The Upside

Question 1

What is the contact hypothesis?

Answer 1

ALLPORT 1954
- hypothesis suggest that contact between groups can reduce prejudice under certain conditions.

Question 2

What are the four aspects of the contact hypothesis?

Answer 2

Equal status: The groups must interact on an equal footing.
Cooperation: The groups must work together towards a common goal.
Personal relationships: Opportunities for direct, personal interactions can foster positive attitudes.
Institutional support: Policies and practices should promote positive Intergroup contact.

Question 3

Tell me about Pettigrew and Tropp (2006)

Answer 3

Conducted a meta-analysis of 515 studies involving 250,089 participants and found that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice (effect size of r = .23).

*The prejudice reduction was larger under Allport’s optimal contact conditions. *

Question 4

What are the challenges and models for contact settings?

Answer 4

Decategorised Contact Model (Brewer & Miller, 1984)
Reduce group category salience to view individuals as unique, lowering intergroup prejudice.
Challenge: Generalizing positive experiences to the broader outgroup.

Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000)
Dissolve group boundaries to form a new, inclusive ingroup.

Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone, 2005)
Retain group categories but foster positive attitudes in non-threatening settings.

Dual-Identity Model (Gaertner et al., 1999)
Emphasize both common ingroup and subgroup memberships, useful in majority-minority contexts.

Question 5

Tell me about Decategorised Contact Model (Brewer and Miller., 1984)

Answer 5

= proposes reducing the salience of group categories during contact to encourage viewing individuals as unique, reducing intergroup prejudice.

= The challenge is generalising positive contact experiences to the broader outgroup.

Question 6

Tell me about Common Ingroup Identity Model (Gaertner & Dovidio., 2000):

Answer 6

Encourages dissolving group boundaries to create a new, inclusive ingroup.

Question 7

Tell me about Mutual Intergroup Differentiation Model (Brown & Hewstone., 2005):

Answer 7

Retains group categories but provides non-threatening settings and encourages positive attitudes towards outgroup members.

Question 8

Tell me about Dual-Identity Model (Gaertner et al., 1999):

Answer 8

Emphasises the importance of both common ingroup and subgroup memberships, beneficial for majority-minority settings.

Question 9

What are the 4 different intergroup contact settings ?

Answer 9

• No groups
• one group
• two groups
• 2 in 1 groups

Question 10

Tell me about a ‘no groups’ intergroup contact setting?

Answer 10

Participants interact as individuals without any group affiliation.
Aim: To observe interactions without any group biases or dynamics influencing behavior.

Question 11

Tell me about a ‘one group’ intergroup contact setting?

Answer 11

Participants are all considered as part of a single, unified group.
Aim: To foster a sense of common identity and observe its impact on cooperation and social cohesion.

Question 12

Tell me about a ‘two groups’ intergroup contact setting?

Answer 12

Participants are divided into two distinct groups.
Aim: To study intergroup dynamics, competition, cooperation, and potential biases.

Question 13

Tell me about a ‘two-in-one groups’ intergroup contact setting?

Answer 13

Participants are divided into two subgroups but are made to feel part of a larger, overarching group.
Aim: To examine how a superordinate identity can reduce intergroup conflict and promote cooperation.

Question 14

What are the experimental findings of intergroup contact settings?

2 studies

Answer 14

Gaertner et al. (1999)
 Two groups vs one group
 Cooperation vs no
interdependence
 Ingroup bias reduced both by
one group representation and
by cooperation

Gonzalez & Brown (2006)
 Individual vs one group vs dual
identity
 Majority vs minority groups
 Contact effective, but
 Generalised ingroup bias only
reduced for minorities under dual
identity

Question 15

Tell me about Gaertner et al. (1999)

Answer 15

 Two groups vs one group
 Cooperation vs no
interdependence
 Ingroup bias reduced both by
one group representation and
by cooperation

Question 16

Tell me about Gonzalez & Brown (2006)

Answer 16

 Individual vs one group vs dual
identity
 Majority vs minority groups
 Contact effective, but
 Generalised ingroup bias only
reduced for minorities under dual
identity

Question 17

What does the lecture say about Intergroup contact in the field ?

Answer 17

 Disadvantage of survey research in the field: correlational evidence
 Does contact reduce prejudice?
 Or does prejudice reduce contact?
 Longitudinal studies help to establish temporal precedence: better
indicator for causality
 Challenges
 Attrition!
 Need to keep ptn in the study for “long enough”
 Need to be able to match data across time points

Question 18

Intergroup contact in the fielf : Studies

2 studies

Answer 18

Example study 1: Binder et al. (2009)
 1380 school students from 3 countries
 Compared attitudes among ethnic majority and minority members
 Two contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
 Effects over time in both directions (c  p & p  c)
 Contact did not work for minority members!
 Possible reason: contact did not reduce intergroup anxiety for minority
members
 Example study 2: Swart et al. (2011)
 South African context: apartheid labels still persist
 331 “Coloured” junior high school students and their attitudes towards “Whites”
 Three contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
 Effects over time in both directions
 Complex effects work best in the direction from contact to prejudice
 E.g., contact increased empathy, which in turn improved attitudes and decreased
hostile tendencies.

Question 19

Tell me about Binder et al. (2009)

Answer 19

 1380 school students from 3 countries
 Compared attitudes among ethnic majority and minority members
 Two contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
 Effects over time in both directions (c  p & p  c)
 Contact did not work for minority members!
 Possible reason: contact did not reduce intergroup anxiety for minority
members

Question 20

Tell me about Swart et al. (2011)

Answer 20

 South African context: apartheid labels still persist
 331 “Coloured” junior high school students and their attitudes towards “Whites”
 Three contact and prejudice measurements, 6 months apart
 Effects over time in both directions
 Complex effects work best in the direction from contact to prejudice
 E.g., contact increased empathy, which in turn improved attitudes and decreased
hostile tendencies.

Question 21

Tell me about Interventions in the Classroom?

study given

Answer 21

E.g. Cameron & Rutland (2006)
 Aim: improve non-disabled children’s attitudes towards disabled children
 “Extended contact hypothesis”
 Story-telling intervention designed for primary school
 Stories are about cross-group friendships with group discussion afterwards
 Small-scale intervention to last for 6 weeks

Question 22

Tell me about Helping Behaviour : Bystander Intervention

Answer 22

(1) Diffusion of responsibility: someone else will do it
 (2) Audience inhibition: fear of social blunders
 (3) Social influence: what are the others doing?
 These effects add up to result in “bystander apathy”: Latané
& Darley (1976

Question 23

What are the factors that result in bystander apathy ?

Latane & Darley (1976)

Answer 23

 (1) Diffusion of responsibility: someone else will do it
 (2) Audience inhibition: fear of social blunders
 (3) Social influence: what are the others doing?

Question 24

Tell me about Latane & Darley (1976)

Answer 24

Design: 2x2 + control
Elaborate cover story:
Experimenter is seen
on screen having an
accident
Ptn is sitting in a
cubicle with a camera
and a monitor
Actual manipulation:
camera on/off &
monitor on/off
In the graph: 2
conditions collapsed
into 1
(on+off = off+on)

Question 25

What is the lady in distress study?

Answer 25

• One of the first experiments to demonstrate “diffusion of responsibility” - Latane & Rodin, 1969

Question 26

What did Levine et al. (2007) show?

identity and intervention

Answer 26

Found that a common ingroup should increase hellping behaviour
Self-identified Man U supported came across a jogging confederate on the way to the study
- When confederate is wearing a Man U shirt they are more likely to be helped by the participants as this indicated shared ingroup identity
- Less likely to help confederate when wearing liverpool (rival team) - this indicates an outgroup membership
- Neutral shirt condition fell between ingroup and outgroup conditions - depended on the perceived relevance of the broader football supporter identity.

Question 27

What is Altruism?

Answer 27

Defined as pro-social behaviour that comes at a clear cost and benefit to others - contradicting the idea of selfish genes and survival of the fittest.

Question 28

Give me the biological studies for altruism?

Answer 28

 Kin selection (Hamilton, 1964)
 We help those with whom we share a genetic interest
 This increases “gene fitness”
 Maybe generalises in humans
 Reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971)
 We help if we can expect reciprocity at some later point
 Works easily for non-kin, but rules out true altruism
 Group selection (Sober & Wilson, 1999)
 A group with more altruists has an advantage over a group
of selfish members
 Works easily for non-kin, but hated by some biologists

Question 29

Give me the psychological studies for altruism?

Answer 29

 Focuses not on genetic fitness, but on the situative
processes for altruism
 Competitive altruism (Hardy & Van Vugt, 2006)
 Altruistic behaviour as costly signalling
 “Nice guy finishes first”
 Selfish approach
 Altruistic punishment (Fehr & Gaechter, 2002)
 Negative emotions towards anti-social behaviour
 Triggers costly punishment
 Enables large-scale cooperation, in a non-selfish way
 Empathy-altruism (Batson, 1991)
 Empathic reaction is what triggers altruistic behaviour
 Again, does not assume selfish motives

Question 30

Give and explain the study for true empathy?

Answer 30

Batson (e.g., Batson et al., 1981):
Empathy-altruism hypothesis
 Give ptn the chance of an “easy escape” in the experiment
 Manipulate empathic response
 Check what happens
 Main tenet: people do not walk away when an empathic response has been
triggered.

Question 31

What is the study that does not support the idea of true empathy?

Answer 31

Piliavin et al. (1981): bystander-calculus model
 Subscribes to the view that emotions are the result of cognitive interpretation
 (1) Observing another person in distress causes arousal
 (2) Own arousal is interpreted as personal distress
 No true empathic concern
 Self-serving needs (not other’s needs) crucial!
 (3) Evaluating options for reducing distress
 It could be easier to walk away
 It could be faster to help

Question 32

What is the empathy- altruism hypothesis?

Answer 32

Batson et al. (1981): escape is not
always an option
 Ptn gets the role of observer, some
other the role of worker
 The worker will receive electric
shocks to improve learning…
 Easy vs difficult escape: ptn has to
watch only the first few trials vs
all trials
 Empathy high vs low: worker is
similar vs dissimilar in their
attitudes
 Will ptn trade places with worker?

Question 33

Tell me about empathetic responses in the brain?

Answer 33

Specific cortical areas have been identified in empathic
responses, chiefly in fMRI studies
 One question: To which extent are people fully aware of these
responses?
 Are they produced through some cognitive-evaluative system?
 Are they generated by some affective-perceptual system?
 Affective-empathic responses = spontaneous empathy, without
further elaboration

Question 34

Give me the meta-analysis for empathetic responses in the brain?

Answer 34

Meta-analysis by Fan et al. (2011) across 40 fMRI studies
 Stable cortical area across both types of empathic response
 Left anterior insula (BA 13) for both types
 Right anterior insula best addition for affective-perceptual responses
 Left anterior midcingulate cortex for cognitive-evaluative responses
 A case for both Piliavin and Batson?

Question 35

Empathy uses

study mentioned try get it

Answer 35

Stephan and Finlay (1999)
 Point out the positive effects of empathy on intergroup attitudes.
 Can’t we just train everyone to be more empathic?
 Empathy-inducing techniques are used in
 School-based educational interventions
 Intergroup dialogue programmes
 Conflict-resolution workshops
 Multi-cultural education programmes
 Etc.
 The effects of empathy are complex, however, and not always do
we get the desired effect.
 Get a better picture of how empathy works and how it is used in
interventions.

Question 36

Exam question Plan :

“Critically discuss how easily
laboratory-based findings on intergroup contact can be
generalised to real-world settings.”