Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Stereotyping
(Week 9/10) (Stereotype Content Model
Fiske, Cuddy &…
Stereotyping
(Week 9/10)
Key Definitions-Intergroup bias --> More favourable ecaluation of one's own membership group (the ingroup), or its members, than a non-membership group (the outgroup), or its members (Hewstone et al., 2002)
- Prejudice --> affective component of intergroup bias - attitude, evaluations, feelings
- Discrimination --> behavioural component of intergroup bias
- Stereotyping --> cognitive component of intergroup bias - beliefs
- Ingroup favoritism --> adcantage of ingroup over outgroup
- Outgroup derogation --> outgroup disadvantage - aggression and negative attitudes towards outgroups
Stereotypes
- They are cognitive representations that associate a social group or category to distinctive characteristics
- They stem from social categorization (we perceive people as members of distinct social categories)
Stereotyping
- attribution of typical traits to social categories and generalization
- attribution to group members of differences compared with members of other groups
- they simplify complexity
- they orient our behaviour
- they are socially shared
Blatant StereotypesBlatant bias: overtly expressed ingroup favoritism or outgroup derogation
- stems from ingroup (economic and symbolic) threats
- intentional
- Arising from conflict over resources
Group Identity Theories
Social Identiy Theory Tajfel and Turner, 1979
- Ingroup bias satisfies ingroup members' need for self-esteem
- self-esteem enhancement
- threatened self-esteem triggers ingroup bias
- The self-esteem hypothesis is qualified
- e.g. role of ingroup identification
- Emphasis on motivational and intergroup dimensions
- motivation to see ingroup as favourable
- Outgroup homegeneity effect
- reducing variability within outgroup ("they are all the same")
- highlighting differences between groups
Self-Categorisation TheoryTurner, 1985
- Categorizing ourselves produces a sense of identification with our group and determine the behaviours that we associate with group membership
- Categorization depending on context
- normative fit (e.g. when in school - more likely to categorise/identify as student)
Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (ODT)Brewer, 1991
- Dual-process model of intergroup bias
- Two contrasting motives:
- The need for inclusiveness
- The need for distinctiveness
- Desire to be individual and part of a group
- People are motivated to identify with groups that provide an optimal balance between these motives
- It's a motivational account of social identity processes and self categorisation effects
Uncertainty-Reduction TheoryHogg, 2000
- Uncertainty motivates identification with groups
- Individuals strive to reduce feelings of uncertainty about their self and their social world
- It's a motivational account of social identiy processes and self-categorization effects
Social Dominance TheorySidanius and Pratto, 1999
- Ideologies either promote or attenuate group hieachies
- Individual differences in social dominance orientation (SDO) (. e.g. gender differences: men having stronger SDO than women)
- Distinction between:
- Specific SDO: desire to achieve or maintain one's ingroup dominance over outgroups
- General SDO: desire for groups to be part of ahierachically ordered system
- Hierachies being adaptive - making sense
Terror Management TheorySolomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski, 1991
- People's need for self-preservation is frustrated by the awareness of their inevitable death
- Cultural wordviews characterized by symbolic immortality and self-esteem work as buffers against the death threat
- Greater intergroup bias when people are made aware of their own mortality
:warning:Issues with Motivational Theories
- Lack of explanatory power due to the risk of either being redescriptive or being reductionist
- Lack of empirical investigations about the effects of intergroup bias on motives: does the bias reduce the drive? (or vice versa? - cause and effect relationship)
Subtle StereotypesSubtle bias: more latent form shown in every day life
- Stems from internal conflict
- Unintentional
- Automatic
- Ambiguous
- Ambivalent
Emerged late in the 20th century following:
- changes in norms about what is acceptable (e.g. anti-prejudice norms)
- introduction of measurement techniques from cognitive psychology
Stereotype Content Model
Fiske, Cuddy & Glick
Fundamental Dimensions of Stereotyping
- Typical view: unflattering stereotypes indicate prejudice (uniform antipathy toward an out-group), flattering stereotypes concern in-groups
- However: Flattering and unflattering stereotypes do not contradict each other within a two-dimensional model of stereotype content
- In new encounters, people first have to determine the intentions of the other person/group, then the ability to enact them
- People base their behaviour interpretations and impressions on two fundamental dimensions
- Warmth: perceived intent, "other-profitable" traits such as friendly, helpful, sincere, trustworthy
- Competence: perceived ability; "self-profitable" traits such as competent, intelligent, skillful, efficient
Ambivalent stereotypingKatz and Braly (1933)
- investigated the traits most frequently ascribed to ten racial and national groups by 100 students
- aim to distinguish between private and public attitudes
- found: that some groups are high on the warmth dimension and low on the competency .. and vice versa
Moderators of the Primacy of WarmthThe primary role of warmth is stronger for some perceivers and in some situations than others:
- stronger effect of warmth for women than men
- women rate themselves lower in competence and higher in warmth than men (Abele, 2003)
- Collectivist vs individualist orientations
- more emphasis on warmth in collectivist orientations
- Context effect
- interpretation of ambiguous behaviours (e.g. tutoring a friend) in terms of warmth if framed form the observer's (other-rated) perspective, in terms of competence if framed from the actor's (self-related) perspective
The Primary Tole of Warmth
- Warmth is judged before and is weighted more than competence
- Warmth-related words (e.g. friendly) are identified faster than competence related words (e.g. clever) in a lexical decision task (Ybarra et al., 2011)
- Highest correlation (.73, controlled for attractiveness: .63) between inferences of trustworthiness form faces after 100ms exposure and inferences without time constraits compared with inferences on other trait dimensions such as competence (Willis and Todorov, 2006)
Diagnosticity of Positive vs Negative Warmth vs Competence Information
- Negative effect for warmth
- A single behaviour violating morality can change an impression from positive to negative (Trafimow & Schneider, 1994)
- Positive effect for competence
- Woody Alled: "The advantage of being intelligent is that we can always play stupid; however, the opposite is completely impossible"
Interpersonal vs intergroup level
- Modest positive correlation between warmth and competence at the individual level (halo effect)
- Negative correlation between warmth and competence at the social group level
- Several groups are judged high on one dimension and low on the other --> ambivalence
-
-
-
Social Structural PredictorsStereotypes derive from the social structural relations between groups in two ways: Status and competition predict dimensions of stereotypes
- Interdependence (cooperation - competition)
- Outgroup perceived as not competing with the in-group are seen as warm
- Status (upward - downward)
- High status out-groups are perceived as incompetent
Fiske, Cuddy, Glick & Xu (2002)
- Rating of 23 groups on warmth and competence traits, perceived status, and perceived competition
- 4 clusters were identified based on the warmth-competence combinations that accounted for 16 of the 23 groups (70%)
Ambivalent Stereotypes
- Several outgroup stereotypes (half of the groups) appear to be high on competence but low on warmth or vice versa
Personal impressions are mulitdimensionalWhen you describe a person you include some traits that are more likely to be associated with some traits but not others
- "sociable" & "good-natured", but not "irritable" --> evaluative dimenstion (i.e. favourability)
There are other properties of the tratis that determine the mulitdimensionality of personality impressions
- e.g. both a "sociable" and an "unsociable" person can be either "industrious" (a favourable trait) or "lazy" (an unfavourable trait) --> Rosenberg and Nelson (1968)
Rosenberg, Nelson and Vivekananthan (1968)
- Trait-sorting task: participants (N = 69) were given a list of 64 traits and they selected those that they judged to go together to describe an individual
- Mulitdimensional scaling: a measure of trait co-occurance was computed ("disagreement score") to create a genometric representation of the psychological distance between traits by using the inter-trait distance in the space
- Three properties of the traits:
- Good - bad
- Hard - soft
- Active - passive
- to test alternative interpretation, pp. were asked to rate the traits on a 7-point scale "according to whether a person who exhibited each of the traits would be good or bad in his intellectual [social] activities"
- Interpretation was in line with Hays (1958) who found two dimensions with at the extremes: "warm" and "cold" - "intelligent" and "stupid"
- Social and intellectual desirability were two properties that worked well to interpret the space