lecture 8 improving intergroup relations Flashcards
categorisation models
decategorisation
crossed categorisation
common in group identity
decategorisation
Group categories are abandoned & people
are encouraged to think of others in an interpersonal context - remove category and emphasise the individual
Bettencourt, Brewer, Croak, & Miller (1992) decategorisation
pps in 2 minimal groups
1 - focus on task - lead to intergroup bias
2 - focus on personal characteristics - reduced intergroup bias
problems with decategorisation
cant do when categories salent/distinct ie race
can be detrimental to remove group identity - valuable to self
not likely to generalise positive individual views to whole group (subtype) - ie when atypical student, less prejudice to individual but not who whole uni
crossed categorisation
social identities are comprised of many group memberships - encourage to think of out-group members in terms of how they are similar on other category dimensions ie when share one ingroup dimension
two ingroup dimension ie female psych - double in
no dimension ie male maths
deschamps and doise crossed categorisation
segregate participants on gender then mix giving red or blue pens
rate performance in terms of gender - bias
rate in terms of colour - reduce intergroup bias
problem with crossed categorisation
double out group - no reduction in prejudice/increased prejudice towards as even greater segregation
common in group identity
‘recategorisation’ / ‘superordinate categorisation’
encouraged to perceive themselves (“us”) & out-groups (“them”) as members of a superordinate (“we”) category
gaertner common in group identity
inter group bias is repeatedly displayed as in-group favoritism rather than out-group derogation
create a super ordinate identity via Cooperation
integrated seating between groups and all work on same task & ask to evaluate individuals - Reduced inter group bias in super ordinate condition
criticism of common in group identity
increases in intergroup bias can follow superordinate categorization
identify strongly with their in-group (high identifiers)see superordinate categorization as threat to in-group positive distinctiveness
positive distinctiveness threatened (social identity)
contact hypothesis ‘intergroup contact’
Contact between opposing group members should reduce prejudice
contact hypothesis prerequisits that must be met
Institutional support
Co-operation to achieve common goals
Free from competition
Equal status between contact members
how does intergroup contact work
Increasing empathy towards the out-group
Encouraging perspective taking
Enhancing feelings of trust towards the out-group
Reducing intergroup anxiety and threat
problem with intergroup contact
effect is weaker amongst minority members
intergroup anxiety
anxiety that an individual may feel when anticipating or experiencing contact with someone from another group
ie Negative arousal associated with out-group
reducing intergroup anxiety
positive contact with out-group member reduces these feelings of anxiety; in turn prejudice is reduced
Paolini et al. (2004)
reducing intergroup anxiety
crossed contact between catholics and protestants in N.Ireland reduces anxiety and improves attitudes
criticisms of intergroup contact
sherif summer camp - mere exposure to other group not improve but initiate prejuce (right circumstances)
allport - prejudice towards black community increase with greater proximity
intergroup anxiety most likely if
If minimal contact with out-group
If hold negative beliefs about the out-group in question
If the interaction is unstructured - increased ambiguity of the situation
neg impact of intergroup anxiety
– Negative arousal generalised to the target of the interaction
– increased prejudice towards out-group
– Avoidance of out-group
– Opportunity for direct contact not always available
extended contact
knowledge of cross-group friendships can reduce prejudice
Wright et al. (1997) extended contact
Created intergroup conflict between
two minimal groups
- one participant from each group participated in a co-operative task together
- return - participants discuss experience with the rest of the in-group
- intergroup conflict and intergroup bias were reduced
criticisms of extended contact
opportunity not always available
– Highly segregated areas
– People often associate with like-minded individuals
imagined contact
imagining positive contact with an out-group member will have similar (albeit less powerful) effects as direct contact
Turner, Crisp, & Lambert (2007) imagined contact 1
Young participants randomly allocated to one of two conditions & asked to imagined a scene:
control - imagine outdoor scene
exp - imagine pos encounter with elederly stranger
-asked willingness to work with elderly individual
no bias in imagined positive contact group
how does imagined contact improve relations
Improved explicit & implicit attitudes
Reduced intergroup anxiety
Stronger behavioural intentions
improved intergroup behaviours ie approaching
Overcomes limitations of other forms of contact as no need for opportunity
criticisms of imagined contact
Not expected to be as powerful as direct contact
preparatory measure not replacement
education in reducing prejudice
Education promoting tolerance – particularly aimed at children should reduce prejudice
education Elliot (1977) The Eye of The Storm
Prejudice reduced by having people
experience what it is like to be the victim of discrimination
- blue eyed people > than brown eyed people
