2638598
| Question | Answer |
| Early history | Pre-WWII: causes of ethnic/racial tensions engrained in biological & cultural differences - that caused particular reactions in individuals Post-WWII: focus shift to how irrational thoughts based on faulty generalisations contribute to racial hatred, violence & genocide - e.g. Allport's definition of the prejudiced mind i.e. Prejudice = result of abnormal psych development e.g. aberrationist accounts These people seen as 'rotten apples' (Henriques '84). Comforting a/c's as authoritarians as amongst us, not of us |
| Adorno et al (1950) | 'Authoritarian Personality' Children raised in harsh/disciplined households felt love & hate towards parents They repressed their -ve feelings towards parents & projected them on to weaker individuals (psychodynamic influence) Parental figures become idealised - generalised to any authority figure later in life |
| Rokeach et al (1960) | 'Dogmatic Personality' Prejudice from *cognitive rigidity* - deep rooted inability to cope with ambiguity Things are good/bad, black/white etc Fisher ('51) - experiment found highly prejudice people x2 likely to draw asymmetrical truncated pyramid seen 4 weeks earlier as symmetrical |
| Fiske & Taylor (1991) Cognitive Miser | Stereotyping theory By having readily available categories about people (stereotypes) we can invest a lot less cognitive effort & reduce cognitive load Once we have attributed a category to someone (e.g. based on age) we can access info re shared characteristics & anticipate how they may act in certain situations Can lead to thinking in terms of in-groups & out-groups Generalisations can be made about groups that may be incorrect *BUT* as a function of cognitive system it's hard to change stereotypes |
| Implicit prejudice | Categorisation = automatic & unreflexive Argued to be very important area of SP research into intergroup processes Banji ('97) - implicit prejudice shows well-intentioned people express stereotypes & prejudice previously thought to only be found in explicitly prejudiced people Pettigrew & Meertens - 'blatant prejudice scale' |
| Implicit prejudice - Dovidio & Gaertner (1998) | USA/European evidence based on surveys indicate sharp decrease in explicit prejudice since 1960's *BUT* implicit prejudice has risen to compensate |
| Implicit prejudice - Fazio et al (1995) | Experiment White students shown black or white faces followed by stimulus word Ps asked to classify word as +ve or -ve Slower reaction times for +ve words & faster times for -ve words when preceded by black face *However* ecological validity challenged - not like real world discrimination *BUT* those with high implicit scores do act in more obvious prejudice manner |
| Implicit prejudice - Hughenberg & Bodenhausen (2003) | White participants Shown faces that morph from anger to happy expressions Response latency measured Ps scoring high on implicit prejudice took longer to identify anger disappearing from black faces |
| Aversive Racism Theory | Dovidio & Gaertner ('98) Aversive racists consciously sympathise with victims of historical injustice, supporting racial equality But have -ve attitudes that're expressed rationally when involuntarily elicited in experiments Stratified responses to others: surface = tolerance non-conscious = intolerance *THEREFORE* bigotry = complicated & not just related to personality type |
| Group based approaches - Hunter, Stringer & Watson (1991) | Groups of NI Catholics & Protestants shown news footage of event from 'Troubles' - Ps asked to explain event x2 types of explanation: Internal attribution - personal qualities of those involved External attribution - retaliation to prior attacks Which explanation depend on if in-group or out-group involved Patterns of explanation similar = not related to personality type of info processing - more likely group effect than individual one Pettigrew ('79) -ve outgroup behaviour often attributed to internal causes when strong group identity & history of conflict |
| Group based approaches Sherif et al (1950's) Robbers Cave experiment | x2 groups of boys camping - unaware they were Ps Groups placed in competition - -ve goal interdependence 1 team winning - other loses = no shared gains/losses Result: increase intergroup solidarity & outgroup prejudice (-ve stereotypes) Groups forced to cooperate = +ve goal interdependence Succeed together only if -ve perceptions gone Conclusion - prejudice caused by competition for scarce resources |
| Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) Sherif et al | Hostile intergroup behaviour produced by intergroup competition NI situation - RCT suggests society resources available or denied to people on sectarian basis Prejudice not seen as irrational form of bias but way of furthering the objective goals of parties in conflict |
| Group based approaches Tajfel et al (1978) | Social Identity Theory (SIT) RCT doesn't explain historical patterns or SP of intergroup conflict People gauge self-esteem re their identification with their social groups & how they compare to other groups Relational comparison - e.g. NI Catholic identity acquires meaning when contrast with Protestant identity Social identity reflects self-esteem: emotional assessment generates 'them' & 'us' thinking => accentuating +ve of ingroup Group members are depersonalised - thoughts/actions guided by thinking of the group & not themselves as individuals Different to RTC - SIT posits competition for scare resources sufficient but not necessary Hewstone & Greenland - pointless conflicts more understandable when viewed as way of maintaining cherished social identity |
| Discursive perspective (1) | Language = precondition for much of SP (P&W) We can only make sense of reality using language We can only use discourse within our society Therefore actions & beliefs constrained by what we can express through language |
| Discursive Perspective (2) | Prejudice only possible because we can jointly construct social meanings thru language Social a/c's don't just describe a situation - they define it Constructed explanations further the goals of the individuals who create discourse |
| Discursive Perspective (3) Northern Ireland | Nicholl (DUP) - attributes responsibility for 'troubles' to IRA. Protestant violence constructed as regrettable but necessary retaliation - defensive step that's saved lives MacNiallais (Republican) - sees protestant violence as state sponsored to maintain status quo. IRA activity is +ve, a radical revolutionary struggle against a system that oppresses nationalist community A/c's = legitimising forms of collective violence & de-legitimising others - claiming to represent respective communities Discourse aired via media & everyday conversation - each becomes 'truth' within each side's ideology |
| Discursive perspective (4) compared with cognitive social | Criticism of DP - ignores inner world of cognition & emotion. It's 'all talk' Edwards & Potter: DP re-specifies & enriches psych domain, doesn't ignore it Psych process happen in the public domain - not mysterious happenings 'in the head' Public action that makes relationships make sense Group members use same vocabulary to make sense of things in same way Categorisation not just a cognitive strategy but tool that can be used flexibly to describe group behaviour |
| Social Psychology perspectives on conflict resolution (Reicher) | Reicher ('04) - conflict neither universal or inevitable, despite picture painted by history It overlooks societies characterised by solidarity between groups & relations changing for the better It is reactionary encouraging passive acceptance of conflict as inevitable Prejudice *NOT* natural consequence of cognition & human motivation SP should be active in implementation of social change - not just an academic discipline As seen in the 'crisis' re lack of relevance of SP experimentation |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (1) | Dovidio et al ('03) - one of psychology's most effective strategies for improving intergroup relations Contact between groups req'd to reduce prejudice between them *BUT* mere contact could result in rising prejudiced feelings Lemos ('05) - people in more multiracial areas of GB were most likely to have -ve attitudes towards other races Allport ('54) - certain prerequisites req'd for contact to be effective |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (2) When & why does contact reduce prejudice? | 'laundry list' of factors that help contact reduce prejudice, incl.: >regular & frequent >between people of same status >organised around superordinate goals Pettigrew - list doesn't explain why contact works |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (3) When & why does contact reduce prejudice? Brewer & Miller (1984) | Brewer & Miller (1984) Decategorisation Model of Contact Group differences de-emphasised See others as individuals, not group representatives Use of personal characteristics to categorise people - not group identity |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (4) When & why does contact reduce prejudice? Hewstone & Brown (1986) | Hewstone & Brown (1986) Pluralist Model of Contact B&M misinterpreted implications of SIT re understanding contact Unrealistic for group members to suppress collective identities (SIT=group membership central to own sense of self) Contact must be an intergroup process - with Ps thinking of each other as representatives of particular social categories Leads to multiculturalism policy - e.g. school children leaning about/celebrate different religious practices Learn to appreciate & celebrate values of other groups *RISK* highlighting differences may trigger prejudice |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (5) When & why does contact reduce prejudice? Gaertner & Dovidio (2000) | Gaertner & Dovidio (2000) Recategorisation Model of Contact Realignment of group boundaries not possible, if breaking barriers is not No attempt to reduce importance of group identification - tries to shift group boundaries to promote greater inclusiveness See each others' groups as part of a superordinate ("we're all British") *RISK* success threatened if long history of intergroup conflict |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (6) Limits & criticism | Very influential but, Cantle report into race riots 2001: depth of polarisation between ethnic communities - living parallel lives Recommended: >more contact between communities - build cohesion >create situations to encourage interaction between people from different groups >create common sense of national identity - replace old notions of Britishness & looking at country of origin for identity |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Contact hypothesis (CH) (7) Limits & criticism cont... | Dixon et al ('05) >Literature too detached from real-life? >Findings largely based on short-lived lab experiments or very localised field interventions >Idea of optimal conditions existing in everyday life utopian? >Could wider power structures make optimal conditions such as cooperative interdependence difficult to implement >Interpersonal perceptions affected by contact may not affect intergroup perceptions (may see other as exception to the rule) >Group conflict and individual conflict may not be linked (Blumer '58) |
| Social psych of contact & desegregation Discursive analysis... | Hopkins & Kahani-Hopkins (2006) Perceptions of interventions designed to encourage integration with non-Muslims by GB Muslims Findings - considered via historical situatedness Experience of discrimination shifted from racist to religious (Islamophoia) Some Muslims regard contact as essential in combating this - demonstrating they're not closed off Others see fundamental conflict between West & Islamic views - see contact as contaminating their values & identity - weakening their ability to resist discrimination Suggests communities have contradictory theories of contact - not open to analytic categories of traditional contact research Implications for success of interventions designed to promote intergroup interactions |
| Conclusion | Focus on prejudice and conflict as result of 'errors' & 'biases' in cognition = problematic P&W - entrenches individual perspective on social change - processes occurring under the skull rather than in context of society DP - refocus on collective practices that create shared meanings of other groups & how they're thought of & acted towards |
| Theoretical dichotomies in Prejudice | >natural/inevitable vs constructed/avoidable >irrational/unconscious vs rational/conscious >individual vs individual infl. by social vs individual vs individual/social emotional vs cognitive vs collectivist >experiments on individuals/groups vs discourse analysis |
| Individual-Social Dualism | Topic dogged by focus on individual side of dualism Despite many psychologists ack. cultural & political elements of everyday r'ships... Much SP work on prejudice treated as individually not socially produced |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.