Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

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
What are the 2 types of relative deprivation Runciman 1965 distinguished between
Egoistic relative deprivation Fraternalistic relative deprivation
26
Define Egoistic relative deprivation by Runciman 1969
Individuals own sense deprivation relative similar individuals
27
Define Fraternalistic relative deprivation by Runciman 1969
Collective sense group less than entitled to compared other groups Lead social unrest and or collective violence
28
What are the 4 factors affecting relative deprivation
Strong group identification Perceived effectiveness of action Perceptions injustice Ingroup-outgroup comparisons
29
Outline Strong Group Identification for factors affecting relative deprivation
Necessary fraternalistic deprivation influence perceptions and collective action
30
Outline Perceived effectiveness of action for factors affecting relative deprivation
People who believe taking action e.g. protesting redress imbalance
31
Outline Perceptions of Injustice for factors affecting relative deprivation
Group less than entitled to - distributive injustice Unfair procedures - procedural injustice
32
Outline Ingroup and outgroup comparisons for factors affecting relative deprivation
Likelihood for action depends on which out group we compare our group against
33
Outline mere presence of minimal group paradigm
Sufficient create intergroup conflict
34
Is the minimal group paradigm a theory
No
35
Outline the minimal group paradigm
Experimental methodology investigate effect of social categorisation on group behaviour
36
Outline Minimal Group Paradigm Experimental Method
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
37
Outline Minimal Group Paradigm Experimental Method results
Showed in group favouritism Created max difference and max in group profit
38
Criticisms of minimal group paradigm
Groups formed flimsy criterion No past history or possible future Members no knowledge other members No self interest money allocation task
39
Outline Tajfel 1981 minimal group experiment
Robust - ppts allocate resources unfriendly | Observed children young as 7 - 12 years
40
Outline criticism of Minimal group experiment
Demand characteristics Positive negative symmetry - effect less pronounced ppts distribute punishment to out group Doesn’t explain why occurs
41
Who investigated the Social Identity Theory
Tajfel and Turner 1979
42
Outline the Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979 mentality
Groups motivate self concept as derive self esteem and belongingness
43
When according to Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979 do people show in group favouritism
Derive self esteem not only personal accomplishments but also status and achievements of in group
44
What are the 2 processes identified by the Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979
Social categorisation Social comparison
45
How are people motivated according to Social Identity Theory Tajfel and Turner 1979
Motivated maintain positive and secure self concept | Motivated reduce uncertainty and have clearly defined identities
46
Outline Hornsey 2008
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
Outline Identification of Social Identity Theory by Tajfel and Turner 1979
Identification with social group defines our relationships with both in and out group members guides our behaviour
48
According Self Identity Theory self esteem based group meme era bio motivated boost status and ingroup
Give advantages in group Bask in glory group victory Derogate members of out group React criticism of group personally
49
Outline Fein and Spencer 1997 study on social groups source self esteem
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
Outline Fein and Spencer 1997 study on social groups source self esteem Results
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
Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 aims
Uni students pilot study established alcohol consumption is defining aspect Identity
52
Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 method
Measured in group identification attitudes heavy drinking drinking intentions Manipulated in group norms alcohol consumption
53
Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 interaction effects with moderate drinking norm condition
Positive attitude heavy drinking and high in group identification reported greater intentions engage in heavy drinking when in moderate drinking norm condition
54
Outline Social Identity and in group norm adherence by Livingstone, Young and Manstead 2011 interaction effects with heavy drinking norm condition
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
Identify important factors highlights by livingstone Young and Manstead 2011
In group identification important confirming or resisting view Contradict ppts view on drinking they are more likely to try and disconfirm this
56
Outline Social Identity and conflict in NI by Livingstone and Haslam 2008
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
Outline Social Identity and conflict in NI by Livingstone and Haslam 2008 results
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
Who investigated Terror Management Theory
Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
59
Outline Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
Parallels social identity theory want be distinct other groups Broader more primal reason in group favouritism
60
Outline innate drive of Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
Innate drive survival and awareness inevitability of death = incapacitating Terror
61
What do humans fear according to Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
Humans embrace cultural worldview a protect us from fear of death
62
Outline how cultural worldviews protect from the fear of death according to Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
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
Define real world application of Terror Management Theory by Solomon Greenberg and Pyszczynski 2004
Internal and infra-national conflicts over religion and moral ways of living
64
Outline McGregor et al 1998 study on Terror Management Theory
Reminded ppts their mortality giving them questionnaire assess views on death Evaluated like minded or dissimilar political people
65
Outline McGregor et al 1998 study on Terror Management Theory results
More aggressive behaviour in mortality salience condition when rating someone with dissimilar contradict sense meaning and cultural values
66
Who investigates cognitive perspective on intergroup conflict Self Categorisation Theory
Turner et al 1987
67
Outline origins of Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987
Cognitive categorisation process underpinning social identity Theory Sub-Theory understand intra and intergroup behaviour Development Social Identity Approach
68
Outline basic assumptions of Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987
Assumes group processes occur Categorise ourself and others group members Vary inclusiveness:
69
How do we view others according to the Self Categorisation Theory by Turner et al 1987
See ourself or others as human beings See ourself or others part certain social groups Self or others unique identities
70
What can the Social Identity approach be broken down into
Social Identity Theory Self Categorisation Theory
71
Define the Social Identity Approach
Theories explaining intergroup conflict Meta theory - 2 distinct theories
72
Why was Self Categorisation theory developed
Designed address limitations of Social Identity Theory Provides explanation for how social Identity differs from personal identity
73
Outline Hornsey 2008 view on Self Categorisation Theory
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
Outline method of Platow et al 2005 study on Self Categorisation and social influence
Uni students watched clips comedians and their responses monitored 2 manipulated variables: Canned laughter Composition comedians audience - in or out group
75
Outline RESULTS of Platow et al 2005 study on Self Categorisation and social influence
Interaction effect Laughed 4x longer believed in group members laughing Self Categorisation results social influence giving us context and understanding of social group
76
Outline the method of Reicher, Templeton, Neville, Ferrari and Drury 2016 study on Self Categorisation and disgust
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
Outline the RESULTS of Reicher, Templeton, Neville, Ferrari and Drury 2016 study on Self Categorisation and disgust
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
Describe the Self Categorisation Theory
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
How does cognitive organisation work in like with meta contrast principle according to Self Categorisation Theory
Maximises perceived difference with our groups and minimises in group differences
80
What is the result of Cognitive Organisation and Meta Contrast Principle in Self Categorisation Theory
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
Define the Accentuation Effect
Overestimation of similarities among people within a category Overestimation dissimilarities between people from different categories
82
Define the Relative Homogeneity Effect
Tendency see ingroup members as more differentiated See out group members the same
83
Who investigated the Contact Hypothesis
Allport 1954
84
Outline the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954
Bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination
85
What Contact criteria has to be met for the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954
Prolonged and cooperative interaction Integration should be institutionally supported Contact between groups equal social status - difficult operationalise in controlled experiments
86
Why is the Contact Hypothesis by Allport 1954 Hypothesis to work
Familiarity breeds liking and this transfers to range different contexts Mere exposure effect - Zanjoc 1968 repeated exposure stimulus increased liking for it
87
Outline Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000
515 studies 38 nations Intergroup Contact effective - 94% samples inverse relationship between contact and prejudice Effects contact generalised beyond contact situation
88
Outline Allports Contact Hypothesis in relation to Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000
Conditions were effective but not essential for reduction prejudice Conditions only fully observed in 19% samples
89
Outline Uncertainty reduction mechanism from Pettigrew and Tropp 2006 meta analysis 1949 and 2000
Contact reduces anxiety not knowing how to act how you will be perceived and whether you be accepted Stephen et al 2002
90
Outline intergroup competitive victimhood by Noor et al 2012
Group members involved violent conflicts believe their group suffered more than the other Escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution
91
Outline how Noor et al 2012 proposes overcoming competitive victimhood
2 factors 1. Addressing Emotional Motivations 2. Fostering Common Victimhood Identity
92
Outline how addressing emotional motivations helps overcome competitive victimhood according Noor et al 2012
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
Outline how fostering common victimhood identity helps overcome competitive victimhood according Noor et al 2012
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
Outline the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid in South Africa
Gacaca Courts in Rwanda after 1994 genocide Intended serve justice Intended promote reconciliation - acknowledgement of harm and suffering and costs conflict
95
What does Wilder 1980 argue
Type and quality of interpersonal contact matters Unpleasant typical behaviours less favourable Pleasant ATYPICAL behaviours also less favourable Pleasant typical are favourable
96
Conclusions
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.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions