Abstract
This report analyzes three articles that are presented within the references section of this report. In addition, the remaining sources were used as background into developing the thought processes that went into this report. Two main social problems are thus investigated: (1) Prejudice, (2) Racism. The findings for both only begin to present an understand of societal impact.
Introduction
According to an article published by Rose Capedevilla and Jane Callaghan (2007), prejudice appears to be an inherent and subconscious attribute that lies within a majority of the earth’s citizens. Hence, although Capedevilla and Callagahan do only cover the political considerations of racism in the United Kingdom. It is safe to translationally apply these same though process to developed nations such as the U.S. and it may also be safe to say that racism and true prejudice is not very uncommon in all areas of the globe. Such a broad statement about the social attributes of individuals is not left without literature based support. Hence, the various articles that are cited within this paper show that prejudice is a trait of many people and for some it may evolve pass the belief that some stereotypes may be accurate to the level of deep seated racism. This report investigates the viewpoints presented by the author’s cited in the references section of this report.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Critical Analysis on Prejudice".
Article Break Down
‘You Know How Men Are’ – Stoke (Prejudice a Pre Req. for Racism)
The premise behind this study is that “Gender [differences] map sociolinguistic and interactional variables. The researchers believe that the nature of humans to accept certain beliefs that are tied towards genders sets the ground work that also allows us to embrace certain belifs that are also racist. The premise is that if we belive that it is okay to stereotype genders then on some level we also believe that it is okay to stereotype some races. This may appear to be a stretch, however the research group utilizes executed third-party gender studies to prove their point. These gender studies are directly tied into similar instances where racism occurred (or racist beliefs) , and the outcome of the racist action or thought was similar to the outcome of an issue of gender stereotyping.
‘It’s not Racist, Its common Sense’- Capedevilla, Callaghan
The research conducted by Capedevilla, and Callaghan is designed as a literature review of public speeches and the responses that were generated. Researchers utilize speeches that were given during the 2005 UK elections as a starting point. The researchers then assess (line by line) the speeches, in order to identify statements that may be perceived as racist but that are defended by the speaker as “common sense”. Throughout the experiment they are able to prove that the statements do in fact elicit a negative response towards a certain race. The researchers are able to prove their point by mapping connections to periods in history that are referenced in the speech. Most often these periods are rife with racial issues. In addition, the researchers are able to identify some speeches that are clearly not racist based on historical data (mapping) that shows the attempt of the speaker to mitigate the impact to the target group, at that particular point in time. Core British values are also assessed in order to support speeches that do mitigate acts of racism. The researchers are able to highlight Britain’s nature of “hospitality” in such a way that they believe proves that the speaker is not racist and is in fact trying to prevent actions that appear racist.
Familiarity and Stereotyping – Smith et.al
The research conducted by Smit et.al, attempts to prove, through two (2) experiments that Familiarity increases the level of stereotyping that occurs. The rationale behind this experiment is that as one becomes exposed to news and information, visual depictions, etc. that support a particular stereotype then they are more inclined to believe in the stereotype. Hence, the greater the level of exposure the more likely that information will become imprinted on the target individual, as they perceive a certain race. It is also important to note that simple exposure is not enough to cause imprinting. The authors state that feelings often have to be involved in order for the specific message to stick. Two experiments were conducted in order to prove the hypothesis. For experiment 1 (Two Phases): (Phase 1) Participants viewed thirty (30) photos of males and females on a screen, with instructions of remembering the faces as they saw them. During a later phase of the experiment (Phase 2): Some of the same photos were presented with additional information such as the Job that the person is likely to have had and a short description of their personality (i.e. Boring, Serious, etc.). After phase 2 participants were instructed to rate the individuals on a scale of 1-7. In order to interpret the findings (based on conditioning), ANOVA was conducted on the ratings. It is noted that ANOVA results indicate that a correlation was likely to be made between stereotypical ratings that were presented within the subsequent Q&A (Post Phase 2). Another experiment conducted by Smit et.al, the process was repeated using students at the University of California. For both experiments there was a 0.5 alpha or 95% confidence (based on ANOVA), that the study participants were likely to react more strongly to the stereotypical questions and not filler questions (post Phase 2).
Conclusion
In summary, the three studies cited do a decent job of proving their point. In my opinion the study that holds the most statistical power is the study conducted by Smith et.al. Smith utilizes a study group that is able to test a true hypothesis, and is of adequate size and design. The number of individuals within these studies also allows the study to have enough statistical power to prove within a 95% CI that the results are true (or significantly different from the null hypothesis). Furthermore, the fact that this study was repeated two (2) times with identical results, further validates the data. In contrast, it is not possible to quantify the results within a qualitative study such as that conducted by Stoke, and Capedevilla, Callaghan. The literature may in fact be adequate to prove appoint however there is always some level of bias that cannot be accounted for in these studies.
- Capdevila, R., & Callaghan, J. E. (2008). ‘It’s not racist. It’s common sense’. A critical analysis of political discourse around asylum and immigration in the UK. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. doi:10.1002/casp.904
- Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: Tests of a model in four West European nations. British Journal of Social Psycology, 36, 173-190.
- Loden, M., & Rosner, J. (2015). Internal Dimensions and External Dimensions are adapted from Marilyn Loden and Julie Rosener. Color Magazine USA 1991.
- Prejudice | Definition of prejudice by Merriam-Webster. (2015). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice
- Smith, E. R., Miller, D. A., Maitner, A. T., Crump, S. A., Garcia-Marques, T., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). Familiarity can increase stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.07.002
- Social Psychology. (2014). Chapter 13 – The Social Psychology of Prejudice.
- Stokoe, E. (212). ‘You know how men are’: Description, categorization and common knowledge in the anatomy of a categorial practice. Gender and Language. doi: 10.1558/genl.v6i1.233
- Walton, C., Coyle, A., & Lyons, E. (2004). Death and football: An analysis of men’s talk about emotions. British Journal of Social Psychology. doi:10.1348/0144666042038024
