lecture 4 - intergroup relations Flashcards
what are intergroup relations?
describes the relation between two or more groups and their members.
what is intergroup behaviour?
interaction between members of different groups, in terms of their group identification.
sherif 1962
Sherif (1962) defined intergroup relation as ‘relations between two or more groups and their respective members Whenever individuals belonging to one group interact, collectively or individually, with another group or its members in terms of their group identifications we have an instance of intergroup behaviour. Intergroup behaviour tends to be competitive and ethnocentric, that is, people tend to view all attributes of their group as being better than all attributes of any out-group they compare themselves with.’
Hall 2020
asked 147 students at an american univeristy which characters in superhero films they had the gretatest connection with. The study was conducted in two stages: after the release of Thor: Ragnarok and Justice League in 2017 and after the release of Black Panther and The Last Jedi. Participants were asked about those films. She found that participants were more likely to name a character that matched their sex or race as the one with whom they had greatest connection. Parasocial relationships were greater for women characters. People describing themselves as black reported stronger parasocial relationships with the black characters in Black Panther. Three people felt a connection with the white characters in that film and all three were white. ‘A more diverse range of superheroes will not, on its own, save the world’, Hall concedes, ‘However, they can be powerful metaphors and signifiers.’
Robbers Cave study - sherif et al 1961
Classic study on the formation of groups, intergroup conflict, and conflict resolution
Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood & Sherif, 1961
- 2 groups of 11-year old boys from Oklahoma City
“In all sense normal, well-adjusted boys of the same age, educational level, from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, with no unusual features in their personal backgrounds”
- First week: groups separate - camping, hiking, swimming, playing sports. Developed norms, roles, and structure. Named themselves Rattlers and Eagles, and made flags and wore these names on their shirts.
- Second week: noticed others “those guys” “they” “outsiders”. Requested a sports competition.
Camp leaders organized competition: baseball games, tug-of-war, tent-pitching, treasure hunt. Desirable prizes: pocket knives.
* This very quickly escalated:
* Eagles burned a flag from the Rattlers after losing a game.
* Rattlers raided the cabin of the Eagles during the night.
* Eagles won, Rattlers took their prizes.
* Fist fights.
The study demonstrates the ease with which antagonism between groups can be created. In addition the behaviour of the boys follows patterns typically associated with stereotypes/prejudice/discrimination
Superordinate goals - Goals that can only be obtained if groups work as a team
In second stage the common goals of both groups made them cooperate so reduced hostility and generates positive intergroup attitudes.
realistic conflict theory
developed by sherif to explain the outcome of the robbers cave study. the way people behave towards one another is strongly influenced by peoples goals and their perception of the goal relations between people. When there is a common goal that requires people to work together to achieve it then people cooperate to achieve it and this produces a sense of solidarity that underpins group formation. In first part of study groups have different goals and their goals hinder other group so creates mutual dislike, conflict and hostility. In second stage the common goals of both groups made them cooperate so reduced hostility and generates positive intergroup attitudes.
frustrated goals and relative deprivation
Key feature of realistic conflict theory = intergroup conflict rests on competitive goals that cause each group to hinder the others attempts to achieve their goals and contribute to hostile intergroup relations.
Idea has roots from Dollard et al’s 1939 frustration - aggression hypothesis - when peoples goals are frustrated they feel anger which goes only by aggression often directed at a weak and vulnerable scapegoat.
Berkowitz 1962 - frustration is most likely to translate into collective aggression against an out-group when the instigation to aggress is associated with other generally aversive conditions, there are aggressive cues in the environment, and people are in the presence of others who are acting aggressively.
Conflicts between group normally occurs when a group has a feeling of being deprived - relative deprivation worst when a period of rising expectations and rising achievements comes to a sudden end as acheivements suddenly drop off = the J-curve hypothesis (Davies 1969) explains large-scale intergroup conflicts eg french revolution
Relative deprivation can be based on over time/ diachronic comparisons between circumstances now and previously but Runciman 1966 suggests synchronic/ here and now self-other comparisons are more immediate and powerful.
interpersonal comparisons
These comparisons can be between one’s self and individual others = interpersonal comparisons or between one’s own group and another group= intergroup comparisons . The interpersonal comparisons generates a sense of egoistic relative deprivation that is associated with stress, depression and demotivation. Its intergroup comparisons that generates a sense of fraternalistic relative deprivation that is associated with collective protest, intergroup conflict, prejudice etc(Vanneman and Pettigrew, 1972).
There are at least three conditions that seem to amplify the impact of fraternalistic deprivation on competitive intergroup behaviour:
(1) people need to identify strongly with their group (Abrams, 1990)
(2) people need to feel that their deprived state relative to another group rests not only on an unjust distribution of resources (distributive injustice), but also on unjust procedures (procedural injustice) (Tyler and Smith, 1998)
(3) there is a perception of real intergroup conflict over scarce resources
Humour, aggression and motivations - self-determination theory
Deci and Ryan 2000 - Autonomy motivation involves making choices for oneself, acting according to respected values, and initiating proactive behaviour. Control motivation involves acting under external pressure and feedback. Autonomous individuals express greater well-being (Sheldon et al 1996) , have more positive romantic relationships (knee et al 2005) and perform better on tasks when they interact with others (Weinstein and Ryan 2010). Weinstein et al (2011) found that being primed with control orientation affected people’s hostility and preference for hostile humour. High trait hostility and control priming also enhanced aggressive behaviour, suggesting that autonomy and control motivations can influence behaviour.
social identity
Evidence that social categories or groups can create conflict and hostile intergroup attitudes and behaviour.
Study - Tajfel et al 1971
School students randomly assigned to groups. Ptps didn’t interact and did not know who was in their group and who was in the other. They still discriminated against the out- group eg gave them less money than their own group.
This has been replicated many times = the minimal group paradigm - people who are categorised on a minimal, trivial and often random basis tend to show a competitive and discriminatory orientation towards an out-group.
Tajfel and then Turners social identity theory
Tajfel and Turner, 1986; Turner et al, 1987; Hogg and Abrams, 1988; Hogg, 2006
Social identity theory = group and intergroup behaviour is associated with social identity not personal identity. People cognitively represent social groups as a set of attributes = a prototype. It includes in-group similarities and intergroup differences.
Prototypes are made for specific contexts to maximise entitativity.
When a particular intergroup categorisation seems best to account for what is going on in a particular situation it then becomes psychologically salient, so people categorise themselves and others in terms of the categorisation. Social categorisation causes people to view others and themselves not as unique individuals, but in terms of the relevant in-group or out-group prototype = depersonalisation because perception is based on group membership and group attributes not individuality and personal attributes. Depersonalisation explains why, in intergroup contexts, we tend to see out-group members stereotypically, why we conform to in-group norms relating to perceptions, feelings, attitudes and behaviours, and why we tend to accentuate intergroup differences and intragroup similarities on all available and relevant dimensions of comparison. This cognitive aspect of social identity theory is called self-categorisation theory (Turner et al, 1987).
negative intergroup relations
- Group antagonism (Taylor et al., 2006)
Negative attitudes and behaviour towards members of another group - Components of negative intergroup relations
- Cognitive: Stereotypes
- Affective: Prejudice
- Behavioural: Discrimination
Group antagonism is a more generic term than ‘prejudice’
Defined as negative attitude and behaviour towards other groups
3 components
stereotypes
- Beliefs about the typical characteristics of members of a group or social category
- Overemphasize (negative) attributes
- Underestimate variability within a group
- More likely to be used when information about individual is ambiguous or inadequate
(Stereotypes may have a grain of truth, but when these are used to make judgements about a person on an individual level this can lead to a logical fallacy. )
More likely to be used when information about individual is ambiguous or inadequate:
stereotypes - Kunda and Sherman- williams 1993
Housewife / construction worker “who hit someone who annoyed him”: aggression ratings higher for construction worker.
Not when (s)he had attacked neighbor for taunting, or spanked a kid for making a mess
People construct their reality: Stereotypes influence perception/expectation/interaction with the social world (like a schema)
Kunda & Sherman-Williams (1993)
Participants read about a housewife /construction worker
Low-aggressive behaviour: “… spanked [his/her] son for trudging mud on the carpet”
Aggressive behaviour: “… decked a neighbour who had taunted him”
Ambiguous behaviour: “… hit someone who annoyed [him/her]”
Decking = knocking someone to the ground
corral et al 2007
making stereotypes about people influences a persons descision to shoot those individuals during a videogame. Ptps had to press a ‘shoot’ key if saw a person with a gun in the game they were playing. If not carrying a gun had to press ‘don’t shoot’. Half characters in game where white and half were black. Before playing the game ptps read newspaper articles where armed robberies committed by either black or white felons were reported. People who read about black criminals were significantly more likely to shoot black targets in the game - no matter if they were armed or not than white (even armed) targets. The stereotypical info made peoples tendency to do stereotype-driven behaviour increased.
prejudice
Can be viewed as a shared attitude which is normally negative towards a social - out group and their members just because they are a member of the group.
Stereotypes are a key feature of prejudice and it devalues the out-group relative to the in-group. Most harmful prejudices are based on race, ethnicity, religion, age ,sex, sexual orientation and mental and physical health.
Prejudices have a cognitive component which is a stereotype or a schema - a set of interrelated beliefs about members of the group that influences perception once we categorise someone as being a member of the group. When prejudice is expressed as behaviour its called discrimination.
- Affective response towards a group or its members
- Evaluative (positive or negative)
- Based on a prejudgment
(without individual being known) - Often negative:
Less favourable evaluation of attributes of other groups - High prejudiced people
- More negative to members of target group
- Endorse more stereotypes
Stereotypes and prejudice are usually a mixture of cognition and affect (like all attitudes).
But in Social psychology research people try to separate these.
Also, stereotypes about groups of people can be known by low-prejudiced individuals even when these individuals themselves do not endorse them.
theories of prejudice
Prejudice is often traced to individual differences and personality attributes eg authoritarian personality - adorno et al 1950. children with parents who use harsh methods to get love and dependence have a love-hate relationship with them which is stressful. The stress is resolved by idealising their parents and all authority figures and direct their hatred on weaker people. This becomes authoritarianism and predisposes people to prejudice.
Rokeach 1948 - some people have a general cognitive style that is rigid and dogmatic. They are predisposed to prejudice as they want a ridgly stratified world and resistant to belief change when theres contracdictory evidence. Ground their beliefs in authority and orthodox belief systems.
social dominance theory
pratto et al 1994 - ‘individual differences’ - people who want their group to be dominant and superior to out-groups have a high social dominance orientation so the reject equality and accept myths that supports hierachy and discrimination. They are more likley to be prejudiced than those with low social dominance oreintation.
prejudice - pettigrew 1958 and Billig 1976
criticise personality and individual differences explanations and think prejudice is a collective behaviour engaged in by large numbers of people in a relatively coordinated and highly targeted manner. Evidence personality is a poor predictor of prejudice and nature of intergroup relations is a better predictor.
Most social psychologists believe prejudice is part of intergroup behaviour so needs to be understood as part of a theory of intergroup behaviour. Prejudice, stereotypes and discrimination are expressed by individuals but are intergroup phenomena - brown 1995 - individuals are prejudiced as they belong to groups that have developed certain relations with one another that are characterised by unequal status and advantage and by conflict and hatred.
