Social Psychology of Prejudice

Master 2022/2023

Category 'Best Course for Career Development'

Category 'Best Course for Broadening Horizons and Diversity of Knowledge and Skills'

Category 'Best Course for New Knowledge and Skills'

Type: Elective course (Applied Social Psychology)

Area of studies: Psychology

Delivered by: School of Psychology

Where: Faculty of Social Sciences

When: 1 year, 3, 4 module

Mode of studies: offline

Open to: students of one campus

Instructors: Marina Kotova

Master’s programme: Applied Social Psychology

Language: English

ECTS credits: 6

Contact hours: 48

Full Syllabus

Abstract

Course Description 1) Pre-requisites The course is designed for first year master students and is based on the previously learned courses (“Theory and Methodology of Modern Psychology”, “Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Psychology”, “Cross-cultural Psychology”). 2) Abstract The course is aimed to introduce to students basic findings and new directions in the area of prejudice research. Specific topics addressed are: 1) on the nature of prejudice: “old” prejudice and modern racism; 2) prejudice formation: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of; 3) group identity, scapegoating, and stereotype threat “assistance” in prejudice formation and enhancing; 4) prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses. Classroom activities follow several rules: • Combination of lecture sessions (which are aimed to provide theoretical and methodological basics) with discussions, analysis of video fragments, and group work (which develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different approaches, justify their ideas, and participate in the scientific discussion) makes the course diverse and interesting for students. • Concentrated approach to course material and studying process. Each meeting is devoted to a specific topic and includes both a lecture and a seminar session. This type of classes’ organization leads to several consequences. Foremost, students come at lecture having a background knowledge that provides in turn a base for lecture information learning. Further, there is no a time gap between lecture and seminar, that reduces time for introduction part of seminar and allows to study more in depth. • Tasks that increase student’s responsibility for the education process. For instance, students chose a particular topic, form a working group, read additional literature about this topic, and are responsible for discussion at seminar devoted to this topic. • Tasks that are aimed to set a connection between course materials and students’ research projects. This gives students an opportunity to see an alternative to their research plan, compare and evaluate its strength and weaknesses. 3) Working language of the course is English (teaching and all communications). Duration of the course is 2 modules, from January till July, 228 academic hours (5 credits) in total, including: 48 hours in class and 180 hours for self-studying. Assessment methods include activity during classes, short tasks, final test, article analysis (homework 1) and research project (homework 2, team work).

Learning Objectives

To acquaint students with basic theories and investigations in the area of prejudice and social discrimination research.
To develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different research approaches; to identify prejudice reducing techniques strengths and weaknesses.
To develop students' abilities to present their ideas, analyze research design and results, and to organize the scientific discussion.

Expected Learning Outcomes

Students analyze scientific literature, compare different studies, and propose a set of corrections for validity increasing
Students use modern international standards of presenting results of psychosocial research in English (in written and in oral modes)
Students reproduce a history of research in a particular research area of prejudice studies; know what research problems were stated and what results and ideas are considered as most promising.
Students compare different conceptions of prejudice and analyze their strengths and limitations; match examples of intergroup incidents with different subtle forms of modern prejudices.
Students analyze and compare factors of prejudice formation and sustainability; analyze prejudice issues in local intergroup relationships based on literature discussed.
Students design and conduct empirical psychological research using modern international standards.
Students analyze and compare approaches to prejudice reduction; propose a set of steps for prejudice reduction in local intergroup relationships.

Course Contents

Introduction: Overview of the course
Differences in prejudice definitions and research methodology
“Old” (blatant) and "new" (subtle) forms of prejudice
Prejudice formation and categorization: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of
Group identity and prejudice formation and enhancing
Stereotyping, scapegoating and prejudice
Intergroup threat and its consequences for intergroup relations
Prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses
Crossed-categorization, ‘re-‘ and ‘de-‘ categorization, dual identities and its effects
Particular prejudice reducing practice analysis
Research practice

Assessment Elements

Class participation
Short home assignments
Article analysis
Research project
Final test

Interim Assessment

2022/2023 4th module
0.15 * Short home assignments + 0.15 * Article analysis + 0.2 * Final test + 0.25 * Class participation + 0.25 * Research project

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human Category Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070217
Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s Lay Theories About Ingroups and Outgroups: Reconceptualizing Research on Prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 5(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_3
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review Of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11752497
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Thomas F. Pettigrew. (n.d.). INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.E5FCBB03
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: the ingroup projection model. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.16D708AF

Recommended Additional Bibliography

Binder, J. ( 1 ), Brown, R. ( 1 ), Zagefka, H. ( 2 ), Funke, F. ( 3 ), Kessler, T. ( 3 ), Mummendey, A. ( 3 ), … Leyens, J.-P. ( 4 ). (n.d.). Does Contact Reduce Prejudice or Does Prejudice Reduce Contact? A Longitudinal Test of the Contact Hypothesis Among Majority and Minority Groups in Three European Countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470
Brown, R. (2002). Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive aspects of prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760060183
Crisp, R., Ensari, N., Hewstone, M., & Miller, N. (2003). A dual-route model of crossed categorisation effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 35–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000091
Elizabeth Levy Paluck. (2009). Reducing intergroup prejudice and conflict using the media: A field experiment in Rwanda. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.C833680
Guglielmi, R. S. (1999). Psychophysiological Assessment of Prejudice: Past Research, Current Status, and Future Directions. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_3
Gulker, J., Mark, A., & Monteith, M. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who , what , and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
Lai, C., Marini, M., Lehr, S., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E., Joy-Gaba, J., … Nosek, B. (2016). Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.8EC51516
Lamb, L., Bigler, R., Liben, L., & Green, V. (2009). Teaching Children to Confront Peers’ Sexist Remarks: Implications for Theories of Gender Development and Educational Practice. Sex Roles, 61(5–6), 361–382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9634-4
McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: national identification and out-group rejection. The British Journal Of Social Psychology, 40(Pt 2), 159–172. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11446222
National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. (2009). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.121D340
Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. (2008). British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x284443
Ramsay, J. E., & Pang, J. S. (2017). Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Rising East Asia: A Stereotype Content and Integrated Threat Analysis. Political Psychology, 38(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12312
Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. (2001). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1204–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279012
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social Identity Complexity. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
Scroggins, W., Mackie, D., Allen, T., & Sherman, J. (2016). Reducing Prejudice With Labels: Shared Group Memberships Attenuate Implicit Bias and Expand Implicit Group Boundaries. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.BCCAE642
Shi, Y., Dang, J., Zheng, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Dual Identity and Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Group Boundary Permeability. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.54EAE7C9
Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, & Department Of Psychology. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.4E3159ED
West, K., & Greenland, K. (2016). Beware of ‘reducing prejudice’: Imagined contact may backfire if applied with a prevention focus. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.AFF86C38

Authors

KOTOVA MARINA VIKTOROVNA

Course Syllabus