ATTITUDE

Social psychologists use the term attitude to refer to people’s evaluation of almost any aspect of the
world. People can have favorable or unfavorable reactions to issues, ideas, objects, actions (do you
like white water rafting), a specific person (such as Barack Obama) or entire social groups (Muslims).
Some attitudes are quite stable and resistant to change, whereas others may be unstable and show
considerable variability depending on the situation.

Definition

“a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect

to a given object”

“Attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some
degree of favor or disfavor

Components of attitude

 Affective component: this involves a person’s feelings/emotions about the attitude object.
For example: “I am scared of spiders.”

This component involves feelings or emotional responses like liking, disliking, love, hate, fear,
etc. It is essentially the emotional aspect of an attitude that can influence an individual’s
behavior.

 Behavioral (or conative) component: the way the attitude we have influenced how we act or
behave. For example: “I will avoid spiders and scream if I see one.”

It involves an individual’s tendency to behave in a certain way toward the attitude object.

 Cognitive component involves a person’s belief/knowledge about an attitude object. For

example: “I believe spiders are dangerous.”

The cognitive component of an attitude refers to the beliefs, thoughts, and attributes that an
individual associates with an object, person, issue, or situation. It involves the mental
processes of understanding and interpreting information. The cognitive component of an
attitude refers to the beliefs, thoughts, and attributes that an individual associates with an
object, person, issue, or situation. It involves the mental processes of understanding and
interpreting information.

ATTITUDE FORMATION

Classical Conditioning

The process of classical conditioning was first described by Pavlov. In his experiments on dogs, he
found that after repeated pairings of an unconditioned stimulus (e.g. bell) with a conditioned
stimulus (dog), the latter acquires the capacity to evoke a conditioned response (salivation), similar
to the old, unconditioned response (salivation). It has been suggested that in the same way that a
bell can evoke a physiological response, classical conditioning can produce a positive/negative
attitude towards a previously neutral object. Arthur and Carolyn Staats (1958) were two of the first
researchers who systematically studied the classical conditioning of attitudes. They conducted an
experiment in which the goal was to condition positive and negative attitudes to the names of
countries (Sweden and Holland) which previously were regarded neither positively nor negatively.
During 108 conditioning trials, two nationalities were always followed by a negative word (e.g.
failure), two were paired with positive adjectives (e.g. happy, gift), and two others were paired with
neutral words (e.g. table). At the end of the experiment, it was indeed found that participants held
more positive attitudes towards the nationalities associated with positive words and more negative
attitudes toward those associated with negative words. Classical conditioning could play a role in
establishing some of the emotional components of attitudes and prejudice. Further, through classical
conditioning, people may come to have powerful attitudinal reactions to social objects even in the
absence of firsthand experience. Hence, children who hear repeated pairings of words in their
parents’ conversations (such as say, Muslims-Aggressive, Muslims-Fundamentalists) throughout their
early years of development may come to adopt such negative attitudes themselves— without even
meeting them.

Instrumental Conditioning

Child: “Mummy, doesn’t Mausi look nice in her green dress? She really knows how to carry herself.”
Mother: “You are absolutely right dear. I’ve felt that for some time now and was hoping you would
agree. Your dress sense is really getting evolved. You can now suggest me what to wear the next time
we go out.” This kind of conversation illustrates quite clearly the role of reinforcement in attitude
formation. Following her mother’s agreement, it is likely that the child’s initial responses of a positive
attitude about Mausi will be reinforced. Of course, had the child remarked that Mausi looks awful;
the mother might have reacted with displeasure, thereby punishing the remark. Following reward,
the child’s attitude is likely to be strengthened; whereas punishment would probably lead to a
weakening of the attitude. This is the process of instrumental conditioning, a basic form of learning
studied by Thorndike (1911) and Skinner (1938). According to this, behaviours that are followed by
positive outcomes tend to be strengthened, while those that are followed by negative outcomes are
suppressed. The degree to which attitudes are verbally or nonverbally reinforced by others will affect
the acquiring and maintenance of attitudes. For e.g. early in your life, if your parents and teachers
praised you for doing well in studies, you may have doubled your efforts and developed a positive
attitude towards studies. However if your friend’s parents did not acknowledge her achievements in
studies, she would have probably developed a negative attitude toward studies.

Observational Learning

In both classical and instrumental conditioning approaches to attitude formation, the person has
direct contact or experience (as in the case of Staats experiment) with the attitudinal object.
However, it is also true that people may acquire attitudes simply by observing the rewards and
punishments that others get for their espousal of those attitudes. The phenomenon by which a
person acquires new forms of behaviour or thought simply by observing others is called
observational learning. For example, you might develop a negative attitude towards the college
canteen if you saw someone throwing up after having a meal there. Although your friend’s newly
formed dislike is due to instrumental conditioning, your negative attitude is a result of observational
learning. The rationale behind commercials of say, Pizza Hut which show someone ordering and then
obviously enjoying a pizza is that the viewer will also form a positive attitude vicariously and imitate
such behaviour in the future.

Why do people often adopt the attitudes that they hear others express, or acquire the behaviors
they observe in others? One answer involves the mechanism of social comparison—our tendency to
compare ourselves with others in order to determine whether our view of social reality is correct or
not (Festinger, 1954). That is, to the extent that our views agree with those of others, we tend to
conclude that our ideas and attitudes are accurate; after all, if others hold the same views, these
views must be right! But are we equally likely to adopt all others’ attitudes, or does it depend on our
relationship to those others? People often adjust their attitudes so as to hold views closer to those of
others who they value and identify with—their reference groups. For example, Terry and Hogg (1996)
found that the adoption of favorable attitudes toward wearing sunscreen depended on the extent to
which the respondents identified with the group advocating this change. As a result of observing the
attitudes held by others who we identify with, new attitudes can be formed.

Genetic Factors

Some research (Waller et al., 1990; Keller et al., 1992) indicates that our attitudes, at least a
tendency to develop certain views about various topics or issues, are inherited. For instance, Arvey et
al. (1989) studied the level of job satisfaction of 34 sets of identical twins separated from each other
at an early age, and found that approximately 30% of job satisfaction appears to be explainable by
genetic factors. Tesser (1993) has argued that hereditary variables may affect attitudes— but believes
that they may do so indirectly. Additional research suggests that genetic factors play a stronger role
in shaping some attitudes than others. For e.g., attitudes involving gut-level preferences (say a
preference for a certain kind of food) may be more strongly influenced by genetic factors than
attitudes that are more cognitive in nature (say attitudes towards environment conservation).
ATTITUDE FUNCTIONS

Attitudes have, therefore, significant functions in moulding, influencing and determining one’s
behaviour in all contexts. As already discussed, on the basis of attitude personality can be typed.

Attitudes function as a source of motivation which helps in the adjustment to the environment.
According to Katz (1960), four different personality functions are served by the maintenance and
modifications of social attitudes. They are adjustment, value expression, knowledge and ego defence.

(i) Adjustment Function:

The holding of a particular attitude leads to reward or the avoidance of punishment. It is the
utilitarian or instrumental function of attitude which motivates the person to adjust with the
environment to gain social approval and support of family, friends and neighbours.

In case of certain social issues like marriage, death, democracy, religion, sacrifice and helping others,
he holds opinions similar to his parents and relations and friends. Further favourable attitudes are
developed towards those stimuli which satisfy one’s needs and unfavourable attitudes towards those
which stand on the fulfilment of his needs and motives.

(ii) Value Expression Function:

On the basis of identification with parents and other relatives the child develops certain personal
values and self concepts. These values are integrated in the form of different attitudes. Attitudes help
in expressing these values. The individual gets satisfaction by expression of attitudes appropriate to
his personal values.

Religious, ideological and patriotic beliefs and values normally are based on this function. People get
self satisfaction by engaging themselves in social work, care for the aged persons, by helping at the
time of flood and famines, by taking care of the orphans or by raising their voice against corruption
and social injustice.

(iii) Knowledge Function:

According to Mann this function of attitude is based on the need to understand, make sense and give
adequate structure to the universe. Attitudes have a cognitive function in the sense that they help in
understanding things properly for the sake of quick adjustment.

Attitudes which prove inadequate dealing with new and changing situations are discarded because,
otherwise, they lead to contradictions and inconsistency. The need for cognitive consistency,
meaning and clarity is fulfilled by the knowledge function of attitude.

(iv) Ego Defensive Function:

The ego defensive function of attitude provides protection against the knowledge and acceptance of
basic unpleasant truths about disease, death, weakness, insecurity, frustration, unemployment,
illness and various other harsh realities of life.

By rationalizing and distorting attitudes on the above harsh realities of life the ego tries to defend
itself and lead a happy life by avoiding unpleasantness arising out of these unpleasant truths. All
these facts lead to believe the tremendous significance of the functions of attitude in human life.
ATTITUDE BEHAVIOUR LINK

Role of the Social Context in the Link Between Attitudes and Behavior

Because of the important role that the social context plays in determining when attitudes and
behavior will be related, recent research has focused on the factors that determine when consistency
can be expected, as well as the issue of how attitudes influence behavior. Several factors determine
the extent to which attitudes and behavior correspond, with aspects of the situation influencing the
extent to which attitudes determine behavior. In addition, features of the attitudes themselves are
also important—for example, how certain you are of your own attitude. Attitudes that we hold with
greater certainty are more strongly linked to behavior (Tormala & Petty, 2004) compared to attitudes
about which we feel some uncertainty. Indeed, when people are induced to think that their attitudes
are stable across time, they feel more certain about those attitudes and are more likely to act on
them (Petrocelli, Clarkson, Tormala, & Hendrix, 2010). It is well known that older people are often
more certain of their attitudes than are young people. Recent research suggests that this is partly
due to older people placing greater value on “standing firm” or being resolute in the attitude
positions they adopt, and for this reason they tend to show greater attitude–behavior consistency
compared to younger people.

Have you ever been worried about what others would think of you if you expressed your “true”
attitude toward an issue? If so, you will understand the dilemma that Stanford University students
experienced in a study conducted by Miller and Morrison (2009). The private attitudes of those
students toward heavy alcohol consumption were relatively negative. But, they believed that other
students’ attitudes toward heavy alcohol consumption were more positive than their own (an
instance of pluralistic ignorance, where we erroneously believe others have attitudes different than
ourselves). When these students were randomly assigned to receive information about other
Stanford students’ alcohol attitudes—that they held either more positive or more negative attitudes
than their own—the students differed in how comfortable they felt expressing their attitude about
alcohol use with another Stanford student and their likelihood of choosing alcohol policies as a topic
for discussion. The students expressed greater comfort discussing campus drinking and chose that
topic for discussion more often when they thought other students’ attitudes were more pro-alcohol
than their own, but they were less willing to do so when they learned other students’ attitudes were
more negative than their own. This pattern of wanting to express attitudes in the direction of the
perceived campus norm but not when our attitudes go against the norm was especially strong for
students who identified highly with their student group.

Strength of Attitudes

The term strength captures the extremity of an attitude (how strong the emotional reaction is), the
degree of certainty with which an attitude is held (the sense that you know what your attitude is and
the feeling that it is the correct position to hold), as well as the extent to which the attitude is based
on personal experience with the attitude object. These three factors can affect attitude accessibility
(how easily the attitude comes to mind in various situations), which ultimately determines the extent
to which attitudes drive our behavior (Fazio, Ledbetter, & Towles-Schwen, 2000). As shown in Figure
5.11, all of these components of attitude strength are interrelated, and each plays a role in the
likelihood that attitudes will be accessible and affect behavior
ATTITUDE EXTREMITY

Let’s consider first attitude extremity— the extent to which an individual feels strongly—in one
direction or the other— about an issue (Visser, Bizer, & Krosnick, 2006). One of the key determinants
of this is what social psychologists term vested interest—the extent to which the attitude is relevant
to the concerns of the individual who holds it. This typically amounts to whether the object or issue
might have important consequences for this person. The results of many studies indicate that the
greater such vested interest, the stronger the impact of the attitude on behavior.

. For example, when students at a large university were telephoned and asked if they would
participate in a campaign against increasing the legal age for drinking alcohol from 18 to 21, their
responses depended on whether they would be affected by the policy change or not (Sivacek &
Crano, 1982). Students who would be affected by this new law—those younger than 21—have a
stronger stake in this issue than those who would not be affected by the law because they were
already 21 or would reach this age before the law took effect. Thus, it was predicted that those in the
first group—whose interests were at stake—would be much more likely to join a rally against the
proposed policy change than those in the second group. This is exactly what happened: While more
than 47 percent of those with high vested interest agreed to take part in the campaign, only 12
percent of those in the low vested interest group did so.

Attitude certainity

Research has identified two important components of attitude certainty: attitude clarity— being
clear about what one’s attitude is—and attitude correctness—feeling one’s attitude is the valid or the
proper one to hold To accomplish this task, Petrocelli and colleagues (2007) first determined that
their participants felt negatively about a specific attitude issue: requiring students to carry
identification cards with them at all times. Then, in order to manipulate the perception of consensus
concerning their attitude position, half of the participants were given feedback that most other
students (89 percent) agreed with their attitude toward the identification card issue, while the other
half were told that most other students disagreed (only 11 percent) with them. Although attitude
clarity was equivalent in both the high and low consensus conditions, perceived correctness was
greater when consensus was high (the 89 percent condition) rather than low (11 percent). When a
person learns that others share one’s attitudes, it acts as justification for that attitude and thereby
increases certainty.

Clarity, the other component of attitude certainty, reflects a lack of ambivalence about an attitude
issue. The more often you are asked to report on your attitude, the more it will facilitate clarity and
thereby certainty. Repeatedly stating your attitude appears to “work” by increasing your subjective
sense that you really do know how you feel about an object or issue. When Petrocelli et al. (2007)
had their participants express their attitudes toward gun control either several times or only once,
attitude certainty differed. Those in the “more expressions” condition had greater certainty about
their attitudes toward gun control than those in the “single expression” condition.

ROLE OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

Personal experience is one way to create involvement with an issue, and people who are more
involved with an issue and whose values are linked with that issue are more likely to act on their
attitudes (Blankenship & Wegener, 2008). For example, when students were asked to consider a
novel issue—whether a fictitious country, Tashkentistan, should be allowed to join the European
Union—in light of a value of importance to them (e.g., freedom) or in light of a value of little
importance (e.g., unity), they spent more time thinking about and elaborating on the message when
it involved important values compared to when it did not. This elaboration resulted in stronger
attitudes, which in turn guides behavior even in contexts where those attitudes are under attack.

ATTITUDE CHANGE

Psychologists claim that attitude change is of two types 1) Congruent change and 2) Incongruent
change. When a favorable attitude becomes more favourable after an incident, it is congruent
change. However, when attitude change is unfavourable that is direction of change is opposite of the
already held attitude, it is called incongruent change.

Cognitive dissonance theory by leon Festinger

According to Festinger’s theory, there are basically two factors that affect the strength of the
dissonance, viz., (i) the number of dissonant beliefs, and (ii) the importance attached to each belief.
Hence one can eliminate dissonance by the following methods: 1) reduce the importance of the
dissonant beliefs 2) add more consonant beliefs that outweigh the dissonant beliefs. 3) change the
dissonant beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent. As mentioned earlier, Dissonance occurs
when an individual has to make a choice between two incompatible beliefs or actions. The
dissonance created is very high when the two alternatives are equally attractive. This is akin to
approach – approach conflict which creates considerable tension. Attitude change is more likely in
the direction of less incentive as this results in lower dissonance. These explanations could be very
effectively used in attitude formation and change. In regard to changing of attitude towards a certain
community people, the integrated housing scheme provides a good example of application of
cognitive dissonance. When people start living together, and have to interact with each other for
various reasons, they get to know each other and many ideas and beliefs about the other person
belonging to a certain community start changing considerably as experience shows that these
people are not as the individual thought them to be. In course of time with the changes in beliefs
and ideas getting stronger the individual is able to get over the negative attitude and change to a
more positive attitude. This is one way of changing attitude. Here dissonance is created by facts and
figures and the individual reduces the dissonance by changing his attitude. To cite another example,
consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not comfortable on long drives.
Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have bought a good car and that a good car should
be comfortable. Dissonance could be eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is
mainly used for short trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars
strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant beliefs). The
dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this behaviour is a lot harder to
achieve than changing beliefs.

Thus the two most important principles of cognitive dissonance can be stated as that

(i) dissonance occurs when a person has to choose between contradictory attitudes and
behaviour.
(ii) Another principle is that the dissonance can be removed by changing the importance of
conflicting beliefs and acquiring new beliefs that change the balance or remove the
conflicting attitude or remove the conflicting behaviour

cognitive dissonance theory predicts that it will be easier to change individuals’ attitudes by offering
them just enough to get them to engage in attitude-discrepant behavior. Social psychologists
sometimes refer to this surprising prediction as the less-leads to-more effect—less reasons or
rewards for an action often leads to greater attitude change—and it has been confirmed in many
studies (Harmon-Jones, 2000; Leippe & Eisenstadt, 1994). Indeed, the more money or other rewards
that are offered to people for them to behave in an attitude-discrepant way provides a justification
for their actions and can undermine the likelihood that attitude change will occur. Thus, coercion will
serve to undermine dissonance. In addition, small rewards lead to greater attitude change primarily
when people believe that they were personally responsible for both the chosen course of action and
any negative effects it produced. For instance, when ordered by an authority to do a particular
behavior that is inconsistent with our personal attitudes, we may not feel responsible for our actions
and therefore not experience dissonance.

PERSUASION

The process by which a message induces change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors.

Persuasive communication is any message that is intended to shape, reinforce, or change the
responses of another or others.
Such responses are modified by symbolic transactions (messages) which are sometimes, but
not always, linked with coercive force (indirectly coercive) and which appeal to the reason
and emotions of the target. Generally, persuasion refers to such communicative activities that
are mediated. Those that are face-to-face are called compliance-gaining.
Persuasive communication can be targeted at
• Cognition: Persuasion can be used to change individuals’ beliefs about an object or an
issue, which includes attributes, interpretation, definition, outcome, etc
• Attitude: Persuasion can be used to change individuals’ attitude toward an object or an
issue, which refers to the categorization of an object or an issue along an evaluative
dimension (from negative to positive).
• Behavior: Persuasion can be used to change individuals’ behavior, which is the overt
actions regarding an object or an issue.

PERSUASION: COMMUNICATORS, MESSAGES AND AUDIENCE

● Communicators who are credible—who seem to know what they are talking about or who are
expert with respect to the topics or issues they are presenting—are more persuasive than those who
are seen as lacking expertise. For instance, in a famous study on this topic, Hovland and Weiss (1951)
asked participants to read communications dealing with various issues (e.g., atomic submarines, the
future of movie theaters— remember, this was back in 1950!). The supposed source of these
messages was varied so as to be high or low in credibility. For instance, for atomic submarines, a
highly credible source was the famous scientist Robert J. Oppenheimer, while the low- credibility
source was Pravda, the newspaper of the Communist party in the Soviet Union (notice how the
credible source was an ingroup member, but the low-redibility source for these American
participants was an outgroup source). Participants expressed their attitudes toward these issues a
week before the experiment, and then immediately after receiving the communications. Those who
were told that the source of the messages they read was a highly credible ingroup member showed
significantly greater attitude change than those who thought the message was from the outgroup,
which lacked trustworthiness and credibility. Indeed, members of our own group are typically seen as
more credible and therefore are likely to influence us more than those with whom we do not share a
group membership and with whom we might even expect to disagree (Turner, 1991). Communicators
can, though, lose their credibility and therefore their ability to persuade. One means by which
credibility can be undermined is if you learn that a communicator has a personal stake (financial or
otherwise) in persuading you to adopt a particular position. Consequently, communicators are seen
as most credible and therefore persuasive when they are perceived as arguing against their
selfinterests

 Communicators who are physically attractive are more persuasive than communicators who
are not attractive (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). Frequently, as shown in Figure 5.15, advertisers
who use attractive models are attempting to suggest to us that if we buy their product, we
too will be perceived as attractive. Another way that communicators can be seen as
attractive is via their perceived likeability (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). We are more likely to be
persuaded by a communicator we like than one we dislike
 ● Messages that do not appear to be designed to change our attitudes are often more
successful than those that seem to be designed to achieve this goal (Walster & Festinger,
1962). Indeed, a meta-analysis of the existing research on this issue indicates that
forewarning does typically lessen the extent to which attitude change occurs (Benoit, 1998).
So, simply knowing that a sales pitch is coming your way undermines its persuasiveness
 One approach to persuasion that has received considerable research attention is the effect of
fear appeals—messages that are intended to arouse fear in the recipient. For example, Janis
and Feshbach (1953) gave people one of three messages about the tooth decay that can
result from not brushing one’s teeth. They found that the mild fear-inducing message
resulted in the greatest subsequent tooth brushing, while the most fear-inducing message
resulted in the least increase in brushing. When the message is sufficiently fear arousing that
people genuinely feel threatened, they are likely to argue against the threat, or else dismiss
its applicability to themselves (Liberman & Chaiken, 1992; Taylor & Shepperd, 1998). Figure
5.16 illustrates some of the gruesome fear-based ads that have been used in an attempt to
frighten people about the consequences if they fail to change their behavior. Despite the
long-standing use of such fear-based messages, a recent meta-analysis of studies examining
the role of fear in persuasion finds that they are not generally effective at changing people’s
health-related behaviors (de Hoog, Stroebe, & de Wit, 2007).
 Positively framed messages are often more effective persuasion devices than fear appeals.
Consider how message framing and perceived risk of having a serious outcome befall the self
can affect persuasion following exposure to a message designed to encourage low-income
ethnic minority women to be tested for HIV (Apanovitch, McCarthy, & Salovey, 2003). Those
women who perceived themselves as unlikely to test positive for HIV were more likely to be
persuaded to be tested (and they actually got tested) when the message was framed in
terms of the gains to be had by doing so (e.g., “The peace of mind you’ll get or you won’t
have to worry that you could spread the virus”) than when the message was framed in terms
of potential losses they would otherwise experience (e.g., “You won’t have peace of mind or
you could spread the virus unknowingly to those you care about”). Positive framing can be
effective in inducing change— especially when individuals fail to perceive themselves as
especially at risk. Early research on persuasion certainly provided important insights into the
factors that influence persuasion. What such work did not do, however, was offer a
comprehensive account of how persuasion occurs. For instance, why, precisely, are highly
credible or attractive communicators more effective in changing attitudes than less credible
or attractive ones? Why might positive message framing (rather than negative, fear-based)
produce more attitude change? In recent years, social psychologists have recognized that to
answer such questions, it is necessary to carefully examine the cognitive processes that
underlie persuasion—in other words, what goes on in people’s minds while they listen to a
persuasive message. It is to this highly sophisticated work that we turn next.

The Cognitive Processes Underlying Persuasion

SYSTEMATIC VERSUS HEURISTIC PROCESSING
The first type of processing we can employ is known as systematic processing or the central
route to persuasion, and it involves careful consideration of message content and the ideas it
contains. Such processing requires effort, and it absorbs much of our information-processing
capacity. The second approach, known as heuristic processing or the peripheral route to
persuasion, involves the use of mental shortcuts such as the belief that “experts’ statements
can be trusted,” or the idea that “if it makes me feel good, I’m in favor of it.” This kind of
processing requires less effort and allows us to react to persuasive messages in an automatic
manner. It occurs in response to cues in the message or situation that evoke various mental
shortcuts (e.g., beautiful models evoke the “What’s beautiful is good and worth listening to”
heuristic). When do we engage in each of these two distinct modes of thought? Modern
theories of persuasion such as the elaboration-likelihood model. We engage in the most
effortful and systematic processing when our motivation and capacity to process information
relating to the persuasive message is high. This type of processing occurs if we have a lot of
knowledge about the topic, we have a lot of time to engage in careful thought, or the issue is
sufficiently important to us and we believe it is essential to form an accurate view
In contrast, we engage in the type of processing that requires less effort (heuristic
processing) when we lack the ability or capacity to process more carefully (we must make up
our minds very quickly or we have little knowledge about the issue) or when our motivation
to perform such cognitive work is low (the issue is unimportant to us or has little potential
effect on us). Advertisers, politicians, salespeople, and others wishing to change our attitudes
prefer to push us into the heuristic mode of processing because, for reasons we describe
later, it is often easier to change our attitudes when we think in this mode than when we
engage in more careful and systematic processing. Strong arguments in favor of the position
being advocated aren’t needed when people do not process those arguments very carefully!

What role might consuming a drug like caffeine have on persuasion? The central route to
persuasion works when people attend to a message and systematically process its contents.
Given that caffeine intake should increase people’s ability to systematically process the
contents of a message, if people have the opportunity to focus on a persuasive message
without being distracted, they should be persuaded more after consuming caffeine than
after not consuming it. In contrast, when people are highly distracted, it should prevent them
from systematically processing the message and, if caffeine works via the central route,
distraction should lessen the extent to which they are persuaded. Research findings have
supported these ideas: in low-distraction conditions, those who have consumed caffeine
agree more with the message (they are persuaded away from their original opinion) than
those who received a caffeine-free placebo. In contrast, when people are distracted and
systematic processing of the message content is impossible, there is no difference in the
attitudes of those who consumed caffeine and those who did not It is the increased thinking
about the message when people are not distracted that can result in increased persuasion in
caffeine drinkers. So, as shown in Figure 5.18, be prepared to think carefully about the
messages you are exposed to when you get your next “caffeine fix”! The discovery of these
two contrasting modes of processing— systematic versus heuristic—has provided an
important key to understanding when and how persuasion occurs. For instance, when
persuasive messages are not interesting or relevant to individuals, the degree of persuasion
they produce is not strongly influenced by the strength of the arguments these messages
contain. When such messages are highly relevant to individuals, however, they are much
more successful in inducing persuasion when the arguments they contain are strong and
convincing. Can you see why this so? According to modern theories such as the ELM that
 consider these dual pathways, when relevance is low, individuals tend to process messages
through the heuristic mode, using various mental shortcuts. Thus, argument strength has
little impact. In contrast, when relevance is high, they process persuasive messages more
systematically and in this mode, argument strength is important

HOW TO RESIST PERSUASION

Several factors contribute to our ability to resist persuasion. One such factor is reactance—
negative reactions to efforts by others to reduce or limit our personal freedom, which can
produce greater overall opposition to the message content.
● Resistance to persuasion is often increased by forewarning—the knowledge that someone
will be trying to change our attitudes—and by selective avoidance—the tendency to avoid
exposure to information that contradicts our views.
● When we are exposed to persuasive messages that are contrary to our existing views, we
actively counterargue against them. This is a critical means by which our resistance to
persuasion is increased.
● There are also individual differences in the ability to resist persuasion. Those include
consciously counterarguing messages we receive, and bolstering our initial attitude position
when confronted with a counterattitudinal message.
● Ego-depletion from exerting effort on another task can undermine our ability to self-
regulate and resist persuasion. When ego-depleted, people are equally likely to be
persuaded by both strong and weak messages. As persuaders, the ego-depleted are also less
likely to be honest.

PREJUDICE
Nature and power of prejudice:
Prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, racism, sexism—the terms often overlap. Each of the
situations just described involved a negative evaluation of some group .Prejudice is defines as
preconceived negative judgment of a group and its individual members. Prejudice is an
attitude. an attitude is a distinct combination of feelings, inclinations to act, and beliefs. It can
be easily remembered as the ABCs of attitudes: affect (feelings), behavior tendency
(inclination to act), and c gnition (beliefs). A prejudiced person may dislike those different
from self and behave in a discriminatory manner, believing them ignorant and dangerous.
The negative evaluations that mark prejudice often are supported by negative beliefs, called
stereotypes. To stereotype is to generalize • Prejudice is a preconceived negative attitude.
Stereotypes are beliefs about another group—beliefs that may be accurate, inaccurate, or
overgeneralized but based on a kernel of truth. Discrimination is unjustified negative
behavior.
Racism and sexism may refer to individuals’ prejudicial attitudes or discriminatory behavior,
or to oppressive institutional practices (even if not intentionally prejudicial). Prejudice is a
negative attitude; discrimination is negative behavior. Discriminatory behavior often has its
source in prejudicial attitudes. • Prejudice exists in subtle and unconscious guises as well as
overt, conscious forms. Researchers have devised subtle survey questions and indirect Racial
prejudice • Racial prejudice against Blacks in the United States was widely accepted until the
1960s; since that time it has become far less prevalent, but it still exists
(1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people of a
given race,
2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate people of a
given race.
Sexism : (1) An individual’s prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory behavior toward people
of a given sex, (2) institutional practices (even if not motivated by prejudice) that subordinate
people of a given sex
GENDER DISCRIMINATION Gender discrimination is when someone is treated unequally
or disadvantageously based on their gender but not necessarily in a sexual nature. This
includes harassment/discrimination based on sex, gender identity, or gender expression.
Gender discrimination is often rooted in preconceived, false societal and personal notions
about what gender is, how gender "should" look, or how gender is performed. For example,
many people inaccurately believe that someone's biological sex always determines their
gender and therefore their attitudes and behaviors
SOURCES OF PREJUDICE
SOCIAL SOURCES OF PREJUDICE
1. SOCIAL INEQUALITIES: UNEQUAL STATUS AND PREJUDICE
Unequal status breed’s prejudice. Slave masters viewed slaves as lazy, irresponsible,
lacking ambition—as having exactly those traits that justified the slavery. Historians
debate the forces that create unequal status. But after those inequalities exist,
prejudice helps justify the economic and social superiority of those who have wealth
and power. Tell us the economic relationship between two groups, and we’ll predict
the intergroup attitudes. Upper-class individuals are more likely than those in poverty
to see people’s fortunes as the outcomes they have earned— thanks to skill and effort,
and not as the result of connections, money, and luck. Some people, more than others,
notice and justify status differences. Those high in social dominance orientation tend
to view people in terms of hierarchies. They like their own social groups to be high
status—they prefer being on the top. Being in a dominant, high-status position also
tends to promote this orientation argue that this desire to be on top leads people high
in social dominance to embrace prejudice and to support political positions that justify
prejudice.
2. SOCIALIZATION
Prejudice springs from unequal status and from other social sources, including our acquired
values and attitudes. The influence of family socialization appears in children’s prejudices,
which often mirror those perceived in their mothers. Even children’s implicit racial attitudes
reflect their parents’ explicit prejudice. Our families and cultures pass on all kinds go
information—how to find mates, drive cars, and divide the household labours, and whom to
distrust and dislike. Parental attitudes assessed shortly after their babies are born predict their
children’s attitudes 17 years later
The Authoritarian Personality- In the 1940s, University of California, Berkeley, researchers
—two of whom had fled Nazi Germany—set out on an urgent research mission: to uncover
the psychological roots of the poisonous anti-Semitism that caused the slaughter of millions
of Jews. In studies of American adults, Theodor Adorno, and his colleagues (1950)
discovered that hostility toward Jews often coexisted with hostility toward other minorities.
In those who were strongly prejudiced, prejudice appeared to be an entire way of thinking
about those who are “different” or marginalized. These ethnocentric people shared certain
tendencies: an intolerance for weakness, a punitive attitude, and a submissive respect for their
group’s authorities, as reflected in their agreement with such statements as “Obedience and
respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.” Adorno and his
colleagues (1950) surmised that these tendencies define a prejudice-prone authoritarian
personality. Still today, prejudices coexist antigay, anti-immigrant, anti-Black and anti-
Muslim
Religion And Racial Prejudice
Consider those who benefit from social inequalities while avowing that “all are created
equal.” They need to justify keeping things the way they are. And what could be a more
powerful justification than to believe that God has ordained the existing social order? For all
sorts of cruel deeds, noted William James, “piety is the mask” . In almost every country,
leaders invoke religion to sanctify the present order. The use of religion to support injustice
helps explain a consistent pair of findings concerning North American Christianity:
(1) White church members have expressed more racial prejudice than non-members, and
(2) those professing fundamentalist beliefs have expressed more prejudice than those
professing progressive beliefs Knowing the correlation between two variables—religion and
prejudice—tells us little about their causal connection. Consider three possibilities:
• There may be no causal connection. Perhaps people with less education are both more
fundamentalist and more prejudiced. (In one study of 7,070 Brits, those scoring high on IQ
tests at age 10 expressed more nontraditional and antiracist views at age 30
• Perhaps prejudice causes religion, by leading some people to create religious ideas to
support their prejudices. People who feel hatred may use religion, even God, to justify their
contempt for the other
• Perhaps religion causes prejudice, such as by leading people to believe that because all
individuals possess free will, impoverished minorities have themselves to blame for their
status, and that gays and lesbians choose their orientation.
Conformity
 Once established, prejudice is maintained largely by inertia. If prejudice is socially accepted,
many people will follow the path of least resistance and conform to the fashion. They will act
not so much out of a need to hate as out of a need to be liked and accepted. Thus, people
become more likely to favor (or oppose) discrimination after hearing someone else do so, and
they are less supportive of women after hearing sexist humor Conformity also maintains
gender prejudice. “If we have come to think that the nursery and the kitchen are the natural
sphere of a woman,” wrote George Bernard Shaw in an 1891 essay, “we have done so exactly
as English children come to think that a cage is the natural sphere of a parrot— because they
have never seen one anywhere else.” Children who have seen women elsewhere— children
of employed women—have expressed less stereotyped views of men and women . Women
students exposed to female science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
experts likewise express more positive implicit attitudes toward STEM studies and display
more effort on STEM tests
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORTS Social institutions (schools, government, media, families)
may bolster prejudice through overt policies such as segregation, or by passively reinforcing
the status quo. Until the 1970s, many banks routinely denied mortgages to unmarried women
and to minority applicants, with the result that most homeowners were White married
couples. Media may also strengthen stereotypes. In several studies, exposure to news
portrayals of Muslims as terrorists was associated with increased perceptions of Muslims as
aggressive, and increased support for military action in Muslim territories and for Muslim-
harming policies
Cognitive Sources Of Prejudice
1. CATEGORIZATION: CLASSIFYING PEOPLE INTO GROUPS
One way we simplify our environment is to categorize—to organize the world by clustering
objects into groups . A biologist classifies plants and animals. A human classifies people.
Having done so, we think about them more easily. If persons in a group share some
similarities—if most MENSA members are smart, and most basketball players are tall—
knowing their group memberships can provide useful information with minimal effort .
Stereotypes sometimes offer “a beneficial ratio of information gained to effort expended” .
Stereotypes represent cognitive efficiency. They are energy-saving schemes for making
speedy judgments and predicting how others will think and act. We judge people in
outgroups quickly; when assessing ingroup individuals, we take longer to form impressions
Spontaneous Categorization We find it especially easy and efficient to rely on stereotypes
when we are
• pressed for time
• preoccupied
• tired
• emotionally aroused
Perceived Similarities and Differences
Picture the following objects: apples, chairs, pencils. There is a strong tendency to see
objects within a group as being more uniform than they really are. Were your apples all red?
Your chairs all straight-backed? Your pencils all yellow? Once we classify two days as in the
same month, they seem more alike, temperature wise, than the same interval across months.
People guess the 8-day average temperature difference between, for instance, November 15
and 23 to be less than the 8-day difference between November 30 and December 8 . It’s the
same with people. When we assign people to groups—athletes, drama majors, math
professors—we are likely to exaggerate the similarities within the groups and the differences
between them. We assume that other groups are more homogeneous than our own. Mere
division into groups can create an outgroup homogeneity effect—a sense that they are “all
alike” and different from “us” and “our” group Our attending to someone’s being in a
different social category also contributes to a parallel own-age bias—the tendency for both
children and older adults to more accurately identify faces from their own age groups When
White students are shown faces of a few White and a few Black individuals and then asked
to pick those individuals out of a photographic lineup, they show an own-race bias: They
more accurately recognize the White faces than the Black ones, and they often falsely
recognize Black faces never before seen. (Individuals do differ, however, with some showing
no own-race bias while others have an extreme inability to recognize other-race faces
OUTGROUP HOMOGENEITY EFFECT: Perception of outgroup members as more similar
to one another than are ingroup members. Thus “they are alike; we are diverse.”
OWN-RACE BIAS: The tendency for people to more accurately recognize faces of their
own race. (Also called the cross-race effect or other race effect.
2. DISTINCTIVENESS: PERCEIVING PEOPLE WHO STAND OUT
Distinctive People A Black person in an otherwise White group, a man in an otherwise
female group, or a woman in an otherwise male group seems more prominent and
influential and to have exaggerated good and bad qualities. Asked to choose a gift book
for the person, they will pick a skydiving book over a tennis book. A person who has
both a pet snake and a pet dog is seen more as a snake owner than a dog owner.
DISTINCTIVENESS FEEDS SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS When surrounded by Whites,
Blacks sometimes detect people reacting to their distinctiveness. Many have reported
being stared or glared at, being subject to insensitive comments, and receiving bad
service. Self-conscious interactions between a majority and a minority person can
therefore feel tense even when both are well intentioned . Tom, who is known to be gay,
meets tolerant Bill, who is straight and wants to respond without prejudice. But feeling
unsure of himself, Bill holds back a bit. Tom, expecting negative attitudes from most
people, misreads Bill’s hesitancy as hostility and responds with a seeming chip on his
shoulder.
VIVID CASES Our minds also use distinctive cases as a shortcut to judge groups. Are
the Japanese good baseball players? “Well, there’s Ichiro Suzuki and Hideki Matsui and
Yu Darvish. Yeah, I’d say so.” Note the thought processes at work here: Given limited
experience with a particular social group, we recall examples of it and generalize from
those. Moreover, encountering an example of a negative stereotype (for instance, a
hostile Black person) can prime the stereotype, leading some people to minimize contact
with the group
Those in a numerical minority, being more distinctive, also may be numerically
overestimated by the majority. What proportion of your country’s population would you
say is Muslim? People in non-Muslim countries often overestimate this proportion.
Distinctive events foster illusory correlations.
Stereotypes assume a correlation between group membership and individuals’ presumed
characteristics (“Italians are emotional,” “Jews are shrewd,” “Accountants are
perfectionists”). Often, people’s stereotypes are accurate. But sometimes our
attentiveness to unusual occurrences creates illusory correlations. Because we are
sensitive to distinctive events, the cooccurrence of two such events are especially
noticeable—more noticeable than each of the times the unusual events do not occur
together. Vaughn Becker and his colleagues (2010) invited university students to view a
White and a Black face—one angry, one not—for one-tenth of a second (as in Figure 5).
The participants’ subsequent recollections of what they had viewed revealed racial bias.
“White anger flowed to neutral Black faces (34% likelihood) more readily than Black
anger flowed to neutral White faces (19% likelihood),” the researchers reported
Group-serving bias
Thomas Pettigrew showed how attribution errors bias people’s explanations of group
members’ behaviors. We grant members of our own group the benefit of the doubt: “She
donated because she has a good heart; he refused because he’s using every penny to help
support his mother.” When explaining acts by members of other groups, we more often
assume the worst: “She donated to gain favor; he refused because he’s selfish.” In one
classic study, the light shove that Whites perceived as mere “horsing around” when done
by another White person became a “violent gesture” when done by a Black person.
Positive behavior by outgroup members is more often dismissed. It may be seen as a
“special case” (“He is certainly bright and hardworking—not at all like other . . .”), as
owing to luck or some special advantage (“She probably got admitted just because her
med school had to fill its quota for women applicants”), as demanded by the situation
(“Under the circumstances, what could the cheap Scot do but pay the whole check?”), or
as attributable to extra effort (“Asian students get better grades because they’re so
compulsive”).
The Just-world Phenomenon
In a famous series of experiments, Melvin Lerner and his colleagues) discovered that
merely observing another innocent person being victimized is enough to make the victim
seem less worth. Numerous studies have confirmed this just-world phenomenon (Hafer
& Rubel, 2015). Imagine that you, along with some others, are participating in one of
Lerner’s studies—supposedly on the perception of emotional cues (Lerner & Simmons,
1966). One of the participants, a confederate, is selected by lottery to perform a memory
task. This person receives painful shocks whenever she gives a wrong answer. You and
the others note her emotional responses. This research on different victims suggests that
people are indifferent to social injustice not because they have no concern for justice but
because they see no injustice. Those who assume a just world believe that: • rape victims
must have behaved seductively
• battered spouses must have provoked their beatings
• poor people don’t deserve better
▪ Sick people are responsible for their illnesses
. • Teens who are bullied online deserve it Such beliefs enable successful people to
reassure themselves that they, too, deserve what they have.
The wealthy and healthy can see their own good fortune, and others’ misfortune, as
justly deserved. Linking good fortune with virtue and misfortune with moral failure
enables the fortunate to feel pride and to avoid responsibility for the unfortunate. But on
the positive side, believing the world is just also motivates us to invest our energies in
longterm goals.

MOTIVATIONAL SOURCES OF PREJUDICE

1. FRUSTRATION AND AGGRESSION: THE SCAPEGOAT THEORY
Frustration (from the blocking of a goal) feeds hostility. When the cause of our
frustration is intimidating or unknown, we often redirect our hostility. This
phenomenon of “displaced aggression” (scapegoating) contributed to the lynchings of
African Americans in the South after the Civil War. Between 1882 and 1930, more
lynchings occurred in years when cotton prices were low and economic frustration
was therefore presumably high (Hepworth & West, 1988; Hovland & Sears, 1940).
When living standards are rising, societies tend to be more open to diversity and to
the passage and enforcement of antidiscrimination laws (Frank, 1999). Ethnic peace
is easier to maintain during prosperous times Competition is an important source of
frustration that can fuel prejudice. When two groups compete for jobs, housing, or
social prestige, one group’s goal fulfilment can become the other group’s frustration.
Thus, the realistic group conflict theory suggests that prejudice arises when groups
compete for scarce resources (Maddux et al., 2008; Pereira et al., 2010; Sassenberg et
al., 2007). In evolutionary biology, Gause’s law states that maximum competition
will exist between species with identical needs.
SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY: FEELING SUPERIOR TO OTHERS
Humans are a social species. Our ancestral history prepares us to feed and protect
ourselves— to live—in groups. Humans cheer for their groups, kill for their groups,
die for their groups. Evolution prepares us, when encountering strangers, to make a
quick judgment: friend or foe? Those from our group, those who look like us, even
those who sound like us—with accents like our own—we instantly tend to like
• We categorize: We find it useful to put people, ourselves included, into categories.
To label someone as a Hindu, a Scot, or a bus driver is a shorthand way of saying
some other things about the person.
• We identify: We associate ourselves with certain groups (our ingroups) and gain
self-esteem by doing so.
• We compare: We contrast our groups with other groups (outgroups), with a
favourable bias toward our own group.
Because of our social identifications, we conform to our group norms. We sacrifice
ourselves for team, family, and nation. The more important our social identity, the
more we react prejudicially to threats from another group.
SOCIAL IDENTITY:
The “we” aspect of our self-concept; the part of our answer to “Who am I?” that
comes from our group memberships. INGROUP: “Us”—a group of people who share
a sense of belonging, a feeling of common identity. OUTGROUP: “Them”—a group
that people perceive as distinctively different from or apart from their ingroup
Ingroup bias
The group definition of who you are—your gender, race, religion, marital status,
academic major—implies a definition of who you are not. The circle that includes
“us” (the ingroup) excludes “them” (the outgroup). The more that ethnic Turks in the
Netherlands see themselves as Turks or as Muslims, the less they see themselves as
Dutch. The mere experience of being formed into groups may promote ingroup bias.
Ask children, “Which are better, the children in your school or the children at
[another school nearby]?” Virtually all will say their own school has the better
children.
INGROUP BIAS SUPPORTS A POSITIVE SELF-CONCEPT :
Ingroup bias is one more example of the human quest for a positive self-concept.
When our group has been successful, we can make ourselves feel better by
identifying more strongly with it. College students whose team has just been
victorious frequently report, “We won.” After their team’s defeat, students are more
likely to say, “They lost.”
INGROUP BIAS FEEDS FAVORITISM:
We are so group conscious that, given any excuse to think of ourselves as a group,
we will do so—and we will then exhibit ingroup bias. Even forming conspicuous
groups on no logical basis—for instance, merely by composing groups X and Y with
 the flip of a coin—will produce some ingroup bias. The self-serving bias rides again,
enabling people to achieve a more positive social identity: “We” are better than
“they,” even when “we” and “they” are defined randomly. We are more prone to
ingroup bias when our group is small and differs in status relative to the outgroup .
When we’re part of a small group surrounded by a larger group, we are more
conscious of our group membership. When our ingroup is the majority, we think less
about it. To be a foreign student, to be gay or lesbian, or to be of a minority race or
gender is to feel one’s social identity more keenly and to react accordingly.
Need for status, self-regard, and belonging. Status is relative: To perceive ourselves
as having status, we need people below us. Thus, one psychological benefit of
prejudice, or of any status system, is a feeling of superiority. Most of us can recall a
time when we took secret satisfaction in another’s failure—perhaps seeing a sibling
punished or a classmate failing a test. In Europe and North America, prejudice is
often greater among those who are low or slipping on the socioeconomic ladder and
among those whose positive self-image is threatened (Lemyre & Smith, 1985;
Pettigrew et al., 1998; Thompson & Crocker, 1985). In one study, members of lower-
status sororities were more disparaging of competing sororities than were members of
higher-status sororities . If our status is secure—if we feel “authentic pride” that’s
rooted in accomplishment, not just selfaggrandizement—we have less need to feel
superior, and we express less prejudice.
MOTIVATION TO AVOID PREJUDICE
Motivations not only lead people to be prejudiced but also to avoid prejudice. In real life,
a majority person’s encountering a minority person may trigger a knee-jerk stereotype.
Those with accepting and those with disapproving attitudes toward homosexuals may
both feel uncomfortable sitting with a gay male on a bus seat (Monteith, 1993).
Encountering an unfamiliar Black male, people—even those who pride themselves on
not being prejudiced—may respond warily. Seeking not to appear prejudiced, they may
divert their attention away from the person .
COSEQUENCES OF PREJUDICE :
Self-perpetuating stereotypes
Prejudice is preconceive free judgements are inheritable none of desert dispassionate
bookkeeper of social happenings, telling evidence for an against the biases
• Pre judgements guide or attention and our memories- people who accept gender
stereotypes often mystery call their own school grades in stereotype consistent ways. For
example women often recall receiving worse maths grades and better arts Grace than
where actually the case.
• Pre judgements are self-perpetuating- whenever a member of a group behaves as
expected, we duly note the fact our prior belief is confirmed. When a member of a group
behaves inconsistently with our expectation ,we may interpret or explain away the
behaviour as due to special circumstances.
• Subtyping- accommodating individuals who deviate from one stereotype by thinking
of them as exceptions to the rule
• Subgrouping-accommodating individual sout from one stereotype forming a new
stereotype about the subset of the group
Discrimination impact
The self fullfiling prophecy
Attitude has two coin side with a social hierarchy not only as a rationalization for it but
also because discrimination affects its victim. The nature of prejudiced are of two basic
types. Those that involve blaming oneself ( withdrawal self hate aggression against once
own group) The second one AR those that involve blaming external causes (fighting
back ,suspiciousness increased group pride.
Stereotype threat
Disruptive concern when facing a negative stereotype that one will be evaluated based on
a negative stereotype. Unlike cell full filling properties that hammer once reputation into
one self concept, stereotype threat situations have immediate effects. Stereotype threat
can undermine the performance
Stress-fMRI brains cans suggest that stress of stereotype thrept impact brain activity
associated with mathematical processing and increases activity in areas associated with
the emotion processing.
Self monitoring-worry about making mistakes disrupt focus attention Suppressing
unwanted thoughts and emotions-the effort required to regulate one's thinking takes
energy and disrupts working memory
Stereotypes bias interpretations
• Stereotypes also colour how we interpret events
• Sometimes we make judgements or begin interacting with someone with little to go on
but our stereotype. Ine sach cases stereotypes can strongly bias are interpretations and
memories of people.
• When stereo types of strong and the information about someone is ambiguous,
stereotypes can subtle bias are judgements of individuals. We valuate people more
extremely when that behaviour violets are stereotypes
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE PREJUDICE:
Social psychologists have suggested a number of methods for reducing prejudice which
as follow
Intergroup Contact:
 Allport was the first psychologist to realise the importance of intergroup contact in
between prejudiced person and the target person. Such interactional situations provide
the two parties an opportunity to know each other from close quarters and understand
each other thereby reducing misunderstandings and misconceptions. However, for
intergroup contact to be effective certain conditions are to be met. Intergroup contact is
an effective method of reducing prejudice only in those conditions where both the parties
have equal status. For this technique to be effective contact between the prejudiced
person and target person ought to be intimate and not superficial. Intimate and honest
contact between the concerned parties motivates the person to perceive members of
target group more as humans than as stereotypes. Intergroup contact method is more
successful in situations where the success of both parties is dependent on each other i.e.
when a common goal is to be achieved. In such situation both parties are forced to
understand each other in a better manner.
Education: Social psychologists emphasise that appropriate education has important
role to play in reduction of prejudice, particularly racial prejudice. In it both informal and
formal education are important. As far as informal education is concerned parents ought
to be encouraged not to indulge before children in things which knowingly or
unknowingly promote prejudice. As for formal education, its syllabus and curriculum
should be designed to promote harmony between different sections of society. It should
aim at developing healthy minds. It has been found that higher and better formal
education leads to decreased prejudice and increased liberalism. Recently, psychologists
have devised a new method called cultural assimilator. In this method a group of
prejudice persons is explained about traditions, norms, beliefs and value system of
people of other communities and races so that they can appreciate those communities and
races in the light of recent information. A number of social psychologists have
successfully used this method.
Antiprejudice propaganda: Through mass media it has also been helpful in reducing
prejudice. In one of the studies it was found that films and documentaries aimed at
reducing prejudice have been successful in reducing prejudice upto 60 percent. Some
other psychologists have reported antiprejudice propaganda to be more effective than
formal education Incongruent role: It has been found that when a person is made to play
a role contrary
Incongruent role: It has been found that when a person is made to play a role contrary
to his prejudice it leads to reduction in prejudice after some time. It happens because
playing such role creates dissonance in the individual. This dissonance gives rise to
tension compelling the individual to change his prejudice 33 and restore balance between
his behaviour and attitude. The person can’t change Prejudice and Discriminaion his
behaviour as it is public but his prejudice. For example, if a person prejudiced against a
particular community is entrusted the task of welfare of that community, he is left with
no alternative but change his prejudice because he is not able to change his role
Social legislation: This is another method of reducing prejudice. Government in
different countries have adopted and enacted several legislations which prohibit
expression of prejudice in any form. Any public manifestation of prejudice is unlawful
and liable to punishment. Let us take the example of our own country. Our constitution
states that state shall not make any discrimination on the basis of caste, creed, sex, and
religion of the individual and no person shall be allowed to do so. Consequently, today
we don’t mind a harijan sitting beside us and offering prayer in the temple. Government
even encourages people for intercaste marriages. Persons belonging to deprived
communities or castes have been provided reservation in jobs.
Personality change techniques: This is for prejudice reduction to be effective a person
must have balanced personality and open mind. However in cases where prejudice is an
integral part of personality it becomes imperative to seek help of therapeutic treatment. A
number of psychotherapies have been developed to help such persons. For example, Play
therapy is an important tool for detecting prejudice at early stage and to bring
reformation in personality of children.