1. Lecture Outline Extra Credit experiment Stereotypes defined
Diagnostic ratio revisited
Origins of stereotypes
Models of stereotype change/maintenance
Prejudice defined

2. “A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a
Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)
A stereotypes is…...
“A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a
group of people”

3. Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Limitation:
Many attributes are perceived as typical of a group and yet are not part of people’s stereotypes

4. Stereotypes include attributes that are perceived as:
TYPICAL
and
DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN GROUPS

5. DR = % of group (with attribute) % of reference (with attribute)
Diagnostic Ratio
DR = % of group (with attribute)
% of reference (with attribute)

6. Diagnostic Ratio
When DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute does not distinguish between groups
attribute not part of stereotype

7. Diagnostic Ratio
When DR substantially > than 1
attribute distinguishes between groups
attribute is stereotypic of group

8. Diagnostic Ratio
When DR substantially < than 1
attribute distinguishes between groups
attribute is counterstereotypic of group

9. McCauley & Stitt (1978) Purpose: 1. Show utility of DR
2. Measure (in)accuracy of stereotype about African Americans

10. McCauley & Stitt (1978) Sampled five groups
Created DR’s based on perceptions of African Americans and Americans
Created criterion DR’s based on census information

11. Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)
Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW
HS (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)
Illegitimate (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)
Unemployed (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)
Victims (1.80) (2.00)
Welfare (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80)
Kids (1.60) (1.40) (1.30) (1.30)
Female head (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)
(Green) DR’s: different from 1 (p < .05); n = 30
Black DR’s not different from 1 (p > .05); n = 5
Underlined DR’s = different from criteria (p < .05); n = 16 76

12. Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)
Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW
HS (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)
Illegitimate (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)
Unemployed (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)
Victims (1.80) (2.00)
Welfare (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40
Kids (1.60) (1.40) (1.30) (1.30)
Female head (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)
Most DR’s different from one (green):
People held stereotype of African Americans 77

13. Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)
Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW
HS (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)
Illegitimate (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)
Unemployed (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)
Victims (1.80) (2.00)
Welfare (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40
Kids (1.60) (1.40) (1.30) (1.30)
Female head (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)
Some DR’s different from criteria [underlined]. Other DR’s not different from criteria [not underlined]: People’s stereotypes were both inaccurate [underlined] and accurate [not underlined] 78

14. Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)
Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW
HS (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)
Illegitimate (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)
Unemployed (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)
Victims (1.80) (2.00)
Welfare (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40
Kids (1.60) (1.40) (1.30) (1.30)
Female head (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)
When DR’s indicated inaccurate stereotype [underlined],
difference was smaller than criteria: People’s stereotypes underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences 79

15. McCauley & Stitt (1978): Summary
People endorsed a stereotype of AA
most DR’s different than 1
AA stereotype was accurate & inaccurate
some DR’s different from criteria (inaccurate)
other DR’s not different from criteria (accurate)
AA stereotype underestimated real difference
when DR different from criteria, it was smaller

16. Origin of Stereotypes: Where do they come from?
Socio-cultural perspective
Kernel of Truth hypothesis
Illusory correlations

17. Socio-Cultural Perspective
Premise: Individuals are socialized into a particular culture
(e.g., media or significant others)

18. Socio-Cultural Perspective
1. People are born into a culture
2. People are rewarded/punished for their
beliefs, values, behaviors
3. People act in accord with norms
4. People internalize norms
5. Internalization perpetuates the norms

19. Socio-Cultural Perspective
Two versions of socio-cultural view
Structuralist-Functionalist
Conflict theory

20. Structuralist-Functionalist Version
A single culture accepted throughout a society
i.e., individuals in a society are similar
in their beliefs, values and behaviors

21. Structuralist-Functionalist Version
Function of stereotypes:
stereotypes communicate expected behavior
stereotypes communicate how different people should be treated

22. Structuralist-Functionalist Version
More evident in more homogeneous
and collectivist societies

23. Conflict Theory Version
Multiple subcultures within society
People accept norms of their subculture

24. Conflict Theory Version
People within a subculture are similar in their beliefs, values, behaviors
People in different subcultures are different in their beliefs, values, behaviors
The more different two subcultures, the greater the conflict in their beliefs, values, behaviors

25. Conflict Theory Version
Function of stereotypes:
stereotypes justify prejudice
incompetence justifies lower pay
laziness justifies poverty

26. Conflict Theory Version
More evident in more
heterogeneous societies

27. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
Premise: Stereotypes are exaggerations that exist in some measure in a group

28. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
1. The larger a real difference between groups, the more likely the attribute will be in the stereotype
Example: Circumscribing and non-circumscribing tribes

29. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
2. Stereotypes become more accurate as contact between groups increases
Example: women/men v.s. African Americans/Whites

30. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
3. Behaviors punished in one group, but not in another, tend to be in a stereotype
Example: nudity and bathroom practices

31. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
4. Similar behaviors that groups perform in different situations tend to be in stereotypes, but connote different valences.
Example……...

32. Kernel of Truth Hypothesis
We are loyal.
We are brave and progressive.
We are thrifty.
They are clannish.
They are aggressive and expansionistic.
They are cheap.

33. Cautionary Statements
Kernel of Truth
Cautionary Statements
Perceived differences are not veridical
Perceived differences are exaggerated
Perceived differences reflect social factors, not genetic differences

34. Illusory Correlations
Definition: People overestimate how strongly two things are related
(e.g., arthritis pain and changes in the weather)

35. People associate a group with an attribute (African Americans & crime)
Illusory correlations & stereotype formation
People associate a group with an attribute (African Americans & crime)
Cognitive biases “corroborate” the perceived association
confirmation biases in hypothesis testing
remember consistent information better

36. Illusory Correlation
People most susceptible to illusory correlations when:
group is relatively small
attribute is rare in population

37. Illusory Correlation Example
African Americans are a minority in the US. Whites are the majority
Being a media superstar is rare
Illusory correlation likely……
More AA (small group) superstars (rare event) than White (large group) superstars (rare event)

38. Illusory Correlation
Negative behavior more rare than positive behavior
Implication:
Negative behavior by minority more memorable and salient than same behavior by majority
Negative behavior becomes part of stereotype of minority

39. Stereotype Change
Consensual stereotypes change over time, across individuals.
Very little known about stereotype change over time, within individuals (see Weber & Crocker, 1983, for an exception)

40. Models of Stereotype Change
Bookkeeping Model
Conversion Model
Subtyping Model
Focus on stereotype-inconsistent information

41. Bookkeeping Model
Stereotype change is incremental
Each instance of inconsistent information modifies the stereotype
Single instance = small change
Accumulation = large change

42. Bookkeeping Model
Implication:
Stereotype change will be similar regardless of whether inconsistent information is concentrated or dispersed. Amount (not dispersion) matters.

43. Conversion Model
Stereotype change is dramatic
Stereotypes change in response to large and salient inconsistent info.
Stereotypes remain unchanged by minor inconsistent information

44. Conversion Model
Implication:
Stereotype change will be greater when inconsistent information is concentrated v.s. dispersed

45. Subtyping Model Stereotypes hierarchically structured
Rare, inconsistent instances lead to creation of subtypes.
Instances regarded as “exceptions”
Stereotype protected from change
Common, inconsistent instances result in stereotype change

46. Subtyping Model
Implication:
Stereotype change will be greater when inconsistent information is dispersed v.s. concentrated

47. Weber & Crocker (1983) Purpose:
Tested the three models of stereotype change

48. Weber & Crocker (1983) Procedure:
Given information about corporate lawyers
Rated each lawyer on stereotypic traits

49. Weber & Crocker (1983) Manipulations: Dispersion of Inconsistent info:
Dispersed across all members
Concentrated in 1/3 of members
Group size:
6 members v.s. 30 members
Amount of inconsistent info higher in larger group

50. Weber & Crocker (1983) Predictions
Dispersion has no effect on stereotype change, but amount does (bookkeeping)
Stereotype change greater when inconsistent info concentrated (conversion)
Stereotype change greater when when inconsistent info dispersed (subtyping)

51. Operationalization of Stereotype Change
Weber & Crocker (1983)
Operationalization of Stereotype Change
More change = lower stereotypic judgments
Less change = higher stereotypic judgments

52. Weber & Crocker (1983) Effect of Dispersion
Stereotypic Judgments
(lower = more change)
Which stereotype change model does this result support?
Subtyping Model

53. Weber & Crocker (1983) Effect of Group Size
Stereotypic Judgments
(lower = more change)
Which stereotype change model does this result support?
Bookkeeping Model

54. Weber & Crocker (1983) Supported subtyping model:
stereotype change > dispersed
Supported bookkeeping model:
stereotype change > large group

55. Stereotype Maintenance
Subtyping Model
Subtypes help to maintain stereotype
Cognitive Biases
Better memory for stereotype-consistent information
Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing

56. Cognitive Biases
Cognitive biases maintain stereotype by increasing confidence in the stereotype’s accuracy

57. Cohen (1981)
96 participants watched video of a librarian or waitress and her husband
Some attributes fit stereotype of librarian or waitresses (see next slide for examples), others did not
Recalled as many of the woman’s attributes as they could

58. Example of woman’s attributes
Half fit stereotype of librarians
wore glasses
ate roast beef
Half fit stereotype of waitresses
affectionate with husband
ate hamburger

59. Cohen (1981)
% recalled correctly
Conclusion: Better recall for stereotype-consistent information

60. Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing
Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)

61. Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias
Snyder and colleagues
Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias
Example…...

62. 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 ask
1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..

63. Example questions Introverted: Extroverted:
“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?”

64. Snyder & Colleagues Results
Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis

65. 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.

66. 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

67. Zanna (1994)
Purpose:
Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components
Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice

68. Components of prejudice:
Zanna (1994)
Components of prejudice:
Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes
Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs
Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

69. Zanna (1994)
Procedure
1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups:
English Canadian (ingroup)
French Canadian
Native Indian
Pakistani
Homosexual

70. Zanna (1994) Procedure continued
2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)

71. Zanna (1994)
Results
1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05)
2) But, correlations varied by target group…….

72. Zanna (1994) Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice
Zanna (1994) Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group 72

73. Result 1: weakest correlation b/t prejudice and components for English Canadians overall73

74. Result 2: strongest correlation b/t prejudice and components for French Canadians overall74

75. Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual 75

76. Result 4: prejudice correlated with symbolic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian76

77. Result 5: prejudice correlated with emotion most strongly for Pakistani77

78. Zanna (1994)
Conclusions:
Prejudice consists of at least three components
stereotypic beliefs
symbolic beliefs
emotion
The components most central to prejudice varies across groups