1 Lecture Outline nExtra Credit experiment nStereotypes defined nDiagnostic ratio revisited nOrigins of stereotypes nModels of stereotype change/maintenance.

1

Lecture Outline

Extra Credit experiment

Stereotypes defined

Diagnostic ratio revisited

Origins of stereotypes

Models of stereotype change/maintenance

Prejudice defined

2

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

A stereotypes is…...

“A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a

group of people”

3

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Limitation:

Many attributes are perceived as typical of a group and yet are not part of people’s stereotypes

4

Stereotypes include attributes that are perceived as:

TYPICAL

and

DISTINGUISH

BETWEEN GROUPS

5

Diagnostic Ratio

DR = % of group (with attribute)

% of reference (with attribute)

6

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute does not distinguish between groups

attribute not part of stereotype

7

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially > than 1

attribute distinguishes between groups

attribute is stereotypic of group

8

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially < than 1

attribute distinguishes between groups

attribute is counterstereotypic of group

9

McCauley & Stitt (1978)

Purpose:

1. Show utility of DR

2. Measure (in)accuracy of stereotype about African Americans

10

McCauley & Stitt (1978)Sampled five groups

Created DR’s based on perceptions of African Americans and Americans

Created criterion DR’s based on census information

11

Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

76

Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

(Green) DR’s: different from 1 (p < .05); n = 30

Black DR’s not different from 1 (p > .05); n = 5

Underlined DR’s = different from criteria (p < .05); n = 16

12

Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

77

Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

Most DR’s different from one (green): People held stereotype of African Americans

13

Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

78

Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

Some DR’s different from criteria [underlined]. Other DR’s not different from criteria [not underlined]: People’s stereotypes were both inaccurate [underlined] and accurate [not underlined]

14

Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

79

Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

When DR’s indicated inaccurate stereotype [underlined], difference was smaller than criteria: People’s stereotypes underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences

15

McCauley & Stitt (1978): Summary

People endorsed a stereotype of AAmost DR’s different than 1

AA stereotype was accurate & inaccuratesome DR’s different from criteria (inaccurate)

other DR’s not different from criteria (accurate)

AA stereotype underestimated real differencewhen DR different from criteria, it was smaller

16

Origin of Stereotypes:Where do they come from?

Socio-cultural perspective

Kernel of Truth hypothesis

Illusory correlations

17

Socio-Cultural Perspective

Premise: Individuals are socialized into a particular culture

(e.g., media or significant others)

18

Socio-Cultural Perspective

1. People are born into a culture

2. People are rewarded/punished for their beliefs, values, behaviors

3. People act in accord with norms

4. People internalize norms

5. Internalization perpetuates the norms

19

Socio-Cultural Perspective

Two versions of socio-cultural view

Structuralist-Functionalist

Conflict theory

20

Structuralist-Functionalist Version

A single culture accepted throughout a society

i.e., individuals in a society are similar in their beliefs, values and behaviors

21

Structuralist-Functionalist Version

Function of stereotypes:

stereotypes communicate expected behavior

stereotypes communicate how different people should be treated

22

Structuralist-Functionalist Version

More evident in more homogeneous

and collectivist societies

23

Conflict Theory Version

Multiple subcultures within society

People accept norms of their subculture

24

Conflict Theory VersionPeople within a subculture are similar in their

beliefs, values, behaviors

People in different subcultures are different in their beliefs, values, behaviors

The more different two subcultures, the greater the conflict in their beliefs, values, behaviors

25

Conflict Theory Version

Function of stereotypes:

stereotypes justify prejudice

incompetence justifies lower pay

laziness justifies poverty

26

Conflict Theory Version

More evident in more

heterogeneous societies

27

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

Premise: Stereotypes are exaggerations that exist in some measure in a group

28

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

1. The larger a real difference between groups, the more likely the attribute will be in the stereotype

Example: Circumscribing and non-circumscribing tribes

29

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

2. Stereotypes become more accurate as contact between groups increases

Example: women/men v.s. African Americans/Whites

30

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

3. Behaviors punished in one group, but not in another, tend to be in a stereotype

Example: nudity and bathroom practices

31

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

4. Similar behaviors that groups perform in different situations tend to be in stereotypes, but connote different valences.

Example……...

32

Kernel of Truth Hypothesis

We are loyal.

We are brave and progressive.

We are thrifty.

They are clannish.

They are aggressive and expansionistic.

They are cheap.

33

Kernel of Truth

Cautionary Statements

Perceived differences are not veridical

Perceived differences are exaggerated

Perceived differences reflect social

factors, not genetic differences

34

Illusory Correlations

Definition: People overestimate how strongly two things are related

(e.g., arthritis pain and changes in the weather)

35

Illusory correlations & stereotype formation

People associate a group with an attribute (African Americans & crime)

Cognitive biases “corroborate” the perceived association

confirmation biases in hypothesis testing

remember consistent information better

36

Illusory Correlation

People most susceptible to illusory correlations when:

group is relatively smallattribute is rare in population

37

Illusory Correlation

ExampleAfrican Americans are a minority in the

US. Whites are the majority

Being a media superstar is rare

Illusory correlation likely……More AA (small group) superstars (rare event)

than White (large group) superstars (rare event)

38

Illusory CorrelationNegative behavior more rare than positive

behavior

Implication: Negative behavior by minority more memorable

and salient than same behavior by majority

Negative behavior becomes part of stereotype of minority

39

Stereotype Change

Consensual stereotypes change over time, across individuals.

Very little known about stereotype change over time, within individuals (see Weber & Crocker, 1983, for an exception)

40

Models of Stereotype Change

Bookkeeping Model

Conversion Model

Subtyping Model

Focus on stereotype-inconsistent information

41

Bookkeeping Model

Stereotype change is incremental

Each instance of inconsistent information

modifies the stereotype

Single instance = small change

Accumulation = large change

42

Bookkeeping Model

Implication:

Stereotype change will be similar

regardless of whether inconsistent

information is concentrated or dispersed.

Amount (not dispersion) matters.

43

Conversion Model

Stereotype change is dramatic

Stereotypes change in response to

large and salient inconsistent info.

Stereotypes remain unchanged by

minor inconsistent information

44

Conversion Model

Implication:

Stereotype change will be greater

when inconsistent information is

concentrated v.s. dispersed

45

Subtyping Model

Stereotypes hierarchically structured

Rare, inconsistent instances lead to creation of

subtypes.

Instances regarded as “exceptions”

Stereotype protected from change

Common, inconsistent instances result in stereotype

change

46

Subtyping Model

Implication:

Stereotype change will be greater

when inconsistent information is

dispersed v.s. concentrated

47

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Purpose:

Tested the three models of stereotype change

48

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Procedure:

Given information about corporate lawyers

Rated each lawyer on stereotypic traits

49

Weber & Crocker (1983)Manipulations:

Dispersion of Inconsistent info: Dispersed across all members Concentrated in 1/3 of members

Group size: 6 members v.s. 30 membersAmount of inconsistent info higher in larger group

50

Weber & Crocker (1983)Predictions

Dispersion has no effect on stereotype change, but amount does (bookkeeping)

Stereotype change greater when inconsistent info concentrated (conversion)

Stereotype change greater when when inconsistent info dispersed (subtyping)

51

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Operationalization of Stereotype Change

More change = lower stereotypic judgments

Less change = higher stereotypic judgments

52

Which stereotype change model does this result support?

3

4

5

6

Dispersed Concentrated

Dispersed

Ste

reot

ypic

Jud

gmen

ts(lo

wer

= m

ore

chan

ge)

Subtyping Model

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Effect of Dispersion

53

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Effect of Group Size

Which stereotype change model does this result support?

3

4

5

6

Small group Large group

judge

Ste

reot

ypic

Jud

gmen

ts(lo

wer

= m

ore

chan

ge)

Bookkeeping Model

54

Weber & Crocker (1983)

Supported subtyping model:stereotype change > dispersed

Supported bookkeeping model:stereotype change > large group

55

Stereotype Maintenance

Subtyping ModelSubtypes help to maintain stereotype

Cognitive BiasesBetter memory for stereotype-consistent information

Confirmation biases in hypothesis testing

56

Cognitive Biases

Cognitive biases maintain stereotype by increasing confidence in the stereotype’s accuracy

57

Cohen (1981)96 participants watched video of a

librarian or waitress and her husband

Some attributes fit stereotype of librarian or waitresses (see next slide for examples), others did not

Recalled as many of the woman’s attributes as they could

58

Example of woman’s attributes

Half fit stereotype of librarianswore glassesate roast beef

Half fit stereotype of waitressesaffectionate with husbandate hamburger

59

Cohen (1981)

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

ConsistentInformation

InconsistentInformation

Immediaterecall

% r

ecal

led

corr

ectly

Conclusion: Better recall for stereotype-consistent information

60

Confirmation Biases in Hypothesis Testing

Definition: Search for information that confirms one’s expectations (stereotype)

61

Snyder and colleagues

Through series of studies showed that people engage in this bias

Example…...

62

Snyder and colleagues

Told participants they would interview another individual

Told to figure out if other person was introverted or extroverted (initial hypothesis)

Given suggested questions to ask1/2 introverted; 1/2 extroverted……..

63

Example questions

Introverted:“What factors make it hard for you to really open up to people?”

Extroverted:“What kind of situations do you seek out if you want to meet new people?”

64

Snyder & Colleagues

Results

Participants preferentially chose to ask questions that would confirm their initial hypothesis

65

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.

66

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

67

Zanna (1994)

Purpose:

Demonstrate that prejudice is made up of different components

Correlated prejudice scores with three proposed components of prejudice

68

Zanna (1994)

Components of prejudice:

Stereotypic beliefs: typical attributes

Symbolic beliefs: values, traditions, customs

Emotions: affective reactions (e.g., disgust)

69

Zanna (1994)Procedure

1) Participants indicated their stereotypic beliefs, symbolic beliefs, and emotions about these social groups:

English Canadian (ingroup)French CanadianNative IndianPakistaniHomosexual

70

Zanna (1994)

Procedure continued

2) Participants rated how favorable each group was (i.e., prejudice)

71

Zanna (1994)

Results

1) On average, prejudice correlated positively with each component (all p’s < .05)

2) But, correlations varied by target group…….

72

Zanna (1994)

Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion

Zanna (1994)

Correlation between prejudice and components of prejudice by group

72

73

Result 1: weakest correlation b/t prejudice and components for English Canadians overall

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion73

74

Result 2: strongest correlation b/t prejudice and components for French Canadians overall

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion74

75

Result 3: prejudice correlated with stereotypic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian and Homosexual

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion75

76

Result 4: prejudice correlated with symbolic beliefs most strongly for French Canadian

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion76

77

Result 5: prejudice correlated with emotion most strongly for Pakistani

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

EC FC NI P H

Stereotypic beliefs Symbolic beliefs Emotion77

78

Zanna (1994)Conclusions:Prejudice consists of at least three

componentsstereotypic beliefssymbolic beliefsemotion

The components most central to prejudice varies across groups