Week 1: Introduction

Question 1

Define intrapersonal and intragroup processes

Answer 1

Relations with the self (e.g., self-esteem) or the group (e.g., norms/identity roles)

Question 2

Define Interpersonal and Intergroup processes

Answer 2

How we relate to individuals and how groups relate to one another

Question 3

What are some factors that make groups come together? List three

Answer 3

1. Common Fate (e.g., persecution/stigmization)
2. Status/roles/relationships (e.g., family, organisations)
3. Incidental face-to-face membership (e.g., people on the bus)

Question 4

What are two types of groups?

Answer 4

1. Common bond groups (e.g., work/sports) where there is attachment between group members who have similar interests/likes
2. Common identity groups (e.g., nationality/gender) with attachment to group as a whole, where the identity of the group is meaningful

Question 5

What are examples of social aggregate groups?

Answer 5

Groups without any value or connection are people on the bus, in lines, or crowds, etc.

Question 6

What is Entitativity and What are the 8 factors that determine a group according to Lickel et al., 2000. List 8.

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What are the key arguments of evolutionary theory?

Answer 7

1. Historically relied on groups to survive
2. Genetic predisposition to trust/help those closest to us/that share genetic markers - this preference is inevitable

Question 8

What are aggregates and are groups just social aggregates?

Answer 8

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’).

Question 9

What does Evolutionary Theory limit in?

Answer 9

> Implies that intergroup bias and conflict is inevitable
Unable to explain contextual changes in intergroup relations, or why individuals differ in intergroup hositility

Question 10

Authoritarian Personality Theory

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Where does Authoritarian Personality Theory come from?

Answer 11

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).

Question 12

Problems with Authoritarian Personality Theory

Answer 12

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

Question 13

Social Dominance Theory

Answer 13

Different people have different attitudes toward status and power hierarchies (i.e., social dominance orientations/SDO)

Question 14

Individuals with High Social Dominance Orientation…

Answer 14

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)

Question 15

Individuals with low SDO…

Answer 15

Have a strong desire for equality between groups without a single dominating group

Endorse hierarchy-attentuating ideologies (e.g., egalitarianism, human rights)

Question 16

Social Dominance Theory Continued

Answer 16

> 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

Question 17

Examples of Hierarchy Enhancing

Answer 17

Racism
Patriarchy
Nationalism
Meritocracy
Negative Stereotypes

Question 18

Examples of Hierarchy-attenuating

Answer 18

Multiculturalism
Feminism
Egalitarianism
Human Rights
Universalism

Question 19

Presumption that SDO is a personality variable, but there is evidence that?

Answer 19

1. SDO fluctuates as a function of who benefits from reinforcing hierarchies
2. SDO increases in some courses at university (e.g., business/law enforcement) while it decreases in others (e.g., humanities/social science courses)

Question 19

Social Dominance Theory - Main Assumptions

Answer 19

1. Group based social hierarchy is ubiquitous (one/few dominant groups at the bottom)
2. Most forms of intergroup conflict are manifestations of the predisposition to form group-based hierarchies
3. Human social systems have counterbalancing influences of hierarchy-enhancing forces (social inequality) and hierarchy-attenuating forces (social equality)

Question 19

What does Social Justification Theory argue?

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Empirical Evidence for System Justication Theory

Answer 20

1. Cross-national data from 36 studies showed that high-status group members tend to perceive income differences as fairer than low-status group members
2. Overall means tend to be low: most people do not agree with beliefs justifying the social system

Question 20

SDT argues that low-status groups/subordinate groups show outgroup favouritism , but there is evidence that?

Answer 20

Low-status groups do actively resist the status quo
they also show high collective self-esteem despite discrimination and societal devaluation of their group

Question 21

Social Justification Theory

Answer 21

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

Question 22

Relative Deprivation Theory

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Evidence for Relative Deprivation

Answer 23

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

Question 24

The measure of relative deprivation is strongly correlated with

Answer 24

1. Levels of civil unrest across 13 nations 2. Support for Black Power and militant political action in the aftermath of a riot in Detrioit

Question 25

Types of relative deprivation

Answer 25

1. 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 2. 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.

Question 26

Egositic vs. Fraternalistic deprivation - sacked workers, working women

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Limitations of Relative Deprivation Theory

Answer 27

At times, relative deprivation is associated with greater generosity towards outgroups At times, relative gratification is associated with prejudice and intolerance of outgroups

Question 28

Realistic Conflict Theory

Answer 28

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

Question 29

Realistic Conflict Theory - Robber's Cave Study

Answer 29

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

Question 30

Realistic Conflict Theory

Answer 30

1. Us vs. Them 2. When external threat requiring groups to cooperate, becomes 'WE'

Question 31

Integrated Threat Theory and two types

Answer 31

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 2. 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

Question 32

Perceived Threat is associated with:

Answer 32

> Prejudice and outgroup hostility > Authoritarianism > Discrimination > Dehumanisation > Support for restrictive/punitive policies (e.g., anti-immigration)

Question 33

Social Identity Theory

Answer 33

Our self-concepts are derived from membership in social groups Intergroup biases emerge as a function of two processes: categorisation and comparison

Question 34

Social Identity Approach

Answer 34

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)

Question 35

Social Identity and Salience

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Categorisation - Social Identity Approach

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Process of Self-Categorisation

Answer 37

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?

Question 38

Consequences of Categorisation

Answer 38

Differences within categories are perceptually minimized (assimilation) and the differences between categories are maximized (accentuation)

Question 39

Social Comparison

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness

Answer 40

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)

Question 41

Socio-structural factors influencing group-based behaviours

Answer 41

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?