Psych 456: Exam 2

self-concept

the collection of self-representations one has of oneself

personal identity

aspects of one’s self-concept unique to the individual person

relational identity

aspects of one’s self-concept rooted in one’s roles vis-a-vie other people (ex: sibling)

social identity

aspects of one’s self-concept connected to group memberships or social categories (race/ethnicity, culture, religion, sexual orientation)

working self-concept

the aspects of the self-concept brought to mind by the situation or by personal needs

common identity-management strategies

deny: the existence of privilege

distance: their own self-concept from “white” identity

dismantle: strive to tear down systems of privilege

two psychological threats

1: possibility that accomplishments in life are not fully earned (meritocratic threat)

2: association with a group that benefits from unfair social advantages (group-image threat)

identity-protection (how does identity operate)

view identity in a positive light (same self-motive extended to groups we belong to)

distinctiveness (how does identity operate)

distinguish their identity as unique and distince from other identities or groups (ex: response to homogenizing identity.. sports/nationality)

continuity (how does identity operate)

need to feel a sense of connection between one’s past, present, and future identities (desire for a coherent narrative story line about one’s identity)

meaning (how does identity operate)

need to find significance or purpose (often via or involving identity)

entrepreneurs of identity

seek to define the meaning of the identity, who belongs (and doesn’t), and what the group wants (and does not want) to achieve

identity-based motivation

1: people engage in behaviors based on perceptions of what “we do”

2: shifts in understanding of identity-definition can be associated with both “good” and “bad” behaviors

(most groups have examples of both good and bad behaviors)

in-group

a social group which an individual perceives themselves as belonging (“us”)

out-group

a social group to which an individual does not perceive themselves as belonging to (“them”)

independent or individualistic cultures

more liekly to place importance on distinguishing self vs. others (compared to in-group vs. out-group) and strive for independence

interdependent/collectivist cultures

more likely to place importance on distinguishing in-group vs. out-groups (compared to self vs. others) and strive for interconnectedness to meet needs of the in-group

group identification and behavior

low and high identified group members will differentially respond to group-based events, such that those with high identification will be more responsive to group-based events

what are the implications of group membership?

in-group favoritism

in-group favoritism

the psychological tendency to have positive predispositions, favor, and preference one’s in-group over out-groups (people often have a bias in favor of the groups they belong to)

\

what are the implications of group membership?

beyond just favoritism, there is also distinct emotional pre-dispositions

in-group vs. out-group

individuals report greater trust for in-groups vs. out-groups and greater anxiety, fear, and anger toward out-group (compared to in-groups)

motivated empathy

empathy is a motivated phenomenon in which observers are driven to either experience or avoid empathy

factors that increase motivation to experience empathy

1: affiliation (affiliation or identification with targets)

2: social desirability (approval of others)

factors that decrease motivation to experience empathy

1: cost (time, financial, social)

2: interference with competition (sports, war, business)

Pro-Israeli and Pro-Palestinian participants (Vallone et al., 1985) results

1: people tend to view news as biased in favor of the other side

2: people attend to and remember different information as function of group membership

3: people believe news coverage will “sway” undecideds to the other side

Naive realism

the belief that our perspective of the way things are is the way the world truly is (objective reality)

conflict-supporting mindset

1: negative beliefs about characteristic of the out-group (they are all the same)

2: negative emotions toward out-group (I hate them)

3: excluding out-group from moral concern (their civilians are bound to get hurt during fighting)

Realistic conflict-theory

competition between groups over scarce resources increases stereotyping, conflict, and aggression between groups

superordinate goals

goals that transcend interests of groups

oppositional goals

goals that pit interests of groups against one another

zero-sum framing

if one party gains, the other party loses

positive-sum framing

if one party gains, all parties are better off

common in-group identity model

to the extend that members of different groups conceive of themselves as wholly or partially a part of an inclusive group, relations will be improved

ideological conflict hypothesis

both liberals and conservatives show an intolerance of those whose values and beliefs are inconsistent with their own

(demonstrate explicit prejudice toward the other side, findings are more pronounced for those with higher identification, ideas/values/policies that conflict with their worldview are worldview threatening/cause anxiety)

the social cure (Haslam et al., 2009)

1: identity is central to mental and physical health (social support and mental health)

2: identities can be used as a psychological resource (experiences are enhanced in group-settings, provide common direction/meaning/purpose)

what are the implications of group membership?

shifting the geography of place and group relations, some additional points of hope

misperceptions around division (Ahler, 2014)

1: there is often a disconnect between the perceived and actual differences between groups (people believe differences are bigger than they actually are)

2: knowledge about the perception-actual difference decreases polarization

Hierarchy-enhancing (HE) processes

processes, procedures, and values that directly or indirectly serve to maintain group dominance, hierarchy, and/or inequality

Hierarchy-attenuating (HA) processes

processes, procedures, and values that directly or indirectly serve to attenuate group dominance, hierarchy, and/or inequality

power

the relative ability to meet and influence others to get what one needs/wants or create deficits in needs of others

what are the five types of power?

1: harm and/or it’s threat

2: control of resources

3: knowledge

4: legitimacy (e.g., violence)

5: commitment from others (asymmetrical responsibilities)

social dominance orientation (SDO)

an enduring generalized preference for heirarchy and inequality

\-positively correlated with racism, sexism, dehumanization

\-low status groups can also be high SDO (ex: ISIS)

\-shapes individuals acts of discrimination and participation in intergroup and institutional processes that produce better outcomes for advantaged groups, compared to those that are disadvantaged

what is the correlation between SDO profiles?

\-high SDO show less ampathy compared to low SDO

\-high SDO report more pleasure from the suffering of others, compared to low SDO

divergent career choices as a function of SDO

whereas low SDO people are more likely to obtain careers in HA institutions (ex: non-profit sector), high SDO are more likely to obtain careers in HE institutions (ex: criminal justice/law enforcement)

what are the SDO and policy/procedural preferences?

1: high SDO are more likely to hire applicants with a history of racism, compared to low SDO

2: high SDO more likely to prefer legacy admissions over affirmative action admissions-compared to low SDO

3: high SDO are more likely to allocate resources based on merit versus need, compared to low SDO (ex: funding an outstanding high school with high SDO vs. a failing high school with low SDO

hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths

factors that provide moral or intellectual justification for group-based inequality

majority group prejudice and allocation of resources

majority group members are more likely to be biased against, allocate less resources, and support removal of minority group members as a function of assimilation preferences (those assimilate do better)

segregation and institutional outcomes (how is inequality maintained)

\-education (amount of resources)

\-employment opportunities (availability of stable and secure jobs)

\-environmental quality of life (landfills; dumpsters)

\-opportunities for healthy living (types of grocery stores; availability of fresh fruit)

using powerful or advantaged groups as the norm (how is inequality maintained)

powerful or advantaged groups are often viewed as the standard for what is “appropriate” behavior

\-this occurs as a mental schema (sometimes) for both members of the advantaged and disadvantaged groups

misperceptions of inequality

1: people routinely underestimate the level of inequality between groups and both advantaged and disadvantaged groups

2: misperceptions of inequality are associated with (lack of) support for policies that redistribute resources to disadvantaged groups

failutre to think about privilege (how is inequality maintained)

people in privilege are more likely to think in individual terms than in terms of their privileged group-based identity

\-operates for race/ethnicity, gender, class, and sexual orientation

\-as a result, people in privileged groups often react with anger and oppose group-based policies to alleviate inequality

existence bias

individuals show a bias to evaluate existing policies, procedures, and practices as good, right, and the way things ought to be

longevity bias

tendency to assume that longstanding states of the world are better and more right than more recent counterparts

stereotype threat

for members of a stereotyped group highly invested in the domain, the threat of being judged and treated stereotypically or possibly fulfilling the stereotype leads them to perform worse in the domain

\-only applies to those highly motivated to do well in the domain

stereotype threat study (steele &aronson, 1995)

\-black and white students completed GRE questions, but were told if it was a “problem-solving” test or “IQ” test

\-black individuals did much worse when it was referred to as an IQ test

\-white individuals did worse when it was referred to as an IQ test, but only slightly

stigmatization

occurs when a person possesses (or is believed to possess) some attribute or characteristic that conveys and identity is devalued in a particular social context

\-about self-awareness of a devalues identity

\-can be chronic

\-can be situational or context-dependent

psychology of bias

\-social categorization (automatic; associated with essentialism)

\-people are embedded within these categories (group competition and conflict emerges within everyday life

\-segregation (lack of contact narrows experiences and reinforces stereotypes)

\-hierarchy: bias favors groups as a function of race/ethnicity, gender and class

\-power: bias is enacted in policies to favor those already in power

\-media: narrow representation of minority groups

hate crimes

a unique form of aggression that includes the intent to harm, but also serves symbolic and instrumental function for perpetrators

symbolic hate crimes

a message is sent to community, neighborhood, or group

instrumental hate crimes

affect the actions of perpetrator and victim group

factors associated with hate crimes

\-actual or imagined economic competition with minority groups

\-frustration with minority groups

\-membership in organized hate groups

\-right-wing authoritarian personality (submission to authority figures, high aggression, conformity)

\-gender (male) and age (18-24)

white-supremacy

\-implicit or explicit feeling of white superiority

\-entitlement

\-nostalgia for past (whites had unchallenged access and implementation of power and dominance)

\-perceived threat to white identity

\-white victimhood

process of implicit bias

1: categorization of an individual target is automatic (people are quick to categorize)

2: once categorized, implicit associations are activation (there are individual differences)

3: activation is dependent on situational/contextual cues

what factors explain bias?

\-identity consolidation

\-dealing with personal grievances

\-provides existential certainty (worldview threat)

\-enhances personal or group self-image

high prejudice-person (devine’s two step model of stereotype processing)

stereotype activation → person’s belief matches stereotype = bias occurs

low prejudice-person (devine’s two step model of stereotype processing)

stereotype activated → person’s belief does not match stereotype= if resources are available, bias does not occur

internal motivation to respond without prejudice

people primarily motivated to respond without prejudice for personal reasons

external motivation to respond without prejudice

people primarily motivated by how they may appear in the eyes of others within a given situation

aversive racism

aversive racists have a conflict between:

\-feelings and beliefs associated with egalitarian values

\-negative feelings about black people, which are often unacknowledged

aversive racism theory

\-when norms for appropriate behavior are clear, aversive racists act on their egalitarian beliefs behave in a non-prejudiced manner (egalitarian) (unbiased)

\-when norm for appropriate behavior are unclear, the uncomfortable feeling/anxiety leads aversive racists to behave in a prejudiced manner

white participants asked to evaluate black and white applicants

\-black and white strongly, weakly, ambiguous qualified

result:

\-when qualifications were strong or weak, there was no discrimination against black applicants

\-when qualifications were ambiguous (norms unclear), black applicants were hired significantly less than all other applicants

hostile sexism

explicit antagonistic attitude toward women

benevolent sexism

more “positive” paternalistic attitude, but often portrays women as incompetent, weak, on a pedestal for men

attractive applicant study (marlow et al., 1996)

results:

\-males: no differences between attractive and less attractive applicantss

\-females: less attractive female hired significantly less than all other applicants (attractive and less attractive female evaluated differently)

objectification

when a person is primarily regarded as a means through which a given goal can be attained by the perceiver

\-appearance shapes experience of women when women are sexually objectified and reduced to their physical appearance, sexuality, or individual body parts

self-objectification

objectification of women’s bodies causes women to adopt in outsider’s view of themselves, as objects or sights to be appreciated by others

consequences of self-objectification

\-increased anxiety, particularly with regard to appearance

\-increase body shame

\-disrupted cognitive functioning due to diminished mental resources

\-restrained eating

expectations and leadership (phelan and rudman, 2010)

\-applicants described themselves as competitive and having strong evidence of their leadership ability

results:

\-both men and women were rated as highly competent

\-men were liked more than women

\-men were hired more than women

the “backlash” effect

when a women uses typically “masculine” techniques to advance (self-promotion), they are judged more negatively than women who do not use these techniques

men and help-seeking (siedler et al., 2016)

\-less likely to recognize and communicate symptoms of depression

\-masculine norms de-incentivize help-seeking

pre-occupation with gender roles and traditional family structures

\-gender inversion stereotypes (gay men as feminine and lesbians as masculine)

\-stereotypes around ability to form “healthy and stable” relationships

hyper focus on sexuality

stereotypes about sexual predictor behavior

transgender skepticism

\-questioning around existence of trans identity

\-rooted in perception of “deception” intentions and “identity confusion”

gender essentialism

negative attitudes toward those that are gender non-conforming

the racial position model

within US context, racial/ethnic stereotypes are explained by where a group falls along two dimensions (research conducted with diverse samples)

perceived inferiority-superiority

perceived socio-economic status within hierarchy

cultural foreignness-americanness

a group’s perceived distnce away from “american” prototype (“what it means to be american”) (devotion to core “american” ideals ex: christian, english-speaking)

racial position model (black americans)

prejudice described as rooted in inferiority but not foreignnessr

racial position model (asian models)

prejudice described as having expectation of superiority (“model minority”) buy still foreign (“not american”

racial position model (latino/a americans)

perceived as low status and foreign to “traditional american” way of life

racial position model (arab-americans)

perceived as both low status and “foreign to american way of life”

subordinate male target hypothesis

discrimination experienced by men of subordinate especially from men of the dominant group-is greater than that experienced by women of the same subordinate groups in certain contexts

\-housing discrimination, genocide, criminal justice system

out-group homogeneity

the perception that members of the out-group are more similar (homogenous) to each other than they really are (religion/political orientation)

\-the term “latino/a or latin-x” or “hispanic” and diversity of national cultures

sub-typing

tendency to view stereotype-inconsistent individuals as “exceptions to the rule”

descriptive assumptions

create assumptions about the attributes of people and groups

(ex: is the average man or woman is better at math?)(ex: group of black men on a corner= criminal activity)

prescriptive assumtions

create assumptions about where people and groups should be or what they should be doing (ex: a man belongs in a math classroom more than a woman)

the “glass cliff”

women and racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to be hired/placed into risky situation/organization in crisis, compared to men/whites

hypothesis-testing search

expectancies (stereotypes) function as hypotheses and people have expectation-confirmation approach to information

\-works through selective weighing of information

\-selective recall of evidence

shifting standards model (biernat et al., 1991)

\-stereotypes implicityly or explicitly operate as standards by which people are judged

\-standards are subjective and rotted in expectations

\-the meaning of attributes differ as a function of membership in stereotyped vs. non-stereotyped groups

(ex: what it means to be “warm” is different for men vs. women)