Intergroup Processes November 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

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 Conflict Rattlers 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

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