IMPACT
OF PREJUDICE AND ATTITUDE ON BEHAVIOUR OF YOUTH TOWARDS THEIR FELLOW MATES
Dr. Anitta Jomy Thomas
Assistant
Professor
The
Bhopal School of Social Sciences, Bhopal
anittajomythomas@bsssbhopal.edu.in
ABSTRACT
Prejudice and attitude
have a considerable impact on the behaviour of youth. Family values, Social Group Identity,
In-group Norms, Anxiety, Harbouring Anger and Intolerance, Cultural Difference
are the factors chosen for the study. The study reveals that few of the factors
do have a significant impact on prejudice and attitude on behaviour. Prejudice and attitude play a vital role in
exhibiting positive or negative behaviour towards our fellow mates.
Keywords:
Attitude, Behaviour, Family values, Group, Identity, Norms, Prejudice,
INTRODUCTION
Prejudice is a social sickness that persists from
generation to generation. The word prejudice comes from the Latin word
‘prejudium’, which also means prejudging an individual even before we get to
know them. Prejudice is a biased negative attitude of an individual that influences the
behaviour of youth. Prejudice being preconceived notions regarding an object,
people, events, situations do have an impact on attitude and thus on behaviour
of humans in general, but today’s youth is highly governed by their
psychological notions they carry and at times exhibit positive or negative
actions. Prejudice is caused due to individual differences in ideology,
personality, social group identity, group norms etc.(Dovidio et al. 2019).
Prejudice is exhibited in different stages (Allport, 1954) namely;
a) Antilocution- Antilocution
takes place when an in-group freely makes falsely exhibits negative images of
an out-group. Antilocution in itself is not harmful, but it sets the stage for
more severe outlets for prejudice.
b) Avoidance- It happens when members of a particular group knowingly avoids people of an outside group.
Through avoidance no direct harm may be intended, but psychological harm often
results through social exclusion.
c) Discrimination- When the in-group members discriminate against the out-group members by denying them
opportunities and services, putting prejudice into actions.
d) Physical attack- Were in-group members causing maximum physical harm to
members of an out-group.
e) Extermination-The in-group attempts
to eliminate either the entirety or a large fraction of the undesired group of
people who fall in an out-group.
Attitudes
are usually expressions of how we feel about an object, people, events,
situations etc. while behaviour is the end result that reflects one’s actions
based on prejudices and attitudes. Thus, they are related. Attitude and behaviour are
reciprocal. Attitude can follow behaviour and vice-versa (Shrigley, 1990).Individuals develop prejudice and
attitude based on family values that are quite conflicting, social identity of
an individual to a particular group, norms or rules set within the group, internal
ability of individual to harbour intolerance, anger and anxiety; cultural
differences, mass media and communication etc. Attitude can be either positive
or negative while prejudice is always negative. It is believed that proper
understanding of people, events, objects and situations can help oneself to
overcome the barriers associated with prejudice, attitude and behaviour. Prejudice
decreases with knowledge, familiarity and level of education while with age it
increases (Jang et al. 2012) while important attitudes change less over time
than which are unimportant ones as people believe certain attitudes personally
important to them (Krosnik, 1988). Both the prejudice and attitude have three
components –feelings (affective), belief (cognitive) and behavioural
tendencies.
The
proposed study aims to address the behavioural exhibits of the youth based on
their prejudices and attitudes they carry.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Contemporary
research focuses on the fact that people are motivated to respond without
prejudice whereas some prejudices are intentional (Forscher et al. 2015). Individuals are susceptible to
social influence especially the level of prejudice among peers from their
immediate social environment during adolescence thus increasing their prejudice
over time (Hjerm et al. 2018)also there is a significant relationship between
prejudice and the social identity, cultural intelligence, and acculturation
strategies (Genkova and Groesdonk, 2022).
Based
on the previous researches on prejudice, attitudes and behaviour by Allport (1954),
Duckitt (1992), Hall (2003), Vala (2009) etc. following variables for the study
has been chosen and considered, that affects human behaviour. They are family
values, social group identity, in-group norms, anxiety, anger and intolerance, and
cultural difference which have substantial effect on human behaviour especially
when an individual interacts with another individual.
Family
Values:
Family values of different families very often conflict and they exhibit
different behaviour intentions. Values often induce positive or negative
valence on objects events within a close range of situation and events
(Feather, 1995. Values of families may differ due to social class as well
leading to different parent-child relationships. Middle class parents' values
centre often on self- direction while working class parents' values revolve on
external proscriptions (Khon, 1963). This in turn affect the child’s prejudices
and attitude.
Social Group Identity: Identity plays a major role in the
way we see ourselves and how we categorize ourselves and how we perceive
others. Identity relates to the feeling of who actually we are and to who we
belong to (Hall, 2003). Social identity influences the individual’s
self-concept through the feeling of belonging to social groups. According to
Tajfel and Turner (1986), mere categorization of oneself and others into groups
can be a cause for preferential treatment and differentiation within a group.Social
dominance ideology can also lead to a prejudiced mind-set and reflect negative
attitude. Thus, the major forms of
intergroup conflict like racism, classism, and patriarchy are derived from the
basic human predisposition (Sidanus & Pratto, 1999) to form profound
differences between different human societies. This can become a source of
social group identity.
In-group
Norms: The
different norms that are set by the groups have an impact on group’s
consistency in attitude and behaviour where group identification becomes the
base; also, when in a group attitude of fellow group mates does influence the
display of group normative attitude and behaviour (Smith et al. 2007). Extended contact can help to
reduce prejudice reducing
intergroup anxiety and generating positive perceptions of in-group and
out-group norms (Turner et al., 2008)
Anxiety,
Anger and Intolerance: Beliefs regarding the toleration of
frustration and discomfort are often associated with psychological disturbance.
Depressed mood, anxiety and anger exhibits intolerance but have significant
difference from self-worth (Harrington, 2006). Intolerance of uncertainty can
harbour anxiety, anger, and fear dampens positive emotional states and
behaviour. Individuals who value tolerance and exhibit the willingness to
preserve and enhance welfare of people exhibit less prejudiced attitudes
(Feather & McKee, 2008) towards others
Cultural Difference: Cultural differences often develop
prejudices and attitudes in the mind of human beings. Attribution of cultural differences is an important
dimension of prejudice (Vala et al. 2009) also creates in-group differentiation
amongst people of different culture. At times individuals behave quite
differently with our fellow mates especially with mental health issues and
cultural differences have a significant impact on prejudice, stereotypes, and
discrimination towards people with psychosis.They also reported lower
willingness to help, greater avoidance, and higher endorsement of segregation
(Ahmed et al.2020) thereby exhibiting negative attitude towards fellow mates
with sound and unsound mind. When youngsters work in multicultural groups, they
often face numerous problems due to the attitudinal and cultural differences, at
times these students do adopt a positive approach; however, they isolate
themselves due to differences in culture, language barriers, cross-cultural
communication and attitude.
BEHAVIOUR PREJUDICE ATTITUDE Family Values Social Group Identity In-group Norms Harbouring Anxiety, Anger & Intolerance Cultural Difference Latent Constructs, Independent and Dependent Variable
Exhibit 1: The Framework
METHODOLOGY
Research Design:
The chosen research design is a quantitative cross-sectional survey. This
approach involves collecting data from a representative sample of youth through
a structured self-reported questionnaire encompassing variables related to
family values, social group identity, in-group norms, harbouring anxiety, anger and intolerance,
and cultural differences attitudes,
and behaviours. Descriptive statistics and T-Test will be employed to analyse
the data, and compare the means. The design allows for a snapshot understanding
of the factors influencing youth attitudes and behaviours towards their fellow
mates.
Population and Sample: As per the India’s National Youth
Policy, 2014 the term
“youth” includes all the young people between the age group of 15
and 29. Since the study aims to reflect the prejudice and attitude youths carry
and how these variables affect behaviour especially for the falling in the
chosen age category. For the current study the term youth is identified as
undergraduate students from Bhopal City who fall between the age group of 17 to
21 years are considered.
A simple random sampling method has been
used to select thesample, encompassing different youths of stated age groups,
genders, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This approach ensures
representation of various subgroups within the population, enhancing the
study's ability to provide insights that can be generalized to the broader
youth demographic. The sample size is 384 as per the Raosoft which was
determined statistically to ensure robust results and meaningful analyses.
Research Tool: The
research tool utilized in this study is a researcher-constructed structured
questionnaire comprising 15 items for each of the three variables: prejudice,
attitude and behaviour of youth towards their peers. This questionnaire aims to
comprehensively assess participants' preconceived judgments, feelings, beliefs,
and reported interactions through family values, social group identity, in-group norms, harbouring
anxiety, anger and intolerance, and cultural differences which has been chosen
based on previous study made in the relevant areas making the study more comprehensive in collaborating all
the above variables. The questionnaire ensures consistency, enabling
quantitative analysis to explore the comparison between prejudice and attitude
on behaviour. The self-developed questionnaire was found reliable at
0.911 and was established using
Cronbach's alpha measurement to demonstrate internal consistency.
Analysis
of Data has been done through Paired Sample T-Test as behaviour being dependent
variable while prejudice and attitude being independent variable.
OBJECTIVES
Thus, the
proposed objective of the study is as follows:
●
To study the impact of
prejudice in terms of family values, social group identity, ingroup norms, harbouring anxiety, anger and intolerance and cultural differences
on behaviour of youth
towards fellow mates.
●
To study the impact of
attitude towards family values, social group identity, ingroup norms, harbouring anxiety, anger and intolerance and cultural differences
on behaviour of youth
towards fellow mates.
HYPOTHESES
● Family values associated with
prejudice do not have significant difference on behaviour of youth towards
their fellow mates.
● Social group identity created on the
basis of prejudice does not have significant difference on behaviour of youth
towards their fellow mates.
● In-group norms based on prejudice do
not cause significant difference on behaviour of youth towards their fellow
mates.
● Harbouring anxiety, anger and
intolerance by individuals associated with prejudice do not cause significant
difference in behaviour of youth towards their fellow mates.
● Cultural Differences does not cause significant
difference on behaviour of youth towards their fellow mates.
● Attitudes based on family values
does not cause significant difference on behaviour.
● Attitude based on social group identity
do not cause significant difference on behaviour.
● Attitude based on in-group norms do
not cause significant difference on behaviour of youth towards their fellow
mates.
● Attitude based on harbouring
anxiety, anger and intolerance do not cause significant difference on behaviour
of youth towards their fellow mates.
● Attitude based on cultural
difference do not cause significant difference on behaviour of youth towards
their fellow mates.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION:
The demographic profile of the
participants is presented below:
|
Table 1: Descriptives |
|||||||
|
|
Gender |
Socio-Economic Status |
Age in Years |
||||
|
N |
|
384 |
|
384 |
|
384 |
|
|
Missing |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
0 |
|
|
Mean |
|
1.35 |
|
1.80 |
|
2.39 |
|
|
Median |
|
1.00 |
|
2.00 |
|
2.00 |
|
|
Standard
deviation |
|
0.478 |
|
0.453 |
|
0.808 |
|
|
Minimum |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
|
Maximum |
|
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
|
|
|
|||||||
Above data is a summary of
descriptive statistics for three variables: Gender, Socio-Economic Status, and
Age in Years. The statistics provide insights into the characteristics and
distribution of these variables in the dataset.
Gender: -
N: The number of observations for
the Gender variable is 384.
Missing: There are no missing values
for the Gender variable, indicating that you have complete data for all 384
individuals.
Mean: The mean value for the Gender
variable is 1.35. Since this variable seems to be categorical (possibly coded
as 1 for one gender and 2 for another), the mean might not have a
straightforward interpretation in this context.
Median: The median value for the
Gender variable is 1.00. The median represents the middle value when the data
is ordered, and it indicates that more individuals have a Gender value of 1
than any other value.
Standard Deviation: The standard
deviation for the Gender variable is 0.478. This measures the spread or
variability in the data. A smaller standard deviation suggests that the values are
close to the mean.
Socio-Economic Status:
·N: The number of observations for
the Socio-Economic Status variable is also 384, indicating that you have data
for all 384 individuals.
·Missing: There are no missing
values for Socio-Economic Status.
·The mean value for Socio-Economic
Status is 1.80, while the median value is 2.00, suggesting that the middle
value of the Socio-Economic Status variable is 2.
·Standard Deviation: The standard
deviation for Socio-Economic Status is 0.453, indicating a moderate amount of
variability in the data.
Age in Years:
·N: The number of observations for
the Age in Years variable is 384, meaning you have complete data for all
individuals.
·Missing: There are no missing
values for Age in Years.
·Mean: The mean age is 2.39 years,
suggesting that, on average, the individuals in your dataset are around 2.39
years old.
·Median: The median age is 2.00
years, which is the middle value in your data.
·Standard Deviation: The standard
deviation for Age in Years is 0.808, indicating a relatively wide range or
dispersion in ages.
·Minimum: The minimum age is 1 year,
suggesting the youngest individual in the dataset.
·Maximum: The maximum age is 4
years, indicating the oldest individual in the dataset.
In conclusion, the above descriptive
statistics provide a basic overview of your dataset, including the number of
observations, missing data, central tendency (mean and median), dispersion
(standard deviation), and the range of values for each variable.
|
Table 2: Paired
Samples T-Test for Prejudice and Behaviour |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
statistic |
df |
p |
|
||||||
|
PFV1 |
|
BFV1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
-2.29 |
|
382.0 |
|
0.024 |
|
|
|
PSGI1 |
|
BSGI1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
-5.29 |
|
382.0 |
|
< .001 |
|
|
|
PIN1 |
|
BIN1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
-6.92 |
|
382.0 |
|
< .001 |
|
|
|
PH1 |
|
BH1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
-8.65 |
|
382.0 |
|
< .001 |
|
|
|
PCD2 |
|
BCD1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
-8.37 |
|
382.0 |
|
< .001 |
|
|
|
Note.
Hₐ μ Measure 1 - Measure 2 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
The data shows the results of paired
samples t-tests for five different pairs of measures.
Interpretation of the results for
each pair of measures:
·
Prejudiced Family Values vs.
Behaviour:
The t-statistic is -2.29 at 382 degrees of freedom, and the p-value is 0.024,
both of which are below the significance level of 0.05. This indicates that
there is a significant difference between the two variables.
·
Prejudiced Social Group Identity vs.
Behaviour:
The p-value is less than 0.001 and the t-statistic is -5.29 at 382 degrees of
freedom. This suggests that there is a highly substantial difference between
behaviour and social group identity.
·
Prejudiced in-group norms vs. behaviour: A highly significant difference is
found between biased in-group norms and behaviour as indicated by the
t-statistic of -6.92 at 382 degrees of freedom and a p-value of less than
0.001.
·
Prejudice-based harbouring of anger,
anxiety and intolerance vs. behaviour: At 382 degrees of freedom, the
t-statistic is -8.65 and the p-value is less than 0.001, indicating a highly
significant difference between the two.
·
Prejudiced Cultural differences vs.
Behaviour: The
t-statistic at 382 degrees of freedom is -8.37, and the p-value is less than
0.001, suggesting a highly significant difference between behavioural and
cultural differences.
In conclusion, for all five pairs of
measures, there is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis (H0), which
means that there are statistically significant differences between Measure 1
and Measure 2 in each case. These results suggest that the pairs of measures
are not equal, and there are significant variations between them.
|
Table 3: Paired
Samples T-Test for Attitude and Behaviour |
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
statistic |
df |
p |
||||||
|
AFV1 |
|
BFV1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
4.962 |
|
382.0 |
|
< .001 |
|
|
ASG1 |
|
BSGI1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
2.196 |
|
382.0 |
|
0.030 |
|
|
AIN1 |
|
BIN1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
0.107 |
|
382.0 |
|
0.915 |
|
|
AH1 |
|
BH1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
0.815 |
|
382.0 |
|
0.417 |
|
|
ACD1 |
|
BCD1 |
|
Student's
t |
|
0.104 |
|
382.0 |
|
0.917 |
|
|
Note.
Hₐ μ Measure 1 - Measure 2 |
|||||||||||
|
· Family values-based attitudes vs. behaviour: The t-statistic is 4.962 at 382
degrees of freedom, and the p-value is less than 0.001. This suggests that
there is a highly significant difference between family values-based
attitudes and behaviours. · Social group identity vs. behaviour attitudes: At 382 degrees of freedom, the
t-statistic is 2.196 and the p-value is 0.030, which is less than 0.05. This
indicates that there is a statistically significant difference between the
two variables, albeit not as much as in the prior comparison. · Attitude based on in-group norms vs. behaviour: At 382 degrees of freedom, the
t-statistic is 0.107 and the p-value is 0.915, both greater than 0.05,
suggesting that there is no statistically significant difference between the
views based on in-group norms and behaviour. · Attitudes concerning the comparison of behaviour and
harbouring anger, anxiety, and intolerance: At 382 degrees of freedom, the
p-value is 0.417, greater than 0.05, and the t-statistic is 0.815, indicating
that there is no statistically significant difference between the two. · Attitudes based on cultural difference versus behaviour: At 382 degrees of freedom, the
p-value is 0.917 and the t-statistic is 0.104, both of which are greater than
0.05, suggesting that there is no statistically significant difference
between the two categories of attitudes. Interpretation of the results for
each pair of measures: |
|||||||||||
In conclusion, for the first two
pairs of measures (AFV1 vs. BFV1 and ASGI1 vs. BSGI1), there are statistically
significant differences between Measure 1 and Measure 2. However, for the
remaining three pairs (AIN1 vs. BIN1, AH1 vs. BH1, and ACD1 vs. BCD1), there is
no statistically significant difference between the measures. These results
provide insights into which pairs of measures exhibit significant differences
and which do not.
FINDINGS
● Of the total 384 respondents 176
(45.83%) students were male and 208 (54.17%) females.
● Of the 384 respondents including
males and females, maximum undergraduates fell in the age group of 18-19 years
i.e. 45.57%, followed by respondents in age group of 19-20 years
● Family values often influence
prejudice, especially when the respondents felt their family values and upbringing
are superior, comfortability in interacting with members with different family
values and exhibiting openness to respecting diverse family values.
● Most of the undergraduates felt that
social group identity has a significant impact on prejudice.
● For prejudice and group norms too
reflected an agreeable response.
● Most of the undergraduates disagreed
with the fact that their prejudice helps them to harbour anxiety, anger and
intolerance.
● Culture has a significant effect on
prejudice but the respondents never found it difficult to relate to individuals
from other cultures.
● Of the respondents most of them have
exhibited a positive attitude towards family values as it helps to adopt new
family values, fostering social harmony etc.
● The maximum respondents stated that
social group identity has a significant impact on the attitude of youth towards
their fellow mates.
● Most of the youth felt that they
prefer to uphold the norms and values of the in-group, revaluate norms if it
perpetuates prejudice and promote inclusivity.
● Most of the respondents expressed
that they do not harbour anxiety, anger or intolerance against their fellow
mates even if they come from diverse background, ratchet they love to engage
more with such diverse people.
● Maximum respondents felt that they
are quite engaging and love to learn about various cultural differences and
they do not struggle in accepting different cultures.
The
analysis of the hypothesis states the following:
● There is a statistically significant
difference between Family Values that are prejudiced and behaviour exhibited by
youth towards their fellow mates.
● There is a high significant
difference between Social Group Identity and behaviour exhibited by youth
towards their fellow mates.
● There is a high significant
difference between Prejudiced In-group Norms and behaviour of youth.
● There is a high significant
difference between harbouring of anger, anxiety and intolerance due to
prejudice and behaviour towards fellow mates.
● There is a high significant
difference between negatively perceived cultural differences and behaviour of
youth towards fellow mates.
● There is a high significant
difference between Attitude towards Family Values and Behaviour.
● The 6th hypothesis
testing suggesting a statistically significant difference between attitudes
based on social group identity and behaviour, although it is not as strong as
in the previous comparison.
● There is no statistically
significant difference between attitude based on in-group norms and behaviour
of youth
● There is no statistically
significant difference between attitude towards harbouring anxiety, anger and
intolerance and behaviour.
● There is no statistically
significant difference between attitude towards cultural difference and
behaviour.
● The study shows that there is a very
significant impact of prejudices latent constructs on youths’ behaviour while only
attitude towards family values and social group norms had significant impact
while other constructs exhibited less impact on individual’s behaviour towards
their fellow mates.
SUGGESTIONS
· Prejudice is often developed from
childhood via parenting and family values; hence it is essential for parents to
focus on reducing negative prejudices while communicating with family members.
Parents must teach their children to be tolerant.
· Students must develop social contact
with members of different social group and weed out prejudiced in-group norms
through confrontations and open communication.
· Self-awareness is the best medicines
so that individual can confirm their internal inconsistencies and overcome
their cognitive dissonances. Understanding self and others are very important.
· Reduce unwanted expectations from
individuals or groups.
· Consider prejudice or negative
attitude from the perspective of a fellow mate.
· Educational institutions must
promote inclusivity, intergroup equality, multiculturalism and liberal
democracy in order to reduce prejudice and attitude impact on behaviour of
students.
FUTURE SCOPE
The
study per se is limited to undergraduate youths of the Bhopal School of Social
Sciences hence the same area can be considered for further research with the
youth between the age group of 17- 25 years as the study here is confined to 17
to 21 years. The study can also be done to understand the relationship between
prejudice, attitude and behaviour. ANOVA and MANOVA can be applied to arrive at
accurate conclusions. Study on cognitive interventions in prejudice will give
further insights to how to reduce prejudice.
CONCLUSION
The
study shows that there is a very significant impact of prejudices latent
constructs on youths’ behaviour while only attitude towards family values and
social group norms had significant impact while other constructs exhibited less
impact on individual’s behaviour towards their fellow mates. Finally, we can
conclude that prejudice plays a vital role in exhibiting positive or negative
behaviour towards our fellow mates. The very foundation of prejudice is family,
social group identity, its norms, cultural differences etc. Self-awareness and
liberal views can help young minds to adopt a positive outlook towards people
coming from myriad backgrounds like culture, religion etc. this in turn will
helps human to develop positive approach towards oneself, life and others.
REFERENCES
Allport,
G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Allport,
Gordon W. "The individual and his religion: a psychology
interpretation." 1967. Pdf.
Allport,
Gordon Willard, Kenneth Clark, and Thomas Pettigrew. "The nature of
prejudice." 1954. Pdf.
Ahmed,
S., Birtel, D., Pyle, M., Morrison, A. P. (2020). Stigma towards psychosis: Cross-cultural
differences in prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination in White British and
South Asians. Journal of Community and
Applied Social Psychology. 30(2), pp. 119-213. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/casp.2437
Duckitt, J. (1992). Prejudice and
behaviour: A review. Current Psychology, 11, pp.291–307.
Eng,
L. S.,Ling, S. K K., Lim, C. K., (2022). Attitudes and cross-cultural
differences of UCSI university undergraduates towards multicultural group work.
International Journal of Instruction, 15(1), pp. 21-38 https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1331539.pdf
Forscher,
P. S., Cox, W. T.L., Graetz, N., Devine, P. G. (2015). The motivation to
express prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 5(109).
Genkova,
P., Groesdonk, A. (2022) Intercultural Attitudes as Predictors of Student’s
Prejudices Towards Refugees. Journal of
International Migration and Integration.
23:1045–1062.
Tajfel,
H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel& W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relationships (pp. 7–24). Nelson-Hall.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00872-8
Hall,
S. (2003). The Question of Cultural Identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert,
& K. Thompson (Eds.), An introduction to modern societies (pp. 595–629).
Blackwell publishers.
Harrington, N. (2006).
Frustration Intolerance Beliefs: Their Relationship with Depression, Anxiety,
and Anger, in a Clinical Population. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
30(6), 699–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-006-9061-6
Jang, H.,
Lim,
J., Oh,J.,
Lee, S.,
Kim, Y.
and Lee, J. (2012). Factors Affecting Public Prejudice and
Social Distance on Mental Illness: Analysis of Contextual Effect by Multi-level
Analysis.Journal of Preventive
Medicine and Public Health, 45(2): pp. 90–97.
Kohn, M. L. (1963). Social class and
parent-child relationships: An interpretation. American Journal of
Sociology, 68, pp. 471–480
Krosnik, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance
and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,24(3),
pp. 240-255
Morris, J., Goh, K., Hirsch, C.R., Dodd,
H.F. (2023). Intolerance of uncertainty heightens negative emotional states and
dampens positive emotional states. Frontiers
in Psychiatry,14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1147970
Feather,N. T. and McKee,I. R. (2008).Values and
prejudice: Predictors of attitudes towards Australian Aborigines. Australian Journal of Psychology, 60:2,
pp.80-90. DOI:
10.1080/00049530701449513
Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The
influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of
alternatives. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 1135 – 1151
Feather, N. T. (1996). Reactions to penalties for an
offense in relation to authoritarianism, values, perceived responsibility,
perceived seriousness, and deservingness. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 571 – 587.
Feather, N. T. (1999). Values, achievement, and justice:
Studies in the psychology of deservingness. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum
Press.
Feather, N. T. (2004). Value correlates of ambivalent
attitudes toward gender relations. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 3 – 12.
Peak, H. (1955). Attitude and motivation.
In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska
symposium on motivation: 1955. University of Nebraska Press. pp.
149–189.
Shrigley, R. L. (1990). Attitude and behavior are correlates.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
27(2), pp. 97-113 https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660270203
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An
intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043
Smith, J. R., Terry, D.
J., & Hogg, M. A. (2007).Social identity and the attitude–behaviour relationship:
effects of anonymity and accountability. European
Journal of Social Psychology,37(2), pp. 239–257https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.356
Turner, R.,
Hewstone, M., Voci, A., Vonofakou, C. (2008). A Test of the Extended Intergroup
Contact Hypothesis: The Mediating Role of Intergroup Anxiety, Perceived Ingroup
and Outgroup Norms, and Inclusion of the Outgroup in the Self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4),
pp.843-60 10.1037/a0011434
Vala,
J., Pereira, C., Costa-Lopes, R.(2009). Is the attribution of cultural
differences to minorities an expression of racial prejudice? International Journal of Psychology, 44(1)
pp.20-28