Neighbours Pete and Dave attend a talk at their local social club by a man who is who hoping to be elected onto the local council. They have been members of the club a long time, as has the speaker. The speaker gives an impassioned talk about the history of their town and arguing that the identity of the town is under threat due to the “immigration crisis”. The man says the crime rate and unemployment have another gone up in recent years and puts this down to the number of people moving into the town from other countries. Pete takes on board everything the speaker says and goes onto show some increasingly prejudicial attitudes over the coming weeks. He even shows covert discrimination when looking through CVs for a vacancy in his company. Dave on the other hand does not appear to have been swayed by the speaker and remains objective on the topic of the immigration/refugee crisis. In fact, he has just made a donation to a charity appeal for clothing and other items to transport to the refugee camp in Calais.
|Using examples relating to the extract, describe the difference between prejudice and discrimination (3)|
|Prejudice||Prejudice is best described as an attitude towards a person based on social categorisation, whereby stereotypical beliefs about the group are assumed to apply to the individual. The person with the prejudice may also have a certain emotional reaction towards the stereotyped person and they will be predisposed to act a certain way towards them.|
|Example||For example, in the extract the speaker may hear a person’s accent, see the way they dress or the colour of their skin and categorise them as an “immigrant”, the speaker will then apply stereotypical assumptions, e.g. this person is more likely to be involved in crime. This may evoke feelings of disdain, anger or fear if we believe the person to potentially be dangerous.|
|Discrimination||Discrimination means treating someone differently based upon perceived membership of a certain social group; this can be overt or covert meaning that the person may or may not be aware of the discrimination.|
|Example||In the extract Pete is said to treat people differently who are applying for a job and this may be dependent upon whether they have an English sounding surname or otherwise; this is covert discrimination as the applicant will never know why they were not called for interview.|
|Explain ONE situational factor which may increase the likelihood of prejudice and discrimination arising amongst the members of the club following the talk. (3)|
|Identify a factor: Economic hardship||One situational factor that could affect levels of prejudice and discrimination is economic hardship. Realistic conflict theory suggests that outgroup hostility is more likely when two or more groups are striving for the same goals, for example when groups are in competition for jobs and jobs are short.|
|Elaboration linked to the extract||If the members of the club feel that resources in the town are limited and are feeling the brunt of job losses and cuts to public services for example, this could have an effect on the amount of discrimination exhibited.|
|Example||An example of the relationship between economic hardship and increased levels of discrimination can be seen in the study by Hovland and Sears whereby as the price of cotton fluctuated in the Southern States of America so too did the number of lynchings of Black Americans.|
|Using your knowledge of individual differences (e.g. culture and personality), explain why Dave appears to show less prejudiced attitudes or discriminatory behaviour following the talk than Pete. (6)|
|Allport’s ‘Tolerant’ and ‘Prejudice’ types||According to Allport, Dave may show less discriminatory behaviour than Pete because he has a more “generalised tolerant type” personality whereas Pete is more inclined towards “the generalised prejudice” type.|
|Deep-seated ego weakness and displaced hostility||Allport would say that Pete may have a “deep-seated ego weakness” and unconscious feelings of insecurity, fear and anxiety which he displaced onto outgroups who he treats badly, explaining his hostility towards the “immigrants”.|
|Home backgrounds and parenting||Allport would say that these individual differences stem from Pete and Dave’s home backgrounds and differences in their parenting, e.g. Pete’s parents may have been more harsh and punitive whereas Dave’s parents may have been more permissive and exhibited more unconditional love.|
|The world is a threatening and dangerous place||Allport would say that Pete may view strangers and in this case “immigrants” as potentially threatening and dangerous, whereas Dave might have a more trusting, optimistic and positive view of others and this underpins why he behaves more compassionately towards immigrants in Calais than Pete.|
|Right Wing Authoritarianism||Pete and Dave may score differently on personality tests such as Right Wing Authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981), Pete may score higher than Dave suggesting that he likes to follow orders and is highly conventional on his outlook in comparison with Dave; this means that he may find it easy to go along with leaders such as the speaker at the club who he perceives as having power.|
|Social Dominance Orientation||Dave may also score lower than Pete on the personality trait known as Social Dominance Orientation, (Pratto et al, 1994) meaning that he does not feel that his own group are superior to others or feel that his group should be dominant over other groups explaining why he feels more empathy for the people in the refugee camps at Calais.|
|To what extent can prejudice be said to be a universal feature of human behaviour (8)|
|AO1||Present information which suggests that …
· prejudice is universal, i.e. that people all over the world can be prejudice towards others when the circumstances are right
· e.g. situational factors will always elicit prejudice regardless of cultural differences for example.
o SIT; minimal groups
o RCT; robbers cave
· Describe how prejudice may have an evolutionary basis, e.g. survival value and therefore be inevitable and linked to nature not nurture
|AO3||Present a competing argument that suggest that prejudice is affected by ….
· individual differences and is therefore a product of nurture not nature
· Demonstrate that there are cultural differences with regards to prejudice again suggesting nurture not nature, e.g. Wetherall, Tyerman and Spencer, Rogers and Frantz (Rhodesia) (relate this more to expression of prejudice (public) as opposed to private opinion.
Don’t forget you need chains of reason, competing arguments and a conclusion!