Angelica S. Gutierrez
- Courses4
- Reviews17
- School: Loyola Marymount University
- Campus:
- Department: Management
- Email address: Join to see
- Phone: Join to see
-
Location:
1 Loyola Marymount University Dr
Los Angeles, CA - 90045 - Dates at Loyola Marymount University: January 2014 - November 2019
- Office Hours: Join to see
Biography
Loyola Marymount University - Management
Business Professor at Loyola Marymount University
Executive Office
Angélica S.
Gutiérrez, Ph.D.
Los Angeles, California
Angélica S. Gutiérrez, Ph.D. was born and raised in the community of Lincoln Heights (Los Angeles, CA). Angélica received her Ph.D. at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Michigan Ross School of Business. She also received her B.A. in Political Science and Sociology with honors from the University of California, Los Angeles and her M.P.P. from the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, where she was elected as the school’s Executive Committee student representative and served as the student voice on all university matters.
Gutiérrez’s research interests include diversity and inclusion in universities and in the workplace, the effects of stereotypes on negotiations, and the impostor syndrome. When she’s not conducting research or teaching, Angélica enjoys volunteering for various philanthropic organizations, including Reading to Kids, Padres Contra el Cancer (Parents Against Cancer), TELACU Education Foundation, Hispanic Scholarship Fund, Riordan Programs and the California Latino Caucus Institute’s Madrinas Padrinas Leadership Program.
Website: https://cba.lmu.edu/faculty/?expert=angelica.gutierrezphd
Experience
Volunteer
Volunteer
Angelica worked at Volunteer as a Volunteer
TELACU Education Foundation
Volunteer
Angelica worked at TELACU Education Foundation as a Volunteer
TELACU
Volunteer
Angelica worked at TELACU as a Volunteer
TELACU
TELACU
Angelica worked at TELACU as a TELACU
Loyola Marymount University
Business Professor
Angelica worked at Loyola Marymount University as a Business Professor
Stephen M. Ross School of Business / National Center for Institutional Diversity
Postdoctoral Fellow
Angelica worked at Stephen M. Ross School of Business / National Center for Institutional Diversity as a Postdoctoral Fellow
Education
University of Michigan
MPP
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy
Postdoctoral Fellowship
Stephen M. Ross School of Business / National Center for Institutional Diversity
Postdoctoral Fellow
University of California, Los Angeles - The Anderson School of Management
Ph.D.
Management
Research interests include: diversity management, negotiations, social equality, stereotypes, workplace and university selection policies
Publications
The effects of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic and counterstereotypic minority targets.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
This paper examines the effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. In two experiments, participants were exposed to either a multicultural or colorblind prime and subsequently asked to indicate their impressions of a stereotypic or counterstereotypic minority target. Results suggest that multiculturalism and colorblindness have different effects on the likability of minority targets to the extent that such targets confirm the existence of fixed or permeable ethnic group boundaries. Specifically, a stereotypic target was liked more than a counterstereotypic target when participants were exposed to multiculturalism – suggesting that multiculturalism creates a preference for individuals who remain within the boundaries of their ethnicity. Conversely, a counterstereotypic target was liked more than a stereotypic target when participants were exposed to colorblindness – suggesting that colorblindness creates a preference for individuals who permeate the boundaries of their ethnicity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
The effects of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic and counterstereotypic minority targets.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
This paper examines the effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. In two experiments, participants were exposed to either a multicultural or colorblind prime and subsequently asked to indicate their impressions of a stereotypic or counterstereotypic minority target. Results suggest that multiculturalism and colorblindness have different effects on the likability of minority targets to the extent that such targets confirm the existence of fixed or permeable ethnic group boundaries. Specifically, a stereotypic target was liked more than a counterstereotypic target when participants were exposed to multiculturalism – suggesting that multiculturalism creates a preference for individuals who remain within the boundaries of their ethnicity. Conversely, a counterstereotypic target was liked more than a stereotypic target when participants were exposed to colorblindness – suggesting that colorblindness creates a preference for individuals who permeate the boundaries of their ethnicity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
Perspective-taking and empathy: Generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups.
Asian American Journal of Psychology (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012)
Research finds inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character reduces explicit prejudice toward other Asian American individuals (Shih, Wang, Trahan & Stotzer, 2009). We examine whether inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character might also reduce implicit group bias more generally (e.g., us vs. them). We report the results of a study in which participants watched a video clip from The Joy Luck Club in one of two conditions: an empathy condition—in which they were asked to put themselves in the shoes of the Asian American movie character—or a control condition. Participants then completed a computer task in which they were asked to judge the valence of good and bad adjectives after being subliminally exposed to either the ingroup pronoun “us” or the outgroup pronoun “them.” Results showed that participants in the control condition exhibited ingroup bias, displaying faster RTs for judging good words after being exposed to “us” and faster RTs for bad words after being exposed to “them.” Participants in the empathy viewing condition, however, did not show this bias. These results suggest that inducing empathy is a particularly robust form of prejudice reduction, one that not only improves explicit intergroup attitudes but also implicit attitudes. (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012).
The effects of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic and counterstereotypic minority targets.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
This paper examines the effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. In two experiments, participants were exposed to either a multicultural or colorblind prime and subsequently asked to indicate their impressions of a stereotypic or counterstereotypic minority target. Results suggest that multiculturalism and colorblindness have different effects on the likability of minority targets to the extent that such targets confirm the existence of fixed or permeable ethnic group boundaries. Specifically, a stereotypic target was liked more than a counterstereotypic target when participants were exposed to multiculturalism – suggesting that multiculturalism creates a preference for individuals who remain within the boundaries of their ethnicity. Conversely, a counterstereotypic target was liked more than a stereotypic target when participants were exposed to colorblindness – suggesting that colorblindness creates a preference for individuals who permeate the boundaries of their ethnicity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
Perspective-taking and empathy: Generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups.
Asian American Journal of Psychology (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012)
Research finds inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character reduces explicit prejudice toward other Asian American individuals (Shih, Wang, Trahan & Stotzer, 2009). We examine whether inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character might also reduce implicit group bias more generally (e.g., us vs. them). We report the results of a study in which participants watched a video clip from The Joy Luck Club in one of two conditions: an empathy condition—in which they were asked to put themselves in the shoes of the Asian American movie character—or a control condition. Participants then completed a computer task in which they were asked to judge the valence of good and bad adjectives after being subliminally exposed to either the ingroup pronoun “us” or the outgroup pronoun “them.” Results showed that participants in the control condition exhibited ingroup bias, displaying faster RTs for judging good words after being exposed to “us” and faster RTs for bad words after being exposed to “them.” Participants in the empathy viewing condition, however, did not show this bias. These results suggest that inducing empathy is a particularly robust form of prejudice reduction, one that not only improves explicit intergroup attitudes but also implicit attitudes. (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012).
How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Unzueta, Gutierrez & Ghavami, 2010)
Believing that affirmative action entails quotas may both help and hurt White women’s self-image – contingent on whether they perceive themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Consistent with research on the affirmative action “stigma of incompetence” (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992), White women who think of themselves as affirmative action beneficiaries may report a more negative self-image the more they believe that affirmative action entails quota procedures. Conversely, White women who do not think of themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action may report a more positive self-image as a function of quota beliefs, consistent with research suggesting that non-beneficiaries can derive self-image benefits from maintaining the belief that affirmative action entails quotas (Unzueta, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008). Two studies provide evidence for the benefits of quota beliefs on White women’s self-image, but no support for the stigma of incompetence perspective. The lack of support for the stigma of incompetence perspective suggests that self-stigmatization may occur only under operationalizations of affirmative action that explicitly inform beneficiaries that they were selected on the basis of demographics and not merit. Absent such an operationalization, the affirmative action self-stigma may not emerge.
The effects of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic and counterstereotypic minority targets.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
This paper examines the effect of interethnic ideologies on the likability of stereotypic vs. counterstereotypic minority targets. In two experiments, participants were exposed to either a multicultural or colorblind prime and subsequently asked to indicate their impressions of a stereotypic or counterstereotypic minority target. Results suggest that multiculturalism and colorblindness have different effects on the likability of minority targets to the extent that such targets confirm the existence of fixed or permeable ethnic group boundaries. Specifically, a stereotypic target was liked more than a counterstereotypic target when participants were exposed to multiculturalism – suggesting that multiculturalism creates a preference for individuals who remain within the boundaries of their ethnicity. Conversely, a counterstereotypic target was liked more than a stereotypic target when participants were exposed to colorblindness – suggesting that colorblindness creates a preference for individuals who permeate the boundaries of their ethnicity. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed (Gutierrez & Unzueta, 2010)
Perspective-taking and empathy: Generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups.
Asian American Journal of Psychology (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012)
Research finds inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character reduces explicit prejudice toward other Asian American individuals (Shih, Wang, Trahan & Stotzer, 2009). We examine whether inducing empathy toward an Asian American movie character might also reduce implicit group bias more generally (e.g., us vs. them). We report the results of a study in which participants watched a video clip from The Joy Luck Club in one of two conditions: an empathy condition—in which they were asked to put themselves in the shoes of the Asian American movie character—or a control condition. Participants then completed a computer task in which they were asked to judge the valence of good and bad adjectives after being subliminally exposed to either the ingroup pronoun “us” or the outgroup pronoun “them.” Results showed that participants in the control condition exhibited ingroup bias, displaying faster RTs for judging good words after being exposed to “us” and faster RTs for bad words after being exposed to “them.” Participants in the empathy viewing condition, however, did not show this bias. These results suggest that inducing empathy is a particularly robust form of prejudice reduction, one that not only improves explicit intergroup attitudes but also implicit attitudes. (Shih, Stotzer & Gutierrez, 2012).
How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Unzueta, Gutierrez & Ghavami, 2010)
Believing that affirmative action entails quotas may both help and hurt White women’s self-image – contingent on whether they perceive themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Consistent with research on the affirmative action “stigma of incompetence” (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992), White women who think of themselves as affirmative action beneficiaries may report a more negative self-image the more they believe that affirmative action entails quota procedures. Conversely, White women who do not think of themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action may report a more positive self-image as a function of quota beliefs, consistent with research suggesting that non-beneficiaries can derive self-image benefits from maintaining the belief that affirmative action entails quotas (Unzueta, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008). Two studies provide evidence for the benefits of quota beliefs on White women’s self-image, but no support for the stigma of incompetence perspective. The lack of support for the stigma of incompetence perspective suggests that self-stigmatization may occur only under operationalizations of affirmative action that explicitly inform beneficiaries that they were selected on the basis of demographics and not merit. Absent such an operationalization, the affirmative action self-stigma may not emerge.
Are admissions decisions based on family ties fairer than those that consider race? (In press)
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (Gutierrez & Unzueta, in press)
Are admissions decisions based on family ties fairer than those that consider race? Social dominance orientation and attitudes toward legacy vs. affirmative action policies. This paper tests the competing hypotheses that social dominance orientation (SDO) reflects a specific desire to protect ingroup interests vs. a general desire to maintain status hierarchies by examining attitudes toward hierarchy-enhancing (i.e., legacy) and hierarchy-attenuating (i.e., affirmative action) selection policies. Study 1 found that social dominance orientation (SDO) was positively related to support for legacy policies and negatively related to support for affirmative action. In a more direct test of the ingroup interest vs. general dominance hypotheses, Study 2 found that among Asian participants, SDO is negatively related to policy support when a legacy policy is perceived to benefit the ingroup (i.e., fellow Asians); however, when the policy is perceived to benefit the dominant group (i.e., Whites), SDO is positively related to support. In all, these findings suggest that attitudes toward selection policies depend not on their specific content or effects on the ingroup, but rather on their impact on status hierarchies (Gutierrez & Unzueta, in press)
