Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
31 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Characterizing intergroup bias
|
Stereotype
prejudice discrimination |
|
|
Stereotype
|
Belief that certain attributes are characteristic of members of particular groups [cognition]
ex: “People in Racial Group are all stupid/lazy/smart/athletic/rich” [cognition] |
|
|
Prejudice
|
A negative (or positive) attitude toward a certain group that is applied to its individual members [affect]
ex: “I don’t like people in Racial Group, so I don’t like Bob because he is a member of this group” [affect] |
|
|
Discrimination
|
Unfair treatment of members of a particular group based on their membership in that group [behavior]
ex: “Bob applied for a job in my company, but I won’t hire him, because he’s in Racial Group” [behavior] |
|
|
Traditional prejudice
|
Prejudice against a social group that is consciously acknowledged and openly expressed by an
individua |
|
|
Modern prejudice
|
Prejudice against a social group that exists
alongside the rejection of explicit prejudiced beliefs ex: Example: Opposing racial segregation and discrimination (actions that target the outgroup), but treating members of the outgroup differently than the ingroup (e.g., sitting further away, being less likely to hire) |
|
|
Modern racism & hiring (Hodson et al., 2002)
|
Ps filled out a modern racism toward African Americans scale
High = prejudice; low = no prejudice Ps rated white and black job applicants Results White and black applicants rated the same when The applicant excelled in all relevant areas The applicant was below average in all relevant areas White applicants were rated higher than black applicants when The applicant excelled in certain dimensions but was low in others Conclusion: modern racism comes out when it’s “safe” to express |
|
|
Ambivalent sexism
|
[Ambivalent = positive and negative]
Sexism often contains two distinct components Hostile sexism: Negative views of a gender Benevolent sexism: Positive views of a gender |
|
|
Hostile sexism
|
domination, hostility, and degradation
E.g., “Women are less competent and can’t do the same jobs as men” |
|
|
Benevolent sexism
|
attitudes of protection, idealization, and affection toward women who inhabit traditional
gender roles ex: E.g., “In an emergency, women should be rescued before men”… “Women should be treated delicately” |
|
|
Hostile and benevolent sexism often co-exist
|
“Women are incompetent… so men should protect them and take care of them”
|
|
|
Benevolent sexism
|
just as bad as hostile sexism
It’s often used to justify negative (hostile) stereotypes “Women are so kind and nurturing, they just won’t make good CEOs” Women are treated positively if they fit traditional gender roles Women in non-traditional roles face criticism and discrimination |
|
|
Perspectives on the origins of intergroup bias
|
The economic perspective
The motivational perspective The cognitive perspective |
|
|
The economic perspective
|
Intergroup bias comes from competition with outgroups
Realistic group conflict theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972) When groups compete for limited resources, the groups will experience intergroup conflict, prejudice, and discrimination Limited resources: territory, jobs, power (religious, social), etc. Prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among groups that stand to lose the most from another group’s success |
|
|
The motivational perspective
|
Intergroup bias comes from identification with an ingroup and/or frustration
|
|
|
The cognitive perspective
|
Intergroup bias comes from the way certain cognitive
processes work |
|
|
The motivational perspective
|
Social identity theory (SIT)
|
|
|
Social identity theory (SIT)
|
A person’s self-concept & self-esteem are derived from both:
Personal identity & accomplishments Status & accomplishments of the groups to which the person belongs People are motivated to view their ingroups more favorably than outgroups |
|
|
Minimal group paradigm
|
An experimental paradigm in which researchers create groups based on arbitrary and meaningless criteria to examine how members of the “minimal groups” behave toward one another
|
|
|
Using the ingroup to bolster self-esteem
|
People who take particularly strong pride in their group
affiliations are more prone to ingroup favoritism when placed in minimal group situations (Crocker & Luhtanen, 1990) People who are highly identified with a particular group react to criticism of the group as if it were criticism of the self (McCoy & Major, 2003) |
|
|
Using the outgroup to bolster self-esteem
|
Self-esteem can be enhanced by negative evaluations of
the outgroup Remember the minimal groups finding: people are motivated to have ingroup success RELATIVE to the outgroup |
|
|
The cognitive perspective
|
Stereotypes are simply schemas about groups of people
Schemas are pre-existing knowledge Using knowledge you already have is quicker/easier than creating new knowledge by assessing and integrating the environment Therefore, stereotypes can be useful because they decrease the time/effort needed to deal with the environment Stereotypes become harmful when they are rigidly over-applied |
|
|
Negative effects of over-reliance on stereotypes
|
Outgroup homogeneity effect
Biased information processing Illusory correlations Linguistic intergroup bias Automatic behaviors |
|
|
Outgroup homogeneity effect
|
The tendency to assume that
members of outgroups are “all alike,” whereas members of ingroups have differences |
|
|
Illusory correlations
|
An incorrect belief that two things are related when they are in fact not related
|
|
|
Linguistic intergroup bias
|
Action identification theory (Vallacher & Wehner, 1987)
All actions can be construed at different levels of abstraction If someone drops a pen, you can “pick it up” / “help them out” Abstract descriptions invoke dispositional attributions If someone “helped out” they are a good person Concrete descriptions invoke situational attributions If someone “picked up” they were just doing some behavior in the moment Therefore, abstract descriptions seem to tell you something about the kind of person someone is (personality info), whereas concrete descriptions don’t tell you about personality |
|
|
Automatic vs. controlled processing
|
Why does this happen?
Many people hold stereotypes that associate African Americans with hostility and violence The race of the target primes these thoughts, which temporarily influences how participant perceive the objects that are being held |
|
|
Being a member of a stigmatized group
|
Attributional ambiguity
Stereotype threat |
|
|
Attributional ambiguity
|
Members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain if the treatment they receive is due to themselves personally or is a result of their group membership
Why didn’t you get hired? Why did you get that scholarship? |
|
|
Stereotype threat
|
The fear that you will confirm a stereotype that others have
about you Group members typically know the stereotypes others hold about their group In a performance situation, people often want to prove to others that the stereotype isn’t true This leads to anxiety about accidentally confirming the stereotype This anxiety actually makes it MORE likely that an individual will confirm the stereotype |
|
|
Examples of stereotype threats
|
White male students do worse on math tests when the “Asians are good at math” stereotype is made salient
Black students perform worse on a golf task when it’s described as a test of “sports intelligence”; white students do worse on the same golf task when it’s described as a test of “natural athletic ability” Black students perform worse on aptitude tests when asked to indicate their race beforehand Female Asian students do worse on math tests when the “women are bad at math” stereotype is made salient… they do better on math tests when the “Asians are good at math” stereotype is made salient |
