lecture 11 * social psychology *

gender , skin colour , occupation , ethnicity , sport clubs , university , etc

we magnify similarities within social categories and differences between social categories

we categories things based on what we call them not actually what they are

categories and generalise people from different groups

they are all the same

stereotyping

1. occur at different levels ( amsterdam , dutch , europe )
2. the level depends on

situation

person

directed cues
presence of outgroup members

label

presence of ingroup members

cues such as clothing

UvA student at VU

1. personal identity
2. social identity

what makes me unique?

to what group do I belong ?

individual charateristics

group charcteristics

personal identity + social idendtity

result of human dilema :

there is a tension between human needs for validation and simirity to others ( on one hand ) and on the othe hand the ned of uniquness and individual form others

leaves one vulnerable

provides no basis r comparative apraisel

family

ethnicity

gender

study

occupation

organised groups ( sports , political party )

self stereotyping :

appling stereotype to the self

behave like "typical" group member

Cf. self fulfilling prophecy
Cf. gender stereotypes

perspectives that :

dictate how people should behave

influences self perception and life choices

equal on dimensions related to the group

unrelated to the group how do we evaluate ingroup members ? → ingroup favourtism

members form different groups become " they "

benefiting memebers of one's own group at the espense of other group

group assigment arbitrary

no face to face contact

anonymus

we treat ingroup memebers more fairly and help them more often

group is an extension to the self

somethime we help outgroup memebers more , due to different motifes ( emphasize out superioirty )

one exmaple could be linguistic

she is intelligence " " he is agressive " → suggest behaviour is permanet and diagnostic

concrete language " she got a good grade " " he hit someone → suggests that behaviour is more incidental

abstract language : more used for outgroup less for ingorup

concrete language : more used for ingroup less used for outgotup

80 hunter , 80 environmentalists

*evaluated 8 cartoons of either environmentalist or a huter

+did something positive

+did something negative

*ingoup positive behaviour was prised py people in the cathegoru

*outgroup is more described more negatively by the other group

ingroup bias : we respect ingroup memebrs more

by ingroup members

ingroup vs outgroup experimetn ( wear t shirts)

tretemet equality ( high vs low )

high :lot of interest in participant

low : no interest in participant

results : if the perosn was wearing t shirt form same univeristy the tretment mattered much more

1. strive for prove social identity
2. percieve menebers of other groups more homogeneous
3. we diaply ingroup bais
4. we respect members of our own group more
5. we desire more respect from ingroup memebers vs outgroup

how do we deal with someone in the group that violates the norm ?

belgian students read a story ab a belgian or nonth african student

this student was likable or unlikable

evaluate personality ( 62 trait decription )

results : people a tougher on ingroup members if they do not behave good

we are much harsher when one ot the ingroup member does somthing wrong

black man who murdered his wife

nnot completly clear of if he was guity

whites were more tough on him
liked by the black people more

when there are doubs → the people in the same group have this own backs

when evidence was strong
offender punished severly by ingroup
because punishment " symbolically excudes "

when the evidence was weak
fellow group mebers recieve the benefit of the doubt

self esteem
distinctivness
belongign
sumbolic immortality
uncertainty reduction

students were asked to solve problems in "blue team "

told that their team was succesful / failed

in the winning group the people wore blue the next day

when they failed they did not wear blue ( bigg difference )

this can be explaind by people being proud

group members who less clearly belong to a group

more stringly inclinded to try to show that they DO belong

negative reactions toward outgroup

take personality test ( type O or tyep P )
clearly central ( O)
peripheral ( P)

they chose pesuation techniques towards type P or type O

they owould do it in provate

results

peripheral mebers esepcially in public circumstance have shown aggresive means of dealing with outgroup members

"terror management theory "

humans being have an instict for self perservation

human realize that deth is inevitable

groups are more imprtant after they think of their detch

"what will happen when you physically die ?"

"what emotions does the taugh of your own deth arouse in you "

Greenberg et al . evaluate interview about US political system

positive negative
mixed

→ the people in mortality group responded much more positively

people are more strongly interconnect after death experiences

if you bring people in a state of high uncertainty = when you bring people in the mortality salience

uncertainty is very crucial lack of control