Theories of Prejudice

How many ways are there to discriminate against people? List all the ways you can think of. What problems are caused by prejudice? What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?

Prejudice ‘Pre’ (meaning before) and ‘judice’ (meaning justice) An attitude – making judgements about someone based on their membership of a group rather than their individual nature.

One of the greatest problems of humanity Leads to dehumanisation and violence Why study prejudice? If we understand how it is formed perhaps we can learn how to prevent it Prejudice- extreme, unfavourable attitude associated with three components:

1. Cognitive: Stereotypes: Social perception of an individual based on their group membership or physical attributes Overgeneralised belief based on limited information Generalisations – applied to all members Positive / negative

2. Affective: Feelings of hostility and hatred

3. Behavioural: In terms of prejudice can be displayed as avoidance, assault, joke-making or discrimination. Actively excluding an individual or groups from things they are entitled to

Not all of these components manifest at the same time. i.e. someone who is prejudiced may have the cognitive and affective component but not discriminate Why? Prevailing social norms or laws perhaps?

Causes of prejudice Individual Differences Obedience & prejudice down to dispositional factors? I.e. personality? How can it explain whole culture and societies being prejudiced? Anti-Semitism developed over 10 or so years Look at social factors that can explain how entire populations of people develop prejudiced attitudes Social identity theory Realistic conflict theory

Read the article – http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/sep/16/refugee-crisis-hit-uk- working-class-powerless Please note this is an opinion piece and not research We are using it to put the issues we are looking at into context. The issues brought up in the article are very relevant at the moment Application

Social Identity Theory – Tajfel (1970) The simple act of being grouped will inevitably lead to prejudice against another group. Tajfel classified group as in-groups or out-groups There are three stages to the Social Identity Theory

Absorbing the culture of that group – becomes a part of your social identity Tajfel (1970) - SIT Social categorisation Social identification Social comparison Look up these stages. In pairs discuss the definitions Automatic act of putting yourself into a group. In group = yours Out group = others Making your group appear better than the out group to boost your self esteem.

Personal identity – strive to achieve positive image linked to high self esteem Social Identity Identifying themselves by membership to certain social groups (social identification) Adopting characteristics – significance to your membership and self esteem (personal ID) is bound up with the group If social identity is favourable – personal identity of group members are positive. Boosting self esteem. Opposite is also true Social identity impacts on our personal identity Examples?

Football team – continued success? However if they lose several matches?

Social comparison: Defining and emphasising in-group characteristics to elevate social identity Comparing and derogating qualities of the out-group Achieved by 1. In-group favouritism – members unique and favourable - Heterogeneous 2. Negative out-group bias – members ‘all the same’ unfavourable - Homogenous Example!

Within a group – each member has a social identity Image based on the attributes of the group Group success =increases sense of belonging and self esteem Example? Football team – continued success? However if they lose several matches?

Tajfel (1971)Minimal group paradign experiments 64 Schoolboys ages 14-15 groups of 8 (knew eachother) Experiment 2 Klee and Kandinsky Look these up in the textbooks and summarise them (shouldn’t be too long!) Summary must include: Aim Procedure Results Conclusion

Tajfel (1970) study of minimal groups The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups. Experiment 1 (estimating dots) Experiment 1 (Klee and Kandinsky) Recap and Summary Quiz – 10 qs Task in pairs – Ethical considerations? Refer to BPS guidelines Ethical guideline What would have to be considered in order to meet the guideline

Conclusions: Out-group discrimination is present and easily triggered In these experiments the act of social categorisation (in/out group) led to discrimination People act according to the social norm they have learnt (I.e. in-group favouritism) In real life the norms of being in a group may override fairness (for example?) Even if giving more to the other group did not mean giving less to their own, the still gave more to their own

Evaluation Strengths Weaknesses In pairs – list and explain 3 evaluation points Strengths Weaknesses High level of control – cause and effect i.e. boys put into groups (randomly assigned) Number of matrices used Balance of rewards/punishments Fairly large sample Run more than once with the same findings Therefore findings are reliable Lab setting – unnatural for the boys therefore has low ecological validity Demand characteristics Generalisability – boys, 14-15 year olds, Bristol UK

Supporting studies Lemyre and Smith (1985) followed minimal group paradigm Replicated findings Discriminating participants has increased self esteem – supporting the notion that personal identity is bound up with social identity Cialdini (1976) US university football scores Morel likely to wear football team sweatshirt after a game had been won than lost Interviews – referred to the team as ‘us’ when they won and ‘they’ when they lost Personal identity affected by association with a football team (social ID) Aronson and Osherow (1980) Blue eyes/brown eyes study(Jane Elliott)

Evaluation of social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice Strengths Weaknesses Substantial amount of research that supports the theory therefore theory has merit Practical application – can explain real life behaviour/events therefore useful. It could help solve social problems By only focusing on groups it does not take other factors into account Does not measure how much prejudice Some situations with greater prejudice? Prejudice is complex – unlikely that one theory as an explanation isn’t likely to be satisfactory

Realistic Conflict Theory – Sherif (1966) What do you think this is? (2 minute discussion) Relate to the article we read last lesson Compare to Social Identity theory Categorisation – leads to prejudice vs. competition between groups causes conflict Out-group threatening in-group for resources (still links to social identity theory) Two or more groups are in competition for the same resources – conflict occurs and prejudice follows Negative stereotyping against the ‘other’ group and perhaps discrimination Prejudice is more likely if the resources are limited, such as territory Called zero-sum (one winner and one loser)

Only in times of economic hardship Perceived competition of resources Filindra and Pearson-Merkowitz (2013) examination of data in New England To see if, when dominant white majority perceive threat there is more prejudice and discrimination Perceived increase in the presence of immigrants in the community did correlate with an immigration policy with more restrictions Only in times of economic hardship Perceived competition of resources Water, food, jobs, terrirtory, social resources,

Observed tribal societies Ember and Ember (1992) Observed tribal societies Intergroup hostility increases when social/natural conditions mean that competitions for these resources are necessary Famine/natural disasters warfare was more likely to ensure access to resources Correlation only When feelings in a group intensify and prejudice arises as groups fight over resources it can become ethnocentrism Defined as focus on one’s own in-group and hostility towards any out-group

Superordinate goals If groups work together with the shared goal of increasing resources there will be no competition and therefore will reduce prejudice Example? Unions in the UK – diverse groups of people came together in pursuit of a common goal. Fairer working conditions,

Homework Explain how social identity theory explains prejudice. What is meant by ‘realistic group conflict theory’. Definitions/descriptions relate to A01 in the exam In pairs discuss - what would you include?

Classic Study – Sherif (1954, 1962) Robber’s Cave Study Pg. 56-67 of e-textbooks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGNxRGgBwM https://explorable.com/robbers-cave-experiment Groups - APRC (presentation, table, word, poster) Sherif https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGNxRGgBwM

H/W exam practice Some tension has arisen at a college because the Principal has allowed Mr Page’s class to go on a special trip but Mr Wood’s class has not been allowed to go. The Principal’s decision has caused lots of resentment amongst staff and students alike. Mr Page and his class are looking forward to the trip but are getting lots of hostility from the other class. Use your understanding of prejudice and/or obedience to explain this situation. (6 marks)

Classic study – Sherif (1962) Test your knowledge – Individual task but we shall discuss each answer Socrative quiz Download Socrative student app Room number: AEB6UQEPF

Sherif (1954) - Evaluation Evaluation in pairs using GRAVE Generalisabilty Reliability Application Validity Ethics For each of these, explain what the strength/weakness is and explain why it is a strength or weakness. Point – What is your point (i.e. Is it a strength? What is it?) Explain – Explain reasons for your point (evidence, example, explanation)Why? Comment – comment on why you point is relevant This means that… Therefore

H/W Sherif Evaluation (12) Evaluate the Robber’s cave study (12) For every strength and weakness provide PEC Point – What is your point (i.e. Is it a strength? What is it?) Explain – Explain reasons for your point (evidence, example, explanation)Why? Comment – comment on why you point is relevant This means that… Therefore

Factors affecting prejudice What factors can you think of? Realistic conflict theory – what were the factors affecting prejudice? Social Impact theory? Other factors – Individual differences, situational and cultural

Individual differences Personality ‘The big 5’ OCEAN Openness to experience Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism

Personality dimensions Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) Social Dominance orientation (SDO) Adorno et al. (1950) Personality and Fascism (Fascism scale) Interviews with participants to dig deeper Finding: Authoritarian personality – more likely to be prejudiced and to show Discrimination, especially to those in low-status groups Rigid in their thinking Obedient to authority World in black and white Adhering to social hierarchy and social rules Developmental psychology: Adorno – authoritarian personality formed in childhood. Harsh parenting – love-hate relationship Hate/anger repressed and displaced onto weaker members of society. Maintain respect for authority

Personality dimensions Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and prejudice Authoritarianism linked to political (right-wing) views Social dominance orientation (SDO) See the world in terms or hierarchy and dominance Wants their own group to dominate over others

Personality dimensions Cohrs et al. (2012) – Relationship between Ideological attitudes- RWA and SDO The Big Five Prejudice RWA showed a relationship with prejudice (supporting Adorno, 1950) Openness to experience negatively correlated with RWO (The more open, the less authoritarian) Therefore the more open, the less prejudiced

Effects of situation on prejudice and discrimination Social norms (failure or changing social norms) Social threat (RWA – threat is feared so actions that lessen threat are supported) Such responses to alleviate fear can be discrimination and prejudice Akrami et al. (2009) Manipulated a social norm (sexism) then tested for prejudice The situational factors (changing the norm) did Affect the level of prejudice. This suggests that situation not personality effects prejudice.

Situational factors Other situational factors In-groups and out-groups (Tajfel) Competition for limited resources (Sherif) and realistic conflict theory Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) Contact can reduce prejudice and there must be Equal status Should be working towards a common goal Acknowledge the authority that brought them together Personal interaction between groups The contact should occur often

Situational factor vs Personality Evidence suggests that situational factors do seem to be involved in prejudice however personality factors are also supported by studies. Richard et al. looked a 322 studies (meta-analysis) and concluded that both situational effects and personality effects contribute to prejudice, perhaps in equal measure. Coper and Whitney )2009) suggest that in examples of strong prejudice, situational factors seem strong. However, where prejudice is less strong personality factors might account for more of the prejudice

Culture Culture can be an influence o prejudice if that culture has existing cultural norms that legitimise prejudice practice. Strict religious laws that endorse prejudice towards targets However laws are ever changing and therefore it is difficult to conclude if one culture is more or less prejudiced than the other. Guimond et al. (2013) - Cultures with multi-culturalism would show less prejudice than those featuring assimilation in their culture. Multiculturalism would be pro-diversity Katz and Braly (1933) conducted a questionnaire to investigate national stereotypes of Americans about other cultures. They were given a list of different ethnic groups and asked to choose 5-6 traits from a list of 84 personality traits. Majority of participants classified African Americans as superstitious and ignorant, and Jews as Shrewd. (However, they may have been acting a social desirable way) Fujimoto and Hartel (2004) Individualistic cultures would encourage ore interpersonal prejudice Collectivist cultures would encourage more inter group prejudice (prejudice towards an out-group would be more prominent in collectivist cultures.

Evaluation points Nature vs. Nurture (weakness) E.g. situational factors only take into account nurture, it does not explain nature e.g. individual differences (personality) Reductionism vs Holism (weakness) E.g. Individual differences explanation is reductionist as it only takes one factor into account. It does not take other factors such as situation and culture into account Supporting studies (strength) E.g. Personality (authoritarianism) is supported by Adorno and Cohrs et al. This makes the theory more valid. Therefore it is more useful to society to help explain prejudiced behaviour. Application (strength) E.g. Situational factors: Is applicable to real life. Conflict: Can help explain prejudiced behaviour in our society (2 groups may be in competition for limited resources) Contact hypothesis: WE can use this theory (i.e. common goals, interaction etc.) to help reduce prejudice between two groups in society.