PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION
Some of the most negative forms of intergroup behaviour are demonstrations of prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice refers to a derogatory attitude towards a group and its members, whereas discrimination refers to negative behaviour. The two are often closely interconnected.Henri Tajfel (1919–82) was born in Wloclawek, Poland. He escaped from the Nazis to join the French army and owed his life to being captured in this uniform – it meant that he was treated as a (French) prisoner of war, rather than being sent to the death camps as a Polish Jew. This experience taught him the impact of social categorization.
He came to the UK and studied at Birkbeck College, then taught at Oxford University before becoming the first Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Bristol. It was here that the first minimal group experiments were carried out, which showed that mere social categorization could affect intergroup behaviour. These studies stimulated the development of social identity theory, the most significant influence of European social psychology on the discipline as a whole.
Prejudiced personalities
Some theories of prejudice focus on personality, arguing that there are certain personality types that predispose people to intolerance and prejudice. The best known of these theories concerns
the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). According to this view, harsh family rearing strategies produce a love–hate conflict in children’s feelings towards their parents. The conflict is resolved by idolizing all power figures, despising weaker others and striving for a rigidly unchanging and hierarchical world order. People with this personality syndrome are predisposed to be prejudiced. This ‘personality’ approach has now been largely discredited, partly because it underestimates the importance of current situations in shaping people’s attitudes, and partly because it cannot explain sudden rises or falls in prejudice against specific racial groups (Brown, 1995). On the other hand, a fairly small number of people do hold generalized negative attitudes towards all outgroups (e.g. the stereotypical bigot who dislikes blacks, Asians, gays and communists), and authoritarianism is indeed associated with various forms of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1988).
Some of the most negative forms of intergroup behaviour are demonstrations of prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice refers to a derogatory attitude towards a group and its members, whereas discrimination refers to negative behaviour. The two are often closely interconnected.Henri Tajfel (1919–82) was born in Wloclawek, Poland. He escaped from the Nazis to join the French army and owed his life to being captured in this uniform – it meant that he was treated as a (French) prisoner of war, rather than being sent to the death camps as a Polish Jew. This experience taught him the impact of social categorization.
He came to the UK and studied at Birkbeck College, then taught at Oxford University before becoming the first Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Bristol. It was here that the first minimal group experiments were carried out, which showed that mere social categorization could affect intergroup behaviour. These studies stimulated the development of social identity theory, the most significant influence of European social psychology on the discipline as a whole.
Prejudiced personalities
Some theories of prejudice focus on personality, arguing that there are certain personality types that predispose people to intolerance and prejudice. The best known of these theories concerns
the authoritarian personality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford, 1950). According to this view, harsh family rearing strategies produce a love–hate conflict in children’s feelings towards their parents. The conflict is resolved by idolizing all power figures, despising weaker others and striving for a rigidly unchanging and hierarchical world order. People with this personality syndrome are predisposed to be prejudiced. This ‘personality’ approach has now been largely discredited, partly because it underestimates the importance of current situations in shaping people’s attitudes, and partly because it cannot explain sudden rises or falls in prejudice against specific racial groups (Brown, 1995). On the other hand, a fairly small number of people do hold generalized negative attitudes towards all outgroups (e.g. the stereotypical bigot who dislikes blacks, Asians, gays and communists), and authoritarianism is indeed associated with various forms of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1988).
Society and identity
Contrary to personality explanations, by far the best predictor of prejudice is the existence of a culture of prejudice legitimized by societal norms. For example, Pettigrew (1958) measured authoritarianism and racist attitudes among whites in South Africa, the northern United States and the southern United States. He found more racist attitudes in South Africa and the southern United States than in the northern United States, but he found no differences in authoritarianism between these two groups. How do such prejudiced ‘cultures’ arise? Both social identity theory (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and social dominance theory (Pratto, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) may provide part of the answer.
According to social identity theory, group members strive to promote a favourable identity for their group. They do this by maximizing their group’s real status advantage over other groups, and by developing belief systems that justify and legitimize their superiority. Group members achieve or maintain a positive social identity by differentiating their group from outgroups. From the perspective of social dominance theory, people also differ in their social dominance orientation (SDO) – the extent to which they desire their own group to be dominant and superior to outgroups. According to this framework, people who have a high SDO are likely to be more prejudiced (Pratto, 1999).
Contrary to personality explanations, by far the best predictor of prejudice is the existence of a culture of prejudice legitimized by societal norms. For example, Pettigrew (1958) measured authoritarianism and racist attitudes among whites in South Africa, the northern United States and the southern United States. He found more racist attitudes in South Africa and the southern United States than in the northern United States, but he found no differences in authoritarianism between these two groups. How do such prejudiced ‘cultures’ arise? Both social identity theory (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and social dominance theory (Pratto, 1999; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) may provide part of the answer.
According to social identity theory, group members strive to promote a favourable identity for their group. They do this by maximizing their group’s real status advantage over other groups, and by developing belief systems that justify and legitimize their superiority. Group members achieve or maintain a positive social identity by differentiating their group from outgroups. From the perspective of social dominance theory, people also differ in their social dominance orientation (SDO) – the extent to which they desire their own group to be dominant and superior to outgroups. According to this framework, people who have a high SDO are likely to be more prejudiced (Pratto, 1999).
Modern forms of prejudice
Prejudiced attitudes are often deeply entrenched, may be passed from parents to children and are supported by the views ofsignificant others. Yet societal norms for acceptable behaviour can and do change, sometimes creating a conflict between personal feelings and how they can be expressed.
For example, modern liberal norms and legislation in the United States stand against prejudice, and yet centuries of history have entrenched racist attitudes in US society. Researchers suggest that, rather than abolishing prejudice, this dynamic transforms overt ‘redneck’ prejudice into more ‘modern’ forms (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986). Modern prejudice often presents itself as denial of the claim that minorities are disadvantaged, opposition to special measures to rectify disadvantage, and systematic avoidance of minorities and the entire question of prejudice against these minorities.
New, more subtle measures are required to detect these modern forms of prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). For example, increasing use is being made of implicit measures which are beyond the intentional control of the individual, and so can detect prejudice even when people are aware of societal norms regarding tolerance or political correctness (see Cunningham, Preacher & Banaji, 2001). Research using the ‘Implicit Association Test’ (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998) has shown that white Americans have relatively strong automatic negative associations with African Americans, but positive associations with whites (they respond faster to pairings of white faces with ‘good’ words and black faces with ‘bad’ words, than to pairings of white faces wth ‘bad’ words and black faces with ‘good’ words).
Prejudiced attitudes are often deeply entrenched, may be passed from parents to children and are supported by the views ofsignificant others. Yet societal norms for acceptable behaviour can and do change, sometimes creating a conflict between personal feelings and how they can be expressed.
For example, modern liberal norms and legislation in the United States stand against prejudice, and yet centuries of history have entrenched racist attitudes in US society. Researchers suggest that, rather than abolishing prejudice, this dynamic transforms overt ‘redneck’ prejudice into more ‘modern’ forms (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; McConahay, 1986). Modern prejudice often presents itself as denial of the claim that minorities are disadvantaged, opposition to special measures to rectify disadvantage, and systematic avoidance of minorities and the entire question of prejudice against these minorities.
New, more subtle measures are required to detect these modern forms of prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). For example, increasing use is being made of implicit measures which are beyond the intentional control of the individual, and so can detect prejudice even when people are aware of societal norms regarding tolerance or political correctness (see Cunningham, Preacher & Banaji, 2001). Research using the ‘Implicit Association Test’ (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998) has shown that white Americans have relatively strong automatic negative associations with African Americans, but positive associations with whites (they respond faster to pairings of white faces with ‘good’ words and black faces with ‘bad’ words, than to pairings of white faces wth ‘bad’ words and black faces with ‘good’ words).
No comments:
Post a Comment