Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination  Administration  Relationships between types of biases  Stereotyping  Prejudice  Break  Discrimination.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination  Administration  Relationships between types of biases  Stereotyping  Prejudice  Break  Discrimination."— Presentation transcript:

1 LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination  Administration  Relationships between types of biases  Stereotyping  Prejudice  Break  Discrimination  Video: True Colors  Next Class

2 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.

3 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 between stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination

4 r =.25 r =.32* Stereotypes Prejudice (attitude) Discrimination r =.16 The relationship between stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination * Note that the prejudice-discrimination correlation looks very similar to more general attitude-behavior relationships.

5 Stereotypes Beliefs about the personal attributes of group members. Abstraction/Schematic Model According 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). Stereotyping Stereotyping Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models

6 Exemplar Model According 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. Stereotyping Stereotyping Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models

7 On-Line Retrieval – Abstraction Model According 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

8 Instance-Based Retrieval - Exemplar Model According 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

9 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? Stereotyping Stereotyping Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models

10 Stereotype Activation and Application Devine (1989) Do we always activate and use stereotypes when judging category members? – Study 1 – Automatic activation of stereotypes – Study 2 – Controlled application of stereotypes

11 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.

12 Study 1 – Automatic Activation of Stereotypes Extent of Black Priming 20%80% Ratings of Donald Hostile Traits Neutral Traits How do these results demonstrate stereotype activation? No difference between high prejudice and low prejudice people. Why is this process considered to be automatic?

13 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.”

14 Study 2 – Controlled Application of Stereotypes High Prejudice Participants BeliefsTraits Positive Negative Low Prejudice Participants BeliefsTraits Positive Negative1.21.0

15 Low PrejHigh Prej Activate 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

16 What is the continuum? How do we process others? categorization individuation attribute-based piece-meal (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) Continuum Model of Impression Formation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)

17 Five important premises related to the model 1. 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

18 Five important premises related to the model 1. 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

19 Is this person good at sports? Does this person like math? Does this person know much about popular music?

20 Does this person like to read? Is he aggressive? Does he support affirmative action programs?

21 Does this person like baking? Is she wild? Does she like small children? Is she offended by nude scenes on television?

22 (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) Continuum Model of Impression Formation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) What is the continuum? How do we process others? categorization individuation attribute-based piece-meal

23 Five important premises related to the model 1. 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

24 Five important premises related to the model 1. 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

25 Five important premises related to the model 1.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

26 Prejudice A negative attitude toward a group. Modern Prejudice Measures vs. Implicit Prejudice Measures

27 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)

28 unpleasant or BLACKS pleasant or WHITES Race Implicit Association Task (IAT)

29 If measured with Modern Racism Scale -- NO If measured with IAT – YES Preference for Whites 70% (- 80%) Little or no preference 17% Preference for Blacks 12% Are We Prejudiced?

30 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 Racism Gaertner & Dovidio (1986)

31  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 Racism Gaertner & Dovidio (1986)

32  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

33 AloneOthers are present Victim Black 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.

34 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

35 Modern Racists (Truly High Prejudice) Aversive Racists Principled Conservatives Truly Low Prejudice Explicit Prejudice Low High Implicit Prejudice Low High Son Hing, Chung-Yan, Zanna, & Hamilton (2008)

36 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

37 Study 1: Discrimination against Blacks  Participants are the Interviewers  Independent variable Race of candidate: White or Black  Dependent variable Immediacy Interview Length Speech Error Rate of Interviewer Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)

38 Study 2: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies  Participants are the Applicants  Independent variable Interviewer: Immediate or Nonimmediate Behaviors  Dependent variable Ratings of applicant performance Applicants’ reciprocate behavior of Interviewer Applicants’ attitude toward Interviewer Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)

39 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 Studies Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)

40 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 Study Correll, Park, Wittenbrink, & Judd (2002)

41 Reaction Latencies White Targets Black Targets White Targets Black Targets Armed Targets (Shoot) Unarmed Targets (Don’t Shoot) Shooter Bias

42 Error Rates White Targets Black Targets Armed Targets (Shoot) (ns) Unarmed Targets (Don’t Shoot) Are these effects intentional? Are participants aware that they are making these types of responses? Shooter Bias

43 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 Colors Discrimination

44 Janelle Jones

45 If Racism Is So Prevalent - Why? Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio (2009)

46 Imagine ….. (forecasters) vs. Actually Happens …. (experiencers)

47 Independent Variables Role Experiencer Forecaster Comment No Comment Moderately Racist Comment Extremely Racist Comment Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism

48 Dependent Variables Affect – How upset? Partner Choice Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism

49 Negative Emotional Distress Affective Responses No CommentModerate Racist Comment Extreme Racist Comment Forecaster Experiencer

50 Percentage Chose White Partner Partner Choice No CommentModerate Racist Comment Extreme Racist Comment Forecaster Experiencer

51 Summary Stereotyping – Cognitive representations – Activation and application – Categorization processes Prejudice – Modern, Implicit Racism, Aversive racism Discrimination – Classic and New studies

52 Next Class Class 12: Altruism and Aggression – Fran Reading material: Chapter 10: Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help? pp Chapter 11: Aggression: Why We Hurt Other People, pp

53 Final Class and Exam Class 13: Course Wrap-Up Chance to ask questions and learn more about social psychology at York. {Reading material: Chapter 9: Interpersonal Attraction: From First Impressions to Close Relationships, pp Not discussed in lecture.} Final Exam Sunday, April 13, :00 pm - 10:00 pm TM TMWest


Download ppt "LECTURE 11 Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination  Administration  Relationships between types of biases  Stereotyping  Prejudice  Break  Discrimination."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google