Stereotypes, Prejudice And Discrimination

Stereotyping, Prejudice and Discrimination
1)
“Attitudes form directly as a result of experience. They may emerge due to direct personal experience, or they may result from observation” (Cherry, 2011). They are evaluative, meaning they are either positive or negative; and the order in which things are learnt about an individual, influences substantially on the formation of one’s attitude. The primacy and recency effect have been proven to have a huge influence on the formation of attitudes. Generally, evidence collected through the majority of studies suggests the primacy effect; the initial information gained upon first encountering an individual, has a much stronger influence on attitude formation than the recency effect; the last information
learnt from the most recent concurrence. According to Asch (1946:36), from his building impressions study involving two different lists given to participants describing a hypothetical person, he found that the first negative or positive important central trait adjective listed, either positively or negatively affected the observer; overriding the peripheral, less important traits towards the middle and end of the lists. The central traits are more important that the peripheral traits, and attitudes formed through first impressions are highly dependent upon either the negative or positive central traits the individual has. His study proves the primacy effect had a greater impact taken from the initial first impression, and the information was subconsciously remembered ensuring long lasting digestion which inevitably influenced the candidate’s attitude.
The Jim study by Luchin’s (1978:47) further backed up Asch’s primacy results by giving different information about an imaginary character to 2 separate groups. The different lists had the same describing words on but were presented in a different order. Jim’s friendliness was rated as 18% going of the list that described him as shy first; yet the list that started with describing Jim as outgoing, saw a 78% of friendliness (Harcross, 2010). The outcome concluded the primacy effect through the initial first information gained. This interpretation of original information was evidently proven to influence heavily information received at later date. However; when Luchin’s (1957) left a 15 minute timed delay between 2 separate paragraphs describing the same person, the second paragraph proved to influence the attitude of the reader concluding in the recency effect. Luchin’s believed that attitudes are formed by the order in which we learn things about a person. Nonetheless, some have suggested and criticised this more extensive Luchin’s study because in essence, the recency effect becomes the primacy effect which invalidates the proof of recency impact. Hodges (1974:201) believes that with a timed delay, primacy effect can in fact be replaced by recency effect, but only when first impression attitude formation is based on positive central traits, and change is more resistant when attitudes are formed based on negative central traits. Other evidence suggests that recency effect comes into play when a person is non judgemental initially, when the information gained is about an individual already known; and when first positive information influences attitude formation, but is followed by negative information at a later date. (Hill, 2001:167). It is extensively evident that both primacy and recency effect and central and peripheral traits; are hugely important in the formation of an individual’s attitude.

2)
Stereotypes “are impressions of people that are strongly influenced by widely shared assumptions of personality, behaviour and attitudes based on group membership for example, sex, race, ethnicity and nationality.” (Hogg & Vaughan, 2002:46). They are oversimplified schemas and help shape our attitudes and enable us to make sense of social situations. According to Pennington and McLoughlin (2008:184), evidence found from studies over the last fifty years suggests; many stereotypes form in childhood and the early teens, stereotypes are quick to form and extremely hard to change; and individuals show a tendency to rapidly stereotype others based on the minimalist basis of traits and characteristics. Research conducted by Katz and Braly (1933:52)found a link between stereotyping and prejudiced and so dismissed them as unacceptable; which influenced Lippman’s (1922) idea that they are “selective, self –fulfilling and ethnocentric” (Gross, 2010: 345).
However, Allport (1954:56) believes the cognitive schemas that develop and create stereotypes allow individuals to make sense of the world in a form of categorisation, which simplifies and systemises new information enabling easy identification, reaction, prediction and recall to this information when required. According to the cognitive miser perspective, the shortcuts created save time and energy which effectively make the world less cognitively demanding by enabling an understanding of social context. The categorisation also allows individuals to detect differences and similarities within social situations. Brown (1986:211) suggests stereotypes are an; “intrinsic, essential and primitive aspect of cognition”. Lippman’s (1922) research supports cognitive functioning by explaining that the environment is too big and complex to deal with the wide variety of “permutations and combinations”; and that a simpler model needs reconstructing before the management of an individual’s understanding is accomplished (Lippman 1922:56).
The social function of stereotyping has a polarising effect in that the ‘in-group’ of which the individual in part of has positive attributes; and the ‘out-group’ has negative attributes. Stereotyping of social categorisation can be used to justify the actions of the “in-group” in explaining social events and often to differentiate themselves from the negative traits of out-groups actions; anti Semites and Jews for example. According to research by Linville (1989), because stereotypes are shared by members of a group, it helps to distinguish different groups from one another; which enables an easier understanding of either group (Schneider, 2005:310). Stereotypes are guided by group norms and so emphasise through depersonalisation, an individual’s group membership; which can be helpful in certain situations. For example; a young lady walking late at night on her mobile phone, walking towards her is a gang of loud, intimidating ‘chavs’. She automatically puts her mobile away and crosses the road to avoid any possible altercations. Some would see this as ‘snobbish’, but essentially; this lady’s stereotype could have rescued her from a robbery or assault. Lepore and Brown’s (1997:56) research resulted in findings that support the social functioning of stereotypes. They suggest that automatic stereotype activation awakens categorically associated ‘nodes’ within the mind when encountering recognisable stereotypical traits, they spread excitedly; resulting in stereotypic characteristics.
3)
There are many different theories of attitude formation and stereotyping. According to the ABC model of attitudes, the structure of an attitude is broken down into three components. The cognitive component stems from an individual’s beliefs or knowledge about the attitude object. For example; “I think snakes are dangerous”. This component would be a stereotype. The affective component follows cognitive and relates to the persons emotions and feelings towards the attitude object, for example; becoming anxious and emotionally petrified when seeing a snake. This component would be prejudice. The third component, the behavioural (or conative); is the influence the attitude has on an individual’s behaviour, for example; running away when seeing a snake. This component would be discrimination (Gross, 2010:352).
Many psychological factors add to development of an attitude and stereotype. B.F Skinners (1948) operant conditioning theory implies the positive or negative reinforcement on ones attitude could either strengthen or challenge the stereotype. For example; negative attitudes towards immigration could be positively reinforced via the media through propagandising untrue information that conforms to typically believed, unfavourable behaviours of immigrants. This would intensify the developed stereotypes even more so. However; if ones attitude is challenged by an individual, and this challenge is negatively reinforced through society; the individual may lose friends forcing this stereotype to be weakened.
Bandura’s (1977) social observation learning theory explains that attitudes are formed through the observation of others, and subconsciously; we learn and model others behaviour, which replicates their stereotypes into our own formation of attitudes. According to Festinger’s (1957:47) cognitive dissonance theory, new attitudes form when inconsistent or contradictory feelings, cognitions or behaviours create a disagreeable strain on an individual’s state of mind; resulting in a change of attitude. For example; a person who doesn’t like alcohol randomly samples a drink and realises they do in fact enjoy it. This would cause them to change their dissonance.
4)
“Prejudice is an unjustified or incorrect attitude (usually negative), towards an individual based solely on the individual’s membership of a social group” (McLeod, 2008).
Prejudices are mainly based on an individual’s stereotypes: thought processes; but are charged with emotion and strong feelings of hostility towards a particular attitude object that conform to certain social group membership; more commonly on a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion and age. Without the initial stereotype, prejudice is unable to develop because the thought process would not exist within cognition to enable an emotional charge. This unjustified attitude would lead to negative prejudice views, for example; racism: a white man holding a negative attitude towards a black man’s presence. The prejudice links to the affective component of the ABC model whilst the stereotype links to the Cognitive component. Gordon Allport (1979:182) suggests stereotypes and prejudice “emerge in part as a result of normal human thinking. In order to make sense of the world around us, it is important to sort information into mental
categories”.
Discrimination is the actions or behaviour, usual negative; towards a person or group of individuals. It links to the behavioural component of the ABC model and is often based on stereotype and prejudice views, but instead of just entailing an attitude; it involves a person’s actual behaviour towards a specific group or person(McLeod, 2008),For example; an employer purposely offers a male candidate the job instead of a better suited female because he is sexist. According to Minnard ‘s(1952:1) study on black and white miners in the US, it wasn’t just stereotypes that influenced discrimination, it was in fact the conformity to social norms within society. However, for the majority of studies on discrimination, stereotypic attitudes are initiating factor influencing behaviours. A study by Banaji (1995:3) showed the persuasive influence a stereotype had on students who were asked to differentiate between criminal names and politician names. The majority matched African American names e.g. (Jamal Johnson) to the criminal list. This conclusion would have been drawn from the common stereotype that most African American men are criminals and provides proof of stereotype influence on discriminatory behaviour (Wolfe, 1996:1).
5)
A deep understanding of the mechanisms of attitude formation is essential in the modification of a person’s general evaluative perception of a stimulus or set of stimuli which results in prejudice or discrimination (Hayes, 2000:361). There are many contemporary methods used to tackle prejudice and discrimination ranging from; legislation in education, health and employment for example. The various acts including the equality act and equal rights act contribute in addressing major problems revolving inequality because of prejudice and discrimination.
Jane elliot’s method in reducing prejudice and discrimination was carried out via a field and repeated measures experiment in the natural setting of initially a classroom. It involved segregating children by the colours of their eyes and forcing attitude changes resulting in both groups experiencing; perpetrating and receiving, both prejudice and discrimination. The main outcome was derived from the notion that if an individual witnesses and personally experiences the victimisation of being the subject of a negative discriminator, then they would develop in themselves, a new and positive outlook on ‘out-group’ and unfamiliar individuals. Elliot understood that the oversimplified schemas the children had, needed to be readjusted and redeveloped; so firstly builds upon pre existing schemas, negatively forcing prejudice and discrimination. She then breaks this schema down when changing the status of eye colour, and then continues to rebuild a new, positive schema enabling the understanding that the negative attitudes and behaviour dispelled, was wrong. The cognitive component from the ABC model allows the child to think about the position of the victimised person and so helps develop new though processes. The affective component allows the child to experience the emotion of being victimised so insights an emotionally charged, empathetic set of feelings towards victims. The behavioural component in the new attitude formation of the child results in positive actions because of the negative discriminatory behaviours they have had inflicted upon themselves. It is evident Elliot’s idea works and has lasting impact because the candidates, even after eighteen years; still felt positive with no prejudice feelings or discriminating behaviours towards others different from themselves (Gross, 2010:350).
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis suggests prejudice and discrimination are reduced by equal status contact between majority and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals (Gross, 2010:267). It is enhanced if institutional support such as the law, custom or society enforces the interaction. The equal status component as described by Amir (1969); suggests that positive interaction and cooperation between an ‘in-group’ and typical ‘out-group’ individual, who both are seen as equal, regardless of ethnicity; reduces negative attitudes and behaviours towards the ‘out-group’ member. Bringing people together makes them familiar and reduces autistic hostility by developing an understanding, allowing for the ‘out-group’ member to be seen as unique instead of strange (Gross, 2010:360). Brown (1986:30) believes the pursuit of common (superordinate) goals, where both an ‘in’ and ‘out’ group member come together and work to achieve the same goal, results in decreased racial prejudice and discrimination, increased academic performance; and an increase in willingness to learn from other ‘out-group’ members. Allport’s understanding of the mechanisms of attitude formation allows this idea to prove effective in the reduction of prejudice and discrimination. The process allows for a new schema to develop; replacing the previous oversimplified schema that created the stereotype because of the new experience and interaction with an unknown attitude object. Because of the replacement of the stereotype, the cognitive component derived from the ABC model of attitude formation sees new and positive thought processes created, which triggers a change in the affective component of attitude formation. It does this through the new positive emotional attachment developed towards the ‘out-group’ individual via the interpersonal interaction between human and human. This affects the behavioural component resulting in a positive physical behaviour towards the previous ‘out-group’ individual. Deutsch and Collins (1951:108) suggest that through evidence collected from their study on two different kinds of racial housing projects; prejudice and discrimination decreased within the racially integrated housing setting. This supports the contact hypothesis, however; Amir (1969:209) found that the equal status off blacks and whites when serving in actual battles reduced prejudice and discrimination, but when back at army base; the negative attitudes and behaviours returned.
6)
There are catastrophic effects resulting from prejudice and discrimination on the individual. Individuals often lack confidence, suffer with low self esteem, feel inadequate and inferior; and often enough; the negative attitude and behaviours directed towards an individual, results in poor health, poor housing and poor education (Schneider, 2005:51).
Steele & Aronson’s (1997:251) work on stereotype threat demonstrates through his field study on a group of students that if an individual is threatened none obviously and subtle, yet negatively, and labelled or categorised with a specific stereotype, then subconsciously; this individual will conform to that stereotypic ideology and behave in the expected manner. The evidence results from the black students poor performance when categorised into the stereotyped group, but when no race was emphasised, the black students did better or equivalent to their white counterparts. It shows that the stereotype threat causes an individual to become anxious and leads to them to fulfil the self prophecy that has been instilled into their mind. The effects were repeated with a study conducted by Kats, Roberts and Robinson (1995:41), and stone (2002:302); suggests that it leads to a reduced effort educationally and reduces a sense of belonging for the individual.
Jane Elliot’s (1968) blue/brown eye study also demonstrated that prejudice and discrimination results in lack of motivation and poor achievement. Both sets of children when being victimised described their feelings as depressed, angry and felt negatively towards themselves. They scored poorer on the tasks set and lacked confidence and self esteem. The group who were superior on the other hand saw opposite effects occur; they scored better, had higher self esteem and were more confident.
“Prejudice and discrimination may lead to physical, sexual, emotional, and/or mental abuse” (Tankiwala, 2007:231). The constant negativity directed towards an individual may impact their self awareness and emotional well-being, resulting in mental or physical problems. Both Cochrane (1983:98) and Littlewood and Lipsedge (1989:45)have studied the statistics for hospitalised, mentally ill diagnosis’s within the UK and found ethnic minorities are more often hospitalised for a mental illness than the white’s of the UK. Many see this evidence as prejudice and institutional discrimination in the labelling of a person due to their ethnic identity, however; others suggest that general societal prejudice and discrimination with the UK has drove these individuals to become mentally unwell as a result.

Essay
“Prejudice is the state of mind, feeling or behaviour that involves some disparagement of others on account of the group they belong to.” (Brown, 1986:151). They are strong and emotionally charged feelings towards an attitude object. Discrimination is the behaviour or actions, usually negative; physically acted out based on their prejudice views towards the attitude object. “Prejudice includes all three components of an attitude (affective, behavioural and cognitive), whereas discrimination just involves behaviour”. (McLeod, 2010).The concepts of prejudice and discrimination denote from the social perception aspect of psychology; which refers to the perception of an individual’s different mental processes they use to form impressions, make judgments and understand other people and social groups. They are understood from a social cognitive element point of view, and detail how it is a person’s schemas within their mind that develops oversimplified stereotypic thought processes and ideas; that influences the prejudice and discriminatory behaviour. Cognition analysis is closely related to personality understanding, so therefore; prejudice and discrimination theories are influenced heavily by personality theories. Within this essay I will detail and critically evaluate two important theories; the authoritarian personality theory (Adorno et al, 1950), and the realistic group conflict theory (Sherif, 1966); in their attempt to explain prejudice and discrimination within society.
Adorno’s (1950) authoritarian personality is drawn from the Freudian theory and suggests prejudice and discrimination are caused through an individual’s personality traits.
Through his study on Nazi behaviour, he conducted case studies, clinical interviews and developed a psychometric test named the F scale to understand anti Semitism. His results were drawn from over 2000 white, middle class, non-Jewish students, and he concluded that an individual who has been raised by strict and cruel parents; projects and displaces unconscious hostility derived from their parent’s harshness, onto different ethnic minorities, racial groups or out groups. The F scale focused heavily on fascism, and if one was said to have a fascist personality; they would be susceptible to fascist propaganda. The authoritarian personality Adorno (1950) found, describes an individual who is hostile to those of inferior status, servile to those of higher status, contemptuous of weakness, has conventional values and ways of life; and also strongly distinguishes themselves clearly from the out-group, who are seen as bad (Gross. 2010:365). Prejudice from an authoritarian personality, is suggested to be a defence mechanism resulting from reaction formation, which has 2 cognitive styles; rigidity and intolerance of
ambiguity.
Adorno’s theory has been praised because it was said to have inspired many psychologists and sociologists during the 1950’s to extensively research the relationship between personality traits, behaviour, and political beliefs (Gross, 2010:349). Other studies of the time resulted in the same conclusion that authoritarian personalities often engage in prejudice and discriminatory behaviour, and many can associate with the concept through common knowledge and sense. (Hayes, 2000:274) However; many criticisms arise over Adorno’s theory. Petzel (2005:246) suggests the explanation is hugely reductionist because the authoritarian research initially aimed to discover collective social behaviours. Therefore, evidence should be collected on an intergroup, social level. However; this theory only focuses on the individual explanation. This individualistic explanation for many can be seen as a positive, however; the limitations are also extended when criticising this individual focus. Heyes (2000:275) points out that different social groups have been subject to prejudice and discrimination at different times during the last century; for example, in Britain initially it was the Jewish, then the blacks, and more recently negativity is directed towards Pakistanis. There is a wide variation in prejudice for different cultural groups with a wide variety of different personality traits. Therefore; Bagley and Verma (1979:198) suggest; prejudice needs to be explained in terms of choice of target, instead of just personality traits. According to studies conducted by Atkinson et al (2003:56), “prejudice and authoritarianism attitudes can be acquired at home through the usual process of learning, rather than the psychoanalytical processes as described in Adorno’s study”.
The methodology is suggested by (Atkinson, 2003:57) to be majorly flawed because the wording on the A, S, E and F scale made it almost impossible for candidates to be non anti-semiotic, ethnocentric and fascist. Adorno (1950) himself was quoted; “that the acquiescent response set could cause a problem” (Verma, 1979:198). The study lacks empirical evidence because of only studying the Jewish ethnicity, therefore; the study is flawed and cannot be generalised to everybody. Rubenstein (2013:4) suggests that the timing of the social factors at the time of the study restricts the generalisation because the wars influence could have developed innate personalities among the candidates. He also adds that the theory is out of date, especially because it is derived from Freud’s psychodynamic approach; which many suggest was only popular at the time because there was no other theory to explain the psychology of the mind.
J.J Ray (1982) argued that there was strong experimental bias involved in the research. The interview and tat data were used to validate the f scale findings; because the f scale was conductor prior to the interview and tat data, the experimenter knew the scores and would have been heavily influenced to match the results from findings of the f scale. The experimenter would have already known who was, and was not; authoritarians. Billings et al (2004:182) also criticises the theory because it does not explain other types of prejudice such as ageism and sexism, and only focuses mainly on racism. He also suggests that people may have lied to appear less prejudice. There is also evidence that proves those with a harsh and cruel upbringing do not always hold prejudice views, and individuals with prejudice attitudes; do not always conform to authoritarian personality type (Rubenstein, 2013:5). Hyman and Sheatsley (1954:200) provided evidence that a high f- score is influenced by low educational attainment and not necessarily authoritarianism.
It is highly evident the negatives outweigh the positives with regards to Adorno’s research. However; Oesterreich (2005:192) believes that the concept of authoritarian personality can provide inspiration for the contemporary study for non demographic regimes, although he also suggests it will be very difficult to use in practice.

Sherif’s (1966) realistic group conflict theory differs from Adorno’s (1950) authoritarianism theory in that it focuses on intergroup explanations instead of the individual in the attempt to discover what causes prejudice and discrimination. The main concept is that intergroup conflict is a result of a conflict of interests between 2 separate groups, and when the 2 groups are competing for the same desired resources and neither can achieve it because the resources are limited, hostility arises causing conflict between the two. Sherif’s (1966) theory is validated through evidence obtained from his famous study ‘Robbers cave’. The field study involved 22; white, middle class twelve year old boys who were unknown to each other and separated into 2 groups of 11. Competition introduced between the 2 groups saw them each affiliate strong intergroup belongings and culminated with strong aggressive behaviour; which caused major prejudice and discriminatory behaviours between the two groups. The experiment confirmed Sherif’s theory.
Brown (1986:300) described this experiment as the most successful field, intergroup conflict study ever carried out and Fiske (2004:93) suggests the theory is correct because is apparent that competition is the main factor in explaining prejudice and discrimination. Capozza and volpato (1990:265) suggest the experiment has a high external validity because it was conducted in a naturalistic setting, and the ecological validity is high because it was a field experiment. Morris (1967:38) agrees with the theory because he compares it with natural evolution based on the similarity with baboons and their territorial disputes.
However; Schreiber (1984:223) argues that because it was indeed a field study, there would have been no control over the dependant and independent variables. He also suggests that the intergroup conflict demonstrated in the study only occurred because the individuals were forced to make choices within their unfamiliar groups, and so were restricted of acting cooperatively.
Tajfel (1971:210) criticises Sherif’s theory from evidence collected supporting his own social identity theory; suggesting that although strong intergroup relationships form and result in hostility; it is the actual categorisation that causes conflict and not the competition. Oakes (2004:41) believes Tajfels (1971) theory is the most influential in explaining prejudice and discrimination, and suggests the conflict that occurred within Sherif’s study wasn’t real as it was just symbolic representation created by the groups themselves. Weatherell (1982:60) even went as far as criticising that intergroup conflict actually isn’t inevitable, it only occurs when it is socially and culturally normal to hold typical prejudice views. This was backed up by his study done in New Zealand where it was noted that the ‘in-group’ were generous and helpful towards the ‘out-group’, emphasising cooperation between the two groups.
Many ethical issues were raised by Hennessy and West (1991:241) who suggest; the candidates were deceived because they did not have full understanding of the aim of the study. They also criticise the deep psychological and physical harm inflicted upon the boys, as the many of participants were involved in physical and traumatic fights. They agree that conflict occurs when identifying with an in-group, but it is this in-group identification in itself that causes prejudice and discrimination. They disregard that competition causes hostility, and suggest instead; that it is recognition, pride and status that creates conflict.
Data collected from the Michigan National Election Studies survey (Miller, 1989:71) supports Sherif’s theory as they believe it offers an explanation why there is negativity towards racial integration. However; Tyerman and Spencer (1983:118) argue that Sherif’s results were derived from only the transitory period the participants were going through during the experiment, and it was only because they were in unfamiliar territory and did not know other participants; that contextual and situation influences on their behaviour resulted in competition hostility.
Miller (1989:73) argues that the theory cannot be generalised because the experimental sample was bias. The participants only consisted of middle class, white 12 year old boys; and so questions were raised as to how it could explain prejudice and discrimination involving females, adults, or different ethnic groups. They also criticise the environment as artificial. Although not conducted in a laboratory, the environment and competition introduced did not reflect real life; “. For example, middle class boys randomly assigned into two separate groups is not rival inner city gangs, or rival football supporters.” (McLeod, 2008).
It is evident that Sherif’s theory has many flaws, however; it still relates remarkably similarly to Tajfel’s social identity theory, and they both have gained lots of support and recognition over the years.
In concluding from the different prejudice and discrimination explanations discussed, it is clear within both the theories that there are obvious and valid research evidence that supports strongly the explanations that each are proposing. However, Adorno’s authoritarian theory has been repeatedly battered by critics for the flawed methodology used to such a high extent; that the negatives hugely outweigh the few positives. Pettigrew puts it into clear perspective; “The original work ignored influences on the meso- and macro levels of situations, institutions and cultures” (Pettigrew, 1958:241). For me personally, Sherif’s realistic conflict theory wins hands down and proves most useful in explaining prejudice and discrimination because it is so obvious and apparent in everyday aspects of society, and most importantly; relates strongly to the scientific explanation of evolution; survival of the fittest. Compared to Adorno’s theory, which lacked validity, flawed methodology and received major criticisms; Sherif’s explanation had mostly strong validity, methodology and received tremendous amounts of positive recognition with over 200 studies replicated, resulting in the same findings. Dollard (1938) found that prejudice increased against German immigrants with the US when jobs were scarce. However, it would not be surprising that within a few decades when emerging and new hypothesis are proven correct, that both the detailed theory’s will lose their significance and in the century’s to follow, become outdated and cease to exist within the future.

References
Allport, G (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Atkinson, R. L. (2003): Psychology, Praha, Portál.
Bagley. C, Verma. G (1979). Race, Education and Identity. Michigan: Macmillan.
Billings, E.T (2004). The Routledge Falmer Reader in Multieculteral Education. London: Psychology Press.
Brown, R (1986). Social Psychology. California: Simon and Schuster.
Cherry, K. (2011). Theories of Intelligence. Available: http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/p/intelligence.htm. Last accessed 11th Apr 2015.
Cochrane, R. (1983) The social creation of mental illness. Longman: University Press.
Deutsch, M. Collins, M. (1951). Interracial Housing. Minnesota: University Press.
Festinger, L (1997). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford: University Press.
Gross, R (2010. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodders.
Harcross, H. (2010). Primacy and Recency Effects. Available: http://www.animegenesis.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/primacy%20recency.htm. Last accessed 19th Apr 2015.
Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of Psychology. London: Cengage Learning.
Hill, G (2001). AS Level Psychology Through Diagrams. Oxford: University Press.
Hogg. M, Vaughan, G (2009). Social Psychology. London: Pearson.
Luchins, A (1978). Revisiting Wertheimer 's Seminars. Bucknell: University Press.
McLeod, S.A (2008) Prejudice and Discrimination. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/prejudice.html. Accessed: 15h Apr 2015.
Miller, G. (1991). American national Election Studies. Harvard: University Press.
Minard, R. D. (1952). Race relationships in the Pocahontas coal field. Journal of Social Issues, 8(1), 29-44
Moskowitz, G (2013). Social Cognition. London: Guildford.
Pennington, D (2008). AQA (B) Psychology for AS. Birmingham: Hodder.
Rubenstein, G (2013). Visiting Feelings. New York: Illustrated.
Schneider, D (2005). The Psychology of Stereotyping. Guildford: University Press.
Tankiwala, S. (2008). The Harmful Effects of Prejudice and Discrimination. London: Lulu.
Wolfe, C. (1996). Stereotypes and Prejudice. Journal of American Behavioural Scientist. 7(2), 15
Zanna, M (2013). The psychology of Prejudice. Boston: Psychology Press.
Bibliography
Allport, G (1979). The Nature of Prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Atkinson, R. L. (2003): Psychology, Praha, Portál.
Bagley. C, Verma. G (1979). Race, Education and Identity. Michigan: Macmillan.
Billings, E.T (2004). The Routledge Falmer Reader in Multieculteral Education. London: Psychology Press.
Brown, R (1986). Social Psychology. California: Simon and Schuster.
Cherry, K. (2011). Theories of Intelligence. Available: http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/p/intelligence.htm. Last accessed 11th Apr 2015.
Cochrane, R. (1983) The social creation of mental illness. Longman: University Press.
Deutsch, M. Collins, M. (1951). Interracial Housing. Minnesota: University Press.
Festinger, L (1997). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Standford: University Press.
Gross, R (2010. Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. London: Hodders.
Harcross, H. (2010). Primacy and Recency Effects. Available: http://www.animegenesis.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/primacy%20recency.htm. Last accessed 19th Apr 2015.
Hayes, N. (2000). Foundations of Psychology. London: Cengage Learning.
Hill, G (2001). AS Level Psychology Through Diagrams. Oxford: University Press.
Hogg. M, Vaughan, G (2009). Social Psychology. London: Pearson.
Luchins, A (1978). Revisiting Wertheimer 's Seminars. Bucknell: University Press.
McLeod, S.A (2008) Prejudice and Discrimination. Available: http://www.simplypsychology.org/prejudice.html. Accessed: 15h Apr 2015.
Miller, G. (1991). American national Election Studies. Harvard: University Press.
Minard, R. D. (1952). Race relationships in the Pocahontas coal field. Journal of Social Issues, 8(1), 29-44
Moskowitz, G (2013). Social Cognition. London: Guildford.
Pennington, D (2008). AQA (B) Psychology for AS. Birmingham: Hodder.
Rubenstein, G (2013). Visiting Feelings. New York: Illustrated.
Schneider, D (2005). The Psychology of Stereotyping. Guildford: University Press.
Tankiwala, S. (2008). The Harmful Effects of Prejudice and Discrimination. London: Lulu.
Wolfe, C. (1996). Stereotypes and Prejudice. Journal of American Behavioural Scientist. 7(2), 15
Zanna, M (2013). The psychology of Prejudice. Boston: Psychology Press.

.