PSY322 Quiz 2

Duckitt (1922)

Claimed there’s seven distinct periods in the way in which social psychologist have studied prejudice (in North America, focus on U.S.)

Up to the 1920s

Prejudice not viewed as a bad or important think to research

White superiority and colonial rule of “backward peoples” and research focused on measuring deficiencies and superiorities of certain racial groups.

The 1920 and 1930s

Most psychologists believed in the existence of mental differences between races.

By 1940 they were searching for sources of “irrational prejudice”

Why? Becuase the 1920s was the Black Civil Right Movements which challenged the legitimacy of European / White colonial rule.

Influx of minority ethnicity scholars (ex. Jewish people) and desire to unite against the enemy claiming “racial superiority” (ex. Nazi Germany)

The 1930s and 1940s

Trying to explain widespread white racism in the U.S.

Psychodynamic theory : Prejudice emerges from conscious defense mechanisms (ex. Projection, scapegoating, displacement of frustration)

Ex. Dire economic problems in Germany lead to scapegoating of Jews and others.

1950s

Who is prejudiced?

Explain Nazi psychology and the Holocaust

Prejudice was seen as a psychopathic tendency

Focus on authoritarian personality : Preoccupation with hierarchy and obedience, desire for power.

1960s

Shift to focus on group- and society-level explanations

Prejudice emerges from norms and lack of contact (ex. Integration solves the problem)

Implication : Change the norm, increase contact, prejudice goes away.

1970s

Desegregation corresponded with increased interracial conflict

Contact isn’t enough — prejudice emerges from actual conflict between social groups’ interest.

But social psychologists were that interested. At the time, psychologists were focusing on individuals not groups. Attitudes appeared to have improved but discrimination continued. Psychologists weren’t sure whether attitudes related to discrimination and left it to sociologists to figure it out.

Symbolic racism

Proposed that instead of overt bigotry, racism is more subtle and complex.

Ex. instead of saying “this group is criminals” it’s more subtle like “I don’t want to live beside someone of this group”

1980s

Racism wasn’t gone, just in a different form — symbolic racism

Social categorization emerged. The idea that categorizing into “us” and “them” leads to prejudice.

Social cognitive perspective : Prejudice is an (unfortunate) outcome of natural processes that help us make sense of the world.

But neglect of emotions, individual differences in who is prejudice, socialization.

Social categorization

Categorizing into “us” groups and “them” groups, believed to lead to prejudice

Stigmatization

Literal origin is from Greeks where they would cut or burn signs into the body to indicate moral status (ex. Slave, criminal)

Some attribute, or characteristic, that convey a social identity [or perceived group membership] that is devalued in a particular social context.

Three types of stigmatization

Abominations of the body (ex. facial disfigurement)

Blemishes of character (ex. addiction)

Tribal (ex. racial / ethnic groups)

Stigma Versus Prejudice in Research

Stigma research focuses on the target perspective and the topics of illness/disability while prejudice research focuses on perceivers perspective and the topic of race and ethnicity.

What is over-represented in the scientific literature

“Perceiver” side,

U.S. context

White-Black relations

Mental illness stigma

Gender stereotyping and discrimination

What is underrepresented in scientific literature

“Target” side

Non-western societies

Racial/ethnic groups besides Black people and White people

“Intersectional” groups and individuals — Latina women, gay immigrants, etc.

Categorization

Based on cues (movement, skin-tone, dress, expression, etc)

We detect a person’s gender, age and race within milliseconds and we can do this even with minimal information.

Precursor to stereotyping and prejudice. Activates stereotypes.

Realistic group conflict theory

Intergroup conflict emerges when groups have a conflict of interest (ex. limited resources)

Categorizing into different groups + competition between groups = intergroup conflict

Main example study : Robber Cave experiment

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Took young boys and separated them into groups, allowed them to bond (form norms, traditions) then created conflict (friction between groups), then tried to reduce friction.

Thought mere contact would work but it wasn’t enough. Instead common, superordinate goal brought them together.

Strengths of realistic group conflict

Makes sense with competition over land / resources causing conflict. Also makes sense with sports teams.

Limitations of realistic group conflict

Most of the studies using this model was small groups.

Prejudice could still occur when there’s no competition.

Minimal group paradigm

Randomly assigned to groups based on meaningless distinctions and then asked where to allocate points to. Found that people gave more to their own group than to the out-group, maximize the differences between groups— more important than maximizing in-group profit.

Social Identity Theory

People strive to maintain positive, distinct social identities through social comparison and comparison on dimensions that make their group look good.

People show in-group favoritism, even when group membership is arbitrary. Competition is not required to create group identification and intergroup bias.

Categorizing into different groups + competition or no competition = intergroup conflict

Optimal distinctiveness theory

Offshoot of Social Identity Theory

Motivated to both assimilate with others (belong, feel similar, and included) differentiate from others (be distinctive). Competing impulses.

We choose to identify with groups that : allow us to satisfy both needs at once and are not too big or too small.

Outgroup homogeneity

The tendency to assume that the member of the other group are similar to each other. People are better at telling apart individuals of their own group than other groups

Other race effect

The tendency to have more accurate recognition for same-race than other race faces. One of the best replicated phenomenon in face perception

Real-world implications in eye-witeness misidentification and wrongful convictions.

Possible reasons for this is perceptual expertise and social cognitive effects. Occurs across ages and even in minimal groups.

Perceptual expertise

People may be more likely to encounter people of their own race which means more experience telling them apart

Social cognitive effects

Tendency to process out-group targets in a categorical manner while instead individuating in-group members (aka people tend to see out-groups as more alike and in-groups as more diverse)

Illusory correlation

Hamilton and Gifford (1976)

Stereotypes sometimes arise from faulty working of human memory.

Negative behaviors are numerically rare, when performance by minority groups (also rare) the behavior becomes disproportionately memorable. Therefore, minority group members are more disproportionately perceived to engage in negative behaviors.

One shot illusory correlations

Based on a lifetime of experiences, people can encode just a single instance of behavior as common or as rare.

For example : In Toronto if you saw an Australian riding a unicycle or a Canadian riding a unicycle, since Australians are seen less in Toronto we’re more likely to commit it to all of that not often seen group than the more commonly seen group (in this case, Canadians)

Members of minority groups are at risk of generating this when they engage in behaviors outside of the mainstream.

Social role theory

We notice which group disproportionately occupy certain roles. Infers that the attributes required or the role must be typically of the attributes of the group.

Homemaker role typically viewed as communal —> women are more often homemakers —> women are communal. Reinforces roles that that group occupies.

Stereotypes and knowledge function

Represents and streamlines information about groups

Justification of prejudice

Using stereotypes of rationalize observations or experienced group differences.

They may develop to rationalize discrimination and may develop to protect group-based inequalities.

Affordance management approach

Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005

We perceive groups to pose different threats and positive outcomes

How can this group help or hurt me? — different groups seen to pose different threats

Examples of affordance-management approach threats

Activist feminists : stereotyped as threat to values

Mexican American : Stereotyped as threat to property, reciprocity (contribution to the larger group), safety.

Gay men : Stereotyped as a threat to health, values

Disease threats stereotype to older adults and Asian people during COVID.

Racial position model

Inferior - Superior dimensions

Foreignness to Americanness dimensions

Asked people to describe most recent experience of racial prejudice and based the metric off of that.

Racial groups results in relation to the racial position model

Asian americans — superior but foreign

White people — superior and American

Latinos — inferior and foreign

Black people — inferior and American

The Stereotype Content Model (SCM)

A model postulating that all group stereotypes and interpersonal impressions form along two dimensions : (1) warmth and (2) competence.

Based on the notion that people are evolutionarily predisposed to first assess a stranger’s intent to either harm or help them and second to judge the strangers capacity to act on that perceived intention.

Warmth-communion

People first want to know each others’s individual or collective intent towards them and their groups. Friendliness and trustworthy of another group in relation to your or your group.

Competence-agent

One needs to know whether the other people can enact that intent, namely how capable they are.

High warmth + Low competence

Common : Elderly, disabled, children

United States : Italians, Irish

Emotions evoked : pity, sympathy.

Low warmth + Low competence

Common : Poor, homeless, immigrants.

United States : Latinos, Africans, Muslims

Emotions Evoke : disgust, contempt.

High warmth + high competence

Common : Citizens, middle class, defaults

United States : Americans, Canadians, Christians

Emotions Evoked : Pride, admiration

Low warmth + high competence

Common : Rich, Professional, Technical, Experts.

United State : Asians, Jews, British, Germans

Emotions Evoked : Envy, Jealousy

Social defaults (reference group)

High in both warmth and competence

Such people include middle class, citizens, and dominant religionists. People report pride and admiration for these groups.

“Lowest of the low” perception of groups

Stereotyped as untrustworthy and incompetent

Examples would be homeless, refugees, undocumented migrants, drug addicts, and nomads. People report disgust and contempts for them.

Ambivalent groups

Groups seen as warm but incompetent : includes older people, people with disabilities, and children. Report pity or sympathy

Groups as cold but competent which is the opposite kind of ambivalence: Included rich people, business people, and technical experts. People report they elicit envy and resentment.

Social structure predicts…

stereotype content

Stereotypic warmth follows from…

A groups perceived cooperativeness and competitiveness, best measured by both economic interdependence and symbolic values.

Economic interdependence

The mutual dependence of the participants in the economic system who trade in order to obtain the products they cannot produce efficiently for themselves. Zero-sum resources important to this.

If they have good economic interdependences it would be assumed that there’s not competition and is cooperation. The same could be said in the opposite way.

Examples would include questions like “if resources go to ___, to what extent does that take resources away from the rest of society.

Zero sum resource

Game theory term.

Refers to a situation in which resources gained from one party are matched by corresponding losses to another party.

Symbolic values (sharing vs conflict)

(NEED TO EDIT LATER)

Measures sharing versus conflict about values between groups. Examples could include questions like “The value and belief of _____ are not compatible with the belief and value of most Americans”

Descriptive research on stereotype content model

Surveys have asked for relevant societal groups in a given country and those groups reported by at least 15% of the sample meet the SCM criterion of consensus.

Second sample then rates society’s reported view of each group’s warmth and competence, as well as the emotion they evoke, the behavior directed towards them, and the social structural predictor.

General cross-cultural differences in stereotype content model

Most countries (nearly 50) show groups in the four quadrants in figure 1

Differences based on income inequality/equality and how peaceful or conflict there is in the country.

High income INequality countries

The United Staes, Latin America, South Africa

Show many groups in the ambivalent quadrants so they have low warmth-competence correlations.

Generates more complicated lay theories—- we have deserving and underserving poor, deserving and undeserving rich, etc.

High income equality countries

Scandinavia, Australia, and much of Europe

Most groups are all-good insiders or all-bad outsiders, so there’s an inclusive “us” population, but also a smaller “them” subpopulation and few ambivalent groups.

Pity cluster moves into the mainstream but rich people (envied group) are persistently viewed with ambivalence (respected but mistrusted)

Their apparent competitiveness is judged as neither warmth nor competent in more income-equal countries.

Peaceful countries on the stereotype content model

Also have more inclusive groups and one small cluster of out-groups

Extreme conflict

Creates a simple us/them dynamic

Intermediate on peace conflict

Examples include United States.

The most display the clearest stereotype ambivalence.

Asian samples in comparison to Western ones

Similar out-groups like homeless and immigrants, envied groups like rich and professionals, pitied groups like older and disabled people.

The societal in-group (citizens, members of the one’s hometown) appear in the moderate middle, consistent with cultural modesty norms.

Laboratory experiments and causality

Manipulated the cooperativeness and status of hypothetical groups to support the hypothesized casual patterns, as do in-person laboratory encounters with parallel manipulations.

Using photographs instead of labels to elicit group based ratings of warmth and competence yields similar responses.

Neurological responses to low-warmth low-competence groups

Homeless people and drug addicts failed to activate the brains medial pre-frontal cortex, otherwise reliably implicated in social cognition.

Reported difficulties in imagining their experience and other verbal responses consistent with dehumanization.

Both disgust ratings and insula activation fit this quadrant.

People at the bottom of the competence-status dimensions are viewed as

devalued and as expendable, especially if also viewed as having low warmth. Those with less status may be viewed as having less autonomy.

Subjecting some groups to suffer varieties of dehumanization perception, the status-competence dimension elicits a more social form of neural processing than do other forms of ranking (ex. weight)

Bio-behavioral data and the stereotype content model

For the envy quadrant (rich and business people) perceivers’ smile muscles typically responded to other people’s good events over bad events, but is not so for the envy quadrant— negative events happening to envied groups elicited smiles of schadenfreude, rewards center activation, self-reported glee, and admitted aggression.

The stereotype content measure across places

Evidence convergences and could be have generality

Level of group perception and stereotype content measure

Besides national and individual impressions, SCM data distinguished stereotype subgroups of societal groups : subtypes of men and women, ethnic subgroups, and lesbians, gay, bisexual, and transgender subgroups.

Social content measure over time and systematic content analysis of century-old Italian fascist magazines

Italians and Aryans were the idealized in-group, whereas Black and mixed-race people we contemptibly low on both dimensions.

Jewish and British people were threateningly competent dehumanized enemies.

no group landed in the pity quadrant, consistent with fasict ruthlessness.

Princeton University student sample and stereotype content model over time

Rated the same 10 ethnic and national groups over the same 84 adjectives four times over 70 years.

Most adjectives were reliably re-coded along the warmth and competence dimension, resulting in a coherent stereotype map at each point.

Precedent parallel models

Most active one is communion and agency, sometimes used in the context of psychology and religion or in the context of self concept and interpersonal attitudes.

Social good-bad and intellectual good-bad.

Communion and agency as a parallel

separately and together show the primacy of warmth and morality in impression of others but the importance of competence and assertiveness to self-concept in five cultures.

The two dimensions show some consistent dynamics

If one individual or group is higher in one dimension, then a second individual or group in comparison is presumed to be high in the other dimensions.

This produces the SCM signature: predominantly ambivalent stereotypes, if rich people are cold but competent then working class people seem warm but incompetent. This trade off holds only these two dimensions, not just any two social comparisons.

The two dimensions operate most clearly in…

individual, interpersonal contexts

Compensation effect for specific warmth-competence comparison of individuals and groups.

Double-jeopardy model of intersectionality

Disadvantages accrues with each of the person’s subordinate group identities.

Typically used by scholars who emphasize the cumulative disadvantage that occurs to people with mutliple subordinate groups.

Other side of the debate of intersectionality (in contrast of double jeopardy)

Believe that single subordinate-group identities are relatively more disadvantaged than people with multiple group identities.

Intersectional Invisibility

Androcentrism, ethnocentrism and heterocentrism may cause people who have intersecting identities to be perceived as non-prototypical members of their constituent identity groups.

Because people have multiple subordinate identities do not usually fit the prototype of their respective subordinate group.

Androcentrism

The tendency to define the standard person as male

Common in Judeo-Christian theology, Greek philosophy, Freudian psychoanalytic theory, and American law

Ethnocentrism

The tendency to define the standard person as a member of the dominant ethnic group

Since white people have been the socially dominant group in the modern western context, whiteness tends to define the societal norm in most Western nations.

More likely to automatically associate symbols of American identity more strongly with white Americans and symbols of foreignness more with Black American and Asian Americans.

Heterocentrism

The tendency to define the standard person as heterosexual.

The assumption that heterosexuality is biologically natural while homosexuality and bisexuality are unnatural “lifestyle choices” is one of the clearest expressions.

Critics of double jeopardy model

Argue that isolating any single one of these identities for study overlooks the experience of individuals with multiple subordinate identities.

To correct this, they explicitly focus their studies on people with more than one devalued identity.

The additive model (double jeopardy)

Argued that people with two or more intersecting identities experience the distinct forms of oppression associated with each of his or her subordinate identities summed together.

More devalued identities a person has the more cumulative discrimination he or she faces.

The interactive model

Each of a person’s subordinate identities interact in a synergistic way. People experience these identities as one and thus contend with discrimination as multiple marginalized others.

Subordinate male target hypothesis

Claimed that subordinate men are the focus of oppression primarily implemented by dominant men. As a result of oppression directed to subordinate groups will cause subordinate men to experience more direct prejudice and discrimination than subordinate women.

Social dominance theory

Societies are structured as group-based hierarchies out of which group conflict and oppression (ex. Racism, sexism, nationalism) arise.

Within these hierarchical systems, dominant groups have a disproportionate share of economic resources and social and cultural capital, while subordinate groups suffer stigma, prejudice, and discrimination.

Three qualitatively different types of social hierarchy in social dominance theory :

Age-based : where adults are dominant over children

Gender-based : Where men are dominant over women

Arbitrary-set : Locally defined dominant groups, such as ethnic or religious groups, have privileged access to resources over locally defined subordinate groups.

One assumption specifically relevant to the subordinate male target hypothesis is the notion that….

Arbitrary-set hierarchies are the product of competition among men over access to materials and symbolic resources

Resource-competition is largely an intra-male phenomenon. Men from dominant groups oppress subordinate groups to maintain their own social power and resource control.

Subordinate male target hypothesis and ethnic minority men and women.

Believes that oppression directed at ethnic minorities should have a more severe effect on minority men than minority females.

Despite women also suffering oppression by gender, men should often be worse off overall.

First limitation of Score-keeping approach

Neglects to take into account the many complex ways that people with intersecting identities are interdependent with those who share one or more of their disadvantaged identities.

Ex. Minority women are emotionally, socially, and economically interdependent on minority men, thus if minority men are targets of of prejudice attitudes and exclusionary practices, then it affects the women’s lives too

Second problem with keeping-score approach

The various types of oppression that people experience are incommensurable (not able to be judged by the same standard). It is not possible to translate qualitatively distinct forms of oppression into a single measure.

How does one quantify suffer in a way that compares rape, unjustified incarceration, chronic poverty, racial profiling, hate crime victimization, and social exclusion.

Thus the question ‘Whose group suffers most?” Is scientifically unanswerable.

Hegemony

Those who meet androcentrism, ethnocentrism, and heterocentrism and become defined as the societal standard.

Model illustrated in Figure 1

The influences of androcentrism and heterocentrism will cause the prototypical member of a subordinate ethnic or racial group to be defined as a heterosexual man.

The influences of heterocentrism and ethnocentrism will cause the prototypical women to be straight and white.

The influence of ethnocentrism and androcentrism will cause the prototypical gay person to be defined as a white man.

What groups will experience intersectional invisibility

People of two or more subordinate identities do not fit the prototype of their constituent subordinate groups,

Intersectional invisibility also means both…

The general failure to fully recognize people with intersecting identities as members of their constituent groups.

The distortion of the intersectional persons’ characteristic in order to fit them into frameworks defined by prototypes of constituent identity groups.

Advantages of Intersectional Invisibility

Allows people with intersectional disadvantage identities to escape many of the active discriminatory practices that target their groups compared to members who closely fit the prototype of these groups.

Believed to be supported by research demonstrating anti-black prejudice targets more stereotypically black features. Also has to do with male target hypothesis.

Subordinate male target hypothesis reinterpreted in intersectional invisibility

Subordinate males will more often be the victim of active forms of oppression directed at their group because of greater prototypically compared to subordinate women who will suffer invisibility due to not being greater prototypicality.

Instead of subordinate men being oppressed as a product of psychological disposition that evolved as men competed for resources in human ancestral environment, this interpretation sees subordinate men group as a reflection of the general tendency in an androcentric society to view all men.

Disadvantages of Intersectional Invisibility

Non-prototypical group members are less likely to achieve leadership status within their groups and they are less likely to exert social influences over other members of their group compared to those who are more prototypical.

The link between prototypicality, leadership, and social influence should contribute to the relative marginalization of those with intersecting subordinate group identities.

The challenges associated with misrepresentation and marginalization will tend to be prominent features of the experience of people with intersectional subordinate-group identities. Ex. black women’s contribution to civil rights and feminism.

Librarian Dilemma

Has a single copy of a book about black women’s history. The librarian must decide whether the book should be shelved in the Women’s Studies section or the African Studies section.

If she chooses to shelve the book in the Women’s studies section it is unlikely that casual browsers interested in African Studies will come across this book. Alternatively, if she shelves the book in the African American Studies section the casual browsers of Women’s Studies are going to miss the book.

Black feminist theories have long argued that scholars, policymakers, and lay people implicitly associated race with Black men and gender with white females. Thus, African American history tacitly implies African American male history and renders African women historically invisible.

Same can be said for race and sexuality marginalization

Bayard Rustin

Underrepresented black gay men in Civil rights movement who founded Congress on Racial equality and were heavily nonviolent which became a guide for MLK’s civil rights movement. Acted as a mentor to MLK during Civil Rights Movement.

Cultural invisibility

The failure of cultural representation to capture the distinctive experience of intersectionality subordinate groups.

Andorcentric models of human sexuality and Lisa Diamond’s longitudinal research found…

sexual orientation is relatively fixed attribute of person fits the experience of men better than of women. Consequently women’s experience of non-heterosexuality are likely to be misunderstood by the culturally dominant model of sexual orientation.

Argues that women experience a pattern of sexuality that has been completely ignored by the culturally dominant model of sexual orientation and that women can develop a sexual attraction to a specific individual out of romantic infatuation with the person without being exclusively attracted to that gender.

Political invisibility

The neglect by allegedly inclusive advocacy groups of the issues that predominantly affect people with intersecting subordinate identities.

Often claim to represent the needs and concerns of all their constituents, including those with intersecting subordinate identities, but often end up devoting less time and resources to multiple subordinate identities than they do to more prototypical constituents who have only a single subordinate identity.

Issues that primarily affect the lives of these singular subordinate members are more easily framed as issues that affect the group as a whole than issues which primarily affect members with two or more intersecting identities

Solution is creating groups specific to the intersecting subordinate identities.

Legal Invisibility

A special type of cultural invisibility that centers on the mismatch between intersectional subordinate group identities and dominant legal anti-discrimination frameworks.

In many countries like the U.S., legal anti-discrimination framework tend to privilege people with a single disadvantage identity than people with more than one since they can’t successfully claim” compound discrimination”.

Often urged to argue one discrimination or the other, but not together when the problem can be a combination of both. When both aren’t considered, leads to not understanding and legally protecting multiple subordinate identity individuals. (ex. anita hill)