Social Lecture 4: Inter-Group Processes Flashcards
1
Q
Collective behaviour
A
Refers to relatively large aggregations of individuals who display similarities in action and outlook; also referred to as crowd behaviour
2
Q
Why could being in a crowd lead to anti-social behaviours? (2)
A
- de-individuation
3
Q
Bystander Effect (Diffusion of Responsibility)
A
In situations where many people are present at an incident there are many reported instances of inaction on the part of the observers
3
Q
How can crowds lead to positive behaviours?
A
3
Q
Characteristics of collectives/crowds (5)
A
- size
- proximity
- duration
- conventionality
- relationships among members
3
Q
Le Bon
A
- 1986
- Believed that crowds foster anonymity but can also generate emotion
- Coined term ‘contagion’
4
Q
Contagion (2)
A
- The spread of behaviours, attitudes, and affect through social collectives
- The process whereby irrational and violent feelings can spread through the members of a crowd
5
Q
Convergency theories (4)
A
- crowd behaviour is not a product of the crowd itself, but is carried into the crowd by particular individuals
- crowds amount to a convergence of like-minded individuals
- there are similarities among this who join crowds and collectives
- these factors lead to de-individuation
6
Q
De-Individuation Theory (5)
A
- feelings of anonymity
- diffusion of responsibility
- membership in large groups
- heightened state of physiological arousal
- individuals become less ‘evident’
7
Q
De-Individualisation Theory (5)
A
- feelings of anonymity
- diffusion of responsibility
- membership in large groups
- heightened state of physiological arousal
- individuals become less ‘evident’
8
Q
What factors can affect the level of de-individuation and how? (2)
A
- group size
- anonymity
- larger group/ more anonymity = increased de-individuation
9
Q
Diener 1972
A
-Children on Halloween entered a house and were told by experimenter “please only take one candy” and researched left children alone with the candy
10
Q
Diener 1972 Findings (2)
A
- children who were asked their names and addresses were more likely to only take one candy
- children who were in groups were more likely to take more than one candy than children who entered alone
11
Q
Festginer 1952
A
Individuals dressed in grey laboratory coats and sat in dim light were more willing to use bad language when discussing erotic literature than individuals who were not
12
Q
Mann 1981
A
Studied 21 instances in which crowds were present where someone was threatening to jump from a building or a bridge
13
Q
Mann 1981 Findings (2)
A
- When the crowd was small and it was daytime, people didn’t usually try to get the person to jump
- If it was night time, or the crowd was large (factors which contribute to anonymity) the crowd usually jeered and baited the individual to jump (later research found that crowd formation was associated with variables that increase crowd frustration eg. block traffic etc)
14
Q
Example of the Bystander Effect
A
Kitty Genovese 1960s (38 witnesses to her murder)
15
Q
Who proposed the Bystander Effect?
A
Latané & Darley 1970
16
Q
What are the 4 proposed steps bystanders go through when they are confronted with a potential emergency?
A
- the event must come to their attention or be noticed
- they must assume some form of responsibility for helping the victim
- the possible course of action must be considered and compared
- finally they must actually implement the chosen course of action
17
Q
What factors might make bystanders more likely to help? (brainstorm)
A
- if the victim is similar to you
- if you are the only bystander or very small group
- if you acknowledge that they are aware of your presence
- what the victim is wearing
- evaluate how responsible they are (eg. have they had too much to drink?)
18
Q
Fischer et al. 2011 Findings (When are people less likely to intervene in an emergency situation?)
A
- if the situation was perceived as dangerous (gender effects)
- if the perpetrators were present
- if the cost of intervening was physical rather than non-physical
In a situation not perceived as particularly dangerous:
- similarity to the victim
- feeling capable of providing the help needed
- the gender and familiarity of other bystanders
19
Q
Describe Robber’s Cave experiment
A
- Sherif et al. 1954
- Investigated intergroup conflict and cooperation and used later to support realistic conflict theory
- Group of 22 boys (mean age 12) divided into 2 groups
- Separate groups picked up on by bus on successive days in the summer of 1954 and transported to a 200 acre boy scouts of America camp which was completely surrounded by robbers cave state park, Oklahoma
20
Q
Robber’s Cave Findings
A
- boys identified with one particular group very strongly and quickly
- showed that hostility can occur between groups with the introduction of competition
21
Q
Realistic Conflict Theory (5)
A
- Refers to the notion that competition over scarce resources (or for a much loved prize) will lead to conflict
- Therefore, limited resources lead to conflict between groups that have competing goals
- Goal relationships in conflict result in intergroup antipathy because the other group is challenging your group’s success
- this leads to ethnocentrism, a perception that all things in-group are superior to all things out-group
- ethnocentrism may lead to derogation of the out-group
22
Difference between an in-group member and an out-group member
23
Ethnocentrism
A perception that all things in-group are superior to all things out-group
24
Steps of Robber's Cave
1: boys in a summer camp allocated to a group and put through group bonding activities
2: the two groups form teams that compete against each other for money, leading to hostility
3: competition is removed and conflict stops
25
Robber's Cave Stage 3
- Integration phase
- Intended to dissipate the present contrived state of friction which was intended to last 6-7 days (it didn't work)
- experimenters introduced new tasks with super-ordinate goals that both groups needed to work on together to achieve good results
26
Relative deprivation. (4)
- A sense of having less than we are entitled to
- Formed through comparisons between experiences and expectations
- Deprivation is not absolute but relative to other conditions
- Viewed as a precondition for intergroup aggression
27
Watts suburb of Los Angeles (1965)
- Perceived injustice of the arrest of 3 black family members
- $35m property damaged, 34 people were killed
- Military called in to restore order
- Notable high level of unemployment, deprivation in African-American communities (99% of population in suburb)
28
South Central Los Angeles (1992)
- Direct response to the jury acquittal of 4 white policemen for the beating of Rodney King
- Set against a background of rising unemployment and deep disadvantage in black communities
- 63 dead and 2,383 injured, $1 billion in property damage
- Attack symbolised by beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny
29
Berkowitz 1972
- Suggested that intergroup prejudice and discriminatory behaviour is a function of negative experiences, eg:
Aversive events
Aggressive associations between the target group/individual and the aversive event
Provides a 'long hot summer' explanation
30
Davies 1969
J-Curve hypothesis
- Graphical representation when there is a sharp decline in a trend
- Relative deprivation may be experienced at times of rapid economic decline
31
Collective Violence Model
Relative deprivation
Frustration
Aversive environmental conditions amplifies frustration
Individual acts of aggression
Individual acts of aggression exacerbated by aggressive stimuli
Aggression becomes more widespread and assumes role of dominant response
Aggression spreads rapidly through social facilitation process
--> Collective violence
32
Types of relative deprivation (2)
Egoistic relative deprivation
Fraternalistic relative deprivation
33
Egoistic relative deprivation
A feeling of personally having less than we feel we are entitled to, relative to our personal aspirations or to other individuals (comparisons with other similar individuals)
34
Fraternalistic relative deprivation
Sense that our group has less than it is entitled to, relative to the collective aspirations or other groups (group vs group comparisons)
35
Factors affecting relatie deprivation (4)
Strong group identification
Perceived effectiveness of action
Perceptions of justice
In-group and out-group comparisons
36
Strong group identification
Strong identification with the group is necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action
37
Perceived effectiveness of action
People who believe that taking action eg. protesting will redress the imbalance shown in their perceived fraternalistic relative deprivation
38
Perceptions of injustice
Perceptions that you have less than you are entitled (distributive justice) and victim of unfair procedures (procedural injustice)
39
In-group and out-group comparisons
Likelihood for action depends on the similarity of the outgroup
40
When is attitude-behaviour correspondence increase?
If people identify strongly with the group, social action is normative of group membership, people feel they have the capacity to take part, and so forth
41
To what extent is relative deprivation responsible for intergroup aggression and conflict?
There is some suggestion for this link, but it has not been supported by systematic research. Little evidence that people's expectations are constructed on the basis of immediate past experience based on survey data
