2. Three Minute Review THEORY OF MIND –extreme male brain theory things (systemizing) vs. people (empathizing) men vs. women autistics vs. ??? (Williams syndrome perhaps?) correlated with length of ring finger vs. index finger? is there a “geek syndrome”?

3. Three Minute Review SOCIAL PERCEPTION Attachment –Harlow’s monkeys –Strange Situation Test Secure Attachment Insecure Attachment –Avoidant –Anxious Resistant Sex and Gender –case of Bruce/Brenda/David sex ≠ gender both biological and socialization effects –gender socialization behavior toward infants gender-specific toys

4. SOCIAL PERCEPTION Self perception –Mirror test of self awareness –Roles determine self-perception –people with self complexity are more resilient to successes and failures –Reference groups better-than-average effect incompetent people usually don’t know they’re incompetent see ourselves more positively than others do see ourselves more positively now than before

6. History Repeats Itself Who is more likely to get harassed at the airport security check?

7. Discrimination vs. Prejudice No PrejudicePrejudice No Discrimination No relevant behaviorsA restaurant owner who is bigoted against Jews treats them fairly because she needs their business Discrimination An executive with favorable views toward Hispanics doesn’t hire them because he would get in trouble with his boss A professor who is hostile toward women grades his female students unfairly Discrimination –unfair treatment of a group Prejudice –negative attitudes toward or beliefs (stereotypes) about members of a group

8. Origins of Prejudice Social Categorization –“us vs. them” In-group –one’s own group (e.g., UWO students) Out-group –group outside one’s own group (e.g., Fanshawe students) In-group bias –evaluation of one’s own group as better than others –can lead to racism, sexism, prejudice, discrimination Out-group homogeneity bias –members of out-groups are viewed as more similar to one another than are members of in-group –“We are diverse; They are all alike.” –white Americans see Hispanics as all alike; Mexican Americans see themselves as different from the other types of Hispanics who they see as all alike (Cuban-Americans, Puerto-Rican Americans) –stereotypes

9. Other Factors prejudice can be learned very early (~age 3) competition for resources enhances prejudice –ongoing prejudice against immigrants in-group bias can occur even when group assignment is arbitrary –blue-eyed vs. brown-eyed video exceptions –counter-examples to stereotypes may be seen as exceptions or subcategories –e.g., someone who sees women as passive may label an assertive woman as a “feminist”

10. An Evolutionary Interpretation in-group more likely to share genes –is prejudice the negative side of altruism? stigmatized people are often defined by their flaws (disabled, disease victims, obese, drug addict), especially if their flaws are seen as controllable (e.g., obesity)

11. Stereotypes exaggerated overgeneralizations about members of a particular group same characteristics are assigned to all members of a group behavioral confirmation –remember the confirmation bias? –people tend to absorb information consistent with their biases more easily than inconsistent information

13. Three Levels of Stereotypes public –what we say to others about a group private –what we consciously think about a group, but don’t say to others implicit –unconscious mental associations guiding our judgements and actions without our conscious awareness Public stereotypes have decreased in North America recently (“political correctness”). Does this mean people no longer carry stereotypes?

14. Implicit Stereotypes Do our true views always agree with our stated views? How can we measure implicit stereotypes? Implicit Association Test (IAT) Are certain concepts more easily paired with one another concepts? Anthony Greenwald

15. Implicit Association Test

25. Logic of IAT Reaction Time (ms) faster slower White + Good, Black + Bad White + Bad, Black + Good Bias in favor of white

26. Web test results Race 75% of White participants showed pro-White/anti-Black preference 42% of Black participants showed pro-White/anti-Black preference Age preference for young over old, held by old and young, the strongest effect yet observed. Gender+Career and Gender+Science Males and females equally linked women to ‘home’ and ‘Liberal Arts’ and men to ‘career’ and ‘Science.’

27. Implicit Stereotypes "I was taken aback by my inability to make the intended association, the difficulty in making the counter-stereotypical association between, say, female and career, or male and home." “If we are aware of our biases, we can correct for them—as when driving a car that drifts to the right, we steer left to go where we intend." -- Mahzarin Banaji Mahzarin Banaji

28. How Prejudice Confirms Itself Discriminatory behavior can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy confirming the initial stereotype Experiment (Wood, 1974) –White male University students interviewed white and black male high school students seeking admission to a group –White interviewers of black applicants (relative to white interviewers of white applicants) sat further away conducted shorter interviews made more speech errors Follow-up Experiment –While males were applicants –treated either like white or black applicants in first experiment (e.g., interviewer sat close or far) –those treated like the black applicants performed worse during the interview

29. black students perform worse on a verbal test when it’s described as an “intelligence test” a (race prime) than when it’s described as a “laboratory test” (no race prime) Asian American women did better on a math test when primed by “Asians are good at math” and worse when primed by “Women are bad at math.” Stereotype Threat Claude Steele

30. How can we reduce prejudice? be mindful of your biases –children who were shown pictures of handicapped individuals and asked to think carefully about them (e.g., to think how they would drive a car) were more willing to play with disabled children than those who did only a superficial task (Langer et al., 1985)

31. How can we reduce prejudice? Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif et al., 1961) –22 5 th grade boys in summer camp in 1954 –grouped into two groups, “Eagles” and “Rattlers” –boys only interacted with their own group for one week –groups began to interact in competitive situations (e.g., football, tug-of-war) –rivalry became violent –group flags burned, cabins ransacked, food fights

32. How can we reduce prejudice? Propaganda: No –positive propaganda about one group directed to the other by the experimenters did not help Contact: No –doing non-competitive activities together (e.g., watching movies) did not help Cooperative action: Yes –experimenters arranged for camp truck to break down –both groups needed to pull it uphill –intergroup friendships began to develop –cooperative approached is being used in US classrooms give assignment where students from different racial groups can only succeed by working together in a “jigsaw” approach

33. It’s hard to hate your friends friendships with outgroup members (as friends, neighbors, co-workers) leads to reliably lower levels of prejudice