Class Notes (834,582)
Canada (508,621)
Psychology (3,518)
PSY322H1 (18)
Lecture 3

PSY322 Lecture 3.pdf

19 Pages
Unlock Document

William Huggon

Monday,  May  20 ,  2013       PSY322  Lecture  2.5  and  3       Review  from  last  class:       How  and  Why  Stereotypes  are  maintained     • Difficult  to  give  up   • Especially  because  they  are  often  under  conscious  awareness   • Cognitive  dissonance  is  activated:     o Want  to  be  fair,  good,  and  rational  (correct)   o  Versus  the  stereotype     - You  don’t  even  realize  you  have  stereotypes     - These  are  things  are  automatic  –  it  uses  up  cognitive  resources  -­‐    from  any  attitude   that  you  have,  the  more  you  activate  the  links  and  nodes  of  attitudes  to  these  beliefs   - The  more  you  activate  them,  the  stronger  it  gets  and  the  more  linked  it  is  in  your   brain   - A  lot  of  categorization  in  general  are  learned  from  a  very  young  age,  so  by  the  time   you  get  to  mid  20s,  you’ve  got  15-­‐20  years  experience  –  it’s  hard  to  change  even   when  you  realize  it’s  wrong   - If  it’s  important  to  you,  you  will  change,  it  takes  a  long  time  to  switch  out  15-­‐20   years  of  thinking     - They  are  under  conscious  awareness  and  we  do  them  automatically  and  it’s   reinforced  by  our  culture  over  and  over  again     - It’s  implied  that  it’s  ok  –  sometimes  you  say  you’re  joking  and  don’t  realize  you’re   offending  someone  –  like  ageism,  homophobia,  racism,  etc   - Little  comments  that  you  don’t  think  you’re  being  prejudice     Selective  Attention   • Stereotype-­‐inconsistent  information  is  dissonance  arousing,  because  it   threatens  one's  self  concept   • People  end  up  paying  attention  to  only  stereotype-­‐  consistent  information  and   ignoring  the  dissonance  arousing  stereotype  –inconsistent     • If  you  aren’t  really  aware  of  what  you’re  doing  and  you  don’t  have  any  motivation  to   correct  it,  you  usually  look  for  things  that  go  along  with  your  stereotypes     • Sometimes  ignore  the  stuff  that  doesn’t  go  along  with  the  stereotypes  –  this  is  going   to  be  stronger  especially  if  you  actually  endorse  these    -­‐  you  can  say  “yes  I  endorse   this”  or  “no  I  don’t  endorse  this”  and  not  really  thing  about  it,  and  then  they  get   activated  automatically  behind  the  scenes  so  it  gets  stronger  and  stronger   • If  you  see  someone  from  that  in-­‐group  that  you  know  stereotypes  about  and  they   don’t  meet  that  criteria  we  say  “they  must  be  the  exception  to  the  rule”   • Generalizing  everyone     Subcategorization     • Trait  stereotypes  tend  to  be  stored  as  applied  to  all  group  members   • Form  subcategories  when  encountering  stereotype  –  inconsistent   characteristics     - If  you  meet  someone  from  an  out-­‐group  that  you  don’t  like,  is  it  because  they’re  an   individual?  Fair  enough,  it’s  not  because  of  their  group  status    -­‐  you  don’t  have  to   bend  over  backwards  because  they  belong  in  a  group  that  is  stigmatized   - When  you  try  to  subcategorize  “I’m  not  prejudiced,  have  lots  of  intergroup  friends   my  favorite  actor  is  Morgan  freeman  or  I  watch  Oprah  –I’m  not  racist!”   - What  would  those  actors,  those  subcategorized  out-­‐group  members  think  if  you  said   “everyone  in  your  group  is  bad  except  for  you  guys”  do  you  think  they’ll  appreciate   it?  No  they’ll  think  you’re  prejudiced   Lecture  2.5:  Origins  and  Maintenance   Illusory  Correlations       • The  phenomenon  of  seeing  the  relationship  one  expects  in  a  set  of  data  even   when  no  such  relationship  exists   • A  common  example  of  this  phenomenon  would  be  when  people  form  false   associations  between  membership  in  a  statistical  minority  group  and  rare   (typically  negative)  behaviours.       - Goes  along  with  belief  perseverance  idea  –  where  If  we  see  an  example  of  a   stereotype  we  check  it  off  and  ignore  all  the  other  examples  that  disconfirm  the   stereotype   - The  reason  we  start  picking  out  the  relationship  is  because  of  the  unusualness  of  the   behaviours  –  they’re  distinct,  they’re  attention  grabbing   - If  you  see  someone  from  an  out-­‐group  member  walking  down  the  street,  it’  not   really  distinct  –  if  you  see  someone  juggling  hacky  sacks   - Already  imagine  in  Canada  where  50%  of  everyone  is  white  (the  majority)  and  you   have  minority  subgroups,  so  you  see  less  of  them  –  then  when  you  start  seeing   distinctive  behaviours,  it’s  going  to  be  linked     • Tend  to  lead  to  formation  and  maintenance  of  stereotypes   • The  variables  capture  the  attention  simply  because  they  are  novel  or  deviant   • Stereotypes  can  lead  people  to  expect  certain  groups  and  traits  to  fit  together,   and  they  overestimate  the  frequency  of  when  these  correlations  actually  occur     - People  tend  to  overestimate  the  core  association  between  the  variables  of   stereotyped  groups  and  the  type  of  behaviour   - You’ll  start  to  notice  confirmation  of  these  stereotypes   - Ex:  if  you  see  an  old  person  who  is  grumpy,  you’ll  see  the  stereotype  of   “grumpy  old  men”;  when  you  see  a  happy  old  man,  you  think  they  must  be   unusual  and  subcategorize  that  person       Hamilton  and  Gifford  (1976)     • Participants  read  a  series  of  sentences  describing  either  desirable  or   undesirable  behaviours   • Attributed  to  either  Group  A  or  Group  B     - You  read  a  bunch  of  sentences    -­‐  “Paul  stopped  to  help  an  old  lady  change  a  tire”  for   Group  A,  “Jim  did  good  on  his  math  test”  in  Group  B  –  and  you’re  supposed  to   remember  them  as  best  you  can  but  there  are  a  bunch  of  statements  for  both  groups   so  it’s  difficult  –  you  start  to  form  impressions     - Abstract  groups  –  there  were  no  previously  established  stereotypes  to  influence   results  –  both  male  and  female,  no  race  or  age  mentioned  or  pictures  -­‐  it’s  just   names  coming  up   - Without  being  told,  they  created  a  majority  and  a  minority  group  –  they  just  put   more  statements  in  general  about  group  a  than  group  b     • Most  of  the  sentences  were  associated  with  Group  A   • The  remaining  few  were  associated  with  Group  B   • BUT  NOTICE  each  group  had  the  same  proportions  of  positive  and  negative   behaviours     Group A Group B Behaviours Total (Majority) (Minority) Desirable 18 ( 70%) 9 ( 70%) 27 Undesirable 8 ( 30%) 4 ( 30%) 12 Total 26 13 39   - Desirable  to  undesirable  ratio    -­‐  also  statements  like  “Jim  came  along  and  stole  20   dollars  from  a  woman’s  purse”  or  “Steve  was  supposed  to  go  visit  his  sick   grandmother  but  went  to  the  beach  instead”   - Exact  same  ratio  –  69%  to  30%  positive  statements  to  negative  statements   - If  26  statements  come  up  for  group  A,  you’ll  get  a  good  impression  of  them   - As  group  B  ones  start  popping  in,  to  try  to  distinguish  because  it  is  18  (good  for   group  A)  to  4  (bad  for  group  B)   - More  bad  statements  about  group  A  but  it  starts  popping  up  and  you  realize  you   haven’t  seen  anything  about  group  B  yet  so  when  it  does,  you  remember  it   - The  ones  that  are  easier  to  remember  are  the  deviant  behaviours    -­‐    “group  B  people   are  bad”  even  though  there  are  way  less  bad  comments     • Positive,  desirable  behaviours  were  not  seen  as  distinctive  so  people  were   accurate  in  their  associations   • On  the  other  hand,  when  distinctive,  undesirable  behaviours  were   represented  in  the  sentences,  the  participants  overestimated  how  much  the   minority  group  exhibited  the  behaviours     - Illusory  correlation  when  there’s  a  group  that’s  a  minority,  and  they  only  pop  up   every  once  in  a  while  you  start  remembering  distinct  things  about  then  and  you   start  linking  even  though  if  you  look  at  the  results  it’s  the  exact  same  ratio     Theories  as  to  the  Origins  of  Prejudice     • Social  Identity   • Optimal  Distinctiveness   • Scapegoat   • Relative  Deprivation   • Realistic  Conflict     Social  Identity  Theory  (Tajfel  &  Turner)     • A  social  identity  is  the  portion  of  an  individual’s  self-­‐concept  derived  from   perceived  membership  in  a  relevant  social  group   • Predicts  certain  intergroup  behaviours  on  the  basis  of  the  perceived  status,   legitimacy  and  permeability  of  the  intergroup  environment.       - You  try  to  have  briefly  separate  groups  and  you  don’t  know  who’s  group  you’re  in   - But  you  still  liked  your  group  better  and  gave  more  resources  to  your  group     - We  have  group  associations  as  well  because  part  of  our  self  esteem  and  what  we   think  of  ourselves  develop  from  this  –  my  family  is  really  great     - If  you  have  an  established  group,  it  makes  you  feel  good  and  it  makes  you  want  to   maintain  that  group       1. We  are  motivated  to  maintain  a  positive  self-­‐concept.   2. Parts  of  our  self-­‐concepts  are  based  on  group  memberships.  In  order  to  feel   good  about  ourselves,  we  need  to  feel  good  about  our  groups.   3. Compare  in-­‐group  favorably  to  out-­‐groups.  –  to  increase  our  self  esteem     - People  on  average  think  they’re  better  than  everyone  else  at  certain  traits   - We  maintain  our  self  concept  with  all  sorts  of  brain  tricks   - If  you’re  to  ask  “compared  to  everyone  other  student  in  UofT,  where  do  you  place   yourself  on  a  scale  from  1-­‐10,  even  if  some  people  think  they’re  not  great,  by   definition  the  average  on  the  scale  should  get  5  across  all  of  UofT  –  but  you’d  get  an   average  of  6  or  7  –  we  inflate  our  self  concept  and  makes  us  feel  good     Ingroup  Favouritism     • Where  people  give  preferential  treatment  to  others  when  they  are  perceived   to  be  in  the  same  in-­‐group   • Due  to  a  psychological  need  for  positive  distinctiveness     - Made  it  clear  in  theory  that  in-­‐group  favouritism  was  how  it  works  –  it  wasn’t  out-­‐ group  derogation,  it  didn’t  necessarily  lead  to  out-­‐group  derogation  and  being  proud   of  your  group  doesn’t  automatically  lead  to  discrimination  and  bias  –  it’s  ok  to  be   happy  about  your  group   - Discrimination  and  conflict  are  anticipated  in  only  certain  circumstances       Optimal  Distinctiveness  Theory  (Brewer)     • Tension  between  two  needs:   •     •     • In  constant  opposition  with  each  other     • If  social  identity  is  strongly  salient     • To  be  our  own  unique  person   • To  belong  to  groups   • There  is  an  increased  tendency  to  evaluate  out-­‐groups  in  terms  of  stereotypes     - If  we’re  happy  we  define  ourselves  based  on  this  group,  this  leads  to  a  problem   because  we  do  (especially  in  western  cultures)  want  to  be  our  unique  person  but  at   the  same  time  we  want  to  belong  to  groups  because  if  we’re  shunned  from  all   groups  it’s  not  great  for  passing  on  your  genes  –  evolutionary  psychology  needs  like   procreation  and  shelter  and  food  –  we  only  get  that  from  interacting  with  other   people     - If  there  is  too  much  of  one  motive,  the  other  must  increase  in  order  to   counterbalance  it  and  vice  versa     - There  doesn’t  mean  you  can’t  find  a  nice  balance  and  be  happy  with  who  you  are   and  the  group  you’re  in   - Tendency  of  evaluating  groups  based  on  stereotypes   - If  you  can’t  see  some  flaws  in  your  group,  you’re  probably  less  likely  to  try  to  find   flaws  in  out-­‐groups   - Maybe  you  even  subcategorize  “not  everyone  is  a  big  jerk  in  my  group”  and  that  way   you’re  still  looking  for  positive  things  in  out-­‐groups   - If  you  can  individualize  yourself  you’re  more  likely  to  individualize  others       Scapegoat  Theory     • The  scapegoat  theory  of  intergroup  conflict  provides  an  explanation  for  the   correlation  between  times  of  relative  economic  despair  and  increases  in   prejudice  and  violence  toward  out-­‐groups     - In  a  distinct  set  of  circumstances  more  prejudice  comes  at  you  –  racism  seems  to   come  back  up  during  recession  because  of  “this  group”  and  there’s  no  actual   correlation  between  that  and  the  actual  reason    -­‐  should  be  angry  at  the  bankers  for   screwing  up  the  world  economy  but  instead  of  getting  mad  at  bankers,  they  get  mad   at  different  groups       • When  an  individual  becomes  thwarted  from  a  particular  goal,  they  may  feel   anger,  irritation,  or  disappointment.   • Because  these  feelings  are  related  to  negatively  stereotyped  out-­‐groups,  they   become  associated  in  memory     - These  are  also  going  to  activate  the  stereotype  –  these  traits  aren’t  only  linked  to   this  category  but  also  linked  to  other  categories    -­‐  you’re  super  disappointed,  angry,   scared  –  and  activate  this  trait  which  is  negative  and  if  you  active  them  repeatedly   and  they’re  strong,  they  automatically  activate  these  other  links       • More  likely  to  appear  when  a  group  has  experienced  difficult,  prolonged   negative  experiences   • When  negative  conditions  frustrate  a  group's  attempts  at  successful   acquisition  of  its  most  essential  needs  (e.g.,  food,  shelter)     • Groups  may  develop  a  compelling,  shared  ideology  that  may  lead  to  genocide.     - “Let’s  kill  everyone  to  get  the  resources  to  ourselves  –it’s  their  fault  anyway”     • Can  also  cause  oppressed  groups  to  lash  out  at  other  oppressed  groups.     • Minorities  sometimes  lash  out  against  a  different  minority  group  in  lieu   of  confronting  the  more  powerful  majority     - The  powerful  majority  who’s  repressing  you,  instead  of  lashing  back  out  at  them,   you  lash  out  at  a  different  group       Relative  Deprivation  Theory  (Davis)     • Relative  deprivation  is  the  experience  of  being  deprived  of  something  to   which  one  believes  oneself  to  be  entitled.     • It  refers  to  the  discontent  people  feel  when  they  compare  their  positions  to   others  and  realize  that  they  have  less  of  what  they  believe  themselves  to  be   entitled  than  those  around  them     - You  still  have  it  though  and  other  groups  start  getting  it  too  –  you  don’t  want   everyone  else  to  have  it  too  –  gay  marriage  –  straight  people  have  marriage  and   when  gay  people  are  allowed  to  marry,  and  straight  people  get  angry,  but  it  doesn’t   change  anything  for  straight  people   - It  doesn’t  lower  the  one  group  if  this  group  gets  better  –  in  fact,  if  both  groups  are  on   equal  footing,  it  will  increase  positivity  for  society  as  a  whole     • Prejudice  and  hostility  towards  out-­‐groups  arise  out  of  a  feeling  of    relative   deprivation  with  regard  to  that  out-­‐group  in  terms  of  an  important  goal   • Good  educational  opportunities   • Jobs  –  (immigrants  stealing  jobs,  for  example)     - Those  immigrants  are  super  qualified    -­‐  doing  jobs  that  some  Canadians  are  not   qualified  to  do     - You  think  that  you’ve  got  something  taken  away  from  you  but  it’s  not  –  giving   something  to  someone  else  where  it  doesn’t  affect  you  is  nothing  to  do  with  your   ability  to  get  that  resource       Realistic  Conflict  Theory  (Campbell)     • Intergroup  hostility  can  arise  as  a  result  of  conflicting  goals  and  competition   over  limited  resources   • Such  as  money,  political  power,  military  protection,  or  social  status     • Resentment  can  arise  because  of  a  perceived  zero-­‐sums  fate   • Only  one  group  is  the  winner  and  the  other,  loses   • Length  and  severity  of  the  conflict  is  determined  by  the  perceived  value  and   shortage  of  a  given  resource.     - “if  they  get  it,  I  get  nothing"   - Doesn’t  happen  in  reality   - A  perception  that  one  group’s  a  winner  and  one’s  a  loser  –  we’re  raised  that  way,  in   a  competitive  society  in  north  America   - Thing  is,  anyone  could  be  a  winner  as  long  as  there  are  enough  resources   - If  there  is  a  shortage  of  given  resource,  and  it’s  really  valued,  it  could  increase  the   severity  of  conflict  in  between  groups   - One  way  to  get  rid  of  it  is  by  making  both  groups  realize  that  both  groups  can  win    -­‐   like  making  a  goal  where  you  both  have  to  work  together       Lecture  3:  Personality,  Social  Norms  &  Modern  Racism     Trait  Theory     • An  approach  to  the  study  of  human  personality  (rather  than  social  groups)   • Traits   • Habitual  patterns  of  behaviour,  thought,  and  emotion.     • Relatively  stable  over  time   • Differ  across  individuals   • Influence  behaviour     - Also  an  idea  that  if  you  have  some  specific  traits  you’re  more  likely  to  be  biased  than   if  you  have  other  traits   - These  traits  work  the  same  way  as  attitudes     - Trait  theory:  you  have  a  certain  trait  and  we  think  that  some  things  are  more   habitual  –  things  you  do  all  the  time  –  habitual  patterns  of  behaviour,  thought,   emotion  –  they’re  relatively  stable  over  time     - Self  esteem  –  you  can  change  it  by  working  on  it  and  you  can  temporarily  change  it     • Gordon  Allport  was  an  early  pioneer  in  the  study  of  traits,  which  he  sometimes   referred  to  as  dispositions.     •  Common  traits  are  those  recognized  within  a  culture  and  may  vary  between   cultures     - Allport  –  grandfather  of  social  personality  psychology   - He  liked  ‘dispositions’  because  a  trait,  even  though  we  say  traits  are  malleable  and   they  change  or  they’re  relatively  stable,  disposition  sounds  better   - Old  thought  that  western  societies  are  very  independent  and  eastern  societies  are   interdependent  –  it’s  changing  though     • Central  traits  are  basic  to  an  individual's  personality   • Cardinal  traits  are  those  by  which  an  individual  may  be  strongly  recognized   •  Secondary  traits  are  more  peripheral     - Central  traits  make  up  who  you  are  –  your  personality  cluster  of  traits  defines  you   and  can  partially  predict  your  behaviour  based  on  that   - Cardinal  traits  should  be  even  more  predictive  –  the  individual  strongly  identifies   with  these  particular  traits   - Secondary  traits  are  traits  that  still  help  define  you  but  they’re  more  malleable  and   aren’t  that  important  to  you     - Rank  traits  in  order  from  most  important  to  you  (cardinal)  to  least  important  to  you   (central)   - Secondary  -­‐>  You  wouldn’t  want  to  step  on  flowers  but  you  wouldn’t  go  out  of  your   way  not  to  do  it  if  you’re  in  a  hurry     • Personality  is  one  variable  that  can  affect  behaviour   • (Along  with  attitudes  and  the  situation)   • Let’s  look  at  some  big  ones       - Social  norms  are  based  on  two  main  motivations  for  any  decision  –  motivation  to  be   correct  and  the  motivation  to  be  liked  by  other  people   - Situation  and  social  norms  sometimes  trump  everything  else     Right-­‐Wing  Authoritarianism  (Altemeyer,  1981)     Characterized  by:   • Obedience  to  authority   • Moral  absolutism   • Racial  and  ethnic  prejudice   • Intolerance  and  punitiveness  towards  dissidents  and  deviants.     - At  a  young  age,  we  go  through  these  different  stages  and  at  a  very  young  age  you   have  the  idea  that  whoever  is  bigger,  is  right,  regardless  of  the  logic  –  if  they’re   bigger  and  more  powerful  than  you,  then  you  go  along  with  what  they  say   - If  your  parent  told  you  to  kick  a  cat,  and  they’re  bigger  than  you,  it  must  be  ok   - As  you  get  bigger,  what  you  say  is  ok  especially  if  you’re  stuck  in  that  stage  –  you’re   stuck  in  this  idea  that  whoever  has  legitimate  authority  (definition  is  if  they’re  in   power  they  must  be  legitimate),  then  they  must  be  right  –  you  have  to  have   obedience  to  them   - Moral  absolutism  –  if  they’re  in  power  they  must  be  right  and  you’ll  go  along  with   them   - Racial  and  ethic  prejudice  –  stuck  in  a  black  and  white  in-­‐group  out-­‐group  ideology   - Anyone  who  goes  against  this  perceived  authority  and  usually  the  perceive   authority  is  the  majority  group,  then  they’re  deviants       • Right-­‐wing  authoritarianism  is  defined  by  three  attitudinal  and  behavioral   clusters  which  correlate  together:   •  Authoritarian  submission   •
More Less

Related notes for PSY322H1

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.