PSC 157 Final Exam

Contact Hypothesis

social contact btwn majority and minority groups will reduce prejudice

some kinds work better than others; integration is the solution

Positive Contact must have the following prerequisites:

interdependence/common goal

equal status among individuals (high power people in contact w/ low power people won't help)

informal, interpersonal contact

(multiple contact are important; it's necessary to have personalized contacts w/ individual members of groups in a setting)

endorsement of integration by authorities (not always helpful b/c it's not self-selective, formal)

Pettigrew & Troop

contact reduces prejudice, but not a strong correlation (r = 0.27)

more outgroup friendships one has, the less prejudicial one is

still effective w/o all four conditions, but they help

Types of change produced as result of contact hypothesis

increases knowledge about outgroups

reduces stereotyping

reduces expectations that intergroup interaction will have negative outcomes

reduces ingroup favoritism

reduces intergroup anxiety (aka prejudice)

increases empathy for outgroup

limiting factors of contact hypothesis

one's preexisting attitudes may not help contact hypothesis

high prejudice people are less likely to individuate outgroup members

high intergroup anxiety = high prejudice people = low individuation

normative climate outside contact situation (authorities making stereotypes, prejudice a norm)

intergroup anxiety

intergroup anxiety

feelings of discomfort felt when acting w/ members of other groups

caused by expectation that the interaction will have negative consequences that exist

problem b/c it is a self-reinforcing belief

relates to majority group members' attitudes toward minority groups

occurs in all groups when interacting w/ another group

generally found in majority groups b/c they're more afraid of offending the minority group than vice versa

negative expectations about contact with outgroup members exists for 1 of 2 reasons:

1. little contact w/ outgroup

2. negative experiences w/ outgroup in the past

research shows strong support for the relationship btwn intergroup anxiety and prejudice

self-reinforcing relationship

avoidance of outgroup members lessens likelihood of having the positive intergroup contacts that can undermine negative expectations

extended contact effect (Wright 1997)

even if you don't have ingroup - outgroup friendship, simply knowing someone who has a mixed friendship makes you less prejudice

more mixed friendships that you know, less prejudice you have

imagined contact crisp

when people are told imaginary story about them interacting w/ someone of another race, they show less prejudice and stereotyping

people showed less prejudice, less stereotyping, reduced intergroup anxiety, simply when thinking about imagined contact w/ outgoup members

Models of the Contact Process

draw on social ID theory

intergroup contact changes how people conceptualize ingroups and outgroups

personalization/decategorization model

salient categorization model/mutual intergroup differentiation

common ingroup ID

personalization/decategorization model

intergroup contact reduces prejudice b/c people start to see a member of an outgroup as an individual rather than a member of a category

like people more when viewed as individuals

awareness that members of both groups have complex social IDs, lessens the importance of group boundaries

flaw of theory: just b/c you like the individual doesn't mean you'll categorize that to the entire outgroup (subtyping)

salient categorization model/mutual intergroup differentiation (challenges 1st model)

positive attitudes generated by contact w/ individual members of outgroup will only generalize to entire group if the individual is seen as typical

must remain aware that he/she is of another group in order for it to generalize

requires intergroup contact to balance competing processes

outgroup members must be seen in non-stereotypical terms but must also be perceived as typical of their group

common ingroup ID

ingroup and outgroup members can be induced to recategorize themselves into a single group that shares a common ID

get people to think of themselves as broader ingroups

ex: Robber Sherif's Cave Study - both groups had to work together to push bus over the hill

drawback of this model: ingroup members might define common ingroup in terms of themselves

ex: east and west Germany still view themselves as two diff. groups - both think they're better than the other but they're all Germans

may lead to increased bias against common outgroups

ex: east and west germans both have common bias against French

Non-prejudice perspectives

color blind perspective: people should ignore group memberships and act as if distinctions don't exist (melting pot idea)

multiculturalist perspective: (opposite of color blind perspective) ethnic IDs fundamental to self concepts; intergroup relations optimized when both groups hold cultural ID and develop higher order ID also held by other groups

costs to non-prejudiced perspectives

Richeson: colorblind people have more prejudice than those w/ a multicultural perspective as demonstrated on the IAT

Wolsko: both perspectives may reduce prejudice as long as they encourage a common ingroup

but multicultural view may increase stereotyping

if we acknowledge difference of groups, this will enhance the view that people are really diff. from one another

Norton: wanted to see how perspectives influence every day tasks among groups

-white Ps less likely to use race as a descriptor in ID task when interacting w/ black confederate

-avoiding race can be a poor interaction strategy if it interferes w/ the task and if you're thinking that avoidng talking about race will result in a more positive experience

Cognitive Factors of Stereotype Change via Contact

stereotyping is more difficult to change

easier to get members to like outgroups than to change their stereotypes of those groups

3 primary models:

-bookkeeping (gradual)

-conversion (rapid)

-subtyping

Bookkeeping (gradual)

suggests that stereotype change occurs slowly over time in the direction of the people who we've been interacting

conversion (rapid)

ex: all my stereotypes of Black people are gone b/c we have a Black president

Subtyping

protects stereotypes from changing

reduces likelihood that people will use those stereotypes at the same time

positive aspects of a person aren't enough to generalize to the entire group

-results in unchanged stereotype

people develop narrow stereotypes in general to account for a smaller proportion of the overarching group

easier to subtype extreme deviants, moderate deviants more likely to change stereotype

Weber & Crocker (comparing the 3 primary models)

stereotypes of Lawyers:

have people read about a group of lawyers and form an impression of what these individuals are like; will rate later

key variable: were counter-stereotypic info dispersed to all lawyers? - some are introverted, easily intimidated, etc.

found there was no evidence for the conversion effect

when people encounter extreme individuals who violate stereotypes in strong ways, what you get is subtyping, those individuals are set aside as their own group

Rothbart and Lewis on subtyping

provided Ss w/ description of fraternity member

was either typical or atypical

at the end they said he voted for Mondale

Ss then predicted who other members of the frat would vote for

when described atypical, they used his differences to describe his voting behavior, and said that the other frat members voted differently

Kunda on subtyping

people use neutral info as goods for subtyping; members of majority groups are anxious about appearing biased

majority members experience more negative affect in interracial interactions than minorities

Richeson & Trawalter on subtyping

more performance and prejudice concern when interacting w/ black confederate

Dovidio on subtyping

greater implicit bias causes worse interactions b/c bias leaks through

Richeson on subtyping

greater implicit bias causes better interactions b/c effort to overcome is appreciated

Quad model (subtyping)

extent of underlying bias measured separately from ability to overcome

Muslim interacting w/ caucasian study

caucasian Ps interact w/ muslim confederate

she/he has muslim name, wears traditional clothing, and self IDs as muslim

Ps complete implicit measure of anti-muslim bias

confederates liked Ps high in AC (had automatic associations of stereotypes), but they were also high in OB (managed to overcome the bias), presumably b/c they made a great effort to overcome the stereotypes, which the confederates appreciated

How can people prevent themselves from using stereotype/prejudice of other people?

value orientation: differences in personal values associated w/ reduced stereotyping or prejudices and ability to inhibit those behaviors

egalitarianism: value orientation emphasizes on the principles of equal opportunity, equal treatment for all people, and concern for others' well-being

chronic egalitarianism isn't difficult to ID b/c they tend to have values that're highly salient and their behaviors are driven by it

egalitarianism values are associated w/ less prejudice by preventing the activation of negative stereotypes

types of motivation to control prejudice

external motivation stems from social pressure

they are independent; can be high on both or low on one and high on the other

those who have strong, high internal and strong, low external motivations, show the least bias

when peole have multiple motives for doing the same thing, those motives may undermine the effectiveness b/c they may not know what motive is driving their behavior, it reduces the impact of one motive or the other

having a high external motivation may reduce the impact of your high internal motivation

if you're high in both, you would see a reduced internal motivation

Where do Egaliatarian values and motivations come from?

they come from your childhood and development

parents emphasize egalitarian values and positive contact w/ outgroup members

having many intergroup interactions and integrated environments influence these beliefs

early development is important; changing stereotypical beliefs and attitudes later is difficult if parents don't teach/fix it at a young age

Monteith: processes by which people actually control or change the extent to which they exhibit stereotyping and prejudice

was interested in individuals who were highly motivated to behave in non-prejudicial ways but who may occasionally find themselves behaving in those ways

this can improve like a skill

when people notice a discrepancy btwn their their personal beliefs and behavior they feel bad -> focuses their attention to their behavior to find why they did that -> learn to avoid similar behaviors

practicing this makes the process more efficient and individuals develop accessible replacement thoughts (eventually we replace stereotypic associations w/ non-stereotypic ones - automatic inhibition)

example of Monteith study: looked at people who varied in their levels against homosexuals

she IDed people who were low and high in prejudice who were told to evaluate what applicants would be admitted to law school

applications showed that applicants belonged to some gay rights organization

she randomly tells some Ps after they've made judgments, "...your judgment of this guy was more negative than evaluators who didn't notice he was gay"

was interested in their reactions based on whether the Ps were high or low in prejudice and what they'll do in response to feedback

gives Ps opportunity to read essay about prejudice against gay people, then measures amount of time they spent on the essays

Monteith Study Results

finds that low prejudice individuals spend more time and remember more of the essay

-showed that the low prejudice people were engaged in learning about anti-gay prejudice which helped foster egalitarian values

then gives Ps gay joke to rate how funny it was

low prejudice people who were told they were more negative than others said the jokes were less funny (correcting)

high prejudice people didn't care, spent less time on essay and experiment had no effect on their view of joke etc.

people low in prejudice more likely to correct their actions

high internal, low external motivation show less implicit bias; better at suppressing unwanted stereotypes w/o seeing a rebound effect (suppressed stereotypes that come back stronger)

intrinsically (internally) motivated usually don't have a rebound effect b/c they're become very efficient and are automatic in suppressing those stereotypes

Negotiation training (Kawakami)

had people respond whether a white/black face was bad/good

practiced this for a while then took IAT, and showed less bias

Ps that practiced showed less implicit bias a week later

exemplar exposure/imagination (Blair; Mitchell; Dasgupta)

diff. exemplars lead to diff. levels of bias

ex: people may see Martin Luther King as Black and associate him w/ good and see Charles Manson as White and associate him w/ bad

context effects (Wittenbrink)

show targets in front of jails or schools

can change the implicit bias

is it automatic inhibition or associations that are activated that works for chronic egalitarians?

stroop task

-like implicit biases

-2 responses: read word, read color of word

we don't know if activated or controlled

have to overcome reading habit to be able to read the color

-child more likely to answer correctly b/c they can't read yet

Sherman: try to develop process models of how people respond to IAT

proposes that there's a series of processes that translates the initial exposure into a response

when face is presented, biased association is activated or not; people can detect correct response

when we do this, we can see variety of ways to get correct or incorrect responses depending on the trial they're doing

3 ways to get correct IAT responses (Sherman)

association activated > detection achieved > bias overcome

association isn't activated > detection achieved

association isn't activated > detection not achieved > guess w/ bias

Sometimes results reflect only the associations

change in person's IAT score may be due to diff. associations being activated

it's not that everybody is capable of controlling a bias and that some can do it better, rather it's that people have differing degrees of activation

can change newly formed attitudes by changing underlying associations

it's the associations that come to mind, not regulation (control/overcoming bias), that change stereotypes

being exposed to positive Black people/negative White examples, can affect performance on IAT in regards to the types of associations that are activated

Why do High internal/Low external people show less bias?

found no effects in overcoming bias

data are consistent w/ fMRI (anterior cingulate cortex/egalitarians seems sensitive to conflicts)

training effect

-results in decreased bias

-training changes peoples' underlying associations

-people get better at how to respond in that situation

-suggests that whether people are trained externally by others or by themselves, training has a general effect

sometimes interventions that reduce implicit bias has nothing to do w/ associations (alcohol)

ex: when drunk, we say things we don't mean, but DO believe

alcohol increases implicit bias, but has nothing to do w/ what associations are made; reduced inhibition of bias (control)

Aging: we know aging is correlated w/ bias on implicit and explicit measures

old people show more bias, show more and more as you get older on IAT

found that old people are more highly educated but still show more bias due to (not biased associations, knowing appropriate response, or b/c they guessed negatively as they grew older) overcoming those biases

around age 40, overcoming bias disappears

Effects of Context on implicit bias

people show enhanced overcoming bias, not activation of diff. associations

background context cues people to inhibit their attitude

How processes play in real life action

people w/ more bias have worse interactions b/c those bias leak

people w/ more bias have better interactions b/c they work harder to regulate behavior and it's appreciated by interaction partner

people w/ stronger bias and better regulation are better liked; something about being able to control bias makes them likeable

Can we simply suppress stereotypes?

Wegner says that thought suppression is hard; it's an inherently self-defeating process

irony is that to suppress something, you have to keep it in mind

don't suppress it, replace it w/ something else

How does thought suppression work in stereotyping?

study 1: spend 5 min thinking about what it's like being in a skinhead's shoes; others told, suppress any stereotypes that you may have of skinhead; others told to write whatever they like

-1st group able to suppress stereotype better than 2nd group

then all students told free to write whatever they like

-found that 1st group had stronger stereotypes: rebound effect

study 2: subjects get to meet skinhead; skinhead's stuff in room; wanted to see distance people sat away from the skinhead

-1st group sat further away from skinhead b/c those stereotypes went through a rebound effect and were accessible

Thought suppression effects can occur spontaneously even if we don't ask people to suppress their stereotype (2 Macrae studies)

study 1: manipulate self-awareness by putting a mirror in front of people; people wrote about people in a picture they're looking at (while the mirror is still in front of them) -> rebound effect occurs later

-spontaneously suppressing stereotype associations b/c they're self-aware

study 2: some given explicit instructions to suppress stereotype and another group told implicitly

-in both cases, people wrote less stereotypes initially

-later see a rebound effect w/ both groups

-doesn't matter whether someone was told implicitly or explicitly about stereotype

Effects of thought suppression on memory (Wyer)

those who suppressed stereotypes remembered better those stereotypes about Asian and Black targets; b/c attention is drawn to important info

suppressed info highly accessible b/c people have to keep in mind the info they're trying to suppress

empathy and perspective-taking

reduces stereotyping b/c you put yourself in their shoes and now view yourself as more similar

Avoid stereotyping by individuating people's distinct behavior (Sherman 2005 study)

judging people by the content of their character/behavior, not color of skin

study: high/low prejudice against gays

-condition 1: gay man showed 8 consistent stereotypical things and 4 inconsistent things

condition 2: gay man showed 4 consistent stereotypical masculine things, and 8 inconsistent masculine things

Results: Avoid stereotyping by individuating people's distinct behavior (Sherman 2005 study)

low prejudice people aren't averse to noticing and pointing out stereotypical behaviors of the gay man when he shows 8 consistent/4 inconsistent stereotypical things (condition 1)

low prejudice people don't make stereotypical judgments for the counter-stereotypical (condition 2) gay target b/c they notice that his behavior isn't stereotypical of gays

high prejudice people don't take into account the gay man's behavior; use stereotypes regardless of what he does

Ps asked to provide an explanation as to why the gay man was counter-stereotypical

low prejudice people make the same proportionate statements of internal and external attributions regardless of gay target's behavior

high prejudice people made more external attributions for inconsistent behavior (e.g. "the gay dude was only watching football b/c his older straight brother was watching it too)

high prejudice people made internal attributions for consistent behavior (e.g. "the gay guy loves Barbara Steisand b/c he's gay")

-problem b/c of not being able to accept the face value/behavior of others

Stereotype Threat

feeling the burden of a stereotype about our group b/c you worry that others may apply the stereotype to you and that you may somehow confirm the stereotype

realizing a stereotype exists about one's group doesn't mean you believe stereotype is true of you or your group

-not a self-fulfilling prophecy

Differential acheivement

lower standardized test scores and grades in minority groups and women

higher dropout rates among Blacks and Latinos in high school

Blacks and Latinos only 1/2 as likely to go to college, and roughly twice as likely to drop out

Explanations for differential achievement

group differences in intelligence (the bell curve)

-some groups are inherently smarter

-genetically-based theories

cultural differences in valuing academic achievement

-some groups care more about education

-socially-based theory

poverty and under preparation for success

-poor schools

-poorly educated parents

--this may result in less involvement in child's education

after controlling for all this, effects remain

academic achievement of minorities is less than average achievement of Caucasians even:

when matched on standardized ability measures

when they attend the same schools

when matched on income level, value on education, parental education, etc

disparities increased at higher levels of achievement

most motivated/successful will show more disparity

very best students in minority groups show the greatest deficit

may be due to stereotype threat, which undermine one's performance

role of stereotype threat in academic achievements

have to care about school in order to do well

2 barriers to academic identity (caring about school):

-socio-structural variables such as lack of resources, discrimination, limits on educational opportunities, etc

-stereotype threat: even if you survive the structural obstacles, one may still be affected by the negative stereotypes that exist about one's group in a diff. domain or environment

Stereotype Threat: Steele

the problem is that we know about other people's stereotypes and worry that others will apply the stereotype to ourselves -> produces anxiety and distracts us to cope rather than focus on the task at hand

occurs in situations where we fail

if we fail, it reflects on our groups

long-term consequences of low academic achievement produce dis-identification of that domain in order to protect our self-esteem

people may start to dis-identify which will put them in a negative feedback -> be less motivated

even if you manage to perform well, it doesn't feel good to work in a field where you feel that you're no good

Steele's experiments

experiment 1: matched males and females on math skill

engineering students at Stanford who are really good at math

matches them on SAT math scores, gpa, etc -> gives them GRE math test

-find that males do better despite being matched

gets rid of gender effect by telling students that both genders tend to do really well on GRE math test

-find males remain the same, but females did really well (better than matching condition)

experiment 2: Blacks/Whites verbal test; what's role of stereotype?

condition 1: tells Ps, "you're about to take verbal test that doesn't predict anything"; we want to see if test is good

condition 2: tells Ps, "verbal test you're about to take is a good predictor of success before and after college"

-diagnostic: whites do better than blacks due to condition 2

-non-diagnostic: blacks and whites do equally well

Steele experiment results: stereotype activation

black students likely to fill in "welfare, black, lazy" when the test was described as diagnostic or a good predictor

black students activated black stereotypes in the diagnostic condition

Steele experiment results: self-doubt activation

black students were more likely to fill in word fragments as "loser, inferior, etc" during diagnostic test

showed that they had self-doubt when they were told the verbal test was a good predictor of success

Steele experiment results: stereotype or "identity" avoidance

in diagnostic condition, white students showed more appreciation for black stereotyping things such as liking rap music, basketball, etc

in diagnostic condition, black students identified themselves from these things

at the end of the test, students allowed to mark race

-only 1/2 checked the box

-showed they dis-identified from their race

-Steele's purpose was to show this dis-identification

Steele experiment results: self-handicapping

self-handicapping: an intentional self-sabotage

black students avoided making negative self-attributions for poor performance on the test by saying that they had less hours of sleep in the diagnostic condition

Steele experiment results: ability to focus

black students self-handicapped more than white students regarding their ability to focus

Steele experiment results: are standardized tests tricky/unfair?

black students self-handicapped more in diagnostic condition

but more black students thought the tests were tricky/unfair more than whites overall in both conditions

Walton and Spencer meta-analysis: 39 studies, 3000+ Ss

showed the effect size in intellectual test performance

when stereotyped students are in a safe condition, they do just as well as non-stereotyped students

stereotyped students in threat condition did poorly on the intellectual test

conclusions:

-the observed effect sizes from Walton's study suggest that:

--SAT math test underestimates the math ability of women by 19 and 21 points

--SAT math and SAT reading tests undermined the intellectual ability of African- and Hispanic-Americans by 39 to 41 points

the psychological context of common testing environments significantly undermines real world performance

Implications according to Steele

students must trust the situation; they must know that their performance, whether good or bad, is not subject to being stereotyped

remedial classes may not help

-terrible idea b/c they're race-focused

-message university sends is that those students aren't good and won't do well

-they must be framed as challenges not remedial

--also argues they shouldn't be segregated b/c message is even clearer to those students who think they're considered no good

avoid "pluralistic ignorance"

-what happens when everyone is thinking the same thing, but no one knows that (bystander effect)

-students must know that members of ALL groups have trouble

-integrated study groups are important

--argues that race or gender or ethnicity-themed domains-are problematic

evidence that knowledge of stereotype threat can attenuate negative consequences

-knowing about stereotype threat can help reduce it

less direct strategies have been shown to eliminate stereotype threat effects

-teaching an incremental view of intelligence

-de-emphasizing intrinsic talent and ability

-teach about the plasticity and malleability of the brain

-role models: reminding people of positive ingroup role models

according to Steele, what are the mechanisms?

anxiety

intrusive thoughts

physiological arousal; helps if you interpret a challenge as something you can achieve vs. a threat you think you'll fail

reduced cognitive capacity

belonging uncertainty: idea that the activation of stereotypes can produce a feeling in people that they don't belong

Stone Athlete Studies 1999

black athletes are usually praised for their "natural athletic ability", but not for their intelligence

white athletes are usually praised less for natural athletic ability, but more for their intelligence and harder working character

these stereotypes are known not only by sports coaches, but also by the athletes themselves

evidence that sports commentators will actually describe and attribute the performance of Black and White athletes differently based on these stereotypes

stereotype threat is not about being in a minority group; it's a phenomenon that everyone experiences depending on the circumstance

athlete stereotype study: hypothesis

framing task as indicative of "sports intelligence" produces stereotype threat for Blacks

framing task as indicative of "natural ability" produces stereotype threat for whites

athlete stereotype study 1

40 white/40 black students

condition 1: subjects are told that research suggests that putting a golf ball is due to natural ability

condition 2: Ss are told that putting a golf ball well is due to sports intelligence

condition 3: control, subjects told nothing

athlete stereotype study 1: results

Ss do worse when they feel threatened

blacks do better in condition 1

whites do better in condition 2

Attributional ambiguity (crocker and major) - other main line of research alongside stereotype that looks at prejudice and performance

it's defined as the focus of the kinds of attributional ambiguities explanations peoples can draw from their own success and failure

attributional ambiguity crocker and major study

obese/non-obese Ss whose weights were made salient to them

told that they were going to participate in a "friendship development"

condition 1: evaluator can see obese person (blinds open)

condition 2: evaluator can't see obese person (blinds closed)

Ss are given favorable or unfavorable feedback

attributional ambiguity crocker and major study: results

blinds open, feedback has no effect

-negative feedback: obese knows that she's not liked due to how she looks

-positive feedback: obese person feels that evaluator only wants to be nice b/c of her weight

blinds closed, feedback has effect

-people don't enjoy situations where they can't understand the meaning of the kinds of feedback they get -.> eventually avoid those situations altogether and only be in straightforward ones

attributional ambiguity crocker and major study: implications

dis-identification again

attributional ambiguity is stressful to constantly wonder

avoid these situations

damned if you fail, damned if you succeed

either way you think its only b/c of your negative characteristic