Three Minute Review THEORY OF MIND –extreme male brain theory things (systemizing) vs. people (empathizing) men vs. women autistics vs.?? (Williams.

Three Minute ReviewTHEORY 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”?

Three Minute ReviewSOCIAL 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

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

History Repeats ItselfWho is more likely to get harassed at the airport security check?

Discrimination vs. Prejudice

No Prejudice Prejudice

No Discrimination

No relevant behaviors A 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

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

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”

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)

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

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?

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

Implicit Association Test

Logic of IAT

Reaction Time(ms)

faster

slower

White + Good,

Black + Bad

White + Bad,

Black + Good

Bias in favor of white

Web test resultsRace • 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.’

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

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

• 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

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)

How can we reduce prejudice?Robbers Cave Experiment

(Sherif et al., 1961)– 22 5th 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

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

It’s hard to hate your friends• friendships with outgroup members

(as friends, neighbors, co-workers) leads to reliably lower levels of prejudice