Study Guides (258,765)
CA (124,995)
UTSC (8,100)
Psychology (1,886)
PSYC12H3 (72)

Ch 2 notes

17 Pages
104 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC12H3
Professor
Michael Inzlicht

This preview shows pages 1-3. Sign up to view the full 17 pages of the document.
Chapter 2: Origin and Maintenance of Stereotypes and Prejudice
The Formation of Stereotypes
Categorization
oThe human brain seems to almost automatically classify or categorize similar
objects in the environment
oStereotypes were no longer re: as the product of lazy thinking by the
uneducated or those with moral deficiency
oNow stereotypes= a natural consequence of cognition
Why do we categorize?
oWe have a limited-capacity cognitive system
Cannot simultaneously process all the available info
oWe categorize people (and objects and ideas) based on shared features, time
or space
oBased on Aristotle’s principle of association
We assume that things that are similar on the basis of one feature or
b/c they occur together…will likely have other notable similarities on
a # of dimensions
i.e. Blondes; they are fun ppl, attract fun ppl, do fun things
only sometimes are they rational (like a political candidate’s attitudes
on various political issues)
or illogical- hair or skin colour
human cognition is often anything but rational and logical(throughout
the text book)
Types of Categorization
oWe tend to categorize people along a few broad categories: mostly on race,
gender and age
Most obvious + immediate
Yield information about useful distinctions in social behaviour
between those in different groups
= basic/primitive categories(special status by researchers)
Process = very quick and with repetition can become virtually
automatic and nonconscious
i.e. merely being exposed to white/black face can evoke
associated cog, beliefs, feelings etc.
oThere are suggestions that stereotypes are not automatically activated for all
stimuli
oUpon perceiving category words (Hispanic, woman), we automatically think
of assoc stereotypes for that category, YET when seeing a member of one of
these grps, we do not automatically think of all the stereotypes for the groups
(race, gender, age)
www.notesolution.com
Which makes sense since category labels do not require the perceiver
to categorize the object
Once placed into a category a lot of information can be predicted
(associated stereotypes)
These associated stereotypes are automatically evoked and
depend on the salient dimension (category we focus on)
If you see a face, you need to categorize….and it can fall under a # of
dimensions/categories (race, age, etc.)…thus we do not automatically
stereotype
Only when the perceiver wants to quickly evaluate the target in the pic
do stereotypes become activated as a useful means of arriving at an
attitude toward the target
Ingroups and Outgroups
oIngroup – groups we belong to
oOutgroups – groups we do not belong to
oExpectations of ingroups and outgroups can also depend on environment
(expected behaviour at concert vs. at school)
oYou have diff ingroups (age, race, family, school, work)
oTaylor (1981)
Demonstrated the effect of one’s salient groups on perception +
memory for social info
Watch a discussion between blacks and whites
Asked to recall who said what
Could attribute to race very well
Recall to the specific individual not good
In our mind we split up (black talk form white talk)
People tended to remember info in terms of race categories
instead of indiv identity
oOutgroup homogeneity – “they are all the same”
Vs. our ingroup which we perceive as beingunique
oThose outgroup members who closely resemble one’s belief of that group…
will more likely be perceived stereotypically than those with fewer
stereotyped characteristics
Ex. Blair 2004 study: Harsher jail sentences for races with more
African” features (typical of Blacks)
oIngroup Bias or Favouritism – we are the best, we are also very diverse, not
like the outgroup who are all the same
oWe greatly simplify our social environ by categorizing others in that way and
enhance our self-concept (non-homo)
oSome researchers: In favouring ingroups- we also tend to put down/attribute
neg charac to outgroups
However, research on this is not supported
www.notesolution.com
oMost research/literature suggests that it does not mean that we must also
dislike outgroups
oPurdue et al. (1990)
Outgroup priming word (them) reaction time to negative descriptor
NOT effected
Ingroup priming word (us) reaction time to negative descriptor
SLOWED, reaction time to positive descriptor were FASTER
Also note: the more an outgrop is seen as homogenous, the greater
likelihood for perceivers to use group/stereotype labels to process info
about this grp
Leads to outgroup derogration + discrimination
oExposure to members of a stereotype outgroup can lead to both good (more
heterogeneous) and bad (more stereotyped/homo) views depending on
situation
When outgroup does something bad.. They are all bad like that
Stay away from them, they are bad
But when member of outgroup does something good, it fosters more
sympathetic beliefs about the group
Not scared of outgroup, further interaction fostered
oHenderson-King Study:
Examined how white males would react to White or African American
couple having an argument or a neutral conversation
Wanted to see how it would effect interaction with a white or
black confederate asking for directions
Results: after watching Black couple argue, participants interacted
with Black confed for shorter period of time
Also found that if W partic saw a B person being rude to experimenter,
they would avoid further contact with an Black person
Even hearing about a B committing a crime can reinforce stereotypes
for blacks….and perceieve them as less variable a grp than a group of
Caucasians
Positive encounters with stereotyped group = perceiver more
sympathetic beliefs about grp...more interaction
oMinimal groups
The ingroup and our group distinction does not even have to be
meaningful (racial, political) for biases to occur
We can be aware that the groups were assigned arbitrarily, and still
show ingroup favouritism, and outgroup derogation
Even if a coin is flipped and groups are assigned
Minimal groups lack these features of real groups
Coherent group structure
Face-to-face interaction
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
Chapter 2: Origin and Maintenance of Stereotypes and Prejudice The Formation of Stereotypes Categorization o The human brain seems to almost automatically classify or categorize similar objects in the environment o Stereotypes were no longer re: as the product of lazy thinking by the uneducated or those with moral deficiency o Now stereotypes= a natural consequence of cognition Why do we categorize? o We have a limited-capacity cognitive system Cannot simultaneously process all the available info o We categorize people (and objects and ideas) based on shared features, time or space o Based on Aristotles principle of association We assume that things that are similar on the basis of one feature or bc they occur togetherwill likely have other notable similarities on a # of dimensions i.e. Blondes; they are fun ppl, attract fun ppl, do fun things only sometimes are they rational (like a political candidates attitudes on various political issues) or illogical- hair or skin colour human cognition is often anything but rational and logical(throughout the text book) Types of Categorization o We tend to categorize people along a few broad categories: mostly on race, gender and age Most obvious + immediate Yield information about useful distinctions in social behaviour between those in different groups = basicprimitive categories(special status by researchers) Process = very quick and with repetition can become virtually automatic and nonconscious i.e. merely being exposed to whiteblack face can evoke associated cog, beliefs, feelings etc. o There are suggestions that stereotypes are not automatically activated for all stimuli o Upon perceiving category words (Hispanic, woman), we automatically think of assoc stereotypes for that category, YET when seeing a member of one of these grps, we do not automatically think of all the stereotypes for the groups (race, gender, age) www.notesolution.com Which makes sense since category labels do not require the perceiver to categorize the object Once placed into a category a lot of information can be predicted (associated stereotypes) These associated stereotypes are automatically evoked and depend on the salient dimension (category we focus on) If you see a face, you need to categorize.and it can fall under a # of dimensionscategories (race, age, etc.)thus we do not automatically stereotype Only when the perceiver wants to quickly evaluate the target in the pic do stereotypes become activated as a useful means of arriving at an attitude toward the target Ingroups and Outgroups o Ingroup groups we belong to o Outgroups groups we do not belong to o Expectations of ingroups and outgroups can also depend on environment (expected behaviour at concert vs. at school) o You have diff ingroups (age, race, family, school, work) o Taylor (1981) Demonstrated the effect of ones salient groups on perception + memory for social info Watch a discussion between blacks and whites Asked to recall who said what Could attribute to race very well Recall to the specific individual not good In our mind we split up (black talk form white talk) People tended to remember info in terms of race categories instead of indiv identity o Outgroup homogeneity they are all the same Vs. our ingroup which we perceive as being unique o Those outgroup members who closely resemble ones belief of that group will more likely be perceived stereotypically than those with fewer stereotyped characteristics Ex. Blair 2004 study: Harsher jail sentences for races with more African features (typical of Blacks) o Ingroup Bias or Favouritism we are the best, we are also very diverse, not like the outgroup who are all the same o We greatly simplify our social environ by categorizing others in that way and enhance our self-concept (non-homo) o Some researchers: In favouring ingroups- we also tend to put downattribute neg charac to outgroups However, research on this is not supported www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only pages 1-3 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


OR

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


OR

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.


Submit