Exam IIII Flashcards
(77 cards)
Attractiveness:
Ex: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?
Took a lot of pics of people and gave them to a large sample size and asked them to rate their attractiveness
Results: .9
Conclusion: Almost everyone agrees on attractiveness
Outgroup bias:
Behavioral component
Emotional component
Cognitive component
Behavioral component- discrimination
Emotional component-prejudice
Cognitive component-stereotyping
Prejudice difficulties
-Hard to measure: want to be socially desirable or unaware of their bias
Measuring prejudice:
Prejudice Implicit Association Test
- Done sitting at a computer individually, participant is presented with “good” or “bad” matched with African American face or white face. Will get a stimulus on the bottom of the screen and have to choose left or right to indicate your choice. Then switch the it around to avoid practice effect. Then take the test
- Dv: Reaction time and # of errors
- Result: If they have a bias against African American’s will have a faster reaction time for African American in the bad condition
IAT (Higher=more prejudice)
-Gave white participants IAT, scores varied in bias, brought participants in and had them pair up with a partner and got to know each other
Cons:
1) White partner
2) Black partner
-When finished white participants take the stroop test, measured errors
Results: White participants who have a white partner barely make mistakes if they have been paired with a white patner
White participants who have a black partner make more mistake on the stroop test as they become more bias
Conclusion: That feeling of prejudice during the conversation with the black partner gave them discomfort and distracted them, enabling them to make mistakes (cognitive overload)
Ex: Korean and Japanese IAT tested
- Had common names that were Korean or Japanese
- Participants Korean american, Japanese
- Had them answer questions on how immersed they are in their culture (variety of levels)
Results:
-Korean american: As they are more immersed in their culture the more of the bias they show in favor of their own group
-Japanese: As they are more immersed in their culture the more bias they show in favor of their own group
Conclusion: The more “valuable” to them their heritage is the more they see it as positive
IAT vs Survey
Ex:
-bad to good scale, etc. (antonym anchors)
(IV) Cons: Semantic differential
1) Pro white
2) Pro black
(DV) Cons: IAT Effect
1) Pro white
2) Pro black
Results:
- People favored pro white more than pro black on IAT
- On survey they are showing much more neutral bias
Conclusion:
-IAT = more sensitive measure
Stereotype Threat
-When a group of people feel that other people are judging them negatively based on their group membership it makes it hard to concentrate
Stereotype threat: GRE test
- Told Stereotype threat group they can use the test to diagnose intellectual ability
- Told control group they were just pilot testing questions, didn’t know if any had value
Cons:
1) Stereotype African American (Diagnostic)
2) Stereotype White (Diagnostic)
3) Control African American (Non-diagnostic)
4) Control White (Non-diagnostic)
Results:
-Whites did better/scored higher in Diagnostic condition than African Americans
-Both groups were about the same, didn’t have much of an effect
Stereotype threat: Specify ethnicity
Ex:
- Asked ethnicity first (Priming ethnicity) or last on a test
- Dv: Test performance
Cons:
1) White, race prime
2) Black, race prime
3) White, No race prime
4) Black, No race prime
Results:
- Whites scores much higher than blacks in race prime group
- No race prime conditions shows less differences
Conclusion:
More effective to have it at the end
Taking advantage groups and creating a stereotyping effect
Ex:
- Male engineering majors, perfect math SAT scores
- Gave them the math GRE
Cons:
1) Control (Not told anything)
2) Stereotype threat (Asked why asian students tents to score high in math fields)
Results:
Stereotype group scored lower
Conclusion:
Caused by inferior complex/distractions
Female college students. asian americans doing math test
Ex:
Cons:
1) Answered survey questions about asian identity before test
2) Answered survey questions about gender before test
3) Just took math test (Control)
Results: Asian identity group scored the highest, then control, and then the female identity
Conclusion: Asian stereotype (positive stereotype in math) scored better, Female stereotype (negative stereotype in math) scored worse
Causes of prejudice
- Economic and political competition/conflict
- Maintenance of status/self-image
- Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait
- Conformity
Job applicant’s, Jewish and Italian
Ex:
-Participants had their self esteem lowered or raised to start with then rated job applicants
Cons:
1) Jewish app, Participant high self esteem
2) Jewish app, Participant low self esteem (Lowest rating)
3) Italian app, Participant high self esteem
4) Italian app, Participant low self esteem
-After participants took a self esteem measure of their own, low self esteem group (Jewish) were discriminatory in order to feel better about themselves and to feel better
Causes of prejudice:
Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait
-genetic component
Causes of prejudice:
Conformity
Examples:
-when people move they adopt personality of the people around them
Ex: participants hear racial slur or negative comment, when they heard the racial slur they were harsher on the lawyer
Reducing Prejudice:
Equal Status contact
Inevitability improves desegregation
Superordinate goals
Equal Status contact
-Coming from disadvantaged backgrounds doesn’t make them equal
(must put them in a setting w equal status)
Inevitability improves desegregation:
-If they know it is inevitable they would want to get on board with it, bc there is nothing you can do
Superordinate goals:
-Common goals, empathy goals up in jigsaw classrooms
Weapons of influence:
Ex: Langer, Cut in line at a copy machine
Cons:
1) Request only (no “because”)
2) Placebic info (used “because” but didn’t add a reason)
3) Real info (used “because”, reason)
Results: Both conditions w the word because gave much higher Yes’s than the request only group
Conclusion: When we hear the word “because” we hear a good reason (our shortcuts)
Approaches to Attraction:
Exchange relationships
Communal relationships
Exchange relationships- unimportant, acquaintances, coworkers, not friends w
Communal relationships- close relationships, family, partners, friends
Approaches to Attraction:
Ex: Liking for people depends on relationship type and repayment (returning the favor)
(Exchange-repay immediately, communal-repay when you need it)
Male participants w female (confederate) partner, do tasks w tiles he finishes earlier and can give her tiles
Cons:
1) Stranger communal, no repay (thanks)
2) Stranger Exchange, no repay (thanks)
3) Stranger communal, repaid (gives half extra cred)
4) Stranger Exchange, repaid (gives half extra cred)
Results: Men in communal liked her better when she said thanks, men in exchange liked her better when they got the extra cred
Conclusion: We like people the most when they follow the rules for relationships
Misattribution of arousal
- Increased physiological arousal and a target person in front of them that they are attracted to, people will like them more, arousal gets mistaken for attraction
- Participants will be more attracted to a target if they are aroused and unaware of the source of their arousal
Ex: Men on Scary/stable bridge, then giving TAT (selection bias)
Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter
Cons:
1) Scary, male experimenter
2) Scary, female experimenter
3) stable, male experimenter
4) stable, female experimenter
Results: Men on the scary bridge w female experimenter interpreted the TAT w the most sexual content and the most likely to call the experimenter
Conclusion: Misattribution of arousal
Study 2
Ex: Just scary bridge Bridge, (no selection bias)
Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter
Cons:
1) Intercept man before scary bridge
2) Intercept man after scary bridge in the parking lot
Results: On the bridge men called female experimenter more and rated TAT w highest sexual content
Response Facilitation Model
- Competing theory w misattribution of arousal (Critics favor it)
- General arousal facilitates the dominant response, aroused will
- Whenever people are aroused their dominant response happens faster
- Participants will be more attracted to a target if they are aroused regardless of whether they are aware of the source of their arousal
