Prejudice, discrimination, stereotype, and racism are commonly discussed topics in the news and media outlets. It is crucial to comprehend their definitions and origins. People often mistakenly use prejudice and discrimination interchangeably, but in fact, prejudice refers to attitudes or beliefs while discrimination relates to behavior or actions (Smith and Mackie, 2000, p 156).
According to Baron and Byrne (1991, p183), prejudice refers to an attitude, typically negative, towards individuals belonging to a specific group solely based on their membership in that group. The ABC model of attitudes describes prejudice as having three components. Affective components encompass the emotions or feelings we hold about individuals or groups whom we have limited knowledge about. This can result in society assuming that all members of a particular group are identical. An illustrative instance of this is presuming that anyone from the Far East carrying a backpack is a terrorist merely because of the events that transpired in New York.
Discrimination encompasses cognitive, affective, and behavioural components. It involves our thoughts and feelings about certain individuals or groups (cognitive), but it is only when we act upon these beliefs that discrimination occurs (behavioural). McLeod (2008) defines discrimination as negative behavior towards a person or group based on factors like sex, race, or social class.
Prejudice and Discrimination
A well-known instance illustrating this is the cruelties that occurred during World War II. The Nazi regime engaged in widespread killing of Jews, forcing Jewish individuals to publicly exhibit their identity by wearing a yellow star as a visual marker. A similar form of segregation was observable in South Africa’s Apartheid era. From 1948 to 1994, individuals who were not of white descent were denied voting rights and intentionally segregated from white or mixed communities. They were blatantly discriminated against, residing in impoverished and unsanitary conditions with limited or nonexistent access to education or healthcare facilities.
Gender discrimination is observable in Western societies, including the practice of granting custody to mothers following divorce. In Northern Ireland, there exists a conflict between Catholics and Protestants that has led to harm caused by both factions. Allport (1954) categorizes discrimination into five stages, with the first stage being Anti Location or ‘hate speech’, which encompasses verbal assaults directed at a specific individual or group.
Intentional avoidance tactics are employed to isolate individuals or groups, as seen when people purposefully avoid interacting with someone from a different cultural background due to unfamiliarity. Discrimination arises when an individual or group deliberately denies opportunities to others, hindering their educational, employment, or goal-oriented advancement. Northern Ireland serves as an example of this through its historical practice of actively discriminating by exclusively hiring individuals from the Catholic or Protestant community for specific jobs or areas.
Positive discrimination, also known as affirmative action, involves actively promoting a particular gender or religion to achieve workplace balance. In contrast, physical attack refers to intentionally harming individuals or groups and damaging their property. Lastly, extermination represents the most extreme form of discrimination, where deliberate attempts are made to eliminate all members of a specific group. The Holocaust serves as the most infamous example of this, with the Nazis using gas chambers to try and eradicate Jews.
According to Allport’s theory, negative stereotypes can be deemed dangerous and unacceptable, but not all stereotypes result in prejudice or discrimination. Prejudice can be influenced by a person’s personality and characteristics, as well as environmental and cultural factors. La Pierre’s study illustrated that prejudice does not always manifest in discrimination.
La Pierre conducted an experiment where he traveled across America with a Chinese couple. He anticipated encountering discrimination based on the prevalent negative sentiments towards the Chinese. Upon returning home several months later, he set out to investigate whether the places they had previously visited were aware in advance that he was accompanied by a Chinese couple. His objective was to determine if such knowledge would influence their perception, resulting in prejudice and discrimination that would affect their planned visits. However, upon reaching out to the establishments they had previously been to, it was discovered that they were only refused service at one of them.
These findings demonstrate a significant disparity between the attitudes expressed by these businesses and their actual behavior when faced with a Chinese couple in person. It is important to mention that the Chinese couple LaPierre accompanied was proficient in English, which could have influenced the establishments’ responses. However, LaPierre’s research was not entirely unbiased as there were shortcomings that could have influenced the experiment and influenced the outcome. It remains unclear whether the individuals who interacted with the Chinese couple during their initial visit were the same individuals who handled the written request on the second occasion.
Only half of the original places and establishments responded to the written request, resulting in an incomplete picture of the visited establishments. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argued that LaPierre attempted to predict specific behavior based on general attitudes, rather than considering the specific attitudes demonstrated towards the Chinese Couple. This prompted Azjen and Fishbein (1980) to develop their theory of reasoned action (www. psychologyattitudesandbehaviour. tm). Jane Elliott, an American teacher and anti-racism activist, is known for creating the famous “Blue eyed/brown eyed” exercise in the 1960s. After the assassination of Martin Luther King, Elliott decided to have a class discussion about racism. During the exercise, she asked the children what they knew about black people and received expected responses of ignorance and unemployment. She then designated the blue-eyed children as the superior group to begin her exercise.
She provided a visual mark to the children using a collar, which allowed for easy identification of the minority group and instant visibility. The blue-eyed children received extra privileges, such as access to food, play, and games, while the brown-eyed children were excluded and left out from participating in activities. Elliott carefully observed how the children responded to this exercise of discrimination and witnessed immediate changes in their behavior and interactions with one another. The following day, Elliott reversed the exercise, making the brown-eyed children superior.
Although the brown-eyed children taunted the blue-eyed children in a similar manner to the previous day, Elliott states that it was not as intense. On Wednesday at 2:30, Elliott instructed the blue-eyed children to remove their collars, which resulted in tears and hugs among the children. While there was controversy surrounding her exercise, many believed it had benefits. However, critics argued that the exercise was inappropriate and unethical for young children, expressing concerns for their health and well-being.
Some individuals found the exercise to be unjust and biased, lacking proper oversight. Because it did not have scientific monitoring, generalization was challenging. Adorno et al (1950) initially presented the idea of the ‘Authoritarian Personality,’ positing that prejudice stems from an individual’s personality type. Adorno created the renowned F-scale questionnaire (F for fascism) to substantiate his assertion. He supported his claim with case studies, such as those involving Nazis, as well as information gathered through psychometric testing like the F-scale and interviews with individuals raised by strict parents.
The author posited that individuals with authoritarian personalities tend to have unwavering opinions and beliefs. They exhibit animosity towards those of lower social standing but display obedience towards individuals of higher status. They also adhere to conventional norms and uphold traditional values. However, the results contradicted this theory as Brown (1965) stated that the questions were phrased in a manner that implied agreement with them would always indicate anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, and potential fascism. Adorno et al. (1950) acknowledged that acquiescent response bias could potentially be a problem (Gross, R (2012), p388).
Psychology
According to Adorno, individuals raised in authoritarian families are more likely to develop an authoritarian personality. This personality type involves dividing people into ‘us’ and ‘them’ groups and believing in one’s own superiority. Adorno also suggests that because these individuals cannot express hostility towards their parents, they repress their emotions and redirect their aggression towards less powerful groups or individuals.
According to Adorno (Psychology fifth Edition p 512) (Adorno et al., 1950), it is crucial for children to learn obedience and respect for authority. He also believed that the solution to a majority of our social problems lies in eliminating immoral, crooked, and feeble-minded individuals. Additionally, Adorno classified people into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong. He suggested that individuals with an authoritarian personality were more likely to hold prejudiced beliefs.
However, critics argue that society’s progress challenges the idea that prejudice is solely based on the existence of an “Authoritarian figure” who no longer holds significant power due to equality. If this were true, prejudice and discrimination would show a significant decline. Adorno’s explanation of prejudice has several weaknesses. It fails to consider that a harsh parenting style doesn’t always result in prejudice. Additionally, not everyone conforms to the authoritarian personality type, and it doesn’t explain what causes certain individuals or groups to be prejudiced only against specific groups.
You cannot assume that every individual in a particular group is prejudiced, as this would imply that all members of the group (for example, Nazis) possess an authoritarian personality, which is highly improbable. Sherif (1966) suggests that prejudice often arises from conflicts between different groups competing for the same objectives. Realistic conflict theory explains that these conflicting interests lead to prejudice. Sherif conducted the well-known Robbers Cave Experiment, dividing 22 boys into two teams named the Eagles and the Rattlers.
The individual drove ongoing competition between the groups through various activities and sporting events, inciting rivalry and conflict. The reactions of the groups were observed. The victorious group received medals, knives, and prizes, while the ‘losing group’ received nothing, creating a negative atmosphere. As competition intensified, animosity between the two groups grew, resulting in frequent arguments, physical attacks, and fights.
To address problems and lessen conflict, Sherif implemented various shared goals and strategies that required the groups to come together and collaborate as a single team. As a result, new friendships were formed and intergroup conflict significantly diminished. It became apparent that competition fostered animosity, whereas a shared goal fostered camaraderie, friendship, and positive overall sentiment between the groups.
During adolescence, girls are often encouraged to cooperate, while boys are usually encouraged to be competitive. Some argue that this distinction is unfair and may lead to biased results. However, Tyerman and Spencer (1983) disagree with the notion that competition always leads to prejudice and conflicts between different groups. They conducted the Robbers Cave Experiment, which showed that if there was pre-existing friendship between the groups involved in a competition, it would not cause hostility.
Tyerman and Spencer conducted an experiment with scouts to support their findings, as described in Eysenck’s study (2001, p. 514). Fiske’s research (2004) focuses on the ease of categorizing individuals based on characteristics such as race, gender, age, and class. However, Fiske suggests that deeper understanding requires readiness and motivation to learn more about each person. Additionally, Fiske proposes that social relationships play a role in promoting or discouraging prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping. Agreeing with this perspective, Tajefl’s Social Identity Theory (1978, 1981) suggests that we all possess a fundamental need to comprehend and assess ourselves.
In terms of social identity, individuals categorize themselves into specific social groups that they feel a sense of belonging and comfort with. These group identities reflect our personal beliefs regarding nationality, work affiliation, gender, and more. Tajefl’s theory suggests that we all strive for self enhancement, perceiving ourselves as superior or better than others. However, social identity theory does not consider other factors that may impact behavior, nor does it explain the varying degrees of prejudice within these groups.
However, Tajefl’s suggests that there can be differing degrees of in-group favoritism. The accuracy of measuring prejudice and discrimination is practically impossible. Stereotyped views of out groups often contribute to prejudice. Nonetheless, prejudice and discrimination can be diminished if there is a shared objective. Those who have directly experienced prejudice and discrimination may be the only ones who truly comprehend it.
Reference
- Eysenck, M W, 2000, Psychology A Students Handbook, Psychology Press Ltd, 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2FA, p507
- Gleitman, H, Fridlund,J, Reisberg, D, 1999, Psychology fifth Edition, W.W.Norton & Company, New York, LondonPsychology fifth edition, Gross, R (2012) Psychology: The Science of mind and Behaviours. London, Hadder Arnold.
Internet Sources
- http://www.jeffstanden.net/LaPierre.htm
- Saul McLeod. (2008). Prejudice and Discrimination. Available: www.simplypsychology.org/prejudice.html. Last accessed 22.11.2012.
