Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Stereotyping II
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Key Question Regarding Individual Differences: | Are some people more prejudiced than others in general (i.e., across multiple social groups)? Yes, the more prejudiced a person is toward one group, the more prejudiced they tend to be toward other groups. |
| While there is some evidence for claiming a general “prejudiced personality,” there are important caveats: | correlations are imperfect (bias toward one group doesn’t predict others), situational factors can override personality, and while prejudice can relate to parents’ views, there is still significant individual variation. |
| Empathic concern: | refers to sympathy and compassion for others in response to their suffering. Dispositional (trait-level) empathy is slightly related to lower prejudice — people who are generally more empathic tend to be somewhat less prejudiced. |
| Critical Limitation Between Empathy and Lower Prejudice: | We are much more likely to feel empathy for ingroup members than outgroup members. This means empathy, while a potentially positive force, is selective. |
| Empathy for the Russian Invasion of Ukraine: | Reporters observed that the global, and specifically European, response and media coverage highlighted a "selective empathy," showing significantly more sympathy for Ukrainian refugees compared to those from other regions. |
| Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences in Prejudice (Dozo, 2015): | examines the overall gender difference in prejudice across studies. r = the correlation representing the difference between men and women, where higher values indicate men are more prejudiced. The general finding is that men are more prejudiced than women |
| Meta-Analysis of Breaking Down LGBT Groups (Dozo, 2015): | Results are shown separately for gay men, lesbian women, and a combined "Homosexuals" category (gay/lesbian without specifying subgroup).The data reveals variation: men are considerably more prejudiced toward gay men than toward lesbian women. |
| "Why is the gender difference in prejudice smaller for lesbian women than for gay men?" | Sexual objectification (some men may view lesbian women through a lens of sexual interest rather than hostility), Perceived threat (gay men may be seen as more threatening to traditional masculinity), Social norms around masculinity. |
| Gender attitudes are unique: | Women Are Wonderful Effect (Women are generally evaluated more positively than men overall). However, despite being evaluated warmly, women are simultaneously perceived as less competent and less deserving of rights (Stereotype Content Model). |
| Gender Differences Takeaway: | women are slightly but reliably less prejudiced across many domains. Attitudes about men and women are complex. |
| Racial coalition: | whether and under what conditions members of one stigmatized racial group show solidarity with or reduced prejudice toward other stigmatized groups. |
| Coalitional solidarity | shared experience of discrimination leads stigmatized groups to ally with one another. |
| Ingroup favoritism / outgroup derogation: | even stigmatized groups default to favoring their own group and showing prejudice toward others, rather than forming broad coalitions. |
| Explicit Prejudice (Race): | People show a preference for their own racial group over other groups.Being a member of a stigmatized racial group does not automatically translate into reduced prejudice toward other stigmatized groups. |
| Default response to being confronted with discrimination against one’s own group: | Experiencing discrimination can actually increase prejudice toward other outgroups as a way of protecting self-esteem. |
| An alternative response to discrimination is strengthening coalitional attitudes: | people are more likely to build alliances with other stigmatized groups when they seem similar and share similar discrimination, often promoting a broader commitment to equality. |
| Ideology: | A system of beliefs and values about how social relationships should be managed. It is comprised of two components → Beliefs about how the world is and values about how the world should be → normative, prescriptive goals for social organization. |
| Are liberals or conservatives more prejudiced in general? | It’s complicated. There are descriptive differences in prejudice between liberals and conservatives. The discussion is about how prejudice operates psychologically through ideology at the individual level — not a political one. |
| Conservatives are generally more prejudiced: | core difference → resistance vs. openness to change, acceptance vs. rejection of inequality. Overall, liberals and conservatives are more prejudiced, but towards different groups. |
| Value Dissimilarity Hypothesis: | believing outgroup doesn’t share ingroups’s values → prejudice. |
| Value Dissimilarity Study: | what matters more for our attitudes towards others? Political-moral values or racial groups? Participants learned about a person (White or Black) who held values that were liberal or conservative. Participants rated their impressions of the person. |
| Value Dissimilarity & Prejudice Results: | once political values were made clear, political values mattered far more than race. Liberal participants rated the target similarly regardless of race — what mattered was whether the target shared liberal values. The same was true for conservatives. |
| Liberalism & Conservatism Takeaway | In general, liberals are less prejudiced than conservatives. However, the target of prejudice matters a great deal. Both liberals and conservatives show prejudice toward groups they see as holding opposing values. |
| Three Dispositions: | system justification, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation (SDO). These three constructs are only weakly to moderately correlated with each other, meaning they are distinct — a person can be high on one without being high on the others. |
| System Justification: | A desire to justify and uphold existing social systems — corresponds to resistance to change. |
| Authoritarianism: | A desire for sameness and obedience to authorities — corresponds to resistance to diversity. |
| Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): | A desire for group-based dominance and hierarchy — corresponds to resistance to equality. |
| Janice is a hardcore librarian. To her, the Canadian government has always been too powerful and coddles people with welfare people. If some people are super rich and others stay poor, that’s fine with her. Is she high or low authoritarian? | She is a low authoritarian. |
| To Janice, the Canadian government has always been too powerful and coddles people with welfare people. If some people are super rich and others stay poor, that’s fine. Does she follow high social dominance orientation or low social dominance orientation? | High social dominance orientation |
| Does Janice follow high system justification or low system justification? | High system justification. Low system justification involves higher sensitivity to injustice, greater distress at economic disparities, and a desire to challenge the system to create equality. |
| Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950): | a personality type susceptible to authority. Strong superego (a rigid internalized conscience), a weak ego (poor ability to mediate between competing internal and external demands), and a strong id (powerful, uncontrolled primitive impulses). |
| The conflict between the powerful id and demanding superego creates personal insecurity. According to Adorno et al., authoritarians respond to this conflict in several ways, including: | projectivity, authoritarian submission, conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, etc. |
| Projectivity: | Projecting one's own unacceptable id impulses (e.g., aggression, sexual urges) onto minority or outgroup members, blaming them for what one cannot acknowledge in oneself. |
| Authoritarian Submission: | The superego compensates by demanding adherence to and deference toward legitimate authorities. |
| Conventionalism: | The superego compensates by demanding strict adherence to conventional social norms and values. |
| Authoritarian Aggression: | Aggression is directed toward people who violate conventional norms — scapegoating those who deviate. |
| Other psychoanalytically inspired features include: | opposition to imagination and introspection, superstitious thinking, and preoccupation with the sexual behavior of others. |
| Authoritarian Personality Strengths: | The authoritarian personality was a groundbreaking initial attempt to explain a generalized "prejudiced personality" — a person prone to prejudice across many different targets, not just one group. |
| Authoritarian Personality Flaws: | Its psychoanalytic basis lacked empirical support, the main measure (F Scale) had serious methodological issues, and it failed to identify Nazi war criminals accurately, with only 3 of 9 dimensions scoring high. |
| Right-Wing Authoritarianism: | Altemeyer fought weaknesses of Adorno et al. by stripping the authoritarian personality down to 3 components, construct of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). The components were authoritarian submission, conventionalism, and authoritarian aggression. |
| Authoritarian Submission: | A strong tendency to submit to and defer to perceived legitimate authorities. |
| Conventionalism: | A strong adherence to the traditional social norms and values endorsed by society and authorities. |
| Authoritarian Aggression: | A readiness to be aggressive toward individuals or groups who defy or violate authorities and conventions. |
| "The 'old-fashioned ways' and the 'old-fashioned values' still show the best way to live." (RWA EXAMPLE SCALE ITEMS): | Conventionalism |
| "The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas." (RWA EXAMPLE SCALE ITEMS): | Conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression combined. |
| "What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path." (RWA EXAMPLE SCALE ITEMS): | Authoritarian submission and aggression. |
| People high in RWA show elevated prejudice toward a wide range of groups, such as the following: | African Americans, Feminists, Muslims, Gay/Lesbian people, Overweight people, Immigrants. |
| People high in RWA tend to exhibit a cluster of related personality traits that help explain why they are more prejudiced: | mental inflexibility, low openness to new experiences, belief that the world is dangerous, and seeing the world in terms of ingroups and outgroups. |
| What are FICTIONAL characters or groups that are characterized by high right-wing authoritarianism? | The Empire from Star Wars or the characters from the Handmaiden’s Tale. |
| Authoritarianism Is Not a Momentary Madness: | emphasizes that authoritarianism is a stable dispositional tendency, not just a situational reaction. Students are referred to the Stenner & Haidt reading, which discusses how authoritarian predispositions interact with situational triggers. |
| Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999): | an evolutionary theory based on 4 ideas: humans naturally form group hierarchies causing conflict; age- and gender-based hierarchies exist; hierarchies arise with economic surplus; and both societies and individuals differ in support for hierarchy. |
| Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Defined SDO: | the personality aspect of the social dominance theory and a general desire for unequal relations between social groups. SDO can manifest differently depending on one's social position. |
| Ingroup domination | If a person belongs to a dominant group, high SDO means wanting one's own group to stay on top. |
| Ingroup subordination | If a person belongs to an oppressed group, high SDO can involve acceptance of one's own group's lower status — an internalized endorsement of hierarchy. This makes SDO a generalized orientation toward hierarchy, not merely a form of outgroup hostility. |
| Examples of SDO Statements | “It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.” “Some groups are simply inferior to others.” “It is unjust to try to make groups equal.” |
| Like RWA, SDO predicts prejudice toward a wide range of target groups, reflecting its generalized nature: | African Americans, Feminists, Muslims, Gay/Lesbian people, Immigrants. |
| People high in SDO tend to exhibit a distinctive personality and cognitive style, including: | zero-sum worldview, “dog-eat-dog” view of society, and hierarchy-enhancing professions. |
| Zero-sum worldview | They see group relations as a competition where one group's gain necessarily comes at another group's expense. |
| "Dog-eat-dog" view of society | They perceive social life as fundamentally competitive and hierarchical, with dominance being natural and inevitable. |
| Hierarchy-enhancing professions: | High-SDO individuals are more likely to pursue and enter careers that reinforce inequality — such as corporate law, business management, or prosecution — and less likely to enter hierarchy-attenuating fields like social work or public defense. |
| "This Is Fine" Meme | features the well-known "This Is Fine" internet meme — a dog sitting calmly in a burning room, sipping coffee. It is a humorous but pointed visual introduction to System Justification. |
| System Justification | the psychological tendency to rationalize and feel comfortable with an objectively problematic status quo rather than acknowledge or address its problems. |
| System Justification Theory | proposes that people are psychologically motivated to defend, bolster, and justify existing social systems. |
| The Primary Function of System Justification | Palliative Function (to the way system justification allows people to feel better about the societal status quo without actually addressing its root causes). |
| Palliative Function & LGBTQ | LGBT people that minimize the extent to which their group is the target of discrimination report higher subjective well-being. LGB people with minimized discrimination reported higher internalized stigma. “If I could be hetero, I would." |
| Manifestations of System Justification | use of compensatory stereotypes — stereotypes that pair a negative attribute with a positive attribute (or vice versa), so that inequality seems fair rather than unjust. Ex: “poor but happy,” “rich but miserable,” “asians: smart but uncreative.” |
| System Justification & Palliative Function Meets Three Needs helps people meet three fundamental psychological needs: | existential needs, relational needs, and epistemic needs. |
| Epistemic Needs | The need to reduce uncertainty and ambiguity — justifying existing systems provides a clear, ordered framework for understanding how the world works. |
| Existential Needs | The need to reduce feelings of threat and insecurity — believing that the world is fair and well-ordered is psychologically reassuring. |
| Relational Needs | The need to share similar perceptions of the world with others — endorsing the dominant social narrative fosters social belonging and cohesion. |
| Alex learns that LGBT people are more likely to be bullied. Alex's response is to reason that this must be because LGBT people are “doing something to egg their bullies on.” Which individual difference is Alex most likely to be high on? | System Justification. Alex is rationalizing an unjust outcome to make it seem like the existing social order is fair and legitimate. |
| Prejudice Continuum | Prejudice exists on a spectrum — it is not a simple on/off phenomenon, but varies in intensity and form across individuals and contexts. Implicit prejudice is more subtle, then aversive then symbolic and old-fashioned. |
| Peanut Butter, Jelly, and Racism: | Implicit biases often don’t make themselves apparent and develop slowly, like always seeing peanut butter and jelly |
| Explicit Prejudice: | conscious, deliberate & slow, controllable. Explicit prejudice is what people are aware of, can reflect on, and can choose to suppress or express. |
| Implicit Prejudice: | unconscious, automatic & fast, difficult to control. Implicit prejudice, by contrast, operates outside conscious awareness — it is activated quickly and automatically, and is resistant to deliberate control. |
| Explicit Racial Attitudes (Survey Data): | N = White participants. 58% expressed a pro-White explicit preference. 39% expressed no explicit preference. 3% expressed a pro-Black explicit preference. This data shows that even at the explicit level, the majority had a preference for own group. |
| Implicit Measure | method for assessing thoughts outside of conscious awareness or control. Rather than asking people directly what they think (self-report), implicit measures indirectly assess thoughts through performance on tasks. |
| The Implicit Association Test (IAT): | the most well-known implicit measure. Participants are timed on how quickly they can pair concepts (e.g., Black/White faces with Good/Bad words). Faster responses when certain pairings are grouped together indicate a stronger mental association. |
| IAT Demonstration: | Responds faster in Round 1 (Black = Bad / White = Good), implicit pro-White association. If they respond faster in Round 2, implicit pro-Black association. Slower, effortful responses reveal incongruent mental pairing — indicates underlying bias. |
| Congruent Mental Pairing | the cognitive tendency to exclusively test a favored hypothesis directly—trying to prove it right—rather than testing alternative hypotheses or trying to disprove it. |
| Incongruent Mental Pairing | a mismatch where behavior, emotion, or attention contradicts expected patterns or current situations. |
| IAT Black participants' results: | 16% pro-Black implicit preference. 64% pro-White implicit preference. Even Black participants showed implicit preference for White, suggesting that implicit biases reflect internalized societal hierarchies rather than personal endorsement of prejudice. |
| IAT Variety: | The IAT has been developed for a wide range of group comparisons, including → Black–White attitudes, Young–Old attitudes, Gay–Straight attitudes, and Thin–Fat attitudes. |
| What an IAT Score Means: | The IAT is a noisy measure of mental associations. It is meaningful at the group level — i.e., aggregate patterns across large samples are informative — but it has limited precision in any single individual case. |
| The Gender–Science IAT: | 70% of male participants had implicit Science = Male association. 71% of females also showed the same implicit association. This is another example of internalized cultural bias: women themselves tend to associate science with men at the implicit level. |
| IAT and Field of Study: | Science = Male bias varies by academic major. Humanities show stronger science = male associations, while science fields weaker ones. However, even women in science fields show implicit Science = Male bias, suggesting deeply rooted associations. |
| Where do implicit prejudices and stereotypes come from? | Our understanding of social hierarchy (we absorb which groups in society are considered higher status) and our personal identity (who we are and what our individual experiences have been). |
| Implicit Biases and Behavior: | Implicit biases are related to real-world behavioral outcomes. Despite being unconscious and automatic, implicit biases have measurable consequences for how people treat others. |
| Gender Gap in Science: | Regional/national levels of implicit gender–science stereotypes correlate with the gender gap. Countries where implicit Science = Male associations are stronger tend to have larger gaps between male and female science achievement. |
| Interracial Interactions: | White participants who scored higher on implicit racial bias measures tended to have more awkward and stilted conversations with a Black experimenter — even if they did not explicitly express racial prejudice. |
| Healthcare Bias: | White doctors with higher implicit racial bias tend to have worse doctor-patient relationships with Black patients. This has implications for health outcomes and healthcare equity. |
| Implicit Bias and Employment Study Design: | Sample was 192 hiring managers across 12 occupation categories in Sweden. Applicant name was either a typical Swedish name or a typical Arab-Muslim name (identical qualifications). |
| Implicit Bias and Employment Results: | Weak correlation between explicit stereotypes and callback. Stronger negative correlation between implicit stereotypes and callback rate for Arab/Muslim applicants. Hiring managers unaware of their bias — but implicit determined if called back minority |
| Implicit Attitudes Predict Region-Level Behavior: | Regional differences in implicit Race IAT scores across U.S. counties are linked to → Racial disparities in police stops, police shootings of unarmed Black people, racial health disparities, etc. |
| When Are Implicit Biases Influential? | Implicit prejudices and stereotypes are most likely to influence behavior under three conditions → motivation & ability, discretion, and organizations & institutions. |
| Motivation & Ability: | When you don't think things through, bias is more likely to surface when cognitive resources are depleted or not engaged. |
| a. Discretion: | When criteria for making a decision are unclear, When there are no clear standards guiding a decision, people fall back on gut instincts — which may reflect implicit biases. |
| b. Discretion: | When information is ambiguous or incomplete. Incomplete information allows stereotypes to fill the gaps. |
| Organizations & Institutions: | When policies & systems allow for it, structural factors can either amplify or suppress the expression of implicit bias. |
| When You Don't Think Things Through: | Situations that reduce deliberate thinking and thus increase susceptibility to implicit bias → Being stressed, Being tired, Being drunk |
| Shooting Study Under Time Pressure: | People are more likely to (mistakenly) shoot unarmed Black people and fail to shoot armed White people in simulated shooting tasks. Time pressure = more discrimination. |
| Time Pressure Shooting Manipulation: | — High time pressure: must respond within 630 ms — Moderate: 710 ms — Low: 790 ms — Greater time pressure → more racial discrimination in shooting decisions. |
| Time Pressure with Attraction: | People are generally biased in favor of attractive people. Manipulation: Decide within 1.5 seconds vs. an untimed condition. Result: Time pressure → more discrimination based on attractiveness. |
| When Criteria Are Unclear: The Police Chief Study: | Two candidates for police chief: Michael (streetwise) vs. Michelle (formally educated). Participants chose Michael, justifying: "Being streetwise is more important." When the qualities were swapped, they still chose Michael. |
| The Police Chief Study Findings: | This reveals post-hoc rationalization of gender-biased decisions → people shifted their stated criteria after the fact to justify selecting the male candidate regardless of his actual qualifications. |
| Police Chief Study Solution: | Write out the values/criteria for a decision in advance, then select the candidate who best matches those pre-specified criteria — reducing the room for bias to masquerade as merit. |
| Blind Auditions: | When orchestras introduced blind auditions (performers play behind a screen so evaluators cannot see their gender), the proportion of women hired by major orchestras increased substantially. |
| Forms of Blinding: | blinding, dimming, and temporary cloaking. |
| Blinding: | Eliminating the possibility of knowing a person's group membership (e.g., blind CV review, screen auditions). |
| Dimming: | Reducing the intensity of group status signals — e.g., avoiding Googling what a candidate looks like before an interview. |
| Temporary Cloaking: | Make a blinded decision first, then remove the blinding and check for unintended consequences (e.g., ensure a "blind" hiring process didn't inadvertently disadvantage another group). |
| Jim Crow / Old-Fashioned Racism: | The older, more explicit form of prejudice was characterized by → Belief in biological racial superiority, belief in racial separation and subjugation, and governmental enforcement (ex: curtailing of voting rights). |
| Theories of Contemporary Prejudice: | Since WWII, U.S. society has increasingly accepted racial equality, but White people still hold subtle biases. Today, prejudice is often expressed when it can be justified in non-racial ways, revealing hidden implicit biases in unclear situations. |
| Reason for Implicit Bias: | People want to be seen as non-prejudiced, so prejudice today is often expressed only when it can be justified on non-racial grounds. The concept of implicit bias: when decision-making criteria are ambiguous, underlying biases are more likely to surface. |
| Lee Atwater: | real-world example of how explicitly racial political strategy was reframed in race-neutral language. Says that since you can no longer be blatantly racist — say the N-word — you start finding other more, secretive ways to hurt Black people. |
| Symbolic Prejudice: | consists of a set of beliefs about Black people as an abstract group, not as individuals. These beliefs portray Black people as morally inferior because they are seen as violating traditional American values such as hard work and self-reliance. |
| How is Symbolic Prejudice Expressed: | The beliefs are expressed through actions and policy positions that are justified on a non-racial basis, but which in practice maintain the racial status quo. Ex: opposition to school busing (historically), opposition to welfare programs, etc. |
| The Five Core Themes of Symbolic Prejudice: | discrimination barely exists anymore (1), racial economic gaps are due to lack of effort (2), anger over inequality is unjustified (3), b seek special government favors instead of work harder (4), b get more than deserved economically (5). |
| Racial discrimination barely exists anymore: | "How much discrimination against Black people do you feel there is in the United States today, limiting their chances to get ahead?" — People with symbolic prejudice tend to deny that meaningful discrimination persists. |
| Racial economic gaps are due to lack of effort, not structural inequality. | "It's really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if Black people would only try harder they could be just as well off as White people." |
| Anger over inequality and unfair treatment is unjustified. | "How much of the racial tension that exists in the United States today do you think Black people are responsible for creating?" — This theme blames Black Americans themselves for racial conflict. |
| Black people seek special government favors rather than working harder. | The government shows more respect for Black people than they deserve." |
| Black people are receiving more than they deserve economically. | "Black people have gotten more economically than they deserve." |
| Misperception of Racial Inequality: | A study asked participants the same wealth gap question. The findings were striking → approximately 97% of Americans underestimate racial wealth inequality. Explains why people may not feel that race-based policies are necessary. |
| Perceptions of Anti-White vs. Anti-Black Bias: | Participants asked to rate how much they believed Black and White Americans experienced discrimination. White Americans perceive anti-White bias as a significant problem, even as they simultaneously perceive anti-Black bias to be declining. |
| The Paradox of Symbolic Prejudice: | People who exhibit symbolic prejudice endorse racial equality in principle, but consistently oppose the specific policies that would bring it about. |
| Isaiah Berlin's (1958) "Two Concepts of Liberty": | negative liberty and positive liberty |
| Negative Liberty: | Freedom from external restraint on one's actions. |
| Positive Liberty: | The actual ability to take control of one's life and accomplish one's goals. |
| Equality of Opportunity: | everyone deserves the same chance to succeed → related to negative liberty. |
| Equality of Outcome: | everyone should have the same level of wellbeing → related to positive liberty. Higher symbolic racism predicts lower agreement with equality of outcome. |
| Equality of Opportunity vs. Outcome (Harrison Bergeron): | In the story, the government enforces absolute equality of outcome by handicapping anyone who is above average in any ability — the strong are weighed down, the intelligent are given noise-emitting devices to disrupt their thinking, and so on. |
| Criticism of Symbolic Prejudice: | Can you distinguish anti-Black prejudice from opposition to government intervention? A person might oppose affirmative action not because of Black people, but because they believe the gov should not intervene in economic or social outcomes for anyone. |
| Mahathir Mohamad: | Government affirmative action to help the Malays in this country will not achieve the objectives if the Malays themselves do not want to change their character and value system in order to succeed. |
| The key components of symbolic prejudice as a global phenomenon are: | move away from biological superiority, focus on outgroup violation of shared cultural values, and justification of inequality through internal characteristics of the outgroup. |
| Aversive Racism: | holding positive explicit attitudes toward Black people while simultaneously holding negative implicit attitudes toward Black people. Not characterized by hostility or open contempt — marked by feelings of unease, discomfort, and anxiety. |
| Partner Discomfort Study: | Non-Black male participants. Participants completed a word-find task alongside a partner who was either a White or Black actor (confederate). Blood pressure was monitored throughout. |
| Partner Discomfort Study Takeaway: | Participants showed elevated blood pressure when paired with a Black partner, indicating that people with aversive prejudice experience genuine bodily anxiety and discomfort around Black individuals — even without overt hostility. |
| When Does Aversive Racism Lead to Discrimination? | Many aversive racists support racial equality and see themselves as egalitarian. A strong internal motivation to appear unprejudiced. As a result, whether their implicit bias surfaces as discriminatory behavior depends heavily on the situation. |
| When the "correct" behavior is clear: | Aversive racists will inhibit their bias and behave fairly. The social cost of appearing prejudiced is too high. |
| When the "correct" behavior is unclear or ambiguous: | Aversive racists are more likely to express bias through discriminatory responses. Because their behavior can be attributed to non-racial factors, there is less threat of being seen as prejudiced. |
| Avoiding Interracial Interaction: | White participants' willingness to interact with Black people was examined across situations that varied along two dimensions: intimacy & scriptedness (degree to which there’s a clear script telling them how to act). |
| Examples used in the AII study: | — High intimacy, high scriptedness → visit with a doctor — High intimacy, low scriptedness → long car ride in a carpool — Low intimacy, high scriptedness → waiting tables — Low intimacy, low scriptedness → sitting down next to someone |
| Finding for AII: | W expressed greatest willingness to interact with Black partners when more scripted and less intimate. Aversive racism manifests not just in discriminatory decisions, but in tendency to prefer interactions that minimize risk of revealing discomfort. |
| Hidden prejudices underlie contemporary forms of bias: | Symbolic and aversive prejudice both operate beneath the level of conscious, explicit hostility. |
| Different forms of prejudice are more relevant in certain situations than others: | Context determines which type of bias is most likely to surface and drive behavior. |
| Old-fashioned Example: | "I hate minorities; they are biologically inferior; discrimination is justifiable." |
| Symbolic Example: | "I don't like minorities; they are morally inferior; discrimination no longer exists." |
| Aversive Example: | "I don't like discrimination, but don't like minorities either; they make me anxious." |
| Old-fashioned Table: | low acceptance of equality, low rejection of traditional racist beliefs, innate superiority of Whites, strong emotional responses (fear and anger), exclusion, domination, control. |
| Symbolic Table: | high (opportunity) acceptance of equality, low (outcome) acceptance of equality, moderate rejection of traditional racism, denial of discrimination, mild to moderately negative emotional response (resentment), opposes policies benefitting minorities. |
| Aversive Table: | high acceptance of equality, high rejection of traditional racism, sees self as unprejudiced, positive emotional responses in theory but negative in practice (discomfort, anxiety), avoids intergroup interaction, polite during forced interactions. |
| Developmental Variability: | Children differ widely in when they acquire specific skills and capacities. Reported age ranges for milestones should be interpreted as statistical averages (like a mean or median) reflecting patterns across a population, not rules every child follows. |
| Infant Looking Time (Habituation Method): | habituation method measures infant cognition through looking time. When an infant fully encodes a stimulus, looking time decreases (habituation). Introducing a new stimulus then causes looking time to increase (dishabituation) |
| Nonverbal Recognition: Fagan & Singer (1979): | 5–6 month olds. Infants were habituated to a photo, then shown a new photo of someone similar or different in gender or age. The DV was looking time at the new photo. Since habituation reflects complete encoding, dishabituation means recognition of change |
| Nonverbal Recognition Results: | More looking time at a new event = dishabituation = the infant detected a difference. Less looking time = habituation continues = the infant perceived the new stimulus as similar to the encoded one. |
| Preferential Looking Method: | Unlike habituation method, preferential looking has no prior habituation. When a stimulus hasn't been encoded, looking time reflects preference. Infants are shown two stimuli simultaneously, and whichever they look at longer is considered preferred. |
| Nonverbal Preference with Races Methods: | White newborns and White 3-month-olds. Infants viewed images of people from different racial groups with no habituation phase, so looking time differences reflect preference. DV was looking time. |
| Nonverbal Preference with Races Results: | Newborns showed no race-based difference in looking time. 3-month-olds looked longer at W (own-race). Without habituation, differences reflect preference. Racial preferences are not innate — they develop with experience in the first months of life. |
| Nonverbal Preference in Accent: | English Infants watched videos of two women side by side — one speaking English, one speaking Spanish. Infants preferred the English speaker, demonstrating that own-language preference develops very early. |
| Nonverbal Preference in Mental States: | Infants also show preference based on similarity in opinion — not just race or language. The key idea is that even preverbal infants are sensitive to whether others share their likes and dislikes. |
| Conscious Awareness of Social Categories: | Conscious awareness of social categories begins with the development of language. The age at which awareness develops varies depending on the specific social category in question. |
| Two Rules for When Awareness Develops: | 2 factors predict when children become aware of social category: (1) the visibility of the social category — how perceptually obvious it is — and (2) the primacy of that category in everyday life — how frequently it appears in the child's environment. |
| Age as a Social Category: | Conscious awareness of age as a social category develops very early, though it has not been studied as closely as other categories. |
| Gender as a Social Category: | Conscious awareness of gender develops early, around 2–3 years of age. This aligns with the two rules: gender is both visually salient and highly prominent in everyday social life. |
| Conscious Awareness of Race/Ethnicity: | awareness of race and ethnicity develops later than gender, around 4–5. In the United States, White children tend to distinguish Black people first, and Asian, Latino, and Native American people later. However, considerable variation across children. |
| Race/Ethnicity Awareness (Individual Variation): | timing of racial/ethnic awareness also varies based on the child's own racial or ethnic identity and the local cultural context they grow up in. Children from minoritized groups, or those in more diverse environments, may develop this awareness earlier |
| What Cues Do Children & Adults Use to Determine Race: | Adults and children (81% White. Participants viewed White and Black faces and labeled them as "White/European-American" or "Black/African-American." Faces were varied along two dimensions: skin color and facial features (physiognomy/afrocentricity). |
| What Cues Do Children & Adults Use to Determine Race Results: | Adults relied on a combination of both skin color and facial features. Children, however, relied primarily on skin color. Main point: cues to determine race shift with development; children use surface-level (skin color), adults use multiple features. |
| Later-Developing Social Categories: | Abstract and less visually salient social categories generally develop later in childhood, unless they are made especially prominent in a child's early life. Examples include religion, sexual orientation and trans identities, and political ideology. |
| Development of Racial Prejudice (General Pattern): | explicit racial prejudice tends to peak around 5–7. Period when children have already internalized social categories but have no internalized norms about fairness and equality. After peak, prejudice declines. |
| Role of Outgroup Contact: | Prejudice among majority group members also depends on contact with outgroup members. When there is little to no contact, prejudice increases. When there is high contact, prejudice decreases. |
| Implicit Attitudes Across Development (Baron & Banaji, 2006): | predominantly White children in Boston. The study examined how implicit racial attitudes change across development. Explicit prejudice declines with age, while implicit prejudice remains relatively stable or increases. |
| Why Explicit Prejudice Declines: | As children develop, they learn social and cultural norms about race and internalize moral lessons about equality and fairness. |
| Why Implicit Prejudice Stays the Same: | Stability of attitude, stability of cultural messages. Implicit prejudice increases, but adults get better at controlling/disguising it. |
| Development of Gender Prejudice (Early Onset): | Preferences for one's own gender develop early, by ages 3–4 — shortly after conscious awareness of gender emerges around ages 2–3. In an interview, a girl said that boys can’t wear dresses or have long hair. |
| Development of Gender Prejudice (Decline at Puberty): | Gender-based ingroup preferences decline around puberty, likely driven by the emergence of heterosexual attraction, which increases interest in and positive attitudes toward the other gender. |
| Two Research Traditions in Developmental Psychology: | cognitive development (the development of cognitive abilities) and social development (the development of how children learn to interact with others). |
| Cognitive Development Perspective: | From the cognitive development perspective, prejudice and stereotyping arise naturally as byproducts of developing cognition. Prejudice will decrease as cognitive abilities become more advanced. |
| Aboud's Three-Stage Model (1988): | three-stage model of how children develop and then move beyond prejudice. Stage 1: Focus on self and emotional responses. Stage 2: Noticing similarities and differences between people. Stage 3: Conceptual understanding of internal mental states. |
| Stage 1: Egocentrism: | children are egocentric — they assume their own perspective of the world is what everyone else believes. They have difficulty understanding that others can hold different opinions. If another child disagrees with them, that child is wrong. |
| Stage 2: Noticing Group Differences: | In Stage 2, children begin noticing perceptual differences between groups. Importantly, they tend to exaggerate the differences between groups, perceiving groups as more distinct and homogeneous than they actually are. |
| Stage 3: Understanding Individual Variation: | In Stage 3, children develop a more sophisticated understanding of how individuals differ within groups. They move beyond thinking of group members as interchangeable and begin recognizing individual variation. |
| Mental State Study Setup: | Do children with a better understanding of others' mental states also distinguish between group-level and individual-level information more effectively? Does the child realize people have different beliefs? |
| Mental State Study: Novel Groups: | Children were introduced to two fictional social groups: the Zazzes and the Flurps. This allowed researchers to study group-based reasoning without the confound of real-world group associations. |
| Mental State Study: Test Phase: | "Did the Zazz hit the other Zazz or the Flurp?" They learned that Zazz is really mad at other Zazz, but not Flurp. Children prioritized group would answer "the Flurp" (outgroup); children prioritized individual information answered "the other Zazz." |
| Mental State Study Takeaway: | Children with low understanding of mental states used both category and individual information equally. Children with high understanding individual information. As children develop better theory of mind, they think about individuals separately from group |
| Social Learning Perspective: | From the social development perspective, prejudice and stereotyping are not natural or inevitable — they develop through children's experiences with the world. The environment shapes what children learn about groups. |
| Three Types of Social Learning: | Direct instruction (explicitly taught beliefs about groups), Observational learning (watching others engage in discriminatory behavior), Vicarious learning (observing patterns of who has advantages and who has disadvantages in society). |
| 7-year-old Leo notices his brother avoids Jewish people. Without anyone telling him anything about Jewish people, Leo mimics his brother's behavior. How did Leo learn to discriminate? | Answer: observational learning. |
| Developmental Intergroup Theory: | integrates both cognitive development and social learning perspectives into a unified three-step model → (1) establishing the salience of group attributes, (2) social categorization, and (3) development of prejudice and stereotypes. |
| Factors That Make Group Attributes Salient: | perceptual discriminability, proportional group size, explicit use, and implicit use. |
| Developing Prejudice & Stereotypes Includes: | essentialist belief, ingroup favoritism, explicit attributions, and group-attribute covariation. |
| Perceptual discriminability: | children notice visible similarities and differences between people (connects to Aboud's Stage 2). |
| Proportional group size: | smaller minority groups are more distinctive and therefore more salient. |
| Explicit Use: | Adults also contribute to salience through explicit use — labeling social categories directly (connects to direct instruction). |
| Implicit use: | who lives, works, and socializes together, which children observe through observational and vicarious learning even without explicit instruction. |
| Social Categorization: | Once a group attribute becomes salient, children learn to automatically categorize people by that attribute. Categorization becomes an automatic cognitive process, not a deliberate one. |
| Essentialist Beliefs: | Essentialist beliefs are beliefs that members of a group share an underlying, fixed, and unchanging essential characteristic — that the group "is just that way." These beliefs are typically stronger in younger children (Aboud's Stage 2 and 3). |
| Examples of Essentialist Beliefs: | use generic language linked to essentialism → “birds lay eggs” and “girls are bad at math.” Essentialism is related to greater stereotyping (children living in diverse areas are less likely to think in essentialist ways). |
| Explicit Attributions: | Explicit attributions involve direct instruction about the traits associated with social groups. |
| Ingroup favoritism: | liking for one’s own group. By age 3, children prefer people of the same gender but not the same race. By age 5, children from high-status racial groups begin showing racial ingroup favoritism. |
| Group-Attribute Covariation: | refers to patterns children observe in everyday life — who tends to do what, who tends to be where. Connects to observational and vicarious learning, as children pick up on patterns passively through environmental exposure. |
| Agnes observes that her Jewish friends at school never eat pork, even when it is offered as the only food option. She forms the stereotype, "Jewish people never eat pork." What component of learning from the Developmental Intergroup Theory is this? | Group-attribute covariation. |
| Social Identity Theory: | social identity refers to aspects of a person's self-concept that derive from their group memberships. We actively strive to achieve and maintain a positive social identity. We also strive to distinguish our own social groups from other social groups. |
| Yanny or Laurel Example: | After having been divided into "Yanny" hearers and "Laurel" hearers, asked whether they feel closer to people who heard the same thing. Shows how even arbitrary membership can produce feelings of ingroup affiliation and mild outgroup distancing. |
| Distinguishing Your Social Group from Others (University “Time” Example): | In Harvard, Berkeley, and Michigan, classes all start 10 minutes after the scheduled time, but each university calls it “___ Time” after their own college showing that they want a distinctive identity even with the same practice. |
| Minimal Group Paradigm: | Could even meaningless groups produce bias? Leads to Minimal Group Paradigm: technique for creating artificial groups — with no history, no shared experience, and no real stakes — is sufficient to produce ingroup favoritism and discrimination. |
| Klee Vs. Kandinsky: | painters whose artwork was used in the original Minimal Group Paradigm experiments. Participants were told they preferred one artist, then assigned to "Klee group" or "Kandinsky group." An arbitrary group identity with no real-world significance. |
| Estimation Task: | Students are shown an image of a cluster of dots and asked: "How many dots were there?" The purpose is to divide students into groups ("overestimators" and "underestimators") based on a completely random, trivial perceptual guess. |
| Minimal Groups Study with Klee Vs. Kadinsky: | Tajfel divided Klee and Kandinsky people into meaningless groups, asked them to distribute money to each other, and gave everyone only an ID number and group label. People still preferred giving money to their own group. |
| Minimal Groups Study with Children: | Children asked to pick a red or blue coin (the choice was hidden, making it arbitrary). Then assigned to a "red group" or "blue group." Children showed favoritism towards their own group, showing that ingroup bias appears early in development. |
| Role of Self-Categorization in Social Identity: | Self-categorization is the process of defining oneself as a member of a group, which activates a social identity and leads individuals to adopt group norms, attitudes, and in-group favoritism. |
| Self-Categorization is Situational: | you’re voting, the focus will be your categorization as an American citizen. You’re in lecture, the focus will be your categorization as a student. Ex: Asian-American in NJ would be considered “Chinese,” while in Hong Kong, “American.” |
| Threats to In-Group make Identity Salient: | after 9/11, the protection of an American identity was suddenly deemed a lot more important. |
| Social Identity Theory (Demographic Shift Study): | 400+ White American participants were recruited and asked to read one of two press releases, then rate their feelings toward various racial groups. |
| Control condition: | "People Move Residences More Each Year Than Ever Before" — a neutral, non-race-related press release. |
| Racial Shift condition: | "In a Generation, Ethnic Minorities May Be the U.S. Majority" — a press release highlighting that racial/ethnic minorities are projected to become the numerical majority in the United States within a generation. |
| Results of Demographic Shift Study: | participants in the Racial Shift condition rated minority groups more negatively than those in the Control condition, across all groups measured. Confronting demographic changes → more negative views of minority groups. |
| Racial Shift Meditation Model: | Racial Shift (vs. Control) → Status Threat → Outgroup Derogation. Learning about demographic shifts leads to status threat — the feeling that one's group's dominant social position is endangered — and drives outgroup derogation. |
| Self-Categorization is Chronic: | Self-categorization is not just situational; it is chronic, meaning we are always, to some degree, thinking of ourselves as members of particular groups, and this shapes how we interact with others. |
| Optimal Distinctiveness Theory: | people motivated by two competing needs → The need for inclusion — to belong to groups, to feel similar. The need for distinctiveness — to feel differentiated. People want a balance between group and personal identities. |
| Self-Categorization Can Be Strategic: | 1st-generation immigrants may identify strongly with their specific country of origin. 2nd-generation individuals may navigate between their cultures. 3rd-generation and beyond may increasingly identify as broadly "Asian American" or simply "American." |
| "FOB" | ("Fresh off the boat") — a term (sometimes used pejoratively, sometimes reclaimed) referring to recent immigrants who are perceived as more closely tied to their country of origin's culture. |
| "Banana" | term used within the community to describe someone who is "yellow on the outside, white on the inside," i.e., of Asian descent but culturally assimilated into White American norms. |
| Intragoup Labels: | Labels like FOB and Banana show how intragroup distinctions form around identity, and how individuals strategically emphasize different aspects of identity to achieve the optimal balance between belonging and distinctiveness. |
| Not Distinct Enough: | lacking individuality, too constraining |
| Too Distinct: | Stigma, not included, undesirable deviant |
| Optimal Distinctiveness: | Distinct, but not too distinct |
| Ingroup Love Dominates: | Ingroup love is the default, outgroup hate is less common and usually forms under egalitarian norms, only under cases of threat to the outgroup. |
| What did the teacher do and what happened? (Class Divided): | arbitrarily assigned students to “blue eyes” vs. “brown eyes” groups and gave one group privilege, causing the favored group to perform better and feel superior while the other performed worse and felt inferior. |
| How is this like the minimal groups paradigm? (Class Divided): | Like the Minimal group paradigm, it shows that even arbitrary group assignments quickly produce bias and discrimination. |
| How would social identity theory explain the results? (Class Divided): | Social identity theory explains that students derived self-esteem from group membership, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination. |
| Self-Esteem Hypothesis: self-esteem is intrinsically linked to group identity. | When our groups are viewed positively, we feel better about ourselves. |
| BIRGing: | key implication of the Self-Esteem Hypothesis is the Basking in Reflected Glory, celebrating an ingroup's success as if it were your own. Ex: college students more likely to wear their school's apparel after a football win than loss. |
| Implications of the Self-Esteem Hypothesis: | Positive social identity → Positive self-esteem. Negative social identity → Negative self-esteem. When your group loses, fails, or is viewed negatively, your personal self-esteem suffers. |
| Derogating outgroups can increase self-esteem: | derogate outgroup → increased relative standing for ingroup → more positive social identity → increased self-esteem. |
| Hate Crime: | criminal offense in which there is evidence that the victim was chosen because of their perceived membership in a protected class. Other categories of crime often overlap substantially with hate crimes, making classification complex. Must infer motive. |
| Motive (Law): | the reason why a perpetrator committed a crime. Motive is a required element to establish that the crime occurred — not just intent. In most other crimes, intent (i.e., did the person deliberately commit the act?) is what matters legally. |
| Are Hate Crimes “Thought Crimes:” | No — hate crimes are not thought crimes. Thought alone cannot be punished under the law. However, inferring another person's motive is inherently tricky, particularly given that people often lack accurate self-awareness about their own motivations. |
| Thrill-seeking: | The perpetrator commits the hate crime out of a desire for excitement or stimulation. The victim's group membership is incidental to the thrill; the act of targeting a vulnerable or stigmatized group provides a rush. |
| Defensive: | The perpetrator commits the hate crime as a means of protecting their community from perceived outsiders or intruders. |
| Retaliatory: | The perpetrator commits the hate crime as revenge for a real or perceived attack on a member of their ingroup. |
| Mission: | The perpetrator is driven by a deep ideological commitment to a prejudiced belief system, such as white supremacy or religious extremism. |
| Hate group: | defined as an organization whose central principles include hostility toward minority groups. |
| Hate Group Trends Over Time: | The numbers show a decline in the early-to-mid 2010s followed by a notable resurgence, reaching over 1,000 again by 2018. |
| Problems in Defining Hate Groups (Explicit vs. Coded Language): | One major challenge is that not all hate groups are equally transparent about their ideology. Some hate groups are explicit about their racist or bigoted ideology; others cloak their views in coded or mainstream-sounding language. |
| Problems in Defining Hate Groups (Who Is Classifying?): | Whether a group is classified as a hate group depends heavily on who is doing the classifying. Different organizations may use different criteria. Groups on the political left and right may dispute each other's classification. |
| Problems in Defining Hate Groups (Boundary Cases): | It can be difficult to distinguish hate groups from other types of organizations that also engage in group-based hostility, including terrorist groups, prison gangs, governmental groups, and internet forums. |
| Relative Deprivation Theory: | intergroup hostility arises not from absolute deprivation (i.e., how little one actually has), but from relative deprivation — the belief that one is getting less than one deserves relative to other groups or a certain standard. |
| Relative Deprivation Is Relative: | comparison targets are not chosen randomly — we are most likely to compare ourselves against people who are similar, relevant, and proximal (nearby). |
| Ex of Relative Deprivation: | the top 10% income threshold in Kenya is approximately $3,570 USD/year, while in USA $75,000 USD/year. $30,000/year is far wealthier than most Kenyans but may feel deprived compared to other Americans. |
| Relative deprivation develops through two cognitive steps: | Perceiving a discrepancy between one's desired outcome and one's actual outcome. Believing that the discrepancy is undeserved. |
| What makes people believe a discrepancy is undeserved? A perceived lack of… | distributive justice (rewards and costs are justly allocated → equality of outcome) and procedural justice (fairness and procedures for distributing rewards & costs → equality of opportunity). |
| Consequences of Relative Deprivation: | emotions (discontent, frustration, resentment) and hostility towards perceived source of deprivation. |
| Personal Relative Deprivation: | The belief that you as an individual are deprived compared to similar others (e.g., "Am I getting less than other British people like me?") |
| Group Relative Deprivation | The belief that your group as a whole is deprived compared to another group (e.g., "Are British people like me getting less than West Indians living in Britain?") |
| Which one is more related to prejudice? | Group deprivation. Personal deprivation is not uniquely related to prejudice. It is the sense that one's group is being treated unjustly that drives intergroup hostility. |
| Relative Deprivation & Anti-Immigrant Prejudice: | over 7,000 Europeans, measuring both personal and group relative deprivation. The findings confirmed: group relative deprivation predicted anti-immigrant prejudice; personal deprivation did not. |
| Most people don’t think an undocumented immigrant has personally taken one of their jobs. Personal or group deprivation? | Personal. |
| However, the common concern is that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans as a group. Personal or group deprivation? | Group. |
| Empirical Evidence Vs. Beliefs: | empirical evidence does not support the claim that undocumented immigrants take jobs away from Americans as a group — but the perception of group deprivation is nonetheless politically and psychologically powerful. |
| Realistic Conflict Theory: | intergroup prejudice arise from conflicting goals and competition over limited resources. Unlike Social Identity Theory (prejudice can arise from trivial divisions), Realistic Conflict Theory emphasizes real, substantive conflicts of interest. |
| Three key environmental conditions that promote realistic intergroup conflict: | Zero-Sum Situations Objective Resource Scarcity Perceived Resource Scarcity |
| Zero-sum situation: | one in which one group's gain is necessarily another group's loss — the total resources are fixed, so the more one group gets, the less remains for the other. |
| Example of Zero-sum Situation: | Because Christians, Muslims, and Jews all claim deep, non-negotiable religious significance to the same physical space, control of Jerusalem has been a source of persistent, intractable intergroup conflict. |
| Objective Resource Scarcity: | refers to situations where resources are genuinely, measurably insufficient to meet the needs of all groups, such as during famine and recession. |
| Perceived Resource Scarcity: | refers to situations where resources may not actually be scarce, but groups believe them to be. Ex: believing immigrants are taking jobs and that there is a fixed “pie” of jobs. |
| Ideological Factors in a Realistic Conflict: | Beyond environmental conditions, ideology can independently promote the perception of intergroup conflict → right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. |
| Ideological Factors in Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA): | People high in RWA are more likely to perceive the world as a dangerous place filled with outgroups that threaten conventional norms, authorities, and social order. |
| Ideological Factors in Social Dominance Orientation (SDO): | People high in SDO are more likely to view the world as a zero-sum competition between groups, with some groups naturally dominating others. |
| Perceived resource scarcity matches with what concept? | Realistic conflict theory |
| Self-categorization matches with what concept? | Social identity theory |
| Deviating from societal traditions matches with what concept? | Right-wing authoritarianism |
| Distributive and procedural injustice matches with what concept? | Relative deprivation theory |
| Outgroup is ideologically opposed to you matches with what concept? | Value dissimilarity hypothesis |
| Preferences for hierarchy matches with what concept? | Social dominance orientation |
| Authoritarianism (Stenner & Haidt) | A stable, largely inherited personality trait — not a political ideology — characterized by a preference for obedience, conformity, and sameness over freedom and difference. |
| The Authoritarian Dynamic (Stenner & Haidt) | Intolerance = authoritarian predisposition × normative threat. Authoritarians are not always intolerant — their intolerance is switched on by environmental triggers, not permanently on. |
| Normative Threat (Stenner & Haidt) | The trigger that activates authoritarianism. It is the feeling that social order is breaking down — through disrespect for authority, lack of consensus, or leaders seen as failing the people. |
| The Three "Conservatives" (Stenner & Haidt) | Stenner separates three groups wrongly lumped together: libertarians (want free markets), status quo conservatives (resist rapid change), and authoritarians (demand conformity and sameness). Only authoritarians drive intolerance and populism. |
| Authoritarianism vs. Status Quo Conservatism (Stenner & Haidt) | Status quo conservatives resist change over time. Authoritarians resist complexity and difference in society right now. Unlike conservatives, authoritarians will destroy existing institutions if it means achieving greater uniformity. |
| Far-Right Populism (Stenner & Haidt) | A combination of two things: (i) demand for less diversity and (ii) anger at elites seen as out of touch. Together they represent authoritarian predispositions activated by normative threat — not a random or sudden cultural outbreak. |
| Democracy Does Not Breed Democrats (Stenner & Haidt) | Living in a liberal democracy does not make people more tolerant over time. About one-third of any population will always struggle with diversity, and exposure to liberal values may actually push authoritarians toward greater intolerance, not less. |
| What Authoritarians Are Actually Saying (Stenner & Haidt) | Authoritarian anger about immigration or cultural change is not mainly about jobs or money. It is about feeling that society is going in the wrong direction and that no one in power represents or listens to them. |
| Stenner & Haidt General Summary | far-right is not a sudden madness. It is the predictable activation of a latent authoritarian predisposition triggered by normative threat. Authoritarianism is a feature of human society, and liberal democracy's own values of freedom set it off. |
| Stenner & Haidt General Analysis | Stenner and Haidt reframe authoritarianism as a person-situation interaction, explaining why intolerance seems to appear out of nowhere. Their most important insight is that liberal democracies may fuel their own opposition by celebrating differences. |
| Implicit Bias vs. Explicit Bias (Payne et al.) | Explicit bias is consciously held and self-reported. Implicit bias is automatic, unconscious, and measured through cognitive tests rather than self-report. Explicit prejudice has declined over time, but implicit bias remains widespread |
| Bias of Crowds / Implicit Bias as Context (Payne et al.) | Implicit bias is not a fixed personality trait but a response to one's social environment, cued by cultural norms. Averaging many IAT scores reveals stable patterns of structural inequality in a given place. |
| Core Finding: Slavery Predicts Modern Implicit Bias (Payne et al.) | Counties and states more dependent on slavery in 1860 show significantly higher pro-White implicit bias among White residents today. Black residents in the same areas show the opposite pattern: less pro-White or more pro-Black bias. |
| Payne et al. General Summary (Payne et al.) | study linked 1860 Census slavery data to modern IAT scores from millions of respondents across U.S. counties and states. The more dependent a county was on slavery, the higher its White residents' pro-White implicit bias today. |
| Payne et al. General Analysis | reframe implicit bias from an individual flaw into a collective reflection of historical and structural inequality. Rather than focusing on changing individual minds through bias training, effective approach may be changing the structural environments |
| The Say-Do Gap (Wu et al.) | Most White parents say they want to raise anti-racist children, but very few actually talk to their kids about race. Only about 30% had discussed race with their children, and over half said nothing about George Floyd the month after his death. |
| Myth 1: Talking About Race Makes Children Racist (Wu et al.) | White parents often avoid discussing race thinking it will cause their children to notice and judge by race. Research shows the opposite — ignoring race increases children's racial bias, while openly discussing it reduces bias. |
| Myth 2: White Children Are Too Young (Wu et al.) | Parents think their children are too young to understand race. But 3-year-olds already associate race with wealth, and 5-year-olds want to correct inequality. Children can handle difficult topics early — talking about them sooner helps them cope better. |
| Myth 3: Race Is Irrelevant to White Children (Wu et al.) | White parents feel racism doesn't affect their family. In reality, White families have benefited from systemic racism through inherited wealth and privilege, and racist policies harm everyone. |
| Wu et al. General Summary | paper debunks three myths White parents use to avoid talking about race with their children: it will make them racist, they are too young, and race doesn't affect them. All three are false. The authors recommend starting conversations early |
| Wu et al. General Analysis | The core insight is that staying silent about race does not protect children — it makes bias worse. Well-meaning White parents who avoid the topic are ironically more likely to raise prejudiced children. |
| What Is a Hate Crime? (Bell) | A crime motivated by bias against race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. To prosecute one, the prosecutor must prove the victim was targeted specifically because of their membership in a protected group. |
| The Motive Problem (Bell) | Hate crimes are unique because prosecutors must prove not just that a crime happened, but why. Proving bias motivation is very hard in court, so prosecutors are often reluctant to bring hate crime charges even when bias seems obvious to the public. |
| The Enforcement Gap (Bell) | 86% of law enforcement agencies reported zero hate crimes in 2019. Meanwhile, victims reported over 200,000 hate crimes per year. Police are missing the vast majority of hate crimes that actually occur. |
| Bell General Summary (Bell) | Hate crime laws exist on paper but fail in practice. Proving bias motivation is legally difficult, police are poorly trained to identify hate crimes, and most incidents go unreported — especially in minority communities that distrust police. |
| Bell General Analysis (Bell) | law only works if it is enforced. Hate crime laws reflect ideals of fairness, but without proper police training and community trust, they are largely symbolic. The communities these laws are meant to protect are least likely to report incidents |
Created by:
smurtab