Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Social > Intergroup Behaviour > Flashcards

Intergroup Behaviour Flashcards

(67 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What is intergrpup behaviour?

A

Intergroup behaviour is “any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by people’s recognition that they and others are members of distinct social groups”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Most research into intergroup behaviour has focused on negative outcomes:

A
  • In-group favouritism
  • Ethnocentrism
  • Collective violence and social unrest
  • Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination
  • Dehumanisation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Intergroup behaviour is regulated by people’s

A

awareness of and identification with different social groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Interactions can be

A

face-to-face or perceived threats from other groups (e.g., when people claim “foreigners stealing our jobs”).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Social behaviour is influenced by the

A

social categories to which we belong, and the power and status relations between those groups.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Real life examples include:

A
  • International wars/conflicts/disputes
  • Intra-national conflicts (e.g., civil war & genocide)
  • Negotiations between unions and management
  • Competitive team sports
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

•The social conditions that foster intergroup conflict can be grouped into different theoretical perspectives:

A
  • Economic Perspective
  • Motivational Perspective
  • Cognitive Perspective
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Economic Perspective:

A

Realistic Conflict Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Motivational Perspective:

A
  • Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest)
  • Social Identity Theory
  • Terror Management Theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cognitive Perspective:

A

Self-Categorization Theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

•Meta–theory with two distinct theories.

A
  • SCT designed to address limitations of SIT.

* SCT provides an explanation for how social identity differs from personal identity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Self-Categorization Theory

Hornsey 2008

A

Although SCT offered no explicit motivational analysis to account for intergroup behaviour, cognitive contrasting of ingroups and outgroups is implicitly understood to be a strategy designed to promote separateness, perceptual clarity and social meaning.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Economic Perspective of Intergroup Behaviour

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966):

A
  • Key feature of intergroup behaviour is ethnocentrism.
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

King Knight and Hebl (2010)

A

Discrimination increases in economic hardship and among the groups that have the most to lose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Sherif’s (1966) summer camp experiments

Realistic conflict theory

A

22 boys participated in a “summer camp”
Divided into 2 groups: “Eagles” & “Rattlers”

• Four phases:
•Spontaneous friendship formation
•In-group and norm formation
•Intergroup competition
•Intergroup cooperation 
(superordinate goals)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Sheriffs (1996)

4 phases

A 
•Spontaneous friendship formation
•In-group and norm formation
•Intergroup competition
•Intergroup cooperation 
(superordinate goals)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Nature of group goals determines relations
•Relations between Individuals:
Relationship between groups:

A
  • Relations between Individuals:
  • 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
  • Relations between Groups:
  • Mutually exclusive goals between groups result in realistic intergroup conflict and ethnocentrism
  • Shared (superordinate) goals results in cooperation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Realistic Conflict Theory

•Conditions of contact:

A

–Mutually incompatible goals -> increased intragroup solidarity and intergroup hostility
–Superordinate goal -> reduced conflict – achievement benefits all members of both groups
BUT:
•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!)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Dickerson’s Critical Review

A

•Conflict is not understood in terms of individual characteristics, but in terms of group processes.
BUT:
−Is competition really necessary for conflict?
−Is cooperation really sufficient condition for reduction?
−Actual vs. perceived material conflicts (Brown, 2000)
−Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context (Billig,1995).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Brown, 2000

A

−Actual vs. perceived material conflicts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Billig,1995

A

Approach is too generic – ignores social historical context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Relative deprivation

A

discrepancy between actualities (what is) & expectations or entitlements (what ought to be).
•Relative deprivation is often a precondition for intergroup aggression.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Davies (1969)

A

Davies (1969) J-Curve Hypothesis:

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Runciman (1966) distinguished between types of relative deprivation:

A
  • Egoistic relative deprivation: an individual’s own sense of deprivation relative to other similar individuals.
  • Fraternalistic relative deprivation: Collective sense that our group has less than it is entitled to compared to other groups.
  • Fraternalistic relative deprivation may lead to social unrest and/or collective violence.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Egoistic relative deprivation:
an individual’s own sense of deprivation relative to other similar individuals.
26
Fraternalistic relative deprivation:
Collective sense that our group has less than it is entitled to compared to other groups. Fraternalistic relative deprivation may lead to social unrest and/or collective violence.
27
Factors Affecting Relative Deprivation
* Strong group identification: * Necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action (Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996) * Perceived effectiveness of action: * People who believe that taking action (e.g. protesting) will redress the imbalance (Martin et al., 1984) * Perceptions of injustice: * Group has less than it is entitled to (distributive injustice) * Unfair procedures (procedural injustice) (Tyler & Lind, 1992) * Ingroup-outgroup comparisons: * Likelihood for action depends on which out-group we compare our group against (Martin & Murray, 1983).
28
Kelly & Breinlinger, 1996 | •Strong group identification:
•Necessary for fraternalistic deprivation to influence perceptions and collective action Affecting relative deprivation
29
Minimal Group Paradigm
experimental methodology to investigate the effect of social categorisation on group behaviour. Sometimes the mere presence of an in-group vs. out-group distinction is sufficient to create intergroup conflict!
30
Factors of minimal group paradigm
* 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
31
Minimal group experiment by
Tajifel 1981 | Robust finding - participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).
32
Vaughan, Tajfel, & Williams, 1981
It is even observed in children as young as 7 and 12 years when they were given coins to distribute participants allocate resources unfairly (in favour of the in-group).
33
Demand characteristics
conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness.
34
Issues with minimal group Paradigm experiment
* Demand characteristics – conforming to experimenters’ or general norms of intergroup competitiveness. * Positive-negative symmetry – effect less pronounced when participants distribute punishment to out-group (Mummendey & Otten, 1998).
35
Social Identity Theory
* The ‘us vs. them’ mentality does not explain why in-group favouritism occurs! * People have both personal identities and social identities – the latter prescribes how to behave in our social groups. * Social Identity Theory - 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 (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). * Social identity is formed through two processes: (1) social categorization and (2) social comparison.
36
Tajifel and Turner 1979 | Social identity theory
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
37
Social identity is formed through two processes:
1) social categorization and (2) social comparison.
38
Social identity theory concepts
* People are motivated to maintain a positive and secure self-concept: * “Striving for a positive social identity, group members are motivated to think and act in ways that achieve or maintain a positive distinctiveness between one’s own group and relevant out-groups” (Hornsey, 2008, p.207). * People are motivated to reduce uncertainty and have clearly-defined identities. * Identification with a social group defines our relationships with both in-group and out-group members and guides our behaviour.
39
Given that self-esteem is based in part on our group memberships, we are motivated to boost the status of the in-group –
* 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).
40
Social Groups as a Source of Self-Esteem:
Derogating out-group members – Fein & Spencer, 1997 | The negative ratings of the Jewish candidate served to boost the participants own self esteem
41
Terror Management Theory | Solomon, Greenberg and Pyszczynski (2004)
* A broader (more primal) reason for in-group favouritism. * Innate drive for survival + an awareness of the inevitability of death = incapacitating terror. * To assuage the paralyzing fear of death, humans embrace “cultural worldviews”. * Cultural worldviews protect against the fear of death by offering literal immortality (e.g., religion) or symbolic immortality (e.g., investment in future generations).
42
Terror Management Theory
* People derive self-esteem from adhering to the standards of their cultural system. * So, when we are reminded of our impending mortality, we seek protection by re-affirming our cultural worldviews.
43
Terror Management Theory | Real-world application
international and intra-national conflicts over religion and the moral ways of living.
44
Terror Management Theory | McGregor et al. (1998)
participants evaluated like-minded or dissimilar political people. Mortality salience : aggression higher when threat Control- aggression lower when threat
45
Self-Categorisation Theory | Turner et al 1987
explains the cognitive categorisation process underpinning social identity theory •Sub-theory designed to understand intragroup as well intergroup behaviour. •Significant development in the ‘Social Identity Approach’
46
Self-Categorisation Theory
Social identity theory claims we categorise people (and ourselves) in terms of social groups. These social groupings are cognitively represented in terms of 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.
47
•The cognitive organisation of categories occurs in line with
the meta-contrast principle: •maximises perceived differences with out-groups and minimises in-group differences.
48
As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to Depersonalisation:
perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group
49
As a result, when a social category is salient it can lead to
Depersonalisation: •perception and treatment of self and others not as unique individual persons but as prototypical embodiments of a social group
50
Social categorisation gives rise to some clear stereotyping effects:
* Accentuation effect: Overestimation of similarities among people within a category and dissimilarities between people from different categories * Relative homogeneity effect: tendency to see ingroup members as more differentiated, and out-group members the same (Brigham & Barkowitz, 1978)
51
Social Categorisation and | Relative Homogeneity effect
Source: Brigham and | Barkowitz (1978)
52
Reducing intergroup conflict?
Contact Hypothesis
53
Contact Hypothesis
* Allport (1954): The view that bringing members of opposing social groups together will improve intergroup relations and reduce prejudice and discrimination. * Contact should meet certain 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.
54
What is context Hypothesis thought to Work?
* It is hypothesized to work because familiarity breeds liking and this transfers to a range of different contexts. * Mere exposure effect (Zanjonc, 1968): repeated exposure to a stimulus increases liking for it.
55
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006): | Contact Hypothesis
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 contact situation.
56
Contact Hypothesis | •Pettigrew & Tropp (2006):
* 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 the others and whether you will be accepted (Stephan et al., 2002).
57
Wilder 1984
Interpersonal contact
58
Intergroup Competitive Victimhood | Noor et al 2012
group members involved in violent conflicts believe their group has suffered more than the other. •It can escalate violence and prevent peaceful resolution.
59
Overcoming Competitive Victimhood | Noor et al 2012
Addressing emotional motivations Fostering victimhood identity Increases willingness to forgive and reconcile with the outgroup
60
Overcoming Competitive Victimhood: | •Truth and Reconciliation Commission after apartheid in South Africa.
* Gacaca Courts in Rwanda after 1994 Genocide. * Intended to serve justice. * Intended to promote reconciliation - acknowledgment of harm and suffering and the costs of conflict.
61
The mere perception of social groups and identification with an in-group is sufficient to
Create intergoup conflict
62
What is the social identity approach dominant in?
Dominant perspective in the field of intergroup conflict
63
The social identity approach can be used in parallel with other theories, such as
realistic conflict theory
64
What does contact, shared (or superordinate) goals and reducing feelings of competitive victimhood do?
Reduce intergroup conflict
65
Intergroup conflict | Economic perspective
•Realistic Conflict Theory
66
Intergroup Conflict | Motivational Perspective:
Relative Deprivation (social unrest & protest) Social Identity Theory Terror Management Theory
67
Intergroup conflict | Cognitive Perspective
•Self-Categorization Theory

Social (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions