Consequences of social categorization
- exaggeration of differences between categories
- exaggeration of similarities within categories
- ingroup favouritism/bias
rudimentary recipe for group stereotypes
Exaggeration of differences between categories + Exaggeration of similarities within categories
Redimentary recipe for prejudice
- “us” vs “them”
- think highly of ingroup than outgroup
oxytocin and intergroup prejudice
- hormonse associated with love, trust, etc
- people administered oxytocin during trust games tend to be more trusting
- BUT leads to increased intergroup prejudice
Potential strategies for reducing ingroup facouritism
- other forms of self-affirmation
- decategorization and recategorization
Other forms of self-affirmation
- if people are provided with some other way to feel good about themselves, they may be less motivated to achieve that goal through prejudicial perceptions of ingroup and outgroup
Decategorization
- if people are encouraged to perceive group members as distint individuals, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between “us” and “them”
- reduced biased porsitive impression of “us”
Recategorization
- of people are encouraged to perceive that both ingroup and outgroup are part of some bigger superordinate category, then it can weaken the categorical distinction between “us” and “them”
- increase people’s positive perceptions of “them”
Categorization and facial recognition
- exaggeration of similarities within outgroups (Outgroup Homogeneity Effect)
- consequence: poor recognition memory for faces of outgroup (They all look alike Effect)
Poorer recognition memory for outgroup faces
- exaggerated when people are especially concerned about fitting in with and belonging to their group
- need to belong: sociometer
- focus on their ingroup more, not motivated to make distinctions in outgroups
- can be reduced by Intergroup Contact
Angry faces experiment
- neutral expressions: more recognition memory for ingroup
- angry expressions: more recognition memory for outgrouo but equivalent to ingroup
Relevant vs irrelevant faces
1: ingroup member — relevant — encode features — accurate recognition
2: outgroup member — irrelevant — minimal encding — poor recognition
- devote extra cognitive effort to encode their facial deatures so can identify them later
- anything that can lead to the perception that an outgroup member is relevant to me, makes it more likely for me to attend to them as an individual person and not a part of an outgroup
People report low estimates of their categorization ability…
suggests that they may not be conscious of the extent to which they categorize others
Categorization-idividuation model
addresses how categorization and experience interact to explain differences in memory for in- vs out-group faces
people first attend to facial features that differentiate categories and only sometimes attemp to individuate them
Ingroup favouritism: Reputational concern
people avoid and punish those with bad reps
Ingroup favouritism: Expected cooperation
people assume ingroup members are more cooperative
Money exchange study
- online study
- no reputational concern
- BUT expected partners to be more cooperative when belong to same group
- creates a self-fulfilling prophecy
