Prejudice continued and reduction

Question 1

What is Social Identity Theory?

Answer 1

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).

Question 2

What happened in Tajfel et al. (1971)?

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

What is the minimal group paradigm matrix?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Which strategy in allocating to 2 diff. in-group members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?

Answer 4

Fairness was the popular

Question 5

Which strategy in allocating to 2 diff. out-group members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?

Answer 5

fairness

Question 6

Which strategy in allocating to 1 in-group + 1 outgroup members in minimum group studies (Tajefel et al., 1971) was most popular?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What is the mere categorisation effect?

Answer 7

Categorizing people into different social groups is sufficient for creating ethnocentrism.

Question 8

What does supporting evidence show about the mere categorisation effect?

Answer 8

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.

Question 9

Why do we think of our identity as ‘we’ rather than ‘I’?

Answer 9

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)

Question 10

What are the effects of groups on SIT?

Answer 10

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

Question 11

What is the importance of pos. distinctiveness in SIT?

Answer 11

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

Question 12

How is SIT linked to immigrants?

Answer 12

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)

Question 13

What is a drawback on the links between immigrants + SIT?

Answer 13

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

Question 14

What is nationalism?

Answer 14

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).

Question 15

What is patriotism?

Answer 15

Loving one’s country without necessarily feeling
that one’s country is superior to others.

Question 16

How does patriotism link to SIT?

Answer 16

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)

Question 17

How does patriotism compare in other countries?

Answer 17

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)

Question 18

What is the role of threat perceptions as an explanation of prejudice (intergroup theories)

Answer 18

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

Question 19

What are role of threat perceptions in explaining prejudice?

Answer 19

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.

Question 20

What did David and Essex (2001) find about threat perceptions?

Answer 20

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.

Question 21

How does the government deal with threat perceptions and immigrants?

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

How does the media influence threat perceptions?

Answer 22

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).

Question 23

Can one theory explain all instances of prejudice?

Answer 23

NO

Question 24

How can we reduce prejudice?

Answer 24

intergroup contact
social categorisation
other approaches

Question 25

What is the contact hypothesis?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

What are the four conditions need for intergroup contact?

Answer 26

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

Question 27

What do supporting evidence show about intergroup contact?

Answer 27

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 28

What are some limitations of the intergroup contact?

Answer 28

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)

Question 29

Can we treat all prejudices similarly in intergroup contact?

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Does intergroup contact cause a reduction in prejudice?

Answer 30

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

Question 31

What is the limitations in research suggesting intergroup contact cause a reduction in prejudice?

Answer 31

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)

Question 32

Which type of contact is the most effect?

Answer 32

Freq. doesn’t matter, quality does across-group friendships (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)

Question 33

Do intergroup contact effects generalize from individuals to overall outgroup attitudes?

Answer 33

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)

Question 34

Does intergroup contact consistently work?

Answer 34

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).

Question 35

When is intergroup contact negative?

Answer 35

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).

Question 36

How does contact work?

Answer 36

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 37

Are there any drawbacks w/ contact theory?

Answer 37

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!

Question 38

What has Haessler et al. (2020) shown on inter-group contact and social change?

Answer 38

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)

Question 39

What does Reimer & Sengupta (2022) show on inter-group contact and social change?

Answer 39

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

Question 40

What are the social categorisation strategies used to reduce prejudice?

Answer 40

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.

Question 41

What are the effects of other strategies in reducing prejudice?

Answer 41

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

Question 42

How does entertainment reduce prejudice?

Answer 42

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.