Intergroup conflict and relative deprivation

Question 1

what is realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966)

Answer 1

• Sherif believed that competition between groups over scarce resources results in conflict and ethnocentrism
• Resources may be physical, economic, conceptual (e.g., territory, jobs, power).
• Emphasis on nature of the (actual/real) conditions of contact between groups – competing or cooperating

Question 2

outline Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments

Answer 2

• 22 boys participated in a “summer camp”
• Divided into 2 groups: “Eagles” & “Rattlers”
  FOUR PHASES
  1. Spontaneous friendship formation
  2. In-group and norm formation
  3. Intergroup competition (tournament to compete against other group)
  4. Intergroup cooperation (superordinate goals) - task they all have to do together

Question 3

In Sherif’s camp study what was the relationship between individuals?

Answer 3

• Tend to cooperate and form a group if there is a common goal that requires interdependence
• Mutually exclusive goals (e.g. scarce resources) lead to inter-individual competition

Question 4

In Sherif’s camp study what was the Relations between Groups?

Answer 4

• Mutually exclusive goals between groups result in realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism
• Shared (superordinate) goals results in cooperation

Question 5

limitation of sherifs’ camp study

Answer 5

• Once immediate crisis over, groups fell back into old hostile behaviour -> no long-term effect
• Need to introduce series of contact conditions involving superordinate goals
• New friendships developed, but some negativity lingered (especially from victorious group!)

Question 6

what is the minimal group paradigm?

Answer 6

Sometimes the mere presence of an in-group vs. out-group distinction is sufficient to create intergroup conflict, experimental methodology to investigate the effect of social categorisation on group behaviour.
- Groups formed on a flimsy criterion
- No past history or possible future
- Members had no knowledge of other members
- No self-interest in the money allocation task

Question 7

minimal group paradigm study ((Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981).

Answer 7

• Robust finding - participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).
• It is even observed in children as young as 7 and 12 years when they were given coins to distribute (Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981).
• BUT….Demand characteristics – conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness.

Question 7

what is social identity theory? (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Answer 7

• people show in-group favoritism, because they derive self-esteem not only from personal accomplishments, but also from the status and achievements of their in-group
• Social identity is formed through two processes: (1) social categorization (how we group individuals in society based on information) and (2) social comparison (how we define ourselves compared to other groups)
• People are motivated to maintain a positive and secure self-concept
• People are motivated to reduce uncertainty and have clearly-defined identities
• Identification with a social group defines our relationships with in-group and out-group members and guides behaviour

Question 8

how are we motivated to boost the status of the ingroup?

Answer 8

• Give advantages to the in-group over the out-group.
• Bask in the glory of a group victory.
• Derogate members of the out-group.
• React to criticism of the group personally (for strongly identified group members).

Question 9

In-Group Norm Adherence Livingstone, Young & Manstead (2011)

Answer 9

• University students – pilot study established that alcohol consumption is defining aspect of identity.
• Measured in-group identification, attitudes to heavy drinking, drinking intentions.
• Manipulated in-group norms about alcohol consumption (moderate vs. high)
• Interaction effect found. Students with a positive attitude to heavy drinking and high in-group identification reported greater intentions to engage in heavy drinking when in the moderate drinking norm condition
• Students with a positive attitude to heavy drinking and low in-group identification reported greater intentions to engage in heavy drinking when in the heavy drinking norm condition.

Question 10

Social Identity & Intergroup Conflict study Livingstone & Haslam (2008)

Answer 10

• Adolescent students from schools in Northern Ireland
• Self-reported religious affiliation (Catholic vs. Protestant) and then given appropriate in-group vs. out-group survey.
• Measured in-group identification, intergroup antagonism & behavioural intentions towards out-group.
• Interaction effect found - when antagonism was high, in-group identification predicted less favourable intentions to out-group.

Question 11

what is self-categorisation theory? (Turner et al., 1987).

Answer 11

group processes occur, because we categorize our self and others as group members. Self-categorization can vary in inclusiveness:
- See our self or others as human beings
- See our self or others as part of certain social groups
- See our self or others as individuals with unique identities

Question 12

what two things does the social identity approach split into?

Answer 12

• Social Identity Theory
  (SIT)
• Self-Categorization Theory
  (SCT)

Question 13

according to Self-Categorisation Theory how are the social groups cognitively represented?

Answer 13

prototypes - which serve to define a social group and distinguish it from another group.
- The activation of a particular social category (or identity) will vary depending on contextual features: accessibility and fit of the category.

Question 14

what is the meta-contrast principle?

Answer 14

maximises perceived differences with out-groups and minimises in-group differences

Question 15

what is Depersonalisation?

Answer 15

perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group

Question 16

what is the Accentuation effect?

Answer 16

occurs when something is placed into a category. The differences between the categories are then exaggerated, and differences within the categories themselves are minimised

Question 17

what is the Relative homogeneity effect?

Answer 17

• tendency to see ingroup members as more differentiated, and out-group members the same
• Tends to happen on important group-defining attributes and when in competition with another group.

Question 18

Self-Categorization & Social Influence study Platow et al. (2005)

Answer 18

• Social influence as outcome of self-categorization.
• University students watched clips of comedians and their responses were monitored (e.g., laughter). Two manipulated variables: canned laughter (yes/no) and the composition of comedian’s audience (in-group vs. out-group).
• Interaction effect found. Participants laughed (4x) longer when they believed the canned audience laughter came from in-group members.

Question 19

Self-Categorization & Disgust study (Reicher et al. (2016))

Answer 19

• Students asked to smell a sweaty t-shirt bearing the logo: of another university (outgroup), of their university (ingroup) or Neutral (plain shirt).
• Manipulated whether the participant’s personal identity was made salient (1: their identity at their university (out-group)) or (2: their identity as a student generally (in-group)).
• Disgust was lower in the in-group condition and walked slower (relative to other conditions) to wash hands afterwards
• Attenuation of disgust increased perceptions of similarity to the target.

Question 20

Contact Hypothesis Allport (1954)

Answer 20

The view that bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination.

should meet the criteria:
- Prolonged and cooperative interaction (c.f. Sherif, 1966).
- Integration should be institutionally supported.
- Contact between groups of equal social status – difficult to operationalize in controlled experiments.

Question 21

Mere exposure effect (Zanjonc, 1968)

Answer 21

repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for it.

Question 22

contact hypothesis study Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)

Answer 22

• meta-analysis of 515 studies between 1949 and 2000 across 38 nations.
• Intergroup contact was effective – 94% of samples showed an inverse relationship between contact and prejudice.
• The effects of contact generalized beyond the initial contact situation.
  RESULTS:
• Allport’s conditions were effective, but not essential for a reduction prejudice.
• BUT – his conditions were only fully observed in 19% of samples!
• Research suggests uncertainty reduction is a mechanism – contact reduces the anxiety of not knowing how to act, how you will be perceived by others and whether you will be accepted (Stephan et al., 2002).

Question 23

What is extended contact hypothesis

Answer 23

knowledge of friendships between in-group and out-group members. Do not need to have own experience of cross-group friendships.

Question 24

Zhou et al. (2019) meta- analysis on extended contact

Answer 24

• based on 115 studies over 20 years of research.
• Small to medium effect of extended contact across all these studies, showing support for this theory.
• Extended contact perceptions was more effective than actual experience of cross-group friendships.

Question 25

what is Imagined Contact Hypothesis?

Answer 25

imagining a positive interaction between an in-group and out-group member

Question 26

Miles & Crips (2014) meta-analysis on imagined contact.

Answer 26

• 70 studies
• Small to medium effect in support of imagined contact reducing prejudice.
• Effects were stronger on variables that measured behavioural intentions towards out-group members (rather than attitudes).

Question 27

what is Intergroup Competitive Victimhood (Noor et al., 2012)?

Answer 27

• efforts by group members involved in violent conflicts to establish their group has suffered more than the other
• It can escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution