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

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 91

Lecture Outline - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 136 Views
  • Uploaded on

Lecture Outline. Stereotype Maintenance Prejudice Defined Theories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice Measures of Prejudice Is Prejudice Subsiding in America? Explicit v.s. Implicit Responses Pattern of Dissociation Internalized Egalitarian Values. Stereotype Maintenance.

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' - linette


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
  • Stereotype Maintenance
  • Prejudice Defined
  • Theories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice
  • Measures of Prejudice
  • Is Prejudice Subsiding in America?
  • Explicit v.s. Implicit Responses
  • Pattern of Dissociation
  • Internalized Egalitarian Values
stereotype maintenance
Stereotype Maintenance

1) Subtyping Model

2) Cognitive Biases

  • Better memory for stereotype-consistent information
  • Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing
confirmation biases in hypothesis testing
Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing
  • Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)
snyder and colleagues
Snyder and colleagues
  • Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias

Example…...

snyder and colleagues1
Snyder and colleagues
  • Told participants they would interview another individual
  • Told to figure out if other person was introverted or extroverted (initial hypothesis)
  • Given suggested questions to ask
      • 1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..
example questions
Example questions
  • Introverted:

“What factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”

  • Extroverted:

“What kind of situations do you seek out if you want to meet new people?”

snyder colleagues
Snyder & Colleagues

Results

Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis

prejudice
Prejudice

Definition of Prejudice

A positive or negative attitude, judgment, or feeling about a person that is generalized from attitudes or beliefs held about the group to which the person belongs.

prejudice1
Prejudice

Negative forms of prejudice studied more because has greatest potential to create social problems

Cautionary statement: preferential treatment (positive prejudice) can also cause problems

zanna 1994
Zanna (1994)

Purpose:

Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components

Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice

zanna 19941
Zanna (1994)

Components of prejudice:

  • Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes
  • Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs
  • Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)
zanna 19942
Zanna (1994)
  • Procedure

1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups:

    • English Canadian (ingroup)
    • French Canadian
    • Native Indian
    • Pakistani
    • Homosexual
zanna 19943
Zanna (1994)
  • Procedure continued

2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)

zanna 19944
Zanna (1994)
  • Results

1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05)

2) But, correlations varied by target group…….

zanna 1994 correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice
Zanna (1994)Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice

Zanna (1994)Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group

72

slide18

Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual

75

zanna 19945
Zanna (1994)

Conclusions:

  • Prejudice consists of at least three components
        • stereotypic beliefs
        • symbolic beliefs
        • emotion
  • The components most central to prejudice varies across groups
theories of prejudice
Theories of Prejudice

Two general models of prejudice

1. Realistic Group Conflict Theory

2. Minimal Group Paradigm

realistic group conflict theory
Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Terms

Group: social unit; members interdependent

In-group: group person belongs to

Out-group: group person does not belong to

Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification

realistic group conflict theory1
Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Central Assumptions

1. People are selfish and out for own gain

2. Incompatible group interests cause intergroup conflict

3. Incompatible group interests cause social psychological processes(e.g., in-group favoritism; stereotyping)

realistic group conflict theory2
Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Summary

Competition between groups for scarce resources produces intergroup conflict.

Without such competition, intergroup conflict would fade.

sherif and colleagues the summer camp studies
Sherif and ColleaguesThe Summer Camp Studies

Purpose: understand conflict between groups to identify how intergroup relations can be more positive.

sherif and colleagues
Sherif and Colleagues

Three studies set up as summer camp

Created situations that foster group identity, intergroup conflict, and group harmony

sherif and colleagues1
Sherif and Colleagues

Four stages

  • Spontaneous interpersonal friendships
  • Group formation
  • Intergroup conflict
  • Intergroup harmony
sherif and colleagues2
Sherif and Colleagues

Participants

  • 11-12 year old boys who signed up for a camp in Oklahoma
  • Camp lasted 3 weeks
  • Boys had similar backgrounds, no behavioral/psychological problems
stage 1 spontaneous interpersonal friendships
Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships

Studies 1 and 2

  • Boys from whole camp interacted
  • Developed friendships naturally
  • Listed their close friends
  • Two groups created
        • 1/3 close friends
        • 2/3 not close friends
stage 2 group formation
Stage 2: Group Formation

Studies 1 and 2

  • Boys developed strong in-group identity
        • interacted with own group exclusively
        • activities fostered liking
  • Listed their close friends for 2nd time
  • 95% of listed friends from in-group
stage 2 group formation1
Stage 2: Group Formation

Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave)

  • Began at group formation stage
  • Two groups of boys brought to different locations in Robbers Cave
  • Boys developed strong in-group identity
        • interacted with own group exclusively
        • activities fostered liking
stage 3 intergroup conflict
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict

Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prize

  • baseball
  • touch football
  • tug of war
  • treasure hunt

Intergroup conflict:

  • name calling
  • stealing flags
  • fights
stage 3 intergroup conflict1
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict

As intergroup conflict increased, so did in-group bias

Bean Toss

  • Collected as many beans as they could
  • Put beans in sack
  • Supposedly shown each boy’s sack
  • Estimated number of beans in each sack
  • Knew group membership only
stage 3 intergroup conflict2
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict

Bean Toss

  • In reality, same sack of 35 beans shown to each boy

Results:

    • overestimated beans for in-group
    • underestimated beans for out-group
stage 4 intergroup harmony
Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony

Experimenters tried to reduce intergroup conflict and in-group bias

1. Contact hypothesis: intergroup activities

Contact between group members sufficient

to reduce intergroup conflict (FAILED)

stage 4 intergroup harmony1
Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony

2. Superordinate goals:

Goals that could only be achieved if boys from both groups cooperated

  • water supply malfunctioned
  • bus broke down
minimal group paradigm
Minimal Group Paradigm

Henry Tajfel challenged interpretation of summer camp studies

Argued that:

  • group identification sufficient to instigate intergroup conflict
  • competition for scarce resources not necessary
minimal group paradigm1
Minimal Group Paradigm

Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm:

  • People assigned to groups
  • Groups have no history, norms, or values
  • Members have no contact
  • Membership based on trivial criteria
minimal group paradigm2
Minimal Group Paradigm

Goal of these experiments:

Show that group membership

ALONE produces in-group bias

minimal group paradigm original study
Minimal Group ParadigmOriginal Study
  • 14 and 15 year old boys, Bristol England
  • Boys alone and anonymous
  • Each boy estimated dots on screen
  • Told people are over, or underestimators
  • Told which he was
minimal group paradigm original study1
Minimal Group ParadigmOriginal Study
  • 2nd study on reward/punishments
  • Used over/underestimator designation
  • Each boy at cubicle, alone
  • Completed series of payoff matrices where they allocated points to other boys
      • boys in same or different group
  • Points tallied at end, awarded to boy who got them
minimal group paradigm3
Minimal Group Paradigm

Payoff Matrix

Most interesting when boys in different groups because one an in-group member and the other an out-group member of the boy allocating the points…….Intergroup bias can be tested

minimal group paradigm4
Minimal Group Paradigm

Payoff Matrix

#26, one of the:

overestimators

(in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

underestimators

(out-group)

Strategies

  • joint profit : 19:25 (both boys get most they can)
  • in-group profit: 19:25 (in-group gets most he can)
  • maximal difference: 7:1 (largest difference)
minimal group paradigm5
Minimal Group Paradigm

Payoff Matrix

#26, one of the:

overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

underestimators

  • On average, the boys selected 12:11,:
  • This reflects a combined strategy of maximum in-group profit and fairness
minimal group paradigm6
Minimal Group Paradigm

Big Point of This Research

In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources

Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias

ways to measure prejudice
Ways to Measure Prejudice
  • Theories explain that prejudice arises from competition or group designation
  • Sparked interest in measuring prejudice
  • Early measures were self-report questionnaires
examples of self report measures of prejudice
Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice
  • Old Fashioned Racism Scale

Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites?

If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?

examples of self report measures of prejudice1
Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice
  • Modern Racism Scale

Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve

Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights

self reported prejudice
Self-Reported Prejudice
  • General pattern:

Prejudice is subsiding

explanations
Explanations
  • People are less prejudiced now
  • People are lying
  • Why would people lie?
social desirability
Social Desirability
  • People may lie because they do not want to appear prejudiced to others
sigall page 1971
Sigall & Page (1971)
  • Developed the “bogus pipeline” procedure to detect socially desirable responding
bogus pipeline
Bogus Pipeline
  • An experimental paradigm in which an experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions
sigall page 19711

0

-1

+1

-2

+2

-3

+3

Sigall & Page (1971)
  • Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached
sigall page 19712

0

-1

+1

-2

+2

-3

+3

Sigall & Page (1971)
  • Completed short inventory about self on paper
  • Rated African Americans on 22 traits by turning wheel

-3 (very uncharacteristic)

+3 (very characteristic)

sigall page 19713
Sigall & Page (1971)

Manipulation

Bogus pipeline group:

  • hooked up to machine via electrodes
  • told machine could “read minds” through physiological arousal

Control group:

  • not hooked up to machine
sigall page 19714
Sigall & Page (1971)

Demonstration of bogus pipeline

  • Told to “trick” machine by answering differently from inventory responses
  • Experimenter (who knew actual responses) made machine beep each time they answered differently from inventory
sigall page 19715
Sigall & Page (1971)

Theoretical Prediction:

  • People lie on self-report questionnaires because of social desirability concerns

Operational Prediction:

  • Negative attributes judged more characteristic of AA, and positive attributes less characteristic of AA under bogus pipeline condition
negative attributes judged more characteristic of african americans under bogus pipeline condition
Negative attributes judged more characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition

Negative Attributes Bogus Pipeline Control

Happy-go-lucky .93 -.13

Ignorant .60 .20

Stupid .13 -1.00

Physically dirty .20 -1.33

Unreliable .27 -.67

Lazy .60 -.73

Aggressive 1.20 .67

positive attributes judged less characteristic of african americans under bogus pipeline condition
Positive attributes judged less characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition

Positive Attributes Bogus Pipeline Control

Intelligent .00 .47

Ambitious .07 .33

Sensitive .87 1.60

sigall page 19716
Sigall & Page (1971)

Conclusion:

People lie on self-report measures to appear unprejudiced to others.

This fits a social desirability explanation for the pattern of reduced prejudice found by self-report measures, like the old-fashioned and modern racism scales.

explicit and implicit prejudice
Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Sigall & Page raised interest in relationship between measures of explicit and implicit prejudice

  • Explicit measures: responses easily modified
  • Implicit measures: responses not easily modified
explicit and implicit prejudice1
Explicit and Implicit Prejudice
  • Explicit measures are highly vulnerable to social desirability effects
  • Implicit measures are not
maass castelli arcuri 2000

Eye contact

Racial slurs

Modern racism

Who-said-what

Stroop-like task

Seating distance

Famous person task

Open discrimination

Subtle language bias

Old fashioned racism

Non-verbal behaviors

Subtle prejudice scale

RT following priming

Physiological reactions

Implicit association test

Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000)
  • Taxonomy of prejudice measures

Controlling Responses

Easy Difficult

class activity
Class Activity
  • The IAT is a measure of implicit prejudice that is widely used.
  • You were asked to perform the IAT.
  • Now, for credit, I would like you to describe the task
slide67
IAT
  • The IAT measures how quickly people can categorize stimulus words.
  • Faster = stronger association
  • IAT responses almost never correlate with explicit responses
dissociation
Dissociation

Definition:

  • A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures
causes of dissociation
Causes of Dissociation

Social desirability:

  • People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased
  • This would produce dissociation
causes of dissociation1
Causes of Dissociation

Internalized egalitarian values:

  • People may have genuinely endorsed egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them
  • This too would produce dissociation
internalized egalitarian values
Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals

internalized egalitarian values1
Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings

i.e., prejudice is unconscious

internalized egalitarian values2
Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

3. Because internalized egalitarian values are newer associations for most people, they require cognitive resources to access; resources that are not available during the completion of implicit measures

internalized egalitarian values3
Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

4. Thus, egalitarian values are only accessible during the completion of explicit measures. During the completion of implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

internalized egalitarian values4
Internalized Egalitarian Values

Summary: Internalized egalitarian values explains pattern of dissociation because people…....

slide76
Endorse their egalitarian values on explicit measures because of increased cognitive resources

But………

  • Endorse ingrained prejudice values on implicit measures because of reduced cognitive resources
difference between iev and sd
Difference between IEV and SD
  • People who have internalized their egalitarian values truly believe in the validity of their explicit responses whereas people responding in an socially desirable manner do not
devine 1989 study 1
Devine (1989) Study 1

Purpose:

Test whether internalized egalitarian values can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice responses

devine 1989 study 11
Devine (1989) Study 1

Procedure:

  • Step 1: Assessed white participants’ prejudice toward African Americans with modern racism scale
devine 1989 study 12
Devine (1989) Study 1

Procedure:

  • Step 2: Subliminally primed participants with words associated with African American stereotype

Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic, basketball, unemployed

devine 1989 study 13
Devine (1989) Study 1

Procedure:

  • Step 3: Participants rated Donald. Donald’s behavior could be construed as aggressive

Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent until apt. painted

devine 1989 study 14
Devine (1989) Study 1

Experimental manipulation:

  • Percent of primes presented
      • 80% of primes associated with AA
      • 20% of primes associated with AA
devine 1989 study 15
Devine (1989) Study 1

Predictions:

1. Judgments of Donald more hostile in 80% than 20% priming conditions

devine 1989 study 16
Devine (1989) Study 1

Predictions:

2. Low and high prejudice participants will not differ in their judgments of Donald

  • Primes presented outside of awareness
  • As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald.
  • Unconscious prejudice dominates
devine 1989 study 17
Devine (1989) Study 1

Results:

1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition

2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

devine 1989 study 18
Devine (1989) Study 1

Conclusion:

1. The more people are primed with a negative stereotype, the bias they show

2. Low and high prejudice people will show similar levels of bias when negative stereotypes are activated outside of their awareness because lows won’t be motivated to access their egalitarian values

devine 1989 study 2
Devine (1989) Study 2

Procedure:

1. Measured prejudice against AA

2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings about AA on self-report measure

devine 1989 study 21
Devine (1989) Study 2

Result:

Low prejudice participants reported less prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high prejudiced participants.

devine 1989 study 22
Devine (1989) Study 2

Conclusions:

A) Low prejudice participants had internalized egalitarian values, and reported those values on explicit measures where cognitive resources were plentiful.

devine 1989 study 23
Devine (1989) Study 2

Conclusions:

B) High prejudice participants had not internalized egalitarian values, and thus showed prejudice on both explicit and implicit measures.

slide91
Explicit and implicit prejudice may be dissociated because of:
  • social desirability
  • internalized egalitarian values