Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- intergroup relations > Flashcards

MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- intergroup relations Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

What is the authoritarian personality supposed to predict

A

Attraction to fascist ideas, levels of intergroup conflict, prejudice towards other groups, deference to authority figures, ridig regard for social conventions

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

What causes the development of the authoritarian persoanlity

A

Early strict and punitive upbringing leads to conflict between feelings of admiration and aggression towards parents- negative feelings displaced towards scapegoats (usually less powerful groups) rather than parents who are powerful and could retaliate

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

Who proposed the authoritarian personality

A

Adorno et al, 1950

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

What concept revived the idea of the authoritarian persoanlity

A

Altemeyer’s (1998) concept of Right Wing Authoritarianism

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

What causes the development of RWA

A

Develops in response to social environments that encourage obedience, conventionalism and aggression

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

What does RWA predict

A

Harsh punishment for criminals, prejudice towards various threatening outgroups, desire for maintaining order in society, authoritarian submission

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

How does RWA differ from authoritarian personality

A

RWA rooted in attitudes and norms rather than personality

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

Who proposed social dominance theory

A

Sidanius and Pratto, 1999

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

What does SDT argue (1994)

A

Humans are predisposed to form group-based hierarchies

These hierarchies are maintained by discriminative practices sustained by legitimizing myths

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

What are legimitizing myths

A

Consensually held values/attitudes/cultural ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for group inequality and oppression

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

Examples of legimitizing myths

A

Intellectual inferiority of black people, meritocracy means those who are poor have themselves to blame

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

What does SDO predict

A

Intergroup prejudice towards competing/lowstatus outgroups and opposition to progressive politics,

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

What does a combination of high RWA and high SDO mean

A

Strong desire for interpersonal dominance and intergroup hierarchy, characteristics of dominant leaders who try to maximise power regardless of ethics

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

What does a combination of high RWA and low SDO indicate

A

A submissive follower strongly obedient to an authority figure

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

Study supporting that authoritarinism alone cannot explain intergroup phenomena

A

Pettigrew (1958)- South African and Southern US samples had similar levels of authoritarianism to a Northern US sample despie cross-sample differences in levels of discrimination/intergroup hierarchy

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

How can SDO and RWA be seen other than fixed attitudes/personality characteristics?

A

Ideological beliefs which people may adopt or abandon depending on circumstances

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

Study examining authoritarianism as a belief rather than fixed personality- procedure

A

Siegel and Siegel (1957)- assessed authoritarianism in university students assigned either to dorms (relatively liberal norms) or sorority housing (relatively conservative norms) at the beginning and end of their 1st year of study

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

Study examining authoritarianism as a belief rather than fixed personality- findings

A

Authoriarism decreased a little in the conservative sorority housing, but decreased a LOT in the dorm housing with more liberal norms
Authoritarianism more of an ideological belief subject to change based on social contexts

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

What is Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model

A

Shows how RWA and SDO both develop as a result of personality and social context

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

Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the social context and persoanlity leading to RWA

A

Social context- threatening

Personality- social conformity

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

Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the worldview that results from social context and persoanlity in RWA

A

Dangerous world

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

Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the social context and personality leading to SDO

A

Social context- competitive

Personality- tough-mindedness

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

Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the worldview that results from social context and personality in SDO

A

Competitive jungle

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- who were the participants

A

22 well-adjusted white middle-class 11yo boys

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-why were the particpants chosen

A

Ensured effects of individual differences were ruled out as all boys had similar background/school records etc, making it least likely for study’s findings to be contaminated by psychological/sociocultural attributes

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-how were the boys first brought into the camp

A

2 equal sized groups were seperately bussed to Robber’s Cave park, to seperate cabins that were far enough to prevent initial awareness of the other group’s presence

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

What were the group names in Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)

A

Rattlers and eagles

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what were the 3 stages

A

1) Ingroup formation
2) Intergroup friction
3) Intergroup integration

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- -what was stage 1, ingroup formation?

A

Members of each group performed tasks requiring mutual cooperation to reach shared meaningful goals, encouraged sense of group identity

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- -what was stage 2, intergroup friction

A

Rattlers and Eagles competed against each other i a series of tasks, with the ultimate winner gaining rewards that were exhibited prominently in the canteen

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment-what was stage 3, intergroup integration

A

Members of both groups cooperated to achieve superordinate goals

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment- what competitive events were there

A

Tugs of war, baseball games, cabin inspections, skits and songs (last 2 conducted seperately so experimenters could manipulate results to maintain a sense of competition)

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what escalating hostilities occured between the groups

A

The Eagles burnt one of the Rattlers’ flags, and the Rattlers’ ran off with one of the Eagles’ flags, causing a fist fight
Next night, the Rattlers raided the Eagles’ cabin, turning over beds and ripping window screens

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- how did the boys show intergroup bias in performance judgements

A

All members had to pick up as many beans as possible in a minute, then each member’s bean hall was projected onto a screen successively to both groups (all had 35)
Showed clear ingroup bias (overestimating ingroup bean haul and underestimating outgroup bean haul)

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what were the 2 stages of stage 3

A

Intergroup contact, then common superordinate goals

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.1, what were the opportunities for contact

A

Lasted 15-60 mins and included movie shows, firework display, and meals where participants were provided with opportunities for intergroup interaction

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.1, how successful was pure intergroup contact

A

Not sufficient in alleviating mutual animosity- one Eagle refused to get out of the truck to shoottheir fireworks with the Rattlers, and a shared meal ended in a food fight

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-stage 3.2, what sort of tasks involved common superordinate goals

A

Teams had to work together to fix a staged water supply problem
Both groups had to club together to pay for a movie night
Both groups had to work together to pull a truck that had ‘broken down’

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.2, outcome of common superordinate goals

A

Teams took turns at meal times, sang together and made joint plans, shared the same bus back home- intergroup harmony had been created

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- intergroup stereotype ratings after stage 3.2

A

After stage 3.2, the % of each group saying all members of the outgroup are sneaky, smart alecs etc dramatically decreased
One boy said he was glad to rate the outgruop again as he had changed his mind

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

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- outgroup friendship nominations after stage 3.2

A

After stage 3.2, outgroup friendship nominations dramatically increased, from below 10% before to higher afterwards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Realistic Conflict theory- what do social relations depend on

A

The compatibility of goals being pursued by individuals and groups

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

Realistic Conflict theory- result of shared interpersonal goals that require interdependence

A

Interpersonal cooperations, leads to interpersonal harmony and ingroup solidarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Realistic Conflict theory- result of shared intergroup goals that require interdependence

A

Intergroup cooperation, leading to intergroup harmony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Realistic Conflict theory- result of mutually exclusive interpersonal goals

A

Interpersonal competition, leading to interpersonal conflict and reduced ingroup solidarity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Realistic Conflict theory- result of mutually exclusive intergroup goals

A

Intergroup competition, leading to intergroup conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
47
Q

Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what aspect of the study suggests competition for limited resources is not necessary for group antipathy

A

Outgroup antipathy existed prior to competion- when the groups became aware of one another, they wanted to ‘run them off’ and challenge them

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
48
Q

What did Tajfel et al (1971) aim to investigate

A

Can the very act as social categorization lead to differential intergroup behaviour? What are the baseline conditions for this behaviour to occur?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
49
Q

What paradigm did Tajfel et al (1971) create

A

A minimal group paradigm, where groups have the least ‘groupness’ possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
50
Q

How did Tajfel (1971) create minimal groups

A

Groups were created using arbitrary criterea to exclude any influence of prior attitudes toward outgroup members
Criteria was unrelated to the form of observed discriminative behaviour
Group members didn’t interact face-to-face with each other/outgroup
Members were anonymous

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

Tajfel et al (1971)- how was intergroup behaviour measured

A

Ppts allocated concrete rewards rather than just providing evaluative ratings (Tajfel called this trivial)
Ppts didn’t personally benefit from their allocations to remove direct self interest from the picture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
52
Q

Tafjel et al (1971)- what was the most discriminative option in the minimal group paradigm

A

Involved both sacrificing maximum reward across groups and reducing the absolute level of ingroup reward

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
53
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)- how were participants allocated

A

14-15yo schoolboys allocated to minimal groups supposedly on the basis of their responses to a dot-estimation task (over vs underestimators) or preferences for abstract paintings (Klee vs Kandinsky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
54
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)- how did participants allocate points

A

Allocated between an anonymous ingroup and outgroup member using reward matrices that presented different intergroup allocation options

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
55
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)- what were the 4 reward strategies

A

Fairness, maximum joint profit, maximum ingroup profit and maximum difference

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
56
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)- what is the fairness reward strategy

A

Greatest degree of equality between ig and og points

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
57
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)-What is the maximum joint profit (MJP) reward strategy

A

Most points overall across both groups

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

Tajfel et al (1971)- what is the maximum ingroup profit (MIP) reward strategy

A

Most points for ingroup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
59
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)-what is the maximum difference (MD) reward strategy

A

Largest possible difference between ingroup and outgroup points (favouring the ingroup, making sure they get a lot more points)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
60
Q

Tajfel et al (1971)- experiment 1, what reward strategies were used

A

Ppts tended to prefer fairness when diving points beteen 2 ingroup or 2 outgroup members (task does not favour competitive response)
Fairness less common when dividing points between an ingroup and outgroup member
Ingroup favoured regardless of whether the basis for intergroup classification justified discrimination

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

Tafjel et al (1971)- experiment 2, what reward strategies were used

A

Participants used max ingroup profit more than max joint profit
Participants used maximum difference more than MIP- sacrified rewards for the ingroup for the sake of maximisin the difference between outgroup/ingroup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
62
Q

What 2 reasons did Tafjel et al (1971) propose for minimal group discrimination

A

Competitive norms, positive group distinctiveness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
63
Q

What is competitive norms as an explanation for minimal group discrimination (Tafjel et al, 1971)

A

We are socialised to norms, values and expectations that foster intergroup competition even when tis not relevant or beneficial to the situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
64
Q

What is positive group distinctiveness as an explanation for minimal group discrimination (Tafjel et al, 1971)

A

Participants are motivated to make their ingroup different and better than the outgroup on valued relevant dimensions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
65
Q

What did Tafjel (1978)propose our self-concept can be broken down into

A

2 different aspects- our personal identity and our social identity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
66
Q

What is our social identity

A

Tafjel (1978) that part of the self-concept corresponding to our group membership, together with the emotional value and significance attached to that group membership

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
67
Q

Why do we use social categorisation (Tajfel, 1978))

A

Identifying with a group provides a meaningful structure to the social world

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

Why do we use intergroup comparison (Tajfel, 1978)

A

Group members enhance their self-esteem by capitalising on the positive distinctiveness of their group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
69
Q

What can explain Tajfel (1971’s) results of the maximum difference strategy and positive differentiation

A

Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978)- intergroup comparison involves capitlising on the positive distinctiveness of the group to enhance your own self esteem

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
70
Q

What are 2 categorisation methods of alleviating intergruop conflict

A

Decategorisation and recategorisation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
71
Q

What is decategorisation

A

Brewer and Miller, 1984- group members encouraged to focus on differences between members of thr outgroup (differentiation) and their personal uniqueness (personalisation), improves intergroup relations

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

What is recategorisation

A

Gaertner et al (1989)- changing group members’ representation of the social categories they belong to, so they see themselves as members of one inclusive group (eg European) and common ingroup identity, improves intergroup relations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
73
Q

Minimal groups’ preference for MD stratgies can reflect two mechanisms…

A

Positive differentiation of the ingroup or negative derogation of the outgroup

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
74
Q

Other more grounded/real world explanations for intergroup conflict other than just self-categorisation

A

History of intergroup conflict causing entrenched bitterness and resentment, competition for scarce resources, structural inequality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
75
Q

Sherif (1961) ways in which the groups bonded and established norms

A

Nicknames were coined eg Baby Face, jargon/jokes and special ways of performing tasks, selected symbols and a name they put on caps and T-shirts, promoting toughness and discouraging homesickness

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
76
Q

What is Coser’s (1956) dichotomy between types of intergroup conflict

A

‘Rational’ as a means to an end with assiociated attitudes reflecting a genuine competition between groups with divergent interests, and the ‘irrational’ as an end in itself that serves to release accumulated emotional tensions on an outgroup scapegoat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
77
Q

What dialectical relationship does most cases of human conflict reflects

A

An ‘intricate interdependence of social and psychological causation’ (Tajfel, 1970) where the two are mutually reinforcing eg economic competition -> discrimination -> prejudice -> new discriminatory behaviour -> new economic disparities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
78
Q

Evidence that children are socialised into a pecking order very early on

A

A study found a high consensus in British children in their preference for 4 foreign countries (America, France, Germany and Russia) in that order, with a .98 correlation across 2 different schools (Tajfel, 1970)

79
Q

What do children construct when learning who to like and dislike

A

A ‘web of social affilifations’ by applying simplifying principles to reduce the complexity of criss-crossing human categorisations, most importantly ‘we’ and ‘they’ (Tajfel, 1970)

80
Q

How do we come to hold a ‘generic norm’ of behaviour towards outgroups

A

The hostility inherent in many of the intergroup categorisations to which we are contiually exposed combines with our need to bring order into our social construction of reality (Tajfel, 1970)

81
Q

What is the consequence of us holding a ‘generic norm’ of behaviour towards outgroups

A

When faced with some kind of relevant intergroup categorsation, we are likely to discriminate towards the outgroup and favour the ingroup- even if we have no self-interest or previous negative attitudes towards the outgroup causing us to discriminate

82
Q

Tajfel (1971) how did participants behave when distributing rewards between 2 ingroup members vs 2 outgroup members

A

With 2 ingroup members, choices were consistently nearer to the MJP than in trials with outgroup members, even though giving as much as possible to 2 outgroup members didn’t take anything away from ingroup- gratuitous discrimination!!

83
Q

Tajfel (1971)- how did discrimination change as the study went on

A

As ppts became more familiar with the situation they discriminated more, and their expectations increased that other subjects were discriminating

84
Q

What 2 norms did participants see as applying to the situation that they thus tried to follow

A

Groupness and fairness- participants tried to balance the two

85
Q

How did Sherif criticise social psychological research of the time

A

He argued individual behaviour cannot be understood through analysis of people removed from social context, theoretical concepts must address processes at the same level as the research questions being asked (Sherif, 1951)

86
Q

Sherif (1951)- how did the competitinos of the 2 teams become strongly ego-involving

A

‘Group efforts and goals became intensely personal ones for individual members’

87
Q

What was a common early criticism of Sherif’s boys camp experiments

A

Sherif devised experiments that would verify rather than test their hypothesis, whereas in most research hypothesis testing comes fariyl late in the process- Sherif’s approach is not suited to the discovery of new insights (Cherry, 1996)

88
Q

Criticism of Sherif’s studies - 3 groups vs 2 groups

A

Billig (1976) the studies involved 2 groups of boys and 1 group of experimenters, meaning the study’s main message may be how one powerful group can manipulate others
The boys may have taken seeing the ‘camp counsellors’ photographing their raid and not punishing them as a sign their activities were condoned (Smith and Haslam, 2012)

89
Q

Criticism of Sherif’s studies in conflating 2 types of competition

A

Turner (1975)- no distinction between material competition and symbolic competition (based on values, prestige, social status), but the 2 have differenent consequences for intra/intergroup behaviour and make a unique contribution to our understanding of intergroup discrimination

90
Q

Criticism of Sherif’s studies- field experiment

A

One of the study’s biggest weaknesses- so many interacting variables (eg mutual frustration, ingroup bullying etc) that its impossible to discern specifically what in each situation led to the observed effects (Dion, 1979)

91
Q

What did Muzafer and Sherif (1969) comment about the challenging nature of promoting intergroup cooperation

A

If two groups are irrevocably committed to conflicting objectives there is little point in discussing conditions that are conducive to reducing the conflict. They will continue to cast blame for the state of things on each other’

92
Q

What 3 alternative interpretations did Tajfel (1971) propose for his minimal group findings other than a general norm to discriminate

A

Demand characteristics, expectations of reciprocity and anticipation of future interaction

93
Q

Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- study arguing against demand characteristics

A

St Claire and Turner (1982) found if people were asked to role-play being members of the groups, they did’t show the same degree of ingroup bias (MD and MIP) but tended to pick fairness

94
Q

Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- reciprocity?

A

Tafjel admitted they had no data to rule this out, and this form of self-interest has never really gone away in replications

95
Q

Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- what suggests anticipation of future interaction does not explain results

A

The boys did not know who was in their group, so if they were acting with the belief of future interaction, the most rational strategy would have been a MJP strategy

96
Q

What is not clear from Tafjel’s social identity explanation (1978)

A

Whether the motivated process of differentiation starts from the investment in a social identity or whather the differentiation is used to create a distinctive sense of identity

97
Q

What is the ‘self-esteem hypothesis’

A

Positive differention to enhance the ingroup and raise self esteem rather than creating group distinctiveness

98
Q

What has been the result of research into the ‘self-esteem hypothesis’

A

Mixed- research conceptualising esteem as a state (context specific) rather than a fixed trait or something specific to the domain of ingroup bias has generated more support

99
Q

Support for self-esteem hypothesis

A

Hunter et al (1996)- ingroup favouritism in a minimal group setting results in enhanced collective esteem in a domain important to the ingroup

100
Q

What is belief-congruence theory

A

Rokeach (1969)- we are prone to dislike other individuals/groups who have different views and values than us

101
Q

Study into the effect of social categorisation vs similarity on ingroup bias

A

Billig and Tafjel (1973)- social categorisation produces strong ingroup bias than similarity, and there is greater discrimination towards a SIMILAR outgroup respectively

102
Q

What does Billig and Tafjel’s study suggest about outgroup similarity

A

Outgroup similarity might threaten group distinctiveness and motivate greater positive differentiation (Tafjel, 1982)

103
Q

Study suggesting the role of reciprocity in outgroup discrimination in men vs women

A

Gaertner and Insko (2000_ participants were told they were the only one allocating rewards (absent dependence structure, no reciprocity at play) and ingroup favouritism was eliminated but only in men…women showed ingroup favouritism irrespective of the dependence structure being present or absent

104
Q

Study supporting that ingroup favourism occurs even when expectations of reciprocity are removed

A

Rabbie et al (1989) participants were explicityl told they would receive reward allocation from both groups, yet they still favoured the ingroup- if expectations of reciprocity were behind Tajfel’s results, we would expect fairness instead in this condition

105
Q

Study showing how ingroup dependance effects ingruop favouritism

A

Stroebe et al (2005)- ingroup-favouring strategies were strongest when there was dependence on the ingroup rather than the outgroup

106
Q

What is ‘bounded reciprocity’

A

People tend to respond to the dependency structure and reciprocate with favouritism towards those they are dependent on, but this effect is much stronger for dependence on the group (bounded)

107
Q

What evolutionary arguments can explain ‘bounded reciprocity’

A

There are good reasons to trust the ingroup and distrust the outgroup (Gaertner and Insko, 2000)

108
Q

Which reward strategy is ‘bounded reciprocity’ better suited to explain

A

Ingroup favouritism (MIP) than maximum difference, where participants sacrifice self interest

109
Q

What is Brewer’s (1999) criticism of social identity theory

A

SIT is better able to explain ‘ingroup love’ than ‘outgroup’ hate

110
Q

What 2 processes have been proposed to explain ingroup bias in the MGP that stress the role of the self

A

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)- self anchoring and the ‘opposite heuristic’

111
Q

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what is self anchoring

A

Social categorisation implies the self and ingroup are similar, causing people to project aspects of their typically positive self-representation onto the outgroup (self-anchoring), and thus form a positive ingroup representation

112
Q

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what is the ‘opposite heuristic’

A

People asume the ingroup and outgroup differ, so the other group must therefore be less good

113
Q

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- study into manipulation of accessibility of self on group discrimination

A

Manipulatnig the accessiblity of the self before people making minimal group judgements affects ingroup but not outgroup ratings, making judgements of the ingroup more similar to those of self (self more accessible -> projected more onto group image)

114
Q

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what role of differentiation is this theory consistent with

A

The idea that differentation between minimal groups is motivated partly by striving for meaning, focusing on the self as a tool to give meaning to the novel ingroup

115
Q

Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what can this theory not explain in MGP

A

Why group members sacrifice MIP for MD

116
Q

What 2 conditions relating to group distinctiveness were found in a study to cause highest ingroup bias

A

Scheepers et al (2002)- 1) groups have no prior opportunity to differentiate between groups and have no group goal motivating them to create a distinctive group identity 2) Participants had an opportunity to differentiate among groups AND a group goal (predicted by realistic conflcit principels)

117
Q

What is the minimal condition of Scheeper et al’s study (2002) into group distinctiveness consistent with

A

‘Creative distinctiveness’- a process used with unknown or minimal groups where they aim to make their group distinctive in some way

118
Q

What is the max group identity condition of Scheeper et al’s study (2002) into group distinctiveness consistent with

A

‘Reactive distinctiveness’- motivated by an established outgroup that is explicitly similar to the ingroup (Spears et al, 2002)

119
Q

What do studies showing participants show mroe ingroup bias when groups are minimal vs meaningful suggest

A

Discrimination in the MGP is used to achieve group distinctiveness that gives meaning to the ppts’ assigned group idenity

120
Q

What do studies showing the creation of group distinctiveness in MGP studies show

A

One factor contributing to MGP is the opportunity it provides for creating coherence and meaning through the creation of positive group distinctivesness (Spears, 1978)

121
Q

What is prejudice

A

An attitude towards a group that devalues it directly or indirectly, often to the benefit of the self or own group

122
Q

What measures susceptibility to Fascist ideas

A

The ‘F-scale’- includes subscales like authoritarian submission, conventionalism and authoritarian aggression

123
Q

What correlation has been found with F-scale scores

A

Adorno et al (1950)- various forms of prejudice

124
Q

What criticisms did the F scale theory (Adorno et al, 1950) face

A

Unrepresentative sample, potential interviewer bias in interviews, items were positively framed and open to response bias

125
Q

Study supporting the effect of high SDO scores on attitude towards others

A

Pratto et al (2006)- people higher in SDO are also more sexist, racist and prejudiced towards immigrants and many other social groups

126
Q

How are SDO and RWA different in their effect on behaviour

A

SDO- don’t particularly value submitting to authorities, less religious, likely to be male and Machiavellian than high RWA

127
Q

Study supporting how RWA is based on a dangerous worldview

A

Duckitt and Fisher (2003)- ppts reported higher levels of RWA when presented with threatening scenarios of their country’s future eg rise in crime

128
Q

What is the accentuation effect

A

When social categories are correlated with a continuous dimension (eg skin colour, eye shape) there is a judgemental tendency to overestimate similarities within and differences between the categories on this dimension

129
Q

What is the outgroup homogeneity effect

A

A tendency to see the outgroup as more homogenous than the ingroup

130
Q

What promotes the outgroup homogeneity effect

A

When we interact with an outgroup the intergroup context is salient, prompting social categorisation and accentuation of between category differences, meaning the outgroup are seen as more homogenous

131
Q

What effect has been proposed to explain how negative beliefs about ethnic minorities develop

A

Hamilton and Gifford (1976)- the illusory correlation effect

132
Q

What is Hamilton and Gifford’s (1976) illusory correlation effect

A

Tendency to perceive a relationship that does not actually exist (eg between a group and negative behaviour) or perceive one that does exist as stronger than it is

133
Q

Why do Hamilton and Gifford (1976) say that the illusory correlation effect occurs

A

Infrequent behaviours in a numerically distinct (smaller) group ‘stand out’ and are more accessible, so influence memory more- ‘availability heuristic’

134
Q

What is the ‘cognitive miser effect’

A

We stereotype to simplify social perception and ease our information processing burden

135
Q

What neuroscience study supports Tafjel’s idea that social identity is an important part of the self-concept

A

Volz et al (2009)- used fMRI, found those who showed more ingroup bias in reward distribution showed greater activation in the areas associted with the self and self-concept (medial prefrontal cortex) and those who engaged in fairness did not

136
Q

What is group identification

A

The degree to which people see themselves in terms of a group membership and the degree of value and emotinonal attachment to the group
Moderator variable to explain individual differences in ingroup bias/discrimination

137
Q

What happens in the MGP when Tafjel matrices are used to distribute punishments

A

Typical ingroup bias effect disappears

138
Q

What is positive-negative asymmetry

A

Mummendey and Otten (1998)- the tendency to show more ingroup bias when allocating positive resources than negative ones (eg punishments), possibly because outgroup derogation is harsher than ingroup favouritism and less normatively accepted especially when there is little jusification for discrimination as in MGP

139
Q

Threats by outgroup- to group existence

A

Threat of disease likely a cause of xenophobia, terror management theory (Greenberg et al, 1997) prompts us to seek assurance through retreat into familiar cultural values and ingroup favouritism (Castano et al, 2002)

140
Q

Threats by outgroup- study supporting threat of diease as a source of xenophobia

A

Faulkner et al, 2004- people more worried about their vulnerability to disease were more likely to show xenophobic attitudes to unfamiliar immigrant groups

141
Q

Threats by outgroup- how can threats to resources be subjective

A

Relative deprivation theory (Runciman, 1966)- what we feels depends on hwo well we are doing compared to others, if others are doing better we can feel deprived and cause conflict

142
Q

Threats by outgroup- what non-tangible thing can be seen as a valued resource following realistic conflict theory

A

Group status and esteem

143
Q

Threats by outgroup- study showing threats to group status/esteem causing group conflict

A

Hunter et al (1996)- sound ingroup bias can enhance self-esteem on some key specific dimensions of group identity that are most important and relevant, without necessarily improving global esteem

144
Q

What is a ‘social creativity’ strategy of rating ingroup/outgroup

A

Intergroup comparisons will rank groups differently on different dimensions, allowing both groups to claim a positive identity without compromising social reality constraints

145
Q

Criticisms of a ‘social creativity’ strategy of rating ingroup/outgroup

A

Mummendey and Schreiber (1984)- a ‘different but better’ strategy, groups often claim their positive attribute is better, and low status groups find t harder to claim superiority on status-defining valued dimensions (Ellemers, 1993)

146
Q

Threats by outgroup- what is ‘integrated threat theory’

A

Stephan et al, 2000- proposes ‘symbolic threat’ referring to group values that threaten the ingroups way of life eg radical Islam vs more secular Western world

147
Q

What group norm may explain ‘negative asymmetry’?

A

Norm of ‘fairness’- stronger group identification can decrease discrimination (Jetten et al, 1997), as harming others may damage the ingroup image

148
Q

Threats by outgroup- what is distinctiveness threat

A

We do’t like it when another group is similar to ours as it undermines the essence of our group that makes us different and special
May respond by positive diffferentiation

149
Q

What is the ingroup projection model

A

Mummendey and Wenzel (1999)- emphasizing superordinate goals to reduce intergroup conflict won’t always work, as a group dominant in size/status will set the agenda for what is normative for the superordinate category, projecting their own norms

150
Q

What is Tafjel and Turner’s (1979) socio-structural theory of intergroup conflict

A

Whether groups respond to identity threat with discrimination depends on whether the status relation is seen as legitimate and stable

151
Q

Tafjel and Turner’s (1979) socio-structural theory of intergroup conflict- what circumstaces predict the most ingtergroup conflict

A

‘insecure’ social comparison, where the illegitimacy and instability of the situation is highlighted- encourages low status groups to imagine cognitive alternatives to the status quo

152
Q

What continuum of beliefs did Tafjel describe that moderate our reaction to threats from outgroups

A

Ideological continuum of beliefs about the social structure from complete individual mobility at one end (eg American dream can make anyone rich, contributes to stability of status quo) to social change beliefs at the other (revolution is necessary for intergroup equality)

153
Q

What is intergroup emotion theory (Smith, 1993)

A

Emotions eg fear are characterised in terms of the appraisals that produce them (eg is this person a threat?) and the action tendencies that follow them (eg avoidance of group)
Can experience group emotions, group identification intensifies these emotions

154
Q

What types of prejudice can group emotion approach better explain

A

More extreme forms of prejudice eg outgroup derogation rather than theories focused on ingroup favouritism

155
Q

Study supporting intergroup emotion theories as an explanation for outgroup derogation

A

Leach et al (2003)- students manipulated to feel inferiority threat felt greater pleasure at outgroup failure (schadenfreude), as it provides a source of ‘imaginary revenge’

156
Q

Intergroup emotion theories- what is group-based contempt associated with

A

A sense of moral superiority by the ingroup and dehumaniation of the outgroup (Esses et al, 2008), predicts more violent and extreme behaviour at the outgroup than anger

157
Q

What is the stereotype content model (Fiske et al, 2002)

A

Focuses on 2 key appraisal dimensions (competence ad warmth aka competitiveness where cold means competitive) commonly used to judge others

158
Q

What is the stereotype content model (Fiske et al, 2002)- what are the 4 quadrants

A

High competence and warmth- eg ingroup
High competence and low warmth- envious prejudice eg Jews
Low competence and high warmth- paternalistic prejudice eg women
Low competence and low warmth- contemptuous prejudice eg homeless

159
Q

What did Allport (1954) propose as the most effective method to reduce prejudice

A

Contact hypothesis- direct, face-to-face contact

160
Q

What conditions did Allport (1954) propose as necessary for the contact hypothesis to reduce prejudice

A

Contact must not be superficial
Groups must have equal status
Must involve cooperation towards a common goal
Must be in normative climate

161
Q

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- contact must not be superficial

A

Contact must be of sufficient frequency and closeness to allow true acqaintance rather than just activating negative outgroup associations

162
Q

Study supporting contact hypothesis

A

Deutsch and Collins (1951)- white women living in desegregated (compared to segregated) housing who experienced more frequent contact with their black neighbours were much less likely to express negative stereotypes of black people and held them in greater esteem

163
Q

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- groups must have equal status

A

Intergroup contact often takes place in conditions that confirm status hierarchies, so equal status contact ensures negative stereotypes of outgroup inferiority are disconfirmed

164
Q

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- must involve cooperation towards a common goal

A

Equal levels of task ability must be ensured, outcomes must be positive

165
Q

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- must be in a normative climate

A

ie context where contact is explicitly encouraged by institutional laws, as the authprity support establishes norms of acceptance

166
Q

Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- how does the Deutsch and Collins study also support the need for a normative climate

A

Women in desegregted residence expected their neighbours to approve of friendly interracial interactions, while those in segregated residence expected to be ostracized

167
Q

Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis

A

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)- found a highly significant negative relation between contact and prejudice

168
Q

Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis- findings about conditions necessary

A

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)- Allport’s conditions are not necessary, but facilitating conditions that make contact more effective

169
Q

Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis- do positive contact effects generalise from individuals to the outgroup as a whole

A

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)- the effect sizes for outgroup ratings were not significantly smaller than those for individual outgroup members, suggesting contact effects do generalise

170
Q

Criticism of metanalysis of contact effect

A

Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) is cross-sectional, meaning its unclear what the direction of causality is, there may be a 3rd variable producing the correlation (eg education, less-educated people are mroe prejudiced and live in errors where less contact will occur)

171
Q

Longitudinal study supporting effectiveness of contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice

A

Swart et al (2011)- contact does predict reductions in prejudice over time

172
Q

Study suggesting the typicality of the encountered ‘exemplar’ in contact hypothesis matters

A

Wilder (1984)- positive contact effects only generalise to overall group if ‘exemplar’ is seen as typical of the outgroup

173
Q

Decategorisation approach- how can attention to idiosynchratic info reduce prejudice

A

Reduces focus on category-based stereotypes, redycign the usefulness of the category in future interactions and having generalied effects to the outgroup

174
Q

Study supporting effectiveness of decategorisation approach

A

Bettencourt et al (1992)- participants focusing on the personal characteristics of outgroup members showed less reward allocation ingroup bias, even when the outgroup member was someone they had not encountered (suggests generalisation)

175
Q

Why may a decategorisation strategy not be realistic

A

Groups and social identities form valued parts of the self, especially to marginalised outgruops- unrealistic to remove this category?

176
Q

Study showing how decategorisation and recategorisation reduce outgroup bias differently

A

Gaertner et al (1989)- decategorisation makes evaluations of former ingroup members less positive, recategorisation makes evaluations of former outgroup members more positive

177
Q

Why may a recategorisation approach not be realistic?

A

Would face strong resistance if used outside of a lab, especially when groups are engaged in hostilities or differ in size/power, especially a minority group being forced to accept a superordinate identity (ingroup projection model)

178
Q

What is the mutual differentiation model

A

Hewstone and Brown (1986)- group affilitations should be made salient in contact, ensuring the problematic intergroup relationship is directly addressed to reduce the risk outgroup members are psychologically distanced from the outgroup in a way that could inhibit generalisation

179
Q

How do Hewstone and Brown (1986) propose the mutual differential model contact situation could be structured

A

Members of respective groups have distinctive but complementary roles that contribute a common goal- mutual strengths recognised by ensuring the ingroup and outgroup are rated on independent dimensions (Mummendey and Schreiber, 1984)

180
Q

Criticisms of Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) mutual differential model

A

Salient category memberships could cause biased perception and behaviour in the contact situation that would reinforce stereotypes (Neuberg, 1996), or create anxiety that risks the generalisation of negative affect to the outgroup as a whole

181
Q

What is an integrative model that combines decategorisation, recategorision etc

A

Pettigrew (1998)’s 3-stage longitudinal model

182
Q

What are the 3 stages of Pettigrew’s (1998) 3 stage longitudinal model of prejudice reduction

A

Decategorisation first- personalised contact reduces initial anxiety and promotes interpersonal liking
Social categories made salient- positive affect generalised to whole outgroup
Recategorisation into superordinate category may happen later

183
Q

Pettigrew’s (1998) 3 stage longitudinal model of prejudice reduction- what may be used instead of recategorisation in the final stage

A

Group members may prefer to maintain mutual recognition as seperate groups but also acknowledge their shared common group identity at a superordinate level (eg English and Welsh, both British)- dual identity (Gaertner and Dovidio, 2000) model

184
Q

Study supporting dual identification as beneficial for minority group members

A

Results in less ‘acculturative stress’ (stress of moving culture) among immigrants (Berry et al, 1987)

185
Q

What variables appear to be more impacted by contact theory

A

Affective rather than cognitive variables- contact seems to affect attitudes rather than stereotypes, predominantly via impact on affective processes (Brown and Hewstone, 2005)

186
Q

What causes intergroup anxiety

A

Expectation of negative consequences for oneself, exacerbated by negative outgroup stereotypes/history of intergroup conflict/high ratio of outgroup to ingruop members (Stephan and Stepham, 1985)

187
Q

How can contact hypothesis reduce intergroup anxiety

A

Successful contact helps overcome apprehensions of intergroup contact, disproving the expectations that cause it and reducing the association between anxiety and negative outgroup attitudes

188
Q

Study showing effect of contact on empathy and intergroup anxiety

A

Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) metanalysis- highlight the role of increased empathy and reduced intergroup anxiety as the key mechanisms in reducing prejudice via intergroup contact

189
Q

What is ingroup reappraisal and how can it reduce intergroup prejudice

A

Pettigrew (1997)- meaningful intergroup contact helps us realise ingroup norms/customs aren’t inherently superior to outgroups’, generalising to all outgroups, leading to a wide generalisation of contact effects

190
Q

Study supporting effect of ingroup reappraisal in generalisation of positive contact effects

A

Pettigrew (1997)- those who had contact with members of a nationally represented minority group were also more accepting of other less represented national groups in that country

191
Q

What did Pettigrew (2009) name the generalisation of positive contact effects to other outgroups generally

A

The ‘secondary transfer effect’

192
Q

Study supporting Pettigrew (2009)’s secondary transfer effect

A

Tausch et al (2010) contact between Catholics and Protestants also promoted more positive attitudes towards racial minorities
Longitudinal evidence shows the contact predicted reduced racial prejudice over time

193
Q

How can stereotype discomfirming info reduce prejudice

A

Subtyping model seen as most effective- stereotype iconsistent info creates a subtype and the outgroup stereotype becomes more complex (Weber and Crocker, 1983)

194
Q

What is the extended contact hypothesis

A

Wright et al, 1997- mere knowledge that an ingroup member has a close relationship with an outgroup member can improve outgroup attitudes through perceived norms that outgroup contact is acceptable- indirect intergroup contact

Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions