Chapter 7-14 PDF

Chapter 7- Persuasion Persuasion is difficult because there are barriers to modifying attitudes and behaviors. Having people alter old habits or give up preferences takes a lot of work. Social psychologisgts suggest that there are two ways to persuade people: 1. Elaboration likelihood model(ELM)...

Chapter 7- Persuasion Persuasion is difficult because there are barriers to modifying attitudes and behaviors. Having people alter old habits or give up preferences takes a lot of work. Social psychologisgts suggest that there are two ways to persuade people: 1. Elaboration likelihood model(ELM) by Richard perry and John Cacioppo- 1980s. → aim: to explain how people change their attitudes in response to persuasive messages → People sometimes register persuasive messages on autopilot(without realising) while others process these messages attentively and controllively. → this model captures the idea that in trying to predict whether a persuasive message will be effective, it is important to know if the target audience is more likely to “elaborate”- think deeply about the message or process it mindlessly. → according to ELM, the central route to persuasion is to think elaborately and effectively by using your own relevant information (such as memories, experiences, knowledge) to asses the logic of the argument presented in the persusive message. → Therefore the factors that would promote attitude change in a central route would be the quality of the argument. → ELM peripheral route, people regularly look at the superficial parts of the persuasive message like the credibility, attractiveness of the person relaying the message. Or the number and leanbgth of arguments. → when a persuasive argument has personal consequences or applies to you personally, people are more likely to go the central route, however when the argument is presented too quickly or hard to comprehend, people are more likely to go the peripheral route. → variables of a persuasive message can play multiple roles and may influence persuasion through either the central of peripheral route depending on the circumstances → Is one route more effective than the other? Yes. for long-lasting attitude changes, the central route is more preferable because you are spending more time in evaluating the argument. Subliminal messages: these are messages that are hidden(in songs or subliminally primed with words), however, they can be persuasive or suggestive based on what the person is going through. Source characteristics of a persuasive message: 1. Attractiveness: Attractive celebrities are usually the face of many causes through commercials, motivational speeches, donations. This is because attractivbe communicators can promote attitude changes through the peripheral route. → attractive sources can lead to persuasion through the central and peripheral route 2. Credibility: credible sources persuade people to trust more in a certain product or argument. This is applied in the peripheral route when people are not that interested or have no personal connection with the message. If a person is taking the central route,  havinga credible source present in the argument can positively impact their opinion in being persuaded. → However, it is proven that non-credibility may not negatively impact persuasion. Ex: experiment by Hovland and Weiss 1951. People were presented with an article saying that the first submarine nuclear machine would be built in the near future. One article was from a credible source and the other wasnt. At first everyone believed the credible source, however they found that later on that the participants who had read the non credible article shifted their attitudes towards the position of the article. This is known as the sleeper effect, messages fro, unreliable sources initially dont exert influence but overtime, people dissasociate from the source of the message from the message and has potential to shift peoples attitudes. The sleeper effect can also be applied to a highly credible source having a weak message (overtime the message will become persuasive as the credible source will be dissassociated from teh message). 3. Certainty: sources that present their view with confidence and certainty are more likely to be persuasive. Ex: (wells, ferguson, and lindsey 1981) jurors judge the credibility of eyewitnesses based on how confident they sound when they give their testimony. Message quality: When an argument is clear, logical, connects with the viewers core values, has a conclusion, gives an opposing argument to show the viewer the opposition. IT IS PERSUASIVE → messages are also more persuasive when it argues against the soruces own self interest. EX: in 1966, darcy abrahams and more discovered that it is more persuasive when a prisoner argues for longer prisons sentences rather than shorter ones. These messages sound more sincere because it gioes against their own self interest. Vivid: when a message is more colorful, interesting, and memorable it tends to be more persuasive. → Identifiable victim effect: when promoting a donation fund, vivid, flesh and blood victims are often more powerful tool of persuasion that abstract arts or statistics. Ppl are mor elikely to be persuaded to give money if there is an identifiable human behind the campaign. FEAR: the right kind of fear in a message can incite long lasting attitude change while intense fear can disrupt central route thinking. EX: when wanting people to act now for climate crisis, should you add fear to the message by giving the consequences CULTURE: it is important to tailor a message to the values and norms ur audience has. EX: difference between american ads and korean ads is that american ads usually focuses on the benefits to the individual, whereas korean ads focused on the benefits to the collective. Audience characteristics: Need for cognition: some ppl like to ponder, deeply think about arguments, while others are persuaded by more easier to process arguments. Mood: its easier to persuade someone when they are in a good mood. Studies show that when ppl are exposed to messages when they are eating food or listening to music they are more perceptive to being persuaded and having their attitude change. Studies show that a message tends to be more persuasive when the mood of the messages matches the mood of teh auydience. EX: pessimistic and counterattitudinal(arguing against the prevailing attitude of the audience) messages prompt greater central route thinking in sad or depressed people, while uplifting, optimistic, proattitudinal messages prompt greater central route for happy people. Age: people of younger age are mor elikely to be persuaded by a message. This is because theyre minds can easily be changed. Knowing your audience: tailoring your message to the audience. Media broadcasts: these public broadcasts dotn just get attention because it reaches a wide audience, instead it gets attention because of the awareness that a large number of other people are viewing the same broadcast at the same time. This makes ppl inclimned the process the broadcast more deeply leading to a central route process. Influence of media: shapes our conception of social reality. EX: even if an advertisement does not pursue us to buy a certain object, it canmake us believe that happiness lies in m,aterialistic pursuits. AGENDA CONTROL: efforts by the media to emphasize certaine vents and topics, which then shapes what the issues and events we think is important or not. Agenda control in films: the beguild lacked racial diversity, it was critisized for not including an african american actor to play the role of a black character from the book its based on. This biased media portrayal resu,ts in misleading portraits of the world. Media bias: conservatives use the term “lamestream media” to define liberal bias. EX: expirement by Robert Vallone and others in 1985, suggests that we all tend to believe Hostile media phenomenon: tendency for people to believe that media coverage that goes against their own beliefs is biased. When we learn that a specific habit of ours is dangerous for our health, our minds respond selectively to information in a way that maintains our initial stance. This can be separated into three different concepts: selective attention, selective evaluation, and selective framing. selective attention: our minds selectively attend to information that reinforces our attitudes while tuning out info that contradicts them. Ex: people were forced to listen to a recording of arguments against and pro legalization of mariguana with a static buzz in the backround, people who were pro legalization would use the button to stop the buzz from interrupting the message when it was saying an argument that supported their views. Same with the people in favor of non legalization. Echo chambers: "an environment where a person only encounters information or opinions that reflect and reinforce their own." selective evaluation: ppl tend to evaluate credibility of source or soundness of an argument in ways that support their existing beliefs and values. Ex: Someone who believes the importance of climate change is exaggerated is more likely to see a flaw with an article that urges action to combat global warming than is someone who believes that climate change is a defining issue of the times. selective framing: framing issues in a manner that shines a positive light in issues we support and a more negative light in issues we oppose. For example, proponents of abortion frame the issue in terms of choice (“pro-choice”), whereas opponents of abortion frame the issue in terms of life (“pro-life”). Final remarks: Given our tendency to selectively attend to, evaluate, and frame messages and issues in ways that support our preexisting attitudes, it’s no surprise that media effects often produce little in the way of attitude change. Most messages, it would seem, end up mainly preaching to the choir. Thought Polorization hypothesis: more extended thought about a particular issue tends to produce a more extreme and hard to change attitude. Ex: tesser(1975) measured measured participants’ attitudes about social issues, such as legalizing prostitution (Tesser & Conlee, 1975). He then had them think for a few moments about the issue. When they stated their opinions about the same issue a second time, they routinely gave stronger ratings; both opponents and proponents stated more extreme versions of their original positions. Prior knowledge makes people confront persuasive messages by the central route, thereby leading them to scrutinize those messages carefully. People with a great deal of knowledge are more resistant to persuasion; their beliefs and habits (and sometimes emotions) are tied up with their attitudes, and thus their point of view tends to be fixed. This insight has been repeatedly borne out in the experimental literature. EX: wendy wood (1982) divided students into two groups: one group was pro preservation and had prior knowledge and the other group who was propreservation and didnt have prior knowledge. They were shown a anti preservation campaign and Those with a lot of knowledge changed their stance a little bit and those with now prior knowledge while those with little knowledge changed their attitudes considerably towards the anti preservation campaign. Attitudes held from moral convictiosna re called Moral mandates. These attitudes are more difficult to sway by persuasion because ppl view them as universally and objectively true and they usually distance themselves from ppl who have opposing views. A way to persuade someone with moral mandates: MORAL REFRAMING: framing a position in terms of moral principles that the target values. Ex: to persuade conservatives to support same sex marriage, u might frame an appeal in terms of patriotism like “gay americans are patriotic americans” rather than equality like “ gay americans should have equal rights”, given that conservatives value patriotism rather than equality. Attitude inoculation: small attacks on ppls beliefs that would engage our preexisting attitudes, commitments and background knowledge, enabling them to counteract attack which leads to more resistance to persuasion. Chapter 8- social influence Homophily- the tendency for people to associate with people who are like them and act in a similar manner. There are three types of social influence: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience. Conformity: a change in a persons attitude or behavior to align with other peoples views in response to explicit( clearly stated) and implicit (understood but not directly stated) pressures from others. - Informational social influence: when people conform to gain knowledge, or because they believe that someone else is 'right' - Normative social influence: people conform to others to avoid dissapprovala nd other social sanctions. Conformity is dependent on group characteristics: the larger the group size, the greater the influence. However only up to four people. Unanimous groups(where everyone agrees) exert more pressure to conform than those with a single dissenter do(when someone holds an opposing view than everyone else) do. The greater the expertise and status of the members, the greater the influence. - People from interdependent cultures are mor elikely to conform since they are usually pressured to obey rules and follow a leader, however independant cultures are les slikely to do so. - Sometimes minority views can be influential if their argument and view is consistent. Compliance: involves responding favorably to clear explicit requests made by others. - Approaches to compliance include the Foot in the door technique: when a person first asks a small easy to do request before making amore substantial request. This leads to the persona ggreeing to the more substantial request due to the need to be consistent after agreeing to the first request. Social norms approach This approach focuses on promoting positive behaviors and attitudes that are common in a group. It aims to correct misperceptions about social norms and influence behavior in a positive way. The approach avoids scare tactics and moralistic messages. It can be used in public health to motivate people to adopt social norms that lead to positive health and wellbeing. Normative approach This value-based approach to building communities is based on the assumption that people want to belong, have a sense of purpose, and experience success - Normative based approaches to compliance take advantag eof the fact that people tend to look for guidance on how to behave. - Descriptive norms: how people behave in certain contexts - Prescriptive norms: how people should behave in certain contexts Norm of reciprocity: doing a favor for someone who may then feel obligated to do a favor for you in return.  - Compliance may also result from a desire for negative state relief because an act of compliance can reduce guilt or sadness. Obedience: submitting to the demands of someone in authority. - Teh study of obedience had been dominated by the milgram experiments which showed how people will go along with harmful demands of an authority - Various factors can help a person resist social influence: reactance theory: a threat to ones freedom of choice increases the desire to maintain it. Ability to improve to resist is to have an ally, practice and to take longer in replying to an emotional based appeal. Chapter 9- Relationships and attraction - Self selection in an experiment: When participants “select” their own condition, researchers can’t know with complete confidence whether an observed difference between two conditions is a reflection of the different experiences of the people in those conditions or if it’s simply that different types of people gravitate to each of the two conditions. Researchers must rely on longitudinal methods to examine the dynamics that unfold over time in preexisting relationships. - Non humans and humans have the need to belong: ex: harry harlow 1959, raised monkeys without contact to the mother or other monkeys. Instead there were robotic surrogate mothers, one had fur to comfort the baby monkey and one had milk to feed it. The monkeys preferred the mother who provided comfort rather than food. They turned out to be rlly weird (highly fearful, didnt know hope to communicate)around other monkeys and did not grow up right. Other ex: mortality rates are higher for widowed, divorced and single ppl. - Having support from others contribute to good health, strengthening cardiovascular health. - A person directly connected to a lonely person become lonely over time. Communal relationship: two people often feel a special responsible for one another, and expect this relationship to be long term. These friendships are based on a family like “oneness”. Ex: family and close friends. Exchange relationship: short term, trade based, what you put into the relationship is what you get back. - Both of these relationshupos are proven to be based on rewards. In other words ppl tend to like other people who make them feel good. Social exchange theory: based on the idea that how people feel about a relationship depends on their assessments of its costs and awards. Chapter 10- Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination Intro -Violence against Asian Americans since Covid.-different types of violence, countrywide (USA). The role of Donald Trump. Breaking tweet records. -History of Anti-asian racism, mid-1800’s. Perception of threat (economic and other). Examples: Chinese Railroad workers, Japanese internment camps, covid-reated violence. Anti-hate legislation and the need to address the root causes of anti-Asian racism. Laws can address behaviour, but for stereotypes and prejudice, they involve beliefs and emotions that are very hard to legislate. They often bias people’s judgement and decisions automatically, without their awareness. The basis of intergroup bias: stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. 3 broad perspectives for underlying causes: economic, motivational, cognitive. -WEIRD samples Characterizing Intergroup Bias stereotypes—beliefs that certain attributes are characteristic of members of particular groups. Stereotyping is a way of categorizing people (Y. Lee, Jussim, & McCauley, 1995). It involves thinking about a person not as an individual, but as a member of a group, and projecting your beliefs about the group onto that person. Can be positive or negative, and largely true or entirely false. The focus of social psychologists is more on the stereotypes that are most likely to lead to pernicious forms of prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice- An attitudinal and affective response toward a group and its individual members. Negative attitudes generally get the most attention, but it’s also possible to be positively prejudiced toward a group. Prejudice involves prejudging others because they belong to a specific category. Discrimination refers to favorable or unfavorable actions directed toward members of a group. It involves unfair treatment of others based not on their individual character or abilities but strictly on their group membership. -The three often go together but don't have to. ingroup favoritism can arise even when there isn’t any hostility toward different outgroups. Sometimes, of course, statements such as “I have nothing against them, but...” merely cover up underlying bigotry. At other times, they are truly sincere and don’t reflect any bad intent—but they can cause insult and injury nonetheless (L. Gaertner et al., 2006; Lowery et al., 2006). Contemporary Prejudice Conflicting beliefs-between true thought and what they should believe. Beliefs and values. Abstract beliefs and gut level reactions. Some responses to members of other groups are nonconscious and automatic and may differ considerably from peoples' more thought out and explicit beliefs and attitudes. Shift in theoretical approach- due to the changing nature of prejudice. Subtle forms of racism coexisting with old-fashioned racism. Growing number of white supremacist groups. While subtler forms of prejudice may be more prevalent today, old fashioned forms have not and may be growing. Modern Racism (Dovidio and Gaertner): although White people may reject explicit racist beliefs, they still feel animosity toward Black people or are highly suspicious of them and uncomfortable dealing with them. They hold strong egalitarian values but harbor unacknowledged negative feelings and attitudes that stem from ingroup favoritism and desire to defend the status quo. Their expression of prejudice depends on the situation. If they cant justify or disguise their discriminatory action, their responses will conform to egalitarian values. Black/White study on helping people: White participants helped a lot when they were alone, but in a group, they helped Black people much less than White people. ie. “masked discrimination”. Modern Racism scale. College admissions experiment. Theories of contemporary prejudice foreground the contradictions that underpin race relations today. the fact that explicit egalitarian beliefs are often accompanied by implicit negative attitudes can impose a cognitive burden on members of stigmatized groups when they are interacting with majority-group members. Expressions of subtle bias, unlike clear, outright bias, force the targets of the bias to devote cognitive resources to discerning the meaning and intentions of majority-group members' behaviour, they are left with fewer cognitive resources for other activities and tasks. -Study on sexism and studying the results of names could be from nameism. Don’t choose mens and womens names that are the same but instead, names that are equally liked. “Benevolent” Racism and Sexism: “isms” can be ambivalent, containing both negative and positive features. Ie: Asians at math, women being soft. Holders of such beliefs are able to deny any prejudice. Positive aspects of ambivalent attitudes can also disarm their targets. Ex: men conveying sense of warmth to mask mens more hostile sexual beliefs. Those who hold ambivalent attitudes tend to act positively toward members of groups only if those members fulfill their idealized image of what such people should be like. Benevolent can be just as damaging as hostile sexism. Measuring Attitudes About Groups 2 ways to ask how people feel about various groups: 1. List trait adjectives and ask participants to indicate which ones they believe characterize members of different groups. 2. Self-report questionnaires that ask participants about their attitudes and beliefs towards different groups. Ex. Modern racism scale, attitudes towards Black scale, sexual prejudice scale etc. These surveys cannot always be trusted as it is hard to tap into people's true beliefs through self-reporting. Researchers created a number of indirect, non-self-reported measures of prejudice and stereotyping. 1)The Implicit Association Test- words or pictures are presented on a computer screen and he respondent presses a certain key with the left hand if it conforms to one rule, and a certain key with the right hand if it conforms to another rule. Respondents would be faster to press key for members of one group if the words correspond to the stereotype of the group compared to if the words didnt. Example: Heightened neural activity in the amygdala when seeing Black faces. When are IAT scores likely to predict meaningful behaviour? It depends on the degree of correspondence between the specific attitudes assessed by an IAT and the exact behavior of interest. 2) Priming and Implicit Prejudice. Priming: mental activation procedures. An implicit measure of prejudice can be derived by comparing a persons average reaction time to real and made-up words that are positive or negative in valence when preceded by faces of members of a given category (compared with control trials in which positive and negative words are preceded by people not in that category). One shouldn't assume that people are lying when they deny such prejudices, they may simply not have conscious access to many of their true attitudes and beliefs. The affect misattribution procedure (AMP): measures how people evaluate a stimulus after a given prime instead of how quickly they respond to it. Looking at neutral imagery after seeing a person from the in group and outgroup and measuring their difference in evaluation. Whether the rating of neutral imagery is lower after seeing outgroup primer. The Economic Perspective The economic perspective identifies the roots of intergroup hostility in competing interests that can pit groups against each other. The motivational perspective emphasizes the psychological needs that lead to intergroup conflict. The cognitive perspective traces the origins of stereotyping to the same cognitive processes that enable people to categorize, say, items of furniture into distinct classes of chairs, couches, and tables. -competing for resources can lead to groups discriminating and developing prejudices. This is known as realistic group conflict theory. Prejudice and discrimination increase under periods of economic difficulty. They are also strongest amongst groups with the most to lose from another groups economic advance. Group conflict: 1. Ethnocentrism- the other group is vilified and one’s own group is gloried. As outgroup is treated badly, loyalty to the ingroup intensifies. The Robbers Cave Experiment: 1st stage fostered group unity. Second phase was the tournament with trashtaking and rivalry intensifying. Intergroup hostility beyond words. For third stage, hostility did not dissipate in non-competitive environment. Challenges were made that forced cooperation. The hostility produced by five days of competition was erased by the joint pursuit of common goals. Lessons: differences in background or appearance are not necessary for intergroup conflict to exist. Competition against outsiders often increases group cohesion. This tendency is often supported by political demagogues. For intergroup hostility to diminish, groups should work together to fulfill common goals. Just being together isn’t really enough. Superordinate goals: goals that can only be achieved by working together. Jigsaw Classroom- balanced groups of 6 students. Teaching each other the content. Working together as individuals, not representatives. The Motivational Perspective The mere existence of another group can put a group on high alert. Territoriality became more pronounced. The existence of group boundaries among any collection of individuals can be sufficient to initiate group discrimination. The Minimal Group Paradigm: technique pioneered by Henri Tajfel. the investigators could determine whether participants assigned points equally to members of the ingroup and outgroup, whether they instead maximized the total point payout regardless of group membership, or whether they maximized the points given to the ingroup over the outgroup, even if the ingroup could have gotten more points through other choices that would have given the outgroup more points as well. The majority of participants are interested more in maximizing the relative gain for members of their ingroup over the outgroup than they are in maximizing absolute gain. Participants tend to favour the minimalist ingroup, even at a cost to the ingroup. Us vs. them. Social Identity Theory: Not all motivations are economic and with the minimal group paradigm does not hold any meaningful economic implications. The most widely recognized theory that attempts to explain the ubiquity of ingroup favouritism is social identity theory: our self-esteem comes not only from our personal identity and accomplishments but also from the status and accomplishments of the various groups we belong to. Ex: maple syrup vs honey. Ingroup favoritism, caused by the desire to boost group status and fortunes. We know this from studies that assess participants' self esteem after an opportunity to exhibit in-group favoritism in the minimal group situation. People who take particularly strong pride in their group affiliations are more prone to ingroup favoritism when placed in a minimal group situation. People who are highly identified with the particular group react to criticism of the group as if it were a criticism of the self. People feel especially motivated to identify with groups and to derive self-esteem from group memberships when they feel uncertain about their own attitudes, values, feelings and place in the world. Basking in reflected glory: tendency to identify with a winning team. Ex: wearing school colors after winning, not so much after losing. Using first and third person references. It affects our self esteem. Ex. political winners keeping their yard signs up. While basking in reflected is to use ingroup identity to boost self-esteem, denigrating the other team also boosts self-esteem. Feeling down on oneself can make a person more likely to denigrate the outgroup. Example: Praise or criticism from a Black doctor. if the participants were thinking of their evaluator primarily as a doctor, they would recognize the medical words faster; if they were thinking of their evaluator primarily as a Black man, they would recognize the words related to the Black stereotypes faster. When White Americans or Canadians are made aware of the changing racial demographics of their country, they express more negative attitudes toward other racial and ethnic groups, exhibit increased implicit pro-White bias, and show less interest in affiliating with members of non-White groups (Craig & Richeson, 2014a; Outten et al., 2012). The Cognitive Perspective From the cognitive perspective, stereotyping is inevitable. It stems from the ubiquity and necessity of categorization. It simplifies the task of taking in and processing the incredible volume stimuli surrounding us. People are more likely to fall back on stereotypes when they lack mental energy. Ex: intoxicated people saying stereotypical things. It also frees up cognitive energy to be used elsewhere. If people suspect that a particular group of people might differ from other groups in some way, it is shockingly easy to construe information about an individual in a way that confirms that suspicion. The stereotype is then strengthened due to “confirmation” by the bias observations. Illusory correlations: when people “see” correlations or relationships between events, characteristics, or categories that are not actually related. They can arise for many reasons , sometimes the result of how we process unusual or distinctive events. Because we are likely to remember them better, they may be overrepresented in our memories Has important implications for the kind of stereotypes that are usually associated with minority groups as they are distinctive by definition and stand out. Negative behaviors are also distinctive as they are much less common. Thus, when minority members engage in negative behaviour, it is double distinctive and doubly memorable. Paired distinctiveness: The pairing of two distinctive events that stand out because they occur together. When participants “detected” false correlations based on the distinctiveness of both minority-group members and negative behaviour, this is known as the distinctiveness- based illusory correlation. Can take place with even just one observation. Minority-group members tend to be somewhat novel to the majority and that people are wired to associate novel groups with whichever of their attributes are relatively rare amongst the population at large. In another country you are more likely to think of the locals in terms of their unique attributes instead of the attributes they share with everyone else. “We associate novel groups with rare attributes. In a world in which people do more positive, pro-social things that negative, antisocial things, smaller or unfamiliar groups run the risk of unfairly being seen less positively than more common and familiar groups.” People are more likely to generalize behaviours and traits that they already suspect may be typical of the groups members. Stereotypes are self-reinforcing: Actions that are consistent with an existing stereotype are noticed, deemed significant, and remembered, whereas actions that are at variance with the stereotype may be ignored, dismissed, or quickly forgotten. Experiment: Black-White men arguing with shove. Race made a difference in how participants interpreted the action. “information that’s consistent with a group stereotype typically has more of an impact than information that’s inconsistent with it.” Self Fulfilling prophecies: when people act toward members of certain groups in ways that encourage the various behaviour they expect to see from those groups. Experiment: Black applicants. by treating Black applicants differently and thus placing them at a disadvantage, the White interviewers confirmed their negative stereotypes of them. The way people respond to disconfirmation of their stereotypes depends on a variety of factors, including a person's emotional investment in a stereotype, whether the stereotype is specific to the person who holds it or is widely shared. Why do we hold onto stereotypes even when there is information disconfirming them? Subtyping: When people remain unmoved by apparent disconfirmations of their stereotypes because anyone who acts at variance with the stereotype is simply walled off into a category of “exceptions”. People treat evidence that supports a stereotype differently from evidence that refutes it. “The more concrete the description, the less it says about the person involved and the more abstract the description, the more it says about the person involved. Example: palio People encode events consistent with their preexisting stereotypes (both positive events associated with the ingroup and negative events associated with the outgroup) at a more abstract, and therefore more meaningful, level than events that are inconsistent with preexisting stereotypes. Accentuation of Ingroup Similarity and Outgroup Difference Although an arbitrary national border can’t affect the weather at a fixed location, arbitrary categorical boundaries can significantly affect how we perceive things. Indeed, research has shown that merely dividing a continuous distribution into two groups leads people to see less variability within each group and more variability between the two groups. The pure act of categorization can distort judgment. Outgroup homogeneity effect: When we assume that the members of an outgroups are more similar to one another, whereas the members of an ingroup are more individual and diverse. Ex: Princeton and Tutgers. People see more variability in the attributes, habits, and opinions of members of their own group than they do among members of outgroups. Reasons: More contact with members of our ingroup and thus, more opportunities to encounter evidence of divergent opinions and habits among ingroup members. The nature of our interactions with ingroup and outgroups are likely to be different. Own-race identification bias: people interact with members of their own race as individuals, without thinking about race, so the individual features of the person in question are processed more deeply. Automatic and Controlled Processing The electroencephalogram (EEG) assesses event-related potential (ERP). ERP signals are amplified when the brain detects incongruities and thus, can serve as an unobtrusive measure of the activation of stereotypes. -our reactions to different groups of people are, to a surprising degree, guided by quick and automatic mental processes that we can override but not eliminate. The findings also highlight the common discrepancy between our immediate, reflexive reactions to outgroup members and our more reflective responses. What separates prejudiced and unprejudiced people is not whether they are aware of derogatory stereotypes but whether they accept or reject those stereotypes. Even though both prejudiced and unprejudiced people may know the same negative stereotypes of Black people (as shown in the first part of Devine’s study), those who are prejudiced believe them and are sometimes willing to voice those beliefs, whereas those who are not prejudiced reject them. Reducing Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination Individual Approaches to Prejudice Reduction -When people interact freely, it becomes easier to see others as individuals rather than as representatives of particular groups. -broad economic developments and specific legal interventions. Using media or school programs to promote acceptance of outgroups. School-reading programs. Social Media: criticism was effective in reducing racist online behavior—but only when it was delivered by a high-status ingroup member (i.e., a fellow Twitter user who was White and had many followers). Also, the reduction in racist behavior held mainly in the short term, gradually fading over the two-month period. This work indicates that social norms communicated via social media can be effective in reducing prejudice, but it also suggests that such effects may hinge on certain conditions being met and may be relatively short-lived. -Cognitive and emotional training: perspective taking, loving kindness meditation. Intergroup Approaches to Prejudice Reduction Ex. military segregation. Those who served in semi integrated units expressed little resistance to the idea of fighting alongside their Black countrymen. Contact hypothesis: prejudice can be reduced if members of different groups are in frequent contact with one another. This is not a magical solution to intergroup conflict. Brown vs Topeka: increase in prejudice after schools were integrated. Contact between different groups is likely to be more positive and productive if certain conditions are met: 1. Equal status 2. Shared goal that requires cooperation ( a superordinate goal) 3. Community support 4. Encouragement of one-on-one interactions between members of different groups. When these conditions are met, contact between members of different groups is effective in reducing prejudice. When the conditions are met: 1. Personalization: people begin to see members of the outgroup as individuals rather than as stereotyped, undifferentiated members of a social category. 2. a person’s positive feelings for particular outgroup members may generalize to the outgroup as a whole. In other words, they do not subtype. 3. Sharing of a common identity. Example: Seeds of peace campers. The Role of Diversity Ideologies in Prejudice Reduction Multiculturalism: views culture and ethnicity as central to people’s identities. It argues that these identities should be acknowledged, appreciated, and maintained and that people should strive to learn about cultural and ethnic differences. Cons: Can elicit feelings of exclusion amongst White people. Can be seen by high-status group members as an identity threat. Can also increase race essentialism: the belief that racial-group differences are biologically based and immutable. Minority spotlight effect: minority-group identities become uncomfortable salient. Organizational diversity structures that promote multiculturalism can have counterproductive effects of concealing and de-legitimizing claims of racial discrimination. Framing multicultural initiatives in an all-inclusive manner is associated with greater receptiveness among majority group members. Colorblindness: views culture and ethnicity as skin deep. It thus argues that these identities should be downplayed or ignored and that people should treat others as unique individuals. Cons: Unfortunately, a deliberate blindness to cultural differences can lead to more prejudice and discrimination. views culture and ethnicity as skin deep. It thus argues that these identities should be downplayed or ignored and that people should treat others as unique individuals -Multiculturalism has an edge over colorblindness for reducing prejudice and improving intergroup relations. Diversity Training: lots of money spent on it ($16 billion by Fortune 500 companies annually) but not so much on systematic assessments of program effectiveness. Little evidence that institutions with diversity training actually hire more people from minority groups or are any better at retention. MAy also make it less likely that discrimination complaints will be effective. “The key to positive intergroup relations is contact that maintains equal status, interdependence, and cooperation. -Hire more members from underrepresented groups -Have them work with members from advantage groups on tasks that require cooperative input from everyone. -For retention, advertise in outlets that are read by members of minority groups, don’t emphasize institutional diversity. Also, hire people recommended by the institution's employees who are members of those groups. Chapter 11- Living in a Prejudiced World. -Christian and Amy Cooper- bird watching incident. This chapter focus on the victims of prejudices. Social dominance theory: takes the hierarchical structure of all societies as a given. Tries to account for how hierarchical societies remain stable and endure over very long periods of time. Societies tendencies tend to be based on age, gender and an “arbitrary set” that takes different forms in different societies (ethnicity, religion, race). Main focus is specifying the social and psychological structures that evolve to prevent tensions from erupting into a destabilizing conflict. Social dominance theory posits that although some members of dominant groups will devote considerable energy and resources to making the world more equitable, dominant groups as a whole tend to act in ways that maintain their advantage. Hierarchies are kept in place through: Individual discrimination: individuals in dominant groups act to preserve their advantage and to keep subordinate groups “in their place”. Connection to hierarchy: ex. Majority-minority fears and/or great replacement theory. Institutional discrimination: laws and norms preserve the hierarchy.  Behavioural asymmetries: deference shown to members of dominant but not subordinate groups. Self fulfilling prophecies undermine the achievements of members of subordinate groups. Scale of social dominance orientation- higher scores= more willingness to express prejudiced attitudes and more inclined to endorse policies that preserve existing hierarchies. In the theory, even people who score low on the scale and don’t like inequality can still remain “untroubled by evidence of institutional discrimination if they buy into ideological tenets or legitimizing myths, that can make unequal treatment seem highly desirable. Many of the assumptions baked into sexism, racism, and ethnocentrism make it easier to accept stark inequalities because they justify why those in the dominant group have so much more than those in subordinate groups do. Stereotypes about who is and isn’t productive or virtuous govern who is and isn’t thought to be deserving. (ex. Longer prison sentences for crack, refusal to issue mortgages in black neighbourhoods, manifest destiny. Believing in Strict Meritocracy, a Just World, and Economic Mobility. Meritocracy connotes that some people merit more than others do. “The cream rises to the top” Just world hypothesis: the belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get. (ex. victim blaming after rape or domestic abuse). Goes as far as to blame the “past life”. A way of dealing with the twists and turns of life. Stories of the cream rising to the top leads us to believe their is more mobility than there actually is, and that society is more meritocratic than it actually is. Beliefs in meritocracy, in a just world, and in pronounced mobility make it easier for all of us to accept the inequalities we see around us and they remove any incentive to challenge the social, cultural, and political systems that produce them. Note that these beliefs need not be consciously held to make us blind or indifferent to the pervasive inequalities in the world. Even worse is Dehumanization: the conviction, conscious or not, that someone or some group of people lacks the complex emotions and capacity for agency that are characteristic of humanity. Common and tragic, has led to some of the worst violence. We need to be alarmed whenever we hear dehumanizing language (ex. Zsolt Bayer, Trump, Experiment with fMRI machine showed that many people are viewed as less than human given the differences in activity around the medial prefrontal cortex from participants. The opposite is anthromorphism: the attribution of human qualities to non-human entities. We anthromorphize things to the extent that they resemble human beings. (ex. Wilson in Cast Away, Siri or Alexa). The Stereotype Content Model: underlying structure of stereotypes. It positis that the nature of different stereotypes varies systematically depending on how the groups in question are evaluated on the dimensions of warmth and competence. Warmth- understanding someones intention reflects our assessment of their warmth. Then we judge them on whether they are able to act on their intentions, reflecting their competence. If you know someone competent, you want them to be a friend and not an enemy. The warmth/competence model is also of relevance to working women. Ambivalent stereotype: high in one dimension of the stereotype content model, but low in the other. Stereotypes of the Rich and Poor in a Polarized World of Increasing Economic Inequality Individuals with lower Socio Economic Status (SES) are sometimes viewed with contempt (lower left quadrant in Model) but more often with a paternalistic sympathy (upper left quadrant). The extent to which lower-SES individuals are viewed with contempt or condescension is influenced by the level of income inequality in society. People in more unequal societies are especially likely to see lower-SES individuals as lacking competence. Fits the tenets of social dominance theory, “the poor deserve to be poor because they lack competence”. Rich people on the other hand are seen as competent but cold. Same for politicians who are viewed as untrustworthy because: 1. Seen as captives for the rich 2. Their compromises seem unprincipled 3. Their priority is to get elected, not the national interest. Even institutions and professions are losing trust. Ex. “Varsity Blues” Effects of Prejudice on the Individual Common forms of prejudice and discrimination that involve commission and omission. Acts of commission: individuals engaging in actions that disadvantage or harm members of certain groups. Omissions: The absence of things, such as resources, opportunities, or mere attention, that are available to members of dominant groups. Bias in Policing: disproportionate police stops (more than 24 variables controlled), disproportionate use of respectful language (speech recorded from body cams), Educators watching videotape of pre-school kids, fuzzy gun (recognizing more quickly after seeing Black faces). These are all fine analyses and controlled experiments studying bias. Bias in Hiring -Applications with Black and White names (White names received 50 percent more callbacks than those with Black names)(association with lower SES is itself a source of hiring bias too). -Bias against foreign sounding names too. Or religious affiliations (ex. Muslim student orgs). Bias in What is absent or withheld -Attention- less of it towards marginalized groups. Watch others turn attention away from them. Familiar to people with “intersectional identities”. Ex. “One isn’t just Asian, one is an Asian man, woman, or nonbinary person; upper, middle, or working class; straight, gay, bisexual, or asexual; and so on”. Black Feminist Slogan: “All the women are White and all the Blacks are men.” The voices and images of Black women, in other words, tend to be especially underrepresented. Ex: study on the photos of faces of Black and White men and women. Study on memories of comments made. Offer credence to reports from intersectional individuals that they feel invisibilized and on the receiving end of more discriminatory treatment. -Example: Story of the Irish and the horrible prejudices they faced when they came to the U.S. -Italians, Poles, and Jews also faced this. Ethnic prejudices are very much written into American history and over time, the situation has changed. Members of marginalized groups also face challenges that stem not from direct mistreatment by others but from systemic inequities. They can even be observed at the level of temperature differences within the same city (due to where parks are built for instance). White collar crimes punished less severely than crimes from marginalized groups. 47% of exonerations for wrongful convictions are Black people (despite being 13% of the population). Taxes on labor compared to taxes on capital gains. Stereotypical facial features and the death penalty: One-drop legacy. Black faces with more stereotypically African features elicit prejudiced reactions more readily than faces with less stereotypical features do. Furthermore, both Black and White individuals with more stereotypically African features are assumed to have traits associated with common stereotypes of Black Americans (I. V. Blair et al., 2002). In the most consequential manifestation of this tendency, both Black and White convicts with stereotypically African features tend to receive harsher sentences than those with less stereotypically African features do (I. V. Blair, Judd, & Chapleau, 2004), and Black people accused of capital crimes are more likely to end up on death row if they have stereotypically African features (Eberhardt et al., 2006). Underrepresented groups- connotes an absence. Ex: golden globes voting body with zero people of colour. Indigenous people on prime time U.S. television. 1979 church rock uranium spill. Being absent from broader culture has psychological consequences. librarian’s dilemma: Imagine that you are a librarian, and your library receives a book on Black women’s history. Where do you put it: in the Women’s History section or the Black History section? There are times in which intersectional individuals benefit from not being a prototypical member of either of their identity groups. Language can also be a determinant of what is present or absent. Many languages are androcentric, often using masculine terms. Language can be used to make sure some things (or people) will be more present in our minds and others will be absent, which can in turn empower some and disadvantage others. Ex. Yale University changing master to head, Inner Life of Members of Stereotyped Groups Attributional ambiguity: When one can’t tell whether their experiences have the same causes as the experiences of the majority-group members do or whether their experiences are instead the result of prejudice. Study on Black and White students receiving flattering or unflattering feedback when they thought they were being observed or not. Stereotype threat: the fear (usually from members of stigmatized groups) that one will confirm the stereotypes that others have about them and their group. The Cost of Concealment: Ian Thorpe- Australian swimmer. Concealment can have negative health consequences and openness can have positive ones. The Effects of Stereotypes and Prejudice on Social Interaction Interactions between members of different ethnic, racial, and socioeconomic groups can be challenging for several reasons: 1. Interactions don’t happen as often as within-group interactions do. This can be self-reinforcing. 2. Fear of “stepping on a landmine”. Fears tied to one's knowledge about what others might think about the groups to which they belong. Ex. White liberals emphasize warmth, Black conservatives emphasize competence. The Effects of Stereotypes and Prejudice on Society Support for the Social Safety net- people tend to be open to providing more generous public assistance to people in need if they believe those people are in front of their own racial, ethnic, or religious groups. Demographic fears about being replaced. members of dominant and marginalized groups tend to disagree about the level of inequality in society and about the amount of progress that’s been made in overcoming it. The reason that dominant and historically marginalized groups differ in such estimates is that they tend to measure progress differently. For dominant group members, they measure progress by looking at where historically marginalized groups are today compared to the past. For members of marginalized groups, they measure where they are now with where they want to be- equality. Marley Hypothesis: dominant and marginalized groups assessments tend to differ because members of the dominant group generally know less about the history of oppression and disadvantage suffered by other groups. Chapter 14- Morality, Altruism, and cooperation When we face life threats and harm, the better angels of our nature emerge. There are three of these “better angels”- Morality, Altruism, and Cooperation Morality: Moral judgements: what we consider to be right or wrong about human action and what we think deserves to be rewarded or punished. Having moral conviction without reason is called moral Dumbfounding. It suggests our intuitions, gut feelings guide our moral judgements. Ex: when rpesented with a scenario of incest and being ensured that there was no inbreeding and no one was hurt, people still replied with “I cant explain it but its just wrong.” Social intuitionist model of moral judgement:the idea that our moral judgements are product of fast emotional intuitions like thje gut feeling that incest is wrong which then influence how we reason towards a judgement between right and wrong. → moral judgments involve quick emotional responses followed by more deliberative reasoning Moral foundations theory: there are five universal moral domains in which specific emotions guide moral judgements.  1. care/harm foundation: concern for the suffering of others mainly people who are vulnerable. The moral intuitions underlying peoples concerns with care and harm are triggered by signs of vulnerability and pain, amd they create emotions such as sympathy. 2. Fairness/ reciprocity fopundation: focuses on concerns that others act in a just and fair way and it is triggered by unfair acts of scamming and deceiving. 3. Authority/respect foundation: honoring ones place in social hierarchies such as respecting the elderly and d respecting police officers and presidents. embarrassment and shame, signal status within social hierarchies and reinforce positions of authority. 4. Ingroup loyalty foundations: pertains to the commitments we make to those in the groups we belong to. It’s the foundation for strong, cohesive social collectives, and it evokes emotions such as group pride (loyalty) or rage (betrayal). 5. Purity/sanctity foundations: avoiding dangerous diseases and socially impure activities. Disgust is the emotion mostly associated with this foundation. Studies show that feelings of disgust emphasize that impure acts are morally wrong. Ex: feeling disgust of smoking strongly condems the act as immoral. Altruism: prosocial behavior that benefits others without regard for the consequences to oneself. - Ina ny altrusitic action, multiple motives are in play. Two are selfish motives and one is benefitting others. - First selfish motive is Social Reward: being valued by others in the form of award or praise. Ppl do act altruistically in order to receive praise. Recieveing praise gives people personal safety, however, people will sometimes try to outdo eachother in altruistic acts. - Second selfish motigve is personal distress: helpiong others to reduce their own distress. When we see another person in pain, it makes u feel pain and distress as well. This makes us want to relieve personal distress by helping the other person first to alleviate ur pain. - Third motive is Empathic concern: identifying with someone in need, including feeling and underdtanding what the other person is feeling. This could be why people with lower economic status helps out homeless people more. Trust and income growth: if we assume other ppl are altruistic and will treat us fairly, we will then be more generous with our time and resources. This behavior benefits a country as a whole. Researchers have found a link between trust and incom growth in nations around the world. Diffusion of responsibility: reluctant to offer help because you believe that someone will do it. People are more likely to help someone who ius more simmilar to themselves. In rural settings people are mor elikely to help while in urban settings they are not. This is because, there are a lot of people in urban settings so everyone has the bystander effect and lets someone else do it. In rural setting people actions are mor elikely to be observed by someone who klnows them which pressures them into helping. KIN selection: evolutionary strategy that favors behaviors that increase the chance of survival of genetic relatives. From the perspective of kin selection, people should be more likely to help those who share more of their genes—for example, by helping siblings more than first cousins, first cousins more than second cousins, and so on. By helping relatives survive, people help their own genes pass to future generations. Cooperation: In reciprocal altruism, people help others or grant favors in the belief that such bahviors will be reciprocated cooperatively in the future. - The prisoners dilemma, used to study cooperation, tempts participants to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of another person by defecting. The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment involving two rational agents, each of whom can either cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual gain. The dilemma arises from the fact that while defecting is rational for each agent, cooperation yields a higher payoff for each. The puzzle was designed by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher in 1950 during their work at the RAND Corporation. - People look for non verbal cues that soemoene will cooperate, if they detect such cues, they will cooperate in return. - Gossip is a form of c ooperation - The tit for tat strategy(a game theory strategy that involves mimicking an opponent's actions after initially cooperating) in the prisoners dilemma game is a recipricol strategy that is cooperative, non-envious, non-exploitable, and easy to read. -