Psychology Express - Social Psychology - Jenny Mercer - 2011 - Prentice Hall - 9780273737193 - Anna's Archive-104-121
Psychology Express - Social Psychology - Jenny Mercer - 2011 - Prentice Hall - 9780273737193 - Anna's Archive-104-121
Psychology Express - Social Psychology - Jenny Mercer - 2011 - Prentice Hall - 9780273737193 - Anna's Archive-104-121
Prejudice and
discrimination
Defining
prejudice
The effects
of prejudice
and
discrimination
Prejudice and
discrimination
Reducing
prejudice and
• The contact hypothesis
discrimination • A critique of the contact hypothesis
87
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
Introduction
This chapter will discuss prejudice and discrimination, a topic which has been
widely researched within social psychology. Whilst it represents a topic of
study in its own right, it also encompasses a number of areas – e.g., impression
management, group processes and conflict reduction – so you are likely to find
information about this topic appearing in different areas of social psychology
textbooks. You might also find that aspects of other topic areas you learn about
– e.g., attitudes and stereotypes – are also highly relevant to this topic; do not
be afraid to integrate such information.
We have aimed to offer a summary of the key areas which are regularly discussed
in relation to the topic of prejudice and discrimination here. Initially, definitions
of prejudice and the effects it has on individuals at the receiving end will be
identified. This will be followed by a discussion of the main accounts which have
been posited to explain such negative beliefs and behaviour. The discussion will
ask questions such as, is prejudice something which can be found in people with
a certain personality type or do we all hold prejudiced stereotypes?
Having considered such contrasting approaches, the chapter will end with
an applied angle, discussing a task which remains a significant challenge
for psychologists around the globe: how might we use social psychological
knowledge to reduce intergroup bias and conflict?
➔ Revision checklist
Assessment advice
●❑ Because this is such a vast area, it is important that you can distinguish which
information would be the most relevant to answer the specific questions
asked. Think ‘What?’ (is it), ‘Why?’ (it occurs) and ‘How?’ (might it be reduced).
The tasks are designed to help you do this.
●❑ As ever, an evaluative edge is important, but remember that evaluate does
not mean criticise! Consider the different evaluatory points offered after the
accounts of prejudice, for instance – they do not just highlight the limitations
of each one but also indicate their strength.
●❑ It is likely that accounts coming from different viewpoints will focus on
88
Defining prejudice
different aspects of the topic – consider how these different aspects fit
together. Are they a total contrast or might they complement each other?
Sample question
Below is a typical essay that could arise on this topic.
Guidelines on answering this question are included at the end of this chapter,
whilst further guidance on tackling other exam questions can be found on the
companion website at: www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress
Defining prejudice
In everyday conversation and in the media, you might find the terms
stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination are used interchangeably. For social
psychologists, however, clear distinctions have been made about the meanings
and different components associated with these terms.
Points to consider
●❑ You might have noticed that Table 6.1 maps onto the three-component model
of attitudes (see Table 1.1) discussed in Chapter 1, Attitudes.
●❑ Be careful not to assume that there is a linear relationship between these
three components. Just because someone feels prejudiced it does not mean
that they will automatically engage in discriminatory behaviour (see attitude–
behaviour relationship in Chapter 1, Attitudes).
●❑ Both the saliency and type of emotions experienced are likely to impact
whether or not discrimination will occur and how it might be externalised. For
89
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
example, feeling strong anger towards the target might lead to expressions of
violence, yet feeling disgust might lead one to avoid any type of interaction
with them.
CritiCal foCus
90
The effects of prejudice and discrimination
had been hired as a token woman than if they felt that they had got their job based
on their ability. Being perceived by others as a token or affirmative action employee
can also lead to negative reactions. These might include resentment or lack of respect
for the employee’s abilities. The paradox of the situation is that, in acting in a manner
which can be seen as reducing prejudice and discrimination, tokenism not only allows
them to continue but could also make them worse.
Clearly, reducing prejudice is not an easy task (as discussed later).
Using evidence from the social psychology literature, discuss the potential
consequences of prejudiced stereotypes on low-status groups.
Stigma
Being aware
Reduced that you are Self-fulfilling
effort member of a prophecy
low-status group
Low
self-esteem
91
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
Many different ideas have been posited for why people feel prejudice towards
others. Three main psychological explanations offered come from personality,
cognitive and discursive perspectives. These are considered both in terms of
theory and method.
Personality accounts
One of the earliest accounts of prejudice came from a psychodynamic
background and proposes that some individuals have a prejudiced personality.
In the post-war period of the 1950s, Adorno contended that children brought up
in overly harsh and disciplined households felt both love and hate towards their
parents (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). In an attempt to
resolve this conflict, they repressed the feelings associated with hate towards their
parents and, instead, displaced them on to weaker individuals. Parental figures
then became idealised, which was generalised to any authority figure in later
life. This approach is known as the authoritarian personality. More recent work in
this area by Altemeyer (1981, 1996) has led to a re-elaboration of authoritarian
personality to include measurement of the following constructs: conventialism,
authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression. This is known as right-wing
authoritarianism (RWA) (see also Kriendler, 2005, for a discussion of RWA).
Both of these approaches use scales to measure these personality factors. For
instance, an authoritarian personality is measured using the F (which stands for
fascist) scale. This sought to identify individuals with potentially fascist/racist or
more democratic leanings. However, all the statements were worded in such a
way that agreeing with them was indicative of an authoritarian attitude. This is
known as an acquiescent response set, where a high score can only be earned
by agreeing with an attitude.
92
Explanations of prejudice and discrimination
Points to consider
●❑ Personality approaches underestimate situational and socio cultural factors.
●❑ Personality might dispose individuals to be prejudiced in some contexts, but
societal norms which legitimise this are also a necessary condition.
●❑ This approach suggests that only certain people have the potential to be
prejudiced, yet prejudice can manifest itself in a whole population or at least
a majority.
●❑ Using the F scale confounds authoritarianism with acquiescence.
●❑ This approach reflects the nature of social psychological theorising at
the time: during the 1950s, authoritarianism became widely used as an
explanatory concept.
Cognitive accounts
Remember from the Defining prejudice section early in this chapter that the
cognitive component refers to stereotyping.
Cognitive accounts of prejudice are based on the idea of the individual as
a cognitive miser (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). This means that, by having readily
available categories about people (stereotypes), we can invest a lot less
cognitive effort and reduce our cognitive load. Once we have attributed a
category to someone (e.g., based on their sex, age or occupation), we can
access information about their shared characteristics and, thus, anticipate how
they might act in given situations. Here, categorisation has a distinct advantage.
However, categorisation can also lead us to think in terms of in groups and out
groups (‘like us’ or ‘not like us’). Generalisations can then be made about groups
which may be inaccurate, but, because it is a function of our cognitive system,
categories and stereotypes are hard to change.
Categorisation is believed to be automatic and unreflexive, leading to implicit
prejudice. Degner and Wentura (2010) found the automatisation of prejudiced
attitudes evidenced amongst young adolescents of around 12 and 13 years of
age.
A method known as an implicit association test (IAT) is often used to detect
implicit prejudice. It is based on people’s reaction times to paired words. For
example, if wishing to detect stereotypes based on skin colour, the words ‘black’
or ‘white’ would be paired with both positive and negative words. Participants
would then be shown them on a computer screen and asked to respond ‘yes’ or
‘no’ to whether they believe that the pairings are meaningful or not.
93
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
The response time is the crucial measurement in this procedure. The quicker the
response, the more indicative it is of an existing attitude. Research of this nature
has indicated that white participants were quicker to associate positive words
with the word ‘white’ than with ‘black’. Such responses indicate that, whilst at a
conscious level we might think we are not prejudiced, we might automatically
hold negative stereotypes towards certain groups.
Points to consider
●❑ Cognitive accounts explain how everyone can be prejudiced – but not sharp
rises and falls in prejudice.
●❑ Having implicit prejudiced stereotypical beliefs does not necessarily mean that
you will engage in negative behaviour towards the group concerned.
●❑ More sophisticated tools of measurement than self-report scales have been
developed.
●❑ Categories are viewed as fixed – others’ accounts (e.g., discursive) might see
prejudice as more fluid and context-dependent.
●❑ Much emphasis is put on the internal processes, but what about the social
information required when constructing such widely shared stereotypes?
Discursive accounts
Is the idea that prejudice and discrimination are a function of perceptual biases
and cognitive economy sufficient on its own to explain such belief systems?
Discursive psychologists would suggest not, for they argue that language is
required in order to jointly construct the meanings and ideas which makeup the
categories cognitive psychologists focus on.
According to this perspective, we share a common language through which
accounts of the social world are constructed. Our psychological lives are
therefore shaped by linguistic resources which allow us to actively formulate
versions of social reality. Rather than viewing prejudice as a belief ‘in our head’,
this approach suggests that, via discourse, we perform public practices to give
meaning to social relationships in particular contexts. These accounts can serve
to provide evidence about how we position certain groups and often seek to
legitimise our stance. This can be seen in this extract from Potter and Wetherell’s
(1987, p. 46) study of middle-class adults in New Zealand.
I’m not anti them at all you know, I, if they’re willing to get on and be like us; but if
they’re just going to come here, just to be able to use our social welfares and stuff like
that, then why don’t they stay home?
The participant is discussing Polynesian immigrants and starts with what’s known
as a disclaimer. This verbal device can be used to anticipate or reject possible
negative attributions. In this example, stating ‘I’m not anti them at all, you know’
acts as a disclaimer for the comments which come later about ‘why don’t they
stay home?’
94
Explanations of prejudice and discrimination
Extreme case formulation is also used, where a claim or statement is taken to its
extreme, providing an effective warrant for the speaker. The word ‘just’, which
is repeated twice, is indicative of this here: ‘but if they’re just going to come
here, just to be able to use our social welfares’. Such linguistic devices allow the
participant to blame Polynesian immigrants for not getting on with white New
Zealanders yet at the same time protect themselves from any charges of racism.
You will not be surprised to discover that the methods used to research this
approach are based on language. Discourse analysis could be of a media
account (e.g., analysis of a newspaper’s report of a race riot), a political speech
on the topic or an interview with someone involved in the riot. Linguistic
devices such as those illustrated are identified. Such analysis extends accounts
of prejudice further than fixed cognitive categories. Discursive accounts are
more flexible and open to change based on the context in which the prejudice
is occurring. (Discursive accounts of prejudice are returned to in Chapter 11,
Critical social psychology).
Points to consider
●❑ Can account for the role a collective belief system might have in specific
situations
●❑ Studies are based on real-life events.
●❑ A subjective account (though many believe psychological research should be
an objective endeavour).
●❑ Less individualistic than the other approaches discussed in this chapter.
●❑ Ignores any internal (e.g., cognitive) levels of processing.
95
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
Points to How does this How would What are the Why is this
consider about approach view prejudice be limitations of approach
each approach prejudice? researched? this explanation useful?
of prejudice?
Personality
Cognitive
Discursive
96
Reducing prejudice and discrimination
Key stuDy
Reviewing research on the contact hypothesis, Dovidio et al. (2003) report that
support still remains for the original formulation of the hypothesis. In addition, two
further concepts have been identified as critical for optimising intergroup contact:
97
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
Equal status
(between
groups)
Support of Optimal
authorities (or Intergroup
conditions cooperation
laws, customs, for contact
etc.)
Common
goals
98
Reducing prejudice and discrimination
prejudice. Such reviews provide compelling evidence that, after more than 50
years of research, the contact hypothesis remains a robust idea.
Turner and Crisp (2010) have also presented evidence that imagining intergroup
contact can contribute to reductions in implicit prejudice too.
99
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
This critique also mirrors some of the limitations that critical social psychologists
(see Chapter 11, Critical social psychology) have raised in relation to mainstream
approaches.
Due to spending cuts, two small rural schools have been forced to amalgamate
into one. However, teachers have experienced some conflict in the classroom
between pupils from the former different schools. How might research on
intergroup contact inform them about ways to reduce this conflict?
100
Chapter summary – pulling it all together
exhibited by the group of youths. The group took revenge by breaking into
the centre, damaging equipment and spray-painting ageist graffiti on the
walls. You have been asked to appear on a current affairs programme to
provide a psychologist’s view of why this might have happened and what the
community might do to reduce the ensuing rift which has occurred between
the two generations. Drawing on the evidence provided in this chapter, write
a script of what you might say.
➔❑ Can you tick all the points from the revision checklist at the beginning of
this chapter?
➔❑ Attempt the sample question from the beginning of this chapter using the
answer guidelines below.
➔❑ Go to the companion website at www.pearsoned.co.uk/psychologyexpress
to access more revision support online, including interactive quizzes,
flashcards, You be the marker exercises as well as answer guidance for the
Test your knowledge and Sample questions from this chapter.
Answer guidelines
101
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
between prejudice and discrimination, but essentially the bulk of the essay
needs to be on the actual accounts. You need to be clear which approaches you
intend to include and identify evaluatory points which can both illustrate ways
in which these approaches are useful and where their limitations might be. The
table you were asked to complete earlier in this chapter for Test your knowledge
question 6.3 should act as a useful aid for this essay.
102
Notes
Notes
103
6 • Prejudice and discrimination
Notes
104