W5 L2: Prejudice II

EXPLANATIONS OF PREJUDICE

INTERGROUP THEORIES

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (SIT)

  • first proposed in 1970s by Henri Tajfel and John Turner

  • theory of intergroup conflict

TAJFEL

  • hoe do people come to see each other as enemies in the absence of rational or objective reasons?

  • can prejudice exist outside of competition over resources?

  • Tajfel adopted an experimental approach - what are the minimal conditions needed to produce in-gorup bias?

Minimal Group Studies

  • methodology by Tajfel et al. (1971)

  • ppts assigned to one of the 2 groups based on chance or an arbitrary criterion e.g. painting preference or even flip of a coin

  • meaningless groups - klee vs. kandinsky

  • ppts don’t know other ppts - no history of conflict

  • ppts don’t interact with other ppts in group - no contact

  • very artificial groups - Tajfel was interested in how just knowing that one belongs to a group just knowing affects of bhv towards other groups

  • ppts are led to private cubicles where they are asked to allocate points - would convert into money

- 2 members of in group

- 2 members of outgroup

- a member of each

  • ppts told that how they allocate money would not affect the points they receive as individuals for participation - choice not driven by personal greed

Minimal Group Paradigm Matrix

  • distribution strategies: fairness, maximum in-group profit, maximum joint profit, maximum differentiation

FINDINGS

  • fairness → more likely to be used when allocating to 2 different out-group and 2 different in-group members

  • in-group favouritism → more likely to be used when allocating to an in-group and an out-group member; more points ingroup members than to out-group members

  • ppts are not trying to maximise their possession of a scarce resource (money) - they prefer their ingroup to get more than the outgroup

  • this is even if they receive less materials overall - they care about the relative rather than the absolute standing of the group

  • “mere categorisation” effect - categorising people into different groups is sufficient for creating ethnocentrism

  • mere categorisation can produce ethnocentrism and competitive intergroup bhv

  • mechanisms for minimal in group bias are unclear and different explanations exist

  • but results interpret as evidence that there is psychological motivation operating in individuals to defend group interests regardless of self-interest

Aim of SIT

  • when do people think of themselves in terms of “we” (social identity) rather than “I” (personal identity)

  • varies among individuals

  • varies depending on context

  • groups we belong to → affect how we define ourselves

  • when our group accomplishes valued achievements, we feel positive about our group but when our group is negatively valued, we feel negative about our group

  • people are motivated to feel good/ positive about themselves

  • group member → identifies with in group → motivated to positively distinguish in group from out groups

  • the need for positive distinctiveness can be achieved by:

  • highlight dimensions on which the in group is superior to out group

  • by actively derogating or discriminating against the out group to create or to reinforce an existing hierarchy

  • motive for positive distinctiveness → ingroup favouritism

prejudice towards imigrants

  • SIT - people who feel high national identification → more prejudice towards imigrands

  • studies show in several european countries

  • not as straightforward as it may seem

  • norms associated with national identity also matters - what are the group values, what do they stand for?

  • nationalism (belief in national superiority and dominance) YES vs. patriotism (loving one’s country without necessarily feeling superior) NO

EXAMPLE

  • USA - protests opposing restrictive policies against immigration

  • identity norms = about inclusivity with immigrants

PORTUGAL STUDY

  • no link was found between national identification and prejudice towards immigrants in Portugal

  • what matters is what people understand their own identity to stand for instead of national identification

  • Portugal has strong anti-racism norms following a history of colonialism

INTERGROUP THREATS

  • prejudice results form perspectives that out groups are a threat

  • different types of threats individuals can feel

  • eg. realistic threats (competition in jobs, safety and power), symbolic threats (cultural values, religion, ways of lice)

  • meta-analytics findings associated with negative out group attitudes

  • threats do not have to be real to shape bhv - they can simply be percieved as real

  • eg. politicians blaming immigrants for any negative socioeconomic development (unemployment, deficits in health system, education) which increases prejudice towards immigrants

  • even in the absence of evidence prejudice exists

PREJUDICE REDUCTION

INTERGROUP CONTACT

  • Allport 1954

  • based on contact hypothesis

  • interactions between individual belonging to different social groups will reduce ethnic prejudice and intergroup tension (Hewstone and Brown, 1986)

ALLPORT, 1954

  • contact could lead to an increase in prejudice as well as its reduction

  • outcome of contact will be favourable when:

  1. ppts are of equal status

  2. pursuing goals cooperatively

  3. backed by social and institutional support

  4. there is acquaintance potential

MEAT-ANALYSIS

  • 500+ studies, 38 nations

  • supports intergroup contact theory → contact linked to reduced prejudice

  • are the 4 conditions necessary?

  • no, the 4 conditions are facilitating rather than necessary

CRITIQUES

  • few experimental designs manipulate the 4 and look at the delayed effects of contact on prejudice

  • field not in position to make definite conclusions on this

can we treat all prejudice similarly?

  • effects of contact depends on targe group

- stronger effects for advantaged than disadvantaged groups

- stronger for heterosexual prejudice towards gay/lesbian individuals and individuals with physical disabilities

- average effect for racial and ethnic prejudice

- weaker effects for prejudice towards older people (ageism) and individuals with mental illness

Causality?

  • not much longitudinal research, but available evidence suggests that relationship runs from contact to improved attitudes rather than vice versa

  • recent reviews (27 eperimental ) - supports positive effects of contact on prejudice

More Findings

  • quality of contact is more important than frequency - cross-group friendships

  • meta-analysis found that there is a higher likelihood to develop positive attitudes towards a group when you come into contact with a member who is deemed as “typical” of the group → attitudes are generalised to rest of the group

- subtyping - having general negative attitudes towards a group but not towards a member who’s not representative of the group, someone “atypical”

  • intergroup contact doesn’t work constantly - can also increase prejudice

  • if ppts feel threatened (when they don’t choose to be in contact with other groups) there aren’t as many positive contact

- asymmetry hypothesis : megative intergoup contact affects prejudice more than positive contact

  • for disadvantaged groups, contact is more negative

  • effects of positive and negative contact depends on whether intergroup conflict is ongoing - may worsen prejudice

How does contact work?

  • different mechanisms

  • gain knowledge of out group - decipates some of preconceptions

  • affective mediators : enhanced empathy, reduced threats, etc.

RECENT CRITIQUE

  • focus on advantaged groups but what about disadvantaged groups?

  • ironic or paradoxical effects ofpositive intergroup contact for disadvantaged groups

  • decreases in perceptions of justice and reduced willingness to engage in collective action to challenge social inequalities

EMPERICAL EVIDENCE

  • Haessler et al. (2020)

  • among advantaged groups → intergroup contact is positively linked to support for social change towards greater equality

  • amont disadvantaged groups → intergroup contact is negatively linked to support for social change toward greater equality, mobilising, pacifying them.

intergroup contact and social change

  • Reimer & Sengupta (2022) meta analysis

  • Intergroup contact is more likely to be associated with lower perceived injustice, lower collective action and lower support for reparative policies. But effect sizes are small.

  • results depend on type of contact

- Cross-group friendships are associated with reduced social change orientations

- A third of studies found that intergroup contact increases perceived injustice (discrimination made more salient)

Limitations:

  • Cross-sectional data , mostly from western countries

  • not very generalisable

  • need to carefully assess the effects of prejudice reductions interventions in a holistic manner

  • when and how can intergroup contact foster allyship in the struggle for greater equality and justice?

  • more research needed

SOME CRITICAL NOTES

  • most research done in the USA, the west - generalisability

  • prejudice researched around sexism and racism - other prejudices may have different dynamics

  • theories assume some commonalities in the psychologicl processes of different forms of prejudice - we must also account for differences between different types of prejudice

  • less interest in prejudice across different parts of the world - does social psychology itself have prejudice?

  • we should rethink the mainstream definition of prejudice - more mentions of advantaged and disadvantages groups, oppressed and pressor - power dynamics matter

  • who deicides what counts as prejudice?

SUMMARY

  • definitions of prejudice

  • types of prejudice

  • explanations of prejudice

  • critical notes