Page 345 - The Social Animal

Prejudice 327

wildly throughout the 19th century, spurred largely by changes in
economic competition. For example, when the Chinese were at-
tempting to mine gold in California, they were described as “de-
praved and vicious . . . gross gluttons . . . bloodthirsty and
53
inhuman.” However, just a decade later, when they were willing to
accept dangerous and arduous work building the transcontinental
railroad—work that white Americans were unwilling to undertake—
they were generally regarded as sober, industrious, and law-abiding.
Indeed, Charles Crocker, one of the western railroad tycoons, wrote,
“They are equal to the best white men. . . They are very trusty, very
intelligent and they live up to their contracts.” 54 After the comple-
tion of the railroad, however, jobs became scarcer; moreover, when
the Civil War ended, there was an influx of former soldiers into an
already tight job market. This was immediately followed by a dra-
matic increase in negative attitudes toward the Chinese. The stereo-
type changed again to criminal, conniving, crafty, and stupid.
These data suggest that competition and conflict breed preju-
dice.This phenomenon transcends historical significance; it seems to
have enduring psychological effects, as well. In a survey conducted in
the 1970s, most anti-black prejudice was found in groups that were
just one rung above the blacks socioeconomically. And, as we might
expect, this tendency was most pronounced in situations in which
whites and blacks were in close competition for jobs. 55 At the same
time, there is some ambiguity in interpreting the data because, in
some instances, the variable of competition is intertwined with such
variables as educational level and family background.
To determine whether competition itself causes prejudice, an ex-
periment is needed. But how can we proceed? Well, if conflict and
competition lead to prejudice, it should be possible to produce prej-
udice in the laboratory. This can be done by the simple device of (1)
randomly assigning people of differing backgrounds to one of two
groups, (2) making those two groups distinguishable in some arbi-
trary way, (3) putting those groups into a situation in which they are
in competition with each other, and (4) looking for evidence of prej-
udice. Such an experiment was conducted by Muzafer Sherif and his
56
colleagues in the natural environment of a Boy Scout camp. The
subjects were healthy, well-adjusted 12-year-old boys who were ran-
domly assigned to one of two groups, the Eagles or the Rattlers.
Within each group, the youngsters were taught to cooperate. This
was done largely by arranging activities that made the members of