Understanding Prejudice: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Intergroup
Relations Notes
Introduction
Central theories explaining intergroup relations:
- Social identity theory
- Realistic group conflict theory
- Contact theory
- Social dominance orientation
- Right-wing authoritarianism
- Integrated threat theory
- Socialization theory
Week 1 – Social Identity Theory
Group formation
Categorization process is a central component of social identity theory
- Evolutionary perspective: necessary to distinguish friend and enemy
- Cognitive perspective: necessary to process large amount of information
Categorization
- People search actively for information
- People simplify processing all that information by ignoring certain differences and
emphasizing or even exaggerating certain similarities of that information
Non-social vs. social stimuli
- Categorization on nonsocial stimuli: similarities within groups and differences
between groups are over-emphasized
Conclusion minimal-group experiments
- Group formation leads to discriminatory behavior (ingroup favoritism)
- Even if groups are formed on basis of a trivial category
- Tajfel: “Social categorization per se is a sufficient condition for the development of
intergroup bias” (discrimination in favor of the own group)
Social Identity Theory
Four central concepts:
1). Social categorization
- Process of bringing together social objects or events in groups which are equivalent
with regard to an individual’s actions, intentions and systems of beliefs
- Similar to categorization of non-social stimuli: use of any characteristic available,
perceive more similarity within and more difference between categories
- Not just the basis of how we perceive the world, but also who we perceive ourselves
2). Social Identity
Based the realization that one belongs to a social category and the positive or negative
evaluation associated with this membership:
, - Are divisive and exclusive
- Are context dependent
- Have a cultural component: this turn a category into an identity
- Include a judgement of the nature of people in a certain category
This is more than a minimal group. Social identities may thus have even more
powerful consequences in intergroup interaction
3). Social comparison
- Through social comparison with other groups, people try to evaluate their group’s
relative status
- People strive for a positive social identity people are motivated to belong to a
positively evaluated group
- They value their own group more than other groups (social identification vs. contra-
identification (=negative attributes towards the outgroup))
4). Psychological group distinctiveness
- Need for belonging to a positively evaluated groups but also need to be distinct from
others
- People thus try to achieve a position of their group that is distinct and positive
Understanding behavior in SIT
Overarching goal is to strive to belong to groups that have positive and distinct identities.
Adequate = positive, higher in social hierarchy
Inadequate = more negative, lower in social hierarchy
Week 2 Video Lecture – Realistic Group Conflict Theory
,Classical explanations of prejudice
Early explanations of prejudice focused on personality characteristics
- Allport: the prejudiced personality is ego-alienated, longs for definitiveness, for
safety, and authority – don’t like ambiguity, like things how they used to be.
- Authoritarian personality – people who to have someone to tell them what to do,
somebody who they trust and stands higher in the hierarchy
But “prejudice is fundamentally a matter of relationships between racial groups” (Blumer
1958).
Foundation of RCT: Robbers Cave Experiment.
Fundamental: concerned about how conflict is developed.
Research question:
- How do group conflicts develop?
- How can we solve group conflicts?
Phase 1: Group formation, groups did activities together. Hierarchies were established and
groups were named, friendships developed etc.
Phase 2: Group competition. Groups competed against each other and winning group would
win prizes. Dynamics within groups changed: “we belong together, we have to work
together to win cohesiveness emerged. Fights that consisted in the group beforehand
disappeared under the goal of having to beat the other group.
In this phase, the prizes to be won could be seen as the scarce sources Actually fights
between groups emerged.
Formed basis of the following theory:
Proved the old approaches wrong:
- Randomization, same background: not a personality explanation
- Negative attitudes & behavior toward an out-group not by dysfunctional individuals
- No history of group conflict necessary
- No need for a strong leader (authority) who wants to dominate others
What is needed for prejudice and conflict to emerge?
Social categorization:
, - On basis of shared characteristics
- In-group favoritism (“we” against “them”)
Competition over resources
- Out-group derogation (out-group homogeneity)
Phase 3: Integration. Get-to-know activities of both groups – no scarce resources, no
competition, etc.
How can we solve the problem that we created? created problems that affected. Both
groups that both groups couldn’t ignore and both groups had to deal with together. So
shared activities on urgent problems.
Activities worked conflicts between ceased to exist.
Sherif on conflict reduction
Conflict theory predicts when groups conflicts will occur:
- Group competition over scarce resources
Conflict theory also suggests how conflict can be solved:
- Work on common (important) foal
- Goal can only be reached through cooperation
Realistic conflict theory
- Groups compete for scarce resources in evert society
- Conflict develops if one group wants something that another group already has (zero-
sum fate)
- Conflict depends on whether the goals of the groups are in conflict or shared
- Group competition leads to stronger in-group solidarity and out0grouop hostility
Realistic group conflict theory
Realistic conflicts:
- A particular object (scarce resource) want to be achieved
- Aggression is director at the competitor for that object
- There are functional alternatives to the means
Non-realistic conflicts:
- Aggression is the means that people want to achieve
- Aggression is not directed at anyone in particular
- There are multifunctional alternatives to the object
Real-life: often a mix of both (scapegoat theory.
For example:
1. = a realistic conflict. People have a clear
goal, they’re afraid of immigrants to take
away their jobs and thus vote for right-
wing parties.
2. = a non-realistic conflict. Vandalizing a
car doesn’t achieve anything.
Axiom of RGCT
- There are reasons for competition in every society over scare resources
, - This includes material resources (money, jobs), privileges (power, status), and
cultural resources (values, norms)
Real vs. perceived competition
- Is actual (objective) competition necessary for perceived competition and threat?
- Thomas Theorem: “if men define situations as real, they are real in their
consequences”
- Coser: “If men define a threat as real, although there may be little or nothing in
reality to justify this belief, the threat is real in its consequences”
For example:
Immigration: what’s more important? How many immigrants actually live in the
neighborhood for their prejudice or how many are perceived to be living in the
neighborhood? It is actually the perception. It doesn’t matter how many immigrants live in
the neighborhood if it’s perceived to be a lot, then people tend to be more prejudiced.
Blalock: Real competition (objective) vs. perceived competition (subjective).
Group threat
Blumer: Identifies four basic feelings underlying prejudice
- Feeling of superiority
- Subordinate group is different and alien
- Propriety claim to privileged and advantages
- Fear and suspicion that subordinate groups threaten the position of the superior
group
Social comparison is important here. The sense of group position is crucial!
If you feel your group is being attacked then people become prejudiced.
RGCT: group position interpretation
- RGCT is concerned with comparison of own group’s position with the position of the
out-group
- RGCT is not concerned with the comparison of individuals with other individuals
challenges at the macro (societal) or meso (group) level affect perceived competition
RGCT: Individualistic
interpretation
, - Why do so e groups members develop more prejudice than others?
- People might actually not care about the position of the group as a whole but only
about their individual position
- The group is only a means to pursue individual interests: - To wat extent do you feel
threatened yourself? – The out-group is a threat to one’s own position
Deriving hypothesis (ALWAYS PART OF THE EXAM)
From a theoretical model to various testable hypotheses
Prejudice and conflict are the result of actual and perceived competition and threat.
Hypothesis on the macro/meso (group) level:
- Competition and threat depend on context conditions
- Leads to hypothesis about neighborhoods, regions, countries, etc.
Hypothesis on the individual (micro) level:
- Competition and threat depend on an individual’s condition
- Leads to hypothesis about social categories
How to deduce hypotheses?
General approach: We use previously developed theories to derive prediction for why-
questions
Deductive-nomological model (3 steps):
1. Start with the Law/General proposition: this is basically what comes out of the
theories that are/will be discussed in the lectures.
It is typically a theory based on a regularity that was found repeatedly. These laws
typically say that one thing leads to something else, so: t y
For example: in the case of prejudice in conflict theory: t = perceived competition
leads to y = prejudice
2. Next you want to apply the theory to a specific problem, a specific condition: x is
part of t, that is the situation you want to explain.
Example: the perceived increased immigration (x) is causing increase in perceived
competition (t)
This allows you to put the specific condition under law to come up with a hypothesis.
The Law & Condition together = Explanas.
, 3. And then comes the Explanandum, which is the hypothesis you derive based on the
condition and the law. So, since (x) is part of (t) and (t) leads to (y) we can say (x)
leads to (y): x y.
Example: perceived increased immigration (x) leads to prejudice (y). Because
perceived increased immigration causes increase in perceived competition and thus
leads to increased prejudice.
This is called Syllogism = drawing a conclusion based on an explanas (law and
condition) and an explanandum.
This is called the deductive-nomological syllabus. And if you start from a general theory and
arrive to the hypothesis it is called deduction and if would do it the other way around (start
at specific hypothesis and conclude a theory based on this) is called induction.
,Week 2 Live Lecture – Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Social Identity Theory
Example of negative reactions of Coca-Cola Super Bowl Add 2014 (patriotic song sung in
different languages & many reactions to the add were very negative) these reactions
reflect the threat to the dominant position that the dominant group feels, and the reaction
could be a way to maintain the dominance.
Exam Question
Yukina is a Japanese woman living in the USA. She is unhappy about her social identity
because Americans tend to hold the stereotype that Japanese women obey their husbands
too much and do not stand up for themselves. In order to feel better, she confronts
Americans when she tells them: “What you see as obedience we see as loyalty. We, the
Japanese women, are actually very loyal people.” What identity enhancing strategy is Yukina
engaging in according to Social Identity Theory?
A. Comparison to another group
B. Individual mobility
C. Change meaning of group traits
D. Comparison on another dimension
Answer = C
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Real vs. perceived competition
Perceptions of competition can be manipulated, for example by the extreme right-wing
narrative of Islamization of the West. Resulted in a representative sample of the Dutch that
thought 19% of the Dutch population are Muslim, whereas in fact it is 6% (in 2016).
Realistic doesn’t necessarily mean ‘real’ but more what is perceived to be.
But defined to what is or could be a realistic conflict:
Real Competition Perceived Competition Perceived Threat Prejudice and Conflict
Realistic vs. non-realistic conflict example
1. Realistic clear aspect what wants to be achieved, namely dominance, achieved
through protests, flyering etc.
2. Non-realistic object is getting frustration out of system, but fighting police doesn’t
achieve that goal. However, could also be realistic, its objectively a good means to
achieve the object.
,Realistic vs. non-realistic explained:
= Are there other
means by which
goals can be
achieved
Exam Question
RGCT predicts that people who are in similar social positions as minority groups (e.g., low
educated, poor) perceive more competition and threat from minority groups. As a
consequence, these people develop more prejudice. Interestingly, Wetts & Willer (2018) find
that most people, and not just those in similar social positions as minority groups, show
more prejudice when they are told that the white majority is rapidly declining. How does this
finding fit with RGCT?
A. The manipulation threatens everybody’s individual position
B. The threat was to the group position
C. The threat was real and not perceived
D. The manipulation highlighted social competition
Answer = B
Why not A? Manipulation is not about an individual it’s about a group.
Why not D? It is social identity argument. Yes, it’s competition, but it’s about group position
that is going on.
Realistic group conflict theory is focused on group dynamics. It’s not about individuals but
about you as a member of a group and how the group is in threat and how you respond with
prejudice. Later on, it’s added that not everyone reacts the same because some are more
prejudiced than others.
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Individualistic Interpretation
Law:
The higher the level of competition, the more people
perceive competition, the more people perceive threat to
their individual position, and the more negative people’s
attitudes toward the outgroup are.
Condition:
People living in suburbia have more negative attitudes
towards groups in need of housing.
, Comparison Social Identity Theory and Realistic Group Conflict Theory
Minimal group
Are SIT and RGCT contradicting each other? experiments create
Tajfel (1970s & later): minimal group experiments: in/outgroup dynamics
- Social categorization is sufficient condition for discrimination by assigning individuals
Sherif’s (1954): Robber’s cave experiment: to groups followed by
- Competition over scares resources is a necessary condition for doing tasks to measure
discrimination things such as bias.
RGCT can be seen as more optimistic than SIT: Yes, there is categorization, Robbers Cave
but discrimination only occurs when there’s a scarce resource. experiment could be
thought of as a maximal
Problem with SIT group experiments since
- Consistent evidence only for positive discrimination but not negative the setting mimicked
discrimination. real life (i.e., summer
- "positive-negative asymmetrie" camp setting)
Are SIT & RGCT complementary?
Research found that:
- Perception of competition and threat reinforces the processes of social identification
and contra-identification
- The stronger the threat, the greater the loss of ‘positive group distinctiveness’ (social
comparison)
*Remember social identification is positive distinctions to the ingroup and negative to the
outgroup.
The perception of threat threatens our perception of distinctiveness.
Ethnic competition theory.
This could look like:
