Intergroup Behaviour Flashcards
What is intergrpup behaviour?
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”
Most research into intergroup behaviour has focused on negative outcomes:
- In-group favouritism
- Ethnocentrism
- Collective violence and social unrest
- Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination
- Dehumanisation
Intergroup behaviour is regulated by people’s
awareness of and identification with different social groups.
Interactions can be
face-to-face or perceived threats from other groups (e.g., when people claim “foreigners stealing our jobs”).
Social behaviour is influenced by the
social categories to which we belong, and the power and status relations between those groups.
Real life examples include:
- International wars/conflicts/disputes
- Intra-national conflicts (e.g., civil war & genocide)
- Negotiations between unions and management
- Competitive team sports
•The social conditions that foster intergroup conflict can be grouped into different theoretical perspectives:
- Economic Perspective
- Motivational Perspective
- Cognitive Perspective
Economic Perspective:
Realistic Conflict Theory
Motivational Perspective:
- Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest)
- Social Identity Theory
- Terror Management Theory
Cognitive Perspective:
Self-Categorization Theory
•Meta–theory with two distinct theories.
- SCT designed to address limitations of SIT.
* SCT provides an explanation for how social identity differs from personal identity.
Self-Categorization Theory
Hornsey 2008
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.”
Economic Perspective of Intergroup Behaviour
Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966):
- 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.
King Knight and Hebl (2010)
Discrimination increases in economic hardship and among the groups that have the most to lose
Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments
Realistic conflict theory
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)
Sheriffs (1996)
4 phases
•Spontaneous friendship formation •In-group and norm formation •Intergroup competition •Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals)
Nature of group goals determines relations
•Relations between Individuals:
Relationship between groups:
- 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
Realistic Conflict Theory
•Conditions of contact:
–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!)
Dickerson’s Critical Review
•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).
Brown, 2000
−Actual vs. perceived material conflicts
Billig,1995
Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context
Relative deprivation
discrepancy between actualities (what is) & expectations or entitlements (what ought to be).
•Relative deprivation is often a precondition for intergroup aggression.
Davies (1969)
Davies (1969) J-Curve Hypothesis:
Runciman (1966) distinguished between types of relative deprivation:
- 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.
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.
Factors Affecting Relative Deprivation
- 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).
Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996
•Strong group identification:
•Necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action
Affecting relative deprivation
Minimal Group Paradigm
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!
Factors of minimal group paradigm
- 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
Minimal group experiment by
Tajifel 1981
Robust finding - participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).
Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981
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).
Demand characteristics
conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness.
Issues with minimal group Paradigm experiment
- 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).
Social Identity Theory
- 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.
Tajifel and Turner 1979
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
Social identity is formed through two processes:
1) social categorization and (2) social comparison.
Social identity theory concepts
- 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.
Given that self-esteem is based in part on our group memberships, we are motivated to boost the status of the in-group –
- 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).
Social Groups as a Source of Self-Esteem:
Derogating out-group members – Fein & Spencer, 1997
The negative ratings of the Jewish candidate served to boost the participants own self esteem
Terror Management Theory
Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (2004)
- 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).
Terror Management Theory
- 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.
Terror Management Theory
Real-world application
international and intra-national conflicts over religion and the moral ways of living.
Terror Management Theory
McGregor et al. (1998)
participants evaluated like-minded or dissimilar political people.
Mortality salience : aggression higher when threat
Control- aggression lower when threat
Self-Categorisation Theory
Turner et al 1987
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’
Self-Categorisation Theory
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.
•The cognitive organisation of categories occurs in line with
the meta-contrast principle:
•maximises perceived differences with out-groups and minimises in-group differences.
As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to Depersonalisation:
perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group
As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to
Depersonalisation:
•perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group
Social categorisation gives rise to some clear stereotyping effects:
- 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)
Social Categorisation and
Relative Homogeneity effect
Source: Brigham and
Barkowitz (1978)
Reducing intergroup conflict?
Contact Hypothesis
Contact Hypothesis
- 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.
What is context Hypothesis thought to Work?
- 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.
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):
Contact Hypothesis
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.
Contact Hypothesis
•Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):
- 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).
Wilder 1984
Interpersonal contact
Intergroup Competitive Victimhood
Noor et al 2012
group members involved in violent conflicts believe their group has suffered more than the other.
•It can escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution.
Overcoming Competitive Victimhood
Noor et al 2012
Addressing emotional motivations
Fostering victimhood identity
Increases willingness to forgive and reconcile with the outgroup
Overcoming Competitive Victimhood:
•Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid in South Africa.
- 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.
The mere perception of social groups and identification with an in-group is sufficient to
Create intergoup conflict
What is the social identity approach dominant in?
Dominant perspective in the field of intergroup conflict
The social identity approach can be used in parallel with other theories, such as
realistic conflict theory
What does contact, shared (or superordinate) goals and reducing feelings of competitive victimhood do?
Reduce intergroup conflict
Intergroup conflict
Economic perspective
•Realistic Conflict Theory
Intergroup Conflict
Motivational Perspective:
Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest)
Social Identity Theory
Terror Management Theory
Intergroup conflict
Cognitive Perspective
•Self-Categorization Theory
