1. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Week 12

2. Basic definitions Stereotype: Prejudice Discrimination
An cognitive attitude towards some group members, simply because they belong to a certain group
Prejudice
The affective component
Discrimination
The behavioral component

3. The Nature of Prejudice (Allport, 1954)
“The human mind must think with the aid of categories….once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends on it.”

4. This suggests that stereotyping is…
“natural” (or at least not completely unnatural)
not necessarily dysfunctional or even immoral

5. The “cognitive effort” hypothesis
We are cognitive misers.
Using stereotypes is an automatic, effortless process
People try not to use stereotypes
Not using stereotypes is effortful
Under conditions of cognitive load, stereotypes are more likely.

6. “Circadian Rhythm” study
Participants were white Americans.
Morning People Afternoon People
  Morning Afternoon Morning Afternoon
(alert) (tired) (tired) (alert)
 Target race
White
Hispanic
= = = =
Bodenhausen (1990). Stereotypes as judgmental heuristics. Psy Sci.

7. What stereotypes do you have of…
Female beauty pageant contestants
Housewives
People with schizophrenia
Rich people
Elderly
Italian men

8. Stereotype content model
 Stereotypes possess two independent dimensions:
warmth
&
competence
Cuddy et al. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception. Adv Exp Soc Psy.
Cuddy et al. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures. Br J Soc Psy.

9. Stereotype content model
Competence
Low
High
Warmth
Low status, competitive
High status, competitive
Low status, not competitive
High status, not competitive
Welfare recipients
Asians, Jews, Rich people
Housewives, elderly
Ingroup, allies
Cuddy et al. (2008). Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social perception. Adv Exp Soc Psy.
Cuddy et al. (2009). Stereotype content model across cultures. Br J Soc Psy.

10. Implications of stereotype content model
Competence
Low
High
Warmth
Low status, competitive
High status competitive
Low status, not competitive
High status, not competitive
Contempt
Envy
E.g., benevolent sexism
Admiration

11. Behavioral implications of stereotype
Let’s play a “shooter game.”

12. Correll et al. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma. J Pers Soc Psy.

13. Stereotypes don’t just affect the way you treat others.
It also affects the way you treat yourself.

14. Stereotype threat Self-stereotypes are not always salient
You have self-stereotypes of males and females
But you don’t always go about daily life enacting gendered activities
But when the situation is gender-relevant, stereotypes are consequential.

15. Evidence of stereotype threat
Girls sit for a math test. The test was described as:
“This test compares how well girls score relative to boys.” OR
“This test is a trial to see whether the questions are appropriate.”

16. Ingroups and outgroups

17. Categorization creates order

18. Do people categorize each other?
Yes, all the time.
But on the basis of what criteria?
People can be categorized based on any trait

19. Outcomes of categorization
Categorization produces ingroup-outgroups.
Have trait = Ingroup
Don’t have trait = outgroup
The in-group/outgroup distinction then guides our behaviors.

20. Categorization guides downstream processes
A true story: My ex-TA was having lunch with me and my wife.
Wife: Are there any grocery stores that sell Asian food in Delhi?
Me: Err…but we are in Asia
What does it reveal?
Now, think back about the earlier example about Italian men. ?

21. Ingroup favoritism effect
People favor ingroup members.
(By definition, it means people do not favor outgroup members.)
Why?
Resource competition
Self-esteem (feels good to help someone similar to you)
But…what is an ingroup?

22. What is the minimal condition to produce a feeling of “ingroupness”?
Recall: On Week 7, we mentioned some factors leading to “entitativity”.
Similarity
Common fate
Proximity
Any ideas what is the barest minimum condition to produce entitativity?

23. Why is mere categorization creepy?
Turn to your partner.
List 5 similarities you have with him/her
List 5 differences you have with him/her
People differ on countless traits
People are similar on countless traits
People can categorize others based on very trivial traits
Focusing on trivial traits can spontaneously cause ingroup favoritism

24. Evidence: “minimal group” paradigm
A method for investigating the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.
Part 1: participants are randomly divided into two groups based on trivial criteria (e.g., preference for paintings)
Part 2: Resource allocation game

25. Don’t they all look the same to you???
Outgroup homogeneity
Don’t they all look the same to you???

26. My experience in Virginia

27. Outgroup homogeneity It’s not only looks that seem similar.
People think traits of outgroup members are similar too!

28. The danger of outgroup homogeneity
Recall: Fundamental attribution error
the tendency to explain behaviors in terms of dispositions and neglect situational influences
Now introducing…
ULTIMATE ATTRIBUTION ERROR
The tendency to generalize behaviors of one individual to the whole “group”

29. Evidence Female novelist write under a male (or hidden) pen name.
Jurors are more likely to convict someone whose name implies he’s Black.

30. Extreme danger of outgroup homogeneity: Dehumanization
mPFC is normally activated when we
1. see other agents
2. think about other nonhumans as humans (i.e., anthropomorphizing)
What happens to mPFC when one sees a picture of an outgroup e.g., homeless person?
Nothing.
Harris & Fiske (2008). The brooms in Fantasia: Neural correlates of anthropomorphizing objects. Soc Cog.
Harris & Fiske (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psy Sci.

31. How can we reduce prejudice and discrimination?

32. The contact hypothesis: Singapore
Public housing have a racial quota: 75% Chinese, 20% Malays, 5% Indians
Logic: desegregation

33. The contact hypothesis:
Original (naïve) view:
More opportunities contact  greater liking  less prejudice
Newer view:
Only effective when six conditions are met

34. The six conditions Mutual independence Common goal Equal status
Informal interpersonal contact
Multiple contacts
Social norms of equality

35. There might be one other way
Calamity.

36. Class Discussion
India is divided along racial, ethnic, and religious faultlines.
How can social psychology help?