Week 1: Introduction Flashcards
Define intrapersonal and intragroup processes
Relations with the self (e.g., self-esteem) or the group (e.g., norms/identity roles)
Define Interpersonal and Intergroup processes
How we relate to individuals and how groups relate to one another
What are some factors that make groups come together? List three
- Common Fate (e.g., persecution/stigmization)
- Status/roles/relationships (e.g., family, organisations)
- Incidental face-to-face membership (e.g., people on the bus)
What are two types of groups?
- Common bond groups (e.g., work/sports) where there is attachment between group members who have similar interests/likes
- Common identity groups (e.g., nationality/gender) with attachment to group as a whole, where the identity of the group is meaningful
What are examples of social aggregate groups?
Groups without any value or connection are people on the bus, in lines, or crowds, etc.
What is Entitativity and What are the 8 factors that determine a group according to Lickel et al., 2000. List 8.
The degree to which a collection of individuals are perceived as being bonded together in a coherent unit. Interaction, importance, goals, outcome, similarity, duration, permeability, size
What are the key arguments of evolutionary theory?
- Historically relied on groups to survive
- Genetic predisposition to trust/help those closest to us/that share genetic markers - this preference is inevitable
What are aggregates and are groups just social aggregates?
People who share some connection, but there is no psychological value to the connection. Psychological group (also called social group): two or more people who define themselves as a group (having a sense of ‘us’), and are recognised by others as distinctive from other groups (can be compared to ‘them’).
What does Evolutionary Theory limit in?
> Implies that intergroup bias and conflict is inevitable
Unable to explain contextual changes in intergroup relations, or why individuals differ in intergroup hositility
Authoritarian Personality Theory
Adorno et al., (1950) argued that certain people are prejudiced against all outgroups/minorities
This is because they have an authoritarian personality that involves: conventional values, submission to authority, generalised hostility, stereotyped thinking.
Where does Authoritarian Personality Theory come from?
Your parents - use of harsh punishments to secure obedience; results in mixed feelings (love and hate parents)
Because of guilt and fear, people do not feel as though they can articulate their hatred toward their parents, and so it is displaced onto weaker others (scapegoats).
Problems with Authoritarian Personality Theory
In general, psychodynamic basis to authoritarian personality is difficult to verify. Freudian notions are basically untestable.
Personality theories do not take into account power of group processes and social forces to shape conflict
Personality theories do not explain sudden shifts in conflict/ prejudice
Social Dominance Theory
Different people have different attitudes toward status and power hierarchies (i.e., social dominance orientations/SDO)
Individuals with High Social Dominance Orientation…
Have a strong desire to promote intergroup hierarchies and for their ingroups to dominate outgroups
Endorse ideologies that promote intergroup hierarchies (e.g., paternalistic myths, meritocracy)
Individuals with low SDO…
Have a strong desire for equality between groups without a single dominating group
Endorse hierarchy-attentuating ideologies (e.g., egalitarianism, human rights)
Social Dominance Theory Continued
> Legitimising myths/ideologies: set of attitude, values, and beliefs that provide a justification for intergroup behaviours
Shapes the degree to which people promote, maintain, or overthrow a specific group-based hierarchy
Examples of Hierarchy Enhancing
Racism
Patriarchy
Nationalism
Meritocracy
Negative Stereotypes
Examples of Hierarchy-attenuating
Multiculturalism
Feminism
Egalitarianism
Human Rights
Universalism
Presumption that SDO is a personality variable, but there is evidence that?
- SDO fluctuates as a function of who benefits from reinforcing hierarchies
- SDO increases in some courses at university (e.g., business/law enforcement) while it decreases in others (e.g., humanities/social science courses)
Social Dominance Theory - Main Assumptions
- Group based social hierarchy is ubiquitous (one/few dominant groups at the bottom)
- Most forms of intergroup conflict are manifestations of the predisposition to form group-based hierarchies
- Human social systems have counterbalancing influences of hierarchy-enhancing forces (social inequality) and hierarchy-attenuating forces (social equality)
What does Social Justification Theory argue?
Argues that those who are most disadvantaged by unequal social systems are most motivated to perceive the system as fair and just
Stereotypes propagate false consciousness
Empirical Evidence for System Justication Theory
- Cross-national data from 36 studies showed that high-status group members tend to perceive income differences as fairer than low-status group members
- Overall means tend to be low: most people do not agree with beliefs justifying the social system
SDT argues that low-status groups/subordinate groups show outgroup favouritism , but there is evidence that?
Low-status groups do actively resist the status quo
they also show high collective self-esteem despite discrimination and societal devaluation of their group
Social Justification Theory
People are motivated to justify the social, political, and economic arrangements to which they belong.
They perceive the systems as fair and legitimate, even if it goes against their own interest
People justify the system because it gives them a sense of certainity and control over their lives and the environment -> palliative function
Relative Deprivation Theory
Relative deprivation theory argues that the basic cause for aggression is a discrepancy between the standard of living people have, and the standard of living they think they’re entitled to
A descendant of frustration-aggression theory
Evidence for Relative Deprivation
Cantril (1965) devised a measure in which people were asked to indicate how they valued their past, present, and future life as compared to their ‘ideal’ good life
The measure of relative deprivation is strongly correlated with
- Levels of civil unrest across 13 nations
- Support for Black Power and militant political action in the aftermath of a riot in Detrioit
Types of relative deprivation
- Egoistic relative deprivation refers to one’s sense that you have less than you’re entitled to, relative to your own aspirations or relative to what other individuals have
- Fraternalistic relative deprivation refers to the sense that your group has less than it’s entitled to, relative to its aspirations or relative to what other groups have.
Egositic vs. Fraternalistic deprivation - sacked workers, working women
Sacked workers:
Fraternal deprivation - collective protest
Egoistic deprivation - individual stress symptoms
Working women:
Fraternal Deprivation: support for affirmative action and strikes
Egoistic Deprivation: Desire to change jobs or gain more qualifications
Limitations of Relative Deprivation Theory
At times, relative deprivation is associated with greater generosity towards outgroups
At times, relative gratification is associated with prejudice and intolerance of outgroups
Realistic Conflict Theory
Sherif & Sherif (1954) argued that intergroup aggression is caused primarily by competition for scarce resources
It is when one group’s interests are in conflict with another group’s interests that intergroup relations deteriorate
Realistic Conflict Theory - Robber’s Cave Study
Phase 1: usual camp activities (group formation)
Phase 2: boys divided into two groups (randomly) and made to compete in various camp games
Phase 3: solving conflict - given superordinate tasks that required cooperation
Concluded that: negative stereotypes and prejudice reflect the pattern of shared and competing goals
Realistic Conflict Theory
- Us vs. Them
- When external threat requiring groups to cooperate, becomes ‘WE’
Integrated Threat Theory and two types
Refers to perceived rather than actual threat
Two basic types:
1. Realistic threat: safety, economic, politics, health, well-being, jobs, power, general welfare, and resources
- Symbolic threat: culture, values, belief system, religion, ideology, morality, worldviews
When an outgroup is perceived as threatening (either a source of realistic or symbolic threat), this can increase prejudice towards the outgroup
Perceived Threat is associated with:
> Prejudice and outgroup hostility
Authoritarianism
Discrimination
Dehumanisation
Support for restrictive/punitive policies (e.g., anti-immigration)
Social Identity Theory
Our self-concepts are derived from membership in social groups
Intergroup biases emerge as a function of two processes: categorisation and comparison
Social Identity Approach
To the extent that our sense of self is defined by group membership (i.e., in terms of social identity - ‘we’, ‘us’), rather than our individuality (personal identity - ‘me’, ‘I’), our behaviour is shaped by the perspective and interests of that ingroup
There is a qualitative difference between behaviour that is based on personal identity (I) and that based on social identity (we)
Social Identity and Salience
To the extent that a shared identity is salient;
a. our perceptions are aligned with other ingroup members
b/ we influence, and are influned by, ingroup members
To the extent that a shared social identity is salient
a. we emphasise how our group is different from other groups and emphasise similarity within the group
b. ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ dynamics
Categorisation - Social Identity Approach
We have a tendency to categorise people into ingroup and outgroups
> Helps reduce the complexitiy of our social word and provides a sense of order
> Provides a sense of meaning and self-definition
Process of Self-Categorisation
Relative accessibility/perceiver readiness: past experiences, expectations, motivations, and goals -> what identity is relevant to the situation right now?
Comparative fit: intra-class similarity over inter-class similiarity -> how similar are we to each other? how different are we from them?
Normative Fit: behaviours in line with group stereotypes and norms -> are people acting the way their group is expected to act?
Consequences of Categorisation
Differences within categories are perceptually minimized (assimilation) and the differences between categories are maximized (accentuation)
Social Comparison
If the social category is an important part of your self-concept (i.e., high group identification) then your self-esteem is more tired to your group’s success and failure
Assumes that people want to feel good about themselves -> we are motivated to think of our groups as being as good and better than other groups (ingroup favouritisim/ingroup bias)
Motivation for positive distinctiveness is assumed to underpin ingroup bias
Strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness
Individual mobility (e.g., a poor person working towards a high-paying job)
Social creativity (e.g., Black is beautiful)
Social Competition (e.g., engage in armed conflict)
Collective action (e.g., protests, signing petitions)
Socio-structural factors influencing group-based behaviours
Group’s position in the social hierarchy - am i advantaged or disadvantaged?
Permeability of group boundaries - can i exit the group?
Stability of the social structure - is the system changeable?
Legitimacy of group differences - are things fair?
