Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

Social Psychology > Resolving Intergroup Conflict > Flashcards

Resolving Intergroup Conflict Flashcards

(75 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

What were the findings of Sherif et al?

A

Two groups of boys formed strong bonds when kept separate.
Hostility grew when the groups competed for limited resources.
Conflict reduced when the groups worked together on shared goals (e.g., fixing a truck).
Strong group identification led to hostility towards outgroups.
Shared goals helped reduce conflict and promote cooperation.

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

What are other examples pf sheer contact as a strategy?

A

Stroebe et al 1988
Furnham & Bochner 1986
Stephan (2014)

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

What did Stephan (2014) find?

A

Groups are kept apart by educational, cultural + material differences and anxiety about the consequences from contact

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

What did Stroebe et al 1988 do?

A

Participants were divided into groups with a history of prejudice toward each other (often based on social, ethnic, or cultural differences).

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

What did Stroebe et al 1988 find?

A

Host stereotypes held by foreign students studying abroad become more negative
Long-Term Effects: Under the right conditions, contact can lead to changes in attitudes and behaviours, fostering greater intergroup harmony.
Conditions for Effective Contact:
Equal status between groups during interactions.
Common goals that require cooperation.
Institutional support to encourage positive interactions.

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

What did Furnham & Bochner 1986 do?

A

The study involved individuals from different cultural backgrounds, including both immigrants and native populations.
Exposed to different levels of intergroup contact
Researchers measured attitudes toward outgroups, cultural adjustment, and prejudice before and after the contact experiences, using surveys and interviews to gather data.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What did Furnham & Bochner 1986 find

A

Exchange students tend not to integrate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are some studies about school desegreation in the USA?

A

Stephan 1978

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

What did Stephan 1978 do?

A

White and Black students in schools affected by desegregation policies.
Observed the effects of intergroup contact in desegregated schools.
Measured attitudes and prejudice before and after desegregation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What did Stephan 1978 find?

A

Desegregation led to short-term increases in prejudice, especially among White students.
Prejudice reduction required equal status, cooperation, and shared goals.
Over time, desegregation led to improved intergroup relations.
nstitutional support and diversity programs helped ensure successful desegregation

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

What are the criticisms of desegregation research?

A

Kids often bussed back to their own separate communities at the end of the day
Too much emphasis on short-term effects

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

What are other examples pf contact research?

A

Northern Ireland (Trew 1986)
Israel (Ben-Ari & Amir 1986)

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

What did Trew 1986 do?

A

Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland.
Measured attitudes, stereotypes, and intergroup relations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What did Trew 1986 find?

A

Strong ingroup favoritism and outgroup hostility between Protestants and Catholics.
Both groups held negative stereotypes of each other, reinforcing prejudice.
Group identity fueled prejudice toward the opposing group.
Contact between groups was rare and often distrustful, hindering prejudice reduction.

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

What did Ben-Ari & Amir 1986 do?

A

Muslim and Jewish Israeli students.
Measured prejudice, stereotypes, and attitudes toward the other group before and after contact.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What did Ben-Ari & Amir 1986 find?

A

With Muslim and Jewish Israelis: Unpleasant contact can make things worse
Organisers often the most keen
High expectations can be hard to meet
Too many one-off contact attempts
Too little preparation
Language barriers

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Who made the contact hypothesis?

A

Allport 1954

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the contact hypothesis?

A

Suggests that intergroup contact can reduce prejudice and improve relations between groups, particularly when certain conditions are met.

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

What are the conditions for successful contact for contact hypothesis

A

Equal status
Common goals
Intergroup Cooperation
Support from authorities

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

What is equal status

A

Both groups must have equal standing during interactions to prevent dominance of one over the other.

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

What is common goals?

A

Groups must work together toward shared objectives that require cooperation.

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

What is intergroup cooperation?

A

The interaction should involve cooperation, not competition, between groups.

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

What is support from authorities?

A

The contact should be supported by social norms, laws, or leaders to encourage positive interactions.

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

What did Aronson et al 1978 do?

A

Students in diverse classrooms.
Students were divided into small groups, with each member assigned a different part of a lesson to learn.
Each student became an “expert” on their part and then taught the others, requiring cooperation for the group to succeed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
What did Aronson et al 1978 find?
The jigsaw method helped reduce intergroup prejudice and increased cooperation between students of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Students showed improved grades and better engagement in the cooperative learning environment. The method fostered empathy and positive intergroup relationships.
26
What is cognitive dissonance caused by?
Incompatible attitudes
27
How is cognitive dissonance reduced?
Attitude change
28
Who evaluated the jigsaw classroom study?
Argyle 1992 Miller & Davidson-Podgorny 1987
29
What did Argyle find?
The effects are often small, and the whole thing can go badly wrong (esp. when shared goals are not achieved)
30
What did Miller & Davidson-Podgorny find?
Cooperative learning can work if no intergroup competition
31
Who looked at a reformulation based on similarity-attraction theories?
Cook 1978, 1984
32
What did Cook find?
Equal status within the situation Outgroupers disconfirm stereotypes Norms of equality
33
Who criticised contact research?
Hewstone & Brown 1986
34
What did Hewstone & Brown find?
Over-estimation of role of ignorance Direction of causality hard to ascertain
35
What are Hewstone & Brown suggest?
Intergroup contact during which relevant social identities remain salient A ‘dual identity’ approach
36
Who looked at the dual identity approach?
Hornsey & Hogg 2000
37
What did Hornsey & Hogg find?
Maintain original identities but work towards superordinate goals
38
What happens when there is a match to compare an outgroup member's behaviour to one's stereotype?
Stereotypes reinforced
39
What happens when there is a mismatch to compare an outgroup member's behaviour to one's stereotype?
Search for explanation Can lead to a typical group member or an atypical group member
40
What happens with a typical group member?
Modify stereotype
41
What happens with an atypical group member?
Create new subtype, main stereotype remain unchanged
42
Who looked at the overall effect of intergroup contact on prejudice reduction?
Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)
43
What was the procedure of Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)?
An authoritative meta-analysis of 515 contact studies conducted between 1949 and 2000, with 713 samples across 38 participating nations
44
What did Pettigrew & Tropp 2006 find?
Contact had a moderate negative effect Contact worked best with equal status, cooperation, and institutional support. Both direct and indirect contact were effective, with direct being more impactful. Effectiveness varied by relationship nature, social context, and conflict history.
45
What did Pettigrew & Tropp 2006 conclude?
Uncertainty reduction important Group salience is still advisable Need more longitudinal studies Need multi-level models outlining inhibitors and facilitators of positive contact Start early, with children Reduce intergroup anxiety
46
What are the moderating factors in Pettigrew & Tropp (2006)?
Type of Contact Group Characteristics Cultural and Contextual Differences
47
Who defined recategorisation approach?
Gaertner et al 1989 1990
48
What is recategorisation approach?
Redefine group boundaries to create a larger, inclusive ingroup. See members of different groups as part of the same larger category. Reduces prejudice by changing social identity and fostering connection.
49
Who looked at recategorisation approach? (Study)
Gaetner & Mann (1989)
50
What did Gaetner & Mann do?
Individuals from two distinct groups with a history of conflict or tension Participants were either exposed to recategorisation or not exposed to it Researchers measured attitudes toward out-group members, perceptions of group boundaries, and willingness to cooperate before and after the intervention.
51
What are the findings from Gaetner & Mann?
Recategorisation = reduction in prejudice. Participants who were encouraged to see out-group members as part of a larger group= less in-group favouritism and out-group hostility. The intervention fostered greater cooperation as they now shared a common identity that encouraged mutual goals and support. Recategorisation might have long-lasting effects on intergroup relations, as the new, broader social identity persisted after the intervention.
52
What are the mechanisms of recategorisation approach?
Shared Goals and Social Identity Social Identity Theory
53
What is shared goals and social identity?
Focus on common goals Emphasising shared identity The changing of social identity through RC
54
What is social identity theory?
People derive part of self-concept from group membership Recategorisation to include IG and OG
55
What are the implications from Gaetner & Mann?
This approach could be applied in various settings, such as workplaces, schools, and society at large, where diverse groups need to cooperate and interact.
56
Who looked at decategorisation, mutual differentiation + superordinate goals?
Banker et al (2000)
57
What is mutual differentiation?
The acknowledgment and acceptance of group differences while still promoting intergroup cooperation
58
What is the effectiveness of mutual differentiation?
This strategy allows for cooperation across differences without requiring individuals to lose their distinct group membership
59
What is superordinate goals?
A goal that requires cooperation between groups to achieve, and which cannot be achieved by any group independently.
60
What is the effectiveness and limitation of superordinate goals?
Grounded in Intergroup Contact Theory= their cooperation can reduce prejudice. May not be effective in the long term if the underlying group identities and biases are not addressed
61
What is decategorisation?
Decategorisation involves removing group labels or identities from intergroup interactions, encouraging individuals to perceive each other as unique individuals rather than as members of a particular group.
62
What is the effectiveness and challenges of decategorisation?
Reducing the salience of group membership, which can lead to more personal, less prejudiced interactions It may lead to individualistic thinking, ignoring important social and cultural identities
63
Who looked at intergroup anxiety sources?
Stephan & Stephan (2000)
64
What are the 4 sources of anxiety?
Realistic threat Symbolic threat Intergroup anxiety Negative stereotypes
65
What is realistic threat?
A sense of threat to the existence of the group such as political power
66
What is symbolic threat?
A threat posed by the outgroup to values and beliefs,
67
What is intergroup anxiety?
Threat to the self such as embarrassment
68
What is negative stereotypes?
Fear of intergroup anxiety which is anticipated due to negative stereotypes
69
What are the three components of intergroup anxiety?
Affective Cognitive Physiological
70
What is affective?
Aversive feelings of apprehension and distress),
71
What is cognitive?
People expect to be embarrassed and disliked by their own group
72
What is physiological?
Increased cortisol and elevated blood pressure
73
What are the symptoms of intergroup anxiety caused by?
Personality and personal characteristics (low empathy) Neg attitudes and cognitions (prior prejudices) Personal experience (little prior contact with the outgroup) Situational factors (unclear situation and roles)
74
What are the consequences of intergroup anxiety?
Cog (depleted cog resources) Affective and emotional (affectively consistent evaluations + guilt may arise if the encounter is less awkward than anticipated) Behavioural (overt, verbal and non-verbal behaviours
75
What are the key points from Hodson & Meleady (2024)?
The study found no significant reduction in outgroup bias over time, even with increased intergroup contact. Challenges intergroup contact automatically leads to a reduction in prejudice

Social Psychology (10 decks)

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