1 Lecture Outline nStereotype Maintenance nPrejudice Defined nTheories: Intergroup Relations & Prejudice nMeasures of Prejudice nIs Prejudice Subsiding in America? nExplicit v.s. Implicit Responses nPattern of Dissociation nInternalized Egalitarian Values

2 Stereotype Maintenance 1) Subtyping Model 2) Cognitive Biases sBetter memory for stereotype- consistent information sConfirmation biases in hypothesis testing

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

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

5 Snyder and colleagues nTold participants they would interview another individual nTold to figure out if other person was introverted or extroverted (initial hypothesis) nGiven suggested questions to ask s1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..

6 Example questions nIntroverted: “What factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?” nExtroverted: “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: nStereotypic beliefs: typical attributes nSymbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs nEmotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

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

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

14 Zanna (1994) nResults 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: nPrejudice consists of at least three components Ystereotypic beliefs Ysymbolic beliefs Yemotion nThe 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 Colleagues The 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 nSpontaneous interpersonal friendships nGroup formation nIntergroup conflict nIntergroup harmony

29 Sherif and Colleagues Participants n11-12 year old boys who signed up for a camp in Oklahoma nCamp lasted 3 weeks nBoys had similar backgrounds, no behavioral/psychological problems

30 Stage 1: Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships Studies 1 and 2 nBoys from whole camp interacted nDeveloped friendships naturally nListed their close friends nTwo groups created Y1/3 close friends Y2/3 not close friends

31 Stage 2: Group Formation Studies 1 and 2 nBoys developed strong in-group identity Yinteracted with own group exclusively Yactivities fostered liking nListed their close friends for 2nd time n95% of listed friends from in-group

32 Stage 2: Group Formation Study 3 (Robbers’ Cave) nBegan at group formation stage nTwo groups of boys brought to different locations in Robbers Cave nBoys developed strong in-group identity Yinteracted with own group exclusively Yactivities fostered liking

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

34 Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict As intergroup conflict increased, so did in-group bias Bean Toss nCollected as many beans as they could nPut beans in sack nSupposedly shown each boy’s sack nEstimated number of beans in each sack nKnew group membership only

35 Stage 3: Intergroup Conflict Bean Toss nIn reality, same sack of 35 beans shown to each boy Results: l overestimated beans for in-group l 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 swater supply malfunctioned sbus broke down

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

39 Minimal Group Paradigm Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm: nPeople assigned to groups nGroups have no history, norms, or values nMembers have no contact nMembership based on trivial criteria

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

41 Minimal Group Paradigm Original Study n14 and 15 year old boys, Bristol England nBoys alone and anonymous nEach boy estimated dots on screen nTold people are over, or underestimators nTold which he was

42 Minimal Group Paradigm Original Study n2nd study on reward/punishments nUsed over/underestimator designation nEach boy at cubicle, alone nCompleted series of payoff matrices where they allocated points to other boys sboys in same or different group nPoints 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) #17, one of the: underestimators (out-group) Strategies njoint profit : 19:25 (both boys get most they can) nin-group profit: 19:25 (in-group gets most he can) nmaximal difference: 7:1 (largest difference)

45 Minimal Group Paradigm Payoff Matrix #26, one of the: overestimators #17, one of the: underestimators nOn average, the boys selected 12:11,: nThis 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 nTheories explain that prejudice arises from competition or group designation nSparked interest in measuring prejudice nEarly measures were self-report questionnaires

48 Examples of Self-Report Measures of Prejudice nOld 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 nModern 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 nGeneral pattern: Prejudice is subsiding

51 Explanations nPeople are less prejudiced now nPeople are lying nWhy would people lie?

52 Social Desirability nPeople may lie because they do not want to appear prejudiced to others

53 Sigall & Page (1971) nDeveloped the “bogus pipeline” procedure to detect socially desirable responding

54 Bogus Pipeline nAn experimental paradigm in which an experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

55 Sigall & Page (1971) nParticipants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached

56 Sigall & Page (1971) nCompleted short inventory about self on paper nRated African Americans on 22 traits by turning wheel -3 (very uncharacteristic) +3 (very characteristic)

57 Sigall & Page (1971) Manipulation Bogus pipeline group: l hooked up to machine via electrodes l told machine could “read minds” through physiological arousal Control group: l not hooked up to machine

58 Sigall & Page (1971) Demonstration of bogus pipeline nTold to “trick” machine by answering differently from inventory responses nExperimenter (who knew actual responses) made machine beep each time they answered differently from inventory

59 Sigall & Page (1971) Theoretical Prediction: nPeople lie on self-report questionnaires because of social desirability concerns Operational Prediction: nNegative attributes judged more characteristic of AA, and positive attributes less characteristic of AA under bogus pipeline condition

60 Negative attributes judged more characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition Negative AttributesBogus PipelineControl Happy-go-lucky Ignorant Stupid Physically dirty Unreliable Lazy Aggressive

61 Positive attributes judged less characteristic of African Americans under bogus pipeline condition Positive AttributesBogus PipelineControl Intelligent Ambitious Sensitive

62 Sigall & Page (1971) Conclusion: People lie on self-report measures to appear unprejudiced to others. This fits a social desirability explanation for the pattern of reduced prejudice found by self-report measures, like the old-fashioned and modern racism scales.

63 Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Sigall & Page raised interest in relationship between measures of explicit and implicit prejudice l Explicit measures: responses easily modified l Implicit measures: responses not easily modified

64 Explicit and Implicit Prejudice nExplicit measures are highly vulnerable to social desirability effects nImplicit measures are not

65 Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000) nTaxonomy of prejudice measures Controlling Responses Easy Difficult Old fashioned racismOpen discrimination Racial slurs Modern racismSubtle prejudice scale Seating distanceSubtle language biasEye contact Non-verbal behaviorsWho-said-what Famous person task Implicit association test Stroop-like taskRT following primingPhysiological reactions

66 Class Activity nThe IAT is a measure of implicit prejudice that is widely used. nYou were asked to perform the IAT. nNow, for credit, I would like you to describe the task

67 IAT nThe IAT measures how quickly people can categorize stimulus words. nFaster = stronger association nIAT responses almost never correlate with explicit responses

68 Dissociation Definition: l A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures

69 Causes of Dissociation Social desirability: l People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased l This would produce dissociation

70 Causes of Dissociation Internalized egalitarian values: l People may have genuinely endorsed egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them l This too would produce dissociation

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

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

73 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 3. Because internalized egalitarian values are newer associations for most people, they require cognitive resources to access; resources that are not available during the completion of implicit measures

74 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 4. Thus, egalitarian values are only accessible during the completion of explicit measures. During the completion of implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

75 Internalized Egalitarian Values Summary: Internalized egalitarian values explains pattern of dissociation because people…....

76 nEndorse their egalitarian values on explicit measures because of increased cognitive resources But……… nEndorse ingrained prejudice values on implicit measures because of reduced cognitive resources

77 Difference between IEV and SD nPeople who have internalized their egalitarian values truly believe in the validity of their explicit responses whereas people responding in an socially desirable manner do not

78 Devine (1989) Study 1 Purpose: Test whether internalized egalitarian values can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice responses

79 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 1: Assessed white participants’ prejudice toward African Americans with modern racism scale

80 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 2: Subliminally primed participants with words associated with African American stereotype Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic, basketball, unemployed

81 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 3: Participants rated Donald. Donald’s behavior could be construed as aggressive Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent until apt. painted

82 Devine (1989) Study 1 Experimental manipulation: nPercent of primes presented s80% of primes associated with AA s20% of primes associated with AA

83 Devine (1989) Study 1 Predictions: 1. Judgments of Donald more hostile in 80% than 20% priming conditions

84 Devine (1989) Study 1 Predictions: 2. Low and high prejudice participants will not differ in their judgments of Donald kPrimes presented outside of awareness kAs such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald. kUnconscious prejudice dominates

85 Devine (1989) Study 1 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

86 Devine (1989) Study 1 Conclusion: 1. The more people are primed with a negative stereotype, the bias they show 2. Low and high prejudice people will show similar levels of bias when negative stereotypes are activated outside of their awareness because lows won’t be motivated to access their egalitarian values

87 Devine (1989) Study 2 Procedure: 1. Measured prejudice against AA 2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings about AA on self-report measure

88 Devine (1989) Study 2 Result: Low prejudice participants reported less prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high prejudiced participants.

89 Devine (1989) Study 2 Conclusions: A) Low prejudice participants had internalized egalitarian values, and reported those values on explicit measures where cognitive resources were plentiful.

90 Devine (1989) Study 2 Conclusions: B) High prejudice participants had not internalized egalitarian values, and thus showed prejudice on both explicit and implicit measures.

91 Explicit and implicit prejudice may be dissociated because of: l social desirability l internalized egalitarian values