Academic journal article International Journal of Education and Management Studies

Group Favoritism and Perceived Discrimination among Student of Different Social Categories

Academic journal article International Journal of Education and Management Studies

Group Favoritism and Perceived Discrimination among Student of Different Social Categories

Article excerpt

Intergroup behavior is core concern of social psychology. Intergroup harmony is associated with positive intergroup attitudes and conflict with negative attitude. Hogg (2000) suggested that key function of social group is structure and event of their social world. To serve this function, group members must be seen to share attributes that explain their common behaviors and the treatment, they receive from others (Oakes, Haslam & Turner 1994; Tajfel 1981), the real group differences (often the result of socio economic factors) provide the foundation or soil for stereotype content. Oakes et al ( 1994), Tajfel (1981), Turner and Reynolds (2001 ) have argued that relationship between intergroup perception and intergroup attitude is much like other forms of social knowledge. Intergroup attitudes are not more or less rational than any other inference that people make about their social world. Social identity approaches have focused on the importance of present situational constrains as well as the broad consistent pattem of intergroup relations in determining the specific stereotype that are brought to mind particular cross group interaction.

Inter group attributes serve not only to clarify the position of group but also to justify their status and treatment (Ebemhardt & Randall 1997; Fiske 1993a; Goodwin, Gubin, Fiske & Yzerbyt, 2000; Hoffman & Hurst 1990; Jost & Banaji 1994). Attributing laziness, stupidity, or evil to low status groups not only explain their disadvantage but also serve as a justification for their continuing victimization. This justification function of intergroup attitude may be motivated by basic psychological motives, including consistency motives (see Crandall & Beasley 2001), the need for predictability and control the avoidance of aversive feelings of subjective uncertainty (Hogg 2000; Hogg & Abrams 1973), and need to see one's world to just. Learner (1980) suggested that in order to feel reassured about their own position, perceivers justify the occurrence of misfortune by putting some responsibility on sufferer. This idea has been applied to group to explain the derogatory intergroup attitude often directed as groups that suffer as a result of their low status in the social hierarchy (Major & Schmader 2001 ; Sidanious & Pratto 1991).

The justification process affects not only out group representation but also our stereotypes and evaluation of the in group. Members of high status groups tend to represent their in-group in very positive term. Beyond their obvious ego enhancing benefit, these positive in-group characterizations provide legitimization of our high status position and justification for continued in-group favoritism. Similarly, low status group members may be convinced to accept the unpleasant characterization and evaluation of their in group as justifying their low status and poorer treatment (Jost and Banaji 1994; Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996; Sidanious & Pratto 1999). Jost, Burgess and Mosso, (2001 ) consider that high status group members can meet their motivation for self enhancement, enhancement of the in-group and justification of the social system simultaneously by generating positive in group characterization and negative out group characterization. For low status groups, these three motives are in conflict. This conflict provides a potential explanation for some of the important negative psychological consequences of disadvantage group status. Jost shows that under some circumstances the need to justify the broader social system can lead disadvantaged groups to show out- group favoritism and accept the negative characterization ornegative self stereotyping for in group.

Discrimination has been defined as a 'behavioral manifestation' of negative attitude, judgment or unfair treatment towards members of a group (Pascoe & Richman, 2009). People hold negative attitude towards the members of various groups. These groups can not express these negative views directly. …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.