Prejudice

Question 1

What is prejudice?

Answer 1

unfavourable attitudes towards a social group and its members (Hogg & Vaughn, 2018)

3 components:
* cognitive (beliefs and stereotypes)
* affective (strong negative feelings)
* conative (behavioural intentions)

behaviour is not included because that would count as discrimination; can be prejudiced without discriminating (e.g. because of the law)

there are other models of prejudice

Question 2

Types of prejudice

Answer 2

Explicit attitudes: controllable, overt, reflective
e.g. hate speech, racial profiling
measured through self-report (issue of social desirability)

Implicit attitudes:
uncontrollable, subtle, reflexive
e.g. implicit hiring discrimination
measured through inference based on behavioural task performance, such as Implicit Association Tests (IATs)

Question 3

Implicit Association Task (IAT)

Answer 3

e.g.
rapidly categorise series of African- vs European-American faces paired with positive or negative words

if AA + negative word pair is categorised faster/fewer errors than AA + positive word, indicates presence of implicit negative attitudes towards AA

Question 4

List the explanations of prejudice

Answer 4

Individual differences
> Authoritarian personality and RWA
> Social Dominance Orientation

Intergroup Theories
> Realistic Group Conflict Theory
> Social Identity Theory
> Intergroup Threats

Question 5

Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, 1950)

explanation of prejudice (individual differences theory 1)

Answer 5

from autocratic and punitive parenting practices

characterised by ethnocentrism, conservative economic/political attitudes, glorification of the powerful vs vilification of the weak

found prejudice against one ethnic minority predicts for prejudice against other minorities

limitations:
[challenging dispositional component] situational + sociocultural factors have powerful effect - Pettigrew (1958), white US northerners less racist than southerners but have similar scores, so context matters

[challenging parental cause] ethnocentrism arises faster than childrearing practices can change - e.g. extreme antisemitism arising in Germany between the wars

Question 6

Right Wing Authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1988)

explanation of prejudice (individual differences theory 1)

Answer 6

Ideological orientation - believe that social conventions are moral and acquisition of power comes from following them so questioning power/authority is immoral

3 dimensions:
Authoritarian submission
Conventionalism
Punitiveness against deviants

correlates with prejudice against immigrants, Black & Jewish minorities etc.

politically conservative score higher

Question 7

Social Dominance Theory (SDT; Sidanius & Pratto)

explanation of prejudice (individual differences theory 2)

Answer 7

dominant vs subordinate groups in all societies

power maintained through:
* system-wide level processes
social institutions - e.g. police vs human rights orgs
legitimising myths - e.g. capitalist vs socialist ideas
* person level processes (SDO; high/low SDO prefer/reject group-based inequalities so support hierarchy enhancing/attenuating systems)
group status - SDO higher in salient dominant groups because functional purpose -* e.g. Sidanius et al. (2003) UCLA majors study*
> ideological socialisation in job; Gatto et al (2009) police (new vs 1 year training) and egalitarian values
> differential feedback and attrition; Leitner and Sedlacek (1976) campus police, racism, supervisor evaluation
* intergroup level processes
> behavioural asymmetry: in stable group-based hierarchies, subordinate groups’ behaviour less beneficial to self/ingroup than dominant groups’ behaviour
*e.g. Clarke and Clarke (1947) black children’s doll preference study *

Question 8

RWA vs SDO

comparing explanations of prejudice (individual differences)

Answer 8

different ideological orientations

independently predict prejudice

RWA - submission to authority within groups
SDO - preferences for hierarchies between groups

Question 9

Sherif, Robbers Cave, goals, interdependence (+/-)

Realistic (Group) Conflict Theory (RCT)

explanation of prejudice (intergroup theory 1)

Answer 9

Sherif - ethnocentrism originates from nature of intergroup relations

Robbers Cave Experiment (Sherif, 1954)
1. forming (artificial) group identity = embryonic ethnocentrism
2. organised competition = high level of intergroup conflict/hostility extending outside competitions
3. superordinate goals = gradual improvement of intergroup relations

the boys did not have authoritarian personalities (cannot be dispositional)

RCT propositions:
* mutually exclusive goals lead to realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism (negative interdependence)

• mutual goals requiring interdependence to achieve encourage intergroup harmony and reduce conflict (positive interdependence)
• prejudice results from conflicts of interests between groups

Question 10

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, ’70s)

explanation of prejudice (intergroup theory 2)

Answer 10

Minimal group studies (Tajfel et al)
- meaningless, very artificial groups
- money allocation task (ingroup/outgroup); no impact on self
- when 2 ingroup, fairness
- when 2 outgroup, fairness
- when 1 ingroup 1 outgroup, ingroup favouritism even if ingroup receives fewer points overall (motivated by positive ingroup discrimination - in absence of prior conflict/contact!)

• care about relative rather than absolute standing of the group
• “Mere categorisation” effect

SIT emerged as explanation;
motivated to feel good about self; so when think of self as part of group, motivated to feel good about group = positively distinguish on valued dimensions by:
* highlighting dimensions where ingroup is superior
* active derogration of outgroup to create/reinforce hierarchy

SIT predicts that greater national identification results in greater immigrant prejudice (supported by Weiss, 2003 etc.)
BUT
nationalism (superiority) vs patriotism (love)
Vala et al. (2008) - Portugal, no link. Important is strength of national identity AND understanding of what that entails (e.g. norms, values)

Question 11

Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000)

Answer 11

• realistic threats: when perceive competition with outgroup over scarce resources or as endangering own safety
• symbolic threats: when perceive outgroup as threat to cultural values, religion, ideology, morality etc.
  Riek et al. (2006) meta-analysis found realistic&symbolic threats associated with negative outgroup attitudes

what matters is perception of threat - e.g. scapegoating immigrants
> role of media - Brosius and Esser (1996) Germany, media presentation of immigrants –> hate crimes 1 week later

Question 12

Intergroup Contact (Allport)

Prejudice Reduction strategy

Answer 12

4 conditions for favourable outcome (reduced prejudice):
* equal status
* cooperatively pursuing common goals
* social and institutional support/backing
* acquaintance potential

Research Support
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) meta-analysis of 500+ studies, 38 nations, found contact linked to reduced prejudice (attitudes, emotions, stereotypes)

Limitations
Paluck et al. (2019) review of 29 experimental studies showed contact has positive effect on prejudice
BUT
* most studies on younger people (<25)
* effect stronger for mental/physical disability, weaker for ethnic/racial prejudice

What Type of Contact?
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) - contact quality > frequency; cross-group friendships important

Generalisation
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) - effects generalise to all outgroup members
BUT Brown and Hewstone (2005) - only when individual seen as representative of entire group, otherwise subtyping

Mechanisms?
* affective mediators*****; intergroup anxiety, intergroup threats, empathy
* knowledge about outgroup
* ingroup reappraisals

Question 13

Intergroup Contact and Social Change

Answer 13

Haessler et al. (2020) meta analysis - paradoxical findings; intergroup contact:
* increases support for social change in advantaged groups
* reduces support for social change in disadvantaged groups

Reimer and Sengupta (2022) meta analysis on disadvantaged groups - when increased contact with advantaged groups:
* less perceived injustice
* less engagement in collective action
BUT
* small effect sizes
* result dependent on type of contact (e.g. cross-group friendship)
* 1/3 studies found intergroup contact increased perceived injustice; because discrimination made salient?
* cross-sectional data, mostly Western samples

= intergroup contact can have a demobilising effect on disadvantaged groups

but may be used to foster allyship in the fight for justice and equality; more research needed to figure out how

Question 14

Other prejudice reduction strategies

Answer 14

• diversity training
• peer-influence
• entertainment
  using story-telling; individuals become engrossed in the story so reduce their defences
  e.g. incorporating educational messages into stroylines of films/series/soap operas

Paluck et al. (2021) review found strong effect on prejudice reduction; but small sample (12 studies)

need more and higher quality research in this area!!