Prejudice Flashcards
prejudice
unfavourable attitude towards a social group and its members
Hogg 2018
3 components of prejudice
cognitive: beliefs and stereotypes about a social group
affective: strong, usually negative feelings about a social group and the qualities it is believed to possess
conative: intentions to behave in a certain way towards the social group - not behaviour itself
these map on to the ABC’s of psychology BUT replaced behaviour with conative BC you can have prejudice but the law may prevent you from acting on it
3 components of prejudice: cognitive
beliefs and stereotypes about a social group
3 components of prejudice: affective
strong, usually negative feelings about a social group and the qualities it is believed to possess
3 components of prejudice: conative
intentions to behave in a certain way towards the social group - not behaviour itself
explicit prejudice
- controllable, overt, reflective and monitored
→ measure via questionnaire to see if they actually believe the outgroup is inferior
- May be subject to SDB - may hide how they feel, so how can we measure it?
implicit prejudice
reflexive, automatic, mot conscious or controllable
→ measure via past performance
what are implicit association tests
measures a range of implicit prejudices
implicit association tests example
Shown a series of faces of african or european americans
Ask to categorise into these two ethnicities alongside good or bad
How quickly is the person able to complete the task
If they can do it better when african is paired next to bad - prejudice
aversive racists
support: racial equality
sympathise with victims
view themselves as non-prejudiced
BUT
also hold negative feelings about black people often at a subconscious level
–> acquired through socialization and socio-cultural influences
explanations of prejudice - 2 broad types
individual differences
intergroup theories
explanations of prejudice: individual differences
- Authoritarian personality and right win authoritarianism
- social dominance orientation
explanations of prejudice: intergroup theories
- realistic group conflict theory
- intergroup threats
- social identity theory
authoritarian personality - caused by
caused by autocratic and punitive parenting practices
e.g. Parents who only give affection when complete obedience is received
Conditions of love = obedience
Leads to mixed feeling to parent - admiration nd hostility
Parent = power condition so they cannot overtly show hostility so instead displace this hostility to marginalise groups in society
Glorify those in power and vilify those in weak positions
authoritarian personality - characterised by
- ethnocentrism
- negative attitudes toward Jewish and African American people and ethnic minorities in general
- negative attitudes toward democracy
- cynical and pessimistic view of human nature
- conservative economic and political attitudes
the authoritarian personality original study results
- People prejudiced against one ethnic
minority tend to be prejudiced toward other
minorities (e.g. Black, Jewish, Catholic minorities)
– Authoritarians hold conservative political-
economic views and exhibit high levels of
generalized ethnocentrism.
the authoritarian personality original study limitations
situational and sociocultural factors effect ethnocentrism
Cannot distinguish diff levels based on personality alone
- e.g. white US northerners are less racist than white US southerners and White south Africans BUT they have similar authoritarianism scores
Altemeyer revised authoritarianism
overcomes previous limitations
via 3 dimensions
- Authoritarian submission: submission to society’s
established authorities
– Conventionalism: adherence to social conventions adopted
by existing authorities
– Punitiveness against deviants: support for aggression
toward deviants
Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:
Authoritarian submission
submission to society’s
established authorities
Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:
Conventionalism
adherence to social conventions adopted
by existing authorities
Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:
Punitiveness against deviants
support for aggression
toward deviants
right wing authoritarianism traits
- Social conventions are deemed moral
- Acquiring power and authority results from
following social conventions - Questioning power and authority is therefore
immoral
right wing authoritarianism correlates with..
prejudice against:
gay people, immigrants, foreigners, black and Jewish minorities
and
those who are politically conservative
social dominance orientation theory
- all human societies organize themselves socially along group based hierarchies
- who is on the top and the bottom may change over time but the hierarchy will always be there
- as we produce more than we can consume –> hierarchies based on who has more or less resources
SDT 2 groups
dominant groups
subordinate groups
dominant groups
- have disproportionate power and special privileges
e.g. housing, health and good employment
subordinate groups
- have little political power or ease in their way of life
e.g., poor housing, poor health and unemployment
3 broad ways in which dominant groups maintain their power over subordinate groups
system-wide level processes
person level processes
intergroup level processes
system wide level processes
counterbalancing forces in all societies that either push them to :
- enhance hierarchies
or to
- attenuate them
via 2 ways:
hierarchy enhancing and hierarchy attenuating SOCIAL INSITUTIONS
hierarchy enhancing and hierarchy attenuating LEGITIMISING MYTHS
Hierarchy enhancing social institutions
- allocate resources disproportionately to the advantage of dominant groups
AND
- to the disadvantage of subordinate groups
e.g.: sections of the criminal justice system, police and large corporations
Hierarchy attenuating social institutions
- allocate resources to the advantage of subordinate groups
AND
- to the disadvantage to dominant groups
with a view to restore equality
e.g.: human rights and civil rights groups and organisations
BLM
legitimising myths
- widely shared ideologies that organize and justify hierarchies
e.g., stereotypes, discourses, shared social representations
hierarchy enhancing legitimising myths examples
ideas that help justify racism, sexism and classism
hierarchy attenuating legitimising myths
charter of universal human rights, feminist, socialist ideas
person level SDT
- individual acts of discrimination help maintain group-based hierarchies
e.g. values, personality, political ideologies, temperaments, empathy ALL influence how discriminatory people are
BUT SDT focuses on an individuals social dominance orientation
social dominance orientation (SDO)
Measure of a person’s orientation toward group-based hierarchies
high SDOs = prefer group-based inequalities
low SDOs = reject group based inequalities
low SDOs
reject group based inequalities
- greater tolerance and equality support
- hierarchy attenuating policies
high SDOs
prefer group-based inequalities
- higher prejudice towards outgroups
e.g., sexism, heterosexism, racism, nationalism
- hierarchy enhancing policies
group status and SDT
members of salient dominant groups
were found to have greater SDO than
members of subordinate groups.
SDT and students
UCLA study 2003
HIERARCHY ENHANCING
serves: the socially powerful/wealthy
majors: business
management,
marketing,
accounting,
business economics
HIERARCHY ATTENTUATING:
serves: Subordinate social
groups (e.g. women,
ethnic minorities)
majors: anthropology, Latin
American studies,
public health,
sociology, special
education, women’s
studies
RESULTS: HE majors were found to have higher anti-egalitarian
beliefs (SDO and racism) than HA majors.
SDT and occupation
members of dominant groups are disproportionately found in hierarchy enhancing roles
Hierarchy-Enhancing organizations (e.g. police
forces): high on anti-
egalitarian beliefs
Hierarchy Attenuating organizations (e.g. civil
liberties organizations) relatively democratic beliefs.
4 Reasons for social dominance theory
- Self-selection
– Institutional discrimination in hiring
– Ideological socialization on the job
– Differential feedback and attrition
self-selection
pick certain types of jobs
institutional discrimination in hiring
more interested in hiring individuals that maintain their hierarchy
ideological socialisation on the job
you are trained to become more attenuating/enhancing after joining corresponding institution
differential feedback and attrition
Less like to be promoted if you dont help the institution
intergroup level SDT
behavioural asymmetry:
members of subordinate
groups behave in ways that are less beneficial to
self and ingroup compared to the behavior of
dominant groups in stable group-based
hierarchies.
behavioural asymmetry
members of subordinate
groups behave in ways that are less beneficial to
self and ingroup compared to the behavior of
dominant groups in stable group-based
hierarchies.
Behavioural asymmetry example
self-debilitation:
subordinates show higher levels of
self-destructive behaviours than dominants do
(e.g.
internalization of negative ingroup stereotypes-low
expectations of ingroup members, self-fulfilling
prophecies)
self-debilitation
subordinates show higher levels of
self-destructive behaviours than dominants do
(e.g.
internalization of negative ingroup stereotypes-low
expectations of ingroup members, self-fulfilling
prophecies)
implication of inter group
group-based hierarchies are
maintained not only by powerful groups
but also
by the behavior of the subordinate groups
(although their agency is constrained).
institutional racism
manipulation or tolerance of
institutional practices, policies, and laws that unfairly
restrict opportunities of particular groups
based on race
e.g. limiting immigration to certain groups
of people, limiting another group’s voting power.
difference between RWA and SDO
- both related to prejudice independently of one another
- ideological orientations
- RWA = submission to authority
- SDP = preferences for hierarchies between groups
realistic group conflict theory (RCT): core propositions
- intergroup conflict results from fighting over desirable resources that are scarce
- can only be obtained by one group/perceived as such
- Prejudice is the result of conflicts of interests
between groups
realistic group conflict theory (RCT): core propositions - theories about goals
- Goals which are mutually exclusive (e.g. acquiring a
scarce resource) lead to: - realistic intergroup conflict
and ethnocentrism (negative interdependence). - Goals which require interdependence (cooperation)
for their achievement encourage: - intergroup harmony
and reduce conflict (positive interdependence)
Goals which require interdependence (cooperation)
for their achievement encourage:
- intergroup harmony
and reduce conflict (positive interdependence)
Goals which are mutually exclusive (e.g. acquiring a
scarce resource) lead to:
- realistic intergroup conflict
and ethnocentrism (negative interdependence).
Ethnocentrism
evaluative preference for all aspects of our own group (ingroup) relative to other groups (outgroup)
robbers cave full experiment
muzafer sherif
22 12 year old boys = summer camp
similar boys, did not know each other so no history of conflict
randomly split into two groups
brought separately into a national park
PHASE 1:
- unaware of each other’s presence
- bonded via summer camp activities
- adopted team names rattlers or eagles
- week later - discovered other group
- competitive and hostile emotions erupted - embryonic ethnocentrism
PHASE 2:
- an organised competition between the two groups
- fought for prizes > mutually exclusive goal
- intergroup hostility grew even outside competitions:
e.g., name calling, tearing down flags, secretly amassing weapons
PHASE 3:
- superordinate goals were made for the p’s without them knowing
- goals were desired by both groups but only able to be achieved if the groups cooperated –> e.g., unblocking a faucet for water for camp
- result: cooperative activities led to gradual improvement in intergroup relations
ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 1
- unaware of each other’s presence
- bonded via summer camp activities
- adopted team names rattlers or eagles
- week later - discovered other group
- competitive and hostile emotions erupted - embryonic ethnocentrism
ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 2
- an organised competition between the two groups
- fought for prizes > mutually exclusive goal
- intergroup hostility grew even outside competitions:
e.g., name calling, tearing down flags, secretly amassing weapons
ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 3
- superordinate goals were made for the p’s without them knowing
- goals were desired by both groups but only able to be achieved if the groups cooperated –> e.g., unblocking a faucet for water for camp
- result: cooperative activities led to gradual improvement in intergroup relations
robbers cave conclusions
- ethnocentrism did not begin when the groups began to fight > we saw embryonic ethnocentrism when the group merely became aware of each others existence
SO
is this fighting for resources or simply just the existence of other groups that leads to prejudice?
social identity theory: starting question
how do people come to see each other as enemies in the absence of rational or objective reasons?
can prejudice exist outside of competition over resources?
social identity theory: experimental approach to answer research question
Taijfel 1971
what are the minimal conditions required to produce ingroup bias?
MINIMAL GROUP STUDIES METHODLOGY
Minimal group studies methodology
- p’s assigned to one of two groups via chance or arbitrary criterion
e.g. painting preference or flipping of a coin - p’s do not know eachother
- p’s do not interact with the other group
meaningless and artifical groups –> bc Taijfel VERY interested in how just knowing you belong to a group affects how you behave with other groups
minimal group studies example
- participants led to private cubicles
- asked to allocate points (which would convert into money)
to:
– Two members of the ingroup
– Two members of the outgroup
– A member of their group (ingroup) AND a member of the
other group (outgroup) - money they allocated did not affect how much they got for participating –> cannot be driven by personal greed
minimal group paradigm matrix
select the option that is most suitable:
By design the experiment gives you different strategies
Equal = fairness
e.g. 5 and 5
Or
May care that your group gets the most
e.g. 9 and 1
Or
May want things to be better for both groups - maximum joint profit - the most you can give to both groups - even though the out gets more
e.g. 9 and 10
OR
May want your group to be the superior group - even if that means you get less money - the difference between the two groups is as large as it can can get Maximising the difference
e.g. 7 and 0
minimal group studies results
2 people of your own in group:
Most common method = ‘fairness’
2 people of the out group:
Most common method = ‘fairness’
1 ingroup and 1 outgroup:
Most common method = ‘ingroup favuoritism’ - more groups to ingroup rather than out - even when this means receiving less overall
minimal group studies results: INTERPRETATION
ps do not try to maximise their possesion they prefer to maximise the gap between them and the outgroup –> relative rather than absolute standing of the group
PREFERENCE FOR INGROUP HAPPENS IN ABSENSE OF ANY CONFLICT HSITORY OR PRIOR CONTACT
mere categorization effect
categorizing people into
different social groups is sufficient for creating
ethnocentrism
SIT and minimal group experiments
- SIT emerged as an attempt to explain the results:
- sometimes people behave as group members instead of individuals …
.. why ‘we’ (social identity) rather than ‘i’ (personal identity)
social identification: Tajfel definition
that part of an
individual’s self-concept which derives from
his knowledge of membership of a social
group (or groups) together with the emotional
significance attached to that membership
- varies amongst individuals
- varies depending on context - group identity can become more salient
groups we belong to and how we value ourselves
- if our group accomplishes something - we feel positive
- if our group is negatively valued we feel negative
E.g. football team wins - you had no part in them winning but you still feel happy
positive distinctiveness
- people are motivated to feel good/positive about themselves
- a group member who identifies strongly with their ingroup = motivated to positively distinguish the ingroup from the outgroup on dimensions valued by the perceiver
positive distinctiveness achieved by
– highlighting dimensions on which the ingroup is
superior to the outgroup
– by actively derogating or discriminating against
the outgroup to create or to reinforce an existing
hierarchy
the need for positive distinctiveness leads to..
..ingroup favoritism
example of SIT and positive distinctiveness in the real world
SIT predicts that greater national identification
should result in greater prejudice toward immigrants.
- This is supported by empirical evidence from various
studies in several European countries (e.g. Weiss,
2003; Billiet, Maddens, & Beerten, 2003; Blank &
Schmidt, 2003).
national attachment and immigrant prejudice
national attachment = not necessarily leads to prejudice
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM
NATIONALISM = belief of national superiority and dominance - downward comparative
PATRIOTISM = loving ones country - not neccesarily superior
nationalism should correlate with prejudice whereas patriotism should not
BECAUSE
what matters is not just strength of national identification BUT what they understand their national identification to stand for
e.g. countries with anti-racism norms = high national identification but not link to immigrant prejudice
intergroup threat
- prejudice is rooted in perceiving outgroups as threats
REALISTIC THREAT
- group members perceive themselves as competing with the outgroup over scarce material/resources
OR
- when they feel that their physical safety or power is endangered
SYMBOLIC THREAT
- perceive outgroup to be a threat to cultural values, relgions, beliefs, etc
meta-analysis threat: RIEK 2006: realistic and symbolic threats are associated with negative outgroup attitudes
realistic threats
- competing for scarce resources
- physical safety/power is endangered
symbolic threat
- perceive outgroup to be a threat to cultural values, relgions, beliefs, etc
meta-analysis threat: RIEK 2006:
realistic and symbolic threats are associated with negative outgroup attitudes
threat perception and immigrants
Dovidio 2001:
immigrants = threat - regardless of success in host country:
- If unsuccessful = they are perceived as a threat to
the country’s economic standing
– If successful = competing with
the host society with jobs and other resources
scapegoating and politics
- blame immigrants for negative socioeconomic development e.g. unemployment and health system deficits
LEADS TO: increased prejudice towards immigrants
media and threat perception
the way in which immigrants were portrayed in the German media = associated with hate crimes in the following week
BROSIUS 1995
prejudice reductions: intergroup contact
- interactions between individuals in different social groups = reduced ethnic prejudice and intergroup tension
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
contact could lead to an increase in prejudice as
well as its reduction
* the outcome of contact will be favourable when:
- the participants are of equal status
- pursuing common goals cooperatively
- backed by social and institutional support
- There is acquaintance potentia
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
EQUAL STATUS
- otherwise status differentials confirm power hierarchy within society
- allow for disconfirmation of stereotypes regarding status
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
COMMON GOALS
conflict reduced when have to co operate
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
SUPPPORTED SOCIALLY AND INSTITUTIONALLY
social norms regarding prejudice effect tendency to express prejudice AND willingness to interact - the more our overarching groups are supportive = the more success
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
NOT SUPERFICIAL
get to know eachother well enough - or else no reduction in prejudice, closeness needs to develop
4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954
meta-analysis
Pettigrew and Tropp 2006
500+ studies across 38 nations
- contact is linked to reduced prejudice
- on variety of DVs: emotions/attitudes/stereotypes
are the 4 conditions ALL necessary?
- Finding show the 4 aspects are not necessary but facilitate
- Contact is linked to positive effects in 95% of cases - how well depends on the 4 factors
Critique - few experimental designs really manipulate the 4 conditions
Conclude - as much as we’d like to say they do not matter, we do not have enough high quality evidence e.g. longitudinal
does intergroup contact apply to all types of prejudice?
We are acting like the same processes apply regardless of type of prejudice
Do we need to take into account the differences?
YES: Pettrigrew 2006: depends on the target group
- intergroup contact is most effective on specific types of prejudice e.g. homophobia and ableism
- average for racial and ethnic
- weaker for ageism and mental illness prejudice
- better for reducing prejudice in advantaged to disadvantaged than disadvantaged to advantaged
is there established causation between intergroup contact and reduced prejudice?
- not much longitudinal research
- but what there is suggests that relationship runs from contact to improved attitudes rather than the other way - Pettigrew 1998
recent Paluck 2019 HIGH QUALITY EVIDENCE - also supports
critique: most studies are with people below 25 y/o
contact effect is stronger for prejudices against mental/physical disabilities over racial/ethnic
most effective type of contact
quality - Pettigrew 2006
needs to be a positive interaction - thats why there is importance of friendships amongst different groups
do the effects of interacting with one individual generalise to their whole group
YES BUT ONLY IF:
they are REPRESENTIVE of their group / prototypical of their group
otherwise leads to thoughts of - ‘they must be an exception’
negative contact consequences
if the interaction is negative, this can INCREASE prejudice
feeling threatened or did not choose to have the contact Pettigrew 2011
Prejudice asymmetry hypothesis
negative intergroup contact effects prejudice more than positive contact
Tropp 2018
mechanisms of contact
cognitive dimensions e.g., increased knowledge of outgroup –> relatively limited effects
AFFECTIVE mediators are more effective:
- intergroup anxiety
- intergroup threats
- enhanced interview + adopting of outgroups perspective
other:
ingroup reconsideration - realising ingroup norms are not necessarily superior to that of the outgroup > can occur secondary to intergroup contact
