Social Categorisation, Stereotypes and Prejudice

• personal vs social identity

  • personal: personal characteristics
  • social: groups you are a member of
  • stereotyping
• category

  collection of examples that resemble each other around a prototype
• prototype theory

  cognitive representation of the key defining features of a category

  • standards against category membership is decided
• why are categories not rigid? (Rosch, 1978)

  • more or less typical of category
  • depending on prototype
  • difficulty categorising less typical members
• why do we categorise?

  • saves cognitive energy + time
  • simplify perception
  • clarifies and refines perception of the world
  • see members of category possessing traits of the stereotype
  • reduces uncertainty, can predict social world
  • maintain positive self-esteem
  • motivational
• eaxmples of common group distinctions

  • sexual orientations
  • race
  • empolyment status
  • etc
• illusory correlation in stereotypes: negative stereotypes

  when people inaccurately pair variables such as minority groups with negative events/behaviours because they are distinct + actually unrelated
• example of illusory correlation in stereotypes, Hamilton and Sherman (1996)

  • White American participants estimate the arrest rate of various types of American
  • African Americans estimated to have a higher arrest rate than they actually did
• Effects of stereotyping

  • Behavioural assimilation
  • influences our perceptions of others + our own behaviour
  • Prejudice and discrimination
  • Stereotype threat
  • threat of negative evaluations can actually lead to poor performance e.g., sinking to the level expected of you, low expectations
• Behavioural assimilation, Bargh et al., (1996)

  • ‘Scrambled sentence’ task
  • sentences out of randomly ordered words
  • IV: word types (2 conditions):
  • ‘Elderly’: task used words associated with elderly stereotypes (e.g. grey, lonely, wise, old)
  • Neutral: words unrelated to age (e.g. thirsty, clean)
  • DV: Participants directed to the exit and hidden confederate timed how long it took them to leave room
• Behavioural assimilation, Bargh et al., (1996) results


  Participants primed with elderly words behaved in a way related to an ‘elderly’ stereotype:

  i.e., more slowly to leave the room (part of the stereotype activated)
• evidence against behavioural assimilation

  • other studies do not replicate
  • effects are not universal
  • need to care about what is being primed
  • Papies (2015)
  • people who want to become thinner are likelier to make healthy food choices if they primed with words on a menu such as ‘diet’, ‘thin’ and ‘trim figure’
• Stereotype Threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995)

  • when negative stereotypes define our own groups
  • and we behave in line with them
• examples of stereotype threat

  • Women and maths (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999)
  • Men and social sensitivity (Koenig & Eagly, 2005)
  • Elderly people and memory (Levy, 1996)
• how to eliminate the negative impact of stereotype threat? (Alter & al., 2010)


  reframing low expectations as a challenge instead of a threat
• Does stereotype threat replicate across groups? Tan and Barber (2020)


  whether age-based stereotypes impact older Chinese adults

  • tested older Chinese memory recall under a stereotype threat condition (or control condition)
  • Results demonstrated poorer memory recall in the stereotype threat condition (vs. control)
• criticisms of Tan and Barber (2020) stereotype threat is replicated across groups

  • participants were immigrants residing in the United States
  • effects of stereotype threat be different in Asian participants who still reside in an Asian country (e.g., Zhang et al. 2017)?
• Prejudice and Discrimination

  • strong, highly accessible negative attitude
  • dominated by cognitive bias and negative stereotypes

  Intergroup bias (e.g., favouritism) → Intergroup prejudice → discrimination

  (but: attitude <–> behaviour?)
• behaviour of prejudice + discrimination

  based on unjust treatment of certain groups:

  • reluctance to help
  • tokenism
  • reverse discrimination
• discrimination: reluctance to help (e.g., Gaetner & Dovidio, 1977)

  • participants were more reluctant to help a minority member (than their own group) when faced with an emergency
  • but only when others were present
• discrimination: tokenism | Monin and Miller (2001)

  • favouring a member of a minority group in isolated episodes
  • participants who were given the opportunity to hire a well-qualified minority candidate discriminated against other minorities in future hiring
  • as already “proved” that they were not prejudiced.   
• Reverse discrimination (Dutton & Lake, 1973)

  • opening displays pro-minority behaviour
  • to deflect accusations of prejudice, e.g., giving more money to a minority member when feeling threatened
• changes in racist attitudes over time

  • Dovidio et al. (1996):
  • decline of racist attitudes over 60 years
  • but Quillian and Lee (2022): hiring discrimination among 170k apps for minority groups not fallen
  • specific stereotypes changed, but negativity remains
• reason for the changes in racist attitudes over time: new/modern racism

  • racism changed in the form
  • conflict between evaluation towards out-group and values of equality and egalitarian attitudes
  • aversive/discomfort
  • implicit
• Three theories of subtle prejudice

  • modern or symbolic racism (Kinder & Sears, 1981)
  • ambivalent racism
  • ambivalent sexism
• Modern or symbolic racism (Kinder & Sears, 1981)

  • Blaming the victim
  • Support of policies that all happen to disadvantage racial minorities.
• Ambivalent racism (Katz & Hass, 1988)

  • High scores on pro-Black attitudes (pity for the disadvantaged)
  • High scores on anti-Black attitudes (hostility toward the deviant)
• Ambivalent sexism (Glick & Fiske 1996)

  • Hostile sexism paints women in a negative light
  • Benevolent sexism could be seen as apparently positive
• Two categories of causes of prejudice

  • Historical/economical
  • Linked to the psychological notion of frustration of aggression
  • Psychological:
  • Individual differences in personality;
  • Group processes (such as unequal status)
• Frustration-aggression hypothesis (Dollard et al., 1939):

  • frustration causes aggression
  • pent up frustration requires an outlet -> scapegoat
  • linked to Freudian notion of ‘displacement’
  • misdirection of anger during anger
• Stages in Frustration-Aggression e.g antisemitism in Germany

  • Identification of personal goals
  • achieve greatness for Germany
  • Psychic energy activated
  • Emotional arousal of German people from WWI
  • Frustration of goal achievement
  • Defeat by Western Allies, treaty of Versailles
  • Source of frustration too powerful
  • Economic and political crisis
  • Scapegoat found; catharsis achieved by displacing aggression
• Evidence: Hovland and Sears (1940)

  • archival study about cotton workers over fifty year period
  • price of cotton + number of lynchings of Black workers
  • as frustration increased (i.e., price of cotton fell), lynchings increased (displaced aggression)
  • but can’t determine cause and effect.
• Psychological Causes of prejudice: authoritarian personality?

  • Authoritarian’ Personality traits:
  • Extreme reactions to authority figures;
  • Obsession with rank and status
  • Tendency to displace anger
  • Related to harsh upbringing
• evidence of authoritarian personality as a cause of prejuice?

  • retrospective interviews about childhood
  • correlation between the harshness of upbringing and measures of prejudice
  • questionnaires monitoring:
  • Anti-Semitism;
  • Ethnocentrism
  • Political & economic conservatism
  • Potential for fascism
• Criticisms of the ‘authoritarian personality’ explanation

  • Correlational evidence:
  • Can’t determine cause and effect
  • Poor methodology:
  • relies on memory of upbringing
  • strict upbringing does not mean fascist
  • self report
  • Ignores social context:
  • need to take into account history and culture (Pettigrew, 1958).
• Social learning theory explaning prejudice: Tajfel (1981)

  • prejudices are learnt (early) in life
  • Evidence - Barrett and Short (1992):
  • English children, aged 4-5 years old;
  • French and Spanish were liked, followed by Italians, and Germans were liked the least
  • Parental prejudices: 
  • Modelling (child witness expression of racial hatred)
  • Conditioning (parents approval of racist behaviour)
• Group process: conformity to group norms

  Minard (1952) attitudes of White miners

  • 60% readily switch between racism & non racism depending on whether situational norms encouraged or discouraged prejudice
  • influenced by a group authority figure? 1920s & 30s Germany.
• Group process: Group relations theories, Social Identity Theory

  • Intergroup differentiation:
  • ‘in-group’ vs ‘outgroup’
  • Depersonalisation
  • In-group bias
• Why is social identity important?

  maintain self-esteem + social bonding

  • but
  • implications for interaction with out-group members
  • hypothesised cause of prejudice and stereotyping
• Blue eyes/brown eyes demonstration (Hogg & Vaughan, 2011), Jane Elliot (1968)

  • school teacher tried to highlight effects of prejudice to school children
  • blue eyed children were ‘inferior’ and had to wear a collar and lost privileges
  • brown eyed children were very quick to derogate those with blue eyes