Social Psychology: Perceiving Groups PDF

PERCEIVING GROUPS STEREOTYPE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS PREJUDICE MASTERY 5 CONNECTEDNESS ACCESSIBILITY CONDITIONING NORMS CATEGORIZATION CA...

PERCEIVING GROUPS STEREOTYPE CONTACT HYPOTHESIS PREJUDICE MASTERY 5 CONNECTEDNESS ACCESSIBILITY CONDITIONING NORMS CATEGORIZATION CA CONSTRUCTION REALITY DISCRIMINATION CHAPTER OVERVIEW SOCIAL GROUP IMPLICIT MEASURES Targets of Prejudice: Social Groups Social Categorization: Dividing the World into Social Groups B iology, chemistry, and physics professors at universities around the United States recently received an undergraduate student application for a science lab manager Forming Impressions of job (Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012). The stu- Groups: Establishing dent had graduate-school aspirations and qualifications that were promising, but Stereotypes somewhat ambiguous. The professors were asked to evaluate the student’s application, The Content of Stereotypes believing that the student would receive this feedback. Unbeknownst to these professors, Seeking the Motives behind however, this application did not represent a real person, but was created by a team of Stereotyping researchers, who assigned the applicant a female name in some cases and a male name Motives for Forming in others. Thus, one professor might have seen a particular job application under the Stereotypes: Mastery name Jennifer, whereas another saw exactly the same application with the name John. through Summarizing Because Jennifer and John had identical credentials, they were evaluated identically, Personal Experiences Motives for Forming right? Sadly, no: the results showed dramatic sex bias. The equally qualified female Stereotypes: applicant was judged as less competent and less employable than the male applicant. Connectedness to Others Moreover, the professors indicated that, if they were to hire the woman, they would Motives for Forming provide her less professional mentoring and pay her roughly $3700 less than they would Stereotypes: Justifying pay the man. These findings held whether the professor making the judgments was male Inequalities or female! The evidence provided by this study, as well as other studies in which matched Black Using Stereotypes: and White candidates apply for the same job (Krueger, 2002), strongly suggests that some From Preconceptions to employers engage in racial and sex discrimination. The term discrimination refers to Prejudice positive or negative behavior directed toward a social group and its members. Of course, Activation of Stereotypes people are usually concerned with negative behaviors—with discrimination against a and Prejudice specific group—but discrimination against one group inevitably amounts to discrimina- Measuring Stereotypes and tion in favor of others. For example, the former South African system of apartheid— Prejudice Impact of Stereotypes on legally enforced segregation—victimized Blacks while preserving the power and wealth Judgments and Actions of the small White minority. Trying to Overcome Prejudice Though apartheid and many other forms of discrimination are illegal in the United and Stereotype Effects States and many other countries, people still find themselves ill-treated because of their Beyond Simple Activation: group memberships. The forms of discrimination and the types of groups affected by it Effects of Stereotypes on are many. Economic discrimination victimizes women and people of color when they Considered Judgments 142 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS try to purchase a used car, rent or purchase a home, or negotiate a salary (Abrams, 1991; Changing Stereotypes and Reducing Prejudice Goldin, 1990; W. E. Schmidt, 1990; Seidel, Polzer, & Stewart, 2000). Black men’s expe- Barriers to Stereotype riences with the criminal justice system often differ substantially from those of most Change Whites (D. A. Bell, 1973; Silverstein, 1965). Turks and other foreigners living in Germany Overcoming Stereotype have been victims of verbal abuse, beatings, arson, and murder by neo-Nazis and teenage Defenses: The Kind of “skinheads” (Moseley, 1998). In Europe, Black soccer players—even major stars of their Contact That Works teams—are frequently subjected to racist chants (Vecsey, 2003). Indeed, in 2012, Chelsea Reducing Prejudice Through captain John Terry, who is White, was banned for four games and given a hefty fine for Contact racially insulting a Black soccer player on another team, Anton Ferdinand. French Canadians feel oppressed by the English-speaking majority; Canadian Mohawk Indians feel oppressed by French Canadians. Tamils in Sri Lanka, women in Afghanistan, and Blacks in South Africa have little access to adequate schooling, health care, or political discrimination power. And Shia and Sunni Muslims attack each other violently in places like Pakistan. any positive or negative behavior What leads one group of people to victimize another? Religious thinkers, political directed toward a social group and its members leaders, social scientists, and others have searched for an answer to this important question. Social psychologists believe that the underlying processes leading to discrim- prejudice ination usually include prejudice, positive or negative evaluations of a social group and a positive or negative evaluation of its members. Once again, people’s concern is most often with negative reactions, which a social group and its members range from mild dislike to blind hatred. As you will see in the first part of this chapter, prejudice is complex and multifaceted, and its roots can be traced to the kinds of motivational and cognitive processes that guide our every interaction with groups. Prejudice can be “hot” or “cold.” Virulent and emotional hatred for other groups, such as that espoused by the Nazis or the Ku Klux Klan, is easy to recognize. It shows itself in burning crosses, the use of ethnic slurs and other types of “hate speech,” and campaigns of “ethnic cleansing,” pogroms, and massacres. Unfortunately, the very obviousness of this type of bigotry and hatred may blind us to a more insidious type of prejudice based on the calm assumption that certain groups just “do not have what it takes” and should therefore be excluded from desirable positions, wealth, or power. This quieter, cooler form of prejudice is at work when sports team owners profit from the performance of Black athletes on the field but can never find a “qualified” Black for a managerial or front-office job. And it is present when a construction union maintains an all-male membership by keeping women out of apprenticeship programs, or when a real estate agent steers prospective home buyers who are Hispanic to particular neighborhoods. Such discriminatory actions are carried out calmly, routinely, and without any of the familiar overt signs of bigotry. But even though no hooded robes or swastika armbands are anywhere in sight, very real harm is suffered by those on the receiving end. As we will see, prejudice, like most social psychological phenomena, is affected both by how we think and feel about others, and also by how we think and feel about ourselves. In this chapter we focus more on how we come to view other groups the way we do. In Chapter 6, we’ll see that the fact that we ourselves belong to groups plays a huge role in prejudice and discrimination. stereotype We start this chapter with the very basis of prejudice: the way in which people divide a mental representation or the world into social groups. We then consider the stereotypes, or impressions that impression of a social group that people form by associating people form of groups by associating the groups with particular characteristics (Eagly particular characteristics and & Mladinic, 1989; D. L. Hamilton, 1981). The sometimes biased and often sketchy emotions with the group impressions we form of groups can permeate our thinking and become a basis for both 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS 143 prejudice and discrimination. For example, many associate women with characteristics like a lack of math and science acumen (Nosek and others, 2009). In the case of a female applicant for a science or math related job, this stereotype may translate into prejudice (negative reactions to the information on her résumé) and discrimination (a failure to offer her an interview). Is it possible to eliminate the stereotypical thinking that contributes to prejudice? Will female job-seekers ever have their credentials evaluated fairly, by the same stan- dards as their male counterparts? The answer is a cautious but optimistic yes. Stereotypes can be changed, though it does not happen easily. Remember the idea of conser- vatism: Initial impressions of groups, like first impressions of individuals, tend to have lasting power. Established stereotypes often influence thoughts and actions in ways that make stereotypes resistant to modification. But as you will see in the final section of this chapter, the defenses protecting stereotypes from change can be breached, under the right conditions. Negative stereotypes can then be replaced by more favorable impressions, and prejudice can be replaced by more unbiased evaluations. Targets of Prejudice: Social Groups Any group that shares a socially meaningful common characteristic can be a target for prejudice. Different cultures emphasize different types of groups, but race, religion, gender, age, social status, and cultural background are important dividing lines in many societies. Stereotypes, prejudice, discrimination: All these processes depend on identifying people as members of social groups. But what is it that turns “people” into “members of social groups”? A social group is two or more people who share some common characteristic social group that is socially meaningful for themselves or for others (Shaw, 1976; Tajfel & Turner, two or more people who share 1979; J. C. Turner, 1981). The key phrase here is socially meaningful. People who share some common characteristic that is socially meaningful for themselves just any attribute, such as pedestrians who happen to be waiting in the same place to or for others cross the same street, do not qualify as a social group (D. L. Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). Categories of people who share socially meaningful attributes—college students, Quakers, the “working poor,” white-collar criminals, environmentalists—are groups, however. So are members of smaller groups who interact face-to-face while performing shared tasks, such as the cast of a play or members of a committee. So groups can be of many types (Lickel, Hamilton, & Sherman, 2001). In fact, individuals who believe they share socially significant attributes are a group even if others do not think of them that way. Likewise, people who are seen by others as sharing meaningful similarities are a group even if they themselves do not hold that view. Recent immigrants who see 144 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS themselves as blending into their new culture are often disappointed when their new compatriots think of them as “foreigners.” Social groups exist very much in the eyes of their beholders. Socially meaningful characteristics, of course, can change from time to time and from Members of some groups culture to culture. If several heterosexual British and French men and women are have much more in common than shared discussing dating, they will probably think of themselves and each other primarily as features. Interaction and members of the groups “men” or “women.” If the topic shifts to the Euro currency, shared goals also affect however, the implicit lines of group membership will probably shift as well. These people group members’ beliefs, may now see themselves and each other as members of national groups that are affected feelings, and behaviors in differently by European economic union. important ways, as you Even though rapid changes in perceptions of group membership are possible, each will see in Chapters 9 and society and culture generally emphasizes particular group distinctions. In most North 11. American and European countries today, discussion of stereotypes and prejudice is likely to make people think of racial and ethnic groups. And because most research on these issues has been conducted in North America and Europe, it displays a strong focus on racial stereotypes and prejudice, particularly on Whites’ perceptions and reactions to Blacks. But often through history, not race but religion has been the characteristic that elicited the most prejudice and discrimination, and this is still true today in many parts of the world. In Lebanon, for example, the characteristic that matters is whether a person is Muslim or Christian. Social Categorization: Dividing the World into Social Groups In Chapter 6 we will People identify individuals as members of social groups because they share socially discuss many additional meaningful features. Social categorization is helpful because it allows people to deal with consequences of dividing others efficiently and appropriately. Social categorization also helps us feel connected the world into in-groups to other people. However, social categorization also exaggerates similarities within groups and out-groups through and differences between groups, and hence it forms the basis for stereotyping. social categorization. “Doggie,” says the 2-year-old, pointing to a horse. “Doggie,” she says again as she spies a cat. This common mistake reflects an attempt at categorization, the process of recog- nizing individual objects as members of a category because they share certain features. Categorization is the process by which we group things or people, and it is an intrinsic part of the way we think about and try to understand the nonsocial world. In the same way, we divide the enormous number of individuals we meet into groups, lumping them together on the basis of their shared socially relevant features. Instead of individuals, they become men, women, Whites, Flemish, Jews, elderly persons, single mothers, or blue- social categorization collar workers. Social categorization occurs when people are perceived as members of the process of identifying individual social groups rather than unique individuals. Gender, ethnicity, and age are obvious bases people as members of a social for social categorization, but they are not the only attributes we use. Name tags, uniforms, group because they share certain features that are typical of the or tools of the trade, for example, help us categorize people by occupation, whereas group accent and speech dialect may identify an individual’s nationality, regional background, or social class. Why does social categorization occur? First, it is a useful tool, enabling us to master our environment and function effectively in society (S. E. Taylor, 1981; Wilder, 1986). 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS 145 Think, for example, what you gain when you categorize the man standing by the library stacks as a librarian (Andersen & Klatsky, 1987; C. F. Bond & Brockett, 1987). You can infer that he will help you locate a book and check it out. That is, knowing that this individual is a member of the group “librarians” tells you he has many characteristics shared by members of that group, even if they are not immediately obvious. Also, categorization allows you to ignore unimportant information. You can focus on what is relevant—his knowledge of books and where they are kept—without having to notice the color of his suit or his lifestyle. Social categorization saves you the effort of having to deal with all the unique aspects of every individual you meet, when they are irrelevant to your interaction. Second, we socially categorize because it allows us to feel connected to others. If you are a Portuguese, Photo 5.1 Multiple group memberships. Sitting in the stands, female, college student, majoring in psychology, other watching the game, and cheering on their team, these people share the socially meaningful characteristics of “sports fans.” But all are members Portuguese, females, college students, and psychology of other social groups as well. Thus, under different circumstances, they majors share one of these social categories with you. could be categorized in terms of their family membership, age, Using social categories, then, can allow you to divide the ethnicity, or gender. world up into those who are like you (are in “your group”) and those who are not. By simply categorizing some individuals as part of your group, you will feel closer to them than you do those not categorized in your group. Despite these benefits, as victims of prejudice and discrimination know well, categorization also has negative side effects. Social categorization makes all members of a group seem more similar to each other than they would be if they were not categorized (Hugenberg & Sacco, 2008; Tajfel & Wilkes, 1963). This is true whether people sort others into groups on the basis of real differences or arbitrary and trivial characteristics. The librarian who breeds cocker spaniels and the librarian who writes movie scripts seem more similar if we focus only on their shared group membership as librarians. Because of this focus on similarity, people often overestimate group members’ uniformity and overlook their diversity (G. W. Allport, 1954b; Brigham, 1971; Wilder, 1981). Thus, we go from a world in which some professors are forgetful to one in which all professors are absent-minded, and we move beyond the news that a majority of the voters have cast their ballots for a right-wing Republican to the idea that the electorate is uniformly conservative (Allison & Messick, 1985). Just as it exaggerates similarities within groups, social categorization exaggerates differences between groups. If librarians are all alike, and if tennis players are all alike, the difference between tennis players and librarians gets exaggerated. In fact, once we categorize people into groups, we become more aware of the characteristics that make one group different from another rather than of those that make them similar (Krueger & Rothbart, 1990). Thus, social categorization makes individuals seem more similar or more different, depending on whether you are focusing on a shared group membership or not. Serena Williams and Roger Federer seem more similar if we think about both of them as champion tennis players, but if we think about them as members of different 146 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS gender or ethnic or national groups they seem more different. Thus, social categorization brings the world into sharper focus, but the exaggeration of similarities within groups and differences between groups is the price we pay for better resolution. FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES There are many similarities between the ways we form impressions of individuals (as described in Chapter 3) and the ways we form impressions of groups. Yet there are also subtle differences that contribute to the special properties of group stereotypes (D. L. Hamilton & Sherman, 1996). To understand these special properties we must first answer two questions: What kinds of characteristics are included in stereotypes? What motivates people to form stereotypes? The Content of Stereotypes Many different kinds of characteristics are included in stereotypes, which can be positive or negative. Some stereotypes accurately reflect actual differences between groups, though in exaggerated form. Other stereotypes are completely inaccurate. Stereotypes Include Many Types of Characteristics. Walter Lippmann, a journalist who introduced the current meaning of the term stereotype in 1922, saw stereotypes as “pictures in the head,” simplified mental images of what groups look like and what they do. Stereotypes often do incorporate physical appearance, typical interests and goals, preferred activities and occupations, and similar characteristics (Andersen & Klatzky, 1987; Brewer, 1988; Deaux & Lewis, 1983, 1984). Yet they usually go well beyond what groups look like or act like, to include the personality traits group members are believed to share and the positive or negative emotions or feelings group members arouse in others. Early research on stereotypes found that college students held well-developed beliefs about the traits characterizing various ethnic groups (D. Katz & Braly, 1933). Considerable social pressure now exists against the public expression of such beliefs, but stereotypes have not disappeared. Do you have an image of what the “typical” college professor, accountant, or truck driver is like? Or, if you are an English Canadian, what is your view of French Canadians? Research suggests you may Photo 5.2 What are these two people like? What traits do they think of them as talkative, excitable, and proud (Gardner, have? What behaviors do they perform? What is their rela- tionship like? What are their values? The mental representation Lalone, Nero, & Young, 1988), whereas French Canadians may of the social group gay men may include information about describe you as educated, dominant, and ambitious (Aboud & these sorts of characteristics and many others. Taylor, 1971). Russians view men of Caucasian nationalities— FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 147 Georgians, Armenians, and others from the mountainous Caucasus region—as brazen, flashy, criminally inclined, and likely to accost respectable women in the street (Bohlen, 1992). And though such views appear to have improved over time, White adults in the U.S. still associate Hispanics and Blacks with a propensity to commit acts of violence (Unnever & Cullen, 2012). Gender stereotypes are just as pervasive. Men are more likely than women to be viewed as leaders (Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011), and most people describe women as sensitive, warm, weak, and interested in children, whereas men are considered forceful, self-reliant, ambitious, and aggressive (Prentice & Carranza, 2002). In fact, gender stereotypes have been found in similar forms among adults and children in North and South America, Asia, Africa, Europe, and Australia (J. E. Williams & Best, 1982). Group stereotypes also incorporate the positive or negative emotions that group members arouse in others. For example, observers may regard members of one group with feelings of disgust and repulsion, a second group with fear and apprehension, and yet a third with respect and admiration (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Mackie & Hamilton, 1993; E. R. Smith & Mackie, 2005). As a result, the first group may be labeled “disgusting,” the second “hostile,” and the third “admirable.” As we will see shortly, our emotions can have important effects on our actual face-to-face interactions with members of stereotyped groups. Stereotypes Can Be Either Positive or Negative. As these examples make clear, stereotypes can include positive as well as negative characteristics (Rudman, 2005). You may wonder, though, why we should be concerned with positive beliefs about groups. After all, positive stereotypes may represent attributes, such as women’s sensitivity, that group members themselves value and take pride in claiming. Still, even positive stereotypes can have negative consequences. Consider the belief, widespread among White American college students, that Asian Americans are straight-A students. One problem with that stereotype is its implication that everyone in the group is the same, and, therefore, it ignores people’s individuality. A second problem is that positive stereotypes may set unreasonably high standards, so that an Asian-American student who gets average grades may be regarded as par- ticularly dull (E. R. Smith & Ho, 1999). Finally, positive stereotypes may be part of an overall pattern of paternalistic attitudes toward a social group that actually reinforces the group’s weakness and dependence. For example, a common set of beliefs about women includes the idea that they are pure, moral, delicate, and in need of men’s protection. This pattern has been termed “benevolent sexism,” measured by agreement with statements like, “Many women have a quality of purity that few men possess” and “Women should be cherished and protected by men” (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Despite their apparent positive tone, these beliefs tend to be held by people who also hold more hostile beliefs about women, including the ideas that women attempt to manipulate men or are overly ready to claim discrimination. In fact, a study examining 19 nations shows that nations whose citizens have higher average scores on benevolent sexism also tend to have more gender inequality, for example, lower representation of women in powerful and well-paying jobs (Glick and others, 2000). As these findings suggest, then, positive stereotypes can be just as problematic as negative ones. 148 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS Thus, stereotypes lead to perceived uniformity among group members and rigid expectations. These can contribute to prejudice and discrimination, even when the stereotypes themselves are positive. Stereotypes Can Be Accurate or Inaccurate. Perhaps even more important than whether stereotypes are positive or negative is the issue of whether they are accurate or inaccurate. No good yardstick is available for measuring the accuracy or inaccuracy of most stereotypes. There is no solid evidence, for example, on the relative frequency with which Georgian versus Russian men accost female passers-by. In addition, many concepts included in common stereotypes, for example, “clannish,” “lazy,” or “dirty,” are so sub- jective as to be virtually meaningless. Nevertheless, some stereotypes have some accuracy at least in the sense that they reflect small differences that exist between groups (Judd & Park, 2005; Jussim, 2005) or small differences that group members themselves feel to be true about their groups. For example, as Table 5.1 shows, many gender stereotypes accurately describe the direc- tion of differences that research has identified between men’s behavior and women’s behavior, although often in exaggerated form (Eagly, 1995; C. L. Martin, 1987). Similarly, Black and White college students’ stereotypes of their respective groups on attributes such as “dance well,” “have high SAT math scores,” and “self-centered” generally differ Chapter 9 will describe in in the same direction as the group members’ self-descriptions (C. S. Ryan, 1996). The detail how social norms fact that some stereotypes are somewhat accurate is not surprising because people often form, and Chapter 10 join together in clubs, political parties, professional associations, and other groups pre- covers how they influence cisely because they share attitudes, feelings, and beliefs. This self-sorting process creates group members’ real group differences that may be reflected in stereotypes. Moreover, social norms and behavior. customs help create accurate stereotypes by prescribing what men and women, teenagers and retirees, and different racial groups can or should think, feel, and do. TABLE 5.1 Do Gender Stereotypes Reflect Actual Gender Differences? Results from Meta-Analyses Gender stereotypes Differences identified by research Aggressiveness: Men are more aggressive than women overall. The difference is (male) aggressive larger for physical than for psychological aggression, and in (female) soft-hearted situations in which aggression may be dangerous. Influenceability: Women are more influenceable than men. The difference is (male) independent larger for influence exerted by a group than for persuasive (female) submissive, dependent messages, and larger when the topic is regarded as “masculine.” Emotionality: Women are more nonverbally expressive and more nonverbally (male) strong, tough sensitive than men. (female) affectionate, anxious, emotional, sensitive, sentimental Leadership style: As leaders, women are more democratic and men are more (male) autocratic, dominant autocratic. The difference is larger in laboratory studies than in (female) sensitive, emotional studies of leadership in real, ongoing organizations. Sources: Stereotypes—J. E. Williams and Best (1982); Meta-analyses of research on gender differences—Eagly (1987), Eagly and Johnson (1990). FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 149 Yet stereotypes can also be inaccurate. Consider an early study of Californians’ stereotypes of Armenian Americans (LaPiere, 1936). The researcher compared official statistics on this small, segregated minority with popular stereotypes about their behavior. Whereas Californians claimed that Armenians were constantly in trouble with the law, records showed that only about 1.5% had arrest records, compared with about 6% of the rest of the population. Similarly, Californians believed Armenians were more likely to be on welfare than working. In fact, only 1 of every 500 Armenians had applied for welfare, whereas the proportion for all Californians was five times higher. As another example, many people hold the stereotype that men are more effective leaders than are women. A meta-analysis of the research, in contrast, found no sex differences (or even small differences favoring women) in leadership effectiveness in business, educational, or government organizations (Eagly, Karau, & Makhijani, 1995). Finally, there is one sense in which every stereotype is inaccurate: when it is viewed as applying to every member of a group. Not every French Canadian is talkative; not every woman is emotional; not every Asian American is a straight-A student. So it is an error for anyone to confidently assume that an individual member of a group possesses all of the group’s stereotypic qualities. But whatever their content—positive characteristics or negative ones, accurate descriptions or inaccurate distortions—stereotypes are a very real part of our daily lives. Each of us could reel off dozens of well-known stereotypes. Used-car dealers cannot be trusted; the French are great lovers. Nobel-winning physicist Leon Lederman, in advo- cating a TV series to humanize the image of physicists, said: “Scientists fall in love. But when was the last time you saw a physicist on TV galloping off into the sunset with a beautiful woman?” (The New York Times Magazine, 1995). Think about this for a moment. Did you notice Lederman’s stereotypic assumption that a physicist is both male and heterosexual? Why do people form and use stereotypes? Many different social motives have been suggested to account for them, including some people’s need to resolve intense inner psychological conflicts as well as more everyday social and cognitive processes. Seeking the Motives behind Stereotyping Early theorists traced prejudice and extreme negative stereotypes to deep inner conflicts in a few disturbed individuals, rather than to more normal social motives such as mastery and connectedness. Social psychologists’ first systematic attempts to explain stereotypes and prejudice were triggered by the genocidal policies of the Nazis during the Third Reich (Ashmore & Del Boca, 1981). The unprecedented nature of the Nazis’ actions seemed to call for equally extreme explanations, and led to the idea that hatred of other groups is abnormal. authoritarian personality Drawing on the work of Sigmund Freud, Theodor Adorno and his colleagues (Adorno, based on Freudian ideas, people who are prejudiced because they Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) argued that hatred for social groups, as cannot accept their own hostility, well as the accompanying extreme negative stereotypes, has its roots in the inner conflicts believe uncritically in the legitimacy of those with authoritarian personalities. These are people who cannot accept their own of authority, and see their own hostility, believe uncritically in the legitimacy of authority, and see their own inadequacies inadequacies in others 150 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS in others. The theorists argued that prejudice and rigid negative stereotypes against other groups serve to protect such individuals from an awareness of their painful inner conflicts and self-doubts. There is something psychologically satisfying about the authoritarian personality explanation of prejudice and stereotyping. We would like to see the mental and emo- tional deviance of certain individuals as responsible for prejudice and the extreme stereotypes that accompany and justify that prejudice. These phenomena then become the exception rather than the rule, problems that other people have. Unfortunately, despite its appeal, this explanation does not stand up against the accumulated evidence (Altemeyer, 1981; Billig, 1976). Some individuals’ extreme prejudice may in fact flow from deep inner conflicts (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993). However, as the examples cited at the beginning of the chapter suggest, prejudice and stereotypes seem to be the rule and not the exception. In fact, they are so pervasive that social psychologists have come to a more mundane, but also more consequential, conclusion: Prejudice and stereo- types most often grow out of the same social and cognitive processes that affect all aspects of our lives—such as our desires to understand our social environments and to connect with other people. Motives for Forming Stereotypes: Mastery through Summarizing Personal Experiences Stereotypes can be learned through personal experience with group members, but may still be biased because of emotions that arise during cross-group interactions and because people pay attention to extremes or inaccurately perceive groups’ characteristics. Social roles often shape group members’ behaviors, but people attribute the behaviors to group members’ inner characteristics. Learning about groups can also take place through media portrayals as well as firsthand experiences. The world is getting smaller. Throughout Europe, boundaries between nations and peo- ples are becoming more permeable with increasing economic integration. Residents of Germany, France, and Italy are more often coming face to face with immigrants about whom they once knew little: Albanians, Mozambicans, Arabs, and Turks. Changes in U.S. immigration patterns have created a similar situation. The new family moving into the apartment across the hall might be Vietnamese Hmong, or the new sales representative joining your company might be from El Salvador. As people encounter group members, they try to make sense of their world by sum- marizing the information they get about those groups. Thus, these encounters can serve as building blocks to forming stereotypes, so even a single encounter can have an impact. In one illustration of this, White students in one study observed a confederate, who was pretending to be another experimental participant (Henderson-King & Nisbett, 1996). This confederate behaved in a rude and hostile manner toward the experimenter. In some cases, the confederate was Black and in other cases White, whereas in a third condition no hostile interaction took place. The participants were then asked to conduct a mock interview of another student for a position of residence hall counselor. They were given a list of suggested questions and told that the interview could last up to 20 minutes. FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 151 The student to be interviewed turned out to be Black. The participants who had pre- viously seen another Black’s negative behavior ended the interview much sooner (after an average of just 8 minutes) compared to those who had seen a White behaving in the same obnoxious fashion or who had seen no negative behavior at all (about 10 minutes). Evidently, a single group member’s negative acts can activate negative thoughts about the entire group. Fortunately, bringing to mind positively evaluated group members can make feelings about a group more positive as well. Galen Bodenhausen and his colleagues (Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, & Wänke, 1995) demonstrated that when people have recently thought about well-liked Blacks (such as Oprah Winfrey), their opinions on issues related to Blacks’ position in American society become more positive. Findings like these suggest that pos- itive or negative impressions of individual group members are important contributors to people’s overall impressions of a group (E. R. Smith & Zárate, 1992). But this fact raises a puzzle. Why does trying to summarize the information we receive about group members during interactions—seemingly the most trustworthy form of information—lead to bias and exaggeration? There are several reasons. Between-Group Interactions Generate Emotion. Feelings of uncertainty and concern often arise when people interact with novel groups, and these feelings can influence the stereotypes people form. Dutch adults described just these feelings when asked about their everyday dealings with Surinamers, Turks, and Moroccans, groups that have immi- grated in large numbers to the Netherlands (Dijker, 1987). According to the respondents, interactions with these groups produced anxiety, and the interactions with Moroccans and Turks—the groups culturally most different from the native-born Dutch—also provoked feelings of irritation. North American college students responded the same way when asked to imagine what emotions they might experience in a casual conversation with someone of a different race (Vanman & Miller, 1993). The most frequently reported emotion was irritation, followed closely by dislike, apprehension, and anxiety. Other research shows that the presence of another man they know to be homosexual can make heterosexual men nervous and uncomfortable (L. A. Jackson & Sullivan, 1989). Why are interactions across group lines so often tinged with arousal and anxiety? The first reason is a lack of knowledge of or familiarity with members of other groups. For example, the less Asian Americans and Whites in Hawaii knew about each other’s groups, the more anxious and irritated they felt when they met (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The same researchers obtained similar results when they investigated interactions between Latinos and Whites in New Mexico. Not knowing what to do or say and not knowing how another person will react usually creates awkwardness, frustration, and impatience. A second reason concerns the fact that members of different groups may be pursuing different sorts of goals during cross-group interactions, and these goals are associated with negative emotions like anger and irritation. In the U.S., for example, Blacks are often stereotyped as incompetent, but Whites are stereotyped as prejudiced. Research suggests, therefore, that when Whites and Blacks in the U.S. interact, each is hoping to create an impression that counters these stereotypes, with Blacks hoping to be respected and seen as competent, and Whites wanting to be liked and seen as unbiased (Bergsieker, Shelton, & Richeson, 2010). These differing goals result in negative emotional consequences. 152 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS HOT TOPICS IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: STRESSFUL EFFECTS OF CROSS-RACIAL INTERACTION Recent research finds that the desire to appear non-prejudiced, in and of itself, may become salient during cross- group interactions, creating stress and discomfort. In one study, for example, White U.S. college students interacted with either a White or a Black research assistant (Trawalter, Adam, Chase-Lansdale, & Richeson, 2012). Those highly motivated to appear non-prejudiced for external reasons, for example, to avoid being judged negatively by society, showed greater cortisol activity, a physiological indicator of stress, while speaking with the Black (other race) compared to the White (same race) partner. Similar stress effects appear in more real-life contexts and can have long-term consequences. In a second study, White U.S. college students provided saliva samples early in the fall term and again in the spring term, from which measurements of cortisol (the stress hormone) were taken (Trawalter and others, 2012). In addition, for one week during the fall, winter, and spring terms, participants completed a nightly questionnaire regarding that day’s social interactions, from which the researchers could gauge how much cross-racial interaction the person experienced. The primary question was whether interracial interaction might disrupt normal, healthy cortisol patterns over time. Consistent with the first study, results indicated that externally motivated individuals who had more interracial contact over the academic year showed cortisol patterns that diverged from what is typical and healthy at the end of that year. Specifically, this research found that the more Blacks prefer to be seen as competent (rather than likable) and the more Whites prefer to be seen as likable (rather than com- petent) during a cross-group interaction, the more they feel emotions like anger and irritation with their interaction partner. When even relatively benign cross-group interactions cause anxiety and irritation, imagine the strength of emotion that is generated when groups threaten one another, compete for scarce resources, and violate one another’s values (Neuberg & Cottrell, 2002; Stephan & Renfro, 2002). In these circumstances, powerful emotions become associated with group encounters. The emotions provoked by uncomfortable intergroup encounters then become an integral part of a stereotype (Devos, Silver, Mackie, & Smith, 2002; Olson & Fazio, 2002; E. R. Smith, 1993). When interaction with a group is repeatedly accompanied by negative emotion, bad feelings are soon transferred to the group itself classical conditioning through the process of classical conditioning. Classical conditioning occurs when a a form of learning in which a person or object that has been repeatedly paired with a particular emotion or other previously neutral stimulus, when response begins itself to elicit the emotion. Thus, after several uncomfortable inter- paired with a stimulus that elicits actions, the emotions arising from the encounter become associated with the group, so an emotion or other response, itself comes to generate that response that seeing group members, hearing the group mentioned, or even thinking about the group will itself reactivate the emotion. An individual who repeatedly experiences dis- gust, fear, or hatred in interactions with group members eventually will view the group as intrinsically disgusting, threatening, or loathsome. People Notice Some Members More than Others. The next time you are at a party, glance around the room. Whom are you most likely to notice? The guest in the tuxedo, when everyone else is wearing blue jeans? Or the very tall woman standing over by the window? If these people stand out, it is because our attention is typically drawn to what is unusual, unexpected, or salient (L. Z. McArthur, 1981). For this reason, distinctive FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 153 individuals can have a disproportionate impact on the formation of group stereotypes, as a classic study by Myron Rothbart and his colleagues (Rothbart, Fulero, Jensen, Howard, & Birrel, 1978) demonstrated. Some participants in their experiment read a list of the actions of 50 men, 10 of whom had committed nonviolent crimes. Other Salient characteristics participants read the same list, but the criminal actions of the 10 men were violent and have more impact when therefore salient. The participants were later asked how many men from each group had we form impressions of committed crimes. Compared with those exposed to the nonviolent crimes, participants individuals (Chapter 3, exposed to the violent crimes thought that more group members had committed crimes. page 63), just as salient group members have Some Information Attracts More Attention than Other Information. Even if a few more impact when we extremes stand out, why do our impressions of groups remain unchanged when we form impressions of encounter other group members whose appearance or actions are quite ordinary? The groups. answer is that biases in processing lead us to form an association between unusual or distinctive characteristics and rare or infrequently encountered groups. These processes can operate even if we have no prior stereotype of a group, so they can generate a stereotype more or less out of thin air. Suppose you move to a new city and discover that the residents there classify themselves as Eastsiders or Westsiders, but you have no idea what characteristics are associated with these categories. As you read the “Police Blotter” column in the local newspaper, you notice that more Eastsiders than Westsiders are mentioned. Most members of each group are named for innocent reasons, such as reporting a mysteriously broken car window or having a cat stranded in a tree, but about a third of each group are named as crime suspects. What impressions would you form of the two groups? According to David Hamilton and Robert Gifford (1976), you might overestimate the incidence of crime among the Westsiders, the smaller group. Your overestimate would illustrate the creation of an illusory correlation, a perceived association between two illusory correlation characteristics that are not actually related. In a demonstration of the illusory correlation, a perceived association between two characteristics that are not Hamilton and Gifford asked participants to read a series of sentences, each describing a actually related desirable or undesirable behavior performed by a member of Group A or Group B. For both groups, more desirable behaviors were reported than undesirable ones: The ratio was about two positive behaviors for every negative one. Overall, participants saw more sentences about Group A than about Group B. When participants were asked their impressions of the groups, they liked Group B less. They had formed an illusory cor- relation by perceiving a link between the two relatively infrequent and distinctive characteristics: undesirable behavior, and membership in the group about which they had read less often. What explains this surprising bias in our perceptions of groups? Researchers have found that when something occurs infrequently, it becomes distinctive and people pay attention to it. When one of the behavior descriptions involves two distinctive charac- teristics occurring together—a Group B member doing something antisocial—it really stands out. These behaviors may attract special attention when people encounter them (D. L. Hamilton & Sherman, 1989). Or they may have a disproportionate impact when people combine what they know into judgments about the groups (Fiedler, 1991; E. R. Smith, 1991). Either way, these doubly distinctive behaviors have the greatest impact on the impressions we form of groups. So suppose that people have only limited encounters with members of a group that is numerically small or segregated. Even if 154 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS criminal acts are equally rare among members of a large group and those of the small group, observers may form an illusory correlation, judging the small group to be more criminal than the larger group. How and why people fall prey to the Social Roles Trigger Correspondence Biases. Regardless of how often we encounter correspondence bias a group, what we see the group doing has a big impact on our impressions. Yet even when making inferences this kind of firsthand observation can lead to biased stereotypes when a group’s social was discussed in Chapter role shapes the behavior that can be observed. For example, most of us form our impres- 3, pages 69–72. sions of doctors by watching a doctor care for us or for a loved one, or of ministers or rabbis by watching one perform a religious ceremony. As a result, our stereotypes of particular groups often come to reflect the social roles occupied by those groups (D. T. Campbell, 1967; Eagly, 1987). Consider the following facts: In the Middle Ages, money handling was one of very few occupations open to Jews, who soon came to be seen as excelling in this occupation for reasons of personality, that is, because they were inherently “sharp” and “frugal.” These same traits have been attributed to many other groups: the Chinese in Indonesia and Malaysia, Muslim merchants in eastern and southern Africa, and Korean merchants in Black neighborhoods in the United States. What do these wildly diverse groups have in common? They all fill the same “middleman” economic niche in their societies (Pettigrew, 1968). Apparently the role produces the assumed personality character- istics, rather than the other way around. In virtually every society, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, regardless of their ethnicity, are seen as ignorant, lazy, loud, dirty, and carefree. In the United States this stereotype has been applied to a number of groups in the last century: first, to poor Irish immigrants, then to the first wave of Italian immigrants, and more recently to Puerto Rican and Mexican Americans (Pettigrew, 1968; L. Ross & Nisbett, 1990). As the economic position of a group rises, stereotypes about them change and, like hand-me-down clothing, the lower-class stereotype is passed on to some new and less fortunate group. Stereotypes adapt rapidly as a group’s roles change. Such changes are especially obvious in times of war or hardship, as we shall see in Chapter 13. As peace is replaced by war, the Germans become “Huns” and the Japanese “Japs.” And as war is replaced by peace, German ruthlessness becomes German efficiency, and Japanese cunning becomes Japanese ingenuity. As all these facts suggest, stereotypes may not reflect what groups are actually like. Instead, they reflect the roles groups play in society relative to the perceiver (Fiske and others, 2002). The correspondence bias leads people to see behavior as reflecting others’ inner dispositions, even if roles or situational contingencies truly cause the behavior. As can be seen in Figure 5.1, the outcome is the formation of a stereotype. Social Roles and Gender Stereotypes. Males’ and females’ differing social roles also contribute to gender stereotypes (Eagly, 1987). (Look back at Table 5.1 for some examples.) The process works like this: Virtually all societies assign men and women to somewhat different roles and occupations (Wood & Eagly, 2002). In Western cultures, FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 155 Social, cultural, ecomonic, political, and historical factors create social roles. Social roles are assigned to groups. Caucasian farmers sell produce in Russian cities. Group members perform role-appropriate behaviors. Farmers charge as much as they can, and some become prosperous. Through correspondence bias, role-associated behaviors are attributed to personality characteristics. These farmers are greedy and flashy people. Stereotype of group forms. Caucasians are by nature greedy and flashy. Figure 5.1 Social roles shape stereotypes The roles allocated to a particular group influence group members’ behavior. Based on that behavior, observers are likely to be influenced by the correspondence bias— ignoring the effects of the roles and attributing the behavior to the group members’ personality characteristics. These characteristics then become part of the stereotype of the group. Photo 5.3 Career roles and stereotypes. When people repeatedly see group members in particular roles, they link the traits necessary for those roles with that group. For instance, seeing many more women than men as elementary school teachers may lead to and reinforce the stereotype that women have nurturing traits like patience and kindness. 156 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS for example, men are more often employed outside the home, whereas women are more likely to be responsible for home and family. Employee roles demand the kinds of traits—task-orientation, assertiveness, rationality—that characterize the traditional male stereotype. In contrast, the role of homemaker requires those qualities—interpersonal orientation, sensitivity, warmth—that characterize the female stereotype (Eagly & Steffen, 1984). Thus, men and women tend to act in ways that are appropriate for their roles. And if observers note those differences and fail to make allowances for the effects of roles, they may conclude that men are by nature task oriented, and women inter- personally oriented. A clever laboratory study by Curt Hoffman and Nancy Hurst (1990) demonstrated this process. Students read descriptions of fictitious groups of “Orinthians” and “Ackmians” who supposedly inhabit a distant planet. Most Orinthians were described as involved in child care, whereas Ackmians were mainly employed outside the home. All child-care workers (regardless of group membership) were described as typically nurturant, affectionate, and gentle, and all employees as typically competitive and ambitious. However, participants asked to guess these creatures’ typical psychological characteristics attached traits to the groups rather than to the roles, and assumed that Orinthians (not child-care workers) were nurturant and Ackmians (not employees) were competitive (see Figure 5.2). That is, each group was seen as having psychological characteristics appropriate for the group’s typical role. Once the stereotype was formed, participants applied it even to individual group members whose occupations clashed with the stereotype: they saw an employed Ackmian as more competitive and ambitious than an employed Orinthian. This finding suggests that the different typical social roles of men and women contribute to shaping earthly gender stereotypes. Learning Stereotypes from the Media. People’s experience with members of particular social groups comes not only from direct personal interactions: we also learn about others from art, literature, popular music, television, film, and the Internet. Not surprisingly, media portrayals of groups often reflect stereotypes that are deeply ingrained in a culture (Jost & Hamilton, 2005). This pattern is found in modern-day rap music and other forms of confrontational art (Nields, 1991), but it also occurred in William Shakespeare’s plays, written over 400 years ago. Othello is called “thick lips” because he is Black. Shylock is spat on because he is a Jew. Richard III attributes his evil to his physical deformity, and King Lear is reviled because he is old. Mainstream media including television also help convey stereotypes. On an average day, North American children watch 3 hours of television, and during those hours children receive a mixed message. Some prime-time entertainment shows have reversed the traditional invisibility of people of color. The Cosby Show, which portrayed the family life of a Black doctor and lawyer and their children, ranked as the most popular show in the United States from 1985 to 1990. However, representation of Black characters in prime-time TV declined between 2000 and 2008. Representation of Whites corres- pondingly increased, with other minority groups seldom portrayed at all (Signorielli, 2009). And compared to entertainment shows, news programs send different messages. Studies of Philadelphia and Los Angeles local TV news both found that in comparison to actual crime statistics, Blacks are overrepresented as crime suspects whereas Whites are underrepresented (Romer, Jamieson, & de Coteau, 1998; Dixon & Linz, 2000). Video FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 157 More assertive, 3 forceful, adventurous 2 1 0 –1 –2 More considerate, compassionate, –3 nurturant Orinthian group Ackmian group (Typical role: child-care worker) (Typical role: city worker) Group member Group member working in city engaged in child care Figure 5.2 Roles and stereotypes on a distant planet Participants viewed group members who performed their group’s typical roles as possessing psy- chological characteristics appropriate for that role. They then generalized those characteristics to all group members. Thus, they saw an Ackmian engaged in child care as more assertive than an Orinthian city worker. (Based on Hoffman & Hurst, 1990.) games, a popular new media form, also fail to accurately represent the population, according to a large-scale study by Williams and others (2009). Their analysis, which gave more weight to the best-selling games, found systematic overrepresentation of Whites, males, and adults and underrepresentation of females, Hispanics, Native Americans, children, and the elderly, a pattern resembling that found with TV. Media portrayals of other groups are no better. Asian Americans appear frequently in television ads (in over 8% of commercials, compared to their 3.6% of the U.S. population), but are usually cast in stereotypic ways. Consistent with the “work ethic” stereotype, Asian Americans are generally portrayed in business settings and only rarely in home or family settings (C. R. Taylor & Stern, 1997). Differences between Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans are minimized or ignored. Latinos fare equally poorly. Though they constituted 12.5% of the U.S. population at the time, when researchers analyzed prime-time shows on U.S. channels in 2002, only about 4% of the characters were Latino (Mastro & Behm-Morawitz, 2005). This same work reported that though some Latino stereotypes are fading from television, many still persist. For example, Latino men, more than their other-race counterparts, were depicted as unintelligent and inarticulate. Homosexuals, too, are often underrepresented or portrayed in stereotypical ways on television. A report from the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (2011) found that only 2.9% of characters on U.S. prime-time network shows in the 2011–12 158 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS television season were homosexual or bisexual. However, recent estimates suggest that 3.5% of the adult U.S. population identifies as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, and over 8% report having participated in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex (Gates, 2011). In England, much the same is true. In one study, researchers examined roughly 126 hours of popular television shows in England and found that roughly 4.5% (about 5.75 hours) of this time depicted gay, lesbian, or bisexual characters. Of the time they were on screen, the report concluded that such characters were depicted “positively and realistically” for only 46 minutes, less than 15% of their screen time (Stonewall, n.d.). All in all, then, media stereotyping and underrepresentation is quite pervasive. Gender Stereotypes and the Media. Media messages about women can be summed up in a single word: contradictory. On the one hand, television programming increasingly has portrayed women in realistic or counterstereotypic roles. Popular dramatic and comedy series often feature strong female characters who are competent, assertive, independent, and successful in their careers. However, during the commercial breaks a different type of message comes through. Analyses of French-language television ads in Quebec and radio ads in Australia replicate findings from the U.S.: Commercials typically reinforce gender stereotypes (Dalcourt, 1996; Hurtz & Durkin, 1997). For example, male voice-overs predominate when the voice of an “expert” is required. Men and women generally sell gender-stereotypic products: Men sell lawnmowers and computers, women sell shoes and toilet bowl cleaners. Ads that appear on the Internet suffer from similar problems, with research showing that nearly 70% of examined ads portrayed women in stereotypic ways, most often as being concerned with their appearance, as sex objects, or as housewives (Plakoyiannaki, Mathioudaki, Dimitratos, & Zotos, 2008). Children’s cartoons also convey gender stereotypes (Chu & McIntyre, 1995; T. L. Thompson & Zerbinos, 1995). In one analysis, for example, female cartoon characters were more likely than male cartoon characters to show fear, be supportive, and behave romantically and politely (Leaper, Breed, Hoffman, & Perlman, 2002). Do biased media portrayals of men and women matter? Experimental studies suggest that the answer is yes. Florence Geis and her colleagues (Geis, Brown, Jennings, & Porter, 1984; Jennings, Geis, & Brown, 1980) showed college women one of two sets of tele- vision commercials. One set depicted men and women in traditional roles, with the woman playing an alluring and subordinate role. In the other set the roles were reversed, with the man shown as subordinate and seductive. The young women who watched the traditional commercials later expressed lower self-confidence, less independence, and fewer career aspirations than did those who watched the nontraditional commercials. Meta-analyses summarizing many studies support the conclusion that media content increases viewers’ acceptance of gender stereotypes (Herrett-Skjellum & Allen, 1996). If media portrayals can subtly influence viewers’ thinking about themselves as men and women, it is undoubtedly true that they become part of our thinking about members of other groups as well. FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 159 Motives for Forming Stereotypes: Connectedness to Others Social learning contributes to stereotypes. Stereotypes and discriminatory behavior are often accepted and endorsed as right and proper by members of a particular group. Group members learn such stereotypes from family and peers. As stereotypes are commu- nicated, they may become even stronger. Stereotypes can be formed as summaries of our experiences with members of social groups, and as we have seen, whether those experiences are direct or through the media they can give rise to biased perceptions. But our desire to master the world by sum- marizing our experiences is not the only motive behind the formation of stereotypes. Stereotypes also serve our desire to establish connections with similar others, when we adopt the same stereotypes that those others hold. Thus, stereotypes often are commu- nicated to us in prepackaged form, and we learn them in particular social, economic, cultural, religious, and political contexts (Stangor & Schaller, 1996). Our desire to connect with others may encourage us to adopt these prepackaged stereotypes. Learning Stereotypes from Others. Parents, teachers, and peers offer us our first lessons about group differences. By age 5, for example, most children have begun to develop clear-cut racial attitudes (Goodman, 1952; Rosenfield & Stephan, 1981). Parents and teachers do not have to teach stereotypes explicitly, although they sometimes do. Children can pick up stereotypes simply by observing and imitating their elders: listening to disparaging group labels or derogatory jokes that elicit approving laughter, or following family rules against playing with those “other” children. What other people say and do typically reflects social norms, generally accepted social norms ways of thinking, feeling, or behaving that people in a group agree on and endorse as generally accepted ways of thinking, feeling, or behaving that right and proper (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). When stereotypes are deeply embedded in people in a group agree on and the social norms of a culture, people learn them naturally as part of growing up (Crandall endorse as right and proper & Stangor, 2005). In one study, students rated numerous groups (such as ethnic and religious groups, political groups, as well as other groups such as murderers and thieves) in terms of how socially acceptable it would be to hold negative views of the groups. They also rated their own personal views of the same groups. Answers to these two questions were almost perfectly related, suggesting that people’s actual opinions of the groups were strongly driven by their perceptions of social norms—that is, by the acceptability of We discuss the formation and effects of social holding negative views of each group (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). norms in greater depth in both Chapters 9 and 10. Social Communication of Stereotypes. Stereotypes may even become stronger through the process of social communication. When people form impressions of a group by being told about them secondhand, their impressions are more stereotypic than those of people who learn about the group through firsthand experience (Thompson, Judd, & Park, 2000). These secondhand impressions, once formed, remain highly stereotypic even after later direct experience with the group itself. Discussion of group members’ behaviors among several people also tends to make their impressions more stereotypic (Brauer, Judd, & Jacquelin, 2001). Conversations between individuals tend to focus on stereotypic information because such information is thought to bring people closer together (Clark & Kashima, 2007). 160 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS Motives for Forming Stereotypes: Justifying Inequalities The stereotypes prevalent in a society often serve to justify existing social inequalities. They do so by portraying groups as deserving their social roles and positions on the basis of their own characteristics. Our direct or indirect experiences with members of other groups, and the beliefs and norms prevalent in our own groups, usually work together to reinforce each other and, ultimately, to reinforce the perception that members of different groups are naturally suited for the roles they play. Most cultures, for example, assign nurturing roles to women, so perceivers see women as “naturally” nurturing. This stereotype is further strengthened as people learn what society teaches about women. Soon, it becomes the basis for an inference with even more serious consequences. The belief that women have the right stuff to care for others then becomes a justification for retaining them in that role: They have the perfect qualifications. Most stereotypes, like this example, justify groups’ existing places and roles in society as right, natural, and inevitable (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost, Kivetz, Rubini, Guermandi, & Mosso, 2005; Yzerbyt, Rocher, & Schadron, 1997). Every society maintains inequalities that benefit some groups and hurt others. In Taiwan, people from mainland China who fled the Communists in 1949 still dominate native Taiwanese. Gaps in income and opportunity between men and women and between Whites and people of color persist in the United States. As stereotypes reflecting these differences have developed, they have justified and rationalized the underlying inequalities (Pettigrew, 1980). For example, historically, women and people of color have often been viewed in ways that justified their treatment as childlike, unintelligent, and weak, and thus in need of direction and guidance (Hacker, 1951). And in fact, people who believe inequality is natural and right—views that are more often found among members of dominant groups, such as Whites and males—are particularly likely to be prejudiced against others (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Moreover, high- status groups are stereotyped as more competent than are low-status groups, providing apparent justification for the status differences (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009). Thus, as these examples illustrate, inequalities can produce different opportunities for different groups in a society, and then perceivers form stereotypes of those groups that will help perpetuate and maintain those same inequalities. Why do we slide so quickly down the slope from behavior to stereotype to justi- fication of inequality? One reason may be the widespread belief that the world is just and that people therefore deserve what they get and get what they deserve. This just- world belief (Lerner, 1980) leads people to blame victims for their misfortunes. This effect was demonstrated by one study in which students watched a woman apparently receive painful electric shocks (Lerner & Simmons, 1966). Did they react with sympathy toward this unfortunate victim? On the contrary, most derogated the victim, concluding that she must have done something to deserve her suffering. Rape victims, victims of spouse abuse, and people with AIDS often suffer the same fate (Carli & Leonard, 1989; Hunter & Ross, 1991), as do those whose social roles confine them to subordinate positions. It is no surprise, then, that people who believe more strongly that the world is just also tend to be prejudiced against gays and other groups (Crandall & Cohen, FORMING IMPRESSIONS OF GROUPS: ESTABLISHING STEREOTYPES 161 1994). It is comforting to believe that bad things happen only to bad people: that AIDS is a punishment for taking drugs or for a gay lifestyle, or that poor people are lazy and shiftless (Furnham & Gunter, 1984; R. Robinson & Bell, 1978). Believing that groups’ positions in society are somehow deserved, fitting, or justified lets us off the hook morally, as Martin Luther King (1967) observed so astutely: It seems to be a fact of life that human beings cannot continue to do wrong without eventually reaching out for some rationalization to clothe their acts in the garments of righteousness. And so, with the growth of slavery, men had to convince themselves that a system which was so economically profitable was morally justifiable. The attempt to give moral sanction to a profitable system gave birth to the doctrine of white supremacy. (p. 72) Bit by bit, our personal experiences and the influence of others help us construct a coherent impression of the social groups around us. As Figure 5.3 shows, the information we weave together is a product both of our own personal interactions and of the influence of others, and biases can enter into the process in several ways. And as we will see in Chapter 6, our own group memberships provide additional scope for stereotypes and biases in the ways we view others. Personal Interaction Social Learning Attention to Illusory Interactions Emotion in Learning Learning from extremes correlation shaped by interactions from others the media social roles I know one On the job, I I feel positive My parents taught I watch TV ads that woman who is see few women I observe that emotions from that women should portray women as extremely timid. and few people most daycare being cared stay home to care sexy and subordinate who are easily workers are for by mother, for young children. to men. upset—so I see women. nurses, women women as easily grade-school upset. teachers. Stereotype of group I believe that women are nuturing, emotional, unassertive. Figure 5.3 Multiple sources of stereotypes People’s impressions of groups are formed by their personal interactions with group Justifies typical social roles of group members and by what they learn from others. Multiple sources of information I think women are naturally suited to caring for children rather than often converge to support a stereotype that competing in the business world. justifies the social roles typically held by group members. 162 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS USING STEREOTYPES: FROM PRECONCEPTIONS TO PREJUDICE For all the reasons just described, group stereotypes are rarely just neutral descriptions, but often have a strong evaluative tinge. When we think of men as aggressive, of immi- grants as cliquish, or of Scots as thrifty, those terms have evaluative implications, whether positive or negative, mild or extreme. Moreover, stereotypes often incorporate emotions we associate with groups. We see some groups not only as hostile, stubborn, aggressive, and deviant but also as frightening, frustrating, threatening, and repulsive. Once these beliefs and feelings are firmly established, they take on a life of their own, provoking prejudiced judgments and directing discriminatory behavior. The notion that group stereotypes can spawn prejudice and discrimination is captured in a conference experience described by Stephen Carter, a professor at Yale Law School who is Black. A dapper, buttoned-down young white man glanced at my nametag, evidently ignored the name but noted the school, and said, “If you’re at Yale, you must know this Carter fellow who wrote that article about thus-and-so.” Well, yes, I admitted. I did know that Carter fellow slightly. An awkward pause ensued. And then the young man, realizing his error, apologized.... “Oh,” he said, “you’re Carter.” (Carter, 1991, p. 56) The young man’s assumptions about race and academic excellence had been embar- rassingly revealed. As Carter notes, “Since this young man liked the article, its author could not, in his initial evaluation, have been a person of color. He had not even con- ceived of that possibility, or he would have glanced twice at my name tag” (p. 57). Once a stereotype exists, it influences what people think and how they behave toward members of stereotyped groups. In fact, stereotype effects are so pervasive that they can even affect our judgments of inanimate objects! When computers are pro- grammed to “talk” with synthesized male voices, people take their evaluations more seriously than if they use female voices; on matters related to relationships, people prefer advice given by a computer in a female voice. This is true even when people are specif- ically told that a male programmer created the software in the first place (Reeves & Nass, 1996). Stereotypes can have this impact whether we are making snap judgments of others quickly and with minimal thought—like the young man at the conference—or making considered judgments involving extensive processing of information. Activation of Stereotypes and Prejudice Once established, stereotypes and prejudice can be activated by obvious cues, use of group labels, or the presence of a group member, especially a minority in a social situation. Some stereotypes and prejudices come to mind automatically. A stereotype can influence judgments or actions only if it comes to mind. Does this happen frequently? You bet it does! The very first thing we notice about other people is often their group memberships, and once a category is activated, the associated stereo- type comes to mind as well. In fact, some categories seem so important that we use them USING STEREOTYPES: FROM PRECONCEPTIONS TO PREJUDICE 163 to classify people even when they appear irrelevant to the social context. Consider the first thing most people ask the parents of a newborn: Is it a girl or a boy? In almost every social situation, perceivers note general categories like gender, race, and age (Brewer, 1988; Stangor, Lynch, Duan, & Glass, 1992). What Activates Stereotypes? The more obvious and salient the cues to category membership, the more likely it is that the category and its related stereotypes will come to mind. Indeed, women with a highly feminine physical appearance and dress are perceived as also having highly feminine natures (Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Forsyth, Schlenker, Leary, & McCown, 1985). The deliberate use of pejorative group labels, ethnic or sexist jokes, or slurs can bring stereotypes to a listener’s mind at once (Ford, 2000; Greenberg & Pyszczynski, 1985). A category often becomes particularly salient when only a single member of the group is present among multiple members of another group. Consider an increasingly common occurrence: A woman is hired as a member of a previously all-male work crew, or a single Latino student joins a class or seminar. Because of their salience, such solo appearances draw much more attention, and the extra attention usually leads to partic- ularly stereotypic perceptions. A solo male seems more masculine and a solo female more feminine than they would in a more evenly split group (S. E. Taylor, 1981; S. E. Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). Field studies in work organizations have recorded the same effects (Kanter, 1977). “Token” integration of a workplace or other social setting— admitting a single member of a previously excluded group—can thus increase the likelihood of stereotyped thinking rather than decrease it. Stereotypes Can Be Activated Automatically. If reminders of group membership surround us, the ease with which race, gender, age, or other categories come to mind can set off a vicious cycle. The more often a category is used, the more accessible it becomes; the more accessible it is, the more it is used (Higgins, 1996a; Stangor and others, 1992). In fact, a stereotype sometimes becomes so well learned and so often used that its activation becomes automatic. Cues that relate to group membership can bring stereotypic information to mind, even if the perceiver does not consciously notice the group membership at all! Multiple studies have illustrated such effects. In one, participants engaged in several trials during which they saw XXXXX on a computer screen, followed by either a word or a nonsense letter string (Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 2001). Some of the words were related to Black or White stereotypes. Participants had to press one of two keys to indicate whether or not the letters on the screen spelled an English word. Unknown to the participants, on some trials the word BLACK or WHITE was also flashed on the screen before the XXXXX—so briefly that it could not be consciously registered. However, as studies we have already described show, such subliminally presented words can still act as a prime. Results showed that participants responded to negative Black stereotypic words (such as poor, dishonest, and violent) more quickly on trials where the word BLACK had been flashed as a prime. The same was true of positive White stereotypic words (such as intelligent, successful, and wealthy) on trials with WHITE primes. Thus, this study shows that exposure to labels for different social groups can automatically active stereotypic traits of those groups. The automatic nature of this stereotype activation is 164 5 PERCEIVING GROUPS demonstrated by the occurrence of the effect when the participants could not consciously read the prime words. Other studies have obtained similar results (Blair & Banaji, 1996; Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Seibt, & Strack, 2008; Lepore & Brown, 1997). In Chapter 3, page 67 we described evidence that Prejudice Can Be Activated Automatically. Can general positive or negative preju- words that could not be dicial feelings about a group, as well as the specific trait information contained in consciously read stereotypes, also be activated automatically? The answer appears to be yes. One approach nevertheless could bring related beliefs to mind, Sequence Task Name Examples of stimuli and correct without the perceiver’s Instructions: For specific type of responses awareness. stimulus, press left or right response button 1 Black-White Names Meredith - Right Black name - Left Tashika - Left White name - Right Betsy - Right 2 Pleasant-Unpleasant Words poison - Right Pleasant word - Left gift - Left Unpleasant word - Right disaster - Right 3 Initial Combined Task Peggy - Right Black name or pleasant word - Left evil - Right White name or unpleasant word - Right Ebony - Left miracle - Left 4 Reversed Black-White Names Courtney - Left Black name - Right Shereen - Right Corrugator White name - Left Tia - Right Zygomatic 5 Reversed Combined Task peace - Left Black name or unpleasant word - Right Latisha - Right White name or pleasant word - Left filth - Right Nancy - Left Figure 5.4 Facial Figure 5.5 The Implicit Association Test electromyography (EMG): An The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) involves a series of tasks, indirect measure of attitudes performed in the indicated order. Each task involves making a response by pressing one of two buttons When people react positively to (labeled Left and Right in this figure) for each of a number of names or words presented on a computer an attitude object, activity in the screen. The computer records how long it takes to complete a fixed number of trials of each task. This zygomatic muscles increases, figure shows the use of the IAT to measure people’s evaluations of Blacks versus Whites as an example, whereas negative responses but the same approach can be adapted to measure evaluations of any two groups. The first two tasks are accompanied by increased (sequence numbers 1 and 2) are quite easy, and participants are able to respond rapidly. When responses activity in the corrugator muscles. to both names and words are required (as in the combined tasks 3 and 5), however, performance may Although this activity cannot be be easy or difficult, depending on the way the responses go together. For most White participants, the observed with the naked eye, it combination shown as sequence number 3 (where Black names and pleasant words require the same can be measured by electrodes response) is much more difficult than the combination in sequence number 5 (where White names and placed at the indicated positions. pleasant words are given the same response). By measuring how much longer it takes participants to (