German – Psychology of Peoples A comparative and historical, social and cultural psychology dealing with the cultural products (language, myth, custom etc) resulting from social interaction. Dominated from 18 th to 20 th century Central assumption: importance of the cultural and linguistic community in which the formation and education of the individual personality takes place. Language is the medium through which a community shapes its individual members, who then actively contribute to that language, which is thus a social product. (Markova, 1983)
Today we tend to talk about society as a social context which shapes experiences and the individual but Volkerpsychogie focused more on national and cultural community Volkerpsychologie raised many questions of national importance relating to politics of the time in Germany.
founding father of experimental psychology practiced introspection- looking inwards to analyse mental life as it happened realised this was subjective: mental events are expressed or communicated and possibly shaped by language believed that an adequate study of mind should start by examining its major objectifications, such as language, myth and custom and account for their cultural and historical variations believed that experimental psychology of the decontextualised subject must be complemented by a study of the major manifestations of mind.
began to forget the cultural element of Volkpsychologie worked on becoming more empirical in its methods (social experiments) rather than focusing on qualitative data collection construction of meaning aspect handed over to sociology, anthropology etc. Recently rediscovered by European social psychologists: Wundts final belief that experimental psychology is only half of what psychology can be is finding more and more supporters, (Hewstone and Stroebe, 2001).
Individuals are embedded in a system of bidirectional interrelations with other individuals. Thus, behavior is influenced by the social group Behavior is influenced by culture (norms and values) People have not only an individual identity but also a social self Peoples views on the world are resistant to change
Laboratory experiments vs. field research (ecological validity) Participant observation (overt and covert) Interviews Focus groups Etc. Leon Festinger – When Prophecy Fails (1956) – an example of covert observation
Attributing causes to the behavior of other people Errors in attribution: 1) Fundamental attribution error 2) Self- serving bias Fundamental attribution error: In observing other peoples behavior subjects tend to overestimate dispositional factors and underestimate situational factors Lee et al (1977): in a game show hosts (though randomly chosen) are viewed as more intelligent Self-serving bias: successes are attributed to dispositional factors, failures are attributed to situational factors Kashima & Triandis (1986): found cultural differences between US and Japan. Self-serving bias and modesty bias. Modesty bias: I explain failures in terms of lack of ability
Henry Tajfel. A person has one individual self and many social selves. People who belong to a group (or are randomly assigned to a group!) automatically begin to think in terms of in-group (us) and out-group (them). In-group favoritism. Discrimination against out-group. Social comparison and supporting ones self-esteem. Strengths of the theory: empirical and broad, explains a lot. Limitations of the theory: 1) Why is it that in some cases personal identity is stronger than the group identity? 2) Does not take into account cultural factors (reductionistic).
Serge Moscovici (1973). Social representations are the foundation of social cognition. It is how a certain social group percieves the world E.g. Caroline Howarth (2002): focus-group interviews with teenagers from Brixton, London
Occurs when one is in a situation where there is a threat of being judged or treated stereotypically, or a fear of doing something that will confirm that stereotype. Steele & Aronson (1995). 30-minute difficult verbal test in verbal abilities to African Americans and European Americans. Group A told this is a genuine test of intelligence, group B told this is a test about how certain problems are generally solved. In group A African Americans do worse, in group B they dont.
Many explanations Henry Tajfel: the result of social categorization Campbell (1967) – grain of truth hypothesis Hamilton & Gifford: the result of illusory correlation. This can be made stronger by confirmation bias. Thats why stereotypes are stable Social desirability effect – an important confounding variable in research of stereotypes
20 Teachers were told that, on the basis of an IQ test, a certain group of students was on the verge of an intellectual spurt This group of students was randomly chosen Test was bogus 8 months later, this group of Students actually outperformed others on an IQ test
21 Racial Profiling as a Self-fulfilling Prophecy
22 Not everybodys life is what they make it. Some peoples life is what other people make it. - Alice Walker
23 Black and Latino cardiac patients less likely to receive appropriate heart medicine Less likely to undergo coronary bypass surgery Less likely to receive dialysis or kidney transplant Receive lower quality basic clinical services
24 Sent 5000 phantom applications to job ads in Boston & Chicago Resumes were identical, EXCEPT: RACE WAS VARIED by use of NAMES (Tamika vs Kristin; Tyrone vs Brad) Results?
25 White people are far more likely than Black people to be granted mortgage loans This effect cannot be explained away statistically by differences
26 In 2003, women who worked full-time made __ cents for every dollar a man made. Asian women: 75 cents White women: 70 cents Black women: 63 cents Native women: 57 cents Latina women: 52 cents These differences cannot be explained away….
27 Two or more people perceived as having at least one of the following characteristics: Direct interactions with each other over a period of time. Joint membership in a social category based on sex, race, or other attributes. A shared, common fate, identity, or set of goals.
Jane Eliots study of prejudice (blue eyes-brown eyes) Brown eyed children told they were better, smarter, given privileges; Brown eyes assumed superior attitude; blue eyes started to perform poorly Shows how quickly stereotypes start shaping attitudes & behaviour psychlotron.org.uk
Greenberg & Pyzczynsky (1985) White students rated performance of Black debaters more poorly than White if they had heard a racist comment Stereotypes increase prejudice but only when activated Minard (1952) Stereotypes can be suppressed but only when social norms support this psychlotron.org.uk
33 We have a strong tendency to divide people into ingroups and outgroups. Benefits Consequences outgroup homogeneity effect
36 Basic Predictions: 1) Threats to SE = need for ingroup favoritism 2) Ingroup favoritism = repairs SE
37 Minimal Groups = categorizing persons on the basis of trivial info Ps watch a coin toss that randomly assigned them to X or W Overestimators vs. Underestimators
Tajfel et al (1982) assigned schoolboys to meaningless groups; allowed them to allocate points/money to own & other group PPs always chose a strategy that would allocate less to other group than to own even when this meant getting less overall for their own group Shows in-group bias in the absence of competition & with only a minimal group psychlotron.org.uk
Favouritism towards in-group: Levine et al (2005) – Man-U & Liverpool fans more likely to help an injured person if wearing own teams colours Football fans – self-esteem linked to team performance; tendency to denigrate other teams/fans (esp. if local); tendency to emphasise other ways of being superior if team doing poorly (e.g. Chelsea fans are glory hunters, not real fans etc.) psychlotron.org.uk
Plenty of support for main propositions. Two main problems: Tendency to favour in-group may be culturally specific, not universal (Wetherall, 1982) Most studies show bias towards in-group – not necessarily the same thing as prejudice psychlotron.org.uk
46 Warm-Competence HomelessPeople Women The Elderly Rich
47 Two fundamental dimensions: warmth & competence Positive Stereotypes Negative Stereotypes MIXED: Paternalistic stereotypes (high warmth/low competence) e.g., elderly, disabled people, some gender stereotypes Envious stereotypes (low warmth/high competence) Asians, Jews The 4 different combinations of warmth and competence are associated with different intergroup emotions
48 Low competence, Low warmth -> Contempt Low competence, High warmth -> Pity High competence, Low warmth -> Envy High competence, High warmth -> Pride
49 Attributional biases can perpetuate stereotypes. Fundamental attribution error revisited.
50 Illusory Correlations, Selective Memory Stereotypes stubbornly survive disconfirmation through subtyping. If behavior varies considerably from expectations, the perceived difference may be magnified. Contrast effect Hilary Clinton effect
51 Stereotypes are often maintained and strengthened through confirmation biases. The stereotype creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
52 Is it a weapon (Correll et al., 2002)? Subjects played video game IVs: Race of target Target is holding weapon or harmless object DVs: Pushed shoot or dont shoot button
53 Results: Subjects mistook harmless objects for guns when held by black targets In other words, subjects biases caused them to confirm their expectations
54 Subjects listened to same basketball game IV: Subjects were led to believe player was black or white DV: How athletic was the player? How court smart was the player?
59 What is meant by accurate? kernel of truth But what does kernel of truth reflect? Traits or social structure? Even when based on reality, tend to exaggerate differences and understate similarities between groups. Stereotyping is a dynamic process – stereotypes change over time.
60 How much personal information do we have about someone? What is our cognitive ability to focus on an individual member of a stereotyped group? What is our motivation level to form an accurate impression of someone?
61 Competition-based prejudice Explicit vs. Implicit prejudice
Stereotype: many ways to define term A generalization. A structured set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people (Ashmore & Del Boca). Stereotypes are heuristics and are more likely to be used when we are pressed for time, tired, preoccupied, and/or emotionally aroused. Kernel of Truth: concept that many stereotypes are based upon some element of truth However, problem arises when they are overgeneralized.
Prejudice A negative prejudgment of a group and its members. An attitudinal bias. A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group based on generalizations derived from faulty or incomplete information. Discrimination Negative behaviors aimed toward a group and its members. Institutional forms of discrimination may not be motivated by prejudice (e.g., hiring through word of mouth practices).
Harber (1998) provide participants with poorly written essays. White students rated these essays higher if led to believe that black students wrote them. Also, provided much less criticism. Thus, creates a combination of inflated praise and lower standards. What are the potential academic effects of such behavior for minority students?
Claude Steele and Joshua Aronson Tried to explain gap in test scores between whites and blacks Argued that blacks in test situations may feel apprehension about confirming existing negative stereotypes of intellectual inferiority They labeled this Stereotype Threat Demonstrated that black students did as well as whites on the GRE verbal when led to believe that the test itself, and not the student, was being tested Good news is that positive stereotypes enhance behavior (e.g., Asian students on math tests)
Muzafer Sherif – Boy Scout Research Created competition between the Eagles and the Rattlers and conflict over scarce resources. Even after competition ended animosity remained and even continued to escalate.
67 The theory that hostility between groups is caused by direct competition for limited resources.
68 Realistic Conflict Theory scarce resources > members of in-group feel threatened People feel a sense of relative deprivation feeling threatened > prejudice and discrimination
69 Example 1 (Hovland & Sears) cotton & lynchings in South ( ) as cotton prices went down (i.e., scarce resources), number of lynchings of Black people increased Example 2 Jewish Holocaust As German economy worsened, Jewish people were scapegoated, resented, killed.
Questions over the validity of the Robbers Cave study: Unrepresentative samples (US American boys; limited numbers)? Contrived & artificial situation? Competition does not always create prejudice (e.g. Tyerman & Spencers study with UK scouts) psychlotron.org.uk
Sherif et al (1961): the Robbers Cave study Competition & conflict artificially stimulated between two groups of boys at a summer camp Resulted in negative stereotyping of out-group; hostile and aggressive acts toward out-group members Prejudice persisted even after competition ended psychlotron.org.uk
72 Explicit Attitudes Operate at conscious level Best measured by traditional, self-report measures Implicit Attitudes Function in an unconscious & unintentional manner How do we measure??
73 Use reaction times to measure associations between race and positive/negative words Fazio et al.s (1995) bona fide pipeline measure. see face, then respond to good/bad words Greenwald et al.s (1998) Implicit Association Test (IAT) Pair faces with good/bad words fMRI and amygdala activation
74 Ambivalent Sexism Modern Racism (There are many more…)
75 Consists of two elements: Hostile sexism, characterized by negative, resentful feelings about womens abilities, values and ability to challenge mens power. Benevolent sexism, characterized by affectionate but potentially patronizing feelings of women needing and deserving protection. A person can be both a benevolent and a hostile sexist
76 A subtle form of prejudice that surfaces in direct ways whenever it is safe, socially acceptable, or easy to rationalize. Based on idea that many people are racially ambivalent. Can lead to subtle, often unconscious forms of prejudice and discrimination. Example: Parents claim they are not prejudice against African Americans but are uncomfortable with their child dating an African American person. Maybe they say it because they want their children to not fear prejudice.