Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social Psychology > Prejudice & Intergroup conflict > Flashcards

Prejudice & Intergroup conflict Flashcards

1
Q

Individual differences approach

A
  • The Authoritarian Personality

- Social Dominance Orientation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Group psychology approaches

A
  • Realistic Conflict Theory

- Social Identity Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Social Cognition Factors

A
  • Stereotyping Biases

- Attributional Biases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Adorno (1950) - Authoritarian Personality

A

Adorno et al (1950) developed the theory of an authoritarian personality to partially explain why individuals are prejudiced.
- This personality type supposedly possesses specific characteristics that meant they were more likely to be hostile to people of minority groups e.g. other races, social groups, age, sexuality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Adorno (1950) - Developing the Authoritarian Personality

A
  • Psychoanalytic – influenced by Freud
    » Research into whether there is a kind of personality that effects prejudice?
    >The theory proposed that autocratic child-rearing practices were responsible for the emergence in adulthood of various clusters of beliefs.
    » Focus placed on parental influences - it is possible for parents to sow
    the seeds of a prejudice personality - possibly due to abusive/verbally
    violent parents
    » Thus we displace this aggression onto convenient targets - e.g. minority groups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Adorno (1950) - F-Scale

A

> Initially they interviews US college students about their political beliefs and anti-semitism - from this they designed questionnaires to measure authoritarian personality
> They developed the F scale - Fascism Scale to measure anti-democratic beliefs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

F-Scale Weakness

A

✘ originally the scale had validity and reliability issues - their scoring only went in one direction -
now use positive and negative scoring)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Altemeyer & ‘Right-wing

Authoritarianism’

A

Altemeyer highlighted three traits that show a strong relationship with each other, therefore approached authoritarianism as a collection of attitudes with 3 components: this collection of traits he named right-wing authoritarianism

  • conventionalism (adherence to societal conventions that are endorsed by authorities
  • authoritarian aggression (a general aggression and hostility directed towards out-groups, that is viewed as acceptable by recognised authorities)
  • authoritarian submission (submission to society’s established authorities.)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

RWA

A

Altemeyer developed the RWA - Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale

  • Those who identify as high RWA tend to be politically conservative, tend to be more punitive towards criminals, and hold more orthodox religious views.
  • They are also very prejudiced towards out-groups, therefore high scoles on the RWAs correlate highly with measures of ethnocentrism and hostility towards homosexuals.
  • Interestingly, those who scored highly on the RWAs tended to show more prejudiced attitudes when their answers were anonymous
  • Much research suggests that those who are high RWA tend to be prejudiced to virtually everyone
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Criticism of authoritarian personality -

A

✘ The theory only explained the presence of prejudice in a small subset of the population, does not explain why many people without this personality type do show prejudice.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Criticism of authoritarian personality - Pettigrew (1959)

A

✘ This approach does not explain why prejudice is higher in some regions than in others, e.g. anti-Black prejudice has typically been stronger in the southern US than in other parts of the country

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

SDO - Sidanius & Pratto

A

Some people exhibit a preference for inequality among social groups.

  • Specifically these individuals want their group to dominate and be superior to other groups, such individuals are regarded as possessing high social-dominance orientation (SDO)
  • An SDO is an attitude towards intergroup relationships which say that groups are different and organised into hierarchical structure within society - hence some are inferior to others
  • High SDO persons seek to maintain this structure of society’s groups, whereas low SDO persons seek to reduce group inequity, and eliminate the hierarchical structure of society.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

SDO & other prejudice

A
  • Research has found that SDO correlates with anit-Black racism and sexism.
  • SDO has also been shown to correlate with conservative political views and opposition to policies to promote equality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

SDO and origin of prejudice

A

✘ It should be noted that social dominance theory, upon which the concept of SDO was based, does not provide any suggestions for where prejudice originates.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

SDO and sex differences

A

Pratto, Stallworth & Sidanius (1997) did suggest that men tend to hold more conservative political views, compared with women, who tend to hold more liberal views and supportive programs of equal rights.

  • Despite strides to reduce the gap between males and females, Sidanius & Pratto (1994) conducted a survey in LA, finding that men had significantly higher SDO than women.
  • This finding was still present after controlling for cultural, situational and demographic factors.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Opposing evidence of SDO and sex differences

A

✘ Wilson and Liu (2003) report evidence that the link between SDO and gender virtually disappears when strength of gender identification is factored in.
- Women who identified highly with their gender had a higher social dominance orientation than men.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

F-Scale sample

A

If you agree with these statements you are more likely to be prejudice:

1) Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn
2) Homosexuals are no different from criminals and ought to be severely punished

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

RWA Sample

A

If you score highly on this scale you also score highly on other forms of prejudice:
1) The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, whereas the radicals and protesters are usually just “loud mouths” showing off their ignorance

2) Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married
3) Our country needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us
4) *(reverse scored) Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

SDO Sample

A

SDO-6 Questions (answered agree or disagree)

1) Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups
2) In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups
3) Its OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others
4) To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Prejudice is not STATIC - Stereotypes Katz and Braly 1933 & Gilbert 1951 (after WW2)

A

> > Ask white americans what the Japanese are like? Americans give the following answers:

  • Intelligent
  • Industrious
  • Progressive
  • Shrewd
  • Sly

> > After the second World War (Japanese have bombed Pearl Harbour) - US and Japan against each other

  • Americans were asked about Japanese again:
  • Americans reported them as:
  • Imitative
  • Sly
  • Extremely nationalistic
  • Treacherous

> > Americans then give negative traits - this suggests that there was a shift in stereotype

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Group psychology approach - Realistic Conflict

A

Realistic Conflict

Sherif believed that we cannot extrapolate what we know and propose about individual approaches it intergroup relations and prejudice e.g. adorno, RWA, SDO, and use this to characterise group relations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Intergroup relations

A

Sherif - Intergroup relations refer to relations between two or more groups and their respective members. Whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively ot individually, with another group and its members we have an instance of intergroup behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Sherif - intergroup belief

A

“Sherif believed that where groups compete over scarce resources, intergroup relations become marked by conflict and ethnocentrism arises”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

“Sherif believed that where groups compete over scarce resources, intergroup relations become marked by conflict and ethnocentrism arises” - How does he test this

A
  • Series of field experiments at summer camps for young boys in the US
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Ethnocentrism

A

Evaluative preference for all aspects of own groups over other groups

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Realistic Conflict Theory RCT

A
  • Sherif developed a theory to explain intergroup conflict and the findings of this earlier studies - he claimed that two groups are prejudiced towards one another when there is a goal in sight or when there is a possibility of material gain. Intergroup hostility/prejudice can arise as a result of conflicting goals and competition over limited resources
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

RCT continued description

A
  • Conflict arises as a result of conflict of interests
  • When 2 or more groups compete to achieve the same goal but only one can have it, hostility arises
  • He believed that the mere introduction of competition is a sufficient condition for the occurrence of hostility
28
Q

RCT and society

A

Group conflict can be seen in society e.g. when a new group of immigrants arrive in a country, they can sometimes be met with profound prejudice because they can be viewed as competitors of resources e.g. jobs, housing and schooling resulting in hostility to the out group

29
Q

Superordinate Goal

A

In one study, Sherif introduced a 4th phase to the experiment, two groups were provided with a superordinate goal, both groups desired the goal but could not achieve it on their own
- Introducing this goal meant groups worked together and cooperated to achieve the goal and therefore reduced intergroup conflict

30
Q

Summer camp studies

A

Sherif conducted three field experiments over 5 years

  • the studies took place in ROBBER’S CAVE State Park, OKLAHOMA (US)
  • Researchers posed as camp leaders
  • Sherif believed that social behaviour and prejudice could not be studies by looking at individuals in isolation
  • In all variations - competition was introduced early on with regular opportunities for one group to win
31
Q

Participants of the camp studies 1954 example

A

22, White middle class protestant

  • 11-12 year old boys
  • ‘well-adjusted’
32
Q

ROBBER’S CAVE Procedure

A
  • On arrival they were allocated to one OF two groups - boys were matched as far as possible by using ratings e.g. IQ, Sportiness
  • To maintain the PP’s natural behaviour, they were NOT informed they were part of a study
  • Each group were initially unaware of each others existence
  • The groups were unaware of the other group for a week - choosing a name and a flag
  • After a week, both groups were made aware of each other and in-group/out-group terms started being used
33
Q

Collection Methods

A
  • Range

- observation, experiment and tape recordings

34
Q

Phase 1

A
  • The two groups were kept apart for a week to help the formation of group norms and relations
  • “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”
  • They had to work as a group to achieve common goals that require cooperation
  • Engaged in various activities and formed friendships within the group
  • Both groups appeared to have recognised leaders
35
Q

Phase 2

A
  • Two groups were made aware of each other
  • Then, they were introduced to each other, and immediately the name calling began.
  • Competitions were introduced between the groups and the conflict which included hostility, derogation, and aggressive behaviour toward the other groups did increase as predicted
  • When groups came into contact there was evidence of hostility e.g. name calling
36
Q

Phase 3

A
  • In the third week (stage 3), the experimenters created conditions that required both groups to work together solving a common problem.
  • Introduction of superordinate goals
  • One example was the drinking water problem. The kids were under the impression that their drinking water was cut off possibly due to vandals. Both groups worked together to solve the problem.
  • Although there remained some hostility - there was cooperation between groups and therefore reduced prejudice
37
Q

Conclusions of Robbers Cave studies

A
  • Competition did appear to increase prejudice leading to intergroup conflict
  • Suggests that competition is a factor in leading to discrimination between groups
  • When groups work together on cooperative tasks for a superordinate goal - prejudice can be reduced
  • The research supports realistic conflict theory - that prejudice can be brought about through competition of resources
38
Q

Robber’s Cave and personality

A

The studies suggest that personality is not an adequate explanation of prejudice
» We cannot deploy personality to explain what we see here - Sherif
was able to put normal, well behaved children and make them aggressive

39
Q

Evaluation of Robber’s Cave

A

✓ - High ecological validity as the boys were in a natural environment
✘ Sample did not represent the wider population - WEIRD pp’s
✘ Difficult to generalise the findings to the rest of the population, including girls and people of other cultures or ages
✘ Sherif chose boys who has good sporting ability - perhaps they have a naturally high competitive nature

40
Q

Evaluation of RCT

A

✓ RCT is supported by multiple studies conducted by Sherif
✓ Real life application - the theory can be used to explain why prejudice arises towards different ethnic/racial groups or football fans

41
Q

Evaluation of RCT - Blake & Mouton (1962):

A

✓ trainee managers split into small groups and given a group task - presentations

  • Pps were told their presentations would be judged against other groups,
  • Managers consistently preferred the products of their own groups over the others - manifested in-group preference
42
Q

Studying prejudice

A

Numerous researchers have attempted to account for the prejudice associated with out-group members. Some approaches to this problem start at the level of the individual and largely confine their analysis to processes that occur within the individual. Other approaches start at the level of society, examining the interactions of groups as groups, that is, concentrating their analyses on several people interacting with several other people.

43
Q

Hostility before competiton

A

✘ Some claim it is just the knowledge of the existence of another group
that causes prejudice - Sherif’s notes suggest that during Robber’s Cave, even before the introduction of competitive events - boys were becoming hostile - this suggests that the mere presence of another out-group is sufficient to bring about prejudice

44
Q

✘ Tyerman & Spencer (1983)

A

✘ This study challenged Sherif’s findings - they observed English boy scouts at their annual camp

  • The boys knew each other very well prior to the study
  • Procedure was very similar to Robber’s Cave
  • Even between patrols - friendships were maintained and competition remained friendly with much less hostility than expected
45
Q

Tyerman & Spencer (1983) - conclusion

A
  • Tyerman & Spencer (1983) concluded that other influences such as context and situation are important e.g. english boys already knew each other
  • Competition therefore may not be sufficient condition for intergroup conflict
46
Q

What is the minimal condition for intergroup behaviour?

A

Tajfel and colleagues devised a way to test this - Minimal group paradigm

47
Q

Minimal group paradigm - Tajfel et al (1971)

A
  • British school boys participating in what they believed was a study on decision making were assigned to 1 or 2 groups randomly - but allegedly on the basis of their expressed preference for paintings by Kandinsky or Klay
    » PP’s filled out booklets full of point-allocation matrices
    » They will receive money for points
48
Q

Minimal group paradigm - Tajfel et al (1971) - findings - con

A
  • The results showed that the children strongly favoured their own group and adopted the ‘in-group favouritism strategy’
  • ‘in-group favouritism’ involves a mixture of maximising the in-group profit and maximising the difference between the in/out-group
  • This is a startling finding as groups were indeed minimal, they were created on the basis of a flimsy criterion, the children did not even know the identity of other members of each group
49
Q

Minimal group paradigm - Tajfel et al (1971) - conclusions

A

> > Shows people strive to make their group different from the opposition

50
Q

Minimal group paradigm - Tajfel et al (1971) support

A

✓ (Vaughan, Tajfel, Williams, 1981) used actual coins as rewards

  • Children who were either 7 or 12 years old simply distributed coins to unidentified in-group and out-group members
  • Marked in-group bias was reported in both age groups

✓ Other studies have shown that minimal intergroup categorisation can generate in-group bias at the implicit level and is thus an effect over which people may have no conscious control (Otten & Ventura, 1999)

51
Q

Social Identity Theory (SIT)

A
  • Tajfel & Turner (1979) suggest that prejudice comes from the formation of 2 groups without any other factor being present - the mere existence of groups is enough to cause conflict - supported by the Minimal Groups study Tajfel et al (1971)
  • Tajfel (1979) proposed that the groups (e.g. social class, family, football team etc.) which people belonged to were an important source of pride and self-esteem. Groups give us a sense of social identity: a sense of belonging to the social world.
52
Q

Social Identity Theory (SIT) continued

A

Within a group a person has a social identity.

  • Unlike personal identity which is based on personal characteristics unique to the individual - social identity is an image based on the attitudes/attributes of the group the individual belongs to.
  • Social identity comes from how people see themselves in relation to membership of their social groups; leads to in-group favouritism and hostility to the out-group
  • SIT claims that categorisation is a natural phenomena
53
Q

SIT and hostility to out-group

A

According to SIT, hostility to an out-group can occur from 3 processes:

  • Social categorisation
  • Social identification
  • Social comparison
54
Q
  • Social categorisation
A
  • Categorisation affects social perception, is meaningful and unavoidable
  • prejudice can be explained by our tendency to categorise ourselves as an in-group and others as an out-group
  • If we can assign people to a category then that tells us things about those people
  • Similarly, we find out things about ourselves by knowing what categories we belong to. We define appropriate behaviour by reference to the norms of groups we belong to, but you can only do this if you can tell who belongs to your group. An individual can belong too many different groups.
  • E.g. football supporters see their own team as the in-group and a rival team as an out-group
55
Q
  • Social identification
A
  • We adopt the identity of the group we have categorised ourselves as belonging to.
  • We internalise the norms, attitudes and values of the group members
  • E.g. football teams wear their team colours/shirts and sing their teams chant at matches - this differentiates them from the rival team
56
Q
  • Social comparison
A
  • Once we have categorised ourselves as part of a group and have identified with that group we then tend to compare that group with other groups.
  • To maintain our self-esteem, we show in-group favouritism and see the in-group as superior to out-groups
  • E.g. football fans think their own stadium/players are much better than the rival teams and therefore show hostility towards the out-group
57
Q

Central hypothesis of social identity theory

A

The central hypothesis of social identity theory is that group members of an in-group will seek to find negative aspects of an out-group, thus enhancing their self-image.

58
Q

SIT and prejudice

A

Prejudice and conflict can occur:
– when people in groups strive to be positively distinct from others and perceive collective injustice
– when social identity is perceived to be threatened by out-groups; defensive reactions can spark prejudice and discrimination

59
Q

SIT evaluation

A

✓ Theory successfully explains a wide range of real-world behaviours e,g, football teams, racism
✓ Does partially support Sherif as the boys at the summer camp did show prejudice before competition and showed in-group favouritism
✘ This theory suggests how prejudice might occur, but it doesn’t suggest how some people may be more prejudice than others e.g. this could be influenced by personality

60
Q

Biases in social

information-processing

A

Biases in how we process information - are neutral information processes or are we biased?

  • Research does show that we are biased in various ways and these biases add up to form prejudice
61
Q

Biases in social

information-processing - Linville (1982)

A
  • Linville (1982) shows we have stereotype biases
  • we have more complex in-group stereotypes than out-groups this is a consistent finding
    e. g. define the British - difficult to define - not be able to define
  • If you then ask about germans - they can rattle off a series of stereotypical beliefs because that is an out-group
62
Q

Out-group homogeneity effect

A

Quattrone (1986) conducted research into this and found the out-group homogeneity effect - this is when we tend to see people in out groups as more similar “they’re all the same”

  • Whereas we see the in-group as heterogeneous - very complex and varying
  • These effects can have a large impact - even effecting memory and facial recognition e.g. race effect (better at recognising people in the same race)
  • Supported by Linville (1982)
63
Q

Memory distortions

A
  • We have memory distortions
  • We like to think that we can remember things accurately
  • However categorisation and prejudice acts like a filter
    – Howard & Rothbart (1980) –
    We recall fewer negative statements about the in-group than about out-groups - we tend to hang on to negative statements of an out-group
  • We don’t want to remember things that challenge our stereotypes
64
Q

Memory distortions - (Duncan,

1976)

A

– Confirmatory biases (Duncan,

1976) - went on the metro and had actors reenact a physical/verbal altercation - he varied whether it was a white American or a black African American being aggressive
- When he asked white participants to describe what they witnessed - the pp’s would describe the altercation as much more aggressive if it were by a black person rather than white
- This shows that our memory can be twisted and influenced by our prejudice

65
Q

Ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979)

A
  • There can be lots of attribution errors
  • Attribution is about how we explain things as individuals - notably we explain things our group does
  • We are biased in explaining the actions of ourselves and our in-group - when this explanation bias is extended to explain the whole group - this is called ultimate attribution error
66
Q

Ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979)

– Hewstone et al., 1982 – private vs. state schools

A
  • Asked pp’s from private and state schools, to explain academic success and failure in the two systems
  • When asking children in private schools why children do well academically in these types of schools - the children said ‘because we are clever, and those in state schools aren’t as clever’ - dispositional attribution to explain the out-groups failure and the in-groups success
  • When he asked children in state schools, why private schools do better - smaller class sizes, better teachers, private schools have more resources - use an external attribution
  • They explained their underperformance situationally - helps maintain self-esteem of the individuals and the entire group - Our schools are underfunded, lack of discipline, cannot maintain good teachers

Social Psychology (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions