Prejudice, Stereotyping and Aggression are three social psychological concepts that have received a great deal of attention since the paradigm was first developed. This Web Log aims to identify and analyse the influence of these concepts on each other, there effect on individuals as well as; localised, wide, and worldwide societies. Examples of when all three have combined synergistically to result in incredible atrocities include the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 and Nazi Germany. On a smaller societal level the blue-eyed brown-eyed experiments run by Jane Elliot can show a societies capacity for prejudice and stereotyping. Ryan and Buirski (2001) suggested that at an individual level prejudice was not considered to be a displacement nor a projection of aggression. Instead they offered that prejudice was an “expression of a vulnerable, fragmentation-prone self-organization struggling to overcome a traumatic developmental history.” (Pg. 21). Studies such as the Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov and Sandra Duarte (2003) posit that the development of a theoretical framework that encompasses the personality dispositions of an individual, as well as the social and environmental situation that individual resides in at the time, is an important goal of social psychology today. The question than posed by Guimond et al is; does the personality of an individual dictate their prejudice, is it a reaction to their social environment or would combining the two provide a greater insight into the development and maintenance of prejudice?
Conceptual Relationship.
The conceptual links between prejudice and stereotyping are vast; one that has grown rapidly over the last decade is that humans have an implicit bias to engage in prejudice and stereotyping behaviours, sometimes without their conscious awareness or intent (Devine 2001). Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998) developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT) which is a tool designed to measure the implicit biases of individuals towards out-group members. Devine states that such a tool if effective will allow for scientific scrutiny of an area previously available only to speculation on the part of psychoanalysts. Another paper examined the concept that prejudice and stereotyping may not be entirely within our cognitive control was the 2007 study by Gailliot et al. The results showed that our blood glucose levels affected self and social control, such as that used to stifle prejudice during an interracial interaction. Furthermore the study showed that a single act of self-control caused blood glucose levels to drop below the optimal level and individuals performed worse on subsequent control tasks. A glucose drink allowed blood glucose levels to be restored and performance increased to original levels.
Development of Prejudice.
The development of prejudice as an evolving phenomenon leads psychologists to analyse whether society as a whole is learning how to better hide their prejudices. Khan et al (2003) suggests that those who are most afraid of being viewed as prejudiced or engaging in stereotyping are also the most likely to engage in it. The study showed that warning participants that the results on two prejudice scales may be shown to others actually increased their tendency to make stereotypical errors and display prejudice. A completely counter-intuitive result, this may indicate that people do not always have cognitive control over their prejudices. The study posits that the increases in prejudice were a result of a decrease in cognitive control, not an increase in stereotype accessibility.
Many studies use stereotyping criteria to define prejudice as well as prejudicial criteria to define stereotyping. An example of this is the Bäckström and Björklund (2007) study they state that classical prejudice is involves engaging in stereotypical beliefs about a particular group in a particularly negative way. They go on further to identify the differences between classical and modern prejudice, which leads to the question has prejudice evolved? Is it possible to develop affective measures to inhibit prejudice if it has evolutionary capabilities? Wegener, Clark and Petty (2006) state that not all stereotyping is created equally. The study emphasizes the lack of literature on thoughtful versus non-thoughtful stereotyping, the results show that thoughtful stereotyping leads to beliefs which are harder to extinguish as well as more difficult to detect. These findings challenge many theories and practices such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which seeks to challenge the thought process by applying logic and reason. They go further to state that increased thought might fail to decrease stereotypic behaviours, but also may manufacture stereotypic beliefs that have a longer lasting impact.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) is a concept that could be linked to the Rwandan Genocide. The theory posits that social dominance of a group allows for prejudice to emerge and be maintained. The theory also suggests that a general attitudinal belief may be formed within the socially dominant class and that they generally prefer and support political programs which clearly define as well as maintain social hierarchies. Whereas people from lower SDO groups prefer egalitarian societies (Bäckström and Björklund 2007).
Stereotyping and Prejudice leads to Agression.
Parrott and Zeichner (2005), state that stereotyping and prejudice can lead to aggression. Their study of sexual prejudice and anger against homosexuals showed that such prejudice could result in physical aggression given the right precursors and context. The study also reported that such aggression was on the rise with a 40 percent increase in violence against homosexuals in the U.S from 1998 to 1999 and a 13 percent rise in antigay murders, despite the nations general decrease in murder rate. It is evident that sexual prejudice can result in an increased capacity for physical aggression but it does not appear that this is the only prejudice that can lead to aggressive behaviours. Keesee et al (2007) report that race prejudice may play a role in promoting aggression. In the United States the Department of Justice reported that black suspects are approximately five times as likely as their white counter parts (per capita) to die at the hands of a police officer. The study showed that community members and police officers both displayed robust racial bias in regard to the speed of their decision. It also showed that although community members set the decision criterion lower for black people over white people the police did not.
The relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and aggression can be explored through the use of a concept map (see Appendix A). This model shows the theoretical and conceptual constitution of each as well as their varying interactions. The concept map is based solidly around the theoretical premises currently held about the make-up, contributory factors and relationships between the three concepts. It is evident that all three factors strongly influence one another. The relationship explored between all three in the concept map illustrates how all three factors can impact on one another in somewhat of a cyclical fashion. For example an individual has developed a sexual prejudice towards homosexuals may interact with a homosexual or even heterosexual that meets the stereotypical criterion and this can often result in aggression, particularly in males. Alternatively a homosexual individual may hold a prejudice towards people that he considers sexually discriminative or homophobic due to previously witnessed aggressive behaviours towards his group.
Concept Mapping.
The concept map was generated using a software package known as: Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) CmapTools.
Appendix A: Concept map of the relationships between prejudice, stereotyping and Agression.
Appendix B: Self-assessment.
1. Theory – In researching and writing this blog I attempted to use the most recent information available and to provide information that supported as well as critiqued established theories. However I believe that a greater effort should have been made to better source information about the links of the three concepts to the Rwandan Genocide, and the blue-eye brown-eye experiments by Jane Elliot. With this in mind I did find it difficult to appropriately define all three concepts and their relationships without going over the word limit. The web log did aim to identify areas within social psychology that did not have sufficient research available and pose some questions and possible areas where further research might prove useful.
2. Research – The web log does provide a wide range of research that is relatively up to date with several sources being published this year. I feel that the web log uses the research appropriately and efficiently. More attention could have been addressed towards research on the concept of aggression, however it was difficult to source information that was appropriate to prejudice and stereotyping in a social context as opposed to a biological one. Furthermore time could have been spent on researching the affects of aggression stereotyping and aggression on the Rwandan as well as societal minorities over an extended period. Although nature and prevention of the three concepts were addressed as well as their cyclical nature which did cover the affects to a point.
3. Written Expression – MS Word provided readability statistics including a Flesch reading ease of 25.8. A Flesch-Kincaid grade level of 12.0 and 14% passive sentences. The Flesch reading ease increased to 26.1 after the exclusion of the reference list. The Blog uses sub-headings to break up the text and also provide a guide to what the following text is about. APA format was adhered to as much as possible. However due to the nature of the blog some formatting errors have occurred. The reference list whilst italicised correctly is does not adhere to APA format regarding the stepping in of the second and remaining lines of text. Also the use of sub-headings is not generally acceptable in essay format, but were used in order to make the blog more user-friendly. An abstract may have proved to be useful in improving the readability and understanding of the blog. The use of the concept map allows for easy understanding and was deliberately kept simple for this purpose. It serves as a guide to the essay and as a summary of sorts. Linking the image to a larger one hosted by an image hosting site keeps the blog tidy and efficient but also allows for easy viewing of the concept map.
4. Online Engagement – The use of video clips embedded within the first blog was designed to generate interest, although the incorporation of a poll or posing questions about the videos may have proved more inviting. This area can be greatly improved on in future blogs as my understanding of the blog process has increased. Better planning of engaging blogs for the second assessment is necessary.
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural Modeling of Generalized Prejudice The Role of Social Dominance, Authoritarianism, and Empathy. Journal of Individual Differences. 28, (1), 10–17.
Devine, P.G. (2001). Implicit Prejudice and Stereotyping: How Automatic Are They? Introduction to the Special Section. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 81, (5), 757-759.
Gailliot, M.T., Baumeister, R.F., DeWall, C.N., Maner, J.K., Plant, E.A., Tice, D.M., Brewer, L.E., & Schmeichel, B.J. (2007). Self-Control Relies on Glucose as a Limited Energy Source: Willpower Is More Than a Metaphor. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 92, (2), 325–336.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does Social Dominance Generate Prejudice? Integrating Individual and Contextual Determinants of Intergroup Cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84, (4), 697–721.
Keesee, T., Sadler, M. S., Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C.M., Park, B., & Correll, J. (2007). Across the Thin Blue Line: Police Officers and Racial Bias in the Decision to Shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, (6), 1006–1023.
Khan, S.R., Chasteen, A.L., Shaffer, L.M., Jacoby, L.L., Payne, K.B., & Lambert, A.J. (2003). Stereotypes as Dominant Responses: On the “Social Facilitation” of Prejudice in Anticipated Public Contexts. Journal of Personality and Social psychology 84, (2), 277–295.
Parrott, D.J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of Sexual Prejudice and Anger on Physical Aggression Toward Gay and Heterosexual Men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 6, (1), 3–17.
Ryan, M.K., & Buirski, P. (2001) Prejudice as a Function of Self-Organization. Psychoanalytic psychology 18, (1), 21-36.
Wegener, D.T., Petty, R.E., & Clark, J.K. (2006). Not All Stereotyping Is Created Equal: Differential Consequences of Thoughtful Versus Nonthoughtful Stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90, (1), 42–59.
