Acknowledgment & the Summary of Dissertation .2

Contents

Acknowledgment & the summary of dissertation………………………………….2

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..3

Introduction……………………………………………………………………..4-24

Method………………………………………………………………………...25-29

Design………………………………………………………………………….25

Participants…………………………………………………………………25-26

Materials………………………………………………………………...….26-27

Procedure…………………………………………………………………...28-29

Results…………………………………………………………………………29-34

Discussion……………………………………………………………………..35-46

References……………………………………………………………………..47-51

Appendix 1-Righ Wing Authoritarianism scale……………………………….52-56

Appendix 2 –Implicit Theories Questionnaire……………………………………57

Appendix 3 – Social Dominance Orientation…………………………………….58

Appendix 4 – Participant Information Sheet…………..………………………59-61

Appendix 5 – Consent Form…………………………………………………….62

Appendix 6 – Debrief………………………………………………………..63-64

Ethics cover sheet

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Dr Simon Goodman for all support throughout the project and for useful comments on a draft of this report.

The summary of the dissertation

The research is examining the impact personality characteristics and social norms have on predicting prejudice. There is clear impact of culture, socialisation, ideology, learning, and even parental style on our opinions. Carrying out theoretical investigation of group interaction can further our understanding and find the solutions for those affected by it. And as a result effective intervention can be put in place. Implication of this study can benefit teacher, educational and occupational psychologists. Theoretical project like this are step towards implementing its findings into the practice. It provide contribution into the debate how nurture can influence are ideological stances and personal trials. It gives us an idea how holding the view that our attitudes/personality traits are inherited and immutable can influence our stereotypical and prejudicial attitudes. It can be very harmful and detrimental.

The project involves investigating the scales which measure prejudice attitudes. In RWA, conventionalism, authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggressions claim that ideological stance account for prejudice tendency within the person. It believes that religious ethnocentrism, homophobia, believe in gender roles, social conformity, traditional believes, patriotism, low on liberalism are the main factors that influence prejudice attitudes. Also, the strict and hash parental style, inadequacy, vulnerability, self-righteousness, cooperativeness, achievement striving were prevalent in RWA attitudes. RWA is motivated by social control and security, viewing world as being dangerous and threatening. In SDO, the desire for unequal relations between social groups, not egalitarian consideration, believe that some groups are inherently superior to other groups were identified as factors contributing to prejudice believes. Also, low on sympathy, not having artistic interests were recognised in Social Dominance Orientation. The scales assess the personal characteristics but also are influenced by ideological stance. SDO and RWA are different and were proven not to correlate significantly. This suggest that different ideological attitudes influence account for different variety of prejudice. They are additive in nature rather than interactive. RWA and SDO accounted of round fifty per cent of variance in prejudice. They are both explicit measures of prejudice attitude. Individuals can control their responses, as social norms of egalitarianism and tolerance are prevalent. As an explicit measures they are influenced by the social desirability. On the other hand, Entity Theory, implicit measures of prejudice, which is achieved without conscious knowledge of participants that it measuring the prejudicial tendencies. Entity theorists believes that human characteristics are immutable, inherent or fixed in early childhood. It pays little focus on situational constraints or motivational concerns that affect behaviour.

Abstract

Although Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Entity Theory have been found to predict intergroup prejudice including stereotyping. Previous research suggested that RWA, SDO and Entity Theory hold distinctive psychological features. Whereas research has studied the relationship between SDO and RWA, the present study evaluates Entity Theory with SDO and RWA for the first time. The study has suggested that there will be a weak and positive relationship between the RWA, SDO and Entity Theory. In order to test this, forty students completed RWA, SDO and Entity Theory scales. The correlation analyses revealed that weak, not significant relationships existed between the three variables. Results from the study support the author's predictions which are consistent with some of previous findings. The resultsindicate that scales explain unique portions of the variance of prejudice and provide evidence for distinctive nature of the three measures.

The findings of this study can be applied to Duckitt's Dual Process Model. In relation to the Entity Theory finding are inconsistent with Automatically Activated Negativity (AAN). It has been found thatthat self-presentation strategies had notaffected the result of study. However, SDO and RWA are assumed to be influenced by different factors such as age, culture, social position, ideologies and motivation, and have therefore have been expressed independentof each other.

Introduction

This study evaluates personality predisposition and attitudes relevant to prejudice. The author was specifically assessing relationship between pre-existing individual-level theories of prejudice (Social Dominance Orientation, Right Wing Authoritarianism and Entity Theory) by evaluating relationships between these scales and what they claim to say about the prejudice attitudes.

Individual differences variables underlying prejudice

Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1981)

Used for the purpose of the study, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) is defined as a new version of the authoritarianism scale (Adorno et al, 1950). The original version has been criticized for atheoretical, conceptual and methodological (psychometric properties of the F scales) weaknesses and therefore was not used in the study. Changes in the psychology from individual prejudice to social structural views of group relations concerned with matters of democratic values combined to view F-scales as having methodological flaws.

Altemeyer (1988) viewed Right Wing Authoritarianism as a socially learned and modifiable attitude, not deeply rooted personality syndrome identified by Adorno et al., (1950). Social learning appears to be central to understanding the genesis of RWA.

RWA is a construct that consist of conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression (Altemeyer, 1998). Authoritarian submission involves trust, respect, and obedience tolegitimate authority. Conventionalism involves favor oftraditional beliefs regarding such matters such as patriotism, gender roles, sexuality, and religion. Authoritarian aggression involves willingness to punish those who deviate from the dictates of established authorities.

Social Dominance Theory (SDO, Sidanius and Pratto, 1999)

SDO (Pratto, et al., 1994) holds a desire for, unequal relations between salient groups, regardless of whetheror not one’s own group is dominant or subordinate. SDO is influenced by temperament, personality and socialization experiences as well as social context, group position and gender (Pratto, Sidanius, and Levin, 2006).

SDO (Sidanius and Pratto, 1999) is an individual variable focusing on the general tendency to favor 'hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths' that support group inequalities instead of egalitarian considerations (hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths'). SDO also grows out of the Social Dominance Theory, which focuses on the role played by group memberships and intergroup relations in shaping people's attitudes, beliefs and values (Reynolds, et al. 2007). SDO states that societies are group based with clearly defined social hierarchies (Sidanius, 2003).

Entity Theory (Plaks, et al., 2001)

Holding an Entity Implicit Theory means to believe that a group's characteristics are fixed. In contrast, holding an Incremental Implicit Theory about groups means to believe that group's characteristics are malleable. Specifically, entity theorists believe that individual characteristics are inherent or fixed early in childhood. However, incremental theorists believe that individual characteristics (e.g., intelligence, personality, traits, and behavior) are susceptible to change over time.

Research on Implicit Person Theories (IPT, Levy, et al., 2001) have demonstrated that “entity theorists” and incremental theorists” differ in their belief in the nature of human attributes, either through a static view of human nature, or a dynamic psychological process in the case of incremental theorists.

When making judgment about individuals, entity theorists and incremental theories tend to focus on different types of information. Entity theorists focus more on traits, with little regard for the situational constraints or motivational concerns that may affect behavior.

In contrast, incremental theorists pay more attention to the individual's psychological state, and environmental context when making judgment.

Entity Theory measure of implicit attitude

Entity theory scales were developed to measure implicit attitudes. In contrast, RWA and SDO are part of explicit theories. Specifically, participant is unaware that by measuring belief in immutable attributes the researcher is measuring their level of stereotypical attitudes. This perspective assumes that it is possible to obtain measures of prejudice and stereotyping outside of the individual's control and awareness.

Right Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and prejudice

The issue of prejudice and personality has been largely investigated in terms of RWA and SDO. Right Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation are theories of individual difference and social-attitudinal outlook relevant in prejudice. Therefore, people scoring high on SDO and RWA are more likely to exhibit prejudiced attitudes.

RWA and SDO have been reported to be typically powerful and largely independently related to higher levels of out-group antipathy (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998, Whitley, 1999, Sidanius and Pratto, 1999,). RWA and SDO are the prime examples of "personality approach to prejudice". Whitley (1999) found that SDO and RWA account for more than fifty per cent of the variance in prejudice.

Entity Theory, stereotypes and prejudice

Entity Theory was examined in the light of stereotypes and prejudice. Previous studies have shown that entity implicit theories about groups affected stereotyping. Fixed or malleable view of traits may set up a framework for understanding social information and rendering social judgments. In summary, entity theorists appear more likely than incremental theorists, to engage in a key process implicated in stereotyping: they tend to make more extreme trait judgments of the target person form limited social information. Entity Implicit theory guides social judgment, informs social actions, and hence is relevant to understanding stereotyping and prejudice (Levy, 1999).

Rydell et al (2007) reported that entity theories about the groups significantly predicted stereotyping and that perceptions of group entitativity significantly accounted for this relationship. Participants who endorsed an entity theory of individuals more strongly were more likely to endorse group stereotypes. Plaks, et al., (2001) showed that entity theorists pay greater attention to stereotype-consistent information than incremental theorists. Furthermore, Hong et al., (2004) demonstrated that people who hold entity theories about moral character, display greater negative bias and prejudice toward maligned out-groups. They also hypothesized that this occurs regardless of the perceiver's social identity.

In addition, Hong et al., (2004)explained that self-categorization processes assume a malleable view of human nature. The Social Identity Theory contends that people often favor the in-group whilst discriminating against out-groups. Consistent with this theory, person's social identification predicts prejudice. Hong et al (2004) hypothesized that entity theory is associated with more biased intergroup perception than is an incremental theory. Hong et al proposed that entity theorists would tend to perceive members of a maligned subgroup as possessing enduring negative characteristics that are unlikely to change regardless of whether the maligned group is included or excluded from their self-categorization.

Hong et al., (2004) also assumed that both entity theorists and incremental theorists rely on social identity to guide their social judgment, albeit in different ways. Entity theory tends not to modify the trait inferences they had made even when the context of identification has changed. In addition, incremental theorists tend to construct different impression of the same target group, depending on the context in which their own social identity is defined whether it includes or excludes the target group.

Hong et al have found that Hong Kong students holding an entity theory, regardless of perceivers’ social identify, displayed a significantly negative bias against Chinese Mainlanders. In contrast, students holding an incremental theory displayed different levels of bias depending on perceivers’ social identity.

Moreover, Levy (1999) found that participants who strongly endorsed an entity theory of individuals were more likely to endorse group stereotyping. This suggests that when individuals perceivea group's trait and behavior as relatively immutable (hold an entity theory) and that members of the group also have similar goals, engage in common behavior, and are consistent (highly entitive), are more likely to stereotype.

Dweck, Chiu and Hong (1995) have suggested that Entity Theorists are more prone to stereotype. According to their findings entity theorists believe that traits are the primary cause of behavior and are consistent across time and situation.

In contrast, incremental theorists understand behavior in terms of mediating processes (e.g., mood states, motives, appraisal contextual influences), and see inconsistent behavior as reflecting such processes.

Consequently, entity theorists made more stereotypical trait judgments of ethnic and occupational groups, made more extreme and rapid stereotypic judgments on the basis of limited information about novel groups, and also attributed stereotyped traits more to innate group properties than did to incremental theorists.

Levy, Stressner and Dweck (1998) stresses that entity theorist appear particularly prone to engage in processes similar to those involved in stereotyping. Increased perceptions of group entitivity lead to increased stereotyping. Participants who held an incremental theory were less likely to perceive the groups entitative and were less likely to endorse group stereotyping. Hence, one of the reasons why entity theorists stereotype more than incremental theorists is because entity theorists perceive groups as more entitative. Thus, the entity theory scale has been proven useful for assessing implicit stereotypes. Levy, Strosessner, and Dweck(1998) have found that, although entity theorists and incremental theorists were equally knowledgeable about societal stereotypes, entity theorists agreed more strongly with these stereotypes, and also believed more strongly that stereotypes reflected innate or inherent group differences. The data is in strong support of the notion that, people's implicit theories about the malleability or fixedness of traits, affects the degree to which they engage in the processes that produce and perpetuate stereotypes.

Furthermore, Haslam et al., (2006) emphasized that entity theorists are less susceptible to the influence of social context and self- categorization, believing that out-group members' attributes are concrete and immutable.

Entity Theory as a part of essentialism

Haslam et al., (2006) replicating Levy et al (1998) found that the entity theory scale was significantly associated with stereotype endorsement. However, this association appeared to be substantially explained by the part-whole relationship that exists between entity theories and essentialist beliefs. Entity theories had no association with stereotypes endorsement independent of other essential beliefs, with which they co-varied (Bastian and Haslam, 2006). This suggests that the effect attributed to entity theories might in some cases, be attributed to essentialist beliefs as a set.

Haslam et al (2006) stressed that stereotype endorsement might be fostered by essentialist beliefs as a whole, rather than entity theories in particular. Studies conducted by them revealed that essentialist belief and entity theory scales inter-correlated positively, and a principal components analysis indicated that they all loaded on one single dimension.

This is also consistent with the hypothesis that immutability beliefs (entity theories) belong to an encompassing set of essentialist beliefs: people who understood human attributes to be fixed also tended to believe them to be biologically based, categorical, and inductively potent.

Participants, who believed the category membership to be immutable, were particularly apt to believe that the category was biologically based. In other words, individuals who believed for example, sexual orientation to be immutable also tended to believe it to be biologically based (essentialism) and fixed early in life.

Therefore entity theory belongs to a broader set of essentialist beliefs, but there was not research conducted on potential overlap between Entity Theory with SDO and RWA.

Entity Theory in relation to SDO and RWA

Implicit theory examined in this article is relatively recent constructs in the literature. Individual differences linked to prejudice such as SDO and RWA are undoubtedly important in a host of ways, and they have stimulated a great deal of research, but very little comparable work has addressed Entity Theory. Therefore, the nature of this phenomenon has been found interesting for further evaluation. This study intends to examine relationship between Entity Theory with other two widely popular and used attitude scales: RWA and SDO. The study has assessed Entity Theory in addition to SDO and RWA, whether all these beliefs cohere as a set. The research was designed to determine the extent to which RWA and SDO are linked to the Entity Theory

Previous researchers have found that the Entity Theory is an independent measure of prejudice; however this issue had not been explored in relation to the relationship between others individual difference variables underlying prejudice. Like the entity theory, SDO and RWA were related to stronger preferences for stereotype-consistent information.

However, one of the most crucial finding obtained by Levy, Stroessner and Dweck (1998) was that their entity theory scale predicted stereotype endorsement independently of a number of established individual difference measures known to be associated with stereotyping, and that its unique predictive contribution was larger than all of them. However, Levy, Stroessner and Dweck (1998) failed to provide evidencein support of their claim. In addition,Haslam, et al., (2006)reported that entity theories predict a stereotype endorsement independently of Right-Wing Authoritarianism. They also have not provided adequate support for their declaration. Moreover, in comparison to SDO and RWA which are thought to be context dependent, the Entity Theory was reported to be less susceptible to the influence of the social context (Haslam et al., 2006). On the basis of this assumption, one would expect to find a weak correlation between Entity Theory and explicit measures of prejudice, in this case, SDO and RWA.