lecture 11 stereotyping, prejudice, & discrimination administration relationships between...

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