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:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

prejudice

A

unfavourable attitude towards a social group and its members

Hogg 2018

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

3 components of prejudice

A

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

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

3 components of prejudice: cognitive

A

beliefs and stereotypes about a social group

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

3 components of prejudice: affective

A

strong, usually negative feelings about a social group and the qualities it is believed to possess

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

3 components of prejudice: conative

A

intentions to behave in a certain way towards the social group - not behaviour itself

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

explicit prejudice

A
  • 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?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

implicit prejudice

A

reflexive, automatic, mot conscious or controllable
→ measure via past performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

what are implicit association tests

A

measures a range of implicit prejudices

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

implicit association tests example

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

aversive racists

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

explanations of prejudice - 2 broad types

A

individual differences

intergroup theories

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

explanations of prejudice: individual differences

A
  • Authoritarian personality and right win authoritarianism
  • social dominance orientation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

explanations of prejudice: intergroup theories

A
  • realistic group conflict theory
  • intergroup threats
  • social identity theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

authoritarian personality - caused by

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

authoritarian personality - characterised by

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

the authoritarian personality original study results

A
  • 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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

the authoritarian personality original study limitations

A

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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Altemeyer revised authoritarianism

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:

Authoritarian submission

A

submission to society’s
established authorities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:

Conventionalism

A

adherence to social conventions adopted
by existing authorities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Altemeyer revised authoritarianism:

Punitiveness against deviants

A

support for aggression
toward deviants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

right wing authoritarianism traits

A
  • Social conventions are deemed moral
  • Acquiring power and authority results from
    following social conventions
  • Questioning power and authority is therefore
    immoral
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

right wing authoritarianism correlates with..

A

prejudice against:
gay people, immigrants, foreigners, black and Jewish minorities

and

those who are politically conservative

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

social dominance orientation theory

A
  • 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

SDT 2 groups

A

dominant groups

subordinate groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

dominant groups

A
  • have disproportionate power and special privileges

e.g. housing, health and good employment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

subordinate groups

A
  • have little political power or ease in their way of life

e.g., poor housing, poor health and unemployment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

3 broad ways in which dominant groups maintain their power over subordinate groups

A

system-wide level processes

person level processes

intergroup level processes

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

system wide level processes

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Hierarchy enhancing social institutions

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Hierarchy attenuating social institutions

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

legitimising myths

A
  • widely shared ideologies that organize and justify hierarchies

e.g., stereotypes, discourses, shared social representations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

hierarchy enhancing legitimising myths examples

A

ideas that help justify racism, sexism and classism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

hierarchy attenuating legitimising myths

A

charter of universal human rights, feminist, socialist ideas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

person level SDT

A
  • 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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

social dominance orientation (SDO)

A

Measure of a person’s orientation toward group-based hierarchies

high SDOs = prefer group-based inequalities

low SDOs = reject group based inequalities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

low SDOs

A

reject group based inequalities

  • greater tolerance and equality support
  • hierarchy attenuating policies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

high SDOs

A

prefer group-based inequalities

  • higher prejudice towards outgroups

e.g., sexism, heterosexism, racism, nationalism

  • hierarchy enhancing policies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

group status and SDT

A

members of salient dominant groups
were found to have greater SDO than
members of subordinate groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

SDT and students

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

SDT and occupation

A

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.

42
Q

4 Reasons for social dominance theory

A
  • Self-selection

– Institutional discrimination in hiring

– Ideological socialization on the job

– Differential feedback and attrition

43
Q

self-selection

A

pick certain types of jobs

44
Q

institutional discrimination in hiring

A

more interested in hiring individuals that maintain their hierarchy

45
Q

ideological socialisation on the job

A

you are trained to become more attenuating/enhancing after joining corresponding institution

46
Q

differential feedback and attrition

A

Less like to be promoted if you dont help the institution

47
Q

intergroup level SDT

A

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.

48
Q

behavioural asymmetry

A

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.

49
Q

Behavioural asymmetry example

A

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)

50
Q

self-debilitation

A

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)

51
Q

implication of inter group

A

group-based hierarchies are
maintained not only by powerful groups
but also
by the behavior of the subordinate groups
(although their agency is constrained).

52
Q

institutional racism

A

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.

53
Q

difference between RWA and SDO

A
  • both related to prejudice independently of one another
  • ideological orientations
  • RWA = submission to authority
  • SDP = preferences for hierarchies between groups
54
Q

realistic group conflict theory (RCT): core propositions

A
  • 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
55
Q

realistic group conflict theory (RCT): core propositions - theories about goals

A
  • 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)
56
Q

Goals which require interdependence (cooperation)
for their achievement encourage:

A
  • intergroup harmony
    and reduce conflict (positive interdependence)
57
Q

Goals which are mutually exclusive (e.g. acquiring a
scarce resource) lead to:

A
  • realistic intergroup conflict
    and ethnocentrism (negative interdependence).
58
Q

Ethnocentrism

A

evaluative preference for all aspects of our own group (ingroup) relative to other groups (outgroup)

59
Q

robbers cave full experiment

muzafer sherif

A

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
60
Q

ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 1

A
  • 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
61
Q

ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 2

A
  • 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
62
Q

ROBBERS CAVE: PHASE 3

A
  • 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
63
Q

robbers cave conclusions

A
  • 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?

64
Q

social identity theory: starting question

A

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?

65
Q

social identity theory: experimental approach to answer research question

A

Taijfel 1971

what are the minimal conditions required to produce ingroup bias?

MINIMAL GROUP STUDIES METHODLOGY

66
Q

Minimal group studies methodology

A
  • 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

67
Q

minimal group studies example

A
  • 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
68
Q

minimal group paradigm matrix

A

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

69
Q

minimal group studies results

A

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

70
Q

minimal group studies results: INTERPRETATION

A

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

71
Q

mere categorization effect

A

categorizing people into
different social groups is sufficient for creating
ethnocentrism

72
Q

SIT and minimal group experiments

A
  • 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)

73
Q

social identification: Tajfel definition

A

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
74
Q

groups we belong to and how we value ourselves

A
  • 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

75
Q

positive distinctiveness

A
  • 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
76
Q

positive distinctiveness achieved by

A

– 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

77
Q

the need for positive distinctiveness leads to..

A

..ingroup favoritism

78
Q

example of SIT and positive distinctiveness in the real world

A

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).
79
Q

national attachment and immigrant prejudice

A

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

80
Q

intergroup threat

A
  • 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

81
Q

realistic threats

A
  • competing for scarce resources
  • physical safety/power is endangered
82
Q

symbolic threat

A
  • perceive outgroup to be a threat to cultural values, relgions, beliefs, etc
82
Q

meta-analysis threat: RIEK 2006:

A

realistic and symbolic threats are associated with negative outgroup attitudes

83
Q

threat perception and immigrants

A

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

84
Q

scapegoating and politics

A
  • blame immigrants for negative socioeconomic development e.g. unemployment and health system deficits

LEADS TO: increased prejudice towards immigrants

85
Q

media and threat perception

A

the way in which immigrants were portrayed in the German media = associated with hate crimes in the following week

BROSIUS 1995

86
Q

prejudice reductions: intergroup contact

A
  • interactions between individuals in different social groups = reduced ethnic prejudice and intergroup tension
87
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

A

contact could lead to an increase in prejudice as
well as its reduction
* the outcome of contact will be favourable when:

  1. the participants are of equal status
  2. pursuing common goals cooperatively
  3. backed by social and institutional support
  4. There is acquaintance potentia
88
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

EQUAL STATUS

A
  • otherwise status differentials confirm power hierarchy within society
  • allow for disconfirmation of stereotypes regarding status
89
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

COMMON GOALS

A

conflict reduced when have to co operate

90
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

SUPPPORTED SOCIALLY AND INSTITUTIONALLY

A

social norms regarding prejudice effect tendency to express prejudice AND willingness to interact - the more our overarching groups are supportive = the more success

91
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

NOT SUPERFICIAL

A

get to know eachother well enough - or else no reduction in prejudice, closeness needs to develop

92
Q

4 conditions of intergroup contact: Allport 1954

meta-analysis

A

Pettigrew and Tropp 2006

500+ studies across 38 nations

  • contact is linked to reduced prejudice
  • on variety of DVs: emotions/attitudes/stereotypes
93
Q

are the 4 conditions ALL necessary?

A
  • 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

93
Q

does intergroup contact apply to all types of prejudice?

A

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
93
Q

is there established causation between intergroup contact and reduced prejudice?

A
  • 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

94
Q

most effective type of contact

A

quality - Pettigrew 2006

needs to be a positive interaction - thats why there is importance of friendships amongst different groups

95
Q

do the effects of interacting with one individual generalise to their whole group

A

YES BUT ONLY IF:

they are REPRESENTIVE of their group / prototypical of their group

otherwise leads to thoughts of - ‘they must be an exception’

96
Q

negative contact consequences

A

if the interaction is negative, this can INCREASE prejudice

feeling threatened or did not choose to have the contact Pettigrew 2011

97
Q

Prejudice asymmetry hypothesis

A

negative intergroup contact effects prejudice more than positive contact

Tropp 2018

98
Q

mechanisms of contact

A

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

99
Q
A

Social Psychology (8 decks)

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