Lecture Outline

1. Lecture Outline • Stereotype Maintenance • Prejudice Defined • Theories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice • Measures of Prejudice • Is Prejudice Subsiding in America? • Explicit v.s. Implicit Responses • Pattern of Dissociation • Internalized Egalitarian Values

2. Stereotype Maintenance 1) Subtyping Model 2) Cognitive Biases • Better memory for stereotype-consistent information • Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing

3. Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing • Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)

4. Snyder and colleagues • Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias Example…...

5. Snyder and colleagues • Told participants they would interview another individual • Told to figure out if other person was introverted or extroverted (initial hypothesis) • Given suggested questions to ask • 1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..

6. Example questions • Introverted: “What factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?” • Extroverted: “What kind of situations do you seek out if you want to meet new people?”

7. Snyder & Colleagues Results Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis

8. Prejudice Definition of Prejudice A positive or negative attitude, judgment, or feeling about a person that is generalized from attitudes or beliefs held about the group to which the person belongs.

9. Prejudice Negative forms of prejudice studied more because has greatest potential to create social problems Cautionary statement: preferential treatment (positive prejudice) can also cause problems

10. Zanna (1994) Purpose: Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice

11. Zanna (1994) Components of prejudice: • Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes • Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs • Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

12. Zanna (1994) • Procedure 1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups: • English Canadian (ingroup) • French Canadian • Native Indian • Pakistani • Homosexual

13. Zanna (1994) • Procedure continued 2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)

14. Zanna (1994) • Results 1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05) 2) But, correlations varied by target group…….

15. Zanna (1994)Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice Zanna (1994)Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group 72

16. Result 1: weakest correlation b/t prejudice and components for English Canadians overall 73

17. Result 2: strongest correlation b/t prejudice and components for French Canadians overall 74

18. Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual 75

19. Result 4: prejudice correlated with symbolic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian 76

20. Result 5: prejudice correlated with emotion most strongly for Pakistani 77

21. Zanna (1994) Conclusions: • Prejudice consists of at least three components • stereotypic beliefs • symbolic beliefs • emotion • The components most central to prejudice varies across groups

22. Theories of Prejudice Two general models of prejudice 1. Realistic Group Conflict Theory 2. Minimal Group Paradigm

23. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Terms Group: social unit; members interdependent 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

24. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Central Assumptions 1. People are selfish and out for own gain 2. Incompatible group interests cause intergroup conflict 3. Incompatible group interests cause social psychological processes(e.g., in-group favoritism; stereotyping)

25. Realistic Group Conflict Theory Summary Competition between groups for scarce resources produces intergroup conflict. Without such competition, intergroup conflict would fade.

26. Sherif and ColleaguesThe Summer Camp Studies Purpose: understand conflict between groups to identify how intergroup relations can be more positive.

27. Sherif and Colleagues Three studies set up as summer camp Created situations that foster group identity, intergroup conflict, and group harmony

28. Sherif and Colleagues Four stages • Spontaneous interpersonal friendships • Group formation • Intergroup conflict • Intergroup harmony

29. Sherif and Colleagues Participants • 11-12 year old boys who signed up for a camp in Oklahoma • Camp lasted 3 weeks • Boys had similar backgrounds, no behavioral/psychological problems

30. Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships Studies 1 and 2 • Boys from whole camp interacted • Developed friendships naturally • Listed their close friends • Two groups created • 1/3 close friends • 2/3 not close friends

31. Stage 2: Group Formation Studies 1 and 2 • Boys developed strong in-group identity • interacted with own group exclusively • activities fostered liking • Listed their close friends for 2nd time • 95% of listed friends from in-group

32. Stage 2: Group Formation Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave) • Began at group formation stage • Two groups of boys brought to different locations in Robbers Cave • Boys developed strong in-group identity • interacted with own group exclusively • activities fostered liking

33. 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

34. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict As intergroup conflict increased, so did in-group bias 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

35. Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss • In reality, same sack of 35 beans shown to each boy Results: • overestimated beans for in-group • underestimated beans for out-group

36. Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony Experimenters tried to reduce intergroup conflict and in-group bias 1. Contact hypothesis: intergroup activities Contact between group members sufficient to reduce intergroup conflict (FAILED)

37. Stage 4: Intergroup Harmony 2. Superordinate goals: Goals that could only be achieved if boys from both groups cooperated • water supply malfunctioned • bus broke down

38. Minimal Group Paradigm Henry Tajfel challenged interpretation of summer camp studies Argued that: • group identification sufficient to instigate intergroup conflict • competition for scarce resources not necessary

39. Minimal Group Paradigm Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm: • People assigned to groups • Groups have no history, norms, or values • Members have no contact • Membership based on trivial criteria

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

41. Minimal Group ParadigmOriginal Study • 14 and 15 year old boys, Bristol England • Boys alone and anonymous • Each boy estimated dots on screen • Told people are over, or underestimators • Told which he was

42. Minimal Group ParadigmOriginal Study • 2nd study on reward/punishments • Used over/underestimator designation • Each boy at cubicle, alone • Completed series of payoff matrices where they allocated points to other boys • boys in same or different group • Points tallied at end, awarded to boy who got them

43. Minimal Group Paradigm Payoff Matrix Most interesting when boys in different groups because one an in-group member and the other an out-group member of the boy allocating the points…….Intergroup bias can be tested

44. 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) Strategies • joint profit : 19:25 (both boys get most they can) • in-group profit: 19:25 (in-group gets most he can) • maximal difference: 7:1 (largest difference)

45. Minimal Group Paradigm Payoff Matrix #26, one of the: overestimators 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 • On average, the boys selected 12:11,: • This reflects a combined strategy of maximum in-group profit and fairness

46. Minimal Group Paradigm Big Point of This Research In-group bias occurred in absence of competition over scarce resources Group identity was sufficient to create in-group bias

47. Ways to Measure Prejudice • Theories explain that prejudice arises from competition or group designation • Sparked interest in measuring prejudice • Early measures were self-report questionnaires

48. 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?

49. 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

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