Prejudice and Discrimination Flashcards
1
Q
What are the forms of stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination?
A
- stereotyping (cognitive form, how we think about them)
- prejudice (affective/evaluative form, how we express how we feel about them)
- discrimination (behavioural form, actions we take due to feelings)
2
Q
Definition of prejudice?
A
- social orientation, how we feel about individuals as members of particular social groups rather than as individuals
- based on irrational and unjustified belief
3
Q
Cohen, Montoya and Insko (2006)
loyalty of in and out groups
A
- cross-cultural study of 186 societies comparing importance of in-group loyalty and support for out-group prejudice
- measured loyalty toward community in regards to attitudes toward out-group violence and toward in-group violence
- higher their loyalty toward local community was the more violence was valued towards out-groups, valued less toward in-group
4
Q
What did they find in regards to intraethnic and interethnic violence?
A
- intraethnic (behaving violently towards someone from own ethnic group)
- interethnic (behaving violently towards somebody from another ethnic group)
- found that the higher their intraethnic loyalty was the more intraethnic violence was rejected while interethnic violence was appreciated more
5
Q
Branscombe and Wann (1994)
threats to self-esteem
A
- US college students shown clips from Rocky IV and measured participant’s identification with being American
- greater their identification the lower their self-esteem was, prejudice was increased and were advocates of keeping Russians out
- prejudice boosts self-esteem
6
Q
Sherif et al (1961)
competition for resources
A
- competition for resources led to prejudice and discrimination
- eliminating the competition didn’t eliminate the prejudice
- mere knowledge of other groups was enough to provoke name-calling
7
Q
How does social categorization lead to prejudice?
A
- Tajfel argued that conflict, animosity, self-interest, and competition weren’t necessary for prejudice to emerge
- mere categorization was enough for prejudice to emerge
8
Q
Tajfel, Billig, Bundy and Flament (1971)
social categorization
A
- participants picked a painting they preferred, either Klee or Kandinsky, putting them into groups
- then asked to award payment to members of the groups
- allocated more to members of their group
- also allocated less to their group if it meant giving less to the other group
9
Q
What is social identity theory?
A
- division of world into groups gives the groups emotional significance, social importance and meaning for our identities
- argues that individuals seek to feel positively about groups they belong to and get their self-esteem from their membership-valuing own group leads to prejudice through in-group favouritism and bias against out-groups
10
Q
How is prejudice changing?
A
- there’s greater representation of ethnic minority groups in non-stereotypical roles
- increased participation of ethnic minority groups in professional occupations and managerial positions
11
Q
Sigall and Page (1971)
prejudice and honesty
A
- 60 male participants had to indicate series of 22 character traits on how characteristic they were of European-Americans and African-Americans
- led to believe they were on polygraph machine so would be honest
- in the control condition (could lie) weren’t likely to give negative responses, tried to purposely not show prejudice by not attributing negative traits to African Americans
- in bogus pipeline condition fewer negative traits were attributed to European-Americans with more to the African-Americans
12
Q
Crosby et al (1980)
unobtrusive observations
A
- looked at naturalistic studies that observed helping behaviours in inter-ethnic settings
- 50% showed more help was given to those of the same ethnicity
- for white people the helping behaviour was context dependent
13
Q
Weitz (1972)
expected interactions
A
- liberal white males told they’d be meeting another student
- gave description of race and reported how much they expected to like them and chose tasks for interaction
- when they expected to meet a black person there were negative correlations with expected liking and voice warmth and behaviours
- the more they expected to like the less it came through in their non-verbals
14
Q
Vanman (1997)
frown muscles
A
- measured electrical activity of muscle groups
- white people viewed black and white people and had to imagine meeting them
- had to rate the people they saw
- self-report data showed pro-black bias but indirect measure showed activity in frown muscles to black photos
15
Q
Dovidio, Kawakami and Gaertner (2002)
explicit and implicit attitudes
A
- compared effects of explicit and implicit attitudes on self-ratings and others during white interactions with black targets
- slight relation where explicit prejudice feeds into non-verbal friendliness
- implicit attitudes feeds into verbal friendliness but correlations are practically non-existent (explicit prejudice leads to verbal friendliness and vice versa mainly)
- majority and minority group members can leave different impressions of interaction as they focus on different signals
- implicit and explicit attitudes have different consequences for controlled versus spontaneous communication forms
