STEREOTYPES PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION (Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2014)

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: 
 
STEREOTYPES 
PREJUDICE 
DISCRIMINATION
Melanie B. Tannenbaum, M.A. Spring 2014

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

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
Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

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.

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=n5Q5FQfXZag

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

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.

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.

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

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.

You have developed superpowers, and you can now
determine who will win baseball games this season. But,
there’s a catch. You only have two options. Either...
!
A) Both the Chicago Cubs and the Chicago White Sox win
the same number of games & hold the top ranking in their
relative leagues.
OR
B) Your favored team will do OK (though not the best), but
you can guarantee that your rival will be dead last in the
standings and have a terrible season.

!
!
Would you prefer for...
!
A. The Cubs and the Sox to be tied in how well they do?
!
B. Your team to do OK, but your rival to be 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 be
enhanced by negative
evaluations of outgroup.
!
!
Remember...people are
motivated 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 happen for any group, even those based on
arbitrary or meaningless criteria.

Is Prejudice Really 
Self-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

0
25
50
75
100
Positive Feedback Negative Feedback
Maria D'Agostino
Julie Goldberg
Candidate’s Personality Rating
If their self-esteem wasn’t
threatened, they didn’t
derogate the Jewish
candidate because there was
no reason to do so.

0
25
50
75
100
Maria D'Agostino
Julie Goldberg
Candidate’s Personality Rating
However, if they got negative
feedback, they coped with
self-esteem threat by dissing
the Jewish candidate

0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
Maria D'Agostino
Julie Goldberg
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
0.0015
0.0016
0.0017
0.0017
0.0018
White Doctor
Black Doctor
How Quickly They Recognize “Doctor” Stereotype Words
When people got positive
feedback from the doctor,
it activated “Doctor”
stereotypes.

0.0015
0.0016
0.0017
0.0017
0.0018
White Doctor
Black Doctor
How Quickly They Recognize “Black” Stereotype Words
When people got
negative feedback from
the doctor, it activated
“Black” stereotypes.

0.0015
0.0016
0.0017
0.0017
0.0018
Doctor Stereotype
Black Stereotypes
For Black Doctors...

0.0015
0.0016
0.0016
0.0017
0.0017
Doctor Stereotype
Black Stereotypes
For White Doctors...

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

The Cognitive Perspective
Schemas, schemas, schemas
and
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.

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
0
2.25
4.5
6.75
9
Stereotype No Stereotype
Trait Quiz
Indonesia Quiz
Overall 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

!
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

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

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.

A Class Divided: “Eye Of The Storm”

STEREOTYPES PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION (Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2014)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to STEREOTYPES PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION (Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2014)

Similar to STEREOTYPES PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION (Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2014) (20)

More from Melanie Tannenbaum

More from Melanie Tannenbaum (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

STEREOTYPES PREJUDICE & DISCRIMINATION (Psych 201 - Chapter 11 - Spring 2014)