L8 Prejudice
Overview
The roots of prejudice and it’s relation to competition.
Social identity theory approach as people seek to distinguish their own group from others leading to a bias against out-groups.
Key Concepts and Theories
Prejudice
Definition/Explanation
Prejudice is a social orientation, not just how someone feels about individuals and instead out how that person feels about individuals as members of a particular social group.
It’s based on faulty beliefs and is irrational and unjustified.
Quotes:
“Antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalisation. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed towards a group as a whole, or towards an individual because he is a member of that group”
Allport, 1954
“Prior negative judgement of the members of a race or religion or the occupants of any other significant social role, held in disregard of the facts that contradict it”
Jones, 1972
“An unjustified negative attitude toward an individual based solely on that individual’s membership in a group”
Worchel et al., 1988
Example
Prejudice against black people/racism.
Zero Sum Outcomes
Definition/Explanation
Things where if one group has something the other does not.
Often the root of prejudice.
Example
Fighting over land.
Social Identity Theory
Definition/Explanation
Social identity theory categorises all interactions from interpersonal to intergroup level on a scale, where on the scale an interaction falls determines how people interact with eachother.
Interpersonal:
Interactions relate entirely to the individuals with no awareness of social categories.
Self-concept = own memories, behaviours, emotions.
Intergroup:
Interactions relate entirely as group characteristics and individual characteristics are overwhelmed by group membership.
Self-concept = social identity, self-image is deriving from the social category and the emotions/evaluations that derive from that.
People favour their own groups instead of out groups as they desire positive and secure self concept and due to needing a point of reference which relevant out-groups provide (social comparison theory festinger). Therefore people are motivated to think and behave in ways which will maintain and achieve positive distinctiveness between out group and the relevant out-groups.
Example
Tajfel et al.’s studies.
Implicit vs Explicit Prejudice
Definition/Explanation
Prejudice based IATs have raised a lot of questions:
Whether implicit attitudes represent prejudice or awareness of stereotypes.
Whether what people say or think reveals true prejudice.
Example
Aversive Racism
Definition/Explanation
Conflicting attitudes when it comes to racism.
People endorse egalitarian attitudes and feel sympathy towards minorities.
BUT people are socialised with negative images of minorities and feelings of unease.
Aversive racism is expressed by anxiety in/avoidance of inter-ethic settings especially where norms for appropriate behaviour are unclear or behaviour can be justified.
Intergroup Contact
Definition/Explanation
Allport - 1954
Increased contact → recognise similarities → change characterisation.
Equal status so members of contact situation shouldn’t have unequal or hierarchical relationships.
Co-operation so members work together non-competitively.
Common goals so members rely on eachother to achieve a shared desired goal.
Institutional Support so authorities provide positive contact.
Common ingroup identity model
Definition/Explanation
Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio (1994)
To the extent that individuals from different social groups come to view themselves as belonging to a single social entity, attitudes may become more positive.
Example
E.g., Robber’s Cave – work together towards a superordinate goal.
Concept/ Theory
Definition/Explanation
Example
Notes
Study | Year | Aim | Method | Findings | Implications / Criticisms |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Robber’s Cave Studies - Sherif et al. | 1961 | Better understand the roots of prejudice. | Has a group of boys at summer camp split in 2 and initially bond, then have competition in a zero sum situation and describe eachother afterwards, then have them complete tasks towards a mutual goal in a reducing friction period. | Competition for resources led to prejudice and discrimination but eliminating the competition didn’t eliminate prejudice and instead a mutual goal was required. | Only 22 children from the same background, just awareness of the other group led to name calling and therefore competition which opposes the idea competition comes from zero sum resources. |
Social identity theory - Tajfel et al. | 1971 | Examine the effects of social categorisation on Ps intergroup behaviour | Assigned Ps to minimal groups (randomised/meaningless), Ps had to make decide whether to to give lots to both groups or less to own group but even less to out-group. The other group were anonymous, had no face to face interaction, no link between group membership and decision made and the choice has no value to the P. | Ps act in terms of their ingroup membership based on categorisation, they always favoured their ingroup my maximising rewards over the out-group even when they could’ve maximised common good, they instead maximised difference. | |
Painting selection - Tajfel et al. | 1971 | Examine the effects of social categorisation on Ps behaviour | Used teenage boys as Ps, had them choose between a Kandinsky or Clay painting then told them others like the same painter, next Ps shown matrices and were asked to distribute points between 2 teams (ingroup or outgroup) | Ps act in terms of their ingroup membership based on categorisation, they always favoured their ingroup my maximising rewards over the out-group even when they could’ve maximised common good, they instead maximised difference. | Could the categorisation using painters have a meaning to some Ps which affects refults |
Prejudice - Sigall and Page | 1971 | Understanding how to accurately tap into people’s prejudices using explicit measures | 60 male Ps split in half, one group indicate how representative a series of 22 traits was of Americans, the other half did African Americans, Ps were strapped to a polygraph (fake) to reduce social desirability and a control without the polygraph | The control had only said non-negative traits for both groups, but more for african americans. The polygraph condition said many non-negative traits for the american group and a few negative traits for african americans. | |
Unobtrusive Observations - Crossby | 1980 | Investigate helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings | Reviewed naturalistic studies that had observed helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings | 50% of the studies showed more help was given to someone of the same ethnicity but for white people helping behaviour was context dependent, face to face 1/3 studies found a pro white bias, not face to face 3/4 studies found a pro white bias. | |
Controlled vs Spontaneous demonstrations of prejudice - Weitz | 1972 | Told 80 white male ‘progressive’ Ps that they would meet a new student (black or white) and to record audio instructions for a task then report how much they expected to like the person. | There was a negative correlation between expected liking in and measures of voice in black condition, so the more the P said they would like the person the less it showed in their voice. | ||
Controlled vs Spontaneous demonstrations of prejudice - Vanman et al. | 1997 | Used electromyography to measure electrical activity from facial muscles in Ps, 27 volunteers saw slides of black or white faces and where asked their opinions on the people. | The self report measure showed a pro-black bias, the indirect measure showed more activity in ‘frown’ muscles to black photos | Shows that it’s hard to measure attitudes/unconscious associations, so IAT developed (attitudes lecture) | |
Implicit vs Explicit Prejudice | 2002 | Compared effects of explicit and implicit attitudes on self ratings and other ratings during 40 white Ps interactions with black. | Found that less positive implicit attitudes predicted less non-verbal friendliness which are picked up on more than the partner in interactions. Explicit attitudes lead to verbal friendliness. | ||
Intergroup Contact - Pettigrew & Tropp | 2006 | Contact meta analysis using 515 studies with 713 samples | Found that contact reduces intergroup prejudice, contact effects generalise to entire out-group emerging across a broad range of targets. | ||
Vonofakou et al. | 2007 | 85 heterosexual students in UK, assessed existing friendships with gay peers, including perceived closeness and typically of gay men. | Percieved closeness leads to reduced intergroup anxiety, typicality stopped subtyping and allowed for generalisation |
Practice Questions
What did Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study show?
That eliminating competition between groups lead to reductions in prejudice
That eliminating competition between groups did not lead to reductions in prejudice
That prejudice depended on the age of the participants
That prejudice depended on the gender of the participants
That increasing competition lead to reductions in prejudice
What did Wohl & Branscombe’s (2005) study of common ingroup identity show?
That emphasising group memberships would lead to more intergroup hostility
That viewing historical events through the lens of specific group memberships would lead to greater forgiveness between groups
That viewing historical events through the lens of a common ingroup identity would lead to greater forgiveness between groups
That viewing historical events through the lens of a common ingroup identity would lead to reduced forgiveness between groups
That viewing historical events through the lens of specific group memberships would lead to greater forgiveness between groups
What are the consequences of implicit and explicit prejudice for interactions between minority and majority group members?
Summary
& Takeaways
Part 1: Roots of prejudice – move away from competition and threat towards in-group and out-group categorization
Part 2: Changing face of prejudice – explicit prejudice is reducing, but implicit prejudice can still be observed (and the two are related)
Part 3: Challenging prejudice – bring in-group and out-group members together, challenge group boundaries, use the power of social influence