Modern Prejudice Flashcards
1
Q
Prejudice components
A
- Stereotyping: Stereotypes represent oversimplified generalizations about characteristics associated with a group and its members (Macrae et al., 1994).
- Attitudes: Allport (1954) defines prejudice as “an aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group (p. 7)”
- Behaviour: discrimination - we treat people differently
2
Q
Discrimination
A
- Discrimination refers to instances when people/groups are denied equality and treated differently because of their group membership/stigmatized status
- Discrimination can occur at different levels:
- Institutional level: recognition of rights e.g. interracial or same-sex marriage
- Individual level: exclusion and rejection
- Group level: in-group favouritism and out-group derogation
3
Q
In-group favouritism - outgroup derogation
A
- In-group favouritism is based on the “us vs. them” distinction and is guided by the positive distinctiveness process (see Social Identity Theory, Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
- Individuals tend to favour their in-group and its members
- Out-group derogation involves treating the out-group badly and hostile behaviours
- It is linked to the perception that the out-group is posing a threat to the in-group (fear, anger, contempt, disgust)
- In-group favouritism IS NOT EQUAL TO out-group derogation - one can happen without the other
4
Q
Stigma components
A
-
Link & Phelan (2001)
- Labelling: attaching a label to a group leads to…
- Stereotypes: we attach characteristics/stereotypes to individuals simply for being part of a labelled group which leads to…
- Us vs them: distinction and evaluative reaction of in-group vs out-group
- Status: stigma implies this is based on status-related evaluation → some groups are inferior/superior to others
- Discrimination: occurs in different forms
- Stigma is the negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collectively accords to people who possess a particular characteristic or belong to a particular group or social category (Herek, 2009)
5
Q
Target groups over the years
A
- Ethnic minorities:
- In the last 30 years, self-perception of people describing themselves as not at all racist has increased from 34% to 74% in 2017 (Eurobarometer, 1997; NatCen, September 2017)
- Events affects how people think about themselves and others e.g. spike in people reporting they have some level of prejudice following the 9/11 attacks, drop following the 2012 london Olympics (NatCen’s authoritative British Social Attitudes survey)
- Immigration:
- In the UK, people increasingly report a desire to reduce immigation - from 63% of the population in 1995 to 75% in 2011 - due to ‘negative cultural impact’ and ‘negative economic impact’ (British Social Attitudes 29)
- Gender roles and equality:
- Gender division of responsibilities has become increasingly equal but is still only around 60% agreement that both men and women should contribute to household income (BSA 35)
- However gender pay gap still exists
- LGBT rights:
- In the UK, legal situation for LGBT is good relative to other countries in Europe, with 73% respect of human rights (Rainbow Europe)
- Overall people are more confortable with having a homosexual neighbour in 2008 vs 1990 (EVS) however sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is still seen as akways wrong by 22% of people (BSA 2012).
6
Q
Sears, 1998
A
- Social change in prejudice due to societal norms
- 3 beliefs underlying ‘modern forms’ of prejudice:
- Denial of continuin discrimination
- Antagonist toward stigmatised groups’ demands
- Resentment about special favours
7
Q
Prejudice scales
A
- Prejudice scales have changed over the years to reflect the social change in the nature of prejudice
8
Q
Modern Racism Scale
A
- McConahay, 1983
- To test the validity of this scale, McConahay asked participants to evaluate the CVs of some candidates (Black and White) - two conditions: White first and Black first
- People who scored high on the MR scale showed prejudice when they were presented with Black CVs first because their evaluation was more spontaneous. But when they presented with a White CV first, they dissimulated their prejudice
9
Q
Modern sexism scale
A
- Swim et al., 1995
- Sexism as more subtle, difficult to perceive events as sexist
- Sexism as more covert, unnoticeable and hidden prejudice
- Findings showed that people who scored high on modern sexism scale were more likely to prefer a male than a female senatorial candidate
10
Q
Ambivalent sexism
A
- Glick and Fiske, 1996
- We can distinguish between hostile sexism and benevolent sexism:
- Hostile sexism: women are not discriminated against anymore and complain too much
- Benevolent sexism: women need men to complement them - follows from the logic that women are inferior to men
- To demonstrate validity of this scale, Glick et al. (2000) showed that both Hostile and Benevolent sexism seems to be related to “Gender Empowerment Measure” (women’s participation in the country economy, manager positions, etc.) in the USA
- Implication: Jost & Kay (2005) study showed that overall men reported higher system justification beliefs than women and women exposed to benevolent sexism reported higher system justification beliefs i.e. the more you are exposed to the idea that women complement men and that women are inferior, the more you think the system we live in is okay, there is no need for equality
11
Q
Modern Homonegativity Scale
A
- Morrison & Morrison, 2002
- Sexual prejudice has changed from viewing homesexuality as a sin or something disgusting, to believing that homosexuals have achieved equal rights and should stop complaining about the way they are treated in society
- Buechel & Hegarty (2005) study showed that people who scored high on the MHS scale preferred romantically discreet over explicit gay/lesbian couples, but this was true only for gay/lesbian but not for heterosexual couples.
12
Q
Blatant vs subtle prejudice model
A
- Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995
- Old fashion vs modern prejudice: Different concepts → different measures → different outcomes
13
Q
Explicit vs implicit measures of prejudice
A
- Maass, Castelli, & Arcuri (2000)
- Measures can vary in inhibition difficulty
14
Q
Implicit prejudice
A
- Implicit association test (Greenwald et al., 1998)
- Language attitudes: “evaluative reactions to different language varieties” (p. 180; Dragojevic, 2018) → us vs them. Non-standard accents activate:
- Different beliefs (cognitive): standard British as more prestigious than regional accents (Giles, 1970)
- Different feelings (affective): American English speakers are more positive toward American- than Japanese-accented speakers (Cargile & Giles, 1997)
- Different behaviours (intentions/actions): Less willingness to interact with non-standard accented people
- Stereotyping: overall more positive ratings for Standard Accented than Non-Standard Accented speakers in terms of solidarity and status (Dragojevic, 2018 & Fuertes et al., 2012)
- Discrimination:
Non-Standard Accented speakers were perceived as less competent and less employable than Standard Accented speakers (Rakić et al., 2011)
15
Q
Consequences of prejudice on the target
A
-
Swim et al., 2001, 2007, 2008 - daily diary (two weeks)
- Everyday racism: findings showed participants experienced 1 episode/week. Verbal but behavioural too. Caused anger in the target in 58% of cases.
- Everyday sexism: findings showed participants experienced 1 episode/week. Mostly verbal, very few behavioural. Caused anger in the target in 75% of cases. Later caused feelings of depression, anxiety and self-esteem.
- Everyday sexual prejudice: findings showed participants experienced 1 episode/week. Experiences were verbal and also behavioural. Caused anger too. Later caused feelings of depression, anxiety and self-esteem, as well as negative private evaluation of LGB identity.
-
Minority stress model explains why members of social minority groups report poorer well-being (Meyer, 1995)
- Additional stress that lead to mental health problems in people who belong to stigmatized minority groups
- Some of the negative outcomes (Meyer, 2007):
- Alienation
- Lack of integreation
- Low self-acceptance
- Depressive symptoms
- Substance abuse
- Suicide ideation
- General well-being
- E.g. Irish campaign for same-sex marrige had negative effect on most LGBTI people
- Frost & Fingerhut, 2016 showed that exposure to negative same-sex marriage messages at the time of the legalisation campaign in the US (2012) caused an increase in negative affect, decrease in positive affect and decrease in relational well-being of LQBT community
- Frost, 2019 longitudinal study showed that migrants living in ‘leave’ areas (Brexit campaign) experienced more stigma and this triggered, in turn, more anxiety and more severe generalised anxiety disorder symptoms over time
16
Q
Process model of social stigma and its consequences
A
- Frost, 2011
