Social Psychology

by Paul Seager

  a Directive style

  b Coaching style

  c Supporting style

  d Delegating style

  10 Member prototypicality is a feature of which one of the following theories of emergent leadership?

  a Idiosyncrasy credit theory

  b Social identity theory

  c Social role theory

  d None of the above

  13

  Prejudice

  Prejudice is a term that is often bandied about without too much thought – we talk about racial prejudice (racism) and sexual prejudice (sexism); prejudice against young parents and people of different religions; prejudice against people with a disability or against older people; we talk about prejudice against people of a different class (classism) or from a different country (nationalism). Prejudice, it seems, is all around us. This chapter looks at the psychology of prejudice in terms of how it comes to exist, how individual factors might affect it, and how it might be possible to reduce it.

  What is prejudice?

  ’If a person is capable of rectifying his erroneous judgments in the light of new evidence he is not prejudiced. Prejudgments become prejudices only if they are reversible when exposed to new knowledge. A prejudice, unlike a simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat it. We tend to grow emotional when a prejudice is threatened with contradiction. Thus the difference between ordinary prejudgments and prejudice is that one can discuss and rectify a prejudgment without emotional resistance.’

  Gordon Allport (1954b)

  One of the first psychologists to attempt to define and explore the topic of prejudice was Gordon Allport (his 1954 book, The Nature of Prejudice, is considered to be a classic in the field). With regard to ethnic prejudice, he referred to it as being ‘an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization’. Whilst this seems to be a sound basis for the beginnings of a definition, one prominent expert in this field (see Spotlight below) claims that to call something ‘faulty’ must imply that we have a way of determining whether or not the thing in question is correct – which much of the time we do not. (For example, whilst some less enlightened members of society may refer to those of another race, culture or nationality as being ‘lazy’, there is no real way of determining whether or not this is actually the case). This typifies the difficulty that we have within social psychology of determining the exact nature of prejudice: we might feel as though we know what it is, but actually it can be as difficult as nailing down jelly.

  Nevertheless, a traditional view of prejudice considers it to be an attitude that is held towards a specific group; as with most attitudes (see Chapter 7) it is thought to have three components:

  1 An affective component – this involves holding strong feelings (which are usually negative) with regard to the target group.

  2 A behavioural component – the way in which one intends to behave towards the target group.

  3 A cognitive component – the thoughts and beliefs that one holds about the target group.

  This view is by no means held by all researchers within the field.

  Distinct from prejudice is the concept of discrimination, which generally refers to some form of action. So, where prejudice is an attitude held by an individual or a group, discrimination is the translation of that attitude into a form of behaviour.

  Spotlight: A definition of prejudice

  Brown (2010, p. 7) defines prejudice as ‘any attitude, emotion or behaviour towards members of a group, which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy towards that group’.

  This definition is interesting in that it does not cover ‘positive’ prejudice (for example, nepotism).

  The topic of prejudice holds an interesting place in social psychology: it is certainly a topic in its own right, but it also overlaps with many other aspects of the subject; for instance, intergroup relations (ingroups and outgroups – see Chapter 14), stereotypes (see Chapter 4), aggression (see Chapter 9), self-perception and attributions (see Chapters 2 and 3), and attitudes (see Chapter 7).

  Key idea: Discrimination

  Traditionally, discrimination is the behavioural (overt) expression of a prejudice.

  Specific types of prejudice: racism

  As intimated at the beginning of the chapter, there are many types of prejudice, such as ageism and sexism, however racism has been a particularly difficult challenge for society. Defined as prejudice and discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or race, racism has been prevalent throughout history. Practised in its most destructive form, it can lead to genocide, as seen all too recently in places such as Bosnia, Rwanda and Iraq. Whilst we might like to think that we are coming to terms with racism with a more enlightened outlook from society in general, it may be that there is a new form of racism emerging. It is certainly the case that, due to prevalent tolerant societal norms, it is no longer acceptable to use racial slurs or any form of ethnic derogation (in fact it is illegal).

  When asked about racial attitudes on questionnaires, people readily offer acceptable answers. However, there is a worry that racism has simply been driven ‘underground’, and has perhaps changed in its nature. This new form of racism has been referred to by several different names, including aversive racism, symbolic racism and ambivalent racism. Whilst these different forms have slightly different definitions, they all share the view that individuals are caught between deeply-held emotional views towards minority groups, and the more egalitarian views of society. The challenge facing social psychology is how to detect the different types of prejudice (such as racism) in all their forms, explain it, reduce it, and ideally eradicate it.

  Key idea: Racism

  Prejudice and discrimination against others on the basis of their ethnicity or race.

  Measuring prejudice

  Until relatively recently, the most common way to investigate the prevalence of prejudice was to measure the explicit attitudes of people towards a specific group (such as immigrants). This was typically done through the use of a questionnaire. However, due to a combination of strong societal norms that call for equality and tolerance, and the inherent need for individuals to feel liked by others, this method runs the risk of a ‘social desirability’ bias. Of course, social psychologists have found ways to circumnavigate this type of bias by using methods such as ‘the bogus pipeline’.

  Key idea: The bogus pipeline

  A method based on leading people to believe that a polygraph can accurately monitor their emotional responses; this allows researchers to measure their real attitudes.

  However, a more recent and innovative way to measure prejudice is to tap into the implicit attitudes of individuals. These are unintentional attitudes which have a degree of automaticity in their activation when in the presence of the target group: this could be in the actual proximity of a group member or when something representing the group is present. One common measure is the Implicit Association Test (see Spotlight below). It is generally thought that implicit attitude measurements have a couple of advantages:

  1 It isn’t subject to social desirability.

  2 It is better used in cases where it is not societally acceptable to express negative views about a specific minority group.

  Spotlight: Measuring implicit attitudes of prejudice

  Using the Implicit Association Test, individuals are asked to categorize stimuli from either their own group (e.g. native British) or a target group (e.g. Romanian immigrant), alongside positive or negative stimuli (for example, words with positive or negative associations, such as ‘dynamic’ or ‘lazy’). The speed with which they do so is measured (referred to as a reaction time task). Results suggest that individuals are quicker to associate their own groups with positive stimuli and outgroups with negative stimuli. This quicker reaction time indicates an implicit bias.

  It was long believed that explicit attitudes were able to change relatively easily, but that implicit attitudes were more rigid and less easy to change
. However, recent research has suggested that this may not be the case, and that current events can influence implicit attitudes more easily than thought, and in a positive way. It is also believed that behaviour is affected in different ways according to whether the attitudes held are explicit or implicit: in the former case, the behaviour tends to be more conscious and deliberate; in the latter case the behaviour is a little more subtle and indirect such as nonverbal behaviour (for example, avoiding eye contact, hesitations during speech, and the distance held from outgroup members).

  Individual personality traits and prejudice

  When attempting to explain the existence of prejudice, it would be sensible to start with an individual explanation as it seems clear that some people show more prejudice than others. This led early researchers to consider the authoritarian personality trait as an explanation for prejudice. Theodor Adorno and his colleagues developed the ‘F-scale’ as a means of measuring it (the ‘F’ denoting fascism). Predicated on Freudian psychoanalytic theory, it was believed that those scoring highly in authoritarianism did so because they were raised by overly-strict parents. Having no way to express their hostility towards their parents (for fear of sanctions), such children were forced to look for other outlets for their repressed aggressive tendencies, and as such they tended to target weaker targets; this trait persisted into adulthood. Those with an authoritarian personality also tended to bestow an overly deferential outlook towards authority.

  Key idea: Authoritarian personality

  A prejudiced personality type based on psychoanalytic theory, and thought to have its origins in childhood.

  Examples of questions from the ‘F-scale’ include: ‘People can be divided into two classes: the weak and the strong’; ‘Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn’. Respondents were asked to rate their response to each of the thirty questions on a six-point scale from ‘Disagree strongly’ to ‘Agree strongly’.

  However, as an explanation for prejudice, the authoritarian personality ran into two fundamental problems. The first suggested that empirical evidence for such a trait was less than convincing: for example, it was unable to predict racism in South Africa in the 1950s. Secondly, it is almost inconceivable that, when we see ethnic cleansing perpetrated by one nation on another, the entire aggressor nation was raised by overly-strict parents. Finally, it is not always the case that those raised by a harsh parental regime go on to be overly harsh themselves.

  Nevertheless, the observation remains that some people are more prejudiced than others, and some are more liberal, which again suggests that individual personality may play a role.

  An alternative personality trait which has been linked to prejudice is social dominance orientation. This is derived from social dominance theory which claims that there is a tendency for human societies to be based on a hierarchical structure: that is to say, there will be a ranking of groups within a given society in terms of their dominance. Within those groups, at one end of the spectrum, there will be individuals who have ways, and the need, to subjugate the members of lower-ranked groups; at the other end, there will be individuals who are less likely to exploit these differences in group rankings, and who will instead attempt to lessen the differences between groups.

  Key idea: Social dominance orientation

  The degree to which an individual embraces the concept of society being based on a hierarchical structure, and rejects a more egalitarian outlook.

  Social dominance orientation measures the place where an individual falls on such a scale. The theory suggests that those with a need to subjugate are much more likely to be prejudiced than those at the other end. However, unlike the authoritarian personality measure, the SDO scale has no clear overriding rationale on which the theory is based.

  The SDO scale comprises 16 statements which purportedly measure whether or not an individual is for or against the desirability of group inequality. Example statements include:

  • Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.

  • Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.

  • We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.

  • All groups should be given an equal chance in life.

  Each item was scored on a 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive) scale, with some items being reverse-scored.

  Generally speaking, there is some evidence to suggest that there is a link between SDO and prejudice (for example, in the form of racism, sexism and nationalism): the correlation tends to be around 0.50, which is considered to be quite strong. Other findings suggest that: men score slightly higher on SDO than women; individuals scoring high on SDO are more likely to seek out professions in which some form of hierarchy enhancement is prevalent; low SDO scorers tend to prefer professions in which they can work towards minimization of group hierarchies. Some critics have questioned whether SDO is actually a stable personality factor, or whether it should be considered to be more of a measure of social attitude.

  Overall, attempts to explain prejudice in terms of personality traits have come in for a number of criticisms:

  • It underestimates the power of the social situation in which an individual finds themselves; that is, the attitudes of the people around us and the groups to which we belong. For example, studies of students have found that personality traits, such as authoritarianism, can change (e.g. go down) simply by housing them in more liberal dormitories for a year.

  • Studies of highly prejudiced populations (such as South Africa and Southern states of American in the 1950s where there were high levels of anti-black discrimination) have found that whilst there was a strong link between personality traits such as authoritarianism and prejudice, the levels of authoritarianism found were actually not all that different from populations where prejudice was found to be at much lower levels. This suggests that prejudice was much more likely due to the prevailing societal norms than it was to individual differences.

  • It is difficult to explain how prejudice found in an entire population or society can actually be down to individual differences. In effect, it would be saying that thousands, and possibly tens of thousands, of people are different on so many other personality traits, such as introversion-extraversion, agreeableness, and the like, but they all happen to be the exactly the same on personality traits linked to prejudice.

  • From a historical perspective, it has been found that prejudice in individual societies can emerge in a very short space of time, such as anti-Japanese sentiment in the USA following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, or Islamophobia following 9/11; as such, it is unlikely that individual personality traits can really account for such situations.

  More typically, prejudice tends to be seen as an intergroup process (see also Chapter 14), and there are a number of theories that attempt to explain prejudice from this perspective.

  Intergroup explanations of prejudice

  There are a number of different theories that can account for intergroup explanations of prejudice, and these have been covered in other chapters looking at aggression and intergroup conflict. However, it is worth briefly reprising some of them here as a reminder.

  The ‘frustration-aggression hypothesis’ (see Chapter 9) puts forward the idea that a frustrating situation, such as a poor economic climate, can lead to aggression; importantly, the aggression tends not to be targeted towards the cause of the frustration, which is usually a more powerful target, but instead is likely to be displaced towards an easier and weaker target, such as an ethnic minority. Essentially, the weaker group becomes the scapegoat and the target of prejudice.

  Relative deprivation theory suggests that prejudice may be due to one group feeling that they are less well-off compared to another group, and resentment due to this state of affairs may emerge in the form of prejudicial attitudes and behaviours towards the other group. Fraternalistic relative deprivation would certainly account for feelings of prejudice between groups (
see Chapter 14).

  Key idea: Relative deprivation theory

  The theory suggests that prejudice is caused by individuals or groups feeling that they have less than that to which they are entitled.

  Realistic group conflict theory suggests that when groups are in competition with each other for scarce resources, the groups that miss out may well be resentful towards the groups that secure the resources, and hence prejudice may ensue. Similarly, one group may feel that they are entitled to the resources and should not be in competition for them; thus they may feel resentful towards the competing group(s) and hence prejudicial feelings may ensue (see Chapter 14).

  Reducing prejudice

  A number of theories have been put forward as ways in which prejudice can be reduced. The most prominent, and successful, of these theories is the contact hypothesis. In essence, this idea states that in order to reduce prejudice, there needs to be contact between the two groups (i.e. the group showing prejudice and the minority group that is the target). However, the name of the theory is a little misleading, according to Allport who was an architect of this idea, in that there are certain conditions of the contact that need to be in place for the reduction of prejudice to be achieved:

  • There need to be prevailing social norms in place to promote equality between the two groups. For example, if laws are in place to stop discrimination then the required attitude change is far more apt to occur, and this change will likely come about based on Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory – if we are forced to behave in a certain way by society, it is likely that our attitudes will soon align with our behaviour in order to reduce the dissonance that we feel;