Upload
terence-joseph
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Forget what you know… The word “stereotype” is thrown around a lot
It is all wrong – forget everything It is a very specific term in psychology – forget all the
Oprahisms
What the evidence shows (and you will learn): Stereotypes are a good thing Stereotypes need not lead to prejudice We all stereotype everyone else all the time, including
ourselves Stereotyping is as much a part of being human as
forgetting where you left your keys
What do we know about other groups?
Trait
Hardworking
Intelligent
Cultured
Cruel
Oppresive
Colour conscious
Indians
61%
86%
74%
11%
24%
47%
Afrikaners
57%
45%
43%
56%
73%
88%
Jews
68%
85%
79%
10%
21%
42%
Coloureds
85%
84%
80%
11%
17%
58%
Coloured people’s agreement with traits for different groups (Edelstein, 1974)
Interesting….
High agreements on a few traits for each group They “knew” that for sure about them This is not simply guessing! (that would be 50%) The knowledge is highly shared, and specific to a particular
group Generalized knowledge (no / few exceptions)
Where does this knowledge come from? Is it from experience? Is this type of knowledge correct?
The ‘Kernel of Truth’
Seems to begin with some basis in experience Or second-hand experience
But this knowledge goes nuts sometimes When it is overapplied (overgeneralization) When other information “seems to fit” (schemata
activation)
Is it real information or ‘useful’ information?
1933 1951 1967 1982
Superstitious 84% 41% 13% 6%
Lazy 75% 31% 26% 13%
Ignorant 38% 24% 11% 10%
Happy-go-lucky 38% 17% 27% 15%
Musical 26% 33% 47% 29%
Ostentatious 26% 11% 25% 5%
Very Religious 24% 17% 8% 23%
Stupid 22% 10% 4% 1%
Trait agreement of white Stanford psychology students for blacks (four generations):
Notice a few things
The degree of agreements changes over the years Match general increase in tolerance over the
years Not likely to reflect ‘truth’ about the target
group Very little of these traits are from direct contact Seems to be of use for the group itself Reflects one’s own attitude to the group
(positive/negative)
Class example
Which of these traits apply to a computer geek? Male Good at maths Well groomed Intelligent Successful with the opposite
sex Tall Wears glasses
Not every group will havea particular stereotype;
The computer geek will exist mostly in
Industrialised societies
How important is this information? Lippman (1922)
We don’t interact with people directly We interact with how we see them in our minds “Truth” and “reality” are pretty irrelevant!
This information thus plays a large role in our attitudes to others If Lippman is right, the we do not deal with
individuals – only with examples of groups
The Stereotype
The stereotype is a structure which encodes our knowledge about groups (Ashmore & del Boca, 1979) They are cognitive (i.e. beliefs,
judgements, perceptions) They are related clusters of
information They act to differentiate
between groups They are shared by groups of
people
What you are thinkingabout this person right
now is largely determinedby a stereotype; and
they will cause membersof different groups
to experience this persondifferently
Some notes
Stereotypes work as sort of definitions of a group Usually in terms of traits (physical or
psychological) Positive or negative Applied to members of that group High degree of agreement inside a group
Stereotypes allow us to make ‘guesses’ about people (indirect knowledge)
Odd effects on cognition
Selective remembering/forgetting Tend to remember things critical of the minority
group Tend to forget things violate the stereotype
Amplification of small differences Linville & Jones (1980) – gave descriptions of
black and white person: If told they were law students, black person
judged extremely favorably (judged to be exceptional)
If told they were poor people, black person judged harshly (fit in with stereotype)
Gaining a stereotype
What is the process of learning a stereotype? Direct contact with the group is only a very
slight contribution
Mostly occurs through socialization The process which organizes the world
into meaning Whenever a new group is joined (not just
kids!) Stories, Films, TV, Education, Parents,
etc. Not only teaches stereotypes, but
increases the odds of them being applied (by social context)
A toy is a social artifactwhich can carry
a stereotype;whether that stereotypeis applied will dependon the social context
Limits on using stereotypes
We do not just soak up every stereotype Only stereotypes which are socially useful will be
adopted Learning will occur based partly on rewards /
punishments of using that stereotype in that setting
Stereotypes must be socially useful to be applied Using stereotypes will have consequences for the
individual’s position in the group. Different settings will lead to the activation of
different stereotypes
Stability of stereotypes
Stereotypes tend to be highly stable High probability of being used Very difficult to change once there
What happens when you see contradictory evidence? Denial, suppression, distortion Consider it to be an exception
Examples which goagainst stereotypes
tend to not change them;They are far more likely tobe considered as extreme
cases, not “normal”
Stability of stereotypes (2)
Why do stereotypes not change? Don’t simply encode information Serve an important social purpose (group
definition; justify inbalances; justify subserviance, etc)
Social use is more important than ‘accurate’ information
When will they change? When they no longer serve a purpose If the social situation no longer supports a
particular stereotype, it will be replaced
The ultimate question
Why do we tend to think about groups rather than individuals? Surely it would provide better interactions if we
treated each other as individuals
Two possibilities: Mentally we are too limited Stereotypes provide some unexpected benefits
Option 1: We are too limited
What would thinking about individuals be like? Huuuge amounts of information to process Meeting a new person would be like starting
from scratch
What are the limits of data we can handle? According to Miller (1956), only 5 to 9 unrelated
items Relatedness is what lets us cope with the world
The ‘cognitive miser’ theory
Fiske & Taylor (1984); Hamilton & Trollier (1986) We make stereotypes to reduce
the complexity of the world Need to reduce information; do
this by forming social categories This is a cognitively efficient
strategy Reduces complexity 300 individuals can become 5
groups
Susan Fiske of Stanford university
Implications of being a miser
We cannot process everything, so we are ‘stingy’ with the limited capacity we have Stereotypes are an ‘unfortunate necessity’
End result: increased efficiency, decreased detail
High information load Low information load
Process groups Process Individuals
A critical look at the theory Odd way of looking at cognition
Person-based processing is seen as ‘correct’ and grouping as ‘unfortunate’
Does not see a benefit to grouping – it is a system flaw
Social categorization is not a process itself It is a flawed by-product of other processes
Very difficult to collect evidence Studies try to increase information to see
grouping But groups form in unexpected ways
A different way to look at groups
"The mystery of perception is not that our senses tell us so much about the world, but that they tell us so little.”
Bruner, 1983
So where does all that knowledge come from?
Jerome Bruner(professor at both
Harvard and Oxford)sees categorization
as a way of extractingMeaning from very limited
stimuli
Where is it from?
If Bruner is right, then inference adds a lot to our ideas of the world We interpret the world
in terms of what we already “know” (eg. The TAT)
We do not know the world directly – it is mediated by previous knowledge The TAT – “tell me what is
happening in this picture”
Inferential thinking
Extracting a lot of meaning from a little stimulus is called inference previous experience with similar things Knowledge about related things
This is sometimes called “selective perception” We see what we ‘expect’ and see it ‘how it should
be’ Move from Stimuli to Meaning (what we work
with)
Selective Perception Theory
There is never perception or understanding without categorization We always see objects in some way as exemplars
of a class My dog Spot is in some way always just “generic
dog”
Categories place objects in networks of knowledge Knowing the properties of the class, I can infer that
those exist for its exemplars “generic dog” drools, so I expect Spot to drool
The importance of categories
Categories allow us to “go beyond” what we perceive There is not enough information coming from our
senses for us to operate in the world. How categories form is important
Ecological factors (things that reflect the real world - “birds have feathers”)
Intellectual factors (abstract theories about the world – “dogs and hamburgers are both not spaceships”)
The importance of categories (2)
Categories are used to explain patterns in the environment which could affect our actions Categories will always be “useful”
There could be millions of possible categories but we are selective in the ones we adopt.
Stereotypes can be seen simply as categorizations in person perception Categorize psychological realities rather than
physical ones.
Category selection
So why does one particular categorization become active? Is it men/women or
black/white? Bruner (1957): Depends on
two factors of an individual Fit Accessibility
Can we predict which of the many possible categorizations will
become active when we process a scene?
Category Fit Fit: Do the stimuli match the
features of the scene? The features are known
previously
The category must in some way represent the world Otherwise, no useful meaning
can be extracted Tied into perceptions
A gender or race classification would not fit in this scene;
which possible classifications could fit?
Category Accessibility
How likely are you to apply that categorization? “preference” for particular
categorizations (biases; goals) How easily the categorization is
selected Depends on past experience with
that categorization
Affected by social and other context factors How “acceptable” the
categorization is
The strong nationalist emphasis in soccer makes the “nation” categorization more accessible than the “race” categorization in
this scene
Interaction: Accessibility & Fit
Both need to be considered Unless a category fits it won’t be
applied Unless a category is accessible, it will
not be checked for fit
If a categorization leads to successful action, this will reinforce it Will learn to fit it into similar situations Will becomes more accessible
Although the categorization
“bisexuals” fits for this scene, its low
accessibility makes it unlikely to be used
Meta-contrast
Stereotypes are also selected according to the principle of meta-contrast Make differences inside categories seem smaller
than the differences between categories This will also depend on the context
In the end, the categorization must make sense in terms of structure and contents
Influence and change Stereotypes are far more convincing
if they are consistent Consistent within themselves Consistent with our views of the world
Stereotypes are highly dynamic Active categorization changes as the
immediate social situation changes One attribute can lead to more than one
categorizarion
The context in which categories are created has a large impact
The feature “feminist” could lead to a
categorization as “woman” or “lesbian”; it
depends on several context factors, and
can change from moment to moment.
Context example
Haslam et al (1992) – asked Europeans about Americans and observed categorizations Before 1991 Gulf War: Americans thought of
simultaneously to Soviets; seen as very aggressive (perestroika context)
After 1991 Gulf War: Americans thought of simultaneously to Iraquis; seen as less aggressive (invasion of Kuwait context)
Probably would be seen as more aggressive now
Why do categorizations change so much?
Need to keep our categorizations relevant to a highly dynamic context Keep the categories “useful”
We are not just observing, but acting; our actions might lead to a change of situation Keep up with the world we create
There is no “correct way” to categorize – only useful and socially relevant ways
Metastereotypes
What do other groups think of my group? Social information; subject to same processes as
stereotypes
Completely indirect information I can only “guess” as to what they think of us Affected by ingroup’s evaluations of the social context
As much detail as in a stereotype Not a vague idea; very specific “They think we are being handed everything now”
Self-stereotypes
What do I think about my group Interesting case – I do have insider information Shared information about membership groups Still has inaccuracies Closely tied to the identity of a group Can have several (some positive, some negative)
Self-stereotypes interact with other groups A group may internalize an outgroup’s stereotype as a self-
stereotype A self-stereotype can also be picked by an outgroup to
become a stereotype
How self-stereotypes affect our behaviour
If we self-categorize, this activates a self-stereotype Think about self in terms of the group’s features Depersonalization – become a “typical group
member” Changes in perception
see the group as highly homogenous See other group members as being typical too
Example: Crowds & Violence
Why do people turn violent in crowds? Situation leads to a re-categorization of
the self
If the new self-stereotype includes expectations of violence, then Violent behaviour becomes the group
norm Decrease in importance of individual
variables Increase in an “us vs them” sense from
meta-contrast and homogeneity
People may turn violent in crowds
because they change they way they
perceive themselves