factors affecting prejudice Flashcards
dispositional factors
- personality type
- authotarian personality
- right wing authoritarianism
- social dominance orientation
authoritarian personality
Adorno et al - proposed prejudice is the result of an individuals personality type
- developed f-scale
- suggested some individuals are predisposed to be highly sensitive to totalitarian and anti democratic ideas
f scale
f= fascism tested for authoritarian personalities
key elements authoritarian personality
- belief in prejudice behavior towards those who don’t subscribe to convential thinking / are different
- negative view of people in general
- respect for submission to acknowledge authority
- tendency to project feelings of rage onto a scapegoated group
- ‘them’ and ‘us’ caterogising
- sees own group as superior
where does authoritarian personality stem from
- harsh/strict upbringing
- they can’t express hostility to parents so displace it onto weaker minorities
right wing authoritarianism
- focused on 3/9 of adorns original authoritarian traits
which of the 3/9 traits does right wing authoritarianism focus on
- submission
- aggression
- conventionalism
why does right wing authoritarianism focus on these 3 traits
they don’t heavily correlate with any of the other 6
right wing authoritarianism key features
- people in high RWA tend to hold prejudice attitudes towards various groups, e.g women
how does rwa personality form
- as a consequence of social learning when children are socialized to believe the world is a dangerous place
- develops as a reaction to fear and uncertainty
characteristics rwa personality
- suspicious and overly hostile to those who seem different
- closed to new experiences
social dominance orientation
- individuals believe in a social hierarchy and want their own group to dominate over others
key features of people with SDO personality
- engage in acts which favour dominant groups
- are more accepting of others behavior which discriminate social caterogies
- are more prejudiced towards others
- dismissive of egalitarian policies
- embrace social hierarchies
egalitarian
inclusive
what does the SDO -6 scale assess
- SDO: 16 items of pro and contra statements
- participants rate whether they agree or disagree with a statement out of 7
5 factors affecting SDO development
- member of dominant group are more likely to have sdo personality
- social context
- temperament
- gender
- socialization
how does temperament affect SDO
it is positively related to coldness, less empathetic personalities
how does gender affect SDO
it’s more likely in men, they are more likely to embrace inequality
how does socialization affect sdo
past experiences, poor education could result in high sdo personality
authoritarian personality strengths
- based in empirical research, e.g f-scale is a questionnaire
- therefore is a scientific objective tool to measure personality
f scale description
- questionnaire of 30 items covering issues such as :
- obedience
- respect for authority
- aggression towards deviant groups
- ethnocentrism
weaknesses authoritarian personality
- reductionist, as it’s an explanation of individual personality causing obedience
- requires a social explanation and can’t explain how whole groups can be prejudiced
- this is because it would mean every member of that group had authoritarian personality which is unlikely to
- authoritarian personality weaknesses - sample
- adorno used f-scale to develop this theory
- limited sample sizes for white middle class californians
- questionable whether theory can be applied to other cultural or socioeconomic groups
- info about childhood was drawn from own recollections and so and so accuracy isnt certain = reducing validity
social dominance orientation - strengths - evidence
- Kermmelmeier demonstrated how SDO correlated with discrimination
- lab based experiments
- SDO was associated with perceptions of guilt in a tape trial but only when defendant was black rather than white
- high SDO show anti black bias and found black defendants more guilty
- low SDO show pro black bias finding them more innocent
Gaucher Friesen & kay findings
- found some dominant groups may attempt to maintains their dominance by skewing job advertisements
- industries dominated by males such as engineering construct job advertisements that attract other men by describing traits such as headstrong and confident
weakness - data SDO
self report
prone to social desirability bias
cohrs et al - RWA and SDO
evidence strength
- found both were positively correlated with generalized prejudice
- RWA negatively correlated with openness to experience
- SDO negatively correlated with agreeableness
situational factors affecting prejudice
- culture
social norms
unwritten rules about what is and isn’t acceptable within specific social groups
multi culturaism
show less prejudice and accepts the norms of other cultures in 1 country
assimilation
links to more prejudice attitudes, e.g germany
what does social identity theory say about social norms
- people conform to the norms of their in group as violations may lead to rejection
- people wish to avoid this as belonging to a group links to self esteem
what does realistic conflict theory suggest about competition
- when there are limited resources prejudice occurs
resource stress
an issue that occurs when people believe commodities are limited = ingroup feels threatened and so prejudice occurs
zero sum
if 1 person gains at the expense of another - provision of 1 group will come at a cost of another - increasing chances of prejudice
the norm of intolerance - Baldwin
- states that all cultures are ethnocentric and believe their culture is superior to an extent
some cultures have a norm to be more accepting of others, but prentice can still be shown - how
- micro aggressions
- benevolent intolerance
micro-aggressions and benevolent intolerance
- groups behave differently towards out groups but justify this as being supportive towards people with a lower status
In some cultures outward prejudice is accepted - give an example
- white population in south Africa = racial segregation
- abolished in 1994 but prejudice and discrimination are still overt and widespread
fairness
some cultures care more about fairness, not competition which should reduce levels of fairness and discrimination
wetherell - replicated Tajifels minimal group experiment in New Zealand - procedure and findings
- used school recordings to determine ethnic origin of 8yr old pps
- found immigrant polynesian children were more generous in out group member point allocation than white classmates
individual collectivist continuum
- cultures may differ on this scale
collectivist cultures
- rely on cooperation and interdependence = less discrimination
individualistic cultures
- behave independently = less discrimination
Akrami - evidence social norms procedure
- some pps heard confederate express skepticism that anyone could agree with statement ‘discrimination for women is no longer a problem in Sweden’
Akrami - results
- mean levels of sexism were significantly lower for a group who had heard this statement compared to group that hadn’t
- pps who read an article about bleak economic and social future in sweden expressed more prejudice than control
- prejudice can be affected by perceived norms
Akrami - comparisons
- found personality variables also had an influence
- rank orders of pps prejudice levels also related to personality
- both situational factors and individual differences determine prejudice
Applications - competition /resource stress/zero sum
- targeting zero sun beliefs which lead to prejudice against immigrants (eg)
- effective strategy to reduce prejudice
- however some pps who were high in SDO created more negative attitudes showing a more indirect approach may be needed
contact hypothesis - application
- in midst of racial segregation in USA
- Allport suggested contact between different group members can reduce prejudice and inter group conflict improving social relations
- increasing contact also improves relationships between catholics and protestants
- drives initiatives e.g school exchanges
