Social Lecture 4: Inter-Group Processes

Question 1

Collective behaviour

Answer 1

Refers to relatively large aggregations of individuals who display similarities in action and outlook; also referred to as crowd behaviour

Question 2

Why could being in a crowd lead to anti-social behaviours? (2)

Answer 2

• de-individuation

Question 3

Bystander Effect (Diffusion of Responsibility)

Answer 3

In situations where many people are present at an incident there are many reported instances of inaction on the part of the observers

Question 3

How can crowds lead to positive behaviours?

Question 3

Characteristics of collectives/crowds (5)

Answer 3

• size
• proximity
• duration
• conventionality
• relationships among members

Question 3

Le Bon

Answer 3

• 1986
• Believed that crowds foster anonymity but can also generate emotion
• Coined term ‘contagion’

Question 4

Contagion (2)

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

Convergency theories (4)

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

De-Individuation Theory (5)

Answer 6

• feelings of anonymity
• diffusion of responsibility
• membership in large groups
• heightened state of physiological arousal
• individuals become less ‘evident’

Question 7

De-Individualisation Theory (5)

Answer 7

• feelings of anonymity
• diffusion of responsibility
• membership in large groups
• heightened state of physiological arousal
• individuals become less ‘evident’

Question 8

What factors can affect the level of de-individuation and how? (2)

Answer 8

• group size
• anonymity
• larger group/ more anonymity = increased de-individuation

Question 9

Diener 1972

Answer 9

-Children on Halloween entered a house and were told by experimenter “please only take one candy” and researched left children alone with the candy

Question 10

Diener 1972 Findings (2)

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

Festginer 1952

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Mann 1981

Answer 12

Studied 21 instances in which crowds were present where someone was threatening to jump from a building or a bridge

Question 13

Mann 1981 Findings (2)

Answer 13

• 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)

Question 14

Example of the Bystander Effect

Answer 14

Kitty Genovese 1960s (38 witnesses to her murder)

Question 15

Who proposed the Bystander Effect?

Answer 15

Latané & Darley 1970

Question 16

What are the 4 proposed steps bystanders go through when they are confronted with a potential emergency?

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

What factors might make bystanders more likely to help? (brainstorm)

Answer 17

• 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?)

Question 18

Fischer et al. 2011 Findings (When are people less likely to intervene in an emergency situation?)

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Describe Robber’s Cave experiment

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

Robber’s Cave Findings

Answer 20

• boys identified with one particular group very strongly and quickly
• showed that hostility can occur between groups with the introduction of competition

Question 21

Realistic Conflict Theory (5)

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

Difference between an in-group member and an out-group member

Question 23

Ethnocentrism

Answer 23

A perception that all things in-group are superior to all things out-group

Question 24

Steps of Robber’s Cave

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Robber’s Cave Stage 3

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

Relative deprivation. (4)

Answer 26

• 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

Question 27

Watts suburb of Los Angeles (1965)

Answer 27

• 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)

Question 28

South Central Los Angeles (1992)

Answer 28

• 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

Question 29

Berkowitz 1972

Answer 29

• 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

Question 30

Davies 1969

Answer 30

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

Question 31

Collective Violence Model

Answer 31

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

Question 32

Types of relative deprivation (2)

Answer 32

Egoistic relative deprivation
Fraternalistic relative deprivation

Question 33

Egoistic relative deprivation

Answer 33

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)

Question 34

Fraternalistic relative deprivation

Answer 34

Sense that our group has less than it is entitled to, relative to the collective aspirations or other groups (group vs group comparisons)

Question 35

Factors affecting relatie deprivation (4)

Answer 35

Strong group identification
Perceived effectiveness of action
Perceptions of justice
In-group and out-group comparisons

Question 36

Strong group identification

Answer 36

Strong identification with the group is necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action

Question 37

Perceived effectiveness of action

Answer 37

People who believe that taking action eg. protesting will redress the imbalance shown in their perceived fraternalistic relative deprivation

Question 38

Perceptions of injustice

Answer 38

Perceptions that you have less than you are entitled (distributive justice) and victim of unfair procedures (procedural injustice)

Question 39

In-group and out-group comparisons

Answer 39

Likelihood for action depends on the similarity of the outgroup

Question 40

When is attitude-behaviour correspondence increase?

Answer 40

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

Question 41

To what extent is relative deprivation responsible for intergroup aggression and conflict?

Answer 41

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