Resolving Intergroup Conflict Flashcards
Who did the Robber cave study?
Sherif et al 1961
What is the procedure of Sherif et al?
‘Sheer contact’
Superordinate goals - e.g. work together to
fix the water cart, pull the bus using the old
tug-of-war rope
Based on Realistic Conflict Theory and turning interdependence from neg to pos
What were the findings of Sherif et al?
Ingroup Formation: Two groups of boys formed strong bonds when kept separate.
Intergroup Conflict: Hostility grew when the groups competed for limited resources.
Superordinate Goals: Conflict reduced when the groups worked together on shared goals (e.g., fixing a truck).
The Role of Group Identity: Strong group identification led to hostility towards outgroups.
Cooperation: Shared goals helped reduce conflict and promote cooperation.
What are other examples pf sheer contact as a strategy?
Stroebe et al 1988
Furnham & Bochner 1986
Stephan (2014)
What did Stephan (2014) find?
Groups are kept apart by educational, cultural + material differences and anxiety about the consequences from contact
What did Stroebe et al 1988 do?
Participants were divided into groups with a history of prejudice toward each other (often based on social, ethnic, or cultural differences).
Different conditions; equal status, cooperation towards common goals, institutional support
Interacted in different settings
What did Stroebe et al 1988 find?
Host stereotypes held by foreign students studying abroad become more negative
Long-Term Effects: Under the right conditions, contact can lead to changes in attitudes and behaviours, fostering greater intergroup harmony.
Conditions for Effective Contact:
Equal status between groups during interactions.
Common goals that require cooperation.
Institutional support to encourage positive interactions.
What did Furnham & Bochner 1986 do?
The study involved individuals from different cultural backgrounds, including both immigrants and native populations.
Exposed to dofferent levels of intergroup contact
Researchers measured attitudes toward outgroups, cultural adjustment, and prejudice before and after the contact experiences, using surveys and interviews to gather data.
What did Furnham & Bochner 1986 find
Exchange students tend not to integrate
What are some studies about school desegreation in the USA?
Stephan 1978
What did Stephan 1978 do?
Participants: White and Black students in schools affected by desegregation policies.
Contact: Observed the effects of intergroup contact in desegregated schools.
Assessment: Measured attitudes and prejudice before and after desegregation.
What did Stephan 1978 find?
Initial Increase in Prejudice: Desegregation led to short-term increases in prejudice, especially among White students.
Positive Contact Conditions: Prejudice reduction required equal status, cooperation, and shared goals.
Long-term Positive Outcomes: Over time, desegregation led to improved intergroup relations.
Supportive Environment: Institutional support and diversity programs helped ensure successful desegregation
What are the criticisms of Brown (1995) research?
Kids often bussed back to their own separate communities at the end of the day
Too much emphasis on short-term effects
A ‘no differences’ approach is stressed too much
Ideal contact conditions are rarely met
What are other examples pf contact research?
Northern Ireland (Trew 1986)
Israel (Ben-Ari & Amir 1986)
What did Trew 1986 do?
Participants: Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Survey: Measured attitudes, stereotypes, and intergroup relations.
Analysis: Explored the role of group identity and lack of contact in fostering prejudice.
What did Trew 1986 find?
Group Polarization: Strong ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility between Protestants and Catholics.
Negative Stereotypes: Both groups held negative stereotypes of each other, reinforcing prejudice.
Social Identity Theory: Group identity fueled prejudice toward the opposing group.
Limited Contact: Contact between groups was rare and often distrustful, hindering prejudice reduction.
What did Ben-Ari & Amir 1986 do?
Participants: Muslim and Jewish Israeli students.
Contact Conditions: The study analyzed the effects of intergroup contact in various settings, focusing on the nature of the interactions.
Survey: Measured prejudice, stereotypes, and attitudes toward the other group before and after contact.
What did Ben-Ari & Amir 1986 find?
With Muslim and Jewish Israelis: Unpleasant contact can make things worse
Organisers often the most keen
High expectations can be hard to meet
Too many one-off contact attempts
Too little preparation
Language barriers
Who made the contact hypothesis?
Allport 1954
What is the contact hypothesis?
Suggests that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and improve relations between groups, particularly when certain conditions are met.
What are the conditions for successful contact for contact hypothesis
Equal status
Common goals
Intergroup Cooperation
Support from authorities
What is equal status
Both groups must have equal standing during interactions to prevent dominance of one over the other.
What is common goals?
Groups must work together toward shared objectives that require cooperation.
What is intergroup cooperation?
The interaction should involve cooperation, not competition, between groups.
What is support from authorities?
The contact should be supported by social norms, laws, or leaders to encourage positive interactions.
What did Aronson et al 1978 do?
Participants: Students in diverse classrooms.
Task: Students were divided into small groups, with each member assigned a different part of a lesson to learn.
Cooperative Learning: Each student became an “expert” on their part and then taught the others, requiring cooperation for the group to succeed.
What did Aronson et al 1978 find?
Reduced Prejudice: The jigsaw method helped reduce intergroup prejudice and increased cooperation between students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds.
Improved Academic Performance: Students showed improved grades and better engagement in the cooperative learning environment.
Increased Empathy: The method fostered empathy and positive intergroup relationships.
What is cognitive dissonance caused by?
Incompatible attitudes
How is cognitive dissonance reduced?
Attitude change
Who evaluated the jigsaw classroom study?
Argyle 1992
Miller & Davidson-Podgorny 1987
What did Argyle find?
The effects are often small, and the whole thing can go badly wrong (esp. when shared goals are not achieved)
What did Miller & Davidson-Podgorny find?
Cooperative learning can work if no intergroup competition
Who looked at a reformulation based on similarity-attraction theories?
Cook 1978, 1984
What did Cook find?
Equal status within the situation
Outgroupers disconfirm stereotypes
Norms of equality
Who criticised contact research?
Hewstone & Brown 1986
What did Hewstone & Brown find?
Over-estimation of role of ignorance
Direction of causality hard to ascertain
What are Hewstone & Brown suggest?
Intergroup contact during which relevant social
identities remain salient
A ‘dual identity’ approach
Who looked at the effectiveness of contact:?
Pettigrew & Tropp 2006
What was the procedure of Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)?
An authoritative meta-analysis of 515 contact studies conducted between 1949 and 2000, with 713 samples across 38 participating nations
What were the results of Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)?
There is good evidence for Allport’s core contention that cooperation, shared goals, equal status and the support of local authorities and norms are the most important and beneficial preconditions for intergroup contact to produce positive intergroup attitude change
Who looked at the dual identity approach?
Hornsey & Hogg 2000
What did Hornsey & Hogg find?
Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals
What happens when there is a match to compare an outgroup member’s behaviour to one’s stereotype?
Stereotypes reinforced
What happens when there is a mismatch to compare an outgroup member’s behaviour to one’s stereotype?
Search for explanation
Can lead to a typical group member or an atypical group member
What happens with a typical group member?
Modify stereotype
What happens with an atypical group member?
Create new subtype, main stereotype remain unchanged
What did Pettigrew & Tropp 2006 do?
Meta-analysis of over 600 studies
Data Collection: Included research across different settings, groups, and countries.
Analysis: Measured the overall effect of intergroup contact on prejudice reduction.
What did Pettigrew & Tropp 2006 find?
Prejudice Reduction: Contact had a moderate to large effect in reducing prejudice.
Key Conditions: Contact worked best with equal status, cooperation, and institutional support.
Direct and Indirect Contact: Both direct and indirect contact were effective, with direct being more impactful.
Contextual Factors: Effectiveness varied by relationship nature, social context, and conflict history.
What did Pettigrew & Tropp 2006 conclude?
Uncertainty reduction important
Group salience is still advisable
Need more longitudinal studies
Need multi-level models outlining inhibitors and
facilitators of positive contact
Start early, with children
Reduce intergroup anxiety
What are the moderating factors in Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)?
Type of Contact
Group Characteristics
Cultural and Contextual Differences
Who looked at recategorisation approach?
Gaertner et al 1989 1990
What is recategorisation approach?
Shift in Group Boundaries: Redefine group boundaries to create a larger, inclusive ingroup.
Ingroup Re-definition: See members of different groups as part of the same larger category.
Social Identity Change: Reduces prejudice by changing social identity and fostering connection.
Who looked at recategorisation approach?
Turner 1981
What is recategorisation?
Involves shifting the boundaries of group identity to include members of previously distinct groups within a broader, more inclusive category
What does the shift aim to do?
Reduce in-group favouritism and out-group hostility by redefining group membership in a way that emphasises commonalities over differences.
Who looked at recategorisation approach? (JA)
Gaetner & Mann (1989)
What did Gaetner & Mann do?
The study involved individuals from two distinct groups with a history of conflict or tension (e.g., students of different ethnic backgrounds).
Intervention: Participants were either exposed to recategorisation (being encouraged to see themselves and others as part of a larger, inclusive group) or not exposed to it (control group).
Measurement: Researchers measured attitudes toward out-group members, perceptions of group boundaries, and willingness to cooperate before and after the intervention.
What are the findings from Gaetner & Mann?
Prejudice Reduction: Recategorisation led to a significant reduction in prejudice. Participants who were encouraged to see out-group members as part of a larger group exhibited less in-group favouritism and out-group hostility.
Improved Cooperation: The intervention fostered greater cooperation between members of the previously distinct groups, as they now shared a common identity that encouraged mutual goals and support.
Long-term Effects: The study suggested that recategorisation might have long-lasting effects on intergroup relations, as the new, broader social identity persisted after the intervention.
What are the mechanisms of recategorisation approach?
Shared Goals and Social Identity
Social Identity Theory
What is shared goals and social identity?
Focus on common goals
Emphasising shared identity
The changing of social identity through RC
What is social identity theory?
People derive part of self-concept from group membership
Recategorisation to include IG and OG
What are the implications from Gaetner & Mann?
The study highlighted the potential of recategorisation as an effective tool in reducing intergroup prejudice, particularly in contexts of intergroup conflict.
This approach could be applied in various settings, such as workplaces, schools, and society at large, where diverse groups need to cooperate and interact.
Who looked at decategorisation, mutual differentiation + superordinate goals?
Banker et al (2000)
What is mutual differentiation?
Rhe acknowledgment and acceptance of group differences while still promoting intergroup cooperation
What is the effectiveness of mutual differentiation?
This strategy allows for cooperation across differences without requiring individuals to lose their distinct group membership
What is superordinate goals?
A goal that requires cooperation between groups to achieve, and which cannot be achieved by any group independently.
What is the effectiveness and limitation of superordinate goals?
Grounded in Intergroup Contact Theory= their cooperation can reduce prejudice.
May not be effective in the long term if the underlying group identities and biases are not addressed
What is decategorisation?
Decategorisation involves removing group labels or identities from intergroup interactions, encouraging individuals to perceive each other as unique individuals rather than as members of a particular group.
What is the effectiveness and challenges of decategorisation?
Reducing the salience of group membership, which can lead to more personal, less prejudiced interactions
It may lead to individualistic thinking, ignoring important social and cultural identities
Who looked at intergroup anxiety sources?
Stephan & Stephan (2000)
What are the 4 sources of anxiety?
Realistic threat
Symbolic threat
Intergroup anxiety
Negative stereotypes
What is realistic threat?
A sense of threat to the existence of the group such as political power
What is symbolic threat?
A threat posed by the outgroup to values and beliefs,
What is intergroup anxiety?
Threat to the self such as embarrassment
What is negative stereotypes?
Fear of intergroup anxiety which is anticipated due to negative stereotypes
What are the three components of intergroup anxiety?
Affective
Cognitive
Physiological
What is affective?
Aversive feelings of apprehension and distress),
What is cognitive?
People expect to be embarrassed and disliked by their own group
What is physiological?
Increased cortisol and elevated blood pressure
What are the symptoms of intergroup anxiety caused by?
Personality and personal characteristics (low empathy)
Neg attitudes and cognitions (prior prejudices)
Personal experience (little prior contact with the outgroup)
Situational factors (unclear situation and roles)
What are the consequences of IA?
Cog (depleted cog resources)
Affective and emotional (affectively consistent evaluations + guilt may arise if the encounter is less awkward than anticipated) Behavioural (overt, verbal and non-verbal behaviours
What are the key points from Hodson & Meleady (2024)?
No Longitudinal Change: The study found no significant reduction in outgroup bias over time, even with increased intergroup contact.
Complex Relationship: The findings challenge the assumption that intergroup contact automatically leads to a reduction in prejudice, suggesting the relationship is more complex than previously assumed.
Need for Further Research: The study calls for deeper exploration into the factors that might influence whether contact reduces prejudice, beyond just the presence of contact itself.
