Samenvatting
Summary Part 2 minor, problem 5,6,7,8 - Minor Cross-Cultural Psychology (FSWP-K-3-6)
Summary Part 2 minor, problem 5,6,7,8 - Minor Cross-Cultural Psychology (FSWP-K-3-6) + class notes!
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 41 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 41 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Problem 1RACISM – KASSIN (2019)
Racism = Prejudice and discrimination based on a person’s racial background, or
institutional and cultural practices that promote the domination of one racial
group over another
o Individual level Any person can be racist toward anyone else
o Cultural & institutional levels Some people are privileged while others
disadvantaged
The inequality may be unintentional
Impact on housing, employment, salaries, education, incarceration
etc.
Stereotypes = A beliefs/associations that link group of people with certain trait
or characteristics can be positive/negative and are more cognitive in nature
Prejudice = Negative feelings about others because of their connection to a
social group
Discrimination = Negative behavior directed against people because of their
membership in a particular group
o These 3 operate independently but often influence and reinforce each
other
RACISM: FORMS AND CHALLENGES
1. Modern racism = Subtle form of prejudice that surface when it is safe, socially
acceptable or easy to rationalize Moments of ambiguity
o People want to see themselves as fair, but they have feelings of anxiety
and discomfort about other racial groups (e.g., Avoid eye contact with
members of a group)
2. Aversive racism = Ambivalence between individuals’ sincerely fair-minded
attitudes/beliefs and their largely unconscious and unrecognized prejudicial
feelings and beliefs
o Microaggression Everyday subtle but harmful form of discriminations
that are experienced frequently by members of targeted groups (“my best
friend is black”)
3. Implicit racism = Unconscious and unintentionally racism
o Experiment:
Teachers’ reactions to children’s misbehavior in terms of feeling
troubled and disciplinary actions
Stereotypical white or black name to a child
In the first round no differences between white and black students,
in the second round teachers tended to feel more troubled and
recommended more severe discipline if they thought the child was
black
Implicit Association Test (IAT) = Examine the association between two
concepts
o Implicit racial bias found in children as young as 3 and 4 years old
Bias on explicit measures tends to decline with age but not on
implicit measures
(E.g., Racism toward African Americans = Comparing how
quickly participants associate African American with
negative/positive concepts compared to how quickly they
associate European American with the same concepts)
, Criticism = Not good predictor of behavior over time and across
situations
New research examines scores at group level and not
individual level
INTERRACIAL INTERACTIONS
Interracial interaction are challenging: whites may be concerned about not
wanting to be or not appearing racist
Using a color-blind mentality is worse that acknowledging racial differences
o Meta stereotypes Worry about being seen as consistent with these
stereotypes
o People have to regulate their behaviors, which leads to cognitively
exhaustion
o Experiment:
White students assigned the instructor role to teach either
white/black students
Measured: Level of implicit racism before the lesson and anxiety
during the lesson
Greater implicit racial bias More anxiety Less lesson quality
related to the learner test score for the blacks
Then the whites watched a video of the same lesson and performed
worse
Stigmatized = Being persistently stereotyped, perceived as deviant and
devalued in a society because of a membership in a particular social group or
because of a particular characteristic
o This can serve a self-protective function
(E.g., Black student receiving a negative feedback from a white
suffered less of a blow to their self-esteem if they attribute the
comment to racism BUT self-esteem was reduced by positive
feedback from white students)
o It can lead to negative outcomes Physical & psychological problems as
increased blood pressure, depression, breast cancer rates, stroke,
substance abuse, impaired relationships
Stereotype threat = The experience of concern about being evaluated based on
negative stereotypes about one’s group (social identity threat)
o Individuals can be affected even if they do not believe in the negative
stereotype
Specifically People who strongly identify with their group and
cares about performing well
o It can influence academic achievement in 2 ways:
Reaction to the threat can directly interfere with performance
If the stereotype is chronic, it can cause individuals to disidentify
from that domain
(e.g. White and black students have a difficult test; each
struggle but the black worry about failing AND worry about
confirm the negative stereotype)
o Experiment:
1st manipulation = White and black students did a difficult verbal
test
It was introduced to whites as problem-solving task
unrelated to ability
It was introduced to blacks as test of intellectual ability
o Black = More threated and additional stress Worse
performance
, 2nd manipulation = Report race before the test
It did not have effects for whites BUT impaired performance
for blacks
o Consequences:
Physiological arousal and stress; cognitive resources drained; loss
of focus on the task given the attempts to suppress intrusive
thoughts; working memory impaired; negative thoughts; elicited
neural activity biased toward negative, stereotype confirming
feedback
CAUSES OF STEREOTYPE THREAT
Social categorization = Classification of people into groups based on common
attributes Adaptive
o Even basic perception is influenced by social categorization
(e.g., Ambiguous face recognized as darker and more negative
implicit associations if the faces are labelled as racially black)
o It is a social conception that has no biological basis
There are more genetic variation within races than between races
People who think of a race as stable, biologically determined are
less likely to interact with outgroup members and accept racial
inequalities
Outgroup homogeneity effect = Tendency to assume that there is greater
similarity among members of outgroups than among members of ingroup (E.g.,
“Asians are all the same”)
o Outgroup members may even look alike
People are less likely to distinguish and recognize faces of members
of racial outgroups
Reasons: Less personal contact and familiarity with
outgroups and people often do not encounter a
representative sample of outgroups
Once a person categorize an unfamiliar person as member
of our ingroup/outgroup information about them are
processed differently
Dehumanization = People implicitly process outgroup faces more superficially
and as objects and lower-order animals
o Research reported that brain activities is consistent with how people react
to objects than humans even in children
DOES CONTACT REDUCE PREJUDICE OR DOES PREJUDICE REDUCE
CONTACT? BINDER ET AL. (2009)
Contact hypothesis (Allport) = Contact between groups is effective in reducing
prejudice if it takes place on an equal status footing with institutional support and
if it involves cooperation and allows for the development of close relationship
Aim: Examine the relationship between friendship contact and prejudice in a longitudinal
survey (Germany, Belgium and England), together with intergroup anxiety and typicality
of outgroup friends
Mostly cross-sectional studies on the topic so causality cannot be established
(criticism)
o Contact Prejudice (Contact effect)
Most studied interaction
Effects weaker for minorities than majorities
, Majority = Often have higher status and may avoid
displaying discrimination against minority since could be an
exploitation of status differences
Minority = More likely to be most concerned with being
discriminated and the optimal conditions of Allport’s theory
are more difficult to fulfill
o Prejudice Contact (Prejudice effect)
People with prejudiced are unlikely to seek for contact with
outgroup members and may actively avoid them
MEDIATING AND MODERATING PROCESSES
How? Intergroup anxiety Mediator
o Feeling of apprehension and awkwardness with being in contact situations
with outgroups members because of expected rejection, embarrassment
or misunderstanding
Positive experiences can help reduce intergroup anxiety
Contact does not reduce anxiety as strongly for minorities
Anxiety does not reduce prejudice as strongly for minorities
Both
When? Contact effect did not last for long and did not generalize well to other
members of outgroup not yet encountered
HYPOTHESES
1. Intergroup contact (=friendship) expected to show a negative effect on prejudice
& prejudice expected to show a negative effect on contact Supported
2. The prejudice effect expected to be smaller than the contact effect Supported
3. The contact effect expected to be stronger for majority than minority members
Supported
4. Moderator: Typicality of outgroup friends. It should moderate contact effects;
effects should be stronger for contact with outgroup members perceived as highly
typical Supported
5. Mediator: Intergroup anxiety. The effect of friendship contact on prejudice it is
expected to be partially mediated by intergroup anxiety Supported
RESULTS
Contact effect
o Effect stronger when outgroups were seen as highly typical
o Effect stronger for majority members than minorities (not significant)
o Quality of contact with outgroup have more beneficial effects than quantity
overtime
Moderator = Typicality of outgroup friends
Typical friends were more effective in reducing prejudice
Not typical did not reduce prejudice for majority
Not typical reduced prejudice for minorities
Mediator = Intergroup anxiety
Friendship contact was effective in reducing prejudice by
reducing intergroup anxiety
o Majorities = Stronger mediation effect
o Minorities = Prejudice might be influenced by factors
other than intergroup anxiety
GOAL-BASED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR STEREOYTPE
ACTIVATION AND APPLICATION – KUNDA ET AL. (2003)
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper itsross. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,99. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 67096 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen