Bem's 1972 Self perception theory

-Feelings, attitudes, weak or unclear: inferences drawn from overt behaviour

-Self knowledge frommaking internal attributions for behaviour

-Thoughts and feelings better than behviour: may rely on casual theories

Festinger: Social Comparison theory

- Compare socially for a variety of goals

-motivate, self enhance, honest etc.

1. Markus: Self schemas

2. Linville 1985

-Guide info processing

-Organized around roles

-Working self concept: dependent on particular moment

2.Self complexity theory- a blow in one area does not effect other

Who am I?  Cousins1989

-Americans- more general with no qualifier

-Japanese- more general  when a qualifier given

Basic self motives

- Accurate self knowledge

-Stable self concept

-Positive self concept

-'Good self'

  Westerners- self enahance: individualistic

Japanese self enhance on collective actions

Swann 1990- Self verification vs. self enhancement theory

-People need to seek confirmation of positive or negative self

-Prefer partenrs with same view

-Prefer feedback on strenghts.

1.Self regulation

2. Self awarenss theory

1. Driven by motivation

2. Focus on self and compare current behaviour with personal or sociatal standards/values

-Discrepency = disatisfaction--reduce

-change behaviour

-escape focus (drinking etc.)

Self focus positive after success--helps follow moral standards

Higgens 1987: Self discrepaency theory

Evaluate against ideal and ought self

-Actual vs ideal= depression

-Actual vs. ought= anxiety

-Event or mood associated with discrepency

Self evaluation theory: Tesser 1988

-Anothers behaviour can threaten self concept

-Depends on psych closeness, relevance

-Must distance self, change relevence or improve performance

Social comparison

Lockwood and Kunda

Kunda 2992

Attainability

-deflating or inspiring

-2 routes to feeling good about superior other

bask in reflective glory

inspiration if attainable

Comparison w/ inferior= enhancing or deflating

Bruner- Categorization

Primitive categories

-Reduce info/ ignore uneccessary

-Give meaning/info that cannot be percieved.

Prejudice from normal cognitive function

Consequences of Categorization

-differntiation and assimilation

-ingroup bias

-intergroup attributions

-steretyping

Tajfel and Wilkes 1963-categorization

-Cards with lines

-Overestimated differences once categorized.

In group more complex

 -Outgroup more homogenous

-Unless ingroup minority

Intragroup

1. Simon and Brown 1987

2. Perdue 1990

1. Blue/green group: If ingroup majorit then outgroup=homogenous

2. In group bias- Subliminal prime- I me them

-Adjective

-More positive for in than neg for out

1.Factors guiding categorization

2.Gifford 1976

Accessibility x fit

-Percievers more habitual or temp needs/goals

-Recent activation

-more salient

=more likely to stereotype

2. Sentences- categorization + distinctivenss: undesirable sentence soverestimated for minority

Grain of truth

Eagles and Steffen

-Social roles

-Responded more to role than gender unless no role was given

Status quo

-justify dominant groups privaleges

-stereotypes are from social relations between groups not just cognitive

 1. Duncan 1976

2. Kunda and Sherman

3. Darley and Gross

1. Black.white pushing

2. House wife/construction worker- judeged bases on behviour unless ambigous

3. middle and working class Hannah

Stereotype congruent judgements if information is ambigous

internal vs. external attributions

Ross 1977

Maas

Word et al.

1. Fundamental attribution error: attribute positive ingroup and negative outgroup internally

2. Horse race rivals: More abstract desirable to ingoup More abstract undesirable to outgroup.

3. Self fulfilling prohpecies- interviewers/interviewees

Automatic activation

1. Devine

2. Lepore and Brown

3. Gilbert and Hixon

1. Subliminal priming dual process: stereotypes automatically activated, controlled application

2. No negative stereotype for low prejudice people

3. Categorize but do not activate sterotypes as often when busy

Factors can influence automatic activation:

Prejudice level

Cognitive busyness

Motives

-\internal vs. external motivation

-Internal most successful

-Prolonged prescence of social norms for hight prej or externall motivated

Rebound effects

Macrae- 1994= seating distance greater for supressors

Intergroup relations

Campbell 1965- Realistic group conflict theory

-intergroup attitudes and behaviour reflect group interest

 -Hostility and competitions

-friendliness and cooperation

Intergroup relations

Sheriff

-Prejudice from real or percieved conflict of interest, threat real or imagined

-Summer camp studies: Conflicting goals not necessary to elicit ingroup bias and competition

Minimal group paradigm

Rabbie and Horwits- common fate necessary for ingroup bias: revised

-Tajfel 1971: flimsy criterion

-ingroup favouritism

1.Social identity theory

2. brown 1978

1.Categorization: simplifies social world

Self identitiy: search positive distinctivenss

2. Wage differntials

Status Relations

-Permeability

-Stability

-Legitamacy

-If permeable disengage

-In impermeable, unstable, illegitamate: act to changeL poses threat to higher group

-Identification increases if group under threat

Allport 1954- contact hypothesis

Equal status contact plus insitutional support = lower prej.

1. Recategorization

2. Decategorization

May not resolve generalization issues.

Models of intragroup contact= boundaries but positive interdependence

Negative attitudes can be generalized

Anxiety provoking

Brewer and Gartner- over time all can facilitate eachother