My Essay

What is the difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism? Does genuine altruism exist? Discuss in relation to social psychological aspects of evolutionary theory and related research.

Word Count: 1472
Prosocial and altruistic behaviours are both behaviours that serve for the good of others and society. However, research has shown that there are important differences between the two types of behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to distinguish between prosocial behaviour and altruism, as well as discussing whether or not genuine altruism exists. Following this discussion, a brief conclusion will be made in relation to whether the research agrees or disagrees with the concept of altruism.

Prosocial behaviour is any behaviour that serves for the good of others or society as a whole (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The purpose of this behaviour is to build positive relationships in society. This can be done by conforming to society’s norms. Baumeister & Bushman (2008) state that norms are types of behaviours that are expected by society. Wiessner (2005) studied 308 phone conversations between Ju/’hoansi Bushmen. He found that their group grew stronger by punishing people who violated group norms. Therefore, norms can be strengthened by either punishment or reward. Reciprocity is the moral obligation to return in kind what another has done (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008), and is a strong motivation to behave prosocially. According to Buss as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008), an individual’s ability to reproduce is dependent on his or her position within the group. The position within a group is usually determined by the amount or the extent of prosocial behaviours performed toward the group. Therefore, prosocial behaviour can be just as beneficial for the helper as it is for another or for the rest of society.

Altruism or altruistic behaviour is different from prosocial behaviour in the way that it is non-beneficial or disadvantageous to the individual who performs such a behaviour for the benefit of others. The 19th century philosopher Auguste Comte (1875) described two forms of helping behaviours that have been studied in depth (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Egoistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase his or her welfare. The helper expects something in return for their help. In contrast to egoistic helping, altruistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase another’s welfare. Therefore, the altruistic helper should expect nothing in return for their help.

The rest of this paper will discuss whether altruism truly exists, or if all helping is simply egoistic. The following are examples of acts of altruism that were cited in Peterson & Seligman (2004):
- Angela Salawa of Krakow, Poland who looked after WW1 soldiers of all nationalities.
- Oskar Schindler of Nazi Germany who rescued some 1200 Jews during the holocaust.
- Katherine Drexel of Philadelphia who founded a number of mission centres and schools for Native Americans
- Numbers of individuals and organisations (e.g., Red Cross) who fly to terror attacks (e.g., 9/11) and natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) to help others in need.

One example that Peterson & Seligman (2004) did not mention was the heroics of Chiune Sugihara from Japan. Chiune Sugihara was the Deputy Consul General to Lithuania. Chiune Sughiara saved 5,000-10,000 Jews. He did this by illegally giving out visas to stranded Jewish refugees who were seeking to escape from Nazi persecution (The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee, 2000). There is no doubt that the costs and risks associated with his behaviours far outweighed the benefits, that is, if there were any benefits at all.

Empathy is the ability to either experience the emotional state of another or to display a pitiful emotion associated with the downfall of another (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Empathic concern is a strong predictor of altruistic behaviour (Unger & Thumuluri, 1997). It also explains a significant variance of these behaviours (McNeely & Meglino, 1994). Bierhoff, Klein, & Kramp (1991) postulated the presence of empathy in individuals who help in emergencies. Warneken & Tomasello as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008) used 18 month-old toddlers in a study where an adult confederate would either drop something or simply throw something down. If the adult dropped the object and made it look like an accident (as shown by a facial expression), the toddlers were more likely to help pick-up the object for the adult. If the adult simply threw the object on the ground and didn’t seem to care then toddlers were more likely not to care. There is certainly some solid evidence concerning the existence of the role of empathy in altruistic behaviour.

The empathy-altruism hypothesis states that empathy acts as a strong motivator in the performance of altruistic acts, in order to reduce another’s distress (Batson, Batson, Slingsby, Harrell, Peekna, & Todd, 1991). In contrast to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the negative state relief theory states that individuals help others only to relieve their own distress (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, as cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

To test these two theories, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch (1981) conducted a study where a female confederate received shocks. Participants were given the chance to help by taking the remaining shocks for her. The experimenter manipulated the level of empathy that the participants had for the confederate. Half of the participants were told that the confederate had similar interests to themselves (high empathy group), while the other half were told that the confederate had different interests (low empathy group). The experimenters also manipulated the difficulty of escaping the room where the shocks took place. Half of the participants were allowed to leave after witnessing two shocks (easy escape condition), while the other half had to stay and watch the confederate receive 10 shocks.

The results agree with the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative state relief theory. The high empathy participants were highly likely to help in both of the escape conditions. The low empathy participants were only likely to give help in the difficult escape condition in order to relieve their own distress. Therefore, the negative state relief theory is illustrated by egoistic helping. Bierhoff & Rohmann (2004) performed a similar study where 56 female participants had the opportunity to help an individual in distress. These results also agreed with the empathy-altruism hypothesis. People with high empathy were more likely to help in the easy-escape condition, and people with low empathy (or had an egoistic motivation) were more likely to help in the difficult escape condition.

Kin selection (Darwin as cited in Baumeister & Bushman) is the theory that people are more likely to help people who share their own genes than they are to help others, so that their genes can be passed down to further generations. Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2006) ran a third-party punishment study that involved a dictator (person A), a recipient (person B) and a third-party (person C). Person A was given some money and could choose whether or not he wished to give some money to person B. Person C could then choose whether or not he would punish person A for not giving an equal share of money to person B (but it would cost person C an amount of money to do this, hence altruistic punishment). This study was conducted using two tribes of people from PNG.

The findings illustrated that when all three people were from the same group there was (on average) more altruistic punishment, and hence more sharing than there was, when a trial of three people were made up of the two opposing groups. This study illustrates kin selection in the performance of altruistic behaviour (sharing and punishment). What was interesting was that the lowest rates of punishment given by the third party where not everyone was in the same group were still above 50%. This illustrates that altruism does indeed exist outside one’s kin selection. This goes against Rabbie, Schot & Visser (1989) who stated that favouritism (or sharing) relies on reciprocation (which is unlikely to be the case if people are doing good deeds for out-group members).

By now, we know that genuine altruism exists especially in situations of kin selection and when empathy is involved. But are there other situations where genuine altruism can exist? Spector & Klein (2006) posit that altruistic individuals in stable environments will naturally find themselves in proximity to other altruistic individuals. These individuals may be kin or may be similar in relatedness to one another. Hamilton’s rule (as cited in Spector & Klein, 2006) states that altruism can only evolve in an environment where the cost of an act, is less than the benefit multiplied by the relatedness (less than or equal to 1) with the other person. Therefore, costs and benefits have a significant role in whether or not altruistic behaviours are performed. Ohtsuki, Hauert, Lieberman, & Nowak (2006) believe that the fewer individuals in a group, the greater the amount of cooperation (which will lead to altruism). Ohtsuki et al. (2006), postulate that the benefit to cost ratio must be higher than the amount of connections in any particular group.

To summarise, the main difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism is that prosocial behaviour is beneficial to the self, whereas altruism is not beneficial to the self. There is strong evidence that altruism does exist. The heroic acts of Oskar Schindler, Chiune Sugihara and others show that altruism is real. There are some conditions that make the evolution of altruism possible. These are feelings of empathy, kin selection and relatedness, and the costs and benefits of helping someone. It has also been posited that individuals in smaller groups or communities are more likely to show acts of altruism toward one another. One limitation of this discussion is that only the helper truly knows whether the intentions behind the behaviour were altruistic.

References

Batson, C. D., Batson, J. G., Slingsby, J. K., Harrell, K. L., Peekna, H. M., & Todd, R. M. (1991). Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 61, 413-426.

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(24), 912-915.

Bierhoff, H. W., Klein, R., & Kramp, P. (1991). Evidence for the altruistic personality from data on accident research. Journal of Personality, 59(2), 263-280.

Bierhoff, H. W. & Rohmann, E. (2004). Altruistic personality in the context of the empathy-altruism hypothesis. European Journal of Personality, 18, 351-365.

McNeely, B. L. & Meglino, B. M. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in prosocial organisational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 836-844.

Mehdiabadi, N. J., Jack, C. N., Farnham, T. T., Platt, T. G., Kella, S. E., Shaulsky, G et al. (2006). Kin preference in a social microbe. Nature, 442(24), 881-882.

Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441(25), 502-505.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. NY: Oxford.

Rabbie, J. M., Schot, J. C., & Visser, L. (1989). Social identity theory: A conceptual and empirical critique from the perspective of a behavioural interaction model. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19, 171-202.

Spector, L. & Klein, J. (2006). Genetic stability and territorial structure facilitate the evolution of tag-mediated altruism. Artificial Life, 12, 553-560.

The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee. (2000). Visas for life. 1900-2000: Centennial celebration in Japan to Honor Chiune Sugihara. Retrieved 24 October, 2007, from http://www.chiunesugihara100.com/eng/e-top.htm

Unger, L. S. & Thumuluri, L. K. (1997). Trait empathy and continuous helping: The case of voluntarism. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(3), 785-800.

Wiessner, P. (2005). Norm enforcement among the Ju/’hoansi bushman: A case of strong reciprocity? Human Nature, 16(2), 115-145.

Self Assessment

Theory:
I have been reading about prosocial behaviour and altruism for the past three weeks and I think I have covered it in a fairly broad sense. I know that there is more that I could have covered (e.g., voluntarism) but the word limit that was given meant that I had to prioritise and I thought that I did this to the best of my ability. I tried my best to incorporate theories such as the empathy-altruism hypothesis into my research as best as I could.

Research:
Some of the research I used was very recent and it was fairly easy to incorporate this into the theoretical background of my blog. I tried to use examples from my research that are fairly realistic and replicable. A weakness of some of my research that I found was that the sample sizes were not optimal and some measures were self report measures. I read more papers than the ones in my reference list but I didn't cite these, hence they are not in the reference list.

Written Expression:
The reliablity analysis of my draft showed a reading level of 14.5. I re-wrote my essay and edited it and came up with a readability level of 13.8. I went through one more time and got it down to 13 exactly. I thought this is as low a I could have gone. I used APA style to the best of my ability at this moment. I'm not going to say that there will be no mistakes, but each time I have written an essay, my APA style has gradually improved as I have picked up on new things each time I have received my feedback. I have also tried to explain what I have wrote about in my blog before doing so. I have also made an attempt to use my paragraph to my advantage by making an effort to not make them too long, but also at the same time segregate different ideas to different paragraphs.

Online Engagement:
Although I admit that I am not the most technical person, nor that I am really motivated to blog to people on over a computer when I can talk to them face to face or on the phone, I think I have made a conceited effort to improve on my original effort. I have made insightful comments on other people's blogs as well as posting polls, and publishing blogs of my own. I also went to the effort of posting a draft so that people could see my progress. If there was another blog, I am sure that I would be able to improve substantially as I had only just found out how to to some things that I didn't know how to do before.

Blog Draft

What is the difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism? Does genuine altruism exist? Discuss in relation to social psychological aspects of evolutionary theory and related research.

Prosocial behaviour is any behaviour that is for the good of others or society as a whole (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The purpose of this behaviour is to build positive relationships in society, by conforming to society’s norms. Baumeister & Bushman (2008) state that norms are the type of behaviours that are expected by society. Prosocial behaviour works on the basis of these norms as well as the principle of reciprocity. Reciprocity is the moral obligation to return in kind what another has done (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). In fact, according to Buss as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008), an individual’s ability to reproduce is dependent on his or her position within the group. The position within a group is usually determined by the amount or the extent of prosocial behaviours performed toward the group. Therefore, prosocial behaviour can be just as beneficial for the helper as it is for another or for the rest of society.
Altruism (add link) or altruistic behaviour is different from prosocial behaviour in the way that it is non-beneficial or disadvantageous to the individual who performs such a behaviour for the benefit of others. The 19th century philosopher Auguste Comte (1875) described two forms of helping behaviours that have been used in many studies since (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Egoistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase his or her welfare by expecting something in return for their help. In contrast to egoistic helping, altruistic helping is performed if the helper’s goal is to increase another’s welfare. Therefore, the altruistic helper should expect nothing in return for their help. It has been shown and will be discussed later, that empathy plays an important role in altruistic behaviour. Peterson & Seligman (2004) have defined empathy as the ability to either experience the emotional state of another or to display a pitiful emotion associated with the downfall of another.
The debate that surrounds whether or not genuine or “true” altruism exists will be the basis of the rest of this draft. The following are examples of acts of altruism that were cited in Peterson & Seligman (2004):
- Angela Salawa of Krakow, Poland who looked after WW1 soldiers of all nationalities.
- Oskar Schindler of Nazi Germany who rescued some 1200 Jews during the holocaust.
- Katherine Drexel of Philadelphia who founded a number of mission centres and schools for Native Americans
- Numbers of individuals and organisations (e.g., Red Cross) who fly to terror attacks (e.g., 9/11) and natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina) to help others in need.
One example that Peterson & Seligman (2004) did not mention was the heroics of Chiune Sugihara from Japan, who was the Deputy Consul General to Lithuania. Chiune Sughiara saved somewhere between 5,000-10,000 Jews by illegally giving out visas to stranded Jewish refugees who were seeking to escape from Nazi persecution (The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee, 2000). There is no doubt that the costs and risks associated with all of these behaviours far outweighed the benefits if there were any benefits at all.
As mentioned above, empathy plays an important role in altruistic behaviour. Warneken & Tomasello as cited in Baumeister & Bushman (2008) used 18 month-old toddlers in a study where an adult confederate would either drop something or simply throw something down. If the adult dropped the object and made it look like an accident (as shown by a facial expression), the toddlers were more likely to help pick-up the object for the adult, than if the adult simply threw the object on the ground and didn’t seem to care. This is some solid evidence concerning the existence of the role of empathy in altruistic behaviour.
The study just mentioned agrees with the empathy-altruism hypothesis. This hypothesis states that empathy acts as a strong motivator in the performance of altruistic acts, in order to reduce another’s distress (Batson, Batson, Slingsby, Harrell, Peekna, & Todd, 1991). It is the empathy that motivates the toddler to help pick up the object for the adult. In contrast to the empathy-altruism hypothesis, the negative state relief theory states that individuals help others only to relieve their own distress (Cialdini, Darby, & Vincent, as cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).
To test these two theories, Batson, Duncan, Ackerman, Buckley, & Birch (1981) conducted a study where a female confederate received shocks, and participants were given the chance to help by taking the remaining shocks for her. To manipulate the level of empathy that the participants had for the confederate, half of the participants were told that the confederate had similar interests to themselves (high empathy group), while the other half were told that the confederate had different interests (low empathy group). To test for the negative state relief theory, the experimenters manipulated the difficulty of escaping the room where the shocks were taking place. Half of the participants were allowed to leave after witnessing two shocks (easy escape condition), while the other half had to stay and watch the confederate receive 10 shocks. The results agree with the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative state relief theory as the high empathy participants were highly likely to help in both of the escape conditions, whereas the low empathy participant were only likely to give help in the difficult escape condition in order to relieve their own distress. Therefore, the negative state relief theory is illustrated by egoistic helping.
Kin selection (Darwin as cited in Baumeister & Bushman) is the theory that people are more likely to help people who share their own genes than others, in order to enable their genes to be passed down to further generations. Kin selection can be shown in microorganisms as well as humans. Mehdiabadi, Jack, Farnham, Platt, Kella, Shaulsky et al. (2006) have shown that kin discrimination is evident in 12 out 14 cases for the microorganism D. purpureum. Bernhard, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2006) has illustrated the kin selection theory by conducting punishment studies, which allow ‘third party’ observers to punish sharing norms between individuals in the same group or in different groups. Violations of these norms were more likely to be punished if the individuals came from the same group. However, even if no sharing occurred between two individuals of different groups, punishments would still be administered about half of the time. This illustrates the existence of genuine altruism outside of one’s kin.

References

Batson, C. D., Duncan, B. D., Ackerman, P., Buckley, T., & Birch, K. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(2), 290-302.

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Bernhard, H., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2006). Parochial altruism in humans. Nature, 442(24), 912-915.

Mehdiabadi, N. J., Jack, C. N., Farnham, T. T., Platt, T. G., Kella, S. E., Shaulsky, G et al. (2006). Kin preference in a social microbe. Nature, 442(24), 881-882.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. NY: Oxford.

The Chiune Sugihara Centennial Celebration Committee. (2000). Visas for life. 1900-2000: Centennial celebration in Japan to Honor Chiune Sugihara. Retrieved 24 October, 2007, from http://www.chiunesugihara100.com/eng/e-top.htm

Oskar Schindler

Oskar Schindler was born on April 28, 1908, in Zwittau, Austria-Hungary. At a young age he became a drinker, gambler and womaniser. He was certainly no saint. When Nazi Germany invaded Poland, Schindler joined the Nazi party to get some economical and political benefits that were associated with being a Nazi. In 1939, Schindler went to the capital of Poland, Krakow, where he was to buy a factory and use cheap Jewish labor from the ghetto to work in his factory.
In the summer of 1942, Schindler witnessed an attack on the Jewish Ghetto by the Germans. The Jews that were still alive were sent to a concentration camp where they would eventually die. Schindler was very moved by this and was resolved to beat the system. Schindler convinced a German general that the concentration camp could be used for war production and Schindler made a list of all the workers needed for his camp.
By the Spring of 1944, the Germans retreated and demanded all camps to be emptied. Schindler bribed and pleaded desperately to save his workers in the knowledge that if they were moved they would be killed. One evening, Schindler received a call from the train station asking if he would accept two carloads of jews that another camp wouldn't accept. Without thinking Schindler accepted the Jews to work in his factory. When the Jews arrived 13 men were dead and 3 other later died, Schindler and his wife Emilie cared for the sick.
At the commencement of WWII, Schindler and his wife testified their life saving actions and received a ring made from Jew's gold filling as a gift from his appreciative workers. The ring was inscribed with the Talmudic verse: "He who saves one life, it is as if he saved the world entire." Schlindler saved approximately 1200 jews.
This is a pretty amazing act of altruism by Schindler and his wife. They sacrificed money, goods and even jewellery to ensure that the these jews were safe. There is plenty of sacrifice for little gain. Or is there? There is no doubt that this far exceeds prosocial behaviour but is it genuine altruism. In the end, Schindler did get recognition for his efforts. Schindler also described these Jews as his own children, thus he may have acted out of personal interest. However, Schindler did feel deep empathy for these Jews and empathy is a great sign of altruism. These are just a few thoughts. Let us know what you think.

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Altruistic Acts

Hey Guys,
I was just reading a book that gives some examples of altruistic acts. These are as follows:
-Angela Salowa of Krakow who tended to WW1 soldiers of all nationalities
-Oskar Schindler (Germany) who saved the lives of 1200 jews in WWII
-Katherine Drexel of Philidelphia who founded dozens of mission centre and schools for Native Americans
-many individuals fleeing to New York folowing the 9/11 attacks
-organ donations
-people giving their support and donations in the case of natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina, Asian Tsunami)
-children giving their toys to less fortunate people
-Elizabeth of Hungary, who as a privileged teenager began a life of prayer, sacrifice and service to the poor and sick.
These are just a few examples of altruistic acts in society, but are these genuine. Did Oskar Schindler save the lives of all these jews just so that he could be looked up to for many years after? We'll find out more soon.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. NY, Oxford.

Wednesday's Lecture & Altruism

Hey guys hows the weekend going? I remember a point that James talked about in Wednesday's lecture regarding whether or not genuine altruism exists. James used the example of an individual risking his/her own life to save another as a true act of altruism. This is no doubt an act of altruism but it is always impossible to draw the line to decide if the altruistic act was performed out of self interest (e.g. getting an award and public recognition) more than the interest of the other person. Does? genuine altruism really exist? The more I ask this question the more I sway to the idea that it doesn't exist. Anyway, just a few thoughts.

My Blog 2 Question

What is the difference between prosocial behaviour and altruism? Does genuine altruism exist? Discuss in relation to social psychological aspects of evolutionary theory and related research.

The question above is the question I have chosen to research for my 2nd blog. I've chosen this topic because I believe in altruism as I think I am an altruistic person myself and others have shown altruism toward me. The research I have read on so far has illustrated that there is in-fact a fine line between prosocial behaviour and altruistic behaviour. The textbook uses two terms that help to draw the line between prosocial behaviour and altruism. Egoistic helping is when the helper wants something in return for whatever he/she has done. Therefore the main goal of the helper is to increase his/her own welfare. Altruistic helping however, is when the helper expects nothing in return for their help given. Therefore the goal of the altruistic helper is to increase the welfare of another. Research has shown that the emotion empathy plays a role in altruistic helping. The logic here is that when people feel sadness for someone else they are more likely to help the person in need so that thay do not feel sad for this perticular person anymore.
What is interesting about this, "Does genuine altruism exist?" debate is that some people do not believe that this altruistic helping is not genuine altruism because they believe that one way or another, by helping another out they are making themselves feel better or that their act of generousity looks good back on them, hence, increasing their own welfare. I think this genuine altruism debate will be extremely difficult to answer, but I look forward to doing more readings on this topic to further investigate the true definition of genuine altruism. That all for now. Happy Blogging.

My Essay

Click on MindMap to show enlargement!

How Can Prejudice & Discrimination Be Reduced
Word Count = 1573
Introduction

Prejudice is characterised by a negative attitude toward an individual or group based on their membership in a particular group (e.g., race, Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This prejudice against a particular group often leads to discrimination which is a behaviour that illustrates unequal treatment of an individual or group on the basis of prejudice (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). The purpose of this blog essay is to identify the targets of prejudice and discrimination, investigate why they exist and discuss how to reduce their presence in society. This will be discussed using examples of Jane Elliot's, "Australian Eye: Blue Eyed Brown Eyed."

Australian Eye: Blue Eyed Brown Eyed (Elliot, Robins, Cullen, Talmadge, & Golenbock, 2002).

Jane Elliot has been conducting workshops all over the world on prejudice and discrimination over the past three decades. In 2002 she came to Australia to run a series of workshops dividing blue eyed Caucasians and a brown eyed mixture of Caucasians, Aboriginals and other ethnics. Elliot set the tone of the workshop immediately, by using harsh language and finger pointing toward the blue eyed individuals, as well as using collars on them to ensure that they would stand out. Alternatively the brown eyed individuals were treated with respect and following the signing in, they were to meet with Elliot in a large room with comfortable seating. On the other hand, the blue eyed individuals were escorted into a room with no windows or air conditioning. The blue eyed people were guarded and not allowed to communicate with each other; therefore feeling discriminated against before meeting with Elliot and the brown eyed people.

Who Are The Targets?

In Elliot's workshops, it is obvious that the targets of prejudice and discrimination are blue eyed people. However, for many years in society, the most common targets have been Black people (racism) and women (sexism), and more recently Arabs, Homosexuals and overweight people (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Elliot focuses on picking out a physical characteristic (eye colour) and relates this to racism when performing the exercise and debriefing the participants (Elliot et al., 2002). The exercises that Elliot uses are dictation and a culturally biased IQ test that favours Black people.

Prior to the IQ test, Elliot tells the brown eyed people that they are smarter than the blue eyes and they will to better than them on the test because they are smarter and more curious about other people (Elliot et al., 2002) To further discriminate against the blue eyed people, Elliot gives the Brown eyes the answer to every second question on the IQ test (Elliot et al., 2002). Elliot et al. (2002) states that this is not cheating, rather it is reinforcing the brown eyes position of power in society (which is what white people do every day by administering culturally biased tests).

The results of the IQ test reinforces Elliot's expectations of blue eyed people (illustrates a self fulfilling prophecy) showing that there is no way for these people to win. This is what causes hostile reactions from groups who suffer discrimination and is illustrated when some of the blue eyed people have to leave the workshop because they refuse to live down to Elliot's expectations.

Why Does It Exist?

There is no doubt that prejudice and discrimination still exists in today's society. But what is more important is why these attitudes and behaviours still exist. In Elliot's American production "Blue Eyed", she asks whites in a seminar to stand up if they would like to be treated like black people. None of the white people stood up, which prompted Elliot to ask, "Why do you people then stand back and let black people be treated the way they do (Verhaag, 2004)". The very reason why prejudice and discrimination still exists is because no-one does anything to intervene when it happens. This goes for unfair treatment toward other groups (e.g., women in the workplace) as well.

Social psychology theories of intergroup relationships demonstrate the roles of competition and threat in predicting intergroup prejudices (Sears as cited in Ward & Masgoret, 2006). Competition is the situation where some people can attain goals only if others don't (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008), and often results in threat between two groups. In competition, there is an ingroup (us) and an outgroup (them). Evolution has played a large role in the categorisation of groups. For example, hunter groups lived under conditions of little food, water and shelter in the early days of evolution. If two groups shared the one area there would not be enough resources for both groups. Therefore the group that showed prejudice and acted on driving the other group out would win the resources (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008).

This behaviour still happens today with job competition, as white people are trying to protect their jobs from individuals that belong to outgroups by discriminating against them. Elliot et al. (2002) states that IQ tests and school textbooks are culturally biased to ensure that white people get the best jobs, therefore reinforcing their position in society. Stephan, Ybarra, Mortinez, Schwarzwald, & Tur-Kaspa (1998) proposed an Integrated Threat Theory (ITT) which states the four threats which lead to prejudiced feelings toward outgroups. These are realistic threats (arise as a result of scarce resources), symbolic threats (differences in norms, beliefs and values), negative stereotypes and intergroup anxiety (fear of being embarrassed by outgroups).

Another reason why prejudice and discrimination still exist in society is socialisation. Socialisation is the fostering of negative attitudes toward members of outgroups that have been learnt through parents, peers and ultimately mass media (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). These influences often lead to ingroup favouritism which is favourable treatment toward one's ingroup as opposed to the outgroup (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This behaviour is self serving and can lead to an increase in the ingroup's self-esteem, therefore reinforcing or justifying the behaviour. The scapegoat theory states that problems in society are unfairly blamed on outgroup members (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) and is another reason why prejudice and discrimination still exists. Elliot et al. (2002) demonstrates this throughout her whole video recording by blaming the blue eyes for things that were out of their control.

How To Reduce It?

Elliot's Australian Eye: Blue Eyed Brown Eyed video recording (Elliot et al., 2002) is one way to reduce the occurrence of prejudice and discrimination by providing a first hand experience for the blue eyed participants of what it is like to be discriminated against on the basis of an uncontrollable physical characteristic. It also creates awareness for and participants, of how prejudice and discrimination work in society. At the conclusion of the Australian Eye video recording, Elliot asks for feedback from both the blue eyed and brown eyed groups by asking them to write down three adjectives of how they felt during the exercises. The blue eyed (discriminated) group reported words such as devastated, unstable, lonely, confused, powerless, unsatisfied and intimidated (Elliot et al., 2002). Although this program is good at creating awareness, it doesn't really dig deep into the processes of how to reduce prejudice and discrimination in society.

Devine (1989) ran a study on the differences between prejudiced and non-prejudiced people by administrating questionnaires regarding whether or not each individual knew the content of stereotypes and how to activate them. Devine (1989) found that both prejudiced and non-prejudiced people knew the content of stereotypes as well as how to activate a particular stereotype when in the presence of someone from that outgroup, thus suggesting the presence of the automatic system. Further studies by Devine (1989) have shown that it's the conscious system that overrides (or doesn't override for prejudiced people) the particular stereotype and substitutes the prejudiced thoughts with thoughts of fairness toward other groups. It therefore may be impossible to change the nature of prejudices and discrimination but there is a chance of changing the culture of these attitudes and behaviours respectively.

The contact hypothesis states that regular interaction, both socially and professionally, between individuals of different groups will reduce prejudice between groups (Allport as cited in Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). However, it is important that these interactions are positive, are between people of equal status and for prejudice to be reduced toward the entire outgroup, contact with outgroup members must be typical members of their group (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) performed a meta-analysis of intergroup contact theory. The meta-analysis used 713 independent samples and the results showed that intergroup contact reduced the occurrence of prejudice and that these results generalised to a broad range of outgroups and contact settings (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Therefore, forming social multicultural groups at work places or school can be affective in reducing prejudice and discrimination in society.

Ward & Masgoret (2006) also did some research on intergroup contact theory by surveying 500 New Zealanders. Their results agreed with Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) and stated that regular intergroup contact resulted in a decrease in intergroup anxiety, which eliminated perceptions of threat, and therefore reduced prejudice toward outgroups. Ward & Masgoret (2006) also looked at the effect of multicultural ideology, which is the view that diversity is good for society and that it should be shared in an equal way (Berry as cited in Ward & Masgoret, 2006). Ward & Masgoret (2006) also concluded that multicultural ideology lead to eliminated perceptions of threat and reduced levels of prejudice toward outgroups. Therefore, reducing prejudice and discrimination involves attitudinal change in the individual as well as environmental change.

One other concept that deserves to be mentioned in the context of reducing prejudice is the idea of creating superordinate goals. In order for the achievement of these goals, co-operation must occur between the two groups (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008) thus reducing negative feelings and possibly creating pleasant ones. An example of a superordinate goal may be two groups of people working together on a school assignment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the main targets of prejudice and discrimination are black people followed by women. Jane Elliot focuses on prejudiced attitudes toward black people. Racism exists because of competition in a scarce environment as well as socialisation influences. Elliot also believes that it exists because others let it happen. Reducing racism involves changing individual attitudes as well as changing environmental situations. Elliot's workshops may be capable of changing the attitudes of her participants within hours, but this doesn't mean that the environmental situations outside of her workshops will change straight away.

References

Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social Psychology & Human Nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning, Inc.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.

Elliot, J., Robins, P., Cullen, P., Talmadge, W., & Golenbock, S. A. (2002). Australian Eye: Blue Eyed Brown Eyed [video recording]. Australia: SBS Independent, Anna Max Media & Angry Eye.

Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751-783.

Robins, P. Australian Eye Website. Retrieved 30 August, 2007, from http://www.sbs.com.au/australianeye/

Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., Martinez, C. M., Schwarzwald, J., & Tur-Kaspa, M. (1998). Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: An integrated threat theory analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 29(4), 559-576.

Verhaag, B. (2004). Blue Eyed [video recording]. United States of America: Marcom Projects Pty Ltd.

Ward, C. & Masgoret, A. (2006). An integrative model of attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 671-682.