This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Social Psychology Test #3

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object
copy deck
the most prejudiced group in America?
Overweight white women
A negative prejudgment of a group and its individual members
Prejudice
Prejudice is a(n)
Attitude
A belief about the personal attributes of a group of people. Often overgeneralizations.
Stereotype
2 ways stereotypes can be wrong.
1.) they can be false (no correlation)
2.) overgeneralized (may be true but not to the extent)
Unjustifiable negative BEHAVIOR toward a group or its members
Discrimination
an individual's prejudicial attitudes and discriminative behavior toward people of a given race (even w/o attitude it is considered)
Racism
An individual's prejudicial attitudes and discriminative behavior toward people of a given sex
Sexism
Gallup poll racism in your friends
Showed that 44% of white americans claim their friends to be high in prejudice but only 14% of them claimed themselves to be. (better than average effect)
IS RACISM disappearing?
Yes, conventional racism is disappearing. but there is still modern racism (more socially acceptable)
White/black doll studies
In the 1940's black children would preferentially choose white dolls to play with. after desegragation of schools, 1950's black children preferentially chose black dolls. (claimed black children engaged in self-hatred behavior)
Racism is in decline, still racism occurs (rates of discrimination)
3/10 african americans PRECEIVE themselves of having faced discrimination in the last 30 days.
The more intimate the actions, the (higher/lower) the prejudice.
Higher. Racism is declining "OUTSIDE THE HOME".
Phenomenon of greatest prejudice in intimate social realms
75% of people said they would shop at a store owned by a homosexual, whereas, only 39% would "see a homosexual doctor"
Modern racism
The phenomenon that racism increases when it can be hidden behind some other motive. this has replaced "blatant" prejudice
Chicago car dealers and bias
black/white/men and women were all trained to negotiate the same and the avg final car prices were:

White men: 11362
White women: 11504
Black men: 11783
Black women: 12237
Resumes mailed and biases
MIT researchers sent resumes randomly assigned "white" last names or "black" last names. White resumes were called 1/10. black resumes were called 1/15.
Modern racism has also shown PATRONIZING effects.

~ Patronizing ranks of poor essay
Stanford researcher randomly assigned students a POORLY written essay to rate. Students rated those written by "black last name student" higher than those writen by "white last name students".
What effects might the patronizing effects of modern racism have?
They may be demeaning to minority students. Mediocrity is ok since "you are already better than YOUR kind".
Automatic prejudice
words are flashed that prime stereotypes and later these stereotypes having become salient lead to discriminative behavior such as (hostility toward a particular experimenter).
Automatic prejudice example
9 in 10 white individuals took longer to associate paradise and peace as a positive word when paired with black faces than white faces.
Prejudice in "shoot-dont shoot" videogame.
Black and white ppts were asked to play a game where they shot "men" (no color) who had guns and not shot at those who had non-gun items. Both blacks and whites pressed SHOOT at black men with no gun.
2 types of stigma
Blatant stigma- ethnicity, physical disability.

Hidden stigma- religious, sexual orientation, maybe even biracial individuals.
What if we meet non-stereotypical group members?
Subtyping- we create a category for exceptions
racism is racism even if it was not done intentionally.
o Institutional practices- even if not motivated by prejudices) that subordinate people of a given race. (because its always been that way)
Group with the highest rate of HATE CRIMES
Homosexuals

every year there are 7000 hate crimes. this number doesnt include homosexuals. crime against homosexuals are not considered HATE CRIMES, perhaps the biggest crime.
SHOVING STUDY- (Duncan, 1976
interpret of the same information differently. Students observed a video of a man lightly shoving another man. Students were asked to report. In one video white man shoves black man. In the other video the black man shoves the white man. Results showed black man shoving white man were MORE VIOLENT (73%). LESS VIOLENT when white man shoved black man (13%
Modern racism scale-
test racism in DENIALS of racism and antagonism toward equality and efforts to promote equaility (f.e: "blacks want to much")
Self hatred (True or not)
NOT. There is no statistically significant date to show that minority children have lower self-esteem than majority children. Also, minority self-esteem goes up with age beyond that of whites.
Do gender stereotypes exist?
Yes gender stereotypes not only exist but the stereotyped group accepts them.
Table study. Participants were handed a picture of men and women sitting at a table with a women sitting at the head of the table. Results?
Men and women both ignored the women sitting at the head of the table and claimed one of the two men to be the leader (and have the greatest contribution).
Gender bias is decreasing (quicker, slower, at the same rate) as racial attitudes.
Same rate
Social source of prejudice- unequal status
unequal status breeds prejudice ("they are there because they are "lazy/stupid"
Those in high social status tend to view others through Social dominance orientation
a motication to have one's group be dominant over other social groups. (republican party- those that are wealthier vote to lower taxes on the wealthy to mantain heirarchy)
The authoritarian personality in prejudice motivation.
Prejudice appears not to be a prejudice against one group but a way of thinking of those who are "different"
Those with "Double highs are more likely to be prejudice to a number of groups.
1.) High in social dominance orientation
2.) high in authoritarian personality
Religion and prejudice
Paradoxical; it creates prejudice and breaks down prejudices depending on how you operationalize religion (level of spirituality)
Conformity and prejudice
once established, prejudices are maintained by conformity. it is not reinforced by a need to hate but a need to be accepted by others with similar beliefs.
Institutions also support prejudices
Schools- school age books have 3:1 male to female characters.

Crayola "flesh"- pinkish white.
media portrayals and prejudices
On average 2/3 of male ads the face was the main part of the ad.
Less than ½ of females were devoted to the face.
Conclusion: People who’s faces are the focus of an ad (men or women), people rated the person more intelligent, ambitious.
when the cause of frustration is vague, hostility and aggression are redirected to an easy target.
Scapegoat theory
lynching and cotton prices. Between 1882-1930 lynching went up when economic frustration was high and cotton prices went down.
example of scapegoat theory
the theory that prejudice arises between froups for scarce resources.
realistic group conflict theory
example of realistic group conflict theory
o This is a competition (CONCRETE). The strongest Anti-black prejudices are among the whites that are closest to blacks on socioeconomic status ladder. They compete for jobs⬦.
REALIZE both scapegoat theory and realistic group conflict theory are...
MOTIVATIONAL theories of prejudices
Humans not only defend and enhance themselves they do so for groups this is part of SOCIAL IDENTITY-
the "We" aspect of our self concept. the group answers to the question "Who am I?"
People naturally categorize. we categorize into two groups:
Ingroups- "us" a group of people belonging, sharing a feeling of common identity (of course this changes from time to time, situation to situation...etc.)

Outgroups- "them"- a group that people perceive as distinctively different from or apart from their ingroup.
the tendency to favor one's own group
ingroup bias
Art money allocation study
ingroup bias.
Students were asked to evaluate art by 2 painters. they were randomly told they liked either Artist A or B more. then they are told that others favored artist b lastly they can allocate funds to the artists. on avg they gave their artist 67%.
When are we more likely to exhibit ingroup bias?
when we are in the minority or in a lower status. This is because we are more keenly aware of our social identity and act accordingly.
Trends in social identity and ingroup bias
we conform to group norms. The MORE important and MORE strongly we feel attached to a group, the MORE likely we are to act prejudicially toward an outgroup.
Ingroup successes/failures and self concept
When your team wins "we won". when your team loses "they lost".
we are even likely to bask in a friends successes (as their friend= ingroup) Unless
the friend outperforms you.
Does loyalty to one group predispose us to think the other group is bad?
It seems no. our positive feelings to our group do not necesarilly mirror bad feelings toward outgoup.
Statis and prejudice
those lower in status are more likely to engage in prejudicial behavior. Apparently those in "higher" status do not have their seld-image threatened
low creativity score and ingroup bias study
Students are asked a short creativity quiz and are told they scored well or badly. then asked questions about your university and its rival. Results? Those whose self-esteem was threatened, rated their school higher and other schools lower.

Conclusion: appearantly asserting one's own identidy by boasting about one's group and dennigrating outgroups can boost one's ego.
Many studies have been done on self-esteem of a ingroup member and their effects on outgroup relations. conclusion?
in all studies, if you affirm self-esteem the person will more positively rate outgroups. if you challenge their self-esteem the person will denigrate the outgroup.
Frown-smile race study.
tested motivation to avoid prejudice. Participants were asked to rate pictures of individuals based on who they'd best get along with. All participants prided themselves on not being prejudicial. ALthough rating the black man as more likable, their faces frowned more with black men photos.
Research on avoiding prejudices (is it possible?)
People actively aware that they may engage in prejudices feel guilty about what they SHOULD feel and DO feel and are more likely to supress their prejudicial response.
Overestimator/Underestimator study-
participants would come into room and see dots on a screen and asked how many dots there were (randomly assigned and told you overestimated or underestimated). Told you can allocate 2 dollars to ingroup member and 1 dollar to outgroup or 3 dollars for ingroup and 4 dollars for outgroup. People chose to get their in group more money than outgroup even if the other option they would all get more money. INGROUP BIAS AND OUTGROUP DERROGATION.
Perception of out-group members as being more similar to one another than in-group members
Outgroup homogeneity effect-
Own-race bias and line up studies-
white people see pictures of faces of white people and black people and asked to pick the individuals in a line up. White students more likely to recognize the white individuals. More likely to give more false positive to black individuals. Works across ethnicity.
Calassifying races study
Participants either scored high or low on prejudicial scale. Those high in prejudices took longer in labeling the race of an ambiuous person. (means there is more to their classification, they wouldnt want to falsely put them in "that" group).
Perception of outgeoup members as more similar to one another than are ingroup members. thus "they are all the same, not us were diverse"
Outgroup homogeneity effect (common in sorrorities and fraternities)
In general the greater our familiarity with a social group,
the more we see its diversity.
the tendency for people to more accurately recognize faces of their own race than those of other races.
own-race bias
Where is the own-race bias detrimental?
Criminal line ups and eye witness testimony.
distinctive people in groups
Distinvtive people are more likely to be perceived as having more of an influence in a group. (basis for scapegoat theory)
distinctive traits
people are more likely to define you by traits that violate norms (being a skydiver, owning a snake)
Onlooker study
Harvard students were paid to watch a video of a man reading a story. Students paid closer attention when they were led to believe the man was a homosexual, cancer patient, or millionaire.
when aware of our distinctiveness, we sometimes percieve we are being discriminated when we are not. Scar makeup study.
Participants were either made up with bloody scars on their face and told to look in mirror (demeaning and made to feel "distinct") then asked to rub mositurizer which actually took makeup off. Then asked to engage in conversation with a participant with no knowlege of what had happened so far. After conversation the "made up participant" rated the conversationalist as tense, distant and patronizing. later new participants watching on videotape found no evidence of this. THE "disfigured" participant was feeling self-conscious and percieved discriminatory behavior that WAS NOT there.
the less we know the more we are influenced by a few extreme cases...
Vivid cases and the availability heuristic
Distinctive events ususally portrayed by media make
illusory correlations

(homosexuals and heterosexuals in rape cases)
explaining away outgroup members' positive behaviors; also attributing negative behaviors to their dispositions (while excusing such behaviors in one's own group)
Group-serving bias
What 2 groups actually engage in LESS group-serving biases?
Underprivlaged groups and Asians (cultures that stress modesty)
Linguistic intergroup bias
Positive behaviors by ingroup members are described as disposition "lucy is helpful" and those performed by outgroup members as an isolated act "she held open the door for X today".

In negative situations this is reversed. in the first case it is an isolated incident and in the second case "that is just how she is".
the tendency of people to believe the world is just and that people therfore get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
The Just-world phenomenon
two scenario couch study
 Participants read detailed descriptions of interactions between man and women. Story about man and women who have a dinner date and go back to his house and drink wine. NOW RANDOMLY ASSIGNED. Into positive or negative outcome. Positive- he took to the couch and proposed. Negative- man became rough and raped her. Conclusions showed participants admired and liked the characters (in positive ending). Highly predictable and blamed women for behavior that in the positive perspective her same actions were admirable.
• People like to believe we live in a just world. She would not have been raped if she was a good person.
accomidating groups of individuals who deviate from one's sterotype by thinking of them as a spevial category of people with different properties
Subtyping
Accomidating groups of individuals who devuate from one's stereotype by forming a new sterotype about his subset of the group
subgrouping
Behavioral confirmation- interviwer studies-
 Part 1
 White participants interviewed white and black confederates as job applicants who were trained to act exactly the same.
 When the job applicant was black the participants sat farther away, ended 25% earlier, and made 50% more speech errors.
 Part 2
 Trained interviewers interview white participant in one of two interview strategies. “white/white” or “white/black” (ending sooner, stumbling)
 Part 3
 New participants rated videotapes of the interviews.
 Particpants rated the “white/black interview style” were rated as less adequate, less friendly and less likely to get the jo
A disruptive concearn when facing a negative stereotype, that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype
Stereotype threat
effects of stereotpe threat
o Test performance is diminished if people are made aware of a stereotype. Participants are told “men and women score the same” or “there is a gender difference men do better than women”. Results no significant difference in scores vs women scored below men (confirmed the stereotype).
o Female students take a math exam with 2 other females or 2 men. Participants with 3 women 70% correct. With 2 men 55%.
o White men and asian American males. White men felt threat and scored lower. Scored higher with 3 whites than 2 men.
o A.A. students 2 conditions told “items are diagnostic of intellectual abilities” or “new test has not been normed… under development”. A.A scored lower on the standardized test/ scored higher in new test.
Start Studying!

Deck Info

83

permalink