Factors Contributing to the Development of Prejudice

1. Factors Contributing to the Development of Prejudice

2. How does Prejudice Develop? • Like other attitudes, prejudice is primarily influenced by learning processes, including repeated exposure. For example, children hear many prejudiced views expressed by parents, other adults and peers and they may adopt these views. Children can also learn prejudices through the subtle messages conveyed in the media about groups in our society.

3. Factors Contributing to Prejudice • Ingroups and Outgroups • Intergroup Conflict • Attributions

4. Ingroups • Allport described any group that you belong to or identify with as an ingroup. • For example, your friendship groups, peer group, family, school, religion, sex, race, culture, the country in which you live and even the AFL team you barrack for would be called your ingroups.

5. Outgroups • Anoutgroupis any group you do not belong to or identify with. When we categorise our social world in this way, we tend to believe that people belonging to our ingroups have individual differences but are generally more like us. • WE will watch Elliot’s classroom Activity after I have explained the other two

6. Intergroup Conflict • Intergroup conflict occurs when members of different groups compete to achieve or control something that is wanted by the members of each group.

7. Examples of Intergroup Conflict • Competition over economic resources like jobs and housing • Social status (‘standing’) • Positions of power • Political advantage is more likely to lead to prejudice, especially in times of hardship when desired resources are limited.

8. Intergroup Conflict in Australia • Refugees – some people may be prejudice because the believe they are taking our resources • Doll Bludgers, concessions – wasting tax money? May have Prejudice • Indigenous Australians – should probably have prejudice towards European settlers as we took their land and killed their people • War – fighting for land

9. Attributions • The process of trying to explain observed behaviour in terms of a particular cause is called attribution

10. Internal and External Attributions • According to psychologists, an attribution can be either internal (from within the person) or external (from the environment).

11. Example of Attributions • For example, if we hear that Ms Koomenhas lost her job because she failed to let the principal know that she was not going to work for a week, we may think it was typical of Ms Koomenbecause she is often unreliable and irresponsible. We are attributing her behaviour to internal factors. • If, however, we believe that this behaviour occurred because her mother was seriously ill and she was preoccupied with worrying about her health, we have attributed the cause to external factors

12. Think of your own Example • Write one example when you have made external or internal attributions.

13. Fundamental Attribution Error • Research studies have found that people tend to overestimate the influence of personal characteristics and underestimate the influence of the situation they are in when explaining a person's behaviour. This is called the fundamental attribution error

14. Fundamental Attribution Error Example • Imagine you are taking a college course. You observe that there is a student in the class that has been very quiet during the entire term. The student does not even talk during the class discussions. You conclude that the student is a very quiet and shy person. In this example, it is possible that we may wrongly assume that the student's quiet behaviour reflects his or her personality, and we may fail to adequately consider some situational factors that could explain the student's behaviour. For example, we may not consider that the person may find the course very boring, or the person is experiencing difficulty and does not feel like talking in class.

15. Just World Hypothesis • The just world hypothesis, also known as the just world error, is the tendency for individuals to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Lerner, 1980). When something tragic happens to someone, we tend to believe they deserved it rather than believe situational factors were responsible for it;

16. Just World Hypothesis Example • The belief by some people that when underworld criminals are murdered, they deserved it because they have done things in their past to harm others. When the just world hypothesis is adopted by someone, it means that the victim is blamed. This type of false belief can form the basis of prejudice. Furthermore, people with this type of belief are less likely to try to do something about the misfortune or suffering experienced by the victim(s).

17. Watch Elliot’s Ingroup and Outgroups Video • Complete the Handout throughout the video • I will stop the video as it goes so that you can answer the questions

18. Homework 8.19 P 349 • READY FOR YOUR ROLE PLAY – P2 FRIDAY

19. Factors that may Reduce Prejudice

20. Set the room up in a circle • We will be doing some roll playing • Film using flip cameras • You will be able to view these for revision

21. Factors that may Reduce Prejudice • Intergroup Contact • Sustained contact • Mutual Interdependence • Superordinate Goals • Equality of Status • Cognitive Interventions

22. You will need to read pages 349-357 in sections • Create a roll play for each of the above • An experimenter will need to explain what’s happening • I can upload the photos on a blog, for a revision tool

23. Intergroup Contact • Prejudice can be reduced by increasing intergroup contact; that is, increasing direct contact between two groups who are prejudiced against each other.

24. Intergroup Contact • Contact between the groups will reduce prejudice only under certain conditions. It is more likely that prejudice will be reduced if there is • Close and ongoing contact between the two groups, • If the two groups have to rely on each other for some reason • If each group has equal status in the contact situation.

25. Sustained Contact • The contact hypothesis proposes that certain types of direct contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice. The assumption is that close, prolonged contact of a fairly direct nature (one-on-one or face-to-face) leads to a re-evaluation of incorrect stereotypes about the other group and its members, thereby reducing intergroup stereotyping and prejudice.

26. To be effective • According to the contact hypothesis, a number of specific conditions must be present for the sustained contact to be effective in reducing prejudice.

27. Mutual Interdependence • If two rival groups who dislike and are prejudiced against each other are placed in a contact situation in which they are mutually interdependent — that is, dependent on each other — there is a greater likelihood that the rivalry and negative stereotypes can be broken down, thereby reducing the prejudiced attitudes the groups hold about each other.

28. Superordinate Goals • A superordinate goal is a goal that cannot be achieved by any one group alone and overrides other existing goals which each group might have (Sherif, 1966). For example, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change has a superordinate goal for the elimination of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere to minimise global warming.

29. Equality of Status • The status of a group refers to the importance of the group when compared with another group, as perceived by members of the group(s) making the comparison. If one group is perceived as being more important or better in some way that is valued by the other group, then the ‘more important’ group would be described as having a higher status than the ‘less important’ group. Conversely, the ‘less important’ group would be described as having a lower status

30. Equality of Status • When the members of both groups perceive their own group and the other group as being equally important, they would be described as having an equality of status. Generally, the more status a group has, the more power and influence it usually has over another group with less status, and vice versa.

31. Cognitive Interventions • Cognitive intervention involves changing the way in which someone thinks about prejudice. For example, when used to reduce prejudice, a specific cognitive intervention strategy may require a prejudiced person or group to consider prejudice from the victim's perspective or to have their negative stereotypes challenged and broken down.

32. Cognitive Interventions • If people can be encouraged to understand others based on their individual characteristics rather than generalising some of their characteristics to stereotype them, then prejudice may be lessened. For example, paying closer attention to personal attributes rather than focusing on race, gender or age may prevent stereotyping, and therefore prejudice, from forming. The findings of research studies provide support for the effectiveness of cognitive intervention in reducing prejudice.

33. Homework • Learning Activity 8.22 Page 357 • Extension • LA 8.21 page 356