Stereotypes and Prejudice Flashcards
(33 cards)
Stereotype definition
the idea of underlying cognitive processes (schemas) influencing our judgements of others
Lippman, 1922
- widely shared generalisations about members of a social group
- simplified mental images helping to interpret the diversity of the social world
Cardwell, 1996
- a fixed, over generalised belief about a particular group or class of people
Stereotype content
research about specific characteristics people attribute to different groups/categories of people
Early approach to examining prejudice = the Princeton Trilogy
> Karlins, Coffman and Walters, 1969
– present individuals with adjectives & select 5 that best describe different ethnic groups
– replicated at different points in time (1951, 1969)
– showed national, ethnic stereotypes within, across time periods
– criticism - reflect American stereotypes but Princeton university students only
– could be stereotypes operate at more than the individual level - perhaps influenced by social and cultural changes affecting language used to describe other groups
> Maddon, 2001
– carried out the Princeton study again
– found more changes in stereotypes attached to different groups
Prejudice
judgements made relatively quickly or before comprehensive information has been given about others
Schema
cognitive structure that represents information about a category and shapes our cognitive processes
Cognitive miser
humans value mental processing resources so find ways to save time and effort when processing information
Stereotype content model
Cuddy et al., 2009
- across 10 very different countries there are apparent common principles about content of stereotypes
- near universal trend to derogate groups we don’t belong to as ‘lacking warmth’ or ‘lacking competence’
- stereotype content identify universal principles about what determines aspects of stereotype content
Advantage and disadvantage of stereotypes
Advantage = enables us to respond quickly to situations due to potential similar previous experience
Disadvantage = results in differences between individuals being ignored so broad generalisations are made that are often not true of an individual
Cognitive approaches to formation of stereotypes
how are stereotypes formed in the first place?
cognitive approaches = more individualistic approaches
>Impression formation model
(algebraic model, configural model)
>The illusory correlation
(paired distinctiveness)
Impression formation model
Asch, 1946
interested in how perception of individual traits is combined into some form of overall impression
series of 12 studies
pps given a list of personality traits of hypothetical person and asked to form an impression of this person
two groups of lists - all the same apart from one trait (warm vs cold)
findings showed that the one different word resulted in major differences in reported impressions
two models account for how we form unified impressions from separate bits of information about others - algebraic model, configural model
Algebraic model
part of impression formation model
there is some mathematical respect for separate values of individual traits that we are aware of
we add up the positive and negative traits - some traits are more weighted than others
these are combined to form overall impressions
Configural model
part of impression formation model
individual elements not unchanged when combined
traits combine with each other and change in the process
form an overall impression t
his reappraises potentially discrepant elements to make them consistent with our overall impression
the whole is not simply a sum of its parts - something more active/dynamic is at work
The illusory correlation
Hamilton, 1979
there is a bias in perception that means we sometimes perceive links or correlations that are not actually present or perceive them to have a stronger relationship than they actually have
part of this is paired distinctiveness
Paired distinctiveness
part of illusory correlation
idea that items share distinctive properties that are unrelated to the meaning
Chapman, 1967
- if words thought of as having associative meaning then they will be perceived as co-occurring more
the link to stereotypes is more notable when considering characteristics or categories - not words
Johnson et al., 2001
- affect plays important role in illusory correlation
- supports idea of paired distinctiveness in IC
- challenge notion that IC is an information-processing bias
- affective responses to relevant group shape perceptions of correlations
(positive affect = lower estimate of undesirable)
(negative affect = higher estimate of undesirable behaviour)
Criticisms of cognitive approaches
Asch’s approach cannot say how/why perceptions of people occur in terms of collections of traits
procedure of Asch’s study not reflective of real situations
IC criticised for cognitive-mechanistic approach but Johnson et al., 2001 re-address this with emphasis on the affective components
cognitive approaches argue that stereotypes form away from any social context - but earlier work showed that social dimensions played an important role in formation of stereotypes
Categorisation and prejudice
the idea of categorising individual people, things, events, experiences is key to prejudice
Adorno et al., 1950
Allport, 1954
Tajfel, 1959
Adorno et al., 1950
the authoritarian personality
- idea developed as an attempt to explain fascism in Germany
- 9 attributed identified as part of authoritarian personality
- rigid categories for judgement
- individual level differences
Allport, 1954
part response to Adorno
categorisation is a hallmark of prejudice
prejudice perhaps consequence of a particular style of rigid categorical thinking
universal tendency to prejudice because we all use categorical thinking
– contact between different groups of people will mean they begin to see each other in a better light and thus reduce prejudice
prejudice = by-product of a thinking style that is universally shared
prejudice = simplification of the environment
Tajfel, 1959
challenged ideas of irrational, biologically based impulses explaining human behaviour
- suggested instinct to be universal cause of aggression
- so cannot explain variations in social conflict or individual acts of aggression across contexts
- Lorenz (original model) implied aggression is instinct and nothing we can do about it
Tajfel developed deeper understanding - people influenced by category labels
- causes distorted perceptions -> exaggerations made between differences in stimuli from different groups
categories are essential to simplify all the information we receive
Tajfel and Wilkes, 1963
—- different length lines, imposed categories (a or b) -resulted in people accentuating categories
we categorise people into in-groups and out-group
- minimise differences within groups
- exaggerate differences between groups
Criticisms of categorisation approaches
Billig, 2002 - categorisation treated as necessity in thinking and prejudice being unavoidable because of this - means prejudice is not a morally accountable choice but an inevitable consequence
Billig, 2002 - Tajfel separates himself from instinctual categorisation (Lorenz) but still treats prejudice as an inevitable consequence - almost justifies prejudice thinking
Tajfel does note that there are limits to his theory - also points to de-personalisation and de-humanisation
Billig, 1985 - extreme prejudice has more than categorisation at work
Schemas and cognitive processing
concerned with notion that cognitive processes are shaped by schema-based expectations
labels can shape and distort what we perceive as important in social cognition research
schemas thought to influence encoding, memory and judgement - helps us to think less about new stimuli when first encountered
cognitive miser paradigm
can result in schema-induced errors
Which schema will people use?
Fiske and Taylor, 1991 (role schemas)
- some schemas are more likely to be used than others
- notably role schemas are used more than trait schemas
- perhaps role schemas are more readily available categories
- maybe even more informative
Fiske and Cox, 1979 (visual information)
- physical cues can also determine what type of schema we use
- visual cues are important for person perception in general
Priming
- frequently used schemas are more predisposed to be used again
How do schemas shape encoding?
information about a stimuli presented relates to a particular schema before you even encounter it
so upon the encounter you have a preconceived, positive or negative, view of the stimuli
done unconsciously
Linville, 1982
- stereotypes of an out-group are narrower than stereotypes of an in-group
- example of in-group for young people being young people and their out-group being old people
so info that is inconsistent with stereotypes is thought to be processed more slowly
How schemas shape memory
people are more likely to remember schema-consistent behaviour
Cohen, 1981
- showed pps video of lady at birthday dinner with husband
- one group told she was a waitress, others a librarian
- those told she was a waitress more likely to remember her drinking beer and watching TV
- those told she was librarian recalled her wearing glasses and listening to classical music
- suggests info is consistent with schemas
alternative idea is that this information is relevant to our schemas - so look at relevancy of information to schema not what is consistent
How schemas shape inference and evaluation
schema-based ideas may lead us to infer things that are not true
– same may be said of our interpretations of ambiguous behaviours
we have ideas about how things should be, how people should behave etc. and we make judgements based on these things we do know, not what is actually happening
