Intergroup ProcessesNovember 11th, 2009 : Lecture 18

Lecture OverView

Midterm 2 Questions?

Intergroup Processes: Definitions

Social Identity Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory

Midterm 2 Questions

Intergroup Processes

Definitions:

Ingroup

Outgroup

Intergroup Processes

INgroup

A social group to which you belong

Outgroup

A social group to which you do not belong

Intergroup processes

Situations, cognitions, beliefs, and feelings that arise when people from different groups interact with or think about each other

Social Identity Theory

A diffuse but interrelated set of social psychological theories about when and why individuals identify with, and behave as a part of, social groups

Assumptions

Components

Assumptions of Social Identity Theory

Key Assumption:

We have all have a need for positive self regard

How do we achieve this positive self-regard?

Via our own achievements

Via identification with the achievements of the social groups we belong to

Social Identity Theory

4 Main Components of Social Identity Theory:

Categorization

Identification

Comparison

Psychological Distinctiveness

Categorization

People naturally group other social objects into groups

Creates ingroup-outgroup distinction

Group Categorization

Why do we categorize people into groups?

Old way of thinking:

Laziness

New way of thinking:

Cognitive miser

Group Categorization

Cognitive miser perspective

We have a limited cognitive resources that must be conserved

Engage in mental shortcuts (e.g., heuristics)

Applied to group categorization:

Categorize people on the basis of shared features

Can trivially create “minimal groups”

Minimal Groups

Ingroups and outgroups formed on trivial, highly context-specific features

Minimal Group Paradigm

Creating ingroups and outgroups from the most minimal of conditions

Classic examples:

Sandals versus sneakers on 1st day of class

Blue versus yellow t-shirts distributed in the lab

The list goes on and on ...

Minimal Groups Paradigm

Tajfel & Turner (1979)

Method:

1. Participants come into lab in groups

2. Asked to estimate the number of dots on a page

3. Randomly assigned to groups:

“Overestimators”

“Underestimators”

4. Ask participants to rate each group and allocate study payment to fellow ingroup member or outgroups member

Minimal Groups Paradigm

Tajfel & Turner (1979)

Results:

Overestimators viewed Underestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Overestimators

Underestimators viewed Overestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Underestimators

Overestimators distributed much less money to Underestimators

Underestimators distributed much less money to overestimators

Summary: Minimal Groups

Group categorization occurs rapidly and even trivially

Impact of group categorization is profound

Identification

The processes of associating the self with certain ingroups

Bolsters self-esteem

Effects of social identity theory are dependent on identification with the group

Comparison

We compare ingroups with outgroups, seeing a favourable bias toward the group to which we belong

Ingroup Favouritism

Outgroup Derogation

Ingroup Favouritism

Belief that the ingroup is good across a variety of characteristics and more deserving of good things

Maintains positive status of group (and positive self-regard)

Examples of Ingroup Favouritism

Remember only the good (and not bad) characteristics of group members

Allocate more resources to ingroup members

Self-serving attributions

Good behaviour by ingroup member: Internal attribution

Bad behaviour by ingroup member: External attribution

Outgroup Derogation

Belief that the outgroup is bad across a variety of characteristics and less deserving of good things

Examples of Outgroup Derogation

Ultimate Attribution Error

Rate outgroup characteristics as less favourable than ingroup characteristics

Allocate less resources to outgroup members

Pay attention to information that confirms stereotypes and ignore stereotype-inconsistent information

Psychological Distinctiveness

People desire their ingroup to be unique and distinctive from others

See ingroup members as “unique, distinctive” individuals

In the absence of distinctiveness, there is no basis for group-based positive self-regard

Realistic Conflict Theory

The theory that limited resources lead to conflict between groups

Result in increased prejudice and discrimination

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

Method:

11-year old boys at camp in Robber’s Cave National Park

Split into two groups: Rattlers & Eagles

Stage 1: Only do activities with own group (increases ingroup identity)

Stage 2: Engage in competitive sports with prizes for winning team (competing for scarce resources)

Building INtergroup ConflictRattlers and Eagles in Tug-Of-War

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

End of Stage 2: Competition creates outgroup prejudice:

Boys name-called boys in other group (e.g., sneaky)

Described own group members as brave/friendly

Stole from/raided each others’ cabins

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

End of Stage 2: Competition creates outgroup prejudice: Friendship choices

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

Method: Stage 3: Reduce intergroup conflict

Two potential pathways:

Allport’s Contact Hypothesis:

E.g., Arranged lunchtime seating assignments so that boys from each team were intermixed

Introduced Super-ordinate Goals so both groups had to work together to solve a problem

E.g., Got a bus stuck in the mud

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

Results: Stage 3

Allport’s Contact Hypothesis = No-go

Boys got in food fights and physical fights

Super-ordinate GoalsRattlers and Eagles Trying to Save the Stuck Bus

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

Results: Stage 3 - Super-ordinate Goals = Yes!

Robber’s Cave Experiment

Sherif et al. (1961)

Results: Stage 3

Super-ordinate Goals = Yes!

Hostility between groups declined

Formation of new friendships with outgroup members

Caveat: Ingroup identification was hard to entirely eliminate

“The Less Secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice”

- Clint Eastwood

Next Lecture (11/13):

Stereotyping & Prejudice

Related websites:

Robber’s Cave at York U’s Classics in Psychology:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Sherif/

PBS Frontline on Jane Elliot’s “A Class Divided”:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6189991712636113875#