Overcoming Stereotypes and Prejudice Flashcards
(39 cards)
Stereotypes
generalized beliefs about a group
often their characteristics, e.g., traits, intelligence
Prejudice
biased evaluations (good-bad) of a group and its members (“pre-judging”)
Discrimination
differential behaviour towards a group and its members
usually refers to negative behaviour
Typical working model
Stereotypes → Prejudice
Prejudice → Discrimination
Other plausible models
Stereotypes ← Prejudice
Prejudice ← Discrimination
Components of stereotypes (see Haines, Deaux & Lofaro, 2016)
Traits: e.g., skilled, friendly
Roles: e.g., decision-maker, emotional support provider
Physical characteristics: e.g., strong, pretty
Occupations: e.g., firefighter, teacher
Stereotypes>Implicit
Associations we may be unaware of or outwardly deny we hold
e.g., associate men with science and women with humanities
Can also reflect implicit prejudice: “unconscious bias”
e.g., associate “good” with the young and “bad” with the old
BUT
Having an association does not always mean being prejudiced, or lead to discrimination
May reflect exposure to stereotypes/prejudice in society
Are stereotypes valid?
Are stereotypes valid?
Groups differ in real ways
e.g., practices, norms, beliefs
stereotypes may contain “grains of truth”
Weaknesses
Over-generalisation
applied to ALL group members
where exceptions occur, ignore these or “bracket them off” (subtyping)
Motivated reasoning
invoke particular stereotypes to justify group treatment
Over-generalisation
applied to ALL group members
where exceptions occur, ignore these or “bracket them off” (subtyping)
Motivated reasoning
invoke particular stereotypes to justify group treatment.
(e.g., by prejudice/ discrimination goals)
-e.g., stereotyping to justify poor treatment
-stereotypes may lead to
biased hypothesis testing – we look for information that confirms stereotype
Motivated Reasoning example
Stereotype employee as incompetent–> employee succeeds on Task 1/Employee struggles on Task 2–> Task 1 success is a fluke/Task 2 struggle is diagnostic–> Conclusion: Employee is incompetent
Another example:
Stereotype employee as lazy-> Treat employee as lazy-> employee motivation and performance declines-> employee actually becomes lazy
Motivated Reasoning example
Stereotype employee as incompetent–> employee succeeds on Task 1/Employee struggles on Task 2–> Task 1 success is a fluke/Task 2 struggle is diagnostic–> Conclusion: Employee is incompetent
Another example:
Stereotype employee as lazy-> Treat employee as lazy-> employee motivation and performance declines-> employee actually becomes lazy
Women in gaming stereotypes
men’s and women’s capacities and interests
Women in gaming
Prejudiced attitudes
Prejudiced attitudes
Men = interested in and good at games
Women = not interested in and bad at games
Women in gaming: Discrimination
women’s fewer job opportunities
greater workplace harassment
Women in gaming: Broader influence on society
- industry practices and outcomes (e.g., lost economic opportunities)
- product development and marketing (which games get made)
- greater social inequality
Is discrimination valid?
- Often easier to interact/exchange with ingroup members than with outgroup members
- -for outgroups, we may need to understand and negotiate different rules and expectations
- But ingroup bias can undermine benefits to society
- -power differentials, marginalised groups, stratified society
- -lose access to useful ideas and perspectives
- Discrimination may contrast with other cultural values
e. g., in Australia: equality and tolerance
Is discrimination valid?
Social identity perspective
–Our group memberships contribute to how we feel about ourselves (self-esteem or positive self-regard)
-Group memberships are defined in relation to other groups
–“ingroup” implies “outgroup”
—a specific comparison group (e.g., Australians v. New Zealanders)
—a more general “not us”
-We favour ingroups over outgroups
good ingroup outcomes contribute to our positive self-regard
findings in real settings are mixed-we don’t always favour ingroups
Reducing prejudice: Intergroup approaches
Changing group interactions and boundaries
Contact hypothesis
Social identity approach
Interdependence
Reducing prejudice: Individual approaches
Target prejudiced beliefs and emotions Counter-stereotypes Awareness raising Perspective-taking Normative influence Dissonance Self-affirmation
The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
having members of antagonistic groups interact
Optimal conditions of contact
Equal status between groups
Common goals
Intergroup cooperation/no competition context
Support of legitimate authorities, laws or customs
Review of research (Pettigrew, 1998): The contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Review of research (Pettigrew, 1998)
prejudice reduction greatest when all conditions present
some reduction is achieved when only some conditions present
the potential to become friends with outgroup members is an additional contact condition
Social identity approaches: Decategorisation
downplay group identity and focus on individual identity
Social identity approaches:
Recategorization
Recategorization: downplay separate group identities by focusing on shared superordinate group
QUT psych students/ QUT fashion students: Shared Group: QUT students
