Week 5 - Resolving Intergroup Conflict and Reducing Prejudice Flashcards
What is ‘sheer contact’? What is the evidence that it does or doesn’t work as a means of achieving prejudice reduction?
Sheer contact: Simply being in proximity to individuals from different social groups.
Evidence: The Robbers Cave experiment by Sherif et al. showed that mere contact between two groups of boys did not reduce prejudice. However, when they were given tasks requiring cooperation, prejudice decreased, indicating that sheer contact alone may not be effective without cooperative goals
How did Sherif and associates attempt to diffuse the conflict and prejudice that they had created in stage one of their Summer camp studies? Was it effective?
Sherif’s approach: After fostering intergroup conflict, Sherif introduced superordinate goals like fixing the camp’s water supply, which required cooperation between the groups.
Effectiveness: The intervention was effective; cooperation on shared goals reduced conflict and prejudice, as seen in the decreased hostility and increased camaraderie among the groups
Be able to discuss the evidence from work on school de-segregation in the U.S.
Evidence: Research on school desegregation, such as the study by Stephan & Stephan (2000), suggests that simply placing students from different racial backgrounds in the same school is insufficient for reducing prejudice. Instead, efforts to promote positive intergroup interactions and equal status are essential.
What is Allport’s contact hypothesis and how does Aronson’s ‘jigsaw classroom’ approach exemplify and test it?
Allport’s contact hypothesis: States that under certain conditions, interpersonal contact between members of different groups can reduce prejudice.
Aronson’s ‘jigsaw classroom’: Aronson’s study demonstrated the effectiveness of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice. By implementing cooperative learning tasks in diverse groups (e.g., the jigsaw classroom technique), Aronson showed that positive intergroup interactions can lead to decreased prejudice.
How did Hewstone & Brown criticise contact research?
Criticism: Hewstone & Brown criticized contact research for lacking specificity regarding the necessary conditions for successful prejudice reduction. They argued that successful intergroup contact requires more than mere exposure, emphasizing factors like equal status and common goals.
Be able to describe, compare and contrast three important approaches to reducing prejudice: de-categorisation, dual identity, and re-categorisation.
Real-world examples:
De-categorisation: The ‘Common In-group Identity Model’ (Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000) suggests that emphasizing common identities can reduce prejudice. For instance, the ‘One Nation’ campaign in post-apartheid South Africa aimed to create a shared national identity to overcome racial divisions.
Dual identity: Research by Hornsey et al. (2002) demonstrated the effectiveness of dual identity in reducing prejudice. In their study, participants who identified strongly with both their university and a rival university showed reduced intergroup bias.
Re-categorisation: The merger of previously segregated schools into a single, integrated institution can exemplify re-categorisation. Studies like Tropp et al. (2008) have shown that creating a new, inclusive identity can reduce prejudice among students.
What can we learn from Pettigrew and Tropp’s important meta-analysis paper evaluating research on intergroup contact?
Findings: Pettigrew and Tropp’s meta-analysis highlighted the conditions under which intergroup contact is effective in reducing prejudice. Their analysis emphasized the importance of factors such as equal status, cooperation, and institutional support in facilitating positive intergroup interactions.
How does Pettigrew try to link de-categorisation, dual identity and re-categorisation into one longitudinal model?
Pettigrew’s longitudinal model: Pettigrew’s model proposes that successful prejudice reduction involves a combination of de-categorisation, dual identity, and re-categorisation processes over time. Longitudinal studies like Pettigrew & Tropp (2006) provide evidence for the gradual development of new, inclusive social identities through these processes
