Prejudice continued and reduction Flashcards
What is Social Identity Theory?
Proposed by Tajfel and Turner (1970s) = theory of intergroup conflict + considered major theories in social psych.
Uses minimum group studies methodology to examine whether prejudice exist outside
of competition over resources
Aims = to identify when do people think of themselves as ‘we’ (social identity) than ‘I’ (personal identity).
What happened in Tajfel et al. (1971)?
Ps assigned to 1/2 groups randomly, don’t know other Ps + no contact.
Procedure = ps led to private publics + asked to allocate points (turn to £) to:
- 2 members of in-group
- 2 outgroup
- 1 outgroup + 1 ingroup
How they allocate points = didn’t affect the monetary allocations of their participation for the study. Choice not drive by personal greed.
What is the minimal group paradigm matrix?
Distribution strategies:
- fairness
- max. in-group
- max. joint profit = both groups get the most poss.
- max. differentiation = try to favour/ make superior a spec. group
Which strategy in allocating to 2 diff. in-group members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?
Fairness was the popular
Which strategy in allocating to 2 diff. out-group members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?
fairness
Which strategy in allocating to 1 in-group + 1 outgroup members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?
in-group favouritism = more points to ingroup than outgroup
Ps care about relative standing rather than absolute standing of the group.
discrimination favouring ungroup happens w/out conflict history + contact
What is the mere categorisation effect?
Categorizing people into different social groups is sufficient for creating ethnocentrism.
What does supporting evidence show about the mere categorisation effect?
Hundreds of minimal group experiments = that
mere categorisation produces ethnocentrism +
competitive intergroup behavior.
Mechanisms for minimal ingroup bias are unclear + different explanations exist.
BUT results interpreted as evidence show = psychological motivation operating in individuals to defend group interests regardless of self-interest.
Why do we think of our identity as ‘we’ rather than ‘I’?
Social identification = indvdl’s self-concept deriving from membership knowledge of a social group (or groups) + emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p.69).
- Varies among individuals
- Varies depending on context (group identity
can become more salient)
What are the effects of groups on SIT?
Group membership influences self-definition, self-value People are motivated to feel pos. abt ourselves.
Tajfel (1978) = group member identify strongly w/ in-group makes distinctions from outgrips on dimensions valued by the perceiver
What is the importance of pos. distinctiveness in SIT?
Leads to in-group favouritism
Need can be achieved by:
- highlighting DMNs where the in-group is superior to the outgroup
- actively disparage/ discriminate against the outgroup to create/ reinforce an existing heriacy
How is SIT linked to immigrants?
Immigrants = based on national group membership. Variation in national identification = impact attitudes towards them,
SIT predicts greater national identification = greater prejudice towards immigrants
Several supporting empirical European evidence (e.g Billiet et al., 2003)
What is a drawback on the links between immigrants + SIT?
National attachment doesn’t necessarily lead to prejudice toward immigrants = should distinguish between nationalism + patriotism.
Measures: e.g. ‘In view of America’s moral + material
superiority, it is only right that we should have the biggest say in deciding United Nations policy.’ Reflective of nationalism
What is nationalism?
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).
What is patriotism?
Loving one’s country without necessarily feeling
that one’s country is superior to others.
How does patriotism link to SIT?
Patriotism should not necessarily correlate pos. w/
prejudice toward outgroups, while nationalism should.
Series of studies w/ British respondents = national identification is assoc. w/ prejudice toward
asylum-seekers, especially indvdls who think that national group membership is based on ethnic (essentialist and unchangeable) attributes (Pehrson, Brown, & Zagefka, 2009)
How does patriotism compare in other countries?
Portugal = strong anti-racism norms after colonialism history
Vala et al. (2008) = found no link between national identification + prejudice toward immigrants in Portugal.
What matters = strength of national identification BUT ALSO what people understand their own identity to stand for (identity content, identity norms)
What is the role of threat perceptions as an explanation of prejudice (intergroup theories)
plays important role in explaining prejudice towards outgroups = various types of threats
Intergroup Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) = Threat comes about bc group members perceive themselves to be competing w/ outgroup over scarce material resources/ when they feel that their physical safety or power is endangered - realistic threats
What are role of threat perceptions in explaining prejudice?
Stephan & Stephan (2000)
Group members = threatened if they perceive the
outgroup to be a threat to their cultural values, religion, belief system, ideology, philosophy, morality or world: symbolic threat.
Meta-analytic findings: (Riek et al., 2006): realistic +
symbolic threats are associated. w/ neg. outgroup attitudes.
What did David and Essex (2001) find about threat perceptions?
immigrants = seen as a threat regardless of their success in the host country:
– If unsuccessful, they are perceived as a threat to
the country’s economic standing.
– If successful, they are viewed as competing with
the host society with jobs and other resources.
How does the government deal with threat perceptions and immigrants?
Not threats = perceived as real
Politicians sometimes blame immigrants for any
negative socioeconomic development, e.g.
unemployment, deficits in the health system,
problems in education: scapegoating of immigrants.
This leads to increased prejudice toward immigrants.
How does the media influence threat perceptions?
Media = big influence on perceptions of threat + immigrant attitudes.
Brosius and Esser (1995) found a significant relationship between media presentations of immigrants in Germany in the 1990s + hate crimes one week later (see also Koopmans & Olzack, 2004).
Can one theory explain all instances of prejudice?
NO
How can we reduce prejudice?
intergroup contact
social categorisation
other approaches
What is the contact hypothesis?
Allport (1954) = Interaction between individuals belonging to diff. social groups will reduce ethnic prejudice and intergroup tension (Hewstone & Brown 1986)
One of the most popular + researched prejudice
reduction strategies
What are the four conditions need for intergroup contact?
Allport (1954)
Contact = increase/ reduction in prejudice
Favourable outcomes 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
What do supporting evidence show about intergroup contact?
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
What are some limitations of the intergroup contact?
Meta-analytic findings = the four conditions are facilitating than necessary (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2005)
- contact is usually linked to positive effects (95% of studies) + how well depends on facilitating factors - do we actual need these four conditions?
Few experimental designs manipulate the four
conditions + look at delayed effects of contact on prejudice. Literature not in a position to make definitive conclusions on this (Paluck et al., 2019)
Can we treat all prejudices similarly in intergroup contact?
Effects of contact depends on target group (Pettigrew
& Tropp, 2006)
- Stronger effects for heterosexual prejudice towards
gay/lesbian + physically disabled
- Average effects = racial + ethnic prejudice
- Weaker effects = elderly + mentally ill
- Stronger effects for advantaged than disadvantaged
groups
Does intergroup contact cause a reduction in prejudice?
Pettigrew (1998) = lack of longitudinal research but evidence suggest relationship is contact to improved attitudes.
Recent studies (Paluck et al., 2019) = high-qual. experimental designs (randomised groups + delayed measures of prejudice) = 27 experimental studies. THIS SUPPORTS pos. effects of contact on prejudice
What is the limitations in research suggesting intergroup contact cause a reduction in prejudice?
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 + young adults (<25 years)
– Contact effects stronger for prejudice against those W/ mental or physical disabilities (weaker for ethnic and racial prejudice)
Which type of contact is the most effect?
Freq. doesn’t matter, quality does across-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 generalise when outgroup member = representative of the outgroup. Otherwise subtyping occurs! (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)
Does intergroup contact consistently work?
Neg. intergroup contact can occur + increase prejudice!
Situations = participants feel threatened +
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 et al., 2018).
When is intergroup contact negative?
disadvantaged groups.
Various settings positive intergroup contact = more
frequent than negative intergroup contact.
Effects of negative intergroup contact = 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).
How does contact work?
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
Are there any drawbacks w/ contact theory?
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 + reduced willingness to
engage in collective action to challenge social
inequalities!
What has Haessler et al. (2020) shown on inter-group contact and social change?
Haessler et al. (2020) = large + heterogeneous dataset (12,997 individuals from 69 countries)
Found that intergroup contact + support for social change towards greater equality are:
- pos. associ. w/ members of advantaged groups (ethnic majorities + cis-heterosexuals)
- neg. associ among disadvantaged groups
(ethnic minorities + sexual and gender minorities)
What does Reimer & Sengupta (2022) show on inter-group contact and social change?
Meta-analysis across 98 studies = 140 samples, 213,085 disadvantaged group members.
Intergroup contact = more likely to be neg. associated
w/ perceived injustice, collective action + support for
reparative policies. BUT effect sizes are small.
Results dependent on type of contact:
* Cross-group friendships = assoc. w/ reduced social
change orientations
* 1/3rd studies found intergroup contact increases perceived injustice (discrimination made more salient)
Limitations:
- Cross-sectional data = mostly western
- more research is needed
What are the social categorisation strategies used to reduce prejudice?
Decategorisation = personalisation (reduce importance of group membership) + differentiation (outgroup members seen as unique) = see them as they are
Mutual intergroup differentiation = avoid depriving groups of their valued social identities + make group salient during interaction w/ each group bring different strengths.
Recategorisation = change the ‘us’ and the ‘them’ into ‘we’ + common in-group indeity @ superordinate lvl
Dual categorisation = emphasis subordinate identities + superordinate identity.
What are the effects of other strategies in reducing prejudice?
Paluck & Greene (2009) + Paluck et al. (2021) studied the effects of different prejudice reduction
interventions.
Examples:
Diversity training, peer-influence, face-to-face contact, cognitive and emotional training, entertainment
How does entertainment reduce prejudice?
Category of interventions based on the power of story- telling + 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.
