Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2013

This Week’s Playlist

Artist Song / Psych Concept

1. Randy Newman Short People(Explicit Prejudice)

2. Madonna What It Feels Like For A Girl(Hostile Sexism)

3. Bob Dylan Just Like A Woman(Benevolent Sexism)

4. Chamillionaire Ridin’ Dirty(Illusory Correlation)

5. Avenue Q Everyone’s A Little Bit Racist(Modern Racism)

6. Michael Jackson Black Or White(Reducing Prejudice)

7. John Lennon Imagine(Reducing Prejudice)

CHAPTER 11:

STEREOTYPESPREJUDICEDISCRIMINATIONMelanie B. Tannenbaum Spring 2013

Chapter Overview

Characterizing Intergroup Bias

Intergroup Bias: Different Perspectives Economic Perspective Motivational Perspective Cognitive Perspective

Being a Member of a Stigmatized Group

Reducing Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Chapter Overview





Do these all mean the same thing? A) Yes B) No

Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Do these all mean the same thing? A) Yes B) No

They are similar, but there are actually differences in what they refer to & mean



Stereotype Belief that certain attributes are characteristic of

members of particular groups Cognition

Prejudice A negative (or positive) attitude toward a certain

group that is applied to its individual members Emotion

Discrimination Unfair treatment of members of a particular group

based on their membership in that group Behavior


If someone is “racist” towards a certain racial group...

Stereotype: People in Racial Group are all bad/stupid/lazy/smart/athletic/rich.

Prejudice: I don’t like people in Racial Group, so I don’t like Bob because he is a member of this group.

Discrimination: Bob applied for a job in my company, but I won’t hire him, because he’s in Racial Group.

But what does it mean to be “racist”?

Does all prejudice look the same? NO!

There are two main types: Traditional Modern

This applies to all forms of prejudice (sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism...), not just racism.

Traditional Racism

Prejudice against a racial group that is consciously acknowledged and openly expressed by the individual

Relatively rare in contemporary society

Modern Racism

Prejudice against a racial group that exists alongside the rejection of explicit racist beliefs

Example: Opposing racial segregation/discrimination, but treating outgroup members differently in more subtle ways (e.g. sitting further away, being less likely to hire them)

More “subtle” indicators...not necessarily verbalized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xyhVO-SWfM

Modern Racism

Hodson et al., 2002 Participants filled out a modern racism scale about African-

Americans Participants rated a sample of job applicants

Half were White, and half were Black

Results When the applicant was either SUPER EXCELLENT or SUPER

TERRIBLE, white and black applicants were rated the same. When the applicant had a some-good-some-bad resume,

people high in modern racism rated the white applicants higher.

Modern racism is suppressed when expressing it would clearly look “racist,” but emerges when it

seems “safe.”

Modern Racism

Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977 White participants entered the lab & told they would be interacting

with a) 1 person or b) a group (all actors) All people were seated in single-person cubicles and spoke through

an intercom system At one point, one of the confederates indicated he was having a

medical emergency; the confederate was either a) White or b) Black.

How many participants left their cubicles to go help? When interacting 1-on-1, most help, whether Black (94%) or White

(81%) When interacting with a group, most help the White victim (75%),

but not the Black victim (38%)

“Oh, there are a bunch of people…someone else will help.”

Test Your Knowledge

What is the correct term for the following examples?

If I’m the boss and I see an application from someone who went to Indiana or

Michigan, I won’t hire them!

A. Stereotype

B. Prejudice

C. Discrimination

Test Your Knowledge


People who go to Indiana or Michigan instead of Illinois are stupid and clearly

have poor judgment.

A. Stereotype

B. Prejudice

C. Discrimination

Test Your Knowledge


My friend Amanda decided to go to Indiana.

I don’t like her anymore.

A. Stereotype

B. Prejudice

C. Discrimination

Ambivalent Sexism

Glick & Fiske, 2001 Two parts:

Hostile Sexism Benevolent Sexism

Hostile Sexism

What you typically think of when you think about “sexism.”

Domination, hostility, and degradation

“Women are less competent than men.”

Benevolent Sexism

Attitudes of protection, idealization, and affection towards women in traditional gender roles

In other words, chivalry.“Women should be treated delicately”

“In an emergency, women should be rescued before men.”

Ambivalent Sexism

Hostile and benevolent sexism often co-exist“Women are incompetent…

...so men should protect them and take care of them.”

Ambivalent Sexism

Benevolent is just as bad as Hostile…and in some ways, it’s worse. Justifies negative stereotypes

“Women are so kind & nurturing, they don’t make good CEOs/presidents.” Feeling “responsible” for women’s welfare implies male superiority Women are only highly regarded if they fit traditional gender roles

If they step outside these roles, they suddenly face criticism & discrimination

Ambivalent Sexism

Women often view individual benevolent sexism acts as positive. “He always pays!” “He always opens the door!”

As a result, women are less likely to “act out” against it.

Recognizing this (appropriately) as sexism can come across as being oversensitive and obnoxious, especially since so many women don’t take issue with it, which sets a norm.

Test Your Knowledge

Which one of the following statements is supported by research on ambivalent sexism?

A. Someone cannot endorse both benevolent sexism and hostile sexism.

B. Negative stereotypes are bad, but positive stereotypes are not.

C. Positive stereotypes can have troublesome consequences.

D. Ambivalently sexist attitudes are really easy to change.

Measuring Prejudicial Attitudes

We’ve gone over some attitude measures Remember back to Chapter 7!

Make sure you complete an IAT by this Thursday https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

This is a common way of measuring implicit attitudes towards various racial, gender, religious, etc. groups

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a29guLgQ3qs

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a29guLgQ3qs

IAT: Some Comments

Many people interpret the fact that this measures “implicit associations” to mean that it measures “hidden” or “secret” attitudes.

This is not necessarily true.

Two reasons implicit attitudes might differ from explicit: 1) People are trying to hide/mask their “true”

attitudes. 2) People are not aware of these implicit associations

These are not actually representative of their explicit beliefs

IAT: Some Comments

Some people believe that the IAT does not actually measure “attitudes” as much as it measures “cultural knowledge.”

People who work in activism, people who are members of minority groups, etc. often show “bias” on the IATs – sometimes even more than the average population!

This indicates that the “strength of the association” (e.g. between “White” and “Good”) might not indicate what you actually believe, but how much you know about cultural stereotypes/how much you’ve been exposed to these cultural ideas (that makes them stronger & more accessible).

Test Your Knowledge

Jenny took the implicit association test (IAT) and found that she responded faster when “strong” words were paired with male names, compared with when “strong” words were paired with female names. What does this finding suggest?

A. She has a stereotype that women are stronger than men

B. She has a stereotype that men are stronger than women

C. She has a stereotype that male names are more attractive than female names

D. She does not have any stereotypes about gender and strength

Chapter Overview





Different Perspectives

Intergroup bias comes from...

Economic Perspective Competition with outgroups over valuable/scarce

resources.

Motivational Perspective Identification with an ingroup, frustration, or social

identity.

Cognitive Perspective We are “fast and frugal” with our thinking patterns.




resources.


identity.


Economic Perspective

Realistic Group Conflict Theory LeVine & Campbell, 1972

When groups compete for limited resources, the groups experience conflict, prejudice, and discrimination.

What are limited resources? Territory Jobs Power

Prejudice and discrimination should be strongest among groups that stand to lose the most if another group

succeeds.

Economic Perspective

Some of the strongest anti-black prejudice occurred shortly after the Civil Rights Movement became successful.

This prejudice was strongest among the white working class.

Why?

Working class jobs became a threatened commodity for White Americans once millions of Black Americans

were allowed to apply.

Robber’s Cave

Sherif et al., 1961

22 fifth-grade boys (all strangers) participated in a 2 ½ week summer camp at Robbers Cave State Park in OK.

The boys were divided into groups of 11

Robber’s Cave

Phase One Groups independently engaged in activities

designed to foster unity (preparing meals, pitching tents, etc.)

Neither group knew about the other group’s existence

Robber’s Cave

Phase Two The groups were brought together for a five-day

tournament; winners got medals and pocket knives The other group is now an obstacle to resources (prizes) This led to conflict, trash-talking, stealing, and burning

the other group’s flag, in addition to in-group favoritism. Eek!

Robber’s Cave

Phase Three The researchers tried a few things in an attempt

to “reverse” the prejudice and reduce conflict between the 2 groups

Attempt #1: Mere Exposure The boys were brought together in

noncompetitive settings This failed…The boys insulted each other,

fought, etc.

Robber’s Cave

Phase Three The researchers tried a few things in an attempt to

“reverse” the prejudice and reduce conflict between the 2 groups

Attempt #2: Superordinate Goals The researchers created larger goals that made the groups

of boys have to depend on each other in order to succeed Disrupted the camp’s water supply (boys had to fix the pipes together),

supply truck “broke down” (boys had to jump start it together)...

Required both groups to work together for a common goal This worked…Prejudice went away!

On the ride home, the boys took the same bus, shared candy, etc.

Robber’s Cave: Important Points

There were no differences in background, appearance, or history of conflict; intergroup hostility developed anyway All that is required for conflict is economic competition Economic Competition = Sufficient for intergroup

bias

Competition against outgroups often increases cohesion The intergroup conflict led the ingroups themselves to

adopt group names, social norms, create a shared social identity, etc.

Test Your Knowledge

What is the most important takeaway point from the Robbers Cave study?

A. When resources are scarce, you won’t get ingroup cohesion.

B. A superordinate goal helps reduce intergroup conflict.

C. Simply seeing each other more helps conflict go away.

D. Eleven year old boys love fighting and candy.

Robber’s Cave: Important Points

Intergroup conflict can be diminished by forcing groups to work together and depend on each other Certain groups (like the military) do this very well Certain groups (like Fortune 500 companies)

do...not.

How do you think universities do at this? A) Good B) Bad

Military vs. Universities

Universities do surprisingly poorly...this is one reason why there might be a lot of self-segregation and early integration efforts were difficult.

Grade curves and the classroom structure encourages competition over cooperation.

No real efforts to make people from different groups work together for a common goal.

The military does this very well; makes people from many different groups work together, breaks down barriers quickly.

Jigsaw Classroom

Proposed by Aronson

Different members of a class have to present different parts of a lesson to the other classmates

No one can learn without the help of the others; everyone plays a part, they all work together towards the “common goal” of learning

Students in these classrooms show lower levels of prejudice/discrimination, more intergroup friendships




resources.


identity.


Motivational Perspective

Social Identity Theory

A person’s self-concept and self-esteem are derived from personal identity AND ingroup status/accomplishments.

People are motivated to view their ingroups favorably because this enhances

self-concept and self-esteem.

Self-Concept

Social Identities

UIUC Student

Psychology Major

Midwesterner

Personal Identities

Boyfriend/Girlfriend

Roommate

Son/Daughter

Things associated with these groups will reflect well (or poorly) on YOU.

Minimal Group Paradigm

Researchers create groups based on arbitrary and meaningless criteria to see if they can get people to develop intergroup bias as a result.

Seriously meaningless...like flipping a coin. Shoelace color. Really stupid stuff.

Results: In many different experiments, we find that people show a preference and bias for the ingroup, even when these distinctions are meaningless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga4Zr7P25o0


You have developed superpowers, and you can now determine who will win basketball games next season. But, there’s a catch. You only have two options. Either...

A) Both Illinois and Indiana win the same number of games, and end up tied as Big Ten regular season champions.

OR B) Illinois will finish in third place in the Big Ten

conference, but you can guarantee that Indiana will come in dead last and not make the NCAA tournament.


Would you prefer for...

A. Illinois and Indiana to tie for the regular season win?

B. Illinois to do OK, but Indiana to come in dead last?


If given the chance to distribute rewards across the ingroup vs. outgroup, individuals want the ingroup to have more than the outgroup, even if it means they get less overall.

Would you prefer for... The ingroup and outgroup to get $10 each? The ingroup to get $7 and the outgroup to

get $3?


People overwhelmingly prefer the $7/$3 option because it maximizes ingroup success relative to the outgroup.

Ingroup Bias: Because identity-related self-esteem is based in part on group membership, we’re motivated to boost the status of our ingroups.

Basking In Reflected Glory

Self-esteem can be enhanced by positive ingroup evaluations.

Cialdini et al., 1976 Basking in Reflected Glory Taking pride in the accomplishments of those we feel

associated with in some way

When ingroups succeed, we have higher self-esteem.

Basking In Reflected Glory

People who take particularly strong pride in their group affiliations are more vulnerable to ingroup favoritism when placed in minimal group situations

People who are highly identified with a group react to criticism of the group as if it were criticism of the self.

This can also work the other way...

Self-esteem can also beenhanced by negative evaluations of outgroup.

Remember...people aremotivated for ingroup

success relative to the outgroup.

Test Your Knowledge

Which of the following is not basking in reflected glory?

A. Wearing your school’s T-Shirt the day after a big NCAA win.

B. Feeling happy when you get an A on a paper.

C. Posting more pictures of you with a friend on Facebook after that friend wins a big campus election, so everyone sees you know her.

D. A parent putting a bumper sticker on his/her car that reads, “My child is an Honor Student.”

Test Your Knowledge

What do studies using the minimal group paradigm show?

A. You only get ingroup favoritism for important, meaningful groups.

B. Ingroup favoritism is stronger in diverse groups.

C. Ingroup favoritism is stronger in very similar groups.

D. Ingroup favoritism will happy for any group, even those based on arbitrary or meaningless criteria.

Is Prejudice ReallySelf-Image Maintenance?

Fein & Spencer, 1997 Participants told that they failed or aced an

intelligence test Self-esteem either threatened or affirmed

Participants watched an interview of a job applicant She was either clearly Jewish or clearly Non-Jewish

Participants... Rated the job applicant Reported their personal self-esteem

Julie Goldberg

Volunteer for Hillel

Member of Jewish Sorority

Star of David necklace

Hair back in a “JAP Clip” Participant words, not mine.

Maria D’Agostino

Volunteer for Catholic Social Services

Non-Cultural Sorority

Cross necklace

Hair down


Positive Feedback Negative Feedback0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Maria D'AgostinoJulie Goldberg

Candidate’s Personality Rating



10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




If their self-esteem wasn’t threatened,

they didn’t derogate the Jewish candidate because there was no reason to do so.


10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100




However, if they got negative feedback,

they coped with self-esteem threat by dissing the Jewish

candidate

Positive Feedback Negative Feedback0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0


Self-Esteem After Rating Candidate



1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0


Self-Esteem After Rating Candidate


Furthermore, the negative ratings

helped to boost their self-esteem.


Sinclair & Kunda, 1999: Doctors & Race Participants were praised or criticized by a doctor The doctor was either black or white Participants then performed a lexical decision

task (LDT) This is basically an implicit measure (like the IAT!) Participants see strings of letters and have to decide

as quickly as they can if it’s a word or not The more “accessible” certain knowledge is (i.e. the

more recently you’ve thought about it), the faster you’ll be to recognize words related to that knowledge

Stereotype Activation & Threat


540

550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620

630

White DoctorBlack Doctor

Reaction Time (ms) for Recognizing “Doctor” Stereotype Words



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018


How Quickly They Recognize “Doctor” Stereotype Words



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018


How Quickly They Recognize “Doctor” Stereotype Words

When people got positive feedback from the doctor, it activated “Doctor”

stereotypes.



540

550

560

570

580

590

600

610

620


Reaction Time (ms) for Recognizing “Black” Stereotype Words



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

0.0019


How Quickly They Recognize “Black” Stereotype Words



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

0.0019


How Quickly They Recognize “Black” Stereotype Words

When people got negative feedback from the doctor, it activated “Black”

stereotypes.



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

0.0019

Doctor StereotypesBlack Stereotypes

For Black Doctors...



0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

Doctor StereotypesBlack Stereotypes

For White Doctors...


Positive Negative0.0015

0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

DoctorBlack

For White Doctors...

Positive Negative0.0015

0.0016

0.0017

0.0018

0.0019

DoctorBlack

For Black Doctors...




resources.


identity.


Summed up in two sentences...

“The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance.

We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations...

we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it.”

– Lippman, 1922

Summed up in one picture...

The Cognitive Perspective

Schemas, schemas, schemasand

Heuristics, heuristics, heuristics


Stereotypes are just schemas about groups of people

Schemas are knowledge structures that use information you already have as a shortcut for assessing new situations

Stereotypes can be useful because they decrease the time/effort needed to deal with the environment


Stereotypes become harmful when rigidly over-applied.

When you rely on schemas and automatic judgments to dictate how you respond in any one particular situation (or to any one person), that’s when it’s a big problem.

Flash mob is cancelled...the flash mob is cancelled.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuP-Nv3hX4E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuP-Nv3hX4E


Bodenhausen, 1990

Participants who self-identified as “morning” or “night” people came into the lab early in the morning or late at night

They read scenarios in which the main character belonged to different stereotyped groups, and he is accused of engaging in an undesirable behavior (like cheating on a test).

Is the main character guilty?


Participants at the “low point” of their circadian rhythms (e.g. “night people” were there in the AM or “morning people” were there in the PM) were more likely to rely on stereotypes when making their judgments.

Example: “Night people” tested in the morning were more likely to say that an athlete cheated.

How Stereotypes Can Be Useful

Participants performed two tasks at the same time

Task 1: Form impression of a hypothetical person described by a bunch of traits presented on the computer

Task 2: Listen to a tape-recorded lecture about Indonesia

Stereotypes Can Be Useful

For half of the participants, the trait terms were accompanied by a relevant stereotype Example: “Rebellious,” “Aggressive,” “Skinhead.”

At the end, participants were given a quiz on the trait terms and on Indonesia

Quiz Scores

Stereotype No Stereotype0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Trait QuizIndonesia QuizOverall Quiz Score

People who had stereotypes to help

remembered more of both types of info.

Test Your Knowledge

You will be most likely to form judgments based on stereotypes if you are...

A. Introverted

B. Sleepy

C. Making these judgments early in the morning

D. Poorly Educated

Stereotypes Can Be Harmful

Even though our knowledge of schemas and the cognitive perspective says that stereotypes can be useful (for processing speed), they are also harmful.

They are especially harmful when people rely on stereotypes in an exclusive, rigid, or automatic way


Outgroup Homogeneity Effect The tendency to assume that members of outgroups are “all

alike,” whereas members of ingroups are varied and distinct. You encounter the ingroup all the time, so unique/identifying

information is most useful, frequent, and attention-grabbing. If you rarely encounter outgroup members, the only

information you may have about them are stereotypes.


Princeton & Rutgers Study Princeton and Rutgers participants watched a

videotape of a student making a simple decision. “Should I listen to rock or classical music?”

½ of them thought the student was from Princeton

½ of them thought the student was from Rutgers

“What percent of students from the same university as this student would make the

same choice?”


Princeton & Rutgers Study

Participants made higher percentage estimates when they thought the student was from the other university.

People assume more variability of habits/opinions in their ingroup, but assume

that “all outgroup members are alike.”


Illusory Correlation An incorrect belief that two things are related when they

actually are not Distinctive (low frequency) events capture attention

Minority members are, by definition, low frequency Negative behaviors also occur less frequently than

positive As a consequence, negative behaviors from minority

members are doubly distinct. Negative behaviors from minority members are

likely to seem much more correlated than they really are.

Automatic vs. Controlled Processing

Dovidio et al., 2002

White participants were brought into the lab Measured explicit and implicit attitudes

toward AAs

Engaged in two 3-minute conversations (recorded) One with a white student, one with a black

student

Independent judges either saw the entire videos, or the visual footage with the sound removed

Automatic vs. Controlled Processing

Dovidio et al., 2002

Explicit Attitudes Predicted: How differentially friendly they were in the whole videos, participants’ ratings of their own differential levels of friendliness.

Implicit Attitudes Predicted: How differentially friendly they were in the visual-only videos, the conversation partners’ ratings of their friendliness.

Police Officer’s Dilemma

Correll et al., 2002

Participants played a videogame in which they moved through a virtual building.

At unpredictable points, a person would pop out from behind an obstacle. Some were white, some were black Some held a gun, some held a neutral object (phone)

Participants had to shoot as quickly as possible if the target was armed, and not do anything if he wasn’t

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jcorrell/TPOD.html

http://home.uchicago.edu/~jcorrell/TPOD.html




People were more likely to accidentally shoot unarmed Black targets than unarmed White targets

People were more likely to accidentally fail to shoot armed White targets than armed Black targets



Rationale: Many people hold stereotypes that associate African-Americans with hostility and violence; the targets’ race primes these thoughts, which temporarily influences how participants perceive the objects in their hands

Extensive experience with this sort of task can reduce the tendency to overshoot unarmed black targets, which is...hopeful, at least.

“Stereotypic beliefs about women’s roles, for example, may enable one to see correctly that a woman in a dark room is threading a needle rather than tying a fishing lure...

...but they may also cause one to mistakenly assume that her goal is embroidery rather than cardiac surgery.”

– Dan Gilbert

Construal

Construal

The “Shoving Study” (Duncan, 1976)

White participants watched a video of two men in a heated discussion; coded behavior into categories

At one point, one man shoved the other ½ saw a white man do the shoving, ½ saw a

black man

How did participants code this behavior?

Construal

The “Shoving Study” (Duncan, 1976)

White Pusher: Coded the behavior as “playing around.”

Black Pusher: Coded the behavior as “aggressive.”

Construal

Fundamental Attribution Error (Sort Of) Revisited

If someone is prejudiced against a certain group/person... Stereotype-Inconsistent Behavior = Situational

Attribution Stereotype-Consistent Behavior = Dispositional

Attribution

Joke/Stunt What She Likes Reading

Chapter Overview





Attributional Ambiguity

Members of stigmatized groups may be uncertain if the treatment they receive is due to themselves personally or due to their group membership Why didn’t you get hired? Why did you get into that school? Why did you get that award?

Have you ever experienced this? A) Yes B) No


Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity

½ White participants ½ Black participants

½ got positive feedback ½ got negative feedback

½ thought the other person could see them through a one-way mirror

½ did not think this


Crocker et al., 1991: Feedback and Ambiguity

Self-esteem for White participants went up after positive feedback, down after negative feedback, no matter what.

Self-esteem for Black participants only changed if they thought the other person could not see them. “Do they really feel this way, or just saying that because they

know what I look like and are changing their response because of it?”

Think about the discounting principle. Multiple causes.

Stereotype Threat

The fear that we will confirm a stereotype that others have because of a group we’re in

Group members typically know the stereotypes that others hold about them/their groups

Stereotype Threat

In a performance situation, people often want to prove that the stereotype’s not true This leads to anxiety

about accidentally confirming it

This actually makes it more likely one will confirm it

Claude Steele on stereotype threat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS2Bv8Yh1oU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tS2Bv8Yh1oU

Stereotype Threat

½ participants told that there’s “no gender difference”

½ told that men tend to do better

In the second condition, women do worse.

Stereotype Threat

Which of the following findings illustrates stereotype threat?

(A) White male students do worse on math tests when they are surrounded by Asian students.

(B) Female Asian students do worse on math tests when prompted to think about being female, but better when prompted to think about being Asian.

(C) Black students perform worse at golf when it’s described as a test of “sports intelligence,” but White students do worse on the same task when it’s described as a test of “natural athletic ability”

(D) Black students perform worse on aptitude tests when asked to indicate their race on the test booklet before starting.

(E) All of the above.

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Interview Study (Word et al., 1974)

White Princeton undergrads interviewed black and white men pretending to be job applicants; these interviews were recorded.

When coders analyzed these videos, they found that interviewers faced with black applicants were more likely to sit further away, cut the interview short, and perform other “modern racism” behaviors.



In a follow-up study, actors were trained to act like the interviewers from the first study when they interacted with either White or Black applicants.

The actors then interviewed a new batch of participants, all of whom were White.

Independent judges rated the applicants from this study.



Applicants who were interviewed by actors trying to act like how the first

interviewers had interviewed the Black applicants were rated more negatively.



Interviewers came in with negative expectations.

They acted in ways that elicited negative behaviors they expected.

Yes, the Black applicants usually acted more negatively in Study 1... ...but so did a later sample of White applicants when

they were treated the same way by the interviewers.

Chapter Overview





A Class Divided: “Eye Of The Storm”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/

Other Videos

More about the IAT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5Q5FQfXZag

Top Ten Things To Know

Stereotypes vs. Prejudice vs. Discrimination

Modern vs. Traditional Racism What are the differences?

Ambivalent Sexism How do benevolent and hostile

sexism relate to each other? What are they?

Realistic Group Conflict Theory Why does prejudice/discrimination

arise? Which group is better for intergroup

relations, the military or universities?

What is the minimal group paradigm? How does it relate to self-esteem?

Automatic vs. Controlled Processes

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Illusory Correlations & Stereotypes

Stereotype Threat What is it?


Education

Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2013