UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 5.2 Free with a free account
Where Bias Begins: Tracing the Theories and Origins of Prejudice
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 5: Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup ConflictSection 5.2 · lesson 26 of 8511 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Us Against Them: How Realistic Conflict Theory Explains Discrimination →← Labels, Bias, and Exclusion: Understanding Prejudice, Discrimination, and StereotypesNext lesson: Us Against Them: How Realistic Conflict Theory Explains Discrimination →
In this lesson
Four explanatory traditions, and why they are levels rather than rivals.
- Compare personality, motivational, learning, and group-based accounts
- Explain how frustration, threat, and social learning each contribute
- Evaluate the strengths and limits of each tradition
- Integrate the causes into a multi-level explanation
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,511 words). Read along, or search it.
Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Intergroup Conflict
Where Bias Begins
Where does prejudice come from? The honest answer is that the question is badly formed. It assumes a single origin, and there is not one. More than seventy years of work has produced four explanatory traditions. Each of them is supported. Each of them is incomplete. This section takes all four seriously, in order. Personality and ideology. Motivation and threat. Social learning. Group identity. Then we do the harder thing, which is to fit them together. The payoff is a framework where the traditions are levels rather than rivals. And where each one's limitation is answered by another.
The Framing
Why a Single Cause Will Not Suffice
Start with the framing, because it determines how you read everything after. Prejudice is not the product of any one psychological mechanism. Across more than seventy years, four broad traditions have emerged. Personality and ideology, which asks who is susceptible. Motivation and frustration, which asks what mobilizes bias. Social learning, which asks how it is transmitted. And group-based identity, which asks why groups matter at all. Each captures part of the phenomenon. None of them, on its own, explains the full range of bias observed. Not in the field, and not in the laboratory. So a mature account treats these as complementary lenses. Not as competing answers to one question.
Adorno et al., 1950
The Authoritarian Personality
The earliest systematic theory located prejudice in personality structure. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford published it in nineteen fifty. The book is The Authoritarian Personality. It was written in the aftermath of the Holocaust, and the question was specific. How does an ordinary population become capable of that? Their causal claim ran through child-rearing. Punitive child-rearing produces a particular adult syndrome. Submissive to authority. Hostile to deviance. Rigidly conventional. The original measure was called the F-scale. It was criticized for methodological weaknesses, and those criticisms landed. But the construct outlived its first instrument, which is worth noticing. This tradition asks a question the others do not ask. Not what causes prejudice, but who is most susceptible to it.
Two Ideologies
RWA and SDO
The tradition survived by getting sharper. Two constructs now carry most of its predictive weight. And they are genuinely not the same thing. Altemeyer refined the original into right-wing authoritarianism, in nineteen eighty-one. It measures submission, aggression, and conventionalism. It remains a robust predictor of prejudice toward many outgroups. What it emphasizes is order, and conformity. Social dominance orientation is the parallel construct. Sidanius and Pratto introduced it in nineteen ninety-nine. It captures preference for group-based hierarchy. What it emphasizes is inequality, and dominance. Together, the two account for a substantial share of variance in generalized prejudice. More than either one does alone. They are conceptually distinct, and they often co-occur. Duckitt called that combination the dual-process model of ideology and bias.
Displacement
Frustration, Aggression, and the Scapegoat
The second tradition treats prejudice as motivated displacement of aggression. Dollard and colleagues proposed the frustration-aggression hypothesis in nineteen thirty-nine. Blocked goals generate hostile impulses. That is the first step. The second step is the interesting one. Often the true source of frustration cannot be attacked. It is too powerful, or too diffuse, to be a target at all. So aggression is displaced onto weaker, more visible groups. That is the classic scapegoat dynamic, and it has a real history behind it. Hovland and Sears offered early empirical support in nineteen forty. An archival analysis of lynchings during economic downturns. Cite that evidence carefully, though. More recent re-analyses have qualified the strength of that effect. And the tradition has a deeper structural problem. The direction of displacement is very hard to predict in advance.
Stephan And Stephan
Integrated Threat Theory
Modern motivational accounts emphasize threat rather than frustration as such. Stephan and Stephan set out integrated threat theory in two thousand. It identifies four distinct sources of intergroup anxiety. Realistic threat is perceived competition over resources, jobs, or political power. Symbolic threat is a perceived challenge to ingroup values, traditions, or worldview. Those two are often confused, and they behave differently. Intergroup anxiety is discomfort anticipated in face-to-face contact with outgroup members. Not a belief about them. An expectation about the encounter itself. The fourth source is negative stereotypes. Specifically, the expectation that the outgroup will behave badly toward the ingroup. Now the property that makes this theory useful. Each form of threat predicts prejudice independently. So interventions that address one do not necessarily reduce the others. That is a hard constraint on applied work in immigration, policing, and inter-ethnic conflict.
In Practice
Perceived Threat, Not Objective Competition
Here is what that looks like outside the laboratory. Survey research across several democracies finds a consistent pattern. Anti-immigrant sentiment rises during periods of perceived economic insecurity. And here is the detail that makes it theoretically interesting. It rises even when actual unemployment among the host population is stable. The objective competition has not changed. The sentiment has. Integrated threat theory explains why this happens. Perceived realistic threat is what drives the response. Not objective competition, which can sit completely still while perception moves. This has direct implications for political communication. And for the design of contact-based interventions. Correcting the economic facts need not shift the perception that produced the hostility.
Bandura, 1977
Prejudice as Something Learned
The third tradition is the most ordinary, and the easiest to underrate. Bandura's social learning theory, from nineteen seventy-seven. It situates prejudice in everyday socialization. Children acquire bias the same way they acquire language and table manners. Through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Of attitudes modeled by parents, peers, teachers, and media. Nobody sits a child down and teaches this deliberately. Devine and colleagues added the finding that makes this uncomfortable. Even people who explicitly reject prejudice retain culturally learned associations. And those associations can still be activated automatically. You do not get to opt out of what you absorbed. This forces a reframe that is worth stating carefully. Prejudice is less a flaw of individual character. It is more a residue of the social environment a person was embedded in.
The Symmetry
Social Learning Cuts Both Ways
Now the tradition's most useful implication, and the most underused one. If bias is learned, then so is its opposite. And by exactly the same mechanisms. Pro-egalitarian norms can be acquired with equal facility. There is nothing special about bias that makes it stick harder. But two conditions have to be met, and both are required. The norms must be modeled by respected ingroup members. And they must be reinforced by institutional practice. A stated policy nobody follows teaches the opposite lesson. This is why three things get sustained attention in prejudice-reduction research. Classroom climate, parental discourse, and media representation. The tradition does have its own limit, and it is a real one. It does not explain why some learners resist. Two children in the same household do not reliably end up in the same place.
Tajfel And Turner
The Categorical Engine
The fourth tradition shifts the analytic lens entirely. Tajfel and Turner's social identity theory, from nineteen seventy-nine. It moves from individuals to the groups they belong to. People derive part of their self-concept from group memberships. And they are motivated to maintain a positive social identity. Now notice the cheapest available route to that positive identity. Favorable comparison with an outgroup. Which shades very easily into derogation of that outgroup. You do not have to raise your own side. You can lower theirs. The minimal group studies produced the decisive finding. Even arbitrary, content-free categorization is sufficient. Sufficient to produce ingroup favoritism, with no history or grievance involved. Any complete theory of prejudice must accommodate that result. Its limitation is equally clear. It cannot explain the content of specific stereotypes. It tells you a boundary will be favored, not what will be believed about the other side.
Side By Side
Four Traditions, Four Limitations
Put the four traditions side by side, and read the last column first. Personality and ideology says stable traits dispose individuals to bias. Its limitation is that it underplays situational variability. Frustration and threat says motivational states channel hostility toward weaker groups. Its limitation is that the direction of displacement is hard to predict. Social learning says prejudice is acquired from socializing agents. Its limitation is that it cannot explain why some learners resist. Social identity says group membership itself generates ingroup bias. Its limitation is that it cannot fully explain stereotype content. Now look at what just happened across those four rows. Each tradition's limitation is answered by one of the others. Situational variability is exactly what threat theory supplies. Stereotype content is exactly what social learning supplies. That is the clue that these are levels rather than rivals.
Consolidate
Nested Levels, Not Rival Hypotheses
So here is the integration, in four words. Who, when, what, and why at all. Personality and ideology shape who is most susceptible. Threat and frustration determine when latent bias gets mobilized. Social learning supplies the cultural content. Which groups are targeted, and what is believed about them. And group identity supplies the basic categorical engine underneath all of it. Contemporary research increasingly treats these as nested levels of analysis. Not as rival hypotheses competing for a single explanation. Five terms to carry into the rest of the chapter. The authoritarian personality, and its refinement into right-wing authoritarianism. Social dominance orientation, which is about hierarchy rather than order. The frustration-aggression hypothesis, and its scapegoat dynamic. And integrated threat theory, with its four independent sources.
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Where Bias Begins: Tracing the Theories and Origins of Prejudice
What is the authoritarian personality theory of prejudice?
What is the difference between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation?
What is the scapegoat theory of prejudice?
What are the four types of threat in integrated threat theory?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →