Intergroup Relations Flashcards
Sherif’s summer camp studies
3 stages
ethnocentrism?
observed intergroup realtions from inception to dissolution on a boys summer camp. 3stages studied: 1)group formation 2)introduced comp (93% of friendships defined by ingroup affiliation) 3)factors to reduce conflict
ethnocentrism - intense ingroup loyalty
Realistic group conflict theory
explanation for prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict. states:
conflict between groups is the result of the perception of scarce resources
‘realistic’ as its based on real comp for resources, however, mere categorisation may be enough for intergroup bias
The minimal group paradigm
tajfel - wanted to find baseline conditions for conflict
limitation?
school kids, 2 groups, allocate points to either group – found mere categorisation was enough for intergroup bias
limitation = basis for ‘belief similarity’ = think people in their group think the same as them (art study - billig and tajfel) = shows there’s a psychological component to prejudice
Evolutionary theory
van vugt - male warriors
evolved mechanisms?
claims psychological processes rely upon cognitice-affective strategies evolved to protect self from outgroup threat
van-vugt said: favouritism to ingroup is an adaptive response to ‘male warriors’ = increase status and reproductive potential
exposure to intergroup aggression has selected for a conditioned fear response to outgroups
evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms may underlie some intergroup bias = negative reaction to outgroups
the category differentiation model -
makes it easier for people to make judgements with less effort
Different allocation strategies ?
explains what??
imposing a system of classification on stimuli that can accentuate ingroup similarities and out group differences
cognitive misers= have a general motivation to simplify their view of the world using broad generalisations(social categories)
Doise - suggested a model of categorisation is the mechanism for how people allocate points in minimal group paradigm
Different allocation strategies:
box1- 25 points to ingroup, 21 to out (concern with maximising points)
box2- 7points to ingroup, 1 to out (concern with differentiation)
box 2 =more popular + supports Doises idea of motivation towards simplifying and categorisation
Social identity theory (tajfel and turner)
what does it explain?
support? - subjective group dynamics
explains ingroup favouring - why we favour our ingroup!
relationship between personal and social identity
assume people prefer to have a positive self-concept
source of self-esteem = social group (in minimal group paradigm allocate points to own group to increase status)
support = subjective group dynamics - based on idea people derive self esteem from group
(ingroup discriminates against outgroup - exclude black sheep- and monitor coherence of ingroup
self- categorisation theory
meta-contrast principle?
subjective uncertainty reduction hypothesis (hogg)
based on social identity, but emphasis on cognitive processes associated with contextual affiliation to social groups
identity salience leads to depersonalisation, assimilation to groups norms and self-stereotyping= prejudice
–meta-contrast princple - increased similarity inside, increase difference outside
- states social categorisation and intergroup discrimination are: context dependent and involve a search for meaning
subjective uncertainty reduction hypothesis- elaboration on motivational component of self-categorisation, group members keep group distinctiveness to reduce subjective uncertainty
self-anchoring theory
the idea that the self can be used as an informational base in social judgement
social projection = tendency to predict how others are feeling based on our own feelings (similar to us =strongest) so, may project more onto ingroup
Terror management theory(greenberg)
humans have a strong survival instinct, but also know we’re going to die
this theory suggests to manage our terror we adopt a cultural worldview that provides a sense of meaning to the world
‘cultural worldview’= protection against fear of death
people who believe they meet cultural worldview= high self esteem due to more confidence in attaining immortality in some form
evaluate ingroup more positively as they validate an individuals personal worldview
explaining extreme intergroup behaviour
opposing worldviews may lead to annihilation of outgroup for 2 reasons?
1)if outgroup member dies and ingroup survive= ingroup worldview is correct because they survived
2)by killing outgroup it reduces amount of people with opposing view
so, annihilation should decrease anxiety about death by protecting ones own conception of reality
(Hayes -christian study where muslims either portrayed as threat or not. found - groups told neutral things or muslims threatened but then died = liked muslims equally, so annihilation removed death anxiety)
2 problems:
1- observed effects may be due to general threat, rather than death specific
2-need to reduce anxiety comes from need for self esteem?
Improving intergroup relations
the common ingroup identity model (Gaertner and Dovidio)
crossed categorisation
multiple categorisation
social identity complexity
self-categorisation shows - 2 groups becoming 1= bias reduces as in group favouritism applies to new group
– could cause de categorisation = people stop using categories to form impressions of people (think interpersonal, not intergroup and shift from categorical mode of perception to individual mode)
Factors that allow regrouping:
1)contact 2)wearing same colour 3)good moods
making 2 bases for group membership simultaneously salient eg. White British, to make partial group members = decrease bias
limitations
-double outgroups
-simplified version of multiple categorisation
using many different aspects of category to decrease bias = realise categories are:
fluid, flexible, dynamic
increased complexity reduces bias as perceivers more likely to be able to socially categorise
-poor fit between category and target = decategorisation
–> social identity complexity = changing the way we we perceive ourselves - define ourselves with multiple non-overlapping identities
-low complexity = high overlap between membership and characteristics
-high complexity= greater outgroup tolerance
optimal distinctiveness theory
2 needs?
– optimal distinctiveness theory(Brewer) - people motivated to satisfy 2 needs:
1)need for assimilation 2)need for differentiation
people seek a group that provide a balance. bias occurs when need for differentiation isn’t fulfilled
What 2 models make up ‘positive distinctiveness’?
social identity theory (in-group favouring) category differentiation (motivation to clarify and simplify)
