Prejudice 2

Question 1

Realistic group conflict theory:

Answer 1

• Signs of ethnocentrism started before groups got into competitions, i.e. when there was no realistic conflict between them yet.
  
  • Therefore: Is ethnocentrism the result of fighting over scarce resources or does the mere existence of two groups generate ethnocentrism?
  • Idea tested by Henri Tajfel and led to the development of Social Identity Theory (SIT).

Question 2

What is social identify theory (SIT)?:

Answer 2

· First proposed in the 1970s by Henri Tajfel and John Turner as a theory of intergroup conflict and considered one of the major theories in social psychology.
- Tajfel & Turner, 1979
- Tajfel, 1982

Question 3

SIT - Tajfel’s starting point:

Answer 3

· 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?
· To answer this question, Tajfel adopted an experimental approach. What are the minimal conditions needed to produce ingroup bias?

Question 4

Origins of SIT:

Answer 4

· Minimal group studies methodology (Tajfel et al., 1971):
- Participants assigned to one of two groups based on chance or an arbitrary criterion e.g. painting preference or even flip of a coin (heads or tails group)

Question 5

Klee versus Kandinsky groups:

Answer 5

· Meaningless groups

Question 6

Minimal group studies:

Answer 6

· Minimal group studies methodology (Tajfel et al., 1971):
- Participants don’t know the other participants (no history of conflict)
- Participants don’t interact with other participants in the group (no contact)
· Very artificial groups, because Tajfel was interested in how just knowing that one belongs to a group affects behaviour toward other groups…

Question 7

Minimal group studies methodology (Tajfel et al, 1971):

Answer 7

· Participants are led to private cubicles where they are 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)

Question 8

Minimal group studies methodology 2:

Answer 8

· Participants are told how they allocate money would not affect the points (money) they receive as individuals for participation. So their choices of monetary allocations cannot be driven by personal greed.

Question 9

Minimal group paradigm matrix:

Answer 9

· Distribution strategies - fairness, maximum, ingroup profit, maximum joint profit, maximum differentiation.

Question 10

Minimal group studies 2:

Answer 10

· Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to two different ingroup members?
· Fairness
· Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to two different outgroup members?
· Fairness
· Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to an ingroup member and an outgroup member?
· Ingroup favouritism: more points to ingroup members than to outgroup members!

Question 11

Minimal group studies 3:

Answer 11

· Participants are not trying to maximise their possession of a scarce resource (money): they prefer their ingroup to get more than the outgroup, even if this means receiving less material resources overall! They care about the relative rather than the absolute standing of the group…
· This discrimination in favour of the ingroup is happening in the absence of any conflict history and any prior contact.

Question 12

Minimal group studies 4:

Answer 12

· “Mere categorization” effect: categorizing people into different social groups is sufficient for creating ethnocentrism.
· Hundreds of minimal group experiments showed that mere categorization produces ethnocentrism and competitive intergroup behaviour.
· Mechanisms for minimal ingroup bias are unclear and different explanations exist.
· But results interpreted as evidence that there is a psychological motivation operating in individuals to defend group interests regardless of self-interest.

Question 13

Social identity theory:

Answer 13

· Social Identity Theory emerged as an attempt to explain the results of the minimal group experiments: people sometimes behave as group members rather than as individuals.
· Aim of SIT: when do people think of themselves in terms of “we” (social identity) rather than “I” (personal identity)?

Question 14

SIT:

Answer 14

· Social identification: “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” (Tajfel, 1974, p.69).
· Varies among individuals
· Varies depending on context (group identity can become more salient)

Question 15

SIT 2:

Answer 15

· The groups we belong to affect how we define ourselves, but also how much we value ourselves: when our group accomplishes valued achievements, we feel positive about our group but when our group is negatively valued, we feel negative about our group.

Question 16

SIT 3:

Answer 16

· People are motivated to feel good/positive about themselves.
· A group member who identifies strongly with the ingroup should be motivated to positively distinguish the ingroup from outgroups on dimensions valued by the perceiver (Tajfel, 1978c).

Question 17

SIT 4:

Answer 17

· The need for positive distinctiveness can be 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 motive for positive distinctiveness leads to ingroup favouritism.

Question 18

SIT 5:

Answer 18

· Immigrants are defined as immigrants based on national group membership. Therefore variation in national identification should impact attitudes toward immigrants.
· 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).

Question 19

SIT 6:

Answer 19

· National attachment does not necessarily lead to prejudice toward immigrants. We should distinguish between nationalism and patriotism.
· Nationalism, according to Kosterman & Feshbach (1989):
- “a belief in national superiority and dominance’ (p. 175)
- ‘feelings of nationalism are inherently comparative and almost exclusively, downward comparative’ (p. 178).
· Measures: e.g. ‘In view of America’s moral and material superiority, it is only right that we should have the biggest say in deciding United Nations policy.’

Question 20

SIT 7:

Answer 20

· Patriotism: loving one’s country without necessarily feeling that one’s country is superior to others.
· Patriotism should not necessarily correlate positively with prejudice toward outgroups, while nationalism should.
· A series of studies with British respondents showed that national identification is associated with prejudice toward asylum-seekers, but particularly among those who think that national group membership is based on ethnic (essentialist and unchangeable) attributes (Pehrson, Brown, & Zagefka, 2009)

Question 21

SIT 8:

Answer 21

· Portugal has strong anti-racism norms following a history of colonialism. Vala, Lopes, and Lima (2008) found no link between national identification and prejudice toward immigrants in Portugal.
· What matters is not just strength of national identification but what people understand their own identity to stand for (identity content, identity norms).

Question 22

Intergroup contact - contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954):

Answer 22

· Interaction between individuals belonging to different social groups will reduce ethnic prejudice and intergroup tension (Hewstone & Brown 1986)
- One of the most popular and researched prejudice reduction strategies

Question 23

Four conditions for intergroup contact:

Answer 23

· 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 potential

Question 24

Meta-analytic findings:

Answer 24

• Pettigrew & Tropp (2006): Meta-analysis of 500+ studies across 38 nations supports intergroup contact theory:
  
  • contact is linked to reduced prejudice
  • on variety of DVs: emotions/attitudes/stereotypes

Question 25

Meta-analytic findings 2:

Answer 25

· Are the four conditions necessary?
- Meta-analytic findings: the four conditions are facilitating rather than necessary (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005)
- contact is usually linked to positive effects (95% of studies) and how well depends on facilitating factors
· Critique: few experimental designs manipulate the four conditions and look at delayed effects of contact on prejudice. Field not in a position to make definitive conclusions on this (Paluck, Green & Green, 2019)

Question 26

Meta-analytic findings 3:

Answer 26

· Can we treat all prejudices similarly?
· Effects of contact depends on target group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
- Stronger effects for heterosexual prejudice towards gay/lesbian individuals and individuals with physical disabilities
- Average effects for racial and ethnic prejudice
- Weaker effects for prejudice towards older people (ageism) and individuals with mental illness
- Stronger effects for advantaged than disadvantaged groups

Question 27

Causality?:

Answer 27

· Not much longitudinal research but available evidence suggest that relationship runs from contact to improved attitudes rather than vice versa (Pettigrew 1998)
· Recent review of studies with high-quality experimental designs (randomized groups and delayed measures of prejudice) (Paluck et al., 2019): 27 experimental studies
- Supports positive effects of contact on prejudice

Question 28

Causality? 2:

Answer 28

· Recent review of studies with high-quality experimental designs (randomized groups and delayed measures of prejudice) (Paluck et al., 2019): 27 experimental studies points to important limitations in our knowledge:
- Most studies are with children and young adults (<25 years)
- Contact effects stronger for prejudice against those with mental or physical disabilities (weaker for ethnic and racial prejudice)

Question 29

More findings:

Answer 29

· Which type of contact is most effective?
- Not about contact quantity (frequency) but contact quality: importance of cross-group friendships (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
· Do intergroup contact effects generalize from individuals to overall outgroup attitudes?
- Meta-analytic findings: typically yes (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
- But more likely to generalize when outgroup member is seen as representative of the outgroup. Otherwise subtyping occurs! (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)

Question 30

More findings 2:

Answer 30

· Does intergroup contact consistently work?
· Negative intergroup contact can occur and increase prejudice!
· Situations where the participants feel threatened and did not choose to have the contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). (e.g. work environments with high intergroup competition but also situations involving intergroup conflict).
· Asymmetry hypothesis: negative intergroup contact affects prejudice more than positive contact! (see Kotzur & Wagner, 2021; Tropp, Maziotta, & Wright, 2018).

Question 31

More findings 3:

Answer 31

· Intergroup contact is more negative for disadvantaged groups.
· In various settings positive intergroup contact is more frequent than negative intergroup contact.
· Effects of negative intergroup contact are moderated by whether the participant has entered the contact freely (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011).
· Effects of positive and negative contact depend on whether intergroup conflict is ongoing (e.g. Tropp et al., 2018).

Question 32

How does contact work?:

Answer 32

· Different mechanisms (see Pettigrew, 2011)
- Increased knowledge of outgroup (cognitive dimension): relatively limited effects
· Affective mediators are more important:
- Intergroup anxiety
- Intergroup threats (Aberson, 2019)
- Enhanced empathy and adopting of outgroup’s perspective (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008).
· Other:
- Ingroup reappraisal (ingroup norms are not inherently superior to those of the outgroup): secondary effects of intergroup contact

Question 33

Is getting us to like one another the solution?:

Answer 33

· Contact theory has come under criticism in recent years (see Dixon et al., 2012).
· Focus on advantaged groups but…what about disadvantaged groups?
· Ironic or paradoxical effects of positive intergroup contact for disadvantaged groups: decreases in perceptions of injustice and reduced willingness to engage in collective action to challenge social inequalities!

Question 34

Intergroup contact and social change:

Answer 34

· Haessler et al. (2020) used a large and heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries). Authors found that intergroup contact and support for social change towards greater equality are:
- positively associated among members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities and cis-heterosexuals)
- negatively associated among disadvantaged groups (ethnic minorities and sexual and gender minorities).

Question 35

Intergroup contact and social change 2:

Answer 35

· Reimer & Sengupta (2022): meta-analysis across 98 studies with 140 samples of 213,085 disadvantaged group members.
- Intergroup contact is more likely to be negatively associated with perceived injustice, collective action and support for reparative policies. But effect sizes are small.
· Results dependent on type of contact:
- Cross-group friendships are associated with reduced social change orientations
- A third of studies found that intergroup contact increases perceived injustice (discrimination made more salient)
· Limitations:
- Cross-sectional data , mostly from western countries

Question 36

Intergroup contact and social change 3:

Answer 36

· Need to carefully assess the effects of prejudice reduction interventions in a holistic manner.
· When and how can intergroup contact foster allyship in the struggle for greater equality and justice?
· More research needed!

Question 37

Going beyond intergroup contact:

Answer 37

· Paluck & Greene (2009) and Paluck et al. (2021) studied the effects of different prejudice reduction interventions.
· Examples:
- Diversity training, peer-influence, cognitive and emotional training, entertainment

Question 38

Entertainment:

Answer 38

· category of interventions based on the power of story-telling and narrative or artistic transportation (individuals get carried away by the story and reduce their defenses (Green & Brock 2000).
· Examples:
- participate in the creation of stories about outgroups (Parrott et al. 2017
- films made by and for Black audiences (Eno & Ewoldsen 2010)
- pro-integration music lyrics (Greitemeyer & Schwab 2014)
- educational messages about prejudice integrated into a soap opera or film (Murrar & Brauer 2018, Paluck & Green 2009).
· 12 studies that used entertainment interventions show a strong effect on prejudice reduction.