Category: Prejudice

Taylor Swift’s latest album ‘Lover’ which was released in August earlier this year has seen critical acclaim across the board from publishers such as Vogue, Rolling Stones, and Forbes. It has been praised for its combination of catchy pop-synth tones and emotionally expressive lyrics which appear rather contemptuous in line with the Nashville star’s 2018 Democratic endorsement after a string of increasingly politically vocal statements.

Her album ‘Lover’ tackles a range of contemporary socio-political issues which have been becoming increasingly hot topics in recent years. ‘Lover’ is Ms. Swift’s most politically expressive album and responds to issues she believes are becoming all too commonplace. The most notable topic is sexism and the double standards that lie between male and female artists in the music industry. This is a topic that Swift is unfortunately all too familiar with; having recently won a sexual assault lawsuit against former radio host David Mueller who publicly vilified Swift after accusing him of sexual misconduct. The singer was awarded a symbolic ‘single dollar’ in damages which she states “the value of which is immeasurable to all women in this situation”.

Whilst the album may be her most overt opinion on such opinion, it is certainly not the first time the star has spoken out. Having been subjected to an intrusive media campaign exploring her relationship situation and private life since her rise to fame in 2008, Swift has repeatedly criticized media organizations for their invasive investigations and degrading articles. In a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, Taylor explored the subject, expressing her admiration for being able to connect to fans in person where she wasn’t a tabloid villain.

“So often with our takedown culture, talking shit about a celebrity is basically the same as talking shit about the new iPhone. So when I go and I meet fans, I see that they actually see me as a flesh-and-blood human being. That—as contrived as it may sound—changed [me] completely, assigning humanity to my life.”

Such cases of prejudicial behaviors are becoming increasingly commonplace as major media outlets regurgitate clickbait that supports an underlying gender-based prejudicial narrative. The inflammatory remarks often directed towards women in the entertainment industry and women in powerful positions as an extension, particularly in Swift’s case, can be broken down into three main categories. The first is a sexist naivety narrative in which women such as Swift are dismissed with their opinions being ignored due to the narrative painted around them. This is most evident in Swift’s recent Democratic candidate endorsement which was slammed by the mainstream news outlets, namely Fox News and CNN who disregarded her opinions voiced in her 2018 Instagram post which called for equality describing her as a girl who “has no idea what she’s talking about”.

“I believe that the systemic racism we still see in this country towards people of color is terrifying, sickening, and prevalent.”

The second major theme is public humiliation. This is an extremely common double standard as singers such as Swift is heavily targeted for their personal life. Swift describes herself as having become “an international lightning rod for slut-shaming”. The negative media spotlight on romantic relationships is almost exclusively directed toward popular females. This theme almost forms a positive feedback loop with the aforementioned subject as a narrative is painted around Swift’s personal life in order to generate inflammatory articles to increase tabloid sales which in turn leads to legitimate actions or opinions being disregarded on the basis of them challenging the status quo. To put this simply, whilst Swift has distinguished herself for her extraordinary and intelligent ventures, she will almost always be dismissed as some ‘stupid girl who sleeps around too much’.

“Our priorities can get messed up existing in a society that puts a currency on curating the way people see your life,”

The final category is the vilification of achievements which also often serves as a double standard. This typically involves undermining a woman’s achievement solely due to their gender or perceived public image. For Taylor, this has specifically involved being referred to as a “crazy ex-girlfriend” or “pretentious bitch” due to her exuberant levels of wealth. Instead of recognition for over 10 Grammy awards and representing the most awarded female artist at the VMA’s, Swift’s achievements and philanthropy are often subject to diminishment for various trivial reasons aforementioned.

Throughout ‘Lover’, Swift comments on the prejudice she and other women face. This ranges from catchy tunes with subtle undertones to feminist anthems such as her single ‘The Man’. Lyrics found in the song such as “I would be complex / I would be cool / They’d say I played the field before / I found someone to commit to / And that would be okay / For me to do,” illustrate Swift’s perspective on the double standards she faces in this society. The lyrics allude to the disparity in the public perception of women who date multiple men versus men who date multiple women. Swift draws this back to comment on celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio who often finds himself involved in relationships with considerably younger women. The lyrics “And we would toast to me, oh, let the players play / I’d be just like Leo, in Saint-Tropez.” demonstrate the clear double standards in our society where Swift is frequently criticized for the actions men such as DiCaprio are often praised for.

“I guess what I wanted to call attention to in my speech at the Grammys was how it’s going to be difficult if you’re a woman who wants to achieve something in her life—no matter what,”

‘The Man’ confronts these inequalities in a direct and debonair manner, acknowledging the hardships countless successful women face. The lyrics “If I was out flashin’ my Dallas / I’d be a bitch, not a baller” perfectly encapsulate the third theme of female celebrity victimization. Swift ties this point up succinctly and powerfully, ending the bridge with the line “They wouldn’t shake their heads / And question how much of this I deserve” which is an idea many of her fans, including myself, find extremely accurate.

The duplicitous character assassination of Taylor Swift is a story for another time, however, it doesn’t take much digging to connect the dots to understand the crumble of Swift’s reputation. Swift’s power and success were the ultimate hammer and chisel which set her villainous public image in stone. People will always love to hate the once-beloved pop star, Swift will serve as a textbook case of victim-blaming through the overwhelming examples of people exorcising mental gymnastics in order to convince themselves that Taylor Swift is a bad person in face of all evidence the contrary. Swift’s troubles stem from a toxic media culture and societal attitude which seeks to diminish successful women at every step and can be described as soft-core sexism, the stepping stone between overt discrimination and a tolerant society. As these prejudiced are ingrained within western culture, they are certainly not going to be easily overcome. Such prejudices form out of a lack of critical and objective thought and are based on decades of media indoctrination. However, as society shifts towards a more tolerant and accepting culture as a result of ongoing civil rights and feminist movements, these prejudices will soon diminish in prevalence.

This essay is about prejudice and the social sanctions against it within our society. Prejudice is described as an attitude about a group, or a member of a group based on their membership of that group (Abrams D. , 2010). Our attitudes and behaviours within society is a combination of emotions, inclinations to put into action, and personal beliefs. Most prejudices are developed within childhood without even realising as a result of believing that a person is different from how we perceive ourselves (Myers, Social Psychology, 2014). This in turn causes us to behave in a discriminatory manner towards those that are perceived as different. This essay also looks at social categorisation, which is described as how, and individuals mind gathers like-minded people with similar personality try to interest. It will also look at stereotyping which is described as a fixed belief about a collective group of individuals (Myers, Social Psychology, 2014).

Here in Western Australia we are bound by the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) this act promotes Equality of opportunity in Western Australia and to provide remedies in respect of discrimination on the grounds of sex, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, family responsibility or family status, race, religious or political conviction, impairment, age, or involving sexual or racial harassment or, in certain cases, on gender history grounds (Office, 1984).

Researchers have been trying to ascertain what the key points are in terms of why prejudice is so commonplace within current society. There is still a culture of racism; sexism and segregation between different classes; religious intolerance and just bullying are all forms of prejudice that we as a society need to still address (Abrams D. , 2010).

Given that segregation has been outlawed in a majority of countries and as different cultures start to interact on a more regular basis, that as time goes by prejudice should already be eradicated as theorised in The nature of prejudice (Allport). Especially if you are from Australia that after segregation was outlawed, that society would begin to accept indigenous persons. Allport’s theory was further expanded on in 2012 and referred to as the Contact Hypothesis, which is to say for example; if one is petrified of cockroaches. It is likely that by having a greater exposure to cockroaches, the less petrified one would be (Schneider, 2012).

In psychology when it comes to prejudice it must be understood that there are two main types; most people who think about prejudice think with their conscious mind as they find it easier to rationalise the way of thinking during different events such as, day to day interacting with people who come from different multicultural backgrounds (Whelan, 2018). This is also often associated with more aggressive forms of prejudice whether it be relating to racial, sexism, ageism or some other form of discrimination or outright bullying. This is also known as conscious bias and the one that is more common and therefore has the most educational awareness programs and legal sanctions against prejudice (Whelan, 2018). Conscious bias is perceiving individuals or communities from multicultural backgrounds to be a to their own mind and benefit. As individuals perceive their biases and beliefs to be well- founded. As a result, individuals rationalise their unjust treatment and cruelty to those from a multicultural background or those considered to be from a lower socio-economic class (Whelan, 2018).

Conscious bias examples are discrimination and hate speech as a result of direct thought as a result of this this behaviour can be regulated due to social norms individuals are more open to regulating this behaviour due to the sanctions against it. It is important to start teaching future generations about individual biases and prejudice in order to educate them in the hope to eradicate prejudice for good (Whelan, 2018). Research shows that bye reinforcing people as part of the same community such as; we are all Australian is useful in releasing any interracial negativity and biases, if done correctly following intergroup group connectedness it can increase trust and build a solid foundation of a multicultural society (Whelan, 2018).

The next main type of prejudice in psychology is referred to as unconscious bias or passive- aggressive prejudice, is when the subconscious takes over and we do things unintentionally which essentially makes it difficult to detect (Whelan, 2018). An unconscious bias is community characterisations about different multicultural groups and individuals. Individuals all have unconscious belief systems in place regarding other social communities; these unconscious ideas and group values are vastly more common than conscious form of bias (Whelan, 2018). Some examples relating to unconscious bias are normal everyday things that wouldn’t appear to be a form of bias including; gender qualities such as believing men are the protectors and breadwinners and the women are just there to support their partners and kids (Whelan, 2018). Our parental expectations that our sons and daughters are the way they are born which can be difficult in modern society and leads to unconscious bias towards transgender people. Other examples that can be attributed to unconscious bias can be related to employment in terms of the name listed on a curriculum vitae, in some cases people reading curriculum vitae usually tend to only select English sounding names for interview places and despite having equal or possibly greater education backgrounds they will often exclude people from different multicultural backgrounds. One last example of unconscious bias would be that when it comes to stem classes (science, technology, engineering & maths) men are considered to be better at these classes than women are considered to be regardless of similar backgrounds (Whelan, 2018).

The Contact Hypothesis theory is just one such theory associated with prejudice the next most commonly referred to theory was more widely associated with Karl Marx, is also referred to as the Exploitation Theory. This is the main theory which is often used to rationalise the repeated categorisation of other groups who are deemed to be insignificant compared to one’s own social class. So called conflict theorists, try to enforce the different roles relating to both racial and ethnic hostilities to maintain their own groups perceived station of power and status within the community (Schaefer, 2015). Originally the Contact Hypothesis theory was developed by Oliver Cox (1942), his conflict theory showed prejudice against black people which by extension caused an even greater inequality amongst those who are deemed to be a lower socio-economic class (Schaefer, 2015).

The next theory can be directly related to the conflict theory and is usually refer to as the scapegoating theory which essentially means the instead of blaming an individual for a perceived or actual event, instead a group is deemed guilty of a transgression. One of the most common transgressions where a cultural group was blamed is during Nazi Germany, where Hitler killed all the European Jews during the Holocaust (Schaefer, 2015). Since this event there is still a real phenomenon of anti-Semitism, the scapegoating theory links indirectly to the previously mentioned conflict theory. Although this theory doesn’t particularly explain the reasons as to why prejudice still exists within modern society, most people would assume that prejudice would be across the board similar within all cultures however it varies greatly amongst individuals.

The last psychological theory on prejudice is referred to as the Normative Approach, this theory indicates that while one must consider personality traits of an individual when it comes to ideas about prejudice (Schaefer, 2015). The normative approach theory mainly looks at situational factors as deemed normal within society which can be either a positive or negative influence in terms of prejudice. Research has shown how community influences Individuals within a group to be tolerant or intolerant of those from a less superior class (Schaefer, 2015). As a result, communities tend to develop societal rules that decree items or people are to be considered desirable or taboo, ethnic and racial communities should be privileged or shunned. Sometimes this tolerance level can be a universal such as; when slavery was an extensive part of most cultures or in other cases it can be on a more individual scale such as sexism; where women have to compete with male counterparts for promotions and the gender pay gap issue, like in a prestigious law firm (Schaefer, 2015).

In society we often tend to invent labels for everything especially other individuals and as a result we neglect to allow individuals who go against our personal convictions. To a certain degree we let the media show us a supposedly accurate representation of the different racial, ethnic and religious groups in order to conform with our own belief system. One such example of this would be the portrayal of Muslims during the World Trade Centre attacks, there is however room for improvement in terms of eradicating prejudice (Schaefer, 2015). Although less common the media also shows other forms of stereotyping; after racial prejudice the next most common form stereotyping as depicted in the media would probably be sexism stating that one gender is more superior than the other, homophobia is also widely stigmatised in the media is it can be found in all facets of society (Schaefer, 2015). By the media supporting this gender and racial stereotyping it tends to stop the sympathising from the so-called dominant group of heterosexual people.

In Australia we are mostly seen as being a multicultural nation however not everyone agrees with that, prejudice and racism is still a considerable cause for concern within society and even appears to be an increasing issue (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017). As in other countries prejudice is rife in Australia and has been since Australia was founded in 1901 and has progressively got worse not only for indigenous Australian but for other immigrants (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017).

There are many ways to reduce prejudice worldwide and in Australia some of these methods include educating ourselves. We can do this by building on the contact theory as developed by Oliver Cox; utilising the idea of cooperative learning, peer influences and by bringing in a more multicultural curriculum in schools by doing this we stand a greater chance of eradicating prejudice in all forms for future generations (Scottish Government, 2015). For older generations we can learn from contact with people of other cultures and using real case studies. During the 1990s there was a well-known study done called the Cross-Cultural Awareness program which was promoted as being an educational program aimed at reducing prejudice against indigenous Australians, due to the fact that this particular cultural group is often stereotyped, stigmatised and discriminated against and also to promote knowledge of the indigenous culture and history. However, there is no follow up on this study after the key factors indicated for revision (Scottish Government, 2015).

As Paluck and Green (2009), suggest by assessing changes to beliefs is a complex matter. For example; if an individual was to attend a cultural diversity class the objective is that they would be more culturally aware. However, whilst in some cases the objective would be achieved there would probably be a more significant number who’s attitudes towards culturally diverse people wouldn’t change due to the fact that most prejudices are ingrained in an individual since childhood (Paluck, 2009).

In conclusion, in this essay we have discussed the different forms of prejudice and the definitions relating to it. We also discussed the fact that prejudice and biases are formed in childhood through our diverse communities and if we intermingle with people from different multicultural backgrounds, we can educate ourselves and others to take the time to consider the different cultural aspects and belief systems of others. Once we have educated everyone, we may then be able to eradicate prejudice from the modern world.

“We all know all men are not created equal in the sense that some people would have us believe–some people are smarter than others, some people have more opportunity because they’re born with it, some men make more money than others, some ladies make better cakes than others–some people are born gifted beyond the normal scope of most men” is a quote from the wise Atticus Finch, this passage describes the reality that not all people are seen as equal, even if it is immoral. Prejudice exists. In Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird, prejudice concerning those with low social status’, women, and African Americans is used to give Harper Lee a voice of criticism and change.

Harper Lee uses her work to give her voice by exposing prejudice, such as social status prejudice. Prejudice towards the lower classes of the town is portrayed commonly in To Kill a Mockingbird even by the honorable Atticus Finch when he states, “…an assumption one associates with minds of their caliber” (Lee 273). Atticus is referring to the Ewells, a poor family that are considered lower class. Atticus is trying to remind the jury members that the Ewells are below them, and that the members should not shrink down to their level. Harper Lee is demonstarting that prejudice exists in even the most honorable people. Another example is expressed when Jem describes his idea of the social classes: ‘There’s four kinds of folks in the world. The ordinary kind like us and the neighbors… the Cunninghams… the Ewells… and the Negroes” (Lee 302). Jem is putting people into groups determined by their worths. By including this passage, Harper Lee can associate prejudice with Jem losing his innocence, which people would understand as unfavorable. Lastly, not everyone fits into these social classes created by prejudiced minds. For example, Jem states,’They don’t belong anywhere… they’re just in-betweens” (Lee 215). This is prejudice towards what Jem believes are “outsiders”. These people are looked down upon just because they don’t fit in. This is another reference to a child losing his innocence. Throughout the novel, people are both looked up to and looked down upon because of how they live. Harper Lee uses the ideas of her characters, so the readers can see how this can be immoral. However, women specifically can receive their own form of prejudice that Lee uses in her novel.

Women in the 1930s were expected to act and dress a certain way. They had expectations and were frowned upon if they did not exceed these expectations, which Harper Lee tries to convey as wrong in To Kill a Mocking Bird. For example, Scout recalls how Aunt Alexandrea told her “…I wasn’t supposed to be doing anything that required pants.” (Lee 108). Aunt Alexandrea is referring to the stereotype that Scout should be doing simple tasks in the house instead of playing outside or doing any “men’s work”. Harper Lee critizes this by using Scout’s dismay to being lectured for her “unlady-like” behavior. Secondly, Aunt Alexandrea, being no stranger to using prejudice directed towards women, claims that Scout should be a “…ray of sunshine in my father’s lonely life” (Lee 108). This reinforces the sexist idea that women are meant to always be positive and happy to brighten up the lives of the men in their life. Harper Lee uses Aunt Alexandrea, an obviously prejudiced character, to express these ideas because it helps the reader understand that these ideas are prejudiced. Lastly, Scout tends to hangout with her brother Jem and her friend Dill, which means getting teased is a usual for her. When Scout warns Jem for sneaking out, Jem retaliates by saying, “Scout, I’m telling you for the last time, shut your trap or go home-I declare to the lord you’re gettin’ more like a girl everyday” (Lee ). Jem is contributing to the prejudiced idea that girls are weaker and scare easier than boys. Ideas like these can be offensive, which is why Harper Lee takes advantage of this comment made by Jem to help the reader to understand that it is immoral and prejudiced. Scout experiences prejudice many times throughout the novel for either not exceeding the stereotypical expectation of a young woman or through teasing by her male peers. Readers can see the immoral side of this by seeing how Scout is impacted by the prejudice she experiences. African Americans, like women, are also a specific group of people that are pointed out by prejudice.

There are several types of prejudice in To Kill a Mockingbird; however, prejudice towards African Americans is the most apparent. This involves the case of Tom Robinson, the main focus used by Harper Lee to attempt to catalyze change. During the cross-examination, Tom Robinson states that he helped Mayella often because he felt bad for her. In the court room, the prejudiced people’s reactions include, “You felt sorry for her, you felt sorry for her…below us, nobody liked Tom Robinson’s answer” (Lee 264). The prosecutor and the white people were appalled by Tom Robinson’s answer because of their view that white people are more superior than black people so for Tom to feel sorry for Mayella is equal to feeling that he his more superior than Mayella. Harper Lee made it obvious to the readers that Tom is a good, innocent man, so the readers can inference that Tom never felt superior to Mayella, and he just wanted to help her. Secondly, while Atticus is speaking of Mayella in his closing speech to the jury, he explains “she did something that in our society is unspeakable: she kissed a black man” (Lee 272). Atticus explains that what Mayella did is considered horrible and “unspeakable” in their society, simply because Tom Robinson is black. Harper Lee exposes this pure racism to show its immorality. Lastly, also in Atticus’ speech, he states “that all Negroes lie, that all Negroes are basically immoral beings, that all Negro men are not to be trusted around our women…” (Lee 273). This statement is not the personal view of Atticus himself, but it is the view of many of the people of Maycomb. Saying this is equal to saying all African Americans are bad people. Harper Lee uses the word “all” to allow the reader to realze that such a srong assumption is probably wrong. Racism is one of the common themes in To Kill a Mockingbird. Harper Lee uses blunt racism to show the readers how ugly and offensive these prejudiced views can be.

In To Kill a Mockingbird, three main types of prejudice, racism, sexism, and social status prejudice, are used to give Harper Lee a voice of criticism and change. Harper Lee uses her novel to expose this prejudice and show readers that is is immoral, which could help readers change their views. Prejudice is seen all around the world still till this day. People have fought prejudice in a number ways, for example the Black Lives Matter movement. Harper Lee was one of those people by using her novel to fight for change.

Prejudice is a social behaviour where an individual or group is assessed, typically in a negative way, based on preconceived opinions or attitudes. This concept is a focal theme of both Harper Lee’s novel, “To Kill A Mockingbird”, and “The Help” directed by Tate Taylor. These texts include similar aspects of prejudice that regard gender, social and racial grouping. They illustrate how sexism and classism are displayed in a likewise manner towards characters from each text. However, the film and novel are differentiated through the overall demonstration of racist attitudes.

Social expectations of an individual based on their gender correspond between prominent characters of both the novel and film. Scout is often described and shown to have tomboy qualities, resulting in her lacking embodiment of the conventional young, gentle and petite girl. She prefers to spend her time playing outdoors with her brother instead of behaving in the expected ‘ladylike manner’. ‘[She] could not possibly hope to be a lady if [she] wore breeches” because “[she] wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants”. She is regularly criticised for this by characters such as Aunt Alexandra and Mrs Dubose who insist on her acting and appearing more feminine “what are you doing in those overalls? You should be in a dress and camisole, young lady!”. Similarly, Skeeter defies against the sexist Southern culture that women should marry and have children very early in life. Both Skeeter’s friends and mother tend to comment on her dating life, or lack thereof, due to this socially instilled concept that her “eggs are dying” and if it “would it kill [her] to go on a date?”. Despite this, she chooses to disregard the gender norms and focus on her career as she “got a job today! At The Jackson Journal!” – which is met with everyone looking at Skeeter as if she “threw up on herself” and then toasting “Skeeter…and her job. [Her] last stop ’til marriage”. Although Skeeter and Scout endure different situations of judgement for their lack of stereotypical behaviour and appearance, they are both victims of the sexist norms of the societies they live in.

Prejudice is shown in the form of classism through the attitudes towards individuals who do not come from a family of wealth or stature. In the film, Celia Foote is treated as an outcast due to her being from Sugar Ditch, Mississippi, where she was born and raised poor. This causes the high-society women to treat her badly as they won’t return her phone calls nor allow her to work on the charity drives and “hate [her] ’cause they think [she’s] white trash!”. Essentially, they completely isolate her from joining any of the gatherings they plan – “Celia finally realizes the cruel reality of the situation and that these women aren’t going to let her inside”. Lee demonstrates this through Aunt Alexandra who views Walter Cunningham in a similar manner as she warns Scout to not associate with him “because-he-is-trash, that’s why you can’t play with him”. Aunt Alexandra also does not want her “picking up bad habits and learning Lord-knows-what”. Celia Foote and Walter Cunningham are highly comparable as they are both seen as “trash” by those who are considered ‘upper-class’.

The texts overall main ideas in relation to racism towards African Americans differentiate as the novel revolves more around criminal allegations, and the film instead provides a demonstration of the general dehumanizing treatment by the white people towards the black maids. Tom Robinson’s situation is the primary focus of the novel, as he is accused of rape and despite sufficient evidence proving him innocent the jury deems him ‘guilty’. This is reflective of how prejudice affected the morality of the justice system in the 1930s to people of colour as the “jury [would not] decide in favour of a coloured man over a white man. In comparison, the film concentrates on the complexities of the lives of black maids surviving in a society where African Americans are considered lower class. The subject of the segregation of the maids’ bathrooms from the white households’ is majorly prominent in the film. This emphasises the idea of the white female characters’ inhumane opinions that sharing bathrooms is “just plain dangerous” because “they carry different diseases” and therefore would spread be when using the bathroom. “They” were also not allowed to eat at the same table as the white people or share food, and even when they were “servin’ white folks coffee” they couldn’t “hand it to them” because their “hands can’t touch”. The events in the film provide aspects of everyday life for the maids and what they had to endure just because they were a different race, whereas the novel portrays the effects on African American lives involving the legal system.

In summation, both Harper Lee and Tate Taylor illustrate prejudice through their respective works. Characters from each text are alike due to biased opinions against them based on their gender and class. There is a contrast between the novel and film through the different situations in which the theme of racism occurs.

Prejudice is a negatively biased opinion based on stereotypes and ideas not proven to be true, which is a main theme in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird. Prejudice may make one feel excluded, dejected, or inferior to others in society, which is what three certain characters feel in this story. To Kill a Mockingbird is a book written by Harper Lee published in 1960. Within this fiction, the characters affected by prejudice are Walter Cunninham Jr., Scout Finch, and Tom Robinson. They all experience a different type of discrimination through contrasting ways which in turn affect their lives.

Walter is affected by social prejudice, Scout distressed by gender and age prejudice, and Tom troubled by racial prejudice. Walter Cunningham Jr. comes from an extremely poor family with little resources to survive off of, resulting in placement towards the bottom of society. In Maycomb, citizens will often treat those who live differently in a harsh manner, such as how Aunt Alexandra tells Scout she cannot invite Walter to dinner because “…he-is-trash” (Lee 301). Aunt Alexandra has a strong opinion towards the Cunninghams as she believes they are dirty and that the Finches should not associate with them as they are not their “kin.” Not to mention, she does not even want Scout to hang around Walter, as she fears Scout may catch onto his “dirty” ways.

Another example of Walter Cunningham experiencing social prejudice is when he is eating dinner with the Finches. Scout criticizes Watler for pouring syrup all over his dinner, and when Calpurnia lectures her about it, Scout simply replies, “He ain’t company Cal, he’s just a Cunningham-” (Lee 33). Scout is showing prejudice towards Walter and thinks of the Cunninghams as people who are less fortunate and at the bottom of the social class. She is aware of who the Cunninghams are and their capabilities, knowing that they do now have much. Therefore, she treats them as people who are not living a life as good as her, saying that they are “just a Cunningham.”

This classism affects Walter Cunningham because since everybody treats him differently, he is often socially excluded. His social exclusion can be seen when he eats at the Finches’ house as he pours molasses all over his dinner, showing how he has clearly never been to someone else’s house, or invited to eat dinner. Walter Cunningham being socially excluded is because nobody wants to associate with him due to his different lifestyle. Another character that experiences prejudice is Scout Finch. Although Scout does not experience the same type of discrimination as Walter, she struggles with gender and age prejudice. Her own Aunt Alexandra continuously gives Scout prejudice in terms of her behavior as a girl. Aunt Alexandra expects Scout to be a stereotypical white Southern lady. However, Scout is the opposite as she is a tomboy. During one Christmas with the Finches, Aunt Alexandra tells Scout, “…[she] wasn’t supposed to be doing things that required pants.

Aunt Alexandra’s vision of my deportment involved playing with small stoves, tea sets…I should be a ray of sunshine in my father’s lonely life” (Lee 108). She is receiving prejudice from Aunt Alexandra because she is wanted to follow the typical white Southern lady stereotypes. However, when she does not follow them and has a different lifestyle, she receives harsh opinions for having her own ways, which is something Aunt Alexandra cannot understand, resulting in judgement. Scout is being condemned for being herself, which affects her as she does not understand why and is more confused and hurt to think that one of her family members does not accept her for the way she is. Not only does she receive sexism, but she also goes through ageism by her brother Jem. As Jem is growing older, he often perceives Scout as a younger, less intelligent sibling that does not understand concepts and ideas. Scout even narrates that Jem “…went so far as to tell me what to do. After one altercation when Jem hollered, ‘It’s time you started bein’ a girl and acting right!’” (Lee 153). She soon cried and ran away to Calpurnia, showing how much Jem’s ageism had negatively affected her. Scout does not understand why Jem is acting so mature now, and Jem had never mentioned anything about the way she acted, so to see him prejudice her emotionally taunts her.

A third character that suffers from a form of prejudice is Tom Robinson, a black man who goes through racial discrimination throughout the novel even to his death. During Tom’s testimony, Mr. Gilmer presents racial inequality and treats Tom with little to no respect, calling him “boy” and not taking anything he says seriously. Mr. Gilmer especially shows disrespect towards Tom when he asks him, “‘Are you being impudent to me, boy?’” (Lee 265). Not only does he not call Tom by his proper name, but he also thinks Tom is the one being rude to him due to the stereotype that colored men are not mannered. This prejudice no longer affects Tom as he is so used to the racism that he experiences from white Maycomb citizens, showing how much he suffers from it. Racial inequality is also shown by Scout when she tells Dill, “‘Well, Dill, after all he’s just a negro.’” (Lee 266). Scout considers Tom Robinson as a man who is inferior due to him being a black man. She does not feel as much sympathy for a black man as much as a white man, using “he’s just a negro” as an excuse, showing racial prejudice. This affects Tom Robinson’s life as barely any white people will support or believe him due to the racism of Maycomb citizens. This will result in the jurors favoring a white man’s word over a black man’s word, which will be a major factor of Tom Robinson’s death.

Walter Cunningham Jr., Scout Finch, and Tom Robinson all experience a form of prejudice, whether it’s social, gender, or racial. Almost all Maycomb citizens are guilty of prejudice or being a victim of it. Often times when people don’t understand one’s lifestyle, they turn it into some form of prejudice, which is presented repeatedly in To Kill a Mockingbird. Prejudice will always have a harmful effect on someone as they are being criticized by false beliefs and stereotypes, which is why one should always have opinions based on proven facts rather than preconceived information.

“Do you know what we call opinion in the absence of evidence? We call it prejudice.” The Cambridge Dictionary defines prejudice as, an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge. In a world where prejudice is seen on a daily basis, it is not uncommon for children’s books and movies to address this concept indistinctly. In both stories that I will be focusing on, there is an overhanging theme of prejudice, racism, and discrimination, but is this due to a lack of evidence in each situation? With an absence of evidence, we fall back onto these preconceived ideas, that influence how we look at people and events. But we have to ask the question, does the absence of evidence lead to an enhanced state of prejudice? We could also ask, what is an opinion that persists in the face of evidence to the contrary?

To Kill A Mockingbird is a story that explores and unpacks the ways in which prejudice was shown in American society in the 1930s. This story is set in a town called ‘Maycomb” in America’s deep south, it is a troubled and broken town that is set in the traditional ways of the white Americans and has the same mindset as the people from the civil war. In the town, there is an abundance of racism, prejudice, and discrimination, especially towards the black community. This can be seen in multiple ways, the segregation of both the black and white communities within the town. This is a result of the Jim Crow and Black Code Laws that were around in America during that time, these laws separated black and white people, making sure that there was no interaction and making sure that there was white superiority. These ideas lead to the main complication in the book, which involves a black man named “Tom Robinson” and a white woman named “Mayella Violet Ewell”, she accuses Tom of raping her. This is where Atticus Finch steps in as Tom’s lawyer, he attempts to prove Tom’s innocence, and he takes the case to uphold his sense of self-respect, and because he has a strong belief that black people and white people should be equal. In this situation, we see Tom as the mockingbird because as both Atticus and Miss Maudie say ‘but remember it’s a sin to kill a Mockingbird.’ ‘Your father’s right,’ she said. ‘Mockingbirds don’t do one thing except make music for us to enjoy….. they don’t do one thing but sing their hearts out for us. That’s why it’s a sin to kill a mockingbird.”, Tom was only trying to help Mayella, he felt sorry for what she was going through, and because he tried to do something good, sadly the good thing that Tom did was overruled because of the absence of actual evidence, the word of a white person (In this case Bob and Mayella Ewell), came first over that of a black man. It is in this absence of evidence that prejudice won and caused a young innocent man to lose his life. This book resonates and relates to audiences today because of the historical events that have taken place and how they have affected a certain group of people. This book teaches us to keep an open mind when approaching a new group of people and to get to know them before we judge them.

Zootopia is a children’s movie that has been recognized as dealing with the real-world issues of discrimination, prejudice, and racism, the movie focuses on white supremacy and the war on drugs in black communities, specifically the giving of crack-cocaine to people, to cover up the political corruptness of the 1970s-1980s. These drugs were given to black neighborhoods so that the media would focus on that and move away from the corrupt white politicians, it also made it easier for the white supremacist politicians to say that black neighborhoods were full of ‘crackheads’, ‘crack babies’, superpredators’. This in relation to Zootopia is addressed when the lead protagonist, a young rabbit named Judy and her partner a fox named Nick Wilde, both police officers notice that there is a drug going around making the victim crazy. This is given to predators, multiple different breeds of animals to represent multiple ethnicities, and how they are discriminated against by the government leaders. Not only does the movie deal with white supremacy but it also references the civil rights movement, as one of the main character’s celebrities ‘Gazelle’ goes to a protest for the predators to have more rights, this is like the protests to give black people more rights and more freedom. The inclusion of racial slurs is also noted as the word “cute” when talking to a rabbit is seen as derogatory or demeaning it is the equivalent of saying “nigger.” It is also mentioned in the movie that the world is made up of 10% predators, and 90% prey, and how people judge the predators for what they have done before, they are basing their opinions on preconceived ideas and lack of evidence, and they are making the predators into something bad and therefore splitting themselves away from them. Predators are seen as inferior in comparison to the prey, this is like how black people were seen as inferior to white people. This movie includes many themes that are exemplified in society even to this day, it is very interesting that a movie that is aimed at young children is dealing with such major and mature topics as discrimination, racism, and prejudice. This movie links to the real world in many ways as we see the recognition of certain historical events and it also demonstrates the length that some people will go to get what they want, this is what happens in the world today, and this movie is highly relevant in today’s society because it shows the harm and hurt brought upon by racial discrimination and prejudice, and teaches many children a lesson, that they should treat everyone as equals and work together to fight for what they believe in.

In both texts, there is an overarching similarity in the way that prejudice, racism, and discrimination are represented. They all have protagonists that are optimists who respect people of the opposite color, race, etc. In each text, there is a lesson, that strings off both, that we should treat others with respect and not make preconceived ideas and opinions of people that we don’t know. This is a lesson that can be taken into the world today and be used to limit the ways prejudice is harming the people around us.

In the work of an occupational therapist, prejudice is very relevant. Prejudice is a big issue in any health sector professions, as professionals are interacting with a wide range of people every day from minority groups. A study done in 1998 of the rates of prejudice among nursing students showed that most of them had a limited awareness of race issues but still said they would feel comfortable working with individuals of other races, however their attitudes towards sexual minorities were more negative (Eliason, 1998). While this study is rather dated and society as a whole has become a lot more accepting and aware of minorities in recent years, prejudice is still present and as seen in this study can present a huge problem for healthcare workers, as it is crucial for these professionals to be able to give the same high standard of care to all individuals. A more recent study among occupational therapists examining gender prejudicing showed that gendered perceptions shaped interventions. For example, when assessing the client, the therapists focused more on household and family for female clients and more on paid work for male clients (Liedberg, Björk & Hensing, 2010). The occupational therapist based their intervention process on their perceived interests of the client which were based on stereotypes, rather than letting the client shape the intervention. For an occupational therapist, one of the most important things is that the client can trust the therapist and feels valued and listened to. If a therapist has negative preconceptions about the client, is will be more difficult develop an empathetic and trusting relationship with them.

By looking at the theories, we can begin to understand the implications of prejudice in the practise of an occupational therapist. The self-fulfilling theory can be applied to the 2010 study of occupational therapists. The therapists expected the clients to prioritise their gender-stereotyped roles, and so designed an assessment process which focused on these roles. The therapists were prompting behaviours based on their own expectation of the client group. This shows the effect that prejudice has on the work of an occupational therapist.

The social identity theory can also be applied to this scenario, as it is based on the principal that members of a different social group are the same. Particularly when an occupational therapist is working with a client of a different gender, they will be more likely to generalise their behaviours and interests with those that are typical of the client’s social group. However, it could also be considered that in some cases, prejudice could assist and speed up the intervention process. In some cases, it may be more efficient to focus on assessments based on typical gender roles as it is likely that for instance many male clients will prioritise paid work over housework. Still, it is important to remember than people are individuals and therapy must be tailored to the needs and wants of that individual. In the study of prejudice among nursing students, it is noted that healthcare professionals are predominantly white, nursing being one of them. The social identity theory states that individuals will show preference towards individuals of the same social group – in this case, the nurses are more comfortable working with other white heterosexual patients – and individuals will expect a more diverse set of behaviours from their ingroup, whereas they have an expectation of outgroup members to have more similar behaviours. This explains why the nurses were less familiar or comfortable with members of different racial or sexual orientation groups. The unfamiliarity with these group has led the nurses in the study to believe that members of these groups will all display the same traits and will be different to their white skinned heterosexual counterparts.

It is important for an occupational to consider throughout practice whether their prejudicing of clients is affecting their work, particularly with clients coming in with issues that may not be as socially understood or accepted. For instance, if a client has a spinal cord injury as a result of driving under the influence of alcohol, it is important that the therapist focuses on the current function and satisfaction of the client and not let the fact that the client was drink driving affect the intervention negatively.

It is particularly important to avoid prejudice when interacting with clients who have various mental health issues such as depression or schizophrenia. While it is easy to categorize these individuals into a group and provide them with a generalized intervention for their mental illness, it is more important for an occupational therapist to consider the client’s occupational problems in their daily life, which will be different from person to person.

Prejudice has numerous implications for the practice of an occupational therapist. Despite most healthcare professionals consciously adopting a more democratic approach, unconscious prejudices can shape the work they do. Prejudice can affect therapy in several ways, like altering perceptions – their prejudgement of a group can affect their opinion of clients. Prejudice can also cause a therapist to not recognise power dynamics, for instance between a white therapist and a black client, or a male therapist and a female client, or within a group between members. As I mentioned earlier, prejudice can also cause the therapist to generalise the intervention based on their beliefs of the values of the client’s group, which will often be inaccurate and irrelevant.

There are multiple approaches that can be taken to overcome these prejudices. One approach would be to adapt the education of health professionals to provide them with additional tools for counteracting the influence of prejudice. Teaching to promote positive relations and frames of minds may be more effective in preventing prejudice than teaching to suppress stereotypes, as these stereotypes will more than likely remain however it is more important to teach the occupational therapist to focus on more positive aspects instead (Betancourt & Green, 2010). By occupational therapists working to develop new mental habits, they can learn self-regulation of bias, and negative prejudices may be overridden by more democratic motives (Monteith, Arthur & Flynn, 2010). It would be helpful to focus on common group memberships, such as shared interests or hobbies, rather than the different group memberships such as race, gender and sexuality. This would help both reduce prejudice and improve trust between the client and therapist.

Abstract

Previous research on the dual process model portrayed that right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and Social dominance orientation scale (SDO) predict prejudice in an independent context. RWA is believed to be in relation to threatening worldviews and SDO to be related to competitive worldviews. This study manipulates dangerous and competitive social contexts separately to gain a clearer insight to convey how RWA and SDO contribute to prejudice. The addition of two extremity scales (high vs. low) shows the influence of extremity in situations can manipulate prejudice in different context. The results of this research contributed to the field of prejudice as it discovered that there was a significant interaction with the high extremity condition and threat condition.

Introduction

Initial studies on ideological attitudes were based on the traditional uni-dimensional approach, which is intentioned to measure prejudice in a single dimension from a left to right scale with the use of the F-scale. This uni-dimensional concept is mostly strongly correlated with other social values, rather than behavior (Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Heaven & Conners, 2001), and as Altemeyer (1998) suggested the fact that the F-scale lacks reliability and uni-dimensionality, it was later revealed that it was measuring several poorly related factors, failing important validity criteria of authoritarianism. As a result, two new distinct dimensions: Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) were later introduced in the past two decades which also derived the dual process model of ideological attitudes to measure individual differences on ideological attitudes.

Individual differences of prejudice can be predicted by the use of two distinct ideological variables: RWA and SDO (Whitley, 1999). Past research conveys that these two variables powerfully predict individual’s prejudice extremity towards out-groups (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003). RWA and SDO scales were initially proposed to measure personality, however this was later argued to be false (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003). It has always been a controversy about what exactly the RWA and SDO scale measure, as Adorno et al. (1950) and Altemeyer (1981, 1998) have proposed that these scales measure personality; specifically generalized behavioral disposition, but without empirical evidence.

RWA and SDO scales were known to be powerfully predicting political ideologies and intergroup relationships (Altemeyer, 1998). However, these two scales are seen as independent, as they are often not statistically significant or correlated (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Altemeyer (1998) therefore proposed that these two scales act independently to measure two different kinds of authoritarian personality, which determines if an individual is vulnerable to right-wing politics and ideology. This proposal however has been challenged, as the items of the RWA scale does not contribute to personality traits but shows ideological belief dimensions, which thus reveals prejudice (Feldman & Stenner, 1997). Moreover, the items in the SDO scales also reveal ideological beliefs rather than personality, therefore it is viewed that both RWA and SDO scales are to be more suitable to describe a prediction of an individual’s prejudice rather than personality (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003).

Past research conveyed that RWA and SDO scales predict individual differences in prejudice towards out-groups and minorities (Altemeyer, 1998). It was seen that these two scales form a basis of the phenomenon of generalized prejudice as both RWA and SDO scales require the presence of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998). However, Duckitt (2000, 2001) proposed the dual process approach, which interprets SDO and RWA to have different basis motives and reasons for prejudice, which results in two different dimensions of generalized prejudice. RWA items are suggested to have beliefs in coercive social control, high conformity rate for existing authorities and values order (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). On the other hand, SDO items are proposed to have beliefs in social & economic inequality; dominance of powerful groups over weak groups and values achievement. Moreover, important variables do not correlate.

Duckitt & Sibley (2007) uncovered that RWA and SDO scales are influenced by different views of the world. RWA views the world to be threatening and shows prejudice amongst groups considered to be ‘dangerous’. On the other hand, SDO views the world to be a socially competitive jungle, displaying prejudice against the ‘derogated’ group. Supporting this idea, Stangor and Leary (2006) noted that RWA and SDO have different motivationally based values. SDO has a strong negative relationship with both conservative values and egalitarian values, however RWA is shown to have a strong positive relationship only with conservative values. This thus shows that RWA and SDO are independent dimensions which have very different attitudes and base motivations.

As per previous studies, the dual process theory notes that SDO and RWA are independent dimensions, which measures and predicts prejudice against different out-groups: dangerous and derogated with different motivational goals (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). Despite numerous research with regards to RWA SDO and the dual process model, it is still unknown if the extremity on prejudice towards a “dangerous group” and “derogated group” affects the view of a world with a threat or being competitive. It can be assumed that high extremity condition will produce higher prejudice against both Social threat condition and social competition conditions. It is further assumed that individuals will show higher prejudice against dangerous out-groups than derogated out-groups in social threat condition, while conversely, participants will show higher prejudice against derogated out-groups than dangerous out-groups in a social competition condition. In contrast with previous researches by Duckitt and Sibely (2007), our current research manipulates dangerous and competitive social contexts separately and adds prejudice as an outcome variable to view if extremity (high vs low) conditions vary prejudice. If the hypothesis is true, then it can be interpreted to be that an individual’s immediate environment is one of the factors of influence to RWA and SDO in the attitude and prejudice towards specific target groups disregarding any social context. If the hypothesis is false, it can be assumed that RWA and SDO are truly independent dimensions, which work differently in each extremity conditions.

The current research removed worldview, RWA and SDO for simplicity in contrast with past researches by Duckitt (2003, 2007). The current study will display 4 different findings, which can be evaluated and explored to uncover a deeper insight of the topic, possibly contributing to further studies.

Discussion

The result of the current study reveals that participants reported significantly more prejudice when social threat was high compared to when it was low. Moreover, participants reported significantly greater prejudice against dangerous groups compared to derogated groups in high extremity condition, however there was no significant difference in prejudice between dangerous and derogated groups in low extremity condition. This can be assumed that RWA and prejudice is significantly correlated with high extremity condition, but not with low extremity condition. Supporting the findings, Duckitt & Ficher (2003) reported that individuals shift their ideologies and attitudes rapidly to support authoritarianism when the world is viewed to become more dangerous and threatening. Conversely, if individuals perceived the world to be safe, they showed no change in their ideologies and attitudes. The results in the current study aligns with Duckitt & Ficher’s (2003) assumption that RWA is relatively more sensitive to high extremity conditions as low extremity conditions may be seen to only have a long term or delayed effect. An assumption to this rapid change is that as survival is the core innate human instinct, it can be suggested that RWA and social threat would have an unknown variable that contributes to the extremity conditions, as social threat is an immediate factor that decides life and death.

Perry, Sibley & Duckitt, (2013) confirmed that RWA and SDO are persistently correlated with specific social perceptions of society as threatening and competitive through their meta-analysis. Moreover, Van Hiel, Cornelis and Roets (2007) revealed that the correlation with SDO and competitive worldview has a higher correlation than the correlation with RWA and viewing the world as being a dangerous place. This in turn could be assumed that SDO scales have more specific unknown factors contributing to prejudice. However, the findings of the current study reveals that high extremity conditions apply to threatening world-view, therefore it can be noted that the extremity condition can be an exception to the contributing factor for stronger link between competitive world-view and SDO.

The result of the current study reveals that participants reported significantly more prejudice towards both dangerous and derogated groups when social competition was high compared to when it was low. Interestingly, the results convey no significant interaction between extremity condition and out-groups. Supporting the study conducted by Van Hiel, Cornelis, and Roets (2007), Perry et al. (2013) confirmed that the link between worldviews and ideological attitudes are strong, however there is an asymmetry between the strength of relationship of worldview with RWA and SDO respectfully. It was found that SDO had a stronger association with competitive worldview than relationship of RWA and dangerous worldview. This can alternately suggest that this strong relationship between SDO and competitive worldview results as a constant outcome although extremity conditions were altered.

Through our findings, it is noted that the only significant interaction between extremity condition and out-group would be the social threat condition when social threat is perceived to be high. As per our result, an assumption can be made that the current social status of an individual influences the view of their world, as they reflect on their own experiences. Research conducted by Van Hiel, Cornelis, and Roets (2007) found that adults were more prone to dangerous worldview and RWA than undergraduate students. Dissimilarly, there was no significant difference between competitive worldview and SDO for the two samples. This can be interpreted as adults to be more sensitive on extremity levels only with RWA and dangerous worldviews, which contrasts with the result of our current research. Further research can be conducted to reveal the unknown factors related with age.

The significant main effect of extremity condition is that participants reported significantly more prejudice when social threat was high compared to when it was low. The results show significant interaction between extremity condition (high vs low) and out-group by showing higher prejudice against dangerous groups on a high social threat condition. However, when social threat was low, there was no significant difference in prejudice between dangerous and derogated groups. The question is why did extremity condition only have effect on high threat worldviews? SDO was intended to measure the general attitudinal intentions of the relationship towards an out-group, showing if an individual generally wish the relationship to be equal versus hierarchical (Pratto. F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B, 1994). Therefore, it can be assumed the samples were not suitable as participants are undergraduate psychology students who tend to be more easy-going on derogated out-groups. Moreover, similarly to Duckitt & Ficher’s (2003) study, the potential limitation of this study might be the cause of the ceiling effect, which is Australia already being perceived as a safe and secure country; therefore suggestions are to run the experiment on different samples in another country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is noted that high extremity condition is only related to the high social threat condition and through the results of the current study, it is possible to develop strategies to reduce prejudice by studying the mechanisms of extremity with RWA and SDO. Specifically, it is noted that prejudice is significantly more correlated with RWA on a high extremity condition, however it is still unclear what it is exactly related to, therefore it requires further research.

Reference

1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
2. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
3. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
4. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199-222.
5. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21. 113-130.
6. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 98-109.
7. Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.
8. Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741–770.
9. Heaven, P., & Conners, J. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925–930.
10. McFarland, S. (1998, July). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal.
11. McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver.
12. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116-127.
13. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
14. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Stangor, C., & Leary, S. P. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 243-281.
16. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., Roets, A., & De Clercq, B. (2007). A comparison of various authoritarianism scales in Belgian Flanders. European Journal of Personality, 21, 149–168.
17. Whitley, J. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126-134.

Abstract

Previous research on the dual process model portrayed that right wing authoritarianism (RWA) and Social dominance orientation scale (SDO) predict prejudice in an independent context. RWA is believed to be in relation to threatening worldviews and SDO to be related to competitive worldviews. This study manipulates dangerous and competitive social contexts separately to gain a clearer insight to convey how RWA and SDO contribute to prejudice. The addition of two extremity scales (high vs. low) shows the influence of extremity in situations can manipulate prejudice in different context. The results of this research contributed to the field of prejudice as it discovered that there was a significant interaction with the high extremity condition and threat condition.

Introduction

Initial studies on ideological attitudes were based on the traditional uni-dimensional approach, which is intentioned to measure prejudice in a single dimension from a left to right scale with the use of the F-scale. This uni-dimensional concept is mostly strongly correlated with other social values, rather than behavior (Duriez & Van Hiel, 2002; Heaven & Conners, 2001), and as Altemeyer (1998) suggested the fact that the F-scale lacks reliability and uni-dimensionality, it was later revealed that it was measuring several poorly related factors, failing important validity criteria of authoritarianism. As a result, two new distinct dimensions: Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) were later introduced in the past two decades which also derived the dual process model of ideological attitudes to measure individual differences on ideological attitudes.

Individual differences of prejudice can be predicted by the use of two distinct ideological variables: RWA and SDO (Whitley, 1999). Past research conveys that these two variables powerfully predict individual’s prejudice extremity towards out-groups (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003). RWA and SDO scales were initially proposed to measure personality, however this was later argued to be false (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003). It has always been a controversy about what exactly the RWA and SDO scale measure, as Adorno et al. (1950) and Altemeyer (1981, 1998) have proposed that these scales measure personality; specifically generalized behavioral disposition, but without empirical evidence.

RWA and SDO scales were known to be powerfully predicting political ideologies and intergroup relationships (Altemeyer, 1998). However, these two scales are seen as independent, as they are often not statistically significant or correlated (Altemeyer, 1998; McFarland, 1998; McFarland & Adelson, 1996; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Altemeyer (1998) therefore proposed that these two scales act independently to measure two different kinds of authoritarian personality, which determines if an individual is vulnerable to right-wing politics and ideology. This proposal however has been challenged, as the items of the RWA scale does not contribute to personality traits but shows ideological belief dimensions, which thus reveals prejudice (Feldman & Stenner, 1997). Moreover, the items in the SDO scales also reveal ideological beliefs rather than personality, therefore it is viewed that both RWA and SDO scales are to be more suitable to describe a prediction of an individual’s prejudice rather than personality (Duckitt J., & Fisher, K, 2003).

Past research conveyed that RWA and SDO scales predict individual differences in prejudice towards out-groups and minorities (Altemeyer, 1998). It was seen that these two scales form a basis of the phenomenon of generalized prejudice as both RWA and SDO scales require the presence of prejudice (Altemeyer, 1998). However, Duckitt (2000, 2001) proposed the dual process approach, which interprets SDO and RWA to have different basis motives and reasons for prejudice, which results in two different dimensions of generalized prejudice. RWA items are suggested to have beliefs in coercive social control, high conformity rate for existing authorities and values order (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). On the other hand, SDO items are proposed to have beliefs in social & economic inequality; dominance of powerful groups over weak groups and values achievement. Moreover, important variables do not correlate.

Duckitt & Sibley (2007) uncovered that RWA and SDO scales are influenced by different views of the world. RWA views the world to be threatening and shows prejudice amongst groups considered to be ‘dangerous’. On the other hand, SDO views the world to be a socially competitive jungle, displaying prejudice against the ‘derogated’ group. Supporting this idea, Stangor and Leary (2006) noted that RWA and SDO have different motivationally based values. SDO has a strong negative relationship with both conservative values and egalitarian values, however RWA is shown to have a strong positive relationship only with conservative values. This thus shows that RWA and SDO are independent dimensions which have very different attitudes and base motivations.

As per previous studies, the dual process theory notes that SDO and RWA are independent dimensions, which measures and predicts prejudice against different out-groups: dangerous and derogated with different motivational goals (Duckitt & Sibley, 2009). Despite numerous research with regards to RWA SDO and the dual process model, it is still unknown if the extremity on prejudice towards a “dangerous group” and “derogated group” affects the view of a world with a threat or being competitive. It can be assumed that high extremity condition will produce higher prejudice against both Social threat condition and social competition conditions. It is further assumed that individuals will show higher prejudice against dangerous out-groups than derogated out-groups in social threat condition, while conversely, participants will show higher prejudice against derogated out-groups than dangerous out-groups in a social competition condition. In contrast with previous researches by Duckitt and Sibely (2007), our current research manipulates dangerous and competitive social contexts separately and adds prejudice as an outcome variable to view if extremity (high vs low) conditions vary prejudice. If the hypothesis is true, then it can be interpreted to be that an individual’s immediate environment is one of the factors of influence to RWA and SDO in the attitude and prejudice towards specific target groups disregarding any social context. If the hypothesis is false, it can be assumed that RWA and SDO are truly independent dimensions, which work differently in each extremity conditions.

The current research removed worldview, RWA and SDO for simplicity in contrast with past researches by Duckitt (2003, 2007). The current study will display 4 different findings, which can be evaluated and explored to uncover a deeper insight of the topic, possibly contributing to further studies.

Discussion

The result of the current study reveals that participants reported significantly more prejudice when social threat was high compared to when it was low. Moreover, participants reported significantly greater prejudice against dangerous groups compared to derogated groups in high extremity condition, however there was no significant difference in prejudice between dangerous and derogated groups in low extremity condition. This can be assumed that RWA and prejudice is significantly correlated with high extremity condition, but not with low extremity condition. Supporting the findings, Duckitt & Ficher (2003) reported that individuals shift their ideologies and attitudes rapidly to support authoritarianism when the world is viewed to become more dangerous and threatening. Conversely, if individuals perceived the world to be safe, they showed no change in their ideologies and attitudes. The results in the current study aligns with Duckitt & Ficher’s (2003) assumption that RWA is relatively more sensitive to high extremity conditions as low extremity conditions may be seen to only have a long term or delayed effect. An assumption to this rapid change is that as survival is the core innate human instinct, it can be suggested that RWA and social threat would have an unknown variable that contributes to the extremity conditions, as social threat is an immediate factor that decides life and death.

Perry, Sibley & Duckitt, (2013) confirmed that RWA and SDO are persistently correlated with specific social perceptions of society as threatening and competitive through their meta-analysis. Moreover, Van Hiel, Cornelis and Roets (2007) revealed that the correlation with SDO and competitive worldview has a higher correlation than the correlation with RWA and viewing the world as being a dangerous place. This in turn could be assumed that SDO scales have more specific unknown factors contributing to prejudice. However, the findings of the current study reveals that high extremity conditions apply to threatening world-view, therefore it can be noted that the extremity condition can be an exception to the contributing factor for stronger link between competitive world-view and SDO.

The result of the current study reveals that participants reported significantly more prejudice towards both dangerous and derogated groups when social competition was high compared to when it was low. Interestingly, the results convey no significant interaction between extremity condition and out-groups. Supporting the study conducted by Van Hiel, Cornelis, and Roets (2007), Perry et al. (2013) confirmed that the link between worldviews and ideological attitudes are strong, however there is an asymmetry between the strength of relationship of worldview with RWA and SDO respectfully. It was found that SDO had a stronger association with competitive worldview than relationship of RWA and dangerous worldview. This can alternately suggest that this strong relationship between SDO and competitive worldview results as a constant outcome although extremity conditions were altered.

Through our findings, it is noted that the only significant interaction between extremity condition and out-group would be the social threat condition when social threat is perceived to be high. As per our result, an assumption can be made that the current social status of an individual influences the view of their world, as they reflect on their own experiences. Research conducted by Van Hiel, Cornelis, and Roets (2007) found that adults were more prone to dangerous worldview and RWA than undergraduate students. Dissimilarly, there was no significant difference between competitive worldview and SDO for the two samples. This can be interpreted as adults to be more sensitive on extremity levels only with RWA and dangerous worldviews, which contrasts with the result of our current research. Further research can be conducted to reveal the unknown factors related with age.

The significant main effect of extremity condition is that participants reported significantly more prejudice when social threat was high compared to when it was low. The results show significant interaction between extremity condition (high vs low) and out-group by showing higher prejudice against dangerous groups on a high social threat condition. However, when social threat was low, there was no significant difference in prejudice between dangerous and derogated groups. The question is why did extremity condition only have effect on high threat worldviews? SDO was intended to measure the general attitudinal intentions of the relationship towards an out-group, showing if an individual generally wish the relationship to be equal versus hierarchical (Pratto. F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B, 1994). Therefore, it can be assumed the samples were not suitable as participants are undergraduate psychology students who tend to be more easy-going on derogated out-groups. Moreover, similarly to Duckitt & Ficher’s (2003) study, the potential limitation of this study might be the cause of the ceiling effect, which is Australia already being perceived as a safe and secure country; therefore suggestions are to run the experiment on different samples in another country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is noted that high extremity condition is only related to the high social threat condition and through the results of the current study, it is possible to develop strategies to reduce prejudice by studying the mechanisms of extremity with RWA and SDO. Specifically, it is noted that prejudice is significantly more correlated with RWA on a high extremity condition, however it is still unclear what it is exactly related to, therefore it requires further research.

Reference

1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.
2. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92.
3. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
4. Duckitt, J., & Fisher, K. (2003). The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology, 24(1), 199-222.
5. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21. 113-130.
6. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20(2-3), 98-109.
7. Duriez, B., & Van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1199–1213.
8. Feldman, S., & Stenner, K. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18, 741–770.
9. Heaven, P., & Conners, J. (2001). A note on the value correlates of social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 925–930.
10. McFarland, S. (1998, July). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal.
11. McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver.
12. Perry, R., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2013). Dangerous and competitive worldviews: A meta-analysis of their associations with social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(1), 116-127.
13. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
14. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Stangor, C., & Leary, S. P. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. Advances in experimental social psychology, 38, 243-281.
16. Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., Roets, A., & De Clercq, B. (2007). A comparison of various authoritarianism scales in Belgian Flanders. European Journal of Personality, 21, 149–168.
17. Whitley, J. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126-134.

Bias and Prejudice

Kottler and Shepard (2014) indicate that prejudice and bias affect society negatively. Bias is a downbeat thought of a group or an individual based on economics, religions, or politics. Prejudice revolves around making inappropriate decisions about specific groups without upholding the right truth (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). Bias and prejudice are critical attributes in counseling relationships and acceptance of individual differences. Counselors should reexamine their past views and prejudices against other racial groups. The professionals should be on the frontline to support the rights of every client. Counselors should also guide their clients to neutralize their biases and promote the idea of diversity.

These attributes will definitely dictate my duties as a counselor. I will be obliged to respect the values, concepts, and practices of my clients. Prejudice and bias encourage me to maintain a nonjudgmental stance. This approach will minimize the challenges of bias and prejudice. As a counselor, I will be guided by advocacy and social justice. This knowledge will guide me to develop personalized and culturally competent therapies depending on the attributes of the clients (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). This approach will eventually result in a powerful counseling philosophy.

Diversity and Parity of Services

The world is becoming diverse in terms of population. This kind of diversity explains why mental health workers and counselors have been promoting the parity of services. This emphasis will ensure evidence-based support is available to diverse populations. Flexible therapies will be required to support the diverse needs of different groups. The issue of parity is also critical, whereby every client receives adequate care without discrimination (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). The implementation of powerful programs advocating for parity of services will ensure quality services are available to more people.

I have the potential to take responsibility for responding to these emerging concerns. I will begin by developing a powerful philosophy that can meet the needs of more diverse populations. Whenever providing counseling and human services, I will always focus on diverse groups and provide equal support. The inclusion of more professionals from different backgrounds in my counseling teams will make it easier for me to respond to these concerns (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). I will engage in lifelong learning in an attempt to understand the values and beliefs of more cultural groups.

Understanding the Perspectives of Others

Human service professionals and counselors should be willing to expand their world. Personally, I am planning to implement a powerful plan that can guide me to understand the perspectives of diverse populations. The first approach will be to engage in constant learning. This practice will make it easier for me to learn more about different cultural groups and religious practices (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). The second step is to interact with more counselors and professionals from different regional and cultural backgrounds. The counselors will equip me with new ideas that can expand my world.

The third strategy will be to travel widely and interact with more people from diverse backgrounds. This practice will equip me with new competencies that can support my philosophy. The fourth approach will be to engage in continuous practice. This kind of practice will guide me to offer quality therapy to more people from diverse backgrounds. The fifth strategy will be to provide counseling to more individuals from drivers backgrounds (Kottler & Shepard, 2014). I will offer support to different groups, such as African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans. The practice will widen my skills and eventually make me a knowledgeable provider of culturally competent therapies.

Reference

Kottler, A., & Shepard, S. (2014). Introduction to counseling: Voices from the field (8th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks.