Prejudice

Chapter 13
Prejudice:
Causes and Cures
2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.
Chapter Outline
I. Prejudice: The Ubiquitous Social

Phenomenon
Prejudice: The Ubiquitous Social

Phenomenon
Prejudice is extremely powerful and ubiquitous; it affects all of usmajority
group members as well as minority.
Prejudice is dangerous, fostering negative consequences from lowered selfesteem to torture, murder, and genocide.
Although over the past 50 years blatant discrimination has been reduced, it still
exists in subtleand sometimes not-so-subtleforms.
Chapter Outline
II. Prejudice, Stereotyping, and

Discrimination Defined
Prejudice, Stereotyping and

Discrimination Defined
Prejudice
Prejudice is an attitude. It has the three components
of attitudes: i) affective, ii) cognitive, and iii)
behavioural.
Prejudice is a hostile or negative attitude toward a

distinguishable group of people, based solely on
their membership in that group.
Prejudice, Stereotyping & Discrimination

Defined
Prejudice: The Affective Component
The affective component is the emotion (e.g., anger,
warmth) associated with the attitude object.
Although prejudice refers to either positive or

negative affect, people usually reserve the word
prejudice for use only when it refers to negative
attitudes about others.

Defined
Stereotyping: The Cognitive Component
The cognitive component is our beliefs and thoughts
(cognitions) about the target of prejudice. It involves
stereotyping.
A stereotype is a generalization about a group of
people in which identical characteristics are
assigned to virtually all members of the group,
regardless of actual variation among the members.

Defined
Discrimination: The behavioural Component
The behavioural component of prejudice refers to the
actions, or behaviour, associated with the prejudiced
object, such as discrimination.
Discrimination is an unjustified, negative, or harmful
action towards a member of a group, simply because
of his or her membership in that group.
Stereotypic beliefs (prejudice) can result in unfair
treatment (see Bond et al, 1988, mental hospital
study; Fig. 13.1; also Page, 1998, 1999).
Chapter Outline
III. What Causes Prejudice?
What Causes Prejudice?

What makes people prejudiced? Is it inherited, or is it learned?
Possibly both.
Prejudice could be an essential part of our biological survival
mechanism inducing us to favour our own family, tribe, or race
and to express hostility toward outsiders.
Or, our culture (parents, community, media) might intentionally,
or unintentionally, instruct us to assign negative qualities and
attributes to people who are different from us.
No one knows.
What is known is that the specifics of prejudice must be
learned. How does this happen?

The Way We Think: Social Cognition
One way prejudice is learned is as a byproduct of
the way we process and organize informationall
of the negative aspects of social cognition can lead
us to form negative stereotypes and to apply them
in a discriminatory fashion.
In other words, prejudice is the inevitable byproduct
of categorization, schemas, heuristics, and faulty
memory processes in processing information.

Schemas (stereotypes) we hold about certain
groups influence the way we process information
about them.
-eg, information consistent with our schemas will
be given more attention, will be recalled more often,
and will be remembered better than inconsistent
information.
-eg, we also tend to fill in the blanks with schemaconsistent information__to the anti-Negro person,
negroes are musical, athletic, lazy, dumb,
regardless of the obvious characteristics of the
target person. 2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Schemas (stereotypes) are highly resistant to
change__even in the face of contradictory evidence.
-eg, we explain away disconfirming evidence and
thereby maintain our stereotypes, Oh hes an
exception.
-eg, or we dismiss evidence that might disconfirm
our stereotypes. Oh hes a phony.

Sometimes the person we encounter may be so
contrary to our stereotype that it is impossible to
interpret the persons behaviour in stereotypeconsistent terms. What do we do then?
We create a new subcategory of exceptions to the
rule (eg, homosexuals who are accountants are not
promiscuous),
so that the original stereotype remains intact (eg, in
general, homosexuals are promiscuous).

Social Categorization: Us vs. Them
Another way prejudice is encouraged is through the
in-group bias (the us-vs.-them).
An in-group is a group with which a person
identifies and feels he/she is a member of; an outgroup is a group with which a person does not
identify.
In-group bias is the especially positive feelings and
special treatment we reserve for people we have
defined as part of our in-group.

Out-group members are seen as possessing negative
traits and are often disliked.
This tendency to favour the in-group while
denigrating the out-group is so pervasive that people
show this bias even under the most minimal
conditions (see Tajfel and colleagues, 1982).

Tajfel and colleagues found that randomly formed
groups showed this in-group favouritism bias.
And Canadian researchers have shown that the
tendency to discriminate against the out-group is
even stronger when people have chosen their group
rather than have been randomly assigned to it
(Perreault & Bourhis, 1999).
Research at the University of Alberta shows that an
in-group can be created simply by photographing
people together (Burgess et al, 2000).

Why do we show this tendency to favour the in-group
while denigrating the out-group? Because,
i) Belonging to a group gives us social identity, and
ii) Having a social identity contributes to feelings of
positive self-esteem.

As predicted from in-group bias theory, research
shows that:
i) the greater the identification with ones own group,
the greater the discrimination against an out-group.
ii) when peoples self-esteem is threatened, they are
especially likely to denigrate the out-group.

Is there a way to minimize the us-vs.-them effect?
Yes.
Try to foster feelings of a common identity between
groups (see research by Clement and colleagues
learning the other groups language).
To boost our self-esteem in some other domain, so
as to negate the need to derogate others for this
purpose.

Another consequence of social categorization is the
out-group homogeneity bias,
Out-group homogeneity bias is the perception that
those in the out-group are more similar to each other
than they really are, as well as more similar than the
members of the in-group (see Quattrone & Jones,
1980: Fig. 13.2).
Out-group homogeneity bias has been found in a wide
variety of studies in the US, Europe, Australia and
Canada.

What we Believe: Stereotypes
The relationship between stereotyping and
prejudice is a complex one.
One of the complexities is that stereotypes are
not activated in every situation.
Another is that our attitudes toward members
of another group are determined not only by
our stereotype of the group, but also by our
perception of that groups stereotype of us.

Activation of Stereotypes
Research shows that derogatory comments can
activate other negative, stereotypical beliefs about the
target person (see Henderson-King & Nisbett, 1996).
How does this activation process work?
Devine and colleagues have developed a theory about
how stereotypical beliefs affect cognitive processing.
It is a 2-stage process (see Fig. 13.3).

Devines theory is based on the distinction between
automatic and controlled information processing.
Automatic processing is when we have no control,
i.e., under certain conditions the stereotypes are
automatically triggered, e.g., Native Canadians are
lazy.
Controlled processing allows for the suppression of
these automatic stereotypes, e.g., Thats not fair;
Native Canadians are no lazier than anyone else.

Thus, according to Devines theory when we
process information about another person,
i)
first the stereotypes that we know about are

automatically triggered,
ii) then in the controlled process we decide whether

or not to accept the stereotype.

Not all research results have been consistent with this
theory (see kawakami et al, 1998)
It is now generally accepted that there is considerable
variability in peoples automatic processing of
negative stereotypes.

Fazio et al, (1995) suggest that there are probably
three kinds of people:
i)
Those who do not have an automatic negative

reaction to the target person, blacks (ie, low
prejudice people);
ii) Those who have an automatic negative reaction to

blacks but have no qualms about expressing those
feelings (ie, people who are willing to be
prejudiced);
iii) Those who have an automatic negative reaction
but want to suppress this reaction.

We have seen that people often automatically activate
stereotypes.
Fortunately, research suggest, these effects tend to
be rather short-lived (see kunda and colleagues,
2002)

Stereotype Activation and Inhibition
Stereotypes can be selectively activated or
inhibited, depending on motivational factors such
as self-enhancement (see Sinclair & Kunda, 1999
study; Fig. 13.4).

Meta-Stereotypes
Recently, Vorauer et al (1998) raised the possibility
that our level of prejudice depends not solely on
whether our stereotype of a particular group is
positive or negative, but also on whether we think
members of that group ascribe to a positive or
negative stereotype of us. This is referred to as a
meta-stereotype.
A meta-stereotype is a persons beliefs regarding the
stereotype that out-group members hold about
him/her.

Meta-Stereotypes
For example, studies show that white students at
the University of Manitoba believed that Native
Canadians perceive white Canadians as prejudiced,
unfair, selfish, arrogant, wealthy, materialistic,
phony, etc__a meta-stereotype.
Moreover, when white students were asked about
their reaction to an anticipated interaction with
Native students at U of M, the white students felt
that they would experience negative emotions and
would not enjoy the interaction very much.

The Way We Feel: Affect and Mood
Esses et al (1993) point out that there is more to
prejudice than merely the attribution of stereotypes
to groups.
Their research suggest that the emotions elicited by a
particular group are important in determining our
level of prejudice.
When we are in a good mood, we are likely to
evaluate members of out-groups more favourably
than when we are in a bad mood.

And, of all of the predictors of prejudice (emotion,
stereotypes, symbolic beliefs, and behaviour),
emotion is the strongest (Haddock et al, 1993).
Recent research by Corenblum and Stephan (2001)
suggests that emotion is also a strong predictor of
prejudice that minority groups feel toward majority
groups.

Although studies show that emotion is related to
prejudice, it is not clear that there is a causal
relationship.
Esses and Zanna (1995) set up experiments to test
this possibility. They manipulated mood and
measured the effect on peoples attitudes.
They found that indeed, there is a causal relationship.
Participants in a bad mood described various ethnic
groups in more negative terms than did those who
were in a good mood, or a neutral mood.

Esses and Dovidio (2002) found that when white
students were shown a videotape of a black man
experiencing discrimination in several situations and
asked to focus on their feelings about each situation,
they felt more positive toward blacks and were more
willing to interact with blacks in the future than
students who were told to pay attention to their
thoughts in this regard.

the role of emotion in predicting attitudes may vary
depending on the situation (see Oka crisis example).
An important implication of this research for reducing
prejudice is that intervention programs should focus
on how people feel, rather than how they think about
discriminatory situations.

The Way We Assign Meaning: Attributional
Biases
Prejudice also stems from our tendency to make
dispositional attributionsto leap to the
conclusion that a persons behaviour is due to
some aspect of personality rather than to some
aspect of the situation.
Pettigrew (1979) called this the ultimate attribution
errorour tendency to make internal, dispositional
attributions for the negative behaviours of outgroup members, and external, situational
attributions for their positive behaviours.

Biases
The typical gender stereotype of women being
inferior to men is maintained by attributional biases.
-e.g., if a man fails on a given task, observers
attributed his failure either to bad luck, or to lower
effort; if a women failed at the same task, observers
felt the task was too hard for her ability level.
These effects apply to racial stereotypes as well (see
Corenblum et al, 1996 Native children study).

Biases
Moreover, if a stereotype is strong enough, even
members of the stereotyped group buy into it.
-eg, Nichols (1975) found that grade 4 boys attributed
their own successful outcome on a difficult IQ task to
their ability and blamed their failures on bad luck;
whereas
-girls tended to derogate their own successful
performance and blamed themselves for failures.

Biases
Thus, we tend to explain the behaviour of out-group
members in a way that perpetuates our stereotype of
them, thereby fostering prejudice.

The Way We Allocate Resources: Realistic
Conflict Theory
Realistic conflict theory states that limited
resources lead to conflict between groups, and
result in increased prejudice and discrimination.
A classic study by Sherif et al (1961) tested group
conflict theory using the natural environment of a
Boy Scout camp, and normal, well-adjusted 12-yearold boys.
They found that competition did indeed produce
inter-group conflict, hostility, and prejudice.

Conflict Theory
Several historical studies document that
discrimination against out-groups covaries with the
scarcity of jobs, or other resources.
Most notable is a study by Hovland and Sears (1940)
correlating the price of cotton (a major economic
indicator) during the period 1882-1930, and the
number of lynchings of African Americans in the
southern U.S., found a significant negative
relationshipas the economic situation worsened the
number of lynchings increased.

Conflict Theory
In Canada, conflict over scarce resources (eg,
lobster) has fuelled racial tension between white and
Native fishers in Burnt Church, NB.

Conflict Theory
Further, a Canadian study by Palmer (1996) has
showed that attitudes towards immigration mirror
unemployment rates.
-e.g., between 1975 and 1995, the unemployment rate
increased, and with it, so did negative attitudes
toward immigration (see Fig. 13.5).

Conflict Theory
The foregoing studies are correlational in nature and
do not allow causal conclusions to be drawn.
Esses et al (1998) devised a study to test that
perceived competition for resources causes
unfavourable attitudes toward immigrants.
Results showed that perceived competition did lead
to more negative attitudes toward the idea of
Sandirian (fictitious country) immigration to Canada
and toward immigrants, in general.

The Way We Conform: Normative Rules
A final explanation of what causes prejudice is
conformity to normative standards in the society.
Normative conformity is the tendency to go along
with the group in order to fulfill its expectations and
gain acceptance.
Pettigrew argues that although economic
competition, frustration, and social cognition
processes do account for some prejudice, by far the
greatest determinant of prejudice is conformity to
social norms.

As the norm swings more toward tolerance for
certain out-groups, many people become more
careful__outwardly acting unprejudiced, but
inwardly maintaining their prejudiced views. This
phenomenon is called modern prejudice.
Thus, truly prejudiced people may hide their
prejudice to avoid social disapproval. This raises an
interesting question.

How do we reduce prejudice in people who arent
willing to admit that they are prejudiced, or perhaps
arent even aware that they are prejudiced?
Son Hing and colleagues (2002) successfully used
hypocrisy induction. Inducing hypocrisy creates
feelings of guilt and discomfort, and makes people
become aware of attitudes they typically repress.
To relieve these negative feelings people change
their discriminatory behaviour in a positive
direction.
Chapter Outline
IV. Individual Differences in Prejudice
Individual Differences in Prejudice

Research confirms that certain kinds of people are
especially likely to hold negative attitudes toward
members of out-groups.
Those who subscribe to just world beliefs, and who
are high in right-wing authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, and social dominance are more
likely to be prejudiced against out-groups than those
who score low on these dimensions.

Just World Beliefs
Just world belief: the view that the world is a fair and
just place where people get what they deserve and
deserve what they get.
Negative attitudes toward the poor and
homeless__including blaming them for their own
plight__are more prevalent among individuals with
strong just world beliefs (Farnham & Gunter, 1984)

Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Right-wing authoritarianism is defined in terms of
three clusters of attitudes:
i) authoritarian submission (a high degree of
submission to authority figures)
ii)authoritarian aggression (aggression directed
toward groups that are seen as legitimate targets
by authority figures)
iii) conventionalism (a high degree of conformity to
the rules and conventions that are established by
authority figures)

Those who score high on right-wing authoritarianism

compared to lows,
-hold traditional, nonegalitarian attitudes toward
women
-express more negative attitudes toward French
Canadians, Natives, and Pakistanis, and
-show especially high levels of prejudice against
homosexuals.

Can the attitudes of right-wing authoritarians be

changed? Yes.
One strategy that has proven effective is to create
awareness that their attitudes toward the target
group (eg, homosexuals) are much more negative
than other peoples, and they tend to change their
attitudes because conforming to social norms is
important to them.

Another way is to encourage interaction with

members of the out-group.
Altemeyer (2001) found that right-wing authoritarians
became more positive in their attitudes toward
homosexuals following interaction.

Religious Fundamentalism
Religious fundamentalism: a belief in the absolute
and literal truth of ones religious beliefs.
Research has shown that people who scored high in
religious fundamentalism blamed homosexuals and
single mothers (groups who behaviour is seen as
immoral by religious fundamentalists) for
unfortunate situations (eg, unemployment), whereas
groups who were not seen as threatening basic
religious values (eg, students) were not blamed to
the same extent.

Social Dominance
Social dominance orientation: the belief that groups
of people are inherently unequal and that it is
acceptable for some groups in society to be
benefited more than others.
Research conducted in Canada, China, Israel,
Mexico, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the US has shown
that social dominance is associated with racial
prejudice, sexism, and negative attitudes toward
homosexuals.

Social Dominance
Can the attitudes of people high in social dominance
be changed? Yes
Esses and colleagues (2001) have used an indirect
approach (ie, creating a sense of shared identity
between the high dominant people and the target of
prejudice) to reduce prejudice
Chapter Outline
V. Effects of Stereotyping, Prejudice,

and Discrimination
Effects of Stereotyping, Prejudice and

Discrimination
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination can have
devastating effects on their victims.
Research on self-fulfilling prophecies suggests that
we may unknowingly create stereotypical behaviour
in out-group members through our treatment of them.

Discrimination
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
When a member of a majority group mistreats a
member of a disadvantaged group, the
disadvantaged person is unlikely to perform well,
thereby confirming the majority group members
negative stereotype and perpetuating the
discrimination (see Word et al, 1974 interview study;
Fig. 13.6).
This is referred to as the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Discrimination
Stereotypic Threat
Members of an out-group also may experience
stereotypic threat.
Stereotype threat is the apprehension experienced
by members of a minority group that they might
behave in a manner that confirms an existing
cultural stereotype about their group.
Effects of Stereotyping, Prejudice, and

Discrimination
Self-Blaming Attributions for Discrimination
Finally, there is evidence that victims of
discrimination may blame themselves for their poor
performance__choosing to forfeit a sense of
competence in favour of preserving social acceptance
and the perception of control (see Ruggiero & Taylor,
1995 McGill study; Fig. 13.7).
This pattern may set up a vicious cycle. If minority
group members blame themselves for negative
outcomes, majority group members are able to justify
their ongoing discrimination.
Chapter Outline
VI. How Can Prejudice and

Discrimination Be Reduced?
How Can Prejudice and Discrimination

Be Reduced?
Its never too late to give up our prejudices. (Henry
David Thoreau)
There are a number of ways prejudice can be
reduced. Some have been mentioned:
i) Getting people to focus on positive aspects of
themselves (self-affirmation) reduces the need to
denigrate others in order to get a self-esteem boost.
ii) Blurring the distinction between us and them can
improve attitudes toward out-groups.

Be Reduced?
Other strategies include:
iii) learning not to hate;
Iv) revising stereotypical beliefs;
v) The contact hypothesis;
vi) Cooperation and independence: the jigsaw
classroom;
vii) The extended contact hypothesis

Be Reduced?
Learning Not to Hate
Prejudice can also be reduced by having people
experience what it is like to be the victim of
discrimination (see Jane Elliot, 1977 example).
Children may also be effective in teaching one
another not to be prejudiced (see Aboud & Doyle,
1996 Quebec study of 3rd & 4th grade children).

Be Reduced?
Revising Stereotypical Beliefs
People tend to process information in ways that
confirm their stereotypes__even if that information
completely contradicts the stereotype.
The question arises, What sort of information would
actually refute a stereotype?
It seems that it depends partly on how the
disconfirming information is presented. Weber and
Crocker (1983) present 3 possible models.

Be Reduced?
Webber and Crocker proposed three possible
models of how stereotypes might change when
exposed to disconfirming information:
i) The bookkeeping model states that information
inconsistent with a stereotype modifies the
stereotype.
ii) The conversion model states that a strongly
salient inconsistent piece of information radically
changes the stereotype.

Be Reduced?
iii) The sub-typing model states that information
inconsistent with a stereotype that leads to the
creation of a new sub-stereotype to accommodate
the inconsistent information without changing the
initial stereotype.
The bookkeeping and sub-typing models are
supported by empirical research; the conversion
model is not.

Be Reduced?
The Contact Hypothesis
An especially effective way of reducing prejudice is
through contactbringing in-group and out-group
members together, known as the contact hypothesis.
Contact must take place, however, only under certain
prescribed conditions, otherwise it can exacerbate
the existing negative attitudes. There are six such
conditions.

Be Reduced?
When Contact Reduces Prejudice: Six
Conditions
Allport suggested that six conditions are necessary
for inter-group contact to reduce prejudice:
i) Mutual interdependence: a situation in which two or
more groups need each other and must depend on
each other in order to accomplish a goal that is
important to each group.
Mutual interdependence is essential for contact to
lead to a reduction in prejudice (see Sherif et al, 1961
summer camp study; Fig. 13.8).

Be Reduced?
Conditions
ii) A common goal
iii) Equal status of group members
iv) Informal interpersonal contact
v) Multiple contacts with several members of the
out-group
vi) Social norms in place that promote equality

Be Reduced?
Conditions
When the above six conditions are met, hostile
groups will reduce their stereotyping, prejudice, and
discriminatory behaviour (Aronson & Bridgeman,
1979).

Be Reduced?
Cooperation and Interdependence: The
Jigsaw Classroom
The jigsaw classroom has been found to be a

powerful way to reduce stereotyping and prejudice
among children of different ethnicities.
A jigsaw classroom is a classroom setting designed
to reduce prejudice and raise the self-esteem of
children by placing them in small desegregated
groups and making each child dependent on the
other children in his or her group to learn the course
material and do well in the class.

Be Reduced?
Jigsaw Classroom
Aronson and colleagues gathered data from the

jigsaw experiments. Results were:
Compared to students in traditional classrooms,
students in the jigsaw groups showed a decrease in
prejudice and stereotyping, as well as an increase in
their liking for their groupmates, both within and
across ethnic boundaries.

Be Reduced?
Jigsaw Classroom
In addition, children in the jigsaw classrooms

performed better on objective exams, liked school
more, and showed a significantly greater increase in
self-esteem than did children in traditional
classrooms.

Be Reduced?
Jigsaw Classroom
Moreover, children in schools where the jigsaw

technique was practiced developed a greater ability
to empathize with others and showed substantial
evidence of true integration.

Be Reduced?
Jigsaw Classroom
The jigsaw classroom was first tested in 1971. Since

then several cooperative techniques have been
developed.
The extremely positive results have been replicated
in thousands of classrooms in the US and in other
countries.

Be Reduced?
Jigsaw Classroom
And, cooperative learning has become a major force

within the field of public education and generally
accepted as one of the most effective ways of
improving race relations in schools.

Be Reduced?
The Extended Contact Hypothesis
Under the right conditions, contact between groups

can be highly effective in reducing prejudice.
But it is not always possible to have members of
different groups interact, particularly under the right
conditions.
Thus, the extended contact hypothesis comes into
play

Be Reduced?
Extended contact hypothesis is the mere knowledge
that a member of ones own group has a close
relationship with a member of another group can
reduce prejudice toward that group.

Be Reduced?
Wright et al (1997) found support for this extended
contact hypothesis They showed that when one of
the group members became friends with the enemy,
then the remaining group members adopted a more
positive attitude toward the out-group, and
they became more generous to the out-group when
allocating monetary rewards.

Be Reduced?
Such results are highly encouraging. They suggest

that we, alone, can make a difference simply by
becoming friends with a member of an out-group.
And as members of our group learn about this
friendship, they will become less prejudiced toward
that group.
The End

Prejudice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Prejudice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 13

I. Prejudice: The Ubiquitous Social

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Prejudice: The Ubiquitous Social

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

II. Prejudice, Stereotyping, and

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Prejudice, Stereotyping and

Prejudice is a hostile or negative attitude toward a

Prejudice, Stereotyping & Discrimination

Although prejudice refers to either positive or

Prejudice, Stereotyping & Discrimination

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

Prejudice, Stereotyping & Discrimination

III. What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

first the stereotypes that we know about are

ii) then in the controlled process we decide whether

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

Those who do not have an automatic negative

ii) Those who have an automatic negative reaction to

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

2004 Pearson Education Canada Inc.

What Causes Prejudice?

What Causes Prejudice?