Prejudice and Discrimination

THEORIES OF THE ORIGINS AND MAINTENANCE OF PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION 

Social identity theory (SIT)

Social identity is determined by categorisation (creates ingroups and outgroups, simplifies interpersonal perception), social comparison (ingroup favouritism and outgroup negative bias enhance social and personal esteem) and social beliefs (our beliefs/attitudes generate different social behaviours).

Research evidence

Tajfel (1970) conducted the minimal group experiments; Linville et al. (1982) demonstrated the illusion of outgroup homogeneity; Breakwell (1978) showed how group members react to threat.

Evaluation

• Good explanation of ingroup favouritism, generates a number of testable propositions, which in turn can support the theory, and can account for prejudice in situations of minimal information.

• Doesn’t fully explain the violence associated with some prejudices.

Realistic conflict theory

Prejudice stems from direct competition between social groups over scarce and valued resources. Outgroup becomes the scapegoat.

Research evidence

Sherif et al. (1961) used the Robbers Cave Experiment to demonstrate conflict and superordinate

goals; but Tyerman and Spencer (1983) didn’t obtain the same results. Hovland and Sears (1940) found a negative correlation between number of lynchings and economic wealth.

Evaluation

• Prejudice is likely to exist prior to conflict, but conflict is the trigger to hostile behaviour. Can be applied to reducing prejudice (see the ‘jigsaw method’ )

The authoritarian personality

Adorno et al. (1950) suggested that some individuals may be more prejudiced, conformist and obedient personalities as a consequence of parenting styles.

Research evidence

The F scale tested authoritarianism. It found that the authoritarian personality had a positive self-concept, rigid cognitive style, favoured law and order and tended to repress feelings. The parents of such individuals tended to give conditional love, strict discipline and expected unquestioning loyalty. Such experiences would create an insecure adult who respects authority, conforms readily, and who may increase selfesteem through ingroup favouritism. A person with repressed feelings will project these on to scapegoats (realistic conflict).

Evaluation

• Accounts for existence of prejudices and the hostility element.

• Sample was biased, and some data was retrospective. Questionnaires may have contained a response set. The study was correlational.

Reduction of prejudice and discrimination

Contact hypothesis - Contact may reduce stereotyping and prejudice.

Research evidence

Deutsch and Collins (1951) found that prejudice possibly increased when Black and White residents lived in separate buildings, whereas it decreased when they were randomly assigned apartments in the same buildings irrespective of race.

Evaluation

• Increased contact may increase conflict. Forced desegregation may have an effect opposite to that intended, increasing aggression through resentment.

• For the minority group, integration may lead to lowered self-esteem because it emphasises their inferior position, thus creating stronger hostilities.

• It is quite common for people to like individual members of an outgroup, but still feel prejudiced towards the group as a whole. For example, Stouffer et al. (1949) found that racial prejudice amongst soldiers diminished in battle but did not extend to relations back at base.

Pursuit of superordinate goals

Sherif et al.’s study (1961) found that cooperation and superordinate (shared) goals overcame prejudice.

Research evidence

Aronson et al. (1978) developed the jigsaw method to foster mutual interdependence.  Schoolchildren worked in groups where each member had a piece of work to prepare and teach to other group members for an end-of-project test.

Evaluation

• In Aronson’s study, there was some attitude change but it was limited, probably because time spent in the classroom is low compared with home and cultural influences.

Equal status

When the US Supreme Court declared segregation unconstitutional in 1954, they sought the advice of social psychologists who argued that equal status would be necessary to eliminate false stereotypes.

Research evidence

Minard (1952) found that Black and White miners were not prejudiced when they worked together below ground. However, above ground, when their positions were unequal, their attitudes changed.

Evaluation

• Equal status doesn’t address the hostility factor from intergroup conflicts. Needs social and political change, which is at best slow.

• Equal status may be impossible. For example, Abeles (1976) suggests that even though conditions are improving for Blacks in America, the gap between the rich and the poor remains. A survey of Black people living in poor areas of America showed that they have rising expectations which leads to a sense of dissatisfaction and militancy. 

Challenging stereotypes through the use of advertising and instruction

Phrases like ‘Black is beautiful’ try to create a positive bias. Direct campaigns about the danger of stereotyping have been mounted in America, using the caption ‘We shouldn’t infect children with poisonous stereotypes.’

Research evidence

Elliott (1977) gave a lesson in discrimination by telling her brown-eyed pupils that they were more intelligent and treating them more favourably. The blue-eyed children became the underdogs until she reversed her treatment. Years later the children said that this taught them to be more careful about discrimination.

Evaluation

• Prejudice is inevitable. Stereotype formation and social identity are processes basic to human nature and make the world more manageable.

• Holding prejudices has benefits: positive discrimination for the ingroup increases selfesteem and prejudices provide a means of displacing aggression.