Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

PSYC 208 > Midterm #2 -> END: Terms > Flashcards

Midterm #2 -> END: Terms Flashcards

1
Q

“In Conflict Zones, People Often Know Someone Who Has Been Affected By The Conflict” - What Does This Lead To? (3)

A
  • Intergroup anxiety -> contact avoidance
  • Such negatively evaluated objects more likely to be avoided, as well as people with initial negative impressions of them
  • How do we heal divided relations if groups are too scared to come into contact with each other?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

4 Indirect Forms of Intergroup Contact:

A
  1. Extended contact (Wright)
  2. Parasocial contact (Paluck)
  3. Storytelling (Vezzali)
  4. Imagined contact (Crisp & Turner)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Extended Contact:

A

Having an ingroup friend who has outgroup friends reduces prejudice towards the outgroup (enough to change your attitude)

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

Extended Contact - How does it get stronger?

A

The effect is stronger when more ingroup friends have outgroup friends

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

If the number of extended contacts increase its effects, does the relationship between you and the ingroup friend affect it as well?

A

Findings: the closer the ingroup member is to you, the stronger the contact effects (hence, positive effects with friends/family, not with neighbours/work colleagues)

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

How does self-consciousness tie into extended contact?

A

People who tend to care what others think show stronger extended contact effects

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

Meta-Analytic Results:

A

Some evidence that extended contact has powerful effects of prejudice:
- R = .42 (k = 8, 95%)
- Most powerful meta-analysis
- R = .25 (95%)

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

Why do cross-group friendships not affect ingroup norms? What’s the general takeaway?

A
  • Subtyping, Friendships lead to decategorization/lower salience
  • TAKEAWAY: extended contact affects outgroup attitudes - positive increases/impacts on inclusion of other in the self, ingroup norms, outgroup norms, and intergroup anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How does extended contact work? (4)

A

1: Inclusion of other in the self:
- Cognitive inclusion of the target ingroup and outgroup members in the self

2: Ingroup norms
- Members expressing tolerant, expected behaviour

3: Outgroup norms
- Outgroup members exhibit tolerant behaviour towards ingroup

4: Intergroup anxiety
- Lower anxiety - not involved in direct contact

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

Extended contact is primarily cognitive in nature (3)

A
  • Knowledge (a cognitive variable - not a feeling about) of an ingroup member’s contact with an outgroup member
  • Inclusion of other in the self is a cognitive measure of interpersonal closeness (Overlap of your values and the other person’s values)
  • Group norms (in and outgroup) are cognitive
    (What are expected versus actual behaviours)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Extended contact in segregated societies:

A
  • Where positive contact experiences are limited (Lack of opportunity for direct contact - EX: peace walls in Northern Ireland)
  • Rely on more heavily extended contact: Effects of extended contact predicted better attitudes (1 year later)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Extended contact group-level variables:

A
  • Extended contact increases group salience
  • Affects group-level variables (ingroup norms, outgroup norms etc.) because it takes place at the group level
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Extended contact in conflict zones - Infrahumanization

A

(similar to dehumanization) perceiving the outgroup as less human than the ingroup
- Being “less human” makes it easier to kill in conflict
- We have two derivative emotions:
- Primary Emotions: happiness, anger
- Everyone can experience these - even animals
- Secondary Emotions: hope, bewilderment
- Unique to humans
- Infrahumanization involves when we ascribe more secondary emotions to the ingroup, fewer to the outgroup (thus, dehumanizing outgroup members with traits similar to literal animals)
- Has unique brain regions associated with it - specifically those dealing with social cognition

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

Extended contact in conflict zones - Competitive Victimhood:

A
  • One’s ingroup = the only legitimate victim of the conflict
    • “my group is the only one that have suffered”
  • If competitive victimhood is high, stalls any reconciliatory efforts as groups try to “out-victimise” each other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

2 problems with extended (and direct) contact:

A
  • How do you highlight who has contact?
  • Someone still needs to come into contact with the outgroup
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Parasocial Contact:

A
  • Vicarious contact experience experiences through watching TV, listening to the radio, reading stories
    - You don’t have contact, but you watch others have it
  • Based in social learning theory (BANDURA)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Parasocial Contact - Reconciliation Radio vs. HIV Radio Show:

A
  • # 1: educational component
  • # 2: social norms component
  • RESULTS: no differences between conditions (pre-existing knowledge of intergroup relations was already there)
  • But what we do see is a change in social norms (more tolerance)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

NEGATIVE CONTACT

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

What Happens During Conflict When You Have Negative Experiences?

A

1: Exposure to violence increases realistic threat
2: Exposure to violence increases psychiatric morbidity
3: Increase intergenerational PTSD and mental health problems

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

Valence asymmetry effects:

A

General psychological phenomenon that negative stimuli tend to have greater impact than positive stimuli of similar intensity

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

How Might Negative Attitudes Propogate? (Skydiving Example)

A
  • Negative stimuli more likely to be avoided
  • Leaves the negative attitude unchallenged providing neither support for or against the evidence for the negative attitude
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Severe Positivity Bias in Contact Literature (2 Issues):

A
  • 1: negative contact is rarely measured
  • 2: positive - negative contact are seen as opposite ends of the same spectrum
    • The absence of positive contact is taken as evidence for the presence of negative contact
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Differences between Negative Contact effects versus Positive Contact effects (Obama’s Birthplace Example)

A
  • Negative contact is consistently stronger
  • These results can be replicated in different contexts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What might explain the discrepant effects of Negative Contact effects versus Positive Contact?

A

Affect-matching hypothesis:
- Negative contact better predict negative outcomes
- EX: Feelings of fear, anger
- Positive contact better predict positive outcomes
- EX: Feelings of happiness, optimism

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

Positive-Negative Assymetry: Instead of asking which is the more powerful predictor….

A
  • Does previous positive (negative) contact affect future negative (positive) contact?
  • Part of reconciliatory efforts is to bring groups back into contact with each other
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

EX: having positive outgroup contact, but then two weeks later, having negative outgroup contact - Does prior positive contact REDUCE OR AUGMENT the effect of subsequent negative contact? (2)

A
  • REDUCE: having that prior positive contact, you think that this negative contact is just a special case (subtyping)
    Negative contact ~ prejudice = smaller correlation
  • AUGMENT: going in expecting positive experience and this negative experience surprises you - so surprising that you feel vulnerable after “trust” is broken
    Negative contact ~ prejudice = larger correlation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

EX: having negative outgroup contact, but then two weeks later, having positive outgroup contact - Does prior negative contact REDUCE OR AUGMENT the effect of subsequent positive contact? (4)

A
  • Does prior positive contact REDUCE the effect of subsequent negative contact?
    Negative contact ~ prejudice = smaller correlation
  • Does prior positive contact INCREASE the effect of subsequent negative contact?
    Negative contact ~ prejudice = smaller correlation
  • Does prior negative contact POISON the effect of subsequent positive contact?
    Positive contact ~ prejudice = smaller correlation
  • Does prior negative contact INCREASE the effect of subsequent positive contact?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

HOW DOES POSITIVE/NEGATIVE CONTACT AFFECT EVENTUAL POSITIVE/NEGATIVE CONTACT - ANSWER: (2)

A
  • Prior positive contact buffers against the detrimental effects of negative contact
  • Prior negative contact positively augments the beneficial effects of positive contact
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

HOW DOES POSITIVE/NEGATIVE CONTACT AFFECT EVENTUAL POSITIVE/NEGATIVE CONTACT - WHY?: (2)

A
  • Prior negative contact makes you view subsequent contact on intergroup terms
  • Prior positive contact makes you view subsequent negative contact as individuals
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is the issue? (2)

A
  • Associated with lower perceived self-efficacy in contact scenarios
  • Avoidance of future contact for multiple outgroups
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

How Concerned Should We Be About Negative Contact?

A
  • VERY
  • Negative contact stunt future positive contact opportunities
  • Negative contact, however, is relatively rare
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

INTERGROUP CONTACT: MAJORITIES

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

Does Ideologically Intolerance Benefit from Positive Contact?

A
  • NO
  • If not, then intergroup contact not as useful as once thought
  • We still want egalitarian people to benefit from contact (reduce bias; create common ingroups)
  • Contact is only really valuable to the extent that it improves attitudes amongst intolerant people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

If they were to come into contact with the object of their animosity, and have a positive experience, would it lower their prejudice?

A
  • Theorists think “no”
  • ALLPORT: can work unless prejudiced is deeply rooted in the individual
  • Williams (1947): Reviewed early evidence on intergroup relations
  • RECALL: PREJUDICE IS INFLUENCED BY…LEVEL OF PRIOR PREJUDICE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Intergroup contact… (5 things)

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

Who constitutes the intolerant?

A
  • Social dominance orientation
  • Authoritarianism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Does Ideologically Intolerance Benefit from Positive Contact? (3 points)

A
  • If not, then intergroup contact not as useful as once thought
  • We still want egalitarian people to benefit from contact (reduce bias; create common ingroups)
  • Contact is only really valuable to the extent that it improves attitudes amongst intolerant people
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Social Dominant Theory:

A
  • Natural tendency to form and maintain group-based hierarchies
    • If you’re unsatisfied with your status, it may be necessary to step over other groups and hurt them to get what you want
  • Rooted in evolutionary-psychological position
    • EX: even at 3 months old, we have this natural understanding of dominance
  • Hold zero-sum beliefs: gains for immigrants = loss for non-immigrants
    • Can only be one winner in society
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

If Hitler/Stalin/Hendrik Vervoed were to come into contact with a the object of their animosity, and have a positive experience, would it lower their prejudice? (ALLPORT VS. WILLIAMS)

A
  • Theorists think “no”
  • ALLPORT: can work unless prejudiced is deeply rooted in the individual
  • WILLIAMS: Reviewed early evidence on intergroup relations
    (RECALL: PREJUDICE IS INFLUENCED BY…LEVEL OF PRIOR PREJUDICE)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

HOW DO WE MOTIVATE SUCH PREJUDICE? WHY THESE HIERARCHIES ARE NATURAL?

A

Through Legitimizing Myths: widely-shared cultural ideologies that provide moral/intellectual justification for intergroup behaviours

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Who constitutes the “intolerant”? (2)

A
  • Social dominance orientation
  • Authoritarianism
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Types of LMS:

A

1: Hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths
2: Hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

Social Dominant Theory:

A
  • Natural tendency to form and maintain group-based hierarchies: if you’re unsatisfied with your status, it may be necessary to step over other groups and hurt them to get what you want
  • Rooted in evolutionary-psychological position
    • EX: even at 3 months old, we have this natural understanding of dominance
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths:

A
  • Myths that serve group-based hierarchies
  • Racism/meritocracy/divine rights of kings
    • EX: the royal family, Kim Jong Un
    • To get the status you want, you just need to work for it
    • EX: women should just keep working and not get pregnant to be as good as men
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What do people high in SDO hold? (give/take idea)

A
  • Hold zero-sum beliefs: gains for immigrants = loss for non-immigrants
  • Can only be one winner in society
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths:

A
  • Universal rights / civil rights / anarchism / feminism / nobless oblige (Marxist idea of sharing the resources available to you)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

SDO - HOW DO WE MOTIVATE SUCH PREJUDICE? WHY THESE HIERARCHIES ARE NATURAL?

A
  • Through Legitimizing Myths: widely-shared cultural ideologies that provide moral/intellectual justification group intergroup behaviours
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What do both types of LMS want? How do they differ?

A
  • To limit intergroup contact
  • People who want hierarchies will hold LMS that keep these hierarchies
    • Don’t want conflict, because that means that their (hierarchical) position is being challenged
  • People who hold hierarchy attenuating LMS don’t want contact because they believe that resources should be shared amongst everyone
  • THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THESE TWO LMS CAN CAUSE CONFLICT, but the ultimate goal amongst both groups is to limit intergroup conflict
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

WHAT PREDICTS SDO?:

A
  • Cultural context
  • Group status
  • Sex/gender
  • Socialization
  • Heritability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

2 Types of LMS: Hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing myths:

A

Universal rights / civil rights / anarchism / feminism / nobless oblige (Marxist idea of sharing the resources available to you)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
51
Q

Is SDO genetic? Nurtured?

A
  • Things like sex/gender and heritability can determine SDO as a sort of genetic predisposition
  • But contrastingly, things that are bound to change (cultural context, group status, socialization)
  • Shows that SDO may not just be measuring personality, but an attitudinal predisposition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

What do both types of LMS try to achieve? How do they differ?

A
  • People who want hierarchies will hold LMS that keep these hierarchies
    • Don’t want conflict, because that means that their (hierarchical) position is being challenged
  • People who hold hierarchy attenuating LMS don’t want contact because they believe that resources should be shared amongst everyone
  • THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THESE TWO LMS CAN CAUSE CONFLICT, but the ultimate goal amongst both groups is to limit intergroup conflict
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF SDO

A
  1. Someone who clings to conventions and traditions
  2. Submit to authorities - unquestioned
  3. Aggress against outgroups when permitted (by authorities)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

WHAT PREDICTS SDO?: (5)

A
  • Cultural context
  • Group status
  • Sex/gender
  • Socialization
  • Heritability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q
A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Is SDO genetic? Nurtured?

A
  • Things like sex/gender and heritability can determine SDO as a sort of genetic predisposition
  • But contrastingly, things that are bound to change (cultural context, group status, socialization)
  • Shows that SDO may not just be measuring personality, but an attitudinal predisposition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

How is RWA developed and maintained?

A

SUMMARY: the more intense of a notion of a dangerous world you hold, the higher your authoritarianism, leading to prejudice against those who challenge convention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
58
Q

RWA - MAIN CHARACTERISTICS:

A
  1. Someone who clings to conventions and traditions
  2. Submit to authorities - unquestioned
  3. Aggress against outgroups when permitted (by authorities)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Common Themes Within RWA

A
  • More likely to support apartheid
  • Opposed to democratization in the former Soviet Union
  • Prejudiced against:
    • Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, feminists, aboriginals, East Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Africans, Jews, and Arab
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

How does RWA increase/develop?

A

The more intense of a notion of a dangerous world you hold, the higher your authoritarianism, leading to prejudice against those who challenge convention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
61
Q

DOUBLE STANDARDS:

A
  • EX: Harsher punishments for gays who committed a crime more than an anti-gay person
  • High RWAs think worse of the former Soviet Union to invade its neighbours than the US
  • In Russia, high RWAs think worse of Americans for invading its neighbours than Russia
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

3 common traits of RWA’s

A
  • More likely to support apartheid
  • Opposed to democratization in the former Soviet Union
  • Prejudiced against: Blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals, feminists, aboriginals, East Indians, Japanese, Chinese, Pakistanis, Filipinos, Africans, Jews, and Arab
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

LWA

A
  • “Half of all authoritarianisms are left-wing”
  • Whereas RWA correlated with political and economic conservatism, LWA correlates with liberalism
  • Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

RWA double standard:

A
  • EX: Harsher punishments for gays who committed a crime more than an anti-gay person
  • High RWAs think worse of the former Soviet Union to invade its neighbours than the US
  • In Russia, high RWAs think worse of Americans for invading its neighbours than Russia
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

How do SDOs/RWAs hate and why?

A
  • SDO is particularly affected by groups who challenge social hierarchy or are competitive
  • SDOs particularly low in empathy (Pratto et al., 1994)
  • RWAs are particularly prejudiced towards groups that threaten social order /cohesion and traditional values
  • RWAs high in anxiety (Hodson, Hogg & MacInnis, 2009)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

LWA

A
  • “Half of all authoritarianisms are left-wing”
  • Whereas RWA correlated with political and economic conservatism, LWA correlates with liberalism
  • Left-wing authoritarianism is not a myth, but a worrisome reality. Evidence from 13 Eastern European countries
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

What predicts prejudice?

A

VARIOUS THINGS:
- Intergroup contact
- Education (own and parents)
- Age
- Sex
- Social norms
- Implicit attitudes
- Socialization

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
68
Q

How do SDOs/RWAs hate and why?

A
  • SDO is particularly affected by groups who challenge social hierarchy or are competitive
  • SDOs particularly low in empathy (Pratto et al., 1994)
  • RWAs are particularly prejudiced towards groups that threaten social order /cohesion and traditional values
  • RWAs high in anxiety (Hodson, Hogg & MacInnis, 2009
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What percentage of outgroup attitudes is made up of SDO & AUTH:

A
  • SDO & AUTH: 50%
  • Other variables: 50%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What predicts prejudice? (7)

A
  • Intergroup contact
  • Education (own and parents)
  • Age
  • Sex
  • Social norms
  • Implicit attitudes
  • Socialization
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

Can we change SDO/AUTH scores by targeting their core beliefs?***

A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
72
Q

What % of outgroup attitudes do SDO and AUTH make up:

A
  • SDO & AUTH: 50%
  • Other variables: 50%
  • WHY?: Due to authoritarianism/SDO as personality variables
73
Q

These interventions challenge closely held beliefs about the proper order of society***

A

THREATENING
- Ideologies are:
1: Deeply rooted
2: Psychologically meaningful
3: Aid in prediction and uncertainty reduction

74
Q

Can we change SDO/AUTH scores by targeting their core beliefs?

A
  • NO, such efforts have failed
  • These interventions challenge closely held beliefs about the proper order of society
  • RWA/SDO Ideologies are:
    1: Deeply rooted
    2: Psychologically meaningful
    3: Aid in prediction and uncertainty reduction
75
Q

Can intergroup contact reduce authoritarianism / SDO?

A

Dhont, Van Heil, & Hewstone (2014):
- 71 Students from 3 Belgian high schools
- Taken on a trip to acquaint them with Moroccan students, religion, and way of life.
- Hiking, sightseeing, helped with school tasks, met Moroccan students’ relatives
- Contact quality and SDO before and after the trip

FINDINGS: CONTACT QUALITY (NOT QUANTITY) THAT WAS LONGITUDINALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SDO (R = -.17)
- OVERALL ANSWER: YES

76
Q

People low on openness/new experiences are…

A
  • Low in authoritarianism
  • Cognitive rigidity; the need to have set answers
  • However, this can be used to change ways of thinking
77
Q

Does intergroup contact work for individuals high in SDO / AUTH?

A
  • Correlation between intergroup contact and positive attitudes by choice of contact:
  • Contact works best for people who DON’T want contact
78
Q

RECALL: Interventions focusing on changing core values, not only fail, but backfire - WHY?

A

Because RWA, LWA, and SDO are psychologically, deeply rooted

79
Q

Summary (Intergroup Contact)

A
  • Intergroup contact works best for individuals who have prejudiced personalities.
  • Intergroup contact doesn’t try to change worldview per se (typically lead to backfire effects; Hodson et al., 2014)
  • Find that contact affects the variables that prejudiced people have concerns about.
    ~ – RWA: reduced anxiety
    ~ – SDO: increase empathy
80
Q

Can intergroup contact reduce authoritarianism / SDO

A
  • FINDINGS: CONTACT QUALITY (NOT QUANTITY) THAT WAS LONGITUDINALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SDO (R = -.17)
  • OVERALL ANSWER: YES
81
Q

INTERGROUP CONTACT FOR MINORITY MEMBERS

A
82
Q

Does intergroup contact work for individuals high in SDO / AUTH?

A
  • Correlation between intergroup contact and positive attitudes by choice of contact:
  • Contact works best for people who DON’T want contact
  • Results:
  • Contact tends to lead to favourable attitudes, mostly for people with high SDO
  • Similar results in RWA
83
Q

Ratios of study focus:

A
  • More research has focused on how contact reduces prejudice for majority status group members
  • Ignoring half of the equation is a severe oversight/overlook
84
Q

INTERGROUP CONTACT: MINORITIES

A
85
Q

“Minority”

A
  • Mistakenly - numerical minority
  • In some cases, minority groups are numeric minorities…
  • EX: First Nations in Canada = 4.9% of the population (Statistics Canada, 2016)
  • BUT numeracy is not sufficient for classification
86
Q

Ratios of study focus - Majority/Minority

A
  • MAJ: 72.3%, MIN: 20.3%
  • More research has focused on how contact reduces prejudice for majority status group members
  • Ignoring half of the equation is a severe oversight/overlook
  • Expecting people who have been the targets of prejudice to carry the burden of it & solving it
87
Q

We can classify majority/minority along several dimensions (4)

A
  • Political affiliation
  • Social economic status
  • Numeracy
  • Representation

EX: First nations are not only the numerical minority, but also social, economic, and political

88
Q

What is a “Minority”

A
  • Mistakenly - numerical minority
  • In some cases, minority groups are numeric minorities…
    (EX: First Nations in Canada = 4.9% of the population (Statistics Canada, 2016))
  • But numeracy is not sufficient for classification
89
Q

Does contact reduce prejudice for minority groups?

A
  • YES, but the effect is substantially weaker…

WHY?
- Minority group members might report more contact with majority than the other way around…
- So contact may have already reduced their prejudice?
- In some instances, minority group members do report more contact

90
Q

How do we classify majority/minority groups?

A
  • Political affiliation
  • Social economic status
  • Numeracy
  • Representation
  • EX: First nations are not only the numerical minority, but also social, economic, and political
91
Q

What about negative contact?

A
  • In some instances, minorities and majorities experience similar negative contact
  • In others, minorities experience MORE negative intergroup contact
92
Q

Does contact reduce prejudice for minority groups?

A
  • YES
  • But the effect is substantially weaker…
93
Q

Summary of Majority/Minority group relations:

A
  • In some instances, probabilistically, minority groups do have more contact with majority groups than the other way around
  • On average, majority and minority groups have similar amounts of intergroup contact
  • It is possible that minority groups have more negative intergroup contact experiences.
94
Q

Why is prejudice reduction from contact weaker for minority groups?

A
  • Minority group members might naturally report more contact with majority than the other way around…
  • EX: existing in a white world
  • So contact may have already reduced their prejudice?
  • In some instances, minority group members do report more contact
95
Q

WHY:

A
96
Q

Does NEGATIVE contact reduce prejudice for minority groups?

A
  • In some instances, minorities and majorities experience similar negative contact
  • In others, minorities experience MORE negative intergroup contact
97
Q

SUMMARY OF MINORITY/MAJORITY CONTACT:

A
  • In some instances, probabilistically, minority groups do have more contact with majority groups than the other way around
  • On average, majority and minority groups have similar amounts of intergroup contact
  • However, it is possible that minority groups have more negative intergroup contact experiences.
98
Q

Why do minority groups have more negative intergroup contact experiences?

A
  • 2 very different levels of threat experience:
  • Majority and Minority groups have different challenges after conflict
  • Majority: concerns about seeming prejudiced
  • Minority: becoming targets of prejudice
99
Q

Minority Groups in the Context of Prejudice (3)

A
  • Minority groups have a history of being on the wrong side of the outcomes of prejudice, racism, conflict, etc.
  • Given modern, symbolic, implicit, blatant, institutional, and cultural racism…
  • Their contact is likely to be influenced by the history of conflict and prejudice
100
Q

Individuals of minority groups are…

A

1: Aware of their devalued status
- If a black person were to say it’s racist, it’s racist.
2: More likely to be perceived and evaluated in terms of their devalued status
3: Constant threat of becoming targets of prejudice / discrimination
4: Receive inferior treatment
5: Less satisfied with efforts to achieve intergroup equality
- EX: “efforts” towards reconciliation
6: Less likely to view it as equal status
- Kind of supports Williams approach to equal status (doesn’t necessarily disapprove Allport’s)
7: Perceive greater racial discrimination against their own group

101
Q

Intergroup contact can realistically…

A

…highlight status differences

102
Q

Minority groups & discrimination (2)

A
  • Perceive greater racial discrimination against their own group
  • Greater perceived discrimination leads to worse intergroup attitudes for minority group individuals, but not majority group individuals
103
Q

Who does contact work best for?

A
  • We see that contact works most for those who need it - if they’re a majority group member
  • But this discrimination stunts the positive effects for minority groups
104
Q

SUMMARY OF DISCRIMINATION:

A
  • Minority group members perceive more discrimination against their group than do majority group members
  • Perceived discrimination can poison future positive contact experiences
  • Perceived discrimination can also augment the negative effects of future negative interactions
105
Q

Contact does reduce perceptions of discrimination - WHY MIGHT THIS BE BAD?

A

Positive intergroup contact often has unintentional negative consequences for minoritized groups

106
Q

COLLECTIVE ACTION

A
107
Q

When considering intergroup contact and reconciliation…

A
  • We need to think about social change
  • How do we engage in activities that uplift minority groups?
  • Collective action – behaviours that lead to an increase in social status (resources) for a minority group
    (EX: Canadian gasline issue)
108
Q

5 types of Collective Action (Hassler et. al)

A

1: Low cost collective action
2: High cost collective action
3: Support for empowering policies
4: Raising in-group awareness
5: Working in solidarity

109
Q

1: Low cost collective action (Collective Action)

A

signing an online/regular petition to support action against the unequal treatment of disadvantaged groups

110
Q

2: High cost collective action (Collective Action)

A

attending demonstrations, protests, or rallies against the unequal treatment of disadvantaged groups

111
Q

3: Support for empowering policies (Collective Action)

A

disadvantaged groups should obtain much more power in the decision-centres of our society

112
Q

4: Raising in-group awareness (Collective Action)

A

when I come into contact with in-group members, we talk about injustices in society regarding disadvantaged groups

113
Q

5: Working in solidarity (Collective Action)

A

how willing are you to unite with outgrips to work for justice for disadvantaged groups?

114
Q

MINORITY results from Hassler et. al:

A

“Coming into positive contact with a majority member decreased
willingness to raise awareness within ingroups about their disadvantaged status”
- Also less willingness to protest
- Now, not only does contact for minoritized individuals lead to weaker attitude effects, but it also stunts their movement towards collective action
- This is majorly due to how contact reduces prejudice (seeing people aren’t as bad as perceived
- However, positive contact was correlated positively with working in solidarity (compliance with the outgroup)

115
Q

MAJORITY results from Hassler et. al:

A

“Positive contact correlated positively with all forms of social change (more willing to talk about minority disadvantages within their ingroup)”
- Largest correlation between positive contact and solidarity
- Working in solidarity

116
Q

Positive Intergroup Contact for Minority Groups…

A

SEDATES involvement in collective action

117
Q

Collective vs. Individual Action

A
  • Collective action: behaviours that lead to an increase in social status (resources) for a minority group
  • Individual action: behaviours that lead to an increase in status for a single member
  • In part, increases perceptions of mobility
118
Q

Sedative Effects of Positive Contact:

A
  • Improves intergroup attitudes
  • Improves perceptions of fairness
  • Leads to perceptions of permeable group boundaries
  • ALL LEADS TO: a reduction in social change
119
Q

GROUP BOUNDARIES - Why does positive contact reduce social change?

A
  • Positive contact can lead to an increase in the idea that group boundaries are permeable
  • In the case you’re in a disadvantaged group, with this idea, you’re going to engage in individual action and further engage in social mobility - leaving the disadvantaged group to go towards the advantaged group
  • If you have this chance of leaving one group, this leads to a reduction in collective action - why would I need to when I’ve now escaped this “trap”
120
Q

FAIRNESS - Why does positive contact reduce social change?

A
  • Positive contact can increase intergroup attitudes for minority groups
  • From this leads to a perception of more outgroup fairness; realizing that we’re more similar than we thought
  • Seeing that things are fair after all leads to a lesser motivation for social change
121
Q

Reviews point towards a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between
contact and collective action:

A

Contact with a majority group that legitimizes the lower status leads to decreased collective action

122
Q

What leads to increased collective action amongst minoritized individuals? Contact… (4)

A

1: that deligitimizes the lower status
2: where group differences are discussed
3: that promotes allyship
4: that happens under dual identity

123
Q

OVERALL SUMMARY:

A
  • Negative contact increases motivation for social change among minority groups
  • Positive contact increases motivation for social change among majority group members
  • There needs to be a fine balance between the types of contact that
    mobilize social change in both groups
  • Contact that recognizes injustices, focuses on allies, highlights subgroup identities / dual identities, leads to increased collective action
124
Q

NEGATIVE CONTACT:

A
125
Q

What Happens During Conflict When You Have Negative Experiences? (3)

A
  • Exposure to violence increases realistic threat
  • Exposure to violence increases psychiatric morbidity
  • Increase intergenerational PTSD and mental health problems
126
Q

Important Given - Valence asymmetry effects:

A
  • General psychological phenomenon that negative stimuli tend to have greater impact than positive stimuli of similar intensity
  • Negative attitudes generalize faster than positive attitudes
  • Negative stimuli more likely to be avoided
  • Leaves the negative attitude unchallenged providing neither support for or against the evidence for the negative attitude
127
Q

Severe Positivity Bias in Contact Literature:

A

1: negative contact is rarely measured
2: positive - negative contact are seen as opposite ends of the same spectrum
- The absence of positive contact is taken as evidence for the presence of negative contact
- Correlations between positive and negative correlation are weak:

128
Q

Negative contact is consistently stronger than positive - why?

A

Affect-matching hypothesis:
- Negative contact better predict negative outcomes
(Feelings of fear, anger)
- Positive contact better predict positive outcomes
(Feelings of happiness, optimism)

129
Q

Positive-Negative Assymetry:

A

Instead of asking which is the more powerful predictor…
1: Does previous positive (negative) contact affect future negative
(positive) contact?
2: Part of reconciliatory efforts is to bring groups back into contact with each other

130
Q

Q: Does prior positive contact REDUCE OR AUGMENT the effect of subsequent negative contact?

A

1 - REDUCE: having that prior positive contact, you think that this negative contact is just a special case (subtyping)
- Negative contact ~ prejudice = smaller correlation
2 - AUGMENT: going in expecting positive experience and this negative experience surprises you - so surprising that you feel vulnerable after “trust” is broken
- Negative contact ~ prejudice = larger correlation
- buffers against the detrimental effects of negative contact

131
Q

Q: Does prior negative contact REDUCE OR AUGMENT the effect of subsequent positive contact?

A
  • Prior negative contact makes you view subsequent contact on intergroup terms
  • Prior negative contact positively augments the beneficial effects of positive contact
132
Q

Negative contact is associated with…

A
  • Lower perceived self-efficacy in contact scenarios
  • Avoidance of future contact for multiple outgroups
133
Q

CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS OF INTERGROUP CONTACT

A
134
Q

Relationships between variables at different levels:

A
  • Macro level: societal
  • Meso level: groups (dual-identity occurs here) (SDO hierarchies)
  • Micro level: individual
135
Q

Sociological aspects of macrosystems

A

Overall, we are humans embedded in contexts

136
Q

EX: when someone low in authoritarianism..

A

○ Seeing other ingroup members expressing prejudice
○ Lives within a government supportive of prejudice
- WE ARE GROUP CREATURES - WE WANT TO FIT INTO THE GROUP
- Macro-level effects can overcome individual variables

137
Q

If we change the structure of the context, we can…

A

…disrupt automatic implicit attitudes

138
Q

Contact does not only change attitudes for individuals experiencing direct positive intergroup contact…

A

…their attitudes are also influenced by the behaviour of fellow ingroup members in their social context
- Contact by ingroup members in our context influences our attitudes over-and-above our own contact experiences

139
Q

The 5 benefits of looking at contextual effects:

A
  • We get to tease apart some of the group-level variables, like, implicit attitudes - from individual to group-level functions (MacInnes et al., 2017)
  • How these mediating variables form, and how they affect individual attitudes
  • What type of contact affects social norms? Direct, extended, vicarious?
    ○ A: EXTENDED - it’s “who my friends are having contact with”, and this is what sets the social norm
  • Living in a diverse neighbourhood where lots of people around you are having more contact (Contextual level) should lead to more tolerant social norms (contextual level)
  • More tolerant social norms (at a group level), should result in less prejudice (individual level)
140
Q

The relationship between contact and social norms - Kauf:

A
  • Living in areas where advantaged group members are having positive contact mobilizes disadvantage group members towards social action
  • The more contact in these regional areas/countries lead to greater support of collective action amongst disadvantaged group members
141
Q

SEGREGATION

A
142
Q

Many societies are so diverse, sociologists now prefer the term “super-diverse” depending on what 12+ factors?

A

○ Ethnicity
○ Immigration status
○ SES
○ Gender
○ Sexual orientation
○ Age
○ Ability
○ Political orientation
○ Religion
○ Geographical distribution

143
Q

Segregation is pernicious

A

○ This was a mild preference for similar “others”
○ This tendency is strong – homophily effect
○ Race and ethnicity creating the strongest divides
○ Makes social networks homogenous: sociodemographic, behavioural, intrapersonal

144
Q

Why is segregation the enemy of contact?

A

Stops contact entirely from happening in the first place

145
Q

Segregation doesn’t cause conflict directly

A
  • BUT fosters mutual ignorance (stops contact from happening, stops challenging previously held stereotypes) and suspicion
  • CAUSES suspicion and mistrust
146
Q

SEGREGATION reifies that the outgroup is the violent group (PEACE WALLS)

A

Peace wall in Ireland:
- Protestants think it’s there because Catholics are violent
- Catholics think it’s there because protestants are violent

147
Q

Social mobility is reduced by:

A

1: residential segregation
2: income inequality
3: poorer schooling
4: lower family stability

148
Q

Positives of Segregation? (COMMUNITY)

A
  • can provide a safe space for (especially) disadvantaged group members
  • Being surrounded by your own community members can lead to greater health outcomes, lessened stress
  • Further from peace walls, more community felt
149
Q

Diversity DOES NOT equal…

A

It’s the enemy of contact

150
Q

HOWEVER, Diversity DOES provide…

A

…opportunities/chances for contact
- Positive correlation/relationship between opportunity for contact and contact uptake

151
Q

CONTACT IS GOOD! - WHY?

A

○ Works for the racist
○ Works for the prejudiced
○ Works for disadvantaged groups

152
Q

If contact is good, what’s the issue?

A

people simply don’t want to come into contact with each other

153
Q

Why do people self-segregate? (2 reasons)

A

1 What they want to achieve during contact:

  • Majority: concerns about seeming prejudice
  • Minority: becoming targets of prejudice
  • Majority: race issues, language barriers
  • Minority: differences in socioeconomic status, culture, and ingroup distancing
154
Q

What do we know about the antecedents of intergroup contact? (what predicts contact avoidance/approach)

A
  • Negative attitudes & stereotypes
  • Ingroup identification and threat
    The more negative attitudes, the more negative stereotypes, less likely to come into contact
    More identification with the ingroup = less identification with the outgroup
  • Feelings of anxiety, fear, and insecurity
155
Q

Reasons for contact avoidance (EXT) - 7

A
  • intergroup anxiety
  • collective threat
  • stereotypical behaviour
  • RWA
  • SDO
  • political conservatism
  • age
156
Q

Contact Approach

A
  • the big 5 (more extroverted, open to new experiences, agreeable…)
  • education
  • prior contact
  • indirect contact
  • openness to challenges of diversity
  • diversity beliefs
  • contact self-efficacy
157
Q

RECONCILIATION:

A
158
Q

“Reconciliation turns “current” peace into…

A

“stable” peace”

159
Q

Reconciliation is both…

A

a process and a destination

160
Q

Conflict Resolution:

A
  • First step towards lasting peace…
  • Conflict has left a mark on the people
  • “Dates from the past are fixed like beacons in the folklore and mythology of Irishmen” (Darby, 1983)
  • “No people hate as we do in whom the past is always alive” (WB Yeats, 1937)
161
Q

What do we mean by reconciliation?

A

“Reconciliation means restoring friendship and harmony between the rival sides after conflict resolution, or transforming relations of hostility and resentment to friendly and harmonious ones”

162
Q

International Relations Perspective - Approaches to reconciliation:

A

○ Quickly foster security, economic, and political cooperation
○ This peace will spill over from ruling elites to all sectors of the population
○ Top-down approach
○ “In the end, reconciliation is a spiritual process, which requires more than just a legal framework. It has to happen in the hearts and minds of people”

163
Q

Social Psychological Perspective - Approaches to reconciliation:

A
  • Address cognitive and emotional aspects of reconciliation
164
Q

“True reconciliation is never cheap, for it is based on forgiveness which is costly. Forgiveness in turn depends on repentance, which has to be based on an acknowledgment of what was done wrong, and therefore on disclosure of truth. You cannot forgive what you do not know.”

A
165
Q

Reconciliation Requires…

A

– trust
– acknowledgement of wrongdoing
– apology
– mutual assurance that both groups are invested in reconciliation
– forgiveness

166
Q

Intergroup Trust:

A

Most important condition for stable peace
- Mutual trust provides mutual assurance that both are working towards peace

Most difficult condition to foster
- Requires a deep, cognitive change – beliefs, ideology, and emotions (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2004)
- Reconciliation requires trust; trust first requires reconciliation (Kelman, 2005)

167
Q

What is trust?

A
  • Positive bias in the processing of imperfect information
  • Positive expectations of the others’ behaviour
  • “Trusting” the outgroup represents a threat to the ingroup
  • One’s vulnerability will not be exploited by the other
  • this is why it is so important in reconciliation; allows individuals to accept risks
168
Q

Communal trust:

A
  • each part is committed to the welfare of the other (interpersonal closeness)
  • In reconciliation – difficult to foster:
    ○ ill-will is expected
    ○ drastic change to increased concern for welfare = suspicious (Kelman, 1997).
    ○ “In the absence of trust, well-intended actions from the outgroup may be interpreted as manipulative, rendering them ineffective” (Kelman, 2005, p. 229)
    ○ “…trust in the other side’s seriousness and sincerity in the quest for peace – in its genuine commitment, largely out of its own interests, to finding a mutually acceptable accommodation” (p. 646)
169
Q

SUGGESTION for communal trust?

A
  • working trust: Trust does not mean good will or friendship between parties
  • self-interest can indicate seriousness of working-relationship
  • more convincing if your opponent is interested in the peace process, can benefit from it, and is part of their long-term vision
  • Reconciliation requires (working) trust; (interpersonal) trust first requires reconciliation
  • Working trust is FRAGILE!
170
Q

3 things that reconciliation should work towards:

A
  • Reconciliation should openly address painful questions of past conflict - build a foundation for normal peace relations
  • Both parties address their part in the conflict;
  • acknowledgment that the conflict instilled fears in both sides
171
Q

Being Heard:

A
  • Perspective-taking is a powerful tool
  • Perspective-taking plays a central role in reconciliation
  • Perspective-giving
  • Telling your own story leads to greater trust, favourable attitudes
172
Q

Acknowledgement Facilitates Reconciliation:

A

The effectiveness of openly talking about past atrocities / having the acknowledged

173
Q

What makes for an effective apology? (6)

A
  • Expression of remorse and empathy
  • Plea for forgiveness
  • Acknowledgment of the injustice and suffering
  • Compensation is offered
  • High risk strategies that can worsen a bad situation
  • Especially when power relations are seen as unstable…
174
Q

Truth & Reconciliation Comissions:

A
  • After conflict & genocide, groups yearn for acknowledgment of suffering
  • Both victims and perpetrators come and detail their stories
  • Victims gain closure and perpetrators seek forgiveness
  • Tend to show success
  • Truth acceptance correlates with reconciliatory attitudes
175
Q

TRCs seem to work because

A

– empathy leads to greater trust and reconciliation
– hearing that your group’s plight has been acknowledged leads to greater reconciliatory attitudes

176
Q

Issues with TRCs:

A

TRC’s have been criticized for not providing sufficient support to victims and perpetrators

177
Q

Forgiveness:

A
  • Main aim of reconciliation is forgiveness
  • Expression and love and mercy, and goes beyond justice
  • Incompatibility between justice and forgiveness
  • Requires a letting go of anger, hurt – considers the “debt” paid
  • Truth, trust, and empathy relate to forgiveness through apologies
  • Forgiveness associated with prosocial behaviour towards transgressor (Karremans & Van Lange, 2004)
178
Q
A

PSYC 208 (11 decks)

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