Causes of Prejudice and Theories on Prejudice (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Causes of Prejudice and Theories on Prejudice
Introduction to prejudice
Prejudice represents an extreme, unfavourable attitude that has three interconnected components:
- Cognitive: the stereotypes we hold about groups or individuals
- Affective: feelings of hostility and hatred towards the target
- Behavioural: negative actions that can manifest as avoidance, assault, joke-making or discrimination
Not all components need to be present simultaneously. Someone may hold stereotypical beliefs and harbour negative feelings towards a group whilst not actively discriminating against them due to social norms, laws, or other constraints.
Understanding the causes of prejudice has been a major concern for social psychology, particularly following the atrocities of the Holocaust. Researchers have sought to identify whether prejudice stems from individual characteristics or broader social processes.
Individual differences approach
Following the Second World War, social psychologists initially attempted to explain prejudice through dispositional factors such as personality types, similar to explanations of obedience. The logic was that if prejudice could be explained by individual characteristics, this might account for why certain people held prejudiced attitudes.
Critical limitation: Individual personality differences cannot account for mass prejudice affecting entire populations or societies. During the Holocaust, the majority of the German population displayed prejudice against Jews. Anti-Semitism (hostility against Jews) did not develop overnight but grew over approximately 10-20 years.
This approach proved inadequate. For instance, in Rwanda, the Hutu and Tutsi tribes coexisted peacefully for many years before political rivalry triggered mass genocide.
This realisation prompted social psychologists to shift focus from individual differences to social factors that could explain how entire populations develop prejudiced attitudes towards others over relatively short periods. Two major theories emerged: realistic conflict theory and social identity theory.
Realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966)
Muzafer Sherif proposed that prejudice arises from conflict between groups competing for resources, dominance, or territory. This competition creates tension and hostility between groups, which manifests as prejudice.
The Robber's Cave Experiment
Sherif conducted a series of field experiments at boys' summer camps during the late 1940s and mid-1950s to investigate how competition generates prejudice. The most famous of these became known as the Robber's Cave Experiment, which formed the basis of realistic conflict theory.
The Robber's Cave Study: Creating Intergroup Conflict
Sherif introduced competition between groups of boys at summer camp, creating intergroup conflict. The competition resulted in:
- Hostility, prejudice, and discrimination between the groups
- Boys refusing to eat with the other group
- Making derogatory comments
- Engaging in hostile behaviours
This demonstrated how competition for resources (such as prizes, housing, and schooling) can trigger extreme in-group favouritism and solidarity alongside marked hostility towards the out-group.
Superordinate goals
Sherif discovered that intergroup hostility could only be reduced through superordinate goals – objectives that all group members must cooperate to achieve. When groups needed to work together towards a common aim, hostility decreased and harmony between groups increased.
In the Robber's Cave study, boys had to cooperate to fix a water supply or pull a camp bus together. These superordinate goals required the combined effort of both groups, and this cooperation led to reduced hostility and increased harmony.
Earlier summer camp experiments had explored similar aims to the Robber's Cave study, investigating the development of intergroup hostility in children. These studies collectively demonstrate how competition can create intergroup conflict.
Supporting evidence
Anthropological Evidence: Ember and Ember (1992)
Carol and Melvin Ember, social anthropologists, observed that in tribal societies, intergroup hostility increases when competition for resources becomes necessary. Their findings showed:
- During periods of famine or natural disasters, warfare was more likely as groups competed for scarce resources
- When population is low and land is abundant, hostilities between small societies are less likely
- When populations expand and land becomes scarce, conflict and violence increase
However, this correlative evidence does not definitively establish that competition is responsible for prejudice; other factors may be involved.
Aronson et al. (1978) tested realistic conflict theory by introducing cooperation in classrooms where competition was prevalent. Using the jigsaw technique, students were divided into small groups that had to succeed in one group task to ensure the success of the overall class project. They found that levels of competition decreased, demonstrating that removing competition reduces prejudice and increases liking between class members. This mirrored the final stage of Sherif's Robber's Cave study, where boys had to cooperate to fix the water supply or move the bus together. Sherif also observed reduced intergroup conflict following the removal of competition.
Evaluation
Strengths:
The strongest evidence for realistic conflict theory comes from Sherif's own field studies on intergroup conflict, including the Robber's Cave Experiment, which found that competition increased hostility between groups. These studies, alongside anthropological research, provide important real-world evidence for prejudice, giving the theory ecological validity.
Weaknesses:
Evidence from Sherif's own writings about the experiments indicates that the groups of boys were becoming hostile towards each other even before the introduction of organised competitive events. Perhaps the mere presence of another group was sufficient to trigger prejudice, as social identity theory suggests.
Methodological concerns: The boys' tendency to ensure rewards for their group could be better explained by competition rather than favouritism. It might also be argued that these experiments encouraged demand characteristics – the boys may have responded in ways they believed were expected of them.
Social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979)
Henri Tajfel used Sherif's concept of intergroup conflict to investigate prejudice and eventually formulated social identity theory. Tajfel and John Turner developed a theory proposing that the mere presence or perception of another group can lead to prejudice; that is, a group's formation can lead to prejudice and discrimination. They classified groups as either an in-group (to which we have membership) or an out-group (another rival group or group to which we do not have membership). Tajfel and Turner believed that group membership alone, even in the absence of competition, can cause prejudice.
Personal and social identities
Humans continually strive to achieve a positive self-image so that they appear favourable in the eyes of others and achieve high personal self-esteem. This self-image forms an individual's personal identity. Humans also inevitably distinguish themselves by membership in certain social groups; this is known as social identity. Because individuals identify themselves by their membership (social identification), their personal identity is bound up with their social identity.
The link between personal and social identity:
When the social identity is favourable, the personal identity of group members is positive. However, if social identity is not favourable, personal identity will be negative, lowering the self-esteem of individuals within the group.
Within a group, each individual has a social identity. Unlike personal identity, which is based on personal characteristics unique to the individual, social identity is an image based on the attributes of the group or groups to which we belong. The social identity we have will impact on our personal identity because group memberships are often a source of our self-esteem.
Consider a football team supporter. If their team loses several matches, the lowered social identity of the group will have a negative impact on the individual group member's personal identities.
Social comparison
To reconcile a negative social identity and therefore elevate personal identity, the positive attributes of the in-group need to be raised. This is achieved by defining the unique characteristics of the in-group and emphasising them, whilst simultaneously comparing and derogating the qualities of the out-group. This is achieved through two processes: in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias.
Key concepts in social comparison:
- In-group favouritism is the tendency of group members to see the individuals within their group as unique (heterogeneous) and favourable
- Negative out-group bias is the tendency to view members of the out-group as 'all the same' (homogenous) and in an unfavourable light
This social comparison ensures that the social identity of the in-group is elevated.
Football supporters are likely to compare their team to another, perhaps making negative comments about the other team and supporters, but viewing their own football team in a favourable light. This ensures that their football team and membership to their group comes out on top.
Research into social identity theory
Tajfel conducted a series of studies called 'minimal group paradigm experiments' to demonstrate the human tendency for groups to form social identities and produce prejudice.
Comparisons between theories
Fundamental difference between the theories:
Sherif believed that intergroup conflict, and resulting prejudice and discrimination, could be explained by competition between groups. Social identity theory argues that competition is not necessary for conflict; the mere presence of another group is enough to elicit conflict between groups.
This distinction represents a fundamental difference between the theories and accounts for the different experimental approaches used. Tajfel designed the minimal group paradigm experiments to prevent competition from occurring. The minimal group experiments ensured that:
- Group members were randomly and arbitrarily created
- There was no contact between group members
- Membership was anonymised
- The tokens used as rewards and punishments had no intrinsic value
These conditions ensured that competition was not driving the behaviour of group members; just the mere presence of another group was sufficient.
Experiment 1: Accurate or inaccurate estimations
Minimal Group Paradigm: Dot Estimation Study
Tajfel et al. (1971) placed 64 adolescent boys from a comprehensive school in Bristol into groups and tested their discrimination towards another group. The boys were initially asked to estimate how many dots were being flashed on a screen.
Conditions:
- Neutral condition: Four groups of eight boys were told they had different abilities in these types of tasks
- Value condition: Four groups of eight boys were told that some people are more accurate than others in these tasks
The boys were then randomly assigned to groups based on supposedly "high" or "low" guesses, or "accurate" versus "less accurate" guesses (though assignment was actually random).
The reward task: The boys completed a task where they were required to give monetary rewards or penalties to their own or another group of boys, but were not told the identities of the boys in the other group. Each boy was given a booklet with matrices containing 14 boxes with sets of two numbers:
- Top number: rewards/penalties given to their own group member
- Bottom number: rewards/penalties given to another group member
Results: Although the researchers found no difference between the value and neutral condition, they did find a substantial amount of in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias by calculating the monetary rewards and penalties given to their own and another group.
Experiment 2: Klee and Kandinsky
Minimal Group Paradigm: Art Preference Study
Tajfel et al. (1971) realised that the social categorisation in the first experiment was not adequate, so they set up a modified Experiment 2.
Method: Using 48 boys from the same Bristol comprehensive school, they were arranged into three groups of 16. This time, the boys were categorised into groups according to what they thought was their preference for paintings. The boys were shown various paintings and informed that some were from the artist Klee and some from the artist Kandinsky, but they were not told which painting belonged to which artist.
The boys were randomly assigned to the Klee or Kandinsky condition, regardless of their actual preference, and a similar procedure to Experiment 1 was followed. The sets of numbers in each matrix were labelled as rewards for the Klee group or Kandinsky group.
Results: Tajfel et al. found that the boys consistently rewarded their own group, ignoring the fair alternative, therefore demonstrating in-group favouritism, regardless of the fact that the boys had no idea who was in their own group or indeed in the other group. In fact, the boys failed to maximise their own profit in order to ensure that the other group was sufficiently penalised.
Evaluation
Strengths:
Tajfel's minimal group paradigm experiments offer convincing evidence that we have a natural tendency to favour the in-group and discriminate against the out-group, even in the absence of normal intergroup social situations. These studies have been replicated many times, all concluding that the social categorisation of groups inevitably leads to out-group discrimination.
Later research by Louise Lemyre and Philip Smith (1985), following the minimal group paradigm procedure, not only replicated the findings of Tajfel but also indicated that discriminating participants had improved self-esteem following the experiment. This supports the notion that personal identity is bound up in social identity, and that discrimination enhances both aspects.
Weaknesses:
However, it could be argued that the boys' tendency to ensure rewards for their group could be better explained by competition rather than favouritism. This element of competition giving rise to conflict may be better explained by realistic conflict theory. It might also be the case that these laboratory-based experiments encouraged a degree of demand characteristics; the boys responded in a way that they believed was expected of them.
Cultural variation in findings:
Weatherell (1982) suggests that we should not conclude that intergroup conflict is inevitable. In her observations of New Zealand Polynesians, she found these people were much more likely to favour the out-group than show bias towards their own in-group. Cultures that emphasise collectivism and cooperation are less likely to demonstrate such group prejudice.
Additional supporting evidence
Real-world application: Football team identification
Cialdini et al. (1976) analysed the results of US university football scores and observed the attending students' clothing after a major football game. They observed that university students were more likely to wear the football team sweatshirt after a game had been won than lost.
They followed this up with a series of interviews on how well they thought their teams had performed during each game. Interestingly, the students referred to the team as 'us' when the team had won the game and 'they' when they had lost. This study demonstrates that an individual's personal identity is affected by their association with a football team (social identity), supporting social identity theory.
Jane Elliott's classroom study: Blue eyes/brown eyes
Jane Elliott, a primary school teacher, used a school lesson to teach each class of her third-grade pupils about discrimination. This lesson was reported by Aronson and Osherow (1980).
Method: Throughout the course of a week, Jane Elliott divided her students according to their eye colour. During the first part of the week, the blue eyes were told that they were better, faster and had more desirable traits than the pupils with brown eyes, who were lazy and dishonest. She continued the ruse throughout her lessons, often reinforcing these attributes. Later in the week, she switched their roles.
Results: On several measures of performance, the dominant group:
- Performed better academically
- Were more attentive
- Demonstrated discrimination towards the inferior group
This supports social identity theory because it shows how social categorisation, even splitting established friendships, could lead to active prejudice and discrimination.
Wider issues and debates
Reductionism
Muzafer Sherif was both a professor of psychology and professor of sociology – a sister subject of social psychology more concerned with understanding how society is organised and develops, and how individuals interact with each other and institutions within their social groups and cultures. It is unsurprising, therefore, that Sherif resisted attempts to explain prejudice at a dispositional level, such as the personality theories present at the time of his writing, because he considered them to be too reductionist.
Sherif believed that prejudice could not be explained by one strand of thought but by a range of interconnecting social processes. Drawing on his background in both psychology and sociology, he continually argued for a multidisciplinary approach and believed that psychologists should strive for both laboratory and field research because social problems, such as prejudice, do not occur just in the lab but in everyday life too.
Individual differences
Social identity theory tends to ignore individual differences between in-group members, in particular that some members may actively choose not to discriminate or not based on their personality type. Postmes et al. (2005) argued that it is the individual characteristics that create a social identity, not a social identity that determines individual characteristics.
Key Points to Remember:
-
Prejudice has three components: cognitive (stereotypes), affective (hostile feelings), and behavioural (discrimination). Not all components need to be present at once.
-
Realistic conflict theory proposes that competition between groups for resources creates prejudice and hostility. Sherif's Robber's Cave Experiment demonstrated this, showing that superordinate goals requiring cooperation can reduce prejudice.
-
Social identity theory argues that the mere presence of another group is sufficient to cause prejudice, even without competition. People derive self-esteem from their group membership, leading to in-group favouritism and out-group bias.
-
Tajfel's minimal group paradigm experiments provided strong evidence for social identity theory, showing that people discriminate in favour of their own group even when groups are randomly assigned and have no real meaning.
-
Both theories have ecological validity through real-world applications (Robber's Cave, Jane Elliott's classroom study, football supporter behaviour), but demand characteristics may affect some experimental findings.