1. Prejudice and the Uncertain Mind
Lecture 5
Prejudice and the Uncertain Mind

2. Chapter 7 from a UO/CO perspective
1. p. 197: Social Identity Theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986). In order to develop a positive self-evaluation, we not only have a need to develop a personal identity but a social identity, or identification with groups.
Would UO’s and CO’s differ on these two identities ?
Yes definitely, UO’s are self-oriented, CO’s, group oriented

3. 2. p. 198. Ingroup Bias and the Minimal Groups Paradigm (Tajfel and Turner, 1986)
Our need for social identity is so strong, we show a clear bias towards our own group, even when the group membership is trivial (e.g., flip of a coin).
Note: Hogg and Abrams (1995) argue that Social Identity is due to uncertainty reduction, not a need for self-esteem.
Either Way: Should UO’s and CO’s differ on ingroup bias?
Yes, definitely. We in fact have done the study.

4. Ingroup Bias and Task Uncertainty Hodson & Sorrentino (2000)

5. Low Task High Task Low Task High Task
Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty Uncertainty
Figure Ingroup Bias as a function of Uncertainty Orientation, Categorization, and Task Uncertainty.
Cat=Categorized, Uncat=Uncategorized.

6. 3. p. 200. Authoritarianism and Prejudice
3. p Authoritarianism and Prejudice. High authoritarians are more likely to be racist than Low authoritarians.
Does authoritarianism have anything to do with uncertainty orientation?
Of course. CO’s are high in authoritarianism and low in nUncertainty. UO’s are low in authoritarianism, and High in nUncertainty.
By the way, German University Students are extremely low in authoritarianism.

7. 4. p. 201. Categorization and Stereotypes
4. p Categorization and Stereotypes. Hamilton and Sherman (1994) say that the tendency to categorize people into groups has important consequences, e.g., we accentuate the differences between people belonging to different groups.
Would UO’s and CO’s differ on this?
Yup. Roney and Sorrentino (1991) showed that CO’s see a greater differentiation between people of different occupational groupings (e.g., students, professors, secretaries) than UO’s. Should apply to other groupings as well.

8. 5. p Self-fulfilling Prophecies: Our behaviour will make us act differently toward a target, and may cause the target to act differently towards us, in a sense, confirming our expectancies. On p. 208, Miller and Turnbull (1986) suggest that self-fulfilling prophecies are less likely when perceivers have the explicit goal of forming accurate impressions.
Would UO’s and CO’s differ on this?
We think so. UO’s would conform to this, but CO’s would probably look to heuristics, such as the group characteristics of the person.

9. 6. pages 208-212. Sexism. Are UO’s and CO’s likely to differ on sex-role sterotypes?
Of course. Clayton (1981) found that whereas UO’s tend to be androgynous, CO’s tend to be sex-role stereotyped.
7. p Would contact help reduce prejudice for CO’s?
Probably not.
8. How about Cooperative leaning techniques such as the jigsaw method (p. 221)?
Nope. Our research leads us to believe not

10. Uncertainty Orientation and Educational Psychology: The Merits of Cooperative Learning and the Jigsaw Method
Huber, Sorrentino, Davidson, Roth, & Epplier (1992)

11. Huber et al (1992, Study 1)

12. Huber et al. (1992, Study 3)

13. Conclusions
Current theories of prejudice and attempts at resolving prejudice probably apply only to UO’s. This is probably why they have had limited success as most people are CO’s.
So what do we do with the CO’s?
A. Shoot them?
B. Behaviour Modification?
C. Put them in situations where they will process information systematically, situations where there is no uncertainty.

14. Th-th-th-that’s all Folks!
Hope you enjoyed the show.