Are Older People More Statistically Prejudice Than Younger People - Research Paper Example

Age Differences in Prejudice towards Persons of African Origin and Prejudice towards Homosexual Persons in Heterosexual Persons of Caucasian Decent.   Abstract This study was designed to explore the age differences in the extent to which people experience prejudice. Two often cited areas in the debate about prejudice were explored – Prejudice against persons of homosexual orientations and prejudice against persons of African origin in persons of Caucasian decent and heterosexual orientation. On the basis of the reviewed literature, it was believed that older persons would experience and exhibit more explicit and subtle prejudice as compared to younger persons. Thus, it is expected that older participants in the study will score higher on the instruments used as compared to the younger persons. The implications of the findings are discussed with reference to previous research as well as different theoretical frameworks. Keywords: Prejudice, Age, Sexual Orientation, Race. Review of Literature Prejudice is a negative stereotype held against a person simply as a result of the individual’s group membership (Baron & Byrne, 2000). The Merriam – Webster online dictionary (2011) has defined prejudice as an “injury or damage resulting from some judgment or action of another in disregard of ones rights”. According to this definition, damage as well as disregard occurs as a result of judgment that is passed by a person practicing prejudice. These (usually) unjust judgments stem from stereotypes held by the person experiencing prejudice (Sanderson, 2010) and the disregard and damage are a result of the discrimination that results from these stereotypes (Baron, Byrne & Branscombe, 2000). Stereotypes or cognitive shortcuts are used by people use in order categorize individuals into groups on the basis of a few characteristics rather than on the basis of their unique personalities (Baron, Byrne & Branscombe, 2000). Stereotypes are not always negative; but if an individual holds a negative stereotype and uses it without attempting to evaluate its validity; the resultant behavior may be prejudiced (Baron, Byrne & Branscombe, 2000). Moghaddam (in Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2005) had defined prejudice as ‘an attitude based solely on group membership’. Baron and Byrne (2000) have described social categorization, which can also help to explain prejudice. According to them, people tend to categorize information about other persons based on similarities shared with them. Those who are similar are categorized as belonging to the ‘in-group’, members of which are favored (Tajfel, 1969); while dissimilar others become part of an ‘out group’ (Baron, Byrne & Branscombe, 2000). Favoring an in-group member increases feelings of wellbeing and reinforces group membership (Tajfel, 1969). Thus, strengths of similar others are emphasized (Brown & Gaertner, 2002), while those of dissimilar others are downplayed; while the weaknesses of similar others are associated with external factors while those of dissimilar others are emphasized (Myers, 2006). This has been described as the Fundamental Attribution Error. Evolutionary Psychology provides another explanation for such behavior. Rushton, Russell, and Wells (1984) proposed The theory of Genetic Similarity which stated that people favor those they think are genetically similar and are more likely to hold favorable attitudes towards these individuals as this behavior enables higher rates of survival of clan members – and as a result – of the genetic material. This increases what is called the ‘Inclusive fitness’ of the race (Brown &Gaertner, 2002); and this perspective has been used to explain behaviors like Kin recognition, Mate choice, Intra-familial preferences, Friendship formation, and Ethnic Nepotism. People are not born with prejudices; but even very young children may exhibit prejudiced behavior (Myers, 2006) by mirroring the behaviour of adults. There is evidence that we attempt to reinforce our views with material that is consistent with them; and pay more attention to congruent material as compared to incongruent material (Myers, 2006). Thus, an individual is likely to have experiences that reaffirm existing prejudices and each of these experiences serves to affirm the said prejudice. Thus, older people may have more rigid attitudes as compared to younger persons. Prejudice also reduces the ability to perceive the good in others and appreciate their efforts (Baron & Byrne, 2000). As a consequence, it limits the interaction and learning that is possible as well as increasing the likelihood that the receiver of prejudice will not be treated fairly. Prejudice can also make people suspicious and fearful of the out-group; and thus it increases the chances for conflict which in turn feeds the prejudice. Inter-racial conflict and prejudice has been most observed when there is a lack of resources; or when one group has felt threatened by another, providing evidence for another cause of prejudice – competition (Davis, 2006). Reducing Prejudice Many techniques to reduce prejudice have been discussed in research, and some have found significant empirical validation. One technique is increased inter-group contact (Sanderson, 2010). The presence of important common goals has also been seen to reduce conflict and prejudice. Inter-dependent learning goals have helped reduce incidence of prejudice in children and increase inter-group communication. Re-categoriseation is another technique discussed in Schneider, Gruman & Coutts (2005) that challenges the way in-groups are formed and encourages the re-drawing of group lines on the basis of variables that are more intimate (Baron & Byrne, 2000). An important caveat to re-categorising is that it is important to help individuals to avoid a new basis for prejudice. Providing people with positive stereotypes about out groups helps in reducing the negative opinions they hold and thus, in reducing prejudice, as found by Jones and Foley (in Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2005) in young children. Prejudice and Age From the literature presented, it is evident that prejudice stems from perceived differences; the inability to understand these differences (Tajfel, 1969), direct or indirect conflict or competition over limited resources, lack of communication with members of the out-group (Noel & Pinkney, 1964) and other such factors. Since people seek out experiences that reaffirm their beliefs, attitudes and prejudices become stronger with time and these people will have more anecdotal material that validates their perceptions as compared to material that does not. Gonsalkorale, Sherman& Klauer (2009) believe that rigid opinions and low tolerance are not the only factors that lead to increased evidence of prejudice in the older persons. They find that older persons have reduced capacity to inhibit associations that they have formed; and thus more likey to experience prejudice. Prejudice and Race Many group memberships (like education of religion) are often invisible to strangers but characteristics like gender and race are prominently visible and prejudice associated with these characteristics is easily triggered. If an individual holds a negative stereotype against a particular race; he / she is likely to feel prejudiced against individuals from that racial background. This prejudice would be experienced even before there is any communication; and it is likely that due to the pre-existing prejudice, this individual short-changes the other simply due to their racial background (Sears, Peplau, Freedman & Taylor, 1988). Race has been used as a means of categorizing people; and different cultures have often been viewed as barbaric / backward when their characteristics have been different (Davis, 2006). Racial inequity has been used to justify inequity and slavery through human history by claiming that individuals of another race are intellectually / socially backward (Davis, 2006).on the other hand, stringent and objective approaches to racial differences provide evidence for only difference in cultural motifs and not for inherent ability (Blackwell, Smith, &Sorenson, 2003). Although racial discrimination is illegal in America, there is still evidence of implicit prejudice as discussed by Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park (1997). This type of prejudice is often not reported as these individuals may not even be aware of their attitudes, and may experience distress about their presence if made aware of them (Schneider, Gruman & Coutts, 2005) . Prejudice and Orientation Prejudice against people of minority sexual orientations also stems from the fact that the majority considers them ‘different’ and thus, a threat to their way of life (Anderson, 2010). Religious groups consider the lifestyle of homosexual people to be against religious tenets; even though persons with homosexual desires have always been part of society. Although homosexuality has gained some acceptance and tolerance over time; people still report feeling uncomfortable with issues related to homosexuality (Anderson, 2010) and exhibit moral disapproval (Sherrill & Yung, 2000). A number of socio cultural factors like political leanings, race, religion, location have been found to mediate this prejudice (Brown & Henriquez, 2008). The present study wished to study the age differences in prejudice associated with these two topics that are part of multiple debates on prejudice – Homosexuality and Race. It attempts to explore differences that exist in the attitudes of people belonging to chronologically different cohorts towards these issues. It is important to explore and identify these differences and study their properties because these are not only valuable when choosing social and professional interventions that may be use to counter prejudice; but are also indicative of changes that occur over time in a population. On the basis of the literature reviewed, it is possible to hypothesize that older individuals will exhibit more prejudice and negative attitudes as compared to younger people. Another reason for this hypothesis is that the areas of prejudice being studied – Race and homosexuality – have received more acceptance and positive press in recent years as compared to before; and thus the younger participants would be more likely to have imbibed a more inclusive perspective as compared to the older participants. Thus, this study attempted to test the following null hypotheses: There is no difference in the prejudice towards persons of African origin exhibited by the two groups studied. There is no difference in the prejudice towards persons of homosexual orientation exhibited by the two groups studied. The alternate hypotheses tested were: 1. Older persons will display greater prejudice towards people of African origin. 2. Older persons will display greater prejudice towards Homosexual individuals. Methods Variables The study had one Independent Variable – Age of the Participant. This independent variable was defined as chronological age of the participant. The independent variable had two levels; young adults and older adults. The group of young adults was defined as individuals falling between 20 and 25 years of age, while the group of older persons was defined as individuals in the age group of 40 to 45 years. These two groups were chosen as they are both groups that are active parts of the workforce; but represent different points on the age continuum. The Young adults’ group represents the most recent cohort of adults who participate in economic and political activities, which the older adults’ group represents a cohort that leads many economic and political debates and decisions in the country while still being an integral part of the social fabric. The study had two dependent variables – prejudice towards Homosexual persons and prejudice towards persons of African origin. Two groups of participants of Caucasian origin were compared on these two dependent variables and assessed for differences. Prejudice towards Homosexual persons was defined on the basis of the person’s attitudes and acceptance of Homosexual individuals and was measured on the Attitudes towards Lesbians and Gays Scale by Herek (1988). This operational definition was accepted as exhibiting higher scores higher scores on the scale were evidence of negative attitudes and stereotypes that could translate into prejudice. Prejudice towards persons of African origin was defined on the basis of the participants’ scores on the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay et al., 1981). This operational definition was accepted as the scale provided an evaluation of the subtle as well as explicit forms of racism prevalent in people’s opinions such that a higher score was evidence of more racist attitudes. Participants Participants recruited for this study were all self – identified as having a heterosexual orientation and of Caucasian decent. All participants were required to have successfully graduated high school and came from a variety of professions. An equal number of male and female participants were chosen for each group to balance the effects of gender (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). All participants were asked to provide demographic data about age, identified gender, identified sexual orientation, profession and education. Sample The total sample consisted of 200 participants of Caucasian origin who were self – identified as being Heterosexual. Of the total sample, 100 participants belonged to each of the two research groups; and each group was further divided so that 50 participants in it were male and 50 were female. This was considered an adequate sample size to ensure representativeness and to reduce statistical error (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). Data collection was completed using internet based survey facilities; and potential participants were contacted via advertisement on popular social networking sites. This was done in order to collect data from different physical locations to increase representativeness (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). The sampling technique used was a Snowball Sampling technique; as participants who entered the study often provided further advertisement for the study (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2010). Although this method of data collecting allowed data collection from people with heterogeneous backgrounds; it limited the scope of participants to those who had internet access (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2010). Instruments Used The study used two standardized instruments besides the questionnaire that collected the demographic data. These instruments were the Attitudes towards Lesbians and Gays Scale by Herek (1988) and the Modern racism scale by (McConahay et al., 1981). The Attitudes towards Lesbians and Gays Scale is a 20 item Likert type scale on which each item is rated across a 9 point scale on which the lowest score is 1 and the highest is 9. Thus, the possible range of scores is from 20 – 180 such that a higher score was indicative of negative attitudes and prevalence of stereotypes. The instrument has been shown to have adequate reliability and validity; and there is precedence for its use in parametric statistics with adequate success. The Modern Racism Scale is a 7 – item scale that measures attitudes towards individual’s of African origin. Each item is rated across a 5- point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) (Konrad, 2006). A higher score is again indicative of racism and the scale has demonstrated strong internal consistency, reliability and validity against other measures of racism (Cardenas, 2007). This scale has been a popular research tool; and found to be adequate in its ability to discriminate between people. Thus, it was chosen as a measure of prejudice against persons of African origin. Results The study reports the descriptive statics for each group as well as the entire sample including means, standard deviations, medians and range of scores for each dependent variable. Descriptive statistics are provided for the demographic data collected. Additional descriptive statistics of frequency and percentage are computed for the demographic data collected; and important trends reported. It is possible to compute parametric statistics to test the hypotheses since the data collected may be considered to be on an equal interval scale (Norman, 2010). Although Likert scales are ordinal by themselves; it has been established that if the test has more than 5 items, each item is measured on at least a 5 point scale and the test has adequate internal consistency it is possible to combine scores on all items such that the scoring approaches an equal interval scaling (Norman, 2010). Thus, the study uses a multivariate analysis of data – MANOVA – if the data collected fulfills the parameters for a MANOVA. Two independent t-tests are also computed; one for each Dependent variable (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008) in order to verify the differences. It is expected that there will be distinct differences in the mean scores of the two groups being tested across both dependent variables. In order to validate the hypotheses; it is also expected that the group of Young Adults will score lower on both dependent measures as compared to the group of Older Adults. If these expected differences are observed, the alternate hypotheses will be accepted and the null hypotheses will be rejected. On the other hand; if the expected differences are not observed, the null hypothesis will be accepted. Discussion The discussion explores the results obtained in greater detail. The trends observed are assessed in context to previous research and salient points are discussed. It is expected that inter-group differences would be obtained for each of the dependent variables; and these differences will favor the Young Adults. This means that it is expected that young adults will show lower levels of prejudice towards persons of homosexual orientation as well as towards persons of African origin when compared to Older Adults. The exact nature of the scores is also discussed as well as the implications of these scores for the participants’ attitudes and possible behaviors (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2010). Possible reasons for this result may be associated with more exposure, direct contact and positive images in the media. The reasons for the trends found are beyond the scope of the study; and it is suggested that further research delves into the reasons for the differences observed (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2010). If no statistically significant differences are observed; the reasons for this are also be explored. Various issues related to data collection procedures and sample representativeness are discussed in order to estimate the validity of the test results. It is important to understand the problems and factors that could contaminate the data; and the ethics of the study. Social desirability (Konrad, 2006) and halo effects could affect the validity of scores (Christensen, Johnson & Turner, 2010); as could purposeful attempts on part of participants to misrepresent themselves. It is important to understand that these issues could affect data that is collected over the internet (Frankfort-Nachmias & Nachmias, 2008). This study does not evaluate the attitudes of the minority groups towards the majority; which is also important in the development of a complete understanding of the social condition, nor does it explore the attitudes of different racial minority groups towards each other or towards the majority group. The reasons for the observed trends are also not explored at this point. These are important aspects of the prevalent attitudes in society, and further research should be directed towards studying these issues. References Anderson, K. (2010). Benign Bigotry: The Psychology of Subtle Prejudice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baron, R.A., Byrne, D. & Branscombe, N.R. (2006). Social Psychology (9th Ed). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Baron, R.A. & Byrne, D. (2000).Social Psychology (8th Ed). New York: Allyn and Bacon. Blackwell, J., Smith, M. & Sorenson, J. (2003). Culture of Prejudice: Arguments in Critical Social Science. Toronto: Broadview Press. Brown, R. & Gaertner, S. (Eds). (2002). Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Belmont: Blackwell Publishing. Brown, M.J. & Henriquez, E. (2008). Socio-Demographic Predictors of Attitudes Towards Gays and Lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 6(3), 193-202. Cardenas, M. (2007). The Modern Racism Scale: psychometric properties and its relationship with psychosocial variables. Universal Psychologist, 6(2), 255-262. Christensen, L. B., Johnson, R. B. & Turner, L. A. (2010). Research Methods, Design, and Analysis (11th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Davis, D.B. (2006). Inhuman Bondage: The rise and fall of slavery in the New World. New York: Oxford University Press. Frankfort-Nachmias, C & Nachmias, D. (2008). Research methods in the social sciences (7th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers. Gonsalkorale, K., Sherman, J.W. & Klauer, K.C. (2009). Aging and prejudice: Diminished regulation of automatic race bias among older adults. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(2), 410-414. Konrad, A. (2006). Handbook of Workplace Diversity. Wydawca: SAGE Publications. McConahay, J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 91- 126). New York: Academic. Myers, D.G. (2006). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. Noel, D.L. & Pinkney, A. (1964). Correlates of Prejudice: Some Racial Differences and Similarities. American Journal of Sociology, 69(6), 609-622. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the ‘‘laws’’ of statistics. Advances in Health Science Education. Published Online by Springer. DOI 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y Oppenheim, A.N. (1992). Questionnaires design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London, UK: Printer Publishers. Prejudice. (2011). Merriam-Webster online. Merriam Webster. Retrieved on 12th march 2012. Rushton, J.P., Russell, R.J.H. & Wells, P.A. (1984). Genetic Similarity Theory: Beyond Kin Selection. Behavior Genetics, 14(3), 179 – 193. Sanderson, C.A. (2010). Social Psychology. New Jersey: Wiley. Schneider, F.W., Gruman, J.A. & Coutts, L.M. (2005). Applied Social Psychology: understanding and addressing social and practical problems. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. Sears, D.O., Peplau, L.A., Freedman, J.L. & Taylor, S.E. (1988). Social psychology (6th Ed). Ney Jersey: Prentice hall. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Biosocial Science, 1, 173-191. doi:10.1017/S0021932000023336 Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C.M. & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for Racial Prejudice at the Implicit Level and Its Relationship With Questionnaire Measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 262-274. Read More