Resolving intergroup conflict Flashcards
Sherif et al’s (1961) ‘Robber’s Cave’ study?
· ‘Sheer contact’ – talk in society that it is due to lack of knowledge or contact. Putting different people from different groups together is hypothesised to reduce prejudice but isn’t always the case
· Superordinate goals - e.g. work together to fix the water cart, pull the bus using the old tug-of-war rope. Used to defuse negative behaviour
Based on Realistic Conflict Theory and turning interdependence from -ve to +ve
Other examples of ‘sheer contact’ as a strategy ?
· European work on foreign exchange students
· Stroebe et al (1988):- host stereotypes held by foreign students studying abroad become more negative
Furnham & Bochner (1986) - exchange students tend not to integrate, report the same with British people, tend to gravitate towards people who are similar to us in strange situations
Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A.
Brewer & Miller (1984) - ‘re-segregation’?
Although they were integrated in schools, there were still different groups forming where children only grouped with others like them
Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A. - Schofield (1970;1986) - lack of ‘acquaintance potential’;
‘banding’ leads to re-segregation, started to band children into classes by IQ ability, black children tended to be in the lower classes. Black children came from schools which were under funded, came from poorer areas therefore were at a disadvantage
Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A. -Stephan (1978)
meta-analysis - no studies showed an > in black self-esteem after de-segregation and 25% showed a <
Studies of school desegregation in the U.S.A. - · Aronson (1988)
minority students feel threatened in de-segregated environment
May rebel against ‘white’ norms and values in education and develop counter-norms and values
Rupert Brown’s (1995) criticisms of de- segregation research
· Kids often bussed back to their own separate ethnic communities at the end of the day
· Too much emphasis on short-term effects – too high expectations, saying that putting all kids together would have an impact
· A ‘no differences’ approach is stressed too much – saying that you don’t notice differences between people
Ideal contact conditions are rarely met
Other examples of contact research?
· Northern Ireland:-
· Trew (1986) Intergroup attitudes are no more positive in mixed schools.
· Cairns (2003) – Contact hypothesis never been properly tested in N.I.
· Israel:-
Ben-Ari & Amir (1986) - Arab & Jewish Israelis:-
(1) Unpleasant contact can make things worse
(2) Organisers often the most keen
(3) High expectations can be hard to meet
(4) Too many one-off contact attempts
(5) Too little preparation
(6) Language barriers
Allport (1954): The contact hypothesis
· Equal Status
· Common Goals
Social & Institutional support
Aronson et al.’s ‘Jigsaw Classroom’ (1978) ?
· School is competitive rather than working together · Change behaviour first · Use cognitive dissonance effects · Based on Allport’s model of contact · Children work in groups on projects Enhances self-esteem and empathy?
Evaluating the Jigsaw Classroom ?
· Aronson’s own view
· Argyle (1992) - the effects are often small, and the whole thing can go badly wrong (esp. when shared goals are not achieved)
· Miller & Davidson-Podgorny (1987) - meta analysis - co-operative learning can work if no intergroup competition
Devries et al (1979)- is there generalisation of effects from JSC?
Cook (1978, 1984): a re-formulation based on similarity-attraction theories ?
· Cook (1978, 1984):- · Should try and turn categories off · Equal status within the situation · Outgroupers disconfirm stereotypes · Norms of equality Acquaintance made “as individuals”: i.e. de- categorisation (Miller & Brewer, 1984)
Hewstone & Brown (1986): criticisms of contact research ?
· Over-estimation of role of ignorance
· Direction of causality hard to ascertain are attitudes changing contact? Or is contact changing attitudes?
· Interpersonal or intergroup contact ideal?
Generalisation of positive attitudes (e.g. Minard, 1952)? When miners were underground, they all integrated equally but above ground they segregated themselves
Hewstone & Brown (1986): their suggestions ?
· Intergroup contact during which relevant social identities remain salient
· Promote distinct but complementary roles - e.g. Deschamps & Brown (1983). Created different groups within university students, given them tasks with roles which didn’t overlap, so there was no competing. Encouraged to have different roles to decrease conflict
· See positively evaluated outgroup members as typical (Wilder, 1984) to prevent ‘sub- typing’. E.g. a racist could be a fan of Mo Farah
· See outgroup as varied (Hamburger, 1994)
A ‘dual identity’ approach - Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000)
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) ?
· Meta-analysis of over 600 studies
· Conclude there IS evidence for prejudice reduction following contact
· Evidence strongest from experiments
· 96% of studies reviewed showed reduction of prejudice
· Generalisation DOES happen
· Contact situations designed around Allport’s optimal conditions are most effective, but they are not essential
Possibly explained by familiarity breeding liking (Zajonc, 1968)
