S2W1Prej Flashcards
Prejudice
A negative attitude towards members of a group, which is often strongly held.
The Implicit Association Test
Greenwald et al., 1998
A measure of implicit or unconscious prejudice
Relies on interference between evaluations of words and evaluations of people.
Response times longer if mismatch: prejudice against black people take longer on black/pleasant
Results show that implicit prejudice is higher than explicit.
Criticisms of Implicit Association Test
Low test-retest reliability (.40) - unsuitable for individual diagnosis
Inconsistent predictor of real-world discrimination
Interventions to reduce implicit bias don’t tend to affect real-world outcomes
Poorly conducted meta-analyses
Attitudes confounded with stereotype familiarity
ABC model of prejudice
Affect (prejudical feelings)
Behaviour (discrimination)
Cognition (stereotypes)
Scapegoat Theory
Emotional source: frustration
Lash out against members of a weak group to deal with own frustrations.
E.g. gay bashing
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Emotional source: perceived competition.
Dislike members of a group who are thought to be competing for scarce resources.
E.g. isliking immigrants because they might take jobs.
Social Identity Theory
Emotional source: self-enhancement.
Negative impressions of outgroup to make own group seem superior.
E.g. laughing at minority religious groups to make own religion superior.
Discrimination
Behavioural component of prejudice.
Negative, harmful behaviour toward people based on their group membership.
Robbers Cave Experiment - Differentiation Phase
2 groups (no previous interaction).
Activities with common goals.
Rules and leadership emerge spontaneously.
Group formation
Robbers Cave Competition Phase
4 days of competitions
Rewards for winner
Robbers Cave Intergration Phase
2 days cooling off period
Contact and listing features of both groups (failed).
Common goals and forced cooperation (successful).
Implications of Robbers Cave
Supports Realistic group conflict theory (RGCT)
Prejudice is a phenomenon of groups, not individuals.
Prejudiced attitudes emerge from the context in which intergroup behaviour occurs.
Groups will compete rather than cooperate.
Competition > negative attitudes.
Cooperation > prejudice reduction.
Stereotyping
Cognitive component of prejudice.
A set of characteristics that a perceiver associates with members of a group
Stereotype Content Model
Fiske et al., 2002
Characterises stereotypes across dimensions: warmth and competence.
Group seen as warm if they are not in competition with the ingroup for resources.
Group is seen as competent if they are generally high-status.
Stereotype Content Model Examples
High warmth and competence = liked, admired, ingroup.
High warmth low competence = pitied, liked, unrespected.
Low warmth high competence = envied/resented.
Low competence and warmth = hated, worthless.
Origins & results of stereotyping
Competition with one’s own group:
Competitive groups stereotyped as cold.
Relative social status:
Low-status groups stereotyped as incompetent
Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) - Sociofunctional approach
Explanation of stereotypes and prejudice.
Different emotions and threat responses towards different social groups.
Threats to health vs/ threats to propety.
Specific threats linked to specific emotions.
Behaviours from stereotypes
Passive harm: ignore, neglect, exclude.
Active harm: attack, fight, harass.
Passive facilitation: associate, cooperate, unite.
Active facilitation : assist, help, protect.
Stereotypes influence behaviour:
Competence elicits passive facilitation
Warmth elicits active facilitation
Contact hypothesis
No contact > Lack of informed judgement > Stereotypes > Prejudice and Discrimination > Conflict.
Exposure to an outgroup will produce more favourable attitudes.
Conditions under which contact hypothesis works
Positive/neutral interactions.
Equal status among group members.
Cooperation/common goals.
Social and institutional support.
Informal but personal contact (acquaintance potential).
Counter-stereotypical behaviour by outgroup.
Outgroup member seen as typical of their group.
How does contact work
Provides information (dispels stereotypes)
Learning what emotional/affective responses are common around other groups.
Decreases anxiety (facilitates future interaction)
Change norms about appropriateness of prejudice.
Dixon et al., 2005 - criticism of contact hypothesis
Too many optimal conditions - real-world situations aren’t optimal.
Ignores important societal factors and personal evaluations regarding how contact takes place.
Works from a primarily American perspective
Imagined contact (Crisp)
Imagine positive interactions with an outgroup member.
Shows positive effect on explicit and implicit attitudes.
Increases intention to engage in positive intergroup behaviour (no research beyond intention).
Intergroup anxiety
Groups provoke anxiety when thought to be a threat:
Physical
Cultural
Competitive
Social
Or when someone expects a negative interaction.
Many interventions work by decreasing this anxiety.
Effects of intergroup anxiety
Poor performance on cooperative tasks.
Increased discrimination/stereotyping.
Negative evaluations of the other.
Long-term decrease in anxiety from repeated contact.
Functional view of prejudice
Can be a performance – a way s to express allegiance to a group.
Can be used to motivate social action.
Mobilising hatred and violence against an outgroup.
Accusation and denial of prejudice.
Repression of prejudice in conversations.
