Social Psychology to Understand Prejudice

Social psychology examines how people affect one another, and it looks at the power of the situation. According to the American Psychological Association (n.d.), social psychologists “are interested in all aspects of personality and social interaction, exploring the influence of interpersonal and group relationships on human behavior.” Throughout this chapter, we will examine how the presence of other individuals and groups of people impacts a person’s behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Essentially, people will change their behavior to align with the social situation at hand. If we are in a new situation or are unsure how to behave, we will take our cues from other individuals. (from: OpenStax, Psychology 2e)

From a cross-cultural (and multicultural) perspective, social psychology helps us to answer (1) how various cultural groups interpret situations and engage in their social context (e.g., how do cultures maintain social norms) and (2) how prejudice and discrimination are maintained in cultures. First, we will review foundational social psychology concepts in order to address both these issues. We will then address social psychological principles that maintain discrimination and prejudice, and then we will conclude with an exploration of how prejudice and discrimination patterns vary across cultures.

Foundations: Social Psychology Concepts

People are tribal by nature, due to our need for belonging and evolutionary experiences. If you lived in prehistoric times, your chances of survival were better if you linked up with a group. In-groups refer to groups that a person has membership to; most people have multiple in-groups. For example, people may align themselves by race, gender, university affiliation, neighborhood, political affiliation, and so forth. Out-groups refer to “opposing” memberships. For example, if Alicia’s in-group is Latinx, out-groups would refer to other racial groups to which she does not belong. In and out-groups are important to understand, because for most of human history tribes and groups have had to compete for resources. The more scarce a resource is, the more the groups will compete. When societies experience economic uncertainty, group competition often increases because people feel there are not enough resources to distribute between all groups. Later in the semester, we will explore identity development related to different in-group memberships, and how folks who identify with multiple groups (e.g., people who are multi-racial) experience identity development.

Subfields of psychology tend to focus on one influence or behavior over others. Situationism is the view that our behavior and actions are determined by our immediate environment and surroundings. In contrast, dispositionism holds that our behavior is determined by internal factors (Heider, 1958). An internal factor is an attribute of a person and includes personality traits and temperament. Social psychologists have tended to take the situationist perspective, whereas personality psychologists have promoted the dispositionist perspective.

Whether regular people take a situationist or dispositionist tends to depend on their culture. People’s attributions (i.e., belief about the cause of a result (e.g., why was that person rude on the bus? why do people vote in a particular way?) of others’ behavior tends to categorize causes as situational or a result of disposition – who a person is. There are two attribution styles that tend to be culturally determined: the fundamental attribution error and the self-serving bias.

Attribution Styles and Errors

In the United States, the predominant culture tends to favor a dispositional approach in explaining human behavior. Why do you think this is? Folks in the U.S. tend to think that people are in control of their own behaviors, and, therefore, any behavior change must be due to something internal, such as their personality, habits, or temperament. According to some social psychologists, people tend to overemphasize internal factors as explanations—or attributions—for the behavior of other people. They tend to assume that the behavior of another person is a trait of that person, and to underestimate the power of the situation on the behavior of others. They tend to fail to recognize when the behavior of another is due to situational variables. This erroneous assumption is called the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977; Riggio & Garcia, 2009). To better understand, imagine this scenario: Jamie returns home from work, and opens the front door to a happy greeting from spouse Morgan who inquires how the day has been. Instead of returning the spouse’s kind greeting, Jamie yells, “Leave me alone!” Why did Jamie yell? How would someone committing the fundamental attribution error explain Jamie’s behavior? The most common response is that Jamie is a mean, angry, or unfriendly person (traits). This is an internal or dispositional explanation. However, imagine that Jamie was just laid off from work due to company downsizing. Would your explanation for Jamie’s behavior change? Your revised explanation might be that Jamie was frustrated and disappointed about being laid off and was therefore in a bad mood. This is now an external or situational explanation for Jamie’s behavior.

The halo effect refers to the tendency to let the overall impression of an individual color the way in which we feel about their character. For instance, we might assume that people who are physically attractive are more likely to be good people than less attractive individuals. Another example of how the halo effect might manifest would involve assuming that someone whom we perceive to be outgoing or friendly has a better moral character than someone who is not.

As demonstrated in the examples above, the fundamental attribution error is considered a powerful influence in how we explain the behaviors of others. However, it should be noted that some researchers have suggested that the fundamental attribution error may not be as powerful as it is often portrayed. In fact, a recent review of more than 173 published studies suggests that several factors (e.g., high levels of idiosyncrasy of the character and how well hypothetical events are explained) play a role in determining just how influential the fundamental attribution error is (Malle, 2006).

You may be able to think of examples of the fundamental attribution error in your life. Do people in all cultures commit the fundamental attribution error? Research suggests that they do not. People from an individualistic culture, that is, a culture that focuses on individual achievement and autonomy, have the greatest tendency to commit the fundamental attribution error. Individualistic cultures, which tend to be found in western countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, promote a focus on the individual. Therefore, a person’s disposition is thought to be the primary explanation for her behavior. In contrast, people from a collectivistic culture, that is, a culture that focuses on communal relationships with others, such as family, friends, and community, are less likely to commit the fundamental attribution error (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 2001).

Masuda and Nisbett (2001) demonstrated that the kinds of information that people attend to when viewing visual stimuli (e.g., an aquarium scene) can differ significantly depending on whether the observer comes from a collectivistic versus an individualistic culture (for a discussion on collectivistic and individualistic cultures, see Chapter 3).  Japanese participants were much more likely to recognize objects that were presented when they occurred in the same context in which they were originally viewed. Manipulating the context in which object recall occurred had no such impact on American participants. Other researchers have shown similar differences across cultures. For example, Zhang et al. (2014) demonstrated differences in the ways that holistic thinking might develop between Chinese and American participants, and Ramesh and Gelfand (2010) demonstrated that job turnover rates are more related to the fit between a person and the organization in which they work in an Indian sample, but the fit between the person and their specific job was more predictive of turnover in an American sample.

One model of attribution proposes three main dimensions: locus of control (internal versus external), stability (stable versus unstable), and controllability (controllable versus uncontrollable). In this context, stability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that result in a given outcome are changeable. The circumstances are considered stable if they are unlikely to change. Controllability refers to the extent to which the circumstances that are associated with a given outcome can be controlled. Obviously, those things that we have the power to control would be labeled controllable (Weiner, 1979).

Following an outcome, self-serving biases are those attributions that enable us to see ourselves in a favorable light (for example, making internal attributions for success and external attributions for failures). When you do well at a task, for example acing an exam, it is in your best interest to make a dispositional attribution for your behavior (“I’m smart,”) instead of a situational one (“The exam was easy,”). The tendency of an individual to take credit by making dispositional or internal attributions for positive outcomes (Miller & Ross, 1975). Self-serving bias is the tendency to explain our successes as due to dispositional (internal) characteristics, but to explain our failures as due to situational (external) factors. Again, this is culture dependent. This bias serves to protect self-esteem. You can imagine that if people always made situational attributions for their behavior, they would never be able to take credit and feel good about their accomplishments.

Consider the example of how we explain our favorite sports team’s wins. Research shows that we make internal, stable, and controllable attributions for our team’s victory (Grove, Hanrahan, & McInman, 1991). For example, we might tell ourselves that our team is talented (internal), consistently works hard (stable), and uses effective strategies (controllable). In contrast, we are more likely to make external, unstable, and uncontrollable attributions when our favorite team loses. For example, we might tell ourselves that the other team has more experienced players or that the referees were unfair (external), the other team played at home (unstable), and the cold weather affected our team’s performance (uncontrollable).

Another attribution is confirmation bias. When interacting with the target of our prejudice, we tend to pay attention to information that is consistent with our stereotypic expectations and ignore information that is inconsistent with our expectations. In this process, known as confirmation bias, we seek out information that supports our stereotypes and ignore information that is inconsistent with our stereotypes (Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). In the job interview example, the employer may not have noticed that the job applicant was friendly and engaging, and that he provided competent responses to the interview questions in the beginning of the interview. Instead, the employer focused on the job applicant’s performance in the later part of the interview, after the applicant changed his demeanor and behavior to match the interviewer’s negative treatment. Have you ever fallen prey to the self-fulfilling prophecy or confirmation bias, either as the source or target of such bias? How might we stop the cycle of the self-fulfilling prophecy?

Cultural Consequences of Attribution Errors

One consequence of westerners’ tendency to provide dispositional explanations for behavior is victim blame (Jost & Major, 2001). When people experience bad fortune, others tend to assume that they somehow are responsible for their own fate. A common ideology, or worldview, in the United States is the just-world hypothesis. The just-world hypothesis is the belief that people get the outcomes they deserve (Lerner & Miller, 1978). In order to maintain the belief that the world is a fair place, people tend to think that good people experience positive outcomes, and bad people experience negative outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). The ability to think of the world as a fair place, where people get what they deserve, allows us to feel that the world is predictable and that we have some control over our life outcomes (Jost et al., 2004; Jost & Major, 2001). For example, if you want to experience positive outcomes, you just need to work hard to get ahead in life.

Can you think of a negative consequence of the just-world hypothesis? One negative consequence is people’s tendency to blame poor individuals for their plight. What common explanations are given for why people live in poverty? Have you heard statements such as, “The poor are lazy and just don’t want to work” or “Poor people just want to live off the government”? What types of explanations are these, dispositional or situational? These dispositional explanations are clear examples of the fundamental attribution error. Blaming poor people for their poverty ignores situational factors that impact them, such as high unemployment rates, recession, poor educational opportunities, and the familial cycle of poverty). Other research shows that people who hold just-world beliefs have negative attitudes toward people who are unemployed and people living with AIDS (Sutton & Douglas, 2005). In the United States and other countries, victims of sexual assault may find themselves blamed for their abuse. Victim advocacy groups, such as Domestic Violence Ended (DOVE), attend court in support of victims to ensure that blame is directed at the perpetrators of sexual violence, not the victims.

Maintaining Discrimination and Prejudice

The atrocities of the Holocaust spurred many psychologists to understand why people confirm and obey rules that lead to violence against groups of people. Three broad concepts from social psychology can explain much of human’s discriminatory behavior: social norms, conformity, and authority.

Social norms refer to group or cultural expectations about how a person should behave and what social role they should occupy. There are social norms for attending a college class in the U.S., for attending a university football game, and for how you greet an acquaintance rather than a relative. On a broader level, levels of eye contact or physical space between persons are social norms. Within a particular culture, different people are expected to behave in specific ways based on their identities. For example, men in the U.S. are expected to show anger rather than sadness, and women are expected to show sadness rather than anger. When someone violates these norms, they are often punished in some form by those who follow the norms (e.g., labeled as weak or bossy, respectively). Even when social norms are acknowledged as problematic, it can be difficult to go against them. People are naturally social and have a desire for belonging. This need to belong to a group keeps people from violating norms. For example, if you hear a joke that stereotypes a specific cultural group, it can be hard to correct the joke-teller in the moment. To do so would be to break the social norm – to laugh and enjoy the joke. However, laughing reinforces the norm that stereotypes are acceptable.

Conformity answers the question, “why do people go along with negative or wrong behaviors?” Sometimes, it is very adaptive for a person to match group behavior. If you are attending a wedding ceremony from a tradition you are not familiar with, it is often a safe bet to conform to the behaviors of those around you in order to fit in and participate. The Asch Experiment is a famous example of how powerful conformity is (watch the video here). In general, when presented with contrasting group norms, people will follow the norms set by their in-group. That is, if you are a woman and attending this unfamiliar wedding mentioned above, you are more likely to conform to the behavior of other women at the wedding than the men. Certain social conditions will lead to more conformity: if the majority opinion is bigger, if there is no dissenting person, and when responses or behaviors are public people are more likely to conform. A common form of conformity is group think – faulty decision making. This often occurs when groups have a dominant leader, are cohesive, homogenous (that is, members share identities), and there is a perceived external threat. 

Authority answers the question, “why do people obey corrupt leaders?” The most famous experiment to demonstrate how much people obey authority figures is Milgram’s “shock” experiment (watch the video here). As with conformity, certain social conditions will make people more likely to obey authority figures’ orders to discriminate against a particular group: status of the authority figure, surveillance, and distance from the abused group. The greater the status of the authority figure, the more likely people will obey them. Status, of course, is culturally defined – someone considered high-status in one group may not maintain that status in another group. Surveillance refers to whether or not the individual is being watched by an authority figure; when a person is being observed they are more likely to obey a directive. Finally, distance from the abused group is key. Distancing can occur in multiple ways. Physical distancing might look like segregation of groups (e.g., Jim Crow laws in the U.S. South; concentration camps). Emotional distancing can occur through language, which is promoted by the norms of the in-group. For example, derogatory language that describes a group as less than human (dehumanization) makes it easier for a person to see themselves as separate from people in the targeted group. Propaganda often works to dehumanize groups that are being targeted. For example, in the U.S., racial slurs are meant to dehumanize people of color. Typically, the less a person can empathize with a victimized group, the easier it is for them to go along with discriminatory practices. 

Is obedience to authority universal? It may be. Blass (2012) reviewed replications of Milgram’s experiment across various cultures and found that, in general, participants across cultures had similar obedience rates to participants in the original, WEIRD sample.

Are Prejudice and Discrimination Universal?

Susan T. Fiske is a prominent social psychologist. In a recent article, she acknowledged that much of her work assumed certain social psychology concepts are universal when they might not be (2017). She reviews research to conclude that certain types of prejudice do appear to be universal – seen across societies – while others appear to be specific to particular societies. When Fiske (2017) describes prejudice, she notes that groups in a society can be categorized on two dimensions: how warm they are (e.g., how trustworthy, how cooperative and compliant with social norms) and how competent (e.g., their status in society) they are. When a society groups people on matching dimensions (warm and competent or cold and incompetent), they have less ambivalence about their prejudice and stereotypes. Societies that group people on mismatching dimension (warm and incompetent or cold and competent) have more ambivalence about their prejudice and stereotypes. Fiske (2017) suggests societies with more ambivalence are moving toward equality in their norms and government policies.

Universal Prejudice and Stereotypes

Prejudice based on gender and age transcend culture (Fiske, 2017). Cultures are typically male-dominant, a structure that social norms maintain. Women who comply with male-dominant social norms and practices are seen as warm but incompetent. Conversely, women who violate these norms are seen as cold but competent (former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a great example of this). Similarly, cultures often encourage the elderly to rescind social and economic power to the middle-aged.* Older adults who comply with this are seen as warm and incompetent (Fiske cites the traditional cute but absent-minded grandparent as an example), while the elderly who do not comply are seen as cold and competent.

Culture-Specific Prejudice and Stereotypes

Prejudice based on race, ethnicity, and religion tend to be culture specific. That is, depending on a society’s history and cultural makeup, certain racial, ethnic, or religious groups will be perceived as warm/cold and competent/incompetent. For example, in Israel Jewish people are seen as high-warmth and high-competence, but in many parts of the world where anti-Semitism dominates, Jewish people are seen as cold and competent. In countries where Christians are the majority, Christians are seen as warm and competent, and in countries were Christians are not the majority they are seen as closer to the middle on both categories.

The universality of stereotypes

Fiske (2017) concludes that some stereotypes are universal, and that these generally correlate to biological differences (e.g., age, sex – though recent recognition that sex and gender are different will likely lead to differences on stereotypes). Stereotypes that emerge from historical or current conflict (e.g., a society’s history of slavery, religious warfare, etc).

*Fiske (2017) notes that two cultural groups that respect the elderly and do not fit this pattern are African Americans and Indigenous Peoples/Native Americans (Burkely et al., 2017; Fiske et al., 2009).

Long Description

A hexagon labeled “Maintaining Prejudice” is surrounded by 6 smaller hexagons. The one above is labeled “Distance from group”. The next one clockwise is labeled “Competition for resources”. The next one is labeled “Scapegoating”. The one at the bottom is labeled “Media stereotyping”. The next one is labeled “Conformity and authority”. The next one is labeled “Dehumanization”. Return

Note. The first paragraph, and all writing in the “Attribution Styles and Errors” and “Cultural Consequences of Attributions” were taken from the open-access resource, OpenStax, Psychology 2e.

References

Blass, T. (2012). A cross-cultural comparison of studies of obedience using the Milgram Paradigm: A review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(2), 196-205. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Studies of Obedience Using the Milgram Paradigm: A Review

Burkley, E., Durante, F., Fiske, S. T., Burkley, M., & Andrade, A. (2017). Structure and content of Native American stereotypic groups: Not just (ig)noble. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 202-219.

Fiske, S. T. (2017). Prejudices in cultural contexts: Shared stereotypes (gender, age) versus variable stereotypes (race, ethnicity, religion). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(5), 791-799. SageJournals, Prejudices in Cultural Contexts: Shared Stereotypes (Gender, Age) Versus Variable Stereotypes (Race, Ethnicity, Religion)

Fiske, S. T., Bergsieker, H., Russell, A. M., & Williams, L. (2009). Images of Black Americans: Then, “them” and now, “Obama!” DuBois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 6, 83-101. IMAGES OF BLACK AMERICANS Then, “Them,” and Now, “Obama!”