Brown Chapter 1 & 2

At a methodological level, most criticism towards the authoritarian personality was aimed at the F-scale. What were the three particular problems people had?

1. Adorno used unrepresentative samples of respondents when developing the F-scale. He used large samples, but from formal (mostly middle class) organisations. This might attract a specific personality type, and isn't a good empirical base from which to construct a general theory of prejudice (Hyman & Sheatsley). 2. Items in the F-scale were worded in such a way that agreement with them indicated an authoritarian response. Drawback is that is that authoritarianism can be easily distinguished from a general tendency to agree with authoritative sounding statements (Brown. 1965). 3. Clinical interviews were flawed. Interviewers knew in advance the score of each respondent, so they could have influenced the answers.

What two scales did Rokeach come up with to substantiate his theory of a dogmatic personality?

1. Opinionation scale: consisted of a series of social attitude statements, worded in both a right-wing and left-wing direction. Designed to give a measure of intolerance. 2. Dogmatism scale: closely related to the opinionation scale, aiming to tap into general authoritarianism. Some items were similar to F-scale. Rokeach hoped that the dogmatism measure would be a more content-free index of authoritarianism than Adorno's F-scale.

Reasons for prejudice being a phenomenon originating in group processes:

1. Prejudice is an orientation towards whole categories of people not individuals. Even if the target is an individual, their characteristics matter less than the markers that allocate them to one group rather than another. 2. Prejudice is frequently a socially shared orientation. Large numbers of people agree in their negative stereotypes towards certain out-groups. 3. Relationship between two groups plays an important role in determining the prejudice between one of the groups towards the other.

Brown Chapter 1 Summary:

1. Prejudice is often defined as a faulty or unjustified negative judgment held about members of a group. Such definitions run into conceptual difficulties because of problems in determining whether social judgments are at variance with reality. Instead, prejudice is defined as an attitude, emotion or behaviour towards members of a group which directly or indirectly implies some negativity towards that group. 2 Because prejudice involves judgments of some groups made by others, and because it can be shown to be affected by the relationships between these groups, prejudice is regarded as a phenomenon originating in group processes. However, this perspective is not incompatible with a social psychological analysis that is primarily concerned with individual perceptions, evaluations and actions. Such an analysis sees individuals acting as group members, and as part of a coherent pattern of group dynamics. 3 A social psychological analysis is one of a number of valid scientific perspectives on prejudice. Each discipline can usefully pursue its own research problems more or less independently of the others, although ultimately these diverse analyses will have to be compatible with each other.

What criticisms are there of Altemeyer's theory of right wing authoritarianism?

1. The items are overly complex in that they measure multiple things aspects of authoritarianism at once. Can't tell which aspect the person is (dis)agreeing with. 2. As with the original authoritarian personality idea, RWA deals only with the political right side of authoritarianism. Could people with other political views also be be authoritarian and prejudiced?

Chapter 2 Summary

1. The most famous example of such an explanation within psychology is the theory proposed in The Authoritarian Personality. This model proposed that certain family conditions, particularly the experience of excessively harsh and moralistic parenting, produce an outlook on life which is over-deferential towards authority, socially conservative, hostile towards minority or 'deviant' groups, and dominated by a simplistic cognitive style. This approach was widely criticised on methodological grounds and has been supplanted by Altemeyer's (1996) right-wing authoritarianism theory. 2. An extension of work on authoritarianism is Rokeach's hypothesis that intolerance and mental rigidity are not the exclusive prerogative of the political right but can be observed in extreme left-wingers also. This theory, too, is not without its empirical difficulties. 3. Social dominance theory seeks to explain prejudice as an expression of social dominance - an orientation which is inherent in all hierarchically organised societies. The existence of group-based hierarchies is also a universal feature of human existence according to this theory. However, the causal status of social dominance orientation has been questioned in recent research. 4. Personality accounts of prejudice are limited because of their tendency to downplay situational factors and to neglect the influence of societal or sub-cultural norms. Furthermore, they cannot readily explain the widespread uniformity of prejudice in some societies or groups. Nor can they easily account for historical changes in the expression of prejudice. Recent analyses view authoritarianism and social dominance as responses to changing intergroup conditions rather than as prime causes of prejudice.

Of 60 landlords approached (Daniels, 1968), the West Indian confederate received identical treatment on ____ occasions. On ___ of the other occasions, they were told the flat was gone. Of 40 firms approached, the West Indian/Asian were told there was no vacancy for ___ of them, whereas the Englishman received ___ refusals, and the Hungarian received ____.

15, 38, 37, 10, 23

Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) found that people with 'white' names were about ___ more likely to yield a response to their application than those with African American names. The response rate was _____ and _____ respectively. The quality of the resume made a big difference for people with a 'white' name, but had virtually no effect for the 'black' candidates.

50%, 9.6%, 6.4%

According to Adorno, what categorises someone with authoritarian personality?

A person who is over-deferential and anxious towards authority figures (since they symbolise their parents), who sees the world in black and white, who is unable or unwilling to tolerate cognitive ambiguity, and is overtly hostile towards anyone not obviously an in-group member.

What empirical evidence exists showing the link between authoritarianism and prejudice?

Adorno et al. (1950) found large correlations (0.6+) between their earlier measure of ethnocentrism and the F-scale, validating proposed link between prejudice and personality. Campbell and McCandless (1951) found a strong correlation between authoritarianism and their own measure of xenophobia in uni students. Pettigew (1958) found a reliable correlations (0.4 - 0.6) between the F-scale and anti-black prejudice. Meleon et al. (1988) found substantial correlations between authoritarianism and ethnocentrism, and also between authoritarianism, sexism and support for extreme right wing groups. Sinsha and Hassan (1975) found that authoritarianism of high caste Indian men predicted religious prejudice against muslims, caste prejudice against harijans, and sexist prejudice.

Why does the measure of social dominance orientation (SDO), the most intensely investigated component of social dominance theory, exist?

Although the main idea of social dominance theory is to stress the inevitability and stability of hierarchical systems, its authors do admit that there can be tensions within those systems, such that some groups, or individuals within groups, will seek to reduce rather than enhance the existing inequalities. The SDO seeks to capture such differences, both among groups and among individuals, in the degree of their preference for inequalities. The SDO scale consists of a number of statements affirming or denying the desirability of group membership.

Formation of Social Dominance Theory

Approach promoted by Sidanius and Pratto (1999). Began with the observation that all human societies seem to be hierarchically organised, some groups having power over others. Which groups are significant in any particular cultural context is arbitrary, with Sidanius and Pratto labeling them as 'arbitrary set' distinctions. However, in contrast to the huge diversity of arbitrary set systems in existence, there are two categorical dimensions believed to always be significant : age and gender - especially gender. Authors argue that the tendency for older/male members of societies to have more power and privilege than younger/female counterparts gives these two category systems a privileged status in the theory. Thus they predict that we should find men showing more dominance than women and, maybe less generally, we should expect older people to show more dominance than younger people.

Why does social dominance theory state that members of socially subordinate groups actively collaborate in their own oppression?

Because it is held to be more socially functional to live in stratified rather than horizontal systems, so even members of lower status groups will usually collaborate in their own subordination: 'group oppression is very much a cooperative game'

What did Rokeach's (1956) analysis look at?

Began by distinguishing between the content of what a prejudiced person believes in and the structure of those beliefs. Rokeach argued that out-group rejection can be found in left-wingers too, but towards different targets than with right-wingers. Rokeach believed these different kinds of prejudice have a similar underlying cognitive structure, in which different beliefs are isolated from one another so that mutually contradictory opinions can be tolerated. Such belief systems are resistant to change in light of new information, with the holders appealing to authority to justify their correctness. Rokeach labelled this syndrome of intolerance the 'closed mind' or dogmatic personality (vs. the open-minded/non-prejudiced person).

Reasons to doubt that SDO is a fixed predisposition.

Duckitt (2001) pointed out that the SDO scale, like its RWA cousin, is really a measure of social attitude rather than personality. The SDO items reflect a general outlook in which the world is seen as a place full of competing groups, with inevitable winners or losers. The RWA items, in contrast, portray the world as a dangerous and threatening place, where we need the protection of strong in-group moral values and revered authorities. Duckitt (2001) links these different world views to underlying personality traits, tough-mindedness, and social conformity. Could also suppose that such belief systems could equally arise from certain situations or events, or from being socialized into an institution with a particularly competitive or egalitarian ethos. If so, then SDO shouldn't be viewed as a primary cause of prejudices but as an ideological response to the circumstances people find themselves in. This reaction may well go on to generate a particular intergroup attitude, but it cannot really be regarded as its originator.

What evidence exists for Altemeyer's social learning account of right wing authoritarianism

Evidence 1 = people's RWA scores correlate more strongly with a scale tapping experiences with authority situations than with parents' RWA scores. Evidence 2 = people's RWA scores can be observed to change over their lifetime. The experience of education tends to lower them whilst parenthood tends to raise them.

An example of zero correlation between authoritarianism and outgroup rejection.

Forbes (1985) found that amongst English speakers, there was a correlation between authoritarianism and anti-French feeling (very weak). However, the same group showed a negative correlation between authoritarianism and a measure of nationalism, and no correlation at all with internationalism.

Limitation four of the argument/thesis that variation and occurrence of prejudice can be explained by differences in personality.

Fourth problem is the historical specificity of prejudice. If the uniformities of prejudice are hard to explain with a personality model, the sudden rises and falls of prejudice over time are also problematic. Growth of anti-semitism under Hitler happened too quickly for German families to have adopted child-rearing practices necessary to create authoritarian/prejudiced children. Altemeyer found that over 20 years, parents of Canadian students hardly changed in levels of authoritarianism, whilst large changes occurred for their children. Vollebergh observed a small but highly reliable decrease in authoritarianism over 2yrs in 900 Dutch adolescents. Could be observed at each of the five age levels studied. Poses a problem for the personality approach, suggesting that authoritarianism/social dominance may actually be an effect of changing social conditions rather than deriving from particular histories of socialization. If so, then the observed correlations between personality variables and prejudice, rather than indicating a causal relationship between them, may actually stem from their joint dependence on these wider societal factors.

Evidence for SDO as a result of one's circumstances instead of a fixed predisposition, Guimond et al (2003)

Guimond et al. investigated the possibility that SDO results from differential group socialization. They measured SDO and prejudice in an elite group of students (Law) and in a lower-status group (Psychology), obtaining samples from first year and third/fourth-year students. According to social dominance theory, those bound for a superior status career (the lawyers) should manifest both higher social dominance and (hence) more prejudice. Law students did generally score higher in SDO, but this difference was larger among the more senior students. Among first year students, although there was still a disciplinary difference in SDO, there was no difference at all in their levels of prejudice; such a difference only emerged in the older samples. Guimond et al. interpret results as showing that it took time for the law (or psychology) students to become acculturated to the competitive (or more communal) worlds of their chosen careers, their SDO levels increasing (or decreasing) as a result. Could be a cohort effect, but same results found with experimentally created groups.

Limitation one of the argument/thesis that variation and occurrence of prejudice can be explained by differences in personality.

It underestimates the power/importance of the immediate social situation in shaping people's attitudes. Social psychology believes that opinions and behavior are influenced by things like the attitudes of others around or near us, the norms of our group, and the relationships between our group and others. Same with the expression of prejudice. Siegel and Siegel observed the change in authoritarianism over a year among two groups of women students. One group had resided in very conservative sorority housing, the other had lived in dormitories where more liberal norms prevailed. The housing assignment was random. The students who had been exposed to more progressive group norms showed a decline in their authoritarianism, whilst the sorority group hardly changed. Guimond et al. found that student SDO levels and prejudice changed according to their degree subject. Verkuyten and Hagendoorn (1998) had the insight that a personality variable like authoritarianism might only be influential in determining prejudice when people's group affiliations weren't salient. They argued that when group identities were foremost, such personality determinants would give way to factors like in-group norms or stereotypes about an out-group. They activated people's personal or social identities by asking them a series of questions either about their individual characteristics (appearance, hobbies, etc.) or their nationality. This was enough to change the correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice: the correlation was positive and significant in the personal identity condition (the first group) but negligible in the social identity condition (the second group). In the latter group it was in-group stereotypes that reliably predicted prejudice, a relationship completely absent in the personal identity condition.

On top of an intolerance of ambiguity in people with authoritarian personlity (Adorno et al.), what did Jost et al. (2003) find?

Jost et al. (2003) found evidence of integrative complexity, increased uncertainty avoidance, greater need for more cognitive closure, heightened feelings of fear and threat amongst more conservative oriented individuals. Shows that authoritarian people do tend to think in a certain way.

According to Rokeach, what are the origins of the dogmatic personality?

Like Adorno, Rokeach believed they lay in early family socialisation experiences, particularly the relationships between the child and parents. He expected 'close-minded' or dogmatic people to show the same glorification of their parents and the same other symptoms of repressed anxiety (nail-biting, nightmares etc.) that Adorno and his colleagues had described in their view of authoritarians. Rokeach did find that 'open-minded' students were more likely to describe their parents in ambivalent terms and to recollect fewer symptoms of childhood anxiety. However, it was the 'intermediate' rather than the extremely 'close-minded' group that showed the biggest contrast with the 'open-minded' group.

How useful is Rokeach's concept of dogmatism for predicting prejudice?

Little research. Rokeach demonstrated that dogmatism was correlated with generalised rejection of out-groups measured by a scale of ethnocentrism. Maykovich (1975) found that dogmatism correlated with whites' anti-black attitudes in the USA, even after controlling for other variables. Among fundamentalist religious groups in Israel, dogmatism was correlated (weakly) with anti-Arab prejudice. Dion (1973) found that dyads composed of high-dogmatic subjects showed no greater discrimination towards a rival dyad in reward allocations; nor were their intergroup evaluations any more biased than those of dyads composed of less dogmatic subjects. In this experiment the mere division into groups seemed more important than the personalities of members.

What did Brown (1951) do to find a authoritarianism/mental rigidity association?

Manipulated the presumed social, scientific, and personal significance of the arithmetic problems, finding a clear-cut association between authoritarianism and rigidity only in 'ego-involving' conditions, and not in the 'non-involved' group.

What evidence exists for Rokeach's claim that extremists of the left and right share some personality attributes and have similar cognitive styles?

McFarland et al. (1992) studied the levels and correlates of authoritarianism in the former Soviet Union and USA. Although Russian respondents scored lower on authoritarianism than Americans, pattern of correlations suggested that authoritarianism was positively correlated with an endorsement of communist ideals for Russians, and negatively correlated for Americans. No simple link between left and right extremes and authoritarianism, relation between them depended on cultural context. Tetlock (1984) Analysed rhetoric of conservative and socialist politicians, showing how their arguments tend to be less complex than their more centrist counterparts, supporting the idea that the former two groups may see the world in more stark and rigidly defined terms. However, difference in cognitive style could be determined by whether group's party is in power or opposition. Moreover, evidence supports the view that extreme right-wingers are more cognitively rigid than extreme left-wingers, with little sign of the U-shaped function that Rokeach predicted

Where did Altemeyer, in his theory of RWA, say that the origins of authoritarianism lay?

NOT in the parent-child dynamics in early childhood, but in the wider social learning experiences of the individual, particularly leading into adolescence. Found that high RWA scorers tend to recollect their life experiences as more narrowly conventional and marked by strict discipline. In other words, people learn to be authoritarian as an adaption to social environments of particular kinds.

What are the determinants of someone's level of Social Dominance Orientation?

Not a very well specified account of the origins of SDO. Suggested that it stems in part from a person's socialization experiences in a particular part of society - e.g. one may be socialized as white, middle class and male, to choose a configuration that should produce high levels of SDO according to the theory. In addition, SDO may partly derive from more ideographic life experiences (a certain method of child-rearing); and it may also depend, to a certain extent, on situational factors (the particular intergroup status differences that are psychologically salient in a given context). Criticism: If it's contextually liable to change, how can SDO be cross-situationally consistent?

What did Rokeach (1948) do to test the association between authoritarianism and mental rigidity?

Presented participants with arithmetic problems. In practice trials these problems required a long solution, but in the test trials they could be solved via a simpler one-step method. Looked at whether participants persisted rigidly with the technique learned in practice. Found that those who scored highly on ethnocentrism showed higher mental rigidity. Brown (1953) concluded after unsuccessful replication of this that the authoritarianism/rigidity link only emerges when testing situation is important for participants.

How well can Social Dominance Theory explain prejudice?

Research attention has concentrated on the predicted relationship between SDO and various measures of prejudice, and less on the larger and harder to test claims about the universality and inevitability of group-based hierarchies. Pratto et al. (1994) found consistent correlations between SDO and racism, sexism and nationalism (averaging around .50) in samples of American students. SDO was weakly correlated with RWA (.20) and, even controlling for RWA, the relationships with various indicators of prejudice were still robust. Men scored slightly higher in SDO as expected. In several studies, SDO was reliably associated with prejudice, even after effects of RWA had been removed, implying that SDO and RWA are relatively independent correlates of prejudice.

Final point on social dominance orientation (SDO)

SDO is not a marker of pathology or an indication that someone is departing from the norm in some way. Instead, SDO 'reflects normal human variation, in combination with normal socialization experiences, and partly from inherited personality dispositions'

Alternate explanation for sudden rises and falls of prejudice over time (2)

Sales (1973) proposed that a big source of authoritarianism is the existence of threatening factors in society, especially the prevailing economic conditions. When times are hard, people feel under greater threat than in periods of prosperity. Sales reasoned that feelings of threat would manifest themselves in people's attraction towards more authoritarian forms of religion. There were negative correlations between income level and conversion rates to 'authoritarian' religions like Catholicism, but positive associations for the 'non-authoritarian' churches like the Presbyterian during the great depression. Sales (1973) then devised some other indicators of authoritarianism, suggesting that in threatening climates, popular culture icons like comic strip characters should emphasise power/toughness; there should be a growth in the popularity of astrology and other superstitious beliefs; and people's choice of dogs should veer towards aggressive hunting breeds. All these indices showed reliable associations with economic variables. Similar studies of Germany pre-war and of the US in the 1970s and 1980s have supported Sales' conclusions. Perrin (2005) observed a more authoritarian tone in letters to American newspapers after the 11 September terrorist attacks. Probably as a counter-reaction, there was also a (smaller) increase in non-authoritarian letters in the same period. Idea that authoritarianism might be a collective response to group-related threats has been advanced by Duckitt and Fisher (2003), who asked NZ participants to read one of three 'future scenarios' for New Zealand as it might be in ten years time. One of them depicted a socially or economically threatening future (high levels of unemployment and crime, political instability); another, a secure and prosperous future (economic growth and social harmony); and the third one, a 'neutral' status-quo-prevails outcome. Reading these different scenarios altered participants' world views and levels of authoritarianism and, though less evidently, their levels of social dominance. Stellmacher and Petzel (2005) developed a group authoritarianism scale, which they believed measures collective reactions to identity threatening situations. In their model, they retain individual predispositions to authoritarianism as a starting point, predispositions which then interact with the strength of group identification and with the social threat to produce an increase in authoritarian group reactions (conformity to group norms, obedience to leaders and xenophobia). In an experiment in which psychology students' career prospects were threatened, an interaction between individual levels of authoritarianism, identification and threat: group authoritarianism was highest among students who were initially high in individual authoritarianism, who also identified strongly as psychologists and were in the high threat condition.

Issue with prejudice definitions implying that beliefs are 'false', 'irrational', or a 'faulty generalization'

Saying a belief is faulty implies we have a way of establishing its correctness. Prejudiced statements are vague and ambiguous.

Evidence for SDO as a result of one's circumstances instead of a fixed predisposition, Schmitt et al.

Schmitt et al. tested participants for their levels of racism/sexism before their experiment. Then, in the study, they made ethnicity or gender salient for the participants by asking them to answer five questions on why it felt natural to be a member of their ethnic/gender group. They then filled out an SDO scale. If SDO is a predisposition to prefer dominance relations and hence to show prejudice, one would expect it to correlate equally well with both racism and sexism, irrespective of experimental condition. In fact, it correlated only with racism in the ethnicity salient condition, and only with sexism in the gender salient condition. Suggests that SDO was a reaction to situational contingencies (which dictated which identity was salient at the time) rather than an underlying cause of general prejudice.

What did Altemeyer do with Adorno's authoritarian personality?

Set out to fix the psychometric imperfections of the F-scale. Sought to correct the presence of an acquiescence response set (items worded in 'authoritarian direction'). Created the right-wing authoritarianism scale (RWA). Intended to capture three ingredients of authoritarian character: submission (to authorities), aggression (towards deviants or outsiders), and conventionalism (adherence to orthodox moral codes). Items typically tap two or more of these at once. Got rid of the Freudian trappings of the F-scale. Has good psychometric properties. Scale correlates with prejudice towards ethnic minorities, homophobia, and negative attitudes towards the homeless and law breakers.

Why are group-based hierarchies, whether based on arbitrary sets or on age and gender, inevitable (based on social dominance theory)?

Sidanius and Pratto (1999) cite a mixture of evolutionary and social functionalist arguments to sustain their claim. They argue that sexual competition and the biological vulnerability of human infants can help explain the emergence of gender and age as prevalent dominance relations. Furthermore, as societies produced economic surpluses, other arbitrary divisions would emerge, presumably as a result of competition for the control of those surpluses. Finally, hierarchically organised societies are presumed to be more stable than egalitarian ones, which gives them a 'functional' advantage in the long run.

What did Altemeyer think of SDO?

Suggested that SDO measures a form of authoritarianism complementary to that of RWA: the dominating rather than the submissive aspect. Such a concept of personality would mean that people's level of SDO are a stable part of their make-up and a root cause of prejudice, being invariant from situation to situation. It would also imply that different levels of SDO (and prejudice) typically observed among occupational groups (for instance police officers versus social workers) are a result of self-selection (more dominant people seeking out 'dominating' roles), of institutional selection (organizations employing people whose personalities matched their roles), or of both

Was was shown about people with high F-scores through clinical interviews?

Tend to idolise their parents as paragons of virtue, but recalled their childhood as a time of strict obedience, with harsh punishment. Openly condemned social 'deviants' and 'inferiors'. Exhibited categorical stereotypes, often openly prejudiced.

What was Billig's criticism of attempts to equate extremists of different political persuasions (suggested by Rokeach)?

That measuring instruments used in this kind of research aren't politically neutral (and thus able to detect purely psychological distinctions), and actually contain items which are ideologically heavily laden. He concludes that any differences/similarities observed between groups are thus attributable to the aggregation of political attitudes elicited by the particular mix of items on any given scale. To demonstrate this point, Billig and Cochrane (1979) showed that members of the Communist Party and of the National Front Party in Britain could be clearly distinguished through a careful analysis of the individual items they endorsed on Rokeach's (1973) value survey instrument - which thus contradicted the idea that they could be regarded as belonging to a common psychological category.

What did Pratto propose about the social dominance orientation scale?

That the SDO measures the general extent to which individuals value unequal intergroup relationships, and that this preference will translate into the endorsement of relevant forms of prejudice (e.g. racism or nationalism). In social dominance theory, such prejudices are regarded as myths which help to legitimize the unequal status quo; ultimately they will be reflected in discriminatory behavior that will reinforce the existing social hierarchy. The SDO scale can also be used at an aggregate level to test the theory's hypotheses about the relative propensity for dominance between different groups (for example the hypothesis that men score higher than women).

What measure did Adorno et al. create to measure authoritarian personality traits.

The F-scale. Consists of questions concerned with authoritarian submission, aggression towards deviant groups, and the projection of the unconscious, especially sexual impulses. Had good internal reliability, backed up by clinical interviews of people with high/low F-scores.

Evidence for and against the 'invariance hypothesis' of SDO

The link between social dominance relations and evolutionary processes led Pratto to the conclusion that group-based hierarchies and the resulting prejudices are culturally universal and therefore inevitable. Particularly, the idea that sex differences expressed in SDO are universal. Sidanius et al. (2000) found that men were more socially dominant in the six countries they sampled (China, Israel, Palestine, New Zealand, USA, former USSR), despite large differences between these countries on other indicators of inequality. However, Wilson and Liu (2003) found that the sex difference in SDO was only obtained for men and women who identified strongly with their gender; for less strongly identified people, they found that women scored higher than men on SDO. Thus it seems that men's and women's social dominance orientation is more contextually dependent than Sidanius and Pratto had surmised.

Limitation two of the argument/thesis that variation and occurrence of prejudice can be explained by differences in personality.

The second limitation of the thesis is an extension of the first argument to a broader cultural/societal level. Pivotal study is the cross-cultural research done by Pettigrew (1958), who examined prejudice in South Africa and the USA. He found that white South Africans and whites from southern USA showed high levels of anti-black prejudice. However, whilst there was a correlation at an individual level between authoritarianism and prejudice in both places, the overall means for authoritarianism given by the sample were no higher than in other, less prejudiced groups. I.e. in terms of overall distribution of personality types, the sampled populations were rather similar to 'normal' ones, despite their overtly racist attitudes. Pettigrew's concluded that the origin of this racism lay much more in prevailing societal norms these respondents were exposed to than in any personality dysfunction. Reinforced by the consistently high correlations observed between prejudice and measures of social conformity. South Africa is a interesting context to study the determinants of prejudice because of its institutionally racist structure during apartheid. In general, an intra-individual correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice has been confirmed, although not always strongly. More important is the finding that socio-demographic variables have been consistently good predictors of levels of prejudice, independent of the levels of authoritarianism. For example Afrikaans-speakers and groups of lower socio-economic status have tended to be more prejudiced than English-speaking or middle-class groups. The existence of these large sub-cultural differences strengthens the argument that social norms rather than individual personality dynamics determine levels of prejudice in particular groups.

Limitation three of the argument/thesis that variation and occurrence of prejudice can be explained by differences in personality.

The third difficulty with any personality account is its inability to explain the uniformity of prejudiced attitudes across whole groups of people. Theories explaining prejudice via individual differences among people are unsuited to explain how prejudice can become virtually consensual in certain societies, e.g. pre-war Nazi Germany or modern-day South Africa. High levels of racism among thousands of people differing in most other psychological factors. Davey (1983) had children share out sweets between unknown members of different ethnic groups shown in photographs. Of the 500 child participants, 50% were ethnocentric in their distribution of sweets (gave more to the in-group photographs than to other group members). Of the white children, nearly 60 per cent showed this discrimination. It is difficult to imagine that so many of these children had all been exposed to a particular kind of family dynamics, or childhood socialization, alleged to give rise to the prejudiced person.

Was was the most substantial problem with Adorno's authoritarian personality overall?

They observed correlations between authoritarianism and other variables like intelligence, education level, and social class. This suggests an alternate explanation for the formation of authoritarianism. Perhaps it reflects the socialised attitudes of particular sub-groups in society and does not come from personality dynamics stemming from family upbringing. Mosher and Scodel (1960) found a correlation between mother's and child's ethnocentrism, but no correlation between mother's child-rearing attitude and their child's prejudice levels. Suggests direct socialisation of attitudes rather than indirect shaping of a prejudiced personality through parenting style.

Theory of Prejudice as Social Dominance

This theory believes all forms of prejudice and discrimination are simply the result of a universal human tendency to form group-based structures of social dominance, in which members of some groups have the means and the desire to subjugate members of others. Also proposes that members of socially subordinate groups very often acquiesce to (accept reluctantly), or even actively collaborate in, their own oppression; such is the all-embracing nature of dominance relationships.

How did Adorno et al. (1950) explain the formation of the authoritarian personality in a person?

Through exposure to a family regime emphasising good behaviour/conformity to conventional moral codes. The parents use harsh discipline and the child displaces their anger towards a weaker scapegoat i.e. anyone deviating from societal norms such as minority ethnic groups, homosexuals, or convicted criminals. Child develops simplistic way of thinking about the world in which actions and people are rigidly categorised as right or wrong. Generalises into a cognitive style marked by consistent use of clear categories and an intolerance towards anything in between.

Problem with 'positive' prejudice:

Whilst positive on the surface, many intergroup attitudes just reinforce an out-group's subordinate status, since they assign value to out-groups for typically less important attributes, and attributes that help define out-group members as suitable for subordinate roles. Benevolent sexist attitudes are also generally positively correlated with hostile ones (0.3 at individual level, 0.9 at national level).

Brown's definition of prejudice

any attitude, emotion, or behavior towards members of a group which directly or indirectly implies some negativity or antipathy towards that group.