Studies from Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination

Williams and Best 1994

Aim: Extent of sex stereotyping in 30 countriesMethod: Participants given over 300 characteristics. Asked to state male, female or both.

Results: Females; understanding, emotional. Males; reckless and determined.Conclusion: Commonly held stereotypes.

Rubin et al 1977

Aim: Do new parents stereotype their babies?Method: Parents asked to describe newborn within 24 hours.

Results: Baby boys were alert and strong while girls were soft and delicate.Conclusion: Stereotypes start quickly without behaviour being shown.

Barrett and Short 1992

Aim: To look at the development of prejudice in childrenMethod: 216 children (aged 5-10) interviewed about people from other European countries.

Results: Views already formed and some more positive than others e.g. Germans least and French mostConclusion: By age 10 prejudiced views are held

Adorno 1950

Aim: Is there a link between prejudiced beliefs and personalityMethod: 100's were interviewed and tested using the F-scale

Results: A relationship was found between personality and views e.g. resistant to change, rigid beliefs and obedience to higher authorityConclusion: An authoritarian personality exists and can be shaped by strict parents

Sherif 1961 Robbers Cave

Aim: find out if prejudice develops when in competition for scarce resourcesMethod: A US summer camp for 22 boys was set up. Boys were randomly assigned to 2 teams and split up; they didn't know about the others. They were allowed to settle and form a bond/identity. Then they were introduced and competitions began.

Results: Unpleasant name calling and attacks on each other happened quickly.Conclusion: Competition caused prejudice.

More on Sherif

The boys were white middle class aged 12 American from stable homes

The experiment involved each group having a name; rattlers and eagles normal summer camp activities competitions which included tidiest camp and sporting events But Sherif set up a picnic. One group was delayed getting there and when they arrived there was hardly any food left.Fights began.

Evaluating Sherif

Negatives The groups and competitions were artificial Sample was narrow and small...gender, age, class, ethnicity, culture

Positives It demonstrated real life implications because it showed how quickly prejudice could arise It also showed how quickly and alliance(s) can be formed and how this can be turned against those seen to be different (or a threat?)

Sherif and reducing P and D

A year later he tried to reduce prejudice between the 2 groups This time he arranged joint activities e.g. trips to the cinema and meals out It didn't work He set up a situation where a truck was stuck in the mud There was no dinner unless they go the truck out. This was successful as the task need effort from all Sherif concluded that cooperation on an important task reduced prejudice

Levine 2002

Aim: Would a stranger be helped if people believed they had something in commonMethod: Stuntman fell over in front of Man U fans in a Man U shirt and then again in a Liverpool shirt

Results: Man U shirt helped every time and Liverpool shirt left to help himself every time.Conclusion: Less likely to help out-group members. 

Tajfel 1970

Aim: To show how easily people discriminate against out-groupsMethod: 14-15 yr old boys randomly into 2 groups and given a game.  Had to award points in pairs. Most points won.

Results: Points were awarded by choosing pairings that created the most difference.Conclusion: Discrimination occurs towards the out-group

Evaluating Tajfel

Negatives Only boys used so what about generalising? Ages were 14-15 so again what about other ages? Groups were artificially created

PositivesOther studies using all ages and gender have replicated and supported Tajfel

Aronson 2000 Jigsaw Method

Aim: Elimination of prejudice between black and white students in a school in TexasMethod: Students placed in mixed groups and each are given responsibility for a part of the lesson. They need to be experts in their part and pass it on to the others.

Results: Each student reported enhanced self esteem, increased liking for classmates and improved perceptions of the other racial group.Conclusion: Expert groups/jigsaw method reduced prejudice

Elliot 1970

Aim: To teach her students what discrimination felt like (just after MLK assassination)Method: Blue eyed blondes were told they were clever and special and the other children were not and were excluded from using facilities. The next day she reversed this

Results: Day 1 showed smug behaviours from group A and sad from group B. On the next day this reversed.Conclusion: Elliott believed this experience would influence tolerant behaviour towards others

More on Elliott

The children she taught had never met anyone a different colour to themselves She wanted them to experience what it felt like to be judged on a physical characteristic over which you had no control Her study is considered to be unethical because of the distress suffered by the children BUT Years later they were much more tolerant and showed more empathy 

Harwood 2003

Aim: Investigate childrens views of the elderly  Method: Children and their grandparents were asked about their relationship. Children were also quizzed about views on old people generally.

Results: Children with regular contact held positive views.Conclusion: Contact with grandparents is a good predictor of a child's attitude towards the elderly.

3 explanations of prejudice & discrimination

Adorno=strict critical parents and an authoritarian personality Sherif=competition for scarce resources Tajfel=favouring your in groups and believing them to be superior

Practical implications

Sherif=hard to put into practice in real life. Even if the joint task exists how do you get people to take part? Aronson=the work could be applied to schools or workplaces but hard to generalise to other settings Elliott=her method for creating empathy worked but they need to be young when they experience it Harwood=shows that regular contact with grandparents is important