ZeePedia Add to Favourites   |   Contact us


Social Psychology

<<< Previous PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE……….):Religion, Stereotype threat Next >>>
 
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
Lesson 26
PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE..........)
SOCIAL INEQUALITIES: UNEQUAL STATUS
This lecture will discuss that what social conditions breed prejudice? How does society maintain
prejudice?
·
Prejudice springs from several factors because it serves many functions: it may gain us social
acceptance; it may protects from anxiety; may bring us pleasure; can protect our self-esteem, etc.
·
Prejudice has been greatest in regions where slavery was practiced
·
Nineteenth century European politicians and writers justified imperial expansion by describing
exploited colonized people as "inferior", "requiring protection" and a "burden" to be borne
(Allport, 1958, pp. 204-205).
Social inequalities: Religion
Religious ideology is well suited to reduce prejudice. All religions stress equality and justice,
particularly Islam places a great emphasis on Heqooqul Aabad and rights of neighbours. Moreover, all
prophets have been declared equal and it has been mentioned in Al-Quran that no prophet has a
preference over others. On Hejatul widah, Prophet Mohammad presented a universal charter of human
rights and clearly stated that no one is superior on the basis of race or colour.
Although some religious beliefs can reduce prejudice, strong religious beliefs tend to be associated with
prejudice shown in a review of 34 studies and in a survey of 1799 people (Batson & Ventis, 1982;
Eisinga et al., 1990).
Although intrinsically religious prove less prejudiced on questionnaires but appear to be equally
prejudiced when measured behaviorally (Batson et al., 1978)
"We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough to make us love one another"
Social inequalities: Stereotype threat
30
A self-confirming apprehension that one will be
evaluated based on a negative stereotype
25
Experiments by Spencer & Quinn (1999):
Researchers administered a difficult Math test
20
to men and women with different instructions.
They actually divided the test into two halves
Men
15
but presented it as two distinct tests. By
Women
employing a cross-over design, half of the
10
participants were told that the first test was on
which men outperformed women, while on the
5
second there was no gender difference.
Instructions  for  the  second  group  were
reversed. The results showed the impact of
0
Gender difference
No gender difference
stereotype threat on performance of men and
women. It can be seen clearly in the graph
presented
Figure 1: Stereotype threat and gender performance
Stereotype threat & Self-fulfilling prophecy
·  Stereotype threat is different from self-fulfilling prophecy, which hammers one's reputation into
101
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
one's self concept, whereas stereotype threat situation is immediate. However, gender and racial
stereotypes can also be self-fulfilling.
·
Racial stereotypes be similarly self-fulfilling, e.g., when difficult verbal tests were administered to
Blacks and Whites (Steele & Aronson, 1995), Black performed poorly because they are perceived
as having low verbal ability.
·
Stereotype threat also affects athletic performance, When a golf test was framed as a test of "sports
intelligence" Blacks performed worse; when it was framed as "natural athletic ability" Blacks
performed better than Whites (Stone et al., 1999).
·
Figure 2 presents a diagrammatic illustration of stereotypes as self-fulfilling prophecy.
Figure 2: Stereotypes as Self-fulfilling Prophecies
Knowing that one may be stereotyped by others can create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Others' behavior can influence the target, and mere expectation of being stereotyped can create stereotype
threat.
Social sources: Social Identity
Human beings are group-bound species; our ancestral history prepares us to feed and protect ourselves-
to live in groups. Human beings live for their groups, kill for their groups, and die for their groups.
We carry social identities-being woman, Pakistani, a psychologist, educationist, student, a member of
Rotary club, etc.
Any situation may involve both interpersonal and intergroup elements, but usually one will be dominant.
An in-group member is someone who shares category membership with the perceiver.
An out-group member is someone who does not share category membership with the perceiver.
Self-concept contains not just a personal identity but a social identity.
Simple act of categorizing people as in-group or out-group members affects how we evaluate and
compare them
102
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
In-group bias refers to the tendency to give more favourable evaluations and greater rewards to in-group
members than to out-group ones.
Racism and sexism are the widespread category-based prejudice and discrimination
Social Identity: Self-concept
The minimal group paradigm: (Tajfel et
al., 1971)
Social Identity: Self-concept
Group membership is sufficient to
foster group favouritism
Participants  allocated  to
two
Self concept
groups on an arbitrary basis
Identities of people in other
groups unknown
Social
Personal
identities
identities
Allocate money to people (via
Daughter Roommate Class-fellow
Pakistani Muslim Rotarian
code numbers) in the two groups
etc.
etc.
Could not allocate money to self
Results
A persistent tendency to allocate more points to their own group than the out-group.
Mere categorization is sufficient to elicit intergroup bias. Minimal group categorizatization is an
independent of stereotyping and existed even though people did not know each other before this
experiment.
Meaningless categories; no interaction between groups; no past relationship; (i.e., even without
historical, cultural, or religious bases)
Has been proved as a very robust finding (Brewer, 1979)
Billig & Tajfel's study (1973)
·  Original MGP categorization on basis of `liking of paintings'
so not truly mere categorization,
but belief similarity, which can increase discrimination
·
Categorization by coin-toss (truly minimal) vs. similarity (you all liked the same paintings)
·
But...mere categorization (on completely arbitrary basis) can still lead to bias
·
Reward allocations to either ingroup or outgroup: more to ingroup
·
How to explain the mere categorization effect?
Social Identity Theory
Our self esteem is partly determined by the social esteem of our group as social identity is part of our self
definition, and we enjoy in the reflected glory of our group.
Tajfel & Turner (1979)
People seek to enhance their self esteem by identifying with specific social groups and perceiving these
groups as being better than others.
103
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
We indulge in ingroup biases when the social esteem of our ingroup is threatened; strength of
identification indicates levels of bias
Intergroup Competition: Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Intergroup conflict develops due to competition for scarce resources (Levine & Campbell, 1972).
Two important changes occur in conflict:
Increased hostility toward the opposing out-group
An intensification of in-group loyalty (ethnocentrism)
Sherif et al.'s summer camp (robber's cave) experiments (1955)
What happens if you randomly place people into one of two groups and manipulate circumstances to
promote intergroup competition? The central theme of minimal group categorization surrounds a classic
study. Sherif et al. conducted study at a specially created 200-acre camp at Robber's Cave State Park, 150
miles southeast of Oklahoma City of USA.
Boy's summer camp in U.S.
20 well-adjusted, 11-12 years old boys
Divided into two groups
Unobtrusive observations by campus counsellors.
Three phases:
Creating ingroups
Instilling intergroup competitions
Encouraging intergroup cooperation
Phase I: Creating in-groups
Cooperative activities: By making meals, hiking, hunting for hidden treasures, pitching tents, etc.
Developed unique identity (Rattlers & Eagles): Rattlers established a tough-guy group norm and spent a
great deal of time in cursing and swearing.
Started making clear and undeniable ingroup-outgroup statements
Phase II: Intergroup competitions
Hypothesis: "Intergroup competition would cause prejudice"
·
Weeklong tournament consisting on 10 athletic events
·
Each event winner received points and the group with most points would receive highly prized
medals and impressive 4-bladed pocketknives.
·
Showed how easily hostility can be developed between groups who are brought in competition.
·
Eagles were losing, so they angrily burned Rattlers' flag; Rattlers raided Eagles' camps and ripped
their mosquito nets, overturned their cots; next day Eagles returned the attack.
·
Intergroup conflicts transformed these normal, well adjusted boys into "wicked, disturbed, and
vicious" youngsters" (Sherif, 1966, p. 58).
·
Dramatic increase in derogation of the other group (pig, stinkers, sneaky, cheater) vs. different
104
img
Social Psychology (PSY403)
VU
words for ingroup members (brave, tough, friendly, etc.)
·
One by-product of intergroup hostility was an increase in in-group solidarity
·
Intergroup hostility escalated from name calling to acts of physical aggression
Phase III: Reversing the hostility
Researchers sought to determine whether simple noncompetitive contact between the groups would ease
tensions, so they brought children together for meals and movie.
Both groups used each interaction as an opportunity to merely increase their animosity
Conflict reduction: Super ordinate goals
An excellent example of how ethnocentrism can develop when 2 groups compete for scarce resources:
Bus breakdown - at lunchtime
Only together could the two groups push-start the truck
Decrease in out-group derogation
·
But.can merely being a member of a certain group promote intergroup bias?
·
Recent studies show that mere perception of conflict is often sufficient to fuel intolerance (Zarate
et al., 2004); Realistic group conflict theory
Reading
·  Franzoi, S. (2003). Social Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Chapter 8.
Other Readings
·  Lord, C.G. (1997). Social Psychology. Orlando: Harcourt Brace and Company.
·  David G. Myers, D. G. (2002). Social Psychology (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
105
Table of Contents:
  1. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Readings, Main Elements of Definitions
  2. INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Social Psychology and Sociology
  3. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Scientific Method
  4. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:Evaluate Ethics
  5. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH PROCESS, DESIGNS AND METHODS (CONTINUED)
  6. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY OBSERVATIONAL METHOD
  7. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY CORRELATIONAL METHOD:
  8. CONDUCTING RESEARCH IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
  9. THE SELF:Meta Analysis, THE INTERNET, BRAIN-IMAGING TECHNIQUES
  10. THE SELF (CONTINUED):Development of Self awareness, SELF REGULATION
  11. THE SELF (CONTINUE…….):Journal Activity, POSSIBLE HISTORICAL EFFECTS
  12. THE SELF (CONTINUE……….):SELF-SCHEMAS, SELF-COMPLEXITY
  13. PERSON PERCEPTION:Impression Formation, Facial Expressions
  14. PERSON PERCEPTION (CONTINUE…..):GENDER SOCIALIZATION, Integrating Impressions
  15. PERSON PERCEPTION: WHEN PERSON PERCEPTION IS MOST CHALLENGING
  16. ATTRIBUTION:The locus of causality, Stability & Controllability
  17. ATTRIBUTION ERRORS:Biases in Attribution, Cultural differences
  18. SOCIAL COGNITION:We are categorizing creatures, Developing Schemas
  19. SOCIAL COGNITION (CONTINUE…….):Counterfactual Thinking, Confirmation bias
  20. ATTITUDES:Affective component, Behavioral component, Cognitive component
  21. ATTITUDE FORMATION:Classical conditioning, Subliminal conditioning
  22. ATTITUDE AND BEHAVIOR:Theory of planned behavior, Attitude strength
  23. ATTITUDE CHANGE:Factors affecting dissonance, Likeability
  24. ATTITUDE CHANGE (CONTINUE……….):Attitudinal Inoculation, Audience Variables
  25. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:Activity on Cognitive Dissonance, Categorization
  26. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE……….):Religion, Stereotype threat
  27. REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis
  28. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION:Reasons for affiliation, Theory of Social exchange
  29. INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION (CONTINUE……..):Physical attractiveness
  30. INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS:Applied Social Psychology Lab
  31. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:Attachment styles & Friendship, SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
  32. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINE………):Normative influence, Informational influence
  33. SOCIAL INFLUENCE (CONTINUE……):Crimes of Obedience, Predictions
  34. AGGRESSION:Identifying Aggression, Instrumental aggression
  35. AGGRESSION (CONTINUE……):The Cognitive-Neo-associationist Model
  36. REDUCING AGGRESSION:Punishment, Incompatible response strategy
  37. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR:Types of Helping, Reciprocal helping, Norm of responsibility
  38. PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE………):Bystander Intervention, Diffusion of responsibility
  39. GROUP BEHAVIOR:Applied Social Psychology Lab, Basic Features of Groups
  40. GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE…………):Social Loafing, Deindividuation
  41. up Decision GROUP BEHAVIOR (CONTINUE……….):GroProcess, Group Polarization
  42. INTERPERSONAL POWER: LEADERSHIP, The Situational Perspective, Information power
  43. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN COURT
  44. SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY APPLIED: SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY IN CLINIC
  45. FINAL REVIEW:Social Psychology and related fields, History, Social cognition