Back
to Psy 3510 HomepageStereotyping:
Stereotypes involve generalizations about the "typical" characteristics of members of the groups. Jane is a female, so she probably has characteristics x, y, z, .......
Prejudice:
attitude toward the members of some group based solely on their membership in that group (can be positive or negative)
Discrimination:
actual positive or negative actions toward the objects of prejudice
Several ways of measuring stereotypes
For example:(1) By measuring the straightforward attribution of characteristics to nominated groups
Baptists are....?Men are...?
Blacks are...?
Mormons are...?
Whites are...?
Doctors are...?
Women are...?
Professors are...?
(2) By identifying the salient characteristics attributed to groups (relative to other groups).
What characteristics "stand out" the most about the group?Football players?
Car salespeople?
Actors?
Percentage of Students Attributing Trait to Groups (Katz, Braly, others)
Ratings of "general nurse" compared with "average
person"
Compared to the "average" person, nurses
are:
These are difference scores (attribution to nurse minus to "average
person")
Cognitive sources
Social categorization: classifying people into groups based on common attributes (back to the cognitive miser idea)
Ingroup - outgroup & the outgroup homogeneity effect:
Assuming greater similarity among characteristics of the outgroup than ingroup ("us" vs. "them")
Based on several factors:
We don't have as much exposure to members of the outgroup (compared to members of ingroup). So, we don't have chance to learn about individual idiosyncrasies in outgroup members
Probably also a cultural phenomenon. Americans really show the outgroup homogeneity effect compared to other cultures. Americans like to see self as "individualistic"
Distort our perceptions: The contrast effect
Once stereotype is activated, these traits easily come to mind
Affect the information we attend to and, therefore, notice and quickly process
We'll attend more to stereotype-consistent information
Stereotype-inconsistent information activates attempts to disconfirm/reject it
Stereotypes obviously affect social judgments we make about other:
They influence how much we like the person
They are reflected in the mood the person "puts" us in (black example)
Our expectations regarding probability of certain behaviors in the person
Snyder's ideas regarding selective perception and behavioral confirmation
Stereotypes become "self-confirming" (self-fullfilling prophecy)
Remember scar-face study
Remember dating study
Think of other examples (e.g., gender-induced self-fulfilling prophecies)
Illusory correlation
Joint occurrence of distinctive behaviors and distinctive groups overestimated:
Negative behaviors are distinctive (e.g., stealing)
Minorities are distinctive (e.g., Hispanics)
Wrongly assume that go hand-in-hand
In fact, we overestimate the occurrence of negative behaviors in minorities
Think of other examples (welfare scams; corrupt politicians; abusive teachers)
Know Hamilton and Gifford study
The "footnote" idea: Subcategorizing
"Don't get me wrong...I know some very nice X people, but..."
Stereotype-inconsistent exemplars are seen as exceptions; atypical
Interesting paradox:
If a person is typical/representative of the group (e.g., blacks) but behaves inconsistently with stereotype, this will help change the group stereotype BUT
In order NOT to be negatively stereotyped, people want to present selves as atypical exemplars of group (basically distancing themselves from the group stereotype)
Confirmation biases
Stereotype-inconsistent ---> described in behavioral terms; elicit situational attributions
Stereotype-consistent -----> described in trait terms; elicit dispositional attributions
Implicit and Automatic view vs. Controlled Processing
PsychNOW CD-ROM example (we can control our stereotypes under certain conditions)
Notion of ironic effects of suppressing stereotypes (but trying to control can backfire)
"Don't think of white bears" (Wegner's research)
Effects of Mood: (stereotyping doesn't always occur, but does when in good mood)
When people are in a good mood, they may be more inclined to engage in stereotyped thinking (Bodenhausen et al., 1994)
Persons in good may be less motivated to engage in hard cognitive work than those in a neutral mood
Good mood does not reduce our capacity to think rationally, just reduces our motivation to do so
Recall that LaPiere detected (negative) prejudice when he surveyed hotels and restaurants about serving Chinese, but little discrimination
Among other things, means that stereotypes probably fueled prejudice, but people not willing to admit this
People not often willing to admit to (negative or positive) stereotyping, being prejudiced, or discrimination but all practices & beliefs are rampant
(Think about your own reactions to the class activities for this chapter)
These beliefs are partly "structurally supported."
Think about societal or institutional sources of prejudice (e.g., our laws, our schools, the media);
just-world ideas:
bad things happen to bad people
people get what they deservevs. the
rationalizations & excuses we give, in contrast, for our own failings (shades of Chap. 2 & 3)
tends to receive more attention,
is rehearsed more frequently,
is more likely to be remembered
Therefore, prejudice has both cognitive and affective components
Affective component is the positive or negative attitude/feeling
Cognitive component contains stereotypes
Direct intergroup conflict
Social learningSocial categorization: Us vs. them
Cognitive sources: stereotypes, illusory correlations, outgroup homogeneity
Direct Intergroup Conflict
This research is based on , or lead to, realistic conflict theory
Idea is that real disparities or competition between groups leads to hostility (negative prejudice).
Even "perceived" threats (relative deprivation) can lead to prejudice
Think about strife existing between early Mormons and other groups. Can partly be explained in terms of realistic conflict theory, accounted for in terms of real deprivation or perceived deprivation.
Some would argue that this theory applies to increasing prejudice (and discrimination) currently prevalent here in Utah
Robber's Cave study (Sherif et al., 1961)
Rattlers and Eagles in separate cabins formed close attachments to others in own group (Week 1)
Groups brought into competition with one another (Week 2)Groups developed strong prejudices
Superordinate goals introduced (e.g., fixing bus) (Week 3)Conflict reduced
Hovland & Sears (1940) -- correlation between economic conditions and racial violence
Most of 4761 lynchings in US between 1882 and 1930 occurred in the South, and most victims were African Americans
Farm value of cotton and per-acre value of cotton each year was strongly correlated with the number of lynchings in each year
Again, think about realistic conflict notion in light of current levels of prejudice (and discrimination in the U.S.). As economic conditions worsen, prejudice and discrimination are on the rise.
Social learning as source of prejudice
Children acquire negative attitudes toward various social groups through direct and vicarious learning experiences
Parents, teachers, friends, the mass media all play roles in the development of prejudice
Consider how minority groups or the two genders have been portrayed in the media
Some even argue that we are "born" with a bias to perceive dark stimuli as more fearful than lighter stimuli (shown with babies and toddlers using "neutral" stimuli)
Social categorization as source of Prejudice: Us vs. Them
People tend to view "us" in favorable terms and "them" more negatively
Ingroup-outgroup distinction affects attribution
We tend to attribute desirable behaviors of ingroup members to stable internal causes, but tend to attribute desirable behaviors of outgroup members to unstable or to external causes- sometimes called the ultimate attribution error
How does social categorization result in prejudice?Tajfel (1982) proposes that that individuals seek to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with social groups.
This is successful to the extent that persons perceive their group(s) as somehow superior to other group(s)
Basking in reflected glory (BIRG'ing) - Chap. 3
Even if there is an inferior "ingroup" member, this leads to considerable derogation so as to preserve value of the group
Cutting off reflected failure (CORF'ing) - Chap. 3 & Branscombe's research in Chap. 5
This notion of social categorization bears on Tajfel and Turner's Social Identity Theory, which predicts, among other things:
higher ingroup favoritism when self-esteem threatened on a situational basis
heightened levels of ingroup favoritism when the group is really small (a minority)
heightened levels of ingroup favoritism when one feels a marginal member of group
Blatant or outright discrimination has decreased in the US in recent years
However, there still is much discrimination in form of "modern racism" (Swim et al., 1995)"Modern racism" consists of outright denial that there is discrimination against minorities
Nonetheless, there is today still great anatagonism toward minorities, e.g.,
to the demands of minorities for equal treatment;
resentment about special favors for minority groups;
backlash against equal opportunity/affirm. action
Tokenism -- performing trivial positive actions toward targets of prejudice, and then using these actions as an excuse for refusing more meaningful and beneficial actionsTokenism has many negative effects
Lets prejudiced people point to their behavior as showing lack of discrimnation
Damages the self-esteem of and confidence of targets of prejudice
Reverse discrimination -- treating members of target group more favorably than members of other groupsReverse discrimination has negative effects
Falsely raised expectations may clash with reality later on; short-term benefits may result in long-term costs
Reverse discrimination may hurt the members of other groups who do not receive the special treatment
Several forms of prejudice and discrimination have decreased in the US in recent years (Martin & Porter, 1995)
Young persons tend to view racial differences as stemming primarily from social and economic factors, not from inherited biological factors
They also express optimism that group differences can be eliminated
Direct intergroup contact
Social learning
Social recategorization: us and them
Cognitive interventions: weakening stereotypes
As attested to by poor results of desegregation in this country, contact hypothesis received limited support
Contact is effective under these limiting conditions:
Groups are roughly equal in status (social, economic, or task relevant)
Contact involves cooperation and interdependence
Contact is informal so groups get to know one another as individuals
Interaction must permit disconfirmation of negative stereotypes
Persons must regard one another as typical of their respective groups
(Aronson's "jigsaw classroom" is good example of meeting all above conditions)
To the extent that prejudices and stereotypes are learned, we can work to avoid teaching them to children
Parents and teachers, made aware of their own prejudices, may work to modify their behavior to encourage lower levels of prejudice in children
No real hard evidence on this, yet.
The common ingroup identity model (Gaertner, Dovidio et al., 1993)
Shades of Sherif: When members of different social groups come to see themselves as members of a single social entity,their attitudes toward the former outgroup members become more positive
Crucial factor is existence of situation in which groups work together cooperatively toward shared goals
Strong support for common ingroup identity model from lab and field studies, but hard to implement in real life settings
Stereotypes involve category-driven processing -- thinking about others in terms of their membership in social categories or groups
Stereotypes can be reduced if persons can be made to engage in attribute-driven processing -- thinking about the unique characteristics of individuals
Factors that encourage attribute-driven processing:
Give person incentive to think accurately about others (Neuberg, 1989)
Inform persons that their own outcomes depend on another's performance, or that it is important that they form an accurate impression of other
Successful outcomes for members of other groups (e.g., career success) can counter stereotypes because we often attribute positive characteristics to those who have good outcomes. (problem is, groups about whom we which to change stereotypes don't often achieve success; thus are "footnoted" in Tamara's terms. Think of Bill Cosby).
We still operate under a really strong set of beliefs based on what I would call "mega-stereotypes":
"what is beautiful is good"
"what is good is beautiful"It's difficult to change people's definition of beautiful.... (think about this in realm of disabilities)
Are gender stereotypes accurate?
There are some gender differences in social behaviors,
e.g.,
ability to send and receive nonverbal cues (DePaulo, 1992)
aggression (Bettencour & Miller, in press)
nature of same-sex friendships (Elkins & Peterson, 1993)
Nonetheless: Size and range and gender differences is far smaller than stereotypes suggest (Oliver & Hyde, 1993)
Discrimination against females
Why?
Expectations
Self-confidence
Negative reactions to female leaders(There still is an invisible "Glass ceiling")
Why lower expectations? Reasons include:
expecting to take more time out from work to care for others
putting less importance on job outcomes
realizing that women generally earn less, even comparing themselves to other women
Negative evaluations are particularly likely
when women adapt a "masculine" leadership style
when the evaluators are males
when most leaders in the field are men
--------------------------------ADDENDUM-------------------------------------------
Back
to Psy 3510 HomepageBack
to Psy 3510 Lecture Notes© Copyright 2004 Tamara J Ferguson
Send e-mail comments regarding this site to: fatamara@cc.usu.edu