<  Page 8 of 14  >


Social Psychology II > Prejudice and Conflict > Stereotypes and Prejudice

Motivational models

Although personality models help us understand why some people may be more susceptible to prejudice and discrimination than others, they do less well at explaining why anyone would discriminate in the first place. Motivational models concentrate on the ìwhy" of stereotyping.

Scapegoating

The term scapegoating comes from the ancient Hebrew tradition in which, on the Day of Atonement, the Rabbi would confess the sins of the community over the head of a goat. The goat would then be released into the desert, carrying the sins of the community away with it. Similarly, one way to view many acts of discrimination is to see them as examples of displaced aggression. According to frustration aggression theory (see the chapter on Motivation and Emotion) frustrationleads to aggression. However, often it is impossible to aggress against the source of the frustration. When a computer crashes before you have had a chance to save your document or when a parking meter eats your last quarter, who are you supposed to aggress against? In many instances, the aggression will shift to convenient scapegoats; often minorities or people with little power. Hovland and Sears<REF>(1940), for example, found that cotton prices and lynching in the South were negatively correlated between 1882 and 1930. Presumably, as the economy declined and it became more difficult to purchase needed goods, the ensuing frustration led to greater violence against Blacks.

Belief in a just world

A second motivational approach focuses on the attributions people make for good and bad outcomes. According to the just world hypothesis <REF>(Lerner, 1980), we are predisposed to believe that good things happen to good people and that bad things happen to bad people. These beliefs make the world seem kinder and more controllable. After all, if good things happen to good people and we believe that we are good people, then we can expect good things to happen to us. Or, put another way, if the world is not just, then we are hostages to the whims of chance.

But the belief in a just world also leads to victim blaming. If good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people, then when something bad happens, it must be because the person deserved it. Consistent with this analysis, victims of rape <REF>(Carli & Leonard, 1989), disease <REF>(Gruman & Sloan, 1983) and poverty <REF>(Furnham, 1993) are often viewed as having caused the events that led to their downfallsóeven when it is clear from the objective evidence that they had no control over the events. Moreover, the harsher the event, the more guilty the person is judged <REF>(Walster, 1966).

<  Page 8 of 14  >