Which of the following concepts is being illustrated in each of the examples below: cognitive dissonance, stereotyping. stereotype threat, in-group bias, out-group homogeneity? A group of students from Northern State College was watching the antics of a group of students from Western State College at a football game, "Look at how rowdy those guys are. That's disgusting!" one Northern State student observed. A half-hour later, the same student said, "I love going to our football games because everybody's so friendly and laid back. We really know how to let loose and have a good time."

Imagine you've made a New Year's resolution to eat healthily, but then you find yourself devouring a huge piece of chocolate cake. That uncomfortable feeling you get? That's cognitive dissonance. It occurs when our actions don't match our beliefs, sparking a sense of mental conflict.
To cope with this feeling, we often change our beliefs or behaviors to reduce the inconsistency. Notably, Leon Festinger introduced this theory, suggesting that we strive for internal consistency. When we spot contradictions among our cognitions—our attitudes, beliefs, or knowledge—we're motivated to resolve them. This could mean rationalizing the cake as a 'one-time indulgence' to lessen the inner turmoil of breaking a resolution. It's a balancing act, constantly seeking harmony between deeds and thoughts.

• Recognizing contradictions between actions and beliefs.
• Striving for internal consistency.
• Adjusting attitudes or behaviors to reduce conflict.

Picturing a hacker as a hoodie-clad figure in a dark room is a classic example of stereotyping. In psychology, stereotyping involves assigning a set of characteristics to all members of a group, often based on limited information.
Stereotypes can be positive or negative, but either way, they tend to oversimplify and overlook individual differences. Encountering someone from a group can trigger these preset notions, impacting our behavior and expectations. For instance, assuming all elderly individuals are frail may lead us to underestimate their capabilities.

• Applying generalized traits to all group members.
• Oversimplifying individual uniqueness.
• Influencing behaviors through preconceived notions.

Consider a woman taking a math test amid prevailing stereotypes that men are better at math. She might feel extra pressure, worried that she'll confirm the stereotype; this phenomenon is the stereotype threat. It's not just a simple concern; it can impair performance, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Stigmatized groups often underperform in situations where a negative stereotype is prominent, not because they lack ability, but because the anxiety and stress caused by stereotype threat disrupt their focus and confidence.

• Anxiety of confirming negative group stereotypes.
• Negative impact on performance and achievements.
• Creating barriers for stigmatized groups.

It's cozy in our comfort zones, surrounded by our 'in-group'—be it our family, friends, or fellow college mates. In-group bias stems from this, as we naturally favor those within our immediate social circle. We might perceive our group as more diverse and fair than they are, while minimizing their faults.
The 'us vs. them' mindset reinforces this bias, particularly in competitive contexts. It reveals itself in subtle preferences, like rooting for your sports team regardless of their behavior, or more significantly, in workplace nepotism or discrimination.
Acknowledging in-group bias is crucial since it shapes our views of fairness and can lead to unintended prejudice.

• Preferential treatment of one's own social group.
• 'Us vs. them' mentality influencing perceptions.
• The need to recognize this bias to counteract prejudice.

Ever heard someone say, 'They're all the same'? That's out-group homogeneity in a nutshell. We tend to view outsiders as less varied compared to our in-group. This perception makes it easier for us to manage our complex social world by categorizing people into simple groups.
This bias can result in unfair treatment, such as when recruiters assume all candidates from a certain university have the same skill level. By putting individuals into 'all the same' boxes, we risk ignoring the rich diversity of talents and perspectives that each person brings to the table.

• Viewing out-group members as more similar than they are.
• Categorization as a shortcut for social perception.
• Undermining the individuality and diversity of people.