Defining prejudice

Prejudice involves forming judgements about people or things before having full information. This attitude can influence how we interact with others, and when it leads to unfair actions, it becomes discrimination - treating someone differently based on those preconceived ideas. Prejudice is not just a simple opinion; it consists of three interconnected parts that shape our overall response to something or someone.

The components of prejudice

• Affective component - This refers to the emotional aspect, involving feelings such as dislike, hostility, fear, or suspicion towards a person or group.
• Behavioural component - This involves actions taken as a result of those feelings, which might include insulting others, avoiding them, discriminating against them, or even engaging in physical attacks.
• Cognitive component - This is the knowledge or belief part, often based on stereotypes - generalised and oversimplified ideas about a group of people.

Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory explains prejudice as arising from our natural tendency to form groups and favour our own. Developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979, this theory suggests that simply dividing people into groups - even without any real reason or conflict - can create bias. We gain self-esteem from belonging to a group, so we often view our group positively while seeing others less favourably. This occurs because group membership becomes part of our identity, and enhancing our group's status boosts our own sense of worth.

Key concepts in Social Identity Theory

• In-group - The group to which we belong, where we feel a sense of connection and loyalty.
• Out-group - Any group outside our own, which we might view as different or inferior.

Prejudice emerges not from actual competition but from the mere awareness of these group divisions. As a result, people may promote their in-group to feel better about themselves, leading to biased attitudes towards out-groups.

Cognitive processes in Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory involves three mental steps that lead to group-based prejudice. These processes build on each other, starting with how we sort people and ending with comparisons that can foster bias.

The three cognitive processes:

1. Social categorisation - We mentally assign ourselves and others to social groups based on shared characteristics, such as nationality, hobbies, or even random labels. This simplifies the world but can create "us versus them" divisions.
2. Social identification - Once categorised, we adopt the identity of our group, taking on its norms, values, and behaviours. This strengthens our attachment and sense of belonging.
3. Social comparison - We then compare our group to others to maintain positive self-esteem. If our group doesn't compare favourably, we might derogate out-groups to feel superior, which can manifest as prejudice.

Research supporting Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory is supported by laboratory experiments known as minimal group studies, conducted by Henri Tajfel in the 1970s. These studies demonstrated that prejudice can arise from arbitrary group assignments, without any real conflict or competition.

Key study: Tajfel's minimal group experiments (1970s)

• Method - Participants, often schoolboys, were randomly divided into groups based on trivial criteria, such as preferring one abstract painting over another or the toss of a coin. They were then asked to allocate points or rewards to anonymous members of their own group and the other group, without knowing who was in each.
• Results - Even though groups were minimal and there was no personal gain or interaction, participants consistently gave more points to in-group members than out-group members. They showed favouritism towards their own group and discrimination against the out-group, maximising the difference in rewards.
• Conclusions - This supports Social Identity Theory by showing that mere group categorisation is enough to trigger prejudice, as it enhances self-esteem through in-group bias.
• Evaluation - The experiments provide strong evidence for the theory in controlled settings, highlighting cognitive roots of prejudice. However, they lack ecological validity as real-world prejudice often involves deeper historical or cultural factors, not just random groups.
• Limitations - The studies used artificial scenarios and young male participants, so findings might not generalise to diverse populations or natural group formations.

Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory proposes that prejudice stems from competition over scarce resources, leading to hostility between groups. Developed by Muzafer Sherif in 1966, this theory argues that when groups vie for the same limited items - such as jobs, land, or money - it creates negative stereotypes, discrimination, and conflict. Unlike Social Identity Theory, which focuses on group awareness alone, this approach emphasises real, tangible rivalries as the root cause.

Key concepts in Realistic Conflict Theory

• Intergroup competition - When two groups seek the same resources, their goals become interdependent: one group's success means the other's loss. This fosters in-group solidarity (stronger bonds within the group) and out-group hostility (negative views of the competing group).
• Superordinate goals - To reduce prejudice, groups can work towards shared objectives that require cooperation, overriding competition and improving relations.

As a result, prejudice is seen as a functional response to group interactions. For example, if outcomes are competitively interdependent, stereotypes become unfavourable, and in-group bias increases. Conversely, cooperative interdependence can diminish animosity over time.

Explaining group behaviours in Realistic Conflict Theory

• Causes of conflict - Direct competition for valued resources leads to negative beliefs and discrimination. This can escalate into ongoing feuds, as groups solidify their unity against the "enemy".
• Reducing conflict - Introducing superordinate goals, where groups must collaborate to achieve a common aim, can break down barriers. This shifts focus from rivalry to mutual benefit, cumulatively improving attitudes.

This theory is also known as Realistic Group Conflict Theory due to its focus on group-level dynamics and resource-based tensions.

Research supporting Realistic Conflict Theory: Robbers Cave study

• Background - The theory draws from field experiments like the Robbers Cave study by Sherif in 1961, which examined how competition and cooperation affect group relations.
• Participants - Twenty-two boys aged 11-12, divided into two groups (Eagles and Rattlers) at a summer camp, unaware they were part of an experiment.
• Procedure - Initially, groups bonded separately. Then, competitive activities (e.g., sports with prizes) were introduced to create rivalry. Finally, superordinate goals (e.g., fixing a shared water supply) required joint effort.
• Results - Competition led to hostility, name-calling, and raids between groups, with strong in-group favouritism. However, cooperative tasks reduced prejudice, increasing positive interactions and friendships across groups.
• Conclusions - Prejudice arises from resource competition but can be reduced through shared goals, supporting the theory's emphasis on functional intergroup relations.
• Evaluation - The study has high ecological validity as it used a natural setting, demonstrating real-world applicability. It shows how situational factors drive prejudice.
• Limitations - Ethical concerns exist, as the boys experienced distress from induced conflict. Also, the all-male, homogeneous sample limits generalisability to other demographics.