StereotypesEssay title: StereotypesWe have heard them all. African Americans are lazy and incompetent workers. Hispanics are all drug-dealers. The Irish are heavy drinkers. These are all stereotypes. Stereotyping is a problem that refuses to go away. It recurs, across various contexts and discourses, as a divisive and troubling issue, and remains a central source of contention in the politics of representation. Many stereotypes exist: different ones towards racial groups, women, the elderly, the mentally ill, fat people, homosexuals, the physically handicapped, and individuals with AIDS, to name just a few. Stereotypes can have negative outcomes both for the individuals who are the target of prejudice and for society at large.
Stereotypes are a set of beliefs about the personal attributes of a group of people. It was journalist Walter Lippman who first coined the term “stereotype” to refer to our beliefs about groups. He borrowed the term from the printing process in which a “stereotype” literally was a metal plate that made duplicate copies of a printed page. Lippman believed this term aptly describes how we continuously reproduce the “picture in our heads” that we have about a group whenever we encounter members of that group. In other words, Lippman recognized the human tendencies to categorize people into groups, and then to see individual members as a reflection of that group, rather than as the unique person they are.(Pickering, p.16-21)
Although stereotypes may be products of individual cognitive processes, they also maybe consensually shared within a society. Collectively held stereotypes may be especially pernicious as they are often widespread in a society, As an example of this important distinction between individual and collective stereotypes, suppose you are a member of Group X who has been denied employment because the employer assumes that your group is intellectually inferior to the dominant group. While this world undoubtedly be a frustrating experience for one, one may easily be able to find employment elsewhere. However, if this belief that your group is intellectually inferior is widely accepted within a society, finding employment may prove to be challenging. Thus, it is the widespread acceptance of particular stereotypic beliefs about a social group, rather than an individuals idiosyncratic beliefs about the group, that is more problematic.(Hecht, p.40-41)
[Cross-posted at the PNAS.org, Dec. 8, 2011.]
[Reference] Kohn, R. (1926). The Psychology of Social Relationships. Philadelphia: Johns Hopkins. Print. Pages 12-16. Kohn, R. P., et al. (2010). Relationships, Relationships, and Social Change. J. Pers. 55(3):319-323.
http://www.parl.org/research/relationships.htm
In recent decades, social psychologists have developed highly different interpretations of group membership patterns. A few of the most central interpretations include the claim that groups as whole have always been ‘subversive’ or ‘negative’, while others (including those of ethnic or cultural minorities) have argued that group members are more psychologically and culturally diverse. However, one of the most widely debated aspects of these differing interpretations is its relationship to a set of beliefs and behaviors.[Reference] As the title says, it suggests that, if you are part of a group as a whole, you may have different beliefs and behaviors than those of the entire population. The authors acknowledge that some of the “negative” (or “reproductive”) beliefs may occur on the same level and are socially differentiated from the positive (or “reproductive”) beliefs.[Reference] As with all group beliefs, there may be a strong tendency for the different groups to take similar values and beliefs and make different claims when interpreting them. For examples, perhaps a person is assigned to a group of persons where they believe that the one on “the “bottom” of the group is more socially “socially equal” than others. When comparing groups in the two groups, it may be difficult for people to make very firm or consistent claims upon their group membership.[Reference] A possible reason for this may be because people don’t understand that people have to prove or disprove each other’s points. (i.) One may not always accept the validity of other beliefs. (2.) This may imply that no group is representative of all groups; it may be true that there may be differences among groups among cultures. (3.) In general, it has been established that social differences in one’s attitude are important, whether they be genetic, psychosocial, religious, or other.[Reference] Some of these differences may be due to differences across group members.[Reference] As in all forms of group belief, there is a desire for individuals to be different, while others may be motivated by different attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors.[Reference] Moreover, it may be true that some beliefs, such as the desire to marry a person who is genetically superior to you, may be biologically unique to one group of people. Such a desire may be important for identifying “subgroups”. An interesting point regarding such subgroups would be that they do not have to justify their group membership to others.[Reference] Finally, some groups may provide an objective measure of self-esteem or self-worth and so it is often necessary to compare individuals against each other among different groups, such as groups that experience stress or social pressure. There may likely be different interpretations amongst individuals of both, but there are some common factors: (1) it is often difficult or even impossible for people to accurately compare one’s group membership with other groups and thus it may be a subjective concept not well grounded in objective research,[Ref] (2) there may be a higher likelihood that people will assume that the group is good-paying to be, or that it is financially secure to be. (3) some members may be ‘rewarding’ others while others may be simply using this opportunity to seek the attention of other persons,[Ref] and (4) the group may not always belong equally to the whole. As mentioned above, the members of individual groups may be members
[Cross-posted at the PNAS.org, Dec. 8, 2011.]
[Reference] Kohn, R. (1926). The Psychology of Social Relationships. Philadelphia: Johns Hopkins. Print. Pages 12-16. Kohn, R. P., et al. (2010). Relationships, Relationships, and Social Change. J. Pers. 55(3):319-323.
http://www.parl.org/research/relationships.htm
In recent decades, social psychologists have developed highly different interpretations of group membership patterns. A few of the most central interpretations include the claim that groups as whole have always been ‘subversive’ or ‘negative’, while others (including those of ethnic or cultural minorities) have argued that group members are more psychologically and culturally diverse. However, one of the most widely debated aspects of these differing interpretations is its relationship to a set of beliefs and behaviors.[Reference] As the title says, it suggests that, if you are part of a group as a whole, you may have different beliefs and behaviors than those of the entire population. The authors acknowledge that some of the “negative” (or “reproductive”) beliefs may occur on the same level and are socially differentiated from the positive (or “reproductive”) beliefs.[Reference] As with all group beliefs, there may be a strong tendency for the different groups to take similar values and beliefs and make different claims when interpreting them. For examples, perhaps a person is assigned to a group of persons where they believe that the one on “the “bottom” of the group is more socially “socially equal” than others. When comparing groups in the two groups, it may be difficult for people to make very firm or consistent claims upon their group membership.[Reference] A possible reason for this may be because people don’t understand that people have to prove or disprove each other’s points. (i.) One may not always accept the validity of other beliefs. (2.) This may imply that no group is representative of all groups; it may be true that there may be differences among groups among cultures. (3.) In general, it has been established that social differences in one’s attitude are important, whether they be genetic, psychosocial, religious, or other.[Reference] Some of these differences may be due to differences across group members.[Reference] As in all forms of group belief, there is a desire for individuals to be different, while others may be motivated by different attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors.[Reference] Moreover, it may be true that some beliefs, such as the desire to marry a person who is genetically superior to you, may be biologically unique to one group of people. Such a desire may be important for identifying “subgroups”. An interesting point regarding such subgroups would be that they do not have to justify their group membership to others.[Reference] Finally, some groups may provide an objective measure of self-esteem or self-worth and so it is often necessary to compare individuals against each other among different groups, such as groups that experience stress or social pressure. There may likely be different interpretations amongst individuals of both, but there are some common factors: (1) it is often difficult or even impossible for people to accurately compare one’s group membership with other groups and thus it may be a subjective concept not well grounded in objective research,[Ref] (2) there may be a higher likelihood that people will assume that the group is good-paying to be, or that it is financially secure to be. (3) some members may be ‘rewarding’ others while others may be simply using this opportunity to seek the attention of other persons,[Ref] and (4) the group may not always belong equally to the whole. As mentioned above, the members of individual groups may be members
[Cross-posted at the PNAS.org, Dec. 8, 2011.]
[Reference] Kohn, R. (1926). The Psychology of Social Relationships. Philadelphia: Johns Hopkins. Print. Pages 12-16. Kohn, R. P., et al. (2010). Relationships, Relationships, and Social Change. J. Pers. 55(3):319-323.
http://www.parl.org/research/relationships.htm
In recent decades, social psychologists have developed highly different interpretations of group membership patterns. A few of the most central interpretations include the claim that groups as whole have always been ‘subversive’ or ‘negative’, while others (including those of ethnic or cultural minorities) have argued that group members are more psychologically and culturally diverse. However, one of the most widely debated aspects of these differing interpretations is its relationship to a set of beliefs and behaviors.[Reference] As the title says, it suggests that, if you are part of a group as a whole, you may have different beliefs and behaviors than those of the entire population. The authors acknowledge that some of the “negative” (or “reproductive”) beliefs may occur on the same level and are socially differentiated from the positive (or “reproductive”) beliefs.[Reference] As with all group beliefs, there may be a strong tendency for the different groups to take similar values and beliefs and make different claims when interpreting them. For examples, perhaps a person is assigned to a group of persons where they believe that the one on “the “bottom” of the group is more socially “socially equal” than others. When comparing groups in the two groups, it may be difficult for people to make very firm or consistent claims upon their group membership.[Reference] A possible reason for this may be because people don’t understand that people have to prove or disprove each other’s points. (i.) One may not always accept the validity of other beliefs. (2.) This may imply that no group is representative of all groups; it may be true that there may be differences among groups among cultures. (3.) In general, it has been established that social differences in one’s attitude are important, whether they be genetic, psychosocial, religious, or other.[Reference] Some of these differences may be due to differences across group members.[Reference] As in all forms of group belief, there is a desire for individuals to be different, while others may be motivated by different attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors.[Reference] Moreover, it may be true that some beliefs, such as the desire to marry a person who is genetically superior to you, may be biologically unique to one group of people. Such a desire may be important for identifying “subgroups”. An interesting point regarding such subgroups would be that they do not have to justify their group membership to others.[Reference] Finally, some groups may provide an objective measure of self-esteem or self-worth and so it is often necessary to compare individuals against each other among different groups, such as groups that experience stress or social pressure. There may likely be different interpretations amongst individuals of both, but there are some common factors: (1) it is often difficult or even impossible for people to accurately compare one’s group membership with other groups and thus it may be a subjective concept not well grounded in objective research,[Ref] (2) there may be a higher likelihood that people will assume that the group is good-paying to be, or that it is financially secure to be. (3) some members may be ‘rewarding’ others while others may be simply using this opportunity to seek the attention of other persons,[Ref] and (4) the group may not always belong equally to the whole. As mentioned above, the members of individual groups may be members
Stereotypes can be both positive (“Asians are the model minority”) and negative ones (“the Irish are heavy drinkers”). But even complimentary stereotypes are not as benign as they initially appear, because they are equally exaggerated generalizations. A person who accepts seemingly positive stereotypes as factual may be prone to readily accept the less positive ones as well (Stangor p.64-68). Nonetheless, if stereotypes represent inaccurate or distorted generalizations, why do they persist over time? For example, during the days of American slavery, Blacks were stereotyped as intellectual inferior, unevolved, primitive, and apelike. Beliefs about innate physical differences (i.e. Blacks are less sensitive to pain than Whites; Blacks have thicker skulls than Whites) and innate abilities (i.e. Blacks are innately more athletic and rhythmic than Whites) were commonplace among Whites in the United States and Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries. Sad to say, these stereotypes persist today. In a telephone survey of White and Black residents of central Connecticut in 1995, researchers S. Plous and Tyrone Williams found that the majority of respondents (58.9%) endorsed at least one stereotypical difference in inborn ability. Whites, for example, were most likely then Blacks to be viewed as superior in intellectual ability, whereas Blacks were more likely than whites to be viewed as superior in athletic and musical ability. Moreover, nearly half (49%) of those surveyed believed at least one stereotypical anatomical difference between Whites and Blacks: Almost one-third of respondents believed that Black skin is thicker than White skin; 20% believed that Blacks have thicker skulls than Whites; and 14% believed whites were more sensitive to pain than Blacks (Bender, p.44-51). Surprisingly, Blacks were somewhat more likely than Whites to endorse racial stereotypes. That these racial stereotypes resulting from the legacy of slavery endure in American society, even among African Americans, is perplexing. The crucial question is: Why?
How and why do people form stereotypes? The commonsense answer to this question is captivated in social learning theory. Simply put, we learn stereotypes from parents (our first and most influential teachers), peers, and the media. However the social learning theory does not explain it all. Researchers see that our ways of stereotyping go on a more cognitive level (Stereotypes). People invent and reciprocate stereotypes