Lecture 4: The Motivational Approach Flashcards
1
Q
Tajfel (1970) or minimal groups paradigm (5)
A
- Groups had to estimate the number of dots in an array. Were then randomly grouped as either an under-estimator/over-estimator or accurate/inaccurate guesser.
- The secondary task was to assign a reward ($) or penalty (-$) to unknown ingroup or outgroup members.
- All participants gave more money to members of their group than outgroup members.
- When they weren’t distinguishing between outgroup and ingroup members, chose the fair distribution.
- Despite already being familiar classmates, all gave preference to those who shared group membership based on a meaningless classification.
2
Q
Perdue et al. (1990) (10)
(hint: ingroup associations; word pairings)
A
- Words referring to ingroup categorization (we, us, ours) have primarily positive connotations.
- Because these words have a positive valence, might automatically influence the perception of people belonging to other groups.
- Therefore, referring to someone using an ingroup designator (e.g. we) may elicit more positive impressions.
- Paired emotionally significant words (ingroup/outgroup/control) + non-words → non-words with emotional meaning.
- Ingroup word (us, we, ours);
- Outgroup word (them, they, theirs);
- Control (he, she, his, hers);
- Pairings of words and nonwords: e.g. We + Xeh, Them + Yof.
- 108 trials, indicate which is a word.
- Evaluated how pleasant each non-word is; outgroup words rated significantly less positive than controls and ingroup words significantly more positive.
3
Q
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1982) (5)
A
- We are motivated to maintain a positive self concept.
- Parts of our self-concepts are based on group memberships.
- In order to feel good about ourselves, we need to feel good about our groups.
- Compare in-group favorably to out-groups.
- Not all out-groups are relevant comparison groups.
4
Q
Self-Categorization Theory (Turner, 1984) (4)
A
- Stresses cognitive aspects of social identity.
- Personal vs. Social Identity
- These identities can vary in levels of abstraction; which of these levels of social identity will dominate in any situation? Depends on best “fit” for that context.
- Self-categorization at group level (higher level of abstraction) → depersonalization.
5
Q
Optimal-Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer, 1991) (4)
A
- Adds a second motivational component; i.e. motivations beyond self-esteem.
- Proposes 2 core human motives: 1) the need to be unique and 2) the need to belong.
- Identity is a tension between these 2 needs; selection and activation of identities is based on achieving a balance between needs.
- Optimal distinctiveness occurs when we achieve this balance.
6
Q
integrated threat theory (ITT) (2)
A
- Suggests that prejudice and discrimination are motivated by feelings of threat.
- Four types of proposed threats: realistic, symbolic, intergroup anxiety, and stereotypes.
7
Q
realistic threats (2)
A
- Threats to: the existence of the ingroup, political/economic power, and physical or material well-being.
- Often result from competition for scarce resources.
8
Q
symbolic threats (1)
A
- Threats to: the worldview of the ingroup, morals, values, norms, beliefs, and attitudes.
9
Q
intergroup anxiety (1)
A
- Anxiety in intergroup interactions, concerns about negative outcomes, disapproval, rejection, and embarrassment.
10
Q
threats from stereotypes (1)
A
- Negative outgroup stereotypes often embody threats to the ingroup.
11
Q
Which threat matters in ITT? (4)
A
- Realistic threat: history of conflict.
- Symbolic threat: extremely dissimilar groups.
- Intergroup anxiety: limited contact.
- Stereotypes: prior relations led to stereotypes.
12
Q
Stephan, Ybarra, & Bachman (1999) (7)
(hint: immigrants and ITT)
A
- To what extent do the four types of threats (from ITT) predict American’s attitudes towards different groups?
- Measured attitudes towards immigrants from Cuba (University of Miami student participants), Mexico (New Mexico State participants), and Asia (Hawaiian participants).
- Attitudes towards outgroups measured using evaluative (admiration, disliking, superiority, etc.) and emotional (no hatred to extreme hatred) reactions towards immigrants.
- Cuban immigrants: negative attitudes highly correlated with intergroup anxiety, symbolic threat, and realistic threat.
- Mexican immigrants: negative attitudes highly correlated with realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety.
- Asian immigrants: negative attitudes highly correlated with intergroup anxiety and symbolic threat; no significant correlation with stereotyping or realistic threat.
- Demonstrates how the degree to which each threat will predict attitudes shifts depending on which threat is salient.
13
Q
background of system justification theory (4)
A
- Argues that disadvantaged groups are motivated to reduce cognitive dissonance by justifying the system, and thereby justify the social order to a greater degree than members of advantaged groups.
- i.e. “The system disadvantages my group, I and my group contribute to the stability of the system.” Ergo, justify system to reduce dissonance.
- This theory challenges the assumptions that: disadvantaged groups are “revolutionaries in waiting,” conflicts of interest are necessary, all groups hold ingroup biases.
- Rather, dominants and subordinates are generally averse to conflict and antagonism; traditional explanations of prejudice can’t explain all prejudice.
14
Q
system justification theory (5)
A
- Process by which social arrangements are legitimized, even at the expense of personal and group-interest.
- People are generally motivated to justify the existing social order, which leads to internalization of inferiority among members of disadvantaged groups.
- Easiest to observe at implicit level.
- Paradoxical; sometimes strongest support of system among those most harmed by status quo.
15
Q
Jost et al. (2003) (4)
(hint: system justification)
A
- Study 1: Got data from the General Social Survey (collected in the USA) and looked at participant’s income, to what extent they believed large differences pay are necessary, and to what extent large differences in pay are necessary as incentive for individual effort.
- Results showed that individuals at lowest levels of income agreed most that large differences in pay are necessary and are incentivizing.
- Study 2: Got data from Latino National Political Survey and looked at participant’s income, how much they thought the government could be trusted, and whether the government was run by people looking out for their own interests or the benefit of all.
- Trends show that the lowest income groups felt more trust towards the government and believed that government was looking out for others.
- Provides evidence that people internalize beliefs that reduce dissonance and help justify the current social system.
