Social Identity and Prejudice
Economic Perspective (Realistic Conflict Theory)
Prejudice can arise from competition over scarce resources: individuals want to ensure their own group gains all available resources.
Core idea: resources are finite, so groups in conflict will compete rather than cooperate, increasing prejudice toward the other group.
Evidence discussed: Robbers Cave study (Sherif et al.)
Summarized finding: when two groups of boys compete for the same limited resources, intergroup hostility and prejudice increase.
Implication: realistic threats to resources can drive prejudice even among seemingly similar groups.
Priming as a trigger for prejudicial responses
Priming can activate related schemas and biases, increasing the likelihood of prejudiced judgments or behaviors.
Motivational Perspective
Focus: in-group identification and the drive to see one’s own group as the best, which motivates prejudice against out-groups.
In-group vs. out-group definitions
In-group: the group with which one identifies (e.g., college students, psych majors, political ideologies, religious groups, etc.).
Out-group: all groups one does not belong to.
Identification does not always align with behavior (you can engage in actions associated with a group without truly identifying with that group).
Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)
Concept: create meaningless, arbitrary groups to study in-group bias without real-world conflicts.
Procedure (illustrative): participants perform task (e.g., distinguishing real vs. fake suicide notes) to assign them to random groups; then they play groups-based games.
Findings:
People show a preference for their in-group and allocate more rewards to in-group members than out-group members.
In follow-up designs, participants may prioritize relative gains for the in-group over absolute gains for the in-group, even if that reduces overall personal gain.
Example framing: after being categorized into Group A or Group B, participants distribute points or rewards between in-group and out-group members.
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
Core idea: a portion of self-esteem comes from group membership; individuals seek positive social identities by favoring their in-group.
Consequences:
In-group favoritism boosts self-esteem when the in-group is perceived as superior.
Threats to the in-group can be interpreted as personal threats, leading to heightened defensiveness or aggression toward out-groups.
Identity salience and national/cultural symbols
Making an identity more salient (e.g., via the national anthem) can increase in-group bias (e.g., Canadians rating maples syrup higher after hearing the anthem).
Status and hierarchy
Groups strive for higher status within a hierarchy; higher status groups are seen as more legitimate sources of influence and power.
Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing) vs. Corfing
BIRGing: reacting with “we” when the group succeeds (wearing team shirts, celebrating victories).
Corfing (Cutting Off Reflected Failure): distancing from groups when they fail (saying “they lost” instead of “we lost”).
In-group identification and reactions to success/failure
Threats to self-esteem can lead to increased derogation of out-groups to protect ego.
Self-esteem and threat studies (Mediating role of self-esteem in prejudice)
Experimental design principle: two independent variables (e.g., target group type: Jewish vs. non-Jewish; self-esteem threat vs. no threat) in a factorial design.
Findings summary:
When participants received negative feedback about a target from an out-group, they rated that target more negatively than if the feedback were positive or neutral.
Threatened self-esteem increased the tendency to derogate out-group members and increased self-esteem scores on standard measures.
Additional evidence: evaluating out-group members can influence self-esteem and stereotyped associations.
Self-concept and intergroup threat
People exposed to negative feedback about their in-group or a threat to their in-group’s status showed stronger in-group bias and more prejudice toward out-groups.
Emergence and maintenance of stereotypes via motivational needs
When self-esteem or group status is threatened, people rely more on categorical thinking (us vs. them) to restore a sense of certainty and control.
Cognitive Perspective
Core assertion: prejudice emerges from biases in social cognition, including automatic categorization and processing shortcuts.
Automatic vs. controlled processing (System 1 vs. System 2)
System 1 (automatic): fast, effortless, heuristic-based processing; often drives initial judgments and stereotyping.
System 2 (controlled): slower, more deliberate, effortful reasoning; can override automatic biases but requires motivation and cognitive resources.
Automatic categorization and stereotyping
Humans naturally categorize others into in-groups and out-groups as a cognitive efficiency mechanism.
Stereotypes can be automatic and energy-saving, helping to conserve cognitive resources for other tasks.
Illusory correlations
Distinctiveness and minority vs. majority status can lead to faulty associations between group membership and behaviors.
Classic example discussed: when a minority group performs distinctive negative behaviors, observers may incorrectly link the behavior to all members of that group.
Experimental design example (group A vs. group B): both groups perform various behaviors; participants later remember more negative behaviors for the minority group, even when not supported by actual frequencies.
Implication: illusory correlations contribute to maintenance of stereotypes even when baselines show little to no difference.
Homogeneity and heterogeneity biases
In-group heterogeneity: seeing individual differences among in-group members (we know many in-group members; we perceive them as distinct).
Out-group homogeneity: seeing all out-group members as alike; loss of nuance leads to overgeneralization.
Kernel of truth theory
Some stereotypes may contain kernels of truth but are exaggerated and overgeneralized.
Example: a factual cue (e.g., a man with a wedding ring holding a baby) may lead to a stereotype (he is married) that is not universally reliable.
Confirmation bias and subtyping
Confirmation bias: people seek evidence that confirms their stereotypes and discount information that contradicts them.
Subtyping: when confronted with disconfirming evidence, people may create a subtype (e.g., Obama as a special case) to preserve the overall stereotype while acknowledging exceptions.
Self-fulfilling prophecies and expectancy effects
Expectancy effects: beliefs about how someone will behave influence one’s behavior toward them, which in turn can cause the expected behavior.
Classic example: parents’ beliefs about their child’s likelihood to engage in marijuana use can influence the child’s actual use; teachers’ beliefs about a student’s ability can influence student performance.
In intergroup contexts, expectations about an out-group can influence treatment and behavior, reinforcing stereotypes.
Subtypes and perception when an out-group member does not fit expectations
When an out-group member does not fit the stereotype, people may subtype instead of updating the broader stereotype.
Perception and memory biases in social judgments
Stereotypes influence how we describe and recall events (concrete vs. abstract language for in-group vs. out-group behavior).
In-group behaviors are described more concretely; out-group behaviors are described more abstractly.
Real-world implications in social perception and law enforcement
System 1 biases can influence rapid judgments in high-stakes contexts (e.g., police shooting decisions). Biases can manifest in both explicit and implicit attitudes.
Implicit vs. explicit attitudes: explicit attitudes predict verbal friendliness, while implicit attitudes predict nonverbal behavior in interracial interactions.
Examples of automatic bias in perception and action
Priming with stereotypical Black-associated words can bias judgments toward hostile interpretations of ambiguous situations.
In speeded object recognition tasks, exposure to Black faces can bias gun vs. tool judgments, illustrating automatic associations between race and threat.
Shooter bias experiments show higher error rates for misidentifying unarmed Black targets as threats, compared to unarmed White targets; white participants also show bias differences in how they respond to armed targets of different races; Chicago replication suggests contextual and population differences can modulate the bias.
Mechanisms linking cognition to prejudice
Categorization leads to us-vs-them thinking, guiding attention and memory toward stereotype-consistent information.
Subtyping and suppression of disconfirming information help maintain cognitive consistency.
Neural and cognitive efficiency arguments explain why stereotypes persist even when they are inaccurate or harmful.
Key Concepts and Terms to Remember
Realistic Conflict Theory
Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)
Social Identity Theory (SIT)
In-group bias / Out-group bias
Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRGing)
Corfing (Cutting Off Reflected Failure)
Self-esteem threat and out-group derogation
Illusory correlations
Homogeneity (out-group) vs. Heterogeneity (in-group)
Kernel of Truth Theory
Confirmation bias
Subtyping
Self-fulfilling prophecy / Expectancy effects
System 1 vs. System 2 processing
Explicit vs. Implicit attitudes
Shooter bias and line-of-fire perception
Priming and automatic associations
Hagen-like “us vs. them” cognitive framework in current events
Connections to Foundations and Real-World Relevance
Links to social cognition: chapter on schemas, stereotypes, priming, and attribution processes.
Emphasis on how group identity shapes self-esteem and perception of others; critical for understanding current events and intergroup tensions.
Practical implications for reducing prejudice:
Robbers Cave-type interventions (superordinate goals) as a strategy to reduce intergroup hostility by creating interdependence.
Awareness of cognitive biases to design trainings and policies that reduce automatic stereotyping (e.g., exposure to diverse exemplars to reduce out-group homogeneity effects).
Ethical and philosophical considerations:
Understanding how bias operates can guide more fair practices in education, law enforcement, and workplace settings.
Recognition that stereotypes can be energy-saving heuristics may help in designing strategies that balance cognitive efficiency with accuracy and fairness.
Mathematical/Experimental Notes (where applicable)
Minimal Group Paradigm often uses factorial designs to test in-group bias
Design example: two independent variables (group assignment: in-group vs. out-group) x (task type or reward condition) with two levels each, yielding a 2 × 2 design: 2 imes 2.
Outcome measures typically include the amount of reward allocated to in-group vs. out-group members and the relative gain versus absolute gain for each group.
Factorial ANOVA reference
When discussing studies with two independent variables, researchers may use a factorial ANOVA to examine main effects and interactions.
Implicit vs. explicit measures
Explicit attitudes: self-reported friendliness or liking during interactions.
Implicit attitudes: nonverbal behaviors, reaction times, or automatic associations measured via priming tasks or perceptual-motor tasks (e.g., object recognition after priming with race-related stimuli).
Practical Implications and Takeaways
Stereotypes are common cognitive shortcuts but can lead to biased judgments and discriminatory actions.
Prejudice can be motivated by self-esteem maintenance, not just by external threats; threats to either in-group status or self-esteem can amplify out-group derogation.
Automatic cognitive processes often drive initial judgments; deliberate reflection can counteract bias, though it requires motivation and cognitive resources.
Interventions that create shared goals or cooperative activities (superordinate goals) can reduce intergroup hostility and prejudice.
Awareness of biases such as illusory correlations, confirmation bias, and subtyping can help in designing better policies, education, and interactions to foster more accurate social judgments.
Next Class Preview (contextual note)
We will discuss strategies to reduce stereotypes and prejudice, including systematic injustices that target groups.
A brief revisit to the Robbers Cave study and related interventions for reducing intergroup conflict will be covered, followed by broader discussions of social inequality and discrimination in society.