Prejudice II Flashcards
Realistic Group Conflict theory
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).
Social Identity theory study
Minimal group studies methodology-> – Participants assigned to one of two groups randomly based on chance or an arbitrary criterion e.g. painting preference or even flip of a coin (heads or tails group). Shown a different painting and put into separate groups, no history of conflict with one another, they don’t interact with the other participants. 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. Minimal group studies -> – 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). – 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.
Minimal group studies findings
if you split the money fairly -> Distribution strategies: fairness, maximum ingroup profit (how money you put into your own group), maximum joint profit, maximum differentiation. Findings -> 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!
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 fewer 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.
“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.
Social identity theory and minimal group experiments
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)? 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) 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. 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) -> The need for positive distinctiveness can be achieved by -> highlighting dimensions on which the ingroup is superior to the outgroup and 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.
Immigrant examples in minimal groups
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. But:
* 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.’
Patriotism in prejudice
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.
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).
Prejudice reduction
intergroup contact
Intergroup contact
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954): 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.
Four conditions for intergroup contact -> Allport (1954) -> 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.
Intergoup conact meta-analytic findings
Meta-analytic findings -> 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. 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). Meta-analysis -> Can we treat all prejudices similarly? Effects of contact depends on target group (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) - Stronger effects for heterosexual prejudice towards gay/lesbian and individuals with physical disabilities - Average effects for racial and ethnic prejudice - Weaker effects for prejudice towards elderly and individuals with mental illness - Stronger effects for advantaged than disadvantaged groups (those who have more power in society).
Any casuality evidence?
Causality? -> 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. 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. Contact effects stronger for prejudice against those with mental or physical disabilities (weaker for ethnic and racial prejudice).
More findings?
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. Prototypical of the outgroup. Otherwise subtyping occurs! Subtype occurs when individuals prefer only a minority of that outgroup due to their non-prototypical characteristics. 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!
Intergroup contact disadvantages
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.
How does contact work?
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.
Contact theory criticism
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!
