Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social > Intergroup Behaviour > Flashcards

Intergroup Behaviour Flashcards

1
Q

What is intergrpup behaviour?

A

Intergroup behaviour is “any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by people’s recognition that they and others are members of distinct social groups”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Most research into intergroup behaviour has focused on negative outcomes:

A
  • In-group favouritism
  • Ethnocentrism
  • Collective violence and social unrest
  • Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination
  • Dehumanisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Intergroup behaviour is regulated by people’s

A

awareness of and identification with different social groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Interactions can be

A

face-to-face or perceived threats from other groups (e.g., when people claim “foreigners stealing our jobs”).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Social behaviour is influenced by the

A

social categories to which we belong, and the power and status relations between those groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Real life examples include:

A
  • International wars/conflicts/disputes
  • Intra-national conflicts (e.g., civil war & genocide)
  • Negotiations between unions and management
  • Competitive team sports
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

•The social conditions that foster intergroup conflict can be grouped into different theoretical perspectives:

A
  • Economic Perspective
  • Motivational Perspective
  • Cognitive Perspective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Economic Perspective:

A

Realistic Conflict Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Motivational Perspective:

A
  • Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest)
  • Social Identity Theory
  • Terror Management Theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cognitive Perspective:

A

Self-Categorization Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

•Meta–theory with two distinct theories.

A
  • SCT designed to address limitations of SIT.

* SCT provides an explanation for how social identity differs from personal identity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Self-Categorization Theory

Hornsey 2008

A

Although SCT offered no explicit motivational analysis to account for intergroup behaviour, cognitive contrasting of ingroups and outgroups is implicitly understood to be a strategy designed to promote separateness, perceptual clarity and social meaning.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Economic Perspective of Intergroup Behaviour

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966):

A
  • Key feature of intergroup behaviour is ethnocentrism.
  • Sherif believed that competition between groups over scarce resources results in conflict and ethnocentrism.
  • Resources may be physical, economic, conceptual (e.g., territory, jobs, power).
  • Emphasis on nature of the (actual/real) conditions of contact between groups – competing or cooperating.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

King Knight and Hebl (2010)

A

Discrimination increases in economic hardship and among the groups that have the most to lose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments

Realistic conflict theory

A

22 boys participated in a “summer camp”
Divided into 2 groups: “Eagles” & “Rattlers”

• Four phases:
•Spontaneous friendship formation
•In-group and norm formation
•Intergroup competition
•Intergroup cooperation 
(superordinate goals)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Sheriffs (1996)

4 phases

A 
•Spontaneous friendship formation
•In-group and norm formation
•Intergroup competition
•Intergroup cooperation 
(superordinate goals)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Nature of group goals determines relations
•Relations between Individuals:
Relationship between groups:

A
  • Relations between Individuals:
  • Tend to cooperate and form a group if there is a common goal that requires interdependence
  • Mutually exclusive goals (e.g. scarce resources) lead to inter-individual competition
  • Relations between Groups:
  • Mutually exclusive goals between groups result in realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism
  • Shared (superordinate) goals results in cooperation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Realistic Conflict Theory

•Conditions of contact:

A

–Mutually incompatible goals -> increased intragroup solidarity and intergroup hostility
–Superordinate goal -> reduced conflict – achievement benefits all members of both groups
BUT:
•Once immediate crisis over, groups fell back into old hostile behaviour -> no long-term effect
-Need to introduce series of contact conditions involving superordinate goals
-New friendships developed, but some negativity lingered (especially from victorious group!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Dickerson’s Critical Review

A

•Conflict is not understood in terms of individual characteristics, but in terms of group processes.
BUT:
−Is competition really necessary for conflict?
−Is cooperation really sufficient condition for reduction?
−Actual vs. perceived material conflicts (Brown, 2000)
−Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context (Billig,1995).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Brown, 2000

A

−Actual vs. perceived material conflicts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Billig,1995

A

Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Relative deprivation

A

discrepancy between actualities (what is) & expectations or entitlements (what ought to be).
•Relative deprivation is often a precondition for intergroup aggression.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Davies (1969)

A

Davies (1969) J-Curve Hypothesis:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Runciman (1966) distinguished between types of relative deprivation:

A
  • Egoistic relative deprivation: an individual’s own sense of deprivation relative to other similar individuals.
  • Fraternalistic relative deprivation: Collective sense that our group has less than it is entitled to compared to other groups.
  • Fraternalistic relative deprivation may lead to social unrest and/or collective violence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Egoistic relative deprivation:

A

an individual’s own sense of deprivation relative to other similar individuals.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Fraternalistic relative deprivation:

A

Collective sense that our group has less than it is entitled to compared to other groups.
Fraternalistic relative deprivation may lead to social unrest and/or collective violence.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Factors Affecting Relative Deprivation

A
  • Strong group identification:
  • Necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996)
  • Perceived effectiveness of action:
  • People who believe that taking action (e.g. protesting) will redress the imbalance (Martin et al., 1984)
  • Perceptions of injustice:
  • Group has less than it is entitled to (distributive injustice)
  • Unfair procedures (procedural injustice) (Tyler & Lind, 1992)
  • Ingroup-outgroup comparisons:
  • Likelihood for action depends on which out-group we compare our group against (Martin & Murray, 1983).
28
Q

Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996

•Strong group identification:

A

•Necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action
Affecting relative deprivation

29
Q

Minimal Group Paradigm

A

experimental methodology to investigate the effect of social categorisation on group behaviour.
Sometimes the mere presence of an in-group vs. out-group distinction is sufficient to create intergroup conflict!

30
Q

Factors of minimal group paradigm

A
  • Groups formed on a flimsy criterion
  • No past history or possible future
  • Members had no knowledge of other members
  • No self-interest in the money allocation task
31
Q

Minimal group experiment by

A

Tajifel 1981

Robust finding - participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).

32
Q

Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981

A

It is even observed in children as young as 7 and 12 years when they were given coins to distribute
participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).

33
Q

Demand characteristics

A

conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness.

34
Q

Issues with minimal group Paradigm experiment

A
  • Demand characteristics – conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness.
  • Positive-negative symmetry – effect less pronounced when participants distribute punishment to out-group (Mummendey & Otten, 1998).
35
Q

Social Identity Theory

A
  • The ‘us vs. them’ mentality does not explain why in-group favouritism occurs!
  • People have both personal identities and social identities – the latter prescribes how to behave in our social groups.
  • Social Identity Theory - people show in-group favoritism, because they derive self-esteem not only from personal accomplishments, but also from the status and achievements of their in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).
  • Social identity is formed through two processes: (1) social categorization and (2) social comparison.
36
Q

Tajifel and Turner 1979

Social identity theory

A

people show in-group favoritism, because they derive self-esteem not only from personal accomplishments, but also from the status and achievements of their in-group

37
Q

Social identity is formed through two processes:

A

1) social categorization and (2) social comparison.

38
Q

Social identity theory concepts

A
  • People are motivated to maintain a positive and secure self-concept:
  • “Striving for a positive social identity, group members are motivated to think and act in ways that achieve or maintain a positive distinctiveness between one’s own group and relevant out-groups” (Hornsey, 2008, p.207).
  • People are motivated to reduce uncertainty and have clearly-defined identities.
  • Identification with a social group defines our relationships with both in-group and out-group members and guides our behaviour.
39
Q

Given that self-esteem is based in part on our group memberships, we are motivated to boost the status of the in-group –

A
  • Give advantages to the in-group over the out-group.
  • Bask in the glory of a group victory.
  • Derogate members of the out-group.
  • React to criticism of the group personally (for strongly identified group members).
40
Q

Social Groups as a Source of Self-Esteem:

A

Derogating out-group members – Fein & Spencer, 1997

The negative ratings of the Jewish candidate served to boost the participants own self esteem

41
Q

Terror Management Theory

Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (2004)

A
  • A broader (more primal) reason for in-group favouritism.
  • Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = incapacitating terror.
  • To assuage the paralyzing fear of death, humans embrace “cultural worldviews”.
  • Cultural worldviews protect against the fear of death by offering literal immortality (e.g., religion) or symbolic immortality (e.g., investment in future generations).
42
Q

Terror Management Theory

A
  • People derive self-esteem from adhering to the standards of their cultural system.
  • So, when we are reminded of our impending mortality, we seek protection by re-affirming our cultural worldviews.
43
Q

Terror Management Theory

Real-world application

A

international and intra-national conflicts over religion and the moral ways of living.

44
Q

Terror Management Theory

McGregor et al. (1998)

A

participants evaluated like-minded or dissimilar political people.
Mortality salience : aggression higher when threat

Control- aggression lower when threat

45
Q

Self-Categorisation Theory

Turner et al 1987

A

explains the cognitive categorisation process underpinning social identity theory
•Sub-theory designed to understand intragroup as well intergroup behaviour.
•Significant development in the ‘Social Identity Approach’

46
Q

Self-Categorisation Theory

A

Social identity theory claims we categorise people (and ourselves) in terms of social groups.

These social groupings are cognitively represented in terms of prototypes, which serve to define a social group and distinguish it from another group.

The activation of a particular social category (or identity) will vary depending on contextual features: accessibility and fit of the category.

47
Q

•The cognitive organisation of categories occurs in line with

A

the meta-contrast principle:

•maximises perceived differences with out-groups and minimises in-group differences.

48
Q

As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to Depersonalisation:

A

perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group

49
Q

As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to

A

Depersonalisation:

•perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group

50
Q

Social categorisation gives rise to some clear stereotyping effects:

A
  • Accentuation effect: Overestimation of similarities among people within a category and dissimilarities between people from different categories
  • Relative homogeneity effect: tendency to see ingroup members as more differentiated, and out-group members the same (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978)
51
Q

Social Categorisation and

Relative Homogeneity effect

A

Source: Brigham and

Barkowitz (1978)

52
Q

Reducing intergroup conflict?

A

Contact Hypothesis

53
Q

Contact Hypothesis

A
  • Allport (1954): The view that bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination.
  • Contact should meet certain criteria:
  • Prolonged and cooperative interaction (c.f. Sherif, 1966).
  • Integration should be institutionally supported.
  • Contact between groups of equal social status – difficult to operationalize in controlled experiments.
54
Q

What is context Hypothesis thought to Work?

A
  • It is hypothesized to work because familiarity breeds liking and this transfers to a range of different contexts.
  • Mere exposure effect (Zanjonc, 1968): repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for it.
55
Q

Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):

Contact Hypothesis

A

meta-analysis of 515 studies between 1949 and 2000 across 38 nations.
•Intergroup contact was effective – 94% of samples showed an inverse relationship between contact and prejudice.
•The effects of contact generalized beyond the contact situation.

56
Q

Contact Hypothesis

•Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):

A
  • Allport’s conditions were effective, but not essential for a reduction prejudice.
  • BUT – his conditions were only fully observed in 19% of samples!
  • Research suggests uncertainty reduction is a mechanism – contact reduces the anxiety of not knowing how to act, how you will be perceived by the others and whether you will be accepted (Stephan et al., 2002).
57
Q

Wilder 1984

A

Interpersonal contact

58
Q

Intergroup Competitive Victimhood

Noor et al 2012

A

group members involved in violent conflicts believe their group has suffered more than the other.
•It can escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution.

59
Q

Overcoming Competitive Victimhood

Noor et al 2012

A

Addressing emotional motivations
Fostering victimhood identity
Increases willingness to forgive and reconcile with the outgroup

60
Q

Overcoming Competitive Victimhood:

•Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid in South Africa.

A
  • Gacaca Courts in Rwanda after 1994 Genocide.
  • Intended to serve justice.
  • Intended to promote reconciliation - acknowledgment of harm and suffering and the costs of conflict.
61
Q

The mere perception of social groups and identification with an in-group is sufficient to

A

Create intergoup conflict

62
Q

What is the social identity approach dominant in?

A

Dominant perspective in the field of intergroup conflict

63
Q

The social identity approach can be used in parallel with other theories, such as

A

realistic conflict theory

64
Q

What does contact, shared (or superordinate) goals and reducing feelings of competitive victimhood do?

A

Reduce intergroup conflict

65
Q

Intergroup conflict

Economic perspective

A

•Realistic Conflict Theory

66
Q

Intergroup Conflict

Motivational Perspective:

A

Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest)
Social Identity Theory
Terror Management Theory

67
Q

Intergroup conflict

Cognitive Perspective

A

•Self-Categorization Theory

Social (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions