Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Institutionalized bias

differential access to goods, services, and opportunities of society based on group membership

Personally mediated bias

prejudice and discrimination against others based on their group membership

Internalized bias

acceptance by members of stigmatized groups of negative messages about their abilities or worth

Affective bias

Prejudice: how we feel about members of a group

Behavioral bias

discrimination: negative behavior directed toward members of a group

cognitive bias

stereotypes: our beliefs about other groups

ingroup

group or social category to which i belong

ingroup member: a person from my ingroup

outgroup

group or societal category to which i don’t belong

outgroup member: a person from the outgroup

ingroup favoritism

people tend to automatically favor ingroups over outgroups

ingroup favoritism example: $allocation

-people wanted ingroup to get more money than those in the outgroup

-even if it meant that the ingroup got less money overall

Robber’s Cave Experiment (1954)

Boys at camp, divided into 2 groups

Stage 1: formation of ingroups

Stage 2: competition for resources

Stage 3: cooperation towards a shared goal

What was demonstrated in the Robber’s Cave Experiment

-how easily ingroups develop

-how competition for resources breeds intergroup hostility

-that resolving that hostility can be challenging, but can benefit from working together towards shared goals

Stereotypes

belief that certain attributes are character of members of particular groups

thoughts/ cognitions

Schemas return

 We have schemas for different “types” of people

 When we see someone who reminds us of that “type of person”, these schemas are activated

▪ Once these images come to mind, so does relevant information about that “type of person”

heuristics return

Stereotypes as mental shortcuts

▪ Stereotypes simplify the process of thinking about other people

▪ We conserve energy and effort by using stereotypes

stereotypes as energy savers

Participants performed 2 tasks simultaneously

 Task 1: form an impression of someone based on a list of traits

▪ Half of participants saw only the name of the person above the list of traits

Half of participants also saw a label identifying a group membership

▪ On the lists of traits, half were consistent with the stereotypes for the label and half irrelevant to the stereotypes

Task 2: listen to audio passage of facts about Indonesia

-more items were recalled in audio passage where stereotype was present

DV’s: memory test for traits & passage

Stereotypes Dependent variables

memory test for the traits they had seen and the facts about indonesia from the audio passage

• more items and facts about indonesia were recalled when a stereotype was present

Outgroup homogeneity effect

The tendency to perceive more variability among ingroupsthan outgroups

what happens when we meet an outgroup member who doesn’t fit our stereotype

We engage in Subtyping which is explaining away exceptions to your stereotypeby creating a subcategory that differs from the group as a whole

Dissociation Model ( Devine, 1989)

What we know about stereotype content comes to mind automatically and we have to work to override those thoughts if we don’t want to endorse them

▪ Step 1: Automatic process = Activation of stereotype knowledge

▪ Step 2: Controlled process = Conscious decision not to apply or endorse stereotype knowledge

▪ Step 2 requires motivation and cognitive resources

prejudice

An attitudinal and affective response toward a certain group and its individual members

-Prejudice = feelings/affect

-the “isms”: racism, sexism, ableism

Social Norms for Expressing Prejudice and Engaging in Discrimination

Social norms change regarding the acceptability of blatant expressions of prejudice toward certain groups

 Social norms can create conflict between what people really think and feel and what they express to others

College Application Study

Three types of applications were evaluated

Clearly exceptional: high marks & high SAT scores

Clearly below par: low marks & low SAT scores

Mixed credentials: high marks but low SATs; low marks but high SATs)

-Both high and low prejudice participants rated White and Black applicants the same when they excelled on or were below par on all dimensions.

-Highly prejudiced participants rated Black applicants less favorably than participants low in prejudice when applicants had mixed credentials.

Implicit Association Test

Measure of implicit bias

 Assesses the strength of the association between groups and positive vs. negative words based on speed of responding

 Idea behind it: those who are more prejudiced against a certain group should be faster to associate faces from that group with negative words and faces from the opposite group (often the ingroup) with positive words

▪ FASTER response times suggest the association between the concepts is stronger in your automatic processing

Why do IAT matter and crituqes

• scores predict behavior

• strength of associations reflect stereotype knowledge not support

discrimination

harmful or negative behaviors directed towards members of particular groups

-blatant or subtle

shooter bias

Participants responded faster to:
▪ “SHOOT” for armed Black targets than armed
White targets
▪ “DON’T SHOOT” for unarmed White targets than
unarmed Black target

• more errors with black targets

Internalized Bias

consequences for targets of intergroup bias

Occupational Aspirations

career goals and preferences individuals have

Stereotype threat

anxiety experienced by members of a group that their behavior might confirm a stereotype ab their group

irony of stereotype

worrying ab conforming the stereotype is distracting and hinders performance, making it likely that people will confirm the stereotype

“Test performance” Study

-Black & white students completed SAT questions

framing of the test

• stereotype threat: “diagnostic test of your verbal abilities & limitations

• control condition: “test that’ll help us understand psychological factors involved in solving verbal problems”

more items were solved by white students in experiment group and they both solved 12 items under control group

women and stereotype threat

does stereotype threat contrib. to relative underperformance of women in math

-both genders completed math test

-stereotype threat manipulation: participants were told that math tests had or hadn’t shown gender differences in the past

women and stereotype threat results

-no difference in time spent on each question

-score was the same in no-gender difference

-men scored higher in gender-difference

implications for female students

-they represent small minority of students and researchers in natural and physical sciences

-being outnumbered may lead females to suffer stereotype threat

-does this create a threateneing environment for females and lead to decreased math performance?

• part. took math or verbal test in groups of three

• risk of stereotype threat isnt stated

• minority (2 males vs 1 female) vs same sex group (3 females)

minority numbers & stereotype threat results

-same sex group performed better than minority group in the math test

-same-sex and minority groups performed almost the same in verbal tests

-the more men the less good females do as they believe that if they do bad they will confirm stereotypes

Effective Interventions

interventions designed to communicate to students taht their peers hold pro-diversity attitudes

• Led non-marginalized students to report more
  positive attitudes toward outgroups and greater
  appreciation of diversity

• Led marginalized students to report an increased
  sense of belonging, report being treated more
  inclusively by peers, and earning better grades
  over the semeste

occupational aspirations

unfamiliar occupations were new or hidden

-researchers found children are aware of occupational status differences from a young age, AA children associated high-status jobs with white individuals and low status with black individuals

ABC’s of Intergroup Bias

Affective: Prejudice; how we feel about members of a group

Behavioral: Discrimination; negative behavior directed toward members of a group

Cognitive: Stereotypes; our beliefs about other groupe

subtyping

Explaining away exceptions to your stereotype by creating a subcategory that differs from the group as a whole

when social norms discourage explicit prejudice and discrimination

-Social norms can create conflict between what people really
think and feel and what they express to others

-When it’s not socially acceptable to openly express prejudice
and to discriminate, people may engage in more subtle,
indirect forms of prejudice and discrimination in ways that
allow them deny being prejudiced if someone tries to call
them out

effective interventions for stereotype threat

Interventions that shared peers’ pro-diversity attitudes had positive effects on students: non-marginalized students developed more positive views of outgroups and valued diversity more, while marginalized students felt a stronger sense of belonging, experienced more inclusive treatment, and achieved better grades.

dual process model of stereotyping: Devine’s (1998) Dissociation model

Step 1: Automatic process = Activation of stereotype

Step 2: Controlled process = overriding the stereotype activation

Targets of Discrimination: Occupational Aspirations

-black children rated status of occupations and desire to go into occupations for jobs that are typically done by “onlu Black people,” “only white people,” or “both Black and White people”