1. Lecture Outline Types of stereotypes Assumptions of stereotypes Definition of stereotypes Measurement of stereotypes Stereotypes: inaccurate, exaggerated, and resistant to change?

2. Stereotypes nWorking definition: Generalized beliefs about a social group attributes behaviors social roles (nurturing) (homemakers) (take care of children)

3. Types of Stereotypes nCultural stereotypes Beliefs about a group that are endorsed by society at large

4. Cultural Stereotypes nAcross 1200 commercials women were portrayed most often as…. l Domestics l Dependent on men l Submissive l Sex objects l Stupid l Superwomen

5. Types of Stereotypes nPersonal (individual) stereotypes One person’s beliefs about a group

6. Cultural & Personal Stereotypes nSometimes they overlap: Society portrays New Yorkers as loud, and Mary thinks they are loud too nSometimes they don’t overlap: Society portrays Librarians as spinsters, but Mary doesn’t think they are

7. Consensual Stereotypes Definition: Extent to which people agree on the content of a stereotype High consensus = high agreement

8. Consensual Stereotypes Personal stereotypes nSometimes consensual: (many people may believe that New Yorkers are loud) nSometimes not consensual: (Mary believes lawyers are short, but nobody else does

9. Assumptions of Stereotypes Stereotypes have been characterized in three ways 1. Inaccurate 2. Exaggerations 3. Resistant to change

10. Stereotype Inaccuracy Stereotypes are inaccurate when they are at odds with empirical evidence Armenian Study: La Pierre (1936) Purpose: Examine whether ethnic stereotypes of Armenians are inaccurate

11. Armenian Study La Pierre (1936) Armenian stereotype: l dishonest l lying l deceitful Procedure: l Sampled credit ratings l Compared Armenian & non-Armenians

12. Armenian Study La Pierre (1936) Prediction: If Armenians really are dishonest, lying, and deceitful, then they should have worse credit ratings than non- Armenians

13. Armenian Study La Pierre (1936) Percent of good, fair and bad credit risk

14. Armenian Study La Pierre (1936) Armenian stereotype did NOT correspond to empirical evidence The stereotype was inaccurate

15. Stereotype are Exaggerations Stereotypes are exaggerations when differences between groups are thought to be larger than they really are

16. Stereotypes are Exaggerated nPerceived Heights of Men and Women Men = 5’11 Women = 5’5 (Diff = 6 in.) nActual Heights of Men and Women Men = 5’10 Women = 5’6 (Diff = 4 in.) nPerceived differences are exaggerated

17. Stereotypes Resist Change Stereotypes remain stable over time and across generations

18. Are stereotypes inherently inaccurate, always exaggerated, and highly resistant to change? No. Stereotypes have been stereotyped!!

19. Definitions of Stereotypes For most of the 20th Century researchers did not have a good, clear definition of the term “stereotype”

20. Definitions of Stereotypes Sampled the literature to identify how stereotypes were defined. This is what they found……….

21. Definitions of Stereotypes Stereotypes had been defined in six different ways!!

22. 1. Generalized Beliefs Stereotyping may be defined as the tendency to attribute generalized and simplified characteristics to groups of people in the form of verbal labels, and to act towards the members of those groups in terms of those labels (Vinacke, 1949, p. 265).

23. 2. Categories or Concepts A stereotype is commonly thought of as involving a categorical response--i.e., membership is sufficient to evoke the judgment that the stimulus person possesses all of the attributes belonging to that category (Secord, 1959, p. 309).

24. 3. Incorrectly Learned Unlike other generalizations stereotypes are based not on an inductive collection of data, but on hearsay, rumor, and anecdotes--in short, on evidence which is insufficient to justify the generalization (Klineberg, 1951 p. 505).

25. 4. Exaggerations A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category (Allport, 1958, p. 187).

26. 5. Inaccurate A stereotype is a fixed impression, which conforms very little to the fact it pretends to represent, and results from our defining first and observing second (Katz and Braly, 1935, p. 181).

27. 6. Rigid and Resistant to Change Stereotypy...the disposition to think in rigid categories (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).

28. YIKES! What sense can one make of all that? Field lacking formal, consistent and clear definition of the term “stereotype”

29. Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Offered A Formal Definition “A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people”

30. Ashmore & Del Boca (1981) Limitation: Lots of attributes describe members of social groups, but they are not part of the stereotype

31. WOMEN According to sex stereotypes, women are….... nurturing take care of children homemakers But women also…….. have two arms eat food have friends

32. Question: Why aren’t those attributes in the stereotype of women?

33. Answer: Because they don’t distinguish women from other groups. We will return to this point, but most researchers use Ashmore & Del Boca’s definition.

34. Measurement of Stereotypes Three common procedures: 1. Adjective checklist 2. Rating scale 3. Free responses

35. Adjective Checklists Participants are given list of predetermined attributes and select those that are most typical of group

36. 1st way that stereotypes were measured Princeton Trilogy (Study 1) Katz and Braly (1933) nSampled 100 Princeton University students (all male, all white) nUsed adjective checklist procedure to identify stereotypes of 10 ethnic and national groups Adjective Checklists

37. Princeton Trilogy (Study 1) Katz and Braly (1933) The 10 groups GermansJews ItaliansAmericans African AmericansChinese IrishJapanese EnglishTurks

38. Princeton Trilogy (Study 1) Katz and Braly (1933) Procedure: 1. Participants given list of 84 traits 2. Participants selected the 5 that were most typical of each group (5 traits per group)

39. Princeton Trilogy (Study 1) Katz and Braly (1933) How content was assessed: The 10 traits that were selected most often

40. Results: Content African Americans Percent Trait endorsed Superstitious84% Lazy75% Happy-go-lucky38% Ignorant38% Musical26% Jews Percent Trait endorsed Shrewd79% Mercenary49% Industrious48% Grasping34% Intelligent29%

41. Results: Content Irish Percent Trait endorsed Pugnacious45% Quick tempered39% Witty38% Honest32% Very religious29% Americans Percent Trait endorsed Industrious49% Intelligent48% Materialistic33% Ambitious33% Progressive27%

42. Results: Content Irish Percent Trait endorsed Pugnacious45% Quick tempered39% Witty38% Honest32% Very religious29% Americans Percent Trait endorsed Industrious49% Intelligent48% Materialistic33% Ambitious33% Progressive27%

43. Results: Content Italians Percent Trait endorsed Artistic53% Impulsive44% Passionate 37% Quick tempered35% Musical30% Japanese Percent Trait endorsed Intelligent48% Industrious46% Progressive26% Shrewd23% Sly21%

44. How consensus was assessed: Distinctiveness scores: Number of traits needed to account for 50% of responses lower scores = more consensus

45. Results: Consensus Group Distinctiveness Score African Americans 4.6 (most consensual) Germans5.0 Jews5.5 Italians6.9 English7.0 Irish8.5 Americans8.8 Japanese10.9 Chinese 12.0 Turks 15.9 (least consensual)

46. Adjective Checklists Benefits: l Can include a lot of attributes l Easy to complete Drawback: l May omit central traits from list l List may become outdated

47. Rating Scales Participants given list of pre-determined attributes and asked to rate how much each describes the group How warm-hearted are gay men? 12345 not at all very

48. Rating Scales Benefits: l Can include a lot of attributes l Easy to complete Drawback: l May omit central traits from list l List may become outdated

49. Rating Scales One distinct advantage over Adjective Checklists: More specific measurement of the stereotype -- Responses are not “all or none”

50. Rating Scales Measurement specificity important because……. Researchers can assess “stereotype strength”

51. Rating Scales Definition: Stereotype Strength Extent to which the attributes in a stereotype are thought to characterize the group Example……...

52. Example: Stereotype Strength Smithtown residents nvery upper class nvery snobbish nvery reclusive Jonestown residents nslightly upper class nslightly snobbish nslightly reclusive

53. Stereotype Strength nThe content of the stereotypes are the same…………..BUT nSmithtown stereotype is stronger VERY characteristic of Smithtown SLIGHTLY characteristic of Jonestown

54. Content vs. Strength nStereotype content: attributes contained in a stereotype nStereotype strength: extent to which these attributes are thought to characterize a group

55. Stereotype Strength Adjective Checklists cannot measure a stereotype’s strength Rating scales can measure a stereotype’s strength

56. Free Responses Participants asked to list the attributes that describe a social group Example Please list those attributes that you believe describe Germans

57. Free Responses Benefits: l Measures central traits l Don’t ever become outdated Drawbacks: l Incomplete responding l May not measure weakly endorsed attributes

58. Distinguishing Features nAdjective checklists, rating scales, and free responses may indirectly assess the attributes that distinguish between groups nOnly one measure does so directly

59. Diagnostic Ratio Participants given a list of attributes and asked to make two percentage estimates 1. % of group that has each attribute 2. % of reference group that has each attribute

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

61. Diagnostic Ratio When DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute does not distinguish between groups Example Jon believes that…… 99% of women have arms 99% of Americans have arms DR = 99.9/99.9 =1

62. Diagnostic Ratio When DR substantially greater than 1, attribute: sdistinguishes between groups sis stereotypic Example: Jon believes that……. 35% of women are nurturing 20% of Americans are nurturing DR = 35/20 = 1.75

63. Diagnostic Ratio When DR substantially less than 1, attribute: sdistinguishes between groups sis counterstereotypic Example: Jon believes that……. 10% of women are aggressive 25% of Americans are aggressive DR = 10/25 =.40

64. Diagnostic Ratio So, according to the DR measure, a stereotype is defined…. As set of beliefs about a group that distinguish that group from other groups in either a stereotypic way (DR > 1) or a counterstereotypic way (DR < 1).

65. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Purpose: 1. Show utility of DR 2. Assess whether the stereotype of African Americans is inaccurate and exaggerated.

66. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Participants: Sampled five groups l High school students l College students l Union members l Church Choir l Social work students

67. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Procedure: Step 1: Participants estimated % of African Americans and % of Americans that had 7 attributes DR =% of African American (with attribute) % of Americans (with attribute)

68. 7 Characteristics % completed HS % that are illegitimate % that were unemployed last month % who have been victims of crimes % on welfare % w/4 or more children % w/female heads of households

69. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Procedure (continued): Step 2: Obtained census information to serve as criteria for accuracy Step 3: Transformed census information into DR scores

70. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Main Findings 1. Content: People held stereotype of African Americans

71. Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65.68.73.67.68.60 Illegitimate 3.10 1.80 1.70 2.10 1.90 2.30 Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30 Victims 1.50.83 1.80 2.00 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 2.30 1.90 1.60 1.80 1.40 Kids 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.30 Female head 2.80 1.70 1.90 1.70 1.50 1.70 Green (italics): DR different from 1 (p <.05) Black (no italics): DR not different from 1 (p >.05) Most DR’s different from one (green): People held stereotype of African Americans

72. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) Main Findings 2. (In)accuracy: African American stereotype both accurate and inaccurate

73. Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study No underline = DR not different from criteria (p >.05) Underline = DR different from criteria (p <.05) Some DRs different from criteria (underlined), Other DRs not different from criteria (not underlined): African American stereotype was both inaccurate (underlined) and accurate (not underlined) AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65.68.73.67.68.60 Illegitimate 3.10 1.80 1.70 2.10 1.90 2.30 Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30 Victims 1.50.83 1.80 2.00 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 2.30 1.90 1.60 1.80 1.40 Kids 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.30 Female head 2.80 1.70 1.90 1.70 1.50 1.70

74. Diagnostic Ratio Study McCauley & Stitt (1978) 3. Exaggeration/Underestimation: Stereotypic attributes underestimated real differences

75. Results: Diagnostic Ratio Study Underline = DR different from criteria (p <.05) No underline = DR not different from criteria (p >.05) When DRs different from criteria (underlined), difference was smaller than criteria: African American stereotype underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences AttributeCriteria HS College Union Choir SW HS.65.68.73.67.68.60 Illegitimate 3.10 1.80 1.70 2.10 1.90 2.30 Unemployed 1.90 1.90 1.60 1.80 2.60 2.30 Victims 1.50.83 1.80 2.00 1.50 2.30 Welfare 4.60 2.30 1.90 1.60 1.80 1.40 Kids 1.90 1.60 1.40 1.60 1.30 1.30 Female head 2.80 1.70 1.90 1.70 1.50 1.70

76. Princeton Trilogy nStudy 1 (Katz & Braly, 1933) nStudy 2 (Gilbert, 1951) nStudy 3 (Karlins et al., 1969) Recent Replication/Extension nMadon et al. (2001)

77. Princeton Trilogy Limitation of the Princeton trilogy: l Never updated the attribute list Problem because…… Outdated attribute list may omit current beliefs and underestimate change by leading people to endorse old, and therefore, similar stereotypes

78. Princeton Trilogy Replication Madon et al. (2001) Recent Replication: Study 1: replicated Princeton trilogy Study 2: updated the attribute list Study 3: assessed changes in favorableness

79. Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1 Madon et al. (2001) Procedure: 1. Given original attribute list 2. For each group, selected the five most typical

80. Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1 Madon et al. (2001) Results: Content: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly This is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

81. Results: Consensus: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly This too is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 1 Madon et al. (2001)

82. Outdated Attribute List Study 1 showed little change Could this be due to an outdated attribute list? Study 2 tested this by updating the attribute list

83. Procedure: 1. Updated original attribute list w/322 new attributes (total = 406) 2. Rated extent to which each attribute described the groups Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2 Madon et al. (2001)

84. Results Content: 9 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish didn’t change Consensus: 7 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish, Jewish, Italian did not change Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2 Madon et al. (2001)

85. These results are NOT consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 2 Madon et al. (2001)

86. Purpose: Examine whether the stereotypes have changed in favorableness Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3 Madon et al. (2001)

87. Procedure: Participants rated the favorableness of the 1933, 1951, 1969 and 1990s stereotypes Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3 Madon et al. (2001)

88. Results More Favorable Less Favorable African AmericanAmerican ChineseEnglish JapaneseGerman Turkish Italian Irish Jewish Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3 Madon et al. (2001)

89. Changes in favorableness do NOT support idea that stereotypes are resistant to change Princeton Trilogy Replication: Study 3 Madon et al. (2001)

90. Stereotypes are not inherently inaccurate (Diagnostic Ratio Study: McCauley & Stitt, 1978 ) Stereotypes are not always exaggerated (Diagnostic Ratio Study: McCauley & Stitt, 1978 ) Stereotypes are not resistant to change (Princeton Trilogy Replication: Madon et al., 2001)

91. Why Study Stereotypes? Stereotypes may create social problems One way they can do this is through self-fulfilling prophecies

92. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Definition: Self-fulfilling prophecies are false beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment

93. Three steps to a SFP: 1. Perceiver holds false belief about target 2. Perceiver treats target in manner consistent with false belief 3. Target responds to this treatment in such a way as to confirm the originally false belief

94. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies are not Perceptual Biases Perceptual biases: When a perceiver believes that a false belief has come true, when in fact it has not

95. Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Do Not Reflect Predictive Accuracy Predictive Accuracy: When a perceiver correctly predicts a target’s future behavior, but did not cause that behavior to occur (I predict Jazz will win, and they do)

96. Stereotypes & Self- Fulfilling Prophecies Merton (1948) African Americans thought to be strike breakers l African Americans barred from unions l Had few job opportunities l Took any work that came along l Took strikers jobs l Confirmed stereotype

97. Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Purpose: Examine whether the attractiveness stereotype is self-fulfilling Stereotype is that attractive people have all sorts of good attributes (e.g., intelligent, friendly, sociable)

98. Participants: l 51 men and 51 women l men and women paired off l never saw one another Men = perceivers Women = targets Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

99. Interactions w/o nonverbal behavior l Biographical questionnaire for partner l Photo of male l Male got photo of his female partner l Male rated his partner on traits l Conversed over telephone (tape made) l Male rated his partner again Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978) Procedure:

100. Manipulation: nAttractive partner nUnattractive partner Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

101. l Judges listened to conversation l Judges rated male’s behavior l Judges rated female’s behavior Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

102. Results: l Males judged warmer and nicer in attractive condition l Females judged warmer and friendlier in attractive condition Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

103. Only possible cause of differences in behavior after conversation was due to the treatment they received…………... Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

104. Specifically……. The men were very warm and nice to the “beautiful” women The “beautiful” women responded in kind. Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

105. The men were not warm and not nice to the “unattractive” women The “unattractive” women responded in kind. Attractiveness Study Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)