Prejudice and Discrimination Essay Sample free essay sample

Prejudice as defined by John E Farley is â€Å"that bias refers to a positive or a negative attitude or belief directed toward certain people based on their rank in a peculiar group. The root word of bias is pre-judge. It is a set of attitudes which causes. supports. or justifies discrimination† . ( Farley. 2000. p18 ) . There are three constituents of bias which describe the different elements associated with it. Affectual one’s inner experiencing which can be the consequence of incitation and are in conformity with people’s likes and disfavors. Behavioural the manner people action their belief systems doing them to act in a certain manner. Cognitive the preconceived beliefs or outlooks and involves pigeonholing which normally are negative. Discrimination can be defined as the devising of. a for or against action towards a individual based on group. category. or a class to which they belong. instead than judge a individual on their virtue. We will write a custom essay sample on Prejudice and Discrimination Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page This is the external representation of internal bias. Baron and Byrne ( 1997 ) defined favoritism as â€Å"negative behaviors directed towards people who are the object of prejudice† . Allport ( 1954 ) suggests that there are five phases of favoritism. Anti-locution would include incitement by address for illustration racially motivated or sectarian gags. Avoidance where neglecting to include people without sing their capablenesss means people in minority groups are continuously avoided by the persons of the bulk group. Although no injury is meant. injury is still done through isolation. Discrimination comprises of a denying chances to a minority group or individual with the purpose of intentionally forestalling them from having services or ends such as instruction and employment. Physical Attack involves the deliberate vandalising of or violent onslaughts on persons and their belongings. Extinction is cultural cleansing in an effort to eliminate an full race of peoples. ( Allport. 1954. p71 ) It is hard to separate the differences in the relationship between bias and favoritism. Our emotions and ratings of others basically reflects our biass. whereas rejection and concerns of credence describe our favoritisms. Therefore person who shows favoritism may non be bias. ( Wagstaff. 2005. p1 ) . Prejudice is a individual or group attitude which may or may non develop into favoritism. It is an attitude as opposed to an action. Discrimination is non ever the consequence of bias. There are instances where bias is non needed for favoritism whilst the jurisprudence prevents bias from going favoritism now ; this was non ever the instance. In some instances the jurisprudence makes people know apart. whether they feel prejudice or non. ( Haralambos A ; Rice. 2002. p272 ) . An illustration of this was LaPierre’s survey which examined willingness to expose bias and favoritism to a Chinese twosome at a clip of anti-oriental sentiment. He travelled across America with the twosome. in entire they visited over 250 constitutions and were refused service merely one time. After returning place LaPierre sent letters to all the constitutions visited inquiring if they would function members of the Chinese race 91 % replied no they would non. Critics have besides stated that the letters may hold gone to the directors or proprietors of the constitutions who may hold been prejudiced themselves while staff were non. Furthermore they may besides hold thought they were reflecting the wants of their invitees. Another ground they may hold been served is because LaPierre accompanied them. The couple radius first-class English. they were good presented and gracious this could all assist towards being accepted as invitees. There are many defects in this survey but it does demo there are differences between bias and favoritism. ( Haralambos A ; Rice. 2002. p272 ) . A school instructor Elliot ( 1977 ) conducted an experiment in order to assist understand the effects of bias and favoritism. The first twenty-four hours the category of nine twelvemonth olds were told kids with bluish eyes were superior to the kids with brown eyes. The brown eyed kids were to be kept in their topographic point by the blue eyed kids and limitations placed upon them such as standing last in line. The brown eyed children’s behaviors changed they did non make every bit good in school work and became down and angry. the bluish eyed pupils became average made derogative statements and oppressed the other kids. The undermentioned twenty-four hours the instructor told them she had made a error it was the brown eyed kids who were superior. When reversed there were the same results. Elliot ( 1977 ) said â€Å"I watched what had been fantastic. concerted. fantastic. thoughtful kids turn into awful. barbarous. know aparting small third-graders in a infinite of 15 procee dingss. † ( Positiveschools. n. d. ) Even though follow up of these kids suggested they were more tolerant of differences between groups and actively opposed favoritism. ( positiveschools. n. d. ) . However critics argue the survey lacked cogency as it was non scientific and she had non put in topographic point equal protection for the kids. Authoritarian personality. realistic group struggle and societal individuality are three theories that are considered to be the foundations of bias and favoritism. Harmonizing to Adorno et Al. ( 1950 ) â€Å"Authoritarian personality theory is based chiefly on psychoanalytic rules. and proposes that prejudices most likely to originate in households that try to implement conventional values through rough discipline† ( Wagstaff. 2005. p3 ) . Harmonizing to this theory. because of guilt and fright of penalty. kids reared in such environments can non register their defeat and aggression towards the legitimate mark their parents. Turning up with no freedom of pick physiques up defeat that leads to the autocratic individual looking for person that is weaker who they can take out their defeats on them in the signifier of bias or favoritism. This is referred to as ‘displaced aggression’ . They are unable to state what they feel to the parents. Adorno created the f-scale as a manner of mensurating the bias of the autocratic individual. Various questionnaires which measured a person’s attitudes of the autocratic personality. The Numberss were high but the inquiries were written in a mode that would hold people reply even if it is non what they think ‘yes-people’ an illustration inquiry was â€Å"Do you think your employers should engage Negros? † ( Allport. 1954. p76 ) . The sample Adorno used was biased as there was non a wide adequate scope of people in it. it was chiefly 2000 in-between classes no Judaic white Americans. All ages and categories should be represented and in a larger sample. The right wing dictatorship graduated table has now replaced the f graduated table and asks inquiries such as â€Å"Is it easy to understand the choler of black people in America? † ( McConahay. 1986. p125 ) . One person’s personality can non explicate how whole societies become bias. This theory does non explicate for illustration how big groups such as Nazi Germany and other states where mass race murder has taken topographic point all became bias. Billing ( 1976 ) states that if bias it a personality characteristic so some people would be more bias than others. Besides Altemeyer ( 1988 ) produced grounds that dictatorship stems from adolescence instead than childhood. striplings who imitated the parents autocratic personalities got rewarded for it. He besides found that societal attitudes more than personality attitudes contributed to autocratic personality. ( Haralambos A ; Rice. 2002. p274 ) . Pettigrew ( 1959 ) believes it is conformance to the group norm that is responsible for mass bias instead than a type of personality. Altemeyer ( 1988 ) found societal alterations produced more additions in autocratic tonss. Pettigrew ( 1958 ) carried out a comparing of four southern province towns. grounds supported white Southerners were more prejudiced against African Americans than white Northerners. Be this because there are a larger figure of autocratic personalities or a difference in cultural norms? He argued that bias can be depicted through cultural norms than on personality. He found that northern conformists were less prejudiced than southern conformist ; his findings were based on the personality questionnaire. ( Haralambos A ; Rice. 2002. p275 ) . Levels of dictatorship were found to be the same in South Africa as America. yet South Africa had a batch more bias because of cultural and political factors. ( Gross. 2012. p49 ) . Realistic group struggle theory provinces conflict arises between groups as a consequence of battles that occur when two groups are in competition with one another ; for limited resources or want to accomplish the same ends. Muzafer Sherif et Al ( 1961 ) devised an experiment to analyze the relationships between competition and bias. There were 20 two in-between category 11 to twelve twelvemonth old male childs based at Robber’s Cave State Park summer cantonment. They were assigned into two groups. Activities were assigned to each group to develop a sense of belonging. At the terminal of the first hebdomad the two groups were introduced. They instantly showed marks of territoriality and combat in sued. Tournaments with awards were so engineered between the groups. At the terminal of the hebdomad the male childs rated themselves in their ain group as superior and even male childs in the group who had been antecedently rated low were elevated. The other group were considered to be darnels and cowards. Attempts were so made to cut down the struggle in which the groups had to work together. A effect for prosecuting these ends was that the groups became friendlier towards one another. Sherrif et. al’s survey showed that the male childs acted otherwise towards one another depending on the state of affairs they were in. When in competition they felt disfavor. hatred and when placed in a scene with common ends friendly relationships were forged. It would be interesting to see the consequences of the survey had it been all misss. this was non a just survey as it was non a representative of all groups in society therefore it is a bias sample. The milieus of the survey were non consistent with every twenty-four hours. This experiment shows how competition for different resources can bring forth bias and that competition can devolve into ill will and struggle. Tyerman A ; Spencer ( 1983 ) contradicted Tajfel’s theory ; they observed a group of English male child lookouts who knew each other before cantonments. They were divided into four groups and placed into similar competition as in the robbers cave. The boys reactions to this did non alteration they re mained friendly and in group solidarity did non increase. This suggests competition is non sufficient entirely for inter group struggle. ( Gross. 2012. p391-392 ) . This theory gives a more practical. offering a more societal point of position to bias. Where this theory does do more sense there are some issues with it. For illustration non all groups that compete with each other consequence in bias and favoritism. Tajfel et Al. ( 1971 ) discovered that in a figure of experiments it was non necessary for competition to be present between groups for there to be prejudice. They discovered merely being a member of the in group as opposed to what they considered to be the out group was plenty to bring forth bias. Locksley et Al ( 1980 ) went further than Tajfel by informing the participants they were being indiscriminately assigned by a coin flip. meaningless names given and even with these conditions at that place was a strong in group penchant. Harmonizing to Brown ( 1988 ) tonss of surveies throughout the universe with a scope of participants from all ages and both sexes. concluded that simply assigning people into groups leads to opinions and beh aviors being biased and discriminatory. It was this find that led to the footing for societal individuality theory. Fiske ( 2004 ) believes this theory describes bias and favoritism more palpably. Realistic group struggle theory does assist explicate additions in bias in war lacerate states. Social individuality theory provinces that favoritism and bias are merely possible if people are categorised into groups so that they identify and develop a sense of belonging. Given that our self-image is of import to us. we strive for this to be positive. Social image comes from societal individuality. Therefore people view the groups to which they belong as positive. They make comparings between their group and others and believe their group to be superior to the others. taking to favoritism in favor of their ain group and have a negative position of other groups. The premise is hence that Prejudice and favoritism consequence from group designation and the demand for a positive image. Tajfel believed worlds are motivated to do sense of the universe around them. he thought this was done through a procedure of classification. assimilation and coherency but these procedures do non explicate bias. he subsequently rose to more points that much of personal individuality comes from socie tal groups and that we strive for self-pride. In Tajfel’s study a group of aliens who had no contact with each other were randomly split into two groups. In one experiment participants were asked to give out money. they favoured their ain group even if it meant losing money ; participants identified with ‘their group’ and had a clear prejudice with the other group. Social individuality theory provinces prejudice is inevitable. ( Haralambos A ; Rice. 2002. p277 ) . Another experiment Tajfel performed was to demo boys a picture by Klee and Kandinsky and asked which they preferred. The male childs were given money to distribute. the male childs gave the money to the fans of the image that they preferred. this showed huge trueness to their in group. even though they did non cognize one another. ( Fiske. 2008. p15 ) Social individuality theory explains a person’s demand for a positive individuality does affect pigeonholing. favoritism and bias. this leads to an in group state of affairs where the in group are seen as positive and is the contrary for the negative and its out groups. Though on a larger graduated table this theory does non explicate utmost signifiers of bias. relationships between groups are non merely about being seen positively but they can be for grounds such as a power. money and scarce resources. these can take to prejudice and favoritism. In Pakistan we are lead to believe the Taliban are stand foring its people and they are contending for their freedom. That westerners are at that place to assist the people. Yet when 11 twelvemonth old Malala Yousafzai spoke out and wrote a web log for the B. B. C. it resulted in her being shot in the caput. â€Å"Malala does non desire to play to some western-backed or Taliban-loved stereotype. She shows us all there are voices out at that place that demand to be heard. if merely to assist the state happen democracy that is for and from the people. all the people. † ( BBCNews. 2012. p1 ) . This can non be put down to societal individuality theory. This theory is able to explicate stereotypes bias and favoritism and all are seen as a demand in the person for a positive individuality. Preferences lead to the positive in group stereotype and hence will take to prejudice and favoritism which will favor the in group but will be the antonym for the out group at that place by bring forthing negative favoritism towards the out group. Social individuality theory does non explicate utmost signifiers of bias Brown and Lunt ( 2002 ) province how a theory based on attitudes. such as in-group favoritism can. explicate the systematic slaughter of 1000000s in Nazi decease cantonments? This theory concentrates on two groups the in group and the out group with two groups it is easy to make a them and us state of affairs but what happens when a 3rd or 4th group is introduced at that place will non be the same polarization and hence the same prejudice will non be created. DecisionSome research workers believe bias is caused by a fright of aliens or alteration. while others see it as a type of jingoism sing issues such as patriotism or faith. However there is general understanding that bias is learned. It is safe to state that no one theory can explicate all countries of bias and favoritism. However they all contribute to giving us some apprehension as to how bias and favoritism become portion of our society. Fiske ( 2008 ) is working on a theory which suggests we are born prejudiced. She has been detecting encephalon activity utilizing M. R. I scanners. analyzing the amygdaloid nucleus part which is the fear response of the encephalon. This is triggered when we judge people or events we deem endangering Fiske’s findings suggest are witting try acquiring the bomber witting to halt unwanted biass. ( Fiske. 2008. p16 ) .