Prejudice vs Discrimination - Essay Example

?Prejudice versus discrimination Prejudice versus discrimination Introduction Prejudice refers to irrational opinions, beliefs and attitudes towards members of a particular group (Brown, 2010). Prejudice also entails the pre-conceived judgment towards an individual that is based on gender, ethnicity, religion or any other identifiable personal trait of the individual (Brown, 2010). On the other hand, discrimination is the positive or negative actions that is taken by an individual towards a member of a certain group and is influenced by the existing prejudice (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). A prejudice is an extreme stereotype that is cognitive in nature and progresses through anti-locution, avoidance, discrimination, physical attacks and finally extermination (Brown, 2010). There are numerous theories that can be used to explain the nature of prejudice and why it leads to discrimination. Authoritarian personality theory This theory was proposed by Adorno et al. (1950) and asserts that authoritative personality is prone to prejudice (Brown, 2010). The theory utilized the F-scale and concluded that certain personality traits make the individual highly sensitive to totalitarian ideas therefore leading to prejudices. The theory also relied on case study of the Nazis and psychometric testing (F-scale) together with clinical interviews that revealed that social environment of the child influences the development of authoritative personality (Brown, 2010). According to the theory, authoritative personality tends to be harsh towards the inferior status and uphold the traditional values. Accordingly, such individuals with high F-scale exhibit rigidity in their beliefs and opinions (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Very strict upbringing will lead to development of personality traits such as preoccupation with power and obsession with status. The authoritarians have experienced a harsh upbringing thus tend to displace their emotional feelings on the minorities through prejudices (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Realistic group conflict Realistic Group conflict theory (RGC) asserts that prejudices arise due to competition for limited resources among the groups in society (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). The inter-group hostilities arise due to the conflicts in competition and differing goals thus leading to feelings of hostility and prejudice towards the members of the other group. The theory was validated by Carolyn and Muzafer Sherif (1954) through the ‘Robber’s cave experiment’ (Brown, 2010). Muzaref Sherif demonstrated the principles of realistic group conflict through a series of studies on intergroup conflicts at Robbers Cave State park (Brown, 2010). The research studies entailed boys aged 11-12 years who were put in the Park as part of their summer camp. The boys initially showed not signs of emotional problems and were selected from similar socioeconomic background. The boys were then assigned in to two groups that comprised similarities in athletic skills and physical strength. The two groups were provided with adequate time for members to know each other and leaders to emerge within the group in order to ensure group cohesion (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). After some time, the researchers introduced competition between the two groups through implementing several sports such as baseball and football and prize rewards would be awarded to the winning group (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). The two groups engaged in name calling, verbal insults and ultimately physical aggression thus forcing the researchers to separate the groups (Brown, 2010). Sherif concluded that group members would display aggression and derogation towards the other group members thus concluding that existence of two groups competing for rewards, scarce resources and goals will lead to realistic conflicts and prejudices (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). People within a group will dislike the members of the other groups since they view them as competitors for the scarce resources. Such hostility, ideology and stereotype will lead to prejudices that ultimately lead to discrimination in the allocation of the scarce resources among the various groups in society (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Accordingly, individuals are motivated by maximising their rewards even if such rewards entail denying the other people their own rightful ownership to the rewards. John Duckitt extended the work of Sherif through more case studies one type of competition and competition between groups with equal powers (Brown, 2010). John pointed out that conflicts and prejudices will arise between groups of unequal status and powers such as majority racial group dominating the minority racial groups thus denying the minority groups the access to material benefits and social rewards. Social identity theory This theory was developed by European psychologists who perceived that North American psychologists had ignored the role of social group influence on the attitudes and behaviours of each member individual. Henri Tajfel (1978) asserted that prejudices result from the social identity and self-concept of an individual (Brown, 2010). According to Tajfel, individuals will naturally strive to attain a positive self-image and self-identity is influenced by the categorization of individuals as members of the in-groups or out-groups (Whitley and Kite, 2010). The need for social identity supports the formation of a prejudice and discrimination occurs when individuals are categorized in to certain in-groups or out-groups (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Minimal group studies The minimal group studies outline the baseline conditions that make individuals prefer their groups over the others. The idea was to establish the in-group categorization and assess the effect of groups on the behaviour of individuals (Whitley and Kite, 2010). The study entailed 64 boys aged 14 to 15 years from Bristol school who would provide points to members of the two groups depending ion the estimation accuracy of the number of cards flashed by the researcher (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Tajfel minimal group paradigm required participants to allocate points to people in the two groups. Tajfel idea was to highlight discrimination since participants were expected to allocate more points to members of the in-group than members of the out-group (Brown, 2010). Tajfel and other researchers observed a bias in the allocation of the points since membership to a particular group would attract more points from the co-members. The participants ignore the logic and matrix of the point allocation and demonstrated a pattern of prejudice in their allocation of points (Whitley and Kite, 2010). This study concluded that there is always unknown psychological motivation for individuals to differentiate their own group members from the others despite the existence of economic or political benefits (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Self-categorization theory This is another prejudice theory that is based on cognitive processes that are associated with membership to a particular social group. Self-categorization focuses on assimilation to group norms and self-stereotyping and how the cognitive processes influence the intergroup behaviours related to prejudice and discrimination (Whitley and Kite, 2010). Individuals will depersonalize and adapt to prototypic qualities and behaviours that are associated with their groups (Brown, 2010). Discrimination depends on the context since individuals strive to maintain group distinctiveness and minimize subjective uncertainty. In order to minimize the subjective uncertainty, the individuals will make a comparison between the members of the in-group and out-group thus leading to in-group favoritism after identification of the perceived intergroup differences (Whitley and Kite, 2010). Comforting to group identity will enhance the self-image of the individual (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). The contact hypothesis Contact hypothesis is a widely researched topic on the reduction of prejudice. Longitudinal studies have shed light on the causal processes that move from contact to prejudice reduction or from prejudice to contact reduction (prejudice effects). Several studies among school students in England and German have concluded that contact reduces prejudice and at the same time prejudice will reduce contact. Allport (1954) concluded that contacts that are characterized by common goals, support institutions, intergroup cooperation, and equality in status are effective in reducing intergroup prejudice (Brown, 2010). According to this theory, intergroup cooperation and common goals reduce the bias between groups while support institutions like schools influence positive behaviours and tolerant perceptions towards other groups (Russell, Jarvis and Gorman, 2004). Measures of prejudice There are numerous approaches that can be used in measuring prejudice. Some of the approaches include the explicit measures such as questionnaires, implicit measures such as association tests and finally ambiguous stimuli (Whitley and Kite, 2010). Implicit measures rely mainly on the differential automatic responses to both in-group and out-group targets and the differences in stimuli pairing over a particular period of time (Brown, 2010). Implicit measures operate in unconscious mode and reflect the automatic mental processes while the explicit measures of prejudice can be controlled by the respondent. The implicit measures reflect the culturally shared stereotypes while the explicit measures will reflect the deliberate personal beliefs that can be controlled. Explicit measures: questionnaires The relative gratification (RG) is one of the measures of explicit prejudice and is consistent with the notion that prejudice justifies the economic and social privilege of an individual (Brown, 2010). Individuals with a higher gratified position tend to have more prejudice towards out-group derogation. One of the studies of measuring prejudice involved tasking the participants to complete a questionnaire that contained ethnic attitudes. The first was a 15-item Likert-type prejudice scale towards the Arabs and Immigrants and second was the trait attribution risk (Brown, 2010). The participants would rate eight positive items and seven negative items using a seven-point scale that ranged from 0 for totally disagree and 7 for totally agree. The trait attribution task relied on the same adjectives. The results concluded that all trait attribution tasks were significantly and positively correlated with 15- item prejudice scale (Hugenberg and Bodenhausen 2003, p 642). Implicit measures: association test The implicit association test can be used to measure the strength of automatic association of unconscious mental processes with prejudices (Brown, 2010). It measures the implicit attitudes that mediate either favorable or unfavorable thoughts or feelings of an individual towards another group. The processes measured include self-esteem, stereotypes and attitudes thus reflect the attitudes that an individual may be unwilling to display to the public. Valence implicit association tests show that Whites have a higher implicit preference for Whites than Blacks (Hugenberg and Bodenhausen 2003, p 640). Ambiguous stimuli According to past researches, individuals with high implicit prejudice will classify a racially ambiguous angry face as Black individual compared with those with low implicit prejudice (Hugenberg and Bodenhausen, 2004, p 342). Accordingly, the participants with a high implicit prejudice reported high racially ambiguous angry emotions when the angry face had been classified as Black compared with when classified as White. Accordingly, the emotions displayed are also associated with implicit prejudice as well as the racial categorization. Conclusion Prejudice also entails the pre-conceived judgment towards an individual that is based on gender, ethnicity, religion or any other identifiable personal trait of the individual. Authoritative personality theory asserts that prejudice arises due to authoritative personality of the individual since traits since authoritarians have experience a harsh upbringing thus tend to displace their emotional feelings on the minorities through prejudices. Realistic group conflict theory asserts that competition for scarce resources lead to intergroup conflicts while social identity theory asserts that prejudice arises due to social-categorization of the individuals and self-identity of an individual. Prejudice leads to stereotyping and discriminatory behaviour towards out-group members. Contact hypothesis asserts that prejudice may reduce if members of the group share common goals and cooperate in eliminating the prejudice. Reference list: Brown, R. 2010. Prejudice: its social psychology. Malden: Blackwell publishers. Hugenberg, K and Bodenhausen, G.V. 2003. ‘Facing prejudice: implicit prejudice and the perception of facial threat’, Psycholical science, 14: 640-643. Hugenberg, K and Bodenhausen, G.V. 2004. ‘Ambiguilty in social categorization: the role of prejudice and facial affect in racial categorization’ Psychological science, 15: 342-345. Russell, J., Jarvis, M and Gorman, P. 2004. Angles on psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes. Whitley, B.E and Kite, M.E. 2010. The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Read More