Groups Flashcards
group
a collection of individuals that have relations to one another that make them interdependent to some degree
Groups vary in degree of
1)group entitativity
2)hierarchy
group entitativity
mutual interdependence and cohesion
ie:coworkers in a unit
hierarchy:
arrangement of individuals in the group in terms of relative power(larger the group-> the more they tend to be hierarchical)
Why live in groups?
Protections from predation human violence
Collective hunting of big game(hunting of big animals)
Cultural learning, the collective brain needs groups
Participants were in fMRI being scanned while playing a video game(cyberball)
1st condition:inclusion phase(ball is being shared and passed around)
2nd conditions: exclusion phase(ball is only being passed between 2 other teammates)
When participants were excluded, greater activation of dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC)
Does-dependent: the more participants felt excluded, the more activation in dACC(same brain area that respond to physical pain)
Social facilitation:
The effect of the presence of others on performance
Social facilitation:
presence of others enhances dominant (well-practiced) response, but inhibits less-dominant (not well practiced) response
Zajonc’s theory:
groups can increase/decreases performance based on certain things
Social loafing:
decreased effort put forth by individuals when working in a group
diffusion of responsibility
Ingham (1974) tug of war study: blindfolded participants pulled 18% harder when they thought they were alone
Wisdom of the crowd
Average judgment converges on the correct solution
1)the crowd has a diversity of opinions
2)individual opinions are independent of one another
3)the crowd should be able to aggregate individual opinions into one collective decision
Herd mentality
is detrimental to wise decisions and creativity and often lead to disastrous group decisions
-Aggregated information yields better and more creative solutions
-diverse views in a group weaken the confirmation bias and combine the best features of different ideas
-Diverse groups of non-experts beat even expert opinions
-As long as the individual’s judgements are independent of one another or even neg related, homogenous groups are not wise groups
Groupthink
-opposite of wide crowd
social pressures to reach consensus in an highly cohesive group which leads to suboptimal decisions
Conditions that foster groupthink
Stressful situation
Like minded members of group
Isolation from outside info and influence
Lack of clear procedures
Strong, authoritarian group leader
Symptoms of group think
Illusion of invulnerability
Dissent is discouraged, “mindguards”
Self-censorship, illusion of unanimity
One-sided debate(collective rationalization)
Unwillingness to consider alternatives
Strategies to reduce groupthink
Encourage criticism and diverse viewpoints
Input from outside sources
Generate different ideas, approaches before decisions is made
Watch out for illusion of invulnerability
Bias and discrimination has been steadily declining
Implicit attitudes for (sexuality, race,skin tone) decline
Implicit attitude for age and disability hasn’t changed that much, body weight seems to increase
Least change: Age attitudes 22% decline(explicit attitude)
Most change: race attitudes 98% decline(explicit attitude)
Decline in attitude change in conservatives and liberals for sexuality, race, but not much for age
The ABC of intergroup Relations
Prejudice (affect):
Discrimination(behavior):
Stereotypes(cognition
Prejudice (affect):
a negative attitude or affective response towards a certain group and its individual members
Discrimination(behavior):
negative behavior towards members of a particular group based on their membership in that group
Stereotypes(cognition)
beliefs about attributes that are thought to be characteristic of members of particular groups
Distal explanations: Evolutionary explanations of ingroupishness
1)parochial altruism
2)pathogen avoidance
Evolutionary account #1: parochial altruism
Endemic intergroup warfare in ancestral environments
Intergroup psychology evolved to be in-groupish-small, cohesive, cooperative but mutually hostile bands
Innate dual tendency for 1)altruism towards ingroup AND 2)hostility towards outgroup- we are a clique-sh species
“Us vs them thinking” or coalitional psychology
But what counts as ingroup vs outgroup is flexible, socially constructed
Explains why the content of prejudice can be different across time and place, but us vs them mentality tends to be more resilient
Evolutionary account #2: pathogen avoidance
In ancestral environments, strangers were potential sources of novel pathogens for which immune defense is unprepared
Studies show that 1)areas with high pathogen prevalence -> more ingroupish(more awareness of strangers) 2)more fear of pathogens -> more prejudice and stronger immune reaction
Participants exposed to germs slide show had higher funding for familiar countries and less for foreign countries
Cultural explanations of ingroup-outgroup favoritism
Cultural dissimilarity-dislike
Conversely similarity and familiarity= liking
People felt the most positive towards groups that: 1) were geographically nearer 2)culturally most similar to themselves
Multiculturalism vs Culture-blindness
Belief in the value of multiculturalism is associated with less ethnocentrism (Ryan et al, 2007)
Adoption of multicultural outlook improves intergroup relations and improves experiences of disadvantage groups (Vorauer, Gagnon, and Sasaki, 2009)
Proximal Explanations(suggest interventions to reduce prejudice)
Socioeconomic explanations: Realistic Group Conflict theory
Motivational perspective (back to rationalization)
Cognitive perspective
Socioeconomic explanations: Realistic Group Conflict theory
Group conflict, prejudice and discrimination are likely to arise over competition between groups for limited desired resources
Groups who perceive themselves to be at most risk of another group’s advance are more prejudiced(eg.: working class people resenting immigrants who might compete for the same jobs)
High unemployment and economic recession=more anti-immigrant attitudes
The Robbers Cave experiment(Sherif)
(realistic group conlfict theory)
Summer camp in oklahoma
Introduced competition and intergroup conflict
Reducing intergroup conflict through superordinate goals
Superordinate goals
:goals that transcend the interested of one individual group, and that can be achieved more readily by 2 or more groups working together
Earthquake diplomacy”(superordinate goals)
Turkey and Greece never had good relations, but earthquake in both areas led to diplomacy between the two
The Jigsaw Classroom (superorindate goals)
Students separated into diverse six-person learning groups
Lesson divided into 6 parts
Each part is required to complete the whole lesson
Each student learns one piece then teaches the group
They need each other to do well on test
Prejudice goes down
Minimal Group experiments (Tajfel and turner)(you can create ingroup bias without conflict)
participants are assigned to groups on meaningless criteria
Do u like Klee or Kandinsky painting more
-Divided into Klee or Kandinsky group based on choice
-Then they are given money/incentive to be able to give to anyone(ie in you ingroup or other group)
People are more biased to people in their group
Can not be explained by realistic conflict theory
Motivational perspective (back to rationalization)
Threats to the self: prejudice and discrimination can arise from various threats to the self: lack of control,randomness, reminders of mortality, loss of self-esteem
System justification:prejudice and discrimination can arise when people are motivated to justify the broad socio political system of which they are part, rationalizing injustice and inequality experienced by groups; blaming disadvantaged groups
Cognitive perspective
Implicit and explicit stereotypes and prejudice
implicit attitudes:
thoughts that are outside of conscious awareness
Primed stereotypes(implicit)
procedure used to increase the accessibility of a concept or scheme
Implicit association test (IAT)(implicit)
measures unconscious stereotypes and prejudices toward particular groups
Implicit and explicit stereotypes and prejudice
Implicit and explicit attitudes are uncorrelated
Implicit attitudes matter for discrimination especially when cognitive resources are taxed, fatigued, time pressure, or when motivation appears to be unbiased
Explicit attitudes matter for discrimination when conscious reflection is possible/desirable
The contact hypothesis in Iraq
Participants were christian minorities in iraq that were persecuted
Randomly assigned them to play soccer in a mixed group of christian and muslims or just christians
If participants trained with muslim players, they were more likely to view muslims more favorable (vote muslim for an award, and more likely to sign up for mixed team again, and visit mosuls, attend mixed events, and donate mixed NGO)
Evidence based intervention strategies to reduce prejudice and conflict
Superordinate goals
Superordinate identity
Unlearning implicit associations
Perceived similarity between groups
multiculturalism(diversity) as a cultural value
Contact: positive,equal-status contact involving one-on-one interactions.
Benefits of Diverse groups
More creativity, better decisions
Cultural role models take down stereotypes and facilitate positive social change
Rectify past imbalances and injustices
Powerful antidote against prejudice(positive contact)
ingredients for postiive contact
Ingredients:
Equal-status
Positive atmosphere
Superordinate goals and identity
Community support (supportive cultural norms)
Challenges of diverse groups
Social interactions are less smooth
There is lower levels of trust and more concerns about disrespect
Greater perceived interpersonal conflict
Less social cohesion
More diverse countries are not more prone to internal conflict, unless social fractionalization(how diverse a country is) is territorial
Three cultural models of interpersonal relationships
dignity culture
face cultures
honor culture
The culture of honor
A culture defined by its member’s strong concerns about their own and other’s reputations, leading to sensitivity to insults and a willingness to use violence to avenge any perceived wrong
southerner vs northerners
Investigators present several lines of evidence indicating that when their honor is slighted, southerners are more likely than northerners to respond with aggression
White males from the south show more facial expressions of anger, elevated testosterone, firmer grip, and greater hostility after an insult that white males from north
There are higher rates of homicide in southern states due to arguments than in the north
White male homicide offender rates:
Rates of felony-related murders are similar in non south and south/south-west regions of the US but argument related murderers are much more common in US south and Southwest than in other regions of the US
Cultural meaning
same situation may have diff cultural meanings,eliciting diff emotions
cultural meaning expeiremnt among southern and northern
Southern and northern participants walking down the hall were insulted(called an asshole)
They measure testosterone levels after the insult, southern participants had increase of T levels
Inclusive fitness
According to evolutionary biology, the fitness of an individual based on reproductive success and the passing on of genes to future generations
Violence in stepfamilies
Natural selection rewards those parents who devote resources to their own offspring
Violence in stepfamilies:mistreated stepchildren
Studies found that children in canada were 70 times more likely to be killed by a step parents than by biological parents and children in america 100 times more likely
Gender difference in types of aggression
Large gender difference in violent crime rates
Men much more likely to be involved in violent and criminal behavior
Long history of violence against women
Men also more likely to be victims of violence
Possibly due to combo of difference in hormone levels, cultural learning, and evolved psychology
**Men may be more physically aggressive, but women are more emotionally aggressive
Communication and reconciliation
Often in heat of conflict or aftermath of aggression, the adversaries tend to stop communication, to separate themselves from one another
This tendency to avoid adversaries flies in the face of one of the most potent tools for reducing conflict:face-to-face communication
As adversaries communicate, they often show a powerful tendency to reconcile, to made amends for hurtful words and harmful acts
Moving toward a less violent world
The world has become substantially more interconnected:our interests are more intertwined with those of people from other communities and nations
Cultural norms are changing in favor of more peaceful relations
We are enjoying one of the least violent most cooperative periods in human history
There are fewer wars, and fewer casualties of war
Murder rate have fallen drastically in most western countries as well as E. Asian countries
dignity cultures
inherit self-worth
authenticity is virtue
individualistic cultures,US
less hierarchical, strong rule of law
face cultures
socially conferred self-worth determined by performing social obligations
modesty and harmony are a virtue
Confucian cultures, east asia
stable social hierarchies
honor cultures
socially conferred self worth by social image of toughness
defense of ones reputation
Mediterranean, latin, tribal
unstable social hierarchy
