lecture outline l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Lecture Outline PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Lecture Outline

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 105

Lecture Outline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 264 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Lecture Outline' - Rita


Download Now 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 stereotypes5
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 stereotypes8
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 193612
Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)

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

slide14

Armenian StudyLa Pierre (1936)

Armenian stereotype did NOT correspond to empirical evidence

The stereotype was inaccurate

slide15

Stereotype are Exaggerations

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

slide16

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
slide17

Stereotypes Resist Change

Stereotypes remain stable over time and across generations

slide18

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

No.

Stereotypes

have been stereotyped!!

slide19

Definitions of Stereotypes

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

slide20

Definitions of Stereotypes

Sampled the literature to identify how stereotypes were defined.

This is what they found……….

slide21

Definitions of Stereotypes

Stereotypes had been

defined in six different ways!!

slide22

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).

slide23

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).

slide24

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).

slide25

4. Exaggerations

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

slide26

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).

slide27

6. Rigid and Resistant to Change

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

slide28

YIKES!

What sense can one

make of all that?

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

slide29

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Offered A Formal Definition

“A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a

group of people”

slide30

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Limitation:

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

slide31

WOMEN

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

nurturing

take care of children

homemakers

But women also……..

have two arms

eat food

have friends

slide33

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.

slide34

Measurement of Stereotypes

Three common procedures:

1. Adjective checklist

2. Rating scale

3. Free responses

slide35

Adjective Checklists

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

slide36

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
slide37

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

The 10 groups

Germans Jews

Italians Americans

African Americans Chinese

Irish Japanese

English Turks

slide38

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)

slide39

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

Superstitious 84%

Lazy 75%

Happy-go-lucky 38%

Ignorant 38%

Musical 26%

Jews

Percent

Trait endorsed

Shrewd 79%

Mercenary 49%

Industrious 48%

Grasping 34%

Intelligent 29%

Results: Content
results content41
Irish

Percent

Trait endorsed

Pugnacious 45%

Quick tempered 39%

Witty 38%

Honest 32%

Very religious 29%

Americans

Percent

Trait endorsed

Industrious 49%

Intelligent 48%

Materialistic 33%

Ambitious 33%

Progressive 27%

Results: Content
results content42
Irish

Percent

Trait endorsed

Pugnacious 45%

Quick tempered 39%

Witty 38%

Honest 32%

Very religious 29%

Americans

Percent

Trait endorsed

Industrious 49%

Intelligent 48%

Materialistic 33%

Ambitious 33%

Progressive 27%

Results: Content
results content43
Italians

Percent

Trait endorsed

Artistic 53%

Impulsive 44%

Passionate 37%

Quick tempered 35%

Musical 30%

Japanese

Percent

Trait endorsed

Intelligent 48%

Industrious 46%

Progressive 26%

Shrewd 23%

Sly 21%

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)

Germans 5.0

Jews 5.5

Italians 6.9

English 7.0

Irish 8.5

Americans 8.8

Japanese 10.9

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
slide47

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?

1 2 3 4 5

not at all very

slide48

Rating Scales

Benefits:

  • Can include a lot of attributes
  • Easy to complete

Drawback:

  • May omit central traits from list
  • List may become outdated
slide49

Rating Scales

One distinct advantage over Adjective Checklists:

More specific measurement

of the stereotype --

Responses are not “all or none”

slide50

Rating Scales

Measurement specificity important because…….

Researchers can assess “stereotype strength”

slide51

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 strength55
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

slide57

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 ratio60
Diagnostic Ratio

DR = % of group (with attribute)

% of reference (with attribute)

diagnostic ratio61
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 ratio62
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 ratio63
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 ratio64
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 197866
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 197867
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)

slide68
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 197869
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 197870
Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Main Findings

1. Content: People held stereotype of African Americans

results diagnostic ratio study
Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

Attribute Criteria 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 197872
Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

Main Findings

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

results diagnostic ratio study73
Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

Attribute Criteria 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 197874
Diagnostic Ratio StudyMcCauley & Stitt (1978)

3. Exaggeration/Underestimation: Stereotypic attributes underestimated real differences

results diagnostic ratio study75
Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study

Attribute Criteria 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 trilogy77
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 200180
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 200181
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

slide83

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

slide84

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

slide85

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

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

slide86

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

Purpose:

Examine whether the stereotypes have changed in favorableness

slide87

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

Procedure:

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

slide88

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

Results

More FavorableLess Favorable

African American American

Chinese English

Japanese German

Turkish

Italian

Irish

Jewish

slide89

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

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

slide90
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

slide93
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 197898
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 1978100
Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Manipulation:

  • Attractive partner
  • Unattractive partner
attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 1978101
Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)
  • Judges listened to conversation
  • Judges rated male’s behavior
  • Judges rated female’s behavior
attractiveness study snyder tanke bersheid 1978102
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 1978103
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 1978104
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 1978105
Attractiveness StudySnyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

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

The “unattractive” women responded in kind.