competition and social identity theory Flashcards
(25 cards)
Social Dilemma
situation that creates conflict between the individuals interests and the collectives interests - leads to a worse outcome
e.g prisoners dilemma
game theory
strategic interactions between rational decision makers - each person chooses their own payoff, considering potential choices of others
Prisoners Dilemma
example of game theory.
two options: cooperate with other (stay silent), Defect (betray the other).
the rational strategy is to defect, because has better personal outcome no matter what the other does. however if both defect, then a worse outcome occurs rather than if they had both cooperated
competition - zero sum games
the belief that “our” gain must come at the expense of “their” cost
competition - non zero sum games
creating win win solutions
commons dilemma
social dilemma where everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself if used in moderation but will disappear if over used - e.g overfishing
3 requirements for trust evolution
- repeat interactions
- possible win wins
- low miscommunication
game theory strengths and weaknesses
Strengths:
- behavioural prediction
- pattern recognition
- simplified analysis
weaknesses:
- rational choice assumption (presumes that players will always make optimal decision based on self interest)
- limited external validity
- oversimplification
nuclear arms race
perceived threat - when countries build more nuclear weapons
group level threat perception - us vs them mentality
person to person cooperation facilities more trust via mutual agreements
Trucking game (Deutsch & Krauss)
- how conflict arises and how it can be resolved in situations where two parties have competing interests
- even when communication isn’t allowed people often find ways to coordinate
- tuckers might take turns at using the bridge
implicit cooperation - behaviour and mutual understanding
one gate = power over other company reduced profit, both gates = cooperation maximise profit
realistic conflict theory
limited resources lead to conflict between groups and results in increased prejudice and discrimination
Robber’s cave study (Sherif, 1961)
group formation
- cohesion through isolation
- identify through naming groups
- established group bonds through team activities
intergroup conflict
- comp between groups lead to hostility
- removing comp did not reduce hostility
conflict res
- mutual interdependence created positive change
- problem solving tasks better cause involved group collaboration
intergroup contact theory
It explains how contact between members of different social groups (e.g., racial, ethnic, national, or political groups) can reduce prejudice and intergroup conflict
minimal group paradigm
in groups and out groups
- how group membership alone can lead to discrimination or bias
- put into two groups A,B
- asked to put money towards two anonymous members in each group
people tended to put more money toward people in their group
people often choose relative advantage - people care about doing better than the other group even if that doesn’t get them the most overall
minimal group paradigm - relative advantage vs absolute advantage
absolute advantage
- maximising outcomes for your group even if the other group does better
relative advantage
- favouring your group in comparison to the other even if it means getting less overall, so long as your group is ahead
e.g A gets 10, other group gets 11
vs A gets 7 and other group gets 5
police contact and trust
trust in maori police lower than pakeha
social identity theory
act as a group not an individuals
group values become central to self
large group identity
- think of clothing
base layer = yourself, your identity
top layer = core group identity, share sense of sameness with others
in group favourism vs out group bias
in group
- members seen more positive
- more likely to support in group members
outgroup
- seen as less worthy than ingroup
- negative attitudes toward outgroup
-
social mobility
flexible and permeable with ability to leave
strategy to improve social identity
individual mobility
social creativity
social competition
Tent analogy for social change belief system
social identify and sense of security compared to a tent held up by poles
- the tent is the group identity
- poles represent leaders, traditions that support group identity
- ropes - anchor the group to its territory
group think
people agree with group and may suppress alternative ideas and their thoughts
- members prioritise group harmony over critical thinking
