1. Theories of Prejudice

2. How many ways are there to discriminate against people?
List all the ways you can think of.
What problems are caused by prejudice?
What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?

3. Prejudice ‘Pre’ (meaning before) and ‘judice’ (meaning justice)
An attitude – making judgements about someone based on their membership of a group rather than their individual nature.

4. One of the greatest problems of humanity
Leads to dehumanisation and violence
Why study prejudice?
If we understand how it is formed perhaps we can learn how to prevent it
Prejudice- extreme, unfavourable attitude associated with three components:

5. 1. Cognitive: Stereotypes:
Social perception of an individual based on their group membership or physical attributes
Overgeneralised belief based on limited information
Generalisations – applied to all members
Positive / negative

6. 2. Affective: Feelings of hostility and hatred

7. 3. Behavioural: In terms of prejudice can be displayed as avoidance, assault, joke-making or discrimination.
Actively excluding an individual or groups from things they are entitled to

8. Not all of these components manifest at the same time.
i.e. someone who is prejudiced may have the cognitive and affective component but not discriminate
Why?
Prevailing social norms or laws perhaps?

9. Causes of prejudice Individual Differences
Obedience & prejudice down to dispositional factors? I.e. personality?
How can it explain whole culture and societies being prejudiced?
Anti-Semitism developed over 10 or so years
Look at social factors that can explain how entire populations of people develop prejudiced attitudes
Social identity theory
Realistic conflict theory

10. Read the article –
working-class-powerless
Please note this is an opinion piece and not research
We are using it to put the issues we are looking at into context. The issues brought up in the article are very relevant at the moment
Application

11. Social Identity Theory – Tajfel (1970)
The simple act of being grouped will inevitably lead to prejudice against another group.
Tajfel classified group as in-groups or out-groups
There are three stages to the Social Identity Theory

12. Absorbing the culture of that group – becomes a part of your social identity
Tajfel (1970) - SIT
Social categorisation
Social identification
Social comparison
Look up these stages. In pairs discuss the definitions
Automatic act of putting yourself into a group.
In group = yours
Out group = others
Making your group appear better than the out group to boost your self esteem.

13. Personal identity – strive to achieve positive image linked to high self esteem
Social Identity
Identifying themselves by membership to certain social groups (social identification)
Adopting characteristics – significance to your membership and self esteem (personal ID) is bound up with the group
If social identity is favourable – personal identity of group members are positive. Boosting self esteem.
Opposite is also true
Social identity impacts on our personal identity
Examples?

14. Football team – continued success?
However if they lose several matches?

15. Social comparison:
Defining and emphasising in-group characteristics to elevate social identity
Comparing and derogating qualities of the out-group
Achieved by
1. In-group favouritism – members unique and favourable - Heterogeneous
2. Negative out-group bias – members ‘all the same’ unfavourable - Homogenous
Example!

16. Within a group – each member has a social identity
Image based on the attributes of the group
Group success =increases sense of belonging and self esteem
Example?
Football team – continued success?
However if they lose several matches?

17. Tajfel (1971)Minimal group paradign experiments
64 Schoolboys ages groups of 8 (knew eachother)
Experiment 2 Klee and Kandinsky
Look these up in the textbooks and summarise them (shouldn’t be too long!)
Summary must include:
Aim
Procedure
Results
Conclusion

18. Tajfel (1970) study of minimal groups
The Minimal Group Paradigm is a methodology employed in social psychology to investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups.
Experiment 1 (estimating dots)
Experiment 1 (Klee and Kandinsky)
Recap and Summary
Quiz – 10 qs
Task in pairs – Ethical considerations? Refer to BPS guidelines
Ethical guideline
What would have to be considered in order to meet the guideline

19. Conclusions:
Out-group discrimination is present and easily triggered
In these experiments the act of social categorisation (in/out group) led to discrimination
People act according to the social norm they have learnt (I.e. in-group favouritism)
In real life the norms of being in a group may override fairness (for example?)
Even if giving more to the other group did not mean giving less to their own, the still gave more to their own

20. Evaluation Strengths Weaknesses
In pairs – list and explain 3 evaluation points
Strengths
Weaknesses
High level of control – cause and effect
i.e. boys put into groups (randomly assigned)
Number of matrices used
Balance of rewards/punishments
Fairly large sample
Run more than once with the same findings
Therefore findings are reliable
Lab setting – unnatural for the boys therefore has low ecological validity
Demand characteristics
Generalisability – boys, year olds, Bristol UK

21. Supporting studies
Lemyre and Smith (1985) followed minimal group paradigm
Replicated findings
Discriminating participants has increased self esteem – supporting the notion that personal identity is bound up with social identity
Cialdini (1976)
US university football scores
Morel likely to wear football team sweatshirt after a game had been won than lost
Interviews – referred to the team as ‘us’ when they won and ‘they’ when they lost
Personal identity affected by association with a football team (social ID)
Aronson and Osherow (1980)
Blue eyes/brown eyes study(Jane Elliott)

22. Evaluation of social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice
Strengths
Weaknesses
Substantial amount of research that supports the theory therefore theory has merit
Practical application – can explain real life behaviour/events therefore useful. It could help solve social problems
By only focusing on groups it does not take other factors into account
Does not measure how much prejudice
Some situations with greater prejudice?
Prejudice is complex – unlikely that one theory as an explanation isn’t likely to be satisfactory

23. Realistic Conflict Theory – Sherif (1966)
What do you think this is? (2 minute discussion)
Relate to the article we read last lesson
Compare to Social Identity theory
Categorisation – leads to prejudice vs. competition between groups causes conflict
Out-group threatening in-group for resources (still links to social identity theory)
Two or more groups are in competition for the same resources – conflict occurs and prejudice follows
Negative stereotyping against the ‘other’ group and perhaps discrimination
Prejudice is more likely if the resources are limited, such as territory
Called zero-sum (one winner and one loser)

24. Only in times of economic hardship Perceived competition of resources
Filindra and Pearson-Merkowitz (2013) examination of data in New England
To see if, when dominant white majority perceive threat there is more prejudice and discrimination
Perceived increase in the presence of immigrants in the community did correlate with an immigration policy with more restrictions
Only in times of economic hardship
Perceived competition of resources
Water, food, jobs, terrirtory, social resources,

25. Observed tribal societies
Ember and Ember (1992)
Observed tribal societies
Intergroup hostility increases when social/natural conditions mean that competitions for these resources are necessary
Famine/natural disasters warfare was more likely to ensure access to resources
Correlation only
When feelings in a group intensify and prejudice arises as groups fight over resources it can become ethnocentrism
Defined as focus on one’s own in-group and hostility towards any out-group

26. Superordinate goals
If groups work together with the shared goal of increasing resources there will be no competition and therefore will reduce prejudice
Example?
Unions in the UK – diverse groups of people came together in pursuit of a common goal. Fairer working conditions,

27. Homework Explain how social identity theory explains prejudice.
What is meant by ‘realistic group conflict theory’.
Definitions/descriptions relate to A01 in the exam
In pairs discuss - what would you include?

28. Classic Study – Sherif (1954, 1962)
Robber’s Cave Study
Pg of e-textbooks
Groups - APRC (presentation, table, word, poster)
Sherif

30. H/W exam practice
Some tension has arisen at a college because the Principal has allowed Mr Page’s class to go on a special trip but Mr Wood’s class has not been allowed to go. The Principal’s decision has caused lots of resentment amongst staff and students alike. Mr Page and his class are looking forward to the trip but are getting lots of hostility from the other class.
Use your understanding of prejudice and/or obedience to explain this situation. (6 marks)

31. Classic study – Sherif (1962)
Test your knowledge – Individual task but we shall discuss each answer
Socrative quiz
Download Socrative student app
Room number: AEB6UQEPF

32. Sherif (1954) - Evaluation Evaluation in pairs using GRAVE
Generalisabilty
Reliability
Application
Validity
Ethics
For each of these, explain what the strength/weakness is and explain why it is a strength or weakness.
Point – What is your point (i.e. Is it a strength? What is it?)
Explain – Explain reasons for your point (evidence, example, explanation)Why?
Comment – comment on why you point is relevant This means that… Therefore

33. H/W Sherif Evaluation (12)
Evaluate the Robber’s cave study (12)
For every strength and weakness provide PEC
Point – What is your point (i.e. Is it a strength? What is it?)
Explain – Explain reasons for your point (evidence, example, explanation)Why?
Comment – comment on why you point is relevant This means that… Therefore

34. Factors affecting prejudice
What factors can you think of?
Realistic conflict theory – what were the factors affecting prejudice?
Social Impact theory?
Other factors – Individual differences, situational and cultural

35. Individual differences
Personality ‘The big 5’
OCEAN
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism

36. Personality dimensions
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA)
Social Dominance orientation (SDO)
Adorno et al. (1950)
Personality and Fascism (Fascism scale)
Interviews with participants to dig deeper
Finding: Authoritarian personality – more likely to be prejudiced and to show
Discrimination, especially to those in low-status groups
Rigid in their thinking
Obedient to authority
World in black and white
Adhering to social hierarchy and social rules
Developmental psychology:
Adorno – authoritarian personality formed in childhood.
Harsh parenting – love-hate relationship
Hate/anger repressed and displaced onto weaker members of society.
Maintain respect for authority

37. Personality dimensions
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and prejudice
Authoritarianism linked to political (right-wing) views
Social dominance orientation (SDO)
See the world in terms or hierarchy and dominance
Wants their own group to dominate over others

38. Personality dimensions
Cohrs et al. (2012) – Relationship between
Ideological attitudes- RWA and SDO
The Big Five
Prejudice
RWA showed a relationship with prejudice (supporting Adorno, 1950)
Openness to experience negatively correlated with RWO (The more open, the less authoritarian)
Therefore the more open, the less prejudiced

39. Effects of situation on prejudice and discrimination
Social norms (failure or changing social norms)
Social threat (RWA – threat is feared so actions that lessen threat are supported)
Such responses to alleviate fear can be discrimination and prejudice
Akrami et al. (2009)
Manipulated a social norm (sexism) then tested for prejudice
The situational factors (changing the norm) did Affect the level of prejudice.
This suggests that situation not personality effects prejudice.

40. Situational factors Other situational factors
In-groups and out-groups (Tajfel)
Competition for limited resources (Sherif) and realistic conflict theory
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Contact can reduce prejudice and there must be
Equal status
Should be working towards a common goal
Acknowledge the authority that brought them together
Personal interaction between groups
The contact should occur often

41. Situational factor vs Personality
Evidence suggests that situational factors do seem to be involved in prejudice however personality factors are also supported by studies.
Richard et al. looked a 322 studies (meta-analysis) and concluded that both situational effects and personality effects contribute to prejudice, perhaps in equal measure.
Coper and Whitney )2009) suggest that in examples of strong prejudice, situational factors seem strong. However, where prejudice is less strong personality factors might account for more of the prejudice

42. Culture
Culture can be an influence o prejudice if that culture has existing cultural norms that legitimise prejudice practice.
Strict religious laws that endorse prejudice towards targets
However laws are ever changing and therefore it is difficult to conclude if one culture is more or less prejudiced than the other.
Guimond et al. (2013) - Cultures with multi-culturalism would show less prejudice than those featuring assimilation in their culture. Multiculturalism would be pro-diversity
Katz and Braly (1933) conducted a questionnaire to investigate national stereotypes of Americans about other cultures. They were given a list of different ethnic groups and asked to choose 5-6 traits from a list of 84 personality traits.
Majority of participants classified African Americans as superstitious and ignorant, and Jews as Shrewd. (However, they may have been acting a social desirable way)
Fujimoto and Hartel (2004)
Individualistic cultures would encourage ore interpersonal prejudice
Collectivist cultures would encourage more inter group prejudice (prejudice towards an out-group would be more prominent in collectivist cultures.

43. Evaluation points Nature vs. Nurture (weakness)
E.g. situational factors only take into account nurture, it does not explain nature e.g. individual differences (personality)
Reductionism vs Holism (weakness)
E.g. Individual differences explanation is reductionist as it only takes one factor into account. It does not take other factors such as situation and culture into account
Supporting studies (strength)
E.g. Personality (authoritarianism) is supported by Adorno and Cohrs et al. This makes the theory more valid. Therefore it is more useful to society to help explain prejudiced behaviour.
Application (strength)
E.g. Situational factors: Is applicable to real life.
Conflict: Can help explain prejudiced behaviour in our society (2 groups may be in competition for limited resources)
Contact hypothesis: WE can use this theory (i.e. common goals, interaction etc.) to help reduce prejudice between two groups in society.