Social Psychology Basics Part 3 As we have previously seen, there are biases and faults in the attribution process

which influence our explanations of behaviours. In this post particularly nasty and pervasive manifestations of these faults shall be elucidated. Prejudice and discrimination. Zimbarda et al(1995) describe prejudice as ..a learned attitude toward a target object, involving negative affect (dislike or fear) and negative beliefs (stereotypes) that justify the attitude. Discrimination being as ..the behavioural intention to avoid, control, dominate or eliminate those In the target group. In our societies we find prejudice and discrimination against those of a different sex, age, disability, psysical appearance and/or ethnicity (non-exhaustive list). Allport(1954) outlines five behavioural stages of ethnic prejudice 1) Anti-locution or verbal denigration such as racist jokes/slurs 2) Avoidance/segregation of the ethnic group 3) Discrimination, or the inequitable treatment or exclusion of those belonging to an ethnic group. 4) Physical attack, actual violence against persons or their property. 5) Extermination of the ethnic group Prejudice is an example of an attitude and has three components1) The affective component refers to our feelings or emotions towards the target group. 2) The cognitive component refers to beliefs, thoughts and ideas we have towards the target group. 3) The behavioural component is our predisposition to behave in a certain way towards the target group. These three components are usually found to be in balance so that if our beliefs about the target group are negative so also will our feelings and behaviour be negative. This is because we prefer consistency in our social world which allows us to interact successfully. Balance may not always be achieved. Fishbein and Ajzen(1975) argue that although attitudes are usually correlated with both behavioural intentions and actual behaviour, people may hold prejudiced beliefs without acting on those beliefs by discriminating.In many schools for example, you will find that boys and girls receive separate physical education. Discrimination without prejudice. The most prolific form of prejudice and discrimination is racism which is defined as any attitude, action or or institutional structure which exerts power unjustly over others because of their race.This definition you will note extends to both individual and institutional racism. Cray(1995) observes that ,the political, and economic structure of an organisation can be so set so that it discriminates. In fact Jobanputra(1995) claims that psychology itself has always been affected by the racism of the society which it finds itself situated. Bhavnani and Phoenix(1994) list three forms of racism which are most evident. 1) Biological Racism- This assumes that some groups are naturally inferior than others and has been clearly demonstrated in the use of IQ testing which perhaps knowingly fails to account for factors such as stereotype threat.

2) Common Sense Racism- This refers to work done on Social Identity Theory which assumes that in-group favouritism automatically leads to discrimination.(more on S.I.D. later) 3) New or Modern Racism- This does not view other groups as being explicitly deficient in physical and/or intellectual ability but attempts to justify supposed differences in more subtle ways, such as in regards their culture, and in espousing non-traditional values. Theories on the origins and maintenance of prejudice and discrimination are advanced by psychologists, historians, sociologist and scientists .Scientists with the biological determinants, historians with regards past economic conflicts, and sociologists with broad patterns of sociocultural factors. Though it is with psychologists and their theories at the individual, group and societal level that we shall concern ourselves The first we shall discuss is at the individual level and concerns personality, which some claim as the primary cause of racism. One of the more well known of these was advanced by Adorno et According et al(1950). According to them the origins of prejudice lie in what they termed an authoritarian personality. He found using results from a battery of tests that those concerned with power, authority and obedience to be highly ethnocentric, meaning, more concerned with those of their own national, ethnic, or religious groups to be acceptable. This results in hostility towards those who do not possess those attributes. Although once popular, personality theories have fell into disrepute. One of the main reasons being the inability of such theories to explain prejudice at the level of large groups and society. It may be also be of notealso that Rokeach(1960) points out that the authoritarian personality is not only to be found with adherents of right wing political conservatism, but also with extreme political conservatism on the left. Rather than explained by an authoritarian personality, Rokeach goes on to explain that it is not an authoritarian personality but a dogmatic personality, which is the factor. Dogmatic individuals having a highly organized set of attitudes which are resistant to change in the light of new information. Intolerant thinkers. Another causal explanation for prejudice concerns frustration, defined as coming about due to being unable to achieve a desirable goal: which Dollard et al(1939) claims leads to aggression and scapegoating. When we are frustrated they claim, we need to find a target on which we can vent our feelings of anger. If the actual target is not a suitable target, we may displace that anger on to some thing/other that we already feel negatively towards. Laboratory studies have shown this to be the case, Outside of the lab, Hovland and Sears(1940) found that, as economic conditions worsened in southern states of America, the amount of reported lynching and general white on black violence, increased. It must be noted however that, although frustration may exacerbate discrimination, it does not cause prejudice. The next type of theory we shall discuss, is that relating to social cognition. You may remember than in the previous instalments of this series we noted that, as cognitive misers, we take short cuts and categorize information, with a prototype image defining the standard of each category. We may recall a persons characteristics as according to the general category in which we place them. That is, we tend to recall through stereotypes. We also tend to accept information which confirms the stereotype and refute information to the contrary. Eg When a prejudiced person meets a pleasant and likeable member of the rejected group, they are likely to dismiss that person as being the exception to the rule. The stereotype remains unchanged and our beliefs self confirmatory.

According to Billig(1985), social cognition theories see stereotyping as inevitable. He accepts that it is certainly functional for us to categorise, though points out that we are capable of particularising. It is categorization which Tajfel(1982) lists as three aspects to prejudice, as part of his social identity theory. He claims that the mere categorisation of people is sufficient for discrimination to occur. A second is assimilation which refers to how children learn and absorb the attitudes and values of the society in which they find themselves. The third is search for coherence which refers to our need to understand and make sense of our world. One way of achieving this being the use of social representations which we discussed in part one. Social identity theory suggests that categorisation is used in order to enhance our self esteem. When comparing with others we tend to highlight those qualities which support our in-group values (in-group favouritism), and point out any weaknesses that appear to exist in the other group. (negative out-group bias)Ethnocentrism is when the in-group is considered the centre of the world and standard bearer, Some theorists suggest that mental illness is defined in relation to white European norms. Pettigrew(1979) claims ethnocentrism as the ultimate attributional bias because, group members see their own desirable behaviour as being dispositional ,whilst desirable behaviour of the out-group is considered as situational. The reverse holding true for undesirable behaviour. Another theory, which uses social representations as explanation suggests that prejudiced explanations are derived from the norms of the community, or other social institutions of which the person is a part. The thought being that people are inclined to modify their attitudes in line with that of those of whom they identify (peer/reference group). If our reference group holds prejudice then we may be inclined to adopt these. If people conform to the norms of society they are in,prejudice may be maintained. Intergroup conflict may arise due to shortage of resources leading to competition. The winners may hold themselves as superior, and the losers take them as the enemy. . According to Deutsch(1973), there are three consequences of intergroup conflict. 1) Communication becomes unreliable. Neither group trusts one another and both may resort to propaganda. 2) Perceptions of the members of each group become distorted, such that in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias occur. 3) The belief develops that the only way to resolve conflict is through the use of superior force. Reducing prejudice is an important goal. Education is largely superfluous if parents are unwilling to drop their prejudicial beliefs. Intergroup contact may simply lead to more groups being formed if not implemented carefully. One way to achieve intergroup harmony is by way of games with superordinate goals. That is, goals which can only be achieved through cooperation.. Another facet of this is implementing a cooperative reward structure, rather than a competitive reward structure, in intergroup contacts- so that an individual can only achieve success if the other also achieves success. Studies have also shown that when children are asked to focus their attention on a member of another group by particularisation, more similarities than differences are noted. Cook(1978) lists five factors necessary for prejudice reduction.

1) Equal status participants-bringing groups together on an equal footing. 2) Exposure to non-stereotypical individuals-meeting people who do not fit the stereotypical image of the group which we take them as belonging. 3) Personal acquaintance-Getting to know an out-group member on a personal basis. 4) Environmental support for intergroup contact-support from national and local authorities. 5) Cooperation between groups-cooperative tasks, superordinate goals, between groups. Prejudice is difficult to achieve though certainly not impossible. Part 4, due in few days time will focus on social relationships.