social psych final

Stereotype

A cognitive representation/belief that associates a social group with specific attributes, often oversimplified and resistant to new information

Prejudice

A preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members

Discrimination

Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or its individual members

Stereotype vs. prejudice vs. discrimination

Stereotype = cognition/belief; prejudice = affect/feeling; discrimination = behavior/action

Social categorization

The tendency to classify people into groups

Ingroup-outgroup categorization

The tendency to classify people as members of “us” or “them”

Ingroup

people who share a sense of belonging or common identity

Outgroup

The “them” group; people perceived as distinctly different from one’s ingroup

Social identity

The “we” part of the self-concept that comes from group memberships

Social identity theory

Self-esteem is influenced by personal and social identities, so people are motivated to evaluate ingroups more positively than outgroups

Social identity research: ingroup bias and self-esteem

Ingroup bias can increase self-esteem; threats to self-esteem increase ingroup bias; lower-status groups may show more ingroup bias

BIRGing

Basking in reflected glory; boosting self-esteem by associating with successful groups

Minimal group procedure

A method for studying group bias where people are assigned to groups based on trivial criteria and still tend to favor ingroup members

Ingroup bias / ingroup-outgroup bias

The tendency to favor one’s own group and have more negative attitudes toward outgroup members

Outgroup homogeneity effect

The perception that outgroup members are more similar to one another than ingroup members are

Own-race bias / cross-race effect

The tendency to recognize faces of one’s own race more accurately than faces of other races

Group-serving bias / ultimate attribution error

Explaining outgroup members’ positive behaviors as situational while attributing their negative behaviors to their dispositions; the reverse often happens for one’s own group

Just-world hypothesis

The tendency to believe the world is just and that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get

Realistic group conflict theory

The idea that prejudice arises from competition between groups for scarce resources

Allport and Postman “telephone” experiment

By the end of the message chain, participants often misremembered the razor as being in the Black man’s hand rather than the White man’s hand

Optimistic position on prejudice changing

The view that prejudice has decreased over time; supported by the Princeton Trilogy showing fewer negative traits endorsed over time

Pessimistic position on prejudice changing

The view that prejudice persists; for example, Duncan found the same push was judged more violent when done by a Black man than a White man

Mixed position on prejudice changing

Devine’s dissociation model: stereotypes and personal beliefs are different; stereotypes can activate automatically even when people do not endorse them

Devine & Elliot adjectives study

Low-prejudice people still knew cultural stereotypes even when those stereotypes did not match their personal beliefs

Devine’s word flash study

Participants primed with stereotype-related words rated an ambiguous person as more hostile, regardless of their self-reported prejudice level

Stereotype activation vs. application

Activation is when a stereotype is triggered automatically; application is when it influences judgment or behavior

Chen and Bargh stereotype activation study

Participants briefly shown Black faces behaved more hostilely in a later game than those shown White faces

Subtyping

Treating stereotype-inconsistent individuals as “exceptions to the rule,” which preserves the original stereotype

Subgrouping

Creating a new stereotype for a subset of people who do not fit the original group stereotype

Illusory correlation

Overestimating the strength of a relationship between two distinctive or unusual events

Stereotype suppression effect

Trying to suppress a stereotype can backfire and make stereotype-related thoughts or behaviors more likely later

Macrae stereotype suppression study

Participants told to suppress a stereotype wrote less stereotypical essays but later sat farther away from the target person

Stereotype threat

A disruptive/self-confirming fear that one’s behavior will confirm a negative stereotype about one’s group

How stereotype threat harms performance

Knowing a stereotype can create anxiety in stereotype-relevant situations, and that anxiety interferes with optimal performance

Spencer & Steele stereotype threat study

Men and women took the same difficult math test; when stereotype threat was activated, men performed better and women performed worse than in control

Steele & Aronson stereotype threat study

A race/SAT study showing that stereotype threat can harm performance when a negative group stereotype is made relevant

Six ways to reduce stereotype threat

Reframe the task, reduce identity salience or activate a counter-stereotypic identity, provide role models, educate about stereotype threat, use reactance, and promote a growth mindset

Reframing a task to reduce stereotype threat

Describe the task as not stereotype-relevant, such as calling a math test gender-fair

Quinn & Spencer study

Describing a math test as gender-fair reduced the stereotype threat effect

Reducing salience of threatened identity

Avoid procedures that activate stereotype-relevant identity, such as moving demographic questions to the end of a test.

Activating a counter-stereotypic identity

Reminding people of a positive relevant identity, such as being a student at a prestigious university, can reduce stereotype threat.

Providing role models to reduce stereotype threat

Showing someone who succeeds in a stereotype-relevant domain can reduce the threat effect.

Educating about stereotype threat

Explaining that anxiety may come from stereotypes rather than ability can reduce the effect.

Reactance and stereotype threat

When a stereotype is explicit, people may work harder to disprove it.

Growth mindset and stereotype threat

Encouraging people to see intelligence as malleable can reduce stereotype threat and improve outcome

Biracial identity and stereotype threat

Biracial people are more likely to see race as socially constructed and may not show the same stereotype threat effect.

Need to belong

The motivation to bond with others in relationships that provide ongoing positive interactions

Five predictors of attraction

Proximity, familiarity, reciprocal liking, similarity, and physical attractiveness

Proximity

Geographical nearness; more precisely, functional distance, which strongly predicts liking.

Festinger proximity study

In a housing complex, people were more likely to become friends with those who lived closer to them.

Familiarity

Repeated contact with a person, which often increases attraction

Mere-exposure effect

The tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more after repeated exposure

Moreland & Beach familiarity study

Students rated research assistants as more attractive when they had attended the class more often.

Intensification hypothesis

Contact intensifies initial feelings: if you initially like someone, more contact increases liking; if you dislike them, more contact increases dislike.

Reciprocal liking

Liking someone more when you believe they like you

Curtis & Miller reciprocal liking study

Participants liked a conversation partner more when they overheard that the partner liked them

Similarity-attraction paradigm

People rate others as more attractive when they believe those others are similar in attitudes, personality, or demographics.

Matching phenomenon / matching hypothesis

The tendency to choose partners who are a good match in attractiveness and other traits

Research findings for matching hypothesis

Matching predicts roommate satisfaction, online dating/affection, and greater likelihood of staying together in marriage.

Physical attractiveness stereotype

The assumption that physically attractive people also have other desirable traits; “what is beautiful is good.”

Physical attractiveness effects examples

Attractiveness can influence judgments of children’s misbehavior, essay quality, and mock juror sentencing.

Downsides of physical attractiveness

More unwanted advances, resentment from same-sex others, difficulty interpreting feedback, and backlash if attractiveness is used strategically.

Contrast effect

Perception is distorted by comparison to a similar stimulus, exaggerating differences.

Thornton & Moore contrast effect study

People rated their own attractiveness lower and social anxiety higher when pictures of models were present.

Major et al positive feedback study

Attractive people who knew the evaluator saw them questioned whether positive feedback reflected merit or looks.

Sigall & Ostrove study

Mock jurors sentenced an attractive defendant more harshly when attractiveness could have helped commit the crime, such as swindle.

What people often find attractive in faces

Specific facial features, symmetry, averageness

Facial features often found attractive in men

Prominent cheekbones and a large chin

Facial features often found attractive in women

High cheekbones, narrow cheeks, and a small chin.

Body features often found attractive in men

Average weight and a V-shaped shoulder-to-hip ratio

Body features often found attractive in women

Around average weight and a waist about one-third narrower than the hips.

Evolutionary perspective on attraction

Men may prefer healthy, fertile-looking women; women may prefer strong, dominant-looking men who can provide resources.

Important caution about evolutionary attraction explanations

Some scholars emphasize socialization over evolution.

What do men prefer in women?

Physical attractiveness and youth

What do women prefer in attraction?

Physical attractiveness plus wealth, status, and age

Clark & Hatfield study

Men were much more likely than women to agree to go to an apartment or bed with a stranger; date acceptance was more similar.

Complementarity

The proposed tendency for partners to complete what is missing in each other.

Ingratiation

Using strategies such as flattery to gain another person’s favor.

Reward theory of attraction

We like people whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we associate with rewarding events

Passionate love

An intense longing for union with another person, with absorption and excitement when love is returned.

Companionate / compassionate love

Deep affection, care, attachment, and commitment toward someone with whom one’s life is intertwined.

Two-factor theory of emotion

Arousal plus the label given to that arousal produces emotion.

Secure attachment

Attachment rooted in trust and marked by intimacy; confidence that the attachment figure will be available and responsive.

Insecure attachment

Lack of confidence that the attachment figure will be available, responsive, and able to help.

Infants’ use of an attachment figure

A secure base for exploration and a safe haven for comfort/protection.

Attachment theory basic premises

Infants need caregiving to survive, use caregivers as secure base/safe haven, and caregiving differences shape attachment patterns across life

Three attachment styles

Secure, anxious-ambivalent, and avoidant.

Attachment styles can change

Attachment styles can change, but it usually takes time and work.

Secure attachment caregivers

Warmly and appropriately responsive, positive, and encouraging of exploration.

Secure attachment in adults

Trust that others will maintain love and support.

Secure attachment beliefs

Self is likable, others can be trusted, love can last

Anxious-ambivalent attachment

Attachment marked by anxiety, ambivalence, fear of abandonment, and concern that needs will not be met.

Anxious-ambivalent caregivers

Inconsistent, preoccupied with their own needs, sometimes overbearing, and discouraging of exploration

Anxious-ambivalent adult beliefs

Self-doubt; others do not meet needs or commit; love can happen easily but feels unstable.

Avoidant attachment

Attachment marked by discomfort with closeness and defensive detachment from others.

Avoidant attachment caregivers

Aloof, distant, present but unresponsive, and sometimes forcing exploration.

Avoidant adult beliefs

Self is hard to know; true love is rare; love rarely lasts

Correlates of secure attachment

More positive emotions, healthier relationship beliefs, less loneliness, better conflict adaptation, and longer relationships.

Correlates of anxious-ambivalent attachment

More anxiety, jealousy, unstable emotions, preoccupation with relationships, high early disclosure/intimacy, and shorter relationships.

Correlates of avoidant attachment

More negative emotions, loneliness, distancing during conflict, low self-disclosure/intimacy, and less belief in true love.