PSYC12H3 Chapter Notes - Chapter 2: Realistic Conflict Theory, Supercharger, Authoritarianism
Chapter 2 – Origin and maintenance of Stereotypes and Prejudice
Kurt Lewin – father of modern social psychology – social science and psych should have a strong applied
focus
1. The Formation of Stereotypes
1.1. Categorization
1.1.1.Cognitive psychologists of the 1960s found that the human brain seems to almost
automatically classify or categorize similar objects in the environment – children
as young as 6 months old do this.
1.1.2.Most psychologists now think of stereotypes as a natural consequence of cognition –
Allports iepoint
1.2. Why We Categorize
1.2.1.The reason people categorize is because we have a limited-capacity cognitive system,
which cannot simultaneously process all available information about the social
environment
1.2.2.Based on Aristotles principle of association, we assume that things are similar on the basis
of one feature will likely have other notable similarities on a number of dimensions
1.3. Types of Categorization
1.3.1.Basic categories like age, race, and gender have very strong influences on how the
perceiver interprets most of the other information about the perceived individual
– with repeated use, becomes automatic and unconscious, these basic categories
become central points around which stereotypes develop- merely being exposed
to a face or words associated with gender group within ms evoke beliefs,
cognitions, and feelings about that group
1.3.2.Other researchers believe that seeing and perceiving category words are not the same. I.e.,
when people hear a category word (e.g., Hispanic), we automatically think of stereotypes
for that group. However seeing that person in real life does not bring up as many
stereotypes about the group that the person belongs to – label precategorizes
object --- person must be categorized, there are many options
1.4. Ingroups and Outgroups
1.4.1.Ingroups – groups to which we belong
1.4.2.Outgroups – groups to which we do not belong
1.4.3.During any given environment, people tend to perceive and remember the information in
terms of the most salient categories. E.g., a co-worker jumping up and down in an office
setting
study of discussion group with blacks and whites, participants remembered the race of the
person who made the comment rather than individual – recognize in terms of race cat.
1.4.4.In terms of outgroups and ingroups, we tend to perceive all outgroup members are alike,
and they share similar characteristics, whereas all ingroup members are like snowflakes,
and they are all very unique, except share maybe one or two similarities, such as
occupation
1.4.5.Those who more closely represent the outgroup stereotypes are the representatives of the
outgroup. Those members who do not represent the outgroup very much will be
perceived to be less stereotypical
1.4.5.1. This can affect criminal sentencing – Africans that do not look very stereotypical
tend to receive less sentencing than those who resemble the African stereotypes
1.4.5.2. Outgroup homogeneity – the belief that members of outgroups are more similar
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
to each other than are members of ones ingroups
1.4.5.3. Ingroup bias – any group to which one believes he or she belongs
1.4.6.Outgroup & ingroup bias help to 1) simply social environment by categorizing others 2)
enhance our self-concept by thinking that we do not belong to a homogenous group
1.4.7.Research shows that favouring our ingroups does not always lead to negative stereotypes
of the outgroup – exp. Ingroup prime words (we, us) = quicker reaction times for positive
info, and slower for negative. Outgroup prime words (they, them) = reaction time to
negative info was NOT faciliated
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
1.4.8.However, the more an outgroup is seen as homogeneous, the greater the likelihood for
perceivers to use group or stereotype labels to process information about the outgroup
1.4.9.Researches show that being exposed to a stereotyped outgroup can either lead to more
stereotyped or more positive view of the outgroup
1.4.9.1. Specifically, if the outgroup does something negative, the stereotype will be
reinforced – exp. If perceived African American fight, less time spent with black
onfederate hos asking for diretions; lak onfederate eing rude to
experimenter and even just hearing blacks committed crime = reinforce
stereotypes
1.4.9.2. However, if members of the outgroup do something positive, the perceiver is
led to be more sympathetic about the group, and open to further interactions
1.4.9.3. Minimal groups – groups formed on no meaningful groups. They have none of
the usual features of group structure: a coherent group structure, face-to-face
interaction, a set of norms for the group members, etc
1.4.9.4. When people are put into minimal groups, they exhibit ingroup favouritism
(exp. With dots, correctly estimated in diff groups, then asked to allocate resources
to group members or outside) or outgroup homogeneity
1.4.9.5. Research on minimal groups suggest that basis for ingroup favouritism may be
b/c of common fate of ones group members that seems to be the catalyst for
ingroup favouritism and outgroup homogeneity – dont see the positie of outgroups
or the negatives of ingroups, automatic in early life. I.e., categories facilitate ingroup
or outgroup bias, but it is not the perception that causes this, but rather the fact that
categorization forms groups
1.4.10. Ingroup favouritism is not universal. People of low status tend to have outgroup
favouritism, and people of high status tend to have ingroup favouritism on certain
dimensions – exp. With freshman and seniors – when status is more self-relevant
= influence of the group on perceptions of ingroups and outgroups is greater
1.5. Social Learning
1.5.1.By age 5, children show distinct recognition of & preferences for some group over others,
including race and gender preferences
1.5.2.Children of parents who were authoritarian were more likely to develop prejudiced
attitudes
1.5.3.There is a distinction between children who were taught stereotypes directly and those who
aught stereotypes in an unhealthy and negative home atmosphere
1.5.4.Childhood Intergroup Contact
1.5.4.1. Researches show that childhood interracial contact is a good predictor of adult
endorsement of outgroup stereotypes and prejudiced attitudes
1.5.4.2. Those with higher exposure to outgroups when they were young were less likely
to be prejudiced toward outgroups (exp. With White adults - limitations: age at
which contact occurred not examined, nature of contact, questions only asses
potential contact not actual)
1.5.5.Value Transmission in Families
1.5.5.1. Evidence suggests that racial attitudes are not inborn. Race influences a childs
perception of the world early on
1.5.5.2. Racial attitudes gradually develop in the first years of life. 3 and 4 year olds
show awareness of racial cues and even show a preference for one race over others
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Chapter 2 origin and maintenance of stereotypes and prejudice. Kurt lewin father of modern social psychology social science and psych should have a strong applied focus: the formation of stereotypes. 1. 1. 1. cognitive psychologists of the 1960s found that the human brain seems to almost automatically classify or categorize similar objects in the environment children as young as 6 months old do this. 1. 1. 2. most psychologists now think of stereotypes as a natural consequence of cognition . 1. 2. 1. the reason people categorize is because we have a limited-capacity cognitive system, which cannot simultaneously process all available information about the social environment. 1. 2. 2. based on aristotle(cid:859)s principle of association, we assume that things are similar on the basis of one feature will likely have other notable similarities on a number of dimensions. 1. 3. 1. basic categories like age, race, and gender have very strong influences on how the perceiver interprets most of the other information about the perceived individual.
