Class Notes (806,856)
Canada (492,490)
Psychology (7,610)
PSYB10H3 (543)
Lecture 9


7 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto Scarborough
Elizabeth Page- Gould

Lecture 9 Intergroup relations, stereotyping and Prejudice Readings - pp. 371 – 415 (CH.12) and Gutsell & Inzlicht (2010) - In-group - a social group to which you belong ( can be any group – gender, ethnicity, nation, school, clubs your part of etc) - Out group – a social group to which you do not belong (e.g. I am a u of t student thus, can’t be a York student – don’t identify with that group ) - Intergroup processes – situations, cognitions , beliefs and feelings that arise from different groups interact with or think about each other Social identity theory – a diffuse but interrelated set of social psychological theories about when and why individuals identify (associate it with the self) with and behave as a part of, social groups - Assumptions of social identity theory – we all have a need for positive self regard which we achieve by our own achievements and identification with the achievements of the social groups we belong to - By indentifying with in-groups you gain positive regard (group is successful thus I am successful) Four main components of social identity theory - Categorization – people naturally group other objects intro groups which creates in group-out group distinction - Tendency to organize our social world into in groups and out groups however, by doing this we create such a distinction between the two groups - We categorize groups due to cognitive miser (is a heuristic) idea that we have a limited amount of cognitive resources that we can spend on any given problem thus we the cognitive miser (a heuristics ) which a mental shortcut that allows distinguish between different groups - Categorize people on the basis of shared features – can create minimal groups - Maintains social order - Minimal groups – in-groups and out-groups formed on trivial, highly context specific features (e.g. blue versus yellow t-shirts distributed in the lab = forms 2 groups yellow vs. blue ) - Study – participants come into a lab in groups, asked to estimate the # of dots on a page, randomly assigned to groups – over estimators or under estimators, lastly, they asked participants to rate each group and allocate study payment to fellow in-group or out group member - Results – over estimators though under estimators as less likable, kind, and effective than over estimators while the under estimators viewed over estimators as less likable, kind, and effective than under estimators - Over estimators distributed much less money to under estimators while under estimators distributed much less money to over estimators - Group categorization occurs rapidly and even trivially - Identification – the processes of associating the self with certain in groups, bolsters self esteem and effects of social identity theory are dependent on identification with the group - Comparison – we compare in groups without groups seeing a favorable bias toward the group to which belong - In group favoritism – belief that the in-group is good across a variety of characteristics and more deserving of good things – helps maintain positive status of group and therefore positive self regard - Just being a member in that group makes us feel that our group and we are the best thus deserve good things - Allocate more resources for the in- group – members of my group deserve good things - Self serving attributions – good behaviour by in group member – internal attributions versus bad behaviour by in group member – external attribution - In-groups like to hear more good things about there group rather than hearing bad things about the out-group - Out-group derogation – belief that the out-group is bad across a variety of characteristics and less deserving of good things  Ultimate attribution error – if one out-group member behaves badly we stereotype by saying the whole group is bad  Rate out-group characteristics as less favorable than in-group characteristics  Allocate less resources to out-group members  Pay attention to info that confirms stereotypes and ignore stereotypes that are inconsistent with certain info - Psychological distinctiveness – people desire their in-group to be unique and distinctive from others, see in-groups as unique distinctive individuals - In the absence of distinctive , there is no basis for group based positive self regard - Realistic conflict theory – the theory that limited resources lead to conflict between groups which can result in increased prejudice and discrimination - By forming these social groups allows to use our resources more efficiently but also increases competition when there are limited amounts of resources - Study (1961) – method 1. 11 year old boys at camp in Robber’s cave national park 2.split into 2 groups – Eagles vs. Rattles 3. In the 1 stage the boys did only activities with their own group (either among the eagles or rattles – to increase in-group identity) 4. In stage 2 both groups interact and engage in completive sports with prizes for winning teams (scarce resource – only the group that wins gets the prize) - Results – will there be prejudice? Groups would call opposite groups sneaky, define members of their own groups as nice, friendly, brave etc and lastly stole from each other’s cabins - Same experiment stage 3: reduce intergroup conflict  Contact hypothesis (prejudice exists cause we don’t know other group members so therefore to reduce prejudice its necessary to get know others– in this experiment- Arranged lunchtime seating assignments to that boys from each time were intermixed  Introduced super ordinate goals so both groups had to work together to solve a problem (if you have a goal that serves the interest of both groups would decrease prejudice) - Results – with the contact hypothesis – didn’t really work, ended with a massive with a food fight however in the super ordinate condition friendships with opposite groups immensely increased (after working together, friendships increased) - Decreased hostility between members and from new friends - However, in-group identification was hard to eliminate (“ I am still a eagle or I am still a Rattle”) - Bias has 3 components (affect prejudice ; Behaviour discrimination and cognition – stereotyping - Cognitive component stereotypes – beliefs about the typical characteristics (usually traits) of group members, schemas uses to categorize complex social groups - Affective component – a hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people based only on their membership in that group - - Behavioral component – unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group simply because of his or her membership in that group - Princeton Trilogy – a collection of stereotypes that Americans had for a series of time (3) - (1) 1933 – asked 100 college students (all out group members) in Princeton for their stereotypes for different ethnic groups - they thought that the Germans were scientifically minded, industrious, Stolid whiles Jews were shrewd, mercenary and , industrious and Italians were stereotyped as passionate, impulsive and artistic - Princeton Trilogy – 3 series of time (1933) (1951) and (1969)- some stenotypes remained consistent with time while some stereotypes disappeared or some actually increased/decreased - Change based on current events however, stereotypes are generally stable - Stereotypes are also contextually bound - Trait based stereotype – can also be dependent on context (if _____, then_______) - Most people stereotype because they have knowledge of cultural stenotypes - Egalitarian ideologies – how much you belief in egalitarian determines how much one stereotypes - People who value egalitarian don’t stereotype as often = controlled process - Controlled person – if the person is egalitarian, the controlled process of the stereotype is activated that person will preconsciously reject stereotypical judgments - While automatic thinkers automatically activate stereotypes - Cognitive load – greater use of cognitive resources, greater load the more you rely on stereotypes - Study (1999) – 1.particpants all high in Egalitarian ideologies 2. Experimental condition – either high cognitive load or low cognitive load (you have to remember a number – low load (1, 2, 3) and high load (9 different numbers not in order) 3. Rate the aggressiveness of “African Americans” and “Caucasian Americans) - Results – under a low load, Egalitarian people are saying there saying there is no difference in aggressiveness between African Americans and Caucasian Americans - However , Egalitarian people in the high cognitive load rated African Americans being more aggressive than Caucasian Americans - Meta stereotypes – stereotype about how out-group members stereotype the in-group (what the out group thinks of my in group) - The more people expect out groups be bias against them, the more they themselves stereotypes towards the out group mem
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Don't have an account?

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.