Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Modern Prejudice (Racism) - Y2 - Coggle Diagram
Modern Prejudice (Racism) - Y2
Reasons for discrimination and prejudice
Evidence that there is an inherent fear of unfamiliar and unusual (Hebb and Thompson, 1968) leading to discrimination against the unknown -
Mere exposure effect - Zajonc, 1968 - attitudes improve through repeated exposure to a stimuli and increase in familiarity if initial reaction to the stimuli is not negative (Perlman and Oskamp, 1971)
Transmission of prejudice through parents and thus learning of prejudice - Tajfel, 1981
Frustration-aggression hypothesis - displacement of frustration as aggression
Authoritarian personality - Adorno et al, 1950
Dogmatism and closed mindedness - contradictory belief systems that are isolated, resistance to change due to new information and appeals to authority to justify these beliefs
Right wing authoritarianism - conventionalism (social norms), aggression (support for this against deviants) and submission principles (submission to authority) applied to groups; if violated, there is prejudice
Social dominance theory - system justification theory; argues certain social conditions cause resistance to social change instead of justifying and protecting the existing social system
-> Society describes the social order and legitimises what serves the main ingroup
Belief congruence theory (Rokeach, 1960) - belief systems act as anchors, and similarity or congruence with others creates favorability and confirms validity of beliefs
-> Perceived lack of belief similarity leads to stigma
Intergroup behaviour -
Relative deprivation -
-> Deprivation is relative to others conditions - J-Curve model (Davies, 1962, 1969) in which you have expectations based on past attainment
-> Two forms of this - Runciman, 1966:
Egoistic relative deprivation - individual relative deprivation
Fraternalistic relative deprivation - comparison with dissimilar others or members of groups
People need to strongly identify with their ingroup, need to feel collective action is practical, perception of injustice needs to be strong (distributive justice or procedural injustice for example) and a particular ingroup-outgroup comparison is needed for relative deprivation
Social protest and collective action -
Usually is the solution to relative deprivation to produce social change
Sympathy does not always translate into action, which can leave the group unsupported (Klandermans, 1997) - how this happens:
-> Need to become part of mobilisation potential as a sympathiser
-> Become a target of mobilisation attempts
-> Develop motivation to participate
-> Overcome barriers to participate
Realistic conflict theory - Sherif, 1966 -
Ethnocentrism is a key feature of intergroup behaviour
When there are scarce resources, it is logical conflict and ethnocentrism will ensure to protect the ingroup
It is however possible to prevent this by providing superordinate goals, which are goals the groups can work together and cooperate towards achieving
The model -
Shared goals - require interdependence -> interpersonal cooperation -> group formation / solidarity and intergroup cooperation -> harmony
Mutually exclusive goals - interpersonal competition -> interpersonal conflict, reduced solidarity and collapse and intergroup competition -> conflict
Cooperation, competition and social dilemmas
Prisoner’s dilemma - two-person game in which both parties are torn between competition and cooperation, and depending on mutual choices both can win or both can lose (Rapoport, 1976)
Found that mutual suspicion and lack of trust overcomes the best joint outcome of non-confession
The trucking game - two companies will fight over a one way system even though cooperating to take turns would be quickest for both
However, game theory overlooks direct and indirect communication and perceptions of the games are often not accounted for
Commons dilemma - cooperation by all benefits all, but competition harms all - replenishable resource dilemma - if restraint is shown, everyone benefits
Public goods dilemma - free-rider effect of people not paying into the system because they automatically benefit
Resolving social dilemmas -
Crisis of trust and human greed - appeals to altruistic norms are ineffective, and selfish behaviour prevails
Structural solutions are often needed to cause the dilemma to disappear, such as limiting access to the resource and shifting the pay off to favour cooperation over competition
However, structural solutions require a hard authority, which may cause issues of protest against authoritarian governments and cause frustration
On the climate crisis - Pearson and Schuldt, 2018
-> There are a range of social issues such as social identity, intergroup perceptions, normative influence, justice concerns and group-based ideologies which prevent collective action
Group identification is also a possible solution - identifying with a group makes you more likely to help them (Foddy, Smithson, Schneider and Hogg, 1999)
-> Builds constructive communication and therefore trust
Social identity and social cognition in discrimination
Tajfel - act according to the group we identify with - leads to social categorisation
Minimal group paradigm - how social categorisation affects behaviour
Turner et al, 1987 - self-categorisation acts as a baseline with which to socially categorise others
Group membership leads to ingroup favouritism and intergroup differentiation - conformity to ingroup norms, solidarity and cohesion, and using stereotypes to view others
Use of prototypes in social categorisation -
Meta-contrast principle - maximise ratio of intergroup differences to intragroup differences
-> Entitativity is the property of the group that makes it seem coherent, distinct and unitary
-> Context effects on prototypes; particularly in national and political contexts
Categorisation also leads to depersonalisation - Prototypical embodiments of the social group, not an individual
Psychological salience -
Salience of an identity depends on situational and chronic accessibility, and structural and normative fits of the identity and provide the basis of self categorisation
Positive distinctiveness -
Social identity ensures self-enhancement and also means that there is a reduction in uncertainty about the group you belong too
Provides a positive social identity to be a in a distinct social group
-> Differentiation elevates self-esteem
-> Depressed self esteem does not motivate differentiation
-> Collective self esteem is what is related to group processes and people in groups are creative and competent
-> Protecting themselves from low self esteem consequences of low status group membership
Accentuation effect - overestimation of similarities among people with a category and dissimilarities between people from different categories
Relative homogeneity effect - tendency to see all outgroup members as the same, but all ingroup members as differentiated
Category based memory leads to stereotyping of outgroups (Fiske and Taylor, 2021)
Distinctive stimuli and illusory correlate - anything distinctive attracts attention and causes social activation and often causes stereotype development
-> Illusory correlate (Chapman, 1967) - exaggeration of co-occurrence of two stimuli or events, or the perception of a correlation where it doesn't exist - negative attitudes = minority groups (McArthur and Friedman, 1980)
Optimal distinctiveness - Brewer, 1991 - people strive to achieve a balance between conflicting motives for inclusiveness and separateness, expressed in groups as a balance between intragroup differentiation and intragroup homogenisation
Intergroup emotions theory - Smith and Mackie, 2000 -
Appraisals of personal harm or benefit in a situation operate at the level of social identity and produce positive ingroup and negative outgroup emotions
Regulatory focus theory - self and identity mindmap
Collective behaviour and crowds
LeBon's model of the crowd - influenced other theories
Anonymity -> invicincibility and irresponsibility
Contagion -> rapid and unpredictable shifts in behaviour
Suggestibility -> primitive, savage instincts surface
All added together leads to violent, antisocial, uncivilised, instinctive behaviour
McDougall (1920) - widespread instinctive emotions of fear and anger are those most shared, and those most prompting of group action
Deindividuation in crowds - more likely to act with the group
Diener's model -
-> Environmental conditions of anonymity, high level of arousal, focus on external events and close group unity -> reduced self awareness -> deindividuation ->
Weakened restraint on impulsive behaviour
Increased sensitivity to immediate cues or current emotional states
Inability to monitor or regulate own behaviour
Lessened concern about evaluations by others
Lowered ability to engage in rational planning
Private and public self-awareness and deindividuation - Hogg and Abrams, 1988
External demands on attention + anonymity + group unity + lack of identification -> lowered self awareness and deindividuation -> lower self regulation + less adherence to personal standards + responsiveness to emotional cues + lack of rational planning + impulsive behaviour + strengthened group unity
Low accountability + lack of identification -> lowered public self awareness -> disinhibition and anti-normative behaviour
Emergent norm theory - Turner and Killian, 1957
Collective behaviour is regulated by norms based on distinctive behaviour that arises in the initially normless crowd
-> Ad hoc collection of individuals with no history of association; no pre-existent norms
-> Distinctive behaviour, or behaviour of distinctive individuals is perceived as the implicit norm
-> Normative influence comes into play, creating pressures against non-conformity
-> Inaction of majority interpreted as tacit confirmation of the norm - pressures increase
-> Results in collective behaviour
Social identity theory and crowd behaviour - Reicher and Potter, 1985 -
Intergroup phenomenon - involves direct confrontation or symbolic confrontation
People assume the crowd identity
Crowds can also have psychological benefit - Drury, 2018 - surviving a disaster can find solace in a shared plight
A lack of norms of how to behave in a group, and when acceptable crowd behaviour is provided there are still few norms to indicate how to behave in that context
Improving intergroup relations
Propaganda and education - prejudice is grounded in ignorance and is a knee jerk reaction (mindless) to stereotypes - propaganda can correct this and education against stereotypes prevents this
Ingroup categorisation can produce ingroup favouritism (Otten and Wentura, 1999)
Training mindfulness increases more positive behaviour - empathy reduces discrimination - Langer, Bashner and Chanowitz, 1985
Intergroup contact -
Intergroup anxiety (Stephan and Stephan, 2000) - four sources of anxiety
-> Realistic threat
-> Symbolic threat
-> Intergroup anxiety
-> Negative stereotypes
Stephan (2014) - three components on intergroup anxiety - affective, cognitive and physiological
-> Symptoms are caused by personality traits and personal characteristics, negative attitudes and cognitions, personal experience and situational factors
Similarity - contact causes people to realise they are more similar than they thought, reducing animosity
Issues with this -
-> Contact can unearth more profound or more widespread differences and hence reduce liking further and worse intergroup attitudes
-> As groups are actually so different, it may be misleading to promulgate the view the are similar - may produce false expectations
-> Research indicates that intergroup attitudes are not merely a matter of ignorance or unfamiliarity - social categories maintain conflict of interest
Fixing of schemas - bookkeeping, conversion and subtyping
Communication and negotiation can improve intergroup relations - bargaining, mediation, arbitration and conciliation are all processes that can resolve misunderstanding and stereotypes to improve relations
Introduction to prejudice
Stereotypes (cognition) - these are cognitive associations we make about a social group based on specific characteristics
Prejudice (affect) - as a result of negative associations we have about a social group, we may develop an unfavourable attitude towards a social group and its members
Discrimination (behaviour) - when we want to express this unfavourable attitude we have about a group we may express it as behaviour
E.g.
Stereotype - X people are aggressive
Attitude (prejudice) - I do not like X people
Behaviour (discrimination) - I do not let X people sit close to me
Explanations for prejudice
Cognitive rigidity and threat sensitivity - when it is a normal situation and based on a person / individual differences:
Right wing authoritarianism
Social dominance theory
Maldajustment - abnormal situation and based on person / individual differences
Psychodynamic authoritarianism
Competition and status quo - normal situation based on groups / situations:
Social identity theory
-> Tajfel's minimal group paradigm studies
-> Us v them - ingroup favouritism and outgroup discrimination
System justification theory
Aversive, symbolic and modern racism
Aggravated conflict - abnormal situation and based on groups / situations:
Terror management theory
Frustration-aggression hypothesis
Scapegoating
Targets of prejudice -
Racism, Sexism, Ageism, Classism, Discrimination againast LGBTQIA+, religious discrimination, discrimination against migrants and refugees, ableism, discrimination against neurodivergent people
Measurements of prejudice -
Modern Racism scale (McConahay, 1983)
Explicit v implicit measures
Modern Sexism scale (Swim et al, 1995)
Ambivalent sexism (Glick and Fiske, 1996)
Old v modern prejudice
Race -
Eurobarometer (1997) - degree of expressed racism has fluctuated but has decreased
NatCen's authoritative British Social Attitudes survey (2017) - events affect how people think about themselves and others
-> overall, prejudice sits around 30%
Gender -
Gender pay gap issues and glass ceilings
British social attitudes - over 50% of people between 1989-212 saw both men and women being able to contribute to household income
Political correctness and anti-discrimination laws -> societal norms
Sear (1988) - noticed a social change and outlines 3 beliefs underlying modern forms of prejudice (ambivalence)
Denial of continuing discrimination
Antagonist toward stigmatised group's demands
Resentment about special favours
Modern prejudice -
Old-fashioned: endorsement of non-egalitarian views, negative stereotypes, open discrimination and the belief in the inferiority of certain social groups (Swim et al, 1995)
Modern prejudice - a conflict between egalitarian values and negative sentiments leading to more subtle displays of prejudice (McConahay, 1986)
https://web.p.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=36a8cd0e-e771-4f82-8b6a-827449c66cf5%40redis
- Sexism and Racism: Old fashioned and modern prejudices
Prejudice and discrimination towards women has become more subtle and covert
Distinction between old fashioned and modern beliefs about women similar to results that have been presented for racism
Characterised by endorsement of traditional gender roles, differential treatment of women and men and stereotypes about lesser female competence
Modern sexism is characterised by the denial of continued discrimination, antagonism toward women’s demands and lack of support for policies designed to help women
https://journals-sagepub-com.surrey.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1177/0095798402239228
- African American College Student’s experiences with everyday racism - characteristic of and responses to these incidents:
Reported incidents of verbal expressions of prejudice, bad service, staring or glaring and difficulties in interpersonal exchanges
Both men and women’s experience with interpersonal forms of prejudice were common, often occurred with friends and in intimate situations, and had significant emotional impact on them in terms of decreasing their comfort and increasing their feelings of threat during interaction
Anger most frequently reported emotional reaction
Participants would directly or indirectly respond to incidents
https://journals-sagepub-com.surrey.idm.oclc.org/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167283094004
- Modern racism and modern discrimination - the effects of race, racial attitudes and context on simulated hiring decisions:
When the candidate was black, the Modern Racism scale was negatively correlated with hiring evaluations in the negative context and positively correlated in the positive context
When candidate was white, made no difference
Racism - prejudice based on one's race / ethnicity -
Old fashioned racism - previous belief of a biologically superior race / ethnicity and institutional discrimination against people of other race/ethnicities being justified (Wachtel, 1999)
New racism - also called modern racism, postmodern racism and neo-racism
-> Belief that racism is not a continuing problem - minorities ethnic / racial groups should put forth their own efforts to overcome their situation in society without special assistance (Sears, 1998)
-> Conflict between emotional antipathy toward ethnic outgroups, yet the existence of modern egalitarian values to behave in a non-prejudicial manner (Pearson et al, 2009)
Modern racism - McConahay, 1983 - discrimination against black people is no longer a problem
RQ - does racial ambivalence lead to inconsistencies in job candidate selection?
Hypotheses - people high in modern racism will express negative side of conflict, when the situation minimises the attribution of their behaviour to racial prejudice, but positive behaviour when negative behaviour can be attributed to racial prejudice (more ambivalence)
-> low in modern prejudice, will remain consistent across situations (less ambivalence)
Stimuli - two white and two black photos (male, pre-tested for attractiveness mean and median of 8 on a 10 point scale)
-> Three resumes - Barton (best student), Kirby (most experienced), Thompson (in-between)
Procedure - modern racism scale -> 2 weeks -> IV1: Race manipulation
Thompson resume - IV2: decision context of a positive context, where Thompson was rated last
-> Negative context - Thompsons' resume rated first
-> Likert scale
Results - modern racism x decision context x race - significant
White candidate - negative context and positive context related to willingness to hire
Black candidate less likely to be hired in the negative context
Summary - no effect when candidate was white
However, when candidate was black -
-> Higher modern racism led to more ambivalence
-> In positive context, participants high in MR were more willing to hire the black candidate
-> In negative context, participants high in MR were less willing to hire the black candidate
Participants low in MR demonstrated consistent preferences across both conditions and contexts
Modern racism in Europe - Zick et al, 2008 - intergroup relations in Eurpe go beyond racial categories -
-> Colonisation
-> WW1 and WW2
-> EU
An intersect of -
-> Migration status
-> Origin / nationality
-> Accent
Measuring modern racism - MR Is reliant on political discourse and thus needs constant updating (Maas et al, 2000)
Confounded with political conservatism (Henry et al, 2002: Sniderman and Tetlock, 1986)
Sel-report scales aim to explicitly assess these subtleties but may be influenced by socially desirable responses (Akrami and Ekehammar, 2005; Olson, 2009)
Behaviour - creating experimental scenarios that resemble everyday life to observe real interactions - examine:
Social behaviour - helping (Gaertner and Dovidio, 1981), punishment (Dovidio et al, 1997)
Subtle non-verbal behaviour - posture, eye contact and seating arrangement (Dovidio et al, 1997; Fugita et al, 1974; Weitz, 1972; Word et al, 1972)
Verbal behaviour and speech - frequency of speech and interruptions (Word et al, 1974; Loughland, 2019) subtle language - linguistic preferences in descriptions (Maas et al, 1989)
Gaertner and Dovidio, 1981 - social behaviour -
Factor 1 - high v low prejudice
Factor 2 - race
Factor - diffuse responsibility
-> DV1 - helping behaviour, DV2 - heart rate
Results - no main effect for level of prejudice - interaction between race and diffusion of responsibility
-> Participants who could diffuse responsibility helped the black victim less
Subtle language - Maas et al, 1989 -
Linguistic intergroup bias
Concrete v abstract language (concrete is an example, abstract is characteristic)
-> Abstract significantly higher for outgroup
-> Concrete significantly higher for ingroup
-> No difference on prejudice
Verbal behaviour - Gorham, 2006 -
News broadcast -
-> Factor 1; explicit - race mentioned v not mentioned
-> Factor 2 - suspect - black v white
Attitude towards blacks scale
Linguistic Intergroup Bias Task -
-> The man probably hit the victims
-> The man probably hurt the victims
-> The man probably hated the victims
-> The man is probably violent
Measuring modern forms of prejudice -
Link between cognitive processes and observed behaviour (Wilson and Dunn, 2004)
No to small effects for nonverbal behaviour r = .09 (Toosi et al, 2012, Saucier et al, 2005)
Context dependent - effects are moderated by intersectional, contextual and relational factors (Toosi et al, 2012)
Implicit bias
Payne (2001) - investigated the influence of racial cues on identification processes:
Are objects misidentified as weapons when paired with black v white faces?
Is there a racial bias in the perceptual identification of weapons
Results -
-> Faster identification of guns when primed with a black v a white face
-> Greater misidentification of tools as guns when primed with a black v white face
Therefore, there is an implicit racial bias that reflects systemic racism (Payne and Hannah, 2021)
Green et al, 2007 - method of clinical vignettes -
Patients presented at emergency with chest pain and further tests suggest they are having a heart attack
IV is a black v white patient
DV is an offer of a thrombolysis treatment
Method -
Implicit association test - preference and cooperativeness
-> Not explicit bias predicted differences in offering thrombolysis treatment
-> The higher the implicit bias towards black patients, the less likely they were to offer thrmobolysis to black patients
Explicit bias - preference and warmth
Measuring implicit bias -
Strength of association with individual behaviour (Cameron et al, 2012 and Oswald et al, 2013)
Stability over time - we seem to possibly test implicit biases in a given moment, but not consistently over time (Gawronski et al, 2017)
Does it really measure unconscious attitudes (Gawronski et al, 2005; 2023; Hahn et al, 2014) - however, Sadler and Devos, 2020, showed reduced associations between weapons and Black Americans in culturally diverse areas
Focus on black and white race relations in America - can this be translated to other societies where ethnic prejudice exists / relations with other racial groups
Nature of intergroup relations is contextual
The nature of intergroup relations is contextual -
We have focused on Western societies and this is limited to English speakers and Black/White relations
Lack of perspectives from the global south - intra-ethnic conflict, indigenous populations and colonial legacies (Blanton et al, 2001, Kazi, 2022)
Racism can manifest in various forms, often shaped by societal norms following events
Researchers have attempted to assess these subtle expressions through various methods from self report to implicit measures
Modern racism whilst discreet, still has real world consequences
Blatant v subtle prejudice -
Pettigrew and Meertens, 1995 -
Secondary analyses of Eurobarometer Survey
Cross national disctinction between blatant and subtle prejudice
Participants -
-> West Germans asked about Turks
-> French asked about North Africans and Asians
-> Dutch asked about Surinamese and Turks
-> British asked about Asians and Caribbeans
IVs - ethnocentrism, approval of racist movements, intergroup friends, political conservatism, group relative deprivation
DVs - support for immigrant rights, immigration policy and improving relationships
Measuring subtle prejudice -
Subtle prejudice scale emphasises a belief in traditional values - is this not still antipathy and hostility (Glick et al, 1996)
Methodological flaws - Arancibia-Martini et al, 2016; Coenders et al, 2001; Espelt et al, 2006 - correlations of up to .7 between blatant and subtle scales, construct validity issues
Social desirability bias (Holden and Fekken, 1989) - however, Rattazzi et al, 2003, find that this is not the case for this scale - but people also reported subtle items as more normative
Again, do self reports measure an explicit assessment of prejudice
Explicit v implicit - Maas et al, 2000 -
Explicit and deliberate - easy to measure
-> Old-fashioned prejudice, open discrimination, racial slurs
Inhibition -
-> Modern and subtle prejudice, eye contact, subtle language, non-verbal language
Difficult - implicit and spontaneous -
-> Who-said-what, implicit association test and physiological reactions
Findings -
Distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice
Prevalence of subtle prejudice
High levels of prejudice predicted by high ethnocentrism, approval of racist movements, political conservatism and group relative deprivation
National pride - high levels of subtle prejudice
Age and education - younger and more educated participants reported lower levels of prejudice
Integroup friends - having friends from different ethnic backgrounds was linked to lower levels of prejudice
Lower levels of prejudice were more likely to support immigration rights, attitudes towards immigration policy was better, supportive of initiatives aimed at improving intergroup relationships
Varying levels of blatant and subtle prejudice across countries and target groups - suggests the importance of cultural context in shaping prejudicial attitudes
Old-fashioned -> blatant -> threat / rejection + anti-intimacy
Modern -> subtle -> defence traditional roles, denial of positive emotions and cultural differences
-> Different concepts, measures and outcomes