Improving intergroup relations Flashcards
What was the Rwandan genocide?
- 100-day civil war in 1994 between Hutu & Tutsi
- mass slaughter of Tutsi & moderate Hutu by Hutu majority (500,000-1,000,000 Tutsi deaths)
What is the Israel-Palestine conflict about?
- borders, water rights, control of Jerusalem
- since 2000, 1,000+ Israel deaths & 9,000+ Palestinian deaths
Negative intergroup relations are a destructive force of extreme prejudice & conflict.
What are some less extreme but more pervasive effects of prejudice?
- hate crimes
- discrimination towards low-power groups in society
What are some negative effects of prejudice on target groups?
- self-fulfilling prophecies
- stereotype threat
- self-esteem
What did Jussim & Harber (2005) find about SFPs & prejudice?
Jussim & Harber (2005) – SFPs occur in classrooms but effects are usually small; powerful SFPs may occur amongst students from stigmatised groups
What did Steele & Aronson (1995) find about stereotype threat & prejudice?
Steele & Aronson (1995) - culturally-shared stereotypes that suggest poor performance of certain groups can disrupt the performance of a person who identifies with that group
African Americans did worse on a verbal exam than Whites in the stereotype threat condition (told that the test indicated their underlying intellectual abilities) but performance was the same in the non-threat condition (not diagnostic of ability)
What did Hogg (1985) find out about self-esteem & prejudice?
Hogg (1985) - women generally share men’s negative stereotypes of women & evaluate themselves in terms of such stereotypes
Under circumstances where gender is the salient bias of self-perception, women report a reduction in self-esteem
What are the models of categorisation?
- Decategorisation
- Cross categorisation
- Recategorisation
What component is essential in the formation of prejudice?
Categorisation (group distinctions)
Who proposed the model of decategorisation?
Brewer & Miller (1988)
What is the basis of decategorisation?
Group categories are abandoned & people are encouraged to think of others in an interpersonal context (rather than intergroup)
There is a focus on personal/individual features
Bettencourt et al. (1992) separated pps into 2 groups (each wore different badges)
- decategorisation group focused on the personal features of the task (interpersonal)
- control group focused on the task (intergroup)
Groups worked together on the task, what did they find?
Bettencourt et al. (1992) - the decategorisation group showed reduced intergroup bias
What are the limitations of the decategorisation model?
X not possible for visibly distinct groups (e.g. race, gender) (Simon, Aufderheide & Kampmeier, 2001)
X real-life social identities are important for our self-definition –> people are usually unwilling to relinquish them (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
X positive effects towards individual members aren’t likely to be generalised to the who out-group (individual isn’t viewed as an out-group member) = subtyping
Wilder (1984) studied subtyping. What is it?
Subtyping is when perceivers respond to members of a target group who disconfirm their stereotypes by seeing them as exceptions to the rule & placing them in a separate subcategory away from members who confirm the stereotype
What did Hewstone & Brown (1986) say is necessary for the generalisation of positive effects (from the individual to the whole group)?
Hewstone & Brown (1986) – some level of category salience/awareness is necessary for generalisation of the positive effects to the whole out-group
What is the basis of cross categorisation?
Our social identities are made of many group memberships
People are encouraged to think of out-group members in terms of how similar they are to us on other category dimensions
Give an example of cross categorisation
Female / male
Psychology / business
If you are FP = double in-group
If you are MB = double out-group
–> simple categorisation
FB & MP = one in-group dimension
–> cross categorisation
Which researcher/s studied boys & girls given red & blue pens?
What did they do/find?
Deschamps & Doise (1978)
Boys & girls sat around a table
Half were given red pens, half given blue pens (crossed gender & pen-colour categories)
Pps rated in-group & out-group (gender) performance
Found that simple categorisation = intergroup bias; cross categorisation = reduced intergroup bias
What is a limitation of cross categorisation?
Potentially problematic for the double out-group
Who proposed recategorisation as a way of reducing prejudice?
Gaertner et al. (1993)
What is the basis of recategorisation (Gaertner et al., 1993)?
The model seeks to alter which categorisations are used & replace subordinate (‘us’ ‘them’) categorisations with superordinate (‘we’) categorisations
How does the recategorisation model say we can reduce intergroup bias?
Bias is reduced by improving attitudes towards former out-group members, owing to their recategorisation from out-group to in-group
How is intergroup bias often expressed, according to Gaertner et al. (1993)?
Intergroup bias is often expressed as in-group favouritism rather than out-group derogation
How can out-group members be viewed more positively, according to the recategorisation model?
If out-group members are perceived as in-group members, they will be viewed more positively
There is supporting evidence for the effectiveness of the recategorisation model. Give an example.
Dovidio et al. (1995) found that pps who had stronger superordinate representations showed less intergroup bias
Gaertner et al. (1989) also found support for recategorisation. What did their study involve?
Pps did a problem-solving task as either…
a) 2 groups (A vs. B) - segregated seating (aaabbb)
b) 1 group (A & B) - integrated seating (ababab)
c) individuals
Pps had to evaluate each member
What did Gaertner et al. (1989) find in their study of recategorisation?
There was greater intergroup bias when pps worked in 2 different teams (A vs. B) - no competition, just a lack of cooperation/superordinate identity
There was reduced intergroup bias in the 1 group (superordinate) condition
When working as individuals, they perceived others as individuals
Dovidio et al. (1997) found that intergroup relations are likely to improve over time, rather than immediately. Why is this the case?
Intergroup relations improve gradually as positive biases associated with a new superordinate group membership encourage more self-disclosing interactions with former out-group members
This leads to more differentiated impressions of them
What are the limitations of recategorisation?
X Brewer & Gaertner (2001) - a common in-group identity may only be short-lived or unrealistic in the face of powerful ethical & racial categorisations
X threatens to deprive individuals of valued social identities in smaller, less inclusive groups
X Brewer (2000) - for groups with a history of antagonism & for minorities who are likely to resist assimilation into a superordinate category that is dominated by an out-group, the prospect of a superordinate group identity may constitute a threat & increase their levels of intergroup bias
Why might recategorisation threaten to deprive individuals of their social identities? What might result?
By eradicating/replacing original categorisations, the model is unlikely to meet the needs of assimilation & differentiation, or of cognitive simplicity & uncertainty reduction
Brewer (2000) - people who identify strongly with their in-group view superordinate categorisation as…
…a threat to in-group positive distinctiveness
–> increases intergroup bias
explained by Social Identity theory
Who proposed intergroup contact as a method of improving intergroup relations?
Allport (1954)
What did Pettigrew & Tropp (2008) define intergroup contact as?
Face-to-face interaction between members of different groups
According to Allport (1954), contact between opposing group members should reduce prejudice as long as prerequisites are in place. What are they?
- institutional support
- cooperation to achieve common goals
- free from competition
- equal status between contact members
What attitudes can be improved/reduced as a result of intergroup contact?
- race (e.g. Plant & Devine, 2003)
- sexual orientation (e.g. Herek & Captitanio, 1996)
- age (e.g. Drew, 1988)
- mental & physical disability (e.g. Anderson, 2006)
Contact is a highly robust & effective method of reducing prejudice even without Allport’s prerequisites, but it is most effective when these facilitating conditions are in place.
Who found this?
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
Who found that intergroup contact has a weaker effect with individuals in minority groups?
Tropp & Pettigrew (2005)
Contact improves intergroup attitudes & behaviours, & reduces stereotyping by…
- increasing empathy towards the out-group (Swart et al., 2010)
- encouraging perspective-taking (Hewstone et al., 2006)
- enhancing feelings of trust towards the out-group (Tam et al., 2009)
- reducing intergroup anxiety & threat (Stephan & Stephan, 2000)
What does Stephan & Stephan (1985) claim is a limitation of intergroup contact?
We will experience intergroup anxiety, especically if we have had minimal contact with the out-group before, hold negative beliefs about the out-group &/or if interaction is unstructured (–> increased ambiguity)
What other limitations of intergroup contact are there?
X intergroup arousal can have a negative impact - arousal is generalised to the target of the interaction & leads to increased prejudice & avoidance of the out-group (Stephan et al., 2005)
X opportunity for direct contact isn’t always available (e.g. people in highly segregated areas, often only associate with other like-minded people)
What is intergroup anxiety?
Negative arousal when anticipating/experiencing contact with an out-group member
Arousal associated with the out-group, leading to prejudice
What can result from positive contact with an out-group member?
Positive contact with the out-group member → anxiety associated with the out-group is reduced → attitudes towards the out-group are improved → reduced prejudice
Protestants & Catholics in Northern Ireland did a questionnaire - reported the number of out-group friends they had & their feelings towards the out-group
Who did this study & what did they find?
Paolini et al. (2004)
Cross-group friendships reduced intergroup anxiety & improved their attitudes towards the out-group
How do Sherif & Sherif’s (1953) Robber’s Cave studies relate to intergroup anxiety?
Intergroup events did not improve intergroup relations but served as occasions for rival groups to attack & berate each other
Allport (1954) looked at unpublished data about anti-Black sentiment amongst White people living in Chicago. What did he find?
There was a correlation between proximity & anti-Black attitudes –> prejudice towards the Black community INCREASED with greater residential proximity
i.e. more prejudice the nearer they were
Who proposed the Extended Contact hypothesis?
Wright et al. (1997)
What is the basis of the Extended Contact hypothesis?
Mere knowledge of positive cross-group relationships should reduce negative expectations about future interactions with the out-group & reduce prejudice
What is a pro of the Extended Contact hypothesis?
It doesn’t require actual interaction – a person can learn about intergroup contact without experiencing anxiety involved in direct contact
Wright et al. (1997) created intergroup conflict between 2 groups. One person from each group did a cooperative task together & then discussed their experience with their in-group.
What happened?
This reduced intergroup conflict & bias
How can social media be related to the extended contact hypothesis?
Shared photos, posts & statuses are opportunities for extended contact
Knowledge of other people’s cross-group friendships
Which researchers have found support for the extended contact hypothesis?
- Turner et al. (2008)
- Paolini et al. (2004)
- Liebkind & McAllister (1999)
How does Turner et al.’s (2008) study support the extended contact hypothesis?
Turner et al. (2008) surveyed White students about their experiences with & attitudes towards South Asians
Pps reported their degree of extended contact with this group, their experience of intergroup anxiety & their attitude towards the out-group
Found that extended contact was associated with more positive out-group attitudes
How does Paolini et al.’s (2004) study support the extended contact hypothesis?
Paolini et al. (2004) - Protestants & Catholics in Northern Ireland did a questionnaire - reported the number of out-group friends they had & their feelings towards the out-group
Found that knowledge of cross-group friendships improved attitudes towards the out-group
How does Liebkind & McAllister’s (1999) study support the extended contact hypothesis?
Found that extended contact was effective amongst children & teens in improving attitudes towards the out-group
What other pros of extended contact are there?
Extended contact overcomes issues with direct contact (especially intergroup anxiety)
Who proposed imagined contact as a method of improving intergroup relations?
Crisp & Turner (2009)
What is the basis of imagined contact?
Imagining positive contact with an out-group member will have similar (but less powerful) effects as direct contact
How did Turner, Crisp & Lambert (2007) study imagined contact?
Experiment 1:
Imagined contact group (imagined a positive encounter with an elderly stranger) vs. control group (imagined an outdoor scene)
–> found that both groups were willing to work with a young & elderly person on a subsequent task, but the control group showed intergroup bias with a preference for working with young person & the experimental group showed NO bias/preference
Experiment 2:
Replicated the positive effect of imagined contact with homosexual out-group
–> heterosexual males evaluated homosexual mates more positively after imagined contact
What are the positive effects of imagined contact, according to Turner & Crisp (2009)?
Turner & Crisp (2009) - improved explicit & implicit attitudes
What are the positive effects of imagined contact, according to Turner et al. (2007)?
Turner et al. (2007) - reduced intergroup anxiety
What are the positive effects of imagined contact, according to Turner & West (2012)?
Turner & West (2012) - improved intergroup behaviours (seating proximity)
In which population did Miles & Crisp (2014) find that imagined contact had the most positive effect?
Miles & Crisp (2014) - especially strong effects in school children
Turner & Crisp (2009) proposed imagined contact as a preparatory measure to…
…encourage active pursuit & a positive experience of direct contact
What other pros of imagined contact are there?
It overcomes issues of other forms of contact
- no need for opportunity
- little intergroup anxiety
What is a limitation of imagined contact?
Its effects aren’t as powerful as for direct contact
Which researcher/s support the findings that the effects of imagined contact aren’t as powerful as for direct contact?
Fazio, Powell & Herr (1983)
Who has found evidence that imagined contact does have similar effects to direct contact, but stress that it should be used as a preparatory measure (not a replacement for direct contact)?
Giacobbe, Stukas & Farhall (2013)
Stephan & Stephan (1984) claim that prejudice is partly based on…
…ignorance
How can education reduce prejudice?
By promoting tolerance
Why have some techniques only produced small effects in reducing prejudice in children?
They treat the child as a passive receiver of info rather than having an active role
Who claimed that imagined contact could be used as an intervention in schools?
Miles & Crisp (2014)
Imagined contact has been found to be especially effective in school children
Children would play an active role
Elliot (1977) gave children the opportunity to experience being a victim of prejudice & discrimination. What happened?
When children had the opportunity to experience prejudice & discrimination, their prejudice levels reduced
