Homework Help

In article"Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice"by Salvatore&Shelton...

user profile pic

m001 | Student, Undergraduate | eNoter

Posted March 26, 2011 at 5:53 AM via web

dislike 0 like

In article"Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice"by Salvatore&Shelton Provide brief summary of prior research given in intro.

provide background necessary for reader to understand logic underlying the experimental hypotheses

3 Answers | Add Yours

user profile pic

silverstrunmmer | College Teacher | Honors

Posted June 20, 2011 at 3:53 AM (Answer #1)

dislike 0 like

In signal detection terms, the threshold at which members of traditionally advantaged groups make attributions to prejudice may be relatively high (cf. Barrett & Swim, 1998), both because these individuals do not encounter bias very often and because the
implications of prejudice are limited for them (Schmitt &
Branscombe, 2002). These findings suggest that Whites are
relatively insensitive to subtle cues of prejudice, regardless of
the race that is targeted. Thus, we predicted that they would not
experience cognitive disruption after exposure to ambiguous
prejudice. Rather, we expected that Whites, in contrast to
Blacks, would experience substantial disruption when exposed
to blatant prejudice.

Disadvantaged groups have a low threshold when detecting instances of prejudice, similar to the 'cocktail party phenomenon, when we can detect our own names in a hubub of noise (See Cherry 19??). This constant 'signal detection' in social environments for the disadvantaged groups must be cognitivly costly. As the instances of prejudice for whites(sic) are rare, the cognitive demand in social environments will be less.

Thus, when ambiguous instances of prejudice occour non whites will tune in while it will not affect whites.  When racism is blatent, whites will experience substansial cognitive disruption and underperform on a cognitive task (Stroop).

 

Silverstrummer

user profile pic

silverstrunmmer | College Teacher | Honors

Posted June 20, 2011 at 3:55 AM (Answer #2)

dislike 0 like

m001

sorry I am new to this!!!

 

The first para is an extract of the important bit of the paper, the second para is the summary of the research that justifies H1.

Silverstrummer

user profile pic

silverstrunmmer | College Teacher | Honors

Posted June 20, 2011 at 3:56 AM (Answer #3)

dislike 0 like

In signal detection terms, the threshold at which members of traditionally advantaged groups make attributions to prejudice may be relatively high (cf. Barrett & Swim, 1998), both because these individuals do not encounter bias very often and because the
implications of prejudice are limited for them (Schmitt &
Branscombe, 2002). These findings suggest that Whites are
relatively insensitive to subtle cues of prejudice, regardless of
the race that is targeted. Thus, we predicted that they would not
experience cognitive disruption after exposure to ambiguous
prejudice. Rather, we expected that Whites, in contrast to
Blacks, would experience substantial disruption when exposed
to blatant prejudice.

Disadvantaged groups have a low threshold when detecting instances of prejudice, similar to the 'cocktail party phenomenon, when we can detect our own names in a hubub of noise (See Cherry 19??). This constant 'signal detection' in social environments for the disadvantaged groups must be cognitivly costly. As the instances of prejudice for whites(sic) are rare, the cognitive demand in social environments will be less.

Thus, when ambiguous instances of prejudice occour non whites will tune in while it will not affect whites.  When racism is blatent, whites will experience substansial cognitive disruption and underperform on a cognitive task (Stroop).

 

Silverstrummer

Join to answer this question

Join a community of thousands of dedicated teachers and students.

Join eNotes