Post on 13-Jan-2016
transcript
1
Lecture OutlineStereotype Maintenance
Prejudice Defined
Theories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice
Measures of Prejudice
Is Prejudice Subsiding in America?
Explicit v.s. Implicit Responses
Pattern of Dissociation
Internalized Egalitarian Values
2
Stereotype Maintenance
1) Subtyping Model
2) Cognitive BiasesBetter memory for stereotype-consistent information
Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing
3
Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing
Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)
4
Snyder and colleagues
Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias
Example…...
5
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 ask1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..
6
Example questions
Introverted:“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?”
7
Snyder & Colleagues
Results
Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis
8
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.
9
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
10
Zanna (1994)
Purpose:
Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components
Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice
11
Zanna (1994)
Components of prejudice:
Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes
Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs
Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)
12
Zanna (1994)Procedure
1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups:
English Canadian (ingroup)French CanadianNative IndianPakistaniHomosexual
13
Zanna (1994)
Procedure continued
2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)
14
Zanna (1994)
Results
1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05)
2) But, correlations varied by target group…….
15
Zanna (1994)
Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion
Zanna (1994)
Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group
72
16
Result 1: weakest correlation b/t prejudice and components for English Canadians overall
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion73
17
Result 2: strongest correlation b/t prejudice and components for French Canadians overall
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion74
18
Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion75
19
Result 4: prejudice correlated with symbolic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion76
20
Result 5: prejudice correlated with emotion most strongly for Pakistani
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
EC FC NI P H
Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion77
21
Zanna (1994)Conclusions:Prejudice consists of at least three
componentsstereotypic beliefssymbolic beliefsemotion
The components most central to prejudice varies across groups
22
Theories of Prejudice
Two general models of prejudice
1. Realistic Group Conflict Theory
2. Minimal Group Paradigm
23
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Terms
Group: social unit; members interdependent
In-group: group person belongs to
Out-group: group person does not belong to
Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification
24
Realistic Group Conflict TheoryCentral Assumptions
1. People are selfish and out for own gain
2. Incompatible group interests cause intergroup conflict
3. Incompatible group interests cause social psychological processes(e.g., in-group favoritism; stereotyping)
25
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Summary
Competition between groups for scarce resources produces intergroup conflict.
Without such competition, intergroup conflict would fade.
26
Sherif and Colleagues
The Summer Camp Studies
Purpose: understand conflict between groups to identify how intergroup relations can be more positive.
27
Sherif and Colleagues
Three studies set up as summer camp
Created situations that foster group identity, intergroup conflict, and group harmony
28
Sherif and Colleagues
Four stages Spontaneous interpersonal friendships
Group formation
Intergroup conflict
Intergroup harmony
29
Sherif and ColleaguesParticipants
11-12 year old boys who signed up for a camp in Oklahoma
Camp lasted 3 weeks
Boys had similar backgrounds, no behavioral/psychological problems
30
Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships
Studies 1 and 2Boys from whole camp interactedDeveloped friendships naturallyListed their close friendsTwo groups created
1/3 close friends2/3 not close friends
31
Stage 2: Group Formation Studies 1 and 2
Boys developed strong in-group identityinteracted with own group exclusivelyactivities fostered liking
Listed their close friends for 2nd time
95% of listed friends from in-group
32
Stage 2: Group Formation Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave)
Began at group formation stage
Two groups of boys brought to different locations in Robbers Cave
Boys developed strong in-group identityinteracted with own group exclusivelyactivities fostered liking
33
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prize
baseballtouch football tug of wartreasure hunt
Intergroup conflict: name calling stealing flagsfights
34
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict As intergroup conflict increased, so did in-group bias
Bean TossCollected as many beans as they couldPut beans in sack Supposedly shown each boy’s sackEstimated number of beans in each sackKnew group membership only
35
Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss
In reality, same sack of 35 beans shown to each boy
Results: overestimated beans for in-group underestimated beans for out-group
36
Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony
Experimenters tried to reduce intergroup conflict and in-group bias
1. Contact hypothesis: intergroup activities
Contact between group members sufficient
to reduce intergroup conflict (FAILED)
37
Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony
2. Superordinate goals:
Goals that could only be achieved if boys from both groups cooperated
water supply malfunctionedbus broke down
38
Minimal Group Paradigm
Henry Tajfel challenged interpretation of summer camp studies
Argued that:group identification sufficient to instigate
intergroup conflict
competition for scarce resources not necessary
39
Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm:
People assigned to groupsGroups have no history, norms, or valuesMembers have no contactMembership based on trivial criteria
40
Minimal Group Paradigm
Goal of these experiments:
Show that group membership
ALONE produces in-group bias
41
Minimal Group Paradigm
Original Study
14 and 15 year old boys, Bristol EnglandBoys alone and anonymousEach boy estimated dots on screenTold people are over, or underestimators Told which he was
42
Minimal Group Paradigm
Original Study
2nd study on reward/punishmentsUsed over/underestimator designationEach boy at cubicle, aloneCompleted series of payoff matrices where they
allocated points to other boysboys in same or different group
Points tallied at end, awarded to boy who got them
43
Minimal Group Paradigm
Payoff Matrix
Most interesting when boys in different groups because one an in-group member and the other an out-group member of the boy allocating the points…….Intergroup bias can be tested
44
Minimal Group ParadigmPayoff Matrix
#26, one of the:
overestimators
(in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
underestimators
(out-group)
Strategies joint profit : 19:25 (both boys get most they can) in-group profit: 19:25 (in-group gets most he can) maximal difference: 7:1 (largest difference)
45
Minimal Group ParadigmPayoff Matrix
#26, one of the:
overestimators 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
#17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
underestimators
On average, the boys selected 12:11,:This reflects a combined strategy of
maximum in-group profit and fairness
46
Minimal Group Paradigm
Big Point of This Research
In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources
Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias
47
Ways to Measure Prejudice
Theories explain that prejudice arises from competition or group designation
Sparked interest in measuring prejudice
Early measures were self-report questionnaires
48
Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice
Old Fashioned Racism Scale
Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites?
If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?
49
Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice
Modern Racism Scale
Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve
Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights
50
Self-Reported Prejudice
General pattern:
Prejudice is subsiding
51
Explanations
People are less prejudiced now
People are lying
Why would people lie?
52
Social Desirability
People may lie because they do not want to appear prejudiced to others
53
Sigall & Page (1971)
Developed the “bogus pipeline” procedure to detect socially desirable responding
54
Bogus Pipeline
An experimental paradigm in which an experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions
55
Sigall & Page (1971)
Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached
-3
-1
-2
0+1
+2
+3
56
Sigall & Page (1971)
Completed short inventory about self on paperRated African Americans on 22 traits by
turning wheel
-3 (very uncharacteristic)
+3 (very characteristic) -3
-1
-2
0+1
+2
+3
57
Sigall & Page (1971)
Manipulation
Bogus pipeline group: hooked up to machine via electrodestold machine could “read minds” through
physiological arousal
Control group:not hooked up to machine
58
Sigall & Page (1971)
Demonstration of bogus pipeline
Told to “trick” machine by answering differently from inventory responses
Experimenter (who knew actual responses) made machine beep each time they answered differently from inventory
59
Sigall & Page (1971)
Theoretical Prediction: People lie on self-report questionnaires because
of social desirability concerns
Operational Prediction: Negative attributes judged more characteristic of
AA, and positive attributes less characteristic of AA under bogus pipeline condition
60
Negative attributes judged more characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition
Negative Attributes Bogus Pipeline Control
Happy-go-lucky .93 -.13
Ignorant .60 .20
Stupid .13 -1.00
Physically dirty .20 -1.33
Unreliable .27 -.67
Lazy .60 -.73
Aggressive 1.20 .67
61
Positive attributes judged less characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition
Positive AttributesBogus Pipeline Control
Intelligent .00 .47
Ambitious .07 .33
Sensitive .87 1.60
62
Sigall & Page (1971)
Conclusion:
People lie on self-report measures to appear unprejudiced to others.
This fits a social desirability explanation for the pattern of reduced prejudice found by self-report measures, like the old-fashioned and modern racism scales.
63
Explicit and Implicit Prejudice
Sigall & Page raised interest in relationship between measures of explicit and implicit prejudice
Explicit measures: responses easily modified
Implicit measures: responses not easily modified
64
Explicit and Implicit Prejudice
Explicit measures are highly vulnerable to social desirability effects
Implicit measures are not
65
Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000)
Taxonomy of prejudice measures
Controlling Responses
Easy Difficult
Old fashioned racism
Open discrim
ination
Racial slurs
Modern racism
Subtle prejudice scale
Seating distance
Subtle language bias
Eye contact
Non-verbal behaviors
Who-said-w
hat
Fam
ous person task
Implicit association test
Stroop-like task
RT
following prim
ing
Physiological reactions
66
Class ActivityThe IAT is a measure of implicit
prejudice that is widely used.
You were asked to perform the IAT.
Now, for credit, I would like you to describe the task
67
IATThe IAT measures how quickly people
can categorize stimulus words.
Faster = stronger association
IAT responses almost never correlate with explicit responses
68
Dissociation
Definition:
A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures
69
Causes of Dissociation
Social desirability:People may lie on questionnaires
to appear unbiased
This would produce dissociation
70
Causes of Dissociation
Internalized egalitarian values:People may have genuinely
endorsed egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them
This too would produce dissociation
71
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals
72
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings
i.e., prejudice is unconscious
73
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
3. Because internalized egalitarian values are newer associations for most people, they require cognitive resources to access; resources that are not available during the completion of implicit measures
74
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
4. Thus, egalitarian values are only accessible during the completion of explicit measures. During the completion of implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge
75
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Summary: Internalized egalitarian values explains pattern of dissociation because people…....
76
Endorse their egalitarian values on explicit measures because of increased cognitive resources
But………
Endorse ingrained prejudice values on implicit measures because of reduced cognitive resources
77
Difference between IEV and SD
People who have internalized their egalitarian values truly believe in the validity of their explicit responses whereas people responding in an socially desirable manner do not
78
Devine (1989) Study 1
Purpose:
Test whether internalized egalitarian values can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice responses
79
Devine (1989) Study 1
Procedure:
Step 1: Assessed white participants’ prejudice toward African Americans with modern racism scale
80
Devine (1989) Study 1Procedure:
Step 2: Subliminally primed participants with words associated with African American stereotype
Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic, basketball, unemployed
81
Devine (1989) Study 1Procedure:
Step 3: Participants rated Donald. Donald’s behavior could be construed as aggressive
Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent until apt. painted
82
Devine (1989) Study 1
Experimental manipulation:
Percent of primes presented
80% of primes associated with AA20% of primes associated with AA
83
Devine (1989) Study 1
Predictions:
1. Judgments of Donald more hostile in 80% than 20% priming conditions
84
Devine (1989) Study 1Predictions:
2. Low and high prejudice participants will not differ in their judgments of Donald
Primes presented outside of awareness
As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald.
Unconscious prejudice dominates
85
Devine (1989) Study 1
Results:
1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition
2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald
86
Devine (1989) Study 1Conclusion:
1. The more people are primed with a negative stereotype, the bias they show
2. Low and high prejudice people will show similar levels of bias when negative stereotypes are activated outside of their awareness because lows won’t be motivated to access their egalitarian values
87
Devine (1989) Study 2
Procedure:
1. Measured prejudice against AA
2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings about AA on self-report measure
88
Devine (1989) Study 2
Result:
Low prejudice participants reported less prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high prejudiced participants.
89
Devine (1989) Study 2
Conclusions:
A) Low prejudice participants had internalized egalitarian values, and reported those values on explicit measures where cognitive resources were plentiful.
90
Devine (1989) Study 2
Conclusions:
B) High prejudice participants had not internalized egalitarian values, and thus showed prejudice on both explicit and implicit measures.
91
Explicit and implicit prejudice may be dissociated because of:
social desirabilityinternalized egalitarian values