PSYC 331 Midterm 2

social category

mental representation of a group of people based on features that characterize that class of people
- helps navigate social world
- people are perceived by many social categories, but not all active at a given moment

basic social categories in North America

gender, race, age
- can be inferred quickly (300ms) and carry a lot of meaning

efficiency of social categorization

ERPs of race within 100ms and of gender within 200ms

process of categorization

deciding whether a new stimulus resembles known exemplars for a category

people that are difficult to categorize

cause discomfort to the perceiver and a motivation to be able to socially categorize
- mis categorization can be painful

prototypicality

extent to which a person fits the observer's concept of the essential characteristics of a social category
- high prototypicality means faster and more frequent categorization
- increase stereotyping

biases and prototypicality

- more prototypically looking black criminals more likely to receive death penalty that less prototypical individuals
- more prototypicality correlated with racial bias for shooter task

visible identities

based on all senses - vision, hearing, touch, taste, smell
- based on cues in the situation

situation and context

situation - which social categories are salient
goals - what we are looking for
- for example, when looking for fans at a football game, less focused on race and gender

subtype (re-fencing)

sub categories within a category
- exception is acknowledged, but field is fenced in again
- black people vs black politicians

stereotype content model dimensions

warmth - will they help or harm me?
competence - can they act on their intentions?

emotional associations with each quadrant of stereotype content model

HC, HW - admiration
HC, LW - envy
LC, HW - pity
LC, LW - contempt

third dimension of stereotype content

ideology
conservative/progressive
traditional/non-traditional

ideology, warmth, competence

- competence largely independent of ideology
- groups that are more similar in ideology - warmer
- groups that are less similar - colder

racial position model dimensions

inferiority and cultural foreignness
S, A - American
S, F - Asians
I, A - black people
I, F - Latinx

perceived discrimination

minority groups might be discriminated on the basis of one dimension but not the other (competence or foreignness)

perceptions of group threat

Latinx perceived as cultural threat
Asians perceived as workforce threat

strategic use of stereotypes

when someone cannot be portrayed as either (inferior or foreign) they can be portrayed as the other
- Obama not inferior, but foreign

double jeopardy hypothesis

men tend to be the target of discrimination more than women

gender discrepancies in race perception (to do with superiority?)

- Asian and white women both perceived as lower status than men of same groups
- black men and women (also for Latinx and Native) perceived as the same status

labor market discrimination

high status jobs can go to Asian Americans but politicians should be white
- more acceptable to reject applicant because they are foreign instead of them being inferior

lack of minority representation in US government

due to historical biases being widespread and industrialized

self-categorization theory

tend to favor groups with people like us and disfavor others
- to justify preferential treatment of ingroup, exaggerate differences between in and outgroup

model minority

successes in education, income, and social stability associated with Asian Americans

outgroup homogeneity effect

the tendency to view outgroup members as less varied than ingroup members

mechanisms behind outgroup homogeneity

quantity of contact with ingroup members - people have more individuating information about ingroup members
quality of contact - interactions with ingroup members are typically of higher quality
motivation be distinct - motivation to see oneself as someone distinct from they groups they belong to - people look to maintain their own individuality from ingroup
motivation to dehumanize - if outgroup members are seen as not separate individuals, we can maintain sense that ingroup is superior

cross race effect

tendency to more easily recognize & remember own-race faces compared to cross-race faces

fundamental attribution error

explain our own and other people's behavior in terms of dispositional rather than situational characteristics
- ingroup/positive - dispositional
ingroup/negative - situational
outgroup/positive - situational
outgroup/negative - dispositional

illusory correlation and stereotypes

group membership and behavior are associated when
- person's group stands out
- person's behavior stands out
hearing about a minority group member do something negative
- study with group A (26 people) and B (13) who proportionally but not numerically had a certain number of good and negative behaviors

social learning

parents and peers transmit stereotypes directly and indirectly
directly - being rewarded/punished for own behavior
indirectly - seeing someone else's behavior
- study where actors were nice to one person and mean to another, children imitated the one that the actor was nice to

media influence

black men - poor/criminal
Arabs - brutal/uncivilized
men - authorities/professionals
- income for African Americans negatively associated with network news exposure
- income positively related to negative stereotypes

transmission of stereotypes for women

seeing gender stereotypes caused women to reduced expressed career ambitions

chronic egalitarianism

people who have a consistent and automatic goal of reducing activation of stereotypes

implementation intentions

if-then plans given to people to help goal pursuit (if I see a black person, I will try to be unbiased)

spontaneous social categorization

- statements made by a man were frequently attributed to another man rather than another woman
- statements made by a woman more frequently attributed to other women
- pts categorized speakers by gender - more within gender than across gender confusions
- this can also be seen with race, academic status etc

benefits of social categorization

- if you are lost and need to ask for directions and know how might be local
- only informative to the extent that stereotypes are accurate

negative outcomes of social categorization

- exaggerate in and ingroup differences
- white people will assign less traits to other white people than black people
- pts make more assumptions, address fewer questions to outgroup members
- agreement about traits that are true of which groups especially if they have never met someone from that group

bogus pipeline and prejudice

pts express more prejudice than when asked the same questions directly
- masking negatively beliefs in public

stereotype threat

increases in vigilance towards environment attempts to suppress stereotypical thought
- affirmation of positive characteristics can reduce it
- knowing it exists can reduce it

dehumanization

perceptions of people as lacking the mental or physical capacities of regular human beings

primary emotions

happiness, pleasure, excitement, sadness
generally attributed to everyone

secondary emotions

compassion, tenderness, bitterness, shame
generally denied to the outgroup
decreased ascription to outgroup for both positive and negative emotions

anon thumb breaking experiment (subtle dehumanization)

if stranger was described in detail (humanized), pts much less likely to break thumb
if stranger just described as "man," pts more likely to anonymously break his thumb

foreign faces experiment

foreign faces less likely to be considered human than not foreign faces

implicit dehumanization study

children chose more animal related words for outgroup members than ingroup members

blatant dehumanization study

pts observed 3 person group after they heard experimenter calling them understanding, animalistic or with no description
group that was dehumanized received more intense electric shocks

association of blatant dehumanization

- immigration opposition
- less helping
- support militaristic aggression
- drone strike support
- anti-refugee policy
- less asylum support
- anti refugee petitions signed

when does dehumanization occur?

after threats to ingroup - more dehumanization (Boston marathon bombing example)

meta-dehumanization

- assuming another group dehumanizes your group
- gives license to dehumanize/discriminate in return

vicious cycle of dehumanization

Muslims who felt more dehumanized were more likely to also dehumanize Trump, support violent collective action, less willing to assist counter terrorism efforts
- correlation of r\=0.68 between meta and dehumanization

effects of vicarious contact

- less support for inter-religious violence
- other group is not as threatening
- endorsing fewer negative traits about other group

outward expression of dehumanization

not the case that people aren't willing to express dehumanization outwardly - SDO expression also blatant

basic building blocks of blatant dehumanization

status and power differences (dehumanization does not only operate in one direction)
group that is dehumanized is below the dominant group

motivation to express prejudice

associated with blatant dehumanization (r\=0.3/4)
some people blatantly dehumanize, doesn't mean they express views outwardly
those who disavow blatant dehumanization still have certain representations of groups that are dehumanizing

forcing white pts to confront hypocrisy

they begin to see the error in blaming all Muslims for one act of terror e.g. asking them if all Christians are responsible for the Westboro Baptist Church

what makes sexism different?

- men and women generally differentiated by biology and strongly in social roles
- relationships between men and women complicated by sexual reproduction
- women are not numerical minority, but are economically disadvantaged

hostile sexism

antagonistic negative views towards women
women are
- enemies
- want to control men
- use sex to exploit men
- too demanding

benevolent sexism

subjectively positive attitudes & beliefs about women that justify traditional gender roles
women are
- pure and good
- ought to be protected
- ought to be cared for
- nurturing to men and children through adversity

implicit benevolent sexism

both men and women have pro-female attitudes on IAT
- 4yo girls show pro-girl bias, boys do not show reliable preference

why benevolent prejudices matter

underlying assumption that men are inferior and men are superior
hostile and benevolent sexism correlated r\=0.52
women with stronger benevolent sexist beliefs
- less resistant to discrimination
- lower educational and career goals
- take more unpaid labor
- implication for which parent is contacted/expected to care for child during work
- men characterize their privileges as deserved
- difficult to see and easy to be convinced that there is nothing to feel guilty about

ambivalent sexism

combination of benevolent and hostile sexism
- hostile: punishes women who challenge status quo
- benevolent: rewards women who embrace traditional gender roles

prescriptive gender norms

how people should behave
examples of introducing women as "__'s wife"
men's traits are more highly valued

masculinity and brilliance

success in more math/science fields attributed to innate brilliance - less women seen in these fields

backlash effects

when individuals violate gender stereotypes, they often experience some degree of social and economic penalties
- women who act agentic are often seen as socially deficient

double jeopardy in female perception

those who are competent are not warm and those are warm are not competent

TransYouth project

study of gender development in trans kids
- socially transitioned kids
- compared against siblings and unrelated children
- trans kids express preferences consistent with their gender
- no differences within trans kids based on how long they had been socially transitioned in terms of preferences
- kids develop sense of gender and identity at early age, will hold it even if it conflicts with others' expectations

law, policy, support for LGBTQ+ rights

being told that favorable ruling was likely
- increased perception of norms supporting same sex marriage
- increased support for same sex marriage
after legalization, perceived status quo of norms increased, but support for same sex marriage remained roughly the same
- states that passed same sex marriage experienced greater decreases in both explicit and implicit bias

TransYouth Project operationalization

GNC - preferences for assigned gender, not socially transitioned, do not use binary pronouns
trans group - different pronouns from what they were assigned at birth, socially transitioned

motivation behind preferences

act of socially transitioning is not driving force, preferences were already there before transition
transitioning more of an end point than a starting one

limitation of TransYouth project

all trans kids supported by their parents in order to transition properly

belief in personal objectivity

men who think they are objective are more likely to hire a male applicant than an identically qualified female one

why women leave tech companies

because of "workplace conditions" and "undermining behavior from managers" not because they didn't enjoy the work

male vs female citation proportion

men cited more often than women
women cited as if they are men when names are ambiguous

male and female credit

male is universal, female is niche

female profs

students are more likely to request grade boosts, extensions etc which generates more work for female profs

bias of picturing geniuses as men

kids more likely to draw a scientist as a man

ranking of male and female students

male students rank males as more intelligence, females ranked peers based on actual ability

gendered advertising for jobs

women more likely to apply for jobs when wording is not hyper masculine and when ads contain images of women

ageism as a special case

- younger people report feeling the same or older than they actually are more frequently
- older people report feeling younger than they are more frequently
- social roles differentiated by age
- most people will be in every age group
- difference between age and generational identity

benevolent ageism

positive attitudes & beliefs about people on the basis of age that justify paternalistic care & the status quo

old people according to benevolent ageism

older people are
- weak
- lonely
- mentally impaired
- lonely
- sociable and warm

young people according to benevolent ageism

- outgoing and fun
- succumb to peer pressure
- lacking mental faculties and knowledge
- emotionally underdeveloped

ageism in discrimination

younger applicants 3-4x more likely to receive an interview

implicit attitudes about age

general trend that children are perceived most positively
attitudes about young adults dip and about middle aged people rise around 40-50 years
favoritism seen for generational identity

egalitarianism and ageism

hostile ageism not really related to egalitarianism advocacy or anti-SDO
- older people seen as opportunity blockers for underrepresented

diversity in disability status

Visibility - can you see it?
Controllability - is it your fault?
Disruptiveness - does it disrupt normal living? Do we need accommodations for it?
Aesthetic qualities - does it impact perceptions of attractiveness?
Peril - are you seen as dangerous because of it?

explicit vs implicit attitudes about PWDs

explicit - generally positive attitudes
more implicit - less willing to marry/date, preference for abled or disabled people

stigma and mental illness

mental illness seems as controllable, seeking mental illness treatment is stigmatizing in itself

halo effect

attractive people are though as having more positive qualities
attractive people do develop good social interaction skills, report having more satisfying interactions with others

attractiveness and discrimination

more attractive men and women receive callbacks
more attractive women more than more attractive men

prejudices in skin tone

lighter skinned black people seen as more competent and sociable, less likely to be stereotyped, have higher income and occupational outcomes
- darker skin tone increases predicted probabilities of imprisonment

weight stigma

people assumed to personally responsible
weight discrimination is not seen as personally problematic
women judged as overweight at lower levels than men

internal motivation to control prejudice for weight

greater acceptable of weight based prejudice, where people are moderately agreeing with the perception that weight is controllable

ironic effects of weight stigma

pts higher in perceived weight consumed more calories and had weaker beliefs in dietary control if they read a passage about weight stigma

women exposed to anti-fat peer

- greater feelings of rejection, particularly when higher in BMI
- more anger
- more heart rate activity
- worse cognitive performance

persistence of age, weight, disability and skin tone biases

none are really changing implicitly

emerging domains

Androgyny - novel IAT showing strong implicit biases in favor of gender conforming over gender nonconforming people
Singlehood - single people reported greater discrimination both towards themselves and towards single people more general compared to people in a relationship
Consensual non monogamy - pts reported monogamous relationships as more respectful, romantic, comforting and morally superior to CNM relationships
Voluntary childlessness - coupled described as not choosing to have children viewed as less caring than a couple with children or a couple who wanted to but could not have children

problem with weight centric health approaches

might not be the best, most holistic way to improve pt health

health consequences of stressful interactions with people who might express prejudice

cardiovascular activity - accumulated risk that comes along with being exposed to threat over decades of their lives

domain specific gender differences in weight discrimination

men less stigmatized in dating context, might be more stigmatized in work setting