1/59
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Prejudice
Attitudes toward people based solely on their group
Jim Crow Racism
The form of overt prejudice by the White majority against members of other racial groups, often embodied in law, that was the social norm in the United States prior to World War II
Contemporary Prejudice
-Bias that takes a more subtle form
-Not explicitly endorsing prejudice
Implicit Prejudice
Intergroup stereotypes and attitudes that are activated in memory when the person encounters a member of an outgroup without the person being aware that the activation has occurred
Explicit Prejudice
Intergroup attitudes and stereotypes that people intentionally retrieve from memory such as a memory
Symbolic Prejudice
Prejudice based on the perception that outgroup values threaten the values of one's ingroup; see also modern prejudice.
Old-Fashioned Prejudice
I hate minorities; they are biologically inferior; discrimination is justifiable
Modern-Symbolic Prejudice
I don't like minorities; they are morally inferior; discrimination no longer exists
Characteristics of Modern-Symbolic Prejudice
1. Racial prejudice and discrimination no longer exist
2. Racial economic differences = Lack of effort
3. Black people's anger over inequality is unjustified
4. Black people seek special favors
5. Black people getting more than they deserve
Aversive Prejudice
"I don't like discrimination, but don't like minorities either; they make me anxious"
Egalitarian Values
1. Equality of Opportunity
-Everyone deserves the same choice
2. Equality of Outcomes
-Everyone should have an equal share of successes
Ambivalent
I don't like discrimination; I have positive and negative beliefs about minorities
Which one would someone with modern-symbolic prejudice endorse?
Equality of Opportunity or Equality of Outcomes
Equality of Outcomes
Partner Discomfort Study
-Non-Black male participants
-Do a word-find task with partner
-Interact with White or Black confederate
Point 1: People with aversive prejudice are uncomfortable, anxious around minorities
Point 2: Over-compensate via increased reported liking
Response Amplification
More extreme behavior towards a stigmatized group
-More positive when good
-More negative when bad
Ambivalent Persuasion Study
-Measure ambivalence toward native people
-Receive persuasive information
•PRO-Native land grants
•ANTI-Native land grants
-Measure attitudes toward native people
Main Point: To reduce conflict, ambivalent people swing more extremely to one side or the other
Explicit Attitudes
The judgment we consciously make
Implicit Attitudes
The first judgment that comes to mind
Individual Differences
1. Ideology
2. Values
3. Self-Esteem
Ideology
Set of attitudes that predispose people to view the world in certain ways
Right-Wing Authoritarianism
A set of attitudes— authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism— that lead people to be prejudiced against groups that authority figures condemn and that are perceived to violate traditional values
German Hiring Study
-West Germans role-play as department head
-Measured RWA
-Receive a note from the company president:
•"Hiring East Germans would be a bad idea"
vs. control
-Do they recommend hiring an East German?
Main Point: People high in RWA engaged in sanctioned discrimination.
Social Dominance Orientation
An individual difference variable that reflects the extent to which one desires that one's ingroup dominate and be superior to outgroups
Fixed Pie Fallacy
•Resources are "zero sum"
•Someone's gain is someone else's loss
•Minority gain = majority loss
Legitimizing Myths
-Beliefs used to justify status quo, rationalizing
-E.g., Minority group members not in powerful positions
"They're lazy, unintelligent."
"African Americans are athletic; they make good athletes" ... not business leaders
Political Orientation
Running along a continuum from conservative to liberal and can be reflected in people's support of political parties that reflect their viewpoints
Values
Enduring beliefs about important goals we aspire to
Egalitarianism
-Value of equal opportunity, equal treatment, and concern for others' well-being
-A "brake" on prejudiced reactions
-Less prejudice
-Like non-specific "anti-prejudice"
-Not specific to any group
Value-Dissimilarity Hypothesis
Believing outgroup doesn't share ingroup'svalues → prejudice
Individualism
Value independence & work ethic
-Common in the U.S.
-Prejudice toward groups stereotyped as lazy
•African Americans
•Overweight people
Family Values
-Lesbians and gay men thought to violate these values
-Greater endorsement of "family values"
→ Greater prejudice against lesbians and gay
men
Attribution Value Model
-Prejudice depends on:
-1. Violation of Values
-2. Perceived responsibility for
violations
-"Controllable" → Prejudice
-"Uncontrollable" →Less/No Prejudice
Weight Responsibility Study
-Form impressions of an overweight woman
-Perceived Responsibility
-"Overweight due to a medical condition"
-"Overweight due to overeating"
-"Do you think you would like this person?"
-Medical Condition - Would Like
-Overeating - Wouldn't Like As Much
Self-Esteem
An evaluation of yourself
Secure High Self-Esteem
High Explicit Self-Esteem & High Implicit Self-Esteem
Defensive High Self-Esteem
High Explicit Self-Esteem & Low Implicit Self-Esteem
Social Identity Theory
Part of self-concept that comes from group membership
Self-Esteem Hypothesis
If group is good, you are good
Basking in Reflected Glory
Celebrating ingroup's victory like your own
Ingroup Favoritism
Viewing ingroup positively
Outgroup Derogation
Viewing outgroup negatively
Minimal Group Paradigm
Creating artificial and arbitrary ingroups/outgroups
Minimal Groups Study
-Divided into meaningless groups
-"Klee" people, "Kandinsky" people
-Distribute "money" to other participants
-Only given ID and group info
-Results: People favored own group
Minimal Groups & Kids
-5-yr-olds
-Pick redor blue coin (hidden)
-See other kids who picked red vs. blue
-Rate liking for each kid
-Split coins between two kids (red/blue)
Kids preferred other kids with samecolor shirt.
Determinants of Social Identity
Distinctiveness and ingroup threat
Distinctiveness
Seeming different highlights identity
Ingroup Threat
Threat to ingroup highlights identity
9/11 = Increase in importance of American Identity
Racial Shift Study
-400+ White Americans read press release
-Rate feelings toward racial groups
-Press Release:
-"People move residence more each year" or
"In a generation, ethnic minorities may be the
U.S. majority"
Confronting demographic change = More negative views of minorities
Realistic Conflict Theory
Prejudice comes from perceived competition for limited resources
Robbers Cave Study
22 boys split into two groups. One team vs the other in competitions to receive prize. Being in a competition with each other, both teams became more aggressive against the opposing team.
Implications for Immigrant Prejudice
•Job loss to immigrants →negative attitudes toward immigrants
•Poor economic conditions + large immigrant population = anti-immigrant attitudes
•High unemployment rates → immigration opposition
Perceived vs. Reality
-Perceived competition is sufficient
-Simply believing that resources are scarce→
-Prejudice toward Asian-Americans but
not African Americans
-Greater ingroup favoritism
Zero-Sum
-Competition → View Competition as Zero-Sum (like SDO!)
Ingroup Restriction
-Competition → Restrict Ingroup
Face Categorization Study
-Prime white students with scarcity or abundance
-Categorize racially ambiguous faces
-Abundance → 61% seen as White
-Scarcity → 52% seen as White
Relative Deprivation Theory
Not getting your share of the resources
Distributive Justice
Outcomes should be fairly distributed (merit-based)
Procedural Justice
The fairness of the process by which rewards are distributed
Personal Deprivation
-Feeling deprived as individual
-Unrelated to prejudice
Group Deprivation
-Feeling one's group is deprived
-Related to prejudice