Factors Affecting Prejudice (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Factors Affecting Prejudice
Individual differences
Personality
Before social psychology focused on group dynamics, dispositional theories were common explanations for prejudice, focusing on individual personality traits rather than social contexts.
Theodor Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford (1950) developed a theory centred on the authoritarian personality - a personality type characterised by specific traits that made individuals more prone to hostile attitudes towards particular groups.
Development of the theory
Adorno and colleagues initially interviewed two American college students (Mack and Larry) about their political beliefs, upbringing and attitudes towards minorities. Based on these interviews, they designed questionnaires (scales) to measure the authoritarian personality, focusing on levels of anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism (belief that one's own ethnic group is superior to another) and conservatism (belief in tradition and social order with a dislike for change). They also developed the F-Scale (Fascism Scale) to measure anti-democratic beliefs (views opposing fair election of government and majority rule). Together, these scales formed a personality questionnaire designed to measure authoritarianism.
The questionnaires used Likert scales where respondents rated their agreement with various statements. Examples include:
- Anti-Semitism scale: Statements expressing negative views about Jewish people, such as concerns about intermarriage or stereotypes about appearance and behaviour
- Ethnocentrism scale: Statements expressing suspicion of foreigners, opposition to full political participation by certain groups, and support for extreme measures against "undesirable elements"
- Conservatism scale: Statements valuing practical occupations over intellectual ones, favouring moderate approaches, and emphasising the need for young people to conform to established norms
- F-Scale: Statements expressing harsh attitudes towards crime, concerns about maintaining honour, and fears about disease and social mixing
In addition to the questionnaires, Adorno et al. conducted 80 interviews (40 male and 40 female interviewees) gathering information about background, beliefs, feelings towards others, and religious and political ideology. They also used Thematic Apperception Tests - a projective technique where individuals interpret abstract images (inkblots) to reveal underlying motivations and attitudes towards particular subjects.
Characteristics of the authoritarian personality
The research identified the authoritarian personality as hostile to people perceived as inferior, particularly minority groups or people of lower social status. Key characteristics include:
- Hostility, rigidity and intolerance to change
- Highly conventional attitudes that conform to wider social group norms
- Submissiveness to authority and obedience to those in positions of power
- Tendency to project anger and aggression onto others
- Often experiencing strict and unaffectionate parenting during childhood
- Respectfulness towards parents whilst learning they could be cruel to those who are weak
Developmental psychology explanation
Adorno and colleagues proposed that the authoritarian personality develops in childhood through harsh parenting. Strict parenting used to ensure obedience creates a love-hate relationship between child and parents. The hate and resentment towards a parent is repressed and displaced onto weaker members of society, such as minorities, whilst maintaining respect for authority. This theory provides a developmental account of both obedience and prejudice.
How the Authoritarian Personality Develops:
Step 1: Child experiences harsh, strict parenting focused on obedience
Step 2: This creates conflicting feelings - love and fear of parents alongside anger and resentment
Step 3: The child cannot express anger towards powerful parents, so these feelings are repressed
Step 4: The repressed anger is displaced onto safer targets - weaker members of society and minority groups
Step 5: The child maintains submission to authority figures whilst becoming hostile towards those perceived as inferior
Evaluation of personality as a factor
Whilst the authoritarian personality theory appears credible and explains individual differences such as bullies at school or individuals with extreme political views, it has limitations as an explanation for widespread prejudice.
Critical Limitations of the Theory:
The theory cannot adequately explain large-scale prejudice, such as that experienced by Jewish people during the Holocaust. If prejudice were solely due to individual personality traits, mass prejudice affecting entire populations would be difficult to explain.
The authoritarian personality theory suggests personality traits causing prejudice are innate (genetic). A biological basis for prejudice would assume it is fixed and unchangeable. However, historical evidence demonstrates changes in attitudes towards minorities, such as the Rwandan genocide which developed from the previously harmonious settlement of Tutsis. Such social change cannot be explained by genetics alone.
Additionally, exam assessment of personality theories requires consideration of evidence suggesting personality is useful or limited as an explanation, alongside other theories that may better explain prejudice. Conclusions should be based on the strength of evidence and arguments presented.
Culture
Culture can influence prejudice if that culture has existing social norms legitimising prejudiced practice, strict religious regimens or laws endorsing prejudice towards targets, or if events occur triggering prejudice towards another group. However, as social norms, laws and events are not static but constantly changing, it remains difficult to establish whether one culture is particularly more prejudiced than another. The current prejudices held by a culture or society can be explored by investigating national stereotypes.
National stereotypes
Katz and Braly (1933) conducted a questionnaire with students attending Princeton University to investigate national stereotypes Americans held about other cultures. Students were given a list of different ethnic groups (Irish, Jewish, etc.) and had to select 5-6 traits from a list of 84 personality traits (superstitious, lazy, ignorant, etc.) they believed represented each ethnic group.
The majority of American students classified African Americans as superstitious and ignorant, and Jewish people as shrewd.
However, students may have responded in a socially desirable manner at the time, and there was no verification that these were genuinely their personal beliefs. Twenty years later, Karlins et al. (1969) replicated the research and found that whilst some national stereotypes had changed, others persisted. This suggests culture does affect prejudice, but as cultures change, so do the prejudices they hold.
Individualistic and collectivistic cultures
Cultures can be classified as individualistic or collectivistic based on how the culture views members of its own group. Individualistic cultures tend to emphasise individuals within the group as important, whilst collectivistic cultures emphasise the importance of the whole group as a collective.
This cultural distinction suggests individualistic cultures would encourage more interpersonal prejudice and collectivistic cultures more intergroup prejudice (Fujimoto and Härtel, 2004). This is consistent with social identity theory, which would predict that prejudice towards an out-group would be more prominent in collectivistic cultures.
Cross-cultural research
In a cultural comparison of Saudi (collectivist) and American (individualist) people, Al-Zahrani and Kaplowitz (1993) found Saudis self-reported more in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias. Whereas Kleugel (1990) found collectivism is associated with greater tolerance and lower racism.
Comparisons between cultures do not support the idea that one type of culture is more prejudiced than another. However, it should be noted that cross-cultural comparisons of prejudice are extremely hard to measure.
Difficulties include:
- Different cultural definitions of prejudice
- Language and translation issues in questionnaires
- Varying social desirability effects across cultures
- Different historical and social contexts affecting responses
Key Points to Remember:
-
Authoritarian personality theory (Adorno et al., 1950) proposes that certain personality traits - including ethnocentrism, conservatism and anti-democratic beliefs - make individuals more prone to prejudice. The F-Scale was developed to measure these traits.
-
The theory suggests harsh parenting in childhood leads to repressed anger being displaced onto minority groups whilst maintaining submission to authority figures.
-
Limitations include the theory's inability to explain widespread prejudice (such as the Holocaust) and its assumption of a genetic basis, which contradicts historical evidence of changing attitudes.
-
Culture influences prejudice through social norms, laws and events. Research on national stereotypes (Katz and Braly, 1933; Karlins et al., 1969) shows stereotypes exist but can change over time.
-
Individualistic cultures emphasise individual importance and show more interpersonal prejudice, whilst collectivistic cultures emphasise group importance and show more intergroup prejudice. However, cross-cultural comparisons produce mixed findings and are difficult to measure accurately.