group behaviour - sam part 2

• relative deprivation & aggression

  • the fustration-aggression hypothesis was developed to explain aggressive behaviour in individuals and in groups
  • conditions of relative deprivation lead people to feel frustrated
• relative deprivation: sense of having less than what we think we deserve/ entitled: based on feelings of injustice

  • i.e., perceived discprancy between our actual attainments and our expectations/entitlements
  • RD explains collective intergroup aggression
• realistic group conflict theory

  • robbers cave experiment - sherif and sherif
  • concluded: a degree of competition is needed for intergroup conflict and bias to occur (e.g., competition for scarce resources)
  • but, they didn't show that competition was absolutely necessary. subsequently, Tajfel's work sought to examine this.
• mini group paradigm

  • a method to examine the minimal conditions required for discrimination and conflict to occur between groups
  • MGP was used in various experiments to demonstrate intergroup conflict
• minimal group paradigm

  • minimal conditions in experiments
  • researchers create meaningless groups
  • not give explicit criteria for interactions between groups
  • participants dont know one another
  • measure participants perceptions, attitudes, behaviour and reward allocation
• experiments using the MGP

  • are meaningful groups and competition absolutely needed for intergroup conflict to occur
  • is merely being part of a group enough for intergroup conflict
• MGP: kandinsky vs klee

  • looked at group bias, discrimination and favouritism to ones group
  • can conflict occur in the absence of competition
  • created meaningless groups; assigned boys randomly to 1 of 2 art groups
  • boys didnt know one another. were not told who was in the in-group or outgroup; each boy was assigned a code number
  • told boys to distribute money to other participants (by using decision matrices; reward allocation)
• kandinsky vs klee: results

  • clear trend for awarding money to ingroup members compared outgroup members
  • ingroup favouritism arose despite:
  • boys didn't know and didn't interact with one another before
  • groups were meaningless
  • concluded: outgroup discrimination easy to trigger
  • categorised as a group was enough to produce ethnocentrism (bias and conflict)
• kandinsky vs klee: critique

  • did the nature of the experiment lead them to believe they needed to favour their group?
  • young boys typically competitive and prone to bias
  • demonstrated ingroup favouritism, but not outgroup discrimination
  • cause for favouritism?
  • ecological validity
• MGP research with young children: dunham, baron and carey

  • boys and girls aged 5 years
  • allocated into meaningless red or blue groups
  • stimuli comprised 8 photos of boys and girls wearing a red or blue t-shirt
  • measured explicit and implicit attitudes, behavioural attribution and resource allocation (children allocated available money)
• MGP research with young children: dunham, baron and carey

  explicit attitudes: children preferred ingroup members

  implicit attitude: significant differences found for children preferring their ingroup

  behavioural attribution: no ingroup preferences were found

  resource allocation: trend for children to show ingroup preference
• mgp research with young children : dunham, baron and carey

  conclusion

  • even very young children demonstrate ingroup preferences and favouritism
  • very little is needed to induce the robust ingroup preferences
• MGP : key points

  • mere membership in social groups is enough to elicit intergroup biases both in adults and children
  • ingroup favouritism is a powerful culturally learnt bias
  • results have wider societal companions
• intergroup behaviour: the motivational perspective

  • prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict result from motivation to view out group more favourable than outgroup
  • people process information in terms of categories. therefore, are motivated to be bias
  • the motivational and relative deprivation perspectives can explain why people are more willing to help their group and be hostile to outside groups
• critique: MGP and motivational perspective

  • unclear whether s.esteem a cause or effect of discriminatory behaviour
  • self esteem provides only a partial explanation for relation between social identity and intergroup discriminatory behaviour
  • A variety of other powerful alternative social motives may underpin discriminatory behaviour
• social identity theory

  • attributes
  • thought processes
  • behaviour
• social identity theory

  • we have an individual identity and a group identity
  • individuals adopt their groups identity and conform to its behaviour and norms
  • social identity is the part of the individuals self-concept and identity that are derived from their membership of a group
  • 'who am i?' a description of my social identity and my group membership
• social identity is associated with:

  • ethnocentrism (ingroup favouritism)
  • intergroup differentiation
  • ingroup solidarity and cohesion
  • conformity to ingroup norms
  • stereotype (other groups)
• social identity theory comprises

  • social categorisation: we classify people as members of different social groups
  • de-personalisation: categorising people into groups and not as individuals; view them stereotypically
  • identification: we identify and associate with out group; this bolster our esteem and pride
  • comparison: comparing my group with other groups and favouring my group
• social change belief system

  to achieve positive social identity on a group level

  • take action to challenge legitimacy for getting a higher group status/position (e.g., feminist movement, LGBTQ)

  to achieve positive social identity on an individual level

  • believe that intergroup boundaries are permeable; move from lower- to higher-status group
  • gain self-acceptance
• how can we reduce intergroup conflict?

  1. education
  2. communication
  3. intergroup contact
• education

  • teaching children in school moral implications of discrimination and prejudice
  • teaching children Facts about different groups
  • however, only limited impact of kids exposed to other sources of prejudice away from the classroom
• communication

  • bargaining: groups negotiating with representatives
  • meditation: bring in a 3rd party to mediate
  • arbitration: 3rd party imposes a binding settlement
  • conciliation: agreeing on a resolution and developing shared goals
• intergroup contact:

  • contact hypothesis (allport)
  • bring together members of opposing groups can relations and reduce prejudice

  accordingly:

  • create opportunities to meet people from outgroups
  • create and support groups interactions through educational, occupational and cultural means
• key points:

  • competition is not absolutely necessary for intergroup conflict and discrimination (Tajfel et al)
  • even very young children demonstrate ingroup preferences and favouritism
  • the motivational perspective: prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict result from motivation to view our group more favourably to boost our self-esteem
• key points:

  • social identity theory: individuals conform to their group behaviour and norms and adopt their groups identity
  • prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflicts are difficult to reduce. however, maybe ahcieved through education, communication and intergroup contact
• key causes of unconscious bias:

  • evolutionary
  • social pressure
  • art and media
  • personal experience
• challenging unconscious bias (non-violent communication model)

  • observation without evaluation
  • expressing feelings
  • express needs
  • make a request