PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION (CONTINUE……….):Religion, Stereotype threat

<< PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:Activity on Cognitive Dissonance, Categorization

REDUCING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION:The contact hypothesis >>

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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

A self-confirming apprehension that one will be

evaluated based on a negative stereotype

Experiments by Spencer & Quinn (1999):

Researchers administered a difficult Math test

to men and women with different instructions.

They actually divided the test into two halves

Men

but presented it as two distinct tests. By

Women

employing a cross-over design, half of the

participants were told that the first test was on

which men outperformed women, while on the

second there was no gender difference.

Instructions for the second group were

reversed. The results showed the impact of

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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

Allocate money to people (via

Daughter Roommate Class-fellow

Pakistani Muslim Rotarian

code numbers) in the two groups

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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

Social Psychology (PSY403)

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: