Saul L. Miller & Jon K. Maner and D. Vaughn Becker
Self-Protective Biases in Group Categorization: Threat Cues Shape the Psychological Boundary Between “Us” and “Them” ้ มื ล ี ป ด ร พ ม ร ธร 5477765038
Factors Signaling Potential vulnerability to harm
Introduction THEM US
• The Psychological Process of Group Categorization • A Threat-Based Framework for Intergroup Cognition • Self-Protective Biases in Social Categorization
Ecologically Relevant Threat Cues â€˘ Factors Associated With the Target â€˘ Factors Within the Perceiver
Associated With the Target • Target’s masculinity • Target’s movement • Angry facial expression
Within the Perceiver â€˘ Experience of fear â€˘ Chronic beliefs about vulnerability to danger
Overview of Experimental (1-6)
Study 1-4 • Threat-relevant factors associated with target bias White toward racial outgroup categorization.
Study 5 • Threat-relevant factors within the perceiver bias White toward racial outgroup categorization.
• A bias in outgroup categorization when participants had no prior knowledge about groups • (using a minimal group paradigm)
Study 1 When categorizing the race of male voices, White categorize highly masculine voices as Black. Masculinity was conveyed using recorded voices.
METHOD : Participant • 39 persons • White undergraduate psychology students • (26 women and 13 men)
METHOD : Procedure 1• Recorded 20 short statements from five White males 2• Created: original & masculinized version 3• Listened to recordings 4• Indicated the race via key press
RESULT & DISCUSSION • t test : Masculinized voices were categorized as Black. • A target cue signaling masculinity biases individuals toward outgroup categorization.
Study 2 When categorizing the race of male walkers, White would be biased toward categorizing highly masculine walkers as Black. Human walkers to vary signs of masculinity
METHOD : Participant • 60 persons • White undergraduate psychology students • (44 women and 16 men)
METHOD : Procedure 1â€˘ Created four point-light walkers using BMLgender : Slightly masculine walker Highly masculine walker Slightly feminine walker Highly feminine walker 2â€˘ Using biomotion lab equipment
METHOD : Procedure 3• Saw two point-light walkers. (slightly masculine & slightly feminine walker) 4• Identified gender of walkers 5• Saw two new point-light walkers (slightly masculine & highly masculine walker) 6• Identified race of walkers
RESULT & DISCUSSION â€˘ 92% of participants categorized the slightly masculine walker as male and the slightly feminine walker as female. â€˘ 77% of participants categorized the highly masculine walker as Black and the less masculine walker as White.
Study 3 The tendency to categorize others as outgroup members when targets appear to be moving toward the perceiver. An unfamiliar person who is approaching poses more of a potential threat.
METHOD : Participant • 75 persons • White undergraduate psychology students • (52 women and 23 men)
METHOD : Procedure 1• Created front walkers and side walker, the same clips used in Study 2 2• Using biomotion lab equipment 3• Randomly assigned Participants to one of two conditions 2 conditions front walker
METHOD : Procedure 4• Saw four movie clips in each condition 5• Indicated via key press which walker was Black or White.
RESULT & DISCUSSION
Study 4 Outgroup categorization bias by manipulating a different target factor indicating threat: the facial expression of anger. Angry Black males would be categorized more accurately than other targets, whereas angry White males would be categorized less accurately than other targets.
METHOD : Participant • 66 persons • White undergraduate psychology students • (44 women and 22 men)
METHOD : Procedure 1• Created eight male and eight female prototypes from Poser4 2• Participants were instructed to rapidly identify the race of each face by pressing the key. 3• Each face was shown twice: once with an angry and once with a happy.
RESULT & DISCUSSION
Study 5 Threat-relevant factors within the perceiver bias White toward racial outgroup categorization.
METHOD : Participant • 57 persons • White undergraduate psychology students • (31 women and 26 men)
METHOD : Procedure 1â€˘ Created 42 male, racially ambiguous faces using FaceGen Modeller 3.1 2â€˘ Participants were randomly assigned to either a fear or control condition. 2 conditions
METHOD : Procedure 3• -Fear condition: Participants watched serial killing clip. -Control condition: Participants watched urban living clip. 4• Assessed their current affective state by using BMIS. BMIS 5• Rated how Black or White the person was, using a 9-point scale. 6• Assessed the Belief in a Dangerous World scale (BDW scale)
RESULT & DISCUSSION
Study 6 A bias in outgroup categorization when participants had no prior knowledge about groups Using minimal group paradigm
METHOD : Participant • 112 persons • undergraduate psychology students • (69 women and 43 men; 81 White, 13 Black, 3 Asian, 1 American Indian, 9 multiracial, and 5 who did not report race)
METHOD : Procedure 1â€˘ Participants estimated the number of times a target symbol on the computer screen. 2â€˘ Participants were told that they were either a chronic overestimator or a chronic underestimator. 3
METHOD : Procedure 4• Listened the same voice categorization task used in Study 1. 5• Categorized voices according to whether they believed the person was overestimator or underestimator. 6• Assessed chronic beliefs about interpersonal danger using BDW 7• Indicated the demographic form indicating their race, gender, and group membership
RESULT & DISCUSSION
Summary • People categorize others into ingroup and outgroup by ecologically relevant factors • To protect ourselves from interpersonal threats, the psychological boundaries we place between “us” and “them”
ANY QUESTION ?
Here comes your footer ďƒş Page 40
Published on Apr 18, 2012
Threat Cues Shape the Psychological Boundary Between “Us” and “Them” Self-Protective Biases in Self-Protective Biases in Group Categorizatio...