1.1.4 - explanations of prejudice (social identity theory and realistic conflict theory)

Question 1

what is prejudice?

Answer 1

when you have a pre-conceived opinion about another group

Question 2

what are the three different elements of prejudice?

Answer 2

cognitive - what you know about it
affective - how you feel about it
behavioural - what you do about it

Question 3

what is a stereotype?

Answer 3

a widely shared assumption about every individual in a particular group eg. ethnicity, nationality, sex

Question 4

what are the 5 stages of the behavioural element of prejudice as suggested by Allport (1954)?

Answer 4

1. anti locution (negative verbal remarks not said directly to group)
2. avoidance
3. discrimination
4. physical attack
5. extermination

Question 5

how does Sherif (1966) explain the reason for prejudice?

Answer 5

he suggests it arises from conflict between groups, which could be due to conflict of interest or competition for resources, dominance or land

Question 6

what is intergroup conflict?

Answer 6

real conflict experienced between different groups - leads to in-group solidarity and out-group hostility

Question 7

what are superordinate goals?

Answer 7

goals that can only be achieved by the cooperation of all group members together

Question 8

how did Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Experiment form the basis of his realistic conflict theory?

Answer 8

when he introduced competition between the two groups of boys at the summer camp, this created intergroup conflict
however, when he introduced superordinate goals for both groups of boys, intergroup hostility reduced

Question 9

strengths of realistic conflict theory - Carol and Melvin Ember (1992)?

Answer 9

social anthropologists who observed that in tribal societies, intergroup hostility increases when social or natural conditions mean that competition for resources is necessary ie. in periods of famine or natural disaster, warfare ensured availability to scarce resources - provides supporting evidence

Question 10

strengths of realistic conflict theory - Sherif’s studies?

Answer 10

his findings provide ‘real-life’ evidence for prejudice, giving the theory ecologically valid support

Question 11

strengths of realistic conflict theory - Aronson et al. (1978)?

Answer 11

tested realistic conflict theory by introducing cooperation in classrooms with lots of competition - students were divided into small groups which had to succeed in their group task to ensure the success of the overall class project, and levels of competition decreased

Question 12

weaknesses of realistic conflict theory - Sherif’s writings about his experiment?

Answer 12

in his writings he indicated that the groups of boys were becoming hostile towards each other before the competition was introduced - this suggests that the presence of the groups brought about prejudice, which supports social identity theory

Question 13

how did Tajfel research social identity theory?

Answer 13

by conducting a series of studies called minimal group paradigm experiments

Question 14

how did the minimal group paradigm experiments work and what was their purpose?

Answer 14

groups were randomly created, there was no contact between group members, membership was anonymised, the tokens used as currency were of no intrinsic value
these conditions ensured competition didn’t’t drive the group members behaviour, only the prescence of the other group

Question 15

Tajfel experiment 1 - sample?

Answer 15

64 schoolboys aged 14-15 from a Bristol comprehensive school

Question 16

Tajfel experiment 1 - method?

Answer 16

1. boys asked to estimate how many dots flashed up on a screen
2. neutral condition - four groups of eight boys told that in these types of task, some people overestimate and some people underestimate how many dots there are (but this doesn’t reflect accuracy)
3. value condition - four more groups of eight boys told that in these tasks some people are more accurate than others
4. boys all told that experimenter was interested in different sorts of judgment so they would be studied
5. experimenters randomly assigned to neutral and two value groups to a further procedure - boys told that one group consisted of boys with highest guesses and the other was lowest guesses
6. other two neutral and value groups told one group would consist of accurate guesses and the other less accurate guesses
7. boys had to complete task where they had to give monetary rewards or penalties to their own or another group (not told identity of other group)
8. each boy given information about group he belonged to and had to complete booklet - chose one number from each of six matrices shown which represented rewards or penalties given to a member of their own and another group

Question 17

Tajfel experiment 1 - results?

Answer 17

researchers found no difference between value and neutral condition
by calculating monetary rewards and penalties given by boys to their own and another group, they found significant in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias

Question 18

Tajfel experiment 2 - sample?

Answer 18

48 boys from same comprehensive school, split into 3 groups of 16

Question 19

Tajfel experiment 2 - procedure?

Answer 19

1. boys shown paintings by either Klee or Kandinsky and told to indicate preferences
2. boys randomly assigned to Klee or Kandinsky condition regardless of actual preference
3. boys had to fill out similar matrices to first experiment, but the sets of numbers were labelled as rewards for the Klee or Kandinsky group
4. Tajfel wanted to see which variable would have greatest effect on choices - maximum joint profit (largest reward to members of both groups), largest possible reward to in-group (largest reward to member of in-group regardless of reward to boy from outgroup) or maximum difference (giving largest possible difference in reward between members of different groups)

Question 20

Tajfel experiment 2 - results?

Answer 20

most important factor in choices was maximising difference between groups (so in-group favouritism)
this meant boys failed to maximise own profit to ensure other group was penalised

Question 21

Tajfel’s experiments - conclusions?

Answer 21

out-group discrimination is easy to trigger and once it is, we have norms of behaviour for out-groups including discriminating against them

Question 22

what is the principle of social identity theory?

Answer 22

that group membership, even without competition, can cause prejudice - these groups are the in-group and the out-group

Question 23

what is personal identity?

Answer 23

our own unique qualities, personality and self-esteem

Question 24

what is social identity?

Answer 24

the attributes of the group to which we belong

Question 25

how do personal identity and social identity interact?

Answer 25

individuals identify themselves by their membership to different groups, as group membership is often a source of self-esteem - therefore, if social identity is favourable, the personal identity of the group members is favourable, and vice versa

Question 26

what is the purpose of social comparison?

Answer 26

to reconcile negative social identity, thereby elevating personal identity

Question 27

how is social comparison achieved?

Answer 27

by defining and emphasising the unique characteristics of the in-group, and simultaneously derogating the qualities of the out-group

Question 28

what are the two processes involved in social comparison?

Answer 28

1. in-group favouritism - the tendency of group members to see individuals in their group as unique (heterogeneous) and favourable
2. negative out-group bias - the tendency to view members of the out-group as all the same (homogeneous) and unfavourable

Question 29

strengths of social identity theory - Lemyre and Smith (1985)?

Answer 29

in their research they replicated Tajfel’s findings and also found that the participants that discriminated had increased self-esteem after the experiment

Question 30

strengths of social identity theory - Cialdini et al. (1976)?

Answer 30

they conducted a non-minimal group paradigm experiment and observed that university students were more likely to wear their football team’s sweatshirt after a game had been won than lost
students also referred to the team as ‘us’ when they won the game and ‘they’ when they lost (shows how personal identity can be affected by social identity)

Question 31

strengths of social identity theory - Aronson and Osherow (1980)

Answer 31

they reported on the blue eyes/brown eyes study by Jane Elliott, a third grade teacher
for a week students were divided into groups based on eye colour - at first the blue eyes were told they were better and more desirable than the brown eyes who were lazy and dishonest, but the roles then switched
the dominant group performed better academically and discriminated against the inferior group

Question 32

weaknesses of social identity theory - Tajfel’s experiments?

Answer 32

could be argued that boys’ tendency to ensure reward for their own group is best explained by competition (which would support realistic conflict theory)
experiments were lab-based so may have encouraged demand characteristics

Question 33

weaknesses of social identity theory - Weatherell (1982)?

Answer 33

she suggested we shouldn’t conclude that intergroup conflict is inevitable - she observed New Zealand Polynesians and found them more likely to favour the out-group (perhaps because collectivist cultures which emphasise cooperation are less likely to show group prejudice)