What makes sexism special:

Sexism is unique due to biological differences (1), distinct social roles (2), and complex reproductive relationships (3), while women—though not a minority—are still socioeconomically disadvantaged (4).

Understanding Female Disadvantage:

Simple accounts of ingroup favoritism (preferring one's own group) and outgroup hatred (despising the other group) do not adequately explain female disadvantage. Ambivalent Sexism and Backlash Theory are needed.

describes how prejudice against women includes both hostile attitudes that demean them and seemingly positive (but patronizing) attitudes that reinforce traditional gender roles.

Hostile Sexism (Misogyny/Part of Ambivalent Sexism):

Antagonistic, negative attitudes toward women.

Common beliefs associated with hostile sexism:

Women are enemies of men (1), Women seek to control men (2), and Women demand too much (3). This is the more overt, recognizable form of sexism — characterized by open dislike, resentment, or contempt toward women.

Hostile Sexism in Action (Elliot Rodger Manifesto):

Elliot Rodger illustrates hostile sexism in its extreme form: I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me." It is associated with "incel" (involuntary celibate) ideology and real-world violence.

Ambivalent Sexism (Benevolent Sexism):

Benevolent sexism: Subjectively positive attitudes and beliefs about women that nevertheless justify traditional gender roles.

Common beliefs of Benevolent Sexism:

Women are pure and good (1), Women ought to be protected by men (2), Women nurture children and men through adversity (3). They are still a form of sexism because they place women on a pedestal in a way that limits and constrains them to specific roles.

Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Points 1):

Benevolent sexism's underlying foundation is the stereotyping of women as inferior and men as superior — it is not genuinely positive. Hostile and benevolent sexism are positively correlated, so people who hold one form tend to hold the other as well.

Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Points 2):

Women who hold stronger benevolent sexist beliefs → (a) Are less resistant to discrimination, (b) Have lower educational and career goals for themselves, (c) Take on more unpaid labor in their relationships.

Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Point 3):

Benevolent sexism allows men to see their privileges as deserved. When men are told they must protect and provide for women, it frames male dominance and female dependence as natural and even noble — obscuring the underlying power imbalance.

Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Point 4):

Benevolent prejudices are very difficult to change, for several reasons → They are superficially positive, they are difficult to see, it is easy to be convinced there is nothing to feel guilty about.

Ambivalent Sexism (The Full Picture):

Ambivalent sexism is the combination of hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism punishes women who challenge the status quo. Benevolent sexism rewards women who embrace traditional gender roles.

Prescriptive Gender Norms:

describe how people should behave (as opposed to descriptive norms, which describe how people do behave). For women: Kindness, warmth, and attractiveness. For men: Leadership, competence, and agency.

Value of the Masculine:

Stereotypes legitimize men's greater status and power relative to women. Importantly, masculine traits and pursuits are more highly valued in society — leadership, ambition, and competence.

Backlash Theory (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 2001):

proposes that individuals — especially women — who violate traditional gender norms (e.g., by being assertive or dominant) often face social and economic penalties for defying expected roles.

Backlash Theory Point One:

There are penalties for acting counter-stereotypically. People who violate their gender's prescribed norms face social and professional punishment.

Backlash Theory Point Two:

Women often must disconfirm female stereotypes (i.e., act assertively and confidently rather than warmly and deferentially) in order to be perceived as competent leaders.

Backlash Theory Point Three:

However, when women do enact these agentic (confident, assertive, dominant) behaviors, they are perceived as socially deficient and unlikeable. These perceived deficiencies then lead to discrimination and punishment.

A Double Binding in Hiring & Promotion:

Warm women are seen as less capable and competent — warmth signals they lack leadership qualities. Competent women are seen as less likeable and more hostile — competence signals they are violating femininity norms.

Cross-Cultural Manhood Rituals:

Many cultures around the world require men to undergo painful or dangerous rituals to prove their manhood. Such as: ritual bloodletting, the "Bullet Ant Glove,” "Land Diving,” and forced circumcision.

There is a cultural focus on active, public demonstrations of manhood — manhood must be proven, not simply assumed. In developed/Western societies, the lack of formal institutional (ritual passages) makes manhood uncertain and ambiguous.

Precarious Manhood Theory (Vandello et al., 2001; Bosson et al., 2011):

Manhood is seen as a precarious state because it requires constant validation (1), Manhood can be lost (2), Womanhood is given automatically; manhood is achieved (3). Men feel especially threatened by challenges to their masculinity (4).

Consequences of Precarious Manhood:

If manhood is tenuous, then → Challenges to manhood provoke anxiety and feelings of threat. Men will feel compelled to demonstrate their manhood when it is challenged, they must repair or reassert their masculine identity.

Precarious Manhood and Race: Black Soldiers in the Civil War:

The ideology of "proving manhood through violence" was used to mobilize Black soldiers. By the war's end, nearly 200,000 Black men had served. Yet despite this sacrifice, the stereotype of weak Black manhood persisted.

Effects of Gender-Identity Threat:

gender-identity threat is associated with a range of negative behaviors and attitudes → Decreased liking for gender non-conforming men and women, Projected assumptions of homosexuality, Sexual harassment, Overestimates of height and sexual performance.

Dave is teased by his male coworkers for ordering a 'girly' fruity cocktail at happy hour. According to Precarious Manhood Theory, what might David do in response?

According to Precarious Manhood Theory, Dave would feel a threat to his masculine identity and would likely engage in some behavior to reassert or demonstrate his masculinity — bring up his masculine steak-cooking skills later.

TransYouth Project (Kristina Olson):

main research program actively studying gender development in transgender children. It tracks socially-transitioned children longitudinally, beginning at ages 3–12, and compares them against siblings and unrelated cisgender children.

Do 5–12 year-olds who identify with a gender different from their birth sex express preferences consistent with their gender identity, their birth sex, or something in between?

Measured using Gender-Attitude IAT (Implicit Association Test) — measures implicit associations with gender, Gender-Identity IAT, Gendered Object Preferences — which toys/objects children prefer — and gendered Friendship Preferences.

Consistent Preferences Results:

Transgender children expressed preferences consistent with their gender identity, not their birth sex. Transgender children implicitly identified with their gender rather than their birth sex. Suggests gender identity is found even in young children.

Disgust and Attitudes Toward Gay Men (Herek, 1993; Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, & Bloom, 2009; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009):

Participants were asked how disgusting they would find experiences such as → Drinking from a glass an acquaintance had already used. People who score higher on this disgust sensitivity scale show greater implicit bias against gay people.

Inducing Disgust Increases Prejudice:

Participants took the survey in a room where fart spray had been secretly applied. The disgust induced by the smell increased explicit prejudice against gay men specifically. There were no changes in prejudice against lesbians or 13 other social groups.

Law, Policy, and Support for LGB Rights:

The central conceptual model involves three interacting levels → Individual (personal attitudes, beliefs, and perceived norms) and Law & Policy (formal legal structures that govern rights and recognition).

Tankard & Paluck (2017), Study 1:

Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) — the U.S. Supreme Court case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Participants were told of a favorable Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, producing support for same-sex marriage.

Tankard & Paluck (2017), Study 2 Longitudinal Study:

Longitudinal, tracking two variables over time → Attitudes about same-sex marriage — how individuals personally feel, Perceived norms supporting same-sex marriage — beliefs about how others feel.

Same-Sex Marriage Legalization and the Trajectory of Prejudice Over Time:

States that passed same-sex marriage legalization experienced greater decreases in bias following legalization compared to states that did not. Legal change is not merely a downstream consequence of shifting public opinion.

What Makes Ageism Special?

Age is shaped by biology and experience, with distinct social roles and family dynamics; it is fluid yet often seen in categories, old people were once young, young will be old, age is malleable, and power tends to increase with age—up to a point.

refers to positive attitudes and beliefs about people on the basis of age that nonetheless justify paternalistic care or control. Positive beliefs carry patronizing implications — treat the target group as less capable of autonomy.

Benevolent ageist beliefs about older people include:

Sociable and warm, Physically weak, Mentally impaired, and Lonely.

Stereotypes about younger people include:

Outgoing and fun, Susceptible to peer pressure, Lacking mental faculties and knowledge, Emotionally undeveloped.

North and Fiske identify three core areas of intergenerational tension that younger people perceive with respect to older people:

Hoard wealth, Deplete shared resources (environment healthcare, insurance), and Adopt symbolic youth-centric resources (e.g., social media like Facebook, youth music genres, encroach on domains younger people consider their own).

Are people from Asian countries less ageist or more ageist than people from Western countries?

Introduces a cross-cultural investigation of ageism, testing whether the cultural values commonly associated with East Asian societies — collectivism, filial piety, respect for elders — translate into meaningfully lower levels of ageist attitudes.

Hypothesis 1 (Asians Are Less Ageist):

based on two cultural factors → Higher collectivism and lower individualism (reverence of communal societies) and Filial piety (prescribes reverence for elders, obedience to parents, and strong family-based care obligations).

Hypothesis 2 (Asians Are Similarly Ageist):

Common experience of industrialization (both Western and Asian societies have undergone modernization processes that weaken traditional families) and Rise of individualism (as Asian economies modernize and urbanize, individualist values have spread).

Hypothesis 3 (Asians Are More Ageist):

Driven by dramatic rises in the number of older people within Asian countries. Higher exposure to a large and growing elderly population — particularly when perceived as a resource strain — may increase intergenerational tension.

Findings about Asian Ageism, North & Fiske (2015):

Asian countries are, on average, more ageist than Western countries. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported, recent rises in population aging were associated with higher ageism.

Unexpected Finding about Intergenerational Tension:

More collectivist countries were also associated with higher ageism — the opposite of what Hypothesis 1 predicted. Collectivism may actually amplify resentment toward elderly people who are perceived as consuming shared resources.

The Diversity of Disability Experiences:

The experiences of people with disabilities are not monolithic — they vary along several key dimensions that shape how others perceive and respond to a given disability.

"Can you see it?" Some disabilities are immediately apparent, while others are invisible. Visible disabilities tend to trigger more immediate social reactions, while invisible ones carry different risks, including disbelief or dismissal.

"Was it your fault?" Disabilities perceived as self-caused (e.g., obesity-related conditions, substance-use disorders) attract more blame and less sympathy than those seen as beyond the individual's control.

Help

Options

focusNode

Didn't know it?
click below

Knew it?
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

Stereotyping III

Question	Answer
What makes sexism special:	Sexism is unique due to biological differences (1), distinct social roles (2), and complex reproductive relationships (3), while women—though not a minority—are still socioeconomically disadvantaged (4).
Understanding Female Disadvantage:	Simple accounts of ingroup favoritism (preferring one's own group) and outgroup hatred (despising the other group) do not adequately explain female disadvantage. Ambivalent Sexism and Backlash Theory are needed.
Ambivalent Sexism:	describes how prejudice against women includes both hostile attitudes that demean them and seemingly positive (but patronizing) attitudes that reinforce traditional gender roles.
Hostile Sexism (Misogyny/Part of Ambivalent Sexism):	Antagonistic, negative attitudes toward women.
Common beliefs associated with hostile sexism:	Women are enemies of men (1), Women seek to control men (2), and Women demand too much (3). This is the more overt, recognizable form of sexism — characterized by open dislike, resentment, or contempt toward women.
Hostile Sexism in Action (Elliot Rodger Manifesto):	Elliot Rodger illustrates hostile sexism in its extreme form: I'm the perfect guy and yet you throw yourselves at these obnoxious men instead of me." It is associated with "incel" (involuntary celibate) ideology and real-world violence.
Ambivalent Sexism (Benevolent Sexism):	Benevolent sexism: Subjectively positive attitudes and beliefs about women that nevertheless justify traditional gender roles.
Common beliefs of Benevolent Sexism:	Women are pure and good (1), Women ought to be protected by men (2), Women nurture children and men through adversity (3). They are still a form of sexism because they place women on a pedestal in a way that limits and constrains them to specific roles.
Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Points 1):	Benevolent sexism's underlying foundation is the stereotyping of women as inferior and men as superior — it is not genuinely positive. Hostile and benevolent sexism are positively correlated, so people who hold one form tend to hold the other as well.
Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Points 2):	Women who hold stronger benevolent sexist beliefs → (a) Are less resistant to discrimination, (b) Have lower educational and career goals for themselves, (c) Take on more unpaid labor in their relationships.
Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Point 3):	Benevolent sexism allows men to see their privileges as deserved. When men are told they must protect and provide for women, it frames male dominance and female dependence as natural and even noble — obscuring the underlying power imbalance.
Why Benevolent Prejudices Matter (Point 4):	Benevolent prejudices are very difficult to change, for several reasons → They are superficially positive, they are difficult to see, it is easy to be convinced there is nothing to feel guilty about.
Ambivalent Sexism (The Full Picture):	Ambivalent sexism is the combination of hostile and benevolent sexism. Hostile sexism punishes women who challenge the status quo. Benevolent sexism rewards women who embrace traditional gender roles.
Prescriptive Gender Norms:	describe how people should behave (as opposed to descriptive norms, which describe how people do behave). For women: Kindness, warmth, and attractiveness. For men: Leadership, competence, and agency.
Value of the Masculine:	Stereotypes legitimize men's greater status and power relative to women. Importantly, masculine traits and pursuits are more highly valued in society — leadership, ambition, and competence.
Backlash Theory (Rudman, 1998; Rudman & Glick, 2001):	proposes that individuals — especially women — who violate traditional gender norms (e.g., by being assertive or dominant) often face social and economic penalties for defying expected roles.
Backlash Theory Point One:	There are penalties for acting counter-stereotypically. People who violate their gender's prescribed norms face social and professional punishment.
Backlash Theory Point Two:	Women often must disconfirm female stereotypes (i.e., act assertively and confidently rather than warmly and deferentially) in order to be perceived as competent leaders.
Backlash Theory Point Three:	However, when women do enact these agentic (confident, assertive, dominant) behaviors, they are perceived as socially deficient and unlikeable. These perceived deficiencies then lead to discrimination and punishment.
A Double Binding in Hiring & Promotion:	Warm women are seen as less capable and competent — warmth signals they lack leadership qualities. Competent women are seen as less likeable and more hostile — competence signals they are violating femininity norms.
Cross-Cultural Manhood Rituals:	Many cultures around the world require men to undergo painful or dangerous rituals to prove their manhood. Such as: ritual bloodletting, the "Bullet Ant Glove,” "Land Diving,” and forced circumcision.
Becoming a Man:	There is a cultural focus on active, public demonstrations of manhood — manhood must be proven, not simply assumed. In developed/Western societies, the lack of formal institutional (ritual passages) makes manhood uncertain and ambiguous.
Precarious Manhood Theory (Vandello et al., 2001; Bosson et al., 2011):	Manhood is seen as a precarious state because it requires constant validation (1), Manhood can be lost (2), Womanhood is given automatically; manhood is achieved (3). Men feel especially threatened by challenges to their masculinity (4).
Consequences of Precarious Manhood:	If manhood is tenuous, then → Challenges to manhood provoke anxiety and feelings of threat. Men will feel compelled to demonstrate their manhood when it is challenged, they must repair or reassert their masculine identity.
Precarious Manhood and Race: Black Soldiers in the Civil War:	The ideology of "proving manhood through violence" was used to mobilize Black soldiers. By the war's end, nearly 200,000 Black men had served. Yet despite this sacrifice, the stereotype of weak Black manhood persisted.
Effects of Gender-Identity Threat:	gender-identity threat is associated with a range of negative behaviors and attitudes → Decreased liking for gender non-conforming men and women, Projected assumptions of homosexuality, Sexual harassment, Overestimates of height and sexual performance.
A manager is considering who to send to work in a developing country. He skips over a highly qualified candidate, saying, 'Amelia is such a kind, pure soul. I don't want to expose her to the harsh environment over there.' What does this best represent?"	Benevolent sexism.
Dave is teased by his male coworkers for ordering a 'girly' fruity cocktail at happy hour. According to Precarious Manhood Theory, what might David do in response?	According to Precarious Manhood Theory, Dave would feel a threat to his masculine identity and would likely engage in some behavior to reassert or demonstrate his masculinity — bring up his masculine steak-cooking skills later.
TransYouth Project (Kristina Olson):	main research program actively studying gender development in transgender children. It tracks socially-transitioned children longitudinally, beginning at ages 3–12, and compares them against siblings and unrelated cisgender children.
Do 5–12 year-olds who identify with a gender different from their birth sex express preferences consistent with their gender identity, their birth sex, or something in between?	Measured using Gender-Attitude IAT (Implicit Association Test) — measures implicit associations with gender, Gender-Identity IAT, Gendered Object Preferences — which toys/objects children prefer — and gendered Friendship Preferences.
Consistent Preferences Results:	Transgender children expressed preferences consistent with their gender identity, not their birth sex. Transgender children implicitly identified with their gender rather than their birth sex. Suggests gender identity is found even in young children.
Disgust and Attitudes Toward Gay Men (Herek, 1993; Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, & Bloom, 2009; Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009):	Participants were asked how disgusting they would find experiences such as → Drinking from a glass an acquaintance had already used. People who score higher on this disgust sensitivity scale show greater implicit bias against gay people.
Inducing Disgust Increases Prejudice:	Participants took the survey in a room where fart spray had been secretly applied. The disgust induced by the smell increased explicit prejudice against gay men specifically. There were no changes in prejudice against lesbians or 13 other social groups.
Law, Policy, and Support for LGB Rights:	The central conceptual model involves three interacting levels → Individual (personal attitudes, beliefs, and perceived norms) and Law & Policy (formal legal structures that govern rights and recognition).
Tankard & Paluck (2017), Study 1:	Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) — the U.S. Supreme Court case legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Participants were told of a favorable Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, producing support for same-sex marriage.
Tankard & Paluck (2017), Study 2 Longitudinal Study:	Longitudinal, tracking two variables over time → Attitudes about same-sex marriage — how individuals personally feel, Perceived norms supporting same-sex marriage — beliefs about how others feel.
Same-Sex Marriage Legalization and the Trajectory of Prejudice Over Time:	States that passed same-sex marriage legalization experienced greater decreases in bias following legalization compared to states that did not. Legal change is not merely a downstream consequence of shifting public opinion.
What Makes Ageism Special?	Age is shaped by biology and experience, with distinct social roles and family dynamics; it is fluid yet often seen in categories, old people were once young, young will be old, age is malleable, and power tends to increase with age—up to a point.
Benevolent Ageism:	refers to positive attitudes and beliefs about people on the basis of age that nonetheless justify paternalistic care or control. Positive beliefs carry patronizing implications — treat the target group as less capable of autonomy.
Benevolent ageist beliefs about older people include:	Sociable and warm, Physically weak, Mentally impaired, and Lonely.
Stereotypes about younger people include:	Outgoing and fun, Susceptible to peer pressure, Lacking mental faculties and knowledge, Emotionally undeveloped.
North and Fiske identify three core areas of intergenerational tension that younger people perceive with respect to older people:	Hoard wealth, Deplete shared resources (environment healthcare, insurance), and Adopt symbolic youth-centric resources (e.g., social media like Facebook, youth music genres, encroach on domains younger people consider their own).
Are people from Asian countries less ageist or more ageist than people from Western countries?	Introduces a cross-cultural investigation of ageism, testing whether the cultural values commonly associated with East Asian societies — collectivism, filial piety, respect for elders — translate into meaningfully lower levels of ageist attitudes.
Hypothesis 1 (Asians Are Less Ageist):	based on two cultural factors → Higher collectivism and lower individualism (reverence of communal societies) and Filial piety (prescribes reverence for elders, obedience to parents, and strong family-based care obligations).
Hypothesis 2 (Asians Are Similarly Ageist):	Common experience of industrialization (both Western and Asian societies have undergone modernization processes that weaken traditional families) and Rise of individualism (as Asian economies modernize and urbanize, individualist values have spread).
Hypothesis 3 (Asians Are More Ageist):	Driven by dramatic rises in the number of older people within Asian countries. Higher exposure to a large and growing elderly population — particularly when perceived as a resource strain — may increase intergenerational tension.
Findings about Asian Ageism, North & Fiske (2015):	Asian countries are, on average, more ageist than Western countries. Hypothesis 3 was partially supported, recent rises in population aging were associated with higher ageism.
Unexpected Finding about Intergenerational Tension:	More collectivist countries were also associated with higher ageism — the opposite of what Hypothesis 1 predicted. Collectivism may actually amplify resentment toward elderly people who are perceived as consuming shared resources.
The Diversity of Disability Experiences:	The experiences of people with disabilities are not monolithic — they vary along several key dimensions that shape how others perceive and respond to a given disability.
Visibility:	"Can you see it?" Some disabilities are immediately apparent, while others are invisible. Visible disabilities tend to trigger more immediate social reactions, while invisible ones carry different risks, including disbelief or dismissal.
Controllability:	"Was it your fault?" Disabilities perceived as self-caused (e.g., obesity-related conditions, substance-use disorders) attract more blame and less sympathy than those seen as beyond the individual's control.
Disruptiveness:	"Does it disrupt normal social living?" Some disabilities visibly alter social interactions (e.g., speech impediments, severe cognitive impairments), while others do not. Higher disruptiveness tends to increase social discomfort and avoidance.
Aesthetic qualities:	"Does it make you ugly or repellant?" Conditions that affect physical appearance (e.g., severe burns, facial disfigurements) activate disgust responses and aesthetic rejection, which are distinct from moral or practical judgments.
Peril:	"Are you dangerous because of it?" Some conditions are stereotypically linked to threat or unpredictability (e.g., certain mental illnesses), increasing fear-based avoidance even when the actual risk is negligible.
While some people report positive general attitudes towards people with disabilities (PWDs), others showcase strong prejudice:	People are less willing to date or marry PWDs, Strong implicit preferences for abled over disabled people, and PWDs commonly report experiences of discrimination.
Mental Illness as a Special Case of Disability:	Mental illnesses are often perceived as controllable, Some forms of mental illness are strongly linked to peril (schizophrenia in particular is culturally associated with unpredictability and violence), Stigma reduces treatment-seeking.
How many people with mental illness seek treatment:	Fewer than 40% of people with mental illness have sought treatment, seeking treatment for mental illness is itself stigmatizing.
An architect who uses a wheelchair oversees a construction site from a ground-floor office. Her boss attempts to fire her, irrationally claiming her presence is a "safety liability" during a site-wide evacuation:	Peril
Assumptions about Attractive People:	explained by the Halo Effect, a bias in Social Psychology where individuals attribute positive traits—like intelligence, kindness, and competence—to physically attractive people without evidence.
Halo Effect:	attractive people are thought to have more positive qualities. This contributes to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the more attractive people are assumed to have these qualities, the more they have them.
Skin Tone:	lighter-skinned black people are perceived to be more competent and sociable, less likely to be stereotyped, have higher income, SES, and occupation outcomes. Across industrialized societies, light skin is perceived to be more attractive.
Why is There a Light-Skin Tone Preference:	historically, darker skin tone was linked to working in the sun as a farmer or laborer. Light skin tone meant you had the privilege of staying inside.
Why Do White Americans Want to Have Darker Skin:	White Americans today want to have darker skin on average. Being tanned means you have the privilege of going to the beach, vacation, etc.
What is special about weight stigma?	Overweight people are assumed to be personally responsible for their weight, weight discrimination is common, if you stigmatize people, they are more likely to be demoralized and more likely to eat more.
What are stereotypes about people who are overweight?	Lazy, lacking willpower, unintelligent, sloppy, dishonest.
Are men or women more vulnerable to weight stigma?	Women. Greater pay discrimination, greater connection to gender roles, judged to be "overweight" at lower weight levels.
What mental health outcomes is weight stigma associated with?	Low self-esteem, depression, suicide.
Perpetrator of discrimination:	the individual or group that enacts or carries out discriminatory behavior toward another.
Experiencer of discrimination:	the person or group on the receiving end of discriminatory treatment.
Stigma:	possessing (or being believed to possess) a characteristic that conveys a devalued social identity.
Perceiving Discrimination:	How individuals detect, interpret, and respond to potentially discriminatory events.
Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy:	The tendency for people to perceive that their group as a whole faces more discrimination than they personally do.
There are five dimensions that capture meaningful differences between various types of stigmas:	visibility, controllability, disruptiveness, aesthetic qualities, and peril.
Visibility:	How easily the stigma can be detected by others.
Controllability:	The degree to which the individual is seen as responsible for or in control of the stigmatized characteristic.
Disruptiveness:	The extent to which the stigma interferes with normal social interactions.
Aesthetic qualities:	Whether the stigma triggers reactions related to disgust or discomfort in observers.
Peril:	Whether the stigmatized characteristic is perceived as dangerous or threatening to others.
Dimensions of Visibility:	visible stigmas are easily detected and judged by others, people with visible stigma know that others are judging them based on that stigma, people with concealable stigma may hide their stigma.
"Do you think the visibility of a stigma is only about stigmas that are visible by eyesight? Or can a stigma be visible in other ways too (e.g., hearing)?"	The point being driven home is that visibility is not limited to sight — a stigma can also be "detectable" through other sensory modalities, such as hearing.
"Who Sounds Gay?":	Matt sounds “straight,” but is gay. Chris sounds gay, but is straight. A stigmatized identity (in this case, sexual orientation) can be perceived — correctly or incorrectly — based on vocal cues alone, even in the absence of any visual information.
Takeaway from “Who Sounds Gay?”:	The example reinforces the earlier point that stigma is activated by perceived characteristics, not necessarily actual ones.
Dimensions of Controllability:	stigmas are controllable when either: the individual is responsible for their condition or the stigma could be eliminated from the behavior of the stigmatized individual. People with controllable stigma are more likely to be discriminated against.
People with stigmas that are perceived to be controllable are more likely to:	try and escape the stigma by changing their behavior.
People with stigmas that are perceived to be uncontrollable are more likely to:	focus on self-acceptance and confronting people who express prejudice.
Dimensions of Disruptiveness:	how much a condition makes social interaction less predictable or more uncertain. Familiarity decreases disruptiveness over time.
Dimensions of Aesthetic Qualities:	how much a characteristic makes an individual ugly, repellent, or upsetting to others. More attractive = less stigma, less attractive = more stigma. Familiarity decreases the impact of aesthetic qualities.
Dimensions of Peril:	degree of danger that the stigmatizing condition poses to others. Danger reminds people of their vulnerability. Stigmatized identities that are perceived to be dangerous are discriminated against more.
How do you think people might perceive Dennis Avner (man who dresses up as a cat) according to these five dimensions of stigma?	His stigma was maximally visible and perceived as entirely self-chosen, making it highly disruptive and aesthetically off-putting to most observers, while posing little actual threat — invited strong social rejection with minimal sympathy.
Stigma by Association:	associating with a stigmatized person can lead to stigmatization. Like being friends with a transgender person or having family members with mental illnesses.
Attributional Ambiguity:	Attributional ambiguity is the difficulty that stereotyped groups have in interpreting feedback. “Was their response to me about who I am as an individual or about my group membership?”
Extremely Beautiful People Talk About What It’s Like to Be Extremely Beautiful:	“I’ve never had a proper job interview. I usually just have an informal chat and then get offered the job.”
Attributional Ambiguity: Attractiveness Feedback Experiment (Method):	Participants wrote a persuasive essay and received positive feedback from an evaluator. Two conditions: seen condition and unseen condition.
Attributional Ambiguity: Attractiveness Feedback Experiment (Results):	Participants believed positive feedback was most related to the quality of the essay when attractive participants were unseen and when unattractive participants were seen.
Key takeaway for Attributional Ambiguity:	This is why attractive people don't automatically have higher self-esteem. When they receive positive feedback and they are visible, they can't be sure whether it's because of their looks or the quality of their work. Their success is ambiguous.
What are cases where stigmatized individuals may experience attributional ambiguity?	Black student receiving a lower grade (was it bias or performance?), a woman getting a promotion (was it merit or tokenism?), or a person with a disability being helped (was it genuine kindness or pity?).
Three situational differences increase the likelihood that someone will perceive an experience as discriminatory:	It's blatant, It's an outgroup member, In a context linked to negative stereotypes.
Two individual-level factors also predict whether someone is more likely to perceive discrimination:	Identifying more strongly with your ingroup and having stigma consciousness (people high in stigma consciousness are chronically aware that others may be stereotyping them).
Stigma Consciousness:	the belief that your group is being judged based on stereotypes.
Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire:	displays an example questionnaire used to measure stigma consciousness specifically about being a woman. Likely containing items asking respondents how much they believe others judge them based on gender stereotypes, how often they think about it, etc.
Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy (PGDD):	The tendency for stigmatized group members to report higher levels of discrimination against their group in general than against themselves personally as members of that group.
There are two broad categories of mechanisms that explain the PGDD:	Cognitive Mechanisms and Motivational Mechanisms
Cognitive Mechanisms (how we think and process information):	Identification Accessibility Social Comparison
Motivational Mechanisms (what we are psychologically driven to do):	Denial Distancing Affiliation
Identification:	refers to the fact that it is cognitively easier to identify discrimination when looking at broad patterns across many people than to identify it within any specific, individual case.
Accessibility:	refers to how easily information comes to mind. Group-level examples of discrimination are more cognitively accessible — more readily available in memory — than individual-level examples of personal discrimination.
Social Comparison:	explains PGDD by noting that the reference point changes when evaluating group or personal discrimination. “Is our group discriminated against compared to other groups” and “am I discriminated against compared to fellow members of my ingroup?”
When judging our group's discrimination:	We compare our group to other groups — "Is our group discriminated against compared to other groups?" This typically yields a high estimate, because outgroup comparisons make discrimination salient.
When judging our own personal discrimination:	We compare ourselves to fellow members of our ingroup — "Am I discriminated against compared to other members of my group?" Since everyone in our group discrimination, we may rank ourselves as average or below average, leading to lower personal estimate
Denial:	We are motivated to deny or minimize our own personal experiences with discrimination. Acknowledging that you are being personally discriminated threatens your belief in a just world. It is easier to believe in discrimination as an abstract phenomenon.
Distancing:	refers to the motivation to psychologically separate oneself from negative attributes or stigmas associated with one's ingroup. Specifically: people who claim discrimination are often disliked. Complainers are viewed negatively in many social contexts.
Affiliation:	refers to the motivation to maintain and protect social relationships. Claiming personal discrimination can damage relationships with others — including members of one's own ingroup and especially outgroup members.
System of Experiencing Discrimination:	Having Stigma → Perceiving Discrimination → Responding to Discrimination → The Impact of Discrimination on Life Outcomes
Behavioral Responses to Discrimination:	concealing, compensation, confrontation.
Intergroup Anxiety:	common emotional response experienced by people in anticipation of or during interactions with members of another social group. Formally defined as: physiological arousal combined with uneasiness about a negative intergroup interaction.
Intergroup Anxiety Consequences:	Because of intergroup anxiety, both Black and White people tend to avoid interracial interaction. Non-stigmatized groups are especially likely to avoid interacting with stigmatized groups. This avoidance is a manifestation of aversive racism.
Diverging Motivations (White Americans):	In interracial interactions, White Americans are more motivated than Black or Hispanic Americans to be liked and to be seen as moral. This shapes how they behave, often leading to overcorrection, awkwardness, or excessive friendliness.
Diverging Motivations (Black/Hispanic Americans):	Black and Hispanic Americans are more motivated than White Americans to be respected and to be seen as competent. Their concern is not so much likability but being taken seriously and not having their abilities underestimated.
Diverging Motivations Why Interactions Suffer:	Because White Americans and Black/Hispanic Americans enter interracial interactions with fundamentally different goals, these interactions often do not go as smoothly as intraracial (within-race) interactions.
Concealing:	Hiding or obscuring one's stigma from others. Concealment can be partial (selectively hiding the stigma in some contexts) or complete (hiding it from everyone at all times). Our focus is on complete concealment.
Benefit of Concealing:	The primary benefit of concealing one's stigma is straightforward: you are not judged negatively according to your stigma. If no one knows about the characteristic, no one can discriminate against you based on it.
Concealing comes with significant cognitive costs:	preoccupation and increased vigilance.
Preoccupation:	The effort of maintaining concealment occupies mental resources — you must constantly monitor what you say, who you're around, and what information might expose you.
Increased vigilance:	You become hyperaware of potential exposure, constantly scanning your environment for threats to your concealment.
Smart & Wegner (1999):	People with eating disorders who role-played not having an eating disorder showed increased accessibility of eating disorder, higher levels of secrecy and suppression, more intrusive thoughts — a rebound effect from active suppression.
Quinn et al. (2004):	Simply having an eating disorder (a concealable stigma) was associated with worse performance on a cognitive test, presumably because mental resources were being diverted to managing the concealment.
Concealing also carries substantial emotional costs:	anxiety about being caught or exposed, shame from internalizing the stigma, ambivalence about identity (concealing can create internal conflict between one's authentic self and the identity one presents to the world).
To maintain concealment, people engage in a range of behavioral strategies:	Avoiding social interactions, impression management (actively crafting how others perceive them), counter-stereotypical behavior, modifying mannerisms, lying or keeping quiet about topics that could expose the stigma.
Four factors shape whether a person chooses to conceal or disclose their stigma:	Threat of discovery (disclosure may be preferable to being outed), self-verification motives (wanting others to see yourself), context (near friends & family), degree of disclosure (you can partially disclose).
Concealing is a mixed bag:	It prevents discrimination by keeping the stigma invisible, but it comes at significant cognitive, emotional, and behavioral costs. The decision to conceal or disclose is complex and highly context-dependent.
Compensation:	Behaviors that reduce interpersonal discrimination toward oneself when a stigma is visible or has been disclosed. Compensation is also commonly known as code-switching. Rather than hiding the stigma, behaviors work to manage how others respond to it.
Three main compensatory strategies are identified:	Acknowledgment Increased positivity Individuating information
Acknowledgment:	openly addressing one's stigma in the interaction — naming it directly rather than letting it sit as the unspoken elephant in the room. This strategy eases interactions because it directly addresses the underlying tension that the stigma creates.
Increased positivity:	acting in ways designed to generate more favorable attitudes from others — for example, being especially likeable, friendly, warm, or approachable. The stigmatized person attempts to override the negative associations others may have with their stigma.
Individuating information:	sharing personal details so allow others see you as a individual instead of a representative of stigmatized group. By revealing unique traits, accomplishments, interests, or etc, the stigmatized person encourages less stereotyped treatment.
Confrontation Study Procedure (Swim & Hyers, 1999):	Women participated in what they believed was a group decision-making study with three other people (one was a male actor/confederate). The task was to choose 12 people from a list of 30 who would be best suited to survive together on a desert island.
Confrontation Study The Sexist Statements:	The male actor made a series of blatantly sexist statements: "Yeah, we definitely need to keep the women in shape." "Let me see, maybe a chef? No, one of the women can cook." "I think we need more women on the island to keep the men satisfied."
Confrontation Study Results:	55% of women did not confront the man at all. 25% directly confronted him, 20% indirectly confronted him through task-focused redirection, expressed surprise, and humor or sarcasm. The majority response was silence.
Reasons Why People Don't Directly Confront (Four key reasons):	Social norm (Don't engage with a prejudiced person), Social norm (If you respond, be polite), Concern about retaliation, Not feeling personal responsibility.
Confronting Step 1 — Event interpreted as discrimination:	The individual must first perceive and label what happened as discrimination. "Did discrimination happen?" If the event is ambiguous, many people won't make it past this step.
Confronting Step 2 — The incident is treated as an "emergency":	The person must judge the incident as serious enough to warrant action, and determine that the perpetrator is blameworthy. "Is this bad enough to respond to? Was this intentional?"
Confronting Step 3 — Taking responsibility:	The individual feels it is their responsibility to act. This is complicated by diffusion of responsibility — in group settings, each bystander's sense of personal obligation decreases as the number of witnesses increases, making inaction more likely.
Confronting Step 4 — Knowing how to help:	The person must have a sense of how to respond effectively. "How do I confront this without making things worse or escalating the situation?" Lacking a script or strategy leads to paralysis.
Confronting Step 5 — Taking action:	Finally, the individual weighs the pros and cons and decides whether and how to act. "Should I say something? Should I confront directly or indirectly?"
An effective confrontation is one where the confronted person:	Does not become hostile or defensive Feels guilty about their behavior Engages in self-reflection Becomes motivated to change their behavior
How to Confront Effectively (Two key research-backed principles):	Non-stigmatized people are taken more seriously as confronters and focus on behavior or its effects rather than the person's character.
Non-stigmatized people are taken more seriously as confronters:	White people confronting anti-Black racism (Gulker et al., 2013) and male confronters addressing anti-female sexism (Czopp & Monteith, 2003) are more effective than stigmatized group members confronting discrimination against their own group.
Practical upshot:	Leverage your allies — get them to advocate on your behalf.
Focus on behavior or its effects rather than the person's character:	Saying "That word made me feel uncomfortable" is more effective than "You're racist." Attacking someone's character triggers defensiveness and hostility, shutting down self-reflection.
During an effective confrontation, the target of discrimination:	They feel supported, they are more likely to receive support in the future. They are more likely to remain in the environment (e.g., stay in a workplace, academic setting, etc.) rather than leave.
Pat Cortés-Hernández is worried about being seen as inarticulate and stupid because he is Mexican. In a conversation about standardized testing, he blurts out that he scored highly on Reading/Writing & Math SAT. What type of behavioral response is this?	Compensation
After Pat blurts out his SAT score, everyone around him thought he was off-putting and weird. Pat realizes he was over-compensating too. Given that, what type of compensation was Pat showing?	Individuating information
Impact of Stigma on Life Outcomes can be broken down into three areas:	The Self Performance Health
Stigma can be associated with lower self-esteem through several mechanisms:	concealing, exclusion, and internalized cultural messages.
Concealing (lowering self-esteem):	concealing one's stigmatized identity — the stress and cognitive burden of hiding who you are takes a toll on self-perception.
Exclusion (lowering self-esteem):	being socially or structurally excluded from groups, opportunities, or settings damages one's sense of worth and belonging.
Internalized Cultural Messages (lowering self-esteem):	stigmatized individuals are exposed to the same negative cultural narratives about their group as everyone else, and can come to internalize those messages, viewing themselves through the lens of those stereotypes.
The Damaging Effects of Stigma on Self-Esteem Can Be Reversed:	Black Americans on average have higher self-esteem than White Americans. This seems paradoxical given that Black Americans face significant discrimination and stigma — but it demonstrates that stigma does not inevitably lead to low self-esteem.
Three psychological mechanisms help explain how stigmatized individuals protect and maintain their self-esteem:	Within-group comparisons Attributing negative feedback to discrimination Selective identification with stereotyped domains
Within-Group Comparisons:	When people compare themselves to members of their own group (ingroup) rather than to members of more advantaged groups (outgroups), disparities may seem less severe or threatening. Reduces upward social comparison.
Attributions to Discrimination:	When a stigmatized person receives negative evaluation, they can attribute that to discrimination instead of personal failure. A white person might internalize their failures, but a non-white person might claim it’s because the other party is racist.
Contingencies of self-worth:	people tie their self-esteem to performance in specific domains. Stigma makes some domains safer than others. Stigmatized people would avoid building their identity around domains where negative stereotypes about their group exist.
Men might be more inclined to choose self-esteem domains like:	driving, math, video gaming
Women might be more inclined to choose self-esteem domains like:	dancing, knitting, psychology
Disidentification:	The process of redefining one's self-concept so that a particular domain is no longer an area of personal identification. Importantly, disidentification can happen even when a person is doing well in a domain; it is not linked to failure.
Examples of disidentification statements:	"Science is a boy thing." — A girl may disengage from science not because she is failing, but because the cultural message is that she doesn't belong there.
Ambient Belonging:	The feeling of fit or belonging in a physical environment, based on cues in that environment — subtle, surrounding signals of who "belongs" there. Belonging is shaped by the physical and visual cues present in a space.
Ambient Belonging Study (Setup):	Participants took a survey inside a computer science classroom. The design of the room was experimentally manipulated to test whether ambient cues affect students' sense of belonging. One was a geeky classroom and the other was stereotypical.
Ambient Belonging Study (Findings):	Being in the "geeky" classroom — compared to the non-stereotypical classroom — caused women (but not men) to report: lower interest in pursuing a computer science major, lower sense of belonging in the field.
Ambient Belonging Study (Takeaway):	Men were unaffected by the room's cues because the stereotypical décor was consistent with their group identity — it signaled that people like them belong there.
Stereotype Threat:	The experience of anxiety or concern that arises when a person is in a situation where they risk confirming a negative stereotype about their social group through their behavior or performance. First articulated by Steele et al. (1995).
Why is Stereotype Threat Important?	Offers a powerful explanation for why group differences in performance (e.g., gender gaps in math, racial gaps in standardized testing) exist — not because of innate differences, but because the psychological burden of stereotype threat.
Several mechanisms explain how stereotype threat undermines performance:	reduced persistence, arousal, attention disruption, over-cautiousness.
Reduced persistence:	Less time is spent on problems. Fewer problems are attempted overall.
Arousal:	Increased psychological and physiological anxiety.
Attention disruption:	diverting attention, increasing self-focus, over-catiousness
Does stereotype threat happen in all situations?	Stereotype threat does not happen automatically in all situations. It depends on characteristics of both the person and the situation.
Task difficulty:	Stereotype threat is more likely on harder tasks. Easy tasks don't provide enough ambiguity for the threat to take hold.
Stereotype relevance:	Stereotype threat is more likely when the task is framed as relevant to the stereotype. For example, telling participants: "Previously, this test has been shown to produce gender differences" activates the threat.
Domain identification:	The more important a domain is to a person's self-image, the more susceptible they are. Example: "Being good at math is an important part of my self-image."
Group identification:	The more important the stigmatized group membership is to a person's identity, the stronger the threat. Example: "Being a woman is an important part of my self-image."
Research consistently shows that greater perceptions of racial discrimination are linked with:	Lower physical health outcomes (e.g., higher rates of illness, worse cardiovascular health) Lower mental health outcomes (e.g., higher rates of depression, anxiety, and psychological distress)
Weight Stigma and Health:	A common public belief is that stigmatizing overweight or obese people will motivate them to lose weight and thereby improve their health.
Weight Stigma and Health Study:	Control condition: Article about "Quit Smoking or Lose Your Job.” Weight Stigma Threat condition: Article about "Lose Weight or Lose Your Job.” After reading the article, snacks were available in the break room.
Weight Stigma and Health — Findings:	For participants who perceived themselves as overweight, exposure to the weight stigma article: Reduced self-efficacy for weight control (they felt less capable of managing their weight). Increased calorie consumption (they actually ate more, not less).
Weight Stigma and Health Takeaway:	Weight stigma does not motivate healthier behavior — it backfires. Among those who see themselves as overweight, stigma undermines their confidence and leads to worse behavioral outcomes.
Several mechanisms explain why weight stigma harms rather than helps health:	weight stigma is physiologically stressful, stress increases drive for high-sugar foods, stigma undermines self-control, and stigma leads to avoidance of stigmatizing situations.
Weight stigma is physiologically stressful	the experience of being stigmatized activates the body's stress response, which has direct health consequences.
Stress increases drive for high-fat and high-sugar foods:	the biology of stress pushes people toward comfort eating, worsening diet.
Weight stigma undermines self-control and executive function:	cognitive resources are depleted by managing the threat, leaving less capacity for self-regulation.
Weight stigma leads to avoidance of stigmatizing situations:	avoids situations that could otherwise promote health — for example, overweight individuals may avoid exercising in public settings (gyms, parks) because those environments feel humiliating or threatening.
Why didn't we START with Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination?	The answer: To control an illness, you must understand the illness.
Intergroup Contact Theory:	Interpersonal contact between groups will improve intergroup relations. When members of different groups actually interact with one another, attitudes tend to improve. This is one of the most studied and replicated ideas in social psychology.
Intergroup contact has been shown to produce measurable benefits. It increases:	Knowledge about the outgroup (familiarity, understanding of their lives/experiences) Empathy with the outgroup
Intergroup contact reduces:	Intergroup anxiety (the nervousness or discomfort felt when interacting across group lines) Implicit and explicit prejudice Intergroup threat (the sense that the other group poses a danger to one's own group)
Research has identified five key conditions under which intergroup contact is most effective at reducing prejudice:	support of authorities, equal status, common goals, cooperation, and contact as individuals.
Support of Authorities:	Authorities must endorse and support friendly, egalitarian contact between groups. Example: The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which outlawed discriminatory housing practices, is cited as a legal/institutional backing for integrated living conditions.
Equal Status:	Members of the different groups must have similar social standing within the contact situation itself. If one group is clearly subordinate to the other in that context (e.g., employer vs. employee), the contact is less likely to reduce prejudice.
Common Goals:	The groups must share a common goal — something they are both working toward. Importantly, they do not need to be actively cooperating to achieve it; simply having the same objective helps.
Cooperation:	Beyond common goals, actively working together to attain those shared goals is even more powerful. This builds interdependence and mutual reliance.
Study Athletics & Intergroup Contact (Brown et al., 2003):	"Contact" was operationalized as the percentage of non-White players in each athlete's sport, measuring prejudice toward African Americans. The least prejudice was found when there was both contact AND cooperation
Contact as Individuals:	Groups must have the opportunity to get to know outgroup members as unique individuals, in informal settings, rather than only interacting in structured or role-based contexts.
Expectations as a Barrier to Contact:	Even when conditions are theoretically favorable, people often hesitate to initiate intergroup friendships. They worry they won't know how to act around someone from a different group. They worry about rejection.
Common Fears that Serve as a Barrier to Contact:	White people fear that Black people will perceive them as prejudiced. Black people fear that White people hold negative stereotypes about their group. Both assume the other isn’t interested. This hesitation is connected to aversive racism
The Key Finding on Expectations:	Both White and Black people explain their own lack of intergroup contact by citing fear of rejection, but they explain the other group's lack of contact by attributing it to lack of interest. The barrier is a shared illusion.
Affective forecasting errors:	people anticipate intergroup interactions will be more unpleasant or awkward than reality. Experiencers report more positive affect than forecasters predicted — meaning the anxiety barrier is a product of faulty prediction, not reality.
Social Categorization:	Social categorization precedes prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination — we categorize first, and bias follows. Therefore, if we can change how we categorize, intergroup biases should change along with it.
Individuation:	perceiving a person as a unique individual rather than as a member of a group. Instead of seeing someone primarily through the lens of race, gender, age, etc., you focus on who they actually are as a person.
Recategorization:	changing the basis by which you socially categorize someone. There are two main strategies → focusing on a different social category and focusing on a common ingroup identity.
Strategy 1 Study (Mitchell et al., 2003):	Admired Black Athletes & Disliked White Politicians. Stimuli included Black athletes (who tend to be positively regarded) and White politicians (who tend to be negatively regarded).
Strategy 1 Study Finding:	People were faster at associating stimuli with "Good" when → Black athletes were categorized as ATHLETES (rather than as Black people). White politicians were categorized as WHITE PEOPLE (rather than as politicians).
Strategy 2 (Focusing on a common ingroup identity):	Rather than emphasizing the difference between groups ("I'm Black and you're Asian"), you highlight a shared superordinate group identity ("We're both part of this company," "We're both Americans").
Strategy 2 Study American Identity Experiment (Riek et al., 2010):	Participants were paired with someone from the opposite political party to work on a "lost at sea" survival task. Control condition (worked separately) vs. Common Identity condition (worked together on the shared task).
Strategy 2 Study Results:	The Common Identity manipulation reduced prejudice toward members of the other political party. This shows that creating a shared goal and identity — even temporarily — can meaningfully reduce partisan bias.
For an individual to change others' stereotypes about their group, they typically need to:	Be counter-stereotypical — behave in ways that disconfirm the stereotype But also be perceived as typical of their group — so the counter-stereotype generalizes to the group as a whole, not just to them as an exception
Paradox of Social Categorization & Social Change:	if you're seen as too atypical, people dismiss you as "not really representative" and the stereotype remains intact. But if you're seen as totally typical, you're less likely to be counter-stereotypical.
How has implicit bias changed from 1985 to 2001?	Stable and rigid, change couldn’t really happen, dubbed the “cognitive monster”
How has implicit bias changed from 2001 to present?	Malleable and flexible, can change these biases by relying on different tendencies, most associative approaches that go through different roots
What are the two main questions behind change in implicit bias?	What are the most influential approaches? How durable are intervention effects?
What was the goal for the research contest?	Reduce implicit preferences for White people over Black people
What was the description and sample for the research contest?	Sample of 17,021 Non-Black participants on Project Implicit/ Interventions = 5 minutes of less, effectiveness assessed immediately
What were the interventions measured in the research contest?	Counterstereotypes, controlling bias, values, perspective-taking
What were the takeaways from the research contest?	For reducing implicit prejudice…counterstereotypes and strategies to control bias were effective. Reflecting on Values and Perspective-Taking were NOT effective
How do implicit racial attitudes change in the long-term?	Persuasion through a strong argument or message, habit
What was the goal of phase 2 of the research contest?	Reduce implicit biases after a 24 hour delay
What was the description and sample of phase 2 of the research contest?	9 effective interventions from Phase 1, follow-up session after 24-72 hours. Sample = non-Black students from 18 universities.
What were the findings from phase 2 of the research contest?	The intervention methods were not durable after 24-72 hours
What question came up in terms of implicit bias change?	Malleable in the short term, stable in the long term?
What is diversity training?	Teaching about diversity in the workplace to raise awareness for these issues in order to reduce prejudice
Why can policing benefit from diversity training?	Police officers have to use discretion which is dangerous when it comes to discrimination.
What did the ADL (Anti-Defamation League) work on in terms of implicit bias?	Managing implicit bias for law enforcement
What was the training for the ADL law enforcement project?	8 hours long, 2 facilitators with 30 officers at a time, discussion and active learning focused
What social-psychology strategies to see people as individuals were used in the ADL training?	Stereotype substitution, perspective-taking, individuation, pursuing intergroup contact, mindfulness
What is the process of theory of change?	Diversity education → knowledge & concern about bias → intention to use strategies to manage bias → use of strategies to manage bias
What did the studies show regarding the knowledge of bias in the theory of change?	Knowledge of bias durably increased within officers.
What did the studies show regarding the concern about bias step in the theory of change?	Concern about bias temporarily increased (immediately after training), but returned to baseline (one month later)
What did the studies show regarding the intention to use and ultimate use of strategies to manage bias steps in the theory of change?	Officers didn’t follow through on their intentions to use strategies, intentions were high immediately after training, usage decreased one month later
What is an alternative approach in order to prevent organizational discrimination?	Treat discrimination as a design problem rather than an attitude/belief problem.
When is implicit prejudice influential?	When criteria for making a decision are unclear or info is ambiguous (Michael vs. Michelle).
How does aversive racism relate to discrimination under ambiguity?	White people express racial bias in ambiguous situations (like job candidates)
What did we discuss in class regarding the gender of orchestra members?	In the past, orchestras used to be predominantly men. Hiring committees began holding auditions behind a screen to focus on musical qualities. Made gender distribution close to 50/50.
What is blinding?	Eliminating the possibility of knowing a person's group.
What is dimming?	Reducing the intensity of group status, like not googling how a person looks.
What is temporary cloaking?	Make a blinded decision, remove blinding, then see if there are unintended consequences.
How can discrimination in terms of ambiguity and subjectivity be prevented?	Remove irrelevant group-based info
What is the problem with overconfidence?	We are overconfident in our objectivity.
What did the bias blind spot study show?	The average American believes they are less biased.
How can one try to fix their bias blind spot?	Self audit: track where inequality happens
In what scenarios can self auditing be used?	The hiring process in a company, teachers tracking who they can all, going through who you follow on social media
What are possible solutions for overconfidence?	Self-audit your practices, create practices to circumvent your biases
General Summary (Phelan & Rudman)	Women in leadership face a no-win situation: they must act assertively to be taken seriously as leaders, but when they do, they are penalized for violating gender norms. This "backlash" affects every stage of their career
Backlash Effects (Phelan & Rudman)	The social and economic penalties women face when they act assertively or ambitiously — traits that violate feminine gender norms. Even when women are competent, this backlash makes them less likely to be hired compared to men who behave identically.
Impression Management Dilemma (Phelan & Rudman)	The double bind women face at work: acting warm and communal makes them likeable but not respected as leaders, while acting assertive and confident makes them seem capable but triggers backlash.
Prescriptive vs. Proscriptive Stereotypes (Phelan & Rudman)	Gender rules that dictate how women should behave (warm, helpful) and how they should not behave (dominant, controlling). Research found that backlash is triggered more by women seeming "too dominant" than by them seeming "not warm enough."
Glass Ceiling & Cumulative Bias (Phelan & Rudman)	Small, repeated instances of gender bias compound over time to block women from senior roles. Even a mere 5% gender bias in promotion decisions results in women dropping from equal representation at entry level to just 29% seven levels up.
Backlash and Stereotype Preservation (Phelan & Rudman)	Backlash doesn't just hurt individual women — it keeps gender stereotypes alive. When women who succeed in male-dominated areas are sabotaged or penalized, they hide their success and conform to gender norms
General Summary (Hobbes)	America treats obesity as a personal moral failing, but diets rarely work, weight and health aren't the same thing, and stigma against fat people damages their lives. The article asks for shift toward health, dignity, and food policy reform.
Diet Failure & Biological Resistance (Hobbes)	Research since 1959 shows the vast majority of weight loss attempts fail, with most people regaining more than they lost. The body responds by slowing metabolism and ramping up hunger
Weight vs. Health (Hobbes)	Being fat and being unhealthy are not the same thing. Many people classified as obese are metabolically healthy, while many normal-weight people carry serious health risks. Exercise habits and diet predict health outcomes better than body size does.
Medical Bias & Neglect (Hobbes)	Fat patients receive shorter appointments, more dismissive treatment, and often have every complaint redirected to their weight. This bias causes many to avoid doctors altogether, leading to delayed diagnoses and worse health outcomes overall.
Weight Stigma & Its Physical Harm (Hobbes)	Fat people face discrimination from employers, doctors, partners, and family. A 2015 study found that experiencing weight stigma shortens life expectancy, suggesting the cruelty surrounding obesity may be more damaging than the weight itself.
Systemic Causes & Policy Failures (Hobbes)	Obesity stems from a food system built around ultra-processed products, subsidies that favor cheap unhealthy ingredients, and environments that make exercise harder for lower-income people. Reducing poverty and food access does more than shame.
General Summary (Goffman)	Stigma is the process by which society labels certain attributes as deeply discrediting, reducing a person to a "tainted, discounted one." Stigma is not just a personal condition but a social relationship — one that shapes every encounter
Stigma (Goffman)	Goffman identifies three types: physical deformities, character blemishes (e.g., mental illness, addiction), and tribal stigmas (race, religion, nationality).
Virtual vs. Actual Social Identity (Goffman)	Virtual social identity is what society assumes about a person based on first impressions. Actual social identity is who they truly are.
The Discredited vs. The Discreditable (Goffman)	The discredited person has a stigma that is already visible or known to others. The discreditable person has a stigma that is hidden, forcing ongoing decisions about whether and how to conceal it.
Mixed Contacts & Social Anxiety (Goffman)	When stigmatized and "normal" people share the same social space, interaction becomes tense for both sides. The stigmatized person is hyper-aware of how they're perceived, while normals struggle with how to behave
Internalized Stigma & the Search for Acceptance (Goffman)	Stigmatized individuals often absorb society's negative views and apply them to themselves, producing shame and self-doubt. Because they are raised in the same culture as those who stigmatize them, they feel the weight of falling short of shared norms.
General Summary (Steele)	Stereotype threat — the fear of confirming a negative stereotype about one's group — measurably harms performance even among capable, motivated people. Underperformance often isn't about ability but about the psychological burden
Stereotype Threat (Steele)	The pressure felt when a person risks confirming a negative stereotype about their group. It only requires caring about the performance in question.
Over-Efforting (Steele)	A counterproductive response to stereotype threat where students work harder in isolation rather than seeking help or collaborating. This strategy cuts them off from the collaborative learning that actually builds understanding
The Treisman Workshop (Steele)	Mathematician Philip Treisman replaced isolated studying with group-based math workshops at UC Berkeley. Black students in his program outperformed both white and Asian students in calculus — showing the problem wasn't ability but learning environment
Stereotype Threat & Intergroup Distance (Steele)	Stereotype threat affects both the stereotyped and those doing the stereotyping. White students in Steele's experiments physically distanced themselves from Black conversation partners when the topic risked making them appear racist
The Growth Mindset Intervention (Steele)	When white participants were told to treat a charged interracial conversation as a learning opportunity, they moved their chairs significantly closer to their Black partners. Reframing threatening situations as chances to grow reduced identity threat
Deep Canvassing (Resnick)	A door-to-door conversation technique where activists listen nonjudgmentally to voters' concerns, ask open-ended questions, and exchange personal stories to reduce prejudice — rather than arguing with facts or calling people out.
Nonjudgmental Narrative Exchange (Resnick)	The key ingredient that makes deep canvassing work. When canvassers and voters mutually share personal stories, opinion change occurs. Studies showed that removing this two-way exchange eliminated the technique's effectiveness entirely.
Giving Grace (Resnick)	A concept described by activist Vivian Topping: the practice of hearing something hurtful from someone who doesn't understand your identity, and choosing to engage them in genuine conversation rather than writing them off.
Massachusetts 2018 Case Study (Resnick)	LGBTQ activists used deep canvassing ahead of a ballot vote on whether to keep a law banning gender-identity discrimination. Voters chose to protect trans rights, and organizers credited deep canvassing as the decisive factor.
Immigration Canvassing Experiment (Resnick)	Broockman and Kalla's field study across Tennessee, Fresno, and Orange County engaged 2,374 voters before the 2018 midterms. Full deep canvassing conversations increased strong support for pro-immigrant policies — even among Republicans.
Article Summary (Resnick)	showing that deep canvassing — patient, story-based, nonjudgmental dialogue — is one of the only proven methods for durably reducing prejudice. Unlike traditional canvassing or political ads, its effects last months
Implicit Association Test / IAT (Lai & Banaji)	A reaction-time based measure developed to detect unconscious group-based biases. Participants sort faces and words into paired categories, and the speed of those pairings reveals the strength of mental associations
Implicit vs. Explicit Bias (Lai & Banaji)	Explicit bias is what people consciously report about their attitudes toward social groups; implicit bias is what reaction-time measures reveal beneath the surface. The two are only moderately correlated
The Princeton Trilogy (Lai & Banaji)	Studies tracking racial stereotypes among white Americans from 1933–2001. The share endorsing negative stereotypes of Black Americans fell dramatically over decades — showing conscious attitudes can change, even when implicit biases persist.
Three Locations for Addressing Implicit Bias (Lai & Banaji)	Redesigning situations (blind auditions, anonymized applications), changing implicit associations (exposure to counterstereotypical figures), and self-regulating behavior (if-then implementation intentions linking triggers to unbiased responses).
Long-Term Implicit Bias Change (Lai & Banaji)	Inventions reduce bias immediately but rarely last beyond a few days. Durable change requires sustained contact with outgroup members or broad cultural shifts.
Article Summary (Lai & Banaji)	Despite progress in conscious attitudes, implicit biases remain widespread and shape real-world behavior in hiring, policing, and beyond. Lasting change likely requires institutional redesign, not just individual effort.

Created by: smurtab

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries: