Working definition: Generalized beliefs about a social group attributes behaviors

Download Presentation

Lecture Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Lecture outline

Lecture Outline

Types of stereotypes

Assumptions of stereotypes

Definition of stereotypes

Measurement of stereotypes

Stereotypes: inaccurate, exaggerated, and resistant to change?


Stereotypes

Stereotypes

  • Working definition:

    Generalized beliefs

    about a social group

    attributes behaviors

    social roles

(nurturing)

(take care of children)

(homemakers)


Types of stereotypes

Types of Stereotypes

  • Cultural stereotypes

    Beliefs about a group that

    are endorsed by society at large


Cultural stereotypes

Cultural Stereotypes

  • Across 1200 commercials women were portrayed most often as….

    • Domestics

    • Dependent on men

    • Submissive

    • Sex objects

    • Stupid

    • Superwomen


Types of stereotypes1

Types of Stereotypes

  • Personal (individual) stereotypes

    One person’s beliefs

    about a group


Cultural personal stereotypes

Cultural & Personal Stereotypes

  • Sometimes they overlap:

    Society portrays New Yorkers as loud, and Mary thinks they are loud too

  • Sometimes they don’t overlap:

    Society portrays Librarians as spinsters, but Mary doesn’t think they are


Consensual stereotypes

Consensual Stereotypes

Definition:

Extent to which people agree on the content of a stereotype

High consensus = high agreement


Consensual stereotypes1

Consensual Stereotypes

Personal stereotypes

  • Sometimes consensual: (many people may believe that New Yorkers are loud)

  • Sometimes not consensual: (Mary believes lawyers are short, but nobody else does


Assumptions of stereotypes

Assumptions of Stereotypes

Stereotypes have been characterized in three ways

1. Inaccurate

2. Exaggerations

3. Resistant to change


Stereotype inaccuracy

Stereotype Inaccuracy

Stereotypes are inaccurate when they are at odds with empirical evidence

Armenian Study: La Pierre (1936)

Purpose: Examine whether ethnic stereotypes of Armenians are inaccurate


Armenian study la pierre 1936

Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)

Armenian stereotype:

  • dishonest

  • lying

  • deceitful

    Procedure:

  • Sampled credit ratings

  • Compared Armenian & non-Armenians


Armenian study la pierre 19361

Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)

Prediction: If Armenians really are dishonest, lying, and deceitful, then they should have worse credit ratings than non-Armenians


Armenian study la pierre 1936 percent of good fair and bad credit risk

Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)Percent of good, fair and bad credit risk


Lecture outline

Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)

Armenian stereotype did NOT correspond to empirical evidence

The stereotype was inaccurate


Lecture outline

Stereotype are Exaggerations

Stereotypes are exaggerations when differences between groups are thought to be larger than they really are


Lecture outline

Stereotypes are Exaggerated

  • Perceived Heights of Men and Women

    Men = 5’11 Women = 5’5 (Diff = 6 in.)

  • Actual Heights of Men and Women

    Men = 5’10 Women = 5’6 (Diff = 4 in.)

  • Perceived differences are exaggerated


Lecture outline

Stereotypes Resist Change

Stereotypes remain stable over time and across generations


Lecture outline

Are stereotypes inherently inaccurate, always exaggerated, and highly resistant to change?

No.

Stereotypes

have been stereotyped!!


Lecture outline

Definitions of Stereotypes

For most of the 20th Century researchers did not have a good, clear definition of the term “stereotype”


Lecture outline

Definitions of Stereotypes

Sampled the literature to identify how stereotypes were defined.

This is what they found……….


Lecture outline

Definitions of Stereotypes

Stereotypes had been

defined in six different ways!!


Lecture outline

1. Generalized Beliefs

Stereotyping may be defined as the tendency to attribute generalized and simplified characteristics to groups of people in the form of verbal labels, and to act towards the members of those groups in terms of those labels (Vinacke, 1949, p. 265).


Lecture outline

2. Categories or Concepts

A stereotype is commonly thought of as involving a categorical response--i.e., membership is sufficient to evoke the judgment that the stimulus person possesses all of the attributes belonging to that category (Secord, 1959, p. 309).


Lecture outline

3. Incorrectly Learned

Unlike other generalizations stereotypes are based not on an inductive collection of data, but on hearsay, rumor, and anecdotes--in short, on evidence which is insufficient to justify the generalization (Klineberg, 1951 p. 505).


Lecture outline

4. Exaggerations

A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category (Allport, 1958, p. 187).


Lecture outline

5. Inaccurate

A stereotype is a fixed impression, which conforms very little to the fact it pretends to represent, and results from our defining first and observing second (Katz and Braly, 1935, p. 181).


Lecture outline

6. Rigid and Resistant to Change

Stereotypy...the disposition to think in rigid categories (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).


Lecture outline

YIKES!

What sense can one

make of all that?

Field lacking formal, consistent and clear definition of the term “stereotype”


Lecture outline

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Offered A Formal Definition

“A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a

group of people”


Lecture outline

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Limitation:

Lots of attributes describe members of social groups, but they are not part of the stereotype


Lecture outline

WOMEN

According to sex stereotypes, women are…....

nurturing

take care of children

homemakers

But women also……..

have two arms

eat food

have friends


Lecture outline

Question: Why aren’t those attributes in the stereotype of women?


Lecture outline

Answer: Because they don’t distinguish women from other groups.

We will return to this point, but most researchers use Ashmore & Del Boca’s definition.


Lecture outline

Measurement of Stereotypes

Three common procedures:

1. Adjective checklist

2. Rating scale

3. Free responses


Lecture outline

Adjective Checklists

Participants are given list of predetermined attributes and select those that are most typical of group


Lecture outline

Adjective Checklists

1st way that stereotypes were measured

Princeton Trilogy (Study 1)

Katz and Braly (1933)

  • Sampled 100 Princeton University students (all male, all white)

  • Used adjective checklist procedure to identify stereotypes of 10 ethnic and national groups


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy (Study 1)Katz and Braly (1933)

The 10 groups

GermansJews

ItaliansAmericans

African AmericansChinese

IrishJapanese

EnglishTurks


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy (Study 1)Katz and Braly (1933)

Procedure:

1. Participants given list of 84 traits

2. Participants selected the 5 that were most typical of each group (5 traits per group)


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy (Study 1)Katz and Braly (1933)

How content was assessed:

The 10 traits that were selected most often


Results content

African Americans

Percent

Trait endorsed

Superstitious84%

Lazy75%

Happy-go-lucky38%

Ignorant38%

Musical26%

Jews

Percent

Trait endorsed

Shrewd79%

Mercenary49%

Industrious48%

Grasping34%

Intelligent29%

Results: Content


Results content1

Irish

Percent

Trait endorsed

Pugnacious45%

Quick tempered39%

Witty38%

Honest32%

Very religious29%

Americans

Percent

Trait endorsed

Industrious49%

Intelligent48%

Materialistic33%

Ambitious33%

Progressive27%

Results: Content


Results content2

Irish

Percent

Trait endorsed

Pugnacious45%

Quick tempered39%

Witty38%

Honest32%

Very religious29%

Americans

Percent

Trait endorsed

Industrious49%

Intelligent48%

Materialistic33%

Ambitious33%

Progressive27%

Results: Content


Results content3

Italians

Percent

Trait endorsed

Artistic53%

Impulsive44%

Passionate 37%

Quick tempered35%

Musical30%

Japanese

Percent

Trait endorsed

Intelligent48%

Industrious46%

Progressive26%

Shrewd23%

Sly21%

Results: Content


How consensus was assessed

How consensus was assessed:

Distinctiveness scores: Number of traits needed to account for 50% of responses

lower scores = more consensus


Results consensus

Results: Consensus

Group Distinctiveness Score

African Americans 4.6 (most consensual)

Germans5.0

Jews5.5

Italians6.9

English7.0

Irish8.5

Americans8.8

Japanese10.9

Chinese 12.0

Turks 15.9 (least consensual)


Adjective checklists

Adjective Checklists

Benefits:

  • Can include a lot of attributes

  • Easy to complete

    Drawback:

  • May omit central traits from list

  • List may become outdated


Lecture outline

Rating Scales

Participants given list of pre-determined attributes and asked to rate how much each describes the group

How warm-hearted are gay men?

12345

not at all very


Lecture outline

Rating Scales

Benefits:

  • Can include a lot of attributes

  • Easy to complete

    Drawback:

  • May omit central traits from list

  • List may become outdated


Lecture outline

Rating Scales

One distinct advantage over Adjective Checklists:

More specific measurement

of the stereotype --

Responses are not “all or none”


Lecture outline

Rating Scales

Measurement specificity important because…….

Researchers can assess “stereotype strength”


Lecture outline

Rating Scales

Definition: Stereotype Strength

Extent to which the attributes

in a stereotype are thought

to characterize the group

Example……...


Example stereotype strength

Smithtown residents

very upper class

very snobbish

very reclusive

Jonestown residents

slightly upper class

slightly snobbish

slightly reclusive

Example: Stereotype Strength


Stereotype strength

Stereotype Strength

  • The content of the stereotypes are the same…………..BUT

  • Smithtown stereotype is stronger

    VERY characteristic of Smithtown

    SLIGHTLY characteristic of Jonestown


Content vs strength

Content vs. Strength

  • Stereotype content: attributes contained in a stereotype

  • Stereotype strength: extent to which these attributes are thought to characterize a group


Stereotype strength1

Stereotype Strength

Adjective Checklists cannot measure a stereotype’s strength

Rating scales can measure a stereotype’s strength


Free responses

Free Responses

Participants asked to list the attributes that describe a social group

Example

Please list those attributes that you believe describe Germans


Lecture outline

Free Responses

Benefits:

  • Measures central traits

  • Don’t ever become outdated

    Drawbacks:

  • Incomplete responding

  • May not measure weakly endorsed attributes


Distinguishing features

Distinguishing Features

  • Adjective checklists, rating scales, and free responses may indirectly assess the attributes that distinguish between groups

  • Only one measure does so directly


Diagnostic ratio

Diagnostic Ratio

Participants given a list of attributes and asked to make two percentage estimates

1. % of group that has each attribute

2. % of reference group that has each attribute


Diagnostic ratio1

Diagnostic Ratio

DR =% of group (with attribute)

% of reference (with attribute)


Diagnostic ratio2

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute does not distinguish between groups

Example

Jon believes that……

99% of women have arms

99% of Americans have arms

DR = 99.9/99.9 =1


Diagnostic ratio3

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially greater than 1, attribute:

  • distinguishes between groups

  • is stereotypic

    Example: Jon believes that…….

    35% of women are nurturing

    20% of Americans are nurturing

    DR = 35/20 = 1.75


Diagnostic ratio4

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially less than 1, attribute:

  • distinguishes between groups

  • is counterstereotypic

    Example: Jon believes that…….

    10% of women are aggressive

    25% of Americans are aggressive

    DR = 10/25 = .40


Diagnostic ratio5

Diagnostic Ratio

So, according to the DR measure, a stereotype is defined….

As set of beliefs about a group that distinguish that group from other groups in either a stereotypic way (DR > 1) or a counterstereotypic way (DR < 1).


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 1978

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Purpose:

1. Show utility of DR

2. Assess whether the stereotype of African Americans is inaccurate and exaggerated.


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19781

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Participants:

Sampled five groups

  • High school students

  • College students

  • Union members

  • Church Choir

  • Social work students


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19782

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Procedure:

Step 1: Participants estimated % of African Americans and % of Americans that had 7 attributes

DR =% of African American (with attribute)

% of Americans (with attribute)


Lecture outline

7 Characteristics

% completed HS

% that are illegitimate

% that were unemployed last month

% who have been victims of crimes

% on welfare

% w/4 or more children

% w/female heads of households


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19783

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Procedure (continued):

Step 2: Obtained census information to serve as criteria for accuracy

Step 3: Transformed census information into DR scores


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19784

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Main Findings

1. Content: People held stereotype of African Americans


Results diagnostic ratio study

Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 .68 .73 .67 .68 .60

Illegitimate 3.10 1.801.702.101.90 2.30

Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30

Victims 1.50 .83 1.802.00 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 2.301.901.601.801.40

Kids 1.90 1.60 1.401.601.30 1.30

Female head 2.80 1.701.90 1.70 1.50 1.70

Green (italics): DR different from 1 (p < .05)

Black (no italics): DR not different from 1 (p > .05)

Most DR’s different from one (green):

People held stereotype of African Americans


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19785

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Main Findings

2. (In)accuracy: African American stereotype both accurate and inaccurate


Results diagnostic ratio study1

Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 .68 .73 .67 .68 .60

Illegitimate 3.10 1.801.702.101.90 2.30

Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30

Victims 1.50 .83 1.802.00 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 2.301.901.601.801.40

Kids 1.90 1.60 1.401.601.30 1.30

Female head 2.80 1.701.90 1.70 1.50 1.70

No underline = DR not different from criteria (p > .05)

Underline = DR different from criteria (p < .05)

Some DRs different from criteria (underlined),

Other DRs not different from criteria (not underlined):

African American stereotype was both inaccurate (underlined) and accurate (not underlined)


Diagnostic ratio study mccauley stitt 19786

Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

3. Exaggeration/Underestimation: Stereotypic attributes underestimated real differences


Results diagnostic ratio study2

Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 .68 .73 .67 .68 .60

Illegitimate 3.10 1.801.702.101.90 2.30

Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30

Victims 1.50 .83 1.802.00 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 2.301.901.601.801.40

Kids 1.90 1.60 1.401.601.30 1.30

Female head 2.80 1.701.90 1.70 1.50 1.70

Underline = DR different from criteria (p < .05)

No underline = DR not different from criteria (p > .05)

When DRs different from criteria (underlined),

difference was smaller than criteria:

African American stereotype underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences


Princeton trilogy

Princeton Trilogy

  • Study 1 (Katz & Braly, 1933)

  • Study 2 (Gilbert, 1951)

  • Study 3 (Karlins et al., 1969)

    Recent Replication/Extension

  • Madon et al. (2001)


Princeton trilogy1

Princeton Trilogy

Limitation of the Princeton trilogy:

  • Never updated the attribute list

    Problem because……

    Outdated attribute list may omit current beliefs and underestimate change by leading people to endorse old, and therefore, similar stereotypes


Princeton trilogy replication madon et al 2001

Princeton Trilogy ReplicationMadon et al. (2001)

Recent Replication:

Study 1: replicated Princeton trilogy

Study 2: updated the attribute list

Study 3: assessed changes in favorableness


Princeton trilogy replication study 1 madon et al 2001

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1Madon et al. (2001)

Procedure:

1. Given original attribute list

2. For each group, selected the five most typical


Princeton trilogy replication study 1 madon et al 20011

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1Madon et al. (2001)

Results:

Content: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly

This is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change


Princeton trilogy replication study 1 madon et al 20012

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1Madon et al. (2001)

Results:

Consensus: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly

This too is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change


Outdated attribute list

Outdated Attribute List

Study 1 showed little change

Could this be due to an

outdated attribute list?

Study 2 tested this by

updating the attribute list


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2Madon et al. (2001)

Procedure:

1. Updated original attribute list w/322

new attributes (total = 406)

2. Rated extent to which each attribute described the groups


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2Madon et al. (2001)

Results

Content: 9 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish didn’t change

Consensus: 7 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish, Jewish, Italian did not change


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2Madon et al. (2001)

These results are NOT consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3Madon et al. (2001)

Purpose:

Examine whether the stereotypes have changed in favorableness


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3Madon et al. (2001)

Procedure:

Participants rated the favorableness of the 1933, 1951, 1969 and 1990s stereotypes


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3Madon et al. (2001)

Results

More FavorableLess Favorable

African AmericanAmerican

ChineseEnglish

JapaneseGerman

Turkish

Italian

Irish

Jewish


Lecture outline

Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3Madon et al. (2001)

Changes in favorableness do NOT support idea that stereotypes are resistant to change


Lecture outline

Stereotypes are not inherently inaccurate (Diagnostic Ratio Study: McCauley & Stitt, 1978)

Stereotypes are not always exaggerated (Diagnostic Ratio Study: McCauley & Stitt, 1978)

Stereotypes are not resistant to change (Princeton Trilogy Replication: Madon et al., 2001)


Why study stereotypes

Why Study Stereotypes?

Stereotypes may create social problems

One way they can do this is through self-fulfilling prophecies


Self fulfilling prophecies

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Definition:

Self-fulfilling prophecies are false beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment


Lecture outline

Three steps to a SFP:

1. Perceiver holds false belief about target

2. Perceiver treats target in manner consistent with false belief

3. Target responds to this treatment in such a way as to confirm the originally false belief


Self fulfilling prophecies are not perceptual biases

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies are not Perceptual Biases

Perceptual biases:

When a perceiver believes that a false belief has come true, when in fact it has not


Self fulfilling prophecies do not reflect predictive accuracy

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Do Not Reflect Predictive Accuracy

Predictive Accuracy:

When a perceiver correctly predicts a target’s future behavior, but did not cause that behavior to occur

(I predict Jazz will win, and they do)


Stereotypes self fulfilling prophecies

Stereotypes & Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Merton (1948)

African Americans thought to be strike breakers

  • African Americans barred from unions

  • Had few job opportunities

  • Took any work that came along

  • Took strikers jobs

  • Confirmed stereotype


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 1978

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Purpose:

Examine whether the attractiveness stereotype is self-fulfilling

Stereotype is that attractive people have all sorts of good attributes (e.g., intelligent, friendly, sociable)


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19781

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Participants:

  • 51 men and 51 women

  • men and women paired off

  • never saw one another

    Men = perceivers

    Women = targets


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 1978 procedure

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)Procedure:

Interactions w/o nonverbal behavior

  • Biographical questionnaire for partner

  • Photo of male

  • Male got photo of his female partner

  • Male rated his partner on traits

  • Conversed over telephone (tape made)

  • Male rated his partner again


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19782

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Manipulation:

  • Attractive partner

  • Unattractive partner


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19783

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

  • Judges listened to conversation

  • Judges rated male’s behavior

  • Judges rated female’s behavior


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19784

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Results:

  • Males judged warmer and nicer in attractive condition

  • Females judged warmer and friendlier in attractive condition


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19785

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Only possible cause of differences in behavior after conversation was due to the treatment they received…………...


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19786

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Specifically…….

The men were very warm and nice to the “beautiful” women

The “beautiful” women responded in kind.


Attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 19787

Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

The men were not warm and not nice to the “unattractive” women

The “unattractive” women responded in kind.


  • Login