Complete samenvatting
Understanding prejudice
Topic 1 – Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory = in many social situations people think of themselves and others as
group members, rather than as unique individuals
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 the information by ignoring certain differences and
emphasizing (or even exaggerating) certain similarities of that information
Categorization of non-social stimuli: similarities within groups (homogeneity) and differences
between groups are over-estimated.
Conclusion of the minimal-group experiments:
- Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (in-group favoritism)
- Even if groups are formed on basis of trivial category
- Conclusion: social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of
intergroup bias (discrimination in favor of the own group)
The Social Identity Theory has four central concepts:
1. Social categorization
2. Social identity
3. Social comparison
4. Psychological group distinctiveness
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
- Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli:
- Use of any characteristic available
- Perceive more similarity within and more difference between categories
- Not just how we perceive the world, but also how we perceive ourselves…
Social identity = the realization that one belongs to a social category and the positive or
negative evaluation associated with this membership
- Are divisive and exclusive (you either belong or you don’t)
- Are context dependent (you identify with different groups in different situations)
- Have a cultural component (with certain behaviors and normative expectations). 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
Not all classification a person fits into become meaningful social identities. For a group to form
a real social identity, three interrelated components are needed:
1. The socio-structural component (social classification)
2. The cultural component (specific behavioral and normative consequences/expectations
bounded to the category)
3. The ontological component (judgements of an ontological nature)
Ascribed identities = you categorize a person in a group
Self-identification = how someone sees themselves
,Social comparison
- Through social comparison with other groups, people try to evaluate their group’s
relative status (roots for discrimination)
- People strive for a positive social identity. Because 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
- On the one hand, people want to belong to a positively
evaluated group
- On the other hand, people have the need to be distinct
from others
- People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is
distinct and positive
‘’Black sheep hypothesis’’ = in-group members are judged harsher
because people want to maintain positive social identities
‘’Mere categorization’’ effect = the mere act of categorizing individuals into groups made
people think of themselves and others in terms of ‘’us’’ and ‘’them’’ and was sufficient to
induce them to behave differently toward ingroup and outgroup members
Individual mobility = an individual-level strategy whereby people may seek to escape, avoid
or deny belonging to a devaluated group and seek to be included in a group of higher social
standing
Ingroup favoritism = people are motivated to maintain a positive image of their own social
group
Outgroup derogation = devaluing or discriminating against relevant outgroups
Realistic conflict theory = conflicts between members of different groups arise from
competition over scarce resources
Race prejudice = racially prejudiced individuals think of themselves as belonging to a given
racial group
Other-race effect = we tend to be better at recognizing our own faces of race
Distinctiveness threat = people prefer bright boundaries between groups. When groups
identity is being eroded, the ingroup identity is no longer meaningfully and positively distinct
from relevant outgroups (rejection, dislike, aggression)
Double standard = 2nd generation ‘Dutch people’ have to prove their Dutchness. Social
mobility is more than just identifying with other groups
Outgroup homogeneity = people generalize their attitudes toward the entire outgroup.
Positive behavior of an individual outgroup member does not generalize, but negative
behavior does
Problems with the common ingroup identity model:
- Find the right superordinate identity
- Distinctiveness threat (mainly dominant group)
- Works less among strong identifiers
Dual identity effect on attitudes
1. Effect of experimental manipulation
- More negative attitudes towards Muslim Americans in Muslim identity condition than in
American or dual identity condition. But not significantly different form control condition
2. Effect of ascribed identity
, - Stronger ascription of dual identity and of American identity predicted less negative
attitudes toward Muslim Americans
Topic 2 – Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics:
- Allport: ‘’the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated, longs for definitiveness, safety and
authority
- Adorno: ‘’the authoritarian personality is obedient to authority figures and supports
strong social hierarchies, conforms to dominant social norms, suspicious and hostile
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
- Social categorization: on basis of shared characteristics, in-group-favoritism (‘’we’’
against ‘’them’’)
- Competition over resources: out-group-derogation
What is needed to reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice?
- Work on common (important) goal
- Goal can only be reached through cooperation
Realistic group conflict theory
- Groups compete for limited resources
- Conflict develops if one groups wants something that another group already has (zero-
sum fate)
- Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out-group hostility (‘’us’’
versus ‘’them’’)
- Conflicts depends on whether the goals of the groups are in conflict or shared
Realistic conflicts:
- A particular object (scarce resource) wants to be achieved
- Aggression is directed at the competitor for that object
- There are functional alternatives to the means
Non-realistic conflicts:
- Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
- Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
- There are functional alternatives to the object
Real life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory)
This explained why not everyone in a group is feeling prejudiced since there can be a
difference in perceived competition
Some people experience more threat than others, because they are more at risk due to their
individual position. Theoretical conceptual model:
Problem with the Social Identity Theory: positive-negative asymmetry = consistent evidence
only for positive discrimination (people give more to their own group) but not negative
discrimination (people do not take stuff away from the out-group)
Different forms of perceived threat causes negative intergroup attitudes
- Realistic threats: threat to the very existence
- Individual threat: physical or material harm to an individual
- Group threat: to a group’s power, resources and general welfare
Understanding prejudice
Topic 1 – Social Identity Theory
Social identity theory = in many social situations people think of themselves and others as
group members, rather than as unique individuals
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 the information by ignoring certain differences and
emphasizing (or even exaggerating) certain similarities of that information
Categorization of non-social stimuli: similarities within groups (homogeneity) and differences
between groups are over-estimated.
Conclusion of the minimal-group experiments:
- Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (in-group favoritism)
- Even if groups are formed on basis of trivial category
- Conclusion: social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of
intergroup bias (discrimination in favor of the own group)
The Social Identity Theory has four central concepts:
1. Social categorization
2. Social identity
3. Social comparison
4. Psychological group distinctiveness
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
- Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli:
- Use of any characteristic available
- Perceive more similarity within and more difference between categories
- Not just how we perceive the world, but also how we perceive ourselves…
Social identity = the realization that one belongs to a social category and the positive or
negative evaluation associated with this membership
- Are divisive and exclusive (you either belong or you don’t)
- Are context dependent (you identify with different groups in different situations)
- Have a cultural component (with certain behaviors and normative expectations). 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
Not all classification a person fits into become meaningful social identities. For a group to form
a real social identity, three interrelated components are needed:
1. The socio-structural component (social classification)
2. The cultural component (specific behavioral and normative consequences/expectations
bounded to the category)
3. The ontological component (judgements of an ontological nature)
Ascribed identities = you categorize a person in a group
Self-identification = how someone sees themselves
,Social comparison
- Through social comparison with other groups, people try to evaluate their group’s
relative status (roots for discrimination)
- People strive for a positive social identity. Because 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
- On the one hand, people want to belong to a positively
evaluated group
- On the other hand, people have the need to be distinct
from others
- People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is
distinct and positive
‘’Black sheep hypothesis’’ = in-group members are judged harsher
because people want to maintain positive social identities
‘’Mere categorization’’ effect = the mere act of categorizing individuals into groups made
people think of themselves and others in terms of ‘’us’’ and ‘’them’’ and was sufficient to
induce them to behave differently toward ingroup and outgroup members
Individual mobility = an individual-level strategy whereby people may seek to escape, avoid
or deny belonging to a devaluated group and seek to be included in a group of higher social
standing
Ingroup favoritism = people are motivated to maintain a positive image of their own social
group
Outgroup derogation = devaluing or discriminating against relevant outgroups
Realistic conflict theory = conflicts between members of different groups arise from
competition over scarce resources
Race prejudice = racially prejudiced individuals think of themselves as belonging to a given
racial group
Other-race effect = we tend to be better at recognizing our own faces of race
Distinctiveness threat = people prefer bright boundaries between groups. When groups
identity is being eroded, the ingroup identity is no longer meaningfully and positively distinct
from relevant outgroups (rejection, dislike, aggression)
Double standard = 2nd generation ‘Dutch people’ have to prove their Dutchness. Social
mobility is more than just identifying with other groups
Outgroup homogeneity = people generalize their attitudes toward the entire outgroup.
Positive behavior of an individual outgroup member does not generalize, but negative
behavior does
Problems with the common ingroup identity model:
- Find the right superordinate identity
- Distinctiveness threat (mainly dominant group)
- Works less among strong identifiers
Dual identity effect on attitudes
1. Effect of experimental manipulation
- More negative attitudes towards Muslim Americans in Muslim identity condition than in
American or dual identity condition. But not significantly different form control condition
2. Effect of ascribed identity
, - Stronger ascription of dual identity and of American identity predicted less negative
attitudes toward Muslim Americans
Topic 2 – Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics:
- Allport: ‘’the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated, longs for definitiveness, safety and
authority
- Adorno: ‘’the authoritarian personality is obedient to authority figures and supports
strong social hierarchies, conforms to dominant social norms, suspicious and hostile
What is needed for prejudice and conflicts to emerge?
- Social categorization: on basis of shared characteristics, in-group-favoritism (‘’we’’
against ‘’them’’)
- Competition over resources: out-group-derogation
What is needed to reduce intergroup conflict and prejudice?
- Work on common (important) goal
- Goal can only be reached through cooperation
Realistic group conflict theory
- Groups compete for limited resources
- Conflict develops if one groups wants something that another group already has (zero-
sum fate)
- Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out-group hostility (‘’us’’
versus ‘’them’’)
- Conflicts depends on whether the goals of the groups are in conflict or shared
Realistic conflicts:
- A particular object (scarce resource) wants to be achieved
- Aggression is directed at the competitor for that object
- There are functional alternatives to the means
Non-realistic conflicts:
- Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
- Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
- There are functional alternatives to the object
Real life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory)
This explained why not everyone in a group is feeling prejudiced since there can be a
difference in perceived competition
Some people experience more threat than others, because they are more at risk due to their
individual position. Theoretical conceptual model:
Problem with the Social Identity Theory: positive-negative asymmetry = consistent evidence
only for positive discrimination (people give more to their own group) but not negative
discrimination (people do not take stuff away from the out-group)
Different forms of perceived threat causes negative intergroup attitudes
- Realistic threats: threat to the very existence
- Individual threat: physical or material harm to an individual
- Group threat: to a group’s power, resources and general welfare
