prejudice

• prejudice is a social orientation

  its not about how we feel about individuals, its about how we feel about individuals as members of particular social groups 
• prejudice is based on a faulty belief 

  it is irrational and unjustified, held in disregard of the facts 
• roots of prejudice - competition?

  • zero sum outcomes are in short supply - if one group gets them, the other
  • sherif et al 1961 - robbers cave studies
  • competition for resources → prejudice and discrimination
  • but eliminating competition didn’t eliminate prejudice
  • mere knowledge of other group enough to provoke name calling
• social categorisation - us vs them

  • tajfel - how is genocide possible?
  • WWII context - tajfel himself had his life changed by one instance of categorisation
  • tajfel argued that conflict, animosity, self-interest and competition were not necessary for prejudice to emerge - mere categorisation would be enough
• Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament (1971)

  • participants picked whether they preferred a klee or kandinsky painting
  • asked to award payment to members of the klee and kandinsky groups
  • participants allocate more to members of their group
  • also allocate less to their own group if that means also giving less to the other group
  • maximise difference between two groups
• is explicit prejudice decreasing?

  • stereotypes are generally becoming more positive
  • greater representation of ethnic and other minority groups in non-stereotypical roles in media
  • increased participation of ethnic and other minority groups in professional occupations and managerial positions
• is prejudice a thing of the past?

  • no
  • huge inequalities between groups still exist
  • rise of nationalism and populism fueled by stereotypes and prejudice
  • gains in public acceptance of some groups haven’t spread to all groups
• Sigall & Page (1971)

  • 60 male participants – half indicated how characteristic they felt each of a series of 22 traits was of “Americans”, the other half did the same for “African Americans”
  • Within each group half the participants were led to believe that an independent and distortion-free physiological measure of their attitudes was being obtained (a.k.a. bogus pipeline task = “polygraph” style machine to reduce social desirability)
• unobtrusive observations

  • crosby et al 1980 reviewed naturalistic studies that had observed helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings
  • 50% of studies showed more help was given to someone of the same ethnicity
  • however, for white people only, helping behvaiour was context dependent
  • face to face - 1/3 of studies found the pro-white bias
  • no face to face contact - 3/4 showed pro white bias
• unconscious associations

  • classic research shows there are problems with trying to understand prejudice by asking people explicitly what they are thinking
  • more recently, attitude researchers have developed means of measuring unconscious associations between evaluations and concepts
• implicit vs explicit prejudice 

  • prejudice based IATs have raised a lot of questions
  • what do implicit attitudes represent?
  • prejudice vs awareness of stereotypes?
  • which one reveals true prejudice - what you say or what you think?
  • in other domains, the two are typically correlated, but have different consequences
  • Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner (2002) compared the effects of explicit and implicit attitudes on self ratings and other ratings during 40 White participants’ interactions with Black (versus White) target
• aversive racism

  • what differentiates racism now from racism in the past is that people now have conflicting attitudes
  • endorse egalitarian values and feel sympathy towards minoritised groups
  • socialised with negative images of minorities and feelings of unease
  • people don’t like to be prejudiced but they are also worried that other people might think that they are
  • aversive racism is expressed by anxiety in/avoidance of inter-ethnic settings
  • particularly when norms for appropriate behaviour are unclear or behaviour can be justified
• new directions 

  • historically prejudice research has focused on understanding the prejudiced
  • as with stereotyping more recent research has taken the target’s perspective
  • when is something seen as prejudice?
  • how do people respond to prejudice?
  • how does awareness/expectation of prejudice shape interactions?
• responding to prejudice 

  • when minorities interact with members of the majority they can be confronted by prejudice
  • this can create a dilemma;
  • confronting prejudice has negative interpersonal consequences
  • not confronting prejudice can have negative personal consequences
• What is the concept of intergroup contact?

  Interaction between different social groups
• Why is equal status important in intergroup contact?

  It prevents hierarchical relationships during contact
• What is an example of an unequal status relationship?

  Employer/employee relationship
• When should equal status be established in intergroup contact?

  Prior to and during the contact
• What is the role of cooperation in intergroup contact?

  Members should work together in a non-competitive environment
• How does Aronson’s jigsaw technique promote cooperation?

  It structures classrooms for cooperative work
• What are the positive results of using Aronson’s jigsaw technique?

  It has positive results across different cultural contexts
• What is the significance of common goals in intergroup contact?

  Members must rely on each other to achieve shared goals
• Give an example of a group that relies on common goals.

  Members of a sports team
• What did Hu and Griffey (1985) emphasize about common goals?


  They are important in interracial athletic teams
• What is the role of institutional support in intergroup contact?

  Authorities should support positive contact
• What should not exist for effective institutional support?

  Official laws enforcing sanctions
• What did Landis (1984) find about institutional support?

  It reduces prejudice in the military
• social influence 

  • when the in group endorses stereotypes in group beliefs are more predictive of prejudice than individuals personal beliefs
  • power of ingroup social influence
• IAT


  implicit associations test