Psychology 315 Notes Ch. 13 Prejudice and Intergroup Relations, Part 2

Bogus pipeline technique - if you lie we will know, supposedly able to get at a pipeline to their true feelings but bogus, elaborate deception (really know the true answers to questions because asked earlier) Other measure rely on subtle priming and automatic processes over which respondents have little control – the bona fide pipeline technique, based upon priming effect, presented stimulus quickly, then presented second stimulus (reaction to the first stimulus primes reaction to second stimulus, affective association modified), in a prejudicial experiment – prime with Caucasian, African American faces, if you have a bad association make negative decision faster, if you have a good association make a positive decision faster, if there is a mismatch then you will make the decision slower

Can also be used to determine a person's true feelings about races, the elderly, etc., associations people have between different groups and different evaluative categories

Automatic categorization - humans are predisposed to categorize others into groups, natural tendency to categorize because it simplifies our world for us, evolutionary significance - identifying ingroup vs. outgroup members helps for survival, making this distinction automatically important for survivalAutomatic categorization and the minimal groups phenomenon suggests that competition and conflict may also play an important role in the development of prejudice
Competition/conflict (conflict hypothesis)Self-esteem protectionLearning

Prejudice arises from competition over scarce resources (i.e. Robber's Cave Experiment - Sherif et. al - brought boys to summer camp, wanted to orchestrate events in such a way to create and reduce prejudice, prove conflict and contact can reduce prejudice)Outgroup stereotypes - high in the competitive phase, reduce in the cooperative phase Percentage identifying someone from the other group as a best friend – after cooperative activities much more likely to identify someone else from the other group as a best friend than during the before cooperative activities timeWhat causes the change?No longer have two groups, have one group - sense of identity not split along two group line, now morphed into one, outgroup homogeneity bias is dispelled when you work with people from a former "outgroup," cement of stereotypes taken away because see that there is too much variability to permit that

Goals that are important to both groups and require both groups to accomplish said goals

Prejudice may also arise because it can bolster self-esteem. By putting down another group, prejudiced people can affirm their own self-worthSocial identities -> favoritism toward ingroup and derogation of outgroups -> increase in self-esteemRole of self-esteem especially clear from studies showing the aftermath of self-esteem threatFein and Spencer study - participants receive either positive or negative feedback, evaluated female job applicant believed to be either Italian or Jewish (should see change in self-esteem for those given the opportunity to denigrate another person)For negative feedback group - difference in feedback between Italian, Jewish applicants (rate Jewish applicants lower), denigrate Jewish applicant in order to boost one's self-esteemChange in self-esteem - no difference in positive feedback group for self-esteem between Italian, Jewish applicant, negative feedback group - greater change in self-esteem for Jewish applicant compared to Italian applicant

The threatening nature of negative expectations can be a powerful source of arousal and affect the performance of the targets of stereotypesAccording to Claude Steele, when a stereotype is activated in a performance setting, the targets of the stereotype may experience anxiety from the feat that their performance might confirm the stereotypeWhen the stereotype is salient, drastic drop in performance of stereotyped group/outgroup, slight increase in performance of ingroup

Yerkes-Dodson law - performance increases as arousal increases but too much arousal causes a decrease in performance

Women performed math problems - some reminded of gender stereotype before task, others notWomen in the control condition recruited neural networks that are associated with mathematical learning, women in the stereotype threat condition did not recruit these regions. Instead, they showed heightened activation in the ventral anterior cingulated cortex, a region associated with social and emotional processing

Johns, Schmader and MartensMen and women perform math problemsSome perform task under gender stereotype salient conditions, others not, some were educated about the stereotype threat condition in advanceTeaching intervention condition - stereotype threat eliminated, when people are educated about stereotype threat phenomenon the effect disappears

In stereotype threat there never is the initial person, all going on inside your head, recognize the stereotype, no one acting toward you that causes you to act according to the stereotype, based on expectations but all residing in the head of the person being asked to perform the task

Natural experiment for testing whether prejudice could be reduced by bringing different groups in contactWhat worked against it?Reactance against forced desegregation of schools, repeated exposure made things worse due to initial negative feeling, self-segregation in school

Yes, found to be true in 95% of independent samplesWorks best under some specific circumstancesEqual statusPositive contactOutgroup members are perceived as typical

Other work suggests that just knowing that members of one's own group have formed close relations with members of another group can reduce prejudicial attitudes

Suppression is self-control, like a muscle, can do it in the short run but difficult in the long run (when depleted cannot withhold stereotypical feelings)