Transcript Media and social groups

Media in intergroup relations
Implications for society
Categorization

Though rarely discussed, the first and
necessary step in the development of
group evaluations (including prejudice) is
the definition/social construction of a
group/category of people



All categories are in some sense constructed
Basis for category may be biological,
ideological/cultural, personality-related
Membership may be assigned or chosen
Categorization

No categories, even the most “obvious”
are inherently and absolutely valid.
Some degree of social construction
always exists.






Sex (gender)
Race
Class
Religion
Occupation
Nationality
Categorization

The more distant from a biological basis
group membership becomes, the more
“constructed” one might say they are


“Ideological work” must be done to make
categories “real”--that is, to give them
meaning
Regardless of their original basis, categories
take on “excess meaning” through the
processes of formation and application
Excess meaning

Categories take on meaning beyond the
original characteristics and/or reasons for
their formation



In-group bias
Formation of the “other”
Function/power value of representations
Factors that affect
excess meaning





Personal experience with ‘member’ of group
Upbringing
Status hierarchy
History of intergroup relations
Cultural heritage


Intergroup interactions




Religion
Frequency
Goals
Rules of interaction
Individual’s group position
Excess meaning



Powerholder advantage in “naming”
Universalizing of individual characteristics
of those in direct contact with majority, etc.
Group actions interpreted



“Psychologizing” interpretations
Group conflict
Assignment of blame to groups
Note: assigned characteristics
may be false

Groups may be perceived in a false light



Misinterpretation of behavior, actions
Majority, power groups need for explanation
that jibes with social action either by ingroup
or outgroup
Widespread distribution of biased depictions



economic logic of media representations
Slight group tendencies magnified by
categorization process
Blaming the victim
Assignment of group
characteristics to individuals


Group characteristics are assumed to be
inherent in “typical” group members
“Stereotyping”


Overprediction from statistical tendencies



The expectation that individuals will exhibit
characteristics assigned to the category or group
Tversky and Kahneman
“Resonance” a la Gerbner
“Function” of individual-level explanations
Attribution


Assigned group characteristics and
consequent assumptions about individuals
based on their perceived membership in a
group serve as explanations for social
events and actions
“Psychologizing” tendency in the U.S.

“Fundamental attribution error”
A hierarchy of categories

Within memory, categories are assigned a
position relative to each other

Relative importance (salience)



Relations among categories



situational salience
social/historical salience
“cross pressures”
mutual reinforcement
Positioning may be fluid
Categories have social influence

Subjects often are called upon to locate
themselves as either members or nonmembers


Widely observed attitudes and beliefs based on
group memberships
Processes of bias in behavior seem to be nearly
automatic


Theorists have tended to assume anti-outgroup biases, but
pro-ingroup may be more valid
Original categorizations may lead to spiraling effects

Sherif
Studying categorization schemes


One can study categorization and category
schemes from a number of perspectives
Historical—every means of categorizing people
has a history



Events
Historic forces
Political economy



Classes (power distribution)
Technological and social structures
Government role in group power
Studying categorization schemes

Cultural analysis

Embedded in culture/ideology



Religion
Cultural processes that make and remake ‘groups’
Psychological




Learning of group distinctions, characteristics
Biologically based differences
‘Innate’ beliefs and actions based on group
membership, non-membership
Impact of categorization on group members
Studying categorization schemes

Social psychological



Attitudes and their learning, etc.
Intergroup relations
Organizational

Intergroup relations in the operation of
organizations

Gender bias—glass ceilings
Elite theory

Power groups control means of societal
communication, manipulate content in favor of
prejudice, etc. to maintain their position.
Marginal voices blocked from media/social
communication structure.
Market bias theory

Media markets favor portrayals that cater to
popular prejudices. Marginalized groups
cannot develop economically viable media.
Those with money will not invest in less
profitable ventures that would cater to
marginalized groups (not enough
people/money to make advertising to them
worthwhile).
Critical cultural study


The definition of the “other” serves to justify
the distribution of power and wealth, reassure
the majority and adjust minority groups to their
fate. Political/social discussion takes place
within presupposed “truths” of which race and
ethnic categories are one significant part.
“Otherness” allows majority to explain
inequality, ignore legitimate demands and
blame victims for their own victimization.

Exoticism
Mainstream, liberal
pluralist research

Media depictions have varied impact on
prejudice, with effects both supporting
and opposing stereotyping.


Prime-time depictions reflect rather than
drive overall cultural forces
Media portrayals range from negative
stereotypical to liberatory depictions



Critique of white racism
Invisibility
Subtle racism
Mainstream approach

Negative depictions lead to both prejudice
against, and low self-esteem among,
denigrated groups
Questions of categorization
and media

Do media depictions lead, follow, both or
neither



nature of depictions
What impact do media have in group
interactions, both cognitive and behavioral?
Is media fare “read into” a set of socially
structured interpretations based on
categorization?
Categorization schemes

Race








Ethnicity
Gender
Class
Sexual preference
Age
Religion
Nationality
Subculture
‘Positive’ effects of media





Diffusion of information on race/sex, etc.
topics
Exposure of segregation, bias, hate
crimes, etc.
Pressure on government to address
discrimination, etc.
Media campaigns against racism
Modeling of positive intergroup
associations, attitudes, etc.
‘Positive’ effects of media

Production and dissemination of content
opposing racism, genderism, heterosexism, etc.





Exposure of hate crimes, etc.
Depiction of groups in non- or counter-stereotypical
ways
Preservation of subcultures
Development of community among group
members
In-group solidarity
‘Negative’ effects of media

Stereotypic characterizations


Generation of a culture of prejudice



Many content analyses have identified sexist,
racist, etc. depictions
Viewer acceptance of images
Reduced concern over plight of minorities
Depiction of “causes” of group troubles

“Explains” poverty, health and crime
problems, lower status jobs, etc.
Negative effects of media

Modeling of intergroup prejudice,
discrimination and even violence


Depictions may have antisocial effects if
perpetrators are attractive, rewarded, etc.
Even negative depictions may have troubling
effects given that they still depict a certain
reality, set of loyalties based on difference,
etc.
Potential unintended effects



Acts to legitimize categories, maintain
and disseminate meaning attached to them
Introduces categories, associated meaning
to cultures, societies where they do not
currently exist
Influences self-conception


Imposition of positive/negative evaluations
Choice of affiliations according to social
evaluation of groups
Potential unintended effects

Depicts intergroup conflict as deepseated, basic, unending, and ‘natural’


Does in-group bias lead to discrimination
without prejudice?
“Boomerang” effect of providing support
to racist/sexist ideas as content is
“selectively” attended to, interpreted, etc.

All in the Family
Historical change

Depictions of African Americans,
especially, have increased and become
more positive

However, Entman points out that relatively
subtle forms of racism may well be at work
Gender

Change in gender roles has not been as
significant, and more recent treatment of
women has played to the ‘sex object’
depiction quite heavily

Rather than put an end to such treatment for
women, depictions of men have begun to
emphasize physical attractiveness to a much
greater extent
Latinos/Hispanics

Latinos and Hispanics remain heavily
underrepresented in the media


With some notable exceptions, portrayals of
Latinos and Hispanics is concentrated in
Spanish-language media
Some evidence of overrepresentation in law
enforcement and criminal roles
Additional groups

Native Americans

Often treated as pastoral, nature-worshiping


Rarely depicted
Asian groups


Relatively rare appearances
Heavy emphasis on martial arts
Gay Lesbian Bisexual
Transgender


Much more commonly depicted than in the
past
Presentations now far less stereotypical

Gay jokes, etc. still fairly common
The most stereotypical
representations

Arabs are especially poorly represented in
the media

Despite clear attempts in nonfiction media
and, to a lesser extent in fictional media, to
combat stereotypes



Terrorists
Exotics
Religious fanatics