Stereotypes & Prejudice

ABC model

• affect — prejudice

• behavior — discrimination

• cognition — stereotypes

prejudice

hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group, based solely on their membership in that group

discrimination

unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group or its members

stereotypes

generalizations about a group of people, in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members

problems with stereotypes

• overgeneralized

• inaccurate

• resistant to change

• used to validate unjust policies/practices

stereotype content model

• 2 dimensions underlie most stereotypes and each corresponds to a key threat/opportunity

• warmth — friend/foe

• competence — high/low capability

measurement issues

• stereotypes that include negative affect or associations from the basis for prejudice

• explicit — ask people; feelings thermometer

• implicit — IAT, affect misattribution procedure, stereotypic object detection

• negative instantiations of stereotypes — texas job study

newer types of stereotypes

subtyping, modern racism, benevolent sexim

subtyping

creating a new category for expectations

modern racism

rejection of explicitly racist beliefs while holding negative, subtle, socially acceptable prejudicial beliefs (“implicit” racism & shoving study)

benevolent sexism

subjectively positive evaluations that may inadvertently undermine agency (compensatory stereotypes)

theories of prejudice

socialization, cognitive, motivational

the “where” of socialization

• direct observation

• norms

• media

• institutions (e.g., a class divided documentary)

• experience

the “why” of socialization

representations, stereotypic roles

cognitive theory aspects

schema theory, group categorization

schema theory

• humans naturally see similarities

• use of stereotypes

  • saves cognitive effort

  • can lead to biased perceptions

• illusory correlation

• categorization (formation of groups)

illusory correlation

sometimes we pair distinctive stimuli even when there is no actual or consistent association

group categorization

• ingroups and outgroups

• outgroup homogeneity effect

• minimal groups

ingroup

“us”, shared sense of belonging and feeling of common identity

outgroup

“them”, group seen as distinctively different from the ingroup

outgroup homogeneity effect

perception of outgroup members as more similar to each other than ingroup members are to each other, “they all look the same to me”

minimal groups

• arbitrary groups created

• people assume their beliefs are more similar to people in their own groups

  • more harmful for arbitrary groups (e.g., on race, age, weight, etc.)

• people give more benefits to their ingroup and try to emphasize relative differences with outgroups, even when they don’t know these people

motivational theory aspects

• social identity theory

• just world effects/beliefs

• social dominance theory

• realistic group conflict

social identity theory

• our identities are based on our personal histories and on our group memberships

• common behaviors: BIRGing & CORFing

• outgroup denigration

BIRGing

basking in reflected glory of ingroup members’ successes

CORFing

cutting off reflected failure with ingroup members’ failures

outgroup denigration

ingroup favoritism and outgroup denigration both lead to self-esteem boosts, criticizing outgroup members because they’re not in the ingroup

just world effects/beliefs

• belief that the world is fair and people get what they deserve

• blaming the victim effect

blaming the victim effect

• participants read scenario of a date with man and woman, eating dinner, going to his house, and having wine

• positive ending (proposal)

  • people find the story believable and predictable and admire the character of the woman and the man

• negative ending (sexual assault)

  • people find the story believable and predictable and blame the woman for behavior they thought was admirable otherwise

social dominance theory

• people naturally form and maintain hierarchies

• hierarchical order is preserved through systematic institutional and individual discrimination

• desire for group-based dominance is also a personality trait

realistic group conflict theory

• actual competition for resources between groups → conflict → prejudices

• more prejudice when resources are limited

  • areas of the world

  • economic scarcity

• robbers cave experiment

  • brought together by superordinate goal

consequences of SPD

• concealable stigma

• stereotype threat

• costs to SPD targets

• shooter bias

• ignorance about privilege and social change

concealable stigma

motivated desire to conceal an identity that can make someone the potential target of SPD (e.g., sexual orientation, mental illness, criminal history, etc.)

stereotype threat

disruptive concern (fear) that when facing a negative stereotype, one will verify this stereotype (e.g., women and math tests — intervention condition that made women aware of stereotype threat improved performance)

costs to SPD targets

• psychological

  • vigilance to threat-related stimuli (greater detection of and greater bias to see threat)

  • feelings of identity threat

  • self-fulfilling prophecies (stereotype threat)

• health

  • psychological distress, anxiety, increased blood pressure, poor quality of life

shooter bias

systematic, pervasive racial bias in the decision to shoot vs. not shoot

ignorance about privilege and social change

• reference points for progress

  • dominant — have low status groups improved from where they were?

  • marginalized — are groups equal?

• attention/accessibility for experiences and reality (presence vs. absence bias)

  • what is regularly encountered

  • presence vs. absence bias

    • we see what’s present more than what’s absent

prejudice reduction tactics

talking about it, contact hypothesis, cooperation

talking about it

• raising awareness about bias (might not be helpful, e.g., manager study where awareness led to counter-effect)

• hypocrisy — people criticize others for using stereotypes even though they themselves use those stereotypes

• when does talking help?

  • telling people what to change

  • people have to be interested in changing

contact hypothesis

contact between members of different groups leads to more positive intergroup attitudes (requires equal status, support from authority, and is best if friendships form)

cooperation

interactions that include reliance on others can help break down pre-existing beliefs (e.g., israeli-palestinian intervention study, robbers cave study, jigsaw classroom study)