Lecture 8: Attitudes About Others Flashcards Preview

🚫 PSY320H1F: Social Psychology of Attitudes with C. Midgley > Lecture 8: Attitudes About Others > Flashcards

Flashcards in Lecture 8: Attitudes About Others Deck (16)
Loading flashcards...
1

need to evaluate (5)

  • Our tendency to engage in evaluation;
  • Describe events from previous day;
  • Use more positive or negative words (e.g. friendly, mean);
  • And have more accessible attitudes towards everyday objects (e.g. butterfly, spinach).
  • However, the Need to Evaluate Scale (Jarvis & Petty, 1996) was developed to measure our attitudes towards things, not people.

2

Tormala & Petty (2001) (10)

  • Found that the need to evaluate produces differences in our tendency to evaluate others.
    • High: Engage in careful evaluation after each stimulus.
    • Low: Prone to make a global judgement in the moment it's required.
  • Participants read 20 sentences about a hypothetical person, half good and half bad.
  • Completed attitude (if the person is good/bad) & recall (as many things as possible about person), and individual difference measures (need to evaluate).
  • On-Line: Form impression of target; will be asked later.
  • Memory-Based: Note how complex sentences are.
  • For on-line condition and high need to evaluate: No association between recall valence & attitudes towards target.
  • For memory-based condition and low need to evaluate: More positive recall index → more positive attitude.
  • Problem: Situations where this is not the case (e.g. more realistic or personally relevant scenarios).

3

attitudes from stereotypes (3)

  • The first things we notice about others is their gender, race, and age.
  • We tend to assume people are representative of the group we perceive them to be in.
  • In other words, our beliefs about someone’s group become part of our attitude toward that person.

4

Locksley et al. (1980) (6)

  • Found that having more information than just gender reduces stereotype effects.
  • Participants read about 6 students (3M, 3F), varying the description provided, all relating to assertiveness.
    • Control: no scenario given (name only).
    • Nondiagnostic description: a situation that had nothing to do with assertiveness (e.g. going for a haircut).
    • Diagnostic description: a situation regarding assertiveness (e.g. having an in-class debate).
  • After reading the diagnostic description of a student, participants rated him/her as equally assertive (regardless of the gender).

5

Kunda & Sherman-Williams (1993) (6)

  • Participants read about a construction worker or a housewife who “hit someone who annoyed him/her.”
  • Were given info that indicated high or low aggression, or no info.
  • Asked how aggressive he/she is.
  • When participants were given either unambiguous description of the behaviour, they ignored the stereotype.
  • But when the behaviour was ambiguous, the construction worker was viewed as more aggressive.
  • Problem: Were the construction worker and housewife really viewed the same? Were stereotypes really not activated?

6

Kunda et al. (1997) (9)

  • Did a follow-up to Kunda & Sherman-Williams (1993).
  • Participants read about John, who walked away from someone taunting him without saying anything (low aggression).
  • Half told John is a construction worker, other half told he is an accountant.
  • Both conditions rated John as equally unaggressive.
  • But participants in construction worker condition rated John as more likely to engage in other stereotypically working-class aggressive behaviours (e.g. get into bar fights, make rude comments at women).
  • Demonstrates that expectations can be influenced by other aspects of the stereotype that remain unchallenged.
    • Individuating information only goes so far.
    • Specific, unambiguous individuating information can undercut effect of stereotypes for judgments that directly relate to the individuating information.
    • But any stereotypes that are activated can still influence formation of one’s overall concept & collection of beliefs about that person.

7

stereotype content model (SCM) or Fiske et al. (2002)

8

consequences of intergroup bias (9)

  • Information processing: Stereotypes can influence how we interpret others’ behaviour & events.
  • Can also affect our behaviour towards those groups, via:
    • Blatant discrimination resulting in significant disadvantages and severe emotional and/or physical harm;
    • Subtle/aversive discrimination (e.g. benevolent sexism);
    • Limiting our interaction with outgroup members.
  • Our behaviour can, in turn, affect outgroup members' behaviour.
  • Attitudes can also determine how we interpret social situations, how we treat people, and how they respond.
    • In turn influences who we get to know better and what info we’re exposed to.
    • Thus, many people are motivated to change their negative attitudes toward others.

9

Word et al. (1974) (5)

  • White participants interviewed White and Black job applicants (confederates).
  • Interviewers treated applicants differently regarding: physical distance, speech errors, and interview length.
  • Follow-up study where White confederate interviewers gave people the "White treatment" or "Black treatment".
  • Other participants viewed tapes of the interviews and rated those who got the Black treatment as less qualified for the job.
  • Shows how stereotypes can influence behaviour of the person holding the stereotype and, consequently, the person being stereotyped (thereby reinforcing the original stereotype).

10

Macrae et al. (1994) (6)

  • Found that we can consciously suppress stereotypes, but this may lead to more intense activation and application later on.
  • Participants shown photo of a male skinhead, asked to write a description of a typical day in his life.
  • Half instructed to suppress stereotype of skinheads; controls were not.
  • Descriptions written by the suppression group were less stereotype-consistent.
  • However, on a subsequent lexical decision task, suppressed participants were faster to respond to stereotypic words.
    • Also, when told that they were going to meet the skinhead from the photo, suppression participants sat further away from the chair with the person’s jacket.

11

contact hypothesis (4)

  • Contact must be among people of equal status in pursuit of common goals (Allport, 1954).
  • Further research indicated that we also need:
    • Opportunities to get to know each other;
    • Exposure to evidence that disconfirms stereotypes;
    • And active cooperation.

12

Shook & Fazio (2008) (6)

  • Can having a Black roommate reduce implicit bias?
  • White 1st years randomly assigned to share a room with a Black student or White student.
  • Assessed level of satisfaction with roommate & implicit prejudice (using the evaluative priming measure) at begining & end of term.
  • White students with Black roommates reported lower roommate satisfaction scores at both sessions.
  • But also scored lower on implicit prejudice in 2nd session.
  • Conclusion: Increased contact led to more positive implicitly measured attitudes, despite less (explicit) satisfaction.

13

when we don't disconfirm stereotypes (4)

  • When we encounter individuals that disconfirm stereotypes, can hang onto stereotype by creating exception/subtype.
  • Particularly likely when:
    • All disconfirming examples have another shared attribute.
    • Individuals are consistent with stereotype in other ways.
    • Stereotype violation is more extreme.

14

when we do disconfirm stereotypes (4)

  • Stereotypes can change over time, as people encounter more and more people who:
    • Moderately violate the stereotype;
    • Violate the stereotype in different and/or multiple ways.
  • parasocial contact: e.g. Knowing friends who have outgroup friends.
  • And also by forming a close relationship with people of outgroups before knowing they are a member of an outgroup.

15

Onaret et al. (2007) (4)

  • Found that low trait emotional intelligence (EI) correlates with higher Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and subtle racial rejudice.
  • Participants completed questionnaires measuring their trait EI, RWA, SDO, and radical prejudice.
  • Because low trait EI correlates with lack of perspective taking, this explains why individuals are more prejudiced.
  • Low trait EI also correlates with seeing stressful events as threatening, explaining the relationship to RWA.

16

Fein & Spencer (1997) (9)

  • Study 1: Participants evaluated a target who was either a member of a group with an available negative stereotype (Jewish) or not (Italian) on her personality and qualification for a job.
    • Before evaluating the target, participants were self-affirmed or not.
    • Not affirmed participants evaluated the Jewish target's personality and qualification significantly more negatively than in their other evaluations.
  • Study 2: Participants evaluated men as either gay or straight after receiving self-image-threatening info or not (score on bogus IQ test, told it was real or not real).
    • Participants were more likely to evaluate the target consistently with the gay stereotype after receiving threatening info.
  • Study 3: All participants were given negative or positive feedback from a bogus IQ test (told was real), had their state self-esteem measured, then evaluated a Jewish or Italian woman, then measured state self-esteem again.
    • Participants rated the target's personality based on ethnicity if they received negative feedback.
    • Participants who received negative feedback and evaluated the Jewish target had a significantly greater increase in state self-esteem than other participants.
    • Suggests that these participants restored their self-esteem by engaging in negative evaluation of the stereotyped target.