stereotypes - a brief history
DESCRIPTION
Stereotypes - A Brief History. Dramatic Decrease in Expression of Stereotypes Katz & Braly (1933) and replications Survey Results Despite this evidence subtler forms of stereotyping still evident Sagar & Schofield - Pencil poking study Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) - interview study - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Stereotypes -A Brief History
• Dramatic Decrease in Expression of Stereotypes– Katz & Braly (1933) and replications– Survey Results
• Despite this evidence subtler forms of stereotyping still evident– Sagar & Schofield - Pencil poking study– Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) - interview study– Darley & Gross (1983) - SES and performance– Rogers & Prentice-Dunn - Insult study
• Dovidio & Gaertner’s Aversive Racism Explanation– Helping Study– Inadmissable Evidence Study
Stereotypes of Blacks in Four Generations
1933 1951 1967 1982
Superstitious 84% 41% 13% 6%Lazy 75% 31% 26% 13%Ignorant 38% 24% 11% 10%Happy-go-lucky 38% 17% 27%15%Musical 26% 33% 47% 29%Ostentatious 26% 11% 25% 5%Very Religious24% 17% 8% 23%Stupid 22% 10% 4% 1%
Stereotypes of Jews in Three Generations
1933 1951 1967
Shrewd 79% 47% 30%Mercenary 49% 28% 15%Industrious 48% 29% 33%Grasping 34% 17% 17%Intelligent 29% 37% 37%Ambitious 21% 28% 48%
Survey Results Indicating Prejudice
Percent saying "Yes"
020406080
100
1960 1970 1980 1990Would you move if Blacks moved into your neighborhoodShould Whites be able to keep Blacks out
Rogers & Prentice-Dunn (1981)
Intensity of Shock
75
100
125
150
175
No Insult Insult
Black "Victim"White "Victim"
Seeking Help from Others and Aversive Racism
Percent Helping
30405060708090
African-American European-American
Help OfferedHelp Solicited
The Weighting of Inadmissable Evidence and Aversive Racism
Rated Guilt
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
African-American European-American
Without EvidenceWith Evidence
Recent Models
• Devine (1989) - The argument– Study 1 - everyone knows the stereotype– Study 2 - everyone automatically activates the
stereotype– Study 3 - low prejudice people but not high prejudice
people control the application of the stereotype• Does everyone automatically activate the
stereotype?– Lepore & Brown (1997) - category does not
automatically activate the stereotype for all people– Fazio et al. (1995) - there are reliable difference in
how people automatically activate the stereotype
Stereotype Activation
• Do people automatically activate stereotypes?– It depends on what you mean by automatic;
without awareness yes; without intention, yes; without effort, no•Gilbert & Hixon (1991)•Spencer, Fein, Wolfe, Fong, & Hodgson
(1998); Study 2– It depends on people’s motivation - when
motivated to stereotype effort is not needed either•Spencer, Fein, Wolfe, Fong, & Hodgson
(1998); Studies 1 & 3
Gilbert & Hixon
# of Ster. Completions
2
3
4
Not Busy BusyCognitive Busyness Condition
Asian AssistantWhite Assistant
Spencer et al. (1998) - Study 3
# of Ster. Completions
00.20.40.60.8
11.2
African-American European-AmericanEthnicity of the Prime
Positive FeedbackNegative Feedback
Stereotype Inhibition
• Activation of another stereotype can lead to stereotype inhibition– Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne (1995)
• When motivated to inhibit stereotypes they are inhibited– Sinclair & Kunda (1998)
Stereotype Application
• Can people control their use of stereotypes - this is actually trickier than you might think– Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten (1994) - stereotypes
on the rebound• Motivated application of stereotypes
– Fein & Spencer (1997)•Study 1 - self-affirmation and stereotype
application•Study 2 - negative feedback and stereotype
application•Study 3 - feeling better about yourself after
stereotyping
Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 1
Rating of Target
5060708090
100
Jewish ItalianEthnicity of the Target
Self-AffirmedNot Self-Affirmed
Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 2
Rating of Target
5
5.5
6
6.5
7
Gay StraightSexual Orientation of the Target
Neutral FeedbackNegative Feedback
Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 3Stereotyping
Rating of Target
50
60
70
80
90
Jewish ItalianEthnicity of the Target
Positive FeedbackNegative Feedback
Fein & Spencer (1997) - Study 3 Self-Esteem Change
Change in Self-Esteem
012345
Jewish ItalianEthnicity of the Target
Positive FeedbackNegative Feedback
The Target’s Perspective -Attributional Ambiguity
• Stigma and Self-Esteem– The findings– The explanations
•Attributions to prejudice•Disengagement•Within group comparisons
• Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, & Major (1991) - Blinds up/Blinds down study
• Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker (1997) - Priming bias leads to disengagement
Major, et al. (1997) - Study 2
Self-Esteem after Failure
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
Blacks Whites
Race PrimeNo Race Prime
Target’s Perspective -Stereotype Threat
• What is stereotype threat?• Its relation to academic performance• Steele & Aronson (1995)
– Study 1 - the effects of test diagnosticity– Study 2 - relation to stereotype activation and avoidance– Study 3 - the effect of the subtle priming of race
• Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1998) - stereotype threat and women’s math performance
• Stereotypic commericals and women’s math performance
• Steele, Spencer, Hummel, Schoem, & Nisbett (1998) - stereotype threat in the real world
A Model of the Origin and Effects of Stereotype Threat
Cultural Stereotype Stereotype Threat
Performance Deficits
Disidentification withStereotyped Domains
Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 1
Score on Test
2
4
6
8
10
12
Diagnostic Non-diagnostic
Whites Blacks
Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 2
Stereotype Activation
0
1
2
3
4
Diagnostic Non-diagnostic Control
Whites Blacks
Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 2
Stereotype Avoidance
15
20
25
30
35
40
Diagnostic Non-diagnostic Control
Whites Blacks
Steele & Aronson (1995) -Study 3
Score on Test
2
4
6
8
10
12
Race Primed Race not Primed
Whites Blacks
Spencer, et al. (in preparation)
Score on Test
0
10
20
30
40
Stereotypic Counter-StereotypicType of Commercial
Men Women
Steele, et al. (1998)First Semester GPA
22.22.42.62.8
33.2
Control Group Program Participants
European-AmericansAfrican-Americans
Changing Stereotypes
• The Contact hypothesis– The evidence is now in that it works– Factors that make it work better
•between group friendships are particularly important•endorsement of integration by authorities•no inter-group competition•equal status among students
• The Robber’s Cave Studies• Jigsaw Classroom and Superordinate Goals• Subtyping as a limit on the effectiveness of contact
– Kunda & Oleson (1995) - using information to subtype– Kunda & Oleson (1997) - extreme people get subtyped