Social Psychology

Question 1

What is a brief history of attitudes in social psychology? (What are the different perspectives?)

Answer 1

Two major perspectives in social psychology - Quantitative and qualitative
Social psych = Started as the study of attitudes
1920s to 1930s - Focus on how we measure attitudes
1950s to 1960s - How we change attitudes
1980s to 1990s - What are attitudes and what are they useful for

Question 2

What is an attitude?

Answer 2

An attitude = A positive or negative feeling towards an “object”
Object/attitude object
Nouns (kitten) & Verbs (running)
Sensory qualities (colours, odours, textures)
Concrete objects (animals, places,food)
Abstract concepts (personality traits, emotions)
Actions (drinking alcohol)
Attitudes towards attitudes (prejudice) → meta-attitudes

Question 3

Why study attitudes?

Answer 3

Pervasive (hard to think of something that we don’t evaluate)
Predict our behaviour
Shape how we see the world

Question 4

What are the three main explanations for attitudes?

Answer 4

Behaviour, Society & social environment (modelling) and Cognitions

Question 5

How does behaviour (direct experience, mere exposure) explain attitudes through direct experience?

Answer 5

Powerful way to learn new attitudes = interaction with the attitude object and see whether it is positive or negative
E.g. Attitude towards food - most readily acquired through classical conditioning
Garcia et al. (1955)
Gave rats sugar water before giving a dose of radiation - they developed food aversions
Bernstein & Webster (1980) - Examined attitudes towards two ice cream flavours
Participants given nauseating drug (chemo) with one flavour, developed preference for other flavour

Question 6

How does behaviour (direct experience, mere exposure) explain attitudes through mere exposure?

Answer 6

Goetzinger, 1968 - Person with blackhood in classroom, as classes went on, other students accept it and have friendlier attitudes towards the person
Novel, non-aversive stimuli → liked
Zajonc (1968) - PPT were exposed to arbitrary stimuli (words, pictures) & manipulated the frequency at which stimuli was presented
PPT liked the arbitrary stimuli more when exposed to them at a greater frequency
This is the same with photographs of strangers
Can the effect of mere exposure be applied to real life
Cook (1971) - When white people high in prejudice, put in work group with POC, were less prejudiced after one month and more likely to endorse racial equality

Question 7

How does society and our social environment (modelling) explain attitudes?

Answer 7

Modelling:
Beyond direct experience & mere exposure
Our attitudes develop from watching what others say and do
SLT - Bandura (1961) - People learn through modelling, watching what others do and engaging in the behaviour
Bobo doll experiment - Children exposed to aggressive condition - more likely to be aggressive towards bobo doll

Question 8

How does cognition (internally through changes in our thinking) explain attitudes?

Answer 8

Internally:
People have a desire for cognitive consistency
Motivated to change our attitudes (or behaviour) so they’re consistent - cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger et al, 1959)

Question 9

What are the two types of attitudes?

Answer 9

Explicit attitudes
Stored in memory and constructed after an experience
Conscious of explicit attitudes
Complex and cognitively demanding
Have “truth values”
Easy to lie about

Implicit attitudes
Long-term associations
Aren’t consciously aware of implicit attitudes
Simple and not cognitively demanding
Independent of “truth values”
Hard to lie about

Question 10

What is the dual-process model?

Answer 10

Dual-process model are common in cognitive psychology (e.g. attention, memory and motor behaviour)
Type 1 - Fast, easy, automatic, un/non-conscious
Type 2 - Slow, difficult, deliberate, conscious
Nothing unique or distinct about attitudes (same cognitive architecture as other cognitive processes)
Basic assumption of social cognitive approach in social psychology

Question 11

What is the cognitive structure of implicit attitudes?

Answer 11

Built from long-term associations within a semantic network
Not just for associations with ideas but whether they are positive of negative

Question 12

How to measure explicit and implicit attitudes?

Answer 12

Measuring explicit
Aware of explicit attitudes = Use self-report

Measuring implicit
Cognitive and neuroscientific approaches
Cognitive → Reaction timing (as well as matching, memory tasks) → Implicit association test (IAT)
Measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., Flowers, Insects) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., safe, dangerous)
Limitations → Does it show implicit, explicit or reflection of wider social contexts?, desirability issue, Diagnostic - can it be used in court?, Greenwald: it is not a measure of implicit prejudice
Neuroscientific → Scan brain (limbic system because we’re interested in affective responses) for evidence of attitudes

Question 13

What is the relationship between explicit and implicit attitudes? Do they work together?

Answer 13

Nosek & Smyth (2007) examined participants’ explicit and implicit attitudes for a range of different topics (58 studies)
Attitudes towards coke or pepsi, attitudes towards rich or poor people
Median correlation between explicit and implicit attitudes r = .48

How they work together
EA and IA attitudes towards same object can co-exist independently
Attitude object encountered → IA automatically activated (but EA requires effort to be activated)
If EA are activated they can override the IA
IA influences automatic behaviours, EA influences deliberate behaviours (MODE model)
EA are relatively easy to change but IA are highly resistant to change

Question 14

How do attitudes predict behaviour?

Answer 14

Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980)
The Theory of Planned Behavior assumes that individuals act rationally, according to their attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control
Widely used and applied theory for predicting behaviour
Armitage & Conner (2001) - conducted meta-analysis of 185 independent studies
Theory of planned behaviour predicted 27-38% of all variance in behaviour
Perceived behavioural control was the best predictor of behaviour
Attitudes better than norms and perceived behavioural control at predicting intentions

Question 15

What is the issue with planned behaviour?

Answer 15

Planned behaviour assumes people are rationally, make systematic use of the information available to them, and considers the implications of their behaviour before they decide to engage in the behaviour
How do attitudes work when behaviour is unplanned or poorly planned?
Assumes attitudes are monolithic, single cognitive construct
Because implicit and explicit attitudes can co-exist independently of each other they may predict different types of behaviours
The Motivation and Opportunity as Determinants (MODE) model seeks to explain how and when implicit and explicit attitudes shape behaviour

Question 16

What is the MODE model?

Answer 16

Cognitively demanding to engage in explicit attitudes
Need something to make it worth engaging with the cost & time to engage with cognition
Without motivation or time, only implicit attitudes can influence behaviour

Motivation:
When are people motivated to think about their attitudes? - When they need to be accurate
Applying the wrong attitude to an object can be costly because it can cause you to act sub-optimally (e.g. miss out on good opportunities)

Time:
Deliberate cognitive processes are slow and need time to complete
Difficult to engage with when people are cognitively depleted (distracted, intoxicated or fatigued)
Example of the MODE model
Sanbonmatsu & Fazio (1990) asked participants to form broad, automatic attitudes towards two stores (one positive, one negative)
Given contradicting information about the camera department
Asked to choose a store for where to buy a camera
Store A - automatic response (generally good condition)

Question 17

How do explicit and implicit attitudes manifest as behaviours?

Answer 17

Explicit attitudes → Behaviours
Attitudes towards complex objects (affirmative action)
Deliberative judgements about people (attractiveness to white/black faces)
Controlled interactions (e.g. speech)

Implicit attitudes → Behaviours
Non-verbal behaviours like eye blinks, gaze, smiling
Behaviours we don’t think reflect our attitudes: Handling object, physical proximity

Question 18

What is the APE model of attitude? (What are the two processes in the model?)

Answer 18

Alternative model to the MODE model
APE = Associate and Propositional processes in evaluation model
Similarities between MODE & APE
Implicit attitudes are automatic and relatively effortless
Explicit attitudes are deliberate and slow

Associative Processes -
Associative processes rely on activation in memory (specifically pattern activation)
Long-term co-activation and external input stimuli (e.g. context)

Propositional Processes -
For, propositional processes - evaluative responses affects the evaluation (attitude) only when consistent with other propositions

Automatic affective response (implicit attitude): “I don’t like Jews”. Gives some information to form an evaluation
Automatic affect response exists alongside other propositions: Jewish people are subject to millennia of prejudice, anti-semitism is morally wrong
Final evaluation (explicit attitude) = implicit attitude + additional propositions

Question 19

What are the two types of attitude change?

Answer 19

Changing our own attitudes (change over time, cognitive dissonance)
Changing attitudes of other (persuasion)

Question 20

How can implicit attitudes be changed by changing the semantic network?

Answer 20

Olson & Fazio, 2001
Implicit attitudes are derived from automatic associations in semantic networks
Can change the structure of those networks by “forcing” associations
Participants viewed several hundred word-image pairs
In amongst them, some neutral stimuli were repeated

Does this change in the real world?
Also possible to change implicitly (present conditioning stimuli below awareness; less than 50 ms)
For the self (increase implicit self-esteem by pairing self with positive stimuli)
Long-lasting because the structure of the semantic network has changed

Question 21

How can you change implicit attitudes by changing the activation of the attitude?

Answer 21

Many attitude objects we are interested in are multifaceted
By making one aspect of that complex objective active, we can change the relevant reference point for the implicit attitude
Dasgupta and Greenwald (2003)
Measured participants implicit prejudice using IAT
Control - No exemplars, Conditions - High profile white people and high profile black people

Activation change = Increases salience of association to reduce negative implicit attitudes
Does not change the structure of implicit attitude
Effects are short-lived

Question 22

How do we change explicit attitudes?

Answer 22

Explicit attitudes are accessible to introspection, propositional and more easily operated on by consciousness
Therefore = Generally faster and easier to change than implicit attitudes
Simplest way would be state that the attitude is not correct
Can experience conflict between attitudes, and attitudes and behaviour
Sometimes our attitudes come in conflict with one another
Sometimes come in conflict with our behaviour (e.g. against sweat shops but buy from fast-fashion brands that use child labour)
We don’t activate our explicit attitudes (MODE model)
Our behaviours is determined by things beyond our attitudes (theory of planned behaviour)

Question 23

What is cognitive dissonance?

Answer 23

When our attitudes are at odds with each other, or at odds with our behaviour - experience a negative emotional tension (Cognitive Dissonance - Festinger, 1957)
Motivated not experience this tension
One way in which can reduce cognitive dissonance is by changing our attitude so it aligns with behaviour
Festinger et al., 1959
Had PPT complete extremely boring task, designed to induce negative attitude towards task - e,g, ordering pegs
Experimenter paid PPT $1 or $20 to tell next participant that the task was fun
$1 - I dislike the task which is conflict with my behaviour (telling the next participant that the task was fun) = cognitive dissonance
Resolve dissonance by reporting more positive attitudes towards the task

Question 24

When does cognitive dissonance change attitudes?

Answer 24

When the behaviour is visible to others (e.g. can’t pretend it didn’t happen)
When we have freely chosen the action (forced to do something against our attitude = no cognitive dissonance = $20)
When our behaviour is costly and we have expended a lot of effort (motivated to improve attitude to make sacrifice more worthwhile)

Question 25

How do you avoid cognitive dissonance?

Answer 25

One way in which we can protect our attitudes from being influenced by cognitive dissonance is to avoid the dissonance
People are motivated to avoid information which might conflict with their attitudes to avoid feeling bad
Frey and Rosch (1984)
Asked PPT to read about a manager and then recommend termination or not
They were given the chance to gather information about either 1 - how good the manager was or 2 - how bad the manager was
Decision was reversible = Looked at both the good and bad information
Decision was irreversible = Only looked at the information that confirmed their decision (e.g. bad if they recommended to terminate the employee)

Question 26

How can cognitive dissonance help protect our attitude from change?

Answer 26

Grawonski and Strack (2004)
Conducted two studies where they induced cognitive dissonance in participants
They found that explicit attitudes changed to reduce dissonance, and implicit attitudes were unaffected

Question 27

How do we change the attitude of others through persuasion?

Answer 27

Limit ourselves to speaking about persuasion as a targeted attempt to change someone else’s attitude
Elaboration likelihood model of persuasion
Most well-established models for understanding persuasion
Petty and Cacioppo (1986) distinguish between “central” and “peripheral” routes of persuasion
Central route of persuasion is elaborated but the peripheral route is not
Receive a message
Central route → Consider the quality of the argument carefully
Peripheral route → Attend to cues associated with the message
Route taken determined by time and motivation

Question 28

What did Petty and Cacippo (1983) find in their study about change via persuasion?

Answer 28

Asked male PPT about their attitudes towards a new razor
Manipulated whether it would be sold in their hometown or another city (involvement high or low)
Manipulated whether strong or weak arguments for quality of razor was provided
Manipulated whether the razor was supported by a celebrity or not

Does high = explicit and low = implicit?
A seductive alignment of ideas
In general = psychological models make this alignment (E.g. APE model)
However, evidence is mixed. It appears to generally be correct, but is highly qualified

Question 29

Can explicit attitude change implicit attitudes?

Answer 29

Changing explicit attitude will allow you to pair the object with good or bad things more readily - over time changing the associative network
However, requires effort - If you change an attitude you barely use, it won’t have an effect
So might not be most effective way to change implicit attitudes (better to target them directly)

Question 30

How is ‘group’ defined?

Answer 30

Group is two or more people who interact with and influence one another and perceive one another as “us” (Myers et al., 2010)

Question 31

How do you define intergroup relations?

Answer 31

Intergroup relations are the ways in which people who are members of groups think about, feel about, perceive and act towards members of other groups (Graf et al., 2014)

Ingroup member vs outgroup member
E.g. age, nationality, gender and preferences
Group distinctions are not always clear - Advantaged and disadvantaged groups describe historical and current power and status of different social groups, relative to one another (Majority/Minority groups)

Intergroup relations are often conflictual
Include prejudice, discriminaton and stereotypes

Question 32

What are the cognitive limitations and faults behind prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes?

Answer 32

People are cognitive misers (Fiske & Taylor, 1991)
Limited capacity (WM) to process social information
Use of shortcuts and rely on simple rules (heuristics)
Category accentuation
Cognitive distortions/error based on categorisation
Categorization accentuates the differences between groups and similarities within groups
Tajfel and Wilkes (1963) study - Perception of lines changes when grouped - replicates idea of social categorisation when people are in certain groups

Outgroup homogeneity effect
“They all look the same to me”
Outgroup homogeneity effect - Quattrone & Jone,1980
People more familiar with their ingroup members
People use category-level information when judging outgroup members
Related to other-race effect (Meissner & Brigham, 2001) - Better recognition of faces from own race than those of other races

Illusory correlation effect
Exaggerated perception that a behaviour is more frequently displayed by a minority than a majority group (Fiedler, 2004)
Distinctive behaviours capture our attention
Majority group members have limited contact with minority group members
Undesirable behaviours are less common than desirable behaviours (more distinctive)

Question 33

What are the cognitive motivations behind prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes?

Answer 33

Personality variables (high on these traits - more likely to display prejudice)
Dogmatism (Rokeach, 1956) - close-minded
Personal need for structure (Neuberg & Newsom, 1993)
Need for cognitive closure (Kruglanski, 2006)

Question 34

What are the types of ideology behind prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes?

Answer 34

Right-wing authoritarianism Authoritarianism (Adorno et al., 1950) → Altemeyer (1981, 1998)
Authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, conventionalism
Authoritarian submission: Tendency to yield to authorities (e.g., government and military leaders, police and other civic officers, and religious officials)
Authoritarian aggression: Support aggression towards those who defy social conventions
Conventionalism: Adhere to traditional social values endorsed by established authorities (e.g., such as those concerning patriotism, marriage, and sex)
Higher levels of RWA associated with greater endorsement of prejudice

Social dominance orientation (SDO)
Measures people’s preference for hierarchy within any social system (Pratto et al., 1994), and namely desire that in-group dominates outgroups
“To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups”
Higher SDO associated with support for meritocracy, racism, death penalty, war
Related but distinct from RWA

Question 35

What are the social explanations behind prejudice, discrimination and stereotypes?

Answer 35

Realistic group conflict theory:

Perceived competition for finite resources
Prejudice towards immigrants
Sherif et al. (1961) - Robbers Cave study
22, 12 year olds at summer camp in US
Phase 1: Engaged in activities (formation of friendships)
Phase 2: In-group formation (boys randomly assigned into two groups that split up friendships)
Phase 3: Intergroup competition (isolated from each other and competition activities with rewards if they won – such as tug-of-war and baseball; named themselves Eagles and Rattlers; exchanged verbal insults, conducted raids on the other’s cabin, burned each other flags)
Phase 4: Intergroup harmony (via superordinated goals – i.e. desirable goals that could only be achieved with intergroup cooperation)
Findings
Competition for scarce resources produced intergroup hostility and fierce competition between the groups which generalised to situations outside the organised activities
Ingroups formed despite the fact that friends were outgroup members
Introduction of superordinate goals improved intergroup relations (simple contact was not enough)
Degree of latent ethnocentrism with inter-group formation (i.e. in absence of competition)

Social identity theory (social-cognitive and motivational explanation):
We enjoy belonging to a group - can lead to prejudice to stay in the group
Minimal group paradigm (Tajfel et al., 1971)

Question 36

What is a stereotype?

Answer 36

Stereotype → Generalization about the thoughts, motives, feelings and/or behaviours of a group of people (Wright & Taylor, 2003)
Social cognitive approach to stereotyping as a component of prejudice
A stereotype is a generalisation about the characteristics
of a group
A stereotype is a knowledge structure
It is not a goal, memory, or a perception (although it might influence these)

Question 37

Why do we stereotype?

Answer 37

Personality (Adorno & colleagues - 1950s to 60s)
Meaning-making (Tajfel & Turner, 1970s to 90s)
Social cognitive approach
Purpose of stereotypes is to help us simplify the world around to navigate it better
Categorization (core process behind stereotyping)
By placing someone in a category and having a general set of beliefs about that category we can greatly simplify the mental labour we have to expand

Question 38

How do we create stereotypes?

Answer 38

Bottom-Up
I know that someone belongs to a group, so I imbue the group with characteristics of the individual
Find an individual; form i) an impression and ii) categorise them; and assume all other members of that category have those characteristics

Top-down
I know that a group has certain characteristics, so I imbue the individual with the characteristics of the group
Form an impression of a group of people; encounter a member of that group; stereotype becomes “active” by being applied to the real world

Question 39

Does categorization ease the cognitive burden of life? Macrae et al. (1994)

Answer 39

Shown by three classic studies
Macrae et al. (1994): Stereotypes help us save cognitive energy

Research question: Does using stereotypes save us cognitive energy?

24 participants asked to perform two tasks concurrently:
Task 1: Look at personality traits describing four persons (Nigel, Julian,
John, and Graham
Task 2: Listen to information about Indonesia
The information (personality traits and information about Indonesia) was always the same, however
➢ half of the participants received category labels (Nigel: doctor; Julian:
artist; John: skinhead; Graham: estate agent)
➢ half of the participants received no labels

Participants asked to recall the traits of the four persons and complete a multiple choice questionnaire about Indonesia (to examine how much information they could recall)
Prediction: When present the labels would simplify the information processing task and thus saving processing resources and thereby enhancing the performance on recalling the traits
Results:

Question 40

Does categorization ease the cognitive burden of life? Sherman et al. (1999)

Answer 40

Research question: If stereotypes save cognitive energy are we more likely to
use them when we lack energy?

98 participants asked to remember a person (John Smith)
Condition 1: Man described as a priest
Condition 2: Man described as a skinhead
The information was always the same, however
➢ 1/3 was positive (priest consistent)
➢1/3 was negative (skinhead consistent)
➢1/3 was neutral

24 hours later, participants were shown a set of words containing the
target words plus stereotypic and non-stereotypic fillers
Half were under high cognitive load (remember a 8-digit number)
Half were under low cognitive load
DV: How many stereotypic words they misremembered
Or: how much they relied on stereotypes when remembering

Question 41

Does categorization ease the cognitive burden of life? Macrae et al. (1995)

Answer 41

Stereotypes make it easier to process the world around us

It is easy to process within a category
Category membership helps us detect, process, and remember
information about people
Research question: If stereotypes are designed for cognitive efficiency, then we should be faster to think along category membership (stereotype consistent) lines
Participants completed a lexical decision task using woman, Chinese, control words, and non-words

Question 42

So how does categorization and subsequent stereotyping allows us to save cognitive energy?

Answer 42

We have more energy for other things (Macrea et al., 1994)
We can use them when we are short on energy (Sherman et al., 1999)
We can use them to rapidly process information (Macrea et al., 1995)

Question 43

How are stereotypes inaccurate?

Answer 43

Despite the benefits of speed and ease, stereotypes are generalisations and these will be inaccurate
We will encounter multiple people who violate our stereotypes
So how are stereotypes maintained in the face of counterstereotypical information and counter-stereotypical individuals?

Question 44

How do we maintain stereotypes?

Answer 44

Stereotypes bias:
What we see; they change how we learn about the world
What we recall; they change how we remember the world
What we speak about; they change how we communicate with others

Question 45

How do stereotypes influence how we learn about the world?

Answer 45

Stereotypes interfere with our ability to learn stereotype inconsisteni information (Wigboldus et al., 2003)
42 Dutch students were presented with stereotype consistent or inconsistent descriptors of action
They timed how quickly participants were able to reject the trait associated with the action

Question 46

How do stereotypes influence how we remember the world?

Answer 46

Stereotype consistent information is simply better recalled than stereotype inconsistent information
Strangor et al (1992) conducted a meta-analysis on 54 studies of memory and stereotyping, finding that people display superior recall for information which fits their stereotypes

Question 47

How do stereotypes influence how we speak about the world?

Answer 47

Kashima (2000) examined the “serial reproduction” of information about an individual
Participants played a game of “broken telephone” where they had to communicate with each other about an individual
The information they initially received was either stereotype consistent or inconsistent

Question 48

How do we stereotype others?

Answer 48

We have noted that stereotypes can be accurate or inaccurate, positive or negative
But do they directly influence the lives of stereotyped groups (or is that just prejudice)?
One common stereotype in the US is that African Americans – particularly African American men – are aggressive
Could this stereotype of aggression alter the way African American
men are perceived?
In a series of studies, Keith Payne (2006) investigated this
They exposed participants to pictures of African American or White American males and followed these with pictures of guns or tools
Participants had to decide as quickly as possible if they saw a gun or tool

Question 49

How do we stereotype the self?

Answer 49

Stereotypes change how we see others but…we also know stereotypes about ourselves
For example, African Americans and women may both be aware that they are stereotyped as being stupid, particularly as being bad at maths
Being seen as stupid is obviously undesirable. Members of this group may fear confirming this stereotype, and their preoccupation with it can hamper actual performance

Question 50

What did Steele and Aronson (1995) find in their investigation of a stereotype threat?

Answer 50

Stereotype threat: Steele and Aronson (1995) tested this idea by asking Black and White participants to sit a standardised verbal IQ test

In Study 1:
* Half of participants are told it is an IQ test
* Half are not told this

In Study 2:
* Half of the participants identified their race
* Half of the participants wrote nothing

Knowing a stereotype can preoccupy us and make us more likely to confirm it
Ironically and sadly, in worrying about resisting the stereotype, disadvantaged group members can actually generate support for it

Question 51

What are the five main way to improve intergroup relations?

Answer 51

Intergroup contact
Categorization-based approaches
Values-based approaches
Media and real world conflict
Collective Action

Question 52

How can intergroup contact improve intergroup relations?

Answer 52

Most studied method for reducing prejudice
Contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954)
Contact between different social groups reduces prejudice and discrimination
Optimal contact - optimal conditions for contact to reduce prejudice (Allport,1954)
Equal status of the groups in the situation (unequal status contact is more likely to confirm stereotypes and forming prejudices)
Common goals and intergroup cooperation (as shown by Sherif’s summer camp studies )
Support of authorities, law or custom (by creating a climate that enables tolerant social practices to emerge)
Situational conditions
Substantial body of research that supports the contact hypothesis

Question 53

How did research test contact theory in groups with history of segregation and violent conflict? (Troop)

Answer 53

Tropp et al. (2017): Study 1
How contact quality and exposure to intergroup conflict predict attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours relevant to intergroup reconciliation
Two surveys with Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland (study 1), and Black and White people in South Africa (study 2)

Effect of contact quality among Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland
Survey with questions about:
Quality of contact: How positive, friendly, cooperative, equal in status everyday contact with outgroup is
Exposure to personal intergroup conflict and intergroup conflict in the neighbourhood
Trusting the outgroup
Attitudes towards the outgroup
Perceived outgroup intentions towards peace
Active engagement in reconciliation

Results:

For both Protestants and Catholics, higher contact quality predicted significantly greater trust, more positive intergroup attitudes, more positive perceptions of outgroup members’ intentions in working toward peace and greater engagement in reconciliation efforts
Even when taking into account reported exposure to violence (= controlling exposure to violence)
Same findings found among black and white south africans

Question 54

How did Pettigrew’s and Troop’s (2006) meta-analysis further support intergroup contact?

Answer 54

Meta-analysis conducted by Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) showed that contact reduces prejudice even when the optimal conditions are not all present
Applicable to intergroup relations based on race and ethnicity, age, disability, mental illness, and sexual orientation
What if contact does not exist or is not possible?
Extended contact effect (Paolini et al. 2004)
Imagined contact effect (Crisp & Turner, 2009)
By imagining contact between the self and member of outgroup may reduce attitudes
What about negative contact? Post-negative contact symmetry
Negative contact is stronger than positive contact at influencing prejudice

Question 55

What is the categorisation-based approach to improving intergroup relations?

Answer 55

Categorization is key in influencing prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination
Also key in undoing these outcomes
Decategorization (Miller & Brewer, 1984)
Can improve intergroup relations by promoting personalised interactions (e.g. asked friends to make friends with other groups)

Question 56

What contradicts the categorisation-based approach to improving intergroup relations?

Answer 56

Common ingroup identity model (Gaertner & Dovidio et al., 2000)
Categorization-based approach to prejudice reduction asserting that a common ingroup identity will improve intergroup attitudes
Via re-categorization of themselves as members of the same group (“we”)
Which can be facilitate by making salient existing common superordinate identities or introducing a common goal that is perceived to be shared by both group members
Problem - There is the dual identity approach (Dovidio, Gaertner & Saguy, 2007)
Asks people to think about themselves as having a common identity and superordinate identity

Question 57

What is the value-based approach to improving intergroup relations?

Answer 57

Values are beliefs and related to goals that transcend actions and situations (Schwartz,2012)
Facilitating and making salient certain values might improve intergroup relations
Values such as tolerance, multiculturalism and egalitarianism

Question 58

How does multiculturalism and blindness impact approaches to improving intergroup relations?

Answer 58

Multiculturalism - Belief that diversity should be acknowledge and celebrated
Colour blindness - belief that differences between groups should be downplayed
Multiculturalism is a better policy for reducing bias (Richeson and Nussbaum, 2004)
Similar tension to tension between common in-group identity model and dual identity approach

Question 59

How does the media reducing real-world conflict help to improve intergroup relations?

Answer 59

Example by Paluck (2009)
1994 genocide - 10% of population and 85% of Tutsi ethnic minority were killed
Mass media culpable in the genocide
Could mass media be used to reduce intergroup prejudice and promote reconciliation between ethnic groups 10 years after the conflict?

Two groups
Listeners of NGOs radio soap opera
Listeners of health radio soap opera (control group)
Radio soap opera created by NGO with messages on
Mistrust and lack of interaction between the groups in two fictional Rwandan communities
Trauma created by genocide
Ways of reducing genocide
Behavioural observations, individual interviews and surveys, and focus group discussions

Results:

Exposure to radio soap opera did not influence listeners’ personal beliefs(e.g. intermarriage causes tensions; how violence emerges; role of bystanders) but influenced their perceptions of social norms and behaviours (i.e. changes in social norms and behaviours with respect to intermarriage, open dissent, trust, empathy, cooperation, and trauma healing) (compared to control group)

Question 60

How does collective action help improve intergroup relations?

Answer 60

Any action taken to improve the conditions of a social group and/or achieve social change (e.g. protesting and signing petitions) - Wright et al., 1990
Why do people participate? (Predictors of collective action)
Social identity model of Collective Action (SIMCA) - Van Zomeren, Spears and Postmes, 2008)
Identify - as someone who participates in collective action (as belonging to disadvantage group or supporting the cause)
Perceive - That the issue is unfair and feel angry about the unfairness
Perceive that engaging in collective action will help social change

Question 61

What is allyship?

Answer 61

Advantage group members also participate in CA for disadvantaged group (e.g. men who participate in feminist movement)
Allies can be helpful at improving social change and intergroup relations
Tensions can arise in political movement if they are not genuinely interest in improving the status of disadvantaged group (Radke et al., 2020)