Consequences of Stereotypes

AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
edited March 2007 in A Moving Train
Consequences of Stereotyping

Once activated, stereotypes can powerfully affect social perceptions and behavior. For instance, studies on priming have found that when college students are exposed to stereotypic words and images relating to old age, they later walk more slowly and perform more slowly on a word recognition task (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996; Kawakami, Young, & Dovidio, 2002). Likewise, students primed with "soccer hooligan" stereotypes answer fewer general knowledge questions correctly, whereas students primed with professor stereotypes show improved performance (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998). One study even found that when students were asked to write an essay about someone named Tyrone Walker (a Black-sounding name), they subsequently performed more poorly on a math test than did students who were asked to write an essay about Erik Walker (Wheeler, Jarvis, & Petty, 2001). Although the reason for these effects is not entirely clear, it appears that when stereotypic representations of behavior are activated, relevant behavior also becomes activated (Wheeler & Petty, 2001).

In addition to the effects of priming, people who are stereotyped face a second burden: the threat that their behavior will confirm a negative stereotype. Claude Steele and his colleagues have shown that this burden, known as "stereotype threat," can create anxiety and hamper performance on a variety of tasks (Steele, 1997). For example, female math students taking a difficult test show a drop in performance when told that the test reveals gender differences in math ability (Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999). An especially interesting study along these lines found that when Asian women were made aware of their ethnicity, their math performance improved (in keeping with the stereotype of Asians as good at math), but when they were made aware of their gender, their math performance declined (Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999). And the same pattern occurred with young children: When Asian girls were made aware of their ethnicity (by coloring a picture of Asian children eating with chopsticks), their math performance improved, but when they were made aware of their gender (by coloring a picture of a girl with a doll), their math performance declined (Ambady, Shih, Kim, & Pittinsky, 2001).
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/apa/english/page14.htm

I read another study that says that children self-rated themselves no differently between sexes on issues of gender stereotypes. Except a few cases where girls tended to fit the stereotypes of women. My guess is, it's due to extreme influence on their behavior.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Ahnimus, your signature here about the robotica stuff is scary, yet i find myself caught in the humour there too.

    interesting topic though. i tend to feel that the inability of society [humanity] as a collective of individuals to overcome stereotypical thinking is at the root of nearly every ailment of "civilization".

    not only does this phenomenon debilitate the potential of such individuals [internally, so to speak], but opportunities where persons, unbeknowst to themselves (because of stereotypical thinking), are perhaps perfectly suited to each other for intensified collaboration fail to acheive whatever realizations might be necessary for those doors to open which would thus allow for the creation of greater [larger] human productivity.

    or is less more?

    when do we find the best doors which we, as individuals, might wish [need?] to open?

    ergo, stereotypes continue to survive (and even with a strengthened lot in existence) because individuals seem to feel that such predispositions are a positive mechanism for guidance through life [for living].

    i'm not advocate, and i would sooner destroy this plague than any single other activity i know [except maybe beer pong if that could be worked-in]; but how?

    the thought has occured to me that the problem is manifold, and that the naturally arising developments of civilization are such that socio-economic struggle is now a dominating factor in the continuation of stereotypical behavior (due to the dire needs of individuals per the navigation of life in a social existence).

    the problem--although essentially that of humanity's mass-psychology--must be approached through government and law.

    :(

    ok, time for binaural and my overdue walk to the grocery store.

    :)
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
  • soccer hooligans rawk!
    we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
    to dust i guess,
    forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I spent my childhood knowing that my ancestors had enslaved blacks and slaughtered natives. It wasn't until my early 20s that I discovered that isn't true. My ancestors constantly fled oppression and violence and they were white european.

    So, why did I think that my ancestors had done all of this brutal stuff?
    Because it's what I was told, by society, by my parents, by teachers and peers.

    My attitude towards people of all shapes, sizes, races and genders is now the same, I don't view people differently, or treat them differently based on differences anymore.

    Why did it take 20+ years for me to realize this?
    Why do some people never realize it?

    Because it's ingrained, it's a perception of reality implanted in our brains from birth through adolescence. It is only true if the perception is common. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy.

    If you tell a child that they are responsible for the oppression of blacks, and you tell a black child that white children are responsible for the oppression of their ancestors. You get discrimination. Ultimately they will hate each other for things neither is responsible for.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Here is an interesting story about gender..................

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    Interesting.........
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    baraka wrote:
    Here is an interesting story about gender..................

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    Interesting.........
    That was fascinating, baraka. Thanks for sharing.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    baraka wrote:
    Here is an interesting story about gender..................

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

    Interesting.........

    Interesting, if hormones alone cause people to fit gender roles, according to western culture, then the Arapesh tribe in Papau New Guinea must not be real humans.

    "...among the Arapesh a temperament for both males and females that was gentle, responsive, and cooperative. Among the Mundugumor (now Biwat), both males and females were violent and aggressive, seeking power and position. For the Tchambuli (now Chambri), male and female temperaments were distinct from each other, the woman being dominant, impersonal, and managerial and the male less responsible and more emotionally dependent."

    I think this case of Reimer shows psychological traumatization can cause suicide above anything else. The case for "Nature trumps nurture" is shaky.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Interesting, if hormones alone cause people to fit gender roles, according to western culture, then the Arapesh tribe in Papau New Guinea must not be real humans.

    No, all it shows is both nature and nurture are strong influences. I think there is a difference between gender identity and 'culturally influenced' traits.


    Ahnimus wrote:
    I think this case of Reimer shows psychological traumatization can cause suicide above anything else. The case for "Nature trumps nurture" is shaky.

    Sure, but this case is specifically about the psychological trauma caused by gender reassignment. Even though Reimer was raised as a female and did not know differently until later, he still did not 'feel' like a girl. This is a case where nurture did not trump nature. This does not mean, however, that nurture does not play a very powerful role in modeling our behaviors.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    baraka wrote:
    No, all it shows is both nature and nurture are strong influences. I think there is a difference between gender identity and 'culturally influenced' traits.

    Certainly there is a major difference between "identity" and "stereotype".
    Sure, but this case is specifically about the psychological trauma caused by gender reassignment. Even though Reimer was raised as a female and did not know differently until later, he still did not 'feel' like a girl. This is a case where nurture did not trump nature. This does not mean, however, that nurture does not play a very powerful role in modeling our behaviors.

    Did Brenda not feel like a girl due to hormones, or due to peer influence?

    I would think that regardless of operations and hormone treatment, it would be fairly obvious that he was originally a boy, the facial structure, muscle mass, etc.. Most people know a transvestite when they see one. Did Brenda feel like a girl at 5 years old? 6, 7, or 8 years old? At what point did Brenda feel or not feel like a girl? None of that is addressed in the article. It would seem that the article is trying to get this message across that "nature trumps nurture" as it clearly states. While it's a very interesting article, in stark contrast to Margaret Mead's research, I'm putting emphasis on Mead because her studies involved a large sample, cross-culture.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Ahnimus wrote:


    Did Brenda not feel like a girl due to hormones, or due to peer influence?

    I would think that regardless of operations and hormone treatment, it would be fairly obvious that he was originally a boy, the facial structure, muscle mass, etc.. Most people know a transvestite when they see one. Did Brenda feel like a girl at 5 years old? 6, 7, or 8 years old? At what point did Brenda feel or not feel like a girl? None of that is addressed in the article. It would seem that the article is trying to get this message across that "nature trumps nurture" as it clearly states. While it's a very interesting article, in stark contrast to Margaret Mead's research, I'm putting emphasis on Mead because her studies involved a large sample, cross-culture.

    "Brenda Reimer resisted being classified as a girl from the beginning. The first time she wore a dress, she tried to rip it off. She preferred her brother's toys to her own. (A toy sewing machine was untouched, Colapinto writes, "until the day when Brenda, who loved to take things apart to see how they worked, sneaked a screwdriver from her dad's tool kit and dismantled the toy.") She got into fights, insisted on peeing standing up, and ran into terrible problems at school, where the other kids quickly recognized her as someone who didn't fit the ordinary sexual categories. By the time she was 10, she was declaring that she wanted to grow up to marry a woman, not a man."

    This from http://www.reason.com/news/show/33586.html. In the article, it says that he found out the 'truth' when he was 14 and started living as as boy at that point. There are a lot of interesting articles about this story out there.

    Any wise person will say that both nature and nurture play important roles in our development. All I'm saying is you can not discount nature.
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    I'm seeing that these are two different subjects. For example, Ahnimus, the topic of the men you refer to in the Arapesh tribe is about gender roles. No matter how kind and gentle they are in their roles, they still feel like men inside. This is regarding how they outlet that masculinity, which can be done in ways traditionally thought to be female. It's ultimately different than the subject of gender identity, which refers to whether one feels male or female inside, regardless of external gender.

    You can condition a boy to be sensitive, caring, and nurturing and that is independent of his sense of being a boy. My own son has the above traits. However, had I tried to condition him into thinking he was a girl, I think he might have rebelled with that.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • barakabaraka Posts: 1,268
    Exactly, angelica. I think it is unwise to place too much emphasis on one or the other.

    Actually, I found this wikipedia entry pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

    Edit: I just asked my husband which he thought had more influence, nature or nurture. He said, "Nurture, love conquers all". :)
    The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
    but the illusion of knowledge.
    ~Daniel Boorstin

    Only a life lived for others is worth living.
    ~Albert Einstein
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    baraka wrote:
    Exactly, angelica. I think it is unwise to place too much emphasis on one or the other.

    Actually, I found this wikipedia entry pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

    Edit: I just asked my husband which he thought had more influence, nature or nurture. He said, "Nurture, love conquers all". :)

    I don't think "Nature vs nurture" is a good phrase at all. Nature is concerned with things nurture is not and vise versa. They may intereact with each other in certain ways, but for example, wether a person is aphasic has more to do with nature than it does nurture. If a person is mesomorphic, endomorphic or parapalegic, is nature, and really has nothing to do with nurture. If a boy likes blue, plays baseball, owns G.I. Joes and beats up his sister, then your stepping in to nurture.

    My impression with your article Baraka, posting it on a thread about Stereotypes was to somehow show that nature has more effect on a person's behavior than nurture, and I think nature has very little to do with stereotyping and how it affects behavior. My apologies if I'm misunderstanding the relevance.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    baraka wrote:
    Exactly, angelica. I think it is unwise to place too much emphasis on one or the other.

    Actually, I found this wikipedia entry pretty good http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

    Edit: I just asked my husband which he thought had more influence, nature or nurture. He said, "Nurture, love conquers all". :)
    I'm a huge believer of the nature/nurture interaction. Genetics are undoubtable. Even for odd things. ie: my brother has the oddest way of holding a pen/pencil. Throughout school they tried to train it out of him to no avail. My son and his cousin both have this exact same behaviour of holding a pen/pencil as my brother,their uncle. My son by the age he was developing these fine motor skills would not have had this behaviour modelled to him. Or my daughter, not having been raised by her father, it was eerie the way her handwriting looks identical to his, or that she walks like him.

    Canadian author, Gabor Mate, in his book "Scattered Minds" refers to how the brain and our genetic blueprints are molded through interaction in the environment as the brain grows constantly affected by this interaction, while quadrupling in size from birth to adulthood.

    I also know that I've had numerous "inherited" disorders, and I also know that changing my environment and my influences, that I have caused such disorders to become latent and UNmanifest.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.