1 / 12

Stereotyping and Prejudice

Stereotyping and Prejudice. Preliminary issues. An “informational cue” approach to social judgment Stereotyping and social categorization Social categories can vary as a function of Visibility Actual validity Perceived validity Permissibility (“taboo” status) Consciousness.

shamus
Télécharger la présentation

Stereotyping and Prejudice

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Stereotyping and Prejudice

  2. Preliminary issues • An “informational cue” approach to social judgment • Stereotyping and social categorization • Social categories can vary as a function of • Visibility • Actual validity • Perceived validity • Permissibility (“taboo” status) • Consciousness

  3. Stereotyping:inappropriate bias, or rational thinking? • Are there cases in which that “it’s ok” to use stereotypes?

  4. Crandall (1999):Subjective appropriateness of stereotyping Rating scale: 0 = NOT OK to feel negatively toward these people 1 = MAYBE OK to feel…. 2 = OK to feel…..

  5. 14. Fat People (.228) 15. Rap music fans (.275) 16.Traveling salesmen (.313) 17. Hare Krishnas (.407) 18. People who like country music (.430) 19. Lawyers (.460) 20. Gay soldiers (.520) 21. People who call the “Psychic Hotline” (.560) 22. Welfare Recipients (.620) 1. Blind people (.047) 2. Deaf people (.053) 3. Mentally retarded people (.053) 4. Members of a bowling league (.113) 5. Black Americans (.12O) 6. Jews (.120) 7. Hispanics (.141) 8. Asian Americans (.147) 9. Canadians (.148) 10. Ugly People (.193) 11. Cat owners (.220) 12. High School cheerleaders (.227) 13. People with AIDS (.227)

  6. 23. Feminists (.733) 24. Gamblers (.733) 25. People who go to Kansas State University (.653) 26. People who smell bad (.764) 27. Porn stars (.967) 28. Ex-convicts (.980) 29. People who cut in line (1.14) 30. People who litter (1.18) 31. Female prostitutes (1.24) 32. People who cheat on exams (1.25) 33. People who cheat on their spouses (1.64) 34. Drunk drivers (1.82) 32. Wife beaters (1.93) 33. Rapists (1.97) What’s determining this rank ordering?

  7. The “categorization” approach to stereotyping • “least effort principle” • “cognitive miser” view

  8. The Nature of Prejudice (Allport, 1954)“The human mind must think with the aid of categories….once formed, categories are the basis for normal prejudgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends on it.”

  9. This perspective suggests that stereotyping may be… • “natural” (or at least not completely unnatural) • not necessarily dysfunctional or even immoral • But validity is the bottom line

  10. “hits” and misses

  11. 1 Which of these persons is a mass murderer? 2 4 3

  12. expectations “Not dangerous” “dangerous” Incorrect (“miss”) “dangerous” correct reality Incorrect (false alarm) “not dangerous” correct • Amidou Diallo

More Related