In society certain individuals may hold explicit

Insociety certain individuals may hold explicit and implicit attitudes that areof a prejudicial or discriminatory nature based on ones gender or race. TheNature of Prejudice (Allport, 1954) is argued to be one of the firststarting points and being one of the most influential frameworks for exploringprejudice. Thiswas identified by using an independent measure design.

21 male and 20 female Universityof Gloucestershire students, who were required to complete a SituationalAttitude Scale (1974) and The Modern Sexism Scale (1995) there were twoindependent variables used. On the first attempt one variable was applied, andon the second attempt the other variable was applied. Once completed, the aimwas to assess if these variables were a factor that would affect the applicant’sthoughts or emotions they would feel in a particular scenario on a face valuebasis. Ultimately, looking at the results and seeing how many applicants werepotentially prejudiced when it comes to an individual’s gender or race. Rejecting the hypothesis, results indicated a non-significant interaction on the participant beingprejudiced because of ones gender and ethnicity. There was a main effect of participantswho answered participants who felt more prejudiced ‘ task difficulty’; participantsreported significantly more stress in the ‘ difficult’ condition.  There was a non-significant main effect of’time’. These results provide important information about the role of taskdifficulty on perceived stress scores.

Re DO THAT ^^^         IntroductionSome suggestthat the definition of prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping have alteredover the years. Typically, prejudice is viewed as a negative attitude toward aparticular group of people. (Lippmann, 1922) Whereas, this differs from discrimination, as a prejudiced person may choose to not act upon their views, whereas to be discriminatorytowards someone, this involves actual behaviour. (Rodgers, W. M. 2009). There is a vast amount of evidence available that supports the argumentthat society is filled with prejudice and discrimination throughout the years.

Anotable example would be the homophobic views that the Russian government/society have toward the LGBT society. Active discrimination is present as anumber of laws have been put in place that threatens to sanction any member ofsociety in violation of these laws. Any depictions of homosexuality are banned, which included any organisation of pride parades and carrying the rainbow flag.(Wilkinson, C 2014) Some may argue that the reason individuals are prejudiced and discriminatorytowards certain members of society can be due to a number of factors.

One beingcould be how the media is used to fuel hateful stereotypes and prejudicedviews. The media is a significant influence on the people in the twenty firstcentury. Pop psychology tabloid newspapers such as The Sun can be used as anotable example that fuels hateful views on certain social groups where a headingof newspaper was published with the heading of ‘ 1 in 5 Muslims are Terrorist’ althoughthis statement can be interpreted differently, some may argue that thisgeneralises the belief that ‘ most’ Muslims are terrorist. A statement was laterreleased stating that the story was misleading. (Worley, W 2016) Other factors suchas the law is suggested to have made an impact on beingprejudice/discriminatory. An early case of this would be women being grantedequal voting rights to men in nineteen forty four, the decriminalisation ofhomosexuality in nineteen sixty seven, and lastly when the Race Relations actoutlaws racial discrimination in nineteen seventy six. (UK Public General Acts.

n. d.)  Through thismovement, it was shown to the public that discrimination would not betolerated, and allowed the factors that lead to people discriminating such asbeing prejudice and stereotypes to be taken more seriously. Gender can be identified as a factor for anindividual to be prejudice against. When considering the stereotypes that conveythe image of woman holding the qualities of being supportive and warm, asopposed to men being aggressive and domineering, some may suggest that newtheories imply that this bad/good gendered continuum may be apparent in an additionalsocial behaviour which is intergroup prejudice (Dozo, N 2015) Research indicates that there are commonstereotypes that affect how one person may treat another based on their gender, thus making them prejudice. For example, (Swim et al, 1995) ModernSexism Scale measures the attitude of people toward women. Results from thisscale showed that men who held racist/prejudice views also held sexist viewsthat showed discrimination against women. Therefore this study shows that raceand gender are factors that people are prejudice towards.

(Fiske, T, S 2015) Ethnicityhas been recognised as an additional factor for an individual to be prejudiceagainst. Civil Rights Movement Leader Martin Luther King (1963) is argued tohave spoken one of the most influential and iconic speeches of time. ­Hetouches deeply on the racial tensions of that time that black Americans weregoing through. One of MLK quotes were “ Let us all hope that the dark clouds ofracial prejudice will soon pass away” For example, The Situational AttitudeScale (1974) was developed to measure the attitudes of white people towardsblack people when in particular situations.

Results showed that in thesituations where the participant would be closer to a black person, the more negativethe response would be (Sedlacek, W. E. 2017To date there is little research into what causes prejudicebehaviour against ones ethnicity and gender. It could be suggested that this isbecause prejudice is an attitude and is hard to address, it can only be trulyaddressed when it becomes discrimination as the individual is acting upon theirthoughts through behaviour. Present studies explore the cause and effect onprejudice behaviour, through measures such as questionnaires etc. Through the researchconducted, which is the Modern Sexism Scale and Situational Attitude scalewhich both show that factors such as ethnicity and gender can cause people tobe prejudiced.

However, more research was able to be found regarding race asopposed to gender. Some may argue that this is due to the attention that hasbeen placed on the prejudicial views, for race relations is proving to be asignificant social problem in the United States. The experimental hypotheses are thatindividuals are prejudice because of your gender, because of your ethnicity, and because of your ethnicity and gender  re do THESE  MethodParticipantsA reviewof existing literature does not specify an expected effect size, therefore, amedium effect size was used to calculate prospective power.

Applying Cohen’s(1992) power primer it was calculated that for a probability level of . 05 itwould be necessary to test a total of 180 participants (45 per level of eachfactor). Due to time constraints, an opportunity sample of 81 undergraduatestudents at the University of Gloucestershire (males, 20, females, 21, meanage= 19. 5 SD= 4. 37) participated. A 2×2 independent measuresfactorial design was utilised.

The first factor was ethnicity (white or black)and the second factor gender (male or female)                      the dependent variable wasthe score on an adaptation of the Situational Attitude Scale (see appendix A). administeredafter the Modern Sexism Scale (see appendix b) MaterialsThe SituationalAttitude Scale was implemented to try and measure if the participants heldimplicit/explicit prejudice views in regards to one’s ethnicity i. e., a white person’sattitude towards a black person.

Participants completed a 100 itemquestionnaire, however on some of the forms the word black was put into eachsituation to see if race may be a variable in the participant’s reaction to thesituation, the forms were evenly distributed. The validity of the test was figuredout by the mean response between the two questionnaires by using t tests. Results shown by inserting theword “ black” into the five situations led to the participants responding morenegatively when race was mentioned. However, this did vary due to how close thepersonal contact was towards the person of black ethnicity, if the personalcontact was distant, somewhat strong positive feelings were shown.

In addition,(Swim et al, 1995) Modern Sexism Scale was used to see if the participantshowed any prejudiced attitudes due to someone’s gender. The procedure consistsof five items that are rated on a 7 point, Likert-type scale. It is based onthe traditional gender roles, the varying treatment of men and women, and thestereo-types that surround females being not as competent as males. These itemsare derived from McConahay’s Old-Fashioned Racism Scale. Participants finished apacket of racism questionnaires that were intended to reflect oldfashioned/sexism on the response scales.

(1= strongly disagree, 9= strongly disagree)and scale scores can range from 1-25 where the higher the score, representsold-fashioned sexism.   ProcedureParticipantswere allocated at random to the level of the factors which was ethnicity, whiteor black and gender, male or female. The experiment took place in a lecturetheatre at the end of psychology lectures (permission sought and granted fromthe lecturer) on two different occasions, based on whether the participantswere female or male. Participants completed the two measures individually. Participantsprovided informed consent see appendix ??? ) and were made fully aware of theirright to withdraw both during and after the experiment.

Participants were providedwith a copy of each of the scales used. To begin the process participantscompleted the questionnaires with no time limit. They firstly completed theSituational Attitude Scale, followed the Modern Sexism Scale. Once finished, the particpants were de-briefed and thanked for their involvement. (SeeAppendix ??? )  ResultsThe assumptions of the data werethat they were independent, there was homogeneity of variance and that the datawas normally distributed.

The design was independent, as participants took partin only one level of each factor. The sample of participants was homogenous asLevene’s value was p = 0. 93 (ns)supporting the assumption of homogeneity of variance.

Normal distribution waschecked using histograms (see appendix ). These appeared to indicate normaldistribution. Further screening was conducted in each condition by dividing theskewness statistic by its standard error.     Skewness Kurtosis Statistic S/E Value Assumption Satisfied Y/N Statistic S/E Value Assumption Satisfied Y/N Factor A cond 1 – Female -. 263 . 550 0. 49 Y -1.

355 1. 063 -1. 27 Y Factor A cond 2 – Male . 083 . 481 0. 17 Y -1. 695 . 935 -1.

81 Y Factor B cond 1 – White -1. 865 . 524 -3. 56 N 3. 137 1.

014 3. 1 N Factor B cond 2- Black 1. 304 .

501 2. 6 N . 611 . 972 0. 63 Y   In summary these screeningprocedures show that the data were normally distributed. For independentfactors Levenes Test of Equality of Errors Variance (see appendix G) wasconducted, the sample of participants was not homogenous, p= 0. 93 (ns), meaningthat the assumption of homogeneity of variance can be rejected. Due toviolation of this assumption, the results need to be treated with caution.

To test whether gender andethnicity was a factor in prejudice behaviour a 2 (gender: female or male) x 2(ethnicity: white or black) independent measures Factorial ANOVA was conductedon perceived prejudice scores. There was a significant main effect of gender, F(1, 36) = . 857, P < .

05 (. 85), (NP2 = . 001, power = 0. 54) F(1, 36)=. 000, P <. 05(23. 544), (NP2=.

395  power =. 0997)F(1, 36)=. 210, P < .

05 (. 650), (NP2=. 650, power = 0. 73)                DiscussionThe presentresearch sought to explain interaction effects of gender and ethnicity onprejudiced attitudes. Resultsoffered no support for the experimental hypothesis that perceived prejudicewould be greater in participants who were ………………….. aside from this non-significantinteraction, when comparing to see if the participant was more prejudicedtowards someone’s ethnicity as opposed to their gender there was no significantdifference between the two.

However the other main effect was significant thatthe candidate was more prejudiced to the combination of both gender andethnicity. Researchby (Brown, R 1995) ‘ Old and New Prejudice’ statesthat there are three themes when it comes to prejudice and stereotyping. The firstbeing, that prejudice is not a static phenomenon, and that a significant amountof studying has been put into to demonstrate that pejorative stereotypes ofcertain minority groups that were an ordinary assumption of them fifty yearsago, are much less seen in society today.

Theme number two is that prejudice isn’t a monolithic concept. Thethird theme is that prejudiced can’t always be judged on face value, as thereare some features that are out of our control/ conscious awareness, meaningthat it is implicit. Furthermore that there are still varying debates thatprejudices is on the decline, and others argue that it’s still just as present.