Stereotyping. Explanation of stereotyping and prejudice

This focus on group membership rather than on an individual's particular qualities is known as stereotyping. Stereotyping has been defined as the tendency "to place a person in categories according to some easily and quickly identifiable characteristic such as age, sex, ethnic membership, nationality or occupation, and then to attribute to him qualities believed to be typical of members of that category".

A classic study on stereotyping was carried out by Katz and Hraly. They asked students to indicate which characteristics were typical of each of a series of groups (e.g. (Jermans; Negroes; English). There was fairly good agreement that the Germans were efficient and nationalistic, whereas the Negroes were seen as happy-go-lucky and superstitious. Later studies suggested that stereotypes were still common, but they were less likely to be negative.

A better method was used by McCauley and Stitt, who focused on stereotypes of Germans. They asked their participants a series of questions such as, "What percentage of people in the world generally are efficient?" and "What percentage of Germans are efficient?" The average answer to the former question was 50%, whereas it was 63% to the latter question. This suggests that it is nonsense to suppose that most people think all German people are efficient. Instead, the general feeling is that Germans are somewhat more efficient than other nationalities, which is a much less extreme form of stereotyping.

Over-simplified views

It is often assumed that stereotypes should be frowned on for two main reasons: (1) they can lead to prejudice; and (2) they represent very oversimplified views of the world. It is true that negative stereotypes of other groups can be dangerous. However, it is certainly not true that all stereotypes lead to prejudice. Stereotypes are over-simplified, but they help us to make sense of a very complex world.

Negative group stereotypes

Some of the negative group stereotypes that were common in the past are now unacceptable. Two obvious examples are sex- and race-based stereotypes. Sexism and racism have caused great damage over the years in terms of both prejudice and discrimination. It is a slow and difficult business to eliminate sexism and racism. Laws based on the notion of equal opportunities have been introduced in several countries, and have had the effect of preventing some of the discrimination that used to exist.

EXPLANATIONS OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE

There are several causes of prejudice. However, there are only three main categories to which most of these causes belong. First, prejudice may depend on the personality of the individual. In other words, some individuals' personalities may make them likely to become prejudiced. Second, environmental factors may be important in producing prejudice. For example, a dramatic increase in the level of unemployment within any given country may lead to greater prejudice against minority groups. Third, it is possible that simply belonging to a group may cause prejudice. The groups to which an individual belongs (in-groups) may be regarded favourably, whereas most or all other groups (out-croups) may be regarded unfavourably or with prejudice.

Psychodynamic approach

Freud put forward his psychoanalytic theories at the end of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century. Two psychodynamic theories of prejudice have been proposed: the frustration-aggression hypothesis and the theory of the authoritarian personality.

Frustration-aggression hypothesis. Dollard argued that aggression against individuals and groups is caused by frustration. Frustration leads to the build-up of an unpleasant state of arousal, which is released in the form of aggression. Often it is not possible to show aggression or hostility towards the source of the frustration, either because it is unknown or because it is too powerful. In that case, the individual uses what Freud called displacement: the aggression is directed towards a substitute target or scapegoat. The frustration-aggression hypothesis can explain why prejudice is so common, because most people experience much frustration in the course of their lives.

There are many historical examples of scapegoating that was apparently caused by frustration. Massive inflation and very high levels of unemployment in Germany during the 1920s were followed by a rapid growth in anti-Semitism or anti-Jewish prejudice.

Authoritarian personality. Adorno et al. (1950) focused on individual differences in prejudice. They argued that people with an authoritarian personality are most likely to be prejudiced. Such people possess the following features:

• Rigid beliefs in conventional values.

• A general hostility towards other groups.

• Intolerance of ambiguity.

• Submissive attitudes towards authority figures.

According to Adorno et al., the roots of the authoritarian personality lie in childhood experiences. A harsh upbringing with little affection and much punishment from the parents was thought to lead to the development of an authoritarian personality. This treatment causes the child to have much hostility towards his or her parents. However, this hostility remains unconscious because the child is unwilling to admit to this hostility. This causes motivated forgetting, or what Freud called repression. The child seems to idealise his or her parents, and in later life acts in a submissive way towards authority figures. However, there remains considerable hostility lying below the surface. This hostility is displaced on to non-threatening minority groups, and appears in the form of prejudice. In other words, the hostility that harshly treated children find it difficult to express towards their parents is later transferred on to innocent groups.

Adorno et al. devised various personality questionnaires to assess the authoritarian personality. The most important of these questionnaires was the F-Scale, designed to measure tendencies towards fascism. A clearer idea of what the F-Scale measures can be seen by looking at a few items from the test: "Human nature being what it is, there will always be war and conflict"; "Most of our social problems woi^ Ijje solvecijf^we could somehow get rid of the immoral, crooked, and feeble-minded people"; "What the youth needs most is strict discipline, rugged determination, and the will to work for family and country".

Evidence for the validity of the F-Scale was obtained by Adorno et al. They gave large groups of people various tests and clinical interviews as well as the F-Scale. Those who scored high on the F-Scale tended to be more prejudiced than low scorers. They were more racist and anti-Semitic, and also higher in ethnocentrism (believing their own ethnic group to be superior to all others). As predicted by the theory, they had been treated more harshly than non-authoritarian individuals during childhood.

In a famous series of experiments, Milgram (1973) found that most people are very obedient to authority. They will give very strong electric shocks to another person when ordered to do so by an authority figure (see Chapter 15). As those with an authoritarian personality are supposed to be submissive to authority, it follows that they should be very likely to give powerful electric shocks. As predicted, high scorers on the F Scale gave more intense shocks than low scorers (Milgram, 1973).

In spite of the successes of Adorno's theory of the authoritarian personality, critics have argued that prejudice depends much more on cultural norms than on personality. Consider, for example, a study by Pettigrew (1958). He looked it prejudice in South Africa and in the United States. The levels of authoritarianism were equal in the two countries, but there was much more prejudice towards black people in South Africa than in the United States. These findings indicate the importance of cultural norms.

Major historical events can cause a considerable general increase in prejudice. A good example is the impact of the attack on the US fleet in Pearl Harbor on Americans' attitudes to the Japanese. There was a large and immediate increase in prejudice gainst Japanese people among those with and without authoritarian personalities. Such widespread prejudice cannot be explained by Adorno's theory, which emphasises individual differences in the tendency to be prejudiced.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of Adorno’s theory?

PLUS

1. Some individuals are more prejudiced than others, and the F-Scale is a reasonable measure of these individual differences.

2. Childhood experiences help to determine whether someone will develop an authoritarian personality.

MINUS

1. Adorno et al. assumed that the authoritarian personality is associated with right-wing views; in fact, those with in fact, those with extreme left-wing views are also rigid and intolerant in outlook.

2. Prejudice depends more on cultural norms than on personality.

Cognitive approach

Cognitive approach was tested by Bodenhausen. He made use of the fact that many Americans have a prejudice against people of Spanish origin. In his first study, American’s participants were asked to imagine that they were jurors in court case. The defendant was described to some of them as Carlos Ramirez, a Spanish-sounding name; to others, he was described as Robert Johnson; the participants then read the evidence.

After they had read the evidence, the participants had to decide how likely it was that the defendant was guilty. Those who knew him as Carlos Ramirez rated the defendant as more guilty than those who knew him as Robert Johnson. This suggests that stereotypes lead to biased processing information.

In his second study, Bodenhausen wanted to find out more about the processes involved. He argued that stereotypes might lead participants to attend only to information fitting the stereotype, or it might lead them to distort the information to make it support their stereotype. In order to prevent selective attention to stereotype-fitting information, Bodenhausen asked the participants to rate each item of evidence immediately in terms of whether it favoured or did not favour the defendant. There was now no suggestion of Carlos Ramirez being rated more guilty than Robert Johnson. Thus, stereotypes make us attend to information fitting the stereotype, and to disregard all other information.

Social identity theory

One of the most influential theories of prejudice was proposed by Henri Tajfel. According to his social identity theory, we have a need to understand and to evaluate ourselves. This is achieved to a large extent by a process of self-categorisation, in which we think of ourselves as belonging to a number of categories. Of particular importance here are the various groups to which we belong. According to Tajfel, everyone has a number of social identities, based on the different groups with which we Identify. These groups can include racial group, nationality, work group, gender, social group, and so on.

The other main ingredient in social identity theory is the need for self-enhancement. People try to increase their self-esteem by regarding the groups with which they identify as being superior to all other groups. This can lead to prejudice and discrimination. In a nutshell, the key assumption of social identity theory is that how good we feel about ourselves depends on how positively we view the groups with which we identify.

In spite of the successes of social identity theory, it has some limitations as an explanation of prejudice. First, it is assume within the theory that those individuals who identify most strongly with the groups to which they belong should show the most discrimination against other groups. In fact, however, the strength of group identification is usually only weakly associate with out-group discrimination.

Second, there are cross-cultural differences in bias against out groups.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of social identity theory?

PLUS

1. Group membership has powerful effects on attitudes towards the self, the in-group, and out-groups.

2. Positively evaluating the groups to which one belongs increases self-esteem.

MINUS

1. The strength of group identification has much less impact on out-group discrimination than is predicted by the theory.

2. Social identity increases the evaluation of one's own group rather than decreasing the evaluation of other groups; it may, therefore, be of limited relevance to an understanding of prejudice.

Conformity

Much of the historical evidence on prejudice and discrimination indicates that they are much greater in certain groups at certain times. For example, white people in the south of the United States have generally shown more prejudice and discrimination against blacks than those in the north. However the two white groups do not differ in their level of authoritarism. This suggests that prejudice and discrimination depend on conformity to social norms, with the social norms varying from area to area.

A clear example of conformity to social norms was reported by Minard. Black and white coal miners in West Virginia worked together below ground in harmony, and with very little prejudice and discrimination. However, the familiar prejudice were shown above ground, because the social norms in society differed considerably from those in the coal-mining situation.

Realistic conflict theory

According to Sherif, prejudice often results from inter-group conflict, When two groups compete for the same goal, then the members of each group tend to become prejudice against the members of the other group. According to realistic conflict theory, such conflicts of interest cause prejudice.

Similar findings have been reported with various groups (e.g managers in human relations workshops), and many different Cultures. However, the notion that Competition always leads to prejudice and inter-group conflict was rejected by Tyerman and Spencer. They argued that competition only has dramatic effects when those involved do not already have long-term friendships. Tyerman and Spencer observed scouts who already knew each other well as they competed in groups against each other at their annual camp. Competition did not produce any of the negative effects observed by Sherif et al. However, the boys in the Sherif et al. study did not know each other before the summer camp. This probably affected Sherif et al.'s findings.

Relative deprivation

Runciman argued that we can become prejudiced when there is a gap between what we have done and what we expected to be able to do. He used the term relative deprivation to refer to such gaps. When deciding if we are relatively deprived, we often consider our situation or that of groups to which we belong against that of other people or groups. Runciman drew a distinction between two forms of relative deprivation:

1. Egotistic deprivation, which stems from comparisons with other individuals regarded as similar to oneself.

2. Fraternalistic deprivation, which is produced Ъ) comparisons betweenngroups rather than individuals. The notioij that one's own group is being unfairly treated by comparison with some other group often reflects group norms or expectation! of what is fair and just.

We can see the value of the distinction between egotistic and fraternalistic deprivation by considering the leaders minority groups protesting about the discrimination shown against the group. Such leaders are usually successful individual; who are not egotistically deprived. However, they have a strong sense of fraternalistic or group deprivation. For example, trac union leaders in the United Kingdom who fight on behalf their poorly paid members are usually well-paid and successfully individuals. In similar fashion, the most militant blacks in United States during the 1960s and 1970s tended to be well educated and of fairly high socio-economic status.

Some of the most convincing support for relative deprivatiol theory was reported by Vanneman and Pettigrew. Those town dwellers in the United States who had the most extrer racist attitudes tended to report being the most fraternallj deprived. Runciman's relative deprivation theory, and especially the notion of fraternalistic deprivation, helps us to understand prejudice. It is based on group norms, and explains the fact that prejudice is often found in most members of a given group. In addition, the notion of egotistic deprivation helps to explain why the level of prejudice and hostility is greater in some individuals than in others.