Social Identity and Intergroup Relations Flashcards
Define and give examples for Stereotypes
- Impressions of groups that people form by associating the groups with particular characteristics
- Ex.
Define and give examples for Prejudice
- Positive or negative evaluations of a social group or its members
Define and give examples for Discrimination
- Positive or negative behaviour directed toward a social group or its members
Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1971)
- We derive self-esteem from our valued group memberships
- Share and adopt opinions with our in-group to feel validated
- Develop belief that “outgroups” are inferior
Explain self-categorisation
- Seeing oneself as a member of a social group
- Often associate ourselves with several social groups
Basking in reflected glory
- Group membership influences self-esteem
- When our group wins, we feel pride in that win
- ex. You’re an LFC fan and they won a match, you feel proud and you’d say “We won” instead of “They won”
What is the impact of Social Identity Theory on attitudes/opinions?
Changes how we perceive members of in-groups and outgroups
In-groups vs Out-groups
In-group:
- Members of our social group
- View them as similar to us, as well as individually unique and novel
Outgroup:
- Members of another social group
- View them as dissimilar, as well as individually similar/homogenous (e.g. stereotypes)
In-group favouritism
- Initial positivity towards in-group based on membership alone
- Anything negative about group members could reflect poorly on you
Outgroup Homogeneity Effect
- Outgroups treated more negatively
Out-group Homogeneity Effect:
- Seeing out-group as less diverse than in-group
- Fewer out-group members known, and interactions with out-group more constrained
Impact of minority vs majority status
- We use group memberships to emphasise what is novel about ourselves, which may bolster certain group identities
- If our in-group is a minority, that may be central to us
- If our in-group is a majority, we may discount that membership
- Upward/downward comparison
- If majority performance is good = we feel bad
- If majority performance is bad = we feel good
- Minority performance is completely ignored by majority
- The opposite applies to minority group members
Explain the Minimal Group Paradigm
- Groups can be made arbitrarily
- Allows to study effects of groups in a “vacuum” -> Suggests that intergroup conflicts are innate
What is the function of Minimal Group Paradigm?
- Social comparison
- Self-categorisation
- Self-esteem
Give examples of the Minimal Group Paradigm
- Arbitrary assignments to groups creates biases
- Example: Robber’s Cave Experiment
Realistic Group Conflict Theory
- Takes an evolutionary and economic approach for group conflict
- We are motivated to maximise the rewards for in-groups, even if it means taking those rewards away from others
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Competition over Resources
- Groups tend to compete when resources are contested
Examples:
- Israel and Palestine (land)
- Mexico and US (welfare)
- Gulf War (oil)
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Robber’s Cave Experiment
- Supports the notion of competing over resources
- Boys took part in a camp, and divided into 2 groups (Eagles vs Rattlers)
- They did competitions over money/prize
- They got aggressive and competitive
- This persisted even when the resources were removed
- It took a while for them to like each other again after this, even though it was all completely arbitrary
Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Zero-Sum Game
- Majority groups view competition as zero-sum game
- Sees a finite amount of resources
- Believes gains in minority lead to equal losses in majority
- Fear of losing influence and power
- Threats increase if groups are seen as equal
Intergroup Threat Theory
- An extension of Realistic Group Conflict
- While Realistic Group Conflict focuses on physical resources, Intergroup Threat Theory adds another threat: Status/Sources of Self-esteem
Intergroup Threat Theory: Symbolic Threats
- Loss of status or authority or influence
- Loss of sources of self-esteem
Intergroup Threat Theory: Realistic Threats
- Loss of physical resources like land and money and food
Forms of Discrimination: Expression of Prejudiced Attitudes
- There is small correlation between prejudice and discrimination, which can be explained by the Theory of Planned Behaviour
- Prejudice alone isn’t sufficient to promote discrimination
- Social norms and perceived control impact behaviour
Forms of Discrimination: Blatant vs Subtle vs Covert
Blatant:
- Unequal and harmful treatment that is intentional and visible
Subtle:
- Unequal and harmful treatment that is typically less visible and obvious
- Often not noticed because people have internalised it as normal
- Can be active or passive
Covert:
- Unequal and harmful treatment that is hidden, purposeful, and often maliciously motivated
- Behaviour that attempts to ensure failure in situations
Forms of Discrimination: Microaggressions
- Small-scale, everyday behaviours that demean other social groups or members of those groups
