psd 2

empathic concern

sympathy and compassion for others in response to their suffering

\
however, we are much more likely to feel empathy for in-group members than out-group members

meta-analysis

* a study of studies, almost like a census
* read every single one of those papers, and take an average of the 300+ studies (all populations across all periods across many different methods)

women are wonderful effect

* women are generally evaluated more positively than men
* shown by men and women
* however, women are perceived as less *competent* and less *deserving of rights*

explicit prejudice general rule

preference for own racial group over other groups

derogation (when own group is confronted with discrimination)

derogate other groups to maintain self-esteem

bolstering (when own group is confronted with discrimination)

* bolster coalitional attitudes with other stigmatized groups (common cause)
* when *other groups* are perceived as similar
* when the *discriminatory experience* is perceived as similar
* when it spurs as an *egalitarian perspective* (ppl are equal)

ideology

a system of beliefs and values about how social relationships should be managed, such as beliefs in how the world is like and how it should be

are liberals less prejudiced than conservatives?

generally yes.

* liberals more open to changes in society, conservatives generally more resistant (don’t fix what ain’t broke)
* liberals want to fix, conservatives see inequality as unproblematic or don’t even think of it as a problem (apathetic to the issue)

\
but they are both prejudiced, just towards different groups

value dissimilarity hypothesis

believing out-group doesn’t share in group’s values resulting in prejudice

* on my political side, like them more
* not on my side, hate them or like them less

value dissimilarity study

* regardless of race, you like conservative participants less and like liberals more
* when a person’s political values were clarified, political values mattered more than judging racial prejudice

3 dispositions

authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, system justification; all positively correlated with conservatism

authoritarianism

desire for sameness & obedience to authorities; no diversity

social dominance orientation

desire for group dominance; no equality (some groups higher, some are lower)

system justification

desire to justify existing social systems; no change; don’t fix what ain’t broke

authoritarian personality

a personality type that is especially susceptible to unquestioning obedience to authority

psychoanalytic take of authoritarian personality

strong superego (rule following), weak ego (personality), strong id (negative impulses)

when there is personal insecurity, authoritarians respond with

projecting negative id impusles to minority groups, authoritarian submission, conventionalism (superego compensates by sticking to norms), aggression of people who violate norms

\
others: opposed to superstitions and obsessed with promiscuity

\
BUT

* psychoanalytic theories weren’t supported by the data (no real evidence)
* the main measure (the F (fascist) scale) didn’t work well.

right wing authoritarianism

stripped authoritarianism to the basics: authoritarianism submission, conventionalism, aggression

people high in RWA

tend to be prejudiced against many groups

are more likely to be…

* mentally inflexible
* makes them more likely to rely on stereotypes
* lack openness to new experiences
* believe the world is more dangerous (things are out to get them, threats)
* see the world in terms of in-groups and out-groups

social dominance theory

evolutionary theory of social hierarchy based on

* the basic tendency to form hierarchy leads to group conflict and oppression
* age and gender based hierarchies exist in all societies
* arbitrary-set hierarchies emerge when there is economic surplus (race, religion, class)
* societies & individuals vary in the degree of social forces that enhance or reduce hierarchy

SDO can manifest support for either

* in-group domination (if part of oppressor group)
* in-group subordination (if part of oppressed group)

people who are high in SDO are

prejudice towards many groups

* see the world as zero sum (i win, you lose)
* see the society as a competitive “dog-eat-dog” world
* not same aversion to threat, sees it as a challenge
* pursue hierarchy-enhancing professions

palliative function

feeling better about the societal status quo (wo dealing w the root causes)

\
ex) thinking oppression is not a problem (higher internalized stigma)

compensatory stereotypes

stereotypes that compensate for a negative quality with a positive quality (or vice versa)

* “poor but happy” “rich but miserable” “Asians: smart, but uncreative”

system justification helps people meet their

existential needs, relational needs, epistemic needs

existential needs

reduce feelings of threat and security

relational needs

need to share similar perceptions of the world with others (everyone on the same page)

epistemic needs

reduce uncertainty and ambiguity (world is something we can understand)

prejudice continuum

old fashioned, symbolic, aversive, implicit

\
scale from more blatant to more subtle

explicit prejudice

conscious, deliberate/slow, controllable

implicit prejudice

relatively unconscious (not paying attention), automatic/fast, difficult to control

\
ex) bad thought about someone bc of race

implicit measure

measure for assessing how thoughts outside of conscious awareness or control

* indirectly assess thoughts through performance on tasks, and not via self-report

implicit association test research study

associating good words with white american and bad words with black americans; second trial had a flip in conditions

\
results: a reaction time difference, things that are associated together are remembered faster, congruent (white good black bad) vs. incongruent block (white bad black good)

implicit association test research study with black participants

41% pro black, 25% neutral, 34% pro-white

* dual exposure: same culture, exposed to same stereotypes (cultural)
* personal experience: push in a pro-black direction

where do implicit prejudices and stereotypes come from?

* our understanding of social hierarchy: what groups are in higher status


* our personal identity: who we are, what our experiences have been

when are implicit prejudices and stereotypes influential?

motivation and ability, discretion, organizations and institutions

motivation and ability and prejudice

when you are stressed, tired, drunk, lazy, on a deadline (time pressure) — especially likely to act on stereotype

discretion and prejudice

more likely to have implicit prejudice and act on a stereotype when criteria for making a decision are unclear OR when info is ambiguous or incomplete

organizations and institutions prejudice

more likely to have implicit prejudice and act on a stereotype when policies and systems allow for it

blinding

eliminating the possibility of knowing a person’s group

might be too overly rigid

dimming

reduce the intensity of group status

* ex) don’t google how a person looks

temporary cloaking

making a blinded decision, remove blinding, then see if there are unintended consequences

\
* people coming from lower backgrounds (useful info)
* reward students on upward trajectory
* considering 2 candidates: similarly, slightly worse track record bc of maternity/paternity leave
* **not apples to apples**

old-fashioned racism

whites’ absolute belief in their (biological) superiority over other races

* firm belief in racial separation (and subjugation)
* the use of government to establish a system of segregation and other forms of discrimination

different conceptualization of prejudice

prejudice as a __*system*__ of attitudes and beliefs

symbolic prejudice

haracterized by themes that (a) justify policies designed to promote inequality, while (b) generally endorsing equality as an abstract principle

“morally inferior because they violate traditional values”

\
ex) opposition to bussing, welfare, affirmative action

the paradox of symbolic prejudice

ppl with symbolic prejudice endorse racial equality in principle, but oppose policies that could bring it about

negative liberty

the freedom from external restraints from one’s actions

\
ability to vote, get a job, live

positive liberty

the ability to take control over one’s life and accomplish one’s goals

* men and women have different starting points and want to do something to equalize them (similar opportunities to succeed)

equality of opportunity

everyone deserves the same chance to succeed

* related to negative liberty
* give everyone the same box (short king is unable to see the game)

equality of outcome

everyone should have the same level of well-being

* related to positive liberty
* higher modern racism predict lower agreement with equality of outcome
* gets what he needs (short king can now see)

aversive racism

having positive explicit attitudes toward people while holding negative implicit attitudes toward people

* characterized by feelings of unease and discomfort rather than hostility
* strong motivation to *appear* unprejudiced
* they care about APPEARING (how they appear to others)

intimacy

the degree to which you feel close to the person

scriptedness

the degree to which there is a clear script that defines what behaviors are to be performed in a situation

habituation method

when a pre-existing stimulus has been completely encoded

dishabituation baby study

dishabituation occurs when looking at older woman and someone of different gender

preferential looking method

when a pre-existing stimulus has NOT been completely encoded, looking time associated preference (more time, more preferred stiumulus)

children determining race

adults rely on a combo of skin color and facial features; children primarily rely on skin color

prejudice in children

prejudice tends to be higher around 5-7, when children:

* have internalized social categories
* haven’t internalized egalitarian norms yet

\
usually no racial preference when looking at things one at a time

if an adult forces them to pick, kid will have racial preference (emphasis on HAVE TO PICK)

prejudice depends on

majority/minority group status, amount of contact

why explicit prejudice declines:

* earn social/cultural norms about race
* internalize moral lessons about equality and fairness

why implicit prejudice stays the same throughout adulthood

* stability of attitude — learn things early, and kind of stuck with it
* pessimistic view of how humans work, crystallizes
* stability of cultural messages — continual reinforcement over the lifetime
* not because what we learn as children stick forever, we are just still practicing the same cultural/message
* implicit prejudice is increasing from childhood to adulthood, but adults get better at controlling them

cognitive development

the development of cognitive abilities; becoming more cognitively competent

social development

the development of how children learn to interact with the social world; learning social norms, people around them reinforce certain messages

stage 1 of aboud’s 3-stage model

focus on self & emotional responses

\
egocentrism: one’s own perspective of the world = other people see and believe too

stage 2 of aboud’s 3-stage model

noticing similarities & dissimilarities between other people

\
over application of stereotypes

stage 3 of aboud’s 3 stage model

conceptual understanding of internal mental states; sophisticated conception of how individuals differ within groups

direct instruction

being explicitly taught about groups

observational learning

observing others’ discriminatory behavior & attitudes

\
takeaway: young children are learning from both intergroup attitudes and behavior

vicarious learning

observing how others are rewarded/punished

* children learn from social inequalities

development intergroup theory

integrates cognitive development and social learning theories intro 3 steps


1. establishing salience of attributes
2. social categorization
3. development of prejudice/stereotypes

perceptual discriminability (salience)

noticing visible similarities and differences between people

proportional group size (salience)

smaller minorities are more distinctive

explicit labeling and use (salience)

adults give labels to social categories (direct instruction)

implicit use (salience)

who lives, works, and socializes together (observational and vicarious learning)

social categorization

once attribute becomes salient: children learn to automatically categorize people by these stereotypes

development of prejudice and stereotypes

essentialist beliefs: beliefs that members of a group share an underlying and unchanging essential characteristic

explicit attributions: direct instruction about the traits that groups have (direct instruction)

ingroup favoritism

group attribute covariation:

patterns in everyday life that we see through observational and vicarious learning

social identity theory

1. **social identity:** aspect of self-concept that derive from group membership
2. we strive to achieve and maintain a positive social identity
3. we strive to distinguish our own social groups from other social groups

minimal group paradigm

create artificial and arbitrary in-groups/out-groups in the lab

optimal distinctiveness theory

people want to strike a balance between their group identities and their personal identities

in-group love

social identity theory demonstrates the power of in-group love over out-group hate

* in-group love is the default
* out-group hate is less common
* like them not as much or neutral

basking in reflected glory (BIRGing)

celebrating group successes as your own

* students are more likely to wear college apparel after a football win than football loss

CORFing

cutting off reflective failure — when groups aren’t doing so well (distancing themselves

implications of the self-esteem hypothesis

derogating outgroups can increase self-esteem

derogate out-group → increased relative standing for in-group → more positive social identity → increased self esteem

hate crime

criminal offenses in which there is evidence that the victims were chosen because of their (perceived) membership to a protected class

motive (law)

* the reason why a perpetrator committed a crime
* hate crime laws are only the kinds of laws for which motive is required to establish the crime
* in other crimes, motive is considered but is not a mandatory element

intent

whether a perpetrator aimed to commit a crime

hate speech

words or symbols that are derogatory or offensive on the basis of membership to a protected class

thrill-seeking (motivation for hate crime)

desire for excitement

defensive (motivation for hate crime)

protecting communities from outsiders

retaliatory (motivation for hate crime)

seeking revenge for an attack on an in-group member

mission (motivation for hate crime)

commitment to prejudiced ideology

* involvement in white supremacist/fascist groups that circulate online

hate group

an organization whose central principles include *hostility* toward racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual minority groups

difficulties in distinguishing hate groups

* from: terrorist groups, prison gangs, governmental groups, internet forums
* when a group has multiple goals, can make things trickier
* hate groups on the internet… can be fully anonymous (hard to track them)

relative deprivation theory

* belief that one is getting less than they deserve relative to
* other people or groups
* some other standard (the past, expectations)
* ex) reparations

distributive justice

rewards and costs are justly allocated; equality of outcome

procedural justice

fairness of procedures for distributing rewards and costs

* equality of opportunity

consequences of relative deprivation

* emotions: discontent, frustration, resentment
* hostility toward perceived source of deprivation

personal relative deprivation

belief that one is deprived *as an individual* (you vs other british people like you)

group relative deprivation

belief that *one’s group* is deprived

* british people like you vs. west indians living in britain