Prejudice Study Guide

📖 Core Concepts Prejudice: an affective (emotional) feeling toward a person because of their perceived group membership; can be unfounded and resistant to rational persuasion. Affective Component – the feeling (positive or negative) itself. Categorical Thinking – the mind’s natural tendency to sort people into “us vs. them” categories (Allport, 1954). In‑group Favoritism – preferential treatment of one’s own group, often the root of out‑group prejudice. Contact Hypothesis – structured intergroup contact reduces prejudice when optimal conditions are met (equal status, common goals, etc.). Realistic Conflict Theory – competition over scarce resources fuels hostility (e.g., Robbers Cave). Integrated Threat Theory – four threat sources that spark prejudice: realistic, symbolic, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. Social Dominance Theory – societies are hierarchical; dominant groups use “legitimizing myths” to justify unequal resource distribution. Error Management Theory – false‑positive bias (assuming threat when none exists) can be adaptive, leading to prejudice. 📌 Must Remember Allport’s Definition: prejudice = feeling toward a person prior to or independent of actual experience. Authoritarian Personality → higher prejudice (Adorno, 1950s). Out‑Group Homogeneity Effect: we see out‑group members as more similar than ingroup members. Justification‑Suppression Model: people balance prejudice expression with self‑image, generating rationalizations. Key mediators of contact‑induced reduction (meta‑analysis): knowledge gain, anxiety reduction, empathy/perspective‑taking. Big Five predictors: low agreeableness → stronger generalized prejudice; higher neuroticism → modestly higher prejudice; higher cognitive ability → lower prejudice. Four Integrated Threats: Realistic (resource competition) Symbolic (threat to values/culture) Intergroup anxiety (fear of negative interaction) 4 Negative stereotypes (expectations of harm). 🔄 Key Processes Contact‑Hypothesis Process Ensure equal status between groups. Establish common goals. Promote intergroup cooperation (not competition). Provide institutional support (norms of equality). Facilitate frequent informal interaction. Encourage multiple intergroup contacts. Justification‑Suppression Cycle Encounter bias → feel self‑image threat → seek justification → express prejudice in a socially acceptable form. Realistic Conflict (Robbers Cave) Create two groups → induce competition → observe hostility → introduce superordinate goals → prejudice declines. 🔍 Key Comparisons Prejudice vs. Discrimination Prejudice: internal feeling/belief. Discrimination: outward behavior/action based on prejudice. Ingroup Favoritism vs. Outgroup Hostility Favoritism: positive bias toward own group. Hostility: negative bias toward outgroup; can exist without strong favoritism. Realistic Conflict Theory vs. Integrated Threat Theory RCT: focus on resource competition only. ITT: adds symbolic, anxiety, and stereotype threats. Authoritarian Personality vs. Social Dominance Orientation – Authoritarian: obedience, conventionalism → prejudice toward lower‑status groups. – SDO: desire for group hierarchy → legitimizing myths to sustain dominance. ⚠️ Common Misunderstandings “Prejudice is always conscious.” → Implicit biases (measured by IAT) reveal unconscious prejudice. “Contact automatically reduces prejudice.” → Only under Allport’s optimal conditions; otherwise can backfire. “All prejudice is irrational.” → Evolutionary/error‑management perspectives argue some bias can be adaptive (though not justified morally). “Benevolent prejudice is harmless.” → It reinforces stereotypes and maintains inequality despite positive tone. 🧠 Mental Models / Intuition “Category‑Prediction Shortcut” – The brain groups people to predict behavior quickly; think of it as a mental heuristic that trades accuracy for speed. “Threat‑Bias Spectrum” – Imagine prejudice as a sliding scale where perceived threat (realistic → symbolic → anxiety) pushes the scale toward stronger bias. 🚩 Exceptions & Edge Cases Contact without equal status can increase prejudice (e.g., hierarchical workplaces). High cognitive ability individuals may still exhibit prejudice when motivated by strong group identity. Benevolent prejudice may coexist with overt hostility toward the same group (ambivalent prejudice). 📍 When to Use Which Predicting Prejudice Source: If resource competition is evident → apply Realistic Conflict Theory. If cultural or value clash dominates → apply Integrated Threat Theory. Designing Interventions: Use Contact Hypothesis when groups can meet under controlled, equal‑status conditions. Use Jigsaw Teaching when classroom learning is the context and six conditions can be met. Assessing Personality Risk: High low agreeableness scores → prioritize attitude‑change programs. High authoritarian traits → consider interventions targeting authority deference. 👀 Patterns to Recognize “Out‑group homogeneity + anxiety = high prejudice” – Spot when a question describes a perception of “all members of X are the same” alongside fear of interaction. “Justification language” – Phrases like “they’re just protecting our culture” signal symbolic threat reasoning. “Superordinate goals” → Whenever a study mentions shared objectives, anticipate a reduction in prejudice. 🗂️ Exam Traps Distractor: “Contact always reduces prejudice.” – Wrong; must meet optimal conditions. Distractor: “All prejudice is conscious.” – Wrong; implicit bias exists. Distractor: “Realistic conflict theory explains all forms of prejudice.” – Wrong; ignores symbolic and anxiety threats. Distractor: “High neuroticism predicts less prejudice.” – Reverse; it predicts modestly more prejudice. Distractor: “Benevolent prejudice is a form of discrimination.” – Technically correct but often presented as “harmless,” which is misleading. --- Use this guide for quick recall before the exam—focus on the bolded keywords, the step‑by‑step processes, and the side‑by‑side comparisons to distinguish closely related theories.