Role of Affect in Stereotyping (Lecture Notes 9/16) – Vocabulary Flashcards

Vocabulary-style flashcards covering key terms related to affect, intergroup anxiety, and information processing in stereotyping.

Types of intergroup affect

• Incidental affect

• Integral affect

Incidental affect

Affect elicited by situations unrelated to the intergroup context (e.g., feeling uneasy after watching horror movies).

Integral affect

Affect tied to the social group itself or to encountering group members.

• two types: 

  • Chronic racial affect

    • stable feeling toward outgroup as a whole

    • ex: lawyers

  • Episodic racial effect

    • affective reaction to specific group member

    • ex: lawyer friend mood or feeling of lawyer friend

      • like friend but when u think of lawyer as a whole don’t like

Chronic racial affect

A stable, generalized affect toward an outgroup as a whole (e.g., attitude toward lawyers).

Episodic racial affect

Affective reaction to a specific outgroup member (e.g., toward a lawyer friend) rather than the entire group.

Dijker 1987 Dutch study

• examined Dutch participants feelings toward 3 immigrants groups: Surinamers, Turks, & Moroccans

• Results: Dutch felt anxiety in interactions w/ ALL 3 immigrant groups

• Moroccans & Turks— anxiety + irritation → cultural dissimilarity to Dutch

  • due perception of dissimilar culture

  • immigrants not assimilating to american culture

• Surinamers- - anxiety, but less irritation→ cultural similarity to Dutch

  • had more similarities w/ them

Why are intergroup interactions associated w/ anxiety? 

• Stephen & Stephan: Model of intergroup anxiety

  • Intergroup anxiety

    • anxiety stemming from contact w/ outgroup members

    • Anxiety due to:

      • lack of knowledge/ contact

      • unfamiliarity

      • perceived dissimilarity 

Research on incidental affect- - influence of positive mood

2 basic findings: In general, happy people

• process info less analytically and less likely to engage in careful, systematic processing

• more likely to rely on heuristic cues, initial judgements, or other simplifying strategies when processing information

Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Suesser (1994)

Method:

• induced happy or neutral mood

  • write about happy event or typical day from morning to bedtime(neutral)

• Ss asked to make judgements about physical assault case

  • read the facts and decide if defendant is guilty or not

  • one roommate against another roommate

  • one charged w/ physical assault b/c he pushed or hit him

    • facts were ambiguous

• Defendant’s name was “Juan Garcia” (stereotype-consistent) or “John Garner” (nonstereotype-consistent)

• Results

  • Happy Ss: rated “Juan Garcia” more guilty than “John Garner”

  • Neutral Ss: no difference in ratings

• Conclusion:

  • happy ppl more likely to use their stereotypes in judgements of other people

Why does happiness reduce careful processing & increase stereotype use?

• cognitive explanation

• Motivational explanation

cognitive explanation

• happiness decreases ppls ability to carefully process

  • less cognitive capacity to process info

Motivational explanation 

• happiness decreases ppl’s desire to carefully process

  • want to stay happy and last

  • “mood maintenance hypothesis”

  • having to process info will bring our good mood therefore reduces desire to think analytically

Research on incidental affect- - influence of negative mood

Research findings less clear

• sometimes negative mood increases careful processing, other time it decreases careful processing

Effects of negative mood depend on

• Intensity of negative mood- - more intense moods may decrease ability &/or desire to process carefully

  • ex: depression process less careful

• Type of negative mood

  • anger & anxiety- - similar effects as happiness:

    • decrease careful processing and more likely to use stereotypes in judgements of others

  • sadness- - mixed effects:

    • may or may not reduce careful processing