Stereotypes, Prejudice, & Discrimination (7)

Ingroup bias

often favour our own group over others

• give advantages to ingroup even if we disadvantage outgroups

• criticism of group can feel like a personal attack which will trigger defensive reactions

Intergroup attitudes

3 main psycological components

• affect

• behaviour

• cognition

Affective component

attitude, more specifically emotions we have towards other groups

unconcious

behavioral component

they way you act towards another group, generally comes out as discrimination

cognitive component

thoughts and beleifs abt diff groups come into play

• stereotypes

• outgroup homogeneity (everyone outside my group is the same)

blatant racism

readily admitted bigoted statements

benevolant prejudice

a mix of both positive and negative sentimemts and sterotypes (can be racism sexism etc)

• ex asians are smart (positive) asians eat dogs (negative)

• peope might be judged negatively id they dont fit the positive sterotype= pressue ro conform

implicit attitudes

underlying biases that arent visible on the surface/ outwardly shown

can subtly measure, ex IAT

IAT

• sort words into categories = good or bad

• next round, the groups are reversed

• reaction time might show implicit attitudes

implicit attitudes can predict

• seating distance (ex might sit closer to a white girl if racist)

• economic desicions (who we choose to do business w)

• voting

• amygdala activation

Affect misattribution procedure

• tell them to rate smth w possible prejudice

• eventually tell them to rate a neutral stimulus

• they were primed so that might affect their rating of the neutral stimulus

origins of prejudice

• economic

  • diff social groups competing over scarce resources

• motivational

  • motiation to view ones ingroup better than outgroups

• cognitive

  • biases in social cognition ciz of schemas and differences btwn in/outgroup

realistic group conflict theory

fighting over scarce resources will make us dislike each other duh

• develop ethnocentrism (my race better)

• most hate from the people who feel they have the most to lose

robbers cave experiment

two groups of boys

• start w team building (form the ingroup)

• then put teams against each other

• most wanted to be friends w INgroup

• after make teams work together

• intergroups hostility decreased

jigsaw classroom

• each person learns one part of material and then teaches it to the rest of thr group

• mutual support , interdependence

• decreases prejudice and stereotypes

• can lead to better performance

• also more cross group friendships

economic perspective

• shows that prejudice can be reduced when they have to work togther to acheive a common goal

motivational perspective

• prejudice stems from wanting to feel good abt youself

• us vs them

• view our ingroup better = boosts our own self worth

• view outgroups less than

Spencer study

• jewish and non jewish candidate

• people get feedback of their own preformance before rating others

• if they received negative feedback they gave worse feedback to outgroup

• positive feedback both candidates were rated fairly

cognitive perspective

• stereotypes are a type of schema

• stereotypes are time efficient cuz less effort is req when “yk” what to expect

• more likely to use stereotypes when were mentally drained

biased info preocessing

we pay more attention to things that are consistent w our stereotypes and miss things that dont match

illusory correlations

• we assume a relationship between two things even when its not acc there

• less common to see a minority w negative behavior than majority w good, so its easier to remember minority= bad than majority=bad

  • we remember distinct pairings more than common ones

shooter bias

correl 2002

• shoot if armed dont shoot if unarmed

• more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black targets

• more likely to mistakenly not shoot armed white targets

object recognition

payne 2001

primed w white or black face

guns identified more when primed w black face

social dominance theory

hierarchies that systematiclly adv/disadv certain groups

upheld through individual and institutional forms of discrimination

social dominance orientation

high sdo= maintain group hierarchies and support inequality

• comp between groups is natural

meritocracy

success is acheived solely through talent and hard work, doesnt acknowledge luck

overlooks the adv higher ups in hierarchies have

just world hypothesis

psycological tendency to believe people get wat they deserve

reassurees ind. bad things wont happen to them if they do evryth. right

alsoi maintains the hierarchy because if bad thigs happen its deserved

dehumanization

denying the humanity of individuals or groups

• makes them out as vermin that need to be eradicated

• justifies treating them as less than or having them in a lower social class

ex slavery

justifies inequality

stereotype content model

way we stereotype varies based on 2 dimensions: warmth and competence

• Warmth: friend or foe (nice or not)

• competence: capable or incompetent

admiration

high warmth high competence

pity

high warmth low competence

• more common towards elderly and disabled

contempt

low warmth and competence

envy

high competence low warmth

bias in ommision

intersectional invisibility

• dont really fit in anywhere (WOC) so overlooked

• laws and stuff that fails to adress the needs of the minority

systemic inequalities

ingrained into the system

ex ind livinf in lower SES neighborhoods deal w issues such as limited access to quality education and health care

perpetuates cycles of poverty and inequality

stereotype threat

anxiety that individuals will confirm the negative stereotypes about their social group

• can make people perform worse

  • can be a distration and increases stress level

allports 4 conditions

make intergroup contact positive and helpful w:

• equal status

• common goals

• no competition

• sanctioned by authority and social norms

pettigrew 1998

built on allports conditions by saying that contact should involve friendship

friendship is found to be the strongest statistical predictor, particulary among high conflict groups

pettigrew and tropp 2006

• metanalysis found that generally contact is associated with less prejudice

page-gould 2008

• participants w higher high iat levels showed higher cotisol levels w cross group interactions initially

  • for those who developed friendhsips there was a significant drop in implicit prejudice over time

extended contact effect

even indirect contact can minimize prejudice

• my bsfs (ingroup) other bsf (outgroup) is black so then i like black ppl more (EXAMPLE)

study by wright 1997

• watching a friendly interaction btwn in and outgroup members makes me more likely to positively interact w the outgroup member

• ie even just observing positive crossgroup can reduce prejudice