However, there are certain restrictions when considering personality explanations of prejudice. The main concern being that not every child brought up with excessive, harsh discipline then becomes prejudice. This may be due to the person’s ability to control and regulate their prejudice. Specifically, in society today egalitarian values are emphasised and expected, so if a person feels they have acted in a way that displays prejudice then they may feel guilty. The individual has noticed a difference in the way they acted to their values causing the guilt; this guilt can be the motivation a person needs to change their behaviour and ultimately their prejudice attitude. This theory how there can be a variation in the amount of prejudice that people display but not the reasoning behind why individuals want to eliminate prejudice.
In general one of the problems of individual differences as a cause of prejudice is that is does not apply easily to large groups of people who are prejudice. For instance it is conceivable but unlikely that every person who is prejudice had a harsh disciplinary upbringing that results in an authoritarian personality (Hogg & Vaughan, 2004). There is a need of a cultural mentality to result in large scale prejudice such as the apartheid in South Africa between 1948 and 1994. Inter-group theories are able to address this issue.
Inter-group theories involve the categorizing of people into distinct groups. Primarily these groups are either ‘in-groups’, those which we belong to or ‘out-groups’, a group which we are not a member of (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Sherif, White and Harvey (1955) found that when people are divided into groups it created an environment in which group comparison and the desire to partake in competition was immediately evident. Shortly after the initial division a social identity develops and the introduction of competition caused heightened hostile behaviour (cited in Crisp & Turner, 2007). Sherif’s (1955) findings support the theory of realistic group conflict theory. This theory suggests that prejudice is the result of competition for valuable resources (Crisp & Turner, 2007). For instance sexism in the work place could be an example of realistic group conflict theory because of the competition for the jobs and internal promotion. Employers are more likely to show favouritism for their own groups and derogation of the out groups in order to secure their own futures.
However Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament (1971) found that simply dividing people into groups caused prejudice and competition was not necessary. When participants were divided into groups based on the type of abstract painter they preferred they allocated those not in their group lower points, therefore displaying inter-group bias. This demonstrates the minimal condition for prejudice to occur; because as soon as we know that someone is in a different group to us we are likely to discriminate on that basis. This may be due to the fact that when others are in the same group as us we think of them as similar to ourselves and those in the out-groups are different to us (Crisp & Turner, 2007). Tajfel and Turner (1979) devised the theory of social identification. They assumed that people wanted positive self-esteem and one contributor to self esteem is the groups which we belong to. Therefore, if the groups we belong to have a high status and are positively perceived then this boost our self esteem because as we are members of that group we should be perceived in the same way. In this way it benefits our self esteem to improve the positive image of the group compared to the out-groups and so this is another way that prejudice could develop. Self categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) is based on social identification but emphasises the cognitive approaches(cited in Crisp & Turner, 2007). The identification with a group causes one to depersonalise oneself in order to fit in with group norms and so become self-categorized (Crisp & Turner). Therefore, if the group norm is one which allows prejudice then individuals will also display this attribute.
One criticism of Tajfel (1971) was that the conditions were not minimal and there was some belief similarity which could explain the preferable treatment of the in group members (cited in Crisp & Turner,2007). The categories the participants were separated into were supposedly based on the preference of a painter and so perhaps had other aspects in common. To rectify this Tafjel replicated the study with some alterations. The participants knew that they were allocated to groups on a purely random basis. Even so, there was still inter-group bias. However, the findings were not as large a number as in the previous study.
Inter-group theories give a good account of how the groups we belong to influence our prejudice. However, we must remember that we have control over out thoughts and actions. Consequently, we can choose not to conform to group norms and also not to express prejudice. Individual differences in prejudice consider these aspects more.
Prejudice is a complex multi faceted concept with many different contributing factors. The individual difference approach considers how personality affects individuals and the extent to which they express prejudice. However, this approach does not explain large scale prejudice across cultures and other groups. The inter-group theories demonstrate the categorization of people into two main groups, the in and out groups. These theories give a more accepted explanation of prejudice. However, there are still short coming in these theories. For example the need for explanation as to why some people are resistant to the social conditions that should exert prejudice. Subsequently, the deduction is that explanations of prejudice need to consider both approaches to obtain the most informative and balanced conclusion.
References
Crisp, R.J., & Turner, R.N. (2007). Essential social psychology. London: Sage.
Hogg, M.A. & Vaughan, G.M. (2004). Social psychology. (4th ed.). London:
Prentice Hall.
