PSYCH 350 1st EditionExam #3 Study Guide Lectures: 12-18Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination- Stereotypeso Cognitive in nature Beliefs about people based on category membership- Prejudiceo Attitudinal in nature Perception, feelings, attitudes about people- Discriminationo Behavioral in nature Differential behavior toward people- Three reasons for SPD:o Cognitive reasonso Attributional biaseso Social/environmental causes- Cognitiveo Social categorization Grouping people based on common attributeso Social identity theory Favoring in-groups over outgroups- Ingroup biasRCT- Outgroup- Robber’s Caveo Group bonding o Introduced groups & created competition  Created tension between groupso Cooperation Had to work to resolve problemo Outgroup homogeneity Similarity among out-group memberso Illusory correlation Perception of a relationship where none exists, or perception of a stronger relationship that actually exists- Joint occurrence of 2 distinctive events problem attracted more attention and caused faulty impressions In-class demo and research- People expected ratings to be identical - People actually rated group A more positive than negative & B about the same- Actual correlation: 2/3 statements positive, 1/3 statements negative- Attributionalo Ultimate attribution error Like FAE but attribution about a groupo Belief in a just world Belief that people get what they deserveo Confirmation bias Seeking out info to confirm a beliefo Self-fulfilling prophecyo Stereotype threat Apprehension experienced by members of a stereotyped group that their behavior might confirm the stereotype- Reducing stereotype threato 1. Tell member that the task is unaffected by group membershipo 2. Mindset: malleable vs. fixedo 3. Highlight values Research findings on value affirmation- Values affirmationo Task in which people reflect on their valueso Can buffer against stereotype threato Affirming one’s values refocuses thoughts on personal integrity and worth and away from the anxiety characteristic of stereotype threat- Social/environmentalo Realistic conflict theoryOur beliefsinfluence our actionsimpact others beliefsabout themselvesCause others actionsConfirms our beliefs Limited resources and because resources are limited there exists conflicts between groups for those resources. When conflict between groups, prejudice & discrimination between groups followso Relative deprivation Discontent associated with the belief that one fares poorly compared with others- How to undo prejudice and discriminationo Education? Cannot just educate people because of the underlying emotional aspects of prejudice and the cognitive ruts we get into. Stereotypes based on misinfo are hard to modify by just providing people with factso Contact hypothesis Having contact between groups will decrease prejudice 6 conditions that must be met- Remove conflicto Not sufficient enough to nullify the source of problems, but it isnecessary- Mutual interdependence o When one party can safely pull out, then this position of powercan destroy common understanding - Equal statuso If one party has advantages that the other does not, then this unbalances power- Positive contacto Context for contact between parties must be conductive to friendly interactions- Typical contacto People that are met must perceived as typical of the other groups, so that positive perceptions are generalized to rest of population- Social normso In situation of contact, it must be a general norm that all parties are equalAttitudes and Attitude Change- Definitiono Positive, negative, or mixed reactions to people, objects, ideas- “A” of attitudeso Affective component o Feelings and beliefso Several sources Values Sensory experience conditioning- “B” of attitudeso Behaviors toward someone or something o Inferring attitudes from our own behaviors toward something  Recall self-perception theory o This happens wheno Attitudes are weak or ambiguous  Strong=no need to rely on behaviors to explaino No other explanations for behavior If obvious reason=no need to rely behaviors to explain- “C” of attitudeso Cognitive aspect o Thoughts and beliefs about attitude objecto Purpose of this is to perform mental pro/con analysis - Measuring attitudeso Bogus pipeline Phony lie-detector device to elicit truthfully-reported attitudes- Elicits more accurate self-report datao Implicit Attitude Test Covert measure of attitudes- Measures reaction time. Attitude congruent stimuli are responded to faster than attitude incongruent stimuli- When do attitudes predict behavior?o Minimal social influence Less social influence=more accurate self-reported attitudeso Principles of aggregation Averaging behaviors across time & situations; yields more accurate pic of person’s attitudeso Strength of attitude Stronger=more directly predict behavioro Theory of planned behavior When people have time to contemplate how they are going to behave; BEST predictor is intention (3 factors)- When do behaviors predict attitudes?o Roles Set of norms that define how to behave- The part that each person plays—affects attitudes- Stanford Prison StudyBehaviorIntentionSpecific AttitudesSocial NormsControlo Foot-in-the-door Comply w/ a small requestcomply with a large requesto Low-balling Compliance with original request after its been increasedo Door-in-the-face A persuader makes a large request, expecting you to reject it, and then presents a smaller requesto Cognitive dissonance Experience inconsistent cognitionspsych arousalthe motivation to reduce dissonance  Festinger’s study- Participants asked to turn peg in peg board for an hour- Asked to tell next participants how fun it was- Offered in one condition $1 and $20 in the other- Then asked to rate how enjoyable it was- FOUNDo $1 More enjoyable Changed attitudes so they were more in line with behavioro $20 Less enjoyable- Sufficient justification Insufficient justification- High cognitive dissonance leads to thiso Can’t change our attitudes to justify the way we actedo We change attitude to be in line with the way we actedo Self-perception theory Instead of dissonance we infer our attitudes from our behaviors- Explaining festingers resultso Attitude-incongruent: “if I said it, I must’ve enjoyed it”o Attitude-incongruent: “I said it because I was paid to, not because I really enjoyed it”o