LECTURE 12
Stereotyping, Prejudice, & Discrimination
 Administration
 Categorization and Social Identity Processes
 Types of Intergroup Biases and their Relationships
 Stereotyping
 Prejudice
 Break
 Discrimination
 Video: True Colors
 Next Class
Revised Grading
 Exam 1
 Thursday, January 29th
 No Exam 2
 Final Exam
 Final Exam Period, April 19th – April 28th
 Multiple choice and short answer questions
 Cumulative - Material from lectures, videos, and textbook
from whole course (Chapters 1 -12)
Revised Grading
Grade
Option 1:
 Exam 1 – 30%
 Final Exam – 70%
Option 2:
 Exam 1 – 40%
 Final Exam – 60%
***The option that provides the highest grade will be used.
Course Schedule
1) Thursday, March 19th
Group Dynamics and Conformity
Reading material:
Chapter 7: Conformity: Influencing Others,
pp. 192-233.
Posted Online
http://psychology.blog.yorku.ca/course-material-accommodation-2015/
Course Schedule
Thursday, March 26th
Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination
Reading material:
Chapter 12: Prejudice: Causes and Cures,
pp. 372-415.
Course Schedule
Thursday, April 2nd
Altruism and Aggression
Reading material:
Chapter 10: Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help? pp.
310-337.
Chapter 11: Aggression: Why We Hurt Other People, pp.
338-371.
Course Schedule
Thursday, April 9th
Interpersonal Attraction and Close Relationships
and Course Wrap-Up
Reading material:
Chapter 9: Interpersonal Attraction:
From First Impressions to Close Relationships,
pp. 270-309.
Course Schedule
Final Exam: April 19th – April 28th (Cumulative)
- Date and Location TBA
Questions?
Dot Estimation Task
. .. ..
…. .. .
. . .
… ….
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. … . . ... . …
. …. .. . . . .
. …... . ...
. .… … ……
…... . . . . . .
.. . . . .
…………. . .
… …. …. .
Terry (overestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Chris (underestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
Terry (overestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Chris (underestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
Terry (overestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Chris (underestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
Pat (underestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Cary (overestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
According to Realistic Conflict Theory
(and results from the Robber’s Cave experiments)
To create bias (discrimination/prejudice) you need:
a) intergroup interaction
b) scarce resources
c) intergroup conflict (competition)
Robber’s Cave Experiments
Sherif et al. (1961)
Four Phases
1) Spontaneous Interpersonal Friendships
2) Group Formation (Rattlers and Eagles)
3) Intergroup Conflict
4) Intergroup Cooperation
– superordinate goals
According to Realistic Conflict Theory
(and results from the Robber’s Cave experiments)
To create bias (discrimination/prejudice) you need:
a) intergroup interaction
b) scarce resources
c) intergroup conflict (competition)
According to Social Identity Theory
(and results from the minimal group experiments)
To create discrimination/prejudice you only need:
a) categorization into 2 groups (Robber’s Cave)
The Importance of Being Positive and Distinct.
Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel & Turner (1979)
■ The procedure.
■ The importance of being positive and distinct.
Minimal Group Paradigm
Tajfel & Turner (1979)
Terry (overestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Chris (underestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
Pat (underestimator)
8
10
13
15
19
Cary (overestimator)
3
7
13
18
21
According to Social Identity Theory
People still show bias (discrimination/prejudice) even
if:
a) they are explicitly told that they are classified in an
arbitrary way (e.g., coin toss)
b) they are never at a personal advantage regardless of
how they divide the points
c) they never meet members of any of the groups
Social Identity Theory & Younger Sister
Self-Categorization Theory
– We categorize people into groups
– We identify with our ingroup (the “we” aspect of the selfconcept is our social identity)
– We compare our ingroup with outgroups (us vs. them)
– We are driven to have a positive and distinct social identity
• We like to see “us” as being better than “them”
• We like to see “us” as being different from “them”
Defining Biases
 Stereotypes: a belief about the personal attributes of a
group of people.
French-Canadians are working class, eat well, emotional.
 Prejudice: a negative attitude toward a group.
I don’t like French Canadians.
 Discrimination: unequal treatment of the group.
I won’t hire French Canadians.
The relationship between
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
Negative Stereotype:
Members of Group A are dirty, hostile, lazy, ….
leads to
Prejudiced Attitude:
I don’t like As
leads to
Discrimination:
I prefer to avoid As, exclude them from good jobs, …
The relationship between
stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
r = .25
r = .32*
Stereotypes --------------------- Prejudice (attitude) --------------------- Discrimination
r = .16
* Note that the prejudice-discrimination correlation looks
very similar to more general attitude-behavior relationships.
Stereotyping
Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models
Stereotypes
Beliefs about the personal attributes of group
members.
Abstraction/Schematic Model
According to this model, we maintain cognitive
representations of social categories in which these
categories are associated with specific characteristics
and traits. For each of these characteristics, we have a
central tendency (e.g., a mean) and a variance (e.g.,
standard deviation).
Stereotyping
Abstraction Models
Americans
Conservative
x=5
sd = 1.5
Outgoing
x=6
sd = 1.0
Violent
x=4
sd = 2.0
Stereotyping
Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models
Exemplar Model
According to this model, we have specific
examples (i.e., exemplars) of people that we
have encoded in our memory. If we have to give
an evaluation of a group, than we retrieve our
representations of these specific people and
base our judgment on these exemplars.
Stereotyping
Exemplar Models
Hawaiian Ukulele Player (not really similar - weight 2)
- smart - 2
- nice - 6
- funny - 6
Tony Soprano (very similar - weight 7)
- smart - 6
- nice - 1
- dangerous - 6
Uncle George from Buffalo (kinda similar – weight 5)
- smart - 4
- nice - 4
- conservative - 7
Stereotyping
Exemplar Models
How smart is the guy on the street
Ukulele Player – 2 (weight 2)
Tony Soprano – 6 (weight 7)
Uncle George – 4 (weight of 5)
Stereotypic Expectation of how smart – 5
Can also estimate how nice, etc. in this same way
Online vs. Instance-Based Retrieval
Abstraction Model - Online Retrieval
According to this model, we adjust our estimates
of variability and averages for characteristics
related to the categories every time we meet a new
member of the group. Online we update this
representation.
We keep an estimate of central tendency and
variance of these category-trait associations in our
memory and so when we need this estimate we
simply retrieve it and use it.
On-Line vs. Instance-Based Retrieval
Exemplar Model - Instance-Based Retrieval
According to this model, we don’t maintain a
running estimate of category-traits associations in
our memory. If we need to make a judgment, we
retrieve different exemplars from memory and on
the basis of these exemplars we make an estimate
the instant we need it.
Stereotyping
Abstraction vs. Exemplar Models
So who is right? What are the processes related to
stereotypic expectations associated with category
members?
Are Americans conservative?
Do Albanians like sports?
Are professors smart? Arrogant?
Do professors have big feet?
Stereotype Activation and Application
Devine (1989)
Do we always activate and use stereotypes when judging
category members?
– Study 1 – Automatic activation of stereotypes
– Study 2 – Controlled application of stereotypes
Study 1 – Automatic Activation of Stereotypes
Before starting the experiment, level of prejudice was measured
with the Modern Racism Scale.
Phase 1
– Participants were first subliminally primed (80 ms) with words
related to Blacks (e.g., dark, poor) and nonBlack words (e.g.,
sentence, numbers). Their task was to identify if a flash was on
the left or right side of screen.
• ½ participants - 80% of the words related to Blacks.
• ½ participants - 20% of the words related to Blacks
• None of the words were related to hostile/aggressive.
Phase 2
– Participant next read the Donald Story
– Asked to rate Donald on hostile/aggressive and neutral traits.
Study 1 – Automatic Activation of Stereotypes
Extent of Black Priming
20%
80%
Ratings of Donald
Hostile Traits
6.9
7.5
Neutral Traits
5.9
6.0
• How do these results demonstrate stereotype activation?
• No difference between high prejudice and low prejudice people.
• Why is this process considered to be automatic?
Study 2 – Controlled Application of Stereotypes
Before starting the experiment, level of prejudice was measured
with the Modern Racism Scale.
• Participants were asked to write down different names for the
category “Blacks.”
• Next, they had to write down their own personal associations with
Blacks – these associations were coded as either traits or
opinions/beliefs and as positive and negative.
An example of a trait is “athletic” or “criminal.”
An example of a belief is “Affirmative action is good.” or “Blacks
cause many problems.”
Study 2 – Controlled Application of Stereotypes
High Prejudice Participants
Beliefs
Traits
Positive
1.2
1.8
Negative
1.2
3.3
Beliefs
Traits
Positive
4.5
1.2
Negative
1.2
1.0
Low Prejudice Participants
Stereotyping by High and Low Prejudiced People
under Automatic and Controlled Processing Conditions
Activate Stereotypes (automatic)
(Study 1)
Apply Stereotypes (controlled)
(Study 2)
Low Prej
yes
High Prej
yes
no
yes
* Why? Culture vs. Personal Beliefs
* Everyone automatically activates cultural stereotypes but only those
who are motivated (low prejudiced people) will inhibit those
associations and replace them with their own personal beliefs.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
What is the continuum? How do we process others?
categorization
individuation
attribute-based
piece-meal
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model
1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category. We form our
impression based on this category.
Visible categories
- sex
- race/ethnicity
- age
- SES
(religion, sexuality)
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model
1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After, if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that
are present fit the initial category.
Is this person good at sports?
Does this person like math?
Does this person know much about popular music?
Does this person like to read?
Is he aggressive?
Does he support affirmative action programs?
Does this person like baking?
Is she wild?
Does she like small children?
Is she offended by nude scenes on television?
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
(Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
What is the continuum? How do we process others?
categorization
individuation
attribute-based
piece-meal
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model
1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that
are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our
attention to individual attributes.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model
1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that
are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our
attention to individual attributes.
4.
Motivation is important for where we end up on the continuum.
We can be motivated to categorize or individuate.
Continuum Model of Impression Formation
Five important premises related to the model
1. Categorization is the default mode. The first fast process that
occurs is the activation of a specific category.
2. After if we are motivated, we see whether the characteristics that
are present fit the initial category.
3. Where we end up on the continuum is determined by our attention
to individual attributes.
4. Motivation is important for where we end up on the continuum.
5. Motivation can also influence our attention and so the Motivation
x Attention interaction is critical.
Questions?
Prejudice
A negative attitude toward a group.
Modern Prejudice Measures
vs.
Implicit Prejudice Measures
Modern Racism
Definition:
Prejudice revealed in subtle, indirect ways because people have
learned to hide prejudiced attitudes in order to avoid being
labeled as racist. Rationalize prejudice according to other beliefs.
• Over the past few years the government and the media have
shown more respect to Blacks than they deserve.
• It is easy to understand the anger of Black people in America. (R)
• Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.
• Discrimination against Blacks is no longer a problem in Canada.
(R)
Race Implicit Association Task (IAT)
unpleasant
or
BLACKS
pleasant
or
WHITES
Are We Prejudiced?
If measured with Modern Racism Scale - NO
If measured with IAT - YES
Preference for Whites
Little or no preference
Preference for Blacks
70% (- 80%)
17%
12%
Aversive Racism
Gaertner & Dovidio (1986)
Aversive racists:
 are fairly liberal
 don’t think that they are prejudiced
 think that equality and the status of minorities is
important
Who thinks that these items describe them?
 also harbor negative feelings toward Blacks
(hidden even from themselves)
Who thinks that this item describes them?
Aversive Racism
Gaertner & Dovidio (1986)
 Because of these negative feelings, we
discriminate when we get the chance. This does
not have to be conscious but it does happen.


Importance of Situational Norms
 If the possibility exists to act in negative ways
toward Blacks without being perceived as
prejudiced by others (or even the self), we will
take advantage of this situation.
Difficult to Measure
Bystander Study of Aversive Racism
 White subjects participate in a study with either
another White person or a Black person.
 Half way through the study, they hear that a
number of chairs have fallen on the other person.
 They think that they are the only person who has
heard this accident or that other bystanders have
also heard.
Bystander Study of Aversive Racism
Alone
Others are present
Victim
Black Person
94%
38%
White Person
81%
75%
In a situation with no clear social norms or in a
situation where behavior can be easily explained in
terms of nonracial factors, aversive racists will treat
Blacks more poorly than Whites.
Son Hing, Chung-Yan, Zanna, & Hamilton
(2008)
 Measured Explicit Prejudice
 Asian Modern Racism scale
 conscious and deliberately reasoned evaluations of Asians
 Measured Implicit Prejudice
 Asian IAT
 automatic evaluations of Asians that occur unintentionally
and outside of awareness
Son Hing, Chung-Yan, Zanna, &
Hamilton (2008)
Explicit Prejudice
Low
Low
Implicit
Prejudice
High
High
Truly Low
Prejudice
Principled
Conservatives
Aversive Racists
Modern Racists
(Truly High
Prejudice)
Questions?
Discrimination
Discrimination:
Unequal treatment of the group. Negative behaviour toward
group members.
Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies
Correll, Park, Wittenbrink, & Judd (2002)
Shooter Studies
Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies
Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Study 1: Discrimination against Blacks
 White Participants are the Interviewers
 Independent variable
Race of candidate: White or Black
 Dependent variable
Immediacy
Interview Length
Speech Error Rate of Interviewer
Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies
Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Study 2: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
 White Participants are the Applicants
 Independent variable
White Interviewer:
Immediate or Nonimmediate Behaviors
 Dependent variable
Ratings of applicant performance
Applicants’ reciprocate behavior of Interviewer
Applicants’ attitudes about the interview
Self-fulfilling Prophecy Studies
Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974)
Study 1:
White interviewers treat Blacks applicants in less immediate
ways than White applicants.
Study 2:
When White applicants are treated in these less immediate
ways (like Blacks were treated in Study 1), they perform
worse, reciprocate these negative behaviors, and like the
interviewer less than if treated in more immediate ways (like
Whites were treated in Study 1).
How do these studies demonstrate self-fulfilling prophecies?
Shooter Study
Correll, Park, Wittenbrink, & Judd (2002)
Participants are presented first with a background image,
then a person (either Black or White) appears. The
participants is instructed to:
 press the shoot button asap if the person is holding a
gun.
 press the not shoot button asap if the person is holding
something that is not a gun.
 Show Demo
Shooter Bias
Reaction Latencies
White Targets
Black Targets
Armed Targets
(Shoot)
550
539
Unarmed Targets
(Don’t Shoot)
607
620
Shooter Bias
Error Rates
White Targets
Black Targets
Armed Targets
(Shoot)
.76
.49 (ns)
Unarmed Targets
(Don’t Shoot)
.33
.65
Are these effects intentional?
Are participants aware that they are making these
types of responses?
Discrimination
Discrimination:
Unequal treatment of the group. Negative behaviour toward
group members.
Do we still discriminate? Is this still such a big problem?
For Blacks? Women? Immigrants? Italians? Jews? Mexicans?
Muslims? Russians? …
In Canada?
ABC Clip: True Colors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyL5EcAwB9c
Discrimination
Janelle Jones
University of London
If Racism Is So Prevalent - Why?
Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism
Kawakami, Dunn, Karmali, & Dovidio (2009)
Imagine …..
(forecasters)
vs.
Actually Happens ….
(experiencers)
Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism
Independent Variables
Role
• Experiencer
• Forecaster
Comment
• No Comment
• Moderately Racist Comment
• Extremely Racist Comment
Affective and Behavioral Responses to Racism
Dependent Variables
Affect – How upset?
Partner Choice
Affective Responses
Forecaster
9
Experiencer
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
No Comment
Moderate Racist
Comment
Extreme Racist
Comment
Partner Choice
100
Forecaster
90
Experiencer
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
No Comment
Moderate Racist
Comment
Extreme Racist
Comment
Summary
• Categorization and Social Identity Processes
• Stereotyping
– Cognitive representations
– Activation and application
– Categorization processes
• Prejudice
– Modern, Implicit Racism, Aversive racism
• Discrimination
– Classic and New studies
Questions?
Next Class
Altruism and Aggression
Thursday, April 2, 2015
Reading material:
Chapter 10: Prosocial Behavior: Why Do People Help? pp. 310337.
Chapter 11: Aggression: Why We Hurt Other People, pp. 338371.