1 / 50

Lecture Outline

Lecture Outline. Prejudice Theories of Prejudice Measures of Prejudice Explicit v.s. Implicit Prejudice. Prejudice. Definition : A positive or negative attitude, belief, or feeling about a person generalized from attitudes, beliefs, or feelings about the person’s group.

casper
Download Presentation

Lecture Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture Outline • Prejudice • Theories of Prejudice • Measures of Prejudice • Explicit v.s. Implicit Prejudice

  2. Prejudice • Definition: • A positive or negative attitude, belief, or feeling about a person generalized from attitudes, beliefs, or feelings about the person’s group

  3. Components of Prejudice • Stereotypic beliefs • typical attributes • Symbolic beliefs • values, traditions, customs • Emotions • affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

  4. Theories of Prejudice Realistic Group Conflict Theory Minimal Group Paradigm

  5. Realistic Group Conflict Theory • Group: social unit; members inter-dependent • In-group: group person belongs to • Out-group: group person does not belong to • Intergroup relations: when individuals from different groups interact in terms of their group identification

  6. Realistic Group Conflict Theory • Competition between groups • causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

  7. The Summer Camp StudiesSherif and Colleagues • Purpose: Test whether competition causes prejudice & intergroup conflict

  8. Summer Camp Studies • Created situations that fostered: • group identity • intergroup conflict • group harmony

  9. Summer Camp Studies • Four stages • Spontaneous interpersonal friendships • Group formation • Intergroup conflict • Intergroup harmony

  10. Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships • Studies 1 and 2 • Boys from whole camp interacted • Developed friendships naturally • Listed close friends • Two groups created

  11. Stage 2: Group Formation • Studies 1 and 2 • Boys developed in-group identity • interacted only with own group • activities fostered liking • Listed close friends 2nd time • 95% listed friends from in-group

  12. Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave) • Began at group formation stage Two groups - different locations Boys developed in-group identity • interacted only with own • activities fostered liking

  13. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict • Tournament of Games: 5 dollar prize • baseball • touch football • tug of war • treasure hunt • Intergroup conflict: • name calling • stealing flags • fights

  14. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict • Bean Toss • Collected as many beans as they could • Put beans in sack • Supposedly shown each boy’s sack • Estimated number of beans in each sack • Knew group membership only

  15. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict • Bean Toss • Same sack shown to each boy • Results: • overestimated beans for in-group • underestimated beans for out-group

  16. Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony • Reduce conflict & prejudice • 1. Contact hypothesis 2. Superordinate goals • water supply malfunctioned • bus broke down

  17. Minimal Group Paradigm • Challenged idea that competition required for intergroup conflict • A simple distinction between • groups is sufficient to cause bias

  18. Minimal Group Paradigm • People assigned to groups • Groups have no history, norms, or values • Members have no contact • Membership based on trivial criteria

  19. Minimal Group Paradigm • Goal of these experiments: • Show that group membership ALONE produces in-group bias

  20. Minimal Group Paradigm • 1. Group members alone and anonymous • 2. 14-15 yr. old boys • 3. Boys estimated dots on a screen • 4. Boys labeled as over- or underestimators • 5. Boys completed series of pay off matrices where they gave points to individual boys who would later receive the points and trade them in for fun stuff

  21. Minimal Group Paradigm • Payoff Matrix • #26, one of the: • overestimators • (in-group) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 • #17, one of the: 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 • underestimators • (out-group) • Boys most often selected 12:11 strategy • Fairness combined with ingroup profit

  22. Minimal Group Paradigm • The Big Point • In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources • Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias

  23. Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice • Old Fashioned Racism Scale Generally speaking, do you feel blacks are smarter, not as smart, or about as smart as whites? If a black family with about the same income and education as you moved next door, would you mind it a lot, a little or not at all?

  24. Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice • Modern Racism Scale Over the past few years, blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights

  25. Self-Reported Prejudice • General pattern: • Prejudice is subsiding

  26. Explanations • People are less prejudiced now • Social Desirability

  27. Social Desirability • People lie about their prejudiced to appear unbiased to others

  28. Bogus Pipeline • An experimental paradigm • Experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

  29. 0 -1 +1 -2 +2 -3 +3 Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached

  30. 0 -1 +1 -2 +2 -3 +3 Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • Completed survey about self • Rated African Americans on traits by turning wheel • -3 (very uncharacteristic) • +3 (very characteristic)

  31. Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • Manipulation • Bogus pipeline group • Control group

  32. Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • If people lie on self-report measures to appear unbiased then…. • Attributes • Negative Positive • Bogus Pipeline > Control Control > Bogus Pipeline

  33. Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • Neg. Attributes : Bogus Pipeline Control • Happy-go-lucky .93 -.13 • Ignorant .60 .20 • Stupid .13 -1.00 • Physically dirty .20 -1.33 • Unreliable .27 -.67 • Lazy .60 -.73 • Aggressive 1.20 .67

  34. Bogus Pipeline StudySigall & Page (1971) • Pos. Attributes Bogus Pipeline Control • Intelligent .00 .47 • Ambitious .07 .33 • Sensitive .87 1.60

  35. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit Measures Implicit Measures Responses more easily modified

  36. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit Measures Implicit Measures More vulnerable to social desirability

  37. Taxonomy of Prejudice MeasuresMaass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000) • Controlling Responses • Easy Difficult Eye contact Racial slurs Modern racism Who-said-what Stroop-like task Seating distance Famous person task Open discrimination Subtle language bias Old fashioned racism Non-verbal behaviors Subtle prejudice scale RT following priming Physiological reactions Implicit association test

  38. IAT: Implicit Association Test • The IAT measures RT: • how quickly people categorize stimulus words. • Faster RT = stronger association • IAT responses correlate mildly with explicit responses

  39. Dissociation • A lack of correspondence between what people • report on explicit measures and how they respond • on implicit measures

  40. Causes of Dissociation • Social desirability: • People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased • This would produce dissociation

  41. Causes of Dissociation • Internalized egalitarian values: • People genuinely endorse egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them • This too would produce dissociation

  42. Internalized Egalitarian Values • Logic: • 1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals

  43. Internalized Egalitarian Values • Logic: • 2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings i.e., prejudice is unconscious

  44. Internalized Egalitarian Values • Logic: • 3. Internalized egalitarian values are newer associations & require more cognitive resources to access than ingrained prejudice. • These resources are not available when completing implicit measures

  45. Internalized Egalitarian Values • Logic: • 4. Egalitarian values only accessible when completing explicit measures. • When completing implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

  46. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Internalized Egalitarian Values Social Desirability Know they are prejudiced Know they are lying Do not know they are prejudiced Believe they are telling the truth

  47. Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989) • 1. Measure prejudice • 2. Subliminal priming • 3. Rate Donald

  48. Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989) • Manipulation: • Percent of primes presented • 80% of primes associated with AA • 20% of primes associated with AA

  49. Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989) • Results: • 1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition • 2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

  50. Subliminal Priming StudyDevine (1989) • Primes presented outside of awareness • As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald • Unconscious prejudice dominates

More Related