PSYC 260 Chapter 12

ultimate attribution error

people also make trait attributions in ways that benefit their in-groups, just as they make trait attributions that benefit themselves; results in the tendency for each of the competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and unrealistically negatively

realistic conflict theory

the idea that stereotyping is evolutionarily advantageous; this is b/c the conflict over limited resources (like food, water, energy, etc.) makes it beneficial to discriminate agains people outside of your in-group; however, this adaptiveness has "worn off" due to modern times

social categorization

the natural cognitive process by which we place individuals into social groups

stereotype

the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the characters of social groups

social identity

the positive self-esteem that we get from our group memberships

black sheep effect

the strong devaluation of in-group members who threaten the positive image and identity of the in-group

ingroup favoritism

the tendency to respond more positively to people from our in-groups than we do to people from out-groups; result of self-concern interacting with group perceptions; groups exist simply because individuals perceive those groups as existing, so even in a case where there really is no group (at least no meaningful group in any real sense), we still perceive groups and still demonstrate this tendency

outgroup homogeneity

the tendency to view members of outgrips as more similar to each other than we see members of in-groups; occurs in part because we do not have many quality experiences with others outside our ingroups; also occurs because we routinely group these individuals together, increasing the appearance of their group being cognitively similar

bogus pipeline procedure (Jones and Sigall)

- in this procedure, the experimenter first convinces the participants that he or he has access to their "true" beliefs, for instance, by getting access to a questionnaire that they completed at a prior experimental session - once the participants are convinced that the researcher is able to assess their "true" attitudes, it is expected that they will be more honest in answering the rest of the questions they are asked because they want to be sure that the researcher does not catch them lying. - suggests that people may frequently mask their negative beliefs in public

under time pressure, distracted

Our tendency to use stereotypes becomes stronger when we are...

authoritarianism

a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer things to be simple rather than complex and who tend to hold traditional and conventional values; tend to be more in-group favoring b/c it simplifies thinking about your in-group

social dominance orientation (SDO)

a personality variable that refers to the tendency to see and to accept inequality among different groups; believe that there are and should be status differences among social groups, and they do not see these as wrong; also show greater ingroup favoritism

interdependence

a state in which the group members depend on each other for successful performance of the group goals

jigsaw classroom

an approach to learning in which students from different racial or ethnic groups work together, in an interdependent way, to master material The class is divided into small learning groups, where each group is diverse in ethnic and gender composition. The assigned material to be learned is divided into as many parts as there are students in the group, and members of different groups who are assigned the same task meet together to help develop a strong report; effective in reducing prejudice and stereotypes

> mutual inderdependence > a common goal > equal status > informal, interpersonal contact > multiple contacts > social norms of equality

contact hypothesis

superordinate goals

goals that are important and also require cooperative efforts and resources to attain; increases interdependence and thus reduces prejudice and stereotyping

discrimination

unjustified negative behaviors toward members of out-groups based on their group membership

Implicit Association test (IAT)

> participants are asked to classify stimuli that they view on a computer screen into one of two categories by pressing one of two computer keys, one with their left hand and one with their right hand. Furthermore, the categories are arranged such that the responses to be answered with the left and right buttons either "fit with" (match) the stereotype or do not "fit with" (mismatch) the stereotype. > then the participants categorize the photos and answer questions about the stereotypes by pressing either the yes button or the No button using either their left hand or their right hand. > When the responses are arranged on the screen in a "matching" way, such that the male category and the "strong" category are on the same side of the screen (e.g., on the right side), participants can do the task very quickly and they make few mistakes. It's just easier, because the stereotypes are matched or associated with the pictures in a way that makes sense. > But when the images are arranged such that the women and the strong categories are on the same side, whereas the men and the weak categories are on the other side, most participants make more errors and respond more slowly. > The basic assumption is that if two concepts are associated or linked, they will be responded to more quickly if they are classified using the same, rather than different, keys (this happens out of conscious awareness)

increase interaction with different social groups, challenge own stereotypes, realize the system

How can we reduce stereotyping?

Devine (Dissociation Model, 1989)

STEP 1) encountering a stimulus: automatically activates stereotype and category information that is applied to that person and floods the cognitive system STEP 2) individuating step: act of controlling a stereotype by seeing the person as an individual; this takes up considerable cognitive energy and resources related with executive control 3) according to this model, a more diversified social category (i.e, the # of outcomes associated with a group) should reduce prejudice through more experience with the social group as well as common goal-based actions within the group

authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, collectivism, decrease in humanism and egalitarianism

What are personal factors that predict prejudice/discrimination?

conformity, group think, group polarization (for this to work, the group norms must already be prejudiced)

What are situational factors that predict prejudice/discrimination?

> institutionalized stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination > outgroup derogation is an injunctive social norm (i.e., it is seen as the moral thing to do) > deindividuation of members (including hiding face, same clothes/appearance) > perceive that they are on the "side of good"

What are some characteristics of hate groups?

education, intergroup contact

What are some factors that make us less prejudiced?

communications with peers and family, behaviors portrayed in the media, perpetuation through culture

What are some ways we learn stereotypes?

false consensus bias, confirmation bias, assimilation, avoidance of cognitive dissonance

Why do hate groups stay so consistent when there is evidence against their claims?

prejudice

an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an outgrip or toward the members of that out-group

stereotype threat

performance decrements that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotype threats

extended-contact hypothesis

prejudice can also be reduced for people who have friends who are friends of members of the out-group, even if the individual does not have direct contact with the outgroup members himself or herself

goal of creating a common in-group identity

the attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a superordinate categorization; interdependence and cooperation → common ingroup identity → favorable intergroup attitudes

social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner)

the idea that categorizations lead to ingroups through favoritism and heterogeneity, as well as the derogation and perceived homogeneity of outgroups

contact hypothesis

the idea that intergroup contact will reduce prejudice due to increased other concern;