Week 8 - Identity Interaction I.pdf

Week 8: PSYU/X 3333 IDENTITY & INTERACTION: PART I September 28, 2023 This Week: Part I: Part II: Part III: Identity & Interaction I Groups Stigma Stereotypes, Prejudice & Discrimination (if time allows) Part I: Intro to Identity & Intergroup Processes Identity & Interaction • Focus shift to...

Week 8: PSYU/X 3333 IDENTITY & INTERACTION: PART I September 28, 2023 This Week: Part I: Part II: Part III: Identity & Interaction I Groups Stigma Stereotypes, Prejudice & Discrimination (if time allows) Part I: Intro to Identity & Intergroup Processes Identity & Interaction • Focus shift to how memberships in (or out of) groups plays a part in our interactions with the world around us. • To discuss identity and Intergroup processes we must better understand: ― Personal vs. Social identity ― Groups (and group processes) ― Social Roles (as members of groups) What is a group? • A set of individuals who have direct interaction with each other over a period of time and share a common fate, identity, or set of goals. ― As compared to collectives, people engaging in a common activity but having little direct interaction with each other. • A set of individuals who joint membership in a social category based on shared attributes (sex, gender, race/ethnicity, etc.) What do groups offer? • Fundamental & Evolutionary advantages ― Survival, Safety, Security • Social Support ― Connection and the Need to Belong • Social Identity ― Individual identity (i.e., social comparisons) distinct from others • Meaningful Information ― about future outcomes ― Resolve ambiguity • Goal Achievement ― Much of what we hope to produce and accomplish can be done only through collective action. • Establishment of social norms Key Features of Groups • Social Norms ― Rules of conduct for members ― How tolerant groups are to violations of norms can be, itself, a kind of norm. • Social Roles ― Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave in that group  Potential costs: If enmeshed in a role, individual identities and personalities can get lost (Stanford Prison Study – Deindividuation) • As personal identity and internal controls are submerged, social identity emerges and conformity to the group increases. Key Features of Groups • Cohesiveness ― Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote liking between members • Associated with better performance when task requires close cooperation; Associated with poorer performance when good relationships are the aim ― The more cohesive a group is, the more its members are likely to: • Stay in the group • Take part in group activities • Try to recruit new like-minded members Key Features of Groups • Ingroups vs. Outgroups ― Individuals enhance self-esteem by identifying with specific social groups.  Self-esteem is enhanced only if the individual sees these groups as superior to other groups. ― Exaggerate the differences between our ingroups and other outgroups ― Help to form and reinforce stereotypes • Ingroup Bias: The tendency to favor members of one’s own group and give them special preference over people who belong to other groups  Heterogeneity: Tend to see members of ingroup as unique, distinct, from one another • Outgroup Homogeneity Effect  Perceive outgroup members as more similar, non-distinct than they are Diverse Groups • Group members tend to be alike in age, sex, beliefs and attitudes… ― Attracted to and likely to recruit similar others ― Groups operate in ways that encourage similarity in members. • Negative consequences of diversity on group performance: ― Increased miscommunications and misunderstandings can cause frustration and resentment, and damage group performance Diverse Groups • More evidence for positive effects of diversity, such as on creativity, complexity of group discussion, performance • “Decades of research by organizational scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists and demographers show that socially diverse groups (that is, those with a diversity of race, ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation) are more innovative than homogeneous groups.” – Katherine Phillips (2014) Scientific American • Diversity  Innovation ― Financial performance and innovation in SP&P’s 1500 list: “female representation in top management leads to an increase of $42 million in firm value” ― 175+ US Banks: increases in racial diversity significantly related to financial performance and innovation ― Credit Suisse researchers examined 2360 global companies, found companies with one or more women on board delivered higher average returns on equity, lower gearing (that is, net debt to equity) and better average growth. Diverse Groups • Identity and Cognitive Diversity ― Who we are and how we think • Innovation arises in diverse settings…“not only because people with different backgrounds bring new information. Simply interacting with individuals who are different forces group members to prepare better, to anticipate alternative viewpoints and to expect that reaching consensus will take effort.” Part II: Stigma (the Target’s Perspective) Stigma: Defined • • • • • Greeks:  Cut or burn onto body  Slave, criminal, traitor Later: Religious overtones  Holy grace  Stigmata Current: similar to early conceptions  Shared beliefs about undesirable attributes Goffman, 1963 Social Identity – Categorization ― Virtual vs. Actual  Discrepancy leads to reduction of person “from whole and usual” to “tainted, discounted” Attributes: ― Discreditable vs. Discredited  Not all attributes are “blemishes” for everyone • Passing Stigmatized identity ≈ devalued identity Stigma Classifications • • • • • Tribal identities: ― Social groups into which individuals are born  Religion; ethnicity; race; national; etc… Abominations of the body: ― Physical ailments  Deformities; Illnesses; Paralysis Blemishes of individual character: ― Moral transgressions, weak will, etc.  Drug addiction; Prostitution; Sexual identity; Mental Illness Own ― Individuals share same stigma Wise ― Individuals privy to experience of stigma  Supportive career; Related through social structure ― Courtesy stigma  Chosen affiliation Goffman, 1963 Stigma: Mixed Contact • Target: ― ― ― ― ― • What will they think Being “on” Undermined Misinterpretation of behavior/emotion Unwanted sympathies or attentions Perceiver: ― Too aggressive or too shame-faced ― Reads into behavior ― Doubt self • Self and Other Consciousness Goffman, 1963 Stigma: Moral Career • Experiences and Development of the self   Socialization in “normal” society Awareness of stigma & related consequences ― 4 Patterns:     Inborn Social network as early buffer Late onset vs. reveal Socialized outside of the norm Goffman, 1963 Stigma: Dimensions • Concealability: • Stability: Course of the Mark • Disruptiveness: • Aesthetics: ― Extent to which a stigma can be hidden from others/ is visible ― Whether more salient or progressively debilitating over time ― Degree to which attribute(s) interferes with individual and interpersonal fx ― Subjective reactions to undesirability of stigma • Origin: Responsibility ― Congenital vs. accidental vs. intentional… ― Controllability • Peril: ― Danger of stigma to others (contagious) Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott (1984) Stigma: Devalued vs. Different • Individual is Devalued—Spoiled—Flawed ― Dehumanization ― Thus, (inter)personally & socially costly • Socially constructed ― Situational ― Changes over time and context • Stigma vs. deviance or marginality   Deviant: undesirable departure from putative standard Marginal: member of statistically unusual and centrally defining group ― Deviant and Marginal not always negative, but Stigma is… Dovidio, Major & Crocker, 2000 Stigma: Groups • Stigma is rooted in biological need to live in “effective” groups  Members benefit ― Non-reciprocators  Thieves • Anger, contempt  Physically Disabled • Resentment, ambivalence ― Treacherous (Lie by ommission/commission)  Cheaters • Anger, contempt ― Traitors • Anger & Contempt ― Counter-Socializers  Interruption of preferred social practices at the VALUE level Neuberg, Smith & Asher, 2000 Stigma: Threat response Social Construction of Stigma Initial Perception Tangible or Symbolic Threat Perceptual distortions that amplify group differences Consensual sharing of perceptions and threats Stigma • Origin Theories: • Functional Theories: • Perceptual Theories: • Accentuation Theories: • Consensus Theories: ― Explain how a given culture come to share beliefs about stigma ― Individuals perceive members of in/out group and create associated stereotypes to provide avenue for personal benefits ― Individuals seek meaning by observing environment and determine inconsistencies w/in a category ― Cognitive bias leads to exaggerated perception of differences between groups ― Social exchange further accentuates shared beliefs played out in group interactions Stangor & Crandall, 2000 Stigma: The Target’s perspective • Stigma at all levels of analysis ― Individual  Self-stigma and experience • Anticipated Stigma ―Expectation of discrimination or social devaluation due to group membership • Enacted Stigma ―Actual experience(s) of discrimination due to group membership • Internalized Stigma ―Experience of shame or self-loathing due to group membership ― Interpersonal  Social interaction ― Societal  Environment; policy; access and opportunity; etc. Part III: Stereotypes, Prejudice & Discrimination Prejudice • • • • Prejudice is ubiquitous - affects us all. Prejudice often flows from majority to minority - Can also flow in the other direction Any group can be a target of prejudice. Many aspects of identity can lead to labeling & discrimination: ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Nationality Racial and ethnic identity Gender identity Sexual identity Religion Ideological Beliefs Appearance Physical Ability Health Profession Hobbies or Interests …. Prejudice: Defined • Prejudice is a hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group based solely on their membership in that group • Three components: ― Affective component: Prejudice  Type of emotion linked with attitude (e.g., anger, warmth)  Extremity of the attitude (e.g., mild uneasiness, outright hostility) ― Behavioral component: Discrimination  How people act on emotions and cognitions ― Cognitive component: Stereotype  Beliefs or thoughts that make up the attitude Prejudice • Costs: ― Material:  Salary, access to health care, etc. ― Psychological:  Mental well-being  Self-esteem  Cognitive and physical performance or function Prejudice • As it is an attitude, we see prejudice play out both implicitly and explicitly • Lurks beneath the surface • Once activated, it affects how we perceive and treat out-group members ― We behave more aggressively toward stereotyped target when: Stressed, Angry, Suffered blow to self-esteem, Not in control of conscious intentions • People hide prejudice due to: ― Sincere motivation to become less prejudiced ― Avoid being labeled a sexist, racist, etc. ― When situation becomes “safe,” their prejudice may be revealed.  • Example: Questioning President Obama’s Americanism, not his race per se Because most people don’t want to admit their prejudices, unobtrusive measures are necessary. ― Bogus pipeline ― Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT) Stereotypes: Cognitive • • Generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members. Once formed, stereotypes are resistant to change on the basis of new information! Stereotyping does not necessarily lead to intentional acts of abuse. • • Can be positive or negative Technique we use to simplify our world (cognitive miser) • ― We all do it to some extent. ― Law of least effort – Allport (1954) ― Adaptive: when accurately identifies attributes of a group well ― Maladaptive: blinds us to individual differences • Minority groups can be distinctive, so we may remember their behavior. ― Creates an illusory correlation between the group and behavior we encounter What’s Wrong with Positive Stereotypes? • Denies individuality of person • Potential abuse of stereotyping can be more subtle—and might involve a stereotype about a positive attribute (or benevolent) ― What’s wrong with the implication that black men can jump?  “Mark Flick” study (Stone et al., 1997) ― How about binary gender stereotypes?  Women: More socially sensitive, friendlier, and more concerned with the welfare of others  Men: More dominant, controlling, and independent  Ambivalent sexism (hostile vs. benevolent) • Stereotypical, positive views of women suggest that women are inferior to men Discrimination: Behavior • An unjustified negative or harmful action toward the members of a group simply because of their membership in that group. • Institutionalized discrimination (systemic) ― “isms” embedded as normal practice or formal policy within society or organizations ― Leads to disparate outcomes, inequity, bias • Microaggressions ― Slights, indignities and “putdowns” • Social Distancing (not like during COVID) Prejudice & Discrimination • Old vs. New (overt vs. modern)– prejudice is susceptible to cultural norms of what is acceptable Racism Sexism (binary) Old-Fashioned: Old-Fashioned: • Black people are generally not as smart as Whites. • Women are not as capable of thinking as logically as men. • It’s a bad idea for Blacks and Whites to marry one another. • It is more important to encourage boys than to encourage girls to participate in athletics. Modern: Modern: • Discrimination against Blacks is no longer a problem in the United States. • Society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement. • Over the past few years, Blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve. • On average, people in our society treat husbands and wives equally. Origins of SPD • Cognitive perspective ― Prejudice results from biases in social cognition due to schemas about differences between ingroup and outgroup members • Economic perspective ― Prejudice results from different social groups competing over (perceived) scarce resources • Motivational perspective ― Prejudice results from motivations to view one’s ingroup or oneself more favorably than outgroups/others Origins: Cognitive perspective • Activation of a stereotype may be automatic and involuntary ― Social information processed two ways:  Automatic processing • Automatic, involuntary, and unconscious • Often based on emotional responses  Controlled processing • Conscious, systematic, and deliberate • Controlled processing can override automatic responses • Factors that influence activation: ― Amount of exposure to the stereotype ― The kind and amount of information the perceiver encounters ― The perceiver’s motivational goals (i.e., protecting one’s self-esteem or self-image) • Therefore, influence of automatically activated stereotypes can be corrected for if people are motivated and aware of potential biases Origins: Economic perspective • Realistic group conflict theory ― Competition for scarce resources will increase conflict among groups, resulting in prejudice and discrimination. ― Resources may be physical, economic, or conceptual ― Hostile conflict increases ethnocentrism  Tendency to glorify one’s own group and to derogate outgroups ― Theory also predicts that strongest feelings of prejudice will come from the group that feels they have the most to lose Origins: Economic perspective • Realistic group conflict theory ― Competition for scarce resources will increase conflict among groups, resulting in prejudice and discrimination.  Resources may be physical, economic, or conceptual ― Hostile conflict increases ethnocentrism  Tendency to glorify one’s own group and to derogate outgroups ― Strongest prejudice will come from the group that feels they have the most to lose • When times are tough and resources are scarce: 1. 2. 3. In-group members will feel more threatened by the out-group. Incidents of prejudice, discrimination, and violence toward out-group members will increase. Sherif’s classic study—Robber’s Cave - Eagles versus Rattlers Origins: Economic Perspective Robber’s Cave - Eagles versus Rattlers • Two groups of boys were invited to participate in a summer camp experience • During the first week ― The two groups of boys were isolated from one another. Each group gave itself a name (the “Eagles” and the “Rattlers”) ― Cohesiveness • During the second week ― The two groups were brought together in a competitive tournament. ― During the period of the tournament, the groups became hostile toward one another  Yelling insults, Raiding each other’s camps, Threats of violence/fights • This perspective fits many familiar and historic examples of conflict between groups ― But why are people prejudiced when NO conflict (real or imagined) over resources??? Origins: Motivational Perspective Social Identity Theory • People derive part of their self-concept from membership in groups • Aspects of self-esteem depend on how people evaluate ingroup relative to outgroups • People motivated to view ingroup more favorably than the outgroup, because it boosts self-esteem Origins: Motivational Perspective Social Identity Theory • Minimal Groups ― Strangers are formed into groups using the most trivial criteria imaginable, usually random or coin toss. ― Despite being strangers before the experiment, group members behave as if those in the same group were friends or family.  They like members of their own group better.  They rate members of their in-group as more likely to have pleasant personalities and to have done better work than out-group members.  They allocate more rewards to those who shared their label. • Other effects of SIT ― Basking in reflected glory (SEM)  Tendency to take pride in the accomplishment of those we feel associated with in some way ― Derogating outgroups to boost self-esteem  Self-esteem can be bolstered by negative evaluation of outgroups Origins: Motivational Perspective • Scapegoating ― When frustrated or unhappy, people tend to displace aggression onto groups that are disliked, visible, and relatively powerless • Frustration-aggression theory ― Theory that aggressive acts are caused by feelings of frustration • Frustration as a motivation for prejudice? ― Frustration increases general levels of aggression, not necessarily aggression directed at any specific target  However, it may be safer to target aggression at individuals or groups that are lower in power ― Frustrations coming from unrelated sources may be displaced onto low-power individuals or social groups ― Form of aggression dependent on what in-group approves of or allows Origins: Alternative Self-esteem Perspectives • Theoretical perspectives Our self develops through the internaliza4on of others’ reac4ons to us ― looking-glass self • Empirical results (Crocker & Major, 1989) ― racial/ethnic minorities, women, and physically disfigured, handicapped • Buffer: ― In-group social comparisons ― Selective valuing (recall SEM) ― Attributions to prejudice • Attributional ambiguity: ― The targets of prejudice experience ambiguity about the causes of events (both good and bad events) ― Attributing bad events to prejudice and discrimination protects mood and selfesteem ― Attributing good events to prejudice may hurt self-esteem.