Theories of Stereotypes

¶ … Allport (1979), what usually defines an in-group is that all of its members "use the term we with the same essential significance." (p. 31) The attachment in such cases is variable and flexible, meaning one can change profession or school and thus become member of a different in-group. By in-groups, we therefore understand a particular affiliation to smaller groups or groups which belong to certain constructions. Ethnic groups and race groups are also considered part of the category; however, these are understood as much larger assemblies.

Secondly, "intergroup" refers to the relations occurring between two or more social groups. Stereotyping occurs both in-group and intergroup. This assumes that, within an in-group, although individuals share similar visions in relation to the nature of the group, stereotyping may still occur. Because any group is of social nature, different organizational structures and ranks will exist. As such, within an in-group, higher-status and dominant units exert influence upon most of the in-group.

When high -- ranked groups criticize those under their subordination, the latter may come to assimilate those negative perceptions, the discriminatory behavior leading thus to feelings of low self-esteem or dissociation. This can result into what has come to be known as negative in-group stereotyping. It occurs "when an individual embraces a negative stereotype regarding his or her own group" (Burkley & Blanton, 2008, p. 37) as a consequence of having internalized "others' negative perceptions regarding their own group." (Burkley & Blanton, 2008, p.

38) For example, some women may use the old "women are bad at math" myth to excuse a poor performance. Castano et al. (2002) affirmed that, in such situations, "An ingroup member can jeopardize the ingroup reputation." (p. 366) The social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978, 1981; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) sought to redefine the psychological construction which relates an individual to a group and implies categorization processes and behaviors. The discriminatory effect was interpreted in relation to categorization, social comparison, and social identity.

This interpretation assumed that individuals create the social reality by perceiving themselves and others in significant categories. As such, the formation of social identity is a consequence of self -- perception in relation to categorization, thus of conscientious affiliation. Social comparison is when individuals either affiliate themselves with similar members who will foreground the group's position by comparison or resort to bias behavior, by discriminating against (perceived) inferior groups. This hypothesis of course illustrates stereotyping behavior of intergroup relations as well.

Groups therefore, behaviorally determined to attain a positive social identity, will resort to strategies that will ameliorate self-esteem. Realistic conflict theory submitted the idea that intergroup behavior can only be understood by examining the functional relations between groups. These relations can be either competitive or cooperative. Sherif (1966), proponent of the theory, believed that both competitiveness and conflict result from objective motivations (acquiring material and financial assets, power, etc.). These trigger prejudice and bias behavior in favor of the in-group.

Sherif exemplified this objective reasoning by referring to confrontations between workers and their employers in relation to work contracts, wage, etc. And other similar situations. Further, his studies indicated that groups, when motivated by a mutual objective, tend to strengthen intergroup relation and generate less prejudice.

However, this theory assumed that all conflicts are naturally negative, an idea that does not apply to social injustice and inequality circumstances, in which case, surging conflicts can actually result into favorable outcomes when underprivileged individuals resolve to enforce equilibrium between unfavorable past situations and current state of affairs. We have examined stereotyping in relation to intergroup perspectives, whether in-group discrimination or assumptions between groups. This is generally regarded as an intergroup perspective.

There exists however an individual perspective, a standpoint from which different relating concepts have been proponed to discuss stereotyping. Some psychologists thus asserted that it is only through an individualistic paradigm that intergroup relations can be explained. Conceptual ideas in relation to the individual perspective are however derived from previous theories such as Freud's claim of identification. Asserting individualistic identification such as a child's with a parental figure and collective identification -- group members identify with their leaders, dislike towards out-groups occurs thus as a result of identification.

This psychodynamic approach has provided basis for studying intergroup relations and explaining stereotyping through such theories like the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950) and the scapegoat theory (Dollard et al., 1939). The first attempted to identify personality traits in relation to susceptible to prejudice individuals who, because of their authoritarian and propagandistic attitude, threatened to jeopardize democratic societies. This theory assumed that authoritarian regimes predispose to unfair judgment because of a dogmatic mentality that tends to inhibit objective perceptions.

In the anti-Semitic regime, the in-group was regarded strictly positive by its members while the out-group (the Jewish people) was discriminated against collectively. The scapegoat theory assumes that frustration is reason enough for aggression. If an individual aspires to something and is psychologically inhibited along the process, the resulting frustration.