Prejudice II Flashcards
What are the intergroup theories?
– Realistic Group Conflict Theory
– Social Identity Theory
– Intergroup Threats
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
- when did signs of ethnocentrism start?
- therefore…
- who was this idea tested by and led to?
- Signs of ethnocentrism started before groups got into competitions, i.e. when there was no realistic conflict between them yet.
- Therefore: Is ethnocentrism the result of fighting over scarce resources or does the mere existence of two groups generate ethnocentrism?
- Idea tested by Henri Tajfel and led to the development of Social Identity Theory (SIT).
Who was Social Identity Theory (SIT) proposed by?
First proposed in the 1970s by Henri Tajfel and John Turner as a theory of intergroup conflict and it is considered one of the major theories in social psychology.
What was Tajfel’s starting point
- How do people come to see each other as enemies in the absence of rational or objective reasons? Can prejudice exist outside of competition over resources?
- To answer this question, Tajfel adopted an experimental approach. (his main concern was) What are the minimal conditions needed to produce ingroup bias?
Origins of SIT
- Minimal group studies methodology (Tajfel et al., 1971):
Participants assigned to one of two groups based on chance or an arbitrary criterion e.g. painting preference or even flip of a coin (heads or tails group) - Meaningless groups
Groups would have no history of conflict with one another and they don’t interact with other pp’s
Minimal group studies methodology (Tajfel et al., 1971)
- Participants don’t know the other participants (no
history of conflict) - Participants don’t interact with other participants
in the group (no contact) - Very artificial groups, because Tajfel was interested in how just knowing that one belongs to a group affects behavior toward other groups…
- Participants are led to private cubicles where they are asked to allocate points (which would convert into money) to:
– Two members of the ingroup
– Two members of the outgroup
– A member of their group (ingroup) and a member of the other group (outgroup) - Participants are told how they allocate money would not affect the points (money) they receive as individuals for participation. So their choices of monetary allocations cannot be driven by personal gree
Minimal group studies- how does the minimal group paradigm matrix work
Decide how much money they divide between ingroup and outgroup members. So they have to pick the option that is most suitable.
Minimal group paradigm matrix- what are the distribution strategies?
1- fairness- you can decide to distribute money equally
2- maximum ingroup profit- you can decide that what you care about is how much money your own group gets
3- maximum joint profit- you can have the goal of making things better for the in group and the outgroup
4- maximising the difference- between your group and the outgroup- all options involve more money for the ingroup compared to the outgroup
Minimal group studies (Tajfel et al., 1971)
1- Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to two different ingroup members?
2- Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to two different outgroup members?
3- Which strategy is more likely to be used when allocating to an ingroup member and an outgroup member?
1- Fairness
2- Fairness
3- Ingroup favoritism: more points to ingroup members than to outgroup members!
Minimal group studies (Tajfel et al., 1971):
1- what do ingroup members prefer?
2- as a result of this, what is happenning?
1- Participants are not trying to maximise their possession of a scarce resource (money): they prefer their ingroup to get more than the outgroup, even if this means receiving less material resources overall!
They care about the relative rather than the absolute standing of the group…
2- This discrimination in favor of the ingroup is happening in the absence of any conflict history and any prior contact.
Minimal group studies (Tajfel et al., 1971):
1- what effect?
2- what have hundreds of minimal group experiments showed?
3- what is unclear?
4- but…
1- “Mere categorization” effect: categorizing people into different social groups is sufficient for creating ethnocentrism.
2- Hundreds of minimal group experiments showed that mere categorization produces ethnocentrism and competitive intergroup behavior.
3- Mechanisms for minimal ingroup bias are unclear and different explanations exist.
4- But results interpreted as evidence that there is a psychological motivation operating in individuals to defend group interests regardless of self-interest.
Social Identity Theory:
- why did it emerge?
- Aim?
Social Identity Theory emerged as an attempt to explain the results of the minimal group experiments: people sometimes behave as group members rather than as individuals. (regardless of their own personal interest)
Aim of SIT: when do people think of themselves in terms of “we” (social identity) rather than “I” (personal identity)?
Definition of social identification
- varies among?
- varies depending on?
Social identification: “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of membership of a social group (or groups) together with the emotional significance attached to that membership” (Tajfel, 1974, p.69).
- Varies among individuals
- Varies depending on context (group identity can become more salient)
SIT:
What do the groups we belong to affect?
The groups we belong to affect how we define ourselves, but also how much we value ourselves: when our group accomplishes valued achievements, we feel positive about our group but when our group is negatively valued, we feel negative about our group.
SIT:
- what are people motivated to do?
- what should a group member who identifies strongly with the ingroup be motivated to do?
- People are motivated to feel good/positive about themselves.
- A group member who identifies strongly with the ingroup should be motivated to positively distinguish the ingroup from outgroups on dimensions valued by the perceiver (Tajfel, 1978c).
SIT:
- how can the need for positive distinctiveness be achieved?
- what does the motive for positive distinctiveness lead to?
- The need for positive distinctiveness can be achieved by:
– highlighting dimensions on which the ingroup is superior to the outgroup
– by actively derogating or discriminating against the outgroup to create or to reinforce an existing hierarchy. - The motive for positive distinctiveness leads to ingroup favoritism.
SIT:
1- what are immigrants defined as immigrants based on. What does this mean?
2- what does SIT predict?
3- what is this supported by?
1- Immigrants are defined as immigrants based on national group membership. Therefore variation in national identification should impact attitudes toward immigrants.
2- SIT predicts that greater national identification should result in greater prejudice toward immigrants.
3- This is supported by empirical evidence from various studies in several European countries (e.g. Weiss, 2003; Billiet, Maddens, & Beerten, 2003; Blank & Schmidt, 2003).- the more people that identify with their nation, the more prejudice they show towards immigrants
SIT:
But…
1- what does national attachment not necessarily lead to?
2- what is nationalism according to Kosterman & Feshbach (1989)
3- measures?
1- National attachment does not necessarily lead to prejudice toward immigrants. We should distinguish between nationalism and patriotism.
2- Nationalism:
— “a belief in national superiority and dominance’ (p. 175)
— ‘feelings of nationalism are inherently comparative and almost exclusively, downward comparative’ (p. 178).
3- Measures: scales which contain items such as e.g. ‘In view of America’s moral and material superiority, it is only right that we should have the biggest say in deciding United Nations policy.’
