MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- intergroup relations Flashcards
What is the authoritarian personality supposed to predict
Attraction to fascist ideas, levels of intergroup conflict, prejudice towards other groups, deference to authority figures, ridig regard for social conventions
What causes the development of the authoritarian persoanlity
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
Who proposed the authoritarian personality
Adorno et al, 1950
What concept revived the idea of the authoritarian persoanlity
Altemeyer’s (1998) concept of Right Wing Authoritarianism
What causes the development of RWA
Develops in response to social environments that encourage obedience, conventionalism and aggression
What does RWA predict
Harsh punishment for criminals, prejudice towards various threatening outgroups, desire for maintaining order in society, authoritarian submission
How does RWA differ from authoritarian personality
RWA rooted in attitudes and norms rather than personality
Who proposed social dominance theory
Sidanius and Pratto, 1999
What does SDT argue (1994)
Humans are predisposed to form group-based hierarchies
These hierarchies are maintained by discriminative practices sustained by legitimizing myths
What are legimitizing myths
Consensually held values/attitudes/cultural ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for group inequality and oppression
Examples of legimitizing myths
Intellectual inferiority of black people, meritocracy means those who are poor have themselves to blame
What does SDO predict
Intergroup prejudice towards competing/lowstatus outgroups and opposition to progressive politics,
What does a combination of high RWA and high SDO mean
Strong desire for interpersonal dominance and intergroup hierarchy, characteristics of dominant leaders who try to maximise power regardless of ethics
What does a combination of high RWA and low SDO indicate
A submissive follower strongly obedient to an authority figure
Study supporting that authoritarinism alone cannot explain intergroup phenomena
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 can SDO and RWA be seen other than fixed attitudes/personality characteristics?
Ideological beliefs which people may adopt or abandon depending on circumstances
Study examining authoritarianism as a belief rather than fixed personality- procedure
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
Study examining authoritarianism as a belief rather than fixed personality- findings
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
What is Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model
Shows how RWA and SDO both develop as a result of personality and social context
Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the social context and persoanlity leading to RWA
Social context- threatening
Personality- social conformity
Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the worldview that results from social context and persoanlity in RWA
Dangerous world
Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the social context and personality leading to SDO
Social context- competitive
Personality- tough-mindedness
Duckitt’s (2006) dual process model- what is the worldview that results from social context and personality in SDO
Competitive jungle
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- who were the participants
22 well-adjusted white middle-class 11yo boys
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-why were the particpants chosen
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
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-how were the boys first brought into the camp
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
What were the group names in Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)
Rattlers and eagles
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what were the 3 stages
1) Ingroup formation
2) Intergroup friction
3) Intergroup integration
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- -what was stage 1, ingroup formation?
Members of each group performed tasks requiring mutual cooperation to reach shared meaningful goals, encouraged sense of group identity
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- -what was stage 2, intergroup friction
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
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment-what was stage 3, intergroup integration
Members of both groups cooperated to achieve superordinate goals
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment- what competitive events were there
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)
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what escalating hostilities occured between the groups
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
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- how did the boys show intergroup bias in performance judgements
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)
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what were the 2 stages of stage 3
Intergroup contact, then common superordinate goals
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.1, what were the opportunities for contact
Lasted 15-60 mins and included movie shows, firework display, and meals where participants were provided with opportunities for intergroup interaction
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.1, how successful was pure intergroup contact
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
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)-stage 3.2, what sort of tasks involved common superordinate goals
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’
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- stage 3.2, outcome of common superordinate goals
Teams took turns at meal times, sang together and made joint plans, shared the same bus back home- intergroup harmony had been created
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- intergroup stereotype ratings after stage 3.2
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
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- outgroup friendship nominations after stage 3.2
After stage 3.2, outgroup friendship nominations dramatically increased, from below 10% before to higher afterwards
Realistic Conflict theory- what do social relations depend on
The compatibility of goals being pursued by individuals and groups
Realistic Conflict theory- result of shared interpersonal goals that require interdependence
Interpersonal cooperations, leads to interpersonal harmony and ingroup solidarity
Realistic Conflict theory- result of shared intergroup goals that require interdependence
Intergroup cooperation, leading to intergroup harmony
Realistic Conflict theory- result of mutually exclusive interpersonal goals
Interpersonal competition, leading to interpersonal conflict and reduced ingroup solidarity
Realistic Conflict theory- result of mutually exclusive intergroup goals
Intergroup competition, leading to intergroup conflict
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave field experiment (1961)- what aspect of the study suggests competition for limited resources is not necessary for group antipathy
Outgroup antipathy existed prior to competion- when the groups became aware of one another, they wanted to ‘run them off’ and challenge them
What did Tajfel et al (1971) aim to investigate
Can the very act as social categorization lead to differential intergroup behaviour? What are the baseline conditions for this behaviour to occur?
What paradigm did Tajfel et al (1971) create
A minimal group paradigm, where groups have the least ‘groupness’ possible
How did Tajfel (1971) create minimal groups
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
Tajfel et al (1971)- how was intergroup behaviour measured
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
Tafjel et al (1971)- what was the most discriminative option in the minimal group paradigm
Involved both sacrificing maximum reward across groups and reducing the absolute level of ingroup reward
Tajfel et al (1971)- how were participants allocated
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)
Tajfel et al (1971)- how did participants allocate points
Allocated between an anonymous ingroup and outgroup member using reward matrices that presented different intergroup allocation options
Tajfel et al (1971)- what were the 4 reward strategies
Fairness, maximum joint profit, maximum ingroup profit and maximum difference
Tajfel et al (1971)- what is the fairness reward strategy
Greatest degree of equality between ig and og points
Tajfel et al (1971)-What is the maximum joint profit (MJP) reward strategy
Most points overall across both groups
Tajfel et al (1971)- what is the maximum ingroup profit (MIP) reward strategy
Most points for ingroup
Tajfel et al (1971)-what is the maximum difference (MD) reward strategy
Largest possible difference between ingroup and outgroup points (favouring the ingroup, making sure they get a lot more points)
Tajfel et al (1971)- experiment 1, what reward strategies were used
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
Tafjel et al (1971)- experiment 2, what reward strategies were used
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
What 2 reasons did Tafjel et al (1971) propose for minimal group discrimination
Competitive norms, positive group distinctiveness
What is competitive norms as an explanation for minimal group discrimination (Tafjel et al, 1971)
We are socialised to norms, values and expectations that foster intergroup competition even when tis not relevant or beneficial to the situation
What is positive group distinctiveness as an explanation for minimal group discrimination (Tafjel et al, 1971)
Participants are motivated to make their ingroup different and better than the outgroup on valued relevant dimensions
What did Tafjel (1978)propose our self-concept can be broken down into
2 different aspects- our personal identity and our social identity
What is our social identity
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
Why do we use social categorisation (Tajfel, 1978))
Identifying with a group provides a meaningful structure to the social world
Why do we use intergroup comparison (Tajfel, 1978)
Group members enhance their self-esteem by capitalising on the positive distinctiveness of their group
What can explain Tajfel (1971’s) results of the maximum difference strategy and positive differentiation
Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978)- intergroup comparison involves capitlising on the positive distinctiveness of the group to enhance your own self esteem
What are 2 categorisation methods of alleviating intergruop conflict
Decategorisation and recategorisation
What is decategorisation
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
What is recategorisation
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
Minimal groups’ preference for MD stratgies can reflect two mechanisms…
Positive differentiation of the ingroup or negative derogation of the outgroup
Other more grounded/real world explanations for intergroup conflict other than just self-categorisation
History of intergroup conflict causing entrenched bitterness and resentment, competition for scarce resources, structural inequality
Sherif (1961) ways in which the groups bonded and established norms
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
What is Coser’s (1956) dichotomy between types of intergroup conflict
‘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
What dialectical relationship does most cases of human conflict reflects
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
Evidence that children are socialised into a pecking order very early on
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)
What do children construct when learning who to like and dislike
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)
How do we come to hold a ‘generic norm’ of behaviour towards outgroups
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)
What is the consequence of us holding a ‘generic norm’ of behaviour towards outgroups
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
Tajfel (1971) how did participants behave when distributing rewards between 2 ingroup members vs 2 outgroup members
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!!
Tajfel (1971)- how did discrimination change as the study went on
As ppts became more familiar with the situation they discriminated more, and their expectations increased that other subjects were discriminating
What 2 norms did participants see as applying to the situation that they thus tried to follow
Groupness and fairness- participants tried to balance the two
How did Sherif criticise social psychological research of the time
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)
Sherif (1951)- how did the competitinos of the 2 teams become strongly ego-involving
‘Group efforts and goals became intensely personal ones for individual members’
What was a common early criticism of Sherif’s boys camp experiments
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)
Criticism of Sherif’s studies - 3 groups vs 2 groups
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)
Criticism of Sherif’s studies in conflating 2 types of competition
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
Criticism of Sherif’s studies- field experiment
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)
What did Muzafer and Sherif (1969) comment about the challenging nature of promoting intergroup cooperation
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’
What 3 alternative interpretations did Tajfel (1971) propose for his minimal group findings other than a general norm to discriminate
Demand characteristics, expectations of reciprocity and anticipation of future interaction
Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- study arguing against demand characteristics
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
Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- reciprocity?
Tafjel admitted they had no data to rule this out, and this form of self-interest has never really gone away in replications
Tafjel’s (1971) alternative interpretations- what suggests anticipation of future interaction does not explain results
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
What is not clear from Tafjel’s social identity explanation (1978)
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
What is the ‘self-esteem hypothesis’
Positive differention to enhance the ingroup and raise self esteem rather than creating group distinctiveness
What has been the result of research into the ‘self-esteem hypothesis’
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
Support for self-esteem hypothesis
Hunter et al (1996)- ingroup favouritism in a minimal group setting results in enhanced collective esteem in a domain important to the ingroup
What is belief-congruence theory
Rokeach (1969)- we are prone to dislike other individuals/groups who have different views and values than us
Study into the effect of social categorisation vs similarity on ingroup bias
Billig and Tafjel (1973)- social categorisation produces strong ingroup bias than similarity, and there is greater discrimination towards a SIMILAR outgroup respectively
What does Billig and Tafjel’s study suggest about outgroup similarity
Outgroup similarity might threaten group distinctiveness and motivate greater positive differentiation (Tafjel, 1982)
Study suggesting the role of reciprocity in outgroup discrimination in men vs women
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
Study supporting that ingroup favourism occurs even when expectations of reciprocity are removed
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
Study showing how ingroup dependance effects ingruop favouritism
Stroebe et al (2005)- ingroup-favouring strategies were strongest when there was dependence on the ingroup rather than the outgroup
What is ‘bounded reciprocity’
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)
What evolutionary arguments can explain ‘bounded reciprocity’
There are good reasons to trust the ingroup and distrust the outgroup (Gaertner and Insko, 2000)
Which reward strategy is ‘bounded reciprocity’ better suited to explain
Ingroup favouritism (MIP) than maximum difference, where participants sacrifice self interest
What is Brewer’s (1999) criticism of social identity theory
SIT is better able to explain ‘ingroup love’ than ‘outgroup’ hate
What 2 processes have been proposed to explain ingroup bias in the MGP that stress the role of the self
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)- self anchoring and the ‘opposite heuristic’
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what is self anchoring
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
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what is the ‘opposite heuristic’
People asume the ingroup and outgroup differ, so the other group must therefore be less good
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- study into manipulation of accessibility of self on group discrimination
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)
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what role of differentiation is this theory consistent with
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
Cadinu and Rothbart (1996)’s self-focused theory of intergroup bias- what can this theory not explain in MGP
Why group members sacrifice MIP for MD
What 2 conditions relating to group distinctiveness were found in a study to cause highest ingroup bias
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)
What is the minimal condition of Scheeper et al’s study (2002) into group distinctiveness consistent with
‘Creative distinctiveness’- a process used with unknown or minimal groups where they aim to make their group distinctive in some way
What is the max group identity condition of Scheeper et al’s study (2002) into group distinctiveness consistent with
‘Reactive distinctiveness’- motivated by an established outgroup that is explicitly similar to the ingroup (Spears et al, 2002)
What do studies showing participants show mroe ingroup bias when groups are minimal vs meaningful suggest
Discrimination in the MGP is used to achieve group distinctiveness that gives meaning to the ppts’ assigned group idenity
What do studies showing the creation of group distinctiveness in MGP studies show
One factor contributing to MGP is the opportunity it provides for creating coherence and meaning through the creation of positive group distinctivesness (Spears, 1978)
What is prejudice
An attitude towards a group that devalues it directly or indirectly, often to the benefit of the self or own group
What measures susceptibility to Fascist ideas
The ‘F-scale’- includes subscales like authoritarian submission, conventionalism and authoritarian aggression
What correlation has been found with F-scale scores
Adorno et al (1950)- various forms of prejudice
What criticisms did the F scale theory (Adorno et al, 1950) face
Unrepresentative sample, potential interviewer bias in interviews, items were positively framed and open to response bias
Study supporting the effect of high SDO scores on attitude towards others
Pratto et al (2006)- people higher in SDO are also more sexist, racist and prejudiced towards immigrants and many other social groups
How are SDO and RWA different in their effect on behaviour
SDO- don’t particularly value submitting to authorities, less religious, likely to be male and Machiavellian than high RWA
Study supporting how RWA is based on a dangerous worldview
Duckitt and Fisher (2003)- ppts reported higher levels of RWA when presented with threatening scenarios of their country’s future eg rise in crime
What is the accentuation effect
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
What is the outgroup homogeneity effect
A tendency to see the outgroup as more homogenous than the ingroup
What promotes the outgroup homogeneity effect
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
What effect has been proposed to explain how negative beliefs about ethnic minorities develop
Hamilton and Gifford (1976)- the illusory correlation effect
What is Hamilton and Gifford’s (1976) illusory correlation effect
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
Why do Hamilton and Gifford (1976) say that the illusory correlation effect occurs
Infrequent behaviours in a numerically distinct (smaller) group ‘stand out’ and are more accessible, so influence memory more- ‘availability heuristic’
What is the ‘cognitive miser effect’
We stereotype to simplify social perception and ease our information processing burden
What neuroscience study supports Tafjel’s idea that social identity is an important part of the self-concept
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
What is group identification
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
What happens in the MGP when Tafjel matrices are used to distribute punishments
Typical ingroup bias effect disappears
What is positive-negative asymmetry
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
Threats by outgroup- to group existence
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)
Threats by outgroup- study supporting threat of diease as a source of xenophobia
Faulkner et al, 2004- people more worried about their vulnerability to disease were more likely to show xenophobic attitudes to unfamiliar immigrant groups
Threats by outgroup- how can threats to resources be subjective
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
Threats by outgroup- what non-tangible thing can be seen as a valued resource following realistic conflict theory
Group status and esteem
Threats by outgroup- study showing threats to group status/esteem causing group conflict
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
What is a ‘social creativity’ strategy of rating ingroup/outgroup
Intergroup comparisons will rank groups differently on different dimensions, allowing both groups to claim a positive identity without compromising social reality constraints
Criticisms of a ‘social creativity’ strategy of rating ingroup/outgroup
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)
Threats by outgroup- what is ‘integrated threat theory’
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
What group norm may explain ‘negative asymmetry’?
Norm of ‘fairness’- stronger group identification can decrease discrimination (Jetten et al, 1997), as harming others may damage the ingroup image
Threats by outgroup- what is distinctiveness threat
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
What is the ingroup projection model
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
What is Tafjel and Turner’s (1979) socio-structural theory of intergroup conflict
Whether groups respond to identity threat with discrimination depends on whether the status relation is seen as legitimate and stable
Tafjel and Turner’s (1979) socio-structural theory of intergroup conflict- what circumstaces predict the most ingtergroup conflict
‘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
What continuum of beliefs did Tafjel describe that moderate our reaction to threats from outgroups
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)
What is intergroup emotion theory (Smith, 1993)
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
What types of prejudice can group emotion approach better explain
More extreme forms of prejudice eg outgroup derogation rather than theories focused on ingroup favouritism
Study supporting intergroup emotion theories as an explanation for outgroup derogation
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’
Intergroup emotion theories- what is group-based contempt associated with
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
What is the stereotype content model (Fiske et al, 2002)
Focuses on 2 key appraisal dimensions (competence ad warmth aka competitiveness where cold means competitive) commonly used to judge others
What is the stereotype content model (Fiske et al, 2002)- what are the 4 quadrants
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
What did Allport (1954) propose as the most effective method to reduce prejudice
Contact hypothesis- direct, face-to-face contact
What conditions did Allport (1954) propose as necessary for the contact hypothesis to reduce prejudice
Contact must not be superficial
Groups must have equal status
Must involve cooperation towards a common goal
Must be in normative climate
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- contact must not be superficial
Contact must be of sufficient frequency and closeness to allow true acqaintance rather than just activating negative outgroup associations
Study supporting contact hypothesis
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
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- groups must have equal status
Intergroup contact often takes place in conditions that confirm status hierarchies, so equal status contact ensures negative stereotypes of outgroup inferiority are disconfirmed
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- must involve cooperation towards a common goal
Equal levels of task ability must be ensured, outcomes must be positive
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- must be in a normative climate
ie context where contact is explicitly encouraged by institutional laws, as the authprity support establishes norms of acceptance
Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis conditions- how does the Deutsch and Collins study also support the need for a normative climate
Women in desegregted residence expected their neighbours to approve of friendly interracial interactions, while those in segregated residence expected to be ostracized
Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)- found a highly significant negative relation between contact and prejudice
Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis- findings about conditions necessary
Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)- Allport’s conditions are not necessary, but facilitating conditions that make contact more effective
Metanalysis of the effectiveness of the contact hypothesis- do positive contact effects generalise from individuals to the outgroup as a whole
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
Criticism of metanalysis of contact effect
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)
Longitudinal study supporting effectiveness of contact hypothesis in reducing prejudice
Swart et al (2011)- contact does predict reductions in prejudice over time
Study suggesting the typicality of the encountered ‘exemplar’ in contact hypothesis matters
Wilder (1984)- positive contact effects only generalise to overall group if ‘exemplar’ is seen as typical of the outgroup
Decategorisation approach- how can attention to idiosynchratic info reduce prejudice
Reduces focus on category-based stereotypes, redycign the usefulness of the category in future interactions and having generalied effects to the outgroup
Study supporting effectiveness of decategorisation approach
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)
Why may a decategorisation strategy not be realistic
Groups and social identities form valued parts of the self, especially to marginalised outgruops- unrealistic to remove this category?
Study showing how decategorisation and recategorisation reduce outgroup bias differently
Gaertner et al (1989)- decategorisation makes evaluations of former ingroup members less positive, recategorisation makes evaluations of former outgroup members more positive
Why may a recategorisation approach not be realistic?
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)
What is the mutual differentiation model
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
How do Hewstone and Brown (1986) propose the mutual differential model contact situation could be structured
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)
Criticisms of Hewstone and Brown’s (1986) mutual differential model
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
What is an integrative model that combines decategorisation, recategorision etc
Pettigrew (1998)’s 3-stage longitudinal model
What are the 3 stages of Pettigrew’s (1998) 3 stage longitudinal model of prejudice reduction
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
Pettigrew’s (1998) 3 stage longitudinal model of prejudice reduction- what may be used instead of recategorisation in the final stage
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
Study supporting dual identification as beneficial for minority group members
Results in less ‘acculturative stress’ (stress of moving culture) among immigrants (Berry et al, 1987)
What variables appear to be more impacted by contact theory
Affective rather than cognitive variables- contact seems to affect attitudes rather than stereotypes, predominantly via impact on affective processes (Brown and Hewstone, 2005)
What causes intergroup anxiety
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)
How can contact hypothesis reduce intergroup anxiety
Successful contact helps overcome apprehensions of intergroup contact, disproving the expectations that cause it and reducing the association between anxiety and negative outgroup attitudes
Study showing effect of contact on empathy and intergroup anxiety
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
What is ingroup reappraisal and how can it reduce intergroup prejudice
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
Study supporting effect of ingroup reappraisal in generalisation of positive contact effects
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
What did Pettigrew (2009) name the generalisation of positive contact effects to other outgroups generally
The ‘secondary transfer effect’
Study supporting Pettigrew (2009)’s secondary transfer effect
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
How can stereotype discomfirming info reduce prejudice
Subtyping model seen as most effective- stereotype iconsistent info creates a subtype and the outgroup stereotype becomes more complex (Weber and Crocker, 1983)
What is the extended contact hypothesis
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
