week 5 - prejudice

Question 1

What is prejudice?

Answer 1

antipathy, or a derogatory social attitude, towards particular social groups or their members, combined with the feeling and expression of negative affect (an attitude or orientation that devalues a group)

Question 2

What is social discrimination?

Answer 2

explicit displays of negative or disadvantaging behaviour towards particular social groups or their members

Question 3

what are the two approaches to prejudice via social psychology, alongside their related theories?

Answer 3

Individualistic approaches
- the authoritarian personality theory
- social dominance orientation

intergroup relations approaches
- realistic conflict theory
- social identity theory

Question 4

What is prejudiced personality?

Answer 4

people with negative attitudes towards one outgroup also tend to have negative attitudes towards other groups (allport, 1954)

two facets of personality
- the authoritarian personality
- social dominance orientation

Question 5

What is Authoritarian Personality Theory? (Adorno et al., 1950)

Answer 5

• human behaviour: a dynamic interplay of conscious and unconscious motivators
• prejudice as a manifestation of a particular pathological personality

Authoritarian parenting
- extremely strict parents
- children concerned with obedience to parents
- conformity to social norms
- conflicting feelings of admiration and aggression towards the parent

resolution
negative feelings are displaced on to weaker groups (‘scapegoats’)
- scapegoating: the tendency to blame someone else for one’s own problems
parents (authority figures) loved and respected
- personality syndrome: reflected in a person’s social attitudes, rigid regard for social conventions, simplistic thinking etc

Question 6

What theory is Authoritarian Personality Theory influenced by?

Answer 6

Psychodynamic theory

Question 7

How is the authoritarian personality measured?

Answer 7

Via the California F-sale (Adorno et al., 1947) - personality test
Measures people’s susceptibility to fascist ideas:
- authoritarian submission (high degree of submissiveness to authority)
- Conventionalism (desire to adhere to ingroup norms)
- authoritarian aggression (intolerance of those who violate conventional values)

Question 8

What are some limitations of using the California F-scale as a personality test?

Answer 8

• use of unrepresentative samples
• interviewer bias in the clinic interviews

Question 9

What is Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Altmeyer, 1981)

Answer 9

• research on F-scale declined in the 60s and 70s
• reviewed in the 80s, with the Right-wing authoritarianism scale
• the social environment reinforces obedience, conventionalism, and aggression
• personality variable - still widely used to predict social attitudes (e.g. support for capital punishment) and prejudice towards social groups

Question 10

What is Social Dominance Orientation? (Pratto et al., 1994)

Answer 10

• the SDO scale measures acceptance of and desire for group based social hierarchy
• people with higher SDO tend to be more sexist, racist, and prejudiced towards immigrants
• consists of 14 items, on a very negative (1) to very positive (7) scale:

for example:
- ‘some people are just more worthy than others’
- ‘this country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were’

Question 11

what are Legitimizing Myths?

Answer 11

‘social order is maintained by discrimination (including institutional discrimination)
- this is supported by legitimizing myths - those values, beliefs or cultural ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for group inequality and opression (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)

Question 12

What is explicit/implicit prejudice and how is it measured?

Answer 12

explicit:
- collection of attitudes that the holder is aware of having and is able to express consciously
- assessed via a self-report measure such as a survey

Implicit
- collection of attitudes that the holder is not consciously aware of having
- assessed via implicit association test

Question 13

What are some limitations of individualistic approaches to assessing prejudice?

Answer 13

• methodological individualism: subjective individual motivation to explain a social phenomena
• assume that individuals are prejudiced (e.g. a personality trait), failing to consider the role of social contexts
• ignores the intergroup context in which the prejudice is embedded

Question 14

what are intergroup relations?

Answer 14

intergroup relations refer to relations between two or more groups and their respective members. whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identifications, we have an instance of intergroup behaviour (Sherif, 1962)

Question 15

What is ethnocentrism?

Answer 15

• the particular relationships between social groups influences the attitudes and behaviour of its members
• ethnocentrism: the tendency to judge ingroup attributes as superior to those of the outgroup and, more generally, to judge outgroups from an ingroup perspective (Spears & Tausch, 2020)

Question 16

How is Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1954) supported by the robbers cave experiment?

Answer 16

• intergroup conflict: competition over limited resources
• bringing hostile groups together is not enough to reduce intergroup prejudice
• superordinate goals: which can only be achieved by both groups acting together

Question 17

What is the Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP)?

Answer 17

the mere categorization in terms of an ingroup and outgroup created instances of discrimination between the members of the different groups (Tajfel et al., 1971)
- MGP - minimal conditions that are required for discrimination to occur between groups

Question 18

What is social identity theory?

Answer 18

• SIT ‘starts’ from the realistic intergroup conflict theory
• attempts to explain intergroup relations (attitudes and behaviours) as a function of group-based self-definitions
• SI is the part of our self-concept corresponding to group memberships and the value and emotional significance of those memberships (Spears & Tausch, 2015)

Question 19

How does SIT explain prejudice?

Answer 19

• social categorization: people categorize themselves as belonging to certain social groups
• social identification: identification with those categories
• social comparison: through social comparison, people evaluate their salient in-group relative to relative out-groups
• positive distinctiveness: people seek to maintain positive social identities. in-group bias.

Question 20

What are the two types of perceived identity threats described by Stephan et al. (2009), and how do they differ?

Answer 20

Perceived threats distinctiveness may lead to increase efforts at differentiation.
The perception of threat is what is important.
- realistic threats: to the ingroup’s power, resources, or well-being
- symbolic threats: to the ingroup’s values, identity, or way of life
(Intergroup threat theory: Stephan et al., 2009)

Question 21

What is existential threat?

Answer 21

group threats can be existential, encompassing the fear of the group annihilation (Reicher et al., 2998)
- collective level concern for the ingroup’s present and future existence as a main drive of anti-immigrant attitudes (Hirschberger et al., 2016)
- threats to culture, symbols, beliefs

Question 22

What are some strengths and weaknesses of SIT in regards to prejudice?

Answer 22

strengths
- SIT as a starting point for understanding individual experience, attitudes and behaviour in terms of the person’s membership in social groupings
- shows how group membership can lead to negative behaviour (e.g. prejudice), but…

weaknesses
- it does not fully explain the criteria we use to distinguish the groups
- it cannot fully explain the meaning we give to these distinctions
- it does not explain how multiple identities interact, and new identities are created
- it neglects how identity construction is influenced by social context and power relations

Question 23

How does modern racism deny prejudice?

Answer 23

modern racism
- symbolic racism
- aversive racism & subtle racism

deeply held prejudices conflict with more inclusive norms
‘new’ racism is not directly expressed but might appeal to widely shared norms
Racism is simultaneously expressed and denied (Billing, 2012)

Question 24

What are Ideological and rhetorical aspects of modern prejudice?

Answer 24

propose to look at “common places”, or those everyday phrases which express values and ideologies (Billing, 1985)
- advanced justification - speaker seeks to deflect criticism, but also lay claim to membership of a moral community of the unprejudiced
- claim to rational discourse and an implicit defence against any criticism of being irrational
- this semantic shifts should not be interpreted as indicating a decline in nationalism or racism

Question 25

What are microaggressions, and what forms do they come in? | (what percent of black americans report daily discrimination)

Answer 25

- 75% of black americans report daily discrimination - micro-aggressions can be **intentional or unintentional** - they come in 3 forms (Sue et al., 2007): - *micro-assaults* - *micro-invalidations* - *micro-insults* - micro-aggressions are **cumulative** in nature - regular experience of micro-aggression have multiple negative effects on wellbeing and life outcomes

Question 26

What are the goals of Micro-interventions? (Sue et al., 2019)

Answer 26

- make the "invisible" visible - disarm the microaggression - educate the offender - seek external support when needed

Question 27

How does Sue et al. (2019) suggest we make the "invisible" visible?

Answer 27

- **objective:** force the perpetrator to consider the impact and meaning of what they've done - **rationale:** when allies or bystanders intervene, reassures targets they are not "crazy" and that their experience is valid - **tactic:** ask for clarification - **example:** "do you realise what you just did when i walked in?"

Question 28

How does Sue et al. (2019) suggest we dissarm the microaggression?

Answer 28

- **objective:** instantly stop or deflect the microaggression - **rationle:** provides targets, allies, and bystanders with a sense of control and self-efficacy to react to perpetrators in the here and now - **tactic:** express disagreement - **example:** "i dont agree with what you just said"

Question 29

How does Sue et al. (2019) suggest we educate the offender?

Answer 29

- **objective:** facilitate a more enlightening conversation and exploration of the perpetrator's bias - **rationale:** lowers the defense of the perpetrator and helps them recognize the harmful impact - **tactic:** appeal to the offender's values and principles - **example:** “I know you really care about representing everyone on campus and being a good student government leader but acting in this way really undermines your intentions to be inclusive.”

Question 30

How does Sue et al. (2019) suggest we seek exteral reinforcement or support?

Answer 30

- **objective:** check in with self and others to ensure optimal levels of functioning - **rationale:** reminds targets, allies, and bystanders that they are not alone in the battle - **tactic:** report - **example:** Report the incident in person, use anonymous online portals or use a hashtag on social media to make your experience go viral

Question 31

How does contact hypothesis link to prejudice growth/reduction?

Answer 31

contact between members of opposing groups is likely to be the most effective way to reduce prejudice (Allport, 1954) seems to be particularly effective in combating prejudice based on disability (Paluck et al., 2019) but… might contact also increase prejudice? when is contact effective in reducing prejudice?

Question 32

What are the optimal conditions for prejudice reduction between groups?

Answer 32

**acquaintance potential** - contact must allow relationships to develop - increased knowledge of outgroup - positive relationships are rewarding **equal status** - equal status during the intergroup contact - contact between individuals of similar social status - disconfirms negative group stereotypes **cooperation** - contact activity should involve working together - mutual benefit - the outcome must be positive **normative climate** - it occurs in a supportive climate - contact should be supported by authorities (e.g. managers in business) - power to promote/enforce change

Question 33

How does imagined contact (Crisp & Turner, 2009) link to prejudice?

Answer 33

imagined contact **encourages positive intergroup behaviour** meta-analysis shows evidence that this approach is especially effective in children (Miles & Crism, 2013) - useful in hostile or segregated contexts - can be implemented easily - small effects reported (Brown & Paterson, 2016)

Question 34

How does extended (vicarious) contact relate to prejudice?

Answer 34

based on contact hypothesis but does not involve face-to-face contact indirect cross-group experience extended contact reduces intergroup anxiety meta-analysis shows evidence of this approach (Zhou et al., 2019) but, research has suggested it only works when a member of the “outgroup” is already known (stark, 2020)

Question 35

How do VR interventions aid prejudice reduction?

Answer 35

Virtual reality is a promising new form of intervention against prejudiced beliefs (see Tassanari et al., 2022 for review) Example: Reducing negative attitudes towards those with psychosis (Formosa at al., 2018). - Simulate positive symptoms of psychosis - Measure pre and post knowledge, attitudes and empathy - Results: Higher scores post-test across all three measures Whilst useful VR can also increase prejudice (Stelzman & Scheiferdecker, 2021)