DOCSLIB.ORG

Prejudice: the Interplay of Personality, Cognition, and Social Psychology

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Prejudice: the Interplay of Personality, Cognition, and Social Psychology Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences 5 Prejudice: The Interplay of Personality, Cognition, and Social Psychology NAZAR AKRAMI ACTA UNIVERSITATIS UPSALIENSIS ISSN 1104-232X UPPSALA ISBN 91-554-6244-8 2005 urn:nbn:se:uu:diva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ist of Papers This thesis is based on the following papers, which in the following will be referred to by their Roman numerals. I Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Araya, T. (2004). Category and stereotype activation revisited. Manuscript submitted for publica- tion. II Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, social dominance orientation or right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482. III Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2004). Prejudice: Personality or social psychology? Manuscript submitted for publication. Paper II was reprinted with the kind permission of John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................7 A Brief Background ...................................................................................7 Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Discrimination ...............................................7 Definitions .............................................................................................7 Implicit and Explicit Prejudice...................................................................9 The Distinction ......................................................................................9 Association or Dissociation? .................................................................9 “One” Phenomenon – Many Approaches ................................................10 Approaches to Explaining Prejudice....................................................10 The Personality Approach ...................................................................12 The Social Psychology Approach........................................................15 The Cognitive Approach......................................................................17 Major Aims and Research Questions .......................................................20 General Aim ........................................................................................20 Specific Aims ......................................................................................21 Methodology ............................................................................................21 Personality and Individual Differences Variables ...............................21 The Big Five Inventory...................................................................21 Social Dominance Orientation ........................................................22 Right-Wing Authoritarianism .........................................................22 Social Psychological Variables............................................................22 Group Membership .........................................................................22 Gender Identification ......................................................................22 Ethnic Identification........................................................................23 Measuring Explicit Prejudice ..............................................................23 General Issues .................................................................................23 Ethnic Prejudice – Prejudice toward Immigrants............................23 Sexism – Prejudice toward Women ................................................24 Prejudice toward Intellectually Disabled Individuals .....................24 Homophobia – Prejudice toward Homosexuals..............................24 Measuring Implicit Prejudice ..............................................................24 Statistical Issues...................................................................................25 ANOVA vs. Regression Analysis...................................................25 Causal Modeling .............................................................................25 Empirical studies...........................................................................................27 Paper I ......................................................................................................27 Study 1.................................................................................................27 Background .....................................................................................27 Method ............................................................................................27 Results and Comments....................................................................27 Study 2.................................................................................................29 Background .....................................................................................29 Method ............................................................................................32 Results and Comments....................................................................33 Study 3.................................................................................................33 Background .....................................................................................33 Method ............................................................................................34 Results and Comments....................................................................35 Paper II .....................................................................................................36 Study 4.................................................................................................36 Background .....................................................................................36 Method ............................................................................................37 Results and Comments....................................................................37 Paper III....................................................................................................41 Study 5.................................................................................................41 Background .....................................................................................41 Method ............................................................................................41 Results and Comments....................................................................42 Study 6.................................................................................................44 Background .....................................................................................44 Method ............................................................................................45 Results and Comments....................................................................46 General discussion ........................................................................................50 Major Findings – Relations to the Three Approaches..............................50 The Cognitive Approach......................................................................50 The Personality Approach ...................................................................50 The Social Psychology Approach........................................................51 Issues Related to the Three Approaches...................................................51 Implicit and Explicit Prejudice – Association or Dissociation? ..........51 Associative Strength and the Category-Stereotype Distinction...........52 Personality and Self-Categorization Theory........................................53 Methodological Issues..............................................................................54 Future Research – An Integrative Approach............................................54 Final Words..............................................................................................55 Acknowledgements.......................................................................................57 References.....................................................................................................58 Introduction A Brief Background The tsunami catastrophe in South East Asia in late 2004 demolished the homes, working places, and lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Al- most immediately, people
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Psychology of Cultural Contact
    1 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CULTURAL CONTACT Deborah A. Prentice and Dale T. Miller thnic diversity currently preoccupies a sizable segment of U.S. society, from employers and school administrators, who must E manage diversity within institutional settings, to politicians and social scientists, who must formulate policies for addressing the com- peting claims of different ethnic groups. The issue of diversity is fraught with anxiety. Ethnic conflicts in many countries around the world attest to the potential for relations across cultural boundaries to go seriously and destructively awry. Moreover, Americans' own struggles with race have left many pessimistic about the prospects for achieving positive, stable relations between ethnic groups. With new waves of immigrants coming from Asia and Latin America and higher birth rates among mi- nority than majority groups, the U.S. population is becoming, and will continue to become, ethnically and culturally more diverse. Thus, how to promote positive relations across group boundaries is a question of paramount importance. Thirty or forty years ago, psychologists thought they had an answer to this question. The contact hypothesis posited that if members of dif- ferent ethnic groups interact with each other on an equal-status basis in pursuit of common goals, positive intergroup relations will result (Allport 1954). This hypothesis was so appealing that it spawned hun- dreds of studies designed to test and refine its claims. The results have been less than encouraging. Yes, equal-status contact can have positive results, but only if many conditions obtain: the contact should be mean- ingful and have the potential to extend beyond the immediate situation; the individuals should be as similar as possible on all dimensions be- sides group membership; the contact should be voluntary, extended in duration, and varied across contexts; and so on (for a more complete list, see Stephan 1985).
    [Show full text]
  • Intersectional Invisibility (2008).Pdf
    Sex Roles DOI 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities Valerie Purdie-Vaughns & Richard P. Eibach # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008 Abstract The hypothesis that possessing multiple subordi- Without in any way underplaying the enormous nate-group identities renders a person “invisible” relative to problems that poor African American women face, I those with a single subordinate-group identity is developed. want to suggest that the burdens of African American We propose that androcentric, ethnocentric, and heterocentric men have always been oppressive, dispiriting, demor- ideologies will cause people who have multiple subordinate- alizing, and soul-killing, whereas those of women group identities to be defined as non-prototypical members of have always been at least partly generative, empower- their respective identity groups. Because people with multiple ing, and humanizing. (Patterson 1995 pp. 62–3) subordinate-group identities (e.g., ethnic minority woman) do not fit the prototypes of their respective identity groups (e.g., ethnic minorities, women), they will experience what we have Introduction termed “intersectional invisibility.” In this article, our model of intersectional invisibility is developed and evidence from The politics of research on the intersection of social historical narratives, cultural representations, interest-group identities based on race, gender, class, and sexuality can politics, and anti-discrimination legal frameworks is used to at times resemble a score-keeping contest between battle- illustrate its utility. Implications for social psychological weary warriors. The warriors display ever deeper and more theory and research are discussed. gruesome battle scars in a game of one-upmanship, with each trying to prove that he or she has suffered more than Keywords Intersectionality.
    [Show full text]
  • Reparations: the Problem of Social Dominance
    Vo,6 No.1 March 30, 2016 Reparations: The Problem of Social Dominance Carlton Waterhouse, J.D., Ph.D Professor of Law Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Abstract In theory, reparations provide redress for past injustices. They reflect political attempts to seek to balance the scales of justice in the wake of crimes against humanity, gross human rights abuses, and other tortious state action. As one of the more politically salient legal academic subjects, however, it is clear that the sociopolitical processes within and between states greatly influence when, why, and how reparations are used. Reparations theorists have done an excellent job developing vital models for use by states to provide warranted redress. Roy L. Brooks and Eric Yamamoto, both of whom have contributed to this journal in the past, have developed the Atonement and Social Healing models of reparations respectively. Key words : reparations, redress, past injustices, political attempts, justice, gross human rights abuses, other tortious state action, sociopolitical processes, vital models, the Atonement, Social Healing models 11 WEIS (World Environment and Island Studies) REPARATIONS: THE SOCIAL DOMINANCE institutional practices, relations of individuals PROBLEM to others inside and outside their groups, the psychological predispositions of individuals, and the interaction between the evolved psychologies of In theory, reparations provide redress for past 4 injustices. They reflect political attempts to seek men and women. to balance the scales of justice
    [Show full text]
  • Intergroup Contact, Social Dominance and Environmental Concern: a Test of the Cognitive-Liberalization Hypothesis
    Intergroup Contact, Social Dominance and Environmental Concern: A Test of the Cognitive-Liberalization Hypothesis Meleady, R., Crisp, R., Dhont, K., Hopthrow, T., & Turner, R. (2019). Intergroup Contact, Social Dominance and Environmental Concern: A Test of the Cognitive-Liberalization Hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(6), 1146. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000196 Published in: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Document Version: Peer reviewed version Queen's University Belfast - Research Portal: Link to publication record in Queen's University Belfast Research Portal Publisher rights Copyright 2019 American Psychological Association. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Queen's University Belfast Research Portal is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The Research Portal is Queen's institutional repository that provides access to Queen's research output. Every effort has been made to ensure that content in the Research Portal does not infringe any person's rights, or applicable UK laws. If you discover content in the Research Portal that you believe breaches copyright or violates any law, please contact [email protected]. Download date:30. Sep. 2021 Running Head: INTERGROUP CONTACT, SDO, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN Intergroup Contact, Social Dominance and Environmental Concern: A Test of the Cognitive-Liberalization Hypothesis Word Count: 9,895 (main text) INTERGROUP CONTACT, SDO, ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN 2 Abstract Intergroup contact is among the most effective ways to improve intergroup attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Dynamic Emergence of Minimal Groups
    GPI0010.1177/1368430218802636Group Processes & Intergroup RelationsJackson et al. 802636research-article2018 G Group Processes & P Intergroup Relations I Article R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 2019, Vol. 22(7) 921–929 The dynamic emergence of minimal © The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: groups sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218802636DOI: 10.1177/1368430218802636 journals.sagepub.com/home/gpi Christopher Michael Jackson,1 Joshua Conrad Jackson,2 David Bilkey,1 Jonathan Jong3 and Jamin Halberstadt1 Abstract The minimal group paradigm has consistently shown that people will discriminate to favor their own group over an out-group, even when both groups are created arbitrarily by an experimenter. But will people actually form groups that are so arbitrary? And could something as trivial as a randomly assigned name tag color serve as a fault line during group formation? In this study, we use in vivo behavioral tracking (IBT) to precisely and unobtrusively track samples of participants as they assort repeatedly into groups. We find that participants do form groups on the basis of their randomly assigned name tag colors, but that name tag homophily emerges over time, becoming stronger in subsequent groups. Our results suggest that people are unconsciously or consciously biased toward group similarity, even when similarities are essentially meaningless. Our study has implications for theories of intergroup relations and social identity. It also demonstrates the utility of applying real-time tracking to study group formation. Keywords group formation, in vivo behavioral tracking, minimal group, similarity Paper received 5 February 2018; revised version accepted 31 August 2018. Almost 50 years ago, Tajfel (1970) found that they favor in-group over out-group members people show bias against out-group members when distributing resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Perspective-Taking: Decreasing Stereotype Expression, Stereotype Accessibility, and In-Group Favoritism
    See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12523764 Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism Article in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · May 2000 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708 · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 716 12,891 2 authors, including: Gordon B. Moskowitz Lehigh University 55 PUBLICATIONS 3,968 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Situational determinants of creativity View project Spontaneous Goal Inference View project All content following this page was uploaded by Gordon B. Moskowitz on 03 February 2014. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2000, Vol. 78, No~ 4, 708-724 0022-3514/00/$5.00 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.708 Perspective-Taking: Decreasing Stereotype Expression, Stereotype Accessibility, and In-Group Favoritism Adam D. Galinsky Gordon B. Moskowitz Northwestern University Princeton University Using 3 experiments, the authors explored the role of perspective-taking in debiasing social thought. In the 1st 2 experiments, perspective-taking was contrasted with stereotype suppression as a possible strategy for achieving stereotype control. In Experiment 1, perspective-taking decreased stereotypic biases on both a conscious and a nonconscious task. In Experiment 2, perspective-taking led to both decreased stereotyping and increased overlap between representations of the self and representations of the elderly, suggesting activation and application of the self-concept in judgments of the elderly. In Experiment 3, perspective-taking reduced evidence of in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm by increasing evaluations of the out-group.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring the Role of Belonging in Intergroup Discrimination
    Exploring the role of belonging in intergroup discrimination. Julia A. L. Chrisp A thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand 26 November 2012 1 ABSTRACT Three studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between belonging and intergroup discrimination. In this instance, discrimination refers to negatively biased behaviour, marginalisation, disenfranchisment, or, more specifically a lack of favouritism where the latter might be applied to one’s ingroup. Studies one and two assessed belonging as an outcome of intergroup discrimination. Study three assessed belonging as an outcome of discrimination and as a predictor of discrimination. Study one revealed that New Zealanders who evaluated ingroup members more positively than outgroup members (i.e., Americans) experienced increased levels of belonging. Study two revealed that New Zealanders who gave more white noise to outgroup members (i.e., Asians) than ingroup members experienced increased levels of belonging. Study three, like study one and two, found that New Zealanders who gave more white noise to the outgroup (i.e., Americans) experienced elevated levels of belonging. Study three also explored the role of ostracism and revealed that participants who were ostracised displayed approximately three times more intergroup discrimination than included participants. Together these findings provide evidence to suggest that various forms of intergroup discrimination can facilitate increased levels of belonging and that threats to belonging can facilitate increased levels of intergroup discrimination. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to my supervisor, Jackie Hunter. Not only did he provide the inspiration for this thesis but he also steered me through the process of testing, analysis, and writing.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Social Dominance and Minority Influence Affect The
    Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. i How do Social Dominance and Minority Influence affect the Collaboration of Refugee Services? A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Psychology at Massey University, Albany, New Zealand Sarah Helene Hahn 2015 ii Abstract Social Dominance Theory has problematic implications for humanitarian work: It suggests that stakeholders of the humanitarian sector collectively maintain the social hierarchies that disadvantage the very minorities that they are supposed to empower. Minority Influence Theory, on the other hand, suggests that social innovation in the humanitarian sector can emerge from the bottom-up, thus against the grain of social hierarchies. This thesis explores for the refugee service sector of Auckland, New Zealand, (a) if former refugees are indeed marginalised within the inter-organisational context that is supposed to empower them, (b) if this has detrimental effects on the sector’s performance, and (c) if fostering minority influence might alleviate such effects. The first research question was approached through a stakeholder analysis, which revealed that the social hierarchies within the refugee service sector indeed mirror the marginalisation of former refugees in general New Zealand society. Then, stories of positive and negative incidents of collaboration in the sector were analysed through the lenses of Social Dominance Theory and Minority Influence Theory. A thematic analysis of negative incidents of collaboration gathered accounts of discrimination through disregard, as well as legitimising myths.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimal but Not Meaningless: Seemingly Arbitrary Category Labels Can Imply More Than Group Membership
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition © 2020 American Psychological Association 2021, Vol. 120, No. 3, 576–600 ISSN: 0022-3514 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000255 Minimal but Not Meaningless: Seemingly Arbitrary Category Labels Can Imply More Than Group Membership Youngki Hong and Kyle G. Ratner University of California, Santa Barbara Minimal group paradigms tend to involve contrived group distinctions, such as dot estimation tendencies and aesthetic preferences. Researchers assume that these novel category distinctions lack informational value. Our research tests this notion. Specifically, we used the classic overestimator versus underesti- mator and Klee versus Kandinsky minimal group paradigms to assess how category labels influence minimal group responses. In Study 1, we show that participants represented ingroup faces more favorably than outgroup faces, but also represented overestimator and underestimator category labels differently. In fact, the category label effect was larger than the intergroup effect, even though participants were told that estimation tendencies were unrelated to other cognitive tendencies or personality traits. In Study 2, we demonstrate that Klee and Kandinsky were also represented differently, but in this case, the intergroup effect was stronger than the category label effect. In Studies 3 and 4, we examined effects of category labels on how participants allocate resources to, evaluate, and ascribe traits to ingroup and outgroup members. We found both category label and intergroup effects when participants were assigned to overestimator and underestimator groups. However, we found only the intergroup effect when partici- pants were assigned to Klee and Kandinsky groups. Together, this work advances but does not upend understanding of minimal group effects.
    [Show full text]
  • Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology http://jcc.sagepub.com/ Cultural Variation in the Minimal Group Effect Carl F. Falk, Steven J. Heine and Kosuke Takemura Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2014 45: 265 originally published online 7 July 2013 DOI: 10.1177/0022022113492892 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/45/2/265 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology Additional services and information for Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jcc.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jcc.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://jcc.sagepub.com/content/45/2/265.refs.html >> Version of Record - Dec 30, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jul 7, 2013 What is This? Downloaded from jcc.sagepub.com at University of British Columbia Library on June 30, 2014 JCC45210.1177/0022022113492892Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyFalk et al. 492892research-article2013 Article Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2014, Vol 45(2) 265 –281 Cultural Variation in the Minimal © The Author(s) 2013 Reprints and permissions: Group Effect sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0022022113492892 jccp.sagepub.com Carl F. Falk1, Steven J. Heine2, and Kosuke Takemura3 Abstract The minimal group effect (MGE) is one of the most robust psychological findings in studies of intergroup conflict, yet there is little evidence comparing its magnitude across cultures. Recent evidence suggests that the MGE is due in part to a projection of one’s own perceived characteristics onto the novel in-group.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Belongingness and Intra- and Inter-Group Processes in Children
    Group Belongingness and Intra- and Inter-Group Processes in Children Author Ojala, Kristofer P Published 2008 Thesis Type Thesis (PhD Doctorate) School School of Psychology DOI https://doi.org/10.25904/1912/1717 Copyright Statement The author owns the copyright in this thesis, unless stated otherwise. Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/10072/366539 Griffith Research Online https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au Group Belongingness i Group Belongingness and Intra- and Inter-Group Processes in Children Kristofer P. Ojala B.Psych (Hons) School of Psychology Griffith School of Health Griffith University Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of Doctor of Philosophy in Clinical Psychology August, 2007 Group Belongingness ii ABSTRACT Why do children engage in group behaviour and, more specifically, what motivates them to express in-group bias and out-group discrimination? Central to social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and its elaboration self-categorisation theory (SCT; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987), is the view that group attitudes are critically dependent on inter-group comparison and the positive distinctiveness of the in-group. However, whereas this approach has been influential with adults, there has been mixed support in relation to children. The present research program explored the possibility that children, especially in early to mid childhood, are much more simply focused on group belonging, acceptance, and maintenance of group membership. According to this approach, children would initially be more concerned about securing a position within the group, conforming to in-group norms, and maintaining their group membership, than focusing on inter-group comparisons and positive distinctiveness. Study 1 consisted of an experimental simulation which sought to explore the impact of children’s self-presentational concerns on their motivation to be accepted by a group.
    [Show full text]
  • Dimensions of Social Dominance and Their Associations with Environmentalism☆
    Personality and Individual Differences 107 (2017) 228–236 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid Dimensions of social dominance and their associations with environmentalism☆ Samantha K. Stanley a,1, Marc S. Wilson a, Chris G. Sibley b, Taciano L. Milfont a,⁎,1 a School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand b School of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand article info abstract Article history: Individual differences in the preference for group-based hierarchy and inequality, as indexed by social domi- Received 22 September 2016 nance orientation (SDO), have been shown to predict environment-relevant variables. To date the literature ex- Received in revised form 22 November 2016 amining the SDO–environmentalism link has used the traditional unidimensional conceptualisation of SDO. This Accepted 23 November 2016 article reports three studies using the new measurement and conceptualisation of SDO that involves the SDO Available online xxxx 7 scale and the sub-dimensions of intergroup dominance (SDO-D) and intergroup anti-egalitarianism (SDO-E). SDO-D entails support for group-based dominance achieved via overt oppression and aggressive intergroup be- Keywords: SDO haviour, and SDO-E entails support for group-based inequality subtly achieved via unequal distribution of re- Social dominance orientation sources. Our results show anti-egalitarianism to be the main SDO sub-dimension related to environmentalism. Environmentalism While SDO-D is either a weaker or non-significant predictor, individuals with high levels of SDO-E were less will- SDO-dominance ing to make personal sacrifices for the environment, value environmental protection and endorse climate change SDO-egalitarianism beliefs.
    [Show full text]