Prejudice- Social 2

Question 1

What is prejudice?

Answer 1

An extreme attitude towards a group that causes us to prejudge individuals based only on their membership of a group.

Question 2

Name the three negative

components of prejudice.

Answer 2

• Cognitive - the stereotypes (over-
  generalised beliefs) that we hold
• Affective - negative emotions - eg hostility, hatred
• Behavioural- avoidance, assault, joke making, or discrimination

Question 3

Define stereotype

Answer 3

Overgeneralised beliefs about someone or something.

Question 4

What is discrimination?

Answer 4

Unfair treatment of categories of people

Question 5

Why is prejudice a problem for society?

Answer 5

• excludes certain individuals from society
• rejects them from opportunities & activities are entitled to
• Causes hatred and violence
• Favouring our ‘own’ group
• People become divided
• dehumanisation

Question 6

Define intergroup conflict

Answer 6

Conflict between different groups

Question 7

Define superordinate goals

Answer 7

goals that can only be achieved by

the cooperation of all the group members together

Question 8

Explain Sherif’s view on reductionism

Answer 8

Sherif was a professor of psychology and sociology. Sherif believed that prejudice could not be explained by one idea but by a range of interconnecting social processes. He continually argued with a multidisciplinary approach and believed that psychologists should strive for both lab and field research because social problems do not occur just in a lab.

Question 9

Explain how realistic conflict theory suggests prejudice is caused.

Answer 9

Prejudice arises due to conflict between groups.
This conflict arises due to competition between the groups.
Competition is most intense when resources are scarce - or perceived to be scarce.

Question 10

Provide evidence from a piece of research that supports realistic conflict theory.

Answer 10

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Experiment found that hostility between groups increased when the groups were in
conflict with one another.

Question 11

Describe one limitation of Realistic Conflict Theory.

Answer 11

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave experiment suggests that the boys in the Robber’s Cave study may have been
becoming hostile towards the other groups before the competition was introduced - so perhaps Tajfel’s Social
Identity Theory is a better explanation.

Question 12

Describe one piece of evidence that

suggests that Realistic Conflict Theory can be applied cross-culturally.

Answer 12

Ember & Ember (1992) - In tribal societies inter-group hostility increases when there is competition for natural resources

Question 13

Give one weakness of Realistic Conflict Theory in PEE format

Answer 13

P: A weakness of the Realistic Conflict Theory is that the boys in the Robbers Cave study actually showed some
hostility towards each other when they discovered the presence of another group, even before competitions began.
E: In the Robbers Cave study, the boys were told about the presence of the other group and started to call them names.
E: This may mean that Social Identity Theory could be a better explanation of prejudice

Question 14

Give one strength of Realistic Conflict Theory in PEE format

Answer 14

P: A strength of RCT is that it is supported by evidence
E: This is a strength because it provides the theory with scientific credibility
E: In the Robbers Cave study, Sherif found that the hostility between the two groups intensified as they
began competing with each other for prizes.

Question 15

Evaluate the methodology of Realistic Conflict Theory

Answer 15

The main supporting evidence for RCT is The Robbers Cave study. This was a field study so was high in ecological validity, as going to a summer camp would be something that American school aged boys would ordinarily do. The tasks and competitions that the boys were asked to do were high in mundane realism such as tug of war or softball.

Question 16

Evaluate the application of Realistic Conflict Theory

Answer 16

The theory has practical real-world applications: it suggests that prejudice and hostility between groups can be reduced if they have superordinate goals. For example, Aronson et al. (1978) found the jigsaw technique of working towards shared goals in the classroom reduced competition and hostility.

Question 17

Give a weakness for realistic conflict theory (not including a alternative theory)

Answer 17

The theory is limited because it ignores individual differences.
For example it does not explain why
some of the boys in Sherif’s study displayed more prejudice than others did.

Question 18

What was the aim of Sherif et al’s study?

Answer 18

To investigate:
•inter-group relations, focusing on group formation.
•the effect of competition,
•and how to resolve conflicts between groups,

Question 19

Describe the sample of Sherif et al’s study

Answer 19

The sample was twenty-two 11 year old boys. All were white, American, lower-middle-class, and Protestant.
All were of above- average IQ. The participants in each of the two groups were matched on variables including educational and sporting ability.

Question 20

Why do you think sherif matched the two groups on variables?

Answer 20

To reduce any pre-existing prejudices which may have been a extraneous variable. So we can be sure hostility was due to competition and not pre-existing prejudice.

Question 21

Define sociometric data

Answer 21

Shows patterns personal/ social relationships between participants.
Gives quantitative data.

Question 22

Describe the issue of subjectivity in relation to data collection Sherif et al’s study?

Answer 22

Observations may be subjective as different people may focus on different aspects of an interaction.

Question 23

Describe the issue of objectivity in relation to data collection Sherif et al’s study?

Answer 23

Recording conversations means an objective record of interactions is kept.

Question 24

Describe the issue of validity in relation to data collection Sherif et al’s study?

Answer 24

Use of many different data collection methods increases validity as the findings can be checked against each other. If the findings agree, the data is high in concurrent validity

Question 25

Sheriff’s experiment involved 3 stages.

Describe the procedure of Stage 1: In-group formation

Answer 25

• Each group was kept separate (unaware of the other group) and given tasks to help them bond.
• Named their group’s strengthening their group identity.
• Observation & sociometric measures used to investigate status positions and roles within the groups.

Question 26

Describe Stage 2: Inter-group relations: the friction phase of Sheriff’s study

Answer 26

• Groups we’re made aware of each other and immediately expressed hostility.
• conflict was encouraged
• competitive activities took place with prizes
• Recorded conversations to see if they used negative language about the other group and observed behaviour

Question 27

Name the Competitive activities in Sherrif’s study that the boys engaged in

Answer 27

• A camp tournament
• Baseball games
• Tug of war
• Touch football
• Tent pitching
• Cabin inspections
• Skits and songs
• Treasure hunt

Question 28

Describe Stage 3: Inter-group relations: the integration phase of Sheriff’s study

Answer 28

• Superordinate goals were introduced designed to reduce tension and bring about conflict resolution
• Joint problem solving
• The groups had to co-operate with each other to unblock water supply

Question 29

What were the results from Stage 1 of Sherrif’s study

Answer 29

• Boys bonded with their groups
• worked cooperatively
• developed group norms
• Expressed dislike of the other group when they found out about them

Question 30

What were the results from Stage 2 of Sherrif’s study

Answer 30

•COMPETITION led to hostility
- Refusal to eat together, insults, flag-burning
•strong in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias
•most friendships within same group

Question 31

What were the results from Stage 3 of Sherrif’s study

Answer 31

• Time spent together (eg watching a film) didn’t reduce hostility
• Joint problem-solving tasks (eg freeing stuck truck) did work
• Chose to share bus home together •Bought drinks for both groups with prize money
• More friendships between groups

Question 32

What were the conclusion of sheriff’s Robber’s Cave Experiment?

Answer 32

• Some hostility before competition introduced - support Social Identity Theory rather than Realistic Conflict theory
• Hostility INCREASED WITH COMPETITION - supports Realistic Conflict Theorv
• Contact between two groups is not enough on its own to reduce hostility.
• Results from stage 3 suggest that cooperation on shared tasks reduces prejudice and discrimination SUPERORDINATE GOALS important

Question 33

Sherif et al. (1954/1961) conducted research called The Robbers Cave Experiment
State two ways in which conflict was created between the two groups of boys in the experiment [2]

Answer 33

One way that conflict was created between the groups was when the boys were told about the other group. Another way conflict was created was through competition for a resource, like a prize.

Question 34

Using your knowledge of Sherif’s research explain one way to reduce prejudice in schools that are experiencing conflict between groups [3 marks]

Answer 34

P: In order to reduce prejudice in schools, you could get the students to work towards a superordinate goal.
E: For example, you could ask the student to complete a maths puzzle in which they all have to contribute to solve it.
E: Sherif showed in the Robbers Cave Study that when he got the boys work
towards a common goal, i.e.to all help fix the camps water supply, that their hostility towards each other reduced.

Question 35

Evaluate the generalisability of Sheriff’s Robber’s Cave study

Answer 35

The sample is biased because the participants were matched, all the boys were white, American lower-middle-class and Protestant. This means generalisability is low as we can’t generalise findings to other populations. 
However this matching of participant variables was also necessary as is reduced the extraneous  variable of any pre-existing prejudice. This ensured participant variables were not the explanation for the behaviour or attitudes of the boys and that the hostility was due to competition.

Question 36

Reliability of Robbers Cave Study

Answer 36

Field experiment
Therefore many uncontrolled variables
Eg the interactions between the boys cannot be standardised
Therefore low reliability: it might be difficult to repeat the experiment in a consistent way.
- But: Sherif controlled for participant variables, eg age, socio-economic status etc - thus increasing the
reliability of the study (this was also the third of three studies looking at prejudice, so there are elements of it
which have been replicated). Tried to use standardised procedures as much as possible

Question 37

Explain the applications of Sherrif et al’s study

Answer 37

•Helps us to understand how prejudice develops through competition for resources
•Helps us to understand how prejudice may be resolved through superordinate goals
-can reduce bullying, negative competition and crowd rioting
•Contact on it’s own is not enough to remove prejudice
•the Jigsaw Technique (Aronson et al. 1978) shows a practical application of
RCT

Question 38

Describe a practical application of RCT

Answer 38

Aronson et al. (1978) used the jigsaw technique where groups of students had to work together to ensure the success of a class project. The levels of competition seemed to reduce in the classroom. This evidence supports & demonstrates a practical application of the RCT.

Question 39

Evaluate the ethics of Sherif’s experiment

Answer 39

• Consent- the boys did not give consent to be part of study (although parents did)
• Deception: Boys were not aware that they were being studied. They were therefore also not aware of the aim
  of the research so did not give informed consent.
  -Protection: Parents could not visit the boys during the study to check on their welfare. They may have found
  the experience stressful or upsetting.
  Withdrawal: Boys were not formally given the right to withdraw from the experiment

Question 40

Evaluate the validity of Sheriff’s study

Answer 40

✅Participants did not know that they were being studied. This reduces demand characteristics and therefore increases the validity of the study.
✅ Boys matched for academic and sporting ability; this means that conflict between the groups was not due to these factors but was
due to group membership
✅ Several data collection methods were used and the findings agree. E.g. observation show derogatory behaviour and recordings showed insults. This allowed for triangulation and suggests the study was high in internal validity
✅ The study was high in ecological validity as it was a field experiment conducted in the real world environment rather than an artificial lavatory setting. Summer camp is normal for American school boys and the tasks were high in mundane realism.

Question 41

What is Social Identity Theory?

Answer 41

Social Identity theory looks to group membership to explain prejudice. SIT suggest that just being in a group is enough to cause conflict with other groups - the groups don’t need to be in direct competition with one another.

Question 42

Define in-group

Answer 42

Any group to which a person has membership

Question 43

Define out-group

Answer 43

Any group which a person does not have membership

Question 44

Define personal identity

Answer 44

our own unique qualities, personality, and self-esteem.

Question 45

Define social identity

Answer 45

The attributes of the group to which we belong

Question 46

Define in-group favouritism

Answer 46

seeing our own group and members in a positive light and as unique

Question 47

Define negative out-group bias

Answer 47

Seeing members of a different group as all the same and in a negative light

Question 48

Name and describe the 3 processes which social identity theory suggests are the 3 processes involved in becoming prejudiced.

Answer 48

1. Social categorisation: We categorise ourselves and others as part of particular social groups.
2. Social identification: People take on the norms and values of the groups that they have categorised themselves as belonging to.
3. Social comparison: Self-esteem becomes bound up with group membership. If our self-esteem is to be maintained, our group needs to compare well against other groups. This is done by 2 processes: in-group favouritism and negative out group bias.

Question 49

What is the main difference between Realistic Conflict Theory and Social Identity Theory?

Answer 49

Realistic Conflict Theory suggest competition between two groups causes conflict resulting in prejudice. Where as Social Identity Theory suggest that competition is not necessary just being part of a group is enough to cause conflict with other groups.

Question 50

Give three variables which contribute to in-group favouritism

Answer 50

• The extent to which the individuals identify with the in-group.
• The extent to which there are grounds for making comparisons with the out-group.
• The relevance of the comparison group in relation to the in-group.

Question 51

What increases in-group favouritism

Answer 51

If an in-group is central to the individuals’ self-definition and it is meaningful to make comparisons
with the out-group, then there is more likely to be in-group favouritism.

Question 52

Why do people favour their in-group?

Answer 52

Tajfel argued that people want to promote their in-group because it enhances their self esteem.

Question 53

How does social identity affect personal identity?

Answer 53

social identity affects personal identity because people identify themselves by their group memberships.
Group membership affects our self-esteem, so having a favourable social identity means that the personal identity will also be more positive.

Question 54

Tajfel conducted a series of minimal-group experiments to test whether
merely being a member of a group was enough to create prejudice against another group.
What are the group members in a minimal group?

Answer 54

• randomly created
• there is no contact between group members,
• membership of groups is anonymised,
• the tokens used as a form of currency to allocate rewards,
• punishments have no intrinsic value.

Question 55

Briefly describe the task in Tajfel et al’s study.

Answer 55

64 bristol school boys were assigned to meaningless groups. The boys were asked to allocate points (money) to boys in their own groups or another group. They had to do this using a matrix.

Question 56

In Tajfel’s study which group did boys tend to allocate the most rewards to and what does this provide evidence for?

Answer 56

Taifel found that boys tended to allocate more points to people in their own group
(even though they didn’t know who was in their group or who was in an out group)
This provides evidence for in-group favouritism.

Question 57

Tajfel found that the individual members would not only allocate more points to their own group members but would often maximise the difference between the groups.
What does maximising the difference mean and what does it provide evidences for?

Answer 57

This means the boys would ensure that the out-group got much less than the in-groups, even if it meant the in-group boys got less overall. This provided evidence for discrimination against an out group.

Question 58

In Tajfel’s minimal group study provide an example of in-group favouritism and negative out-group discrimination/ bias

Answer 58

in-group favouritism= boys tend to allocate more points to their own group.

out-group discrimination= the boys would often maximise the difference between the two groups

Question 59

What are the weaknesses of Tajfel’s minimal group experiment?

Answer 59

❌The studies have been criticised for lacking in generalisability as it used 64 school boys from Bristol. This means the results can’t necessarily be applied to other populations.
❌It was lab experiment with artificial tasks lacking in mundane realism so had low ecological validity.

Question 60

What are the strengths of Tajfel’s minimal group experiment?

Answer 60

✅Well- controlled lab experiment so high in internal validity.
✅High in reliability as it can easily be repeated at it used standardised procedures.
✅This study does have real world applications: as it can demonstrate how segregation can lead to in-group favouritism and out-group prejudice and discrimination.

Question 61

Tajfel’s minimal group experiment has real world applications.
Give evidence supporting its application to real life

Answer 61

Deutsch & Collins (1951) found that in desegregated blocks of housing, the house wives mixed regularly.
They held each other in higher regard & were more in favour of inter-racial housing compared to the segregated housewives, who were more likely to hold stereotypical views of the black housewives. This demonstrates how segregation can lead to in-group favouritism and out-group prejudice and discrimination.

Question 62

Explain the evidence supporting social identity theory

Answer 62

The theory is high is credibility as it had multiple evidence to support it.
•Supported by Tajfel’s study, which indicates that people favour the in-group even where the in-group is artificially created.
•Cialdini (1976) found that an individual’s personal identity is affected by their association with a football team (social identity). They found that university students were more likely
to wear the football team sweatshirt after a winning match and that they referred to the team as “us” when they won and “they” when they lost.

Question 63

Explain evidence against social identity theory

Answer 63

The theory may not apply (cross-culturally; For example, Weatherell (1982) found that New Zealand Polynesians were more likely to favour the out-group than to show bias towards their own in-group. Cultures which emphasis collectivism and cooperation are less likely to show group prejudice. So the theory may not generalise to other cultures.

Question 64

Evaluate the methodology for social identity theory

Answer 64

❌Taifel’s experiments were conducted in laboratory experiments this may mean demand characieristics were present.
❌The task of allocating money to in-group and out-groups using a matrix was fairly artificial, which may mean the results don’t necessarily apply to everyday life.
✅The study was well controlled with an IV (matrices) and a DV (how money was allocated to which group), which means that cause and effect can be inferred.

Question 65

How would SIT suggest prejudice can be reduced?

Answer 65

Encouraging people to see themselves as a larger social identity can combat out group discrimination. For example, trying to get people to see themselves as all one community as opposed to different groups may help people to feel less prejudice towards one another.

Question 66

What is a Alternative Theory to Social Identity Theory?

Answer 66

Realistic Conflict Theory is an alternative theory to Social Identity Theory. RCT suggests that
competition is for resources is needed to create prejudice and hostility.

Question 67

Describe Adorno explanation for prejudice using personality

Answer 67

Adorno et al. (1950) suggested that having an authoritarian personality might explain why some people are prejudiced. They suggest that people with authoritarian personalities tend to be hostile to those who they see as inferior to themselves, particularly minority groups or out-groups. They also tend to be obedient to authority.
Later studies have supported Adorno’s findings, giving them credibility.

Question 68

Linking to developmental psychology how does Adorno et Al suggest authoritarianism develops?

Answer 68

Adorno et al suggested that authoritarianism develops during childhood, due to harsh parenting. When parents are strict and unloving, the negative feelings which the child feels towards them are repressed and displaced onto weaker members of
society, while they maintain respect for authority.
This theory gives a developmental explanation for both obedience and prejudice.
It also supports the view that behaviour is shaped by nurture as it suggests authoritarianism is something developed through our environment.

Question 69

Social identitly Theory and Redlistic Contict Theory can both account for prejudice, regardless of culture why so?

Answer 69

This so because all cultures have in and out groups and all cultures have situations where people must compete for resources.

Question 70

Give one weakness of using personality as a viable explanation of prejudice.

Answer 70

Personality does not explain mass prejudice in large groups of entire countries. SIT shows that as people categorise themselves in social groups they develop in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias to enhance self-esteem, showing how prejudice in large groups develops.

Question 71

Fred does not usually show prejudice towards other groups.

Suggest how his culture/ personality might explain his lack of prejudice

Answer 71

Fred might have grown up in a family without harsh parenting. He is therefore unlikely to show prejudice to other people. Fred may also have grown up in a country/ culture which does not legitimise prejudice. For example Guimond et al (2013) found that countries which had pro-diversity policies & favoured multi-culturalism showed lower levels of prejudice than courtiers where people are expected to adopt the language & customs of the dominant group in the country.