• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

55 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
a. What is social psychology?
the scientific study of the ways in which people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by the real or imagined presence of other people.
b. What is a construal?
i. Our construals stem from two basic human motives
ii. Self esteem-> the need to feel good about ourselves
iii. Social cognition-> the need to be accurate about the social world
iv. We rely on our construals which are motivated by these motives in conjunction. We want to be accurate with a "I'm a good person" spin. Very personal.
v. Possible motives
vi. Belonging: the need o feel as though we fit in and are accepted.
vii. Control: the need to feel a sense of influence over our lives and environments.
viii. Biology: can also motivate us (hunger, thirst, etc.)
c. The Fundamental Attribution Error
i. The Fundamental Attribution Error= our tendency
ii. Tend to think that a person's behavior is based on their personality than the social situation
iii. First, we overestimate how much people's behavior is based on personality
iv. AND UNDERESTIMATE how much people's behavior is based on the situation
v. We do this to others, not ourselves
a. Schemas, what they are, what they affect
i. Schemas= mental models people use to organize their knowledge
ii. One common type of automatic thinking
1. Influence information people
a. Notice
b. Think about
c. Remember
iii. We are more likely to remember things when they are in keeping with our schemas
iv. Schemas are functional and beneficial
1. Help us interpret ambiguous situations
v. Schemas that are applied to a situation can affect construals
1. May be several possible schemas for any given situation
2. Schemas influenced by accessibility
3. Accessibility- extent to which a schema is at the forefront of our minds (two types)
b. Self-fulfilling prophecy
1. Forming an expectancy
1. Category based (stereotypes)
2. Personal experiences, first impressions
3. Implicit personality theories
a. Ideas about what types of traits often emerge together
2. Behavioral confirmation
1. Expectations guide our behaviors toward the target
2. Target responds to our behaviors
Perceptual confirmation
1. We see what we expect to see
a. "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it"
b. In reality this isn't how it works
c. We should really say: "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it"
o Bloomer study 1968
• All children given a bogus test at the beginning of the year
• Told teachers that 20% of the kids were "bloomers" (randomly chosen)
• Measured on IQ tests at the end of the year
• Results- bloomers improved more than non-bloomers
• Teachers asked to indicate how much they liked each of their students
• Those who match expectations liked the most
d. : Rely on mental shortcuts when making decisions
i. Often very useful, can lead to errors in judgment
ii. Increases cognitive efficiency
iii. Schemas also increase cognitive efficiency, however, heuristics minimizes the actual controlled thinking so we can make a split-second decision
e. Availability heuristic
• People make decisions based on how easily they can bring something to mind
• Example: more likely to die in a car accident or stroke? Stroke
• ING, N?
• Schwartz et a. (1991)
• People asked to think of either 6 times there were assertive or 12 times, then rate assertiveness
• Easier to come up with 6, those people rather themselves more assertive
• Things that are "available" in our minds are considered more common
o Vivid things (e.g. plane crashes) are more available
o Things that are more publicized are most available
• Representativeness heuristic:
o People make decisions based on how similar something is to typical case
o Often ignore base rate information: how common something is in the environment or population
• Errors based on representativeness
o Ignoring base rate information and simply matching to stereotypes about people of schemas
• Gambler's fallacy: belief that once chance event is affected by previous events
o Think we're more likely to get heads on a coin flips after
o Always 50/50!
• Illusion of control: belief that we can control events determined by chance
o Throw dice softly for low numbers, hard for high numbers
• Magical thinking: making decisions that do not hold up to rational scrutiny
o Afraid to eat chocolate shaped like spiders
a. Implicit personality theories
i. Implicit personality theory
ii. A type of schema, but helps us explain behavior
iii. Fill in the blanks by grouping personality traits together
iv. If you think someone is kind then you'll probably think they're generous.
v. Nerds: smart, socially awkward, likes computers
b. Internal vs. external attributions
c. Attribution theory
i. How we explain other people's behavior
ii. Make two types of attributions
iii. Internal: it is something about the person whose behavior we are explaining
iv. Why did Susie stomp on my foot? Because she's mean.
v. External: it is something about other people or the situation
vi. Why did Susie stomp on my foot? Because we were standing on a crowded train. It was an accident.
Why did Joe kick Fido (dog)?
• Consensus: do other people also kick Fido?
o Yes=high consensus, No=low consensus
• Distinctiveness: does Joe kick other dogs?
o Yes=low distinctiveness, No=high distinctiveness
• Consistency: does Joe always kick Fido?
o Yes=high consistency, No=low consistency
• Internal attribution- it's something about Joe!
o Low consensus (no one else kicks Fido)
o Low distinctiveness (Joe kicks all dogs)
o High consistency (Joe always kicks Fido)
• External attribution- it's something about Fido!
o High consensus- everyone kicks Fido
o High distinctiveness- Joe kicks only Fido
o High consistency- Joe always kicks Fido
• Low consistency
o Unique occurrence is difficult to classify
o External attribution made to the particular circumstances
d. Self-serving attributions
i. FAE and the Self
ii. Much less likely to make the FAE for our own behaviors
iii. Instead, we make self-serving attributions: explanations for our behaviors that make us look good
iv. My failures are due to external, situation factors (outside)
v. My success are due to internal, dispositional factors (inside)
a. Cultural and gender differences in conceptions of the self
• Cultural difference in self-concept
o Western cultures= independent view of the self
• Define self via own thoughts, feelings, actions
o Eastern cultures= interdependent view of the self
• Define self via relationships with others and others' (or group's) thoughts, feelings, actions i.e. a member of my family, part of this group
o Generalized differences, much within culture variability
• Gender difference in self-concept (specific to Western culture)
o Women= tend to be more focused on relationships
• Relationships with others important to idea of self

o Men= more focused on group memberships
• Membership in groups important to idea of self
o Much within gender variability
ii. Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation
c. Intrinsic motivation= desire to do a behavior because we like it, find it interesting etc.
d. Extrinsic motivation= desire to do a behavior because of external rewards or pressures
e. Adding extrinsic motivation for something that was intrinsically motived can be negative-> over-justification effect
f. If people view behavior as extrinsically motivated
g. Then underestimate intrinsic motivation as a cause of behavior
h. Knowing the self through social comparison
i. Social comparison
j. Evaluating the self (opinions, abilities, etc.) by comparing to others
k. When do we compare?
i. No objective standard
ii. Uncertainty
l. To whom do we compare?
i. Initially, to anyone around
ii. Given time, look for appropriate comparison
m. Upward social comparison
i. Serves a motivational function
n. Downward social comparison
i. Serves a self-esteem maintenance function
a. Cognitive dissonance theory
o Original definition: a drive or feeling of discomfort, caused by holding two or more inconsistent cognitions
o We went to be cognitively consistent. We want our thoughts to match and make sense when bringing it together with everything else
o If our thoughts, or cognitions, don't match, then we are motivated to remove the discomfort
• Aronson's revision to dissonance
o Dissonance caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one's (typically positive) self-concept
o Example: it is important to live a healthy lifestyle. You put this thought with the behavior of smoking. Smoking is in contrast with that lifestyle. Creates discomfort so make a change.
o Three ways of doing this (reducing discomfort)
• Change your behavior
 Bring your behavior in line with your thoughts i.e. stop smoking
• Change your cognitions
 Bring your cognitions in line with your behaviors i.e. important to live a healthy lifestyle, but since I smoke light cigarettes that's ok
• Add new cognition
 Think of new things that support your behavior i.e. healthy lifestyle, smoker, the reality is that my life will be shorter but I'm ok with that (I don't want to live to be old)
i. Choice justification (post-decisional dissonance)
c. Dissonance occurs after an important decision between two similar things
d. i.e. rate products on scale (toaster oven and coffee maker)
e. Women rated the items functionally identical (both save time etc.)
f. Now, as a gift, choose an appliance
g. After choosing, rerate appliances
h. The women rated the appliance they chose better
i. Reduce dissonance by enhancing what you chose and devaluing what you didn't choose
j. Happens POST-decision
i. Justification of effort (external and internal justification)
l. Increasing the liking for something you have worked hard to get
i. People must feel like they had a choice over their behavior
ii. i.e. female college students getting into a discussion group. The women who worked harder to get into the group said they liked it better than the other group (boring though)
iii. Insufficient justification
m. Insufficient justification (Festinger & Carlsmith) 1959
n. Threats to self-esteem
o. Illusion of choice
p. Low external justification= high dissonance
q. High external justification= low dissonance
i. Insufficient punishment
r. Insufficient punishment (Aronson & Carlsmith)
s. Mild threat of punishment= high dissonance
t. Severe threat of punishment= low dissonance
u. Researchers went into 1st 2nd grade classroom
v. Brought in new toys, rated the toys
w. Then the research said either:
i. Mild, leave the room, don't play with the toys or I'll be sad
ii. Severe, leave the room, don't play with the toys or I'll take them away forever
iii. Rerate toys, sad=lower, severe=higher
x. If we're given a large reward or severe punishment, it leads to external justification for whatever it is we're doing
i. Leads to external justification
ii. Leads to LOW dissonance
iii. Leads to temporary change in attitude of behavior
y. Small reward or mild punishment
i. Leads to internal justification
ii. HIGH dissonance
iii. Long-lasting change in attitude or behavior
z. Reducing cognitive dissonance
aa. Reducing relationship dissonance
bb. Focus on other person by reducing closeness
cc. Focus on activity by making it less central to your self-esteem
dd. Focus on own behavior by outperforming the other person
i. Cognitive, behavioral, an affective attitudes
• Cognitive (beliefs)
 Beliefs about the properties of the "attitude object" (anything we're dealing with, animal, person, couch)
 Function as object appraisal
 Thing that helps me= good
 Things that hurts me= bad
• Affective (emotion)
 Feelings and values associated with the "attitude object"
 Affectively based attitudes function as "value-expressive"
 Thing that makes me happy/is cool= good
 Thing that makes me sad/is gross= bad
 Can be the result of sensory reaction or conditioning
 Classical conditioning: neutral object paired with something that evokes a response
 Eventually, neutral object takes on the same emotional response (drool)
 i.e. loves popcorn, doesn't like movies, but gets same feeling after pairing popcorn with movie
 Operant conditioning
 Reinforcement and punishment are used to increase or decrease behavior
 Made a cake once, best cake EVAR, make it more frequently
o Behavioral
 Observe our behavior toward the "attitude object"
 Behaviorally based attitudes emerge when attitude is weak or ambiguous
 We have no (or minimal) cognitive or affective attitude
 No external reason for our behavior
 See self-perception theory (ch5)
• How do we change attitude?
o Behaviorally: cognitive dissonance
o Affectively:
 Peripheral route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
 Fear arousing communications
 i.e. best way to put baby to sleep, have scary posters of improperly placed babies
o Cognitively:
 Central route of the Elaboration Likelihood Model
 Yale Attitude Change Approach
• Elaboration Likelihood Model
o Central route: good for cognitive attitudes
 Paying attention to arguments leads to elaborating on the persuasive message
 Need ability and motivation to listen carefully
 i.e. vacuum breaks, see a commercial for a vacuum, go out and buy a new vacuum
o Peripheral route- good for affective attitudes
 People who do not have ability or motivation to pay attention do not elaborate
 Pay more attention to peripheral cues
 i.e. vacuum breaks but 4 year old crying in the room, might not pay attention to the vacuum being sold but who is selling it, the music, etc.
• Length of attitude change varies
o LONG lasting change if
 Central route of ELM was used
 Listener had ability and motivation to pay attention
o SHORT term change if
 Peripheral route of ELM was used
 Listener did not have ability and was not motivated to pay attention
• Dual process model: the person and the situation jointly determine ELM route
o The person
 Individual differences (need for cognition, to think before acting, more likely to take central route)
o The situation
 Time pressures, resources
 If you re given 5 minutes vs. as much time as you need, you'll behave very differently
• Yale Attitude Change Approach
o Who says what to whom
 Who: the source of the communication
 Who is providing the message
 Expertise: experts persuade better than non-experts
 Attractiveness: attractive people persuade more than unattractive people
 What: the nature of the communication
 What type of information are we given
 A 2 sided argument more persuasive (give appearance of "fairness")
 Inoculation theory
• Expose audience to small dose of arguments against your position and then refute them
• Increase immunity to later persuasive attempts
b. Subliminal versus regular advertising
d. Can change behavior or attitude in highly controlled conditions and for a short period of time
e. Bargh & Pietromonaco (1982): participants interpreted an ambiguous paragraph based on words that had been subliminally flashed
f. Reckless, adventurous
g. People primed with reckless thought paragraph was more reckless and vice verse
h. Week later rated it equally
i. Murphy & Zajonc (1993): asked people to rate Chinese ideograph
j. Liked it most when flashed a happy face, least when flashed an angry face
k. Flashing the face mattered
l. Only lasts for 5 minutes
m. People think:
i. Regular ads do NOT affect them
ii. Subliminal ads DO affect them
n. The reality:
i. Regular ads DO affect people
ii. Subliminal ads do NOT affect people
a. Conformity
ii. Changing behavior based on the real or imagined presence of others
iii. We can conform in a variety of situations
ii. Informational social influence (ISI)
1. Conformity via using others as a source of information
2. Their behavior, their knowledge, etc.
3. i.e. see what others are using to eat their salad (which fork)
4. Two important components:
a. Public compliance
b. We do it
c. Private acceptance
5. We believe it
c. Early studies used the autokinetic effect
i. Groups of three estimates the movement of a light
ii. Estimates eventually converged
iii. Ex: Please estimate out loud how much that light is moving?
iv. Over a series of trails, estimated with others, converged
v. Rohrer
vi. Replication of autokinetic effect
vii. 1 year delay
viii. By themselves they estimated the same answer!!
d. ISI Conformity more likely when
i. Ambiguous
ii. Crisis
iii. Experts
iv. Situation is ambiguous
v. Most important criteria
vi. Situation is a crisis
vii. Limited time to act
viii. Others are experts
ix. Assume they have "correct" knowledge or information
e. Normative social influence (NSI)
i. Conformity to be liked and accepted by others
ii. i.e. fashion (want to dress fashionably, fit in)
iii. Aspects of NSI
1. Public compliance (we do it)
2. NOT private acceptance (we do NOT believe it)
iv. NSI More likely when
1. No allies
2. Allies make it easier to resist conformity
3. Only 6% conformed at east once when there was an ally in the Asch study
4. Collectivistic culture or beliefs
5. Conformity more likely when it is valued
v. Asch (1956)
1. Which of the three lines on the right is the same length as the line of the left?
2. Pretty obvious
3. 1 participant, 5 confederates
4. Most of the time give the right answer, but sometimes give the most obviously wrong answer
5. 76% of people conformed at least 1 time
6. Replicated nearly 50 years later
7. Why did they conform
a. Public compliance without private acceptance
b. With private reporting, no conformity
g. Social Norm
h. Implicit or explicit rules in a group for acceptable behaviors, values, or beliefs of group members
i. Implicit: don't have a conversation with someone only 1 inch away form their face.
j. Explicit: no elbows on the table
k. Injunctive norm
l. Perceptions about what behaviors are approved of or disapproved of by others
m. i.e. speed limited
n. Descriptive norms
o. Perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations
p. i.e. speed limit 60, driving 70
a. Social facilitation
i. Physiological arousal
ii. From the presence of other people
iii. Knowledge that you are being evaluated
iv. Bikers go faster when other bikers around and vice versa
v. People perform
vi. Better on simple tasks
vii. Worse on complex tasks
viii. Learned tasks can become simple
ix. Michaels et al. 1982
1. 4 students observed novice or experienced pool players
2. Pool= hard for novices
3. Pool= simple for experienced players
4. They were either watched or unwatched
5. Novices missed more when being watched.
6. Experts did better when being watched.
b. Social loafing
i. Relaxation from
ii. The presence of other people
iii. Knowledge you are not individually observed
iv. People do
1. Worse on simple tasks
2. Better on complex tasks
v. When you have a group who is being evaluated as a group, you utilize other people's strengths (or you're just lazy and don't contribute i.e. social loafing)
c. Deindividuation and its effects
i. Deindividuation
ii. Loosening of normal constraints of behavior due to anonymity.
iii. People feel less accountable
iv. Become more obedient to group norms
v. Increases impulsive and deviant acts
vi. Accounts for mob behavior, if you're in a group of 20,000, how are you going to be held accountable?
vii. Extreme form of social loafing
viii. i.e. Halloween costume, KKK costume
i. Propinquity and mere exposure
The more we see/interact with others, the more we are to like them
Familiarity leads to liking
Mere exposure->familiarity->liking
Cross et al. (1967)
3 groups of baby rats
1 group- exposed to Mozart
2 group- exposed to Shoenberg
3 group- no music
Then trained to press levers. 3 levers->Moazart, Shoenberg, or no music.
How often are these rats going to press the levers?
Group 1- 80% M, 20% S
Group 2- 80% S, 20%M
Group 3- 50% S, 50% M
ii. Similarity vs. Dissimilarity and Optimal Distinctiveness Theory
Need for uniqueness, similarity only helps up to about 80%
Optimal distinctiveness theory: we simultaneously want to belong and want to be distinct.
iii. Reciprocal liking
When we think someone likes us we will probably like them more
Can overcome dissimilarity or lack of propinquity
Additionally, if we think someone likes us we will behave in a more likeable way toward them
This can lead to them liking us more
Creates a self-fulfilling prophecy
iv. Physical attractiveness
Females: small nose/chin, high eyebrows, narrow cheeks.
Men: large chin and define jaw
Western cultures
Both: large eyes, prominent cheek bones
General cross-cultural agreement
Babyface: large forehead, features low on the face, large round eyes, small nose, round cheeks
Averageness is also attractive
Likely due to familiarity
The more faces we average together the more attractive we think they are
Beauty leads to liking
Dion (1972)
Attractiveness matters, especially with a severe act
Two pictures: attractive or unattractive kid
Read a scenario of a kid throwing a snow ball at a kid's leg or threw at head and caused a gash.
Snow ball- attractiveness didn't matter
Severe act- attractive: forgave him, unattractive: called police
Clifford & Walster (1973)
Cute kids thought to have bright future
Transcripts of kid talking. Same for unattractive and attractive.
Landy & Sigall (1974)
Attractive woman received a better grade for a bad essay
Look at essay, picture of attractive or unattractive
Good essay didn't matter
Bad essay attractive got better grade than unattractive
"What is beautiful is good" stereotype
Attractive people thought to possess positive traits
In US: more socialable, outgoing, sexual, assertive, happy
"Good stereotype are culturally based
What is valued is associated with attractive people
Attractiveness and socialbility are positively correlated
Not CAUSAL, could be self-fulfilling prophecy
Synder, Tanke, & Berscheid (1977)
Male participants have a 10 minute "getting to know you" phone conversation with a female
Female participants
Always used the same picture (never matched woman)
Given a positive or negative expectation based on a fake picture "You are having a conversation with this woman"
Brought in naive observer and just heard what the woman said. Didn't see the picture. They were asked to rate the woman on conversational skills (warm? Engaging?)
Female conversationalists were rated more socially skilled when men given an attractive picture.
Given an expectation, behave based on expectation, female responds to behavior, self-fulfilling prophesy
Liking leads to beauty
Attractiveness gives an advantage, but there is room for change
Nisbett & Wilson (1977)
Participants watched videos of TA
All videos showed the same person
Half of video as showed him mean, half showed him nice
Rated the attractiveness of TA in the video
Physical part is identical, the only thing that changed was his behavior
% saying TA is attractive
Nice: 70%
Mean: 36%
b. Social Exchange Theory
Relationship satisfaction is based on
Rewards received in relationship i.e. food, safety
Costs incurred in relationship i.e. paying for everything, frustration
Comparisons made
Relationship to expectations
Relationship to other possible relationships
a. Theories on why people help others
i. Evolutionary theory
Kin selection
Help our closest relatives
Our genes survive
First research looked at bees, bees that were genetic relatives of the hive were allowed in, other bees not allowed
Norm of reciprocity
"I'll help you, you help me"
Developed understanding with others
Increased survival
But it cannot be tested
a. Theories on why people help others.
Social exchange theory
Help to maximize our benefits and minimize our costs
Helping rewards us
Increased likelihood of reciprocal helping
Relieve distress of the witness
We gain social approval and self-worth
If costs>rewards we will not help
Argues altruism does not exist
iii. Empathy-Altruism
If we feel empathy, we will help regardless of costs to us
If we do NOT feel empathy, Social Exchange concerns comes into play
Prosocial behavior- any act performed benefitting another person
Altruism- a desire to help another person even if there is a personal cost involved
An act without self-interest, costs are greater than rewards
b. Effects of mood on helping behavior
Positive mood increases helping because
Positive mood makes us interpret events in a sympathetic way (look on the bright side)
Helping prolongs the positive mood state
Positive mood increases self-attention- which heightens our adherence to seeing ourselves as altruistic.
Feel good, do good
Negative mood increases helping because
Guilt increases helping (people think good deeds cancel out bad deeds)
Negative state relief hypothesis
People help in order to alleviate their own sadness or distress
Feel bad do good
Students asked to commit 5 acts of kindness per week for 6 weeks
Visit n elderly relative
Write a thank you letter to a former teacher
Students who did kindness behaviors reported greater happiness than control group
Practical lesson: if you are feeling down, help somebody!
i. Hostile aggression
ii. Comes from feelings of anger
Aimed at inflicting pain
Aggression is the end behavior
Immediate conditions that lead to aggressive acts
Threats to self-esteem, status, or respective
particularly in public
General increases in stimuli
Long term conditions that lead o aggressive acts
Repeated threats to self-worth or status
iii. Instrumental aggression
iv. Aggression to reach a goal
Aggression is a means to an end
Immediate conditions
Opportunities for gain with high reward and low perceived risk
Long term conditions
Poverty or other challenging economic factors
Perception of crime as a way to get resources/respect
Norms that show aggression a way to resources
i. Frustration-aggression hypothesis (when frustration lead to aggression, relative deprivation)
Frustration-Aggression Theory
Perception of being prevented from a goal (i.e. frustration) will lead to more aggression
Frustration will NOT lead to aggression if:
Aggression does not work in the situation
Frustration is
Frustration INCREASES aggression when
The goal is closer
Frustration is unexpected
Experience relative deprivation
The perception that your or your group have less than you deserve
ii. Aggressive cues
Stimuli that leads to increases and arousal and anger
Unpleasant heat
Painful cold
Stressful noises
Bad odor
iii. Social learning theory
We learn aggression (any social behavior) via observation and imitation
Bandura's bobo dolls
Classic study:
Children watched an adult play with a bobo-doll violently or non-violently
Children watching violent video played more violently with same doll and made
up new violent acts
a. Distinction between stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination
A is for Prejudice (affect)
A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people
Influences emotional response to group members
Technically, prejudice can be positive, too
B is for discriminate (behavior)
Overt behavior directed toward a person because of presumed or actual group membership
Can stem from stereotypes or prejudice
Implies power over another person's outcomes
C is for stereotypes (cognitive)
A generalization about a group of people
Apply identical characteristics to all members of the group, regardless of actual variation
Deny individual of group
i. Modern racism & Ambivalent sexism
Outwardly acting unprejudiced while inwardly maintaining prejudicial attitudes
More subtle and ambiguous
Studied with reaction time measures or surveys that ask subtle questions
Automatic prejudice: quick, uncontrollable response to someone based on group membership
Influences behaviors we do not monitor and cannot control
Controlled prejudice: conscious beliefs, how people want to feel
Influences behaviors we can monitor and control
Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986): measures more subtle prejudice attitudes
Scores are higher than on measures of old-fashioned racism
They have a large range

Ambivalent Sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996): sexism is made up of two parts
Hostile sexism: negative->women are inferior
Benevolent sexism: positive->women are weaker
b. Prejudice reduction
i. Contact hypothesis
Use logic?
Does not work
Prejudice is usually an affective attitude, cannot be changed through cognitive processes

Provide counter stereotypic examples?
Only works if there are MANY examples
Must show that the stereotype is generally untrue

Practice making non-prejudiced response?
Can work if people are aware of own attitudes/want to change

Self-esteem approach?
Use principles of cognitive dissonance, but hard to do on a very large scale

Social cognition approach?
Prevent categorization
Difficult because some minority groups want to emphasize group membership and/or are proud of group
Emphasize shared group memberships