Prejudice is “an attitude toward a particular group or member of a group, based on characteristics assumed to be common to all members of the group.” (Psychology First, 2006: 97) Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are several theories about how prejudices develop in individuals and groups. One theory of how it is formed in groups is social identity theory (SIT) developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979). One theory of how this manifests itself in individuals and groups is the authoritarian personality theory (APT) developed by Adorno et al. (1950). SIT is based on the idea that we psychologically classify ourselves and others into groups. The groups we belong to become the “in-group,” while the groups we feel we do not belong to are the “out-group.” The fundamental hypothesis of SIT is that when we are in the “in-group” we actively seek out the negative aspects of the “out-group” to enhance our self-image. We unconsciously look for reasons why we are superior, such as intelligence or appearance. For example, if we are on the winning team in a quiz and we ourselves perform poorly, perhaps causing our team to lose points, since our team was successful we feel positive about ourselves. The prejudice produced by SIT could be reduced by encouraging and facilitating cooperation between groups as the Sheriff's Robber's Cave experiment (1961) is shown (Woods, 2006, p.107). This could be achieved by having two rival groups work together to solve a shared problem. The practicality of this solution depends on the size of the group and its age, since it would be quite easy to convince two groups of children to cooperate instead of two groups of adults with polarizing political opinions. Although research such as Tajfel et al. (1971) supports the SIT's claim that states' prejudices often arise from categorization in society, is criticized for the implication that prejudice is therefore a natural human feeling, and thus more severe forms of prejudice (racism, homophobia) they could be justified as "human nature"' too. Weatherall (1982) argues that this theory occurs primarily in Western and European cultures (UK, France) as he argued that children in other societies (India, Philippines) were more generous towards out-groups and as such SIT can only explain how prejudice arises from social conditioning (Billingham, 2008, p.165). Adorno et al (1950) theorized that some people possessed a certain personality which he called “authoritarian personality” (AP), which became the authoritarian personality theory (APT). The APT suggests that people with an AP will not appreciate situations where there is no right or wrong answer, will remain persistent in their personal opinions and beliefs, and will often act hostilely towards those they deem "inferior" but will show obedience to those with higher employment or social status. It is theorized that individuals with this personality are more prejudiced against other individuals or groups due to their high self-confidence, unshakable beliefs, and aggressive mindset. However, authoritarian personalities should also possess positive humanistic qualities as they are often quick to accept responsibility for their actions, possess good speaking skills, and demonstrate that they care greatly for those they see as part of their "group". PA is believed to be the result of harsh parenting, particularly punishment for disobedience. Adorno theorized that this rigid disciplineduring childhood could cause children to become overly respectful and submissive to authority once they become adults and expect the same respect and submission from those who are weaker than them as they progress in life by directing their natural aggression towards more weak instead of weaker targets. to address it through compromises or forms of therapy. This in turn would cause further AP through their offspring, creating a cycle. “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues that children should learn” (Stranding, 2012). A common AP perspective on raising children. There is evidence for APT: Adorno developed a scale for measure authoritarianism called the F scale (F for fascism due to AP types typically having far-right political views). The F scale predicts that those with an AP are subservient only to authority figures and those higher on this scale they would have more likely to obey higher authorities in extreme orders. Examples of this are that an AP would be much more likely to harm others when ordered, such as delivering powerful electric shocks during experiments such as the Milgram experiment conducted in 1963 in which participants. was ordered to give electric shocks to another participant. However, there is also evidence against the APT, for example not everyone who is prejudiced conforms to the AP type and the theory does not explain how entire groups (fascist political parties, religious sects) may be prejudiced, since therefore all members would have an AP, which is highly implausible, however this can be explained by conformism and deindividuation. We can reduce prejudice in authoritarian personalities by making the authoritarian personality cease to exist. For example, raising children without demonstrating a strict personality ourselves and teaching them exactly why they cannot behave in a certain way instead of punishing them without explanation as they would see the only reason for being punished as disrespect towards parental authority. Theoretically they would grow up demonstrating pro-social behavior. Pro-social behavior is behavior that benefits other societies, such as paying taxes and cooperating to achieve goals. Key factors that influence pro-social behavior include social learning theory (SLT) and each individual's personality. SLT is the process in which individuals are trained by their environment to adhere to the rules and ways approved by their culture. This increases pro-social behavior as society benefits from and therefore approves of acts such as assisting others, abiding by the law, and showing respect, while many members of society disapprove of anti-social behavior. However, SLT could also lead to antisocial behavior depending on the individual's environment, upbringing and personality. This is shown in Bandura's Bobo doll experiment (1961) in which different groups of children were shown separate videos of an adult playing with a bobo doll. One video showed the adult playing nicely with the doll and the other showed the adult being very aggressive with the doll by performing acts such as throwing the doll against a wall and punching it. The children were then left in a room alone with the doll. Children who were shown the “cute” video played gently with the doll, pretending to give it food and dressing it in hats, etc., providing evidence that SLT could lead to prosocial behavior. In contrast, children who were shown the clip about violent behavior behaved similarly when left in a room with the doll,hitting her violently and even attacking her in ways not shown in the video, such as taking a toy gun and pointing it at the doll. This is clear evidence of SLT since the children behaved that way because they saw someone else act that way. However, Bandura's Bobo doll study is criticized for lacking ecological validity as it was so controlled that the behavior committed by children cannot be said to reflect aggressive behavior in real life and that they responded to demand characteristics and acted in aggressive way to please the adults who watched them. . A link between prejudice and SLT was shown in Bandura's Bobo doll experiment where children acted directly violently towards the doll demonstrating that they were prejudiced only against the doll as they did not act as violently towards other dolls or objects. Antisocial behavior is engaging in activities that cause negativity in society and people's lives, for example, committing crimes such as robbery, vandalism, and verbal or physical abuse of others, etc. A common factor influencing antisocial behavior is deindividuation. Deindividuation occurs when someone temporarily loses their sense of identity and responsibility and associates as part of a group and transfers responsibility to the other. result of one's behavior towards the group as a whole. "Immersion in a group to the point that you lose a sense of self-awareness and feel less responsible for your actions. Example: groups of excited and rioting sports fans celebrating a big victory may end up committing acts they would never do on their own, such as vandalism or arson” – Psyche-Central 2008 Deindividualization can lead to an increase in antisocial behavior including prejudice when people do not take responsibility for their actions. Deindividualization is particularly problematic in many current world issues terrorists wearing masks or violent gangs getting matching facial tattoos, although this could also arise from SIT This is also evidence that humans are deliberately de-individuating themselves consciously but at the same time to some extent so that the group. of which they are a part may in their eyes be responsible for their antisocial or violent behavior with respect to themselves personally and they therefore avoid internal responsibility. or guilt for the actions they commit. Obedience is a change in behavior ordered by another person or group (Breckler, 2006). For example, when a person picks up the garbage he threw on the floor when told to by an authority figure. The factors that influence obedience are both dispositional and situational. Dispositional factors could be explained by Adorno's authoritarian personality theory along with the fact that genetically some people are naturally obedient. Situational factors include environment, proximity to authority, and peer support (Milgrim). Obedience can lead to pro- or anti-social behavior depending on the orders given by the authority figure. One theory of obedience is agency theory (AT). Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people possess two behavioral states in social situations: The autonomous state is when people direct their own actions and take responsibility for themselves. The agent state is the opposite, people allow others to direct their actions, and then place responsibility for the consequences on the person who gave the orders. Milgram suggested that in order for someone to.