SS25 Vorurteile

• People learn from environment
• Bezugspersonen Einfluss auf Vorurteile
• Direkte Instruktion, Beobachtung Role Model, Verstärkunf (positives/ negatives Feedback wie lachen)
• Peers, media & cultural influences,

• Similarity higher in families that discuss social-political issues -> some parts through interaction, discussion, modelling of values (socialized)
• Positives unterstützendes Verhältnis (bzw. Wies wahrgenommen wird) umso größer ähnlichkeit

• Genetics
• Sozialisationsfaktoren (interaktionen, community in der kind aufwächst -> diverses umfeld)
• Beeinflussung von fernseherprogrammen, freundeskreis (am anfang) etc.

• Konservativ = Vorurteile (durch verbundene Charaktereigenschaften erklärt)
• Build on motivated social cognition perspective -> adopting conservative political beliefs satisfies goals for structure/ certainty/ stability/ threat avoidance
• Characteristics underlying conservatism are also increasing prejudice
• Conservatives express more prejudice towards black people/ poor people/ queer people/ immigrants

• People across political spectrum express prejudice against groups of dissimilar values/ beliefs (politics, religion, individual characteristics offenheit, ekelsensitivität, kognitive fähigkeit)
• Similar prejudice/ politically intolerant towards dissimilar groups
• Psychological charactersistics underlying conservatism =/ characteristic underlying prejudice

Grundlage:

• Annahme psychologischer Unterschied zwischen liberalen & konservativen
• Similarity breeds liking & contributes to recognition of shared group membership
• Preferring/ bias ingroup over outgroup
• Value threat associated with prejudice

• Niedrige Offenheit: Vorurteil gegenüber sozial unkonventionellen Gruppen (atheists, queers)
• Hohe Offenheit : Vorurteil gegenüber sozial konventionellen Gruppen (militär, evangelische christen) / oder keine Vorurteile
• Hohe Ekelsensitivität: Vorurteile geg. Gruppen die “sexuelle moral” gefährden
• Niedrige Ekelsensitivität: vorurteil Gegen Gruppen die traditionelle “sexuelle moral” aufrecht erhalten
• Hohe kognitive fähigkeit: vorurteil Gegen conservative, konventionelle Gruppen, Gruppen in denen mitglied wahl über Gruppen angehörigkeit haben
• Niedrige kognitive Fähigkeiten: vorurteile Gegen liberale, unkonventionelle Gruppen, Gruppen in denen mitglieder wenig wahl über angehörigkeit haben

= > characteristisc linked to conservatism only linked to prejudice against low status, liberal, unconventional social groups

= > characteristics linked to liberals linked to prejudice against higher status, conservative, conventional groups

Gemeinsamkeiten

• Ideologie wichtig für soziale identität
• Unterschiedl. Idoleogien -> unterschiedl. Self-reported personalities/ values
• Conservatives show prejudice toward liberal/ low status sub groups

Unterschiede

• Different target groups
• (perhaps different definitions)
• Messungen (feeling thermometers, measures of social distance)

• Evidence is unconvincing
• Acts (hate crime, physical crime etc) unsymetrisch (bspw. Auf jeden christen 500 muslime -> crazy in betracht auf basisrate, tödl. Extremismus fälle: 73% häufiger rechts Gegen links)
• Shake conceptual foundations, including problematic definition of prejudice
• Contradicted by most knowledge about intergroup relations in society
• Ganzack & Schul -> conservatives dislike liberals significantly more than liberals dislike conservatives (overall: moderate) / oder gar keine vorurteile
• Direkte Maße: Feeling thermomenter ratings potentially problematic -> social desirability, attitudes of liberals less extreme, more “lukewarm”

• Minorities vs. majorities
• More intelligent people express more negative attitudes towards ideological opponents -> process of critical discernment not pre-judgement -> pre judgment relevant for prejudice
• Vorurteile sollten nicht mit dislike/ distrust gleichgesetzt werden!
• If every negative (even if not extreme) evaluation of a person / group is consideren prejudice, the concept becomes meaningless (could lead to bizarre, morally indefensible claims e.g. jews vs. nazis)
• Urge return to prejudice studies in considerment of real-world consequences such as hate crimes

• On rating scale more extreme ratings (closer to cold) than liberals
• Way more hate crimes committed by conservatives than liberals (-> FBi hate crime statistics)

• Camp experiment (sherif) -> simply being in a group creates preference for ingroup, increase with competition (loss of goodwill between groups) - > attempts to crete friendships only partially successful
• Effect of intergroup competition: stronger ingroup favortism & outgroup prejudice
• Group conflicts rational <= incompatible goals, competing for scarce resources
• Realistic threats rooted in zero-sum beliefs (which aren’t always correct)

doesn’t mean threat is rlly realistic & andere Arten funktionieren:

• Social Identity
• Symbolisch (e.g. Kultur)

• Zero-sum beliefs: gains for one imply loss for other
• People feel threatened when they interpret relations as zero-sum/ competitive in nature

• Situational factors can generate perceptions of competition that evoke prejudice (e.g. social upheaval, war, unemployment, population changes, collective action by disadvantaged groups in service of greater equality)
• Exposed to media that suggests zero-sum relation they report more neg. attitudes
• Increase chances of ingroup during competition by reducing outgroups ability to compete (prejudice/ discrimination as tool) (study: presenting competition from immigrants to people lead them to pull back from forms of help that could be most empowering e.g. language training)

• Emotionen (e.g. Frust, Bedrohung)
• Kognitive Überlastung
• Strategie (Diskriminierung als schwächen des Gegners)
• Identität

• Outgroup homogeneity effect (tendency to view members of other groups as especially similar to one another, especially on neg. characteristic)
• Ingroup homogeneity (view members of own group as especially similar, especially on pos. characteristic)
• Ingroup distancing effect: distance from members of ingroup that are a threat to group image, creating a new sub group (rich vs. poor whites)

• Only experimental studies (keyworks like experiment, control group etc)
• Biomedical meta-analytic standards -> searched five seeprate databases (published/ unpublished starting 2007)
• Measurement of prejudice as outcome
• Keywords to desrcribe prejudice manifestions e.g. stereotyp, islamophobia
• 418 studies, 309 manuscripts
• Excluding criteria: effects of prejudice on target, interventions that did not aim to reduce prejudice, work o nintergroup bias that is not nec. Rooted in animus (e.g. political groups, interuniversity conflict, interventions that seem more short term -> priming), gender prejudice (not-queer)

• Interventionstyp: Modalstudien, vorgestellter/ indirekter Kontakt, Light Touch interventions
• Ergebnistyp: explicit survey measure of attitudes/ beliefs
• Vorurteilstyp: racial & ethnic prejudice
• Interventionsumgebung: college

• Effect size d: 0,357 (wie 8 Punkte Verschiebung auf Skala von 1-100)
• SE: 0,02
• Not transformative, but meaningful
• nur große Studien: d: 0,19

• Treatments that are easy to implement, brief (<10 min), cheap
• 8% of 319 light touch intervention studies measure outcome one day after, only 1% a month later
• In meta analysis with high sample size effect of (d=0,16, SE= 0,02)

Größte:

• Entertainment (filmische künstlerische Umsetzung)
• Selbstbild Affirmation - value constistency & self worth (positives Selbstbild stärken, reaktivieren, und auf die Werte aufmerksam machen also was ihnen wichtig ist moralisch)

Niedrigste:

• Peer influence, discussion, dailogue (-> polarisierung)
• face-to-face contact 

• Immer: Bewertung von Gruppen und deren Individuuen
• Gemeinsam rekonstruierte Dimensionen des Begriffsfeldes: Ausßmaß Generalisierung/ Akkuratheit/ Flexibilität/ affektive Reaktionen
• Weitere beobachtete Faktoren: Beteiligung von Emotionen, Einfluss von Motiven, Einfluss der werte des Forschenden/ Laien (VU = moralisch schlecht), Stereotype liefern teils die Grundlage für Vorurteile

• Certain characteristics are associated with other groups
• Tendency of people tot hink of someone/ something in similar terms (attributes) based on a common feature shared by group individuals
• Valenz: positive & negative stereotypes
• Starrheit / Flexibilität
• Individuell / kulturell
• Affekt/ Kognition

• we pick up information in form of sterotypes that was given by our culture -> percieve in those stereotypes
• (frustration-aggression connection – aber nicht von Lippmann )

• used to be seen as an attribute <- evaluation of stimulus, limited to negative
• negative & positivs (valenz)
• Starrheit / Flexibilität
• there are some studies that show that prejudice is stornger towards groups that are disadvantaged
• smith: emotional reaction to another group, positives attituted/ affects during individuals  (not because of sub typing tho) -> what self-categorie is salient for us at that moment, what context the interaction occurs in, how that person helps/ hinders movement towards goal at that time
• agreed on: occurs between groups, involves an evaltuation of a group, biased perception of a group, based on real/ imagined charactersitcs of the group

• stereotypese/ prejudice as result of competition between groups for scarce resources

• Original idea: cognitive constitency betweek stereotypes/ prejudice/ behaviour
• No evidence for stable attitudes that guide their behavior (aber verhalten von viel beeinflusst)

• Stereotype product of inherent limitations of our cognitve system -> adaptive, efficient categorization process
• Grouping of stimuli into features/ attributes/ functions to process (reduction of complexity)
• Automatic grouping into „us“ and „them“ -> race, gender, age -> basic/ primitve categories

• Efficiency/ Speed rather than accuracy
• Motivation: Genauigkeit, Einfachheit, Vorhersagbarkeit
• Aufrechterhaltung: few negative outcomes for inaccurate assessment, kein Feedback -> Meidung bei negativen Feedbacks
• But it doesnt include other factors (e.g. affect, motivation)

• Includes motivation & affective factor + cognitve ones
• Motivation depending on dynamic of context
• Matching perceivers needs, values, goals at that moment
• Sometimes accuracy, sometimes efficiency
• Subtyping möglich

• Kulturell: shared or community-wide patterns of beliefs
• Individuell: belief held by an individual about the characteristics of a group
• Importance difference: individual not necessarily cultural, assessing knowledge about cultural stereotypes doesn’t equal individual stereotypes, individual more directly related to thoughts/ feelings/ behaviour

• Individual difference instrument designed to relate to discriminatory responding based on group membership
• Including motivation, affect, behaviour
• indirect/ direct

• Verbal expression of prejudice required
• Based on assumption people are aware of their responses & willing to express

• Asses prejudice without requiring verbal expression

• To show different consequences of these varieties, can be applied to variety of racial/ ethnic groups
• Blatant: hot, close, direct, threat/rejection, intimacy
• Subtle: cool, distant, indirect, traditional values, cultural differences, positive emotions -> subtile Äußerungsformen

• Right wind authoritarianism
• Based on belief that a certain “type of men” is prone to prejudice
• Cluster of traits conducive to prejudice development (e.g. conventional/ traditional values, reverence to authority, willingness aggress against those thought to threaten those values)
• Weak/ moderate correlation to sdo, both personality variables but: authority-derived negativity toward perceived social deviants

(Normabweichung)

• Social dominance orientation
• Not directly about prejudice -> preference for making status distinctions between groups/ maintain social hierarchies that support valuing some groups more than others
• Legitimizing myths that justify social & economic inequities between groups
• Weak/ moderate correlation to RWA, both personality variables but: individual-derived negativity toward any low-status group
• generell gedacht: Hierarchie toll, egal dazu wo man steht (?)

(Hierarchien werden gewollt & gepflegt)

• affect triggered through stimuli -> easier activiation of similary evaluated objects -> harder to activate differently evaluated objects
• prime: picture (e.g. of poc) is shown for brief duration, followed by target (positive/negative) -> reaction time gives data

(target reiz, priming reiz etc)

• basis: response latencies to stimuli to find associations in memories -> tests association in memory instead of affects like priming
• forcing participnats to classify yfour categories of stimuli using only two response keys (basically the test I did)
• response to category not to individuals

• MCPR -> concern for acting prejudice, restraint to avoid dispute
• IMS / EMS -> motivation to not be prejudiced for personal, self-derived reasons / external antiprejudice social norms (high IMS higher sucess), (ems suprinsingly report higher levels of prejudice in direct measures)