Role of affect and emotions in prejudice

Role of prompt and emotions in outragePrejudice is an fascinate topic in tender psychology. Most studies taper on its cognitive and social embodyations and rargonly do people nonice the signifi stoolce of happen upon in wrong. In this essay, the focus of interest is on shanghai and emotions as a theoretical base in understanding preconceived opinion. The function of emotions in inter mathematical group repositiones and evil is explored, coupled with the discussion on the antecedents, record, and consequences of intergroup emotions, which is illustrated by the circumstantiality of intergroup emotions and its importing conductal tendencies. The human trans carry throughhip betwixt intergroup emotion and intergroup lenity also shed light on formulate strategies to reduce prejudice.Prejudice is a preconceived judgment towards a group and its outgrowths (Myers, 2010). This evaluation hindquarters be either corroborative or negative. In the intergroup context, pre judice is a group-based attitude elicited by intergroup interaction (metalworker, 1993). fit to ABCs of attitudes, Myers states that attitude is composed by affect (feelings), behavior tendency (inclination to act) and cognition (beliefs). Affect plays an important role in prejudice (attitude). To differentiate prejudice, favoritism and stereotype in simple terms, prejudice is an attitude, discrimination is a behavior, and stereotype is a belief towards a group and its item-by-item members. They intertwine with one an opposite. Prejudice and stereotype argon neutral in comparison to discrimination which a good deal refers to negative behavior attributed to prejudicial attitudes.To stackvas intergroup processes, emotion is narrowed d aver to intergroup emotion duration groups ar divided up into cliques and outrgoups. Intergroup emotion is an emotion in the intergroup context. It includes emotions tangle towards ones own group and emotions felt towards the outgroup. The r ole of emotions in intergroup processes lies in emotions provoking peoples reactions and responses to outgroups, which in turn affects intergroup dealings.The antecedents of intergroup emotions are (1) group membership, (2) intergroup interactions and (3) appraisals. Firstly, group membership washbowl be explained by self-categorization system, self-discrepancy theory and social identity theory. According to the self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher Wetherell, 1987), people define themselves in personal terms and in terms of group memberships in the social context. When people identify themselves as group members, this cantonment membership becomes destiny of the self this excreteed social self (group) makes group membership and intergroup interactions resurrect emotional responses (Mackie metalworker, 2002). According to the self-discrepancy theory, people often match their actual self with their ideal self and ought self. The greater the discrepancy i n the midst of the matches, the greater the psychological discomfort. This is an emotion felt towards ones self and group. Mackie and Smith think that negative emotions are aroused when people perceive the attributes of their gang do not pit to those they wish or believe their summer camp ought to possess. Mackie and Smith give standards of dejection-related emotions including dissatisfaction, disappointment, sadness and hope littleness while agitation-related emotions include apprehension, nervousness, tension, existness and uneasiness. Social identity theory (Brown, 2000) proposes large number favoritism and outgroup derogation. In other words, ingroup love may extend to outgroup hatred. Ingroup identification can give rise to hostile reactions to outgroups in forms of prejudice and discrimination. This illustrates an emotion one felt towards the outgroup. Social Identity possibility is an example of ingroup bias resulting from ones purpose to enhance self-esteem by increa sing the positivity of ingroups and the negativity of outgroups. Another manifestation of intergroup bias is practical conflict theory, an ingroup bias which stems from hostility in response to a competitive and threatening outgroup (Shah, Brazy Higgins, 2002). The regulatory and affective needs are finish through ingroup bias.Secondly, intergroup interaction is antecedent to intergroup emotions. The nature of particular interactions between groups acts as a source of differentiated affective reactions (Mackie Smith, 2002). For example, interactions that produce corroboratory affect can promote the liking of further interaction with outgroup members. This shows the nature of interaction between groups as a determinant of emotions. This is further explored in the following discussion on intergroup relations.Thirdly, appraisals are also antecedent to intergroup emotions. Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002) describe the appraisal theories of emotion as a topographic point or a n event can bring nigh emotions when the individual concerns, coatings and motives are favour or harmed. Appraisals are a configuration of cognitions or beliefs, which triggers emotions. Ingroup emotions are triggered by group-based appraisals. For instance, if the social identity or integrity of the ingroup is threatened by the outgroup, the ingroup members may experience fear and anxiety. Appraisals cause emotions, which in turn equal to its specific action tendencies.The nature of intergroup emotions lies in intergroup relations. Intergroup relations can be exemplified by integrated threat theory and material body theory. Integrated threat theory reflects the role of threat in intergroup relations. Stephan and Renfro (2002) focus on four types of threat- earthy threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety and negative stereotyping. Realistic threats are threats to the group welfare including threats to the ingroup wellbeing. Stephan and Renfro (2002) propose that the concep t of realistic threats comes from realistic group conflict theory, which argues that contest for especial(a) resources giving rise to outgroup prejudice so realistic threats can have a broader denotation gist any threat to the group welfare, not just competition for limited resources. Symbolic threat is an intangible threat to the ingroup values and beliefs. According to Dovidio and Gaertner (1996), intergroup anxiety includes discomfort, apprehension, fear and disgust owing to the expectation of negative results in intergroup interactions. Stephan and Renfro (2002) believe that there are negative psychological outcomes (embarrassment), negative behavioural outcomes (exploitation or physical harm) and negative evaluations by the two ingroup and outgroup members. negatively charged stereotypes are simplifications and guidelines for social interactions leading people think the outgroup behaves detri rationally to the ingroup. In the integrated theory, the in a higher place four threats are considered to cause outgroup prejudice, which includes negative affect associated with outgroups arousing negative emotions alike dislike, disapproval and hatred towards the outgroup. Stephan and Renfro (2002) believe that the antecedents of threats stem from safe identification with the ingroup, prevalent negative contact with outgroup members, disparities in the status of the 2 groups and ignorance of the outgroup.On the flip side, the compass theory describes intergroup emotions on the basis of kindred patterns and outgroup images. Relationship pattern are described in terms of goal compatibility, status equality and power equality. Thus, an outgroup image is formed correspondent to the kinship pattern, thereby arousing specific intergroup emotions and behavioural orientation.There are two trigonal images where the two groups involved perceive the intergroup relations in the same way. brewer and Alexander (2002) describe enemy image as an intense competition between two groups similar in power and status with discordant goals. This intergroup relationship produces a feeling of threat. This arouses an affect of anger and prompts a behavioral tendency to eradicate the threat by containment or attack. Ally image is characterized with goal compatibility, equal status and power between groups (Brewer Alexander, 2002). This produces an image of nonthreatening with tyrannical attributes. Hence, emotions like admiration and trust are haved and it facilitates the behavioral inclination of intergroup cooperation. asunder from the aforesaid, there are asymmetric relationships having mutually incompatible intergroup goal mutuality and differing in power and status. Barbarian image arises when the relationship has incompatible goals with the ingroup having lower status but higher power. The outgroup is then seen as mephistophelean and destructive. Affects like fear and intimidation are likely to be see by the ingroup so its behavioral orienta tion tends to adopt a defensive protection. When the ingroup is weaker and lower in status, sentiments like jealousy and pettishness towards the outgroup are elicited. Behavioral orientation like resistance or confusion is expected. This associates with the imperialist image.Expressing and decoding emotions also play a part in intergroup relations. Emotional interactions between people involve feeling, expressing and perceiving (Leyens, Demoulin, Desert, Vaes Philipot, 2002). If one of the above goes wrong, intergroup relations is likely to be jeopardized and prejudice will arise. Inadequate rules and decoding of emotions may harm the intergroup interaction, leading to reciprocal misapprehensions at the level of feeling, expressing and perceiving. Such misunderstanding makes ingroup members fear, prevent or reject subsequent encounters with outgroup members. Hence, a wretched cycle is formed and it reinforces existing prejudice and discrimination.Based on the above discussion on the antecedents and nature of intergroup emotions, people experience emotions on behalf of their own group as they see themselves as a group member and others as fellow group members. These emotions make people manifest specific behavioral tendencies like collective action, effort in improvement of the intergroup relations and so on. Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination are also consequences of intergroup emotions. Specific emotions also correspond to different patterns of behavioral tendencies. Action tendency refers to the impulses or inclinations toward a token action. In the intergroup context, group-based appraisals of the situation or event often trigger specific intergroup emotions, which in turn trigger particular action tendencies and promote certain behaviors. According to Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002), fear and anxiety prompt ingroup members to throttle away from the outgroup while anger generates a motivation to attack or aggress the outgroup disgust and condescension trigger avoidance and separation while resentment and frustration spark off resistance and actions against the outgroup. These behavioral tendencies result from intergroup emotions.The specificity of intergroup emotions and behavioral tendencies can be explained by Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET). IET is grounded on self-categorization-the mental representations of self and group. When group membership is rooted in the self-concept, individuals care about situations and events concerning the group. This demonstates the emotional significance in intergroup situations. According to Devos, Silver, Mackie and Smith (2002), ingroup members often develop fear towards a threatening and powerful outgroup group conflicts generate anger frustration shows up when the goals and actions of ingroup are blocked by outgroup. An outgroup violating moral standards breeds disgust. Resentment results on seeing outgroup enjoying underserved benefits. Specific inclinations of behavior t follow suit. Anger and frustration cause resistance and aggression. Fear can prompt ingroup protection and escape from the disadvantaged situation. Disgust and contempt deter interactions with an outgroup. Mackie and Smith (2002) believe that there is a limitation for predicting corresponding behaviors. The prediction can only be an action tendency sort of than a concrete behavior because actual behaviors are constrained by situational factors and social norms. Action tendencies are deduced from affects and emotions so they can only represent an impulse or intention of actions. Mackie and Smith gave an example stating the constraint of situation factors concerning the presence of an outgroup or the means for the ingroup to act accordingly. Further example of social norms is that an ingroup having an inclination to attack and aggress the outgroup cannot display their aggression and act out due to social sanctions. Mackie and Smith suggest that an action tendency can be fulfilled by different concrete behaviors. For example, aggression can be elicited in terms of communicative aggression or physical aggression, which can prompt many other alternative concrete behaviors.On the other hand, the correlation between intergroup emotions and intergroup forgiveness is worthy-of-note. Noor, Brown and Prentice (2008) define intergroup forgiveness as a process which involves making a decision to learn new aspects about one-self and ones group-ones emotions, thoughts, and efficiency to inflict harm on others. This reflection on intergroup emotions and intergroup relations does not mean to devalue the severity and consequences of misdeeds, but to reverse the negativity of affect between the groups. Intergroup emotions play an important role in the willingness to engage in forgiveness. Emotions like pity, guilt and sympathy can melt peoples heart of match and motivate them to forgive. Experiencing empathy (compassion and sympathy) for an individual outgroup member ca n produce more positive attitudes towards the outgroup as a whole, thereby enabling forgiveness. Nevertheless, the willingness to forgive is difficult to accomplish at the group level. Noor, Brown and Prentice (2008) illustrate that some group members may be willing to forgive the outgroup but they might take off or withdraw their forgiveness in fear of shaking their ingroup loyalty.The above correlation between intergroup emotions and intergroup forgiveness sheds light on devising strategies to reduce prejudice. Intergroup forgiveness can be seen as a decisive step towards reconciliation. Intergroup reconciliation is much more than conflict resolution and the utmost of conflict. Intergroup forgiveness can motivate the ingroup to view the world from the outgroups spatial relation and standpoint with the intention to clarify misunderstandings, address mutual concerns and eliminate prejudice.The role of contact in reducing prejudice lies in promoting positive affects and intergro up friendship. Mackie and Smith (2002) discover that the number of acquaintances has an effect on prejudice, which is importantly mediated by prejudice. Their research analysis discovers that acquaintances reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions, both of which reduced prejudice. Mackie and Smith discover that the closeness of the relationship can significantly reduce prejudice when participants are aware of different group membership.Oskamp (2000) proposes the motivational approach of reducing feelings of threat from an outgroup, demonstrating that the outcomes of ingroups and outgroups are interdependent, and accentuating that each individual is accountable for intergroup events. This strategy corresponds to the Integrated Threat Theory and tackles some of the antecedents of threat like disparities in the status of the two groups. An antecedent of threat like frequent negative contact with outgroup members can be tackled by promoting favorable and recognize inter group contact to reduce prejudice. Another antecedent of threat like ignorance of the outgroup can be compensated by eliminating misunderstandings. This involves the appropriate expression and decoding of emotions between groups. Due to the illusion of transparency, most people have an impression that their expression of emotions is especially transparent for outgroups, but they are in fact less accurately perceived. This communication gap hinders favorable intergroup contact and reinforces existing prejudice. Hence, ingroup members may need to pay extra efforts to show their emotions to outgroupers to prevent prejudice. Myers (2010) suggests we can use guilt to motivate ourselves to break the prejudice habit. It is applicable in terms of collective guilt which urges collective action serving to change existing intergroup relations, correct past injustices and reduce ongoing inequality. As uneven status breeds prejudice, seeking cooperative and equal-status relationships can help r educe prejudice (Myers, 2010). The antecedent of threat-strong identification with the ingroup leads to ingroup bias (intergroup bias). This bias can be reduced by fostering a sense of be with outgroup members to satisfy peoples affective needs. This corresponds to our understanding of the social identity theory that explains ingroup favoritism and outgroup derogation. This sense of belonging arouses positive emotions of love, support and liking, in revision to reduce negative prejudice.To wrap up, the role of affect and emotions in prejudice cannot be underestimated. It is significant to grasp an understanding of correlations and causal relationships among affect, emotions, intergroup processes, intergroup emotions, behavioral tendencies, intergroup forgiveness and prejudice. With these understandings, affective aspect of prejudice can eventually be tackled and reduced.(2500 words)