Social Psychology Flashcards
Define obedience
Following direct orders from an authority figure
Define conforming
Acting in a certain way to match the behaviour of the majority.
Define compliance
Going along with what someone says while not necessarily agreeing with it
Define internalising
Obeying with agreement
What were the aims of Milgram’s original study? (1963)
Investigate to what extent people would obey an authoritative figure if it involved harming another person.
Describe the participants of Milgram’s original study
- 40 white males aged 20-50
- A range of jobs from businessmen to factory workers
- Volunteer sampling; pps responded to an advertisement and were payed $4.50 an hour
Describe the procedure of Milgram’s original experiment
- Participants drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner
- There was also an ‘experimenter’ dressed in a laboratory coat, played by an actor (not Milgram)
- Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with electrodes attached) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.
- The learner was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned the list of word pairs the teacher tests him by naming a word
- The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
Describe the results of Milgram’s study
- 65% of participants went up to the maximum of 450 volts
- All participants went up to 300 volts
What reasons did the participants give for administering the shocks in Milgram’s original study? (3)
- The authority figure seemed trustworthy
- The cause was good (scientific research)
- They believed that they wouldn’t be responsible if anything went wrong
Strength of Milgram’s original experiment (reliability)
- Standardised procedures: confederates followed a script
- Controlled variables: the confederates were same
Strength of Milgram’s original experiment (application)
- World War 2: understanding the Adolf Eichmann trial
- Vietnam War - soldiers were told to kill Viet Cong people but blindly followed orders and killed 800 innocent people
This can be explained by this study as the soldiers obeyed the authority figure, the same as the 65% of ppts that continued to 450v in Milgram’s study.
Weakness of Milgram’s original experiment (generalisability)
- Andocentric and Ethnocentric = not reflective of obedience in females of different collectivist cultures.
- Voluntary sampling method
Weakness of Milgram’s original experiment (validity)
- Low ecological validity = lab setting
- Low task validity = unusual tasks
Weakness of Milgram’s original experiment (ethics)
- 14 people experienced nervous laughter
- 3 participants experiences seizures
- Milgram didn’t protect his participants from harm
Conclusions of Milgram’s original study:
Social influence is strong and people obey orders from authority figures even if it causes distress
What was the aim of variation 7 of Milgram’s study?
Investigate whether proximity of the experimenter in relation to the pps would affect levels of obedience (over the telephone)
What were the results of variation 7 of Milgram’s study?
22.5% obeyed to 450 volts
What was the conclusion of variation 7 of Milgram’s study?
- The physical presence of an authority figure was an important influence.
- Obedience to destructive commands is somewhat dependant on the proximity of the authority figure
What was the aim of variation 10 of Milgram’s original study?
To see if the setting impacted obedience (run-down office block), compared to Yale university
What were the results of variation 10 of Milgram’s study?
48% obeyed to 450 volts
What was the conclusion of variation 10 of Milgram’s study?
The setting can have a slight influence on obedience to authority, but context may play a more important part.
What was the aim of variation 13 of Milgram’s study?
To investigate how obedience would be affected if an ordinary man gave the orders.
How were the roles picked for variation 13 of Milgram’s study?
- Drew slips of paper
- Rigged so that pps were the teachers and confederates got the role of 1 learner and 1 accomplice
What were the results of variation 13 of Milgram’s study?
20% obeyed to 450 volts
What were the conclusions of variation 13 of Milgram’s study?
That visible authority is an important influence on obedience.
What is the autonomous state?
When an an individual acts according to his own free will and follows his conscience. He takes responsibility for his own actions.
What is the agentic state?
When we give up our free will in order to follow the orders of an authority figure. We become an ‘agent’ of the authority figure and feel like they take responsibility for our actions.
Define moral strain
Negative feelings we experience when pressured to do something that goes against our values and moral compass.
What happens when we experience moral strain?
We use defence mechanisms like denial and repression in order to avoid distress.
Evaluate the strengths of Milgram’s Agency Theory
Supported by Hofling’s nurses:
21/22 nurses obeyed the instructions of a doctor, over the telephone, to administer a lethal dose of medication to patients even when they knew it could do serious harm.
Evaluate the credibility of Milgram’s Agency Theory
- Strength: Milgram carried out empirical research to support his theory, which was repeated by Burger in 2009.
- Can be falsified using scientific evidence.
Evaluate other explanations of Milgram’s Agency Theory
Weakness:
- Does not explain dispositional factors like gender or personality type
- Elms and Milgram’s showed that the fully obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale, showing greater authoritative personality traits
Evaluate debates surrounding Milgram’s Agency Theory
Weakness
- Ethical issues: remove’s the person’s responsibility for their actions which can be used as an excuse when committing a crime.
- Socially sensitive research: applied to social issues like the ethnic cleansing of minority groups
Evaluate the application of Milgram’s Agency Theory
Strength
- Can be applied to a variety of military struggles
- The military uses dehumanising language to refer to the enemy, reducing moral strain and therefore ensuring obedience
What were the aims of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study?
To investigate obedience by partial replication of Milgram’s study almost 50 years later to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.
Describe the participants of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
29 males
41 females
Range of backgrounds
Random sampling ($50 for participating)
Santa Clara University
Describe the screening of participants for Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
Volunteers who were familiar with Milgram’s work were excluded
Remaining participants were screened based on mental health and drug dependency
Describe the procedure of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
- The same as Milgram but the experiment only went up to 150 V
- 15 V real shock instead of Milgram’s 45 V shock
- Pps were randomly assigned to 2 groups
Describe the standardised procedures of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
- Same procedure and verbal prods as Milgram’s study
- Pre-recorded voice feedback grunts after 75 V for standardisation
Describe the baseline condition of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study
The learner revealed a ‘heart condition’ at the beginning of the experiment, and at 150 V they shout: “get me out of here my heart is starting to bother me now!”
What was the modelled refusal condition in Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study?
The confederate ‘Teacher 1’ is used to model refusal, stating “I don’t know about this”, at 90 V and stopping the experiment.
‘Teacher 2’ is the real participant who was then asked to continue the experiment
What were the results of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study?
Base condition: 70% continued to 150 V
Model refusal condition: 63.3% continued to 150 V
What were the conclusions of Burger’s 2009 replication of Milgram’s study?
- The same conclusion at Milgram, 46 years later
- Obedience rates are still similar with no statistical difference concluded
- No gender, age, race, education or personality difference between obedience rates
What is the biggest criticism of Burger’s replication of Milgram?
- Burger makes the assumption that those who stopped at 150 V would have gone to the full 450 V.
- He cannot be certain = lower internal validity
- Cause and effect cannot be established
Evaluate the generalisability of Burger’s replication study
STRENGTH
+ More representative sample (29 males, 41 female)
+ Generalised to the wider population
Evaluate the reliability of Burger’s replication study
STRENGTH
+ Standardised procedures
+ Same verbal prods
+ Pre-recorded voice feedback at 75 V for standardisation
Evaluate the applications of Burger’s replication
+ Burger found evidence for Milgram’s theory which says that people will obey an authority figure even when they’re asked to harm someone else
+ This can be applied to war crimes
+ WW2: soldiers in the agentic state took order from an authority figure (Hitler) even when they were asked to harm millions of innocent people.
Evaluate the validity of Burger’s replication study
WEAKNESS
- Burger makes the assumption that pps who went to 150V would go to 450V
- Cause and effect cannot be established, therefore internal validity is low
Evaluate the ethics of Burger’s replication study
+ 15V real shock instead of 45V
+ Pps screened for anxiety and depression using the Beck scale
- Verbal prods may cause stress
- Deception to reduce demand characteristics
Who proposed the Social Impact Theory?
Bibb Latané
Outline Latané’s Social Impact Theory
SIT uses a mathematical equation to predict the level of social impact created by specific social situations.
Every person is potentially a “source” or a “target” of social influence – sometimes both at once.
According to Social Impact Theory, what is a target?
The people who are impacted
According to Social Impact Theory, what is a source?
The person who influences others
What 3 factors make up social forces?
- Strength
- Immediacy
- Number
Outline ‘strength’ in relation to Social Impact Theory
How much power you believe the person influencing you has
Outline ‘immediacy’ in relation to Social Impact Theory
How recent the influence is and how close to you
Outline ‘number’ in relation to Social Impact Theory
How many sources and target there are in the social situation
Evaluate the strengths of Latane’s Social Impact Theory
+ Supported by Basset and Latané (1976) who found that people would assign more column inches in a newspaper to nearby fictitious events rather than far away events. Evidence for Immediacy affecting social influence
Evaluate the credibility of Latane’s Social Impact Theory
+ Measured in a mathematical formula } i = f(SIN), so it’s measurable, scientific and falsifiable
Evaluate the other explanations of Latané’s Social Impact Theory
- Doesn’t include other factors of social influence like
1. Compliance
2. Internalisation
3. Identification
Evaluate the debates of Latane’s Social Impact Theory
- There are other situational factors that affect social influence
- Individualistic countries (Belgium, Netherlands, America, England) had more protests about the Covid 19 vaccinations compared to collectivist countries
Evaluate the application of Latane’s Social Impact Theory
+ Can be utilised by people and brands to influence others
+ If we have friends, family and coworkers who post on social media, we are more likely to be influenced by their opinions if they are trusted people who are close to us (social immediacy)
+Brands can use Social Impact Theory to sell their products by getting people of high status to help promote it
+ High status = more well liked = higher immediacy
+ Lots of people promoting it = higher number
What is a situational factor?
Environmental and external factors
What is a dispositional factor?
Factors referring to personality (individual differences)
What are the 3 main factors that affect obedience?
- Individual differences
- Gender
- Culture
What individual differences relating to personality affect obedience?
- Empathetic Concern
- Authoritarianism
- Locus of Control
What is Empathetic Concern and how does it impact obedience?
- An individual’s tendency to experience emotions like compassion and sympathy
- People with high levels of empathetic concern would find it difficult to follow orders to harm others
What is Authoritarianism and how does it impact obedience?
- People who have high respect for authority and are oppressive to people they see as subordinate.
- They are more likely to be obedient because of their respect for authority
What is an Internal Locus of Control and how does it impact obedience?
- The belief that you are in control of what you do and what happens to you. They take more responsibility for their actions
- Less likely to be obedient because they believe they can control their own actions
What is an External Locus of Control and how does it impact obedience?
- The belief that what happens to you is out of your control
- More likely to be obedient because they believe behaviour is out of their control
What does the gender role schema theory suggest?
We are socialised into developing a sense of masculinity or femininity from a very early age, often based on stereotypes, e.g. women being perceived as more feminine.
How does gender impact obedience?
Moral Reasoning (Gilligan)
- Ethic of justice - more common in males, values equality and fairness, requires a detached outlook to avoid bias
- Ethic of care - more common in females, emphasises interpersonal relationships, nurturing and supporting those in need
- Males may be more obedient due to their feelings of obligation to an authority figure, but females may be less obedient due to their desire to support the person being harmed
How does the Power Distance Index (PDI) affect obedience and dissent?
- PDI refers to how accepting people are of hierarchal order and inequality in society
- In high PDI cultures ‘subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat’
- Identification with the values of high PDI cultures might lead a person to be highly obedient, whereas people from low PDI cultures are more likely to show dissent or resistance
How does culture impact obedience?
- Individualistic cultures are less likely to obey because they value independence, autonomy, uniqueness and fulfilling ones own goals.
- Collectivist cultures are more likely to obey because they value inter-dependence, conformity and identifying as part of a group.
What situational factors can affect obedience?
- Legitimacy
- Proximity
- Behaviour of others
Evaluate the strengths of personality affecting obedience and dissent
Supported by research
+ Elms and Milgram used the F-scale with 20 fully and 20 non-fully obedient participants. Obedient participants scored higher, indicating obedience is linked to the authoritarian personality
Evaluate the application of personality factors affecting obedience
- Companies that require employees to follow strict procedures may prefer obedient people
- HR departments could use a scale assessing LOC to select suitable job applicants
- This could lead to greater productivity and job satisfaction
Evaluate the weaknesses of culture affecting obedience and dissent
Most nations generally show similar obedience levels
- Blass calculated the mean of 66% obedience rate for 8 non-US Milgram replications, and 61% for US replications
Evaluate the strengths of culture affecting obedience and dissent
+ Kilham and Mann (1974) found a low level of obedience in Australia, which scores low on the PDI
- This suggests that Hofstede’s power distance dimension is useful in predicting obedience
Evaluate the weaknesses of personality affecting obedience and dissent
Locus of Control does not predict defiance
- In a Milgram-type task, pps were told to blast a student with a painful ultrasound (Schurz 1985)
- Fully obedient participants didn’t differ from resistant participants in LOC score
Evaluate the strengths of situational factors affecting obedience and dissent
Supported by evidence
+ Milgram’s variation studies
+ Variation 7: Telephonic instructions
+ Variation 10: Run-down office block
+ Variation 13: ‘ordinary man’ gives orders
Evaluate the strengths of gender affecting obedience and dissent
+ Gilligan & Attanucci found males and females both used ethics in real-life dilemmas
+ Men generally favoured a justice orientation and women favoured a care orientation
+ This shows a gender difference in decision making
Evaluate the weaknesses of gender affecting obedience and dissent
- Lots of studies find no gender differences
- Several Milgram-type studies show no significant difference in obedience rates
Who proposed the Social Identity Theory
Tajfel and Turner in 1970
Define prejudice
An unfavourable opinion or attitude formed beforehand without knowledge, thought or reason
Define discrimination
An action arising because of prejudiced beliefs. The mistreatment against a person based on the gender, ethnicity, religion, age, disability or sexual orientation
What is Social Identity
An individual’s self-concept (identifying as belonging to a social class, family or sports team).
Describe Social Categorisation
- The development of distinct social groups based on people’s hobbies, values, beliefs, etc.
- In-group favouritism and negative out-group bias occurs
Describe Social Identification
Identifying with the group explicitly by taking on the norms and attitudes of the in-group
Describe Social Comparison
Comparison with the out-group and perceiving the in-group to be better increases the self-esteem of an individual, eventually resulting in prejudice and discrimination between the two groups.
Evaluate the strengths of Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory
+ Supported by Jane Eliott
+ She conducted the ‘brown and blue eyes study’, where students were shown to display prejudice and discrimination toward others just because they were categorised into in-groups and out-groups based on eye colour.
Evaluate the credibility of Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory
+ Supported by Tajfel and Turner’s minimal groups study, which was empirical research
+ This included 2 replications that demonstrated the boys choosing to allocate more points to the in-group
+ The method of their experiments were falsifiable and scientific, therefore easy to replicate
Evaluate the other explanations of Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory
- Sheriff’s Realistic Conflict Theory is an alternative explanation which processes the role of competition between the in-group and the out-group. Social Identity Theory does not explain the factor of competition.
Evaluate the debates of Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory
- Wider ethical implications
- The theory could be used and manipulated by governing forces and organisations to try and create in-groups and out-groups in society to create prejudice and discrimination as a form of social control
- Has links to socially sensitive research when considering issues like the migration of refugee populations, or stereotypes in the media.
- This could influence political voting
Evaluate the applications of Tajfel and Turner’s Social Identity Theory
+ Can be applied to real-life scenarios
+Football hooliganism, fraternities, sororities, juvenile gangs
What are the 3 processes in Social Identity Theory
- Social categorisation
- Social identification
- Social comparison
What was the aims of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study?
To investigate if being classified into one of the two groups was sufficient to cause prejudice and discrimination against the other group without any history and without using competition
Describe the participants of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
64 British male school boys, aged 14-15 years old from Bristol, UK
What was the procedure of the first experiment of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study?
- 64 British school boys were told this was an investigation into vision
- 8 groups of 8 boys were shown an image of 40 flashing dots on the screen and asked to estimate the number of dots
- Participants were told that they were divided into 2 groups (over-estimators and under-estimators), when in reality the groups were randomly located
- Pps given a matrix and asked to allocate points to either participants in the in-group or the out-group. Points later converted into money.
What was the procedure of the second experiment of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study?
- 48 schools boys (3 groups of 16) were asked if they preferred Klee or Kandinsky paintings and told that they were divided by their preference; in reality they were randomly allocated
- Each participant was given a matrix and asked to allocate points to either participants in the in-group or the out-group. Points later converted into money
What were the results of the first experiment of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Design?
- The boys chose to allocate more points to those in the same group as themselves, despite the accuracy of the 40 dots estimation.
- In-group vs out-group score was 9/14, whereas in-group vs in-group score was 7.5/14
What were the results of the second experiment of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Design?
If the participants had the choice of maximum joint profit for all or maximum profit for their own group, they chose in-group.
What were the conclusions of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Design Study
Even though there was no direct competition between the two groups, the boys consistently displayed in-group favouritism. The mere existence of in-groups and out-groups alone is enough to cause prejudice
Evaluate the generalisability of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
- Androcentric
- Ethnocentric
- One age group (14-15 year olds)
Evaluate the reliability of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
+ Standardised procedures
+ Operationalised variables
Evaluate the application of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
+ Real-world application
+ People identify with the in-group and become prejudiced towards the out-group, sometimes resorting to violence to express their prejudice
+ This explains world events like genocides
+ Can be used when trying to solve social problems in the world
Evaluate the validity of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
- Lab experiment = low ecological validity
- Artificial task = low task validity
- Ethnocentric and androcentric = low population validity
Evaluate the ethics of Tajfel and Turner’s Minimal Groups Study
- Participants were deceived because they were told it was an experiment about vision
+ Presumptive consent given
Define Inter-group Conflict
Prejudice and discrimination because of competition for limited resources
Define superordinate goals
Requires cooperation of two groups to achieve goals, usually resulting in rewards for both groups
Who suggested Realistic Conflict Theory
Sherif, 1961
Describe Realistic Conflict Theory
- Inter-group conflict occurs when two groups are in competition for natural resources
- Interpersonal competition arising leads to hostility and negative attitudes, resulting in prejudice and discrimination towards the out-group
- Superordinate goals can be established, where resources can only be won if cooperation occurs
Evaluate the strengths of Realistic Conflict Theory
+ Supported by Robber’s Cave Study, which showed competition for in and out-groups is required
+ Also showed that contact alone is not sufficient for groups to reduce hostility, cooperation in the form of working together towards superordinate goals is required.
Evaluate the credibility of Realistic Conflict Theory
+ Sherif carried out empirical research to support Realistic Conflict Theory
+ The Robber’s Cave field experiment used quantitative measures like sociometric tests to show the percentage change in boys’ friendship patterns
+ This is falsifiable and scientific
Evaluate the other explanations of Realistic Conflict Theory
- Social Identity Theory (T&T) is an alternative explanation which does not include competition between the in-group and out-group
Evaluate the debates of Realistic Conflict Theory
- Wider ethical implications; could be used by governments to create in-groups and out-groups to create prejudice and discrimination as a form of social control
Evaluate the applications of Realistic Conflict Theory
+ Can be applied to a range of real-world scenarios to explain the development of prejudice and discrimination
+ Football hooliganism fueled by competition for the limited resource of the trophy
What were the aims of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
Investigate the development of in-group behaviour of hostility towards the out-group and determine whether superordinate goals can overcome prejudice between in-groups and out-groups.
Describe the participants of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
- 22 male participants aged 11 years old
- Matched pairs design (matched on IQ, sporting ability, home life, religion, and split into two equal groups)
- Randomly allocated into ‘Rattlers’ and ‘Eagles’
Describe Stage 1 of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
IN-GROUP FORMATION
- Boys randomly allocated into 2 equal groups at Robber’s Cave State Park Oklahoma.
- Boys named their groups ‘Rattlers’ and ‘Eagles’ and assigned a group leader.
Describe Stage 2 of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
INTER-GROUP FRICTION
- Out-group Hostility
- Competition during tournaments - collecting beans experiment, tug of war, raiding each other’s cabins.
Describe Stage 3 of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
INTER-GROUP INTEGRATION
- Superordinate Goals: goals which can only be attained by cooperation between the 2 groups for resources.
1. Restore water supply
2. Work together for food and sleeping gear
3. Restarting the broken camp bus
Describe the results of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
Quantitative Results:
93% of friends in own group at stage one, by the end of stage 3 30% of friendships in out-group.
Qualitative Results:
‘sneaks, smart alecs, stinkers’ to ‘brave tough, friendly’
Describe the conclusions of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
Competition for limited resources is required for prejudice and discrimination to occur.
Contact is not sufficient for groups to reduce hostility, cooperation in the form of working together towards superordinate goals is required to overcome out-group hostility.
Evaluate the generalisability of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
- Andocentric (22 boys)
- Only one age group
- Ethnocentric (protestant families in Oklahoma)
Evaluate the reliability of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
+ Tape recorded; adjectives and phrases were standardised (good inter-rater reliability)
+ Participants were matched carefully so that their individual differences wouldn’t affect their decisions
+ Planning + controls allowed cause & effect to be established
Evaluate the applications of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
+ Can be applied to football hooliganism where in groups and out groups are formed by fans wearing either of the competing teams’ shirts
Evaluate the validity of Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
+ Ecological - field experiment - didn’t know they were being watched so their behaviour was natural
+ Internal - controlled extraneous variables - matched the participants on their individual differences - cause and effect established
+ Task validity: natural activities for a summer camp: tent pitching, tug-of-war etc.
- Population validity - 22 boys, all from Protestant families in Oklahoma, all 11 years old
Evaluate the ethics Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Study (1961)
- Deception
+ Presumptive consent from parents rather than fully informed consent from actual participants - Parents were asked not to visit when boys were feeling home sick
What are the individual differences that affect prejudice and discrimination?
- Adorno’s authoritarian personality
- Allport’s authoritarian personality
- Right-wing authoritarianism
- Social dominance orientation
What is Allport’s authoritarian personality?
Allport argued that authoritarians are not necessarily prejudiced, but are receptive to political arguments targeting inner fears and insecurities, which explains prejudiced behaviour
What is right-wing authoritarianism?
- Submission, aggression, conventialism
- Have learnt a set of beliefs about the world (not from their parents)
- Believe the world is dangerous and threatening, creating fear and RWA attitudes
- Suspicious and overtly hostile towards anyone who defies the norm
What is social dominance orientation?
- Prefer hierarchal distribution of power to equality for all
- They see the world as a ‘competitive jungle’
- Learn via role models
Evaluate the strengths for personality affecting prejudice and discrimination
+ Cohrs et al found that RWA and SDO were both correlated with generalised prejudice.
+ RWA was negatively correlated with openness to experience, and SDO was negatively correlated with agreeableness
Evaluate the weaknesses for personality affecting prejudice and discrimination
- Reductionist explanation
- Doesn’t explain roles of social norms and situational factors
What is intergroup prejudice?
Negative attitudes and beliefs towards a different culture
What is intragroup prejudice?
Prejudice within a culture involving negative views of different sub-cultural groups
What is multi-culturalism?
The diversity of all cultures is accepted within a society and no one group is considered as superior. Celebrating this can help to reduce prejudice.
Evaluate the strengths of culture affecting prejudice and discrimination
+ Al Zahrani & Kaplowitz found Saudi Arabians, a collectivist culture, self-reported more negative out-group bias than Americans, an individualistic culture. Therefore, prejudice might develop because of differences in cultural beliefs
+ Guimond looked at cultural norms and government policies within multicultural societies and found anti-Muslim attitudes were reduced with pro-diversity campaigns. This shows how prejudice can be reduced with the promotion of multi-culturalism and diversity.
Evaluate the weaknesses for culture impacting prejudice and discrimination
- Ignores social influence
- Jackson et al argue that tighter cultural norms show the most prejudice based on skin colour, religion, nationality and sexuality. This shows that the existence of ecological threats cause cultures to tighten and more prejudice to occur, suggesting that social factors are also required for prejudice to occur.
