"How can prejudice be explained in Social Psychological terms?"

One word that stands out in all of the definitions above is ‘group’, which seems to suggest that the categorization of people into different groups is instrumental in the development of prejudiced attitudes. Bearing this in mind, a brief description of how this categorization takes place will now be provided, followed by an explanation of how prejudice is borne out of this social categorization. Social categorization can be described as the process of classifying people into different social groups according to certain characteristics that they share in common. These characteristics can range from colour of the skin, to religion, to nationality, to even the football club one supports. One fundamental way that people are categorized is on the basis of in-group and out-group, where, as the names suggest, an in-group is a group to which a person feels he/she belongs, and an out-group is a group to which a person feels he/she does not belong. Following this categorization, one’s attitude, thoughts and behavior toward someone are influenced by one’s perception of the group to which he/she belongs. Stereotypes held about that group are invariably applied to all members of the group, while individual differences and variations between members either go unnoticed or are dismissed. This perception that there is less variability among the members of the out-group than within one’s own in-group is called ‘out-group homogeneity bias.’ Furthermore, this categorization ultimately culminates in positive feelings and preferential treatment for people who have been defined as part of the in-group, and negative feelings and unfair treatment for those defined as part of the out-group.

The process of social categorization is portrayed in the following example. Suppose a Manchester United supporter enters a sports café before a Manchester United versus Arsenal game. Looking on one side of the café, if he notices a group of people wearing Arsenal shirts, he will instantly feel contempt for them. This is because they will immediately be categorized as the out-group, and stereotypes held by him about Arsenal supporters will be applied to them, resulting in him thinking of all the people in that group as arrogant conceited snobs. He will, in all probability, not even consider the possibility that the supporters may be different from his perceived notion of Arsenal supporters. In fact, if he is an outspoken individual, it is also fairly likely that he will hurl a stream of verbal abuse at the group of Arsenal supporters. Subsequently, if he looks towards the other side of the café and notices a group of people wearing Manchester United supporters, he will immediately categorize them as the in-group, and feel favourably towards them. He will probably also gravitate towards them and in all likelihood will be able to identify with them and will be at complete ease with them. This is a perfect example of how social categorization leads to positive feelings towards and favourable treatment of members of the in-group, and negative feelings towards and unfair treatment of members of the out-group

However, the question that still lingers is why social categorization should lead to positive feelings towards members of the in-group and a negative, prejudiced attitude towards members of the out-group. There are two primary explanations put forth for this. The first is the social identity theory, which suggests that people use group membership as a source of pride and self-worth. Considerable research done in this field by social psychologists Henri Tajfel and John Turner indicates that social groups to which we belong play a crucial role in maintaining our personal self-esteem. However, to feel such pride and self-esteem, members of a certain group must assume that their group is, in fact, superior to others. As a result, the quest for a positive social identity leads people to inflate the positive aspects of the group to which they belong, and belittle groups to which they do not belong, thus rendering unto themselves a feeling of superiority over members of other groups. This need for maintaining a high self-esteem is also consistent with the basic theory of social psychology that the need to feel good about oneself is the primary underlying motive for one’s behavior.

The second explanation put forward is the realistic conflict theory, which argues that prejudice is the outcome of direct competition over valued, but limited, resources. The application of this theory to the real world is beautifully illustrated in a study carried out by John Dullard (1938) in a small industrial town, where he documented the relation between discrimination and economic competition. His findings state that ‘local whites largely drawn from the surrounding farms manifested considerable direct aggression toward the newcomers. Scornful and derogatory opinions were expressed about the Germans, and the native whites had a satisfying sense of superiority toward them… The chief element in the permission to be aggressive against the Germans was the rivalry for jobs and status in the local woodenware plants. The native whites felt definitely crowded for their jobs by the entering German groups and in case of bad times had a chance to blame the Germans, who by their presence provided more competitors for the scarcer jobs.’ This study carried out by John Dullard is a seamless example of the forces of social categorization and competition over scarce resources working in tandem to produce prejudice and discrimination. Moreover, the realistic conflict theory also portrays how social psychology is connected to various other social sciences, like economics in this case, since the theory of the conflict between unlimited wants and scarce resources forms the backbone of all major economic theory, and the same theory here illustrates how competition for scarce resources can be a cause for prejudice.

In addition to the principal theories explained above, there are also some other explanations for prejudice. One basis for holding prejudiced views is that doing so can save us considerable cognitive effort. Stereotypes, in particular, seem to serve the function of saving us mental effort. Once stereotypes are formed, one does not have to bother engaging in careful, systematic processing of information, since one now ‘knows’ what members of a given group are like, and can rely on quicker, heuristic-driven processing and preconceived beliefs. This theory was aptly summarized by E.B.White, when he said that ‘Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts.’ Besides this, evolutionary psychologists have suggested that human beings might have inherited biological tendencies that predispose us toward prejudiced behavior, through favoritism of those that are seen as belonging to the same group as us and bias against those that are seen as belonging to other groups. It has also been strongly suggested that the seeds of prejudice are invariably sown at a very young age, when impressionable children pick up the prejudices and stereotypes harboured by their parents, teachers, and other elders. In addition to this, stereotypes are formed and strengthened in numerous other ways. One of these is making the ultimate attribution error, that is making dispositional attributions about entire groups of people. In other words, leaping to the conclusion that a person’s behavior is due to some aspect of his/her personality rather than some aspect of the situation, especially when drawing such conclusions enforces stereotypes that are held about the group that person belongs to. Yet another way stereotypes are formed is through the phenomenon of illusory correlations, which can be defined as the tendency to see relationships, or correlations, betweens things or events that are actually unrelated, but which one only expects to be related. Illusory correlations often come about between a certain group of people and a certain type of behavior that is expected from them, or a certain type of personality that they are expected to have. Such illusory correlations serve to either form new stereotypes about those groups in one’s mind, or strengthen already existing stereotypes.

Thus, as has been described above, social categorization is the root cause for prejudice, as it triggers most of the social psychological processes that make up a prejudiced attitude. However, there are also a number of other theories that have been put forth as reasons for the existence of prejudice, but they have not been covered in great detail in this essay, since the theory of social categorization seems to be the most significant as well as the most pertinent to the development of prejudiced attitudes. Hence, the theory of social categorization and the consequences of the same have been discussed extensively, followed by concise descriptions of the remaining explanations for prejudice.

“Prejudices are the chains forged by ignorance to keep men apart”. -- Countess of Blessington

Word Count - 1905

Bibliography

1. E. Aronson, T. Wilson and R. Akert. Social Psychology. 3rd Edition. U.S.A. Longman Publishers. 1999.
2. Feldman, Bert. Social Psychology. 3rd Edition. U.S.A. Prentice Hall. 2001.
3. R. Baron and D. Byrne. Social Psychology. 9th Edition. U.S.A. Pearson Education. 2000.
4. D.G. Myers. Social Psychology. 7th Edition. U.S.A. McGraw-Hill. 2002.
5. R.Cochrane and D.Carroll. Psychology and Social Issues. U.S.A. Taylor and Francis. 1991.