Stereotypes I: stereotypes as expectancies Flashcards Preview

PSY2203 Social Psychology II > Stereotypes I: stereotypes as expectancies > Flashcards

Flashcards in Stereotypes I: stereotypes as expectancies Deck (577)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

stereotypes as expectancies

A

“Stereotypes can be construed as category-based expectancies that we have learned from our own personal experiences and/or various socialising agents within the culture (parents, teachers, religion, friends, the Internet, TV, etc)” (Moskowitz, 2005)

2
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

3
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

4
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

5
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

6
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

7
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

8
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

9
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

10
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

11
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

12
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

13
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

14
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

15
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

16
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

17
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

18
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

19
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

20
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

21
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

22
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

23
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

24
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

25
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

26
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

27
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

28
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

29
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

30
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

31
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

32
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

33
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

34
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

35
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

36
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

37
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

38
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

39
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

40
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

41
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

42
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

43
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

44
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

45
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

46
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

47
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

48
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

49
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

50
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

51
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

52
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

53
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

54
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

55
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

56
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

57
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

58
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

59
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

60
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

61
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

62
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

63
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

64
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

65
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

66
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

67
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

68
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

69
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

70
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

71
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

72
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

73
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

74
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

75
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

76
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

77
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

78
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

79
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

80
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

81
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

82
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

83
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

84
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

85
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

86
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

87
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

88
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

89
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

90
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

91
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

92
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

93
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

94
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

95
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

96
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

97
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

98
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

99
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

100
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

101
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

102
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

103
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

104
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

105
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

106
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

107
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

108
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

109
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

110
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

111
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

112
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

113
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

114
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

115
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

116
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

117
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

118
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

119
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

120
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

121
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

122
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

123
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

124
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

125
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

126
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

127
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

128
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

129
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

130
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

131
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

132
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

133
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

134
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

135
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

136
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

137
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

138
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

139
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

140
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

141
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

142
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

143
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

144
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

145
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

146
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

147
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

148
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

149
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

150
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

151
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

152
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

153
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

154
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

155
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

156
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

157
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

158
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

159
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

160
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

161
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

162
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

163
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

164
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

165
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

166
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

167
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

168
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

169
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

170
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

171
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

172
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

173
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

174
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

175
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

176
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

177
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

178
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

179
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

180
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

181
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

182
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

183
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

184
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

185
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

186
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

187
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

188
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

189
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

190
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

191
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

192
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

193
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

194
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

195
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

196
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

197
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

198
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

199
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

200
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

201
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

202
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

203
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

204
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

205
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

206
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

207
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

208
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

209
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

210
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

211
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

212
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

213
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

214
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

215
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

216
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

217
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

218
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

219
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

220
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

221
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

222
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

223
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

224
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

225
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

226
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

227
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

228
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

229
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

230
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

231
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

232
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

233
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

234
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

235
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

236
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

237
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

238
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

239
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

240
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

241
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

242
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

243
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

244
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

245
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

246
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

247
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

248
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

249
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

250
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

251
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

252
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

253
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

254
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

255
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

256
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

257
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

258
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

259
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

260
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

261
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

262
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

263
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

264
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

265
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

266
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

267
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

268
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

269
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

270
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

271
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

272
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

273
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

274
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

275
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

276
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

277
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

278
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

279
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

280
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

281
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

282
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

283
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

284
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

285
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

286
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

287
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

288
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

289
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

290
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

291
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

292
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

293
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

294
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

295
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

296
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

297
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

298
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

299
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

300
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

301
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

302
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

303
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

304
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

305
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

306
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

307
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

308
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

309
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

310
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

311
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

312
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

313
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

314
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

315
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

316
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

317
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

318
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

319
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

320
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

321
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

322
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

323
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

324
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

325
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

326
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

327
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

328
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

329
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

330
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

331
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

332
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

333
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

334
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

335
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

336
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

337
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

338
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

339
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

340
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

341
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

342
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

343
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

344
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

345
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

346
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

347
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

348
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

349
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

350
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

351
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

352
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

353
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

354
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

355
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

356
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

357
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

358
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

359
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

360
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

361
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

362
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

363
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

364
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

365
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

366
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

367
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

368
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

369
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

370
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

371
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

372
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

373
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

374
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

375
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

376
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

377
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

378
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

379
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

380
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

381
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

382
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

383
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

384
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

385
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

386
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

387
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

388
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

389
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

390
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

391
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

392
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

393
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

394
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

395
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

396
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

397
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

398
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

399
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

400
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

401
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

402
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

403
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

404
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

405
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

406
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

407
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

408
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

409
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

410
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

411
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

412
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

413
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

414
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

415
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

416
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

417
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

418
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

419
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

420
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

421
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

422
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

423
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

424
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

425
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

426
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

427
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

428
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

429
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

430
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

431
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

432
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

433
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

434
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

435
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

436
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

437
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

438
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

439
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

440
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

441
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

442
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

443
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

444
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

445
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

446
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

447
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

448
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

449
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

450
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

451
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

452
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

453
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

454
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

455
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

456
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

457
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

458
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

459
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

460
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

461
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

462
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

463
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

464
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

465
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

466
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

467
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

468
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

469
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

470
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

471
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

472
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

473
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

474
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

475
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

476
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

477
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

478
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

479
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

480
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

481
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

482
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

483
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

484
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

485
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

486
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

487
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

488
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

489
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

490
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

491
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

492
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

493
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

494
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

495
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

496
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

497
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

498
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

499
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

500
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

501
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

502
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

503
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

504
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

505
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

506
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

507
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

508
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

509
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

510
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

511
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

512
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

513
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

514
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

515
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

516
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

517
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

518
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

519
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

520
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

521
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

522
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

523
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

524
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

525
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

526
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

527
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

528
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

529
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

530
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

531
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

532
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

533
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

534
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

535
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

536
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

537
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

538
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

539
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

540
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

541
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

542
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

543
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

544
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

545
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

546
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

547
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

548
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

549
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

550
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

551
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

552
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

553
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

554
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

555
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

556
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

557
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

558
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

559
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more

560
Q

what is in these expectancies?

A

Beliefs about probability that certain traits, features, characteristics, opinions and behaviours will be seen in people belonging to certain groups, such as…

Used car salesman - shifty, sly, dressed like a spiv, will be over-familiar with women

Extending expectancies from group to individual members of that group

Accuracy is variable - Kernel of Truth – stereotypes start out as being somewhat true – what people believed in history – over-generalise/exaggerate stereotypes

561
Q

stereotyping as a functional cognitive process

A

“Stereotypes are tools that jump out of the toolbox when there is a job to be done” (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991) – serve as enriching function and way of economising mental effort into overall expectancy – help make judgements about how someone will act

Category-based processing = default option

Idea that certain categories (e.g., stereotypes) have a functional role to play

Need to assess the view that stereotypes are cognitive tools…

When and why do we rely upon them most?

562
Q

stereotypes as heuristics

A

Within the cognitive literature, a heuristic = A well-used, non-optimal rule of thumb used to arrive at a judgment that is effective in many but not all cases (e.g., Simon, 1979)

Holyoak and Nisbett (1988) – rule-driven processing (e.g., heuristic strategising) constrains number of inferential choices available – when judging someone – get rid of extraneous information that might distract you – funnels down attention so it confirms initial expectancy

563
Q

applying heuristics to stereotypes

A

Heuristics bias the social inference process to make it more manageable…

And thereby optimise the social perceiver’s mental functioning

They are learned from experience (often)

564
Q

therefore…

A

According to heuristic hypothesis…
- “People use stereotypes as a heuristic (i.e., a simplifying rule of thumb) in interpreting the behaviour of others and search for alternative interpretations only if a stereotype-based interpretation is inapplicable.” (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985)

Won’t look for anything else unless it isn’t working for us

565
Q

2 factors that increase reliance on stereotypes

A

task complexity

resource depletion

566
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein (1987)

A

Q. Is it easier to assess a person’s guilt or whether they have acted aggressively?

A. Easier to assess…tell me

Pps read about criminal and asked to assess either guilt or aggression – influenced kinds of judgements made – harder task more likely to rely on stereotypes to simplify the task

Target was Hispanic or ethnically non-descript

After reviewing evidence, pps made both judgements

567
Q

Bodenhausen and Lichtenstein predictions

A

Pps faced with complex task (guilt) would use stereotype to simplify the task, meaning…

Higher guilt/aggressive/likelihood of future criminal assault judgements if target was Hispanic than non-descript

568
Q

likelihood of future aggressiveness

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 4.77 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 4.19 vs. Nondescript = 3.28 (p. < .10)

Hypothesis supported?

569
Q

likelihood of guilt

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.70 vs. Nondescript = 4.97 (no difference)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 5.27 vs. Nondescript = 3.38 (p. < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

570
Q

likelihood of future criminal assault

A

Trait judgement objective (easy): Hispanic = 4.22 vs. Nondescript = 3.67 (no diff.)

Guilt judgement objective (hard): Hispanic = 3.96 vs. Nondescript = 2.92 (p < .05)

Hypothesis supported?

571
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen (1994)

A

Dual task paradigm

Study 1: pps formed impressions of targets while simultaneously monitoring prose passage (Indonesia)

Half got name (Julian), stereotype label (doctor) plus traits, half got name plus traits (no stereotype label)

Rationale – when there’s a stereotype label present you can organise the information around it more easily (and if this is so, have attention left over to do something else…)

572
Q

stimuli used (name, label, traits)

A

In half trials stereotype label was present, in half it was absent

573
Q

Macrae, Milne and Bodenhausen predictions

A

Participants in the stereotype label present condition would find it easier to form impression of target AND easier to attend to the prose monitoring task

Results: improved prose monitoring performance when stereotype labels present than absent

574
Q

distractions in the real world

A

If stereotypes save resources, we should be more inclined to use them when we are cognitively depleted…

But what kinds of things make us cognitively depleted (lab vs. real world)

575
Q

Pendry (1998) - overhearing juicy gossip

A

Participants formed impression of old lady Hilda (PC)

Overheard illicit goings on in either Tesco or the Guild (juicy gossip)

Ps overhearing the more relevant goings on were more distracted, and…

Formed more stereotypic impressions of Hilda, remembered less about her but…remembered a lot more about the illicit goings on (m-c test)!

When the mind is otherwise engaged – here, in the services of self-interest – stereotyping may be more likely

576
Q

Pendry and Macrae (1994) p involvement with the target can affect stereotyping

A

Form impression of old lady

Half told they would later meet and work with her – realistic to expect this could be a possibility

Half told they would meet but not work with her

Outcome dependency – meet and work – judged as how well do as a team – makes you outcome dependent – person will matter to you more

Lower expected involvement increased stereotyping/Greater expected involvement reduced stereotyping

Motivation cues us to pay attention to target in ways other factors cannot do

577
Q

Bodenhausen (1990) - do you stereotype more at your non-optimal time of day?

A

Participants completed Morningness/Eveningness Q-aire (split)

Non-optimal – exec function poor and more likely to rely on heuristics

Given stereotype task either at optimal or non optimal time of day

Those tested at non-optimal time of day stereotyped more