Intercultural Communication CHAPTER 2 Social Categorization, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

CHAPTER Social Categorization , Stereotyping , and Discrimination SOURCE , Tarry , 2014 ) Stereotypes , prejudice , and discrimination . In ( Ed . Principles of ( int ) Retrieved February 13 , 2020 , from ( Creative Commons International License ) LEARNING OBJECTIVES . Describe the fundamental process of social categorization and its influence on thoughts , feelings , and behavior . Define stereotypes and describe the ways that stereotypes are measured . Review the ways that stereotypes influence our behavior . Review the causes and outcomes of favoritism . KEY TERMS authoritarianism feelings of social identity black sheep effect bias bogus pipeline procedure common identity favoritism contact hypothesis interdependence discrimination jigsaw classroom hypothesis homogeneity Homophobia In recent years , the Russian government has enacted a series of laws designed to target members of its ( community . These include forcing organizations to register as foreign agents , banning depictions of homosexuality ( including carrying rainbow flags ) in front people , and denying sion to groups wanting to organize gay pride parades . Unfortunately , homophobic attitudes and even violence are not uncommon in Russian society . For example , groups such as Occupy have been known to lure and then beat and torture gay teenagers . In 2012 , a video that surfaced online showed six members of another wing organization torturing a young man who later died , according to the Spectrum Human Rights Alliance ( a group that advocated for rights in Eastern Europe ) The tone of some of the Russian media reflects these attitudes . For instance , the community are portrayed Implicit Association Test ( Summarize the results of Henri research on minimal groups . Outline the personality and cultural variables that influence favoritism . Review the causes of discrimination and the ways that we can reduce it . Summarize the conditions under which contact does or does not reduce prejudice and discrimination . prejudice social categorization social dominance orientation ( stereotype stereotype threat superordinate goals ultimate attribution error as an aggressive minority whose children have venereal disease , and , in 2012 , a news anchor mended on air that the hearts of victims of car accidents activists are attacked during an action Day of Kisses against a homophobic bill in Moscow . Image by Roma is used under BY SA . 29

30 that happen to be homosexual should be buried or burnt as unfit for prolonging anybody In recent years , several commentators have drawn between Russia persecution of its community and the treatment of the Jewish community by the Nazi regime in the years leading up to the Holocaust . In 2014 , public figures around the world called for a ( unsuccessfully ) ofthe Winter Olympic Games in , arguing that the language of the Olympic Charter explicitly denounces all forms of discrimination . Ultimately , the Winter Olympic Games went ahead as planned , although athletes and Olympic tourists alike were warned against promoting sexual Sources Ennis , 2014 , January ) Homophobia spreads in Russian media . News . June ) Homophobia In Russia is taking a turn . The Daily Beast . comi turn , A . 2013 , August ) Russia The next ?

The Daily Beast . Contemporary increases in globalization and tion are leading to more culturally diverse populations in many countries . These changes will create many for society and for the individuals within it . Gender , sexual orientation , and ethnic diversity can improve creativity and group performance , facilitate new ways of looking at problems , and allow multiple viewpoints on decisions ( 2011 , 2005 van , 2007 ) On the other hand , as we have seen in many places in this book , perceived similarity is an extremely important determinant of liking . Members of culturally diverse groups may be less attracted to each other than are members of more homogeneous groups , may have more communicating with each other , and in some cases may actively dislike and even engage in aggressive behavior toward each other . The principles of social psychology , including the , behavior , and to the study of stereotyping , prejudice , and discrimination , and social psychologists have expended substantial research studying these concepts ( Figure ) The cognitive ponent in our perceptions of group members is the positive or negative beliefs that we hold about the characteristics of social group . We may decide that French people are romantic , that old people are , or that college professors are absent And Prejudice and favoritism Behavior Stereotyping Discrimination FIGURE Relationships among social groups are influenced by the of social psychology . we may use those beliefs to guide our actions toward ple from those groups ( Figure ) In addition to our , we may also develop negative attitude toward an or toward the of that . Prejudice can take the form of ing , anger , fear , disgust , discomfort , and even kind of affective states that can lead to behavior such as the gay bashing you just read about . Our stereotypes and our prejudices are problematic because they may create negative behaviors toward members of based on their group membership . Although violence against members of is fortunately , stereotypes , prejudice , and tion nevertheless peoples lives in a variety of ways . Stereotypes our academic performance ( Shapiro , 2007 ) the careers that we chose to follow ( Zhang et , 2009 ) our experiences at work ( Lee , 2008 ) and the amount that we are paid for the work that we do ( 2011 Wood St , 2010 ) Stereotypes and prejudice have a pervasive and often pernicious on our responses to others , and also in some cases on our own behaviors . To take one example , social psychological research has found that our types may in some cases lead to stereotype that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotypes . Spencer et al . 1999 ) found that when women were reminded of the ( untrue ) stereotype that women are poor at math , they performed more poorly on math tests than when they were not reminded of the stereotype , and other research has found stereotype threat in many other domains as well . Well consider the role of stereotype threat in more detail later in this chapter . In one particularly disturbing line of research about the of prejudice on behaviors , and his

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 31 FIGURE Do you have stereotypes about any of these people ?

Women with baby by Francesco IS used under by andy onn IS used under BY , by IS used under ( students studying by IS used under ) colleagues had White participants participate in an in which they viewed photographs of White and Black people on a computer screen . Across the experiment , the photographs showed the people holding either a gun or something harmless such as a cell phone . The pants were asked to decide as quickly as possible to press a button to shoot if the target held a weapon but to not shoot if the person did not hold a weapon . Overall , the White participants tended to shoot more often when the person holding the object was Black than when the person holding the object was White , and this occurred even when there was no weapon present ( et , et , Discrimination is a major societal problem because it is so pervasive , takes so many forms , and has such tive effects on so many people . Even people who are paid to be unbiased may discriminate . Price and ( 2007 ) found that White players in National Basketball tion games received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game were White , and Black players received fewer fouls when more of the referees present in the game where Black . The implication they know it or referees were discriminating on the basis of race . You may have had some experiences where you found yourself responding to another person on the basis of a stereotype or a prejudice , and perhaps the fact that you did surprised you , Perhaps you then tried to get past these beliefs and to react to the person more on the basis of his or her individual characteristics . We like some people and we dislike is we should not let a persons skin color , gender , age , religion , sexual tion , or ethnic background make these determinations for us . And yet , despite our best intentions , we may end up making friends only with people who are similar to us and perhaps even avoiding people whom we see as different . In this chapter , we will study the processes by which we develop , maintain , and make use of our stereotypes and our prejudices . We will consider the negative comes of those beliefs on the targets of our perceptions , and we will consider ways that we might be able to change those beliefs , or at least help us stop acting upon them . Let begin by considering the cognitive side of our group primarily on ing to the important role of feelings in prejudice , SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND STEREOTYPING Thinking about others in terms of their group ships is known as social natural process by which we place individuals into social groups . Social categorization occurs when we think of someone as a man ( versus a woman ) an old person ( sus a young person ) a Black person ( versus an Asian or White person ) and so on ( Just as we categorize objects into different types , so do we categorize people according to their social group memberships . Once we do so , we begin to respond to those people more as members of a social group than as individuals . Imagine for a moment that two college students , had and Sarah , are talking at a table in the student union at your college or university . At this point , we would ably not consider them to be acting as group members , but rather as two individuals . Farhad is expressing his opinions , and Sarah is expressing hers . Imagine , however , that as the conversation continues , Sarah brings up an assignment that she is completing for her women studies class . It turns out that Farhad does not think there should be a women studies program at the college , and he tells Sarah so . He argues that if there is a women studies gram , then there should be a men studies program too . Furthermore , he argues that women are getting too many breaks in job hiring and that men are the targets of discrimination . Sarah feels quite the ing that women have been the targets of sexism for many ,

32 many years and even now do not have the same access to jobs that men do . You can see that an interaction that began at level , as two individuals conversing , has now turned to the group level , in which Farhad has begun to consider himself as a man , and Sarah has begun to consider herself as a woman . In short , Sarah is now arguing her points not so much for herself as she is as a representative of one of her , Farhad is acting as a representative of one of his , men . Sarah feels that her positions are correct , and she believes they are true not only for her but for women in general . And the same is true of Farhad , You can see that these social may create some potential for misperception , and perhaps even hostility And Farhad and Sarah may even change their opinions about each other , forgetting that they really like each other as individuals , because they are now responding more as group members with ing views . Imagine now that while Farhad and Sarah are still talking , some students from another college , each wearing the hats and jackets of that school , show up in the student union . The presence of these outsiders might change the direction of social categorization entirely , leading both Farhad and Sarah to think of themselves as students at their own college . And this social categorization might lead them to become more aware of the positive of their college ( the excellent rugby team , lovely campus , and intelligent students ) in comparison with the characteristics of the other school . Now , rather than themselves as members of two different groups ( men versus Women ) Farhad and Sarah might suddenly perceive themselves as members of the same social gory ( students at their college ) Perhaps this example will help you see the of social categorization , We sometimes think of our with others at the individual level and times at the group level . And which groups we use in social categorization can change over time and in different situations . You are more likely to categorize yourself as a member of your college or university when your rugby or football team has just won a really important game , or at your graduation ceremony , than you would on a normal evening out with your family In these cases , your as a university student is simply more salient and important than it is every day , and you are more likely to categorize yourself accordingly . Spontaneous Social Categorization Social categorization occurs spontaneously , Without much thought on our part ( Crisp , 2007 ) Shelley Taylor and her colleagues ( Taylor , man , 1978 ) showed their research participants a slide and tape presentation of three male and three female college students who had supposedly participated in a discussion group . During the presentation , each member of the group made a suggestion about how to advertise a college play The statements were controlled so that across all the research participants , the statements made by the men and the women were of equal length and quality Furthermore , one half of the participants were told that when the presentation was over , they would be asked to remember which person had made which suggestion , whereas the other half of the participants were told merely to observe the interaction without attending to anything in particular . After they had viewed all the statements made by the individuals in the discussion group , the research participants were given a memory test ( this was entirely unexpected for the participants who had not been given memory instructions ) The participants were shown the list of all the statements that had been made , along with the pictures of each of the discussion group members , and were asked to indicate who had made each of the , The research participants were not very good at this task , and yet when they made mistakes , these errors were very systematic , As you can see in Table , the mistakes were such that the statements that had actually been made by a man were more frequently wrongly attributed to another man in the group than to another woman , and the statements ally made by a woman were more frequently attributed to other women in the group than to a man . The participants evidently categorized the speakers by their gender , ing them to make more than confusions . Interestingly , and suggesting that categorization is occurring all the time , the instructions that the had been given made absolutely no . There was just as much categorization for those who were not given any instructions as for those who were told to remember who said what . Other research using this has found that we spontaneously categorize each other on the basis of many other group memberships , including race , academic status ( student versus teacher ) TABLE Name Confusions Instructions Within Race Errors Between Race Errors Memory No memory From Taylor al . 1978 )

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 33 FIGURE If you are like most people , you will have a strong desire to categorize this person as either male or female . by Stash IS used under BY . social roles , and other social categories ( et , 1991 et , 1992 ) The conclusion is simple , if perhaps obvious Social categorization is occurring all around us all the time . Indeed , social categorization occurs so quickly that people may have not thinking about others in terms of their group memberships ( see Figure ) The Benefits of Social Categorization The tendency to categorize others is often quite useful . In some cases , we categorize because doing so provides us with information about the characteristics of people who belong to certain social groups ( Lee et , 1995 ) If you found yourself lost in a city , you might look for a police or a taxi driver to help you your way In this case , social categorization would probably be ful because a police or a taxi driver might be likely to know the layout of the city streets . Of course , using social categories will only be informative to the extent that the stereotypes held by the individual about that category are accurate . If police were actually not that knowledgeable about the city layout , then using this categorization heuristic would not be informative , The description of social categorization as a heuristic is also true in another sense we sometimes categorize others not because it seems to provide more information about them but because we may not have the time ( or the ) to do anything more thorough . Using our types to size up another person might simply make our life easier ( et , 1994 ) According to this approach , thinking about other people in terms of their social gory memberships is a functional way of dealing with the are complicated , and we reduce complexity by relying on our stereotypes . The Negative Outcomes of Social Categorization Although thinking about others in terms of their social category memberships has some potential for the person who does the categorizing , categorizing ers , rather than treating them as unique individuals with their own unique characteristics , has a wide variety of , and often very unfair , outcomes for those who are categorized . One problem is that social categorization distorts our perceptions such that we tend to exaggerate the differences between people from different social groups while at the same time perceiving members of groups ( and ) as more similar to each other than they actually are . This makes it more likely that we will think about and treat all members of a group the same way and Wilkes ( 1963 ) performed a simple experiment that provided a picture of the potential comes of categorization . As you can see in Figure , the experiment involved having research participants judge the length of six lines . In one of the experimental , participants simply saw six lines , whereas in the other condition , the lines were systematically categorized into two comprising the three shorter lines and one comprising the three longer lines . found that the lines were perceived differently when they were categorized , such that the differences No categorization condition Categorization condition FIGURE Perceptual accentuation . Lines and were seen as the same length in the condition , but line was perceived as longer than line when the lines were categorized into two groups . From .

34 between the groups and the similarities within the groups were emphasized , he found that although lines and ( which are actually the same length ) were as equal in length when the lines were not , line was perceived as being longer than line in the condition in which the lines were . In this case , categorization into two short lines group and the long lines group a perceptual bias such that the two groups of lines were seen as more different than they really were . Similar effects occur when we categorize other people . We tend to see people who belong to the same social group as more similar than they actually are , and we tend to judge people from different social groups as more different than they actually are . The tendency to see members of social groups as similar to each other is particularly strong for members of , resulting in tendency to view members of as more similar to each other than we see members of ( et , 1986 , 1992 , 2001 ) Perhaps you have had this experience yourself when you found yourself thinking or saying , Oh , them , they re all the same ! Patricia and Edward ( 1980 ) gave research participants a list of trait terms and asked them to think about either members of their own group ( Blacks ) or members of another group ( Whites ) and to place the trait terms into piles that represented different types of ple in the group , The results of these studies , as well as other studies like them , were clear people perceive as more homogeneous than their . Just as White ple used fewer piles of traits to describe Blacks than Whites , young people used fewer piles of traits to describe elderly people than they did young people , and students used fewer piles for members of other universities than they did for members of their own university . homogeneity occurs in part because we dont have as much contact with members as we do with members , and the quality of interaction with members is often more . This prevents us from really learning about the members as individuals , and as a result , we tend to other than they actually are , it then becomes very easy to apply our stereotypes to the members of the groups without having to consider whether the characteristic is actually true of the particular individual . If men think that women are all alike , then they may also think that they all have the same positive and negative tics ( they re nurturing , emotional ) And women may have similarly beliefs about men ( they re strong , unwilling to commit ) The outcome is that the stereotypes become linked to the group itself in a set of mental representations ( Figure ) The stereotypes are pictures in our heads of the social groups ( 1922 ) These beliefs just seem right and natural , even though they are frequently distorted ( 1996 et , 1994 ) Our stereotypes and prejudices are learned through many different processes , This multiplicity of causes is unfortunate because it makes stereotypes and prejudices even more likely to form and harder to change . For one , we learn our stereotypes in part through our with parents and peers ( Doyle , 1996 ) and from the behaviors we see portrayed in the media ( Brown , 1995 ) Even children have learned cultural norms about the appropriate activities and behaviors for boys and girls and also have developed stereotypes about age , race , and physical attractiveness ( 2006 ) And there is often good agreement about the of social categories among the individuals within a given culture . In one study assessing stereotypes , and her colleagues ( et , 2001 ) US . college students with a list of 84 trait terms and College professors be unaware of the differences among the group members . In addition to learning WI less about them because we see and act with them less , we routinely categorize members , thus making them appear more cognitively similar ( et , 1996 ) Once we begin to see the members of as more similar to each FIGURE Stereotypes are the beliefs associated with social categories . The figure shows links between the social category of college professors and its stereotypes as a type of neural network or schema . The representation also includes one image ( or exemplar ) of a particular college professor whom the student knows . courtesy of Dan Gilbert .

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 35 FIGURE Current stereotypes held by college students . From et al . asked them to indicate for which groups each trait seemed appropriate ( Figure ) The participants tended to agree about what traits were true of which groups , and this was true even for groups of which the respondents were likely to never have met a single member ( Arabs and Russians ) Even today , there is good agreement about the stereotypes of members of many social groups , including men and women and a variety of ethnic groups . Once they become established , stereotypes ( like any other cognitive representation ) tend to persevere . We begin to respond to members of stereotyped categories as if we already knew what they were like . Trope and Eric Thompson ( 1997 ) found that individuals addressed fewer questions to members of categories about which they had strong stereotypes ( as if they already knew what these people were like ) and that the questions they did ask were likely to the stereotypes they already had . In other cases , stereotypes are maintained because information that our stereotypes is better than information that them . When we see members of social groups perform behaviors , we tend to better remember information that our types than we remember information that our stereotypes ( 1994 ) If we believe that women are bad drivers and we see a woman driving poorly , then we tend to remember it , but when we see a woman who drives particularly well , we tend to forget it . This sory correlation is another example of the general principle of tend to perceive the world in ways that make it our existing beliefs more easily than we change our beliefs to the reality around us And stereotypes become difficult to change because they are so important to become an integral and important part of our everyday lives in our culture . types are frequently expressed on , in movies , and in social media , and we learn a lot of our beliefs from these sources . Our friends also tend to hold beliefs similar to ours , and we talk about these beliefs when we get together with them ( Conway , 1999 ) In short , stereotypes and prejudice are powerful largely because they are important social norms that are part of our culture ( 2000 ) Because they are so highly cognitively accessible , and because they seem so right , our stereotypes easily ence our judgments of and responses to those we have categorized . The social psychologist John Bargh once described stereotypes as cognitive monsters because their activation was so powerful and because the beliefs had such insidious on social judgment ( Bargh , 1999 ) Making things even more , stereotypes are strongest for the people who are in most need of people who are most diced ( Brown , 1997 )

36 Because stereotypes and prejudice often operate out of our awareness , and also because people are frequently unwilling to admit that they hold them , social have developed methods for assessing them indirectly . In the Research Focus box following , we will consider two of these bogus pipeline procedure and the Implicit Association Test ( Research Focus Measuring Stereotypes One difficulty in measuring stereotypes and prejudice is that people may not tell the truth about their beliefs . Most people do not want to themselves orto they hold stereotypes or that they are prejudiced toward some social groups . To get around this problem , social make use of a number of techniques that help them measure these beliefs more subtly and indirectly . One indirect approach to assessing prejudice is called the bogus pipeline procedure ( Jones , 1971 ) in this procedure , the experimenter first convinces the participants that he or she has access to their true beliefs , for instance , by getting access to a questionnaire that they completed at a prior experimental session . Once the participants are convinced that the researcher is able to assess their true attitudes , it is expected that they will be more honest in answering the rest of the questions they are asked because they want to be sure that the researcher does not catch them lying . Interestingly , people express more prejudice when they are in the bogus pipeline than they do when they are asked the same questions more directly , which suggests that we may frequently mask our negative beliefs in public . Other indirect measures of prejudice are also frequently used in social psychological research for instance , ing nonverbal behaviors such as speech errors or physical closeness . One common measure involves asking pants to take a seat on a chair near a person from a different racial or ethnic group and measuring how far away the son sits ( 2001 Word et , 1974 ) People who sit farther away are assumed to be more prejudiced toward the members of the group . Because our stereotypes are activated spontaneously when we think about members social groups , it is possible to use measures to assess this tion and thus to learn about people stereotypes and dices . In these procedures , participants are asked to make a series about pictures or descriptions of social groups and then to answer questions as quickly as they can , but without making mistakes . The speed of these responses is used to determine an individual stereotypes or prejudice . The most popular implicit measure of Implicit Association Test ( lAT ) frequently used to assess stereotypes and prejudice ( et , 2007 ) in the , participants are asked to classify stimuli that they view on a computer screen into one of two by pressing one of two computer keys , one with their left hand and one with their right hand . Furthermore , the are arranged so that the responses to be answered with the left and right buttons either fit with ( match ) the or do not fit with ( mismatch ) the stereotype . For instance , in one version of the , participants are shown pictures of men and women and are also shown words related to academic disciplines ( French , or for the Arts , or Chemistry , Physics , or Math for the Sciences ) Then the participants categorize the photos ( Is this picture a picture of a man or a woman ?

and answer questions about the disciplines ( Is this discipline a science ?

by pressing either the Yes button or the No button using left hand or their right hand . When the responses are arranged on the screen in a way that matches a stereotype , such that the male gory and the science category are on the same side of the screen ( on the right side ) participants can do the task very quickly and they make few mistakes . Its just easier , because the stereotypes are matched or associated with the pictures in a way that makes sense or is familiar . But when the images are arranged such that the female category and the science category are on the same side , whereas the men and the weak categories are on the other side , most participants make more errors and respond more slowly . The basic assumption is that if two concepts are associated or linked , they will be responded to more quickly if they are classified using the same , ratherthan different , keys . Implicit association procedures such as the show that even participants who claim that they are not prejudiced do seem to hold cultural stereotypes about social groups . Even Black people themselves respond more quickly to positive words that are associated with White ratherthan Black faces on the , suggesting that they have subtle racial prejudice toward their own racial group . Because they hold these beliefs , it is not they may use them when responding to other people , creating a subtle and unconscious type of discrimination . Although the meaning of the has been debated ( Mitchell , 2008 ) research using implicit measures does suggest we know it or not , and even though we may try to control them when we our stereotypes and prejudices are easily activated when we see members of different social categories ( et , 2004 ) Do you hold implicit prejudices ?

Try the yourself , here SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 37 Although in some cases the stereotypes that are used to make judgments might actually be true of the individual being judged , in many other cases they are not , ing is problematic when the stereotypes we hold about a social group are inaccurate overall , and particularly when they do not apply to the individual who is being judged ( 1995 ) Stereotyping others is simply unfair . Even if many women are more emotional than are most men , not all are , and it is not right to judge any one woman as if she is . In the end , stereotypes become , such that our expectations about the group make the stereotypes come true ( Snyder et , 1977 Word et , 1974 ) Once we believe that men make better leaders than women , we tend to behave toward men in ways that makes it easier for them to lead . And we behave toward women in ways that makes it more for them to lead . The result ?

Men it easier to excel in leadership positions , whereas women have to work hard to overcome the false beliefs about their lack of ship abilities ( 2010 ) This is likely why female lawyers with masculine names are more likely to become judges ( 2009 ) and applicants are more likely to be hired as ers than applicants ( von et , 2013 ) These prophecies are teachers expectations about their students academic can the students school performance ( sim et , 2009 ) Of course , you may think that you personally do not behave in these ways , and you may not . But research has found that stereotypes are often used out of our awareness , which makes it very for us to correct for them . Even when we think we are being completely fair , we may nevertheless be using our stereotypes to condone ( Chen Bargh , 1999 ) And when we are distracted or under time pressure , these tendencies become even more powerful ( 1991 ) Furthermore , attempting to prevent our stereotype from coloring our reactions to others takes effort . We more negative affect ( particularly anxiety ) when we are with members of other groups than we do when we are with people from our own groups , and we need to use more cognitive resources to control our behavior because of our anxiety about revealing our stereotypes or prejudices ( Plant , 2006 Shelton , 2003 ) When we know that we need to control our expectations so that we do not unintentionally stereotype the other person , we may try to do doing so takes effort and may frequently fail ( et , 1994 ) Social Psychology in the Public Interest Our stereotypes not only our judgments of ers but also our beliefs about ourselves , and even our own performance on important tasks . In some cases , these beliefs may be positive , and they have the effect of ing us feel more and thus better able to perform tasks , Because Asian students are aware of the stereotype that Asians are good at math , reminding them of this fact before they take a math test can improve their performance on the test ( Walton Cohen , 2003 ) On the other hand , sometimes these beliefs are negative , and they create negative prophecies such that we form more poorly just because of our knowledge about the stereotypes . One of the puzzles in the area of performance concerns why Black students in the United States perform more poorly on standardized tests , receive lower grades , and are less likely to remain in school in comparison with White students , even when other such as family income , parents education , and other relevant variables are controlled . Claude Steele and ( 1995 ) tested the hypothesis that these differences might be due to the activation of negative stereotypes . Because Black students are aware of the ( inaccurate ) that Blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites , this stereotype might create a negative expectation , which might interfere with their performance on intellectual tests through fear of that stereotype . In support of this hypothesis , Steele and research revealed that Black college students performed worse ( in comparison with their prior test scores ) on math questions taken from the Graduate Record Examination ( GRE ) when the test was described to them as being nostic of their mathematical ability ( and thus when the stereotype was relevant ) but that their performance was not when the same questions were framed as an exercise in problem And in another study , Steele and found that when Black students were asked to indicate their race before they took a math test ( again activating the stereotype ) they performed more poorly than they had on prior exams , whereas the scores of White students were not affected by indicating their , Steele and argued that thinking about negative stereotypes that are relevant to a task that one is ing creates stereotype that are caused by the knowledge of cultural stereotypes . That is , they argued that the negative impact of race on standardized tests may be caused , at least in part , by the performance situation itself . Because the threat is in the air , Black students may be negatively by it ,

38 Research has found that the experience of stereotype threat can help explain a wide variety of performance among those who are targeted by negative stereotypes . For instance , when a math task is described as diagnostic of intelligence , Latinos and particularly nas perform more poorly than do Whites ( Gonzales et , 2002 ) Similarly , when stereotypes are activated , children with low socioeconomic status perform more poorly in math than do those with high socioeconomic status , and psychology students perform more poorly than do ural science students ( Brown et , 2003 ) Even groups who typically enjoy advantaged social status can be made to experience stereotype threat . White men performed more poorly on a math test when they were told that their performance would be compared with that of Asian men ( et , 1999 ) and Whites performed more poorly than Blacks on a task when it was described to them as measuring their natural athletic ability ( Stone , 2002 ) Stereotype threat is created in situations that pose a threat to , such that our of ourselves as important , valuable , and capable individuals are threatened . In these situations , there is a discrepancy between our positive concept of our skills and abilities and the negative stereotypes suggesting poor . When our stereotypes lead us to be believe that we are likely to perform poorly on a task , we experience a feeling of unease and status threat . Research has found that stereotype threat is caused by both cognitive and affective factors . On the cognitive side , individuals who are experiencing stereotype threat show an impairment in cognitive processing that is caused by increased vigilance toward the environment and attempts to suppress their stereotypical thoughts . On the affective side , stereotype threat creates stress as well as a variety of affective responses including anxiety ( et , 2008 ) Stereotype threat is not , however , can get past it if we try What is important is to reduce the cern that is engaged when we consider the relevant negative stereotypes . Manipulations that positive tics about oneself or ones group are successful at reducing stereotype threat ( Alter et , 2010 et , 2003 et , 2003 ) In fact , just knowing that stereotype threat exists and may performance can help its negative impact ( et , 2005 ) FAVORITISM AND PREJUDICE We have now seen that social categorization occurs whenever we think about others in terms of their gory memberships rather than on the basis , more personal information about the individual . And we have seen that social categorization can have a variety of consequences for the people who are the targets of our stereotypes . But social categorization becomes even more important , and has even more powerful effects on our reactions to others , when the categorization becomes more emotionally involving , and particularly when the categorization involves categorization into liked and potentially disliked ( Devine , 2006 ) Because our ancestors lived in small social groups that were frequently in with other groups , it was functional for them to view members of other groups as different and potentially dangerous ( Brewer , 2006 et , 2004 ) Differentiating between us and them probably helped keep us safe and free from disease , and as a result , the human brain became very in making these distinctions ( et , 2011 et , 2000 Van , 2008 et , 2008 ) The problem is that these naturally ring tendencies may lead us to prefer people who are like us , and in some cases even to unfairly reject people from . Liking Us More Than Them Favoritism In his important research on group perceptions , Henri and his colleagues ( et , 1971 ) demonstrated how incredibly powerful the role of is in group perceptions . He found that just dividing people into arbitrary groups produces tendency to respond more positively to people from our than we do to people from . In research , small groups of high school dents came to his laboratory for a study supposedly artistic The students were shown a series of paintings by two contemporary artists , Paul and . Supposedly on the basis of their preferences for each painting , the students were divided into two groups ( they were called the group and the group ) Each boy was told which group he had been assigned to and that different boys were assigned to ent groups . But none of them were told the group of any of the other boys , The boys were then given a chance to allocate points to other boys in their own group and to boys in the other group ( but never to themselves ) using a series of payoff matrices , such as those shown in Figure . The charts divided a given number of rewards between two boys , and the boys thought that the rewards would be used to determine how much each boy would be paid for his

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 39 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 11 13 15 17 19 31 23 25 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 FIGURE Examples of matrices used in the minimal studies of and his colleagues . From 1970 participation , In some cases , the division was between two boys in the boys own group ( the ) in other cases , the division was between two boys who had been assigned to the other group ( the ) and in still other cases , the division was between a boy in the and a boy in the , then examined the goals that the boys used when they divided up the points . A comparison of the boys choices in the different matrices showed that they allocated points between two boys in the or between two boys in the group in an essentially fair way , so that each boy got the same amount . However , fairness was not the approach when dividing points between and . In this case , rather than exhibiting ness , the boys displayed favoritism , such that they gave more points to other members of their own group in relationship to boys in the other group . For instance , the boys might assign points to the boy and only points to the boy , even though the matrix also contained a choice in which they could give the and the boys 13 points each . In short , the boys preferred to maximize the gains of the other boys in their own group in comparison with the boys in the , even so meant giving their own group members fewer points than they could have received . Perhaps the most striking part of results is that favoritism was found to occur on the basis of such arbitrary and unimportant groupings . In fact , favoritism occurs even when the assignment to groups is on such trivial things as whether people overestimate or underestimate the number of dots shown on a display , or on the basis of a completely random coin toss ( 1973 et , 1980 ) research , as well other research demonstrating favoritism , provides a powerful demonstration of a very important social process groups exist simply because als perceive those groups as existing . Even in a case where there really is no group ( at least no meaningful group in any real sense ) we still perceive groups and still favoritism . The Outcomes of Favoritism The tendency to favor their develops quickly in young children , increasing up to about six years of age , and almost immediately begins to their ( 2003 , 2001 ) Young children show greater liking for peers of their own sex and race and typically play with others after the age of three . And there is a norm that we should favor our people like people who express favoritism better than those who are more egalitarian ( 2010 ) Amazingly , even infants as young as nine months old prefer those who treat similar others well and lar others poorly ( et , 2013 ) favoritism is found for many different types of social groups , in many different settings , on many different dimensions , and in many different cultures ( Bennett et al , 2004 , 2011 ) favoritism also occurs on trait ratings , such that members are rated as having more positive characteristics than are members ( 1990 ) People also take credit for the successes of other members , remember more positive than negative information about , are more critical of the performance of than of members , and believe that their own groups are less prejudiced than are ( Shelton , 2005 ) People also talk differently about their than their , such that they describe the and its members as having broad positive traits ( We are ous and friendly ) but describe negative behaviors in terms of the behaviors of single group ( Our group member , Bill , hit someone ) et , 1996 et , 1997 ) These actions allow us to spread positive characteristics to all members of our but reserve negative aspects for individual group members , thereby protecting the groups image .

40 People also make trait in ways that their , just as they make trait that themselves . This general tendency , known as the bias ( or ultimate attribution error ) results in the tendency for each of the competing groups to perceive the other group extremely and negatively ( 1990 ) When an member engages in a positive behavior , we tend to see it as a stable internal characteristic of the group as a whole , Similarly , negative behaviors on the part of the are seen as caused by stable negative group characteristics . On the other hand , negative behaviors from the and behaviors from the are more likely to be seen as caused by temporary situational variables or by behaviors of individuals and are less likely to be attributed to the group . Favoritism Has Many Causes favoritism has a number of causes . For one , it is a natural part of social categorization we categorize into and because it helps us simplify and structure our environment . It is easy , and perhaps even natural , to believe in the simple idea that we are better than they are , People who report that they have strong needs for simplifying their environments also show more favoritism ( Leary , 2006 ) favoritism also occurs at least in part because we belong to the and not the ( 1996 ) We like people who are similar to selves , and we perceive other members as lar to us , This also leads us to favor other members of our , particularly when we can clearly differentiate them from members of . We may also prefer because they are more familiar to us ( et , 2007 ) But the most important determinant of is simple . We want to feel good about ourselves , and seeing our positively helps us do so ( Brewer , 1979 ) Being a member ofa group that has positive characteristics provides us with the feelings of social positive that we get from our group memberships . When we can identify ourselves as a member of a meaningful social group ( even if it is a relatively trivial one ) we can feel better about ourselves . We are particularly likely to show favoritism when we are threatened or otherwise worried about our ( et , 2005 Solomon et , 2000 ) And people express higher after they have been given the opportunity to derogate , that favoritism does make us feel good ( Smith , 1985 Rubin 81 , 1998 ) Furthermore , when individuals feel that the value of their is being threatened , they respond as if they are trying to regain their own ing more positive attitudes toward and more negative attitudes toward ( et , 1993 Spears et , 1997 ) and Spencer ( 1997 ) found that participants expressed less prejudice after they had been given the opportunity to and make salient an important and positive part of their own . In short , when our group seems to be good , we feel good when our group seems to be bad , we feel bad . In some cases , we may be able to feel good about our group memberships even when our own outcomes are not so positive . et al . 2000 ) had groups of female college students perform a task and then gave them feedback indicating that although they themselves had performed very poorly , another woman in their group had performed very well . Furthermore , in some experimental conditions , the women were told that the research was comparing the scores of men and women ( which was designed to increase categorization by gender ) In these conditions , rather than being saddened by the upward comparison with the other woman , participants used the ful performance of the other woman to feel good about themselves , as women . When Favoritism Does Not Occur Although people have a general tendency to show favoritism , there are least some cases in which it does not occur . One situation in which favoritism is unlikely is when the members of the are clearly inferior to other groups on an important dimension . The players on a baseball team that has not won a single game all season are unlikely to be able to feel very good about themselves as a team and are pretty much forced to cede that the are better , at least as far as playing baseball is concerned . Members of groups show less favoritism than do members of tus groups and may even display favoritism , in which they admit that the other groups are better than they are ( Clark Clark , Another case in which people judge other members of the very negatively occurs when a member of ones own group behaves in a way that threatens the tive image of the . A student who behaves in a way unbecoming to university students , or a teammate who does not seem to value the importance of the team , is by the other group members , often more than the same behavior from an member would be . The strong devaluation of members who threaten the

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 41 positive image and identity of the is known as the black sheep effect ( Pinto et , 2010 ) Personality and Cultural of Favoritism To this point , we have considered favoritism as a natural part of everyday life , Because the tendency to favor the is a normal byproduct of , most people do , by and large , prefer their over groups . And yet not everyone is equally in all situations , There are a number of individual ence measures that predict prejudice , and these differences are particularly likely to show up under circumstances in which the desire to protect the self becomes important ( et , 2003 ) Some people are more likely than others to show favoritism because they are particularly likely to rely on their group memberships to create a positive social identity These differences in group can be measured through measures such as the Scale ( Crocker , 1992 ) The scale assesses the extent to which the individual values his or her memberships in groups in public and private ways , as well as the extent to which he or she gains social from those groups . People who score higher on the scale show more favoritism in comparison with those who score lower on it ( 81 Thompson , 2002 ) The scale , from and Crocker ( 1992 ) is shown in Table . TABLE The Collective Scale Another personality dimension that relates to the desires to protect and enhance the self and the and thus also relates to greater favoritism , and in some cases prejudice toward , is the dimension of authoritarianism ( et , 1950 , 1988 ) Authoritarianism is a personality dimension that characterizes people who prefer things to be simple rather than complex and who tend to hold traditional and conventional values . are in part because they have a need to and in part because they prefer simplicity and thus it easy to think simply We are all good and they are all less good , Political conservatives tend to show more favoritism than do political liberals , perhaps because the former are more concerned with the from threats posed by others ( ost et , 2003 Leary , 2006 ) People with strong goals toward play less favoritism and less prejudice . People who view it as particularly important to connect with and respect other who are more focused on and fairness toward less ing and more positive toward the members of groups other than their own . The desire to be fair and to accept others can be assessed by individual difference measures such as desire to control one prejudice ( Plant Devine , 1998 ) and humanism ( 1988 ) Social dominance orientation ( is a personality variable that refers to the tendency to see and to accept I am a worthy member of the social groups I belong to . I feel I dont have much to to the social groups to . Membership I am a cooperative participant in the social groups I belong to . I often feel I an unclean member of my social group . I often regret that I belong to some of the social groups I do . In general , I glad to be a member of the social groups I belong to . Private Overall , I often feel that the social groups of which I am a member are not worthwhile . I feel good about the social groups I belong to . Overall , my social groups are considered good by others . Most people consider my social groups , on the average , to be more ineffective than other social groups . Public In general , others respect the social groups that I am a member of . In general , others think that the social groups I am a member of are unworthy . Overall , my group memberships have very little to do with how I feel about myself . The social groups I belong to are an important I am . Identity The social groups I belong to are unimportant in my sense of what kind ofa person I am . In general , belonging to social groups is an important part of my . Item is reversed before scoring . From and Crocker ( 1992 )

42 inequality among different groups ( et , 1995 ) People who score high on measures of believe that there are and should be status differences among social groups , and they do not see these as wrong . High individuals agree with statements such as Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups , In getting what you want , it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups , and Its OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than Those who are low on , on the other hand , believe that all groups are equal in status and tend to disagree with these . People who score higher on also show greater favoritism , Stereotyping and prejudice also varies across cultures . et al . 2007 ) tested the hypothesis that Chinese participants , because of their collectivistic , would find social groups more important than would Americans ( who are more individualistic ) and that as a result , they would be more likely to infer personality traits on the basis of group is , to type . Supporting the hypothesis , they found that Chinese participants made stronger stereotypical trait inferences than Americans did on the basis of a target membership in a group . REDUCING DISCRIMINATION We have seen that social categorization is a basic part of human nature and one that helps us to simplify our social worlds , to draw quick ( if potentially inaccurate ) about others , and to feel good about ourselves . In many cases , our preferences for may be relatively may prefer to socialize with people who share our race or ethnicity for instance , but without disliking the others . But categorizing others may also lead to prejudice and discrimination , and it may even do so without our awareness , Because prejudice and crimination are so harmful to so many people , we must all work to get beyond them . Discrimination the daily life of its victims in areas such as employment , income , financial , housing and educational opportunities , and cal care . Even with the same level of education and years of experience , ethnic minorities in Canada are 40 less likely to receive callbacks for an interview following a job application ( 2011 ) Blacks have higher mortality rates than Whites for eight of the 10 leading causes of death in the United States ( Williams , 1999 ) and have less access to and receive health care , even controlling for other variables such as level of health insurance . Suicide rates among lesbians and gays are higher than rates for the general population , and it has been argued that this in part due to the negative outcomes of prejudice , including negative attitudes and resulting social isolation ( 2002 ) And in some rare cases , discrimination even takes the form of hate crimes such as gay bashing , More commonly , members of minority groups also face a variety of small hassles , such as bad service in restaurants , being stared at , and being the target of jokes ( Swim et , 2003 ) But even these everyday minor forms of discrimination can be problematic because they may produce anger and anxiety among stigmatized group members and may lead to stress and other psychological problems ( et , 2000 et , individuals who report experiencing more sure to discrimination or other forms of unfair treatment also report more depression , anger , and anxiety and lower levels of life satisfaction and happiness ( Swim et , 2001 ) Of course , most of us do try to keep our stereotypes and our prejudices out of mind , and we work hard to avoid discriminating ( Shelton , 2007 ) But even when we work to keep our negative beliefs under control , this does not mean that they easily disappear . Neil and his colleagues ( et , 1994 ) asked British students to write a paragraph describing a skinhead ( a member of a group that is negatively stereotyped in England ) One half of the participants were asked to be sure to not use their stereotypes when they were judging him , whereas the other half simply wrote whatever came to mind . Although the participants who were asked to suppress their thoughts were able to do it , this sion didn last very long . After they had suppressed their stereotypes , these beliefs quickly popped back into mind , making it even more likely that they would be used later . But stereotypes are not always and inevitably activated when we encounter people from other groups , We can and we do get past them , although doing so may take some on our part ( Blair , 2002 ) There are a number of techniques that we can use to try to improve our attitudes toward , and at least some of them have been found to be effective . et al . 2000 ) found that students who practiced responding in ways to members of other groups became better able to avoid activating their negative stereotypes on future . And a number of studies have found that we become less prejudiced when we are exposed to and think about group members who have particularly positive or characteristics . For instance , Blair et al . 2001 ) asked their participants to imagine a woman who was strong and found that doing so decreased stereotyping ofwomen . Similarly , et al . 1995 ) found that

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 43 when White American students thought about positive Black role as Oprah and Michael became less prejudiced toward Blacks . Reducing Discrimination by Changing Social Norms One variable that makes us less prejudiced is education . People who are more educated express fewer stereotypes and prejudice in general . This is true for students who enroll in courses that are related to stereotypes and , such as a course on gender and ethnic diversity ( et , 2001 ) and is also true more education reduces prejudice , regardless of what particular courses you take ( et , 2006 ) The effects of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to the new social norms that people are introduced to in school . Social norms define what is appropriate and inappropriate , and we can change stereotypes and prejudice by changing the relevant norms about them . et al . 1997 ) lated whether students thought that the other members of their university favored equal treatment of others or believed that others thought it was appropriate to favor the . They found that perceptions of what the other group members believed had an important on the beliefs of the individuals themselves . The students were more likely to show favoritism when they believed that the norm of their was to do so , and this was increased for students who had high social with the . and ( 2001 ) selected White college students who were either high or low in prejudice toward Blacks and then provided them with information that their prejudiced or unprejudiced beliefs were either shared or not shared by the other students at their university . Then the students were asked to take a seat in a hallway to wait for the next part of the experiment . A Black confederate was sitting in one seat at the end of the row , and the dependent measure was how far away the students sat from her . As you can see in Figure , high prejudice students who learned that other students were also prejudiced sat farther away from the Black confederate in comparison with high prejudice individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared . On the other hand , dents who were initially low in prejudice and who believed these views were shared sat closer to the Black in comparison with low prejudice individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared . These results demonstrate that our perceptions of relevant social norms can strengthen or weaken our tendencies to engage in discriminatory behaviors . White college students who were low in prejudice toward Blacks sat closer to the Black confederate when they had been told that their beliefs were shared with other group members at their university . On the other hand , White college students who were high in prejudice sat farther away from the Black confederate when they had been told that their beliefs were shared with other group members at their university . Data are from and ( 2001 ) The of social norms is powerful , and changes in beliefs about will occur only if they are supported by changes in social norms . and discrimination thrive in environments in which they are perceived to be the norm , but they die when the existing social norms do not allow it . And because social norms are so important , the behavior of individuals can help create or reduce prejudice and discrimination . crimination , prejudice , and even hate crimes such as gay bashing will be more likely to continue if people do not respond to or confront them when they occur . What this means is that if you believe that prejudice is wrong , you must confront it when you see it happening . et al . 2006 ) had White participants participate in a task in which it was easy to unintentionally stereotype I High Low I High Low FIGURE The role of norms in behavior . Data are from I

44 a Black person , and as a result , many of the participants did so . Then , confederates of the experimenter confronted the students about their stereotypes , saying things such as Maybe it would be good to think about Blacks in other ways that are a little more fair ?

or It just seems that you sound like some kind of racist to me . You know what I mean ?

Although the participants who had been fronted experienced negative feelings about the and also expressed negative opinions about the person who confronted them , the confrontation did work . The students who had been confronted expressed less and fewer stereotypes on subsequent tasks than did the students who had not been confronted . As this study concluded , taking steps to reduce is everyone a little courage can go a long way in this regard . Confronting prejudice can lead other people to think that we are complaining and fore to dislike us ( Kaiser Miller , 2001 Shelton art , 2004 ) but confronting prejudice is not all negative for the person who confronts . Although it is embarrassing to do so , particularly if we are not completely sure that the behavior was in fact prejudice , when we fail to confront , we may frequently later feel guilty that we did not ( Shelton et , 2006 ) Reducing Prejudice through Contact One of the reasons that people may hold stereotypes and prejudices is that they view the members of as different from them . We may become concerned that our interactions with people from different racial groups will be unpleasant , and these anxieties may lead us to avoid interacting with people from those groups ( et , 2008 ) What this suggests is that a good way to reduce prejudice is to help people create closer connections with members of different groups . People will be more able toward others when they learn to see those other ple as more similar to them , as closer to the self , and to be more concerned about them , The idea that contact will reduce dice , known as the contact hypothesis , is simple If dren from different ethnic groups play together in school , their attitudes toward each other should improve . And if we encourage college students to travel abroad , they will meet people from other cultures and become more tive toward them . One important example of the use of tact to prejudice came about as a result of the important US , Supreme Court case Brown Board cation in 1954 . In this case , the Supreme Court agreed , based in large part on the testimony of psychologists , that busing Black children to schools attended primarily by White children , and vice versa , would produce positive outcomes on attitudes , not only because it would provide Black children with access to better schools , but also because the resulting contact would reduce prejudice between Black and White children . This strategy seemed particularly appropriate at the time it was implemented because most schools in the United States then were highly segregated by race . The strategy of busing was initiated after the Supreme Court decision , and it had a profound effect on schools in the United States . For one , the policy was very effective in changing school number of segregated schools decreased dramatically during the after the policy was begun . Busing also improved the educational and occupational achievement of Blacks and increased the desire of Blacks to interact with Whites for instance , by forming friendships ( 1999 ) Overall , then , the case of schools in the United States supports the expectation that contact , at least in the long run , can be successful in changing attitudes . as a result of several subsequent Supreme Court decisions , the policy of schools via busing was not continued past the . Although student busing to achieve schools represents one prominent example of contact , such contact occurs in many other areas as well . Taken together , there is substantial support for the of contact in improving group in a wide variety of situations , including schools , work organizations , military forces , and public housing . Pettigrew and ( 2006 ) conducted a in which they reviewed over 500 studies that had investigated the effects of contact on group attitudes , They found that attitudes toward groups that were in contact became more positive over time . Furthermore , positive effects of contact were found on both stereotypes and and for many different types of contacted groups , The positive effects of contact may be due in part to increases in . and ( 2000 ) found that leading students to take the perspective of another group increased empathy and closeness to the reduced . And the behavior of students on college campuses demonstrates the importance of connecting with others and the dangers of not doing so , et al . 2004 ) found that students who joined exclusive campus groups , including fraternities , sororities , and minority ethnic ( such as the African Student Union ) were more prejudiced to begin with and became even less connected and more intolerant of members of other social groups over the time that they remained in the organizations . It appears that memberships in these groups focused the students on themselves and other people who were very

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 45 similar to them , leading them to become less tolerant of others who are different . Although contact does work , it is not a panacea because the conditions necessary for it to be are frequently not met . Contact can be expected to work only in situations that create the appropriate for change . For one , contact will only be effective if it provides information demonstrating that the existing stereotypes held by the individuals are incorrect . When we learn more about groups that we didn know much about before , we learn more of the truth about them , leading us to be less biased in our beliefs , But if our interactions with the group members do not allow us to learn new beliefs , then contact can not work . we meet someone from another category , we are likely to rely almost exclusively on our stereotypes ( Ross , 1998 ) However , when we get to know the individual well ( as a student in a classroom learns to know the other students over a school year ) we may get to the point where we ignore that individuals group ship almost completely , responding to him or her entirely at the individual level ( et , 1998 ) Thus contact is effective in part because it leads us to get past our of others as group members and to individuate them . When we get past group memberships and focus more on the individuals in the groups , we begin to see that there is a great deal of variability among the group members and that our global and group stereotypes are actually not that informative ( 81 , 1985 ) Successful contact tends to reduce the tion of homogeneity . Contact also helps us feel more positively about the members of the other group , and this positive affect makes us like them more . contact is also more successful when the people involved in the contact are motivated to learn about the others , One factor that increases this motivation is state in which the group members depend on each other for successful performance of the group goals ( 1987 ) The importance of interdependence can be seen in the success of cooperative learning techniques , such as the jigsaw classroom ( son et , 1978 , 2004 ) The jigsaw classroom is an approach to learning in which students from different racial or ethnic groups work together , in an interdependent way , to master rial . The class is divided into small learning groups , where each group is diverse in ethnic and gender composition . The assigned material to be learned is divided into as many parts as there are students in the group , and of different groups who are assigned the same task meet together to help develop a strong report , Each dent then learns his or her own part of the material and presents this piece of the puzzle to the other members of his or her group . The students in each group are therefore interdependent in learning all the material , A wide variety of techniques , based on principles of the jigsaw classroom , are in use in many schools around the world , and research studying these approaches has found that cooperative , interdependent experiences among students from ent social groups are effective in reducing negative typing and prejudice ( 1999 ) In sum , we can say that contact will be most tive when it is easier to get to know , and become more respectful of , the members of the other group and when the social norms of the situation promote equal , fair ment of all groups . If the groups are treated unequally , for instance , by a teacher or leader who is prejudiced and who therefore treats the different groups differently , or if the groups are in competition rather than cooperation , there will be no . In cases when these conditions are not met , contact may not be effective and may in fact increase prejudice , particularly when it stereotypical expectations ( et , 1996 ) Finally , it is important that enough time be allowed for the changes to take effect . In the case in the United States , for instance , the positive effects of contact seemed to have been occurring , but they were not happening particularly fast . Let consider ( in the following Research Focus ) still another way that contact can reduce idea that prejudice can be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the , known as the hypothesis . Research Focus The Hypothesis the contact hypothesis proposes that direct Contact between people from different social groups wiil produce more positive attitudes between them , recent evidence suggests that prejudice can be reduced for who have friends who are friends with members of the , even if the does not have direct Contact with the members himself or . This hypothesis is known as the hypothesis . Supporting this prediction , Wright et ai ( found in two studies that students who reported that their own friends had friends who were from another ethnic group reported more positive attitudes toward that than did students who did not have any friends who had friends , even for the participants own friendships . Wright and his ( also tested the hypothesis . Participants were four groups of 14 students , and each group spent a

46 favoritism 03 . Initial ratings After groups developed After friendship manipulation FIGURE The hypothesis . This figure shows how members of the two groups , which were in competition with each other , rated each other before and after the experimental manipulation of friendship . You can see that group relationships , which were becoming more negative , changed to being more positive after the intervention . Data are from Wright , Aron , arid Ropp day in the lab . On arrival , seven participants were assigned to the green group , and seven to the blue group , on the basis of similar interests . To create strong identity and to produce competition between the groups , the group members wore blue and green and engaged in a series of competitive tasks . Participants then expressed their initial thoughts and feelings about the and its members . Then , supposedly as part of an entirely different study , one participant was randomly selected from each group , and the two were taken to a separate room in which they engaged in a has been shown to quickly create feelings of friendship between two ers . Then the two members from each team were then reunited with their original groups , where they were aged to describe their experience with the other group member in the task . In the final phase , the groups then engaged in another competitive task , and participants rated their thoughts and feelings about the and its members again . As you can see in Figure , and supporting the hypothesis , results showed that the participants ( including those who did not participate in the closeness task selves ) were more positive toward the after than before the two team members had met . This study , as well as many other studies , supports the importance of group friendships in promoting favorable attitudes ( et , 2008 Shook , 2008 ) Moving Others Closer to Us The Benefits of The research on contact suggests that although contact may improve prejudice , it may make it worse if it is not implemented correctly . Improvement is likely only when the contact moves the members of the groups to feel that they are closer to each other rather than further away from each other . In short , groups are going to have ter attitudes toward each other when they see themselves more similarly to each they feel more like one large group than a set of smaller groups . This fact was demonstrated in a very convincing way in what is now a classic social psychological study . In the Robbers Cave Experiment , Sherif et al . 1961 ) studied the group behavior of boys at a summer camp . Although the boys did not know it , the researchers fully observed the behaviors of the children during the camp session , with the goal of learning about how group developed and how it might be resolved among the children . During the first week of the camp , the boys were divided into two groups that camped at two different campsites . During this time , friendly relationships among the boys within each of the two groups . Each group developed its own social norms and group structure and became quite cohesive , with a strong positive social identity . The two groups chose names for themselves ( the Rattlers and the Eagles ) and each made their own group and participated in separate camp activities . At the end of this baseline period , it was arranged that the two groups of boys would become aware of each others presence . Furthermore , the researchers worked to create conditions that led to increases in each group social identity and at the same time created negative perceptions of the other group . The researchers arranged baseball games , a , and a treasure hunt and offered prizes for the group that won the competitions . Almost immediately , this competition created favoritism and prejudice , and discrimination quickly followed . By the end of the second week , the Eagles had sneaked up to the Rattlers cabin and stolen their . When the Rattlers discovered the theft , they in turn raided the Eagles cabin ,

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 47 stealing things . There were food in the dining room , which was now shared by the groups , and the researchers documented a substantial increase in and stereotypes of the . Some even erupted between members of the different groups . The researchers then intervened by trying to move the groups closer to each other . They began this third stage of the research by setting up a series of situations in which the boys had to work together to solve a problem . These situations were designed to create interdependence by presenting the boys with superordinate that were both very important to them and yet that required the cooperative efforts and resources of both the Eagles and the Rattlers to attain . These goals involved such things as the need to pool money across both groups in order to rent a movie that all the campers wanted to view , or the need to pull together on ropes to get a food truck that had become stuck back onto the road . As the children worked together to meet these goals , the negative perceptions of the group members gradually improved there was a reduction of hostility between the groups and an emergence of more positive attitudes . This strategy was effective because it led the campers to perceive both the and the as one large group ( we ) rather than as two separate groups ( us and them ) As differentiation between the and the decreases , so should favoritism , and . The differences between the original groups are still present , but they are potentially acted by perceived similarities in the second superordinate group . The attempt to reduce prejudice by creating a ordinate categorization is known as the goal of creating a common identity ( 2008 ) and we can diagram the relationship as follows Interdependence and cooperation common identity favorable attitudes A substantial amount of research has supported the predictions of the common identity model . For instance , Samuel and his colleagues ( et , 1989 ) tested the hypothesis that interdependent in groups reduces negative beliefs about members because it leads people to see the others as part of the ( by creating a common identity ) In this research , college students were brought to a laboratory where they were each assigned to one of two teams of three members each , and each team was given a chance to create its own unique group identity by working together . Then , the two teams were brought into a single room to work on a problem . In one condition , the two teams were told to work together as a larger , team to solve the problem , whereas in the other condition , the two teams worked on the problem separately . Consistent with the expected positive results of creating a common group identity , the interdependence created in the condition where the teams worked together increased the tendency of the team members to see themselves as members of a single larger team , and this in turn reduced the tendency for each group to show favoritism . But the of are not confined to laboratory also appear in our everyday interactions with other people . Jason and his leagues had Black and White interviewers approach White students who were attending a football game ( et , 2001 ) The dependent measure was whether or not they agreed to help the interviewer by completing a . However , the interviewers also wore hats ing either one of the two universities who were playing in the game . As you can see in Figure , the data were both by whether the interviewer and the student were of the same race ( either both White or one White and one Black ) and also by whether they wore hats from the same or different universities . As expected on the basis of and the common identity approach , the Percent who completed the survey Different university Same university I Black interviewer White interviewer Hat worn by the interviewer FIGURE and helping behavior . Data are from ai .

48 White students were more likely to help the Black interviewers when they wore a hat of the same as that worn by the interviewee . The hat evidently led the White students to the interviewer as part of the university , leading to more helping . However , whether the individuals shared university ai ation did not helping for the White participants , presumably because they already saw the interviewer as a member of the ( the interviewer was also White ) In this study , White and Black interviewers asked White students attending a football game to help them by completing a questionnaire . The data were analyzed both by whether the request was to a White ( or Black ( student and also by whether the individual whose help was sought wore the same hat that they did or a different hat . Results supported the common identity model . Helping was much greater for members when hats were the same . Data are from et al . 200 Again , the implications of these results are clear and powerful . If we want to improve attitudes among people , we must get them to see each other as more similar and less different . And even relatively simple ways of doing so , such as wearing a hat that suggests an tion , can be successful . THINKING LIKE A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGIST ABOUT STEREOTYPING , PREJUDICE , AND DISCRIMINATION This chapter has focused on the ways in which people from different social groups feel about , think about , and behave toward each other . In most cases , we have positive thoughts and feelings about others , and our interactions with them are friendly and positive . And yet in other cases , there is a potential for negative interactions , and in rare cases , even hostility and violence . Look again at the pictures in Figure and carefully consider your thoughts and feelings about each person . Does the image bring some stereotypes to mind ?

What about prejudices ?

How do you think your impressions of the individuals might your behavior toward them ?

Do you hold these beliefs yourself , or do you know people who do ?

Can you see how quickly you or other ple might make judgments about these individuals , based on the culturally relevant stereotypes , and how those might lead to discrimination ?

What might be the negative outcomes of the stereotypes on the person ?

We hope that you can now see , perhaps more clearly than you did before , that social categorization is all around us . We think about other people in terms of their group memberships , and this is entirely natural . But perhaps you are now able to see the processes more fully . We hope you can see that categorization has some allows us to think about ourselves as members of valued groups , for it also has some potential tive outcomes , including stereotyping and favoritism . We hope that you are now more aware how easily we categorize others , how quickly we learn , and how fast favoritism develops and that you can better see the impact these processes have on our judgments of others . You will now be able to see that prejudice , nation , and stereotypes , respectively , the of , behavior , and cognition . And because you are ing like a social psychologist , you will realize that prejudice is not it results in large part from cern . We like our own groups because we feel good about them and see them as similar . But we can improve our toward by focusing on being more inclusive and including more different people into our . Perhaps the best thing we can do is to such that we see all people as human beings we are all in the same , and we should treat one the way we would like them to treat respect . We hope your new knowledge can help you in your own relationships with others . Is it possible that you have favoritism that you were not aware of ?

Or perhaps you hold stereotypes about other groups that you would like to avoid holding ?

You should now be able to see how better to avoid being prejudiced yourself . And you are now perhaps more aware of the importance of social we must work to prevent those norms from allowing . To stop prejudice , you must be willing to interact with people from other groups , and you must confront prejudice when you see it occurring . These behaviors may be difficult , but in the end they will help you be a better citizen . CHAPTER SUMMARY The social groups that are part of a given nation or become essential parts of the culture itself . We easily develop beliefs about the characteristics of the groups and the members of those groups ( stereotypes ) as well as ( an negative attitude toward an group ) Our stereotypes and our prejudices are problematic because they may create tive behaviors toward members of based on their group membership . Discrimination is a societal and health problem because it is so pervasive , takes so many forms , and has such negative effects on so many people . begin from natural cognitive process by which we Stereotyping and prejudice social

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 49 place individuals into Social groups . Social categorization is in many cases quite helpful and useful . In some cases , we might categorize others because doing so provides us with information about the characteristics of people who belong to certain social groups or categories . And we may categorize others because we may not have time to do thing more thorough . A problem is that social categorization distorts our perceptions of others such that we tend to exaggerate the differences between social groups while at the same time perceiving members of groups ( and particularly groups ) as more similar to each other than they actually are . One particularly strong outcome of social is tendency to view members of as more similar to each other than we see members of . Once we begin to categorize other people , and we start to see the members of those groups as more similar to each other than they actually are , it then becomes very easy to apply our stereotypes to the members of the groups , out having to consider whether the characteristic is ally true of the particular individual . If men think that women are all alike , then they may act toward all women in the same way , and doing so is unfair . Our stereotypes and prejudices are learned through both cognitive and processes . Once they become established , stereotypes ( like any other cognitive ) tend to are to change . In the end , stereotypes become prophecies , such that our expectations about the group members make the stereotypes come true . And our stereotypes also ence our performance on important tasks through type threat . favoritism occurs on the basis of even and unimportant groupings and is found for many different types of social groups , in many different settings , on many different dimensions , and in many different cultures . The most important determinant of favoritism is simple . We want to feel good about ourselves , and being a member of a group that has tive characteristics provides social positive that we get from our group memberships . In cases when our groups do not provide positive social , we must try to restore a positive . If we not leave the group , we may try to perceive the group as positively as possible , perhaps by focusing on dimensions on which the group does not compare so unfavorably . Although it is assumed that most people gain at least some positive social identity through their group ships , people differ in the extent to which they use their group memberships to create social identity . Personality dimensions related to prejudice include authoritarianism and social dominance orientation . And there is also at least some evidence that stereotyping varies across cultures . Because social categorization is a basic human process that provides some benefits for us , stereotypes and dices are easy to develop but to change . But types and prejudice are not inevitable . The positive of education on reducing prejudice are probably due in large part to the new social norms that people experience in school , which people who do not go to school do not learn . True changes in beliefs will only occur if they are supported by changes in social norms . And because social norms are so important , the of individuals can help create or reduce it . Prejudice will be more likely to continue if people allow it to by not responding to it or confronting it when it occurs . attitudes will be improved when we can lead people to focus relatively more on their concerns for others and relatively less on their desires to feel good about themselves . contact is effective in this regard , although only under conditions that allow us to ate others . And individuation is more successful when the people involved in the contact are interdependent , such as in cooperative educational like the jigsaw room . Prejudice can also be reduced for people who have friends who are friends with members of the the hypothesis . In the Robbers Cave Experiment , as well as in many other studies , it has been found that superordinate goals that help us see others as part of the same category as we are provide a common identity and are successful at improving attitudes . You can now see how important social categorization is but also that it has many potential negative outcomes . You are now more aware how easily we categorize ot ers , how quickly we learn stereotypes , and how fast favoritism develops , and you can better see the impact that these processes have on our judgments of others . You can use that new knowledge to help you avoid being iced yourself and to help others from being prejudiced too . Doing so will be , but in the end it will be use ul . But just because we have stereotypes or hold prejudices does not mean that we can not change them or that we must act on them . If sports referees learn about their , they can work harder to overcome them , and they may well be successful . And when you learn about your own stereotypes and your own prejudices , and the ef of those beliefs on yourself and others , you may be able to change your own behavior and respond more to the stereotypes and prejudices expressed by ot ers .

CHAPTER KEY TAKEAWAYS Beliefs about the characteristics of the groups and the members of those groups are known as stereotypes . Prejudice refers to an unjustifiable negative attitude toward an . Stereotypes and prejudice may create discrimination . Stereotyping and prejudice begin from social the natural cognitive process by which we place individuals into social groups . Social categorization influences our perceptions instance , the perception of homogeneity . Once our stereotypes and prejudices become established , they are difficult to change and may lead to prophecies , such that our expectations about the group members make the stereotypes come true . Stereotypes may influence our performance on important tasks through stereotype threat . favoritism is a fundamental and aspect of human perception , and it occurs even in groups that are not particularly meaningful . favoritism is caused by a variety of variables , but important is we experience positive social identity as a result of our membership in valued social groups . EXERCISES . Look again at the pictures in Figure , and consider your thoughts and feelings about each person . What are your stereotypes and prejudices about them ?

Do you think your stereotypes are accurate ?

Visit the website and take one of the two listed on the page . Think of a task that one of the social groups to which you belong is considered to be particularly good or poor at . Do you think the cultural stereotypes about your group have ever influenced your performance on a task ?

Visit the website . and complete one of the tests posted there . Write a brief reflection on your results . Describe a time when the members of one of your important social groups behaved in a way that increased group identity REFERENCES , 2003 ) The formation of in group favoritism and prejudice in young children Are they distinct attitudes ?

Developmental Psychology , 39 ( 2001 ) Developmental and socialization influences on bias . In Brown . favoritism develops early in children and influences our behavior toward and members in a variety of ways . Personality dimensions that relate to favoritism include authoritarianism and social dominance that relate to less favoritism include a desire to control one prejudice and humanism . There are at least some cultural differences in the tendency to show favoritism and to stereotype others . Changing our stereotypes and prejudices is not easy , and attempting to suppress them may backfire . However , with appropriate effort , we can reduce our tendency to rely on our stereotypes and prejudices . One approach to changing stereotypes and prejudice is by changing social instance , through education and laws enforcing equality . Prejudice will change faster when it is confronted by people who see it occurring . Confronting prejudice may be embarrassing , but it also can make us feel that we have done the right thing . attitudes will be improved when we can lead people to focus more on their connections with others . contact , extended contact with others who share friends with members , and a common identity are all examples of this process . showing the black sheep effect ) What was the outcome of the actions ?

Visit the website and watch the program A Class Divided . Do you think Jane Elliott method of teaching people about prejudice is ethical ?

Have you ever confronted or failed to confront a person who you thought was expressing prejudice or discriminating ?

Why did you confront ( or not confront ) that person , and how did doing so make you feel ?

Imagine you are a teacher in a classroom and you see that some children expressing prejudice or discrimination toward other children on the basis of their race . What techniques would you use to attempt to reduce these negative behaviors ?

handbook in social psychology ( Vol . Doyle , 1996 ) Parental and peer influences on children racial attitudes . International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 20 , 1767 ( 96 ) SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 51 , Sanford , 1950 ) The authoritarian personality . Harper . 1979 ) The nature . Original work published 1954 ) 1988 ) Enemies of Understanding authoritarianism . Bass . Alter , Rodriguez , Ruble , 2010 ) Rising to the threat Reducing stereotype threat by the threat as a challenge . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 ( Devine , 2006 ) Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91 , 2004 ) Reducing hostility and building compassion Lessons from the jigsaw classroom . In Miller ( Ed . The ofgood and evil ( Press . 1978 ) The classroom . Sage . Good , Steele , 1999 ) When White men can do math Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 , Petty , Brewer , 2004 ) Contextual moderation of racial bias The impact of social roles on controlled and automatically activated attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 ( Bargh , 1999 ) The cognitive monster The case against the controllability of automatic stereotype effects . Press . Bennett , Barrett , Lyons , 2004 ) Young evaluations of the and of A study . Social Development , 13 ( 2006 ) A developmental theory of social stereotypes and prejudice . In Kail ( Ed . Advances in child development and behavior ( Vol . 34 , 1973 ) Social categorization and similarity in behaviour . European Journal of Social Psychology , Blair , 2002 ) The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice . Personality and Social Psychology Review , Blair , Ma , 2001 ) Imagining stereotypes away The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 81 ( Schwarz , Bless , 1995 ) Effects of atypical exemplars on racial beliefs Enlightened racism or generalized appraisals ?

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31 , Wann , Noel , Coleman , 1993 ) or out group extremity Importance of the threatened social identity . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 79 , Brewer , 1979 ) group bias in the minimal situation A analysis . Psychological Bulletin , 86 , Brewer , 2006 ) An evolutionary perspective on social identity Revisiting groups . In , Simpson , Evolution and social psychology ( Psychology Press . Ross , 1998 ) The role of stereotyping in overconfident social prediction . Social Cognition , 76 , Brown , 1995 ) Prejudice its social psychology . Brown , Payne , A . 2003 ) Automatic category activation and social behavior The moderating role of prejudiced beliefs . Social Cognition , 21 ( Plant , A . 2006 ) Perceiving members as unresponsive Implications for emotions , intentions , and behavior . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 91 ( 1996 ) Self anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70 ( 2010 ) Striving for difference On the spontaneous preference for members who maximize positive distinctiveness . European Journal of Social Psychology , 40 ( Chen , Bargh , A . 1999 ) Consequences of automatic evaluation Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 ( Clark , Clark , 1947 ) Racial identification and preference in Negro children . In , Hartley ( Readings in ( Holt , Winston . A . 2009 ) Do masculine names help female lawyers become judges ?

Evidence from South Carolina . American Law and Economics Review , 16 ( Park , Judd , The influence of stereotypes on decisions to shoot . European Journal of Social Psychology , 37 ( Park , Judd , Across the thin blue line Police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92 ( Crisp , 2007 ) Multiple social categorization . Academic Press . 2011 ) The advantage Examining the relationship among sexual orientation diversity , diversity strategy , and performance . Sport Management Review , 74 ( Monteith , Mark , 2006 ) Standing up for a change Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation . Journal

52 of Personality and Social Psychology , 90 ( Spencer , 1997 ) Prejudice as maintenance Affirming the self through others . Journal and Social Psychology , 73 , 1991 ) Confusing one person with another What errors reveal about the elementary forms of social relations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 ( Lee , 2008 ) Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination . In Brief ( Ed . Diversity at work ( Cambridge University Press . 1994 ) The role of memory biases in stereotype maintenance . British Journal of Social Psychology , 33 ( 2008 ) Addressing contemporary racism The common identity model . Springer Science Business Media . Mann , 1989 ) Reducing bias The benefits of . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 57 ( 2000 ) Perspective taking Decreasing stereotype expression , stereotype accessibility , and in group favoritism . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 ( Gonzales , Williams , 2002 ) The effects of stereotype threat and minority status on the test performance of Latino women . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 ( Martens , Jonas , Solomon , 2003 ) Psychological defense in anticipation of anxiety Eliminating the potential for anxiety eliminates the effect of mortality salience on worldview defense . Psychological Science , 14 ( 2000 ) Group socialization and prejudice The social transmission of attitudes and beliefs . European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 ( 2003 ) Does social dominance generate prejudice ?

Integrating individual and contextual of . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 ( 2002 ) Suicidal behavior among gay male youth . Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy , Wynn , 2013 ) Not like me bad Infants prefer those who harm dissimilar others . Psychological Science , 24 ( Oakes , Turner , 1996 ) Social identity , and the perceived homogeneity of and The interaction between social motivation and cognition . In Handbook of motivation and cognition The interpersonal context ( Vol . Press . 1990 ) The ultimate attribution error ?

A review of the literature on causal attribution . European Journal of Social Psychology , 20 ( 1996 ) Race in the making Cognition , culture and the child construction of human kinds . MIT Press . Jackson , 2011 ) The psychology of prejudice From attitudes to social action . American Psychological Association . Spears , 1997 ) Strength of identification and differentiation The influence of group norms . European Journal of Social Psychology , 27 ( Johns , Martens , A . 2005 ) Knowing is half the battle Teaching stereotype threat as a means of improving women math performance . Psychological Science , 16 ( Jones , 1971 ) The bogus pipeline A new paradigm for measuring affect and attitude . Psychological Bulletin , 76 ( 2003 ) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition . Psychological Bulletin , 129 ( Cain , 2009 ) Teacher expectations and prophecies . In Wenzel ( Handbook of motivation at school ( Francis Group . Kaiser , Miller , 2001 ) Stop complaining ! The social costs of making to discrimination . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27 , 1988 ) Racial ambivalence and American value conflict Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 55 , Moll , A . 2000 ) Just say no ( to stereotyping ) Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 ( Campbell , 2000 ) Sexist discrimination may account for known gender differences in psychiatric symptoms . Psychology of Women Quarterly , 24 , 1999 ) Racial discrimination and psychiatric symptoms among blacks . Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , Lee , 1995 ) Stereotype accuracy Toward appreciating group differences . American Psychological Association . Smith , 1985 ) discrimination and esteem in the minimal group paradigm . Journal

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 53 and Social Psychology , 49 , Brown , 1997 ) Category and stereotype activation prejudice inevitable ?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 ( Jones , 1980 ) Polarized appraisals of members . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 38 , Fischer , 1986 ) Stereotyping and perceived of social characteristics An application to perception . In ( Prejudice , discrimination and racism ( Academic Press . 1922 ) Public opinion . Brace . Ortiz , Hepburn , 1980 ) Social categorization and discriminatory behavior Extinguishing the minimal discrimination effect . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 39 ( Crocker , 1992 ) A collective scale of one social identity . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 18 , 0146167292183006 , 1996 ) Language and stereotyping . In , Stereotypes ana stereotyping ( Press . 1996 ) Linguistic bias Evidence for in group protective motivation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 ( A . 1994 ) Out of mind but back in sight Stereotypes on the rebound . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 ( Smith , et al . 2001 ) Ethnic and national stereotypes The Princeton trilogy revisited and revised . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 27 ( Eccles , Smith , 1998 ) The accuracy and power of sex , social class , and ethnic stereotypes A naturalistic study in person perception . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 ( 12 ) Martinez , Santos , 2011 ) The evolution of bias Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 ( Wilson , Gilbert , 2008 ) Expect the unexpected Failure to anticipate similarities leads to an forecasting error . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 ( Becker , Robertson , 2005 ) Functional projection How fundamentally social motives can bias interpersonal perception . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 , A . 2005 ) What differences make a difference ?

The promise and reality of diverse teams in organizations . Psychological Science in the Public Interest , Paulson , Lord , 2003 ) Alleviating women mathematics stereotype threat through salience of group achievements . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 39 ( 02 ) 2001 ) Thirty years of investigating the bias in memory for faces A meta review . Psychology , Public Policy , and Law , A . 2004 ) Anxiety and bias Terror management or coalitional psychology ?

Group Processes and Relations , Banker , Ward , Rust , 2001 ) Changing interracial evaluations and behavior The effects of a common group identity . Group Processes and Relations , 1987 ) Motivational influences on impression formation Outcome dependency , accuracy driven attention , and processes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 53 , 2007 ) The Association Test at age A methodological and conceptual review . Psychology Press . 2011 ) Why do skilled immigrants struggle in the labor market ?

A field experiment with six thousand resumes . American Economic Journal , 31 ( 1992 ) Out group homogeneity effects in natural and minimal groups . Psychological Bulletin , 712 ( Page , 2008 ) With a little help from my cross group friend Reducing anxiety in through friendship . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 95 ( Pettigrew , 2006 ) A meta test of contact theory . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 90 ( A . 2010 ) Prejudice toward female leaders Backlash effects and womens impression management dilemma . Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 10 ) Gore , 2000 ) Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation . Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 72 ( 2011 ) A comparison of minimal group induction procedures . Group Processes and Relations , 14 ( Pinto , Levine , 2010 ) Membership status and subjective group dynamics Who triggers the black sheep

54 effect ?

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99 ( Plant , Devine , 1998 ) Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 ( 1995 ) Social dominance orientation A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 , Price , 2007 ) Racial discrimination among NBA referees . Working Paper 13206 . National Bureau of Economic Research . Shelton , 2003 ) When prejudice does not pay Effects of interracial contact on executive function . Psychological Science , 14 ( Shelton , 2007 ) Negotiating interracial interactions Costs , consequences , and possibilities . Current Directions in Psychological Science , 16 ( John , 1985 ) Social categorization and behavioral episodes A cognitive analysis of the effects of contact . Journal Issues , 41 , Rubin , 1998 ) Social identity theory hypothesis A review and some suggestions for clarification . Personality and Social Psychology Review , Gary , 2001 ) Unlearning automatic biases The malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 ( Conway , 1999 ) Influence of management goals on the emerging content stereotypes Support for a perspective . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 , 0146167299025007005 , Johns , Forbes , 2008 ) An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance . Psychological Review , 175 ( Silvia , 2000 ) The intersection of maintenance and social identity theories Intragroup judgment in interpersonal and . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 ( 12 ) 2001 ) Perceived consensus influences behavior and stereotype accessibility . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 80 ( Shapiro , 2007 ) From stereotype threat to stereotype threats Implications of a threat framework for causes , mediators , consequences , and interventions . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 17 ( Shelton , A . 2005 ) contact and pluralistic ignorance . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 88 ( Shelton , Salvatore , Hill , 2006 ) Silence is not The consequences of not confronting prejudice . Lawrence . Shelton , Stewart , 2004 ) Confronting perpetrators of prejudice The inhibitory effects of social costs . Psychology of Women , 28 , Sherif , Harvey , White , Hood , Sherif , 1961 ) conflict and cooperation The robbers cave experiment . University of Oklahoma Press . Shook , 2008 ) Interracial roommate relationships An experimental field test of the contact hypothesis . Psychological Science , 79 ( Sinclair , 2006 ) Social dominance orientation , gender , and increasing educational exposure . Journal Social Psychology , 36 ( Van , Levin , Sinclair , 2004 ) Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of social identity on the college campus The good , the bad , and the ugly . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87 ( Snyder , 1977 ) Social perception and interpersonal behavior On the nature of social stereotypes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 35 ( Solomon , 2000 ) Pride and prejudice Fear of death and social behavior . Current Directions in Psychological Science , Spears , 1997 ) stereotyping in the face of threats to group status and distinctiveness The role of group identification . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 23 , Spencer , Steele , Quinn , 1999 ) Stereotype threat and womens math performance . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 35 , Spencer Rodgers , Williams , Hamilton , Peng , Wang , 2007 ) Culture and group perception Dispositional and stereotypic inferences about novel and national groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 ( 1995 ) Content and application inaccuracy in social stereotyping . In Lee , Stereotype Toward appreciating group differences ( American Psychological Association . 1991 ) Effects of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 27 ( 91 ) Jonas , 1996 ) Development and change of national stereotypes and attitudes . European Journal of Social Psychology , 26 ,

SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION , STEREOTYPING , AND DISCRIMINATION 55 , Leary , 2006 ) beliefs Investigations from the social side . Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 38 , 06 ) Lynch , Glass , 1992 ) Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 62 ( Thompson , 2002 ) Needs for cognitive economy and as unique of attitudes . European Journal of Social Psychology , 32 ( Steele , 1995 ) Stereotype threat and the intellectual performance of African Americans . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 1999 ) Reducing prejudice and stereotyping in schools . Teachers College Press . Stone , 2002 ) Battling doubt by avoiding practice The effects of stereotype threat on in White athletes . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 ( 12 ) Swim , Cohen , Ferguson , 2001 ) Everyday sexism Evidence for its incidence , nature , and psychological impact from three daily diary studies . Journal , 57 ( Swim , Cohen , Fitzgerald , 2003 ) African American college students experiences with everyday racism Characteristics of and responses to these incidents . Journal of Black Psychology , 29 ( 0095798402239228 , 1970 ) Experiments in discrimination . Scientific American , 223 , Bundy , 1971 ) Social categorization and behaviour . European Journal of Social Psychology , Wilkes , 1963 ) Classification and quantitative judgement . British Journal , Taylor , 1978 ) Categorical and contextual bases of person memory and stereotyping . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 36 ( Mitchell , 2008 ) Calibrating prejudice in milliseconds . Social Psychology Quarterly , 77 ( 019027250807100104 Trope , Thompson , 1997 ) Looking for truth in all the wrong places ?

Asymmetric search of information about stereotyped group members . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 ( van , 2007 ) Work group diversity . Annual Review , 58 ( Van , 2008 ) Evolutionary approaches to group dynamics An introduction . Group Dynamics Theory , Research , and Practice , 12 ( von , Vargas , 1997 ) The linguistic bias as an implicit indicator of prejudice . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 33 ( von , 2013 ) The gender typicality of faces and its impact on visual processing and on hiring decisions . Experimental Psychology , 60 ( Walton , Cohen , 2003 ) Stereotype lift . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 39 ( Williams , 1999 ) Race , status , and health The added effect of racism and discrimination . Annals ofthe New York Academy of Sciences , 896 ( Wood , 2010 ) Gender . In , Gilbert , Handbook psychology ( Vol . John Wiley Sons . Word , Cooper , 1974 ) The nonverbal mediation of prophecies in interracial interaction . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 70 ( 74 ) Wright , Aron , Ropp , A . 1997 ) The extended contact effect Knowledge friendships and prejudice . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 73 ( Rocher , 1994 ) Social The impact of cues on the use of stereotypes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 2008 ) underpinnings of face perception Further evidence of distinct person and group perception processes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 94 ( Lee , 2007 ) The contribution of face familiarity to favoritism and stereotyping . Social Cognition , 25 ( Zhang , Forbes , 2009 ) The effects of gender stereotypes on women career choice Opening the glass door . In , Ryan , The glass ceiling in the century Understanding barriers to gender equality ( 150 ) American Psychological Association .