Stereotyping, Predudice And Discrimination Flashcards
Stereotype
An oversimplified generalised set of ideas that we have of others.
Media
Means of communication e.g. Television
Practical implications
Suggestions about behaviour in the real world beyond the research study, based upon what psychologists have discovered.
Role model
Someone who a child looks up to and is likely to copy.
Prejudice
A rigid set of attitudes or beliefs towards particular groups of people. These attitudes are usually negative, but not always.
Discrimination
(With reference to prejudice) the way an individual behaves towards another person or group as a result of their prejudiced views. This behaviour is usually negative, but could also be positive.
Authoritarian personality
A personality type that is prone to being prejudice
F-scale
The questionnaire used by Adorno to measure personality characteristics
Robbers cave
The name given to Sherif’s experiment on prejudice.
In-group
A group of people you believe you have something in common with.
Out-group
A group of people whom you believe you have nothing in common with.
Jigsaw method
The name given to the technique used by Aronson to reduce prejudice within a group of mixed-race students.
Expert groups
Another name for the jigsaw method. It is called expert groups because each member of the group becomes an expert on a particular topic and they then pass this knowledge on to the rest of their group.
Contact
Seeing, speaking or writing to someone
Empathy
Being able to put yourself in someone else’s position psychologically and understand how that person is feeling.
Williams and Best 1994
Aim- to investigate the extent of sex stereotyping across 30 different countries.
Method- ptps were given over 300 characteristics and asked to state whether the characteristics were more likely to be associated with men, women or both sexes.
Results- they found that across the 30 countries the same characteristics tended to be associated with males and females. Females were described as “understanding”, “emotional” and “warm”. Males were described as “reckless”, “hard-headed” and “determined”.
Conclusion- the findings of this cross-cultural study suggest that there are commonly held stereotypes of males and females.
Rubin et al. 1977
Aim- to find out if new parents stereotype their babies.
Method- parents were asked to describe their new babies within 24 hours of the baby being born.
Results- they found that parents of baby boys described their babies as being alert and strong, whereas parent of baby girls described their babies as soft and delicate.
Conclusion- parents stereotype their children from a very early stage despite no stereotypical behaviour being shown. For a lot of parents who know the sex of the baby prior to birth, this stereotyping behaviour starts before the baby is born by painting a room pink for a girl and blue for a boy.
Barrett and Short 1992
Aim- to look at the development of prejudice among young children.
Method- researchers interviewed 216 English children aged between 5 and 10 years old, on their views an opinions on people from different European countries.
Results- it was found that, at this age, children already demonstrate more positive views towards some European groups than to others. They found that the Germans were like the least while the French were like the most, despite the children having no factual information on these nationalities.
Conclusion- by the age of 10, children already hold prejudiced views towards other nationalities.
Adorno 1950
Aim- to find out if there is a relationship between a person’s personality type and prejudice beliefs.
Method- hundreds of people were interviewed and tested using the F-scale.
Results- they found a relationship between personality traits and prejudiced views.
Conclusion- there is an authoritarian personality and people with these characteristics are highly likely to be prejudiced towards others.
Sherif 1961
Aim- to find out if prejudice develops when groups are in competition for scarce resources.
Method- an American summer camp was organised for 22 boys. The boys were randomly split into two teams and the teams were kept away from each other. They were not aware that the other team existed. The boys were given time to settle into their camps and form a group identity. After a while, the two groups discovered each other and the camps staff introduced a series of competitions with the prize for the winning team being a silver cup.
Results- very quickly, the teams began unpleasant name-calling towards each other and tried to attack each other.
Conclusion- completion is a cause of prejudice.
Levine 2002
Aim- to see if people would be more likely to help a stranger if they believed they had something in common with the stranger.
Method- a situation was set up so that a stuntman fell over in front of Man U fans. Half the time he was wearing a Man U shirt; the rest of the time he was wearing a Liverpool shirt.
Results- when he was wearing the Man U shirt, he was helped to his feet every time. However, when he was wearing the Liverpool shirt, he was left to help himself every time.
Conclusion- when we feel we have something in common with others, we are more likely to help them in an emergency. We are less likely to help out-group members.
Tajfel 1970
Aim- to show how easily people discriminate against their out-groups.
Method- 14 to 15 year old boys were randomly assigned to two groups. Each boy was given a game to play where he had to award pairs of points. They were told the points could be swapped for prizes at the end.
Results- the boys awarded points by choosing the pairings that created the biggest difference between the groups, not the pairings that gave them the most points.
Conclusion- people will discriminate against others just because they are members of an out-group.
Elliot 1970
Aim- to teach her class what it felt like to be victims of discrimination.
Method- Elliot told her class the following •blue-eyed children are smarter than those with brown eyes.
- blue-eyed children are the best people in the room
- brown-eyed children cannot play with blue-eyes children in the playground because they aren’t as good
- brown-eyed children cannot use the drinking fountain
Results- the reaction of the children to these statements was immediate. The blue-eyed children were delighted, arrogant and became vicious. The brown-eyed children were angry, saddened, confused and withdrawn. Fights broke out in the playground between children who had been best friends the day before. The following day, Elliott reversed the experiment. She found the brown-eyed children behaved in the same arrogant way that the blue-eyed children had the previous day. Similarly the blue-eyed children became withdrawn and sad.
Conclusion- Elliott believed that, by getting the children to experience first hand what it felt like to be victims of prejudice and discrimination, these children would grow up being more tolerant towards others.
Harwood 2003
Aim- to investigate children’s views of the elderly.
Method- he asked children and their grandparents about their relationship. The children and were also questioned about their views of the elderly people in general.
Results- children who had regular contact with grandparents held positive views towards the elderly.
Conclusion- contact with grandparents is a good predictor of a child’s attitude towards the elderly.
