1 / 28

Stereotypes - A Brief History

Stereotypes - A Brief History. Dramatic Decrease in Expression of Stereotypes Katz & Braly (1933) and replications Survey Results Despite this evidence subtler forms of stereotyping still evident Sagar & Schofield - Pencil poking study Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) - interview study

ormand
Download Presentation

Stereotypes - A Brief History

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. Stereotypes -A Brief History • Dramatic Decrease in Expression of Stereotypes • Katz & Braly (1933) and replications • Survey Results • Despite this evidence subtler forms of stereotyping still evident • Sagar & Schofield - Pencil poking study • Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) - interview study • Darley & Gross (1983) - SES and performance • Rogers & Prentice-Dunn - Insult study • Dovidio & Gaertner’s Aversive Racism Explanation • Helping Study • Inadmissable Evidence Study

  2. Stereotypes of Blacks in Four Generations 1933 1951 1967 1982 Superstitious 84% 41% 13% 6% Lazy 75% 31% 26% 13% Ignorant 38% 24% 11% 10% Happy-go-lucky 38% 17% 27% 15% Musical 26% 33% 47% 29% Ostentatious 26% 11% 25% 5% Very Religious 24% 17% 8% 23% Stupid 22% 10% 4% 1%

  3. Stereotypes of Jews in Three Generations 1933 1951 1967 Shrewd 79% 47% 30% Mercenary 49% 28% 15% Industrious 48% 29% 33% Grasping 34% 17% 17% Intelligent 29% 37% 37% Ambitious 21% 28% 48%

  4. Survey Results Indicating Prejudice

  5. Rogers & Prentice-Dunn (1981)

  6. Seeking Help from Others and Aversive Racism

  7. The Weighting of Inadmissable Evidence and Aversive Racism

  8. Recent Models • Devine (1989) - The argument • Study 1 - everyone knows the stereotype • Study 2 - everyone automatically activates the stereotype • Study 3 - low prejudice people but not high prejudice people control the application of the stereotype • Does everyone automatically activate the stereotype? • Lepore & Brown (1997) - category does not automatically activate the stereotype for all people • Fazio et al. (1995) - there are reliable difference in how people automatically activate the stereotype

  9. Stereotype Activation • Do people automatically activate stereotypes? • It depends on what you mean by automatic; without awareness yes; without intention, yes; without effort, no • Gilbert & Hixon (1991) • Spencer, Fein, Wolfe, Fong, & Hodgson (1998); Study 2 • It depends on people’s motivation - when motivated to stereotype effort is not needed either • Spencer, Fein, Wolfe, Fong, & Hodgson (1998); Studies 1 & 3

  10. Gilbert & Hixon

  11. Spencer et al. (1998) - Study 3

  12. Stereotype Inhibition • Activation of another stereotype can lead to stereotype inhibition • Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne (1995) • When motivated to inhibit stereotypes they are inhibited • Sinclair & Kunda (1998)

  13. Stereotype Application • Can people control their use of stereotypes - this is actually trickier than you might think • Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten (1994) - stereotypes on the rebound • Motivated application of stereotypes • Fein & Spencer (1997) • Study 1 - self-affirmation and stereotype application • Study 2 - negative feedback and stereotype application • Study 3 - feeling better about yourself after stereotyping

  14. Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 1

  15. Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 2

  16. Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 3Stereotyping

  17. Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 3 Self-Esteem Change

  18. The Target’s Perspective -Attributional Ambiguity • Stigma and Self-Esteem • The findings • The explanations • Attributions to prejudice • Disengagement • Within group comparisons • Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major (1991) - Blinds up/Blinds down study • Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker (1997) - Priming bias leads to disengagement

  19. Major, et al. (1997) - Study 2

  20. Target’s Perspective -Stereotype Threat • What is stereotype threat? • Its relation to academic performance • Steele & Aronson (1995) • Study 1 - the effects of test diagnosticity • Study 2 - relation to stereotype activation and avoidance • Study 3 - the effect of the subtle priming of race • Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1998) - stereotype threat and women’s math performance • Stereotypic commericals and women’s math performance • Steele, Spencer, Hummel, Schoem, & Nisbett (1998) - stereotype threat in the real world

  21. A Model of the Origin and Effects of Stereotype Threat Performance Deficits Cultural Stereotype Stereotype Threat Disidentification with Stereotyped Domains

  22. Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 1

  23. Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 2

  24. Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 2

  25. Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 3

  26. Spencer, et al. (in preparation)

  27. Steele, et al. (1998)

  28. Changing Stereotypes • The Contact hypothesis • The evidence is now in that it works • Factors that make it work better • between group friendships are particularly important • endorsement of integration by authorities • no inter-group competition • equal status among students • The Robber’s Cave Studies • Jigsaw Classroom and Superordinate Goals • Subtyping as a limit on the effectiveness of contact • Kunda & Oleson (1995) - using information to subtype • Kunda & Oleson (1997) - extreme people get subtyped

More Related