Stereotyping, Prejudice and

Discrimination
By Stephen, Kellan, Andrew, Dan & Theo

 Stereotype: An oversimplified generalised set of ideas

that we have about others
Practical implications: Suggestions about behaviour in
the real world beyond the research study, based upon what
psychologists have discovered.
Role Model: Someone who a child looks up to and is
likely to copy.
Prejudice: A rigid set of attitudes or beliefs towards
particular groups of people. These attitudes are usually
negative, but not always.

Key Term

 Discrimination:(With references to prejudice) The way

an individual behaves towards another person or group as
a result of their prejudiced view. This behaviour is
usually negative, but could also be positive.
Authoritarian Personality: A personality type that is
prone to being prejudiced.
F-scale: The questionnaire used by Adorno to measure
personality characteristics.
Robbers Cave: The name given to Sherifs experiment
on prejudice.

Key Terms 2

 In-group: A group of people you believe you have something in

common with, for example, your psychology group.
Our-group: A group of people whom you believe you have
nothing in common with.
Jigsaw method: The name given to the technique used by
Aronson to reduce prejudice within a group of mixed- race
students.
Expert groups: Another name for the jigsaw method. It is
called expert groups because each member of the group becomes
an expert on a particular topic and they then pass this knowledge
on to the rest of their group.

Key Terms 3

 Contact: Seeing, speaking or writing to someone.

Empathy: Being able to put yourself in someone elses
position psychologically and understand how that person
is feeling.

Key Terms 4

 Aim: To investigate the extent of sex stereotyping across 30

different countries.
Method: Participants were given over 300 characteristics and asked
to state whether the characteristics were more likely to be associated
with me, women or both sexes.
Results: They found that across the 30 countries the same
characteristics tended to be associated with males and females.
Females were described as understanding, emotional and warm.
Males were described as reckless, hard-headed and determined.
Conclusion: The findings of this cross-cultural study suggest that
there are commonly held stereotypes of males and females.

William and Best (1994)

 Aim: To find out if new parents stereotype their babes.

Method: Parents were asked to describe their new babies within
24 hours of the baby being born.
Results: They found that parents of baby boys described their
babies as being at and strong, whereas parents of baby girls
described their babies as soft and delicate.
Conclusion: Parents stereotype their children from a very early
stage despite no stereotypical behaviour being shown. For a lot
of parents who know the sex of their baby prior to birth, this
stereotyping behaviour starts before the baby is born by painting
a room pink for a girl or blue for a boy.

Rubin et al. (1997)

 Aim: To look at the development of prejudice among young children

Method: Researchers interviewed 216 English children aged
between five and 10 years old, on their views and opinions on people
from different European countries.
Results: It was found that, at this age, children already demonstrated
more positive views towards some views towards some European
groups than to others. They found that the Germans were liked the
least while the French were liked the most, despite the children
having no factual information on these nationalities
Conclusion: By the age of 10, children already hold prejudiced
views towards other nationalities.

Barrett and Short (1992)

 Aim: To find out if prejudice develops when groups are in

competition for scarce resources.
Method: An American summer camp was organised for 2 boys.
The boys were randomly split into two teams and the teams were
kept away form each other. They were not aware that the other team
existed. The boys were given time to settle into their camps and
form a group identity. After a while, the two groups discovered
each other and the camp and the camp staff introduced a series of
competitions with the prize for the winning team being a silver cup.
Results: Very quickly, the teams began unpleasant name-calling
towards each other and tried to attack each other.
Conclusion: Competition is a cause of prejudice.

Sherif(1961)

 Aim: To see if people would be more likely to help a stranger if they

believed they had something in common with the stranger.
Method: A situation was set up so that a stuntman fell over in front of
Manchester United fans. Half the time he was wearing a Manchester
united shirt; the rest of the time he was wearing a Liverpool shirt.
Results: When he was wearing the Manchester United shirt, he was
helped to his feet every time. However, when he was wearing the
Liverpool shirt, he was left to help himself every time.
Conclusion: When we feel we have something in common with others
we are more likely to help them in an emergency. We are less likely to
help out-group members.

Levine(2002)

 Aim: To show how easily people discriminate against their outgroups.

Method: 14-15 year old boys were randomly assigned to two
groups. Each boy was given a game to play where he had to
award pairs of points. They were told the points could be
swapped for prizes at the end.
Results: The boys awarded points by choosing the pairings that
created the biggest differences between the groups, not the
pairings that gave them the most points.
Conclusion: People will discriminate against others just because
they are members of an out-group.

Tajfel(1970)

 Aim: To teach her class what it felt like to be victims of

discrimination.
Method: Elliott told her class the following:
1. Blue-eyed children are smarter than brown-eyed
children.
2. Blue-eyed children are the best children in the class.
3. Brown-eyed children cant play with blue-eyed children
in the playground because they are not as good.
4. Brown-eyed children cannot use the drinking fountain.

Elliott(1970)

 Results: The reaction of the children to these statements was

immediate. The blue-eyed children were delighted, arrogant and
became vicious. The brown-eyed children were angry, saddened,
confused and withdrawn. Fights broke out in the playground who had
been best friends the day before. The following day, Elliott reversed
the experiment. She found brown-eyed children acted in the same
arrogant way that the blue-eyed children had the previous day.
Similarly the blue-eyed children had become withdrawn and sad.
Conclusion: Elliott believed that, by getting the children to
experience prejudice first hand what it felt like to be victims of
prejudice and discrimination, these children would grow up to being
more tolerant to others.

Elliott Cont.(1970)

 Aim: To investigate childrens views to the elderly

Method: Harwood asked children and their grandparents
about their relationships. The children were also
questioned about their views to the elderly in general.
Results: Children who had regular contact with
grandparents held positive views towards the elderly.
Conclusion: Contact with grandparents is a good
predictor of a childs attitude towards the elderly.

Harwood(2003)

 Sherif: Sherifs method may only have been successful because his
groups and the prejudice between them were artificially crated.
However, his method did show that, if two groups work together to
achieve a common goal, prejudice can be reduced.
Aronson: Aronson found that his jigsaw method did lead to prejudice
between racial groups being reduced. However, the positive perception
of the other group were not generalised outside of the classroom.
Elliott: Elliotts research could be considered unethical as the children
suffered from psychological stress. However, when she contacted the
students nine years later, they were more tolerant and showed more
empathy towards others, than children who had not experienced her
lesson.

Evaluation

 Harwood: information gathered from interviews is not

always reliable. There are children who dont have
regular contact with grandparents but still have a positive
attitude to the elderly.

Evaluation 2

 Sherifs theory is difficult to put into practice in real life. There

may be tasks in communities that will need groups to work
together to complete, but how do you get the groups to join in.
Aronsons work suggests that within schools and workplaces
prejudice could be reduced, but this may not generalise to other
settings.
Elliotts method of creating empathy within her children
worked, but you need children to experience that at an early age.
Harwoods research illustrates the importance of contact
between children and grandchildren.

Practical implications