Prejudice - social psychology Flashcards
What is social identity theory and who was it founded by?
Tajfel and Turner state our self concept is made up of many social identities.
It suggests humans have a strong desire to belong and we derive our self esteem through experience of others
What is social categorisation in SIT?
-The ingroup is the group to which we see ourselves belonging and the outgroup comprises of anyone who isn’t in the ingroup
-Tajfel and Turner suggests we have little control over the automatic process of social categorisation and the existence of an outgroup can cause prejudice
What is social identification in SIT?
-Adopting beliefs, values and attitudes of groups they see themselves belonging. People with alter their behaviour to fit in with norms of the groups
What is social comparison in SIT?
-An individual may boost their self esteem through making comparisons between ingroup and outgroup
-If ingroup members are seen as better, then an ingroup member will see themselves as better too
Evaluation of SIT
-Strength is supported by minimal group experiment. Tajfel worked with 15 year old Bristol School boys. The study showed social categorisation is sufficient to trigger ingroup favoritism
-However, lacks mundane realism as we may be
less discriminatory as there may be unpleasant
social consequences so the study lacks
ecological validity
-Weakness is research evidence suggests it may only explain intergroup behaviour within western societies. This research suggests SIT may be ethnocentric because it fails to predict the behaviour of people from collectivist backgrounds
-SIT provides testable suggestions about how prejudice can be reduced. Fein and Spencer gave students a sense of high/low self esteem. This suggests prejudice in society could be decreased by implementing policies which target low self esteem.
What does RCT describe and who is it founded by?
A situational theory in prejudice by Sherif
Sherif suggests the key to prejudice is competition
What is negative interdependence and superordinate goals in RCT?
-Negative interdependence is when two groups of people are both seeking to achieve a goal that’s important to them, with only one group being able to reach this goal. “Negative” means each group will try obstruct the other and “interdependence” means one group is dependent on the other group losing
-Superordinate goals is where neither group can reach their goals unless the other group also reaches theirs so the groups work together
Evaluation of RCT
-Strength is supported by Robber Cave’s experiment. In stage 2 of the experiment researchers created intergroup competition where there were prizes for winners. This increased prejudice and hostility
-However, the experimenters had to secretly
raid one group’s cabin to make it appear the
other group had attacked. Thus, intergroup
competition didn’t lead to hostility
-A weakness is shown through Tajfel’s minimal group experiment. Boys will treat each other differently on the basis of group membership alone, suggesting prejudice is less about competition and more about our own knowledge.
-The theory has been applied to reduce prejudice. RCT proposes intergroup relations can be enhanced through superordinate goals. This is a major strength as prejudice is one of the biggest problems facing our world.
What was the aim of the Robber Cave Experiment?
Sherif set up a camp aiming to explore how competition and frustration of a group’s goals can lead to unfavourable stereotyping and prejudiced attitudes
What was the procedure of Robber Cave Experiment?
-Field experiment
-22 middle class Protestants, 11 years old from Oklahama USA who were all socially and emotionally adjusted
-Stage 1 - Boys took part in non-competitive activities so they bonded within their group (“Eagles” and “Rattlers”). Activities including canoeing, and building campfires.
-Stage 2 - Each group learned of each other’s existence. The researchers created a tournament including games like tug of war and baseball
-Stage 3 - Initial tasks involved increasing social contact. Later, superordinate goals were introduced
Findings of Robber Cave’s experiment
-Stage 1 - Leaders were established for the “Eagles” and “Rattlers”. The eagles cried more when injured and were anti-swearing while the Rattlers were tough and swore a lot
-Stage 2 - On discovering each other, groups wanted to challenge each other. There were name calling, fights and they raided each other’s cabins.
-Stage 3 - Social contact and superordinate goals were introduced to reduce friction but did little. The boys entertained each other by the campfire on the last night and left as friends
Conclusion of Robber Cave’s experiment
-Intergroup competition leads to increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility
-Increased social contact isn’t enough to reduce prejudice but a series of superordinate goals can
Evaluation of Robber Cave’s experiment
-Strength is Sherif carefully marked the groups, increasing internal validity. Thus researchers spent over 300 hours observing and interviewing to ensure the results couldn’t be obtained by pre-existing differences.
-However, the two boys that went home due to
sickness were both Eagles. Thus the matching
process disintegrated
-Weakness is subsequent research by Tyerman and Spencer failed to replicate these findings in a study with 30 sea scout boys where ingroup solidarity decreased instead of increase
-Can be applied to reducing prejudice in society. e.g. Aronson and Bridgeman used Sherif’s ideas about superordinate goals to develop the “Jigsaw classroom”. The end result was increased liking and empathy for outgroup members and improved academic performance for black minority students
How do personality factors affect prejudice?
Authoritarian personality
-Children with authoritarian parents feel hostile towards conditional love. They don’t know how to express feelings due to a fear of punishment so displace anger on something else. This is scapegoating.
Allport’s authoritarian personality
-This parenting style leads to an empathetic attitude towards others. They prefer to find solutions rather than asking questions
RWA
-Altemeyer focused on Adorno’s traits such as submission, aggression and conventionalism
-RWA develops fear and uncertainty. People high in RWA seek preserving social order, they are hostile towards anyone seen as different
SDO
-People with SDO like dominance and prefer hierarchy, and see the world as a “competitive jungle” where you have to be ruthless
-Develops through exposure to social situations like high levels of inequality
Evaluation of personality factors
-Strength is relationship between prejudice and personality supported by research evidence e.g. Cohrs et al found RWA and SDO are positively correlated with generalised prejudice. This suggests prejudice levels can be accurately predicted from personality traits. However, it may be wrong to think that RWA and SDO are consistent overtime, both dimensions interact with social factors making prejudice much harder to predict in real life supported by Levin study
-Weakness is it ignores the role of social norms and situational factors. Louis et al notes RWA and SDO roles are ignored in research e.g. in an Australian study “white race is the best race” is disagreed on but the exclusion of asylum seekers is agreed on. This suggests its important to understand the social factors to address consequence for prejudice effectively
-Strength is ways for prejudice to be reduced is found e.g. greater regulation of media sources may be beneficial. Furthermore, strategies that challenge that the world is dangerous may help combat RWA and SDO
How do situation factors affect prejudice?
Social norms
-Refers to unwritten rules about what is socially acceptable and desirable
-Studies have shown the expression of prejudice and discrimination are influenced by social norms e.g. Ralph Minard
Competition and resource stress
-Supported by RCT
-Prejudice arises if and when the ingroup perceives themselves to be in direct competition for scarce resources with another group
Evaluation of situation factors
-Strength is research support. Study by Akrami et al (2009) shows that prejudice can be affected by situational factors such as perceived social norms and interest. Participants who read a short article predicting a bleak economic future for Swedish expressed more prejudice attitudes than control group. However, Akrami et al also reported personality variables like RWA and SDO had an influence
-Another strength is provides ideas to combat prejudice. Esses et al (2001) suggests targeting zero-sum beliefs that leads to prejudice against immigrants which would lead to critical research if we are to move successfully towards “harmonious global village”
How do culture factors affect prejudice?
Norms of intolerance
-Baldwin states all cultures are ethnocentric to some extent
-The norm is to be more accepting of diversity and tolerant of difference even though often prejudice still exists more subtly
Norm of fairness
-Some cultures are more concerned with fairness than competition and this should lead to reduced levels of prejudice e.g. Wetherell replicated Tajfel’s experiment in New Zealand school. She determined immigrant Polynesian children were fairer in their allocation of points than Caucasian white classmates
Evaluation of culture factors
-Strength is this is supported by research evidence. e.g. Orpen (1971) shows conformity to cultural norms may be a critical determinant of intolerant attitudes towards specific outgroups. However, participants were 16 year old school children. Young people may have a strong desire to fit in their social group
