Individuals and groups Flashcards
personality research
interested in human nature and individual differences
organisation of bits of people eg their goals, moods, actions
‘salient’ factors and reputation
psychology of people
structural model
ID-lives according to pleasure principle, only does what feels good, no real concept of time
EGO-sense of self development, reality principle learns about delay of gratification
SUPEREGO-operates according to perfection principle, rules internalised about good or bad from parents and society be harsh or compassionate, people considered good or bad
topographical model
conscious-everything currently in brain
pre conscious-stuff easily accessible can be brought to conscious mind at beck and call
unconscious-motivated to keep certain things in unconscious, wants body to behave in way that protects it
contemporary implication
motivated to hide or distort info from self
reports and beliefs about own behaviour can be wrong
be threat to validity of self report, only problem when anxiety distorts information
energy
cant be created or destroyed only expressed blocked delayed modified or converted
stem from instincts, states of excitement, located in various points of body
freud believes we have psychic energy
more ‘damaged’ you less likely to do good as energy focused on sortin bad
inherited instincts
life instinct (energy=eros), ego instinct-self preservatoin sexual instinct (energy=libido), species preservation aim death instinct (energy=thanatos), aim of all life is death-freud
root of problem
trauma-instinct expression harmful to self
anxiety-reminders of previous trauma threatening
source-experience and consequence of anxiety can be unconscious
primary defence mechanism
primary repression-unwanted material turned away before reaching awareness, can leak into consciousness in disguised ways
after expulsion-unwanted material noticed in consciousness and tried to get rid of
defence mechanisms
repression
hierarchal levels of defence
denial-deny action, not conscious of it at time
projection-unwanted feelings displaced onto other person
rationalisation-use excuse to justify action that reflects negatively on self
displacement-transfer unacceptable feelings towards someone you ‘love’
reaction formation-deny impulse turn it into other
sublimination-take inappropriate impulse and turn it into sublime action
altruism as defense mechanism
when used as defemce mechanism people seek ‘pleasure from giving others what people them selves like to receive’
terror management
thanatos line
terrified of own mortality, makes humans human
constant reminders of death, must use defence mechanisms
desire for symbolic immortality, become more charitable
psychosexual development
oral-erogenous zone:mouth, explor with it
anal-erogenous zone:ass, pleasure from dispelling/withholding faeces
phallic-erogenous zone:genitalia, onset oedipus complex
latency-sexual urges repressed, focus on asexual persuts
genital-erogenous zone: genitalia expressed in relationships
oedipus complex
objects used as means of pleasure
rivalry for mothrs attention
castration anxiety
psychosocial stage development
development continues throughout all ages
learn lessons from crisis’
identity status
during adolescence face crisis of identity figure who you are and how you fit into society marcia four statuses of identity achievement-experienced crisis and confronted it foreclosure-no crisis and confronted it monatorium-crisis but not confronted it diffusion-no crisis and no confrontation
personality development
move through psychosocial stages, social rewards and punishments form instinct expression
social treatment experienced as too harsh or too comfortable instinct expression locked in immature stage or returns to regression
crucial information
personality and behaviour is result of interplay between expression and inhibition of instincts
instincts are universal, instinct expression and inhibition vary culturally situationally and developmentally
personality
ID is what it is, if too strong, self gratification rules (under controlled)
EGO can be quashed or supported, if well adjusted ego satisfies both ID, SUPEREGO and REALITY (resilient personality)
SUPEREGO is harsh or compassionate, if too strong persons judgemental (over controlled)
oral character/personality
oral incorporative (over indulged) oral aggressive (under indulged)
anal triad
co occuring traits: orderliness, obstinacy, parsimony
anal retentive:rigid, over controlled, up tight, rule loving
anal expensive:sadistic, under controlled, expansiveness, messiness
ego culture
instinct expression can trigger other anxieties
people attempt to control other instinct expression, causes trauma
society codifies such processes
ego exist in cultures as rules are set
healthy and neurotic altriusm
pseudo altruism: aggressive drives from scary feelings eg envy and/or harsh superegos result in defensive altruism, do nice when dont want to
psychotic altruism: anxieties promote neurotic drives to self perception of serving others
generative altruism: non defensive taking pleasure from helping or enjoying others imprvoed welfare
freudian notations
motivation and self regulation occur outside conscious, awareness and may not be subjectively accessible
psychological processes occur in parallel, parallel processes can conflict
repeated or prolonged social interaction entails frustration and anxiety social regulation manages this
traits formed in infancy
causes and effects of authoritarian personality
rise of fascism in germany 1930 jewish individuals murdered genocide is deliberate extermination fasism is system of extreme right wing views jewish academic migration
personality-primitive needs
forces of personality are primarily needs eg drives wishes impulses
needs vary from one to another
primitive emotional needs; avoid punishment keep good will of social group, maintain harmony and integration wihtin self
dispositional
persisting forces of personality help determine response in situations
consistency of behaviour attributable to forces
personality reflects oolitics
political, economic and social convictions of individual form patterns
patterns are expression of deep lying traits in personality
experience affects personality
personality evolves under impact of social environment
effects of environment forces more profound in early stages of life
major influences in personality development occur during childhood and through family setting
society affects personality
changes in social conditions and institution have direct impact on kinds of personalities that develop within society
propaganda more likely to affect those with certain personality traits
ideology
individual-organisation of opinions, attitudes and views
social-examine attitudes of individuals, find patterns common throughout society
cultural-exist independent of any single behaviour, different appeals for different individuals
bicyclist individuals
civil servants tried to establish themselves as middle class bowing up, kicking down
Fromm
study of false consciousness, if not experienced it;it doesnt exist
authoritarian types common among national socialist party voters, rare among left wing
75% highly ambivalent, just go along for ride`
TAP and behaviour
hgihest tap scores found among: british national front members english fascis party members former members of german ss american super patriotic nationalists can score highly on TAP but doesnt mean part of fascist group
TAP sample
2000 white, non jewish native born non fascist americans; predominantly middle class deliberate exclusion of minorit groups due to phenomenon being investiagted participants recruited by formal organisation for practicality
recursive methodological triangulation
anti semitic scale: -reveal anto semitic personality ethnocentrism scale: -reveal how ethonocentric political and economic conservatism scale: -how resistant to social change qualitative comparison of low and high E people -seeking differentiating factors potential for fascism scale: -how fascist they are conventionalism -authoritarian submission -authoritarian aggression
anti semitic personality
readiness to support or oppose ant semitic ideologies
negative opinions regarding jews
hostile attitude toward jews
moral values which permeate opinions and justify attitudes
prototypical authoritarian
like social position to be defined
unable to handle ambivalent feelings
suppressed all feelings of resentment towards parents, idealised them but still hostile
can’t find a balanced outlook on sex, not express feelings
F scale: final analysis
secondary source
each individual questoin on a scale correlates with other items on scale and with scale average
strong correlation with E scale
strong correlation with PEC scale
right wing authoritarians
submission to established legitimate authorities in society
aggression to those below in name of their authority
conventionalism
social dominance orientatin
desire that one’s group dominates
desire that ones ingroup is superior
personality types
dianosing people as members of specific categories
encourages dichotomous and polarised thinking; either ‘are’ or ‘you aren’t’
Jungs ‘types’
More introverted:
-dominant concern for internal object of knowledge and self
More extraverted:
-dominant concern with external objects of knowledge eg the world
Both types use four functions: thinking, feeling, intuition, sensation
Myers and Briggs
modified Jungs ideas contrasted sensation vs intuition contrasted thinking vs feeling added judging vs [perception mixed introversion vs extraversion 16 personality types
controversy of Myers and Briggs
not reliable, test retest reliability is low
not valid, no evidence of 16 types
not comprehensive, missing emotionality stability
Traits
dimensions of personality to which individuals vary
everyone is born both introverted and extraverted to what extent varies across situations
trait introversion/extraversion
distribution of scores, may deviate from centre on occasions
bell curve distribution
majority of people at mean, with fewer individuals at extremes
most people are balance of introversion and extraversion
traits-gist
personal (internal) rather than situational (external)
stable rather than transitionary
consistent (across similar situations)
relatively broad or narrow (acorss diff situtations)
potentially universal dimensions: individuals differences
‘real traits’ distinguishable from moods/behaviour explanations/physical qualities/character evalutations
Allport non common traits
cardinal traits: single defining trait that rarely characterise individuals, these traits dominate; person known for these specifically
central traits: typically 5-10 traits, these traits form basic foundations of personality eg intelligence
secondary traits: more specific to particular stimuli or responses, related to attitudes that onyl appear in certain situations
lexical hypothesis
all aspects of human personality which are or have been of importance interst or utility have been recorded in substance of language
factor analysis
principle statistical method of trait theorists
cluster lower level items according to distinctive overlaps
score high on one trait, will most likely score high on another trait in the cluster
looks for underlying characteristics
two crucial decisions; input variable selections, factor labelling
raymond cattell 16PF
development of self report personality questionnaire
personality structure is hierarchal
factor analysis used to create own taxonomy found 16 key personality factors
Hans Eysencks Big Two
factor analysis to give 4 main points of personality
stable, unstable, extroverted, introverted
hans eysencks big threee
progression from ‘big two’
three main traits: neuroticism, extroversion psychoticism
attempt to explain abnormalities and mental health
costa and mccrase five factor model
openness conscientiousness extraversion agreeableness neuroticism
stability co efficient
scoring high in one factor at one time, most liekly to score high in same factor at later date
change in numbers due to change in person or change in factor
measuring other species
obtain scores for animals
commonalities in other species shwo evolutionary/inherited characteristics
consensus on big five traits
Big five:intellect, conscientiousness,surgency,agreeableness,emotional stability
FFM: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism
replication of five factors, less impressive due to different terms used, suggests similarity but not the same
comprehensiveness
claim ffm is comprehensive doesnt mean it exhaustively measures individual differences in personality
cant ask every singl epossible question
sample from knowledge
each personality trait is related to one or more of five factors, forms miscellaneous category rather than defining sixth factor
facests of agreeableness
trust
altruism
modesty
compliance
trait breadth
main traits separate into sub facets
facets are similar and go together
facets separate into sub facets
BF-2 and Big five
5 different ways f measuring five factor models
each way uses different terms to refer to main charcteristics of five traits
agreeableness eg compasssion, trust respectfulness / altruism trust compliance
Hexaco
honesty-humility emotionality extraversion agreeableness conscientiousness openness to experience separately measuring agreeableness as honesty-humility and agreeableness
public persona types
if ask people to score Trump on hexaco scale, get different personality traits
personality profile can be linked to psychopathy if think he’s high in extraversion and low in emotionality
from likes to traits
predicting personality traits from social media activity
types of photos you like, can relate to personality eg liking lots of charity photos link to conscientiousness
cann assess what scores people will get on personality profile from pattern of facebook likes
power of likes to traits
market segmentation
influence people
if know personality traits you can alter marketing to target certain people
carole cadwalladr
exposed conspiracy facebook used likes and messages about how and when to vote
altering likelihood of people voting for specific political parties
McAdams 1993
level 1: dispositional triats-potentially unchaning biology
level 2: personal concerns-nduring but developing motivational and strategic concerns
level 3: life narrative-active;y choosing meaningful life story
rank order stability/change
average of peoples traits scores are rlative to other peoples traits scores across time
if high in trait relative to peers at one time then atill high in that trait relative to peers at later point
individual personality change
context effects-with friends/family
life changing events-trauma, dementia, children
dissociative identity disorder-3 faces of eve
DSM-V personality psychopathology
hybrid dimensional categorical model
6-10 specific personality disorders: antisocial, avoidant,borderline,narcissistic, obsessive compulsive, schizotypal
multiple traits: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, compulsivitity, psychotism
Mischel cognitive affective personality system
personality assessment
reviewed correlations between trait scores and behaviours, and between behaviours across situations
correlations found to be above 0.3
behavioural signatures
‘might same person who’s more caring, giving and supportive than most people in relation to his family, be less caring and altruistic than most people in other context’ Mischel 2005
traits-mischel
assessments of cross situational consistency may be based on judgements of temporal consistency of prototypical behaviours in prototypical situations
trait assessments can allow for person-situation interactions
distinguishing features of social-cognitive theory
emphasis on: social origings of behaviour, cognitive processes, people as active agents, complex behaviour learning, systematic research, behaviour as situation specific
classical conditioning
pre training: conditioned stimulus and unconditional stimulus
training: conditioned stimulus and unconditioned response
post training: conditioed stimulus and conditioned response
pairing of stimulus with unconditioned response
instrumental (operant) conditioning
behaviours more likely repeated when followed by welcome outcomes
behaviours less likely repeated when followed by unwelcome outcomes
association of action with consequence that follows
albert banduras social cognitive theory
vicarious conditioning
observational learning
competences and cognitions
goals and standards
vicarious conditioning
berger 1962
people witnessed a tone followed by appearance of another reacting in pain to electric shock
witnesses later exhibit conditioned emotional response to tone
observational learning-milgram result
bandura, ross, ross 1961 physical imitative aggression: boys 26 with male model boys 13 female model girls 6 male model girls 5 female model verbal imitative aggression: boys 13 male model boys 4 female model girls 2 male model girls 14 female model bandura 1965: watch video of model, if model rewarded kids replicated vehaviour
situation specific personality characteristics
competencies (skills): cognitive (perceptual/problem solving), behavioural (performance, delay of gratification)
cognitions (beliefs): expectancies (conditional, perceived self efficacy), standards an dgoals (Self regulation)
self efficacy influences
goal selection
effort, persistence and performance
approach, mood and attitude
threat appraisal and anticipated coping
general self efficacy scale
can always solve problems if try enough
if someone opposes me find way to get what want
certain can accomplish my goals
confident can deal with unexpected events
solve most problems if invest effort
when confronted with problem can find several solutions
whats social psychology
attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling and behaviour of individuals are influenced by actual, imagined or implied presence of others’ (Allport 1968)
‘seeks to understand nature and causes of individual behaviour and thought in social situations’ (Baron, Byrne, Johnson 1998)
development of social psychology
origins of sub discipline
relationship between individual and group
rise of experimental method
narrowing of range of topics covered
obedience to authority-milgram study
Milgram 1961-1963
aim: ‘how far participants will comply with experimenters instructions before refusing to carry out actions required of him’ 1974
participants: $4.00 hour, recruited through advert in paper, 500 male subjects aged 20-50
method: two people come to lab, teacher and learner
learning task: series of word pairings, teacher read one word and leaner must say other word from pair, if answer wrong given electric shock
prompts from experimenter: ‘please continue or please go on’ ‘experiment requires that you continue’ ‘absolutely essential that you continue’ ‘have no other choice, you must go on’
65% obedience in remote group, 30% obedience in touch proximity group, 63% voice feedback
research developments of milgram
many variations; female participants
all participants debriefed
when asked to predict what’ll happen, people dont put themselves in situation
reactions to milgram
concerns
lack of theory
ethics
demand characteristics
reflections on milgram
ordinary people will act how you desire when given particular conditions
social situations influence behaviour
terminology
demand characteristics: cues that perceived as telling participant how they expected to behave or respond in research setting: ‘cues that demand certain response
debriefing: practice of explaining to participants purpose of experiment…answering questions participants have’
external validity: ‘refer to generalisibility of research findings to settings and populations other than those involved in research’
immediate ethical concerns of milgram
concerns about ‘permanent harm’ p423
alterations in subjects self image
unconvinced by post experiment reassurance
external validity of milgram
milgram 1974
‘question concerns degree of parallel between obedience in lab and in nazi germany…common psychological process central involved in both events’
gina perry 2012
review of milgram work, accessed material in Yale archives
interviewed people from research
provides evidence that milgram account not always accurate
effects on participants
milgram 1974 ‘not think exaggerated when say for most participants experiment was positive and enriching experience’
Gina Perry 2012 ‘i was really ashamed of myself’ subject 116
follow up interviews milgram
psychiatrist Paul Errera interviewed 32 participants
milgram ‘focused on subjects he felt would most likely have suffered consequences from participants’
milgrams explicit debriefing
participants told victim not received dangerous electric shocks
people left experiment believing shocks were real
‘only subjects in last two months were told the truth about experiment before they left lab’ perry 2012
suspicions in milgrams study
some indicated they suspected shocks werent real
some doubted cover study
some guessed they were the subject of study
didnt believe learners poor answers
‘i did everything to emphasise correct answer’
‘impose as brief a shock as possible’
56% believed shocks painful
24% believed shocks but had cheese
other explanations for behaviour in milgram study
participants ‘identify with leaders cause and believe their actions to be virtuous’
milggram experiments have less to say about ‘destructive obedience’ than about ineffectual and indecisive disobedience
replication of milgram
milgram states many replicatins in other countries where obedience was higher, perry questions the claim
transposition study: 2012, french game study, 76 participants, 81% obedience, electric shocks
situationist perspective
participant from Le Jue de Mort game show, 66 took part in Big 5 personality survey, authors predicted relationship between agreeableness and obedience
facet for agreeableness is compliance therefore explanation for obedience
highest level of shock negatively related to left wing political orientation
social norms
‘no conceptual census about definition and measurement of social norms’ (Shaffer 1983)
‘uniformities of behaviour and attitudes’ (sutton and douglas 2013)
important distinctions
descriptive norms: patterns of behaviour
injunctive/prescriptive norms: behavioural rules or expectations
descriptive norms
- perception of behaviour as typically performed
- dont have all information needed to make optimal decisions, rely on others opinions/behaviours to help coordinate decision
prescriptive norms
unwritten rules that are understood and followed by society eg keep one’s promises
relationship between prescriptive and descriptive norms
‘normative, expectations are not explicitly stated but inferred from behaviour’ (Bicchieri)
‘descriptive norms thought to be effective by serving as an indicator of injuctive norms’ (Farrow, Grolleau, Ibanez 2017)
if in conflict, descriptive norm overpowers
reflections on social norms (elster 1989)
for norms to be ‘social’, “must be shared by other people and sustained by their approval and disapproval”
- some norms are like conventions
- internalisation is important:
- once internalised they are followed, even if no punished for no following norms
why do we do what others do
“desire to coordinate with others or fear of being judged and punished if we behave differently” (Bicchieri 2017)
role model, wish to copy people we idolise
which ‘others’ are important
“within network, some poeple are more influential … than others” (Bicchieri 2017)
feedback from close relations has strongest influence on behaviours
misperceptions of norms
overestimate drinking norms, misperceiving the norm lead to some people increasing/decreasing behaviour to reach their misperceptions
-pluralistic ignorance: misperception of others attitudes,s result in large group of people doing behaviour they don’t want to do but do anyway
can social norm information be used to influence people ?
- if given correct information, they will adjust behaviour to comply with behavioural norm
- experiment on taxes, control letter stated “over due”, basic norm stated “9/10 pay on time”, med norm specified UK, and high norm stated “you are in minority”, control led o £623000 increase in paid taxes, high norm led to 2,000,000 increase in paid taxes
combining descriptive and injunctive norms
-electricity bills with descriptive norms about electricity consumption in the neighbourhood and their own
-some bills printed with smiley face and others with sad face
outcome measure was change in energy consumption
-those told they consumed below average amount of electricity increased their consumption at follow up but this didnt happen if injunctive norm is activated
social influence
‘comprises the process whereby people directly or indirectly influence the thoughts, feelings and actions of others’ Turner 1991
influence: subjective acceptance and conversion
power: coercive compulsion and compliance
mindlessness of ostensibly thoughtful action
- most behaviour is ‘rather automatic’ dont always act as ‘rational information processors’
- rely on scripts, less likely use scripts when situations are novel or when interaction demands high level of effort
- photocopier experiment: 120 approached, requests: no info, real info and placebic info, small favour condition got 90% compliance in real or placebic, big favour 40% compliance of real info and 20% in placebic
cialdinis principles of influence
- ‘people like those who like them’; real similarities and offer praise, more attractive people more persuasive, contrast principle/contrast repository
- ‘people repay in kind’; give what you want to receive
- ‘people follow the lead of similar others’; use peer power whenever available, bystander effect/Werther effect
- ‘people align with their clear commitments’; make commitments active, public, voluntary, consistency is highly valued
- ‘people defer to experts’; expose expertise, don’t assume its self evident, obedience to authority
- ‘people want more of what they have less of’; highlight unique benefits, reactance effects
low ball technique
inducing someone to make decision about an action then change the request
cialdini: willingness to take part in experiment. Low ball: ‘willing to participate?’ control: normal brief, 56% participated from low ball compared to 31% from control
active choice and passive choice
Cioffi & Garner 1996
students from psych class
volunteer activity: “AIDS awareness project” “willing to donate 2 hours to aids?”
active choice/active yes: copy out sentence indicating willingness to help
passive choice/active no: copy out sentence indicating unwillingness to help
48% indicate willingness
power over others: three elements
one dimensional: “A has power over B to extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do”
two dimensional: “idea of restricting scope of people’s decision making”
three dimensional: “exercises power over him by influencing, shaping, or determining his wants…secure their compliance by controlling their thoughts and desires
conformity through social influence
life of brian to crowd "think for yourself, all individuals" crowd "we are all individuals" to crowd "you are all different" indivdiual in crowd "im not" crowd "shhhhh"
what extent aware of influences on behaviour
Kunst-Wilson & Zajonc
- participants shown shapes fro 1ms
- shown pairs of shapes
- participant indicate shape they prefer and thought previously seen
- results show preference for shapes previously seen but unaware seen it already
telling more than we know
“perceived co-variatin between stimuli and responses is determined more by causal theories than by actual co-variation”
Halo Effect- Nisbet & Wilson 1977
influence of global evaluations of individual attributes of person
videotaped interviews: asked to make judgements of teachers; likableness, appealing/irritating appearance/mannerisms/accent
warm guise vs cold guise
warm guise seen as more appealing, cold guise is less appealing
participants report their liking of teacher did not influence their other ratings
chameleon effect
‘nonconscious mimicry of postures, mannerisms, facial expressions and others behaviours of ones interaction partners such that ones behaviour passively or unintentionally changes to match that of others in one’s current social environment’
- subjects exposed to a confederate who would rub own face, shake feet or smile loads
- participants shook foot more if confederate did it, same for all others
- participants unaware of mannerism of confed
- increase mimicry led to increased liking
does mimicry enhance prosocial behaviour
group of customers
naive vs non naive waitress
mimicry condition: repeat every order and write down
non mimicry condition make clear heard and write down
mimicry condition lead to increase in tipping
nudging
libertarian paternalism
influencing people by changing the ‘choice of architecture’
‘any aspect of choice architecture that alters people behaviour in predictable way without forbidding any options or significantly changing their economic incentives’
relative vs automatic cognitive systems
risky shift in group productivity
- 12 social dilemma participants indicate lowest probability of success that they’d want before advising the person to take that action
- same dilemmas ‘resolved to consensus’ by groups made up of those individuals
- compare average of individuals ratings vs consensus ratings in groups
- in groups shift is significantly towards risk
- don’t always made more risky decisions just more extreme ones
why does risky shift occur
- social comparison-hearing others opinions in groups highlight the socially valued position on each item and indicates you are not as close to that view as you thought, gravitate towards perceived desirable view - rather than group mean
- persuasive arguments-hearing others opinions ‘persuade’ you that you were right all along, and even more right than first thought, shift towards that initially preferred direction
evidence for social comparison view
control group with no info, info only group who hold up opinion boards, discussion about topic group
-control group less risky than group who receive info only, most risky is participants in discussion, support for social comparison as process suggests something else is going on in discussion
evidence for persuasive arguments
Ebbeson &Bowers 1974
mean shift increased as proportion of risky arguments increased, shift more strongly towards toward risky position, get riskier quicker than getting more cautious
reasons for why bad things happen on apprentice
- causes: lack of agreeed procedures for debate, insultation of group from qualified others, pressure to reach decision, directive leadership
- symptoms: overestimation of groups strength and correctness, group members become closed-minded, pressures towards infirmity within group
- decision making outcomes: failure to undertake search of alternatives, failure to seek best solution, failure to evaluate alternatives, shift to evaluation before alternative search is complete
group productivity
group is more than sum of its parts, group facilitation-presence of group makes us work harder
group is less than sum of its parts, social loafing-each additional person contributes less productivity
-Steiners Theory, for any task there is some hypothetical maximum ‘potential productivity’, actual productivity falls short of this due to losses incurred in group process, losses can be caused by imperfect coordination of group members’ efforts or by loss of motivation due to social loafing
social loafing or group inefficiency
real group: other members present and actually pulling rope
pseudo group: other members present but pretend to pull rope
larger the group the greater decrease in individual pull
brain storming
participants generate ideas for unusual uses of familiar objects, they do this individually or as group
number of ideas increased when ideas of 4 people combined 68 ideas, individual came up with 19 ideas
when does social loafing not occur
- participants asked to make paper chains, alone or in groups, groups worked in isolation or in presence of other group, half of groups given uniform to wear and a team name
- individual performance deceased faster than than those in non uniform than those in uniform
frustration-aggression hypothesis
- early theory of prejudice and inter group conflict
- inter group conflict is natural response to frustrations of social life
- aggression and frustration unlikely to be directed at source but displaced to socially approved targets
limitations of frustartion-aggression hypothesi
- focuses on internal, individual factors and neglects social and societal factors
- what causes the frustration? relatvie vs absolute situation
- integroup behavior is irrational
- research evidence doesnt support individualisation of prejudice and conflict
- cannot explain why certain targets are socially sanctioned
relative deprivation theory
- negative feeling created perceive a gap between what have and what expect
- expectations created by comparisons with others or with past
- deprivation can be egoistic (compare self with other referent) or collective (compare group wit other referent)
- sense of deprivation experienced by high status groups
- leads to discontent and anger by those experiencing it
- discontent present itsefl in desire to engage in collective protest or express prejudice against groups in relation to which one feels deprived
realistic group conflict theoyr
determinants of intergroup attitudes and behaviour lie in objective intergroup situation
intergroup behaviour is ‘rational’ and goal directed
conflicts of interest lead to competition hostility
harmony of interests lead to cooperation friendliness
Sherif summer camp study-realistic group conflict
-24 white boys who are unacquainted, pre-screened for personality problems eg authoritarian and levels of economic deprivation eg frustration and relative deprivation
-4 phases:
initial interactoin as group
group formation, bets friends in out groups and do separate activities
intergroup competition, series of contests and winning group takes prize
superordinate goals, cooperation over common goals
-measured: group behaviour, friendship choices and intergroup evaluations
-after group fromation 35% friendships from own group
-after competition 92% friendships from own group
-after cooperation 76% friendhsips from own group
when intergroup cooperation may nto work
- phase 1: creating intergroup history, artificial small groups work on two tasks, three conditions: cooperation, independence and competition, real rewards
- phase 2: cooperating over superordinate goals, groups brought together to work cooperatively on two more tasks, half succeed and half fail
- results: liking for outgroup highest in cooperative and independence groups, change in liking between phase 1 and 2 changed when competition group failed-liking decreased
symbolic racism
-challenges idea that ‘zero sum’ situations create prejudice
-argument that racism evolving in states in response to growing cultural issues around explicit or openly hostile prejudice
-key elements:
racial discrimination thing of past
resentment relating to minority efforts towards equality
continuing disadvantage to black americans due to unwillingness to work hard
perception of underserved advantages that give minorities more than they deserve
obama effect
exposure to successful black exemplars :
not reduce participants prejudice or increase motivation to behave in non-prejudiced manner
increased white participants agreement wiht tenets of symbolic racism and increased reluctance to admit that they migth be baised
difficulties with realistic conflict theory
-objective situation eg goal relations lead to soical and psychological consequences eg ingroup identification and biases
BUT
-evidence that social and psychological consequences can occur independently of objective situatins
-conflicting interests not necessarily arouse ingroup bias and competition
-intergroup behaviour not solely motivated by instrumental considerations-can run counter to self interest
minimal group experiment
- experiment presented as decision making
- first decisions: choose paintings you like (by klee or kandinsky)
- assigned to either klee or kandinsky, no knowledge of other ingroup/outgroup members
- allocate money to anonymous recipients (only identified by group membership)
explanations for minimal group discrimination
- competition norms in western culture (bias found in other countries, more extreme in collectivist cultures)
- social categorisation process (accentuates differences between, minimises differences within)
- social identity process (categorisation process explains differences, not explain ingroup bias)
- discrimination could act to enhance ‘positive distinctiveness’ of ingroup, hence raise group members self esteem
social identity theory
- social categories do not simplify and bring order tow orld, provide basis fro our identity and sens eof who we are
- people strive to achieve and maintain a positive identity
- positive social identity based on favourable intergroup comparisons-seek to make group positively distinct from others
- threats to identity cause people to seek leave from group or make more distinctive
- stronger identification with ingroup, greater prejudice
using social identity process to reduce ingroup bias
-if social categorisation can create bias, it can be exploited to reduce it
-creating common or superordinate category so former outgroupers become ingroupers
-two phases:
phase 1: two subgroups created to work on task
phase 2: subgroups come together under three conditions, two group, separate individuals and one group
-greater ingroup/outgroupp difference displayed in two group condition, changes due to cognitive perceptions of other groups (perceive everyone as part of one group or as individuals)
problems with common ingroup identity strategy
- what about real world?
- majority vs minority effects
- exisiting groups identities highly valued-strong resistance to give them up
- shifting prejudice to another level
- failure to generalise t rest of group or other groups
- dual categorisation:
- dual identity or bicultural approach
- both superordinate and subgroup identities remain salient
- multiculturalism example of policy in action
