Stereotypes and Social Categorization

PSY203S

Forget what you know… The word “stereotype” is thrown around a lot

It is all wrong – forget everything It is a very specific term in psychology – forget all the

Oprahisms

What the evidence shows (and you will learn): Stereotypes are a good thing Stereotypes need not lead to prejudice We all stereotype everyone else all the time, including

ourselves Stereotyping is as much a part of being human as

forgetting where you left your keys

What do we know about other groups?

Trait

Hardworking

Intelligent

Cultured

Cruel

Oppresive

Colour conscious

Indians

61%

86%

74%

11%

24%

47%

Afrikaners

57%

45%

43%

56%

73%

88%

Jews

68%

85%

79%

10%

21%

42%

Coloureds

85%

84%

80%

11%

17%

58%

Coloured people’s agreement with traits for different groups (Edelstein, 1974)

Interesting….

High agreements on a few traits for each group They “knew” that for sure about them This is not simply guessing! (that would be 50%) The knowledge is highly shared, and specific to a particular

group Generalized knowledge (no / few exceptions)

Where does this knowledge come from? Is it from experience? Is this type of knowledge correct?

The ‘Kernel of Truth’

Seems to begin with some basis in experience Or second-hand experience

But this knowledge goes nuts sometimes When it is overapplied (overgeneralization) When other information “seems to fit” (schemata

activation)

Is it real information or ‘useful’ information?

1933 1951 1967 1982

Superstitious 84% 41% 13% 6%

Lazy 75% 31% 26% 13%

Ignorant 38% 24% 11% 10%

Happy-go-lucky 38% 17% 27% 15%

Musical 26% 33% 47% 29%

Ostentatious 26% 11% 25% 5%

Very Religious 24% 17% 8% 23%

Stupid 22% 10% 4% 1%

Trait agreement of white Stanford psychology students for blacks (four generations):

Notice a few things

The degree of agreements changes over the years Match general increase in tolerance over the

years Not likely to reflect ‘truth’ about the target

group Very little of these traits are from direct contact Seems to be of use for the group itself Reflects one’s own attitude to the group

(positive/negative)

Class example

Which of these traits apply to a computer geek? Male Good at maths Well groomed Intelligent Successful with the opposite

sex Tall Wears glasses

Not every group will havea particular stereotype;

The computer geek will exist mostly in

Industrialised societies

How important is this information? Lippman (1922)

We don’t interact with people directly We interact with how we see them in our minds “Truth” and “reality” are pretty irrelevant!

This information thus plays a large role in our attitudes to others If Lippman is right, the we do not deal with

individuals – only with examples of groups

The Stereotype

The stereotype is a structure which encodes our knowledge about groups (Ashmore & del Boca, 1979) They are cognitive (i.e. beliefs,

judgements, perceptions) They are related clusters of

information They act to differentiate

between groups They are shared by groups of

people

What you are thinkingabout this person right

now is largely determinedby a stereotype; and

they will cause membersof different groups

to experience this persondifferently

Some notes

Stereotypes work as sort of definitions of a group Usually in terms of traits (physical or

psychological) Positive or negative Applied to members of that group High degree of agreement inside a group

Stereotypes allow us to make ‘guesses’ about people (indirect knowledge)

Odd effects on cognition

Selective remembering/forgetting Tend to remember things critical of the minority

group Tend to forget things violate the stereotype

Amplification of small differences Linville & Jones (1980) – gave descriptions of

black and white person: If told they were law students, black person

judged extremely favorably (judged to be exceptional)

If told they were poor people, black person judged harshly (fit in with stereotype)

Gaining a stereotype

What is the process of learning a stereotype? Direct contact with the group is only a very

slight contribution

Mostly occurs through socialization The process which organizes the world

into meaning Whenever a new group is joined (not just

kids!) Stories, Films, TV, Education, Parents,

etc. Not only teaches stereotypes, but

increases the odds of them being applied (by social context)

A toy is a social artifactwhich can carry

a stereotype;whether that stereotypeis applied will dependon the social context

Limits on using stereotypes

We do not just soak up every stereotype Only stereotypes which are socially useful will be

adopted Learning will occur based partly on rewards /

punishments of using that stereotype in that setting

Stereotypes must be socially useful to be applied Using stereotypes will have consequences for the

individual’s position in the group. Different settings will lead to the activation of

different stereotypes

Stability of stereotypes

Stereotypes tend to be highly stable High probability of being used Very difficult to change once there

What happens when you see contradictory evidence? Denial, suppression, distortion Consider it to be an exception

Examples which goagainst stereotypes

tend to not change them;They are far more likely tobe considered as extreme

cases, not “normal”

Stability of stereotypes (2)

Why do stereotypes not change? Don’t simply encode information Serve an important social purpose (group

definition; justify inbalances; justify subserviance, etc)

Social use is more important than ‘accurate’ information

When will they change? When they no longer serve a purpose If the social situation no longer supports a

particular stereotype, it will be replaced

The ultimate question

Why do we tend to think about groups rather than individuals? Surely it would provide better interactions if we

treated each other as individuals

Two possibilities: Mentally we are too limited Stereotypes provide some unexpected benefits

Option 1: We are too limited

What would thinking about individuals be like? Huuuge amounts of information to process Meeting a new person would be like starting

from scratch

What are the limits of data we can handle? According to Miller (1956), only 5 to 9 unrelated

items Relatedness is what lets us cope with the world

The ‘cognitive miser’ theory

Fiske & Taylor (1984); Hamilton & Trollier (1986) We make stereotypes to reduce

the complexity of the world Need to reduce information; do

this by forming social categories This is a cognitively efficient

strategy Reduces complexity 300 individuals can become 5

groups

Susan Fiske of Stanford university

Implications of being a miser

We cannot process everything, so we are ‘stingy’ with the limited capacity we have Stereotypes are an ‘unfortunate necessity’

End result: increased efficiency, decreased detail

High information load Low information load

Process groups Process Individuals

A critical look at the theory Odd way of looking at cognition

Person-based processing is seen as ‘correct’ and grouping as ‘unfortunate’

Does not see a benefit to grouping – it is a system flaw

Social categorization is not a process itself It is a flawed by-product of other processes

Very difficult to collect evidence Studies try to increase information to see

grouping But groups form in unexpected ways

A different way to look at groups

"The mystery of perception is not that our senses tell us so much about the world, but that they tell us so little.”

Bruner, 1983

So where does all that knowledge come from?

Jerome Bruner(professor at both

Harvard and Oxford)sees categorization

as a way of extractingMeaning from very limited

stimuli

Where is it from?

If Bruner is right, then inference adds a lot to our ideas of the world We interpret the world

in terms of what we already “know” (eg. The TAT)

We do not know the world directly – it is mediated by previous knowledge The TAT – “tell me what is

happening in this picture”

Inferential thinking

Extracting a lot of meaning from a little stimulus is called inference previous experience with similar things Knowledge about related things

This is sometimes called “selective perception” We see what we ‘expect’ and see it ‘how it should

be’ Move from Stimuli to Meaning (what we work

with)

The power of inference & selective perception

What type of dog is it?

The Ames Room

Selective Perception Theory

There is never perception or understanding without categorization We always see objects in some way as exemplars

of a class My dog Spot is in some way always just “generic

dog”

Categories place objects in networks of knowledge Knowing the properties of the class, I can infer that

those exist for its exemplars “generic dog” drools, so I expect Spot to drool

The importance of categories

Categories allow us to “go beyond” what we perceive There is not enough information coming from our

senses for us to operate in the world. How categories form is important

Ecological factors (things that reflect the real world - “birds have feathers”)

Intellectual factors (abstract theories about the world – “dogs and hamburgers are both not spaceships”)

The importance of categories (2)

Categories are used to explain patterns in the environment which could affect our actions Categories will always be “useful”

There could be millions of possible categories but we are selective in the ones we adopt.

Stereotypes can be seen simply as categorizations in person perception Categorize psychological realities rather than

physical ones.

Category selection

So why does one particular categorization become active? Is it men/women or

black/white? Bruner (1957): Depends on

two factors of an individual Fit Accessibility

Can we predict which of the many possible categorizations will

become active when we process a scene?

Category Fit Fit: Do the stimuli match the

features of the scene? The features are known

previously

The category must in some way represent the world Otherwise, no useful meaning

can be extracted Tied into perceptions

A gender or race classification would not fit in this scene;

which possible classifications could fit?

Category Accessibility

How likely are you to apply that categorization? “preference” for particular

categorizations (biases; goals) How easily the categorization is

selected Depends on past experience with

that categorization

Affected by social and other context factors How “acceptable” the

categorization is

The strong nationalist emphasis in soccer makes the “nation” categorization more accessible than the “race” categorization in

this scene

Interaction: Accessibility & Fit

Both need to be considered Unless a category fits it won’t be

applied Unless a category is accessible, it will

not be checked for fit

If a categorization leads to successful action, this will reinforce it Will learn to fit it into similar situations Will becomes more accessible

Although the categorization

“bisexuals” fits for this scene, its low

accessibility makes it unlikely to be used

Meta-contrast

Stereotypes are also selected according to the principle of meta-contrast Make differences inside categories seem smaller

than the differences between categories This will also depend on the context

In the end, the categorization must make sense in terms of structure and contents

Influence and change Stereotypes are far more convincing

if they are consistent Consistent within themselves Consistent with our views of the world

Stereotypes are highly dynamic Active categorization changes as the

immediate social situation changes One attribute can lead to more than one

categorizarion

The context in which categories are created has a large impact

The feature “feminist” could lead to a

categorization as “woman” or “lesbian”; it

depends on several context factors, and

can change from moment to moment.

Context example

Haslam et al (1992) – asked Europeans about Americans and observed categorizations Before 1991 Gulf War: Americans thought of

simultaneously to Soviets; seen as very aggressive (perestroika context)

After 1991 Gulf War: Americans thought of simultaneously to Iraquis; seen as less aggressive (invasion of Kuwait context)

Probably would be seen as more aggressive now

Why do categorizations change so much?

Need to keep our categorizations relevant to a highly dynamic context Keep the categories “useful”

We are not just observing, but acting; our actions might lead to a change of situation Keep up with the world we create

There is no “correct way” to categorize – only useful and socially relevant ways

Metastereotypes

What do other groups think of my group? Social information; subject to same processes as

stereotypes

Completely indirect information I can only “guess” as to what they think of us Affected by ingroup’s evaluations of the social context

As much detail as in a stereotype Not a vague idea; very specific “They think we are being handed everything now”

Self-stereotypes

What do I think about my group Interesting case – I do have insider information Shared information about membership groups Still has inaccuracies Closely tied to the identity of a group Can have several (some positive, some negative)

Self-stereotypes interact with other groups A group may internalize an outgroup’s stereotype as a self-

stereotype A self-stereotype can also be picked by an outgroup to

become a stereotype

How self-stereotypes affect our behaviour

If we self-categorize, this activates a self-stereotype Think about self in terms of the group’s features Depersonalization – become a “typical group

member” Changes in perception

see the group as highly homogenous See other group members as being typical too

Example: Crowds & Violence

Why do people turn violent in crowds? Situation leads to a re-categorization of

the self

If the new self-stereotype includes expectations of violence, then Violent behaviour becomes the group

norm Decrease in importance of individual

variables Increase in an “us vs them” sense from

meta-contrast and homogeneity

People may turn violent in crowds

because they change they way they

perceive themselves