LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination Administration Relationships between types of...
-
Upload
asa-dowling -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination Administration Relationships between types of...
LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination
Administration Relationships between types of biases Stereotyping Prejudice Break Discrimination
Video: True Colors Next Class
Defining Biases
Stereotypes: a belief about the personal attributes of a group of people.
Prejudice: a negative attitude toward a group.
Discrimination: unequal treatment of the group.
French-Canadians are working class, eat well, emotional.
I don’t like French Canadians.
I won’t hire French Canadians.
Negative Stereotype:Members of Group A are dirty, hostile, lazy, ….
leads to Prejudiced Attitude:
I don’t like As
leads to Discrimination:
I prefer to avoid As, exclude them from good jobs, …
The relationship betweenThe relationship betweenstereotyping, prejudice, and stereotyping, prejudice, and
discriminationdiscrimination
r = .25 r = .32*Stereotypes --------------------- Prejudice (attitude) --------------------- Discrimination
r = .16
The relationship betweenThe relationship betweenstereotyping, prejudice, and stereotyping, prejudice, and
discriminationdiscrimination
* Note that the prejudice-discrimination correlation looksvery similar to more general attitude-behavior relationships.
StereotypesBeliefs about the personal attributes of group members.
Abstraction/Schematic ModelAccording to this model, we maintain cognitive representations of social categories in which these categories are associated with specific characteristics and traits. For each of these characteristics, we have a central tendency (e.g., a mean) and a variance (e.g., standard deviation).
StereotypingStereotypingAbstraction vs. Exemplar Models
Exemplar ModelAccording to this model, we have specific examples (i.e., exemplars) of people that we have encoded in our memory. If we have to give an evaluation of a group, than we retrieve our representations of these specific people and base our judgment on these exemplars.
StereotypingStereotypingAbstraction vs. Exemplar Models
On-Line Retrieval – Abstraction ModelAccording to this model, we adjust our estimates of variability and averages for characteristics related to the categories every time we meet a new member of the group. Online we update this representation.
We keep an estimate of central tendency and variance of these category-trait associations in our memory and so when we need this estimate we simply retrieve it and use it.
On-Line vs. Instance-Based Retrieval
Instance-Based Retrieval - Exemplar ModelAccording to this model, we don’t maintain a running estimate of category-traits associations in our memory. If we need to make a judgment, we retrieve different exemplars from memory and on the basis of these exemplars we make an estimate the instant we need it.
On-Line vs. Instance-Based Retrieval
So who is right? How do we judge and attribute traits to category members?
Are Americans conservative?
Do Albanians like sports?
Are professors smart? Arrogant?
Do professors have big feet?
StereotypingStereotypingAbstraction vs. Exemplar Models
Stereotype Activation and ApplicationDevine (1989)
Do we always activate and use stereotypes when judging category members?
–Study 1 – Automatic activation of stereotypes
–Study 2 – Controlled application of stereotypes
Study 1 – Automatic Activation of Stereotypes
Before starting the experiment, level of prejudice was measured with the Modern Racism Scale.Phase 1– Participants were first subliminally primed with words related
to Blacks (e.g., dark, poor) and nonBlack words (e.g., sentence, numbers).
• ½ participants - 80% of the words related to Blacks.• ½ participants - 20% of the words related to Blacks• None of the words were related to hostile/aggressive.
Phase 2– Participant next read the Donald Story – Asked to rate Donald on hostile/aggressive and neutral traits.
Study 1 – Automatic Activation of Stereotypes
Extent of Black Priming20% 80%
Ratings of DonaldHostile Traits 6.9 7.5
Neutral Traits 5.9 6.0
• How do these results demonstrate stereotype activation?• No difference between high prejudice and low prejudice people.• Why is this process considered to be automatic?
Study 2 – Controlled Application of Stereotypes
Before starting the experiment, level of prejudice was measured with the Modern Racism Scale.
• Participants were asked to write down different names for the category “Blacks.”
• Next, they had to write down their own personal associations with Blacks – these associations were coded as either traits or opinions/beliefs.
An example of a trait is “athletic” or “criminal.”
An example of a belief is “Affirmative action is good.” or “Blacks cause many problems.”
Study 2 – Controlled Application of Stereotypes
High Prejudice ParticipantsBeliefs Traits
Positive 1.2 1.8
Negative 1.2 3.3
Low Prejudice ParticipantsBeliefs Traits
Positive 4.5 1.2
Negative 1.2 1.0
Low Prej High
PrejActivate Stereotypes (automatic) yes yes
(Study 1)
Apply Stereotypes (controlled) no yes(Study 2)
* Why? Culture vs. Personal Beliefs* Everyone automatically activates cultural stereotypes but only those
who are motivated (low prejudiced people) will inhibit those associations and replace them with their own personal beliefs.
Stereotyping by High and Low Prejudiced People
under Automatic and Controlled Processing Conditions
What is the continuum? How do we process others?
categorization individuation
attribute-based piece-meal
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
Five important premises related to the model1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category. We form our impression based on this category.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After, if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that are present fit the initial category.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Is this person good at sports?
Does this person like math?
Does this person know much about popular music?
Does this person like to read?
Is he aggressive?
Does he support affirmative action programs?
Does this person like baking?
Is she wild?
Does she like small children?
Is she offended by nude scenes on television?
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
What is the continuum? How do we process others?
categorization individuation
attribute-based piece-meal
Five important premises related to the model1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our attention to individual attributes.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our attention to individual attributes.
4. Motivation is important for where we end up on the continuum. We can be motivated to categorize or individuate.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our attention to individual attributes.
4. Motivation is important for where we end up on the continuum.
5. Motivation can also influence our attention and so the Motivation x Attention interaction is critical.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Prejudice
A negative attitude toward a group.
Modern Prejudice Measures vs.
Implicit Prejudice Measures
Modern Racism
Definition: Prejudice revealed in subtle, indirect ways because people have learned to hide prejudiced attitudes in order to avoid being labeled as racist. Rationalize prejudice according to other beliefs.
• Over the past few years the government and the media have shown more respect to Blacks than they deserve.
• It is easy to understand the anger of Black people in America. (R)• Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.• Discrimination against Blacks is no longer a problem in Canada.
(R)
unpleasantor
BLACKS
pleasantor
WHITES
Race Implicit Association Task (IAT)
If measured with Modern Racism Scale -- NO
If measured with IAT – YESPreference for Whites 70% (- 80%)Little or no preference 17%Preference for Blacks 12%
Are We Prejudiced?
Aversive racists: are fairly liberal don’t think that they are prejudiced think that equality and the status of
minorities is important
Who thinks that these items describe them?
also harbor negative feelings toward Blacks (hidden even from themselves)
Who thinks that this item describes them?
Aversive RacismGaertner & Dovidio (1986)
Because of these negative feelings, we discriminate when we get the chance. This does not have to be conscious but it does happen.
Importance of Situational Norms If the possibility exists to act in negative
ways toward Blacks without being perceived as prejudiced by others (or even the self), we will take advantage of this situation.
Difficult to Measure
Aversive RacismGaertner & Dovidio (1986)
White subjects participate in a study with either another White person or a Black person.
Half way through the study, they hear that a number of chairs have fallen on the other person.
They think that they are the only person who has heard this accident or that other bystanders have also heard.
Bystander Study of Aversive Racism
Alone Others are present VictimBlack Person 94% 38%
White Person 81% 75%
Bystander Study of Aversive Racism
In a situation with no clear social norms or in a situation where behavior can be easily explained in terms of nonracial factors, aversive racists will treat Blacks more poorly than Whites.
Son Hing, Chung-Yan, Zanna, & Hamilton (2008)
Measured Explicit Prejudice Asian Modern Racism scale conscious and deliberately reasoned evaluations of Asians
Measured Implicit Prejudice Asian IAT automatic evaluations of Asians that occur unintentionally
and outside of awareness
Modern Racists(Truly High Prejudice)
Aversive Racists
Principled Conservatives
Truly Low Prejudice
Explicit Prejudice Low High
ImplicitPrejudice
Low
High
Son Hing, Chung-Yan, Zanna, & Hamilton (2008)
Discrimination:Unequal treatment of the group. Negative behaviour toward group members.
Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies
Correll, Park, Wittenbrink, & Judd (2002)Shooter Studies
Discrimination
Study 1: Discrimination against Blacks
Participants are the Interviewers
Independent variableRace of candidate: White or Black
Dependent variableImmediacyInterview LengthSpeech Error Rate of Interviewer
Self-fulfilling Prophecy StudiesWord, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Study 2: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Participants are the Applicants
Independent variableInterviewer: Immediate or Nonimmediate
Behaviors
Dependent variableRatings of applicant performanceApplicants’ reciprocate behavior of
InterviewerApplicants’ attitude toward Interviewer
Self-fulfilling Prophecy StudiesWord, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Study 1:White interviewers treat Blacks applicants in less immediate ways than White applicants.
Study 2:When White applicants are treated in these less immediate ways (like Blacks were treated in Study 1), they are perform more poorly, reciprocate these negative behaviors, and like the interviewer less than if treated in more immediate ways (like Whites were treated in Study 1).
How do these studies demonstrate self-fulfilling prophecies?
Self-fulfilling Prophecy StudiesWord, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Participants are presented first with a background image, then a person appears. The participants is instructed to:
press the shoot button asap if the person is holding a gun.
press the not shoot button asap if the person is holding something that is not a gun.
Show Demo
Shooter StudyCorrell, Park, Wittenbrink, &
Judd (2002)
Reaction LatenciesReaction Latencies White Targets Black White Targets Black
TargetsTargetsArmed TargetsArmed Targets(Shoot)(Shoot) 550550 539539
Unarmed TargetsUnarmed Targets(Don’t Shoot)(Don’t Shoot) 607607 620620
Shooter BiasShooter Bias
Error Rates White Targets Black
TargetsArmed Targets(Shoot) .76 .49 (ns)
Unarmed Targets(Don’t Shoot) .33 .65
Are these effects intentional? Are participants aware that they are making these types of responses?
Shooter Bias
Discrimination:Unequal treatment of the group. Negative behaviour toward group members.
Do we still discriminate? Is this still such a big problem?
For Blacks? Women? Immigrants? Italians? Jews? Mexicans? Muslims? Russian? …
In Canada?
ABC Clip: True Colorshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOS3BBmUxvs&list=PL84F40445C8A3D980
Discrimination
Discrimination
Janelle Jones
If Racism Is So Prevalent - Why?
Affective and Behavioral Responses to RacismKawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio (2009)
Imagine …..(forecasters)
vs.
Actually Happens ….(experiencers)
Independent VariablesRole
• Experiencer
• Forecaster
Comment• No Comment
• Moderately Racist Comment
• Extremely Racist Comment
Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism
Dependent VariablesAffect – How upset?
Partner Choice
Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism
Neg
ativ
e E
mot
iona
l Dis
tres
sAffective Responses
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No Comment Moderate Racist Comment
Extreme Racist Comment
Forecaster
Experiencer
Per
cent
age
Cho
se W
hite
Par
tner
Partner Choice
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
No Comment Moderate Racist Comment
Extreme Racist Comment
Forecaster
Experiencer
Summary
• Stereotyping– Cognitive representations– Activation and application– Categorization processes
• Prejudice– Modern, Implicit Racism, Aversive racism
• Discrimination– Classic and New studies
Next Class
Class 12: Altruism and Aggression – Fran Reading material:Chapter 10: Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help? pp.
310-337.
Chapter 11: Aggression: Why We Hurt Other People, pp. 338-371.
Final Class and Exam
Class 13: Course Wrap-UpChance to ask questions and learn more about social psychology at York.
{Reading material:Chapter 9: Interpersonal Attraction: From First Impressions to Close Relationships, pp. 264-303. Not discussed in lecture.}
Final ExamSunday, April 13, 20147:00 pm - 10:00 pmTM TMWest