Factors influencing prejudice (and discrimination): individual differences

Question 1

who created the authoritarian personality ?

Answer 1

Theodore adorno et al. (1950)

Question 2

what does a harsh parenting style involve ?

Answer 2

harsh parents expect absolute loyalty and high standards of achievement and offer conditional love

Question 3

how does harsh parenting lead to prejudice ?

Answer 3

1) the children identify with their authoritarian parents whilst also resenting their conditional love - cannot express these feelings due to fear of punishment
2) therefore, they displace hostility/anger on something/someone (scapegoating) - usually someone socially inferior (i.e. outgroup members)
3) leads to prejudice and discrimination

Question 4

who came up with Allport’s authoritarian personality ?

Answer 4

allport (1954)

Question 5

what is allport’s ‘generalised tolerant types’ ?

Answer 5

unconditional parental love creates confidence, emphatic orientation towards others, liberal ideology and ability to think in shades of grey

Question 6

according to Allport, how do authoritarians think ?

Answer 6

think in rigid ‘black and white’ categories - they require ‘cognitive closure’ (prefer to find solutions rather than ask more questions)

Question 7

what is different to Allport’s authoritarian personality compared to Adorno’s ?

Answer 7

allport believed (unlike Adorno) that people with authoritarian personalities are not necessarily prejudiced, but are receptive to political arguments targeting inner fears and insecurities, which explains prejudiced behaviour.

Question 8

who came up with Right Wing Authoritarianism ?

Answer 8

altemyer (1988)

Question 9

what is Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) ?

Answer 9

authoritarian submission, aggression and conventionalism (three of adorno’s nine authoritarian traits)

Question 10

how does RWA develop?

Answer 10

they have socially learned a set of beliefs about the world - but parents are not the source (differs from adorno)

Question 11

how do people with RWA see the world ?

Answer 11

they see the world and dangerous and threatening - creates fear and uncertainty and leads to RWA attitudes - security is created by preserving existing social order

Question 12

who are people with RWA suspicious of ?

Answer 12

suspicious and overly hostile towards anyone who defies the norm or seems ‘different’, highly conscious but closed to new experiences

Question 13

who came up with Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) ?

Answer 13

Pratto et al. (1994)

Question 14

what do people with SDO prefer ?

Answer 14

prefer hierarchical versus equal distribution of power

Question 15

how are SDO’s word views different from RWAs ?

Answer 15

they see it as a ‘competitive jungle’ (people are ruthless and fight for their share of limited resources and power)

Question 16

how do SDOs learn their views ?

Answer 16

through role models as part of socialisation (like RWAs)

Question 17

what are some characteristics of SDO ?

Answer 17

1) tough mindedness
2) not very agreeable
3) lack empathy

Question 18

what did Sibely et al. (2007) find about SDO ?

Answer 18

found that it is more common men and that it is created by exposure to social situations of inequality and competition

Question 19

what is a strength of the role of personality ?

Answer 19

supported by cohrs et al. (2012)

Question 20

what did cohrs et al. (2012) find a positive correlation with ?

Answer 20

• found that there was a positive correlation with RWA and SDO with prejudice
• RWA = +0.48
• SDO = +0.28

Question 21

what did cohrs et al. (2012) find a negative correlation with ?

Answer 21

• RWA was negatively correlated with openness to experience (-0.22)
• SDO was negatively correlated with agreeableness (-0.40)

Question 22

what does cohrs et al. (2012) suggest ?

Answer 22

this suggests that levels of prejudice can be accurately predicted from people’s personality traits

Question 23

what is a competing argument to cohrs et al. (2012)’s findings ?

Answer 23

RWA and SDO may not be consistent over time - both interact with social factors - making prejudice harder to predict in the real world

Question 24

what is the research that supports the competing argument to cohrs et al. (2012) ?

Answer 24

Levin (1996)

Question 25

what did levin (1996) do ?

Answer 25

primed jewish ppts to think about their social indent within Israel

Question 26

what did levin (1996) find ?

Answer 26

• found that Ashkenazi jews showed higher SDO scores compared with other jewish groups
• however, differences disappeared when the jewish groups were primed to think about the relationship between Israel and Palestine

Question 27

what does levin (1996) show ?

Answer 27

it shows that SDO is malleable and SDO scores can be an effect of prejudice as well al being a cause

Question 28

what is a weakness of personality explanations ?

Answer 28

Louis et al. (2003) noted that RWA and SDO scales do not include items which are heavily affected by social attitudes or norms

Question 29

what did Louis et al. (2003) find ?

Answer 29

72% of their Australian ppts strongly disagreed with the statement: ‘the white race is the best race’ - but agreed with the exclusion of asylum seekers

Question 30

what does Louis et al. (2003) show ?

Answer 30

shows that it is important to understand social as well as individual factors in order to address the consequences of prejudice effectively

Question 31

what is an application of personality explanations ?

Answer 31

allport and altemeyer note that prejudice may be learned through exposure to specific worldviews and prejudicial rhetoric, so regulation of media sources (e.g. social media) may be beneficial

Question 32

what is another potential application based off personality explanations ?

Answer 32

strategies that challenge the views the world being a dangerous, threatening and competitive place

Question 33

what does the applications of personality explanations suggest ?

Answer 33

the applications demonstrate the importance of thinking about the root causes of prejudice as a way to combat it