Psychology of prejudice

Bachelor 2026/2027

Type: Elective course (Computational Social Sciences)

Delivered by: School of Psychology

Where: Faculty of Social Sciences

When: 4 year, 1 module

Open to: students of one campus

Instructors: Marina Kotova

Language: English

ECTS credits: 3

Contact hours: 36

Full Syllabus Ask Question

Abstract

The course is designed for bachelor students and is based on the previously completed courses ("Cognitive Psychology", "Experimental Psychology", “Social Psychology", “Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods in Psychology”). The aim of the course is to introduce students to classic works and modern research directions in the field of social psychology of prejudice. The core thematic course topics are: 1) On the nature of prejudice: “old” prejudice and modern racism; Prejudice formation: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of; Group identity, scapegoating, and stereotype threat “assistance” in prejudice formation and enhancing; Prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses. Classroom activities follow several rules. Firstly, combination of lecture sessions (which are aimed to provide theoretical and methodological basics) with discussions and group work (which develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different approaches, justify their ideas, and participate in scientific discussions) makes the course diverse and interesting for students. Secondly, a concentrated approach to course material and studying process is applied. Each meeting is devoted to a specific topic and includes both a lecture and at least one seminar session. This type of classes’ organization leads to several consequences. Foremost, students come to lectures having a background knowledge that provides a base for lecture information learning. Further, there is no time gap between lecture and a seminar, which reduces time for introductory parts of a seminar and allows more thorough in-depth studying. Thirdly, tasks that increase student’s responsibility for the education process. For instance, students choose a particular topic, form a working group, read additional literature about the topic, and are responsible for discussion at the seminar devoted to this topic. This gives students an opportunity to see an alternative to their research plan, compare and evaluate its strengths and weaknesses. The working language of the course is English (teaching and all communications). A prerequisite for the course is a basic knowledge of psychological concepts and research areas (the courses completed are "History of Psychology", "Cognitive Psychology", "Developmental Psychology", "Social Psychology", "Methods of Data Analysis in Psychology", "Psychodiagnostics").

Learning Objectives

To acquaint students with basic theories and investigations in the area of prejudice and social discrimination research.
To develop students’ abilities to analyze and compare different research approaches; to identify prejudice reducing techniques strengths and weaknesses.
To develop students' abilities to present their ideas, analyze research design and results, and to organize the scientific discussion.

Expected Learning Outcomes

Students analyze scientific literature, compare different studies, and propose a set of corrections for validity increasing
Students use modern international standards of presenting results of psychosocial research in English (in written and in oral modes)
Students reproduce a history of research in a particular research area of prejudice studies; know what research problems were stated and what results and ideas are considered as most promising.
Students compare different conceptions of prejudice and analyze their strengths and limitations; match examples of intergroup incidents with different subtle forms of modern prejudices.
Students analyze and compare factors of prejudice formation and sustainability; analyze prejudice issues in local intergroup relationships based on literature discussed.
Students design and conduct empirical psychological research using modern international standards.
Students analyze and compare approaches to prejudice reduction; propose a set of steps for prejudice reduction in local intergroup relationships.

Course Contents

Introduction: Overview of the course
Differences in prejudice definitions and research methodology
“Old” (blatant) and "new" (subtle) forms of prejudice
Prejudice formation and categorization: easy to get in touch, hard to get rid of
Group identity and prejudice formation and enhancing
Stereotyping, scapegoating and prejudice
Intergroup threat and its consequences for intergroup relations
Prejudice reducing techniques: strengths and weaknesses
Crossed-categorization, ‘re-‘ and ‘de-‘ categorization, dual identities and its effects

Assessment Elements

Written mini-tasks for homeworks
Seminar activity (quizzes, team discussions, etc.)
Course homework
Final test

Interim Assessment

2026/2027 1st module
0.3 * Seminar activity (quizzes, team discussions, etc.) + 0.3 * Course homework + 0.2 * Final test + 0.2 * Written mini-tasks for homeworks

Bibliography

Recommended Core Bibliography

Allbritten, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler, D. (2004). Will Students with Disabilities Be Scapegoats for School Failures? Educational Horizons, 82(2), 153–160. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ684754
Ashby, F. G., & Maddox, W. T. (2005). Human Category Learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070217
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love or Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 429. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00126
Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children’s Lay Theories About Ingroups and Outgroups: Reconceptualizing Research on Prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 5(2), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_3
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18(6), 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.526
Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2009). The Crystallization of Contemporary Racial Prejudice across the Lifespan. Political Psychology, 30(4), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00715.x
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review Of Psychology, 53, 575–604. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11752497
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 10(4), 336–353. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Scheepers, D., Spears, R., Doosje, B., & Manstead, A. R. (2006). The social functions of ingroup bias: Creating, confirming, or changing social reality. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 359–396. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280601088773
Thomas F. Pettigrew. (n.d.). INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.E5FCBB03
Wenzel, M., Mummendey, A., & Waldzus, S. (2007). Superordinate identities and intergroup conflict: the ingroup projection model. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.16D708AF

Recommended Additional Bibliography

Binder, J. ( 1 ), Brown, R. ( 1 ), Zagefka, H. ( 2 ), Funke, F. ( 3 ), Kessler, T. ( 3 ), Mummendey, A. ( 3 ), … Leyens, J.-P. ( 4 ). (n.d.). Does Contact Reduce Prejudice or Does Prejudice Reduce Contact? A Longitudinal Test of the Contact Hypothesis Among Majority and Minority Groups in Three European Countries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 843–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013470
Brown, R. (2002). Henri Tajfel’s “Cognitive aspects of prejudice” and the psychology of bigotry. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760060183
Crisp, R., Ensari, N., Hewstone, M., & Miller, N. (2003). A dual-route model of crossed categorisation effects. European Review of Social Psychology, 13(1), 35–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280240000091
Durrheim, K., Quayle, M., & Dixon, J. (2016). The Struggle for the Nature of “Prejudice”: “Prejudice” Expression as Identity Performance. Political Psychology, 37(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12310
Guglielmi, R. S. (1999). Psychophysiological Assessment of Prejudice: Past Research, Current Status, and Future Directions. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 3(2), 123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0302_3
Gulker, J., Mark, A., & Monteith, M. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who , what , and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
Irene V. Blair, Pers Soc, & Psychol Rev. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.4D20DD3F
Lai, C., Marini, M., Lehr, S., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E., Joy-Gaba, J., … Nosek, B. (2016). Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.8EC51516
Legault, L., & Green-Demers, I. (2012). The protective role of self-determined prejudice regulation in the relationship between intergroup threat and prejudice. Motivation & Emotion, 36(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9242-9
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review Of Psychology, 56, 393–421. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=15709941
McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Other Roots of Generalized Prejudice. Political Psychology, 31(3), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00765.x
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: national identification and out-group rejection. The British Journal Of Social Psychology, 40(Pt 2), 159–172. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=mdc&AN=11446222
National identification and anti-immigrant prejudice: Individual and contextual effects of national definitions. (2009). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.121D340
Otten, S., & Mummendey, A. (1999). To Our Benefit or at Your Expense? Justice Considerations in Intergroup Allocations of Positive and Negative Resources. Social Justice Research, 12(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023274223181
P. J. Henry, & David Sears. (2000). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.A0268342
Patricia G. Devine, E. Ashby Plant, David M. Amodio, Eddie Harmon-jones, & Stephanie L. Vance. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.579F5081
Prejudice towards Muslims in The Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. (2008). British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4). https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608x284443
Ramsay, J. E., & Pang, J. S. (2017). Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Rising East Asia: A Stereotype Content and Integrated Threat Analysis. Political Psychology, 38(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12312
Rebels with a cause: Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream. (2001). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1204–1213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279012
Roccas, S., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). Social Identity Complexity. Personality & Social Psychology Review (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), 6(2), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0602_01
Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). The role of need for closure in essentialist entitativity beliefs and prejudice: An epistemic needs approach to racial categorization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X491567
Scroggins, W., Mackie, D., Allen, T., & Sherman, J. (2016). Reducing Prejudice With Labels: Shared Group Memberships Attenuate Implicit Bias and Expand Implicit Group Boundaries. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.BCCAE642
Shi, Y., Dang, J., Zheng, W., & Liu, L. (2017). Dual Identity and Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Group Boundary Permeability. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.54EAE7C9
Susan T. F Iske. (n.d.). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.BB8295A9
Susan T. Fiske, Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, & Department Of Psychology. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.4E3159ED
West, K., & Greenland, K. (2016). Beware of ‘reducing prejudice’: Imagined contact may backfire if applied with a prevention focus. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=edsbas&AN=edsbas.AFF86C38

Authors

Kotova Marina Viktorovna
ANANYEVA OLGA ALEKSEEVNA

Course Syllabus