1. Social Psychology Pp 415-435 Elliot Aronson Timothy D. Wilson
6th edition
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University

2. Prejudice Defined Prejudice is an attitude...
Attitudes are made up of three components:
affective or emotional component, representing both the type of emotion linked with the attitude (e.g., anger, warmth) and the extremity of the attitude (e.g., mild uneasiness, outright hostility),
cognitive component, involving the beliefs or thoughts (cognitions) that make up the attitude,
behavioral component, relating to one’s actions—people don’t simply hold attitudes; they usually act on them as well.

3. Prejudice Defined
Prejudice refers to the general attitude structure and its affective (emotional) component.
While prejudice can involve either positive or negative affect, social psychologists (and people in general) use the word prejudice primarily when referring to negative attitudes about others.
For example, you could be prejudiced against Texans or prejudiced in favor of Texans. In one case, your emotional reaction is negative; when a person is introduced to you as “This is Bob from Texas,” you will expect him to act in particular ways that you associate with “those obnoxious Texans.” Conversely, if your emotional reaction is positive, you will be delighted to meet another one of “those wonderful, uninhibited Texans,” and you’ll expect Bob to demonstrate many positive qualities, such as warmth and friendliness.

4. Source of image: www.clipart.com
Prejudice Defined
Prejudice refers to the general attitude structure and its affective (emotional) component.
While prejudice can involve either positive or negative affect, social psychologists (and people in general) use the word prejudice primarily when referring to negative attitudes about others.
Prejudice
A hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group, based solely on their membership in that group.
For example, when we say that someone is prejudiced against blacks, we mean that he or she is primed to behave coolly or with hostility toward blacks and that he or she feels that all blacks are pretty much the same. Thus the characteristics this individual assigns to blacks are negative and applied to the group as a whole. The individual traits or behaviors of the individual target of prejudice will either go unnoticed or be dismissed.
Source of image:

5. Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component
The distinguished journalist Walter Lippmann (1922), who was the first to introduce the term stereotype, described the distinction between the world out there and stereotypes—“the little pictures we carry around inside our heads.”
Within a given culture, these pictures tend to be remarkably similar.
For example, we would be surprised if your image of the high school cheerleader was anything but bouncy, peppy, pretty, nonintellectual, and (of course!) female. We would also be surprised if the Jewish doctor or the New York cab driver in your head was female—or if the black musician was playing classical music.

6. Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component
A generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members.
Once formed, stereotypes are resistant to change on the basis of new information.
Source of image:

7. Stereotypes: The Cognitive Component
Stereotyping is a cognitive process, not an emotional one.
Stereotyping does not necessarily lead to intentional acts of abuse.
Often stereotyping is merely a technique we use to simplify how we look at the world—and we all do it to some extent.
For example, Gordon Allport (1954) described stereotyping as “the law of least effort.” According to Allport, the world is just too complicated for us to have a highly differentiated attitude about everything. Instead, we maximize our cognitive time and energy by developing elegant, accurate attitudes about some topics while relying on simple, sketchy beliefs for others.

8. Discrimination: The Behavioral Component
An unjustified negative or harmful action toward the members of a group simply because of their membership in that group
If you are a fourth-grade math teacher and you have the stereotypical belief that little girls are hopeless at math, you might be less likely to spend as much time in the classroom coaching a girl than coaching a boy. If you are a police officer and you have the stereotypical belief that African Americans are more violent than whites, this might affect your behavior toward a specific black man you are trying to arrest.

9. What Causes Prejudice?
NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE WHETHER OR NOT PREJUDICE IS PART OF OUR BIOLOGICAL MAKEUP. PREJUDICE MIGHT BE BUILT IN—PART OF OUR BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL MECHANISM INDUCING US TO FAVOR OUR OWN FAMILY, TRIBE, OR RACE AND TO EXPRESS HOSTILITY TOWARD OUTSIDERS. CONVERSELY, IT IS ALSO CONCEIVABLE THAT HUMANS ARE NATURALLY INCLINED TO BE FRIENDLY, OPEN AND COOPERATIVE. IF THIS WERE THE CASE, PREJUDICE WOULD NOT COME NATURALLY. RATHER, THE CULTURE (PARENTS, COMMUNITY, THE MEDIA) MIGHT INTENTIONALLY OR UNINTENTIONALLY, INSTRUCT US TO ASSIGN NEGATIVE QUALITIES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM US.

10. As a broad-based and powerful attitude, prejudice has many causes
As a broad-based and powerful attitude, prejudice has many causes. Four aspects of social life that bring about prejudice are:
The way we think: Social Cognition
How we assign meaning: Attributional Biases
Prejudice and Economic Competition
The way we conform: Normative Rules
Prejudice is enabled by the human tendency to organize people into in-groups and out-groups

11. The Way We Think: Social Cognition
Our first explanation for what causes prejudice is that it is the inevitable byproduct of the way we process and organize information.
Our tendency to categorize and group information, to form schemas and use them to interpret new or unusual information, to rely on potentially inaccurate heuristics (shortcuts in mental reasoning), and to depend on what are often faulty memory processes—all of these aspects of social cognition can lead us to form negative stereotypes and to apply them in a discriminatory way.

12. Social Categorization: Us versus Them
The first step in prejudice is the creation of groups- putting some people into one group based on certain characteristics and others into groups based on their different characteristics
This kind of categorization is the underlying theme of human social cognition
This, social categorization is both useful and necessary; however, this simple cognitive process has profound implications
(BREWER & BROWN, 1998; ROSCH & LLOYD, 1978; TAYLOR, 1981; WILDER, 1986)
FOR EXAMPLE, WE MAKE SENSE OUT OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD BY GROUPING ANIMALS AND PLANTS INTO TAXONOMIES BASED ON THEIR PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS; SIMILARLY, WE MAKE SENSE OUT OF OUR SOCIAL WORLD BY GROUPING PEOPLE ACCORDING TO OTHER CHARACTERISTICS, INCLUDING GENDER, NATIONALITY, ETHNICITY, AND SO ON. WHEN WE ENCOUNTER PEOPLE WITH THESE CHARACTERISTICS, WE RELY ON OUR PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT PEOPLE WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS HAVE BEEN LIKE IN THE PAST TO HELP US DETERMINE HOW TO REACT TO SOMEONE ELSE WITH THE SAME CHARACTERISTICS (ANDERSEN & KLATZKY, 1987).

13. Social Categorization: Us versus Them
When the feeling of “us versus them” becomes intense, group polarization occurs (McDoom, 2012)
Decisions and opinions of people in a group become more extreme than their actual, privately held beliefs
The in-group can do no wrong and the out-group can do no right

14. Social Categorization: Us versus Them
For example, in Jane Elliot’s third-grade classroom, children grouped according to eye color began to act differently based on that social categorization.
Blue-eyed children, the superior group, stuck together and actively promoted and used their higher status and power in the classroom.
They formed an in-group, defined as the group with which an individual identifies.
The blue-eyed kids saw the brown-eyed ones as outsiders—different and inferior.
To the blue-eyed children, the brown-eyed kids were the out-group, the group with which the individual does not identify.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.

15. In-Group Bias In-Group Bias
Positive feelings and special treatment for people we have defined as being part of our in-group and negative feelings and unfair treatment for others simply because we have defined them as being in the out-group.

16. In-Group Bias The major underlying motive is self-esteem:
Individuals seek to enhance their self-esteem by identifying with specific social groups.
Self-esteem will be enhanced only if the individual sees these groups as superior to other groups.
Thus for members of the Ku Klux Klan, it is not enough to believe that the races should be kept separate; they must convince themselves of the supremacy of the white race in order to feel good about themselves.

17. In-Group Bias
T o get at the pure, unvarnished mechanisms behind this phenomenon, researchers have created entities that they refer to as minimal groups.
In these experiments, complete strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable.
For example, in one experiment, participants watched a coin toss that randomly assigned them to either group X or group W.
(Tajfel, 1982a; Tajfel & Billig, 1974; Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
In another experiment, participants were first asked to express their opinions about artists they had never heard of and were then randomly assigned to a group that appreciated either the “Klee style” or the “Kandinsky style,” ostensibly due to their picture preferences.

18. In-Group Bias
The striking thing about this research is that despite the fact that the participants were strangers before the experiment and didn’t interact during it, they behaved as if those who shared the same meaningless label were their dear friends or close kin.
They liked the members of their own group better.
They rated the members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities and to have done better work than out-group members.
Most striking, participants allocated more rewards to those who shared their label.
(Brewer, 1979; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992; Wilder, 1981)

19. Minimal Group Activity
Compared to overestimators, underestimators considered themselves to be more
Kind
Friendly
Honest

20. Minimal Group Activity
Compared to underestimators, overestimators considered themselves to be more:
Thoughtful
Intelligent
Dependable

21. Out-Group Homogeneity
The belief that “they are all alike”
In-Group members tend to perceive those in the out-group as more similar to each other (homogeneous) than they really are as well as more homogeneous than the in-group members are
(LINVILLE, FISCHER, & SALOVEY, 1989; QUATTRONE, 1986)
DOES YOUR COLLEGE HAVE A TRADITIONAL RIVAL, WHETHER IN ATHLETICS OR ACADEMICS? IF SO, AS AN IN-GROUP MEMBER, YOU PROBABLY VALUE YOUR INSTITUTION MORE HIGHLY THAN THIS RIVAL (THEREBY RAISING AND PROTECTING YOUR SELF-ESTEEM), AND YOU PROBABLY PERCEIVE STUDENTS AT THIS RIVAL SCHOOL TO BE MORE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER (E.G., AS A GIVEN TYPE) THAN YOU PERCEIVE STUDENTS AT YOUR OWN COLLEGE TO BE.

22. The Failure of Logic
Even people who are usually sensible become relatively immune to rational, logical arguments when it comes to their prejudice but why is this so?

23. The Failure of Logic
It is primarily the emotional aspect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person so hard to agree with... logical arguments are not as effective in countering emotions
As discussed in earlier chapters, an attitude tends to organize the way we process relevant information about the targets of that attitude.
This presents difficulties for the person trying to reduce a friend’s prejudice. None of us is a 100 percent reliable accountant when it comes to processing social information we care about. The human mind simply does not tally events objectively. Accordingly, individuals who hold specific opinions (or schemas) about certain groups will process information about those groups differently from the way they process information about other groups.

24. The Failure of Logic
Specifically , information consistent with their notion about these target groups will be:
Given more attention
Rehearsed (or recalled) more often, and
Therefore remembered better than information that contradicts these notions.
(Bodenhausen, 1988; Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; O’Sullivan & Durso, 1984; Wyer, 1988)
These are the familiar effects of schematic processing that we discussed in Chapter 4. Applying these effects to the topic of prejudice, we can see that whenever a member of a group behaves as we expect, the behavior confirms and even strengthens our stereotype. Thus stereotypes become relatively impervious to change; after all, proof that they are accurate is always out there—when our beliefs guide us to see it.

25. The Persistence of Stereotypes
Stereotypes reflect cultural beliefs
Even if we don’t believe these stereotypes, we can easily recognize them as common beliefs held by others
FOR INSTANCE, IN A SERIES OF STUDIES CONDUCTED AT PRINCETON UNIVERSITY OVER A SPAN OF THIRTY-SIX YEARS (1933–1969), STUDENTS WERE ASKED TO ASSIGN TRAITS TO MEMBERS OF VARIOUS ETHNIC AND NATIONAL GROUPS (GILBERT, 1951; KARLINS, COFFMAN, & WALTERS, 1969; KATZ & BRALY, 1933). THE PARTICIPANTS COULD DO SO EASILY, AND TO A LARGE EXTENT THEY AGREED WITH EACH OTHER. THEY KNEW THE STEREOTYPES, EVEN FOR GROUPS ABOUT WHOM THEY HAD LITTLE REAL KNOWLEDGE, SUCH AS TURKS. TABLE 13.1 SHOWS SOME OF THE RESULTS OF THESE STUDIES. NOTE HOW NEGATIVE THE EARLY STEREOTYPES WERE IN 1933 AND HOW THEY BECAME SOMEWHAT LESS NEGATIVE OVER TIME. WHAT IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING ABOUT THESE STUDIES IS THAT PARTICIPANTS IN 1951 BEGAN TO VOICE DISCOMFORT WITH THE TASK (DISCOMFORT THAT DIDN’T EXIST IN 1933). BY 1969, MANY PARTICIPANTS NOT ONLY FELT DISCOMFORT BUT SEEMED RELUCTANT TO ADMIT THAT THESE STEREOTYPES EVEN EXISTED BECAUSE THEY DID NOT BELIEVE THE STEREOTYPES THEMSELVES (KARLINS ET AL., 1969). A QUARTER OF A CENTURY LATER, PATRICIA DEVINE AND ANDREW ELLIOT (1995) SHOWED THAT THE STEREOTYPES WERE NOT REALLY FADING AT ALL; VIRTUALLY ALL THE PARTICIPANTS WERE FULLY AWARE OF THE NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, WHETHER THEY BELIEVED THEM PERSONALLY OR NOT.

26. Automatic and Controlled Processing of Stereotypes
An automatic process is one over which we have no control.
Stereotypes are automatically triggered under certain conditions—they just pop into one’s mind.
Since the process is automatic, you can’t control it or stop it from occurring.
However, for people who are not deeply prejudiced, their control processes can suppress or override these stereotypes.
How does this activation process work? Patricia Devine and her colleagues argue that members of society share an archive of accessible stereotypes, even if they do not believe them. Devine differentiates between the automatic processing of information and the controlled processing of information (Devine, 1989a; Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, and Vance, 2002; Zuwerink, Montieth, Devine, & Cook, 1996).

27. The Justification-Suppression Model of Prejudice
According to Crandall and Eschleman’s (2003) model, most people struggle between their urge to express prejudice and need to maintain positive self-concept (as a non-bigot).
However, it requires energy to suppress prejudiced impulses.
Because people are programmed to avoid the constant expenditure of energy, we seek information that can convince us there is a valid justification for holding a negative attitude toward a particular out-group.
Once we find a valid justification for disliking this group, we can act against them and still feel as though we are not bigots—thus avoiding cognitive dissonance.
As Crandall & Eshleman put it, “Justification undoes suppression, it provides cover, and it protects a sense of egalitarianism and a non-prejudiced self-image” (2003, p: 425). For example, suppose you dislike homosexuals—and are inclined to deny them the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy. But you are suppressing those feelings and actions because you want to preserve your self-image as a fair-minded, non-bigoted person. How might you avoid the expenditure of all that energy suppressing your impulse? As a justification for the expression of anti-homosexual thoughts and feelings, many people have used the bible. Through the lens of a particular reading of the Bible, an anti-gay stance can be defended as fighting for “family values” rather than against gays and lesbians. This could help you preserve your self-image as a fair-minded person despite supporting actions that you might otherwise consider to be unfair (see (See Myers & Scanzoni, 2006).

28. The Illusory Correlation
When we expect two things to be related, we fool ourselves into believing that they are actually unrelated.
(FIEDLER, 2000; GARCIA-MARQUES & HAMILTON, 1996; SHAVITT, SANBONMATSU, SMITTIPATANA, & POSAVAC, 1999)

29. Can We Change Stereotypical Beliefs?
Researchers have found that when people are presented with an example or two that seems to refute their existing stereotype, most do not change their general belief.
Indeed, in one experiment, some people presented with disconfirming evidence actually strengthened stereotypical belief because the disconfirming evidence challenged them to come up with additional reasons for holding on to that belief.
(Kunda & Oleson, 1997)

30. The End