Prejudice

Question 1

Define prejudice ?

Answer 1

to be prejudice means to prejudge somebody before knowing anything about them as an individual. A prejudice is an unfavourable extreme attitude towards someone based on their group membership of a group.

Question 2

What are the 3 negative components to prejudice ?

Answer 2

1) cognitive: the stereotypes (over generalised beliefs) we hold
2) affective: feelings of hostility and hatred.
3) behavioural: can be displayed as avoidance, assault, joke-making or discrimination.

Question 3

Define stereotypes ?

Answer 3

Overgeneralised belief about someone or something, usually based o limited information.

Question 4

Define discrimination ?

Answer 4

Unfair treatment of categories of people where they are excluded from things they are entitles to e.g. employment.

Question 5

What are the two theories we study that explain prejudice behaviour ?

Answer 5

1) realistic conflict theory

2) social identity theory

Question 6

Describe realistic conflict theory ?

Answer 6

Realistic conflict theory suggests that prejudice is a result of conflict between groups. This conflict arises due to competition between groups. According to Muzafer Sherif (1966) when two different social groups compete for the same valued resource i.e food, jobs ,housing their members become prejudice and hostile towards each other. This would explain the hostility towards immigrants, as people perceive resources to be limited and view immigrants as competitors and therefore fell prejudice and hostile towards them.

Question 7

What are the strengths of realistic conflict theory ?

Answer 7

The theory is useful because it can explain real life events of prejudice such as hostility towards immigrants in terms of competition for resources that are perceived as limited.
Furthermore the study has practical real world applications as it suggests that prejudice and hostility is can be reduced if groups are not in competition and instead has superordinate goals.

The theory has credibility because it is supported by evidence from sherif classic study. Additionally the theory has cross cultural relevance as Ember (1992) observed that tribal societies inter-group hostility increased when there is competition for limited resources, e.g. as a result of famine or natural feasters.

Question 8

What are the weaknesses of the realistic conflict theory ?

Answer 8

The theory is limited because it ignores individuals differences. For example it does not explain why some people display more prejudice than other, as seen in sherif study with Rattlers discussing the existence of another group more than the eagles.

Moreover its supporting evidence is limited as sherifs own writing suggests that the boys in Robbers Cave study may have been becoming hostile towards others groups before any competition was introduces. This may mean that Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory is a better explanation for the development of prejudice.

Question 9

What is the title of the classic study for social psychology and who conducted it ?

Answer 9

Sherif et al conduced the study titled Intergroup conflict and co-operation Robber’s Cave Experiment in 1966.

Question 10

What is the aim of Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 10

to investigate intergroup relations iver a period of times when various experimentally induced situation were introduced. This study was particularly interested in Group formation, The effects of competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved.

Question 11

What research method was used in Sherif’s classic study ?

Answer 11

a field experiment was used in sherifs Robber’s cave experiment measuring pre and post attitudes and beliefs.

Question 12

What was the sample of Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 12

22 11 year old boys were used as the sample for this study. All were white, American, lower-middle class, protestants. All were psychologically well adjusted with above average IQ’s. The participants in each of the two groups were matched on variables including educational and sporting ability.

Question 13

Where did Sherifs’s classic study take place ?

Answer 13

The boys were taken, in two groups, to Robbers cave National park in Oklahoma USA. The two groups lived separately at the camp.

Question 14

How was data collected in Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 14

Data was gathers using a range of data collection methods including:

1) Observation; a participant observer studied each group for 12 hours a day.
2) Sociometric analysis; friendship patterns were analysed.
3) Experiments; for example they boys had to collect beans and estimate their own group had collected, this was compared to their estimate of how many beans the other group collected.
4) Tape recordings; adjectives. and phrases used refer to in-group and out-group members were examined.

Question 15

What was the procedure to Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 15

Stage 1 In-group formation
took place in the first 5-6 days of the camp. the two groups were given tasks to carry out together to help them bond as a group and develop group norms. They were each given a group name to strengthen their group identity, The Eagles and the Rattlers. During this phase the experimenters used observation, sociometric measures (quantitative data was collected about personal and social relationships) and experimental judgements to investigate status positions and roles within the groups.

Stage 2 Inter-group relations, the friction phase.
This phase last between 4-6 days. The experimenters told the groups about each other. As soon as they knew that the other group excited, they expressed hostility. The experimenter encouraged conflict between the tow groups by setting up situations where they had to compete for desirable prizes such as penknives. They wanted see if negative attitudes would develop. They recorded adjectives and phrases to see if they were derogatory, and they continued to observe behaviour.

Stage 3 Inter-group relations: The integration phase
This was the last stage and took place for 6 to 7 days. This stage was designed to reduce tension between the groups. At first the two groups watched films together and completed task around each other. `then they took part in joint problem-solving activities to achieve supernate, shared goals. For example they were told that the water supply had been blocked by vandals and that the two groups had to work together to remove the blockage. a joint camp-over was organised where group members had work hard together for food and sleeping equipment. The two groups had to work together to free a truck apparently stuck in mud. The researchers measured the use of derogatory terms and used observation and rating of stereotyping.

Question 16

What are the results of Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 16

Stage 1 In-group formation
The boys bounded with their groups, working cooperatively and developing group norms. They came up with names for their groups (Rattlers and Eagles). Both groups had a recognised leader. Each group expressed dislike of the other group when they found out about them, and the formations of an “us and them” attitude became apparent. They Rattlers discussed the existence of the other group more frequently than the Eagles did.

Stage 2 Inter-group relations the friction phase.
Competition lead to immediate hostility. The Eagles refused to eat with the Rattlers. The groups shouted insults at each other, and observers reported they became close to physical violence. The groups raided each other’s huts and burned their flags. There was a strong sense of in- group favouritism and negative outgrip bias. When asked to self-report who there friends were out of all the boys and around 93% selected boys exclusively from their own in group.

Stage 3 Intergroup relations the integration phase.
Simply getting the groups together without competition e.g. in the dining hall to watching a movie didn’t remove hostility. However, the joint problem solving tasks did work to reduce hostility. Evidence of this is that the groups chose to share a bus home and the Rattlers spent a $5 prize won in one of the competitions on drinks for both groups. By the end of stage 3, although more friendship choices were still found within the in-groups, they had increased between the groups.

Question 17

What were the conclusions of Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 17

1) Some hostility was observed between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other. This suggests that some prejudice ad discrimination arises even without competition.
2) Once competition was introduced the hostility between the groups became more intense. This suggests that competition increases prejudice and discrimination.
3) Contact between two groups is not enough on its own to reduce hostility.
4) `the findings from stage 3 suggest that when groups cooperate on tasks that are meaningful to both groups, prejudice and discrimination are reduced. Hostility was not educed until the groups had cooperated more than once.

Question 18

How generalisable is sherifs classic study ?

Answer 18

The sample of Shariefs Robbers Cave Field experiment was raised because the participants not only consisted of a small group ( 22) of 11 year old boys, theses boys had similar socio-economic background as they were all white protestants from lower-middle class families meaning the results found about intergroup relations are not necessarily representative of the wider population and therefore can’t be generalised to people outside of the sample.

Question 19

How reliable is Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 19

A weakness of Sherifs study is that it is difficult to replicated due to the use of a field study, as this means researchers couldn’t standardised procedures such as interactions between the Rattlers and the Eagles this reduces the relaiblitliy s it can’t be replicated in a consistent way. However researcher did used experiments within the study to try and control the groups interaction for example in stage 2 intergroup relations friction phase they groups competed against each other in induced activities like tug of war for desired prizes like pen knives.

Question 20

How applicable is Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 20

This studies results allowed psychologist to see that extent to which conflict causes hostility ad prejudice as well as showing how to reduce this hostility and prevent prejudism. As from Sherifs results techniques can developed an implemented in schools and work environments were groups are required to work together towards superordinate goals to reduce hostility.

Question 21

How valid is Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 21

A strength of this study is that it has high ecological validity as it was conducted in a real life environment rather than a artificial laboratory setting. the study took place in a Robbers Cave activity site in Oklahoma. This is a strength because it means the behaviour displayed by the boys is true to how they would behave in a natural setting increasing the mandane realism of the study.

Furthermore the boys were unaware they were being studied so their behaviours were not impacted by demand characteristics or social desirability, this increases the face validity as the behaviour recorded is representative of how the participants would behave in similar situations in real life.

Moreover Sherif used a range of different techniques to collect data during the study, both qualitative and quantitive, providing a more objective and holistic understand of prejudice and inter-group relations. for example they used self report and sociometric analysis of friendship patterns to find that in stage 2 93% of friendships were exclusively within the boys in-group as well as using tape recordings to to record any significant adjective or phrases which found the Ratters discussed the existence of the other group more than the Eagles.

In addition Sherif et al introduced some controls into the study as the participants were a matched pairs design on academic and sporting ability as well as all the boys being the same age, socio-economic class, ethnicity and religion. This was to ensure that participant variables such as home background and individual factors were controlled and not the explanation for the behaviour and attitudes of the boys.

Nevertheless the use of a field experiment meant the study didn’t have control over all extraneous variables that may have impacted the boys behaviour displayed during the study such as the interactions between the Eagles and Rattlers were not controlled. Additionally the type of design is a pre-experimental. This means that it compares before and after conditions in the same participants, instead of comparing results between a corneal and experimental group. This means that it cannot show cause and effect links as clearly as a true experiment can.

Question 22

How ethical is Sherifs classic study ?

Answer 22

Sherifs Robbers cave field experiment does not adhere to ethical guidelines as deception was used throughout as the boys were unaware they were being studied this causes problems with informed consent as if the boys didn’t know they were being studied informed consent couldn’t be received from them and neither was the right to withdraw possible as they didn’t know there was anything to withdraw from. However the boys’ parents were informed and consent was gained from them.

Question 23

Describe Tafel and turners social identity theory ?

Answer 23

A second theory which explains how prejudice develops is social identify theory. Social identify theory looks to group membership to explain prejudice. Tajfel and turner suggest that just being in a group is enough to cause conflict with other groups - the groups do not need to be direct competition with one another. We discriminate against people who are in other groups to ours even if there is no logical reason to do so. Tajfel and Turner refers to in-groups and out-groups. An in-group is ay group yo which a person has membership, an out-group is any group which they do not have membership to. people tend to favour their own group.

Question 24

Define personal identity ?

Answer 24

Personal identtity is our own unique qualities, personality and self-esteem.

Question 25

Define social identity ?

Answer 25

social identity is formed through membership of social groups. people can have several personal selves, linked with group membership.

Question 26

How does our social identity impact our personal identity ?

Answer 26

social identity affects personal identity, because peoples identity themselves by their group membership. Group membership affects our self-esteem, so having a favourable social identity means that our personal identity will be more positive. Social identity comes from how people see themselves in relation to membership of their social group. Belonging to a group creates creates in-group-categorisation, which leads to in-group favouritism and hostility towards the outgrip. to enhance self-esteem people perceive their in-group as better.

Question 27

What are the three processes social identify suggests are involved in becoming prejudiced ?

Answer 27

Social identity theory suggests that there are three processes involved in becoming prejudiced:

1) self categorisation
2) Social identification
3) Social comparison

Question 28

Describe social categorisation ?

Answer 28

We categorise ourselves and others as part of particular social groups. Groups could involve gender, race or social class. Some groups are more relevant to some people than others.

Question 29

Describe social Identification ?

Answer 29

People take on the norms ad values of the group that they have categorised themselves as belonging to.

Question 30

Describe self Comparison ?

Answer 30

Self -esteem becomes bund u with group membership. If our self -esteem is to be maintained our group needs to compare well against other groups. This is done by two processes , in-group favouritism and negative out -group bias. In-group favouritism is the tendency pf group members to see the individuals within their group as unique and as favourable. Out-group bias is the tendency to view members of the out-group as ‘al the same’ and in an unfavourable light. This explains hostility between groups when there isn’t a conflict for resources: it is to with competing identities.

Question 31

What are the three variables hrajfel describes to contribute to in-group favouritism ?

Answer 31

There are three variables which contribute to in-group favouritism these are :

1) The extent to which the individuals identify within the in-group
2) The extent to which there are grounds for making comparison with the out-group.
3) The relevance of the out-group I relation to the in-group.

Question 32

What are the strengths of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory ?

Answer 32

The theory is supported by Tajfel’s study, which indicates that people favour the in-group even where the in-group is artificially created. If research is supported by evidence this increases its credibility. Some research that supports the social identity theory includes Tajfel’s Accurate or Inaccurate Estimations and Tajfel’s Klee snd Kandisky experiments.
Another strengths of this theory is that its useful because it can explain issues as diverse as conflict between football teams to conflicts between different religious groups, and conflict between different racial groups.
It also has useful practical applications, as it can be used to reduce prejudice in society which arises from people identifying with in-group and discrimination against an out-group.

Question 33

What are the Limitations of Tajfel and Turner’s social identity theory ?

Answer 33

The research conducted by Tajfel is limited, as the results from this evidence could be explained by competition rather than favouritism. This might mean that realistic conflict theory is a better explanation for the prejudice shown to other groups.
Tajfel’s experiment were conducted in a laboratory setting: this may mean that demand characteristics were preset as participants may have acted different as they knew they were being studied.
The theory may not apply cross culturally. For example Weathererell (1982) found that New Zealand Polynesians were more likely to favour the out-group than to show bias towards their own in-group. Cultures which emphasise collectivism and cooperation are less likely to show good prejudice. So the theory may not generalise to other cultures.
The theory is limited for two reasons, social identity theory doesn’t explain individual differences in prejudice as some people are more prejudice against the out-group than others. Secondly the theory is limited because it has been criticised for being incomplete; it focuses only on groups and doesn’t take Ito account any factors when trying to explain prejudice. It also doesn’t try to measure how great the prejudice is, or whether various situations affect the level of prejudice.

Question 34

How did Tajfel use minimal groups to investigate social identity theory ?

Answer 34

Social identity theory has been tested through various pieces of research. If a theory is supported by evidence, this suggests that it is scientific because it is testable in an objective and empirical way. Tajfel conducted a series of Minimal-group experiments to test whether merely being a member of a group was enough to create prejudice against another group. He wanted to see if prejudice could arise without competition, so he set up groups in a way that allowed him to investigate whether group membership on its own, without any competition, was influencing behaviour. In a minimal group, group members are randomly and arbitrarily created, there is no contact between group members, membership of group is anonymised, and the tokens used as a form of currency to allocate rewards and punishments have no intrinsic value.

Question 35

Describe Tajfel’s Experiment one: Accurate or Inaccurate Estimations (1971) ?

Answer 35

The aim of the study was to demonstrate merely putting people into groups is enough for them to discriminate in favour of their own group and against others. Tajfel used a sample of 64 teenage school boys from a school in Bristol as participants in this research. Participants were tested in groups of 8. The boys were taken to a lecture theatre and told that the study was investigating visual judgements. They were then shown 40 different dot clusters on a screen and asked to estimate the number of dots in each cluster.
After they had completed their estimates they were divided into two experimental conditions:
● The Neutral condition, these boys were told that in the tasks they had completed, some people consistently over-estimate and half consistently underestimated. Half of this group were told they were over-estimators and the half were under-estimators
●The Value condition. These boys were told that some people are consistently more accurate than others. Half of the boys in this group were told they were accurate estimators, half were told that they were inaccurate estimators.
The boys were tiger given the task of assigning monetary rewards or penalties to their own group or another group of boys. They weren’t told the identities of the boys in the other group. Booklets containing a number of matrices were used for the Boyd to allocate rewards and penalties to members of their own group or the other group. The boys had a choice to either being fair or showing discirmation. They could show in-group favouritism by rewarding more points to their own group to they could show out-group bias by giving more penalties to the other group.
When analysing the results from the study, Tajfel did not find a difference between the neutral and value condition, however he did find that most of the participants gave more money to members of their own group than members of the other groups. He therefore concluded that the mere fact that being in a group might cause discrimination against another group.

Question 36

Describe Tajfel’s Experiment two: Klee and Kandinsky ?

Answer 36

Tafel eanted to investigate whether merely being a member of a group was enough to create prejudice against another group. He used 48 schoolboys, dividing then into there groups of 16. The boys were shown pictures of painting. They were told that some go the paintings were by Klee snd some were by Kandinsky, but they were not told which paintings had been done by which artist. They were asked to indicate which paintings they preferred. They were then randomly assigned to either the Klee condition or the Kandinisky condition, regardless of their preference.
Again, they were asked to fill out a matrix, where the numbers on the matrices reprinted money which would be allocated to the groups. The boys once again could either reward their own group, penalise the other group or show fairness to both groups. Tajfel found that the boys consistently close to reward their own group and ignore the fair alternative. They also preferred to to penalise the other group rather than maximise their own profit. This suggests that we have a natural tendency to favour the in-group and discriminate against the out group, even in the absence of normal intergroup social situations.

Question 37

How are inidivudal differences in personality factors affecting prejudice ?

Answer 37

Social Psychology tends to explain prejudice by looking at group dynamics. However it is also possible to explain prejudice by looking at individual factors. Cohrs (2012) suggested that the personality dimensions of openness to experience is negatively associated with prejudice.
Adorno et al suggested that having authoritarianism personality might explain why some people are prejudiced. This might be suggest that people with authortarian personalities tend to be hostile to those who they s as inferior to themselves, particularly minority groups or out-groups. They also tend to be obedient to authority. Later studies have supported Adorno’s findings, giving it credibility.