Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology > Prejudice > Flashcards

Prejudice Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Prejudice Quotes

A
  • ALLPORT (1954); “… antipathy based on faulty/inflexible generalisation; felt/expressed/directed to group as a whole/individual…”
  • JONES (1972); “… prior negative judgement of the members of a race/religion/social role occupants, held in disregard of opposing facts…”
  • WORCHEL et al (1988); “… unjustified negative attitude towards individual based solely on their membership in a group…”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Prejudice

A
  • social orientation; not about how we feel about individuals but members of specific social groups
  • based on faulty/irrational/unjustified belief in disregard of the facts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

R: In-Group Threat

A
  • ESSES et al (2010); perceived material/symbolic threat to an in-group
  • COHEN, MONTOYA & INSKO (2006); cross-cultural; 186 societies; compared importance of in-group loyalty/support of out-group prejudice
  • high loyalty to in-group = high violence to out-groups; in-group violence = low/not dependent on loyalty
  • high intra-ethnic loyalty = high violence to out-groups
  • threat to in-group identity = greater in-group identification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R: Threats to Self-Esteem

A
  • BRANSCOMBE & WANN (1994); US college kids shown US VS USSR Rocky IV box; pp USA identification measured
  • high identification = low self-esteem/high prejudice/advocation of anti-Russian immigration to USA
  • prejudice = high self-esteem
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Roots

A

IN-GROUP THREAT
THREAT TO SELF-ESTEEM
RESOURCE COMPETITION
SOCIAL CATEGORISATION

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

R: Resource Competition

A
  • 0-sum outcomes in short supply; if one group gets them, the other doesn’t (ie. Israeli-Palestinian conflict)
  • SHERIF et al (1961); Robbers Cave Studies
  • competition = high prejudice/discrimination BUT competition elimination doesn’t eliminate prejudice as mere knowledge of other group provokes name-calling
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

R: Social Categorisation

A
  • “us VS them”; question of how genocide is possible (ie. WW II Nazi genocide of Jews)
  • conflict/animosity/self-interest/competition isn’t enough for prejudice emergence BUT mere categorisation is enough
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

R: Social Categorisation (Examples)

A

TAJFEL, BILLIG, BUNDY & FLAMENT (1971)

  • pps chose Klee/Kandinsky painting; asked to pay the groups; pps gave more to allocated group
  • allocate less to own if it means giving less to other
  • pps maximised group differences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

R-SC: Social Identity Theory

A

TAJFEL & TURNED (1979)

  • world group division gives them emotional significance/social importance/meaning of identity
  • individuals seek group positivity/self-esteem from group membership
  • valuing ones group can lead to prejudice via motivation to positively distinguish against out-groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Possible Decrease

A
  • stereotypes generally more positive
  • greater ethnic/minority representation in non-stereotypical media roles
  • increased ethnic/minority participation in professional occupations/managerial positions
    BUT…
  • huge inequalities still exist
  • stereotypes/prejudice = nationalism/populism
  • public acceptance of some hasn’t spread to all
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

PD: Prejudice Acceptability

A

CRANDALL, ESHLEMAN & O’BRIEN (2002)

  • high negativity = rapists/child abusers/terrorists/racists
  • medium negativity = illegal immigrants/gay parents/welfare recipients/feminists
  • high positivity = blind/deaf people/house moms
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Explicit Tapping into Prejudice

A

SIGALL & PAGE (1971)

  • 60 male pps; half gave traits of “Americans”; half gave traits of “African Americans”
  • half of each group told independent/distortion free/physiological attitude measure was being taken
  • null for “Americans”; more negative traits attributed to “African Americans” in measure condition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Unobtrusive Observations

A

CROSBY et al (1980)
- naturalistic study reviews; helping behaviour in inter-ethnic settings
- 50% showed more help given to same ethnicity
- BUT (whites only) helping was context dependent:
FACE TO FACE = 1/3 pro-white
TELEPHONE = 3/4 pro-white

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Proximity Factors

A

CLACK et al (2005)

  • micro-level processes via multi-ethnic cafeteria seating in UK uni; 3114 seats over 2 weeks (ie. who sat where/next to who)
  • ethnic segregation at group/cafeteria level; 50% would have to be relocated to achieve “no segregation”
  • in-group love VS out-group hate
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Controlled Measures

A

WEITZ (1972)

  • liberal white males told meeting student; given description (ie. W/B); recorded instructions/likeability expectation; chose task interactions
  • black student = negative likeability/voice warmth/behaviour correlation
  • the more pps said they’d like someone, the less it was non-verbally shown
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Spontaneous Measures

A

VANMAN et al (1997)

  • electromyography measures electrical activity in muscle groups
  • white pps shown w/b people; told to imagine interaction; rated each slide
  • direct results = pro-black bias BUT…
  • indirect results = more “frown muscle” activity to b/slides
17
Q

Unconscious Associations

A
  • SIGALL & PAGE (1971); classic research; problems w/understanding prejudice via explicit asking
  • recent attitude researchers developed means of measuring unconscious associations w/concept
18
Q

Implicit VS Explicit

A

DOVIDIO, KAWAKAMI & GAERTNER (2002)

  • compared effects of explicit/implicit attitudes on self ratings when white pps interact with w/b target
  • majorities/minorities leave w/different impressions as different signal focus
  • implicit/explicit attitudes have different consequences on controlled/spontaneous communication
19
Q

Aversive Racism

A
  • expressed via anxiety/avoidance of inter-ethnic settings esp. when appropriate beh norms = unclear/behaviour is justifiable
  • past VS present racism = today there are conflicting attitudes
  • endorsed egalitarian values/minority sympathy socialised w/negative images/feeling of unease
  • PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO BE PREJUDICED BUT ARE ALSO WORRIED THAT OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT THINK THEY ARE
20
Q

Aversive Racism (Example)

A

GAERTNER & DOVIDIO (1977)

  • hypothesis of w/bystanders more discriminatory to b/victims in events where intervention failure can be attributed to factors other than ethnicity
  • were to be recipients of taped message (w/b) w/emergency; half told only they would be; half told there would be another
  • b/victims discriminated more w/diffused responsibility; b/w helped equally if only recipient
21
Q

Responding to Prejudice

A
  • when minorities interact w/majority, prejudice confrontation could occur
  • negative interpersonal consequences w/confrontation
  • negative personal consequences w/o confrontation
22
Q

Responding to Prejudice (Example)

A

SHELTON & STEWART (2004)

  • randomisation of interviewee/interviewer
  • high cost = prestigious/fierce competition/high salary
  • low cost = charity/low competition or salary/easy
  • male interviewer pps followed offensive (ie. do people find you attractive)/sexist (ie. are you single) script
  • confronting behaviours included: none (ignored/answered); negative (aggressive counter of legitimacy); positive (clarification/explanation; exclamation (gasp/shock/report to manager)
  • pps more likely to confront w/low costs BUT consequences for all reactions
  • confronting = less employable
  • not-confronted = shame/guilt
23
Q

Intergroup Contact (Examples)

A

PAOLINI et al (2004)
- direct/indirect contact between Northern Island Catholics/Protestants reduced prejudice via reduced anxiety of future encounters
VONOFAKOU et al (2007)
- het pps; existing gay friendships assessed (ie. closeness/typicality)
- perceived closeness = reduced intergroup anxiety
- typicality = allowed for generalisation

24
Q

Intergroup Contact

A 
- ALLPORT (1954); increased contact = recognised similarities = changed categorisation 
EQUAL STATUS
COOPERATION
COMMON GOALS
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
25
Q

IR: Equal Status

A
  • members of contact shouldn’t have hierarchal/un-equal relationship
  • important prior and during contact
  • IE. employer/employee; mentor/student
26
Q

IR: Cooperation

A
  • members should work together in non-competitive environment
  • IE. group project w/students
27
Q

IR: Common Goals

A
  • members must rely on each other for shared desired goal

- IE. HU & GRIFFEY (1985); importance of interracial friendships in sports team members for goal

28
Q

IR: Institutional Support

A
  • authorities should support positive contact

- IE. LANDIS (1984); importance of institutional support in reducing military prejudice

29
Q

Common Ingroup Identity Model

A

GAERTNER et al (1994)
- to the extent that individuals from different social groups come to viewing themselves as belonging to a single social entity, attitudes may become positive

30
Q

Common Ingroup Identity Model (Example)

A

WOHL & BRANSCOMBE (2005)

-

31
Q

Social Influence

A
  • HASLAM & WILSON (2000); when in-group endorses stereotypes, beliefs are more predicative of prejudice than an individual belief
32
Q

Summary

A

ROOTS
- moved away from competition/threat towards in/out group categorisation
CHANGING FACE
- explicit prejudice down but implicit stable; both related
CHALLENGING
- in/out groups together; challenged group boundaries; social influence power

Social Psychology (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions