Textbook Notes (368,434)
Canada (161,878)
Psychology (34)
PSYC-2400 (7)
Chapter 12

Chapter 12.docx

12 Pages
Unlock Document

Kelley Robinson

Prejudice: Causes and Cures 27/11/2013 10:18:00 AM Study: black children as young as 3 were given the choice between a black doll and a white doll; the majority chose the white doll because it was “prettier” and “superior” -> showing that the children thought it was not desirable to be black Study: children given pictures of white of native children; white children overwhelmingly chose the white children in pictures to play with, while native children were slightly more likely to choose white children to play with than native children -> native children attributed positive qualities to white children as well Study: multiculturalism study showed that majority groups who favour multiculturalism as opposed to assimilation view minority groups more positively Study: participants who perceived a group to be similar to their own group had a greater willingness to associate with that group Relating prejudice to attitude:  Affective component: prejudice -> affective attitudes, emotional reactions either positive or negative, but usually referring to negative  Cognitive component: stereotype -> a schema of what you picture someone is like  Behavioural component: discrimination -> acting harmful to a group o Study: callers inquiring about apartments, said they were gay, did not say anything about sexual orientation, or said they had AIDS -> landlords more likely to refuse gay people and 5x more likely to refuse someone with AIDS o Study: job applicants portraying as gay/lesbian received no formal discrimination (callbacks, use the bathroom, fill out application) but received more interpersonal discrimination (employers less verbally positive, less communication) Study: young children seem to share parents’ racial views, but adult children share views more strongly with parents when views are egalitarian, and less when they are prejudiced In group bias -> people rate their own group more favourably, and attribute more friendliness/smiling to their own group as well  Study: participants were read scenarios about people (anne is walking to the store…etc) then shown pictures of faces (neutral to big smile) -> those who were told that anne was their race were more likely to choose the smiling face to correspond, and when it was another race, they chose the neutral face  Study: participants assigned to groups through arbitrary means (coin toss, picture selection, etc) -> they felt kinship with their group and said their group was more friendly/outgoing than the other group; even giving themselves 2$ and outgroup 1$, instead of 3$ for themselves and $4 for the outgroup  Study: strangers taken a picture of together talk about “we” and “us”, but strangers sitting next to each other do not do this Why do we favour the in-group?  Social identity o Study: Canadian participants induced to feel high or low identification with Canada -> those in the high category recalled more positive deeds Canada did, and those in low recalled negative deeds o Study: coin toss -> participants group K or W allocated 5 points to the out-group; participants who identified more strongly with their group were more discriminatory with the other group (the more discriminatory, the more they liked their group) o Why would military discriminate against civilians, immigrants, outgroups? Military reinforces dominant societal attitudes about the superiority of particular groups o Study: participants split into womens and mens issue groups; one group told other group did not care about their issues, and one group told the other group was very supportive of their issues -> those whose social identities were threatened were more discriminatory against other group  Self-esteem o Social identity linked to self-esteem -> if group is seen as superior, self-esteem is high  Study: participants in red or blue group; some given opportunity to discriminate (award less points to others), other not given opportunity -> those who discriminated had higher self-esteem  Control group not assigned to a group did not raise self-esteem by discriminating (self-esteem only affected when social identity involved)  Study: participants either made to feel responsible for lab accident or not responsible; those with low self- esteem (responsible for accident) were more discriminatory against French Canadians (esp. if their English Canadian identity was made salient) Out group homogeinety: Rutgers and Princeton students watched a video of a man answering an arbitrary question; some told he was in group, some told he was outgroup -> participants rated the percentage of people at the school who would choose the same answer as higher when the man was an out group, and lower when he was the in group Reducing prejudice:  Promote a common identity  Emphasize groups that in-group and out-group belong to  Study: speaking the same language can blur the distinction, but the majority group will still retain their own identity, while the minority will show increased identification with majority group  Study: asking jewish participants about whether germans should be forgiven for holocaust; one condition, “an event where germans behave aggressively toward jews”, one condition “an event where humans act aggressively toward each other” -> human condition more likely to forgive and assign less guilt  Study: non-white participants showed pics of mixed race sports teams -> one group told they were part of team, other told just to memorize names of players; those who were in the group identified more strongly + less likely to show automatic racial bias  Study: participants asked to write down their values, others did not -> showed video of jewish woman; those who affirmed were less negative toward her Activation of stereotypes:  When we hear a prejudice statement we do not disregard it  Study: black and white debaters, one condition confederate makes racist comment about black debater, and skill rating goes down for black debater in debate -> when no comment is made, both debaters are rated equally o Why? Two step processing -> automatic processing and controlled (when person is not deeply prejudice their controlled processing can backtrack and get rid of the automatic thought  Prejudice control: o Study: white participants showed pictures of black and white faces in either neutral backgrounds or in stereotype negative backgrounds -> those high in motivation were less likely to make automatic negative responses Feeling good about ourselves:  Study: participants either evaluated positively or negatively by black interviewers; those who were evaluated negatively activated their negative stereotype about black people, and the positive ones inhibited their negative stereotypes -> how? They gave them fill in the blanks after that part with _ _ _ck or cr_ _ _ (could be black, crime, or snack, creek)  Study: women profs are seen as incompetent if students receive a low grade but not if they receive a high grade  Study: white or native profs delivered identical speech on exit exams at university; native profs seen as less persuasive and less competent even if degree of prejudice was low o Self-esteem is protected when we receive praise so we exhibit positive stereotypes and inhibit negative, and vice versa Meta-stereotype:  Level of prejudice depends on our stereotype plus whether we think that group has a positive/negative stereotype of us  Study: white participants were more discriminating against native participants when they thought they held a negative stereotype against them  Study: white and native participants got acquainted, then rated their interactions; high prejudice white participants thought that the native participants held negative stereotypes towards them, and rated interactions lower, even if it wasn’t true -> the native participants in the situation attributed the negative feelings toward themselves (low prejudice didn’t feel that way)  Study: white participants who were reminded of stereotypes of whites as racist sat further away from black participants (anxiety about confirming) Revising stereotypes  Study: Anglophones watched videos of francophones either confirming or disconfirming stereotypes, then held their beliefs of the stereotypes either way (less so when stereotype disconfirmed)  Study: participants were described a gay man who was monogamous and accountant -> they held their “gays are promiscuous attitude” but added subtype, “accountant gays are not promiscuous”
More Less

Related notes for PSYC-2400

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.