Document Sample
Stereotypes Powered By Docstoc
          Lecture Overview
 Stereotype formation
 Stereotype activation and application
 Stereotype change and regulation
 Stereotype measure
 Beliefs about a covariation between some
  personality or demographic characteristics
  and behaviors that influence social
 Stereotypes may be positive, negative or
 They may reflect reality or be biased
 (Krueger, Hassman, & Acevedo, 2003; Spears, 2002).
          Stereotype Formation
 Illusory   correlation: (memory or attention
     A tendency to notice and memorize co-
      occurrence between infrequent events (e.g.
      being minority, being aggressive)
 Detection (and generalization) of
         Illusory correlation
       Hamilton & Gifford, 1976
 Group  A : 20 sentences (frequent)
 Group B: 5 sentences (rare)
 Desirable behaviors: 20 sentences
 Undesirable behaviors: 5 sentences (rare)

 Nocorrelation between group membership
 and trait.
         Illusory Correlation
     (group B) + Rare (undesirable
 Rare
 behavior) = SALIENCE

 SALIENCE                ATTENTION

 ATTENTION                MEMORY,
     Detection of Covariation
 Tendency   to categorize events and to
  notice covariation.
 Tendency to generalize this covariation
  beyond the experience.
 Leads to interpretation to ambiguous
            Detection of Covariation
               Hills, et al. 1990
        stage: Faces + personal profile.
 Initial
  Facial features and personality are
 Next stage: Faces + ambiguous profile

 Results:  Unconscious beliefs about
  correlation has been strengthened.
         Stereotype maintenance and
  Priming

Priming of social category   Stereotype activation

                      Devine, 1982
   Procedure:
       Stage 1: Subliminal Priming:
         • Stereotype-related words: Black, rhythm, Africa, ghetto,
           welfare, lazy
       Stage 2:Judgment of ambiguous behavior. (Donald)
   Results:
       Ss. judged the behavior as more hostile.
   Conclusion:
     African American concept activates

      stereotype of hostility.
Bargh, Chen, and Burrow, 1996
 Procedure
     Tedious odd-even task.
     Subliminal face exposure: black vs. white.
     Message about an error: Need to start the
      task from the beginning.
 DV: Videotaping of reactions.
 Results: More hostile behavior after being
  exposed to black faces.
     Stereotype maintenance and
 Self-fulfilling   prophecy

    Expectations                Our own behaviors

                               Another person’s behavior
    Consequences of stereotype
 Activation  is automatic and inevitable
 Effortful suppression and inhibition is
  possible. (Devine, 1989)
          Stereotype measure
 Explicit
     Modern racism
     “It is easy to understand the anger of Black
      people in America”
     “Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten
      more economically than they deserve”.
          Stereotype Measure
 Implicit
     IAT
     Priming
     Word-completion task
                      Spencer, 1998
   Procedure
       Bogus IQ test: positive vs. negative feedback.
       Word-completion task
         • BL _ _ K
         • RI _ E
       Cognitively busy (rehearsal) / nothing
   Results: Positive feedback.
       Stereotype activation in “no busy” condition
              Negative feedback:
       Stereotype activation in both conditions.
               Spencer, 1998
 Conclusion
     Stereotype activation requires some efforts
     But it still may be activated when the
      resources are scarce in certain situations.
 Effect of stereotype application
 Interpretation
     E.g. Young man with a big bag in the airport.
      He is anxious and not smiling, looking
         Stereotype application
 Interpretation
     E.g. Young Arabic man with a big bag in the
      airport. He is anxious and not smiling, looking
 Explanation    or attribution
     White man success: personal ability
     Black man success: good luck, hard work,
      affirmative action.
 Activation   of other stereotypes
     Man is a nurse – maybe psychiatric nurse.
         Shifting standards
 What is good for her, is not good enough
 for him.
          Biernat & Manis, 1994

 Reading    an essay.
     Topic: Fishing vs. makeup.
     Author: John vs. Joan
 DV: Letter grade and subjective
  evaluations (excellent, good, poor…)
 Results:
     No difference in subjective evaluations
     Letter grades higher for the correspondent
          Stereotype application
 Limited   mental capacity
     Time pressure
     Off-peak hours (morning people vs. night
     Positive or high aroused mood.
      Limited cognitive capacity
 Stereotype   application is an easy,
  heuristic, effortless process.
 Stereotype inhibition is an effortful
          Stereotype application
 Motivation
     Low self-esteem – need to gain self-esteem
      from outgroup derogation.
          Target’s Perspective
 Stereotype   threat
     Knowing about being prejudiced increases
      anxiety and worsen the performance.
             Stereotype threat
 Participants:   Chinese females
 Procedure:
     IQ test.
     “What is your gender /race? “

 Results:   Race question > Gender question
         Consequences of being
 Stereotype    threat
     Knowing about being prejudiced increases
      anxiety and worsen the performance.
 Self-esteem     protection (Crocker & Major,
     “It is not my fault” attribution
    Brenda, Kaiser & Shannon, 2003
        Procedure: Imagine, you have been
         refused to enter to the course.
        Conditions:
    1.     Prejudiced (Sexist) professor
    2.     Everybody rejection
    3.     Personal rejection
        DV: Self-blame, depression, hostility
 Brenda, Kaiser & Shannon, 2003
 Results:
     Self-esteem is protected by blaming rejection
      on prejudice compared to blaming it on a lack
      of personal ability.

     Self-esteem is not protected by blaming
      rejection on prejudice compared to blaming it
      on an indiscriminate jerk who excludes
         Why is self-buffering?
         (prejudice) versus Internal
 External
 (personal ability) attribution.

 How    about positive feedback?
     Attractive females doing cognitive task.
     Higher self-esteem if positive feedback was
      received when they were not seen.
            Stereotype change
 Contact     hypothesis
     Social contact between majority and minority
      members will reduce prejudice.
       • Same status
       • Common goal
     E.g. Robber Cave experiment (M. Sherif)
       • Simple contact to reduce prejudice – a total failure.
       • Even after organizing common tasks – very
         gradual improvement.
          Why is it so difficult?
 Misinterpretation
     Fail to recognize counter-stereotypic behavior
 Subtyping
     “Fencing off” an individual who disconfirms a
          Subtyping (continue)
 Easier   for a very atypical case
     Several atypical attributes
     Extreme deviation
 People  are motivated to preserve their
 Work harder to “explain” and to categorize
  the a-stereotypical case.
     E.g. Interpreting any additional information as
      supporting subtyping.

Strong WRONG stereotype       Average group member = extremely atypical

                                       No stereotype change

Shared By: