Studied by 8 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
what is prejudice?
o Negative ATTITUDE toward a group
o It’s possible to have positive attitudes according to categorizing, but usually it’s negative
what is discrimination?
o Hostile ACTION toward a group member
o Can be overt or covert
o Ex of covert discrimination: nonverbals, inaction
what is a stereotype?
o SCHEMA about a group; we start associating certain people with specific characteristics (cognition)
o Extension. Example of the “categorical mind”
o Ex: what pops to mind when we think of immigrants
gender stereotypes:
- Benevolent sexism: women are idealized as being better than men for stereotypically female qualities like being caring and good cooks
- Hostile sexism: describes what we typically think of as sexism. The belief that women are inferior to men and the endorsement of negative stereotypes of women.
- ^both strongly correlated= both positive and negative stereotypes legitimize discrimination and can be used to justify relegating people to stereotyped roles
Affective aspect of stereotypes
- Emotional aspect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person so hard to argue with; logical arguments are not always effective in countering emotions
- Emotional component of prejudice, its deep-seated negative feelings, may persist even when a person knows consciously that the prejudice is wrong
o Confirmation bias in play – we only see the info that confirms how right we are about “those people”
- Emotional responses as a function of groups’ perceived warmth and competence:
high warmth, incompetence: elderly
high warmth, competence: middle class people
low warmth (cold), incompetence; the homeless
low warmth (cold), competence: the rich
perception affected by stereotypes: Weapon identification task by Payne (2001) PROCEDURE
§ Asked participants to explicitly state their racial views on a questionnaire
§ But first, participants are primed with either:
· black or white face
§ Participants told that they’ll see flashed images of an object
· A weapon or a tool
§ Q: asked participants what they saw on the screen
perception affected by stereotypes: Weapon identification task by Payne (2001) RESULTS
· People tended to make misidentify tools as weapons when they were primed with black faces EVEN IF they answered that they didn’t have condone discrimination/biases on the questionnaire
perception affected by stereotypes: Weapon identification task by Payne (2001) CONCLUSION
· People made stereotype-consistent errors REGARDLESS of explicit prejudice level
· Socially, criminality, violence, and aggression associated with black people
how are INTERPRETATIONS affected by stereotypes?
o How do people come up with explanations for their surrounding world
§ When we don’t have a lot of information to draw from, stereotypes guide us
interpretation affected by stereotypes: “shove on the playground” study by sagar & Schofield (1980) PROCEDURE
§ Showed children vignettes of kids falling down after making contact with another child (shoved)
§ 2 conditions:
· Black child shoved the kid
· White child shoved the kid
§ Then asked the participants to rate how mean the shover was
interpretation affected by stereotypes: “shove on the playground” study by sagar & Schofield (1980) RESULT
· Black and white children rated Black kids’ behaviors as meaner
o Black/aggressive stereotype
interpretation affected by stereotypes: “shove on the playground” study by sagar & Schofield (1980) CONCLUSION
· This study wasn’t just about people’s aversion to out-group members
· people can be affected deeply ingrained stereotypes and apply it to in-group members
o Internalization of one’s own group being the “lesser” group
what is the Implicit association test (IAT) by Greenwald et al., (1998) and how is the strength of an association tested?
· Assesses how strongly a target is associated with positivity vs. negativity
o Stronger association = faster reaction time
o A computer-driven assessment of implicit attitudes.
o Ex: race, gender, age
o The test uses REACTION TIMES to measure people's automatic associations between attitude objects and evaluative words. Easier pairings (and faster responses) are taken to indicate stronger unconscious associations.
Implicit association test (IAT): Unconscious “preference” for white faces
o the test was used to test implicit attitudes about racism where participants needed to combine 'good' and 'bad' to 'black' and 'white'. It revealed that most white and black people associated black with bad.
Implications of the IAT
· implicit biases = internalized “environmental associations”
o can hold biases even if we don’t personally endorse them
· some studies show that the higher a person’s IAT score is, the more likely he or she is to discriminate against the target in some way
processes that maintain stereotypes: OUTGROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT
outgroup members (“they”) seem more similar than “we” are
§ ex: “white people look all the same to me”
outcome of the outgroup homogeneity effect
§ preserves stereotypes
reasons why the OUTGROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT occurs: learning discrepancies
vast majority of people have deeper interactions with those who are more like them, they get to know about in-group people more in depth than out-group members
reasons why the OUTGROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT occurs: recall discrepancies
§ : there’s more information available to recall when thinking about the in-group people than out-group people
§ ex: woman who was raped was certain that a specific black man had raped her, according to her recalled memory, BUT DNA evidence proved that it wasn’t him
processes that maintain stereotypes: ATTRIBUTIONS - ultimate attribution error scendario set-up
in the scenario that a person either holds or doesn’t hold the elevator for them:
· out-group member “jimmy” didn’t hold the elevator for me because they’re a jerk
· in-group member “timmy” holds the elevator
processes that maintain stereotypes: ATTRIBUTIONS - ultimate attribution error scendario, for out-group members
· we attribute negative behaviors to dispositional traits for out-group members
· we attribute positive behaviors to situational factors for out-group members
· Overall:
o dispositional attribution is the “rule”
o situational attribution is the “exception”
processes that maintain stereotypes: ATTRIBUTIONS - ultimate attribution error scendario, for in-group members
· we attribute negative behaviors to situational factors for in-group members
· we attribute positive behaviors to dispositional traits for in-group members
· overall: in-group members are “inherently good”
processes that maintain stereotypes: ATTRIBUTIONS - ultimate attribution error scendario, conclusion
Overall, we have built-in explanations for how in-group vs. out-group members behave:
· We provide differential explanations for people
processes that maintain stereotypes: LANGUAGE
Language both reveals & perpetuates stereotypes
§ Reveals: language is revealing of people’s implicit associations
§ Perpetuates: language influences people to hold certain implicit associations
processes that maintain stereotypes: LANGUAGE; Example of reporting during hurricane Katrina
§ Although people are doing the same thing, racial minorities are reported as “looting” and white people are reported as “looking through” food
§ Same behavior described differently depending on who does it
processes that maintain stereotypes: SUBTYPING
· the process by which group members who disconfirm the stereotype are clustered together to form a subgroup. By segregating such members, the remaining group members can be interpreted as the “real” group, which does in fact maintain the stereotype
o ex: For example, Kunda and Oleson demonstrated that when participants read about a shy lawyer with a subtyping feature, they rated lawyers in general as being more extroverted than when the shy lawyer was presented without the subtyping feature
processes that maintain stereotypes: SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY, interview study (word et al, 1974) procedure
o participants’ job was to look over job applicants, have an interview and make reccs for hires
o had video recordings of the interviews
processes that maintain stereotypes: SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY, interview study (word et al, 1974) RESULTS
§ white interviewers tended to rate black applicants more negatively than white applicants although applicants’ stats on paper were similar
§ interviewers stated their reason as that the interview itself didn’t go that great
§ However, During the interview, participants/interviewers toward the black applicants:
· Sat farther away
· Stammered more
· Talked less (stuck to the script)
processes that maintain stereotypes: SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY, interview study (word et al, 1974) conclusion
Self-fulfilling prophecy was at play; Interviewers/participants expectations toward white vs. black applicants influenced the way they behaved when interacting with the applicants, the applicants would have found it more difficult to interact smoothly with the interviewer, which would have matched with the interviewers’ expectations
processes that maintain stereotypes: CULTURE
o Limits of viewing racism as an individual-level phenomenon
§ “obscures the institutional systemic, and cultural processes hat perpetuate and maintain race-based hierarchies”
o Cultural-psych approach
processes that maintain stereotypes: CULTURE, “racism in the structure of everyday worlds” by Salter et al (2018)
§ Acknowledge that the biases playing out at individual level are dynamically tied to and perpetuated by broader, systemic issues
· “fish” vs. “water”
o “water” : media, criminal justice system, lack of exposure to diverse groups of people, education
o Fish can pollute the water too, but we’re missing the big picture if we only examine the individual level
Effects of being stereotyped: STEREOTYPE THREAT (by Claude Steele):
fear we may confirm a negative group stereotype makes us feel extra pressure to perform better, can actually hinder ability
o Now called social identity threat
o Underperformance – stereotyped groups tend to do worse as education continues
o Ex: give men and women math tasks, equal performance, however give a more difficult task, women do worse although the men and women had equal abilities
§ Just before they take the test, tell them that stereotype is wrong
§ Women who would have normally worried about stereotype now rid of worry women perform as well as men
o All groups have negative stereotypes, if you care about stereotypes then you are exposed to a possibility of underperformance
§ In school situations, where group dynamics and stereotypes are worse, underperformance often recognized
Effects of being stereotyped: STEREOTYPE THREAT (by Claude Steele): What leads to a sense of identity safety?
attend to the stereotypes and representation as people as valued identities, diversity
STEREOTYPE THREAT: Steele & aronson (1995) study with SAT test-taking between black and white studetns, procedure
§ Black & white students answer SAT Qs
§ IV: manipulated participants’ expectations of the test
· “this test does not measure true intelligence”
· “this test does measure true intelligence”
§ DV: # of items solves
STEREOTYPE THREAT: Steele & aronson (1995) study with SAT test-taking between black and white studetns, results
· No significant difference between back & white students who were told that the test was not a valid measure of intelligence
· Black students who were told that the tests were a valid measure of intelligence had a lower mean of # of items solved, compared to white students who were told the same thing
STEREOTYPE THREAT: Steele & aronson (1995) study with SAT test-taking between black and white studetns, conclusion
· Fear of confirming a negative group stereotype led to black students’ underperformance
o Key features of the stereotype threat
§ It’ a general process
§ It can affect anyone
§ It stems from situational pressures that make the stereotype salient
· How can we overcome the stereotype threat?
o Self-affirmation: remind self of good qualities and experiences that make you feel successful or proud; counter-stereotype approach
o Even learning about the social identity threat is sufficient for improving test performance
Effects of being stereotyped: ATTRIBUTIONAL AMBIGUITY:
when there’s a stereotype that feels relevant to us, we always a question on people’s motives.
o “why are people treating me like this?”
o Dismiss negatives – “they’re prejudiced”
§ Ex: we get some negative feedback on the first draft of a paper. If we routinely receive negative feedback, especially from people of more authority, then we can attribute it to prejudice. However, the problem arises when people externalize the feedback and think that they received negative feedback due to prejudice and cannot accept that it may have been because they were in need of hearing constructive feedback.
o Positive behaviors questioned
§ We posit ulterior motives to seemingly positive behaviors from others
what are Microaggressions
· everyday slights and indignities, insults, put-downs and invalidations that people of color—experience in their day-to-day interactions with oftentimes well-intentioned individuals who are unaware that they have engaged in a demeaning or offensive manner towards the individual.
o the thing that makes microaggressions so powerful is that they are reflections of worldviews, of inclusion, exclusion, superiority, inferiority, and normality, abnormality.
· Term coined by Derald Wing Sue
· Most microaggressions are subtle, indirect and seemingly minor but harmful
o most people who engage in microaggressions think of themselves as well-intentioned and don’t think that what they said is offensive
3 types of microaggressions:
microassault
microinsult
microinvalidation
what are microassaults?
1. overt discrimination, intentional acts
a. Ex: “who wants to serve that table with the Indian people? I don’t want it because they’re not going to tip”
b. Ex: deliberate posting of racial slurs, racist symbols like the swastika
what are microinsults?
1. comment that indicates that a demographic is not respected, that a specific person is a slight exception to the stereotype
a. ex: “you’re so pretty for a black girl”
b. ex: women dismissed in STEM classes, not called upon when asked questions
c. ex: “wow you speak really good English” (assuming that the speaker is foreign and that they don’t belong in the country)
d. ex: “you’re not as good at math as I thought”
what are microinvalidations?
1. comment or action that dismisses the experiences of a historically disadvantaged group members
a. ex: a student wishes that there were more Latino faculty members and the students & the professor tells them to get over it
b. ex: “I don’t see your color” (color-blindness)
microaggression: intent vs. impact
· Microaggressions are more harmful and impactful than overt instances of racism
§ Small things add up & take a toll (paper cut analogy – death by a paper cut)
4 theories of prejudice
social identity theory
realstic conflict theory
minimal groups
dissociation model
theory of prejudice - SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (Tajfel & Turner, 1969): general points
o Once we’ve categorized, the self gets involved
o The way we categorize the self is tied to group membership (i.e. basking in reflected glory)
o It’s natural for us to view others as in-group (us) or out-group (them)
o How “we” do affects how “I” feel
§ Ex: if a group that I associate myself with doesn’t do well, then I feel upset (e.g. sports team loss)
how is prejudice viewed in SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
o Views Prejudice is inevitable – we come to think of the world as us VERSUS them
§ Vested interest in seeing “us” positively (in-group bias) and “them” negatively
§ Esp. when SE is threatened
how is ethnocentism tied to social identity theory?
o belief that one’s own ethnic group, nation, or religion is superior to all others
theory of prejudice - REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY (campbell, 1965)
o Direct competition for limited resources leads to prejudice
§ Political, economic tension, concerns for personal security; anytime it feels like a dog-eat-dog world
§ “I” and “we” should have enough resources to survive, “they” shouldn’t
§ Ex: they took our job (when referring to immigrants)
theory of prejudice - REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY (campbell, 1965) real or imagined competition?
o The competition can be real or imagined
§ Ex: jack, who has connections to my senior, took over my job (real)
§ Ex: cindy purposefully sabotaged me (imagined, she didn’t actually)
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM
o Random/arbitrary assignment can still set the stage for categorization & downstream consequences (e.g. prejudice)
o Can have negative effects on individual performance AND interpersonal interaction
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, Study on random grouping of “underestimaters” vs. “overestimaters”
§ Groups divided to overestimaters and underestimaters
§ Participants decided to reward other in-group people more than out-group
§ Preferential treatment of in-group, although groups were arbitrarily formed
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, “brown eyes, blue eyes” videoo “brown eyes, blue eyes” video, procedure
a teacher splits up her students based on whether they have brown or blue eyes and will tell the students that for one day one of the groups will be superior to the other
she gives them a bunch of compliments (i.e., they are the most intelligent and attractive group) and gives the outgroup negative stereotypes (i.e. brown eyes are ugly, they’re not as smart as blue eyes)
she gives rewards to the superior eyes group like they get extra play time while the inferior might get extra homework (she also gives them bands to suggest that they are part of the inferior group)
then she tests how they do on a test she gives them and the next day she will switch out the groups
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, “brown eyes, blue eyes” videoo “brown eyes, blue eyes” video, results
outgroup always perform poorly on the test even when they did amazing on it the previous day as an in-group member
when asked by the teacher on their poor performance, they always attribute it to the status like I’m not smart because I don’t have blue eyes
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, “brown eyes, blue eyes” videoo “brown eyes, blue eyes” video, conclusion
Evidence of outgroup prejudice, stereotype threat (the “inferior” group performed worse on the card task, the kid said “the collars made it hard to think—acted as a constant reminder of their supposed inferiority)
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, Robbers cave study (sheriff, 1954) procedure
§ Boy scout camp
§ 2 groups of 10~12 boys who were randomly assigned to the group
§ Similar demographic; white, middle-class
§ Phase 1: intragroup bonding
· Researched encouraged Cooperative activities; for building group cohesion and solidarity (building a sense of group identity)
· Ex: Each group picked their own group name
§ Phase 2: intergroup interaction
· Researchers Introduced Competitive activities between groups
· Prized for winning group
· Ex: baseball competition, the winning group gets prizes
§ Phase 3: “contrived contact”
· Researchers try to remove the competitive element, encourage neutral activities between the groups
§ Phase 4: cooperative intergroup interaction
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, Robbers cave study (sheriff, 1954) results
· After phase 2, competition appeared in forms of sabotage to the out-group
· Even after phase 3, groups maintained in & out-group prejudice
· After group cooperation phase (phase 4), unfavorable ratings of the pout-group significantly decreased
theory of prejudice - MINIMAL GROUP PARADIGM, Robbers cave study (sheriff, 1954) conclusion
· Minimal groups & direct competition = prejudice
· Mutual dependence to achieve cooperation again = make the groups dependent upon each other to accomplish a goal that’s good for the both groups to alleviate the in-group & out-group prejudice
· Intergroup activities, when done right, can reduce prejudice
theory of prejudice - DISSOCIATION MODEL (Devine, 1989)
o We all have stereotypes, but only some endorse them
The dissociation/disconnect is between the stereotype being held vs. the stereotype being actually used
o Stereotype activation is automatic
Ex: when I’m with a certain group, I naturally think of certain characteristics associated with the group
o However, prejudice (stereotype application) can be controlled
theory of prejudice - DISSOCIATION MODEL (Devine, 1989) findings
§ When someone has a low prejudice level, although they’re automatically aware of stereotypes, they have the motivation and ability to consciously reject stereotype
§ When someone has a high prejudice level, they do not have the motivation or ability to reject stereotypes. They show stereotype activation
theory of prejudice - DISSOCIATION MODEL (Devine, 1989) , Pros of this model:
§ There is a possibility of intervention at step 2, we can help promote conscious control to tamp down on stereotype activation
§ More positive view of how people are not terrible people for having bad thoughts, what makes them is how they act upon their thoughts
§ Acknowledges that it’s difficult to control our actions, although we may be well-intentioned
theory of prejudice - DISSOCIATION MODEL (Devine, 1989) , cons of this model:
§ Those who are in most need of conscious control may have the least motivation and ability to control their stereotypes
§ Implies that there’s no way to reduce the automatic activation of stereotypes
what belief resonates most with Blaming the victim?
- When empathy is absent, it’s hard to avoid falling into the attributional trap of blaming the victim
- The tendency to blame victims for their predicaments to inherent deficits in their abilities and character is typically motivated by belief in a just world
- we can also protect ourselves from the fear that something bad could also happen to us by convincing ourselves that the person must have done something to cause the tragedy; we feel safer bc we believe that we would have behaved more cautiously
according to the Bias intervention model (devine), what is the goal?
- reduce “unintentional bias” by preventing stereotype application
o Implicit association test is contextually dependent so not a good representation of bias
o Unintentional – signifies that you can be changeable and it’s not exactly one person’s fault
according to the Bias intervention model (devine), what is the nature of prejudice?
- Prejudice = HABIT
o If you have a bad habit, there’s some way to address it
according to the Bias intervention model (devine), how can one break the habit of prejudice?
o BE AWARE OF IT
Build people’s awareness, that biases exist and we all have them regardless of intention
o BE MOTIVATED TO CHANGE
o HAVE A STRATEGY (“SUBSTITUTE HABITS”)
Have a way for people to reduce their habits
Ex: fear mongering in posters (see first unit)
according to the Bias intervention model (devine), are the ways of breaking the habit of prejudice automatic or controlled?
o all parts of CONTROLLED PROCESSING
§ Being aware, being motivated, and applying the motivation
according to the Bias intervention model (devine), what is a selectivity issue?
o Only specific people will agree to join or search for these workshops
how is the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954), a solution to prejudice
what are the required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954)
individualized, informal contact
multiple members
equal status
mutual interdependence/cooperation
common goals
legitimizing support
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): INDIVIDUALIZED, INFORMAL CONTACT
§ One-on-one
§ Opportunity for you to interact with a person in a one-on-one manner; allows us to personalize, humanize and find similarities with the other person
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): MULTIPLE MEMBERS
§ Guards against subtyping
§ Meaningful personal interactions with more than one person of the outgroup will have more datapoints to rearrange your schema
§ We won’t think in stereotypic terms of an outgroup member since we’ve seen all of the idiosyncrasies of the members
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): EQUAL STATUS
§ Leaving out status differentials and dominance outside of our interactions
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE/COOPERATION
§ The only way that I can achieve my goal is if you succeed as well (ex: robbers cave study)
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): COMMON GOALS
§ Need to work towards a common goal
required conditions of the Contact hypothesis (allport, 1954): LEGITIMIZING SUPPORT (e.g. authorities, norms)
§ Finding ways to support the person in the outside setting so that they don’t undo everything that they’ve done in the previous steps
§ Authorities – use people they look up to or depend on to encourage the work they’ve put in
§ family/support system that help individuals keep and uphold their new beliefs
extended contact effect:
- simply knowing an in-group member had out-group friends is sufficient to reduce prejudice
media contact
- supports intergroup contact
o parasocial contact – getting emotionally connected to and invested in certain characters or celebrities from other groups
o vicarious contact - vicariously witnessing intergroup contact
Pepsi ad incited backlash
- Implies that a celebrity can bring 2 opposing forces together with a Pepsi
- White saviorism from Kendall Jenner
- Completely backfired and produces prejudice
Heineken ad garners praise
- Example of contact hypothesis
- Brought 2 people of opposing opinions (they initially didn’t know they were on opposite sides at first) and placed them together to work towards a common goal to build stools and the table, the would talk to each other with cards with questions to ask each other, they revealed videos of their interviews, revealing that they have opposing views; allowed the pairs to either stay and chat about their views or leave
- Mutual interdependence and common goal – working together to build the furniture
- Individualized, informal contact- placed the pairs alone together
o Humanized other people in terms of experiences in life, found similarities and were vulnerable with each other
- Mutual self-disclosure
o Came together and asked deep questions and got to levels of intimacy that divulged deep information to them about the other person, they did the same back
Jigsaw classroom study: procedure
- Instead of seeing each other as competitions, the researchers built a structure where the kid cooperated with each other and were interdependent to do well
- Used jigsaw method during a lesson in Native Americans, teacher divided class into groups called “expert groups”
- Each group studied one specific aspect of the lesson
- Students learned their individual part, rehearsed it to the point of being able to teach ity to other kids
- Jigsaw group – students from different expert groups came together to each teach the group about their individual portion of lesson
- No one individual in the jigsaw group can learn the full lesson without depending on other peers in the group
Jigsaw classroom study: results
o kids who were scared, inarticulate, or looked as if they were not intelligent were now behaving in intelligent, clear, and articulate ways
o as they developed self-respect, they performed better, and other kids treated them with more respect, which also helped them improve their performance more
Jigsaw classroom study: What aspects of the contact hypothesis do you see at work here?
o Created mutual interdependence of the students – learning the full lesson was dependent on others
o Equal status – all peers
o Common goal – worked together to figure out the whole lesson
o Legitimized support – teacher promoted & encouraged groups
Jigsaw classroom study: How might an experience with this arrangement generate a positive SFP among students who had been struggling?
Person A = people in the group
§ Students trust and show confidence in the struggling student to teach them about the lesson
Person B = person struggling
§ Person A has expectations about person B – expect them to teach them their lesson to achieve their common goal
§ Person A changed their behaviors toward person B – give them more support and positivity towards their learning
§ Person B changes their behavior – feel more comfortable and confident in teaching
§ Person A has expectations confirmed- “wow, they really do present well and don’t seem like they’re struggling”
how did Betsy Levy Paluck promote changing of norms in her field experiment in post-genocide Rwanda?
o 2 different ethnic groups
o Government supported the need to hate and be aggressive toward outgroup ethnicity
Radio soap opera conveyed norms of tolerance of “others”, dissent against authority
Promoted messages about tolerance and questioning authority
Shifted people’s perceptions of what others expected of them, which led to reduction in violence & discrimination
o When people weren’t expecting violence from the outgroup, their own behaviors changed as well, which then shifted their attitudes
o Individual’s ideas about what others believe can change even when their own beliefs don’t – listeners of the radio thought they had a new idea of what other Rwandans were doing and their behavior was consistent was that, although their own beliefs weren’t changing as rapidly
Opinion science, episode on systemic racism with Phia Salter: Changing culture/systems
- Individuals can be changed, but they’ll be placed back into the systema and culture that sustain the opposite view
o Ex: fish in the fish bowl, if a fish is in toxic water, need to clean the water (the system) and then put the fish back in; fish can also be toxic but most of the times it’s the water that facilitates toxic behavior
Opinion science, episode on systemic racism with Phia Salter: So how do we “change the water”?
o Address systems & practices that perpetuate racial hierarchies & inequality
o Reject tools that promote ignorance about racism
“white-washed” history
Colorblind ideologies
o View context ad additional channel for reducing prejudice
§ Doesn’t absolve individuals from person responsibility
what is aggression?
Behavior intended to physically/ mentally harm another
o Action OR inaction
Ex: an enraged son doesn’t write to his mom who’s expecting a letter back (inaction)
o Physical OR verbal
o Direct OR indirect – does the perpetrator know who caused harm?
Ex: cyberbullying, rumor mill
What is violence?
· Extreme acts of agression
what is Instrumental aggression:
· “means to an end”
o To accomplish a goal, one has to be aggressive
o Ex: wolves fighting for leadership of the pack, murder of fire (hitman gets paid to take someone out), self-defense
what is Hostile/emotional aggression: aggression:
· harm for its own sake
o Often impulsive
§ Ex: someone feels threatened or pissed off, and responds aggressively, revenge, jealous rage
Origins of aggression: NATURE/EVOLUTION explanation
o Aggression is all about what’s adaptively beneficial
o Natural selection, survival of the fittest, competition…
EVOLUTION explanations for sex differences in aggression
§ Males and females express aggression differently, according to evolution
§ Males theorized to aggress for 2 reasons
To establish dominance over other males and Secure the highest possible status
Sexual jealousy to ensure that their mate is not having sex with other men, ensuring own paternity
§ When females aggress, generally to protect offspring
Origins of aggression: NATURE/ BIOLOGY explanation - testosterone
Testosterone: positive correlation with aggression
§ Testosterone is related to reduced activity in brain area for self-regulation and impulse control
§ Males and females have different testosterone levels, males have more
§ There’s some evidence for a reciprocal/bidirectional relationship between testosterone and aggression
· Research has found, especially in Non-humans species that those that are placed in authority positions & act more aggressively can have increased levels of testosterone
what does the challenges hypothesis in relation to testosterone state?
testosterone and aggression are only related when the stress hormone, cortisol, is low
· Testosterone only predicts aggression when there’s a chance to gain something from that aggression, suggesting a specific relationship between testosterone and instrumental aggression
Origins of aggression: NATURE/ BIOLOGY explanation - serotonin
negative correlation with aggression
Origins of aggression: NATURE/ BIOLOGY explanation - amygdala stimulation
o positive correlation with aggression
§ Brain region dealing with emotion processing
how does the SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY explain the nurture origin of aggression?
o Learning of aggression via observation
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY; Bandura et al’s (1961) inflatable bobo doll study, procedure
§ observed how much of what we do and feel is affected by others, using aggression
§ children 3-5 years old
§ put adult with a child in the room, with a bobo doll
§ the adult started viciously beating up the doll in front of the child, then left vs. adult played calmly with the doll
Note
Flashcard