Examination of Prejudice - Term Paper Example

?Prejudice Prejudice and discernment might upset people’s prospects, their societal means, self-respect and inspiration, and their rendezvous with the social order. Furthermore, understandings of fairness and unfairness are the cause of added discernment. Therefore, creating, encouraging and supporting egalitarianism and human rights rest on accepting how individuals create wisdom and put on these ideas in their daily lives. Organizational disparities encompass society, and draw against changes in societal class, civilization and socioeconomic groups. Moderately lawmaking and the straight facility of amenities and assets can balance such disparities; however they might not covenant with deep-rooted social outlooks that give rise to discernment. Moreover, organizational involvements often pretend to particular groups or classes, nevertheless, possibly overlook other axes of disparity. Certainly, fresh social classifications continuously ascend. If prejudice and discernment are to be handled, it is indispensable to arrange for an extensive examination of the methods that they ascend as general social procedures. Understanding Prejudice In general, prejudice requires to be observed as a practice within a set of relations, instead of a condition or characteristic of certain people (Abrams and Christian, 2007). To be precise, one requires comprehending the diverse forms prejudice might take, once it might be articulated, and the aspects that endorse or hinder its expression. Prejudice may be focused to an extensive array of groups and can be expressed in varied conducts. Consequently, it is essential to consider mostly about the categories of ‘standards’ which is beneficial for evaluating change. Further, it also required to analysis the idea of prejudice into separate components and to know where these join together to create prejudiced consequences and discrimination. In the same way it is vital to attain these objectives within a unifying conceptual context. There have been several efforts to describe prejudice within the study of psychology. Crandall and Eshelman (2003) remarked that prejudice cannot continuously be labeled as illogical or baseless and hence it is better to describe it as a negative evaluation of a social cluster or an individual that is considerably centered on the individual’s group membership. This remark leaves somewhat adrift in terms of strategy since it disregards prejudice that does not comprise adverse appraisals. Hence prejudice may be defined as ‘bias that degrades people as their perceived affiliation of a social group’. This explanation permits prejudice to arise from biases in diverse practices. All biases are not destructive or on the whole far-reaching. In fact some are equally positive. Prejudice ascends where such biases are possibly damaging and far-reaching as they lessen the importance emotionally involved to an individual by their group affiliations. This situation can arise as soon as typecasts, approaches and sentiments towards the group are focused at an individual of the group. Therefore it is vital to differentiate consciousness of group variances from bias and prejudice. Certain groups are noticeably unequal: they are poorer, less educated, had rarer chances, and has inferior professional status, inferior health or involve in more offense. Some groups have more power than others in society. It is not discriminatory to be conscious of, and anxious about, these vicissitudes. Conversely, people’s understanding is frequently imperfect or incorrect, and they may perhaps as well incorrectly take a broad view of their knowledge, causing in bias and prejudice. For instance, it is right that all mothers are women, however, wrong to accept that all women are mothers. It is fact that old people are usually less bodily movable than younger persons nonetheless wrong that all persons with reduced movement are elderly. Policies planned to help definite groups of people who are presumed to be reliant on or poor comprise norms that can cause difficulties to other categories of persons that are presumed to be autonomous. These suppositions are prejudices and for specific persons might be destructive as direct enmity. Therefore from a policy viewpoint, a significant task is to find which prejudices are far-reaching and which are damaging, and to target them. The Psychology of Prejudice Diverse components of prejudice have been recognized in social psychological studies. It is to consider the important components of prejudice that could be useful to a cross-strand approach. The method taken is to emphasis on the processes that cause and lessen prejudice instead of to view prejudice as a static marvel. This methodology assumes that all prejudice ascends in an intergroup background, a correlation between people that is outlined by their affiliation of diverse social groups inside a social setup. Individuals carry things into this setting, for instance their values, opinions about fairness, their character and their past understandings. These will affect in what way they understand and reply to the intergroup environment. Consequently prejudices, can take several forms, and the same individual might view prejudice in one way nonetheless not another, or towards one group however not another. One must comprehend in what way prejudice is exposed and to be proficient to measure these exposures. Similarly prejudice is a part of publics’ experience, and hence they involve with prejudice in a different ways, comprising being a target of prejudice, run into people who challenge their prejudices, and trying to escape being prejudiced. In this framework for describing the various aspects of prejudice it is important to think in terms of four features: intergroup context, the psychological bases of prejudice, manifestations of prejudice, and engagement with prejudice. Intergroup relations The study of prejudice must originate with an analysis of the social background within which it arises. Intergroup relations, and prejudice in specific, must to be assumed using various levels of scrutiny (Abrams and Christian, 2007; Abrams and Hogg, 2004). It is imperative to know that prejudice is arbitrated psychologically, in the sense, through publics’ ‘interpretation’ of social setting. Hence it is possible to include the concerns of historical, racial and societal occurrences by seeing in what way individuals make sense of the intergroup dealings that affect them. In other words, the social uniqueness attitude to intergroup relations (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) grips that individuals are sensitive to variances in prestige among groups and that they will look for a optimistic in-group distinctiveness by attaining a respected level for their in-groups. Their reactions to status disparity will rest on on whether they see status changes as genuine and steady, and whether they can openly contest or might be obliged to make fresh methods to emphasize positive changes, in addition to whether it is practicable to move among social groups and classes effortlessly (Ellemers, Spears and Doojse, 2002). Aversion amid groups is frequently related with their conviction that they have a conflict of welfares. Sherif (1966) indicated that any two groups could be shaped and revolved into aggressive opponents merely by making them negatively codependent. In the sense, if one group’s achievement is the other’s loss, one can be certain that resentment, negative typecasts and prejudice will be the result. Sherif as well revealed that intergroup relations could be enhanced by targeting groups to be positively interdependent, in the sense that neither group could flourish without the other’s support or involvement. This study evidently indicates the need to assess whether groups are supposed to have straight conflicts of interests. Even though there are no direct conflicts of interest, simply allocating persons into separate groups can be sufficient enough to create prejudices and discrimination among groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). And also with several groups in society there are chances of short-term or long-standing conflicts over properties, rights or other matters. It is necessary to know how to manage once these are leading to unsafe prejudices and how to encourage virtuous relations despite the fact that such conflicts need long-term resolves. Threats can take diverse forms, and these can have discrete inferences for the levels and forms of prejudice. Stephan, Ybarra and Bachman (1999) established an ‘integrated threat’ principle of prejudice, concentrating mainly on interethnic prejudice. These threats are called as realistic threat concerning - safety, security, health- symbolic threat concerning to culture, and financial threat. Reliant on the combination of threats persons might feel uncertain, and perform paradoxically in the direction of specific groups. The central idea is that without measuring views of threat it is more problematic to anticipate in what way prejudice will be established and what forms discernment might take. The power threat theory take up that racial hatred surges as the ratio of the minority in the populace upsurges (Oliver and Mendelberg, 2000; McLaren, 2003). But, fresh study proposes that the strength of that hatred is more likely to be a function of the instant proportion of minority associates in the status quo. Precisely, the level of savagery of lynch mobs augmented as their numbers increased comparative to the number of victims. The level of savagery was not linked to the ratio of minority affiliates in the community more in general. This creates logic given that greater sizes may well surge interethnic communication, which can possibly decrease interethnic strain. Instead, if there is tension, ill-treatment of minorities is more possible if they are in a defenseless situation (Leader, Mullen and Abrams, 2007). Furthermore, cross-sectional and longitudinal proof from the Group-Focused Enmity in Europe (GFE) survey in Germany proposes that higher sizes of Turkish settlers deliver better chances for optimistic interaction with Turks. This results in more recurrent interaction and a greater likelihood of having Turkish friends. Consecutively, Germans who had more interaction and had Turkish friends exhibited a reduced amount of prejudice (Wagner, van Dick, Pettigrew, and Christ, 2003). Study has revealed that there are considerable effects of recognizing oneself or one’s group to be in a numerical minority (Mullen, Johnson and Anthony, 1994). Less significant groups draw more awareness, and affiliates of such groups adjust their own conduct more carefully for good or bad, reliant on their aims. Accordingly, conditions where specific groups are expected to be small and concentrated whereas as well noticeable to bigger neighboring groups for instance, within a specific area or district or school might be those wherein they are particularly susceptible. Power can have alike psychological effects to group proportions (Keltner and Robinson, 1996). To be precise, an individual who comes from a influential group or holds a authoritative role might personally feel powerful and act in a commanding way even though he is not in a numerical mainstream. Even though the law demand that groups be treated alike, individuals might still practice information and hints about the comparative social prestige or standing of diverse groups to see affiliates as if they were inferior. This means that measuring the apparent power or social standing of diverse groups might be extremely revealing in understanding why affiliates of certain groups are not treated as equals. Latest work by Weick (2008) as well proposes that people in commanding situations see their world in more simplistic standings, relating stereotypes not only to others nonetheless to themselves. On the other hand, alternative way to look at the evidence is that incapable persons have a tendency to to be observant to facts and to evidence while making judgments about others, however powerful persons have superior psychological choice to make less methodical instant judgments. Authoritative persons can thus display superior flexibility in the way they judge others and defy might be to avert them from creating wrong or unsuitable generalities. Although power might ‘corrupt’, it inclines do so simply amid those who are previously inspired to be immoral. Members of influential groups have a tendency to be more prejudiced contrary to affiliates of other groups (Richeson and Ambady, 2001; Sachdev and Bourhis, 1991) on the other hand in certain circumstances they might be more liberal for the common good (Galinsky, Gruenfeld and Magee, 2003). A significant meaning from this study is that being placed in a commanding role might normally surge an individual’s tendency to act in a prejudiced way. Sources of prejudice Prejudice can have a range of sources. Mainly the principles people apply to intergroup dealings, the method they practice and apply groupings to describe those dealings, and the significance of these groups for publics’ sense of individuality. Values reveal what is significant to persons in their lives, for instance, fairness, social righteousness, social influence, attainment, admiration for custom and pleasure. Values direct attitudes (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001) and conduct. Values are related to attitudes and to a wide range of performances; for example, consumer buying, teamwork and competition, intergroup social interaction, professional choice, religiosity and casting vote (Schwartz and Bardi, 2001). Schwartz has established and confirmed a theory of rudimentary values and technologically advanced a extensively used measurement tool. The significance of measuring values is mirrored by addition of the values tool as an essential fragment of the European Social Survey. Prejudice, measured in terms of contempt, disregard or maybe animosity, is frequently powered by an observation that an out-group holds values that are disgraceful or even sickening such as acts of massacre and global financial sanctions mirror challenges at the level of shared values, not acts of particular vengeance for specific cases of misconduct. Measuring and relating the importance given to certain values by diverse groups can offer vital understanding into why they might be the objects or sources of aggression and prejudice. Hence it can help to ascertain where mediations can practically be directed. Fairness and conflicting values Katz and Haas (1988) suggested that equality and the Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) (two intensely held principles amid white North Americans) were particularly pertinent to contemporary forms of prejudice, in specific what they branded ‘ambivalent racism’. While greater egalitarianism was linked with more pro-black attitudes, a sturdier PWE was linked to more anti-black attitudes. More commonly, to the level that a group seems not to endorse a vital value, there is the potential that it will be seen as a valid object for prejudice. Contemporary concepts about egalitarianism advocate that it might serve as a ‘prejudice antidote’ by inspiring optimistic reactions to minority or deprived groups (Dasgupta and Rivera, 2006). Despotism simply appears to link to prejudice amongst persons who do not have democratic principles (Oyamot, Borgida and Fisher, 2006). Other ideals might aggressively surge prejudice towards specific groups reliant on whether those groups meet the implicit goals of such values. On the whole, it is comprehensible that one cause for feelings of antagonism towards a diverse group is that it is perceived as highlighting diverse ethics to self. Social categorization and stereotyping Forty years of empirical study and enormous past substantiation establishes that a resilient analyst of prejudice is whether, when comparing themselves with others, persons see themselves as fitting to a social category instead of merely as individuals. Social categorization, which is a extremely involuntary, flexible and normal course, instantly makes the budding for generalization about affiliates of groups. Most of the time the groupings applied to publics is convenient, functional and certainly important for directing the lives. For instance, a uniform is an important symbol permitting to distinguish who is a member of the emergency services. Yet, such suitable divisions can willingly develop not simply ‘descriptive’ then again prescriptive, and thus can deliver a socially unquestioned tool for discernment. As soon as social classifications are in place they turn out to be infused with sense that signifies prestige, power and even changes in privileges. The fact is solely that even devoid of spiteful intent; social classification itself can be a cause for discernment. Classification can be used as a base for much malevolent also. The clear instances are apartheid and ethnically separated education in the US. There are as well less histrionic examples, for instance, gender-segregated sports and selective education -grammar schools- in the UK. Stereotyping is normal method of using social groups as well carries with it an additional influential practice in the form of stereotyping. There is lot of study into the method typecasts are molded, sustained and can be reformed, however the simple fact is that all trust on stereotypes to create subjectively ‘informed’ decisions about self and others (Schneider, 2004). For example, suppose there are three men and three women and the job is to move a table, the likelihoods are that the men will do the lifting and the women to open the door. The reason is that stereotypically, and rationally, men are bodily sturdier than women, else being equal. In other words, generalizing typecasts allow persons to create suppositions concerning others and are improbable to be confronted. Social identity has a lively role in defining and shielding the social group associations. To a certain level all see themselves as fitting to an in-group, attain importance and meaning for the sense of uniqueness through associations between one group and other groups. The more one positively recognize with the group the more he will be inspired to create links that bring promising results. A group that is not at the top of the hierarchy might more energetically relate itself with other groups that are more down instead of groups exceeding them. This can meet popular requirements for self-esteem, in addition to more routine things for instance claims to capitals and influence, and existentially important things for example, a sense of purpose and meaning (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) Similar to self-categorization, social identification can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, a sense of superiority and individuality can inspire pro-social performance, it can outline group collaboration, and it can offer the vehicle for persuading large numbers of people. On the other hand, sturdy social credentials with a category, with the ensuing implanting of one’s uniqueness mainly within that group, can arrange for the base of prolonged intergroup clashes for instance, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and eventually massacre. Lacking to understand the role of social classification and social credentials any effort to manage the query of in what way to encourage fairness and human rights is expected to run into problems. Social classification and prejudice reduction Latest significant effort by Crisp (Crisp and Hewstone, 2007) emphasizes that it is probable to use ‘multiple category’ explanations to neutralize or at best to change the course of publics’ prejudices. By creating more than one axis of categorization pertinent in a setting it is at times likely to counterbalance the propensity to put on stereotypes. In principle one could counterbalance prejudice founded on traditions in a multinational background by separating actions according to gender, which ought to make traditional stereotypes immaterial. Rendezvous with prejudice The broad literature on intergroup contact validates that early hypothesizing by Allport (1954) has largely been supported. Contact amid members of diverse groups nurtures optimistic intergroup attitudes if the interaction as well comprises resemblance, common objectives, institutional backing and equal status. Yet, study has also emphasized a number of important cautions. First, it is noted that these ideal conditions for interaction hardly exist. Next, it is significant to differentiate between the occurrence of interaction and the quality of that contact. Recurrent unfriendly communication is scarcely possible to encourage harmony. In United States, waning in the explicit look of ethnic prejudice over many decades have given way to near widespread confirmation of the values of ethnic fairness as an essential cultural importance. Over forty years after the Civil Rights Act was signed into US law permitting Blacks and Whites equal access to public settings and institutions, racial and ethnic separations remain to pervade American social order. At the center of these separations is an important enigma of the American uniqueness. It is a civilization in unison originated on the values of fairness and parity and built upon prejudiced backgrounds and blemished by a bequest of bondage. Even though this enigma might in part mirror a sole social and political history, the psychosomatic forces that shape this conflict are ubiquitous and lasting. Around and within the United States, unparalleled transnational migration builds fresh defies psychologically besides socially and thriftily for the civilizations. The latest impressions of racial clash in Europe and East Asia confirm, the insight of variances in principles, views, and customs amid migrants and people can start fight and fierceness. Nevertheless, in nations that have historical cultures or modern standards of social equality that not only deject the expression, but as well the individual acknowledgement of favoritism, prejudice might not be articulated deliberately, however, often in more indirect ways (Pearson, Dovidio and Gaertner, 2009). Conclusion This paper explored the various features of prejudice. Longitudinal proof displays that intergroup interaction does decrease prejudice, with positive effects of assortment on prejudice amid mainstream group affiliates. The evidence for smaller group affiliates is less clear. The question of how good relations might fit with prejudice decrease was considered. Even though there are certain features of good relations that must positively affect prejudice, study proof is not yet available to be sure about the shared effects of these two marvels. In brief, even though there are hopeful scenarios for intercessions to decrease prejudice, there is a lack of methodical educations to test the efficiency of such intercessions and more exploration is essential. There is solid revealing proof that an extensive range of possible techniques for intercession can be effective under some settings. References Abrams, D. and Christian, J.N. (2007) A relational analysis of social exclusion. In D. Abrams, J.N. Allport, G.W. (1954) The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley Abrams, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2004) Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8: 98-106. Christian and D. Gordon (Eds.), Multidisciplinary handbook of social exclusion research (pp. 211-232). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Crandall, C.S. and Eshelman, A. (2003) A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129: 414-446. Crisp, R.J. and Hewstone, M. (2007) Multiple social categorization. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 39, pp. 163-254). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Dasgupta, N. and Rivera, L.M. (2006) From Automatic Antigay Prejudice to Behavior: The Moderating Role of Conscious Beliefs About Gender and Behavioural Control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 268-280. Ellemers, N., Spears and RandDoosje, B. (2002) Self and social identity, Annual Review of Psychology 53: 161-186. Galinsky, A.D., Gruenfeld, D.H. and Magee, J.C. (2003) Power and action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 453-466. Katz, I. and Haas, G.R. (1988) Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55: 893-905 Keltner, D. and Robinson, R.J. (1996) Extremism, power, and the imagined basis of social conflict. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 5: 101-105. Leader, T., Mullen, B. and Abrams, D. (2007) Without mercy: the immediate impact of group size on lynch mob atrocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33: 1340-1352. McLaren, L. (2003) Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe@: Contact, threat perception and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81: 909-936. Mullen, B., Johnson, C. and Anthony (1994) Relative group size and cognitive representations of ingroup and outgroup, Small Group Research, 25: 250-266 Oliver, J.E. and Mendelberg, T. (2000) Reconsidering the environmental determinants of white racial attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 44: 574-589. Oyamot, C.M. Jr., Borgida, E. and Fisher, E. (2006) Can values moderate the attitudes of right-wing authoritarians? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32: 486-500. Pearson A.R, Dovidio J.F., and GaertnerS.L. (2009). The Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: Insights from Aversive Racism. Journal Compilation Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Available at: http://www.yale.edu/intergroup/PearsonDovidioGaertner.pdf Accessed on October 18, 2013 Richeson, J.A. and Ambady, N. (2001) Effects of situational power on automatic racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39: 177-183. Tafjel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.) The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Sachdev, I. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1991) Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21: 1-24. Schneider, D. (2004) The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press Schwartz, S.H. and Bardi, A. (2001) Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32: 268-290. Sherif, M. (1966) Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychology. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Stephan, W.G., Ybarra, O. and Bachman, G. (1999) Prejudice toward immigrants: An integrated threat theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29: 222-237. Wagner, U., van Dick, R., Pettigrew, T.F. and Christ, O. (2003) Ethnic prejudice in east and west Germany: The explanatory power of intergroup contact. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6: 23-37. Weick, M. (2008) When feelings matter: Power increases reliance on subjective experiences. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. . Read More