Class Notes (839,284)
Canada (511,244)
Psychology (7,818)
PSYC12H3 (387)
Lecture 6

Lecture 6: Experiencing Prejudice

8 Pages

Course Code
Michael Inzlicht

This preview shows pages 1,2 and half of page 3. Sign up to view the full 8 pages of the document.
Lecture 6: Experiencing Prejudice Class overview  The Target’s perspective  A model of stigma  The self-protective properties of stigma  Moderating characteristics  Negative consequences of stigma defenses  Movie Time (if time permits) What’s it like to be a target?   ―Good doll vs bad doll‖: Black kids preferred the white dolls over the black dolls, yet they identified with the black doll. Change of perspective  1998, shy 21yo gay man Mathew Sheppard in Wyoming walked into a gay bar was attacked by two heterosexual men who lured him into their truck by pretending to be gay men.  Taken to a farm and pistol whipped in the head  Tied his hands to fence with his shoe laces  Left till next morning and died in hospital. The Laramie Project  A play that tells the story of Mathew Sheppard  But what was it like for Mathew Sheppard living in a homophobic culture? Unanswerable.  More recently, research has focused on the perceiver of prejudice, rather than the doer. Let’s look at the target’s point of view  Up until now, discussed perceiver’s point of view  How do stereotypes emerge?  How are stereotyped maintained?  Who is most likely to be prejudiced?  How has prejudice changed over time?  What are the effects of prejudice?  How do people cope with it?  “The lion’s story will never be told as long as the hunter is telling the story”  You must ask the victim not the doer when trying to understand the target’s POV Stigma  Stigma: Possession of a trait/characteristic (real or perceived) that is devalued by society  Stigmatized have ―spoiled identity‖: not morally right as other identities  Are discriminated against at various levels (behavioural, economic, etc.) Types of stigma (Goffman, 1963): 1) Abominations of body: something about one’s physical chars leads to stigma  Eg) stigma against fat people, facial deformities, hyperhidrosis 2) Blemishes of character: something about the personality/mental state  Mental disability (depression, anxiety), eating disorders (we judge super fat and super skinny people), 3) Tribal markers: stigma based on race/ethnicity  Skin colour, clothing (burkas) Males: The new targets?  ―it’s his turn: men claim discrimination at work‖ – news article  Preferentially selecting groups for something A model of stigma reactions  Major & O’Brien, 2005 * know this graph   Collective Representations: one’s culture, meta-stereotype (what are the stereotypes you have about other’s stereotypes?)  Situational Cues: Cues communicating stigma relevance  Eg) are you in a classroom with many men or women?  Personal char: Individual differences in perception & appraisal  Threat Appraisal: Is Stigma relevant? Am I threatened?  Involuntary responses: anxiety, disruption, vigilance  Voluntary responses: ways of Coping with threat - blaming discrimination, limit social comparisons, disidentification  Outcomes: Self-esteem, performance, health Example: How do Muslims cope at the airport? (using the graph)  Collective rep (whats the culture like?) = In N.A. there are stereotypes associating Muslims w/ terrorism especially around airplanes/airport.  Situational cues = In a line up about to go through security at an airport. They may strip search me.  Personal chars = am I religious? Am I wearing external markers of my religion? Do I care or id with my religion? Do I care about being searched?  ID threat appraisal = Will the target person make an ID threat appraisal?  If your in an airport and your aware of these stereotypes and you have external markers, you are more likely to undergo ID threat appraisal  More likely to worry or think youre being judged based on the group you id with, not as a person, and thus seen incorrectly as a threat.  E = increased heartrate, racing thoughts, racing emotions; Muslim person prof say at airport looked scared  F = looking suspicious by trying too hard to look otherwise  G: successful security passage, incarceration, strip search etc.  Longterm negative effects on health, or a change in b (avoidance) Stigma’s Self-Protective Properties Stigma & Self-Esteem  Stigmatized are disadvantaged economically & interpersonally  Stigma should lead to lower self-esteem, right?  Reflected Appraisals: the way we feel about ourselves should reflect how others feel about us  Self-fulfilling Prophecies: internalizing the way other feel about us and so causing us to act the way other’s believe we act  Wrong!  Stigmatized have the same or higher (!) SE than non-stigmatized  For some groups (BLACKS AND WHITES) there are no differences on S-report scales  How? Ref crocker. Crocker & Major, 1989  Stigma can buffer self-esteem  Argue: Having a spoiled character can actually help your self-esteem  Story of how I became ―stigmatized‖ for protection (prof)  Affirmative Action- rules set in place to right wrongs  Eg) if youre coming from minority groups, you will be treated preferentially (it’s a policy)  Eg) preferentially hiring  Prof couldn’t get a job, but knowing he was a victim of discrimination (via AA), it helped him externalize the reason why he wasn’t getting hired. Thus saving his self-esteem.  3 effects of stigma: attributional ambiguity, disidentification, & ingroup comparisons  Attributional Ambiguity  Blame discrimination instead of blaming one’s self to protect one’s self  Allows one to Discount negative feedback  Disidentification  Disengage self-esteem from stereotyped domain  Eg) saying ―math sucks‖ when you’re bad at math  Value dimensions where in-group fares well  In-group comparisons  Limit comparisons to in-group members  Segregated environments: people will surround themselves with similar people. By doing so, they can compare themselves with people who are in similar situations/ who have similar stigmas.  Accurate self-evaluations  Avoid painful comparisons Crocker et al., 1991 study on attributional ambiguity  Hypothesis: Stigmatized can protect self-esteem by attributing negative feedback to prejudice  Eg) its not because of me, it’s because of prejudice that exists in that other person.  Method:  Blacks P to become ―friends‖ study with ―White P‖  P blackives Pwhiteinformation, and P whiteooks at Pblacks characteristics and then judges whether they want to be friends with P blackr not.  Subjects receive positive vs negative feedback  P blackd P whitere kept in separate rooms the whole time though there is a window. P blackills out a self questionnai
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2 and half of page 3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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.