prejudice

• prejudice definition

  • pre-judging someone without having evidence to support the judgement
  • irrational, preconceived opinion of someone - usually negative
  • often hidden or unconscious
• cognitive

  • what we think about the object of our prejudice
  • based on our beliefs and tendency to stereotype
  • a schema is a cognitive term - set of ideas, knowledge, beliefs
• affective

  • the emotional reaction we feel about the people we are prejudiced against
  • biased feelings towards the out-group
• behavioural

  • the tendency to act in a particular way towards the out-group
  • in other words - discrimination
• Direct discrimination

  -       Doing something knowingly harmful towards a target group
• Indirect discrimination

  • Policies and rules which apply equally to everyone but can affect some groups in more harmful ways than others

   
• Racism

  -       Discrimination based on assumed race

  -       No biological definition of race

  -       Superficial biological characteristics (skin colour, hair colour) are often used as an unjust basis for discrimination

  -       Loosely used for conflict between neighboring countries which have few racial differences
• Ageism

  -       Prejudice based on age, often in the workplace

  -       Unusual in the sense that everyone could be a part of the target group in the future/past

  -       Protective form towards elderly could be seen as patronizing
• Sexism

  -       Prejudice based on biological sex or perceived gender identity

  -       Typically, against women but applies to men

  -       Click and Fiske (2001) found that countries with the most protective sexist attitudes also shows the highest level of violence towards women
• authoritarian personality theory - these personalities support anti-democratic ideas, hostile to people they see as inferior and obey those they see as superior, unwilling to change traditional values.
• authoritarian personality originates from an authoritarian upbringing as an anti-parental response since parents wouldn't let them express themselves. it follows the psychoanalytic approach that unconscious motivations play a role in adult personalities.
• authoritarian personalities - as a child, this hostility is repressed, and re-emerges in adulthood as aggression towards 'weaker' groups. displacing their anger onto weaker targets due to a weaker superego.
• f-scale (Adorno, 1950)

  • aim - to find a relationship between authoritarian personalitues and beliefs.
  • method - 2,000 US males completed F-scales, asked their strength of agreement/disagreement on statements. Researchers could determine their attitudes towards religious/ethnic minorities, views on politics/economics, and their moral values.
  • results - there is a relationship between authoritarian personalities and prejudicial beliefs.
  • conclusion - authoritarians are highly likley to think prejucicially.
• Fascism - the ideology of many political parties in the 1920/30's.

  • most notably in Italy - Mussolini's National Fascist party
  • and in Germany - Hitler's Nazi party
  • extremely right-wing
  • emphasis on state control
  • intolerant attitude towards minorities
  • strict limitations on personal freedom
• Strengths of APT

  • Sample size > over 2000 US male PS establishes validity
  • Other scales > correlated with scales measuring specific prejudices when tested on the same people, suggesting reliability
  • Explanation > explains why people are attracted to totalitarian ideas and not others. Explains a connection between parenting style and later behaviour.
  • Other findings > some findings have shown that authoritarians believe very strongly in the rights of established authority figures, and are more likely to consider illegal government actions as acceptable (Altemeyer, 2006).
• Weaknesses of APT

  • Sample size > Large but bias sample. Initially college students, then union members, prisoners, and psychology patients - making it hard to generalise.
  • Agreement > all "agree" options led to a higher F-scale. Hard to differentiate between those who actually agree and those who agree to anything. Bass (1955) concluded that this had a large impact on the findings.
  • Research > little research supports that strict upbringing leads to prejudice.
  • Other influences > by viewing prejudice as a single trait it ignores cultural values and political influences.
  • Neglects importance of the cognitive and social processes.
  • Doesn't explain why people are prejudice to some groups and not others.
  • Altemeyer (1981) found that only 3/9 traits (conventionalism, aggression, and submission) correlate together reliably.
• Stereotyping

  • to attribute identical characteristics to every member of a group, disregarding individual variation
  • relates to the cognitive aspect of intergroup bias
  • oversimplified and inaccurate belief about a certain group
  • process involves generalising from a stereotype to an individual
  • even if its broadly true it may not apply to the individual, or the sterrotype may be inaccurate altogether
• effects of stereotyping

  • awareness of a negative stereotype can lead to poor performance.
  • Ambady et al (2001)
  • > girls reminded of gender differences with a questionnaire performed worse in a maths test compared to the control group.
  • > this effect dissapears between ages 8-10 when girls feel a superiority over boys and reappeared from age 11 onwards
• origins of stereotypes

  • embedded in society - from ages 2 onwards, children tend to choose toys attached to their gender
  • mental shortcut - limiting the need to consider each individual of a group, freeing up the mind for other tasks
  • Lippman (1924) - stereotype is an oversimplified picture of the world which allows us to perceive the world as more understandable and manageable
  • confirmation bias - people notice information that fits with the stereotype and ignores information which does not
• cognitive miser theory

  • devised by Fiske and Taylor (1984)
  • describes the ability and tendency of the brain to solve problems in the most simple way rather than the most sophisticated way
  • the brain conserves energy through this
• Attributes of stereotyping

  • simplification
  • exaggeration/distortion
  • generalisation
  • cultural attribution
  • confirmatory bias
• Confirmation bias (Cohen 1981)

  • 96 students shown a video of a woman eating dinner with her husband
  • half told she was a librarian and half told she was a waitress
  • in 1 condition, he video contained information that aligned with the stereotype (e.g., she had been reading, bookshelves)
  • in the other condition, information was reversed and inconsistent with the stereotypes
  • PS were told the occupation before or after shown the video
  • they were asked to recollect information about the video
• confirmation bias (Cohen 1981) results

  • students were more likely to remember schema consistent information
  • e.g., those told she was a librarian noticed that she had been reading and the classical music
  • those told she was a waitress notices the beer and hamburger she ate
  • this is because confirmation bias acted on both encoding and retrieval of information
• confirmation bias evaluation - strengths

  • lab experiment > well controlled with random allocation to the two conditions
  • extraneous variables > e.g., video length were kept consistent
  • cause and effect could be isolated and established > increases validity
  • can be repeated as it is a lab experiment
• confirmation bias evaluation - weaknesses

  • they were all undergraduate students and so may have had little real-world contact with waitresses and librarians > harder to generalise to older adults
  • demand characteristics > they may have guessed that they were expected to conform to stereotypes
• strengths of stereotyping as a theory

  • Bargh and Chartrand (1999) found evidence that most of our decision making happens automatically, supporting the theory.
  • Aboud (2003) ingroup favouritism is apparent from age 5 - we don't wait for information before making judgements and loyalties.
  • Follows cognitive miser theory - Alport (1954) ingroup favouritism apparent from age 5, does not understand group differences until age 10.
• weaknesses of stereotyping as a theory

  • not everyone accepts that stereotypes are automatic/shortcuts
  • Rutland (1999) stereotypes are attempts to understand the world and using them is a choice
  • he considers group categories useful and largely accurate
• realistic conflict theory summary

  • Proposed by Sherif et al (1954)
  • Positive relations can only be restored if there is a superordinate goal in place
  • Strong and compatible goals = strong group
  • Incompatible goals = group will not form
  • If goals become incompatible the group will fracture/separate
• Robbers cave experiment - aim

  • to test the theory that conflict between groups (due to incompatible goals) can trigger prejudice attitudes and discriminatory behaviour
• robbers cave experiment - sample

  • 22 boys
  • unknown to each other
  • white and middle-class
  • protestant, two-parent households
• Robbers cave experiment - week 1

  • The boys were randomly assigned to one of two groups, and neither knew of each others existence
  • Picked up as groups on successive days and taken to the boy scout camp in Oklahoma
  • Week 1 > the boys were kept separated to allow a strong in-group identity to form
  • they nicknamed themselves "eagles" and "rattlers"
  • they developed group norms
  • they gradually discovered there was another group in the area
• Robbers cave experiment - week 2

  • the goal was to cause the groups to conflict with incompatible goals e.g., a challenge only one group could win
  • prizes were displayed prominently and researches judged some tournaments and manipulated the scores to keep them even
  • good sportsmanship was shown initially, and then conflict (eagles burnt the rattler's flag after losing 2 challenges)
  • at the end of the tournaments - fights broke out, bunks being ransacked
  • both groups were asked to identify friends from camp, 92% of boys chose those from the in-group
• Robbers cave experiment - week 3

  • the goal was to replace conflict with co-operation
  • 7 unstructured 'contact' situations took place but the groups continued to fight
  • then superordinate goals were introduced e.g., a vandalised water supply, was set up
  • this meant the boys had to work together to solve the problem
• Robbers cave experiment - findings

  • after week 2, strong feelings of resentment towards out-group and 92% of friends identified were from the in-group
  • in week 3, 'getting to know you' sessions took place to reduce hostility but they were unsuccessful
  • after week 3 and introducing superordinate goals, group hostility declines
  • the boys willingly had a bonfire and traveled home together peacefully
  • the friends identified moved towards a 50:50 ratio of in/out group
• robbers cave experiment - strengths

  • high ecological validity > real life setting as a field experiment
  • made a huge impact on social psychology > real-life example of how to reduce prejudice
  • there have been few field experiments with such an elaborate procedure
• robbers cave experiment - weaknesses

  • the study was only conducted on boys which reduces validity and generalisability
  • however, Avigdor (1951) obtained similar results conducting a similar study on 10 year old girls
  • the sample were all children of the same nationality, race, and religion which limits generalisability
  • the study had considerable ethical issues:
  • children were deceived
  • put in situations of physical abuse - provided with knives as prizes
  • ne task involved depriving them of drinking water
  • area contained natural risks
  • conflict was highly stressful for some children
• strengths of realistic conflict theory

  • puts a focus on group + individual goals, evidences that competition leads to conflict and hostility
  • robbers cave study gives strong evidence as a high ecologically valid field study
  • other research has shown high levels of conflict and ethnocentrism when groups conflict over scarce resources
  • e.g., Stanford prison experiment - intergroup hostility
  • similar effects have been shown in real-world populations
• weaknesses of realistic conflict theory

  • it views goals as absolute when in reality, they are fluid and change based on social processes like conformity and obedience
  • it lacks the sophistication of social identity theory in that it does not consider how group identities are flux and different identities become prominent in different situations
  • theory considered too narrow as not all goals involve limited resources
  • Tajfel (1970) showed that people prioritize group superiority even if it means less reward - cant be explained in terms of conflict over resources
• social identity theory

  • developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979)
  • we have a personal identity and a number of group identities which become prominent in different situations
  • by emphasising the strength of our own group and the weakness of others, we can boost self-esteem
  • this leads to having in-groups and out-groups, formations of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination.
• stages of social identity theory

  • social categorisation
  • dividing the world into groups of them and us. it is necessary for prejudice to occur, but happens automatically and is essentially a normal thing to do
  • social identification
  • a sense of who we are in terms of the groups we belong to. can impact behaviour as people change behaviour and adopt characteristics of the groups they are a part of
  • social comparison
  • comparing a group we are part of with another group. this boosts self-esteem if we appear to be in the superior group. when the group is doing worse, they may harm/sabotage the out-group