Set the Language

We weren't able to detect the audio language on your flashcards. Please select the correct language below.

Front

Back

Flashcards
»
PSYC3142 Mid-Sem

Psyc3142 Mid-Sem

by ECUQ, Mar. 2016

Favorite

Add to folder

Flag

Related Essays

Tuckman's Stages Of Group Interaction
Tuckman’s theory describes the fifth stage of a group development. In 1977 Dr Tuckman study the behaviour of small groups in different environments and he no...
Essay On Social Identity Theory
The second stage is social identification. People will adopt the identity of the group that they categorised in, and therefore adopting certain values and be...
The Importance Of Sorority In Society
When you join a sorority, you join a cult. As I sit here writing this in the house of the sorority I belong to, I feel as if I will be doing them an injustic...
Communication Technology In Adolescent Relationships And Identity Development
Fillipkowski and Smyth gathered 276 participants, of both genders, and split them in either online, or in person studies. Each subject was given hypothetical...
Examples Of Group Dynamics In 12 Angry Men
Week 2 Application Assignment: Group Dynamics and Group Stages In 1965, Bruce Tuckman developed one of the most influential models of “the developmental sta...
YP4: Long-Term Leadership Development Initiative
I’m currently a member of a group called YP4 (Young People for Change) which is a long-term leadership development initiative that identifies, engages, and e...
Is Abortion A Human Right Essay
According to David G. Myers, a professor of psychology at Hope College in Michigan, United States, “No matter how impressive the results are, the idea of ele...
Group Norms And Conformity Research Paper
114). Individuals conform to group norms in order to gain social acceptance and avoid group rejection. For instance, a group of Office managers decide they w...
Group Process: The Importance Of Content And Content In Groups
In the same way, group members should uphold the role of being fully open to the group process and experience. Initially, however, group member behavior is ...
Differences In Cognitive Reflection
Participants First year psychology students participated in this assessment as a course requirement, there was 268 (182 females and 86 males) in total. De...

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

Reading...

Front

Card Range To Study

through

Play button

Progress

1/151

Click to flip

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;

151 Cards in this Set

Front
Back

	Describe the Investigation stage ofMorelandand Levine's group socialisation model:	Individuals and groups check each other out in order to see which groups are going to best suit their individual needs, and groups scout for recruits that suit the groups needs
	Describe the socialisation stage of Moreland and Levine's group socialisation model:	- If the individual wants to join the groups and the group is prepared to accept the individual then entry occurs - This point if often marked by some kind of ceremony – can be positive or harsh - Entry can be a stressful experience because the “real” nature of the group becomes apparent or newcomers typically have low status - During the process of socialisation, the newcomer to the group tries to get the group to accommodate to their individual needs while the group tries to get them to assimilate -Difficult for individual to exert too much influence -Having newcomers appears to be good for the group and occasionally changing groups good for the individual (cognitive growth and good decision making)
	3 strategies a newcomer might use to respond to the socialisation stage of group socialisation	- Playing the role of the newcomer --Newcomers are typically: Relatively anxious, passive --Dependent on old timers, Relatively conforming, -- Ironically, playing the role of the newcomer can mean that the newcomer becomes more influential in the long-term. According to Hollander (1958) the more people prove their loyalty to group norms, the more permission to stray from the group norms (“idiosyncrasy credits”). - Seeking patrons within the group -- Patrons are oldtimers who help newcomers fit in. --may be: Models (high status members that are observed by newcomers), Trainers (people formally given the job of assimilating newcomers), Sponsors (people who helped bring the person into the group and so take more personal responsibility for their fitting in), Mentors (oldtimers who develop a close professional relationship with the newcomer) -Publicdisplays of groupy behaviour -- Newcomers (and other peripheral group members) tend to be quite strategic in terms of when and where they display “groupy” behaviours.
	What does Noel et all (1995) study show?	- had either active members (core members) or pledge members (peripheral members) of a sorority rate a rival sorority on a number of negative traits. - In some conditions they were told they would have to discuss their responses with other members of their sorority (public condition). In other conditions they were led to believe that their responses were private and anonymous.
	InitiationCeremonies	- When new members join a group, this moment is typically marked by some kind of ceremony … often this involves physically stressful or embarrassing initiation rites. - Gang initiations: Show you belong by being extremely violent - Freemasonry initiations, 18th century: Hidden/secret and highly ritualised - Indigenous children: Mark the transition from childhood to adulthood - Hazing, US :Dangerous
	Jetten,Hornsey et al. (2006)	- 2nd-year psych students rate the extent to which they conformed to the norms of being a psychology student. -They were led to believe that their responses were either public or private. - Intragroup status was manipulated by saying either: “Your responses will be compared to the responses of professional psychologists. We are interested to find out more on the views of more junior psychologists”. (junior condition) or “Your responses will be compared to the responses of college students who take psychology as a subject. We are interested to find out more on the views of more senior psychology students.” (senior condition)
	What is the margini model?	Some new group members don't want to be socialized and some groups don't want to socialize the new member
	What are the steps in the group socialisation model?	-Investigation -Socialisation -Maintenance: full memer role negotiation -Resocialisation: marginal member conformitity. they are usually reigned in here -Rememberance: after group exit
	Define CognitiveDissonance	- Cognitive dissonance refers to when your actions and thoughts are logically discrepant (e.g., “I’m joining a group even though they’re treating me badly”). This makes us anxious so we act to reduce the discrepancy. We can do this by either: -- Changing our behaviours (e.g., leaving the group, thus weeding out the uncommitted) OR --Changing our attitudes (e.g., convince ourselves that we must really want to be in this group or else we wouldn’t accept the bad treatment).
	Aronson& Mills (1959)	-invitedcollege women to listen to a group discussion on sex. -To gain permission tohear the group discussion, the women were told either --(a) there was no entrycriteria, --(b) they had to undergo a mild electric shock, or --(c) they had toundergo a strong electric shock. - To maximize dissonance, the subsequentdiscussion was designed to be boring.
	Gerard & Mathewson (1966)	- subjected women to either a mild or a painful electric shock prior to joining a group discussion. -In some conditions the shock was described as a necessary pre-requisite to join the group, whereas in other conditions it was unrelated to the discussion group
	Young(1965)	- In an analysis of 54 tribal cultures, Young (1965) found that those with the most dramatic and stringent initiation ceremonies were those with the greatest group solidarity. Could be one reason why initiation ceremonies are often privately endorsed by leaders and officials even if they are publicly condemned.
	Bastian,Jetten & Ferris	showedthat people who shared a painful experience together were more trusting ofother group members (compared to those who shared a non-painful experience).
	Xygalatas et al. (2013)	- Higher charitable giving from high-ordeal ritual participants - More intense pain -> higher giving
	Ferriset. Al	Morepleasure in experience and high pain resulted in greater self-revelation
	Define ostracism	Term“ostracism” comes from ostrakismos, a practice originating in Athens around488BC used to remove those with dictatorial ambitions from the democraticstate.
	Ostracisms' frequency	According to a recent poll, more than 75% of Americans indicated they’d received “the silent treatment” from their loved one, and 67% admitted that they used it on their loved ones.
	Pepitone& Wilpizeski (1960): The power of ostracism	- During a brief recess in an experimental session, Pepitone & Wilpizeski (1960) had confederates conduct a conversation with one another but ignoring the target. - Compared to a control condition in which the target was included, the ignored target described themselves as relatively withdrawn, shy and alone.
	Ball-tossingparadigm	- During a brief recess in an experimental session, Williams & Sommer (1997) had confederates toss a ball to each other but ignore the target. - Sex differences emerged – men tried to look indifferent whereas women did less “face work”, looking crushed and depressed. - Men were more likely than women to attribute the ostracism to the personalities of the ostracizers (“it’s them, not me”). - On a subsequent collective task, women tried to work extra hard (social compensation) whereas men bludged (social loafing) -A subsequent experiment showed that both men and women reported lower mood, lower self-esteem, reduced sense of control over their lives, lower sense of belonging, reduced sense that life is meaningful, heightened awareness of death
	Cyber ostracism	- Amazingly, some of these effects occur even when the ostracisers aren’t known and can’t be seen (cyberostracism) and even when participants know that the computer has been instructed, for experimental purposes, to ostracize them! -Is the negative reaction to ostracism an evolutionary response that bypasses logic? In prehistoric times (and even now in some parts of the world) rejection from the group literally would mean death. So we’ve evolved to be hyper-vigilant to signs of exclusion -Underscoring the evolutionary argument, Eisenberger et al. (2003) showed that cyber-ostracism causes electrical activity in the same part of the brain that “lights up” when people experience physical pain (although recent studies have cast doubt on this effect). Does ostracism unlock deep-seated existential fears?
	Ciaroccoet al. (2001): Perpetrators of ostracism	- Ostracism clearly takes its toll on victims, but can also place a strain on the perpetrators. -Ciarocco et al. (2001) had participants either ignore other participants or talk with them freely. - Compared to people in the social inclusion condition, the ostracizers were later found to have more depressed mood and showed less persistence on problem-solving tasks and physical tasks.
	Consequencesof ostracism	- Bastian and Haslam (2010) showed that ostracised people dehumanized themselves and the people ignoring them. - Huge potential for violent revenge … but also potential for meekness and depression. -Literature a bit mixed on this … sometimes ostracized people lash out, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they withdraw from the group, sometimes they work even harder to please the group (the latter is especially the case for high identifiers).
	Aggressionand rejection: Baumeister and colleagues (2001)	-told participants that they were not liked by other group members, and that they were likely to have troubles being accepted by others all their life. - The response was to display increased interpersonal aggression to strangers (e.g., giving them louder bursts of white noise).
	Aggression and rejection:Learyet al. (2003)	- conducted case studies of 15 school shootings between 1995 and 2001 to examine the possible role of social rejection in school violence. - Acute or chronic rejection--in the form of ostracism, bullying, and/or romantic rejection-- was present in all but two of the incidents.
	Ingroup biases inmemory: Howard & Rothbart (1980)	-randomly split participants into“over-estimators” and “under-estimators”. - Participants were then presented with two decks of cards: they were told that one deck contained disclosure statements made by over-estimators in previous experiments, whereas the other deck contained disclosure statements made by under-estimators. Some of the disclosure statements were positive and some were negative. - Participants were asked to memorize the decks of cards. They were then presented with all of the statements they had read and were asked to identify each statement according to whether it was an over-estimator behaviour or an under-estimator behaviour. - Little difference in memory of over/under estimator for positive behaviours. - much better memory for outgroup memories of negative behaviours compared to the ingroup
	Ingroup biases inattributions: Hewstone & Ward (1985)	- showed vignettes to Malay participants describing either positive or negative behaviours. - Participants were told that the behaviours were either performed by another Malay or by a Chinese person. - Participants then rated the extent to which they attributed the behaviour to traits internal to the actor. -Outgroup members had negative acts attributed to their internal attributions whereas ingroups had positive acts attributed to their internal attribution
	Ingroup biases in attributions:Doosje & Branscombe (2003)	-asked Jews and Germans to ratethe extent to which the Holocaust is attributable to internal or externalreasons (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). -jews had an external attributions rating of 3.25 and internal of 2.75 - Germans however had an external attribution of 3.75and an internal of 1.6
	Ingroup biases inhelping: Levine et al. (2002)	- got participants to watch a piece of footage – captured on CCTV – in which one man was assaulting another. - In the outgroup condition, the incident was described as an attack by a man from Lancaster on another man from Lancaster. - In the ingroup condition, the incident was described as an attack by a man from Lancaster on a student from Lancaster University. - Participants were then asked to estimate the likelihood that they would have intervened if they had witnessed that attack. Those that went to univesity (where the participants also went) were much more likely to be helped
	Evolutionarytheory	- For most of human history we relied on our group (family / tribe) for survival - We are motivated to perpetuate our own genes - As a result, a genetic predisposition built up to favour insiders over outsiders (helping one’s close relatives helps perpetuate your genetic code). - Ethnocentric preference is extended to social groups through the development of markers (e.g., skin pigmentation, hair and facial features) that signal genetic relatedness among strangers. -Evolutionary theory implies that prejudice / intergroup conflict is inevitable … but has a hard time explaining contextual changes in intergroup behaviour, or why individuals differ in intergroup hostility.
	Authoritarian personality theory	Adorno et al. (1950) argued that certain people are prejudiced against all minorities. This is because they have an authoritarian personality that involves: -Conventional values - Submit to and identify with authority -Generalised hostility - Mystical, superstitious cast of mind -Stereotyped thinking
	Individual differences: right wing authoritarianism	- The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and the recent public disorders all show we have to crack down harder on deviant groups and troublemakers, if we are going to save our moral standards and preserve law and order -Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly -The real keys to the "good life" are obedience, discipline, and sticking to the straight and narrow - Nobody should stick to the "straight and narrow". Instead people should break loose and try out lots of different ideas and experiences -Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn
	What gives you an authoritarian personality?	- Your parents! -Adorno argued that these people have parents who use harsh disciplinarian practices to secure obedience. The result of this is mixed feelings – the people grow up both hating and loving their parents. - Because of guilt and fear, people do not feel as though they can articulate their hatred toward their parents, and so it is displaced onto weaker others (scapegoats).
	authoritarian personality theory problems	- Adorno’s interviewers knew hypotheses and scores on other scales, opening up possibility of confirmatory bias In general, psychodynamic basis to authoritarian personality difficult to verify. -Freudian notions basically untestable. -Personality theories don’t take into account power of group processes and social forces to shape conflict; - Personality theories can’t take into account sudden shifts in conflict / prejudice
	Social dominance theory	- According to SDT, different people have different attitudes toward status / power hierarchies (or social dominance orientations) – some people are relaxed with them, some people seek to minimize them. - Individuals with high SDO have a strong desire to promote intergroup hierarchies and for their ingroups to dominate outgroups (whereas the reverse is true for low SDO people). - High SDO people endorse ideologies that promote intergroup hierarchies (e.g., paternalistic myths; meritocracy; “divine right of kings”), whereas low SDO people endorse hierarchy-attenuating ideologies (e.g., egalitarianism). - People high in SDT tend to show more hostile intergroup attitudes and behaviour. -Presumption that SDO is a “personality variable” undercut somewhat by evidence that SDO fluctuates as a function of who benefits from reinforcing hierarchies (e.g., males have higher SDO than women; police officers have relatively high SDO) and that SDO creeps up in some courses at uni (e.g., business) while it creeps down in others (e.g., humanities courses)
	Social Dominance Orientation Measure (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)	- Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups -If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems -It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and others are at the bottom - It would be good if groups could be equal -Group equality should be our ideal -We should have fewer problems if we treated people more equally
	Frustration aggression theory: Proposed by Dollard et al. (1939)	-“the occurrence of aggressivebehaviour always presupposes the existence of frustration and, contrariwise,the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression”. -
	Miller & Bugelski (1948): Ata summer camp	- some people were given a frustrating experience (experimental condition) and some were not (control condition). - Both before and after the frustrating experience, the experimenters measured participants’ attitudes towards minority groups. -The participants who received the frustration showed more negative attitudes toward minorities after the manipulation … the attitudes of the people in the control condition did not change over time. - BUT mixed results followed -- For example in one paradigm some participants would be arbitrarily failed on a puzzle task (frustration condition) whereas some would not (control condition). -- Cowen et al. (1958) found that participants in the frustration condition showed increased negativity toward blacks, but Stagner & Congdon (1955) found no evidence for scapegoating.
	Miller & Bugelski (1948): Limitations	1. Difficult to predict the target of aggression -Miller (1948) predicted that people pick scapegoats that are neither too similar nor too dissimilar to the real source of frustration. - But this formula is a little vague, and not borne out by a great deal of anecdotal evidence. 2. Frustration neither necessary nor sufficient to cause aggression
	Berkowitz reformulation	1. Rather than defining frustration as a response to goal interference, Berkowitz argued that frustration is a subjective experience; whether people are deprived or not is not as important as whether they think they’ve been deprived. 2. Berkowitz came up with a more concrete and theoretically plausible explanation for how we pick our scapegoats: the most likely choice for a scapegoat is an outgroup that has been in conflict with the group in the past, or an outgroup that you know doesn’t like your group. 3. Berkowitz argued that the fundamental cause of aggression was not frustration per se but any aversive event; e.g., pain, extreme heat or cold, loud noises, overcrowding.
	Berkowitz reformulation: Evidence	- A number of experimental studies leant support to Berkowitz’s predictions regarding the importance of subjective thoughts and socio-historical context in driving the amount and direction of aggression - Field studies showed that riots in American cities were more likely to occur in very hot weather
	Limitation of frustration-aggression theory	- Aggression conceived as irrational and spontaneous - Individual explanation for intergroup behaviour -No consideration of social norms - No explanation for intergroup cooperation
	Relative deprivation theory	- A descendant of frustration-aggression theory, relative deprivation theory argues that the basic cause for aggression is a discrepancy between the standard of living people have, and the standard of living they think they’re entitled to. - Hovland and Sear (1940),claimed to have found a correlation between the lynching of african-americans and falling cotton prices of the US
	Evidence for relative deprivation	- Cantril (1965) devised a measure in which people were asked to indicate how they valued their past, present, and future life as compared to their “ideal” good life. - This measure of relative deprivation is strongly correlated with -- levels of civil unrest across 13 nations (Gurr, 1970) -- Support for Black power and militant political action in the aftermath of a riot in Detroit (Crawford & Naditch, 1970)
	Egotistic vs fraternalistic deprivation(Runciman,1966)	- Egoistic relative deprivation refers to one’s sense that you have less than you’re entitled to relative to your own aspirations or relative to what other individuals have. -Fraternalistic relative deprivation refers to the sense that your group has less than it’s entitled to relative to its aspirations or relative to what other groups have - Vanneman & Pettigrew’s (1972) survey of 1000 white voters in US found that doubly deprived and collectively deprived predicted higher levels of prejudice - Doubly gratified and aegotistically deprived predicted negative levels of prejudice
	Egotistic vs fraternalistic deprivation among Quebecois (Guimond & Dube-Simard, 1983)	....
	Egositic v/ fraternalisticdeprivation among sacked workers (Walker & Mann, 1987)	....
	Egositic v/ fraternalisticdeprivation among female workers (Hafer & Olson,1993)	....
	Limitations of relative deprivation theorising	- At times, relative deprivation is associated with greater generosity towards minorities - At times, it is relative gratification that is associated with prejudice and intolerance
	Realistic conflict theory	- Sherif argued that intergroup aggression is caused not by personality factors or feelings of frustration but by competition for scarce resources - According to realistic conflict theory it is when there are mutually exclusive goals (ie. Only one group can win that intergroup relations deteriorate
	Sherif's boy camp studies	- the relationship between discrimination and mental health outcomes (self-esteem, depression, anxiety, psychological distress and life satisfaction = N328) -Overall negative and significant correlation between perceived discrimination and mental health r=.23 - relationship stronger for groups that face discrimination that is more controllable and legitimized: for self-esteem r=.26, for psych distress r=-.32 compared to less controllable (and thus more illegitimate) for self esteem r=-.14 and for psychological distressr=-.25 -there was a tendency that studies of wiegh prejudice produced larger effects than racism studies
	The Experience of discrimination: Schmitt et al. (2014)	- According to social identity theory, the self compromises two aspects: -- Your personal identity (idiosyncratic attitudes, behaviours and memories that distinguish you from other individuals) -- Your social identity (group-based attitudes, behaviours and memories that distinguish your group from other groups) - In part, SIT was created in response to the so-called “minimal group studies”, that showed bias could occur in the absence of frustration, relative deprivation, or material concerns. According to SIT, intergroup biases emerge as a function of two processes: categorization and comparison. - The tendency to categorize people into ingroup and outgroups (e.g., men, women) is an inevitable human process; it helps reduce the complexity of the social world, and provides sense and order. - In the case of social categories, it can also provide a sense of meaning and self-definition (helps answer the question: who am I?)
	Social identity theory : Consequences of categorisation	- According to Tajfel (1959), one consequence of social categorization is that the differences within categories are perceptually minimized (assimilation) and the differences between categories are maximized (accentuation).
	Social identity theory : Tajfel & Wilkes (1963)	- Participants were shown 6 vertical lines and asked to estimate the length of the two middle lines - The estimated difference in lengths between the two lines was exaggerated when the shorter lines were labelled A and the longer lines were labelled B (accentuation)
	Social identity theory : Doise et al. (1978)	- asked children to form personality impressions on the basis of photos. - All children rated 3 boys and then 3 girls, but only half of them were told in advance that the sequence would go like that. - When the gender of the photos was made salient from the start, people used more different traits to describe the male and female photos (accentuation) and more similar traits were used to describe the photos of the same gender (assimilation).
	Social identity approach	- To the extent that our sense of self is defined by group membership (i.e., in terms of social identity — ‘we’, ‘us’), rather than our individuality (personal identity — ’me’, ‘I’), our behaviour is shaped by the perspective and interests of that ingroup. - There is a qualitative difference between behaviour that is based on personal identity (‘I’) and that based on social identity (‘we’). -To the extent that a shared social identity is salient -- our perceptions are aligned with other ingroup members, -- we influence, and are influenced by, ingroup members. -To the extent that a shared social identity is salient -- We emphasise how our group is different from other groups and emphasise similarity within the group -- ‘us’ versus ‘them’ dynamics
	Social comparison	- If the social category is an important part of your self-concept (i.e., you identify strongly with a particular group) then it stands to reason that the successes of your group boost your self-esteem, and the failures of your group threaten your self-esteem. - Working on the assumption that people typically want to feel good about themselves, then for self-esteem reasons we are motivated to think of our groups as being as good as – if not better than – other groups. - This motivation for positive distinctiveness is assumed to underpin many forms of ingroup bias.
	Threats to identity	- As we have seen, people rush to protect their group’s image relative to relevant outgroups. -For high identifiers, these ingroup biases are likely to be more pronounced when the positive distinctiveness of the group is threatened. - Social identity threat can come in at least 4 forms: -- Value threat (when group is attacked by others) -- Status threat (when group has low status relative to others) -- Distinctiveness threat (when boundaries between groups become blurred … “narcissism of minor differences”) -- Internal threat (e.g., black sheep effect)
	Status threat	- Occurs when your group has less prestige than relevant outgroups. Because the success of the group rubs off on the self-esteem of the individual, having low group status is an aversive experience. - How to manage this threat as a member of a low status group?
	Changing perceptions of legitimacy of low status position	- Changing perceptions of legitimacy might also help explain a worldwide trend for minority groups to display more ingroup pride and militancy in the 1960s and 1970s. For example Vaughan (1978) asked Maori and Pakeha (white) childrenwho they preferred to interact with.
	Terror Management Theory	- According to TMT, humans are potentially paralyzed by the awareness of their inevitable deaths. - To cope with this, people adopt a cultural worldview that lends a sense of permanence and stability to life. - A clear cultural understanding - combined with high self-esteem – is supposed to buffer against death-related anxiety. - People evaluate ingroup members positively because similar others are presumed to support /validate their own cultural world view. - Dissimilar others (outgroup members) are assumed to threaten their worldview. -Consistent with TMT, people show greater intergroup bias when they’re made aware of their mortality.
	Segregation	- In many countries-including south africa, US and Australia - there were policies that helped physically separate different races - This was sometimes dressed up as being about cultural freedom but was also an instrument of subordination - In other countries separation occurs on the basis of the distinctions -- You are registered to the place where you are born and if you move you don't have the same opportunities as the people born in that town.Shows that it is still present in some places - In 1954, US Supreme Court ruled against having segregated schools of Blacks and Whites, arguing that continued separation helped perpetuate prejudice and intolerance. -This theme was also articulated by Allport (1954) who recommended contact as a key method of reducing prejudice between ethnic groups.
	Allport specified a number ofconditions that needed to be in place for contact to work.	- Contact should be prolonged and cooperative rather than casual and incidental (see also Sherif’s focus on cooperative interdependence) -There should be a framework of institutional support for contact - The contact should involve tasks and contexts where groups feel of equal power and status.
	Contactbetween different groups	- Contact between different groups works … partly because it reduces anxiety, partly because it allows for cross-group friendships, & partly because it allows for myths about the other group to be refuted. - Also, the effects of contact appear to be generalized to the broader outgroup. - BUT --the relationship between contact on prejudice is surprisingly small (r = -.215) -- the effects of contact on prejudice are stronger (a) when prejudice is defined on affective dimensions, and (b) when Allport’s conditions for contact are adhered to - contact has a larger effect on majority than on minority groups -there is a positive-negative asymmetry … bad contact experiences increase prejudice more than good experiences reduce it.
	Vezzali et al (2015): The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice.	- Perhaps for these reasons, contact can be sometimes have its biggest effects in controlled environments eg through media - Even reading about a literary fantasy character (Harry Potter) who engages in intergroup interactions can reduce prejudice towards immigrants, homosexuals, and refugees. - As the outgroups in the books (e.g., elves, ‘mud-bloods’) were not remotely similar to the outgroups investigated, such findings show the potential of vicarious contact to produce generalisation from one outgroup to others.
	Jigsaw classroom	- Allport’s ideas have been blended with insights from Sherif and adapted into the classroom. - The jigsaw classroom is designed to promote contact between kids of different ethnicities, but in the context of the pursuit of superordinate goals. - Students are given assignments, and members of different ethnic groups are each given responsibility to perform one part of the assignment. - The end result is that students from different ethnic groups depend on each other to achieve the group goal (completing the assignment). - Worchel et al., 1977 -- Positive effects of cooperation might be limited to situations in which the outcome of the cooperation was successful.
	Decategorization hypothesis	- The decategorization hypothesis argues that contact forces people to look beyond category boundaries and to get to know each other as individuals. - Some experimental evidence for this in minimal group settings, and argument also has intuitive appeal. - Problems -- Is it really feasible – or even desirable – that people see each other entirely as individuals? --Model often advocated by members of dominant groups, but minority group members not so keen on “colour-blind” approach. -- Also, if people don’t label each other as group members, how can the positive effects of contact be generalized outside the contact environment?
	Common ingroup identity model	- According to the common ingroup identity model (CIIM), contact allows people to see beyond subgroup differences and to see each other as one big happy group. - Again, some experimental evidence for this in minimal group settings. - Gaertner et al. 1989,1990 -- Stage 1: Form two groups --- Two ad hoc groups of 3 people were formed in the laboratory. Each group was given a name and asked to perform the winter survival task. -- Stage 2: experimental manipulation -- Either retain two group categorization (control) OR make everyone feel like one new group (common ingroup condition) OR make everyone feel like individuals (Decategorization condition) -- Participants are then asked to rate how much they liked the other 5 people in the session -- Results --- Gaertner and colleagues found that there were more harmonious relations in the one-group and individual conditions than in the control condition. --- Moreover, the most positive ratings of the outgroup were in the common ingroup condition (one big happy group). -- Conclusion --- That the aim of intergroup contact should be to try to eclipse or ignore the (sub)group boundaries (whether they be boundaries based on race, gender, organizational identity etc).
	Problem with CIIM: Distinctiveness threat	- Could people react negatively to the blurring of group boundaries that sometimes happens when you impose superordinate groups? -According to social identity theory, group members strive to feel distinct from relevant outgroups. This leads to the bold (and rather counter-intuitive) prediction that intergroup biases will increase the more similar the ingroup and the outgroup become. - Evidence for distinctiveness threat -- Roccas and Schwartz (1993) made school students feel as though their school was either moderately similar, highly similar, or very highly similar to another school. They found that the amount of ingroup bias increased as perceived similarity increased.
	Models of contact: the dual identity model	- In response to this, a variant of the common ingroup identity model emerged which argues that it’s important to make people aware of what they share at the superordinate level, but people should be allowed to maintain their original subgroup identities as well (the dual identity model). - This model has two advantages: -- It minimizes distinctiveness threat among subgroup members -- It means that any attitude change that is experienced during the contact situation is more likely to be generalized outside the contact environment
	Assimilation & the CIIM	- The CIIM is essentially the social psychological analogue of the political model of assimilation. - Underlying philosophies of assimilation - By getting people to focus entirely on their shared superordinate membership, subgroup identities will “melt away” - Ethnic identification is an immature stage of a nation’s development which needs to be overcome - cultural differences create the potential for hostility: i.e., homogenization = harmony - In australia this has been seeking assimilation for a long time
	Melting-pot assimilation	- Assumption that assimilation will happen naturally through extensive intergroup contact. Eventually old identities will fuse together into a new homogeneous identity e.g., American, Australian -“Into the melting pot with you all - God is creating the American!” (Zangwill, 1909)
	1st conference of state and territory aboriginal protectors (1937)	- 1st resolution: “This conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin … lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth and it recommends that all efforts be directed toward this end.” - How assimilation played out in australia during the 1940s/50s -- Aimed to breed out all the aboriginees --Children taken from families so they could be assimilated -- Some children were not even told that they were aboriginal, they suffered serious losses and many were very scarred
	Problems with assimilation	- again, it may not be realistic to expect people to let go of their group memberships -groups with low status or power risk being appropriated and extinguished – in other words the weak lose and the strong win. -forced assimilation can be psychologically painful for members of minority groups … risk that distinctiveness threat will create reactive intergroup bias (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000)
	Chandler and Lalonde,1998	- The highly variable rates of youth suicide among British Columbia’s First Nations: more than half of the province’s bands reported no youth suicides during the 6-year period (1987-1992) covered by this study, while more than -90% of the suicides occurred in less than 10% of the bands. Suicide rates were related to six markers of “cultural continuity” – community-level variables meant to document the extent to which each of the province’s almost 200 Aboriginal “bands” had taken steps to preserve their cultural past and to secure future control of their civic lives. - Every community characterized by all six of these protective factors experienced no youth suicides during the 6-year reporting period, whereas those bands in which none of these factors were present suffered suicide rates more than 10 times the national average.
	Define Multiculturalism	- Essentially the political analogue of the dual identity model
	Psychological assumptions of multiculturalism	- ethnic identity is fundamental to self-concept: “Man is a thinking and sensitive being: severing him from his roots could destroy an aspect of his personality and deprive society of some of the values he can bring to it” (Government of Canada, 1969) -security of identity is a precondition for tolerance – attempts to eclipse valued identities will result in more aggressive intergroup behaviour -difference is not inconsistent with unity (“Unity in diversity”, “Celebration of difference”)
	Acculturation	Howdo immigrants fit into their host culture? - Separation: sticking together Hold onto own culture and dont want anything to do with the dominant culture -Marginalization Withdraw from old heritage and dont seek relations with new culture
	How do people look at the idea of retaining ethnic identities?	-they generally look favourably however... -assimilation to new culture tends to develop over time -greater pressure to assimilate in public -greater pressure to assimilate if you are a member of a visable minorty -assimilation may occur more readily on some dimensions than others -freedom of expresssing and maintaining gertiage culture is dependent on migrants abiding by mutualcivic obligations. All australias are expected to show loyalty to basic structures such as the consitutions, english as the national language ect ect
	Allport's definition of prejudice?	An antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalisation. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed towards a group as a whole, or towards an individual because he is a member of that group.
	Jones definition of prejudice?	The prior negative judgement of the members of a race or religion or the occupants of any other significant social role, held in disregard of the facts that contradict it.
	Worchel et al definition of prejudice?	An unjustified negative attitude toward an individual based solely on that individual’s membership in a group.
	Browndefinition of prejudice?	The holdingof derogatory social attitudes or cognitive beliefs, the expression of negativeaffect, or the display of hostile or discriminatory behaviour towards membersof a group on account of their membership of that group.
	What are the three components of prejudice	Cognitive - Beliefs about the attitude objects (often held as stereotypes) Affective - Strong feelings, usually negative, about the group Behavioural - Intentions to behave in negative ways towards the group and its members (discrimination)
	Hostile Sexism	Old-fashioned, hostile sexism is directed mostly toward women who stray from traditional paths – the career women, feminists, athletes, lesbians etc.
	Benevolent sexism	For traditional women, there is a cluster of apparently benevolent attitudes that put women on a pedestal, but reinforce their subordination (benevolent sexism).
	Is prejudice against women decreasing?	- In the mid-1960s, there were a number of studies in which students had to evaluate identical pieces of written work that were attributed either to a man (John T. McKay) or a woman (Joan T. McKay). The woman’s essay was systematically downgraded relative to the man’s. -But since the late 1980s this effect has disappeared. -Positive stereotype of women emerging over time … - More support for gender equity in work.
	Think manager think male	- Number of women in management positions is increasing but stubbornly low. In addition, female leaders tend to receive less favorable evaluations compared with their male counterparts, even for identical behavior, & many male managers remain skeptical of women’s leadership ability. - This is attributed to the perceived incompatibility between beliefs about what it means to be a good manager and what it means to be female (the “think manager–think male” association). - Women get paid less for the work they for and do a lot more unpaid work too
	The glass cliff (Ryan & Haslam)	- Orignally inspired by article that said companies with women on the board were performing worse than companies who had no women on the board - However, it was found that the period prior to women's appointment to company boards is characterized by poor company performance -if a company if improving men are chosen and if its declining women are chosen -think crisis think female Does it matter? -they are more likely to be ‘in the spotlight’ - there is a differential likelihood that they willfail, and - it is likely they will be blamed for negativeoutcomes that are not their fault
	Is racism decreasing?	- Stereotyping of blacks in US progressively less negative over time - Increase in representation of ethnic minority groups in non-stereotypical roles in media -Increased participation of ethnic minority groups in professional occupations and managerial positions - Near universal awareness that it’s not OK to be racist.
	What are the flip-sides of the decrease in racism?	- Despite advances in real terms (housing, education, employment), relative inequalities are continuing/increasing - Gains in public acceptance of some groups haven’t spread to others - Difference between what people think and what they do. - Difference between what people think and what people say. - People don't always behave in line with how they think
	LaPiere (1934)	- spent two years travelling around the US with a young Chinese American couple. They visited 250 hotels, caravan parks, tourist homes and restaurants, and were refused service in only one. - After coming home, LaPiere contacted 128 of these places with the question: “Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?” - 92% said no and 7% were uncertain and only 1% said yes
	Unobtrusive observation of behaviour Crosby et al. (1980)	- reviewed naturalistic studies of helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings. - 50% showed more help was given to someone of same ethnicity vs. outgroup (whether Black or White). -For White participants effects moderated by context … - If there was face-to-face contact, 33% showed bias - If there was no face-to-face contact, 75% showed bias.
	Sigall and Page (1971)	- got White Americans to rate the extent to which certain traits were characteristic of Whites and the extent to which certain traits were characteristic of Blacks. - They responded either (a) in a normal questionnaire format, or (b) While hooked up to what they believed was a lie detector test (“bogus pipeline”). - In all positive descriptions, Ps reported higher scores in the questionnaire compared to the lie detector questions -Scores for whites did not follow this pattern
	Spontaneous non-verbal behaviour: Weitz 1972	- got White participants to record a brief message for another student they were to meet. -Compared anticipated liking (measured verbally) with vocal cues (non-verbal). -Negative correlations between verbal rating & measures of voice warmth when expecting to interact with Black.
	Spontaneous non-verbal behaviour:Vanman et al. (1997)	- used electromyography to measure electrical activity from facial muscle groups. - White volunteers viewed slides of White and Black people with whom they had to imagine interacting. - Direct self-report measures showed pro-Black bias. -BUT … indirect measure showed more activity from “frown muscles" to Black photos
	Spontaneous non-verbal behaviour: Mendes et al 2002	- had white participants interact with a white or black partner and measured cardiovascular profiles of 'threat' (stressful activiation) vs 'challenge' -Black partners elicited threat responses -White partners elicited challange responses
	Implicit association test (reaction times)	- Gaertner & McLaughlin (1983) flashed up pairs of words on a computer screen. - Some of the words were real words & some were nonsense words. - Participants had to decide as quickly as possible whether or not both words were real words. -When positive words were paired with the word whites people responded faster than when positive words were paired with the word blacks. This tendency was uncorrelated with people prejudice scores on explicit prejudice scales - In 2009, a meta-analysis of 122 studies concluded that “for socially sensitive topics, the predictive power of self-report measures was remarkably low and the incremental validity of IAT measures was relatively high”. - In particular, “IAT measures had greater predictive validity than did self-report measures for criterion measures involving interracial behavior and other intergroup behavior”. - BUT In 2013 a different meta-analysis concluded that IATs were poor predictors of every category of prejudice other than brain activity, and the IATs performed no better than simple explicit measures.
	Changing nature ofprejudice	- In contemporary society, people are socialized to believe that it’s not OK to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc. Conflict emerges between people’s ingrained attitudes and modern egalitarian values. -This means that prejudice and discrimination are more likely to be expressed in covert ways. -This shift has been addressed in three (related) theoretical approaches: Modern prejudice, ambivalent prejudice, aversive prejudice
	Modern (or symbolic) prejudice	- According to Sears (1988), negative feelings about Blacks (based on early learned fears and stereotypes) blend with moral values embodied in the Protestant ethic to justify some anti-Black attitudes and therefore legitimize their expression. - This culturally socialized anti-Black affect is then expressed symbolically (e.g., denial of continuing discrimination, resentment over special favours). - To reflect this more subtle version of racism, a “modern racism scale” was devised. - Old-fashioned versions of the scale included items such as “I would mind if an Asian person joined my close family by marriage”. - The modern racism scale includes items such as “Over the past few years, Asian Australians have received more economically than they deserve” -Concern with the notion of symbolic (or modern) racism is that some political attitudes are automatically labeled prejudice, without regard for the underlying reasons for the attitude. -Support for modern racism scale -- Participants less likely to endorse old-fashioned items when tested by Black experimenter than when tested by White experimenter. -- But … No effect of experimenter on modern racism.
	Ambivalent prejudice	- According to Katz et al. (1986), White people harbour both pro-Black and anti-Black sentiment. - In other words feelings of sympathy and support for Blacks are coupled with feelings of resentment. - When the situation cues the positive aspects of Whites’ perceptions of Blacks, it results in extremely positive responding. - When the situation cues the negative aspects of Whites’ perceptions of Blacks, it results in extremely negative responding. - Linville & Jones (1980) asked White participants to evaluate a law school application containing incidental information about the applicant's race. - When the application credentials were positive, the Black applicant was evaluated more favourably than the White applicant. -When the application credentials were weak, the Black applicant was evaluated more negatively.
	Aversiveprejudice	- Gaertner & Dovidio (1986) agree that feelings of sympathy for Blacks and negative affect towards Blacks often co-exist within people. -They go further to argue that most people are motivated to maintain a non-prejudiced self-image; they find racial prejudice aversive, endorse fair treatment of all groups, and fear appearing prejudiced. -- BUT … many of these people subconsciously harbour negative feelings toward Blacks all the same. - Discrimination leaks out in situations where behaviour can be justified as non-prejudiced. -Evidence -- Gaertner & Dovidio (1977) had White participants fill out a questionnaire either alone or with two other people. While completing the questionnaire, participants heard what sounded like a person have an accident. Did they help? --Whites when alone and with two others helped a great deal -When it was a black people only helped when alone and barely when with 2 other people
	Aversive prejudice :Crosby et al. (1980)	Unobtrusive observation behaviour - reviewed naturalistic studies of helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings. - 50% showed more help was given to someone of same ethnicity vs. outgroup (whether Black or White). -For White participants effects moderated by context … - If there was face-to-face contact, 33% showed bias - If there was no face-to-face contact, 75% showed bias
	Aversive prejudice : more evidence	- A host of studies show that when people are described in neutral or positive ways, people tend to show no racism, and sometimes even favour minority group members. - But when people ar/ described in negative ways, people are more hostile to members of minority groups than to members of the ingroup. - In the latter case people can legitimize their hostility toward minorities by focusing on the person’s unpleasant traits.
	Aversive prejudice : Legitimate ideologies	- Discrimination and prejudice are almost never labeled as such. -They are disguised from ourselves … sometimes through ideological positions that seem ethical. -Useful disguises … -Individualism / Meritocracy - Equity (and “reverse discrimination”) -host-guest arguments - cultural defense arguments
	Aversive prejudice : Goff, Steele & Davies	-had white participants interact with two white partners or two black partners on the topic of love and relationships or racial profiling -participants were asked to set up chairs in the room prior to the interaction -Participants set the chairs farther apart when interacting with black partners rather than white and particularly when discussing racial profiling -Didn't correlate with explicit prejudice scores (modern racism) but did correlate with activation of a negative stereotype about Whites being racist
	Reducingprejudice- pointing out privilege	- Given the power of legitimizing ideologies, can prejudice be reduced by simply pointing out privilege? - Branscombe et al. (2007) asked participants to either list reasons why Whites are privileged relative to other groups, to list reasons why Whites are disadvantaged relative to other groups, or to list life events (control condition). -They then measured White participants’ levels of modern racism -Rather than decreasing when participants had to reflect on their privilege modern racism levels went up
	Reducingprejudice- pointing out atrocities	- Kofta & Slawuta (2013) either reminded Poles about their history of anti-semitic crimes, or they did not. - They then measured participants’ desire for contact with Jews and their belief in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. -Rather than decreasing whe ps had to reflect on their groups atrocities,prejudice levels went up
	Reducing prejudice- power of norms	- Monteith et al. (1996) stopped 2 people (one a true participant, one a confederate) and would get them to fill out a questionnaire examining attitudes toward gays. - In the control conditions the confederate and the true participant would respond privately (no norm). - In the other conditions the confederate would call out their answers and then the true participant would respond – in some conditions the confederate was relatively prejudiced, in other conditions the confederate was relatively non-prejudiced.
	Power of norms after genocide	- The above studies are not just relevant to the lab.. Paluck (2009) conducted a year-long intervention study in Rwanda using radio soap operas. - Participants listened to a soap opera modelling tolerant intergroup beliefs vs. a control soap opera about health. - Intervention caused a 10% drop in intolerant beliefs - Replication study is underway in Nigeria
	Whatare stereotypes?	- Lippman (1922): Pictures in our heads. -Brown (2000): The images that spring to mind once a particular category is evoked. -Hogg & Abrams (1988): Beliefs that all members of a particular group have the same qualities, which circumscribe the group and differentiate it from other groups. - Define people in terms of their social category membership - Stereotypes are shared (more than one person’s opinion)
	Where dostereotypes come from?	- Stereotypes have their basis in relationships between groups. -Common stereotypes by American students about Japanese (Gilbert, 1951; Karlins, Coffman, & Walters, 1969; Katz & Braley, 1933) --1933- Industrious, intelligent, progressive, shrewd, sly -- 1951- imitative, sly, extremely nationalistic, treacherous -- 1969- industrious, ambitious, efficient, intelligent
	Stereotype content model	Depending on where groups fall on the spectrum of warmth and competence, they might attract different types of stereotypes
	Why dostereotypes survive?: Kernel of truth	- It is feasible that certain group traits will emerge as a function of some aspect of social reality; for example differences in biology/Status/History/Desire for intergroup distinctiveness/Socialization/social roles/Culture -Limitations: --wehold the stereotype that women are more easily influenced than men, but theactual size of that effect is small (d =0.3; for differences in height, d =2.6). Differences this small must be difficult to detect. --wehave strong stereotypes on a number of dimensions (e.g., kindness, patience,ability to make decisions, ability to think clearly, willingness to talk aboutsex, driving ability) that research suggests is not based in fact. -- There are other differences between the sexes that are much larger than this; for example the difference between men and women on body restlessness is relatively large (d = 0.7) but this is not part of the stereotype -- Terraciano et al. (2005) collected two pieces of data from 49 different cultures: people’s perceptions of the personality traits of the “typical person” in their culture, and the actual personality traits of people in their culture, using self-report and observer ratings on the NEO-PI (a personality scale). The median correlation between stereotype and reality was .04.
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Legitimizing myths	- A striking consistency exists in many stereotypes of groups that are marked by status or power: groups with high status/power hold stereotypes that serve to rationalize and reinforce the outgroup’s lower status/power. -Men, for example, might be motivated to think of women as less agentic because this helps justify existing role divisions between men and women. -Allport (1958): “the rationalizing and justifying function of a stereotype exceeds its function as a reflector of group attributes”
	Legitimizing myths : Hoffman& Hurst (1990)	- gave participants descriptions of two hypothetical alien groups: Orinthians and Ackmians. - In all conditions, one of the groups was described as primarily made up of child raisers, and the other group was described as made up of city workers. - Half the participants were asked to write an explanation for why the groups would differ, and the other half were not. - All participants then rated the Orinthians and the Ackmians in terms of the extent to which they were characterized by agentic or communal traits - (+ve scores = agentic, -ve scores = communal) - When group was described as mostly city workers they were seen to be more agentic, and this tendency was more pronounced when participants had to explain the difference
	Legitimizing myths: Brewer& Campbell (1976)	- Members of groups with low status / power might also manufacture stereotypes that help rationalize their position and to protect self-esteem. -studied 30 ethnic groups in East Africa. One of the richer tribes – the Kikuya in Kenya – was repeatedly described by the other tribes as intelligent and progressive, but also pushy and proud. - This is a consistent finding among low status groups – they’re successful but arrogant and cold. We’re not so successful but we’re nicer and more communal. - Consistent with social identity theory’s social creativity concept.
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Socialization	- Once the content of a stereotype has been established (for whatever reason), the stereotype might survive through socialization and learning. - From birth, people are treated differently depending on whether they are guys or girls. -For example when people are told they are interacting with a male infant, they play with the child in a more physical fashion than when they are told they are interacting with a female infant.
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Media	- In the last 25 years there has been a conscious effort to reverse the stereotyped images of minority groups in TV and film, but stereotypes remain …. - Why do stereotypes persist in media? --Conspiracy on behalf of white men? --Laziness? -- Affection? -- Commercial considerations?
	Media: Archeret al. (1983)	- analysed1750 pictures & found that pictures of men are typically shoulder-up,whereas pictures of women are typically full-body. Facial prominence in photosis associated with ambition and intelligence – so face-ism conveys the viewthat, relative to men, women are more important for their physical beauty thantheir intellectual capacity.
	Media: Mullen (2004)	- noted that members of ethnic minority groups (particularly those that face high levels of hostility) are often depicted in children’s books with smaller heads. - Relevant because head size is associated with --Perceptions of ambition and dominance --Perceptions of cuteness -- Perceptions of intellectual ability
	Why do stereotypes survive?: sub-typing	- Deaux and Emswiller (1974) had students watch fellow students perform well on tasks that were male-stereotypical (e.g., identifying a tyre jack). Female success tended to be attributed more to luck whereas male success was attributed more to ability. - Sometimes, stereotype-inconsistent information produces a sub-type, so that the outgroup stereotype becomes more complex but the stereotype of the superordinate group remains unchanged (e.g., sensitive new age guy; career woman).
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Attributions	- Are stereotypes a by-product of the normal cognitive process of categorization? - Two basic processes of categorization: --Accentuation (in which intergroup differences are exaggerated) -- Assimilation (in which intragroup differences are minimized)
	Attributions: Outgroup homogeneity effect	- BUT … Assimilation effect is not equal for ingroup members and outgroup members. - In general, outgroup members are viewed to be more homogenous and less differentiated than ingroup members (“outgroup homogeneity effect”). - “They’re all the same, but we’re different”
	Explanation of the Outgroup homogeneity effect (Attributions) : Familiarity	- Because we interact more with ingroup than with outgroup members, we have more time to get to know ingroup members as individuals. - Linville et al. (1989) showed that over a semester classmates rated each other to be increasingly more variable, and in a computer simulation showed that greater perceived variability was associated with greater familiarity. - Familiarity explanation has some basis in fact when it comes to perception. - Bringham & Berkowitz (1978) had Black and White participants attempt to identify individuals in photographs of both Black and White people. - BUT … other studies showed no link between familiarity and variability, and some even found a negative link. --For example, Brown & Wootton-Millward (1993) observed nurses over time, and found that perceptions of ingroup variability decreased over time, to the point that the ingroup was seen to be more homogeneous than the outgroup (cohesiveness?) - Finally, the outgroup homogeneity effect occurs in minimal group situations, when there is zero contact between individuals and members of either group.
	Explanation of the Outgroup homogeneity effect (Attributions) : Abstractness	- An alternative account is that people don’t represent categories in terms of individual exemplars of the group, but rather in terms of more abstract representations. This might consist of a prototype (i.e., defining characteristics) and some estimate of variability. - Ingroup is seen to be more variable because the conception of the category is more important (because we’re in it), more concrete (we know at least one member very well!) and more provisional (we’re motivated to have accurate appraisals of those close to us).
	Explanation of the Outgroup homogeneity effect (Attributions) : Exceptions to effect	- Using a minimal group paradigm, Simon & Brown (1987) varied the relative size of the ingroup and the outgroup. -They found that the traditional outgroup homogeneity effect was reversed when the ingroup was a numerical minority.
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Cognitive factors- Assimilation and accentuation	- Another reason that stereotypes might be resistant to change is that people begin to view behaviour through the lens of the stereotype. -Neutral or even disconfirming information is then perceived as confirming information.
	Why do stereotypes survive?: Cognitive factors- Stereotypes as expectancies	- Nelson et al. (1990) had people rate the heights of men and women in photographs. The photographs were selected such that, on average, the men and women did not differ in height at all. - Jussim (1983) brought a 9-month-old baby to a social psychology class. Half were led to believe the baby’s name was Karen and half were led to believe the baby’s name was Keith. -Stereotypical expectancies can also taint how people remember events from the past. Hamilton & Rose (1980) showed a series of slides depicting a person from a particular occupational group, and attached to them adjectives describing the person in the slide. --Each trait was associated with each occupation an equal number of times. --Participants then had to recall the pairings of traits and occupations. - These biased perceptions on reality can have dramatic consequences for groups that suffer from negative stereotypes. - For example Duncan (1976) had White students observe on TV what they thought was a live conversation between a Black man and a White man. The conversation degenerated into an argument in which one person lightly shoved the other. - Police officers dilemma: Correll et al. (2002) constructed a computer game in which people had to decide whether to shoot or not shoot people. The targets were either armed or not armed, and were either Black or White. -Darley & Gross (1983) showed a videotape of a girl performing an academic test. Half the participants were told that the girl was from a deprived working-class background, and half were told she was from a wealthy background. --Half the participants were asked to rate the girl’s ability immediately after receiving the information about her background. -- The other half watched the girl perform a test and then indicated her ability. -- Participants in both conditions cited evidence from the ability test to support their conclusions. -- These findings suggest that some stereotypes don’t create certainty but rather hypotheses about the stereotyped individual. The bias occurs because these hypotheses are often tested in a biased fashion that leads to their false confirmation. - Self-stereotyping: -- Social identity research shows people even self-stereotype themselves based on salient group memberships. -- Sinclair, Hardin, & Lowery (2006): Asian women rate their own math and verbal skills differently after self-identifying as Asian or female.
	Can stereotypes bestopped?: Unwanted stereotypes persist	Greenberg & Pyszcynski (1985) - Study with two confederates: white and black. Staged a debate about nuclear energy for groups of participants. -either African-American or white debater presented better arguments and clearly won the debate. -participants asked to rate the debater’s skill. -Just before the debate started, a confederate planed in the group about to listen to the debate: (1) made a highly racist remark about the African-American debater “There is no way that ni**er won the debate”, (2) he made a non-racist remark about the African-American debater “There is no way the pro (or con) debater won the debate” or (3) no comment at all.
	Can stereotypes be stopped?: Crosscategorization	- Limitations -- Some outgroup members will very often be seen as double outgroup. -- And, we will resist categorizing them as ingroup (distinctiveness threat)
	Stereotype inconsistent information	- What happens when people are presented with stereotype inconsistent behaviour? - One possibility is that, over time, the stereotype will change to adjust to reality (book-keeping). -If counter-stereotypical information is dramatic enough, it might even cause a sudden change in attitudes (conversion). - There are some cognitive strategies, however, that sometimes mean stereotypes survive despite stereotype-inconsistent information: sub-typing and attributions.
	Can stereotypes be stopped?: Macraeet al. (1994	- showed participants a photo of a skin-head, and asked them to write a little essay describing a typical day in this person’s life. -Half the participants were explicitly encouraged to avoid stereotyping when writing the essay, and half were given no instructions. - In the second part of the experiment, all participants were given another photo of a skin-head and were asked to write another essay describing a day in their life. - This second essay was then coded for the number of stereotypical attitudes and thoughts expressed. - Rather then reducing prejudice, stereotype suppression resulted in a rebound effect once people were “allowed” to stereotype again.
	The Experience of discrimination: Schmitt et al. (2014)	- the relationship between discrimination and mental health outcomes (self-esteem, depression, anxiety, psychological distress and life satisfaction = N328) -Overall negative and significant correlation between perceived discrimination and mental health r=.23 - relationship stronger for groups that face discrimination that is more controllable and legitimized: for self-esteem r=.26, for psych distress r=-.32 compared to less controllable (and thus more illegitimate) for self esteem r=-.14 and for psychological distressr=-.25 -there was a tendency that studies of wiegh prejudice produced larger effects than racism studies
	Why does exposure todiscrimination harm well-being?	- First and foremost, stigma and discrimination reduces access to employment, housing and education — all of which directly limit opportunities in life - There are also other reasons why stigma negatively affects health — and many of these reasons are of a more physiological and psychological in nature. Many researchers have taken a stress and coping approach to explain when and why stigma is associated with poor health. - According to this view, stigma represents a significant stressor that challenges individuals’ well-being in at least three ways. - First, being the target of stigma and discrimination triggers a direct stress response in the body. This includes elevated blood pressure, increased cortisol levels and increased heart rate, physiological responses -Second, stigma affects health more indirectly if this physiological stress response is sustained, as causes wear and tear on the body. The nature of discrimination as a stressor, in that it is pervasive and uncontrollable, lasting over prolonged periods, makes it particularly likely that such a chronic stress response will occur. This, over time, is associated with an increase in vulnerability to physical and mental illness. Exposure to discrimination was also found to predict a greater risk of obesity, breast cancer and high blood pressure. - Finally, stigma impacts negatively on health because individuals cope with the stress associated with discrimination and stigma by engaging in behaviours that negatively affect health. For example, they may turn to drugs and alcohol or they may decrease participation in healthy behaviours such as exercise.
	LGBT exposure to discrimination	- Higher rate of psychiatric illness among LGBT, fully mediated by discrimination - Higher suicide risk among LGBT, partially mediated by perceived discrimination - Rates of mood disorders, substance abuse & psychiatric illness increased for LGBT in US states where marriage bans passed, but not for straights or for LGBT in states without discriminatory laws - Families and friends also suffer from some of the same serious negative physical and mental health consequences of discrimination experienced by their loved ones - Both LGBT and their families showed improved mental and physical health in US states where marriage equality passed
	What perpetuatesprejudice?: Self-fulfilling prophecies - Snyder & Swann (1978)	- Snyder & Swann (1978) led interviewers to believe that the person who they were interviewing (over telephone) was an extrovert or an introvert. They were then required to select from a set list of interview questions. --Those who thought the person was an extrovert mostly asked questions that would be likely to reveal these tendencies (e.g., “what would you do if you wanted to liven things up in a party?”). -- Those who thought the person was an introvert primarily asked questions that would be likely to reveal these tendencies (e.g., “what factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”) --In a follow-up experiment, the responses of the target were taped and a fresh set of participants were asked to rate the interviewee. -- Interviewees who had been placed in the extrovert condition were rated as more extroverted than were those who had been placed in the introvert condition. -- In other words the expectancies of the interviewer had created a reality – if you talk to somebody expecting them to be introverted they become introverted.
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968)	- Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) administered an IQ test to school children and told their teachers that a particular group of 20 students had been identified as “bloomers” … people who were particularly likely to show development in the future. In fact, the 20 students were chosen randomly.
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)	- Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) had White participants act as job interviewers interviewing White and Black applicants. -- When interviewing Black applicants, the interviewers made more speech errors, had shorter interviews, and engaged less with the interviewee non-verbally than when the interviewee was White. -- In a subsequent experiment the researchers trained interviewers to use either the Black or the White interview style to interview a White applicant. -- When interviewed as though they were Black, the White applicant was rated as having performed worse and as having been more nervous than when they were interviewed as though they were White.
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat	- Experienced when people feel themselves to be at risk of confirming negative stereotypes about their group - Black people aren’t good at maths - Women can’t drive, White men can’t jump -When stigmatized groups are conscious that other people might treat them stereotypically, they feel anxiety about their performance. This can impede performance.
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Steele and Aronson (1995)	- Steele and Aronson (1995) had Black and White students anticipate taking a “very difficult” test that was defined as being “diagnostic of intellectual ability” or “just a laboratory exercise”. - They then had to complete ambiguous word fragments such as “______ CE” or “____ERIOR”. -When Black students were anticipating a test of “intellectual ability” (as compared to “a lab exercise”), they -- (a) were more likely to reveal race-related anxieties on the word completion task (e.g., “RACE” “INFERIOR”) & -- (b) did worse on the test!
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Spencer et al. (1999)	- Spencer et al. (1999) got women and men to do a maths test … consistent with the stereotype, men did better than women on the test. - In a follow-up experiment, participants did two tests: one in which they were told that men and women typically performed differently on the test, and one in which participants were told that the test typically did not reveal sex differences. -In the no difference condtition there was next to no difference between the math scores of men and women. In the gender difference condition men had 5x the math score rating compared to women
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Yeung & von Hippel (2008)	- Stereotype threat and driving performance -When women were not threatened they had better driving than if they were threatened with their stereotype of being bad drivers
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat - Stone et al. (1999)	- Stone et al. (1999) had white and black participants perform a sports task (mini golf). In some conditions the test was framed as a test of “natural ability”, in others it was framed as a test of “sports intelligence” - NAtural ability condition had much better performance for whites than blacks but the sports intelligence condition showed much better performance for blacks than whites
	What perpetuates prejudice?: Stereotype threat -Bosson et al. (2004)	- Bosson et al. (2004) had gay or straight men playing with children. -- In half the conditions the participants’ sexuality was primed (potentially invoking stereotype threat) and in the other half sexuality was not primed. -- During the play session, neutral observers rated the participants on signs of nervousness and childcare performance. -- This is despite the fact gay and straight participants did not differ in the extent to which they said they felt anxious in a questionnaire - Others have found that the effects of stereotype threat are partly caused by high blood pressure (Blascovich et al., 2001) and feelings of dejection (Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003). - But given the ambiguous results on anxiety, others have sought to find more measurable explanations. - Stereotype threat has been associated with: --Trying too hard -- Withdrawing effort -- Straining working memory capacity --Evaluation apprehension -- Diminished expectations for performance --Self-doubt / negative thinking -- Self-handicapping -- Domain dis-identification (e.g., dis-identification as a “maths person”) - In reality, it’s probably that all of these underlying processes could be playing a role, depending on the person and context.
	How dopeople cope with discrimination?: Prejudice and self-esteem	- Intuitively, many people believe that being a member of a stigmatized group will reduce self-esteem. - But there is no clear evidence for this notion. - Black and Mexican Americans have self-esteem levels equal to or higher than White Americans. - Also, no convincing evidence that self-esteem is lower among other groups that suffer from stigma (e.g., women, mentally and physically handicapped, the mentally ill, homosexuals). -Why is this?
	How do people cope with discrimination?: Prejudice and self-esteem - Crocker & Major (1989)	- Crocker & Major (1989) argued that the expected relationship between stigma and global self-esteem might not emerge because stigmatized groups: -- Compare their outcomes with those of their ingroup, rather than with the relatively advantaged outgroup -- Selectively devalue those dimensions on which their group does poorly and value those dimensions on which the group does well --Attribute negative feedback to prejudice against their group
	Crocker & Major (1989) : Attributions to prejudice	- Crocker et al. (1991) got women to write an essay, which was then (supposedly) assessed by a male student. From the assessor’s responses on a questionnaire, the participants were led to believe he was either liberal or sexist in his attitudes toward women. -- Participants then received the feedback from the assessor: it was either positive or negative. Negative feedback showed that non-sexist assessors had much higher depression ratings than sexist ones. Positive feedback wasn't hugley different but sexis assessors were higher in depression ratings. - In a subsequent study Crocker et al. (1991) had Black and White participants complete a self-description form (what are your likes / dislikes, strengths / weaknesses etc). -- This was then shown to another (fictional) participant who evaluated how much they liked the person … feedback was either very negative or very positive. -- Furthermore, participants were led to believe that the assessor could see them (visible condition) or could not see them (anonymous condition). --White ps: chaning self-esteem for +ve feedback in seen condition was much higher than unseen. Self-esteem for -ve feedback was slightly higher for seen and in the negatives for unseen -- Black ps: chaning self-esteem for +ve feedback in seen condition hugely negative and unseen very postive in direction. Self-esteem for -ve feedback was slightly higher for seen and really in the negatives for unseen - Attributional ambiguity -- Crocker et al. argued that members of stigmatized groups have to live with “attributional ambiguity”; in other words, they can never be sure whether people are treating them in a certain way because of their race. --This can have good and bad consequences. -- If you fail, it might help protect self-esteem to attribute to prejudice. -- If you succeed, you might always wonder if you got preferential treatment because of your minority group status (problem with equal opportunity). - Prejudice and attributions -- Schmitt et al. (2003) have disputed the notion that attributions to prejudice are good for you. -- They got women to participate in a mock job interview, after which they all received negative feedback. -- Participants were then led to believe that the negative feedback was due to non-sexist reasons, to a rare example of sexism, or to pervasive culture of sexism. -- Participants then rated their positive affect and their self-esteem. -- self esteem was higher than positive affect for every condition. Non-sexism saw the highest postitive affect, followed by rare then pervasive sexism
	Crocker & Major (1989) : Rejection-identification model	- Schmitt and colleagues argued that experiencing pervasive discrimination does, in fact, hurt self-esteem. However they argue that the negative consequences of discrimination are buffered – either partially or completely – by a sense of identification and solidarity with other members of your disadvantaged group. - Evidence for the rejection-identification model has been found among: -- Women (but not men) -- International students -- People with body piercings - Concealable vs non-concealable stigma --Supportive evidence for the role of ingroup solidarity to buffer the negative effects of stigma is also found by Frable et al. (1998) who compared self-esteem and affect among people with concealable stigma (gays, bulimics, the poor) and people with non-concealable stigma (Blacks, the obese, stutterers). -- Somewhat surprisingly, levels of self-esteem were generally higher among people with non-concealable stigmas … these effects were caused by the fact that people with non-concealable stigma were better able to find each other and support each other.
	Crocker & Major (1989): Self-affirmation	- The school performance of many ethnic minorities in maths-science subjects tends to tail off around middle school. G -eoff Cohen argued that this was due to the threat associated with minority status, and that this threat could be reduced through affirmations of self-integrity. - Consistent with this notion, a brief intervention in which students wrote mini-essays allowing them to express their values and core beliefs reduced the racial achievement gap by 40%. - Coding of the essays shows that essays were particularly effective if they focused on themes of belonging and connectedness.
	Crocker & Major (1989) : Reporting prejudice	- In contrast to the notion that people are motivated to attribute failure to prejudice (in order to help buffer self-esteem) there is a convergence of evidence that people are remarkably loath to attribute events to prejudice. - For example Taylor et al. (1990) asked Indian and Haitian migrants to Canada (a) if they personally experienced discrimination, and (b) if their group as a whole experiences discrimination. -- Minority groups in general tend to not claim they have been victims of discrimination unless the evidence is completely clear. -Ruggiero & Taylor (1995) got women to perform a test, and led them to believe that either 100%, 75%, 50%, 25%, or 0% of the judges were sexist. -- After failing the test, they were asked to what extent they believe their failure was a result of discrimination. -- Only when women had very strong proof that the discrimination was real did they attribute failure to discrimination - Swim & Hyers (1999) gave women a scenario in which they faced obvious sexism from a member of a group in a decision-making task. They were asked to anticipate what they would do in that situation. -- In a separate experiment, a different group of women were actually placed in that scenario (in other words they directly experienced the sexism). - In sum: When women are asked what they would do if they came across an example of sexism, they massively overestimate their willingness to confront the sexism head-on … -Kaiser & Miller (2001) led White participants to believe that another research participant (a Black male) had taken a test assessing their future career success. -- After completing the test, an apologetic experimenter had explained there was some chance that a prejudiced judge would evaluate the test … that all of the 8 judges were White, and that either none, four, or all of them had a history of prejudice. - The Black participant had then received a fail on the test. - In a follow-up questionnaire, the Black man either attributed their fail grade to discrimination or to poor performance. -Participants then rated how much they liked the Black man. - Those who attributed to failure were rated as less likable than those who attributed it to poor performance … regardless of the objective likelihood that the failure was a result of discrimination! - Negative consequences of making attributions to discrimination -- People seem to understand the negative consequences of claiming discrimination – for example women are more likely to cry “discrimination” when on their own or with other women than when they’re with men. (Stangor et al., 2001) - Stages in responding to discrimination -- Ask … what was that? Was that discrimination? -- Answer … make a decision as to whether that was discrimination -- Announce … overt reporting and confronting --This process can take time!
	Crocker & Major (1989) : Intergroup contact	- Intergroup contact has been shown to have positive effects for intergroup harmony - But it might work a little too well when it comes to disadvantaged groups - Positive intergroup contact can create expectations for fairness that undermines willingness to engage in social change efforts -Dixon, Durrheim, & Tredoux (2007) found that White South Africans who reported having positive contact with Black South Africans were more supportive of government efforts to achieve social equality -- Black South Africans who reported having positive contact with White South Africans were less supportive - Saguy et al (2009) created high and low power groups in the laboratory -- The groups were assigned to talk about commonalities between the groups or differences between the groups -- The high power group was then asked to distribute credit points among the participants in the study --Expected in the commonalities preduced more credits hwoever in the difference conditon there was little difference between expected and received - Superordinate groups -- Greenaway, Quinn, & Louis (2011) had Indigenous Australians think about the Stolen Generations as: -- Something “Humans did to other “humans” (i.e., superordinate frame) OR Something “White Australians did to Indigenous Australians” (i.e., subgroup frame)

Share This Flashcard Set

Set the Language

Psyc3142 Mid-Sem

Add to Folders

Upgrade to Cram Premium

Related Essays

Card Range To Study

151 Cards in this Set