1 lecture outline ntypes of stereotypes nassumptions of stereotypes ndefinition of stereotypes...

1

Lecture Outline

Types of stereotypesAssumptions of stereotypes Definition of stereotypesMeasurement of stereotypesStereotypes: inaccurate, exaggerated, and resistant

to change?

Extra Credit next week at start of class

2

Extra CreditNext Wednesday (April 3rd) there will be an

experiment. If you are late, you can’t participate and will miss the extra credit

Participation will earn you extra credit that will be added to final grade in class

Participation is of course voluntary

3

Midterm

Grades have been posted on 1st floor of Lago

To see exam, please make an appt. with me or TA

4

Stereotypes

Working definition:

Generalized beliefs

about a social group

attributes behaviors social roles(nurturing) (homemakers)(take care of children)

5

Types of Stereotypes

Cultural stereotypes

Beliefs about a group that

are endorsed by society at large

Examples……...

6

Cultural Stereotypes

Across 1200 commercials women were portrayed most often as….Domestics Dependent on menSubmissiveSex objects StupidSuperwomen

7

Types of Stereotypes

Personal (individual) stereotypes

One person’s beliefs

about a group

8

Cultural and Personal StereotypesSometimes they overlap:

Society portrays New Yorkers as loud, and Mary thinks they are loud too

Sometimes they don’t overlap:

Society portrays Librarians as spinsters, but Mary doesn’t think they are

9

Consensual Stereotypes

Definition:

Extent to which people agree on the content of a stereotype

High consensus = high agreement

10

Consensual Stereotypes

Personal stereotypesSometimes consensual: (many people

may believe that New Yorkers are loud)

Sometimes not consensual: (Mary believes lawyers are short, but nobody else does

11

Assumptions of Stereotypes

Stereotypes have been characterized in three ways

1. Inaccurate

2. Exaggerations

3. Resistant to change

12

Stereotype Inaccuracy

Stereotypes are inaccurate when they are at odds with empirical evidence

La Pierre (1936)

Purpose: Examine whether ethnic stereotypes are inaccurate

13

La Pierre (1936)Armenian stereotype:

dishonestlyingdeceitful

Procedure: Sampled credit ratings from local a Merchant’s

AssociationCompared Armenian & non-Armenians

14

La Pierre (1936)

Prediction: If Armenians really are dishonest, lying, and deceitful, then they should have worse credit ratings than non-Armenians

15

La Pierre (1936)

Percent of good, fair and bad credit risk

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Good Fair Bad

Armenians Non-Armenians

16

La Pierre (1936)

Armenian stereotype did NOT correspond to empirical evidence

The stereotype was inaccurate

17

Stereotype are Exaggerations

Stereotypes are exaggerations when differences between groups are thought to be larger than they really are

Example…….

18

Stereotype are Exaggerations

Perceived Heights of Men and Women

Men = 5’11 Women = 5’5 (Diff = 6 in.)

Actual Heights of Men and Women

Men = 5’10 Women = 5’6 (Diff = 4 in.)

Perceived differences are exaggerated

19

Stereotypes are Resistant to Change

Stereotypes remain stable over time and across generations

20

Are stereotypes inherently inaccurate, always exaggerated, and highly resistant to change?

No.

As you will see soon, stereotypes

have been stereotyped!!

21

Definitions of Stereotypes

For most of the 20th Century researchers did not have a good, clear definition of the term “stereotype”

22

Definitions of Stereotypes

Ashmore & Del Boca (1981)

Sampled the literature to identify how stereotypes were defined.

This is what they found……….

23


Stereotypes had been

defined in six different ways!!

24

1. Generalized Beliefs

Stereotyping may be defined as the tendency to attribute generalized and simplified characteristics to groups of people in the form of verbal labels, and to act towards the members of those groups in terms of those labels (Vinacke, 1949, p. 265).

25

2. Categories or Concepts

A stereotype is commonly thought of as involving a categorical response--i.e., membership is sufficient to evoke the judgment that the stimulus person possesses all of the attributes belonging to that category (Secord, 1959, p. 309).

26

3. Incorrectly Learned

Unlike other generalizations stereotypes are based not on an inductive collection of data, but on hearsay, rumor, and anecdotes--in short, on evidence which is insufficient to justify the generalization (Klineberg, 1951 p. 505).

27

4. Exaggerations

A stereotype is an exaggerated belief associated with a category (Allport, 1958, p. 187).

28

5. Inaccurate

A stereotype is a fixed impression, which conforms very little to the fact it pretends to represent, and results from our defining first and observing second (Katz and Braly, 1935, p. 181).

29

6. Rigid and Resistant to Change

Stereotypy...the disposition to think in rigid categories (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 228).

30

YIKES!

What sense can one

make of all that?

Field lacking formal, consistent and clear definition of the term “stereotype”

31


Offered A Formal Definition

“A set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a

group of people”

32


Limitation:

Lots of attributes describe members of social groups, but they are not part of the stereotype

Example……..….

33

WOMEN

According to sex stereotypes, women are….... nurturing take care of children homemakers

But women also……..have two arms

eat food

have friends

34

Question: Why aren’t those attributes in the stereotype of women?

35

Answer: Because they don’t distinguish women from other groups.

We will return to this point, but most researchers use Ashmore & Del Boca’s definition.

36

Measurement of Stereotypes

Three common procedures:

1. Adjective checklist

2. Rating scale

3. Free responses

37

Adjective Checklists

Participants are given list of predetermined attributes and select those that are most typical of group

38

1st way that stereotypes were measured

Katz and Braly (1933)Sampled 100 Princeton University students (all male, all

white)

Used adjective checklist procedure to identify stereotypes of 10 ethnic and national groups


39

Katz and Braly (1933)

The 10 groups

Germans Jews

Italians Americans

African Americans Chinese

Irish Japanese

English Turks

40


Procedure:

1. Participants given list of 84 traits

2. Participants selected the 5 that were most typical of each group (5 traits per group)

41


How content was assessed:

The 10 traits that were selected most often

42

Results: Content

African Americans

Percent

Trait endorsedSuperstitious 84%

Lazy 75%

Happy-go-lucky 38%

Ignorant 38%

Musical 26%

Jews Percent

Trait endorsedShrewd 79%

Mercenary 49%

Industrious 48%

Grasping 34%

Intelligent 29%

43

Results: Content

Irish

Percent

Trait endorsedPugnacious 45%

Quick tempered 39%

Witty 38%

Honest 32%

Very religious 29%

Americans Percent

Trait endorsedIndustrious 49%

Intelligent 48%

Materialistic 33%

Ambitious 33%

Progressive 27%

44

Results: Content

Irish

Percent

Trait endorsedPugnacious 45%

Quick tempered 39%

Witty 38%

Honest 32%

Very religious 29%

Americans Percent

Trait endorsedIndustrious 49%

Intelligent 48%

Materialistic 33%

Ambitious 33%

Progressive 27%

45

Results: Content

Italians

Percent

Trait endorsedArtistic 53%

Impulsive 44%

Passionate 37%

Quick tempered 35%

Musical 30%

Japanese Percent

Trait endorsedIntelligent 48%

Industrious 46%

Progressive 26%

Shrewd 23%

Sly 21%

46

How consensus was assessed:

Distinctiveness scores: Number of traits needed to account for 50% of responses

All you need to know is that these scores measured consensus and lower scores = more consensus

47

Results: Consensus Group Distinctiveness Score

African Americans 4.6 (most consensual)

Germans 5.0

Jews 5.5

Italians 6.9

English 7.0

Irish 8.5

Americans 8.8

Japanese 10.9

Chinese 12.0Turks 15.9 (least consensual)

48


Benefits:Can include a lot of attributesEasy to complete

Drawback:May omit central traits from listList may become outdated

49

Rating Scales

Participants given list of pre-determined attributes and asked to rate how much each describes the group

How warm-hearted are gay men?

1 2 3 4 5not at all very

50

Rating ScalesBenefits:

Can include a lot of attributesEasy to complete

Drawback:May omit central traits from listList may become outdated

51

Rating Scales

One distinct advantage over Adjective Checklists:

More specific measurement of the stereotype --

Responses are not “all or none”

52

Rating Scales

Measurement specificity important because…….

Researchers can assess “stereotype strength”

53

Rating Scales

Definition: Stereotype Strength

Extent to which the attributes in a stereotype are thought

to characterize the group

Example……...

54

Example: Stereotype Strength

Smithtown residents

very upper classvery snobbishvery reclusive

Jonestown residents

slightly upper classslightly snobbishslightly reclusive

55

Example: Stereotype Strength

The content of the stereotypes is the same…………..BUT

Smithtown stereotype is stronger

VERY characteristic of Smithtown

SLIGHTLY characteristic of Jonestown

56

Content vs. Strength

Stereotype content: attributes contained in a stereotype

Stereotype strength: extent to which these attributes are thought to characterize a group

57

Stereotype Strength

Adjective Checklists cannot measure a stereotype’s strength

Rating scales can measure a stereotype’s strength

58

Free Responses

Participants asked to list the attributes that describe a social group

Example

Please list those attributes that you believe describe Germans

59

Free ResponsesBenefits:

Measures central traitsDon’t ever become outdated

Drawbacks:Incomplete respondingMay not measure weakly endorsed attributes

60

Distinguishing Features

Adjective checklists, rating scales, and free responses may indirectly assess the attributes that distinguish between groups

Only one measure does so directly

61

Diagnostic Ratio

Participants given a list of attributes and asked to make two percentage estimates

1. % of group that has each attribute

2. % of reference group that has each attribute

62

Diagnostic Ratio

DR = % of group (with attribute)

% of reference (with attribute)

63

Diagnostic RatioWhen DR = 1 (or close to 1), attribute

does not distinguish between groups

Example

Jon believes that……

99.9% of women have arms

99.9% of Americans have arms

DR = 99.9/99.9 =1

64

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially greater than 1, attribute does distinguish between groups and is stereotypic of group

Example: Jon believes that…….

35% of women are nurturing

20% of Americans are nurturingDR = 35/20 = 1.75

65

Diagnostic Ratio

When DR substantially less than 1, attribute does distinguish between groups and is counterstereotypic of group

Example: Jon believes that…….

10% of women are aggressive

25% of Americans are aggressiveDR = 10/25 = .40

66

Diagnostic Ratio

So, according to the DR measure, a stereotype is defined….

As set of beliefs about a group that distinguish that group from other groups in either a stereotypic way (DR > 1) or a counterstereotypic way (DR < 1).

67

McCauley & Stitt (1978)

Purpose:

1. Show utility of DR

2. Measure (in)accuracy of stereotype about African Americans

68


Participants:

Sampled five groupsHigh school studentsCollege studentsUnion membersChurch ChoirSocial work students

69


Procedure:

Step 1: Participants estimated % of African Americans and % of Americans that had 7 characteristics……..

70

7 Characteristics

% completed HS

% that are illegitimate

% that were unemployed last month

% who have been victims of crimes

% on welfare

% w/4 or more children

% w/female heads of households

71


Procedure (continued):

Step 2: Obtained census information to serve as criteria for accuracy

Step 3: Transformed census information into DR scores

72

Results: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

76

Attribute Criteria HS College Union Choir SW

HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

Green DR’s (or DR in parentheses) = different from 1 (p < .05).

Black DR’s not different from 1 (p > .05).

Underlined DR’s = different from criteria (p < .05)

73


77


HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

Most DR’s different from one (green): People held stereotype of African Americans

74


78


HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

Some DR’s different from criteria [underlined]. Other DR’s not different from criteria [not underlined]: People’s stereotypes were both inaccurate [underlined] and accurate [not underlined]

75


79


HS .65 (.68) (.73) (.67) (.68) (.60)

Illegitimate 3.10 (1.80) (1.70) (2.10) (1.90) (2.30)

Unemployed 1.90 (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) (2.60) (2.30)

Victims 1.50 .83 (1.80) (2.00) 1.50 2.30

Welfare 4.60 (2.30) (1.90) (1.60) (1.80) 1.40

Kids 1.90 (1.60) (1.40) 1.60 (1.30) (1.30)

Female head 2.80 (1.70) (1.90) (1.70) (1.50) (1.70)

When DR’s indicated inaccurate stereotype [underlined], difference was smaller than criteria: People’s stereotypes underestimated real differences. They did not exaggerate real differences

76


Summary of Findings

1. Content: People endorsed stereotypes of African Americans (most DR’s different than 1)

77


2. (In)accuracy: a) Some DR scores different from criteria

(inaccuracy)

b) Other DR scores not different from criteria (accuracy)

African American stereotype both

accurate and inaccurate

78


3. Exaggeration: When stereotype was inaccurate, DR scores showed underestimation not exaggeration

79

Conclusions: McCauley & Stitt (1978)

1. Stereotypes not always inaccurate

2. Inaccurate stereotypes not always exaggerated

80

Stereotypes Have Been Stereotyped

So, although people do hold stereotypes, those stereotypes are not necessarily inaccurate nor are they always exaggeration.

But what about resistance to change?

81

Princeton Trilogy

Katz & Braly (1933)Gilbert (1951)Karlins, Coffman, & Walters (1969)

Recent Replication/Extension

Madon et al. (2001)

82

Princeton Trilogy Limitation of the Princeton trilogy:

Never updated the attribute list

Problem because……

Outdated attribute list may omit current beliefs and underestimate change by leading people to endorse old, and therefore, similar stereotypes

83

Madon et al. (2001)

Three studies:

Study 1: replicated Princeton trilogy

Study 2: updated the attribute list

Study 3: assessed changes in favorableness

84

Madon et al. (2001) Study 1

Procedure:

1. Given original attribute list

2. For each group, selected the five most typical

85

Madon et al. (2001): Study 1

Results:

Content: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly

This is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

86


Results:

Consensus: Only 1 (African American) of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly

This too is consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

87

Outdated Attribute List

Study 1 showed little change

Could this be due to an

outdated attribute list?

Study 2 tested this by

updating the attribute list

88


Procedure:

1. Updated original attribute list w/322

new attributes (total = 406)

2. Rated extent to which each attribute described the groups

89


Results

Content: 9 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish didn’t change

Consensus: 7 of the 10 stereotypes changed significantly. Irish, Jewish, Italian did not change

90


These results are NOT consistent with idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

91


Purpose:

Examine whether the stereotypes have changed in favorableness

92


Procedure:

Participants rated the favorableness of the 1933, 1951, 1969 and 1990s stereotypes

93

Madon et al. (2001): Study 3Results

More Favorable Less FavorableAfrican American American

Chinese English

Japanese German

Turkish

Italian

Irish

Jewish

94


Changes in favorableness do NOT support idea that stereotypes are resistant to change

95

Stereotypes are not inherently inaccurate (McCauley & Stitt, 1978)

Stereotypes are not always exaggerated (McCauley & Stitt, 1978)

Stereotypes are not resistant to change (Madon et al., 2001)

96

Why Study Stereotypes?

Stereotypes may create social problems

One way they can do this is through self-fulfilling prophecies

97

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Definition:

Self-fulfilling prophecies are false beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment

98

Three steps to a SFP:

1. Perceiver holds false belief about target

2. Perceiver treats target in manner consistent with false belief

3. Target responds to this treatment in such a way as to confirm the originally false belief

99

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies are not Perceptual Biases

Perceptual biases:

When a perceiver believes that a false belief has come true, when in fact it has not

100

Self-Fulfilling Prophecies Do Not Reflect Predictive Accuracy

Predictive Accuracy:

When a perceiver correctly predicts a target’s future behavior, but did not cause that behavior to occur

(I predict Jazz will win, and they do)

101

Stereotypes and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Merton (1948)

African Americans thought to be strike breakersAfrican Americans barred from unionsHad few job opportunitiesTook any work that came alongTook strikers jobsConfirmed stereotype

102

Research on Self-Fulfilling Prophecies

Studies fall into two broad categories

1. Naturalistic research:

Perceivers’ beliefs assessedInaccuracy of beliefs determinedTeachers and students

2. Experimental research:

False beliefs induced

103

Snyder, Tanke, & Bersheid (1978)

Purpose:

Examine whether the attractiveness stereotype is self-fulfilling

Stereotype is that attractive people have all sorts of good attributes (e.g., intelligent, friendly, sociable)

104


Participants:51 men and 51 women men and women paired offnever saw one another

Men = perceivers

Women = targets

105


Procedure:Interactions w/o nonverbal behaviorBiographical questionnaire for partnerPhoto of male Male got photo of his female partnerMale rated his partner on traitsConversed over telephone (tape made)Male rated his partner again

106


Manipulation:

Attractive partner

Unattractive partner

107


Judges listened to conversation

Judges rated male’s behavior

Judges rated female’s behavior

108


Results:

Males judged warmer and nicer in attractive condition

Females judged warmer and friendlier in attractive condition

109


Females did not differ across conditions

Thus, only possible cause of differences in behavior after conversation was due to the treatment they received…………...

110


Specifically…….

The men were very warm and nice to the “beautiful” women

The “beautiful” women responded in kind.

111


The men were not warm and not nice to the “ugly” women

The “ugly” women responded in kind.

1 lecture outline ntypes of stereotypes nassumptions of stereotypes ndefinition of stereotypes...

Documents

armenian stereotype

inaccuratela pierre

bad credit riskla pierre

sampled credit ratings

worse credit ratings

empirical evidencela

ethnic stereotypes

generationsare stereotypes