Research conducted in India, Malaysia and Singapore in the 1970s and 1980s shows how unique social contexts can affect attribution styles. It also shows how self-serving bias and self-effacing attributions can occur within a culture that is often labelled ‘collectivist’.
Hewstone and Ward (1985)
This study was carried out among existing ethnic groups (Chinese and Malays), first in Malaysia and then in Singapore. Participants were given the following scenarios and asked to make attributions, which might be internal or external.
Scenario 1. A passer-by notices you have fallen off your bicycle. The passer-by is:
• Malay and helps you. Why?
• Chinese and helps you. Why?
• Malay and ignores you. Why?
• Chinese and ignores you. Why?
Scenario 2. It is raining and you seek refuge from a householder, who is:
• Malay and hospitable. Why?
• Chinese and hospitable. Why?
Culture and prejudice
If culture affects the way we construe ourselves and attribute our suc- cesses and failures, we might also expect it to influence our attitudes towards those around us. In other words, our self-serving biases (me against you) may be echoed in our inter-group relations (us against them). In-group biases, along with out-group denigration that often accompanies them, are known as prejudice.
Social psychology has produced several explanations for the origins of attitudes (usually negative) towards particular social groups (see Table 7.2). These models have been researched in their cultures of origin but, as the following section indicates, there is some support for them across cultures.
• Malay and inhospitable. Why?
• Chinese and inhospitable. Why?
A mixture of self-serving and self-effacing contextual attributions emerged. In Malaysia overall attributions, by both Malays and Chinese, seemed to favour Malays. Very often Chinese participants ‘joined in’ with attributions that were biased against them. Yet in Singapore, Malays denigrated Chinese less severely than they did in Malaysia, and the Chinese made attributions that reflected a more positive self-image. In all, trends towards unrestrained in-group bias were absent, as were across-the-board self-effacing attributions. Why?
Hewstone and Ward sought explanations in social contexts of their experiments. In Malaysia in 1985 ethnic Malays outnumbered Chinese by 53% to 36%. Yet the Chinese were an affluent minority. Government policy encouraged positive discrimination towards Malays to close the economic gap between the two groups. Inter-ethnic animosity was rife, as the data from the Malay respondents reflect. Another consequence of this scenario may have been a Chinese tendency to develop a
‘second-class citizen’ mentality, internalising the values of an out- numbered, marginalised minority. This may partly explain their negative auto-stereotypes (in a subsequent Australian study, Feather (1995) replicated Hewstone and Ward’s discovery of out-group favouritism among arguably marginalised minority groups).
These contextual interpretations are consistent with the theoretical approach of cultural psychology (see Chapter 5).
KEY TERM
Prejudice. Attitudes (usually negative) towards particular social groups, based on their group membership.
Global support for theories of prejudice Minimal groups
Replications of Tajfel-like experiments (see key study) across seven industrialised nations revealed cultural differences in the minimal groups effect, with a pronounced in-group bias effect in the US, Germany and the Netherlands and smaller one in the UK, Ireland and Switzerland (Mullen et al., 1992). Interestingly, though, in-group bias
TABLE 7.2
Social psychological theories on the origins of prejudice Minimal groups
theory (Tajfel, 1981)
Derived from Tajfel’s (1981) social identity theory (see key study opposite), this theory argues that we are likely to compare in-groupers’ attributes favourably with those of out-groupers simply because we perceive that the latter belong to a different social group. Prejudice against out-groups arises out of a perception of inter-group difference, however trivial the criteria are for those differences.
For example: Because your group supports a different football team I am prejudiced against you.
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Lack of contact between social groups is associated with the development of negative inter-group attitudes. Animosity will decrease as contact increases because of the resulting erosion in mutual ignorance. To be meaningful, though, contact must be equal status (where no group holds power over the other), non- competitive, with the existence of superordinate goals (shared by both sides) and legitimised by authority.
For example: Because I am ignorant of your group’s lifestyle and values, I am prejudiced against you.
Social dominance theory (Sidanius
& Pratto, 1999)
Prejudice is related to differing status between social groups. High-status groups often adopt a social dominance orientation (SDO) to legitimise their dominance.
SDO promotes in-group identification and prejudice against out-groups.
Interestingly, SDO can be adopted by low-status groups, resulting in-group derogation.
For example: Because I want to protect our elevated status, I am prejudiced against your group.
Realistic conflict theory
(Sherif, 1966)
Knowing that someone belongs to a different group from us may be a basis for prejudice, but only where there is competition for scarce resources between those groups. Where group goals can be achieved only at the expense of another group’s aspirations, conflict of interests will give rise to prejudice.
For example: Because there is only a limited amount of cake to be distributed between my group and yours, I am prejudiced against you.
Historical representation theory (Liu et al., 2003)
From the perspective of cultural psychology (see Chapter 5), Liu et al. see inter- group prejudice arising from conflicting interpretive representations of history.
Past disputes over land claims or human rights abuses thus inform the development of present-day attitudes, perhaps precluding harmonious inter- group relations.
For example: Because of our ancient quarrels over land, I am prejudiced against your group.
did not show up in groups that had been assigned low status. They often displayed out-group bias, which actually offers support for social dominance theory. Cultural differences in the minimal group effect have also emerged in a series of replications in Australasia, suggesting that the maximum difference strategy (see key study) is not universally pre- ferred across cultures. Compared with a European condition which did adopt this strategy, Polynesian participants from Maori and Samoan communities were more likely to select the more egalitarian maximum joint rewards strategy (Wetherell, 1982).
Contact
Does presence make the heart grow fonder? Cross-cultural testing of Allport’s hypothesis suggests that it might. Pettigrew and Tropp (2000) reviewed 2030 studies from various cultural settings, in workplaces,