Prejudice and Discrimination - Essay Example

Prejudice and Discrimination Place Introduction Prejudice is explained as an unfavorable preformed opinion, which is usually based onthe insufficient knowledge and feelings about certain stereotypes. Psychology explains prejudice as a series of assumptions and guesses and that it is based on generalization of people’s characteristics and qualities and their belonging to the particular group (Chin, 2009). In comparison with the discrimination, where there is a manifestation of a stigma and the label of certain condition, prejudice is an attitude, the great deal of which is unconscious and reflected in the stereotyped assumptions about the people and actions of everyday life. Since these generalizations, beliefs and assumptions affect people’s behavior and can cause individuals to discriminate against the entire sections of society, there should be searched and defined methods that would reduce prejudice. Besides, researchers define the main reasons to reduce prejudice. The first is in one’s dedication to equality and forming of the belief that to be prejudiced is not right from the moral point of view. The other reason is that prejudice is motivated by societal pressures, which interferes individual’s ability to change (Plant & Devine, 1998). The following paper ill examine and evaluate methods for reducing prejudice based on psychological research and will discuss how psychological insights into prejudice and discrimination may be applied to work. It will also discuss how one can use such methods for prejudice reduction to help others. Methods of reducing prejudice: intergroup contact theory It has been estimated that certain methods can be applied for prejudice reduction. One of such theories, the intergroup contact theory or contact hypothesis suggests that it can reduce prejudice and improve the relations within a certain group, making a positive effect on such conditions as equal status, intergroup cooperation, common goals and the support by social and institutional authorities (Allport, n.d.). The theory was among the most interesting ideas of science research over the last fifty years. Thus, Allport (n.d.), outlined that within working environment, employees have equal status and work together to gain shared goals. Within societal group, positive contact experience can be seen in the reduced self-reported prejudice toward neighbors of different race, sex and sexual orientation. The majority of research in the area of intergroup contact theory came from social psychology as it was oriented on the contact between people (Braithwaite & Thompson, 1999). What is also important is that contact does not only make an impact on the self-report measure of prejudice, but it also reduces prejudice in different ways (Everett & Onu, 2013). Research made by Nottingham Trent University staff (2010) evidence that despite the specified conditions by Allport, the varied research reveals that the problem still occurs within the given hypothesis. There is a certain limitation of the selected bias, as prejudiced people do not intend to be a part of the intergroup contact, however, positive effects of the cross-group friendship are bigger than of the bias. Moreover, there is an impact on intergroup contact effects due to individual differences and societal norms (Pettigrew, 1998). Thus, the research of Forsyth (2009) states that intergroup contact or face-to-face contact reduces prejudice in 94% of the studies conducted. The intergroup contact consists of an indirect intergroup contact, the aim of which is to improve the relations between people. In addition, the extended contact where the ingroup member is a friend, the imagined contact where one is interacting with the outgroup member (Dovidio, Eller & Hewstone, 2011). There is also an evidence of the negative contact impact on the intergroup contact (Graf, Paolini & Rubin, 2014). It can be more powerful in terms of prejudice within the certain group; however, positive impact is more common for the intergroup. Methods of reducing prejudice: salient categorization theory Aiming to pass social influences that mitigate prejudice reduction and to generalize from individuals to the outgroup, Pettigrew (1998) modified the models of contact hypothesis such as salient categorization, recategorization and decategorization, pointing that the last one should be introduced at the beginning of the intergroup contact (Park & Judd, 2005). Experimental studies showed categorization was salient with outgroup members and it was not clear whether these were pure forms of personalization (Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, 2002). Despite the effective interrelation between this model within the laboratory experiments, in natural conditions they are equally essential to prejudice reduction. Thus, if the intergroup prejudice is reduced in any social institution, it is important for the other group members to decategorize on certain occasions and have personalized contact. In such case, friendship and acquantianceship can be developed readily. However, while recategorization and decategorization can form positive feelings to other members, generalization of these individuals will be promoted by having the contact with the same and similar persons (Augoustinos & Reynolds, 2001). Eysenck (2014) defines salient categorization as the important component of the multicultural approach, where different groups are acknowledged and an emphasis is put on the group differences to be handled sensitively in order to reduce prejudice. It is however, difficult to change the outgroup perceptions when strong and habitual prejudice exists. Despite that salient categorization is the mechanism that can increase the beneficial effects of the intergroup bias and thus prejudice. Methods of reducing prejudice: empathy Social psychologists have studied the possibility of empathy to improve the intergroup attitudes and relations. Understanding that empathy is the integral part of conflict solving among the members of one group, such as family and school, there is an ability to take a perspective of identification of commonalities (Batson & Ahmad, 2009). Within the intergroup, empathy refers to the relations and often has a history of disdain and mistrust, the result of which can be prejudice. More than five hundred studies examined the effect of empathy on reduction of prejudice, the conclusion of which was given to the perspective of fruitful direction for the future research. Social predispositions and group boundaries are able to reduce people’s motivation and increase prejudicial attitude toward all. For reducing prejudice, the general hypothesis is that the increasing empathy for the particular outgroups is able to enhance tolerance and willingness to help, thus decrease the level of prejudice. However, such beneficial success is not always possible due to the perspective-taking. For instance, thoughts about how to evaluate the outgroup member are activated when people pay certain attention to the context of the intergroup interaction (Cikara, n.d.). Since empathy is very flexible and context-dependent response, failures of its matter can relate to the diminishing of its help. How intergroup contact may help reduce homophobia? Under the modern conditions of competition and unequal status, the model of intergroup contact is more likely to increase prejudice rather than reduce it. For that purpose, there should be identified solutions to lead to the cooperative and interdependent interactions between people to reduce the prejudice in terms of their racial, ethnic belonging and of sexual orientation. In terms of cultural heterosexism, there are many discriminatory assumptions about people of the same sex to have relations with each other, which causes to the justification of prejudice and discrimination (Larry, 2002). Thus, homophobia attitudes and irrational fears create negative assumptions about lesbians and gay males. There are, unfortunately, a lot of examples of how homophobic prejudice harm people’s lives, hence, the intention should be to create perspective-taking and infusion of empathy for the intergroup members for such prejudice reduction. For that purpose intergroup contact theory described by Allport (n.d.) allows analyzing approaches for reduction of prejudice toward gay people and lesbians. Thus, to have similar class standing, there is a need to teach the heterosexual students to read literature on homosexuality in order to give them the background. Establishing effective communication between different types of students in the form of dialogue will encourage homosexual students to feel comfortable and heterosexual people to start thinking more positive. Such communication will create equal conditions for both heterosexual and homosexual students, will increase the intergroup cooperation and with the help of tutors and mentors, it will be possible to reduce prejudice and discrimination toward outgroup students. Conclusion For the modern society, where the conditions of globalization allowed diversifying different business and non-business environments, the issues of prejudice and discrimination should be identified and solved rapidly. The review of theories in this paper demonstrates that there is a great impact of intergroups relations on how people form their view about others and how they may be changed under different circumstance. It is essential for the present day scholars and researchers to analyze the techniques to be introduced into an educational setting, as the growing generation is the most vulnerable in terms of prejudice and discrimination and thus can form the wrong attitudes toward member of one and the same society. Hence, prejudice reduction intervention should be implemented in their programs and educational projects to teach students and future workers and employers about the tolerant attitude and fair relation toward inter and outgroup members. References Allport, G. n.d. The nature of prejudice, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, [pdf] Available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/caporaso/courses/203/readings/allport_Nature_of_prejudice.pdf[Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Augoustinos, M. and Reynolds, K. 2001. Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social Conflict, SAGE Batson, D. and Ahmad, N. 2009. Using empathy to improve intergroup attitudes and relations, Social Issues and Policy Review, [online] Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/229482622_Using_Empathy_to_Improve_Intergroup_Attitudes_and_Relations [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Braithwaite, D. and Thompson, T. 1999. Handbook of Communication and People With Disabilities: Research and Application, Routledge Chin, J. 2009. The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: A Revised and Condensed Edition, ABC-CLIO Cikara, M. n.d. Us and Them: Intergroup Failures of Empathy, Princeton University Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S. and Kawakami, K. 2011. Intergroup Contact: The Past, Present, and the Future, SAGE Dovidio, J. Eller, A. and Hewstone, M. 2011. Improving intergroup relations through direct, extended and other forms of indirect contact, Group Processes Intergroup Relations, Vol.14, N.2 Eysenck, M. 2014. Fundamentals of Psychology, Psychology Press Everett, J. and Onu, D. 2013. Intergroup contact theory: past, present and future, The Inquisitive Mind, [pdf] Available at: http://tedcantle.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/092-Intergroup-contact-theory-explained-Everett-J-2013.pdf [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Forsyth, D. 2009. Group dynamics, 5th ed. Wadsworth Cengage Learning Graf, S., Paolini, S. and Rubin, M. 2014. Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact prevalence in five Central European countries, European Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 536-547, [pdf] Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark_Rubin2/publication/264792121_Negative_intergroup_contact_is_more_influential_but_positive_intergroup_contact_is_more_common_Assessing_contact_prominence_and_contact_prevalence_in_five_Central_European_countries/links/544f13020cf26dda089026dc.pdf [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. 2002. Intergroup bias, Annu. Rev. Psychol., 53:575–604, [pdf] Available at: http://www.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F-06/HewstoneRubinWillis.pdf [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Larry, L. 2002. College students. Homophobia. Sex. Project Innovation Park, B. and Judd, C. 2005. Rethinking the Link Between Categorization and Prejudice Within the Social Cognition Perspective, Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 9, No. 2, 108–130 Pettigrew, T. 1998. Intergroup contact theory, Annu.Rev.Psychol, 49:65-85, [pdf] Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Thomas_Pettigrew/publication/5282610_Intergroup_contact_theory/links/0912f51046c6dac2f1000000.pdf [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Plant, E. and Devine, P. 1998. Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.75, N.3, 811-832, [pdf] Available at: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ashby_Plant/publication/232458777_Internal_and_external_motivation_to_respond_without_prejudice/links/00b7d5342ee1c70e2a000000.pdf [Accessed on May 8, 2015]. Read More