3TEZ1 8

fa I UIHGfUGII
yatua,DISCRIMINATION
(PREJUDICE, ANDCOMMUNALISM)

(Meaning of Prejudice)

"prejudicium" prejudicium" VR pre' Tjudicium' pre' 13rÉ TE

'prejudice'

3R TaÍE (A KE GT Yecafd fadháT fUT (preconceived irrational judgement )Ý, Fa HHR

(dislike )
at 31GNTf45 yUT ( normative percepts ) [ HE (collection ) HI4T IYZ fA YaÍUE }
fÀ THG GÍ TRT }HH( Secord && Backman, I987 ),faT (Fisher, 1982 ),h,
Ghafhrs I Aâ
(Kretch,Crutchfield &Ballachey, 1962 )Thrst¬(Feldman; 1985 ), 4Tt( Myers,
(Baron &Byrne, 1977 )·, ¥T 3H IT Tu HEHfT ã yaiuz RE Át 1987),7 Ti
Htgf ( attitude )

Ahs TNT aén (Secord &Backman, 1974 ) 3qHK,

"Tafuz VG 4qfr HT

1. "Prejudice is an attitude that

ways towards a group or its predisposes
aperson to think, perceive, feel
and act in favourable and untavourau
2. "Prejudice refers to individual members." -Secord &Backman : Social
positive or
based primarily onthe fact of theirnegative evaluations or judgements of Psychology, 1974, P.
members of a particular group W
membership in the group and not necessarily because of particular characteristics
of individual members."
-Feldman:Social Psychology, 1985 p. lo
 yatus, firte eft i79
Baron &Byrne, 1977) 3q, n frT Tafug t farit

|a( Myers, 1987 )

yafug t 397
3à RrHG HAgft (positive attitude ) HTITFS t 34
aat ( negaitve attitude )H14T - aT aÁ 3t iut sà frf 1Ie rgfrt
zitrTT (positive )

ad
(positivelyprejudiced)

t Hgci (components ) 31 HATHG HYLG (cognitive component ), yafuz at

(behavioural component )gt ad
(affective component)TT GERIHG Ho

(hostility ) t a
yr4: yuT, S U¢ fAEY
negative evaluation ) fT GII

à HGI yfT grhR faE, 3TIIA (segregation ) 4T34

(segregation )TT34 qH HHE

some social,
psychology, as a negative attitude towards the members of
."Prejudice is generally defined, in
social Psychology, 1977, p. 191
-Baron &Byrne :Socialmembers."
ethnic or religious group. negative attitude towards a group and its individual Psychology, 1987, p. 483
unjustifiable -Myers : Social
4. rejudiceis "an
 ESHaIM
CH yafug emotional
tone TPrejudice
has HaTIHST
fAI4T HHT
yatuz 3.
RCT fErT 3H 1983(Fische,
) fETR (Feldman,
AT1985) hesT
att)iÁt, ude Tgf( E
TIÁ yaiFuz acquired) Prejudiceis (arT fT yatuz 2.
Haffra3 faTGT 34yaiyz
át 1979*)Cooper, Worchel& qR
( ar¢chT T1977) Byne,
Baron& Ballachey,
),
qd 4TT& 1962 Crutchfield& (Kretch, T frs , S
3HÀ fã ATHIF34EY gauE
hI irrational Prejudiceis aT
(fadhaH yafuz 1.
Prejudice(Characteristics
) of
GIGI GER0 3494 (segregation
34T ) 3HIG
HIHHG yaÍuz 5.
(overgeneralization) HIAU 3fa I
ÁIITcomponent
r ) (behavioural
component3s)component
)g affective {YLH),4IGIHF component cognitiveF0GRTTA yet2TGuag 3.
T:attitude) negative 41gfr (75TA tdafrtà
frf AT Fgatuag 2.
180
 yafue, friz tfr 181

yufóU fastft t st nfra a¥t t/ Predujice is directed towardsa group

yafue
whole
4.9 J-yafuga

lqualities)

f r HTthtu q 3TTfta AI Prejudice is based upon rigid and

)-yarte G (rigidity ) r rt Tz f HHT-ÁEU(inflexible
inflexiblegeneralization
generalization)7

6. yafug aTufHa
T: aAT AT È( Prejudice has functional nature
3gHR, yaÍuE AAY AUfa a f 3HH FI
(Kretch, Crutchrfield &Ballachey ) *
HIg t 4GT 4G« fH aT FUJT(frustration )

)yaug re
HLAT arfah i lar (Prejudice is not relatedto reality
7. yatuz GT

Diference between Prejudice andDiscrimination )

(
yatuz f AEUH# f5 (behavioural
gafs fare (activities )34
yatug y 4tgfr ( attitude ) 1954 ) 344R yaiYE YT E`T f4r (antilocution ), yfrar
menifestation ) }I34TTY (Allport, fFIr fraifGT
344 R
art HA fa (
discrminiation ) U (exiermination )Ifac# AEY Á0HIGHE
physical attack ),3c& qR, "yatyruT
(avoidance ), VIiRG EHGT (1TRIHG(negative ) 4Tihes4T(Feldman, 1985 )*
TT
(positive )ft a HAIÀ

cf prejudice. In
cas of discrimination, members of particular
manisfestation
behaviuoural
1. "Discriminationis the positiverly or negatively because
oftheir membership in aparticular group."
-Feldman : Social Psychology, 1985, p. 159
group are treated either
 gal Hf3T aGIBAT 3fA aGIAIf3 1987)Myers,
ydHE at E344t5 (HHf# TH g Gt HHT
yfi HfaTAT 3244 4Tf4| RT
1970) Broverman
al., et. H414(
34 1978)Bayton, Semedley& (eH y¢ s T 1981) Senter, Jackman& H( GT
rTrace) HGiT ( Uã 3T 0yaiu prejudice
#) (racial yaiua 4GT 34: (prejudiced
Ealà )
ional yaIE arT
relation) relto
ated prejudice yatu( HuT
TaE:HIIZE prejudic),e (laTnguage yaHE )fprejudice) communal (
prej
T udic
),e caste yatu( G4T
Tr HE3Fprejudice) age (sex-prejudice),
yauE( 3u yatuz prejudi),ce recial (
Prejudice) (Types
of
(prejudice
T )
rent?er) fATER( yH 3744
prejudiced) yautad( fi f Vff 3f
3
f ,
TEAT AS E a, faaer fntz vfa group) target RE
(
I82
 183

va t (Rodian&Langer,
37
1980)*Fgt
unsocial )rTHuf
)
(senile 1980 ) sà zuare'
(ageism) 8T attitude )fatt 2 d

4. yatua( Caste prejudice ) MA U# ta }Y1fst

t f FRTH& (positive )Eat EI g34t Tatuz 3 fa à t afT TKIGHE ( negative )

GIaI
riots) 1qH

yatuz ( Prejudice related to religion )-í a f yafua fr 3r44

7. t Haf
I84

9.f af yatug ( Prejudice related to polities -34 2 âtr

attitude ) T Iatgf (pOsitive

(Causes of Development and Maintenance of Prejudice )

fI5H 34GIAI HHTSNITT( sOciologists ),3/TEIHTI( historians ),HHGai(

(anthropologists )
yG 35 gsT'(The Nature of Prejudice ) 4 Td faV43T T 4TY Tnm
ru a UHfAH GH 8 faNT fHaIT( theories )41 34rTH (approaches ) 1aUT f 3
3Z4T 3 taif# 3414d (theoretical approaches ) a f4I I3TGY (Allport, 1954)

(*)fdEfyG 3YH (Historical approach )

(T) HIHG-HI# 3YT4 (Socio-cu!tural approach )
(T) Vff 3Yy (Situational approach )
(E) 4freât 34H ( Psychodynamic approach )
(3) HIHTGH& 344 (Cognitive approach )

() frgfua JUTT ( Historical approach)-fdE5 3T4 yAÍuE GT ERU 4ET VE

H< (deterioration relations ), 3A1F Het ( economic conflict )aT 34 d
34R A

attitude ) f* 3gR EHM TE RT f Z5 TA 3f YIfra 3f

(physicalenergY
 185

slavery) gfreR, Wt ut vhtoh ae (s0cial and educational segregation ), frytesr

(
(appointments )

fret r t ,

taft tI TY faEt463H( historicallapproach)Tyafuz ErU T

() HTAIfh-H0Gfrh JUT ( Socio-cultural approach -34 3YH 3fa yafuz (UT

3YE (origin),far vaHu HHSNI RUT (sociologicall reasons ) TT H0Ff
T8Ihtd: FH 3UTH f t zH 34 A ( factors )t A
(eultural reasons ) * tSt
TET Ss 3444 f4| T4T El
fr HHGNIA0 (sociologist ) d HHGVIt (anthropologists ) ERT

347-3744 3YTd 48 fGAT

),fafeYH( 1964
Wiliiams, )ª
correlation )Ái 34T9T Allport, 1954
tf 3T YII f zftd uft
veT fANafalY A 1.000 Tyafue
&Sinha,1960 )

(sociologists ) TT HHG Hegiftry4

class HHGYURt
2. HTATT art( Social socio-economic status )
HIHITE-3IYG R (
vã aË HH8 at f 1
#arré t af
344 344 q f Je qifu
Williams, 1964 )
IHIS RT HHSG atifafqH (
186

(Hollingshead, 1949 )
3raT 3f yafut aà t i f s

3.4TtGT( Urbanization ) HHGIfat I h E I f r

WY5T RGII HHfs Ift(sOcial scientists )faTG

(impresonal relationship )ft 3frG YrA d Ái fe TT fT (Simpsen &Yinger, 1972) r

fsà f VE fft ufT f - f GRE ÉT yatuz ( prejudices ) I4

faYGfT4T (caste )
P 4. GTfa ( Caste) - YHHG f a qf (classes ) 3/AI

3 fa Tfygs GIf t vfd feG yatust (prejudiced )Et IgHIC (Prasad, 1979

10a Je GIfT t uf àG(ees

( Singh et al., 1950 ) 3r4+ 3444 dY4T fs 4 q

(Singh &Bhushan, 1969 ) 3r44 37444 4 Tf# aTEIUI, A4Y UG (YGI A4 Gfa

gatue ( prejudice ) *&1 rT G3 4 fIR frE ( Singh, 1980 ), rert (Chaudhary, 1958).
EHT VfHE (Hassan &Singh, 1973 )RT fRI TI,ÀE YrZI TTfE fogi ge yHCHH
yaiuE afE t RT VTTT (traditional ), HIHIE-TsAfAG 4gri (socio-political
attitudes ) 3faig ar¥t ZUT (Natraj, 1965 ) 3rt 34 Tf yfTH 3r94T Ta
IRG FfGAT(economicconservatism)Á HIfAA gaÍuE f à n i 34fr 44431111
feqifsH (Triandis& Triandis, 1960 ) fGH (Catholics ), 1et (Protestant ) t

6. TET-MTtur ( Urban-rural region 3 à 37/4 Y8 TTTf THU 81

 yefue, fre f 187

sfh yatug I *feate(

conservatism ) f HT et al., 1972 ) arrt
arT
religious and sex
3nr ( rrfs frT
)* 3r yafuz
prejudice) 3f t t TUd T4h Efrt( Hassan et al. 1977ua
frs (Christian ) 18T$gt aar
3rfr#
Bf 4gft 3tfr 3et ( liberal ) art
(Social conflict )faf Hf HY81
T34T Hyu (maintenance ) rat i ft 448 T
qT 1 yf afdps (unfavaourable
(Sinha &Upadhaya, 1960 )
G, t (Chinese )i yf VeT
(stereotypes )

(cheaters ).
t yzI f gfayaysTT 3r4G4
(Meenes. 1950 ), HTT (Seago, 1947 ) 3rq--374 3

4fu 4YE i feH,2ifa, HHeE

8.4 HYE HTH( Mass media )-yaiug
3TATE E Yafua (prejudice )fapfra ara t 4rf7( 1982 ) 37A
T8-778 T qTHI fHTt fH
4fzGI U ET ufr 3fN
TT SI GIG T, 34À
yfuat (traditional role ) 3G ( Myers, 1988 ) 3tE TAGE3T ÀB l10 afrat T
3DT YafYz fau TI Tqt

approach)-vfff 3Y4ò yafuz 34 GLUT R

( ) utffT
3UTT4 (Situational (immediate environment ) HafT ar hr
alfci qIGIGL
SI GTGTfr
), frR ( Fisher, ar Tqf (Myers,1988 )
1982)
1985
4gfr t àI" nes (Feldman,
YTS-TEi
qeaT HHGtGU H344 HIGT-fYaT,
HTATNG íGI( Sociallearning)-waG
1.

produces
person's immediateenvironment 174
which a p.
prejudice emphasize the ways in -Feldman: Social Psychology, 1985,
approaches to
2. "Situational
prejudicial attitudes."
188

yy 3E(child-rearing practices )tà 3z aiai( permissive practice ) 4T airal( resticive

gafue faafua qaa aifyui( Sears,1969).:ta( Troll, 1969
)
practice )394T47 T 1953 )ZTTfaT 3I4
fafas ( Frenkel--Brunswik& Havel, Kali Prasad.,196A).
1977 ) a ft (1980 ) 37à 3I4 4 T f q
E67 ( Hssan,
AV417 q JaR
(restrictive ) Te 3furaá (authoritarian ) 7ÜI (prejudiced.attitude

THT 41A
2. T4HIfafaua( Demographic characteristics)-3 T
(Maykovich, 1975 ) ffefa 3Y4 (situational approach ) TauE *UT
4fag
demographic charactristics ) àt fG 48r4yuí 3EI4T AI

FHE (Sinha &Sinha, 1975 ) t 3 34A ÍT

4gGT HE (majority group )#1 3rHGE THE ( miniroty group

(E) 44GGT 34TTH ( Psychodynamic approach udt 34H À34 4d31-2

insecurity).
(personality ) ua (frustration ), 31T(
 189

, ftftt
AThHhdl(Frustration and Aggression )L
at U3T RGIT( Frustrationtheory )ZT af
TT fafyT 6 fuGIA( Scapegoat ttheory ) f EeT
r0 RT( goal ) t
316hHUT( displaced: aggression )I 34 f4GIIAfrustration
3HR TA)341 Zr
8 GIT ( interfering agent ) ufi
3416HF (aggressive )
E 34T 3164Chcll (aggressive )
displaced )R TGIAF frfya 3TGE46T(displaced
aggression ) ET GII 3H faY 3416546 LU HHGR HIT ( weak source )
) 4a
a gGT fHGIT( Scapegoat theory )?
(experiements) &Bugleski, 1947 )aTfGTTI YT 34 fUGT
(summer camp ) T E,âT HAgfT
TNITT (Japanese ) TeT Ga ( Maxican) ufr s dy# (camp management )

A gafye T ANIT q4T GIaT AIST (Brown, 1962 ). 4# (Myers, 1987 ) 37A44 3H*

2. HATATT afthra( Authoritarian personality )-yatuz faf 4dE ARU HHA

personality ) TTyatYE (prejudice ) THG ( direct relationship ) t feGAIT TeTSIa

34* 4EAIrt ( Adrono et al. 1950 ) 3444 f f 4 qe fGIq T4f fH fht
4IET îeyu (authoritarian trait ) -G fad4 (rigid thinking ), USTHF NqÍT (punitive

¢ 344t qE HE TAT
hel TEI44(Hanson, 1975 ), AIScft (Bierly, 1985 ) Tf

HGig eI (Chatteriee. 1973 )fz d fHET( Singh &Sinha, 1980 ) ft 3y4-3r44

HGI AT f
SRT sit f a (Insecurity and anxiety ) a f yauE 3qeT T
IfGr À34 t , HÊHIG R(social status ) 3ATf AR 34GT T YAHT
(objective view)faafT
 190

à aftrt yatue tut àfrafua att t 3rernt (Allport, 1952 ), T%

(Lindzey, I950) ary-3r g T fs fH Bift (Gough, 1951 ),
far yafug t 3afr vd qunUT ( maintenance ) Err q fE
(positive correlation ) ÁI rH( Rokeach, 1960 )* 3rvt3 r ò rf#
T(
rat ( prejudiced
subjects )3yatut va0 (non-prejudiced subjects ) át arr frE faf-
0 FIT (review ) rger HAAY yafuz (ethnic prejudice )7a aIà BIfE0 Myers, 1987 )
S4geile (Enayatullah, 1980 )
fE(Singh, 1980 )

(prejudiced people ) RI Ya0HE RT ( target )* 4rt f4| 4| A(

perception ) T3H a
q3T HHTYT ( processing ) 3TATR T f4T GTI TI EHA(Hamilton, 1979 )*T
Ha yatuat aftrt aRT f+A| TT 3THfg favcrT (subjetive analysis ) srf
aa
HATHG 3YH ( cognitive approach ) 344R f-ifd AR FY d yafu BrI ze

I g4 34* R I3 AIHF AGET ( positive behaviour f

) | GIGT
yv0HT H 311 HRU r4, 3YG yatua af 34
H, 3ATHG dER (exceptional behaviour ) 3ft

attribution error ) hIIWEf# 344 yaHE I ARU yatua t aRT YatHz

afa fT Te YRUT (perception ) vd 34T04UT( (target )
attribution ) 34 yG 31U AT 3H YR

` yatuE át GI A Z u¢ Grî (Taylor &Jaggi, 1974 ) TTtfA IRT fE

clerks ) q f4 s 3 yut HHg fredt 3H 344 fu u
fÍT4T (Hinau
E T(small passag°)
4 f8 YT T YHHIH YZ AIHE (positive ) 4T EUTGHF
GER (negative behaviour )
 191

attribution error )

2.3FA:4Y8H t a aI H Hii fafi(Distinction between 1in-group members

andout-groupmembers

HE 34:418 (in-group )
HETT HE (out-group ) T318U 3TI S3f Tar T( Downing &
Monaco,1982 Hus( contact )

f H gatrat ( prejudiced) arar g

qafuz aUd i HL HIAR H (General conclusion regarding causes of
prejudice)3f5
approachaes ) 3 #t t57 3y HAfG-H0Í# JYH (socio-cultural
approach), i 3YTH (psychodynamic approach) TT HIHG 3TH (Gcogn1tive approach )

(Methods of reducing Prejudice and Discrimination

fAert3rT: HHG HAazIftà

ardufrh Hd(interpersonalconflict ), rditsT34 I4: G

Hq V8 HHS 4dYIfE
8HYE Hcs ( Intergroup contact )-3TYIE (Aiport, 1954 ) person ) r sfT HHG
L fri(target
frt yatue afi( prejudiced person ) T4T yaTE RT

(prejudce ) H GI fafu qH 4tsIf 34 T8 3rdufrh

str f yatuz intergroup contact ) fHIfT H VRfat
T 34-HYE HHG (
HH# (interprsonalcontact )
f TATGar (effective ) dTYT
TI AROGT
Requal
( status WIT
) BGI S4GT HHT 3Tfr ( Amir, 1976 ), IeT
0 HHA f4T
3
(Norvell && Worchel, 1981 ) 3ry-374

) d p (Cook, 1969 ) 3ry 34 3 t faT

TT RZT (Black &Mouton, 1979
 192

(iii )
interdependent activities ) frft HII qt yrat
goal ) TE fn yIftT t 4yt jyrs f43Í (joint activities ) Rrf r

ei(Cook, 1969 )* y ÜH LT t gafua fzS0T (white prejudiced women )" T f

(Ge" VA H T ( summer camp ) yE qa a R IHY0CIGT (counselor ) TTT TS

RIHYÍCTaT H afT3 (intimate )
#G TT f 3H Hys E 3UGI0y yafuz (inter-racial prejudice ) 1T T3T T

(informal education ) HTG-fMI Yrar 3 HT YH-4SIT ERT qt T t T¥I3

HEAft (Fied!er et al., 1979 ) 3447-344 3r44- T4T f fT T R 3hI E À a Ì

(race ) aT HIG# HH (social norms ) T34* Gitq Tt (life style ) aR GG

feSAT (Feldman, 1985 )> ft 0T yefuz H tgfrs tteer faf #

3.yatuz-faiat var ( Antiprejudice propaganda } yeiuz faty fis, }etfai, frtm

)
 193

art Bfs (Minard, I952 ), rermt ( Palmore, 1955 )ª

5.HTATf
faur( Social legislation)qafug Hà
legislation)

Trat 3t RE T yatue ( caste prejudice ) t1

faatE (intercaste mariage ) *t 4t ifrT fT at 3u fauH att arfir# TeTEA

a HA}IfaGN t HGER VITfqC(racial discrimination )

, qEtCt (jews )3f ufr iR aft( white people )4

discrimination)a T qaffar qH aI< YGI0T Yaiua ( racial prejudice

(racial

a HH9 (maintenance)

^HT
School desegragation ) THT4 VUT" A TATf
JAEVRAEY, 3HfRGT 3/GU YcT(

fHY (Sampson &

ufafrT(Personality changetechnigues - e
7. afhra fad

1. F 3aUf (school desegragation white

did not reduce
desegregationgenerally
Psychology,1985, p.180.
(1978 )concluded that
2. "After weighing the evidence, Stephen -Feldman: Social
prejudice towards blacks."
 faftrn
prejudice) social
condition
) 3 targetF h l975)
AfR fU 3
( TE a), Donohoe,
s TEY-ti expression
% racial rTA dTÀ
) )
1974
race
3A subjects
( 3r Backman, ) &
Feldman
yonft
u
34T: afuainteraction
facial administer
white
) ), (
1948 31-4-3ffr# s a (ytt(
& attitude )measures
5H (Secord (
3:f4T fh41-444(
vHIST(Axline, (Measurement
ofPreudice) Ui
yafue yfatt5 negative
d4
hSiHR
behavioural
)person
Át YafuÉ)test
T ( GT
4HTgfr I (
341 GH
prejudiced HH YrHUT
fGCIá
fhre Nonverbal TT
HE ThRIHG H UHT
)
) prejudiced
KRT
T ( behaviour à UG
HrT(
ft Y
)
fat(catharsis Át
)TRI fhT-7-fh4TST
A)
TRE auat
AEr(YTE high
therapy nonverbal
(
yatuá
yetd: A
SH TE
play 4( aE
Ue 1.319T1fea
TER
tfafhHT(fs
(1) yatua IY HT
) )4
methods 3rf
# expression HuT
)perons
HIIE 3T4443ir
194
(
TIR
 )
prejudice social
lcondition) 3 l
(target l975)
4E e
Y-i deu
fEA ), Donohoe,
expression
3racial
H )
1974 t
)
(race T )
subjects
Backman, ) &
UF interaction
facial Feldman )
t
)yGÍHa administer
white
)
rá 1948 (
34T-4-3Afa s a (
& ( (
t Secord measures feh4[-q44(
(Axline, 3T:f4T
t UË T4
eaSUTement
of
reudice
yafue ( hSH
E4 behavioural
) afua )
play
yfraf person test
qT GT fGGIáTTI (
34H GH
prejudiced HH YrAUT
fhrg
Nonverbal qT
F5
) UHT
TT )
( behaviour EY4 prejudiced
uG
T
) ( fti
catharsis HT4 fÁT-7-f+T
)aRT )
auat
TAEIYIG high
nonverbal SE
fat( therapy
yatuát(
H TE
E 4ER(
U 1.AAIfzA E T4G
GGhT( U4
) )4 a
(methods HT
(1) # expression
4
)
194 perons ATT 3R
4 TR
 498 H* equal HafT GA
yauEf4T 4E T )negative
195 GIGTI &
Cooper )
G.S.R.
UF adifferential SHA
¥ ( Y 34TT
* thelp far faa ( (TRIHE
)judges 34T fh fR or
3t Response
HCE
behaviour
aggressive
)341G64UCH 3fF TT
white H4 3À
i( 3 t 5Ty HHçÍ A
3Tg 4-y Skin
) fafrt à a¥t
behaviours
attitude )â 3gÍT
) ht
(Galvanic
ft
analysis
Thurstone ) )
igft(as criterionaif
Hd ) positive
Prejudice)
ofEfects
TT ( 1955
) )method fANAU(Scalogram 3qfh4T
other1976 ),£7( EY 8 Campbell,
appropriate táiaKIH&(
fayg
of Donnerstein, methods reactions
the
basis self-report d I
raing )Scale at
(htt & (Rankin 3iT
Self-report
Summated E
GT )Á
(On TT ( Differntial (Physiological
),
& fat hUTH dilation attitude
(Donnerstein
)
R
34 T
dI ( 3IH-0TdcH
tZT( NIGI
3T T (Semantic t (pupil!ary 4AgfH(
)interaction fau TeëH
appearing )
validity TRT
wfafars
GBTdSHH HaÍcT
).method
3.3T4-uräc
ft faytg
t etci ( hetig
(
3-7:1Gh4T
alet., (
1980) fsaI Ha ),
4.¿fga
1959 )
YF
34T fei (recording FHE
2. HU YT Singer, yaferat
ar
E a
 HE(
advantged DfT -â a HGT rdT RE
Iaft 31
) 3TfG
ë T attitude 1
Ur gSTBT GTà arît t )
faf (Dprojects
3HA1 afua
3uà )
positive
a attitudeatafE ar¥t
araÁi Â
)
zf4 frustration YTGT
3444t
3
) (
4gT negative GI E afals yfHST
feeling f ffiH
HT ufr 8AT 4TT48
Superiority ataRICHF
(
)
effect )* FUST( )
HAgiT employee H arci
34fGT
group RT 344 raTÀI GIÀ
48 Hf
advarse 1RTHE 34IE
ARINI
disadvantaged ( yfT ( ) YAI
YIGHT a ) GHT disorganization
)
1974 integration
or 3yt fafy ET TGh
negative t G-qHR GT}I
ufa Backman, >
) IS )
HH8( HYG 3 prejudice )
( HGT 3TR nationalintegration maint
YYT HGT social
THfGG
34HIf-dT &à I
HC caste Secord
at (
EIf4fifhi Y (faeT HHGAnational
qg
34THI-GG
HH 344 (
( ( t
T ) T HHG H yafuz HH ) HHE HTqU
TGRIHG#
effect HST HT 7 gain 4T 4 (
3GUSaT
)ft RT ) aàI
TT
T economic promotion
(positivegroup yatus yatus )
yafy 466 yatuz yaiuE 4 (origi
T uf
) 2. 3. 4. ( ( effect
)T
effectTT 5. 2. 3. 3Ha
196 f-If