12. Individual, SIT and Culture Differences

Question 1

What is a factor that affects prejudice and discrimination?

Answer 1

Individual differences (personality).

Question 2

Describe the authoritarian personality.

Answer 2

-Adorno (1950) believed overly harsh parenting creates a personality type called authoritarian personality that is both highly obedient and highly prone to display prejudice.
-He identified 9 specific authoritarian traits, such as authoritarian submission and conventionalism.
-Harsh parents expect absolute loyalty and extremely high standards of achievement, they offer love conditional on meeting these standards. Children identify with their parents but those with authoritarian parents also feel hostile towards their parents’ conditional love.
-The child cannot express such feelings due to fear of punishment, therefore they have to displace their anger onto something else. This is called scapegoating. In the case of people with an authoritarian personality, their feelings of hostility are displaced onto those who they feel are socially inferior (members of any out-groups).

Question 3

Describe Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA).

Answer 3

-Altemeyer (1988) focussed on just three of Adorno’s nine original authoritarian traits: authoritarian submission, aggression and conventionalism, which he called Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). -People high in RWA tend to hold prejudiced attitudes towards various groups commonly including women and those who identify as LGBTQ+.

Question 4

How do Altemeyer’s ideas differ from Adorno’s ideas?

Answer 4

-Altemeyer’s ideas differ from Adorno because he says that RWA is not a product of early parenting but develops as a consequence of social learning. He says that when children are socialised to believe that the world is a dangerous and threatening place, RWA may result. This theory stems from a learned set of beliefs about the world.
-RWA develops as a reaction to fear and uncertainty. People high in RWA seek security through preserving existing social order, they are suspicious and overtly hostile towards anyone who defies the norm and seems ‘different’. They also tend to be highly conscientious but closed to new experiences.

Question 5

Describe Social Domination Orientation (SDO)

Answer 5

-Pratto (1994) developed the concept of SDO to describe people who are motivated to seek out ingroup power, dominance and superiority.
-They prefer hierarchical VS equal distribution of power.
-People with SDO see the world as a ‘competitive jungle’ where people have to be ruthless and fight for their share of limited resources and power.
-This view is transmitted via role models, as part of socialisation process.

Question 6

What is SDO correlated with?

Answer 6

-SDO is positively correlated with key personality characteristics such as tough-mindedness.
-SDO is negatively correlated with agreeableness and empathy.
-It is more common in men and is thought to develop through exposure to social situations involving high levels of inequality and competition.

Question 7

Describe Duckett’s dual process motivational model (DPM)

Answer 7

-Duckett created a model to explain prejudice that combines the concepts of RWA and SDO, which express two distinct sets of motivational goals or values.
-Suggested these dimensions develop when people with specific personality profiles (eg low openness, high conscientiousness, low agreeableness) are exposed to certain world views.
-This model was tested by Cohrs (2012) in our contemporary study.

Question 8

What was the aim of the supporting research from Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory of Prejudice (1950)

Answer 8

Aim:
-To investigate the roots of prejudice attitudes, particularly anti-semitism.

Question 9

What was the method of the supporting research from Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory of Prejudice (1950)

Answer 9

Method:
-The research developed a personality questionnaires known as the F-scale; which measured a personality trait known as authoritarianism (characterised by or favouring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom).
-100’s of USA ppts, from all walks of life, completed F-scales. People who scored highly were said to have an authoritarian personality.
-After the test, the researchers interviewed 40 high scorers and 40 low scoring participants.

Question 10

What were the results of the supporting research from Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory of Prejudice (1950)

Answer 10

Results:
-They found a relationship between authoritarian personalities and prejudicial beliefs. The high scorers were not only anti-semitic but also prejudiced towards other minority groups.

Question 11

What was the conclusion of the supporting research from Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory of Prejudice (1950)

Answer 11

Conclusion:
-People with authoritarian personality characteristics are highly likely to think prejudicially

Question 12

What is a strength of the relationship between personality and prejudice?

Answer 12

The relationship between personality and prejudice is supported by research evidence.

Question 13

Describe the supporting research from Cohrs et al (2012)

Answer 13

-Found that RWA (+0.48) and SDO (+0.28) were both positively correlated with generalised prejudice (p<0.001).
-RWA was negatively correlated with openness to experience (-0.22) while SDO was negatively correlated with agreeableness (-0.40).
-This suggests that levels of prejudice can be accurately predicted from people’s personality traits.

Question 14

Describe the refuting research for individual differences as an explanation of prejudice from Minard (1952)

Answer 14

-Minard (1952) noticed the difference in relations between black and white coal minders in the US.
-Below ground (when individuals identified as being a miner) they were friendly and worked well together whereas above ground (where they identified with their white and black social groups) they held negative views towards each other.
-This shows that prejudice can be affected by situational factors such as perceived social norms and social threat, which refutes the individual differences explanation and lowers the validity of the individual differences explanation of prejudice, as other factors such as situational norms and resource stress may be more important.

Question 15

Describe the refuting research for the individual differences explanation of prejudice from Akrami et al (2009)

Answer 15

-Swedish study conducted by Akrami, who experimentally manipulated social norms.
-Some ppts heard a confederate express skepticism that anyone could agree with the statement: ‘Discrimination of women is no longer a problem in Sweden’.
-Mean levels of sexism were significantly lower for a group who heard this statement compared to a control group who had not heard it.
-Ppts who read a short article predicting a bleak social and economic future in Sweden expressed more prejudiced attitudes than a control group.
-This shows prejudice can be affected by situational factors such as perceived social norms and social threat, which refutes the individual differences explanation and lowers the validity of the individual difference explanation of prejudice, as other factors such as situational norms and resource stress may be more important.

Question 16

Describe the competing argument from Levin (1996)

Answer 16

-It may be wrong to think that RWA and SDO are consistent over time.
-When Levin (1996) primed Jewish ppts to think about their social identity within Israel, she found that Ashkenazi Jews showed highly SDO scores in comparison with others types of Jew.
-However differences in SDO disappeared when the Jewish groups were primed to think about the relationship between Israel and Palestine.
-Shows the malleability of SDO and that SDO scores can be an effect of prejudice as well as a cause.

Question 17

What can be concluded about individual differences (personality) on prejudice?

Answer 17

-There is much empirical support for the idea that certain personalities are more prone towards generalised prejudice than others.
-However, there is a risk that such profiles suggest suggest rather simple answers to complex issues.
-This said, ignoring the influence of individual differences (and the sources hat create them) may be damaging to progress towards the reduction of prejudice and discrimination.

Question 18

What is another factor that affects prejudice and discrimination?

Answer 18

Situation

Question 19

Describe the part of situation, social norms.

Answer 19

-Refers to unwritten rules about what is socially acceptable and desirable within specific social groups.
-A part of social identity theory is that people follow social norms created by their ingroup because violation may lead to rejection.
-They wish to avoid rejections because group belonging is a strong motivator due to its link with self-esteem.

Question 20

Describe Cantril’s (1941) study that links to social norms.

Answer 20

-Cantril (1941) suggested that this group identity, and socialisation by the group, is central to the formation of prejudiced views.
-Individuals become increasingly prejudiced as they internalise a group’s ‘frame of reference.

Question 21

Describe Minard’s (1952) study that showed prejudice is influenced by social norms.

Answer 21

-Noticed the difference in relations between black and white coal miners in the US.
-Below ground (when individuals identified as a miner) they were friendly and worked well together.
-Whereas above ground (where they identified with their white and black social groups) they held negative views towards each other.

Question 22

Describe competition and resource stress as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 22

-RCT highlighted the importance of competition in escalating prejudice. When groups are in competition for limited resources the result is prejudice. The competition between groups is a situational factor.

Question 23

What did Esses and colleagues (2001) use the term resource stress to describe?

Answer 23

-Esses and colleagues used the term resource stress to describe the problem that occurs when people believe that commodities, such as jobs and money, are limited.
-Prejudice arises if and when the ingroup perceive themselves to be in direct competition for scarce resources with some other salient group (in this study the other group were immigrants).
-This is heightened if the situation is seen as ‘zero sum’, meaning provision for the other group (immigrants) will come at the cost to the indigenous population.
-At this point the ingroup try to demonstrate the outgroup’s lack of ‘worthiness’ due to the perceived threat they pose.

Question 24

Describe the supporting research of using situational factors to explain prejudice from Akrami et al (2009)

Answer 24

-Swedish study conducted by Akrami, who experimentally manipulated social norms.
-Some ppts heard a confederate express skepticism that anyone could agree with the statement: ‘Discrimination of women is no longer a problem in Sweden’.
-Mean levels of sexism were significantly lower for a group who heard this statement compared to a control group who had not heard it.
-Ppts who read a short article predicting a bleak social and economic future in Sweden expressed more prejudiced attitudes than a control group.
-This shows that prejudice can be affected by situational factors such as perceived social norms and social threat.

Question 25

Describe the supporting research from Sherif’s classic study.

Answer 25

-Supports prejudice increasing as a result of limited resources and competition.
-Sherif found that hostility increased between 2 groups of boys on a summer camp when they were required to compete against each other for prizes.
-The boys got into fights, called each other names and discriminated against each other as shown in an assessment of their success in a bean gathering exercise, when the boys over-estimated their own success and underestimated the success of the other group.
-This supports the suggestion that increased stress for limited resources increases prejudice and increases the validity of the situational resource stress explanation fo prejudice.

Question 26

Describe the counterargument towards situational factors as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 26

-Although the mean levels of prejudice differed between the experimental and control groups, Akrami ey al also reported that personality variables (RWA and SDO) had an influence.
-The rank order of the ppts individual levels of prejudice were related t personality, demonstrating that both situation factors and individual differences are important determinants of prejudice.

Question 27

Describe the real life application of situational explanations of prejudice.

Answer 27

-One strength of the work on situational factors is that it provides ideas about how to combat prejudice.
-Esses et al suggested targeting the zero-sum beliefs that lead to prejudice against immigrants for example.
-In their experimental study they found this to be an effective strategy, although reactance in ppts who were high in SDO created even more negative attitudes showing that a more indirect approach may be necessary to address prejudice in some people.

Question 28

What is another factor that affects prejudice and discrimination?

Answer 28

Culture

Question 29

Define the cultural norm of intolerance.

Answer 29

-Baldwin (2017) states that all cultures are ethnocentric to some extent. They may believe their own culture is superior to others. Some cultures are more prejudiced that others.
-In some cultures, the cultural norm is to be more accepting of diversity and tolerant of difference although often prejudice and discrimination still exist in more subtle and covert ways.
-Baldwin refers to these behaviours as micro-aggressions and describes benevolent intolerance whereby groups behave differently to outgroups and justify this as a kindly attempt to support people with perceived lower status.
-In other cultures, the outward expression of prejudice towards certain outgroups may be accepted and even encouraged.

Question 30

Describe the cultural norm of fairness.

Answer 30

-Some cultures are more concerned with fairness than competition and this should lead to reduced levels of prejudice and discrimination.
-Such cultural differences may reflect the individualist/collectivist continuum raised by Hofstede.
-New Zealand is an individualist culture scoring 79/100 whereas Fiji (close to Polynesia) scores just 14/100.
-Therefore we’d expect collectivist cultures like Fiji to be more confused on fairness, such as sharing and cooperation thus reducing their level of discrimination.

Question 31

Describe the supporting research from Wetherell who replicated Tajfel’s minimal groups experiment in a school in New Zealand.

Answer 31

-Found that the children found that Polynesian children were more generous with their allocation of points to members of the out group than their Caucasian New Zealand classmates.
-Demonstrates that children from cultures with a norm of fairness, such as Polynesia, show less discrimination than those who come from a culture with the norm of intolerance such as New Zealand.
-This is a strength because supporting research strengthens the validity of the cultural explanation of prejudice being influenced by cultural norms.

Question 32

Describe the supporting research of cultural norms affecting prejudice by Orpen (1971)

Answer 32

-Orpen (1971) notes measures of social conformity, susceptibility to cultural pressure and adherence to culturally-approved norms in white South Africans showed a significant correlation with prejudice towards black South Africans.
-This suggests that conformity to cultural norms may be a critical determinant of intolerant attitudes towards specific groups.

(A problem with this is ppts were 16 year old school children and young people may have a stronger desire to fit in with their social group).

Question 33

What can be concluded about situation and culture as a factor towards prejudice?

Answer 33

-There is evidence that social and cultural norms have a considerate inflience of levels of prejudice, such as the cultural dimension of individualism/collectivism. -However, research suggests that individual difference exist with regard to the extent to which people feel compelled to behave in line with cultural values (Orpen 1971) and personality factors may override these situational and cultural influences at times.