Social psychology - Prejudice
Realistic Conflcit Theory - Competition AO1
Competition needed to create conflict and hostility between groups within a society
Realistic Conflcit Theory - Scarce Resources AO1
Groups tend to compete about scarce resouces that have value or in short supply. The scarcer the resource, the more conflict occurred. If two groups competing for resources, the conflict will be fiercer
Realistic Conflcit Theory - Scapegoating AO1
One group blamed for all faults in society which leds to discrimination
Realistic Conflcit Theory - Superordinate Goals AO1
These mutually desirable goals can be used to reduce conflict as groups co-operate with each other to benefit everyone
Realistic Conflcit Theory - S AO3
Sherif (1954) - Competition between Rattlers and Eagles such as tug of war was enough to cause prejudice like name calling. Supports RCT as a way of explaining prejudice being caused by competition between groups
Realistic Conflcit Theory - C AO3
Adorno et al (1950) - Authoritarian personalities are more likely to be hostile to people not in their group who are considered haave an inferior status. Therefore, doesn't completely explain prejudice as it doesn't account for personality types
Realistic Conflcit Theory - O AO3
Social Identity Theory - states belonging to a group and creating in and out groups is the cause of prejudice rather than competition. Therefore, prejudice explanation is limited as doesn't explain why groups discriminate towards other groups
Realistic Conflcit Theory - D AO3
Reductionist - simple description of prejudicial behaviour caused by competition over scarce resources like land between two opposing groups. This is a strength as it establishes the true measure of prejudicial behaviour and predictions can be made about future prejudicial behaviour if competition is present in the environment.
Realistic Conflcit Theory - A AO3
Has real life application like different football teams in England compete against each other but can also work together to win the world cup however conflict is also a natural occurrence
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Sample AO1
22 11 year old boys matched into 2 grooups based on IQ, teacher ratings and sporting ability
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Phases AO1
- In-group formation: achieve common goals (separate groups)
- Friction phase: competition for trophies like baseball
- Integration phase: achieve superordinate goals for mutual benefit eg tow truck, fix water supply
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Data AO1
Quant and Qual collected to measure prejudice like observations and tape recordings eg of qual data "ladies first", labelling groups Rattlers and Eagles
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Conc AO1
Competition creates prejudice but can be reduced when working together because Eagle's friends with Rattlers was 6.4% in stage 2 but 36.4% in stage 3
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Objective AO3
Used quant data like how many beans the boys collected, isnt open to bias therefore valid
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Qual data AO3
Collecting qual data eg from observations of the groups calling each other names. Can explain the cause of prejudice in further detail therefore more accurate.
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Sample AO3
Too specific as 22 11 year old boys from Oklahoma matched on IQ, teacher ratings and sporting ability to investigate the cause of prejudice. The results are not generalisable to prejudice occurring with adults and females
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - Bias AO3
Qual data is subjective, observations collected on the ppts are open to interpretation bias, low V
Sherif CLASSIC study (1954) - A AO3
Has real life application like different football teams in England compete against each other but can also work together to win the world cup however conflict is also a natural occurrence
Social Identity Theory - Categorisation AO1
Deciding which group we belong to which helps us understand social environment, dividing world into "us" and "them" creating in and out groups.
Social Identity Theory - Social Identification AO1
Adopt identity of the group and conform to the social norms of the group leading us to change the way we behave and think
Social Identity Theory - Social comparison AO1
Enhance ingroup status by exaggerating positive qualities to increase self-esteem while underestimating qualities of the outgroup to maximise differences. Also show ingroup favouritism by giving resources to own group over outgroup
Social Identity Theory - Tajfel's idea AO1
Tajfel believed that just presence of the opposing group alone leads to prejudice and discrimination
Social Identity Theory - S AO3
Elliot - categorising school children based off eye colour was enough to cause conflict as dominant group verbally and physically attacked the submissive group and the submissive group's performance dropped. Supports the theory as shows categorisation causes prejudice.
Social Identity Theory - C AO3
Adorno et al (1950) - Authoritarian personalities are more likely to be hostile to people not in their group who are considered haave an inferior status. Therefore, doesn't completely explain prejudice as it doesn't account for personality types
Social Identity Theory - O AO3
RCT argues prejudice is caused by competing over scarce resources not by just having in and out groups. Criticises social identity theory as a limited explanation of the cause of prejudice
Social Identity Theory - D AO3
Reductionist - simple description of prejudicial behaviour between groups caused by categorisation, identification and social comparison. This is a strength as it establishes cause and effect of prejudicial behaviour and helps make future predictions based on prejudice
Social Identity Theory - A AO3
Practical suggestions can be made to bring groups together to reduce prejudice in society for instance changing the seating plan in classrooms for the students to socialise and create a larger ingroup. However, groups naturally occur in society so cannot reduce prejudice as groups will always exist
Situational factors explanation
Social norms are beliefs and behaviours seen as socially acceptable within a group. Prejudice can occur due to role modes within ingroup that we identify with so if a role model has a set of prejudice views towards another group, we will adopt the views to create sense of belonging
Situational factors SE
Minard (1952): black and white coal miners relationship in USA were friendly underground but racist on the surface therefore can dictate levels of prejudice due to changes in social norm
Situational factors CE
Adorno et al (1950): Authoritarian personalities are more likely to be hostile to people not in their group who are considered haave an inferior status. Therefore, doesn't completely explain prejudice as it doesn't account for personality types
Personality factors explanation
- Authoritarian Personality: Often raised strict upbringing which causes harsher discrimination of others. Intolerant towards those they believe are inferior due to rigid beliefs.
- Right Wing Authoritarianism: Develops as socialised to fear threats and danger situations, hostility is a learnt response due to uncertainty so "different" groups discriminated.
- Social Dominance Orientation: See the world as heirarchy and want own group to be on top so likely to be prejudiced towards the lower status groups
Personality factors SE
Adorno et al (1950): Authoritarian personalities are more likely to be hostile to people not in their group who are considered haave an inferior status. Therefore, doesn't completely explain prejudice as it doesn't account for personality types
Personality factors CE
Minard (1952): black and white coal miners relationship in USA were friendly underground but racist on the surface therefore can dictate levels of prejudice due to changes in social norm
Cultural factors explanation
- Individualistic: emphasise individualism within group, more tolerant of outgroup. Therefore would be less prejudice however there may be interpresonal prejudice between individuals within the same group e.g. UK
- Collectivist: stress the importance of the whole group as a collective and social harmony but may hold prejudice towards groups that threaten social harmony of their culture eg Japan
- Multiculturalism: promotion of diversity and tolerance of differrent cultural beliefs so more concerned with fairness so no groups are considered superior than others
Cultural factors SE
Guimond (2013): Multiculturalism countries have low levels of prejudice eg Canada lower, Germany higher. Supports idea that promotion of multiculturalism could reduce prejudice
Cultural factors CE
Adorno et al (1950): Authoritarian personalities are more likely to be hostile to people not in their group who are considered haave an inferior status. Therefore, doesn't completely explain prejudice as it doesn't account for personality types
Factors conclusion
RLA: Better understanding if Government promoted positive multiculturalism in all countries via advertisements however it may be difficult to change certain people's views for instance if they didn't watch tv