Quiz 1 (1) PDF

Week 1: ​ Levels of analysis → individual/ internalized, interpersonal ​ Psychological approach → empirical, quantitative, cause/effect, mechanisms, social cognitive processes, assume univerals ​ Psychology Building Blocks: ABC ○​ Affect (feelings) → valence (positive/ negative)...

Week 1: ​ Levels of analysis → individual/ internalized, interpersonal ​ Psychological approach → empirical, quantitative, cause/effect, mechanisms, social cognitive processes, assume univerals ​ Psychology Building Blocks: ABC ○​ Affect (feelings) → valence (positive/ negative) ○​ Behavior → outwardly visible actions ○​ Cognition → conscious/ unconscious thoughts ​ Prejudice → negative attitudes/ feelings towards members of a social group ○​ Prejudgement, valence (negative) ○​ Stigma → culturally-shared negativity towards a group (vs personal beliefs) ​ Associated with ostracism/ avoidance ​ Visible, personal traits, group/ tribal ​ Discrimination → unfairly treating individuals because of their group membership ○​ Has legal definitions ​ Stereotyping → assumption that individual members of a group possess characteristics associated with that group ​ Bias: ○​ Targets → anyone who is part of a social group or has characteristics that evoke prejudgement ○​ Legal definition specify protected groups, understudied, literature from the US ​ Primary Categories: ○​ Race → system for classifying human beings grounded in the belief that people embody inherited and fixed biological characteristics that identify them ​ Social category, not biological ​ Long & Kittles (2009): analysis of human genetic similarities/differences does not map onto any conception of racial categories ​ Definition of race changes over time (racial segregation laws) ​ Trawalter & Richeson (2008): found race related discussions caused increased anxious behavior in interracial dyad pairings ○​ Gender: ​ Gender vs sex, ways of delineating gender vary, traits/behaviors/careers associate have changed over time ○​ Age → life stages across different cultures (adolescence/emerging adulthood) ○​ Other dimensions: Social class, occupation, disability (multiple combinations of identities) ○​ Social Categories Bias (Devine 1989: knowledge of stereotypes is unrelated to differences in prejudice) ​ Research Methods Review: ○​ Research → understand causes, persistence, reduction of prejudice and discrimination ​ Correlational Studies: Examine relationships between variables but don't infer causation. ​ Experimental Studies: Manipulate variables to determine causal relationships. ​ Longitudinal Studies: Track changes over time. ○​ Hypothesis formation → ideas form observations, interventions, theories about stereotypes, prejudice,a nd discrimination ○​ Variable → concept/ construct that varies in a study (2+ levels) ​ ○​ Operational Definition → how a concept is measured or manipulated as a variable in a study ○​ Correlational Design → study in which all variables of interest are measured and none are manipulated ​ Directionality problem, 3rd variable problem ○​ Experiment → study in which one variable is manipulated by the researchers to observe outcomes depending on the level (randomized controlled trial) ​ Manipulation of one or more independent variables. ​ Control of extraneous variables. ​ Use of random assignment to groups. ​ Establish causation by determining if changes in the IV directly affect the DV ○​ Random Assignment → using randomization procedure to assign participants to experimental conditions (levels of manipulated variables) or in the order in which conditions occur (for within-subjects designs). This results in groups that do not differ systematically from one another ​ By evenly distributing individual differences (ex: personality traits) across groups, random assignment ensures that differences in the dependent variable are due to the independent variable, not pre-existing biase ○​ Independent Variable → variable that is manipulated in an experiment hypothesized to be the cause ○​ Dependent variable → variable that is measured after the manipulation in an experiment hypothesized to be the effect  ○​ Disparate Impacts → worse outcome for some group compared to others ○​ Correlation → statistic value that evaluates the association between 2 variables, varies from -1 to 1, higher indicates stronger relationship, sign indicates direction, does not imply causation ○​ P-value → statistic indicating the probability of attaining results if there were no true association between variables (smaller p-values = greater statistical significance) ○​ Self-report methods → participants provide information themselves through surveys, interviews, questionnaires ​ Easy to administer, captures subjective experiences and attitudes ​ Susceptible to social desirability bias (underreporting prejudice) ○​ Fryberg (2020): lower self esteem after native american adolescents viewed stereotypical images like Chief Wahoo ​ Manipulating Prejudice → manipulating target’s social identity ○​ Bertrand & Mullainathan (2003): white names received more resume callbacks than black names ○​ Morgenroth, Axt, Westgate (2024): manipulated imagined positive contact with trans woman at birthday party which lead to increased support of trans inclusive policies ○​ Attributional ambiguity → uncertainty about whether the outcomes are deserved or of social prejudices ​ Human culture → unique meaning and information system, shared by a group and transmitted across generations, that allows the group to meet basic needs of survival, pursue happiness and well-being, and derive meaning from life Week 2: ​ Social Categories → used to reason about other people ○​ Easily identified, simplify, fill in gaps, structure interactions ○​ Cloutier, Mason, Macrae (2005): quick identification of race and gender (170-200 ms) ○​ Ingroup vs Outgroup: ​ Minimal group paradigm → ingroups and outgroups can be created from minimal conditions, even without interaction ​ Ingroup bias → based on only knowledge of group membership, people decide their own group is better, make rewarding group decisions (ingroup love > outgroup hate) ​ Competition brings in dislike ​ Outgroup homogeneity effect → people see members of their group as very different and underestimate differences among members of other groups ​ Believe outgroup members have similar traits and occupy similar roles ​ Due to information search (aggregate category of outgroup), size (know more ingroup) ​ Judd and Park 1988: outgroup homogeneity does not depend on the number of group members you know and perceptions of outgroups don’t correspond to perceptions of outgroup members (not thinking of individuals) ​ Cross-Race bias → poorer ability at remembering/identifying faces of outgroup members compared to ingroup members ​ Chiroro & Valentine (1995): found cross-race bias does not occur from lower cross-race exposure ​ Bernstein, Young, Hughenberg (2007): cross-race effect can be elicited just by labeling a face as ingroup or outgroup ​ Johnson & Fredrickson (2005): cross-race effect is eliminated when experiencing positive emotion ​ Van Bavel & Cunningham (2012): motivation to individuate the person reduces cross-race effect, also when faces are presented upside down (disrupted holistic processing) ​ Categories and Stereotyping ○​ Include race, age, gender (evolutionary adaptation) ​ Kinzler: language and accent are a more innate indicator of category membership ○​ Stereotypes: ​ Different timescales of analysis (developmental, cultural, historical) ​ Roots: Observation of social roles, illusory correlation ​ Illusory correlation → perceiving a relationship between two things even though it might not exist (remember the bad) ​ Negativity bias →bad behavior is more remembered than good behavior ​ Availability heuristic →makes it seem joint occurrence is common because it is easily remembered ○​ Stereotype Content Model (Fiske, Cuddy, Xu 2002) ​ Identify common dimensions of stereotypes of different groups, explain their root, predict emotional reactions ​ Warmth (related to competition) → predicts active behavior (help vs harm) ​ Competitive groups are perceived as interfering, con-competitive are subordinate  ​ Competence (related to high status) → predicts passive behavior (cooperation vs ignoring) ​ Correspondence bias/ Fundamental attribution error →tendency for individuals to overemphasize personality-based or dispositional explanations for other people's behavior while under-emphasizing situational explanations ​ Just world theory → if the world is fair they must deserve their status ​ Possible Combinations: ​ Low Competence, High Warmth: low status, low competitiveness ​ High Competence, Low Warmth: high status, high competitiveness ​ Caprariello, Cuddy, Fiske (2009): Ps read about fictional immigrant groups and found: ​ High Warmth, High Competence: Admiration (e.g., ingroups, allies). ​ Low Warmth, High Competence: Envy (e.g., rich or competitive groups). ​ Low Warmth, Low Competence: Contempt (e.g., stigmatized groups). ​ High Warmth, Low Competence: Pity (e.g., elderly, disabled). ○​ Axes of Subordination (Zou & Cheryan 2017) → SCM does not capture stereotypes of ethnic groups in the US ​ 2 dimensions where racial/ ethnic groups are perceived as subordinate → Inferiority & Foreignness ​ Distinct but modestly correlated, helps distinguish stereotypes of blacks and latinos (different foreignness) ​ Inferiority → low competence ​ Foreignness → perpetual foreigner syndrome (natives perceived as foreign) ​ Zou & Cheryan (2017): blacks experience inferiority, latinos both, asians experience foreign ​ Subgroups, Subtypes, Intersectionality: belonging to more than one category ○​ Subtyping → groups people on whether they match or mismatch with the stereotype (allows for stereotypes to be maintained) ○​ Subgrouping → perceiving different clusters and categorizing besides stereotypicality (acknowledges diversity) ○​ Maurer, Park, Rothbart (1995): by having Ps read volunteer bios, found subtyping to reinforce stereotypes and outgroup homogeneity, while subgrouping to weaken stereotypes by highlighting within group diversity ○​ Intersectionality (Kimberlee Crenshaw) → people are members of multiple social categories that overlap/intersect ​ Double Jeopardy → multiple subordinate identities lead to compounded disadvantages (Black women in leadership). ​ Rosette & Livingston (2012) ​ Intersectional Invisibility → Individuals with multiple subordinate identities may be overlooked or ignored ​ Causes: ​ Imagined defaults: ○​ Androcentrism– imagining the generic person as male ○​ Ethnocentrism– imagining the generic person as White ○​ Heterocentrism– imagining the generic person as heterosexual ○​ People with 2+ subordinate identities are less salient category members ​ Stereotype congruence: ○​ Intersectionality Prototypicality Model (Wong & McCullough 2021): ○​ Galinsky, Hall, Cuddy (2013): congruence between gender stereotypes and racial stereotypes ○​ Intersectional Invisibility → intersectional identities can make people hyper prototypical or hypo prototypical ​ Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach (2008): people with multiple subordinate identities will be ignored ​ Galinsky, Hall, Cuddy (2013): hyper vs hypo-prototypicality in dating Walzer & Czopp 2011: Able But Unintelligent: Including Positively Stereotyped Black Subgroups in the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) ​ IV: Black subgroup type (athletes vs. musicians). ​ DV: Warmth, competence-talent, competence-intelligence ratings. ​ Hypothesis: Black subgroups are seen as talented but not intelligent or warm. ​ Methods: 110 participants rated traits, competition, and status on 5-point scales. ​ Results: High competence-talent, low warmth and competence-intelligence; status predicted talent, not intelligence. ​ Discussion: Positive stereotypes limit broader power and obscure prejudice. Book Notes: Chapter 1: Introducing the Concepts of Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination ​ Race as a Social Construct: Race is not biological but socially defined, influencing power structures and stereotypes. ​ Cultural Influences on Prejudice: Culture subtly shapes biases, attitudes, and perceptions, often without conscious awareness. ​ Group Privilege: Unearned advantages conferred by belonging to dominant groups (e.g., race, gender, class). ​ Intersectionality: How overlapping identities (e.g., race, gender) create unique experiences of discrimination. ​ Historical Views of Ethnic Groups: Shifting societal perceptions of immigrants and minorities over time. ​ Stereotype Evolution: How historical events (e.g., 9/11) reshape group stereotypes and prejudices. Chapter 2: How Psychologists Study Prejudice and Discrimination ​ Research on Implicit Bias: Techniques like the Implicit Association Test measure unconscious prejudice. ​ Formulating Hypotheses: Research begins with everyday observations or theoretical questions about biases. ​ Measuring Prejudice: Tools and methods (e.g., surveys, experiments) for assessing stereotypes and discrimination. ​ Research Strategies: Comparative advantages of experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies. ​ Drawing Conclusions: The importance of interpreting research data in context to avoid biased conclusions. ​ Theory and Practice: Using theoretical models to design interventions for reducing prejudice. Chapter 3: Social Categorization and Stereotypes ​ Social Categorization: The cognitive process of grouping people based on observable traits like race or gender. ​ Basic Social Categories: Fundamental groups like race, gender, and age that influence snap judgments. ​ Subtypes in Stereotyping: Nuanced categories within broader groups (e.g., “career woman,” “macho man”). ​ Transmission of Stereotypes: How societal norms and media perpetuate stereotypic beliefs. ​ Stereotype Accuracy Debate: Whether stereotypes reflect group traits or are primarily biased. ​ Prototypicality: How closely someone’s features match the "typical" traits of a group affects their categorization. ​ Categorization Ambiguity: Challenges in classifying individuals with mixed or unclear group memberships. ​ Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Processing: Categorization based on prior knowledge (top-down) versus immediate traits (bottom-up).