Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Social > Lecture 6 - Intergroup Behaviour and Conflict > Flashcards

Lecture 6 - Intergroup Behaviour and Conflict Flashcards

1
Q

Define intergroup behaviour according to Hogg and Vaughan 2014

A

Any perception, cognition of behaviour is influenced people’s recognition they and others members distinct social groups

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

Outline Intergroup behaviour focused on negative outcomes

A 
In group favouritism 
Ethnocentrism = moral superiority 
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

How is intergroup behaviour regulated

A

People’s awareness and identification different social groups
Face to face or perceived threats
Influenced by social categories which we belong and power and status relations between those groups

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

What is intergroup conflict

A

International wars/conflicts/disputes
Infra national conflicts - civil war and genocide
Negotiations between unions and management
Competitive team sport

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

What is the economic perspective for causes intergroup conflict

A

Realistic conflict theory - competition scarce resources

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

What is the motivational perspective for causes intergroup conflict

A

Poor intergroup relations because 2 groups and tendency compare

Relative deprivation - social unrest and protest

Social Identity Theory

Terror management theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is the cognitive perspective for causes intergroup conflict

A

Underpin motivation differences
Perceptual and behavioural differences due social categorisation

Self categorisation theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Who investigated realistic conflict theory

A

Sherif 1966

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

Define Realistic Conflict according to Sherif 1966

A

Our group somehow superior other groups entitled scarce resources
Key feature intergroup behaviour ethnocentrism
Competition over scarce resources results in conflict and ethnocentrism
Resources may be physical, economic, conceptual

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

When does discrimination increase according to Realistic Conflict according to Sherif 1966

A

Discrimination increase economic hardship and among groups have most lose (just feel like most lose)

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

Outline Sherifs 1966 summer camp experimenters

A

22 boys ppts in summer camp
Divided 2 groups
4 phases

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

What are the 4 phases in Sherifs 1966 summer camp experiments

A

Spontaneous friendship formation

In group and norm formation

Intergroup competition

Intergroup cooperation

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

Outline Spontaneous Friendship Formation

A

Allowed boys make friends with whoever they chose individual preferences

No manipulation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Outline In group and norm formation

A

Spilt friendships up from 1st stage

Groups kept separate own living conditions ate and completed tasks separately

Limited contact

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

Outline intergroup competition

A

Encouraged each group see other group as threat
1 prize, competition
Limited resource only 1 group take trophy home
Name calling threats violence raiding other living conditions
Leaders athletically gifted or louder members

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Outline Intergroup cooperation

A

Superordinate goals
Taking competition away not sufficient
Provide larger goals where both groups had to work together to achieve
Working together reduced conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

How does the nature of group goals determine within group relationships

A

Cooperate and form group of common goal requires interdependence
Mutually exclusive goals (scarce resources) lead inter individual competition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

How does the nature of group goals determine between group relationships

A

Mutually exclusive goals between groups result realist intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism

Shared superordinate goals results cooperation

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

What’s the issue of nature of group goals determining the relationships

A

Once immediate crisis over group fall back hostile behaviour
No long term effect

Introduce series contact conditions involving superordinate goals

New friendships but some negatively lingered
Basking in glory

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

Outline Dickinsons critical review of group goals

A

Conflict not understood terms individual characteristics but group processes

Competition not necessary for conflict been displayed before competition

Cooperation not sufficient for reduction not enough rid of historic conflict

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

Outline criticism of group goals determining nature of relationship by Brown 2000

A

Actual vs perceived material conflicts

Sheriff talking actual conflict
Know history perceived differences

Approach too generic - ignore social historical context

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

Define relative deprivation

A

Discrepancy between actualities (what is)
And expectations or entitlements (what ought to be)

Precondition intergroup aggression

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

Outline Davies 1969 J Curve Hypothesis in Relative Deprivation

A

Construct expectations of future through last and current attainments

People form assessment what ought be case how treated past

Discrepancy between Think is and what is happening creates relative deprivation

Potential trigger social violence and unrest

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

Outline the problem of Davies 1969 J Curve Hypothesis

A

Doesn’t explain discrimination of collective group who have always been treated unjust in past as cannot compare what ought happen and previous experiences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What are the 2 types of relative deprivation Runciman 1965 distinguished between

A

Egoistic relative deprivation

Fraternalistic relative deprivation

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

Define Egoistic relative deprivation by Runciman 1969

A

Individuals own sense deprivation relative similar individuals

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

Define Fraternalistic relative deprivation by Runciman 1969

A

Collective sense group less than entitled to compared other groups

Lead social unrest and or collective violence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What are the 4 factors affecting relative deprivation

A

Strong group identification

Perceived effectiveness of action

Perceptions injustice

Ingroup-outgroup comparisons

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Outline Strong Group Identification for factors affecting relative deprivation

A

Necessary fraternalistic deprivation influence perceptions and collective action

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Outline Perceived effectiveness of action for factors affecting relative deprivation

A

People who believe taking action e.g. protesting redress imbalance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Outline Perceptions of Injustice for factors affecting relative deprivation

A

Group less than entitled to - distributive injustice

Unfair procedures - procedural injustice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Outline Ingroup and outgroup comparisons for factors affecting relative deprivation

A

Likelihood for action depends on which out group we compare our group against

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Outline mere presence of minimal group paradigm

A

Sufficient create intergroup conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Is the minimal group paradigm a theory

A

No

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Outline the minimal group paradigm

A

Experimental methodology investigate effect of social categorisation on group behaviour

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Outline Minimal Group Paradigm Experimental Method

A

School children assorted group via meaningless criteria
Told allocate coins to group but also told own I Group not benefit

Expect fairness as no point in favouritism

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Outline Minimal Group Paradigm Experimental Method results

A

Showed in group favouritism

Created max difference and max in group profit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Criticisms of minimal group paradigm

A

Groups formed flimsy criterion
No past history or possible future
Members no knowledge other members
No self interest money allocation task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Outline Tajfel 1981 minimal group experiment

A

Robust - ppts allocate resources unfriendly

Observed children young as 7 - 12 years

40
Q

Outline criticism of Minimal group experiment

A

Demand characteristics

Positive negative symmetry - effect less pronounced ppts distribute punishment to out group

Doesn’t explain why occurs

41
Q

Who investigated the Social Identity Theory

A

Tajfel and Turner 1979

42
Q

Outline the Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979 mentality

A

Groups motivate self concept as derive self esteem and belongingness

43
Q

When according to Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979 do people show in group favouritism

A

Derive self esteem not only personal accomplishments but also status and achievements of in group

44
Q

What are the 2 processes identified by the Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979

A

Social categorisation

Social comparison

45
Q

How are people motivated according to Social Identity Theory Tajfel and Turner 1979

A

Motivated maintain positive and secure self concept

Motivated reduce uncertainty and have clearly defined identities

46
Q

Outline Hornsey 2008

A

Striving for a positive social identity group members motivated think and act in ways achieve or maintain positive distinctiveness between ones own group and relevant out groups

47
Q

Outline Identification of Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979

A

Identification with social group defines our relationships with both in and out group members guides our behaviour

48
Q

According Self Identity Theory self esteem based group meme era bio motivated boost status and ingroup

A

Give advantages in group
Bask in glory group victory
Derogate members of out group
React criticism of group personally

49
Q

Outline Fein and Spencer 1997 study on social groups source self esteem

A

Derogating out group members
Early years being part social group meaningful
Students lab IQ test and feedback performance
Watch video job interview give rating candidate
Clear candidate Jewish and out group

50
Q

Outline Fein and Spencer 1997 study on social groups source self esteem Results

A

Negative ratings Jewish candidates served boost ppts own self esteem

Negative feedback derogated Jewish job candidate

Own personal achievements important to us and source self esteem

51
Q

Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 aims

A

Uni students pilot study established alcohol consumption is defining aspect Identity

52
Q

Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 method

A

Measured in group identification attitudes heavy drinking drinking intentions
Manipulated in group norms alcohol consumption

53
Q

Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 interaction effects with moderate drinking norm condition

A

Positive attitude heavy drinking and high in group identification reported greater intentions engage in heavy drinking when in moderate drinking norm condition

54
Q

Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 interaction effects with heavy drinking norm condition

A

Positive attitude to heavy drinking and low in group identification reported greater intentions engage in heavy drinking when in heavy drinking norm condition
Already positive attitude towards behaviour being reminded this is norm and not social sanctions increase behaviour despite lack identification with group

55
Q

Identify important factors highlights by livingstone Young and Manstead 2011

A

In group identification important confirming or resisting view

Contradict ppts view on drinking they are more likely to try and disconfirm this

56
Q

Outline Social Identity and conflict in NI by Livingstone and Haslam 2008

A

Adolescent studies NI
Self reported religious affiliation given appropriate In group vs out group survey

Measured in group identification, intergroup antagonism and behavioural intentions out group

57
Q

Outline Social Identity and conflict in NI by Livingstone and Haslam 2008 results

A

When antagonism high
In group identification predicted less favourable intentions to put grohp

Identifying in group important see out group as threat which is context dependent

58
Q

Who investigated Terror Management Theory

A

Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

59
Q

Outline Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

A

Parallels social identity theory want be distinct other groups
Broader more primal reason in group favouritism

60
Q

Outline innate drive of Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

A

Innate drive survival and awareness inevitability of death = incapacitating Terror

61
Q

What do humans fear according to Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

A

Humans embrace cultural worldview a protect us from fear of death

62
Q

Outline how cultural worldviews protect from the fear of death according to Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

A

Offer literal immortality (religion) or symbolic immortality (investment future generations)

Derive self esteem adhering to standards of their cultural system

Reminded our impending mortality, seeking protection by re affirming cultural world views

63
Q

Define real world application of Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004

A

Internal and infra-national conflicts over religion and moral ways of living

64
Q

Outline McGregor et al 1998 study on Terror Management Theory

A

Reminded ppts their mortality giving them questionnaire assess views on death

Evaluated like minded or dissimilar political people

65
Q

Outline McGregor et al 1998 study on Terror Management Theory results

A

More aggressive behaviour in mortality salience condition when rating someone with dissimilar contradict sense meaning and cultural values

66
Q

Who investigates cognitive perspective on intergroup conflict Self Categorisation Theory

A

Turner et al 1987

67
Q

Outline origins of Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987

A

Cognitive categorisation process underpinning social identity Theory

Sub-Theory understand intra and intergroup behaviour

Development Social Identity Approach

68
Q

Outline basic assumptions of Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987

A

Assumes group processes occur
Categorise ourself and others group members
Vary inclusiveness:

69
Q

How do we view others according to the Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987

A

See ourself or others as human beings
See ourself or others part certain social groups
Self or others unique identities

70
Q

What can the Social Identity approach be broken down into

A

Social Identity Theory

Self Categorisation Theory

71
Q

Define the Social Identity Approach

A

Theories explaining intergroup conflict

Meta theory - 2 distinct theories

72
Q

Why was Self Categorisation theory developed

A

Designed address limitations of Social Identity Theory

Provides explanation for how social Identity differs from personal identity

73
Q

Outline Hornsey 2008 view on Self Categorisation Theory

A

Offers no explicit motivational analysis account for intergroup behaviour, cognitive contrasting of in groups and out groups

It is implicitly understood promote separateness, perceptual clarity and social meaning

74
Q

Outline method of Platow et al 2005 study on Self Categorisation and social influence

A

Uni students watched clips comedians and their responses monitored

2 manipulated variables:
Canned laughter
Composition comedians audience - in or out group

75
Q

Outline RESULTS of Platow et al 2005 study on Self Categorisation and social influence

A

Interaction effect
Laughed 4x longer believed in group members laughing

Self Categorisation results social influence giving us context and understanding of social group

76
Q

Outline the method of Reicher, Templeton, Neville, Ferrari and Drury 2016 study on Self Categorisation and disgust

A

Students smell sweaty T-shirt bearing logo of another uni
Manipulated ppts personal identity salient, or as a member of another uni - outgroup or their identity as general student - in group

77
Q

Outline the RESULTS of Reicher, Templeton, Neville, Ferrari and Drury 2016 study on Self Categorisation and disgust

A

Disgust lower in infroup and walked slower wash hands

Increased willingness meet owner of shirt

Increased perceptions similarity to target

Self Categorisation influences how we feel

78
Q

Describe the Self Categorisation Theory

A

Categorise terms social groups
Cognitively represented terms prototypes serve define and distinguish social group

Activation particular social category vary depending on contextual features:
accessibility and fit

79
Q

How does cognitive organisation work in like with meta contrast principle according to Self Categorisation Theory

A

Maximises perceived difference with our groups and minimises in group differences

80
Q

What is the result of Cognitive Organisation and Meta Contrast Principle in Self Categorisation Theory

A

Social category is salient lead to depersonalisation

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

81
Q

Define the Accentuation Effect

A

Overestimation of similarities among people within a category

Overestimation dissimilarities between people from different categories

82
Q

Define the Relative Homogeneity Effect

A

Tendency see ingroup members as more differentiated

See out group members the same

83
Q

Who investigated the Contact Hypothesis

A

Allport 1954

84
Q

Outline the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954

A

Bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination

85
Q

What Contact criteria has to be met for the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954

A

Prolonged and cooperative interaction

Integration should be institutionally supported

Contact between groups equal social status - difficult operationalise in controlled experiments

86
Q

Why is the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954 Hypothesis to work

A

Familiarity breeds liking and this transfers to range different contexts

Mere exposure effect - Zanjoc 1968 repeated exposure stimulus increased liking for it

87
Q

Outline Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000

A

515 studies
38 nations

Intergroup Contact effective - 94% samples inverse relationship between contact and prejudice

Effects contact generalised beyond contact situation

88
Q

Outline Allports Contact Hypothesis in relation to Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000

A

Conditions were effective but not essential for reduction prejudice

Conditions only fully observed in 19% samples

89
Q

Outline Uncertainty reduction mechanism from Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000

A

Contact reduces anxiety not knowing how to act how you will be perceived and whether you be accepted
Stephen et al 2002

90
Q

Outline intergroup competitive victimhood by Noor et al 2012

A

Group members involved violent conflicts believe their group suffered more than the other

Escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution

91
Q

Outline how Noor et al 2012 proposes overcoming competitive victimhood

A

2 factors

  1. Addressing Emotional Motivations
  2. Fostering Common Victimhood Identity
92
Q

Outline how addressing emotional motivations helps overcome competitive victimhood according Noor et al 2012

A

Empowering less powerful/victimised group e.g. avoiding denial of injustice

Accepting more powerful perpetrating group - e.g. expressing empathy for circumstances that compelled their behaviour

93
Q

Outline how fostering common victimhood identity helps overcome competitive victimhood according Noor et al 2012

A

Knowledge and exchange intense common suffering experiences - loss family due to conflict

Maintaining dual identity

Separating responsibility from common suffering issues

Drawing attention to costs

Highlighting common legacy historical mistakes and violence

Abstract de contextualised framing of conflict

Increasing perceived similarity between groups

Peace promoting journalism

Intergroup Contact

94
Q

Outline the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid in South Africa

A

Gacaca Courts in Rwanda after 1994 genocide

Intended serve justice

Intended promote reconciliation - acknowledgement of harm and suffering and costs conflict

95
Q

What does Wilder 1980 argue

A

Type and quality of interpersonal contact matters

Unpleasant typical behaviours less favourable

Pleasant ATYPICAL behaviours also less favourable

Pleasant typical are favourable

96
Q

Conclusions

A

Mere perception social groups and identification in group sufficient to create intergroup conflict

Social identity approach - dominant used in parallel other theories - realistic conflict theory

Reduce intergroup conflict - Contact, shares superordinate goals, reducing feelings competitive victimhood

Social (10 decks)

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