Slack:
https://bcccd.slack.com/archives/C02QGTLJ1U3
Marianna Y. Zhang, Ellen M. MarkmanStanford UniversityHow should we think about differences and disparities between social groups? We often essentialize social groups, positing internal essences as the cause of group properties, which leads to problematic outcomes, e.g. assuming all group members are that way (overgeneralization or stereotyping), and judging those who do not conform with that assumption negatively (normativity). Structural representations, which consider a stable context external to the group as the cause of group properties, may be a better alternative. In 3 studies, attributing group differences to a structural cause, as opposed to a biological or a cultural cause, resulted in more positive consequences in thinking about what is the case (generalization), what should be the case (normativity), and how to change what is the case (intervention). For a difference in what groups eat, adults given a structural cause generalized in a more context-sensitive manner, judged non-conformity as more acceptable, and suggested more structural and fewer group-based interventions to change the property; 5- to 8-year-olds showed the latter two consequences as well. For a disparity in groups working low- vs high-status jobs, adults also considered the disparity less acceptable. Cultural causes generally showed an intermediate or even more extreme pattern of consequences than biological causes, suggesting that attributing group differences to groups' shared beliefs or values may be yet another form of essentialism. Rather than attributing group differences to biological or cultural essences, structural representations, which attribute group properties to an external context, could be a more constructive alternative to promote.
