Understaning prejudice – notes
Lecture 1: introduction + social identity theory
Understanding prejudice: course topics
Understanding majority groups’ reaction to minorities
The central theories explaining intergroup relations
o Social identity theory
o Reaistic Group Conflict Theory & Integrated Threat Theory
o Contact Theory
o Social Dominance Orientation
o Right-Wing Authoritarianism
o Moral Foundations Theory
How to measure prejudice
Territorial concerns
Historical narratives
Voting for radical parties
Bias of the left
The importance of using theory
Audit test in retail market - Ayres (1995): 38 black/white, men/women bargained for
400 used cars at 242 dealerships. Same behavior of tester. Initial offer of white car
dealers:
- for white men: $724 - black women: $1,194
- white women: $933 - Black men: $1,686
Topic 1: social identity theory
Todays topics:
1. Minimal group experiments
Group formation: Categorization process is a central component of Social Identity
Theory
Evolutionary perspective: necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amount of information
Categorization: People search actively for information. People simplify processing all
that information by ignoring certain differences and emphasizing (or even
exaggerating) certain similarities of that information.
SIT experiment 1: non-social stimuli – how to deal with categories?
Line experiment: People rated the length of lines with and without categorization of
lines when categorized: 1. Greater difference between lines in category A and B
2. Less variance within a category.
Nonsocial vs social stimuli – Categorization of non-social stimuli: similarities within
groups (homogeneity) and differences between groups are over-emphasized.
,SIT experiment 2: minimal group experiment: Goal: manipulate social categorization
as an independent variable
Step 1: Generate social categorization on basis of a trivial criterion
Dot estimation task
Step 2: Let participants give rewards to members of their own and the other
group
Conclusion minimal-group experiments
Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (in group favoritism)
Even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial category
Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the
development of intergroup bias” (discrimination in favor of the own group)
2. Social Identity Theory
SIT: four central concepts
Social categorization “process of bringing together social objects or events in
groups which are equivalent with regard to an individual’s actions, intentions and
system of beliefs” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 254).
Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli
- Use of any characteristic available
- Perceive more similarity within and more difference between
categories
Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also how we perceive
ourselves…
Social Identity Social identity is based the realization that one belongs to a
social category and the positive or negative evaluation associated with this
membership.
- Are divisive and exclusive
- Are context dependent
- Have a cultural component: This turns a category into an identity
- Include a judgment of the nature of people in a certain category
This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have
even more powerful consequences in intergroup interaction!
Social comparison Through social comparison with other groups, people try to
evaluate their group’s relative status
People strive for a positive social identity
- People are motivated to belong to a positively evaluated group
They value their own group more than other groups (social identification
versus contra-identification)
Psychological group distinctiveness Need for belonging to a positively
evaluated group but also need to be distinct from others
, People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is distinct and
positive
3. Understanding Behavior
Lecture 2: Social Identity Theory Pt. 2
Applying social identity theory
Example: SIT and black Pete
Minority strategy
Social competition: Minority groups challenge dominant position of majority on
cultural dimension
Majority reaction
Attempt to retain superiority
People react negatively to threats to their positive social identity
Reaction: The Dutch react harshly to accusations that one of their traditions is racist
Answering exam question (BLM)
People strive to belong to groups that have positive and distinct social identities
social comparison inadequate social identity seek change Are there
cognitive alternatives? yes: situation not stable/ legitimized Group strategy
social competition
, The dominant group perspective: Why and how do dominant groups maintain /
extend their superiority?
Outgroup homogeneity
Face recognition task: recognizing faces from different ethnic groups. Results: the
other-race effect: people are better at recognizing faces from their own group
Why are they all the same? Why do ingroup people view outgroup people as “all the
same”?
familiarity, Evaluation on stereotypical traits for that group, People think of
themselves as complex and nuanced and others as simplistic and one-dimensional
Status differences
Members of dominant groups
• Do not need to pay attention
• May not be motivated to pay attention.
Members of subordinate groups
• Need to form detailed impressions
• Pay attention to those who affect outcome
Othering
Distinctiveness threat: People prefer bright boundaries between group
When a group’s identity is being eroded, the ingroup identity is no longer
meaningfully and positively distinct from relevant outgroup
Rejection
Dislike
Aggression
Study: people’s self-identification
• Control condition
• Condition 1 (national identity)
• Condition 2 (national norm)
• Condition 3 (both)
Double standard / generalization
• 2nd generation Dutch people
have to prove their Dutchness
• Social mobility is more than just identifying with other group
• Outgroup homogeneity implies that people generalize their attitudes toward
the entire outgroup
The Obama effect: white Americans had a much more positive perception of black
people during Obama’s campaign, did that mean problem solved?
Racial prejudice increased right after the election
Lecture 1: introduction + social identity theory
Understanding prejudice: course topics
Understanding majority groups’ reaction to minorities
The central theories explaining intergroup relations
o Social identity theory
o Reaistic Group Conflict Theory & Integrated Threat Theory
o Contact Theory
o Social Dominance Orientation
o Right-Wing Authoritarianism
o Moral Foundations Theory
How to measure prejudice
Territorial concerns
Historical narratives
Voting for radical parties
Bias of the left
The importance of using theory
Audit test in retail market - Ayres (1995): 38 black/white, men/women bargained for
400 used cars at 242 dealerships. Same behavior of tester. Initial offer of white car
dealers:
- for white men: $724 - black women: $1,194
- white women: $933 - Black men: $1,686
Topic 1: social identity theory
Todays topics:
1. Minimal group experiments
Group formation: Categorization process is a central component of Social Identity
Theory
Evolutionary perspective: necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amount of information
Categorization: People search actively for information. People simplify processing all
that information by ignoring certain differences and emphasizing (or even
exaggerating) certain similarities of that information.
SIT experiment 1: non-social stimuli – how to deal with categories?
Line experiment: People rated the length of lines with and without categorization of
lines when categorized: 1. Greater difference between lines in category A and B
2. Less variance within a category.
Nonsocial vs social stimuli – Categorization of non-social stimuli: similarities within
groups (homogeneity) and differences between groups are over-emphasized.
,SIT experiment 2: minimal group experiment: Goal: manipulate social categorization
as an independent variable
Step 1: Generate social categorization on basis of a trivial criterion
Dot estimation task
Step 2: Let participants give rewards to members of their own and the other
group
Conclusion minimal-group experiments
Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (in group favoritism)
Even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial category
Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the
development of intergroup bias” (discrimination in favor of the own group)
2. Social Identity Theory
SIT: four central concepts
Social categorization “process of bringing together social objects or events in
groups which are equivalent with regard to an individual’s actions, intentions and
system of beliefs” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 254).
Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli
- Use of any characteristic available
- Perceive more similarity within and more difference between
categories
Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also how we perceive
ourselves…
Social Identity Social identity is based the realization that one belongs to a
social category and the positive or negative evaluation associated with this
membership.
- Are divisive and exclusive
- Are context dependent
- Have a cultural component: This turns a category into an identity
- Include a judgment of the nature of people in a certain category
This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have
even more powerful consequences in intergroup interaction!
Social comparison Through social comparison with other groups, people try to
evaluate their group’s relative status
People strive for a positive social identity
- People are motivated to belong to a positively evaluated group
They value their own group more than other groups (social identification
versus contra-identification)
Psychological group distinctiveness Need for belonging to a positively
evaluated group but also need to be distinct from others
, People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is distinct and
positive
3. Understanding Behavior
Lecture 2: Social Identity Theory Pt. 2
Applying social identity theory
Example: SIT and black Pete
Minority strategy
Social competition: Minority groups challenge dominant position of majority on
cultural dimension
Majority reaction
Attempt to retain superiority
People react negatively to threats to their positive social identity
Reaction: The Dutch react harshly to accusations that one of their traditions is racist
Answering exam question (BLM)
People strive to belong to groups that have positive and distinct social identities
social comparison inadequate social identity seek change Are there
cognitive alternatives? yes: situation not stable/ legitimized Group strategy
social competition
, The dominant group perspective: Why and how do dominant groups maintain /
extend their superiority?
Outgroup homogeneity
Face recognition task: recognizing faces from different ethnic groups. Results: the
other-race effect: people are better at recognizing faces from their own group
Why are they all the same? Why do ingroup people view outgroup people as “all the
same”?
familiarity, Evaluation on stereotypical traits for that group, People think of
themselves as complex and nuanced and others as simplistic and one-dimensional
Status differences
Members of dominant groups
• Do not need to pay attention
• May not be motivated to pay attention.
Members of subordinate groups
• Need to form detailed impressions
• Pay attention to those who affect outcome
Othering
Distinctiveness threat: People prefer bright boundaries between group
When a group’s identity is being eroded, the ingroup identity is no longer
meaningfully and positively distinct from relevant outgroup
Rejection
Dislike
Aggression
Study: people’s self-identification
• Control condition
• Condition 1 (national identity)
• Condition 2 (national norm)
• Condition 3 (both)
Double standard / generalization
• 2nd generation Dutch people
have to prove their Dutchness
• Social mobility is more than just identifying with other group
• Outgroup homogeneity implies that people generalize their attitudes toward
the entire outgroup
The Obama effect: white Americans had a much more positive perception of black
people during Obama’s campaign, did that mean problem solved?
Racial prejudice increased right after the election
