Class Notes (835,007)
Canada (508,866)
Psychology (3,336)
PSYC 333 (121)

17 - 23 notes.docx

18 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 333
Jennifer Bartz

#17 – Prejudice  Public opinion polls show a steady decline in negative evaluation of minority groups after WWII, but racial conflicts show moderate reduction  Categorization: tendency to put stimuli into different categories  how does that influence prejudice  How do we form impression of other? Fiske and Neuberg’s Continuum Model  Start with category based theory driven, top down process.  Categorize people based on salient feature/big 3 (age, sex gender)  Easy, effortless and automatic  Brewer’s Dual Process Model  Involves automatic (put people in categories) and controlled processes. If the individual is relevant to the goal you’re trying to meet in the situation? Is no, you stop. If yes, then initiate more controlled processes and incorporate new info to modulate initial impression.  Function of motivation and cognitive capacity (time and mental resources)  Automatic:  Elicited unintentionally  Require few cog resources  Cannot be stopped voluntarily  Occur outside of conscious awareness  Controlled:  Initiated intentionally: is this person relevant  Requires considerable cog resources  Can be stopped voluntarily  Operate within conscious awareness  Devine’s model of prejudice (1989)  Distinction between knowledge of stereotypes beliefs and accuracy  Everyone know the stereotype but what distinguish high and low prejudice people is whether they believe the stereotype is correct or not.  What distinguishes high and low prejudice people?  Everyone know the stereotype: knowledge acquire in childhood and is overlearn because of socialization  Info in available in memory and can be automatically activated  (low prejudice) Rejection of stereotype results from non-prejudicial beliefs that are acquired later in socialization  Less overlearned therefore requires operation of controlled process  Inhibition is a controlled process that requires: o Motivation o Cog capacity  Automatic stereotype activation is equally in low and high prejudice people but they differ in the level of controlled processing (LP tried to inhibit the info)  Study 1: high vs. low prejudice  White intro psych student  List component of stereotype of Blacks in America (not interested in personal beliefs)  Complete Modern Racism Scale  Results: both high and low prejudice knew the stereotype, no difference  Study 2: people know the stereotype and it can be activated in different situations. Automatic process is the same for all, but the controlled is higher for low prejudice  Used a perceptual vigilance task: identify location of stimuli to prime participants  Impression formation task: read a paragraph and form an impression  Check 1: To make sure it was unconscious they had to guess the word that had come up (1.67% hit rate)  Check 2: recognition of the words  Results: high prime: more likely to apply to stereotype and produce more stereotypic consistent impression, but no effect with the control  Both high and low prejudice: both get the stereotype activated. High prejudice people wrote down more negative things that low prejudice people (stereotype activated but can control what to write)  Socially shared beliefs about groups  Knowledge  Acceptance  Attitude towards the group  What is automatically activated for low prejudice?  Devine: knowledge  Culturally shared stereotype  Fazio: attitude: mental associated between an object and a person’s summary evaluation of that object  Not knowledge about what people believe in general but personal evaluations  If association is strong, evaluation associated with object is automatically activated upon encountering the object. (Attitude will be automatically activated)  Automatic activation of attitudes:  Prime snake (out of conscious awareness)  Then show words and responds to bad and good words.  If snake activated the negative attitude you should be quicker to respond to bad words  Prime black and white faces  Identical procedure as snake. If show a white face respond to positive words faster than negative words.  Look at reaction time when primed with a black face  slow on positive and fast on negatives.  What predicts actual behavior?  Interaction with a black experimenters (friendliness of participant) o Automatic attitude (implicit attitudes do influence our behavior)  Rodney King verdict o MRS not automatic attitudes. More of a controlled process  Implicit vs explicit attitudes  Implicit might be what you think (spontaneous/automatic) while explicit requires more of a controlled process  Explicit measures were more predicting on whether they though he was guilty or not  Implicit measures affected how you would complete words.  What makes a person low in prejudice?  Prejudice is a function of the representation of the category in one’s mind  Chronic accessibility vs. contextual activation (you can primer categories to influence behavior)  When chronic lows are primer with negative stereotype that can produce negative evaluations  High prejudice people were affected the most by the contextual prime.  Is prejudice inevitable?  Decrease prejudice?  Perspective taking  Thought suppression  See a picture of an elder man and asked to write a paragraph about him.  3 conditions:  Perspective taking  Suppression of thoughts  Control (no instructions)  Everyone but controls decreased their levels of stereotypically  Suppression of though showed a rebound effect when asked to look at words related to the stereotype #18 – Prejudice II: the case of sexism  Study 1: treating women as sex objects – McKenzie-Mohr & Zanna  Does gender schematic processing lead to prejudices views and behavior towards women?  Self-schemata: knowledge structures to understand own behavior. What kind of person we are. Influences how we process info about the self and others.  Search for info about other that is related to the self. (selective attention, encoding and retrieval of info)  Gender Schema theory revised  Who is gender schematic (sex typed): men who endorse only sex related attributes.  Prime gender schema in schematic and aschematic men and record interaction with women  Schematic processing resulted on sexism”  Behavioral: behavior during interaction  Cognitive: recall and response time for woman’s physical features  3 phases 1. Censorship study: measure attitudes about censorship. Prostitute vs. house of commons 2. University life interview: factors that made transition into uni difficult (interview by a female). 3. Passage of time on memory: what kind of info male remember the most about the interviewer (physical, non-physical and what she said) measure interpersonal distance  Results:  Interviewer rating: how much would they look at their body? How sexually motivated did they seem?  Prime only worked on schematic men (sexual motivation, interpersonal distance, and remembered only physical characteristics).  Professional recall: very little from prime schematic males, but more from aschematic  When interacting with female, there’s multiple schemas to choose from, it’s possible to prime particular schemas. Priming schema was most effecting on schematic men (person x primer interaction)  Affect info that they’re encoding and remembering  Behavioral effects of priming men to view women as sexual objects  Construct accessibility:  Recency: effects of the prime/temporary accessibility: contextual activation induces perceiver to interpret events consistent with momentarily activated constructs  Frequency of activation: chronic accessibility: frequently activated constructs are more likely to affect judgment  Are the effects of temporary and chronic accessibility on sexual objectification additive (independent) or interactive)  Pre-measure tendency to be sexist: Likelihood to sexually harass scale (how likely you would act in certain situations)  Brought high and low likelihood to sexually harass  Primed by sexist ads and control  Word for lexical decision task: sexist vs. non-sexists word.  Prime indeed made response time faster for sexist words (increased cognitive accessibility) but also inhibited cognitive accessibility of non-sexist words.  “Help interview and evaluate a female job candidate”  14 Qs, 7 more sexists (personal, stereotypic, etc)  Measured proximity, sexualized behaviour (sex staring or motivation), memory about appearance and qualification, competence, attractiveness and hireability.  Accessibility effects  Chronic and Contextual (prime): both had sexist questions, increase proximity and sexual behaviour. Increase in chronic, while increase in friendliness and decrease in competence and qualification recollection  Hireability was the only interactive effect: highly like to sexually harass and primed with the sexist ad were more likely to say hire her  Does stereotyping need to be overt to undermine behaviour?  Interacting with sexist man: Sexist behaviour cue women that they’ll be undervalued and treated with the stereotype. This triggers stereotype threat which undermines their behaviour.  Make engineers students interact with female confederate  Conversation about engineering  more sexist men exhibit more subtle dominance and sexual interest  Male and female engineer student dyads  Conversation about engineering  male sexism predicted women test’s scores.  Women in sexist condition indicate greater attraction for partner and had more positive feeling about interactions. (attraction and feelings don’t explain performance effects)  Perception of dominance and interest didn’t predict performance.  Sexist behaviour doesn’t need to make overt/unpleasant impression  What effect does objectification have on women?  Effects on body dissatisfaction – effects on self- perception  Primed men and women to prime objectification of women  Women: rate their body size. Prime with sexist ads, see their body bigger  No interaction with male and sexist ideas.  Self-objectification theory: when people’s body parts are separated from their identity and they’re reduces to instruments.  American culture socializes women to self-objectify (view themselves as objects)  Value and think about body form a third person perspective (how society would view thme)  Creates excessive appearance monitoring  Creates body shame (cannot live up to certain standards)  restrained eating  Consumed attentional resources  diminishes mental performance  Study 1: “that swimsuit become you”  Men and women to prove women are more prone to do it  Measured trait self-objectification (concern with appearance)  Evaluate consumer behaviour  Manipulate state self-objectification  Try on a swimsuit  Try on a sweater  Alone in a dressing room with a mirror  Measure body shame while wearing garment  Results:  Main effect of experimental condition (reported more same) o Men: shy, bashful o Women: disgust, revulsion  Body shame predicted restrained eating in women  Attentional resources: requires thinking about self as an object and from a third person view. o Math performance: women in swimsuit performed worse than women in sweater. o Maybe men performed better in math test because they needed to compensate for their lack of good body #19 – Attachment  Attachment theory – John Bowlby  There was a sig relationship between separation with mom and delinquent behaviors  Separation anger, sadness reflects the attachment system designated to promote close physical contact between infants and caregivers. (promotes safety of infants)  Mental model of self in relation to significant others (caregiver): include expectancies and relationship with caregiver.  Attachment model develop in infancy via interactions with caregivers  Core features of attachment relationships: 1. Proximity maintenance: primary functions  keep caregiver and infant in close proximity, separation causes anxiety/cries which bring caregiver back 2. Secure base function: interaction with caregiver, infant learns that is reliable/safe so they become confident to explore environment 3. Safe haven: caregiver protects infant when bad thing happen. Child learns emotional coping strategies  The “strange situation”: what kind of stress the child goes when separated form caregiver and how do they go around exploring  Secure: caregiver sensitive and responsive to infants signals. Infant seeks comfort upon reunion. Results from consistent interaction with caregiver.  Anxious/ambivalent: caregiver inconsistent (not responsive vs. over bearing) child cannot regular their response. Alternating response when caregiver come back (clingy and an upset).  Avoidant: caregiver rejecting. Child shows no distress upon separation and no reunion when caregiver returned.  Secure: 62% of individuals, 23% avoidant, 15% ambivalence  Mental models of attachment:  Formed through repeated interactions with the caregiver and then become generalized.  Influence how we build our close relation interactions later in time, not just care giver.  They can change over time  Adult attachment:  “Love survey” – Hazan & Shaver: paragraphs that describe styles of romantic relationships.  Distribution was similar to attachment styles in children  Anxious and avoidant are both insecure, both coping mechanisms and expectations are different, which determines the style of attachment shown in adulthood  Correlates of insure attachment:  Anxious-ambivalence o Jealousy o Lower self-esteem o Self-disclosure  Avoidance: o Judge as more hostile o Uncommitted sexual relationship o Reduce tension with alcohol and other substances (negative coping mechanisms)  Attachment model, gender & relationship stability  354 dating couples – no anxious-anxious or avoidant-avoidant couples (makes theoretical sense because it’s consistent with expectations)  If man avoidant, relationship rated more negative by both  If woman was anxious, relationship rated more negative by man but not woman  Stability  At time 2 (7-14mts), avoidant and secure men are more stable than anxious men.  At time 3 (30-36mts), anxious women more stable than other women.  Anxious women and avoidant men remained in negative relationships  Women are maintainers and breakers of relationships.  Women engage in behaviours to accommodate rough times in relationship because of desire for closeness.  Anxious and secure women will try hard to hold onto avoidant partner  Safe haven (feature of attachment relationship)  Distress and coping response (Mikulincer 93): attachment style predicts coping mechanisms)  140 Israeli students  Dangerous vs. less dangerous areas of living  Assessed post-traumatic adjustment to missile attacks during Gulf War  Anxious (vs. secure)  More distress  Avoidance (vs. secure)  More hostility  Lack of display of emotions  Effects of attachment only displayed among people living in dangerous areas.  Coping mechanisms  Secures: support seeking (close other can be relied upon). Safe haven is psychological resource  Anxious: emotion focused coping  Avoidant: distancing  Anxiety and social support in lab (Simpson 92)  83 dating couples. Waiting in a room before anxiety provoking activity.  Secure women seek more supports than avoidant. Secure men provided more support than avoidant men.  Attachment behaviors are trigged by situations (as anxiety goes up secure women seek for more support and avoidant women don’t). when anxiety was low, secure women seek less support than avoidant women  Physiological response to stress  What happens if partner leaves the room (infants – physical closeness)  Does the mental model about partner confer psychological resource for the stressful situation?  Women perform stress inducing task and measure heart rate and blood pressure  Physiological response  Anxious and avoidant  higher response than secure (because secure knew partner was outside)  Why would avoidant have strong physiological response? (because in “strange situation” don’t display in over way emotional behaviour)  Though not overt emotional responses from separation, they do exhibit physiological response  Avoidance is used as a coping mechanism o Suppression of unwanted thoughts.  Fear of rejection o Though avoidance has a fear component in early childhood, it becomes differentiated over time. (fearful vs. dismissive) o Suppression becomes automatized  They might try to suppress they reaction to stressful situation  Bartholomew and Horowitz  Attachment model as view of self and view of other  Secure: positive other and self  Preoccupied: negative self, positive others  Dismissing: negative of other, positive of self o Are capable of suppression thoughts of partner leaving them  Fearful: negative other and self o Aren’t capable of suppression thoughts of partner leaving them  Attachment now measure in 2 factors: (continuum not category)  Anxiety about relationships  Fear of closeness and dependency  Stability and Change  Assess people at 2 time points  Time 2, 70% same attachment model but 30% had different (these are not stable personality traits)  Who was changing? Secure people didn’t change that much, 33% avoidant while 55% was anxious.  Maybe due to differences in interpersonal experiences  Relationship events and attachment models  Applying for marriage license (80% secure)  Secures who broke up: only 50% remained secure post breakup  Attachment models are sensitive to life events #20 – Attachment and the relational self  Mental models are used as interpretative filters used to understand and build new relationships.  Female support seeking: no interaction of anxiety but an interaction between anxiety and personality style.  Social cognitive conceptualization of attachment:  Expectancies arise from memories from the past or interaction with different individuals. Expectancies when it comes to attachment styles  will people help you when in need?  Baldwin 96  List 10 impactful relationships (close relationships which were influential, not just acquaintances)  Rate in term of attachment measurement  Measure attachment style in general  Results:  Everyone had relationships characterized by different style. Even those who are generally secure, have close relationship that are avoidant or anxious style.  Avoidant and anxious: have a mix of all 3 different styles  Most relationships are secure  What characterizes
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 333

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.