Class Notes (836,147)
Canada (509,656)
Psychology (7,782)
PSYB10H3 (544)
Lecture 9

Lecture 9.docx

13 Pages
Unlock Document

Elizabeth Page- Gould

PSYB10 – Lecture 9 Prof’s Speech - Purple Slide 4 – Ingroup - A social group to which you belong - Any group that you identify with it - Everybody has multiple ingroups Slide 5 – Outgroup - A social group to which you do not belong - Any group that is not your own, i.e. as a woman, men are an outgroup to me - Outgroup members on one dimension can be ingroup members on another dimension - The ease with which we can change what is an ingroup or an outgroup plays into prejudice reduction Slide 6 – Intergroup processes - Situations, cognitions, beliefs and feelings that arise when people from different groups interact with or think about each other o The behaviours, cognitions, and affects, that arise when we categorize people into different groups that are not our own Slide 7 – Social Identity Theory - A diffuse but interrelated set of social psychological theories about when and why individuals identify with, and behave as a part of, social groups - Assumptions - Components Slide 8 – Assumptions of Social Identity Theory - Key Assumption: o We have all have a need for positive self-regard  This need creates a cheap path to positive self-regard through our group membership - How do we achieve this positive self-regard? o Via our own achievements  But sometimes the things we are striving for takes decades o Via identification with the achievements of the social groups we belong to  Can feel better just by being a part of a group where the members are great Slide 9 – Social Identity Theory - 4 main components of Social Identity theory o Categorization o Identification o Comparison o Psychological distinctiveness Slide 10 – Categorization - People naturally group other social objects into groups o We are very quick at categorizing people - Creates ingroup-outgroup distinction when you categorize people into groups that is not your own Slide 11 – Group Categorization - Why do we categorize people into groups? o Old way of thinking: laziness o New way of thinking: cognitive miser - Cognitive miser perspective o Miser is usually a term that refers to money and greed o Cognitive miser – have this store of activity and all of our cognitive power that we can give to something but we can’t think about everything at one time and we don’t want to spend our resources in ways not necessary o We have a limited cognitive resources that must be conserved o Engage in mental shortcuts (e.g., heuristics) - Applied to group categorization: o Categorize people on the basis of shared features o Can trivially create “minimal groups” o Group people into groups that don’t mean much Slide 13 – Minimal Groups - Ingroups and outgroups formed on trivial, highly context-specific features Slide 14 – Minimal Group Paradigm - Creating ingroups and outgroups from the most minimal of conditions - Classic examples: o Sandals vs. sneakers on 1 day of class o Blue vs. yellow t-shirts distributed in the lab - The list goes on and on… - Tajfel & Turner (1979) – first minimal group study ever done o Method:  1. Participants come into lab in groups  2. Asked to estimate the number of dots on a page  3. Randomly assigned to groups:  “Overestimators”  “Underestimators”  4. Ask participants to rate each group and allocate study payment to fellow ingroup member or outgroups member  Although all participants were students/ in the same boat, generally thought that they would all receive the same payment, however… o Results:  Overestimators viewed Underestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Overestimators  Underestimators viewed Overestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Underestimators  Overestimators distributed much less money to Underestimators  Underestimators distributed much less money to overestimators Slide 17 – Summary: Minimal groups - Group categorization occurs rapidly and even trivially - Impact of group categorization is profound o Essentially elicits many behaviors Slide 18 – Identification - The processes of associating the self with certain ingroups o How much being a member of your group affects you is associated to how identified with your group you are - Bolsters self-esteem o The more good you think your group is and the more you associate yourself with your group, the more good you feel about youself - Effects of social identity theory are dependent on identification with the group Slide 19 – Comparison - We compare ingroups with outgroups, seeing a favourable bias toward the group to which we belong o The ingroup being good leads to the flip conclusion that the outgroup is bad - Ingroup favouritism - Outgroup derogation Slide 20 – Ingroup Favouritism - Belief that the ingroup is good across a variety of characteristics and more deserving of good things - Serves the purpose of helping you Maintain positive status of group (and positive self-regard) - Examples: o Remember only the good (and not bad) characteristics of group members  People are more likely to remember good characteristics of ingroup members and less likely to remember bad characteristics of ingroup members o Allocate more resources to ingroup members  Fighting over basic resources some people argue is the root of all intergroup processes o Self-serving attributions – depends on how much you identify with your group  Good behaviour by ingroup member: Internal attribution  Bad behaviour by ingroup member: External attribution Slide 22 – Outgroup Derogation - Belief that the outgroup is bad across a variety of characteristics and less deserving of good things o What humans focus on the most o Ingroup favouritism can exist without outgroup derogation, and vice versa, the two are highly related but can exist without each other - Examples o Ultimate Attribution Error o Rate outgroup characteristics as less favourable than ingroup characteristics o Allocate less resources to outgroup members o Systematically Pay attention to information that confirms stereotypes and ignore stereotype inconsistent information Slide 24 – Psychological Distinctiveness - People desire their ingroup to be unique and distinctive from others - See ingroup members as “unique, distinctive” individuals - if I am going to draw my self-worth from my group, it needs to be something really special - See greater heterogeneity in simple face perception and also in personality ratings o People are much more varied in their rating of ingroup members than their ratings of outgroup members - In the absence of distinctiveness, there is no basis for group-based positive self-regard Slide 25 – Realistic Conflict Theory - Main competitor to social identity theory - The theory that limited resources lead to conflict between groups o All intergroup behaviour arose from the need to compete for resources  Occurs with any animals that live in social groups o Intergroup processes have nothing to do with how you identify yourself, what it does have to do with is the need to feed yourself and attain resources o Result in increased prejudice and discrimination Slide 26 – Robber’s Cave Experiment - Sherif et al. (1961) o Method:  1. 11-year old boys at camp in Robber’s Cave National Park  2. Split into two groups: Rattlers & Eagles  3. Stage 1: Only do activities with own group (increases ingroup identity)  Unaware that the other group was also at the camp  4. Stage 2: Engage in competitive sports with prizes for winning team (competing for scarce resources)  Competitions with other group  Build intergroup conflict o End of Stage 2: Competition creates outgroup prejudice:  Boys name-called boys in other group (e.g., sneaky)  Described own group members as brave/friendly  Stole from/raided each other’s cabins  Succeeded in creating the idea of two groups o Results – End of stage 2: competition creates outgroup prejudice: Friendship choices  Overwhelming desire to approach and form relations with those within own group o Method: Stage 3: Reduce intergroup conflict  Two potential pathways:  Allport’s Contact Hypothesis: o The more I interact with people who are different from me, the less prejudice I will feel towards them o E.g., Arranged lunchtime seating assignments so that boys from each team were intermixed  We only compete with outgroups for resources when those outgroups cannot help us attain those resources o Ex. Maken, Georgia – high segregation, mainly black and white populations, experienced severe flooding, in order to protect themselves, outgroup was needed, everyone came together to p  Introduced Super-ordinate Goals so both groups had to work together to solve a problem – as soon as we have aligned goals that will help each other out, then groups will work together o E.g., Got a bus stuck in the mud o Results: Stage 3  Allport’s Contact, Hypothesis = No-go -- Boys got in food fights and physical fights  Stage 3 - Super-ordinate Goals = Yes!  Hostility between groups declined because both groups had to get together and pull the bus out of the mud  Formation of new friendships with outgroup members o After working together, the proportion of people who wanted to maintain relations with people of other team increased a lot (didn’t surprise friendships with ingroup members, but did increase) o Caveat: Ingroup identification was hard to entirely eliminate Slide 35 – Group-Based Bias - Chart Slide 36 – Cognitive Component: Stereotypes - Schemas that we have for different social groups; Beliefs about the typical characteristics (usually traits) of group members - Schemas used to categorize complex social groups Slide 37 – Affective Component: Prejudice - A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people, based only on their membership in that group - Attitude that creates your evaluation of the group towards which you feel prejudice, based only on membership in the group Slide 38 – Behavioural Component: Discrimination - Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group, simply because of his or her membership in that group Slide 42 – “Racial Stereotypes of 100 College Students” - Katz and Braly (1933) - In many cases, a high degree of consensus (agreement) - Gave impetus to investigate the nature and content of stereotypes Slide 43 – The Princeton Trilogy - Longitudinal Study of Stereotypes: o Katz & Bradley (1933)  Stereotypes that Americans have of Americans are pretty positive o Gilbert (1957)  After American war with Japan – students rated Japanese as nationalistic o Karlins et al. (1969)  Perceptions of Jewish individuals tended to change the leaste - Conclusions: o Stereotypes are generally stable over time o Stereotypes are also contextually bound  Are the results of situations as well, but not necessarily the correct situations as we are still very biased Slide 46 – Stereotypes: Mechanisms - Usually broad and generalized: o “Trait-based” stereotype - Can also be dependent on context: o IF _________ , THEN ___________ Slide 47 – Who Stereotypes? - Most people have knowledge of cultural stereotypes o We know what we are supposed to think about every group; have a set of stereoptypes that we are generally aware of, but we don’t necessarily use these stereotypes when we interact with people - Factors affecting stereotype use: o Egalitarian ideologies o Cognitive load Slide 48 – Egalitarian Ideologies - Stereotype activation – automatic o Stereotypes are automatically activated  Once the group categorization has occurred, those stereotypes become more accessible, group concept is activated and everything you associate with that group is activated  But don’t have to include the stereotypes in interactions - Non-prejudiced response – controlled o If the person is egalitarian, the controlled process of the stereotype is activated  That person will preconsciously reject stereotypical judgements  However, in a controlled process, more cognitive resources will be used Slide 49 – Cognitive Load - Term used when you’re using a lot of your mental resources; Greater use of cognitive resources; i.e. writing a test – you are trying to think as hard as you can; using all of your resources - Greater load = more reliance on stereotypes o If egalitarian people are, in a controlled sense, limiting their application of stereotypes to novel memebers of groups, if take away resources to do so, they should stereotype at the same level as non-egalitarians Slide 50 – Cognitive Load and Stereotyping - Mendoza-Denton et al. (1999) o Method:  1. Participants all high in egalitarian ideology  2. Experimental Condition: Cognitive Load or not  Cognitive load: remember 9 digit number  Low load: remember 3 digit number o Told the number, and then asked for the number 5 minutes later  In between – had people rate the aggressiveness  3. Rate the aggressiveness of “African Americans” and “Caucasian Americans” o Results: all egalitarian people were rating both white and black targets as about equally aggressive with the low load (3 digit number)  But for those with a cognitive load, there was a boost in how aggressive they rated the black targets and a reduction in how aggressive they rated the white targets o Essentially all of a sudden, these egalitarian people are behaving in non-egalitarian ways, which shows that people put a lot of effort into being egalitarian Slide 52 – Meta-Stereotypes - Stereotypes about how outgroup members stereotype the ingroup o not just applying stereotypes to a group, but having actual concern for the stereotype that group is then applying back to you Slide 53 – Outcomes of stereotyping for the Perceiver - Good: o Move quickly through social world o Conserve cognitive resources - Bad: o Selective encoding o Make more judgement errors o We use stereotypes in order to remember information about people, and because of that, we only perceive information about those people that are consistent with stereotypes, and are therefore inaccurate in our judgements Slide 55 – Selective Encoding By Stereotypes - Macrae, Milne, & Bodenhausen (1994) o Method:  1. Participants come to lab for person perception experiment  2. Read a list of personality traits of 3 targets – Nigel, Julian, and John  3. Stereotype conditions:  Stereotype Present: given Group associated with each target  Stereotype Absent: No groups associated with the targets  4. Ask
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

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.