(BRB) social psychology - prejudice (T2) Flashcards
what is the study that supports realistic conflict theory
robbers cave experiment
what is the study which supports social identity theory
minimal groups paradigm experiment
define prejudice
- to prejudge somebody before knowing anything about them as an individual
- it is an extreme attitude towards someone or a group which is usually negative
what are the 3 negative components to prejudice
- cognitive -> stereotyping
- affective-> prejudice
- behavioural -> discrimination
define what stereotyping is
- overgeneralised beliefs about someone or something, usually based on limited information
define what prejudice is
- an unfavourable extreme attitude towards someone or something, common forms are racism and sexism
define what discrimination is
- unfair treatment of categories of people
what is intergroup conflict
- real conflict experienced between different groups
what are superordinate goals
- goals where all members of each group needs to cooperate in order to achieve the intended outcome
what is the main idea of realistic conflict theory
- that prejudice is a result of conflict between groups
- the conflict arises due to competition between the groups for a values resource
what does realistic conflict theory suggest about solving the conflict
- when groups are required to work towards superordinate goals then there is a reduction in hostility and greater harmony
what evidence is there to support realistic conflict theory
- the theory has credibility because it is supported by evidence (sherif et als study) which shows how competition between the boys increased hostility
- the theory has cross cultural relevance as Ember & Ember (1992) observed in tribal societies hostility increases when competition is introduced
what is the evidence against realistic conflict theory
- sheriffs own writing suggests that the boys may have been becoming hostile towards each other before any competition was introduced
- theory is limited because it ignores individual differences
what is the supporting evidence for the methodology for realistic conflict theory
- the robbers cave study
- a field study so high ecological validity
- tasks were high in mundane realism
what are the applications of realistic conflict theory
- has practical real world applications
- prejudice and hostility can be reduced if they have superordinate goals e.g aronsal et al
what is the aim of the sherif et al study
- to investigate intergroup relations over a period of time when various experimentally induced situations were introduced
what are the 4 stages of realistic conflict theory
- perceived limited resource
- competition occurs
- hostility occurs
- superordinate goals used to reduce hostility
what is the procedure and results from stage 1 of sherif et als study
procedure- first 5-6 days
- 2 groups kept separate and given teambuilding exercise to help bond
- each group made a group name
- at the end they were made aware of the other group
- experimenters used sociometric measures and experimental judgement
results- the boys bonded with their groups
- came up with group names and had a leader
- each group expressed dislike for other group and created us vs them relationship
what is the procedure and results from stage 2 of sherif et als study
procedure- next 4-6 days
- conflict was encouraged by setting up situations where they had to compete for desired prizes
- wanted to see if negative attitudes would develop
- recorded adjective’s and phrases if they were derogatory
results- competition led to immediate hostility
- eagles refused to eat with the rattlers
- groups shouted insults at each other
- raided eachothers huts + burned flags
what is the procedure and results from stage 3 of sherif et als study
procedure- final 6-7 days
- designed to reduce tension + conflict
- introduced superordinate goals like removing a blockage to allow a water truck to enter
- made them watch films together
results- getting the groups together without competition didnt reduce hostility
- joint problem solving tasks did reduce hostility
- friendship increased between 2 groups
what are the conclusions from sherif et als study
- prejudice and discrimination arise without competition
- competition increases prejudice and competition
- when groups cooperate on tasks that are meaningful to both groups hostility decreases
what is the generalisability like in sherif et als study (GRAVE)
- may not be generalisable as the competition and way they were divided was artificial
- sample only included 11-12 yr old white, lower middle class, protestant boys who were matched on IQ + sporting ability so not generalisable to everyone
what is the reliability like in sherif et als study (GRAVE)
- many uncontrolled extraneous variables as its a real world surrounding
what applications are there in sherif et als study (GRAVE)
- not applicable to real life situations such as inner city gangs
- however useful in society for reducing prejudice
what is the validity like in sherif et als study (GRAVE)
- internal validity is increased as many participant variables were controlled and staff did not direct the behaviour of the boys
- internal increases as many data collection methods were used
- ecological validity is high as it was conducted in a real world environment
- ecological low as the way the boys were divided was artificial and had to repeat the study 3 times to get the desired result
what are the ethics like in sherif et als study (GRAVE)
- didnt get fully informed consent as boys were unaware of the aim of the study
- slight use of deception
- the boys parents were infomred so consent was given
- no right to withdraw
what is the 2nd theory that explains how prejudice is developed
social identity theory (tajfel & turner)
what is personal and social identity
personal- out own uniquie qualities, personality and self esteem
social- formed through membership of social groups
what is the main idea of social identity theory
- looks at souley group membership to explain prejudice
- tajfel and turner refer to in group and out groups
what are the 3 main processes involved with social identity theory
- social categorisation
- social identification
- social comparison
what is social categorisation in social identity theory
- categorising ourselves into social groups involving gender and race etc
- some groups are more relevant to some than others
- we reduce perceived variability within the group
what is social categorisation in social identity theory
- people take on the norms and values of the groups that they have categorised themselves in
what is social comparison in social identity theory
- self esteem comes bound up with group membership
- if self esteem is to be maintained, out group needs to compare well against other groups
- this is done by in group favouritism and negative out group bias
what does heterogeneous mean in social identity theory
- all members of groups are different (unique)
what does homogenous mean in social identity theory
- all members of a group are similar/ equal
when tajfel and other conducted a series of minimal experiments to test if just group membership could create prejudice what were the group members
- randomly and arbitrarily created
- there is no contact between group members
- membership of groups is anonymised
- the tokens used as a form of currency to allocate rewards
- punishments have no intrinsic value
what is the evidence from minimal group theory to support social identity theory
- tajfel et al conducted a study on 64 Bristol school boys whom were assigned to meaningless groups
- the boys were asked to allocate points (money) to the boys in their own group or other groups, using matrix
- tajfel found that the boys tended to allocate more points to those in their own group showing in group favouritism
when evaluating social identity theory what is the evidence to support it
- theory is supported by tajfels study which increases credability
- also supported by jane Elliot which showed that social categorisation, where students were divided into blue eyed and brown eyed groups, could lead to prejudice and discrimination
when evaluating social identity theory what is the evidence against it
- its possible that tajfels results could be better explained by competition between the boys rather than favouritism meaning RCT is better explanation
- theory may not apply cross culturally so less generalisable
- theory does not explain individual differences
when evaluating social identity theory what are the positive points about methodology
- the study was well controlled with an IV and a DV which means cause and effect can be inferred
when evaluating social identity theory what are the negative points about methodology
- conducted in lab experiments, meaning demand characteristics could be present
- using a matrix to allocate the money was artificial meaning they lack mundane realism
when evaluating social identity theory what are the positive points about applications
- can explain issues as diverse as conflict between football teams and religious and racial groups
- it also has practical applications as it can be used to reduce prejudice in society
how does social identity theory suggest prejudice can be reduced
- encouraging people to see themselves as a larger social identity can combat out group discrimination
- e.g housewives in segregated housing areas were more likely to have a negative view of their opposing race compared to those in non segregated housing areas who views them as friends as they spoke at laundry plants
what is an alternative theory to social identity theory
- realistic conflict theory
what is ethnocentrism
- belief that ones own ethnic group is superior to anothers
what is conservatism
- a belief in tradition and social order with a dislike for change
what is anti-democratic
- views that oppose the fair election of government and majority rule
