W5b: Intergrp Dynamics Flashcards
Social categorisation
Others’ group memberships are used as the basis of social categorization
This process can be automatic. Especially for certain features age, gender, ‘race’
Self categorisation
process of seeing oneself as a group member
(Social identities are accessible; extreme form: de-individuation)
likely when:
We experience direct reminders of group membership
In the presence of:
1) Outgroup members
2) people who don’t belong to our groups
In a minority
Consequences of social and self categorization
Chart
self-categorization
Me -----------------------> We/US
l l
l interpersonal l intergrp
v v
you -----------------------> Them
Social categorizationCategory differentiation model (Doise, 1978):
2 consequences and their effects on self
- Intergroup differentiation
- Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups)
Outgroup homogeneity
exaggerate the differences between in and out grps
Similarity within the group is also amplified.
Consequences of social and self categorization
Social Cat 1) Out-group Homogeneity 2) Stereotypes self cat 3) Ingroup favoritism 4) 5)
Outgroup homogeneity:
Cross-race identification bias (‘other race’ effect)
Platz & Hosch (1988)
Platz & Hosch (1988)
• Texas convenience store clerks
• Identification of customers
(race- out-group look the same)
Results
• Increased accuracy for own
in-group
Another Consequence:
Stereotypes -> social categorisation
Content-related consequence
- Stereotype: cognitive representation of impressions/expectancies about a social group (probable behaviors, traits, features) (cf. prejudice)
- Associate a group with a range of characteristics
- Stereotyping: process of viewing an individual in light of a stereotype
Sterotype -> beliefs of a grp
prejudice -> attitudes/evaluations of a grp
Stereotype Content Model
SCM; Fiske et al., 2002
Warmth and competence (high and low)
L.W + L.C: poor ppl
Contemptuous stereotype
Low status, competitive
L.W + H.C: Asians, rich ppl…
Envious sterotype
High status, competitive
H.W + L.C: elderly, disabled
Paternalistic stereotype
Low status, not competitive
H.W + H.C: ingrp, close allies
Admiration
High status, not competitive
Activation of stereotypes:
Can be automatic
Stereotypes can be automatically activated
• mere presence of a social category cue (e.g., category label, salient category feature) can activate a range of stereotype content
Implicit Associations Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998)
Implicit measure of associations between social categories and other concepts
RT paradigm:
Patterns of RTs tell us something about underlying mental representations (here stereotypes)
Categorisation task
• During the task, targets (often words) are placed into categories by pressing
one of two response keys
- Arrangement of categories on screen makes sections of the task more or less difficult
- Comparing RTs on different sections of the task gives an indication of stereotypes
IAT and stereotypes
The more closely linked in the mind two concepts are (e.g., man and career), the faster a person will be to respond when these concepts share a response key (i.e. when the categories are on the same side of the screen)
TEXTBOOK!!!
Stereotypes:
Stereotypes can bias judgments about individuals
Duncan (1976):
Details and outcome
Change the way that ambiguous behavior is interpreted
DUNCAN 1976
White American participants witness an ambiguous shove (aggressive or playful) between confederates of different social categories
Stereotype of group to which shover belonged influenced interpretation
Aggression was (is) part of the African American stereotype; here it shapes interpretation of the ambiguous shove (75% perceived as violent while only 17% the other way round)
Differences between Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination
- Stereotype: cognitive representations of impressions of groups that people form by associating the groups with particular characteristics (beliefs)
- Prejudice: positive or negative evaluations of a social group or its members (attitudes)
- Discrimination: positive or negative behaviour directed toward a social group or its members (behaviour)
Ingroup favouritism:
more favourable attitudes and behaviours towards the groups to which we belong than to groups to which we don’t
Ingroup favouritism, ingroup bias, intergroup bias, intergroup discrimination
Preference (in attitudes or behaviours) for ingroups over outgroups
Why do we have Ingroup favouritism:
People prefer to have a positive self-concept (valuing me and mine)
Positive self-esteem
Our selves are composed of personal and group-related (social) aspects/identities
We are motivated to increase the positivity of our own groups relative to outgroups. Thus, ingroup favoritism
In a sense, value mine (my group) as a way of valuing ‘me’
The minimal conditions of us vs. them thinking
Tajfel et al (1971)
Details
Labels create favouritism
School children • Klee or Kandinsky labelled as Klee or Kandinsky lover (randomly) • Point allocation task (more points for ppl in the same group) • Ingroup favoritism occurred
This is called minimum grp paradigm
Group serving biases
Oskamp & Harty (1968) &
Ariyanto et al (2009)
Ultimate Attribution Error (Pettigrew, 1979) \+ behaviour: Ingroup – disposition outgroup – situation - behaviour: Ingroup – situation outgroup – disposition
Reasons that lead categorization to conflict:
Escalation to conflict: Grdwork: Categorization Escalate us vs them framing into conflict: 1) Competition 2) Threat
Escalation
1) Competition
Realistic Conflict Theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972):
Realistic Conflict Theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972):
intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scarce (valued) material resources
Escalation
1) Competition
Taylor & Moriarty (1987)
Two groups
• Problem solving for reward
• Interdependent vs. competitive
Ingroup favoritism exacerbated under competition
Intergroup Threat
Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1985)
3 threats
Realistic threat:
threats to the material well-being of the ingroup
economic benefits, political power, and health
Symbolic threat:
threats to the ingroup’s system of values
Intergroup anxiety:
feelings of anxiety people experience during intergroup interactions associated with negative outcomes for the self (embarrassed, rejected, ridiculed)
Riek et al (2006)
Meta analysis
Aggregated across 95 studies
Realistic, symbolic and anxiety positively associated with negative outgroup attitudes
How do we reduce prejudice and discrimination
3
1) contact (Extended and Imagined)
2) Changing categorization
3) Superordinate goals
Contact
Optimal conditions to help reduce prejudice and discrimination
The more contact one has with an outgroup, the less prejudice one expresses
Contact is most effective when: equal status, shared goals, authority sanction, absence of competition (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006)
Contact
Optimal conditions to help reduce prejudice and discrimination
Why these condition helps
• Knowledge the more we know, the reduction in - attitudes • Anxiety positive interaction reduce anziety • Empathy(Emo)/perspective taking(cog)
point 2 and 3 are the main result that reduces prejudice and discrimination
Contact
Extended contact
Wright et al. (1997)
Extended contact: knowledge that other ingroup members have outgroup friends can reduce intergroup bias
Phase 1: two groups formed (on the basis of “personality”) and labeled blue or green
• Phase 2: one participant from each group (both actually confederates) chosen to interact
Friendly, Hostile, Neutral
Phase 3: ingroup and outgroup evaluations traits (e.g., intelligent, confident, inflexible, indifferent) and performance qualities (e.g., communicates effectively, effective problem solver)
When friendly, no rating dif for ingrp and outgrp
Outgroup Empathy and perspective taking
Galinsky & Moskowitz (2000)
Formed groups based on minimal group paradigm
Overestimators vs underestimators
Control (do nothing) vs perspective taking of the other grp
Finding
Taking the perspective of an outgroup member reduces ingroup favoritism
Control behaved with ingrp fav.
Changing categorization:
1) Re-categorization
2) De-categorization
Change the cognitive representation of outgroup members so it is no longer simply us vs. them
1) Re-categorization
(super-ordinate -> we)
2)De-categorization
They become individuals
Changing categorization:
1) Re-categorization
2)De-categorization
Gaertner et al (1989)
Participants initially form two 3 person groups (A and B) and interact within-groups (in spatial proximity)
come together to do a task
Manipulation to the grps:
Control: retain original two group structure and identity
(aaabbb)
Re-categorization: form one new, superordinate group with new structure and identity (ababab)
De-categorization: separate individuals, with nicknames (ababab)
Evaluations (of original in n out grp):
Re-cat highest then De-cat
both higher ratings then control
Superordinate goals:
The Robber’s Cave (Sherif et al., 1961)
Summer camp
Two groups: Eagles and Rattlers
• Tournament and Cooperation
• Intergroup conflict
Superordinate goals: shared goals that can be achieved only if groups work together
