1 lecture outline nstereotype maintenance nprejudice defined ntheories: intergroup relations &...

1

Lecture OutlineStereotype Maintenance

Prejudice Defined

Theories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice

Measures of Prejudice

Is Prejudice Subsiding in America?

Explicit v.s. Implicit Responses

Pattern of Dissociation

Internalized Egalitarian Values

2

Stereotype Maintenance

1) Subtyping Model

2) Cognitive BiasesBetter memory for stereotype-consistent information

Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing

3

Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing

Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)

4

Snyder and colleagues

Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias

Example…...

5

Snyder and colleagues

Told participants they would interview another individual

Told to figure out if other person was introverted or extroverted (initial hypothesis)

Given suggested questions to ask1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..

6

Example questions

Introverted:“What factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”

Extroverted:“What kind of situations do you seek out if you want to meet new people?”

7

Snyder & Colleagues

Results

Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis

8

Prejudice

Definition of Prejudice

A positive or negative attitude, judgment, or feeling about a person that is generalized from attitudes or beliefs held about the group to which the person belongs.

9

Prejudice

Negative forms of prejudice studied more because has greatest potential to create social problems

Cautionary statement: preferential treatment (positive prejudice) can also cause problems

10

Zanna (1994)

Purpose:

Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components

Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice

11

Zanna (1994)

Components of prejudice:

Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes

Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs

Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

12

Zanna (1994)Procedure

1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups:

English Canadian (ingroup)French CanadianNative IndianPakistaniHomosexual

13

Zanna (1994)

Procedure continued

2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)

14

Zanna (1994)

Results

1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05)

2) But, correlations varied by target group…….

15

Zanna (1994)

Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion

Zanna (1994)

Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group

72

16

Result 1: weakest correlation b/t prejudice and components for English Canadians overall

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion73

17

Result 2: strongest correlation b/t prejudice and components for French Canadians overall

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion74

18

Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion75

19

Result 4: prejudice correlated with symbolic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion76

20

Result 5: prejudice correlated with emotion most strongly for Pakistani

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion77

21

Zanna (1994)Conclusions:Prejudice consists of at least three

componentsstereotypic beliefssymbolic beliefsemotion

The components most central to prejudice varies across groups

22

Theories of Prejudice

Two general models of prejudice

1. Realistic Group Conflict Theory

2. Minimal Group Paradigm

23

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Terms

Group: social unit; members interdependent

In-group: group person belongs to

Out-group: group person does not belong to

Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification

24

Realistic Group Conflict TheoryCentral Assumptions

1. People are selfish and out for own gain

2. Incompatible group interests cause intergroup conflict

3. Incompatible group interests cause social psychological processes(e.g., in-group favoritism; stereotyping)

25

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Summary

Competition between groups for scarce resources produces intergroup conflict.

Without such competition, intergroup conflict would fade.

26

Sherif and Colleagues

The Summer Camp Studies

Purpose: understand conflict between groups to identify how intergroup relations can be more positive.

27

Sherif and Colleagues

Three studies set up as summer camp

Created situations that foster group identity, intergroup conflict, and group harmony

28

Sherif and Colleagues

Four stages Spontaneous interpersonal friendships

Group formation

Intergroup conflict

Intergroup harmony

29

Sherif and ColleaguesParticipants

11-12 year old boys who signed up for a camp in Oklahoma

Camp lasted 3 weeks

Boys had similar backgrounds, no behavioral/psychological problems

30

Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships

Studies 1 and 2Boys from whole camp interactedDeveloped friendships naturallyListed their close friendsTwo groups created

1/3 close friends2/3 not close friends

31

Stage 2: Group Formation Studies 1 and 2

Boys developed strong in-group identityinteracted with own group exclusivelyactivities fostered liking

Listed their close friends for 2nd time

95% of listed friends from in-group

32

Stage 2: Group Formation Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave)

Began at group formation stage

Two groups of boys brought to different locations in Robbers Cave

Boys developed strong in-group identityinteracted with own group exclusivelyactivities fostered liking

33

Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prize

baseballtouch football tug of wartreasure hunt

Intergroup conflict: name calling stealing flagsfights

34

Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict As intergroup conflict increased, so did in-group bias

Bean TossCollected as many beans as they couldPut beans in sack Supposedly shown each boy’s sackEstimated number of beans in each sackKnew group membership only

35

Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss

In reality, same sack of 35 beans shown to each boy

Results: overestimated beans for in-group underestimated beans for out-group

36

Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony

Experimenters tried to reduce intergroup conflict and in-group bias

1. Contact hypothesis: intergroup activities

Contact between group members sufficient

to reduce intergroup conflict (FAILED)

37

Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony

2. Superordinate goals:

Goals that could only be achieved if boys from both groups cooperated

water supply malfunctionedbus broke down

38

Minimal Group Paradigm

Henry Tajfel challenged interpretation of summer camp studies

Argued that:group identification sufficient to instigate

intergroup conflict

competition for scarce resources not necessary

39

Minimal Group Paradigm

Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm:

People assigned to groupsGroups have no history, norms, or valuesMembers have no contactMembership based on trivial criteria

40

Minimal Group Paradigm

Goal of these experiments:

Show that group membership

ALONE produces in-group bias

41

Minimal Group Paradigm

Original Study

14 and 15 year old boys, Bristol EnglandBoys alone and anonymousEach boy estimated dots on screenTold people are over, or underestimators Told which he was

42

Minimal Group Paradigm

Original Study

2nd study on reward/punishmentsUsed over/underestimator designationEach boy at cubicle, aloneCompleted series of payoff matrices where they

allocated points to other boysboys in same or different group

Points tallied at end, awarded to boy who got them

43

Minimal Group Paradigm

Payoff Matrix

Most interesting when boys in different groups because one an in-group member and the other an out-group member of the boy allocating the points…….Intergroup bias can be tested

44

Minimal Group ParadigmPayoff Matrix

#26, one of the:

overestimators

(in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

underestimators

(out-group)

Strategies joint profit : 19:25 (both boys get most they can) in-group profit: 19:25 (in-group gets most he can) maximal difference: 7:1 (largest difference)

45

Minimal Group ParadigmPayoff Matrix

#26, one of the:

overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

underestimators

On average, the boys selected 12:11,:This reflects a combined strategy of

maximum in-group profit and fairness

46

Minimal Group Paradigm

Big Point of This Research

In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources

Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias

47

Ways to Measure Prejudice

Theories explain that prejudice arises from competition or group designation

Sparked interest in measuring prejudice

Early measures were self-report questionnaires

48

Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice

Old Fashioned Racism Scale

Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites?

If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?

49

Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice

Modern Racism Scale

Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve

Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights

50

Self-Reported Prejudice

General pattern:

Prejudice is subsiding

51

Explanations

People are less prejudiced now

People are lying

Why would people lie?

52

Social Desirability

People may lie because they do not want to appear prejudiced to others

53

Sigall & Page (1971)

Developed the “bogus pipeline” procedure to detect socially desirable responding

54

Bogus Pipeline

An experimental paradigm in which an experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

55

Sigall & Page (1971)

Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached

-3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3

56

Sigall & Page (1971)

Completed short inventory about self on paperRated African Americans on 22 traits by

turning wheel

-3 (very uncharacteristic)

+3 (very characteristic) -3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3

57

Sigall & Page (1971)

Manipulation

Bogus pipeline group: hooked up to machine via electrodestold machine could “read minds” through

physiological arousal

Control group:not hooked up to machine

58

Sigall & Page (1971)

Demonstration of bogus pipeline

Told to “trick” machine by answering differently from inventory responses

Experimenter (who knew actual responses) made machine beep each time they answered differently from inventory

59

Sigall & Page (1971)

Theoretical Prediction: People lie on self-report questionnaires because

of social desirability concerns

Operational Prediction: Negative attributes judged more characteristic of

AA, and positive attributes less characteristic of AA under bogus pipeline condition

60

Negative attributes judged more characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition

Negative Attributes Bogus Pipeline Control

Happy-go-lucky .93 -.13

Ignorant .60 .20

Stupid .13 -1.00

Physically dirty .20 -1.33

Unreliable .27 -.67

Lazy .60 -.73

Aggressive 1.20 .67

61

Positive attributes judged less characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition

Positive AttributesBogus Pipeline Control

Intelligent .00 .47

Ambitious .07 .33

Sensitive .87 1.60

62

Sigall & Page (1971)

Conclusion:

People lie on self-report measures to appear unprejudiced to others.

This fits a social desirability explanation for the pattern of reduced prejudice found by self-report measures, like the old-fashioned and modern racism scales.

63

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Sigall & Page raised interest in relationship between measures of explicit and implicit prejudice

Explicit measures: responses easily modified

Implicit measures: responses not easily modified

64

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Explicit measures are highly vulnerable to social desirability effects

Implicit measures are not

65

Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000)

Taxonomy of prejudice measures

Controlling Responses

Easy Difficult

Old fashioned racism

Open discrim

ination

Racial slurs

Modern racism

Subtle prejudice scale

Seating distance

Subtle language bias

Eye contact

Non-verbal behaviors

Who-said-w

hat

Fam

ous person task

Implicit association test

Stroop-like task

RT

following prim

ing

Physiological reactions

66

Class ActivityThe IAT is a measure of implicit

prejudice that is widely used.

You were asked to perform the IAT.

Now, for credit, I would like you to describe the task

67

IATThe IAT measures how quickly people

can categorize stimulus words.

Faster = stronger association

IAT responses almost never correlate with explicit responses

68

Dissociation

Definition:

A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures

69

Causes of Dissociation

Social desirability:People may lie on questionnaires

to appear unbiased

This would produce dissociation

70

Causes of Dissociation

Internalized egalitarian values:People may have genuinely

endorsed egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them

This too would produce dissociation

71

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals

72

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings

i.e., prejudice is unconscious

73

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

3. Because internalized egalitarian values are newer associations for most people, they require cognitive resources to access; resources that are not available during the completion of implicit measures

74

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Logic:

4. Thus, egalitarian values are only accessible during the completion of explicit measures. During the completion of implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

75

Internalized Egalitarian Values

Summary: Internalized egalitarian values explains pattern of dissociation because people…....

76

Endorse their egalitarian values on explicit measures because of increased cognitive resources

But………

Endorse ingrained prejudice values on implicit measures because of reduced cognitive resources

77

Difference between IEV and SD

People who have internalized their egalitarian values truly believe in the validity of their explicit responses whereas people responding in an socially desirable manner do not

78

Devine (1989) Study 1

Purpose:

Test whether internalized egalitarian values can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice responses

79

Devine (1989) Study 1

Procedure:

Step 1: Assessed white participants’ prejudice toward African Americans with modern racism scale

80

Devine (1989) Study 1Procedure:

Step 2: Subliminally primed participants with words associated with African American stereotype

Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic, basketball, unemployed

81

Devine (1989) Study 1Procedure:

Step 3: Participants rated Donald. Donald’s behavior could be construed as aggressive

Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent until apt. painted

82

Devine (1989) Study 1

Experimental manipulation:

Percent of primes presented

80% of primes associated with AA20% of primes associated with AA

83

Devine (1989) Study 1

Predictions:

1. Judgments of Donald more hostile in 80% than 20% priming conditions

84

Devine (1989) Study 1Predictions:

2. Low and high prejudice participants will not differ in their judgments of Donald

Primes presented outside of awareness

As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald.

Unconscious prejudice dominates

85

Devine (1989) Study 1

Results:

1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition

2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

86

Devine (1989) Study 1Conclusion:

1. The more people are primed with a negative stereotype, the bias they show

2. Low and high prejudice people will show similar levels of bias when negative stereotypes are activated outside of their awareness because lows won’t be motivated to access their egalitarian values

87

Devine (1989) Study 2

Procedure:

1. Measured prejudice against AA

2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings about AA on self-report measure

88

Devine (1989) Study 2

Result:

Low prejudice participants reported less prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high prejudiced participants.

89

Devine (1989) Study 2

Conclusions:

A) Low prejudice participants had internalized egalitarian values, and reported those values on explicit measures where cognitive resources were plentiful.

90

Devine (1989) Study 2

Conclusions:

B) High prejudice participants had not internalized egalitarian values, and thus showed prejudice on both explicit and implicit measures.

91

Explicit and implicit prejudice may be dissociated because of:

social desirabilityinternalized egalitarian values