PSYC3002-(01) Lectur-transcript (1).txt

SPEAKER 0 this material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the Australian National University in accordance with section 113 P of the Copyright Act 1968. The material in this communication maybe subject to copyright under the act any further reproduction or communication...

SPEAKER 0 this material has been reproduced and communicated to you by or on behalf of the Australian National University in accordance with section 113 P of the Copyright Act 1968. The material in this communication maybe subject to copyright under the act any further reproduction or communication of this material by you must be consistent with the provisions of the act. Do not reproduce this material. Do not remove this notice. SPEAKER 1 OK, Welcome. How’s the volume? OK at the back. Oh, welcome to Week two. Thanks for coming along. It is always nice to see faces in the room. Um so one thing I forgot to mention last week is due to the construction in the bike building. I currently don’t have access to my office. So if you’re looking for me, I’m not gonna be where, uh, it says I am on the on the psych website when I am in, Uh, I’m currently in Beryl Rawson, so over at the Global Institute for Women’s Leadership. So if, uh, you do want to find me, that’s where I’ll be, Uh, and hopefully we’ll be back in on the second floor of the psych building. Uh, the start of April. I hope it’s It’s been a long time. Anyway, if you do wanna find me, that’s where I’ll be. Uh, but, you know, we can have a a meeting in person or via zoom, whatever. Whatever suits, um, having said that, Please come and talk to me if you’ve got things you wanna talk to me about, About the course about research, about honours. I promise. I’m not scary. Really nice. So come and talk to me. Um, when is your first lab? Next week. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s next week. OK, so this one, Is it assessed? No, no, it’s not. OK, so this is a a practise run, so you can get in there and get a sense of what the the labs are like. And they’re a little bit different from from standard shoots. Uh, there’ll be experiments and and stuff like that. Um, so, yeah, you can get a sense of it. And most importantly, probably you can see the questions that you’re gonna be the type of questions that you’re gonna be asked the following weeks that you know that will be assessed. And probably I think your your tutors will tell you. Yes, you’ll you’ll have a a conversation about it. But when you see the questions, you might freak out a little bit. And I don’t want you to freak out. Uh, because you you see them and chances are, uh, you know, unlike, uh, a a standard exam. Maybe after you read the question, the answer may not be immediately apparent. It may not immediately come to mind, right? It’s the the The point of the questions is to get you to to sit there and wrestle with them or in groups you know to to talk about it. So when you see them, you might think II I don’t know the answer and that’s OK, that’s normal. OK, what we’re really looking for is not for you to produce this one correct answer. But just to show that you’re thinking about it, you’re coming up with alternative explanations, things like that. OK, so that’s really what we’re looking for. So when you see them, just think if you don’t know the answer to it, that’s probably quite normal. And it’s all about just engaging in that, uh, in that process, any questions about labs or anything else? OK, So, um What, we’re going to what’s what’s gonna hopefully work quite well. Is that, uh, you So you don’t have to submit anything at the end of your first lab. You don’t have to hand anything in, but, uh, for the other four labs, uh, you’ll have to submit the, uh, the questions that are being assessed by a waddle before the end of your lab. OK, so your your tutors will explain that to you, but that’s, uh that’s how it’s gonna work. All right, OK. Week two. Last week, Uh, we spoke about what exactly we mean by groups from a social psych perspective. OK, so we looked at the, uh, early approaches to really understand what this meant so different ways. Uh, people have defined a group, uh, according to, uh, social psychology and just early theories really exploring how, uh, we could study this from a a scientific, uh, perspective. Today, we’re going to talk about something a little bit different. Um, and I want to start off, uh, really reflecting on why you think the study of groups and intergroup processes and intergroup behaviour might be important. Why does any of this actually matter? OK, so I want you to think about the the way I want you to. An to answer that question is, what are some current intergroup social issues that are happening right now, Like really prominent stuff that you can say that’s an intergroup issue or a group processes issue, whatever it is. OK, so there’s your, uh, QR code. Give that a scan, please. And I think that this is a work cloud this week. But just any current issue that comes to mind that, you know, you think studying the psychology of groups can really help us explain and understand these different ideas. I’m glad it’s working. Thanks for playing. So we’ve got, uh, conflict discrimination. Definitely. So there’s a, you know, a number of of, uh, unfortunately, there’s a number of conflicts going on at any one time. Um uh, Israel Palestine, uh, is mentioned there? Absolutely. That is, uh, a very current, uh, intergroup conflict that, uh, we can hopefully understand better through, uh, some of these ideas we’re gonna talk about, uh, Polarisation stereotypes, war and violence. Absolutely. Uh, stereotypes. Um, gender, sexuality. Yeah. Anything else? So it’s It’s, uh, you know, usually pretty, uh, relevant, Uh, when it comes to politics, whether it’s an election year or not in, uh, whatever country you happen to be in. But that’s absolutely an an intergroup, uh, issue whether we’re talking about, you know, uh, a very intense two party system, uh, like the states. Or, uh, we don’t quite have that, uh, intensity here of the two party system in Australia. It’s, uh, we do have minor parties, so it’s not just a, you know, a two group thing. It can be a multi group thing. Uh, things like climate. Ok, uh, the action we we take on on climate that could be perceived as an I intergroup issue, uh, opposing sides. So essentially, any time you’ve got, uh, people who are split on a particular issue and who, maybe, uh, fighting for a particular outcome, that’s, uh, some sort of intergroup issue that we can hopefully understand. Uh, with these ideas. OK, Cool. Thank you. So, yeah, whole lot of real world issues, Uh, that hopefully, you know, understanding group processes, uh, and Intergroup attitudes and behaviour. Um, hopefully, as a field, we’re we’re doing these things to really advance our understanding of this stuff. so we can better understand how groups function. We can, uh, get better at identifying the sources of prejudice. Uh, we can hopefully find more positive ways for groups to actually talk to each other and interact. That would be a nice thing. Uh, we can address social inequality and injustice, and there are a number of different forms of that, uh, that, uh, that we can look at, um and we can also talk about things like enhancing diversity and inclusion. Uh, so there’s a whole range of areas in in social psychology that explore these kinds of ideas. And I mean, the reason I was interested in in social psychology is cos I think it is a very applied issue. It does like there are things going on in the world that I wanna understand better. And I realised that I could do that through social science, that I could explore questions that actually interest me. That’s why I really got interested in this field. OK, so as a a starting point this week, we’re going to, uh, talk about how there are different, uh, types of group theories so we can talk about, uh, group processes. Uh, at different levels. OK, so we can examine intra group processes so within group, uh, processes and we can talk about intergroup processes. So between groups, uh, now, sometimes, uh, there are theories that deal with both. They talk about, uh, the psychology of intra group and intergroup theories and ideas and processes. But obviously, these are two distinct levels of analysis. OK, two, related but separate ways of looking at groups and our social worlds. So the intergroup level, uh, really focuses on the processes that occur within a single social group. So we seek to understand, in individual behaviour and attitudes, uh, and how they’re influenced by our memberships within particular groups or when we’re interacting with other people. So it looks at things like norms and roles and relationships that exist within that group. So group cohesion, leadership, uh, communication conformity within the group. These are all topics that we can look at if we’re just taking an intra group perspective. And some dominant, uh, theoretical approaches over the years have been things like social facilitation. OK, so the the, uh, the effect of a that A group has on maybe our performance, uh, we can look at group socialisation. So would it like to join a group or become part of a group? In that process, we can look at things like groupthink, which we spoke a little bit about last week and, uh, the theories of interdependence and social identity, which we’ll talk about a bit, Um, so that that there is an a I generated image. I can’t remember exactly what I typed in. Probably intra group something, and I was like, Yeah, that that that looks appropriate. I’ll put that in. And then I typed in Intergroup, and I got this monstrosity, Um, which is is pretty horrific. It’s, uh, a bunch of animals having some sort of meeting, and it’s got various animal heads on different animal bodies. Um, it looks quite satanic. Um, I’m not sure what’s going on, and I thought, I’m gonna keep that in Cos if you don’t come to lecture and you don’t listen to the recording, you might. A slide might pop up. You have no idea why it’s there, and it might freak you out a little bit. And I just thought that was funny. So there we go. I that that image makes no sense to me. But according to a A I it was relevant. Um so intergroup theories examine the interactions, attitudes and behaviours that occur between social groups. Uh, so we seek to understand how, um, individuals perceive, uh, and identify and interact with members of their in group versus members of their out group so we can look at things like prejudice, um, discrimination, stereotyping into conflict and theories that you may have come across before, Uh, relative deprivation, realistic conflict, social dominance, and again, uh, ideas like, uh, social interdependence, I think can be applied at the intergroup level, and certainly social identity can. OK, so two different types of analysis to kick things off, we’re gonna start with two pretty broad principles of group behaviour that, uh, hopefully are fairly obvious. So intimate behaviour is characterised by less trust and more competitiveness than interpersonal behaviour. So if you’re just interacting with someone on an interpersonal level, and the idea of groups, uh is not at all salient, that’s gonna be associated with increased trust and reduced sense of competition than if you were in some sort of intergroup setting. And as soon as you put that group frame that group lens on it. Things change. And, uh, human nature People tend to favour their own groups over their out groups. Why? And when you really think about that as we go through, why might that be the case? There are a number of, uh, potential explanations that have been offered. We’re gonna talk about some of them. So Yep. Today we’re gonna, uh, discuss, uh, some of the more prominent approaches that have sought to understand group behaviour from both an intra and intergroup level. Uh, why these, uh, theories? Um, II, I guess I find them the most interesting There are. There are plenty of others. Uh, we could look at I. I chose these ones to talk about. Uh, yeah, I think they’re the most interesting. Um, today is gonna take a little more of an intergroup focus with the things we talk about. Uh, but throughout the semester, we’re certainly gonna talk about a lot of in intergroup, uh, ideas and and processes, OK, things like leadership, cohesion, conformity, and yeah, as we go through them, uh, I want you to consider how likely or reasonable you think they are as explanations for the way groups interact or the group conflict we may see in the world. Hey, just these these ideas have been put out there. Some of them have been out there for quite a while. But you may think they’re complete and utter rubbish, and that’s that’s II. I don’t mind that whatsoever. And I want you to think about that and how there maybe elements of ideas you think that makes sense and others that you just think don’t track whatsoever. That’s what I want you to think about. OK, so we touched on this, uh, bit last week. Social interdependence, uh, which is essentially an attempt to understand the social psychology of groups and group behaviour by understanding the interactions of at least two people. So it really drills it down at its most simplest form. Then we can understand groups by understanding, at the very least, how two, individuals interact. Uh, so groups from this perspective are essentially understood to be, uh, interacting in individuals who have some sort of effect on each other. OK, so if we’re in a setting where my actions don’t just affect me, they affect you and your actions don’t just affect yourself. The choices you make don’t just affect you. They impact on those around you. According to this perspective, that would be a group setting. Um, it assumes that, uh, a group is more than just the sum of its parts. OK, so it’s more than just a collection of individuals. A group is something different, more complex, potentially probably. And the fundamental unit of analysis for this approach is, uh, the individual. OK, so we’re gonna we’re only gonna examine this at its most basic level. OK, so two people interacting. Uh, but it it is an approach that can get more complicated than that. We can have multiple people. Uh, we can look about, uh, we can talk about groups interacting and have groups affect other groups based on their actions. Um, so, yeah, I certainly think it’s an approach that can provide insights at the intra group and the intergroup level. OK, so social Independence deals with the relationships between two or more people. Um, and really, when? Uh, A According to this perspective, the outcomes that you receive if you’re in one of these situations are not just determined by what you choose A and outcomes could be any number of things. We’ll we’ll talk about that. Uh, but essentially, yeah, the the thing the the impact that it might have on you, the thing you walk away with, um is not just determined by what you yourself decide. Other people around you are gonna impact that. And the outcomes that other people receive are not just determined by what they choose. And they’re influenced by those people around them as well. And the the choices that other people make. So it is a combination of both of these things. So, really, it’s an analysis of outcomes. That’s the the approach that it takes. So these outcomes could be any number of things. They could be material things. They could be non material things. So we could talk about goods and services. Uh, we can talk about money. We could talk about time, information, love. All of these things could be some sort of outcome in this intergroup interaction. OK, so it’s an approach that assumes that human social behaviour can be best understood by analysing the good and bad outcomes people receive in their interactions with others and the processes that that involves and the motivations that people take in order to obtain those good and bad outcomes for themselves and for other people. OK, so it’s an analysis of outcomes at its core. OK, so this is just an example. So we can talk about two people and they’re interacting, and they both have a choice to make, and they both walk away with some sort of outcome. We could, uh we could just describe that that interaction and that’s when we we could do it or we could display it like this. So all this is doing is really displaying the different outcomes that could result. And so we’re just gonna keep it at this two by two level, and it’s in its simplest form. So, uh, and the numbers, they could be anything. Let’s just assume in this example uh, they represent money, cos that’s, uh, uh, easy to understand and so that the more we get at that is probably something we want. It’s a good thing. So it could be $4. $4 billion. It doesn’t really matter. It’s just it’s an amount of money. OK, so two people who have to choose between two options. So you in red can make two choices. You can choose a or you can choose B. OK, so those are the numbers in red. The other person, uh, in black also has two choices A and B. So if you were making a choice between receiving $4 and receiving $0 then you know it’s pretty straightforward. Chances are you’re gonna wanna walk away, uh, with with $4 but you don’t get to make that choice. And that’s not how how these work. You don’t get to choose, uh, between four different boxes. You don’t get to say, I wanna I want this box here. I want that top left box. You don’t get to choose that. You get to choose between one or two rows as your potential outcomes, either the top row or the bottom row. The other person. It’s the who’s between two columns, the Left Column or the right column. So if you choose a and the other person chooses B, then you get nothing. You both walk away with with nothing. Now the the you know, this is a really simple version of it, so it’s pretty obvious that OK, I, I wanna walk, walk walk away with, uh, with 4 $4. Chances are the other person does as well, so there’s a fairly good chance we’re both gonna choose a keep in mind. This is happening at the same time. OK, so it’s not that the other person goes first and then you decide happening at the same time. The chances are you’re both gonna wanna walk away with four, and and yeah, that’s the outcome. But the outcome that you get is a function of both of your choices. But this is a fairly simple one where unless someone’s being AAA complete jerk, you’re both gonna walk away with $4 probably. OK, so things can get a little more complicated. There are different versions based on how much control you have, I would say a positive or a negative outcome. So act to control in this, uh, in in active control, you have more of a say whether you personally are gonna walk away with a positive or a negative outcome. So if you’re in this situation, you can say right, what can we do for ourselves? Uh, to make sure we walk away with something positive? Well, if it’s a choice between A or B. If I choose a I get nothing. If I choose B, I get something and it doesn’t matter what the other person chooses. OK, so if I choose B, it doesn’t matter if they choose the right column or the left column. I’m still gonna walk away with something the same value. The other version of that is partner control. Whether uh so in this situation, really, No matter what we choose, our partner ultimately decides the outcome that we walk away with and we decide the outcome that they walk away with. OK, so I can, uh, choose column A. But whether I walk away with $3 or $0 is entirely dependent on the choice that the that my partner makes and vice versa. OK, so you have control over their outcome. Um, and all we’re gonna do here is combine these together. So we’re just adding these numbers together. And it’s here that we get into social dilemma territory A. You may have heard of this before, so it all depends in this situation on your motives and the motives of your of your partner of the other person. OK, so I mean, don’t get lost in, uh, the numbers again or how we got the numbers. We’re just adding those, uh, two, boxes, uh, to together to get those different, uh, numbers. OK, but you know, again, you’ve got two choices. Um, so the best single outcome for you is what What’s the most you can walk away with four. OK, so yeah, you might look at that and say, Alright, it’s I’ve I’ve got the chance of walking away with the most amount of money if I choose. OK, uh, but if I might look at that and say, Well, it’s kind of makes the most sense if we both pick a because that means, uh, collectively, we walk away with the most amount of money. So you might think, Alright, that that makes sense. But if you choose A if you choose to go down that path, you choose a the other person chooses B where they take that more selfish, uh, option. They walk away with $4 and you walk away with nothing. You might think Well, I, I don’t know if I if I wanna risk that, I don’t know if I can trust them. So you can say, Well, if I want to ensure I walk away with at least something, then you’ll choose B cos you might walk away with $4. And, uh, but at the very least, you’ll walk away with one you you walk away with with something. Um, So it’s a situation where the individually rational outcome the thing you can do to ensure you walk away with the most amount of money is collectively not rational. If you choose that individual outcome that serves you best Collectively, you’re screwing the group. Over. Where have you seen this before? Other forms of this. Any ideas? What are some examples of this in the real world? Yeah, I haven’t seen that. What? What happens? OK, ok, OK. All right. So yeah, same thing? Yep. Cool. I didn’t know there was a game show. Yeah, Cool. Yeah, Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So if if a, uh, country is focused on protecting themselves or ensuring you know, they are in the best possible pos, uh, position to deter others. They’re gonna want the most advanced weapons they can get. If everyone does that, then it’s this really complicated situation where shit could hit the fan quite quickly. What else? This is good. Mhm. Mhm. Exactly. Yeah, 100%. So, yeah, it may make the most sense for, uh, us as individuals. Or as we’re talking about, uh, single societies to burn as many, uh, fossil fuels as they can use as much energy as they can because it’s convenient. But if everyone does that, then collectively we’re screwed. Yeah. Now, the name of this is the tragedy of the Commons that you may have heard. OK, where you’re incentivized to choose an outcome that will be good for you on an individual level that will screw things for the group. OK, so, yeah, there are plenty of examples of these playing out in the real world. Uh, so shared and limited resources, anything. Anytime we’re talking about a shared and limited resource, um, then it gets into this territory. So, you know, we’ve got a limited amount of water. The best thing that I can do to ensure my own survival is to get as much of that as I can get. That’s gonna lead to the best outcome for me. But if we all do that as a society then we’re doomed. OK? Uh, yes, absolutely. Climate change. Uh, think about driving, uh, to to work or to uni in the morning. Ok, uh, for you, that might be the most convenient option. It might be cold or wet outside I. I mean, it was hot today. I moved away from Brisbane to leave that sort of weather, and yeah, it was It was It was miserable walking in, but I did, OK, but you you may decide I’m gonna drive in, but if everyone does that traffic is gonna be crap. There’s not gonna be enough parking spaces, and we’re gonna ruin the environment. Um, OK, so these are, uh so that that breakdown that we looked at, that’s a really simplified, abstract way of representing these kind of choices that can take these forms in the real world. And, you know, we’re just talking about a very simplified form where one person makes a a choice and the other person makes a choice. Uh, and you can see how that could get more complicated. You’re talking about multiple people, uh, or or, you know, multiple groups or more complex issues. But, uh, basically, this this idea is uh is it takes the perspective that to understand groups we need to understand, uh, them as constructed of independent individuals that make these sorts of choices. So when we, uh, play these games or in or in these situations, there are a number of different strategies that people can take. Um, so we could, uh, engage, uh, in an approach that’s like, I want the best for everyone. I wanna maximise the collective good and ensuring that everyone does well, uh, so that could involve helping. It could involve co-ordination, but it’s not necessarily those things. Uh, we can take a competitive approach where your behaviour is motivated by beating the other person but maximising your outcomes relative to what they get. So the only thing you’re really thinking about is I want to beat you. Doesn’t necessarily matter if I walk away with as much as I could have as long as I get more than you do. Um, or you can take a, uh, an individual focus and say I’m only concerned about my own welfare and is completely independent of your outcome. So if I walk away with the most amount of money in a situation and you do as well. That’s great. I don’t care. I’m only focused on myself and how much I can can, uh, walk away with. So there are other, uh, approaches people could take. Um, that don’t necessarily fall into these three categories. These are probably the most common, but I’m sure you could think of other, uh, motivations people could have. According to this theory, these are the three main ones, and it’s probably not a stretch to consider that there are a number of psychological and social factors that influence the different choices people make or the different motivations people have. So let’s just say we play a whole number of these games. So either it’s two people and they just keep on having a number of different trials over and over again. Or we’ve got a whole bunch of people that in pairs just play play at once. That means we’ve got all this information a lot more than we had just from one single trial. Um, so we can ask ourselves in a in a large group of people or over time how, uh to what extent are people going to want to work together or What? Uh, you know, what are the chances that they’re gonna, uh, take on that, uh, competitive mindset? So on the Y axis, we’ve got their mean levels of co-operation and on the X, we’ve got three different conditions. So if people are just playing for points, arbitrary points, then, uh, tendency to coperate is almost 50%. But if we give that something that they’re playing for that outcome, increases in value just become less abstract. We’re talking about a very, very small amount of money sense than people’s motivation to be competitive increases. People are more likely to be competitive in that situation if you increase the value of that amount. So this was obviously done in the States. We’re talking about pennies and dimes. Um, even if you just increase it a little bit again, people’s motivation to be competitive increases further. OK, so a different example. Um what happens when we’ve got different levels of communication? OK, so we can engage in different, uh, strategies based on the information we can convey. So the same thing on the the Y axis. Uh, if people are playing these games in isolation, they play nice about 40% of the time. So you’re just playing it in a room by yourself. You can’t see the other person. You’ve got no idea what they’re doing in these situations. Uh, according to this study, people, uh, wanted to work together about 40% of the time. If you increase their ability to connect with each other so they could see each other. So maybe they could, uh, share some form of communication. Just not verbal. Uh, the willingness, uh, to work together increased If they could talk to each other, it increased further. OK, so they couldn’t see each other, but, uh, they could talk. So maybe it’s easier in that situation to tell the other person what you’re intending on doing. Well, you know, I in this situation, I promise I’m gonna choose a Remember, this happens at the same time, but there’s still an element of trust involved. People could say they’re gonna do something, but they’re not actually follow through. And if they can see and hear each other, it’s at the highest level of tendency to work together. OK, so there are a range of of other social and psychological factors that influence the choices that we make and the motivations that we endorse. OK, how willing we are to work together with the other people, the other group and how motivated we are to maximise our own gains. Or maybe punish the other person. So, yeah, and other things like culture and group membership can absolutely have an influence. Uh, on this. So, uh, yeah, absolutely. Can influence the motivations choices that we make. Um, you’ll talk more about this in your first lab. OK, um and this is where the idea of interdependence and social identities start to merge and overlap. We’ll talk more about that. OK, any questions about social interdependence? Yeah. Um I mean, this is mostly social interdependence. It’s just, you know, expanding on a little bit talking about factors that influence it. Um, but we’re gonna talk about other work that really starts to blur different theories when other things become involved. OK, so it’s It’s a weird thing kind of merging, you know, the the these different, uh, processes and outcomes in the abstract versus in actual situations. But hopefully you can get a sense of how these could play out in real world situations. Yeah, OK, OK, we’re gonna take more of an intergroup focus now, Gonna talk about frustration. Aggression. So this is a theory that really, uh, attempted to explain, uh, conflict between groups. Why we so often see prejudice, uh, between groups. Um, so yeah, classic theory started in the thirties and forties, and the the the central proposition is that aggressive behaviour between individuals and groups is always the result of frustration and frustration always leads to some form of aggressive behaviour. And it’s cool. That’s what it argues. OK, so essentially, according to this theory, well, we all have goals that we want to achieve. There are things in life that we want and we may experience frustration if we don’t achieve those goals, if our pursuit of something is blocked, that’s gonna cause this build up of frustration. And we may wanna release that frustration and it may take the form of aggression, But those are actually responsible for us not reaching those goals. Maybe out of reach. OK, then, uh, we may live in a really hierarchical society and it might be more powerful groups or people that have stopped us from achieving our goals. OK, it may be that it’s AAA. It’s not really a person or a group. It’s a structure. The society is inherently unfair and that, you know, for whatever reason means goals. And I want to obtain, uh, a blot, and that’s that’s frustrating. But it’s hard to take out that frustration and aggression on a structure or a government. OK, it’s much easier to displace that aggression. And that’s the central idea, Uh, behind uh, this theory is that that aggression and frustration are placed on less powerful targets. So, uh, it’s called scapegoating. So essentially, this has nothing to do with the targets of prejudice, uh, themselves. OK, but what we’ve got in society are probably already vulnerable and marginalised. Groups that bear the brunt of this frustration and aggression and that takes the form of in group hostility and prejudice has to go somewhere. I can’t take it out on, uh, on more powerful forces or structural systems, so I’m gonna take it out on an easy target. That’s the general idea. So it’s very much an idea that it in in the in these situations people punch down, they don’t punch up. So it’s an interesting idea. Is there evidence for it? uh, So back in 1948 there was a a summer camp study that explored this, uh, kids were split in, uh, randomly into two groups. Uh, one of them was, uh, so randomly assigned to experience some sort of frustrating event. But I think they they were going out out. They were They thought they were going out on a particular night. Ah, but at the last minute, that was cancelled. And instead, they had to do some sort of test, a frustrating experience versus a control condition. So they measured, uh, attitudes towards minority groups before and after the frustrating experience or in the control group just at time, one and time two. And they found that those who, uh, experienced the frustrating, uh, activity or or event showed more negative attitudes towards minority groups after that frustrating experience. And there was no change for the control group. So they, uh, concluded this was, uh, evidence of of of this theory. So a displacement of aggression onto a minority group. But researchers didn’t find consistent patterns of results in the lab after that. So mixed results, uh, followed. Sometimes they found it. So sometimes being in this experiencing this frustrating, uh, situation led to some sort of, uh, prejudice and negative attitudes towards out group members. And sometimes it didn’t. There was no evidence of scapegoating. Uh, so, yeah, a bunch of of mixed results. Uh, in the 19 fifties, Uh, so this touches on the replication crisis. Who’s heard of the replication crisis? What is it? Yeah, Mhm. Yeah, AB, Absolutely. So, yeah. For a study for us to have faith in in a study for us to think that OK, this is actually a meaningful effect. We need to find it more than once. We can’t just find it in a a single, uh, setting or situation. Yeah. Yep. Absolutely. So, um, it initially hit about 10 years ago. Uh, and so, you know, the people started noticing that some really classic theories, uh, or effects in. So I mean, this wasn’t just tied to psychology, but it hit psychology particularly hard. And there are a number of classic theories. So basic assumptions about how people function and work and operate. And, uh, and basically, when people tried to replicate some of these effects, they didn’t hold up. OK, so that was a problem. It it kind of shook the foundations of Of what we’re doing here. Are we actually doing anything worthwhile or are we just, you know, playing with things in a lab that don’t actually replicate. So, yeah, it was called the replication crisis and really, at its core, What what happened? Uh, was is you know, you get these effects that you might find once and, you know, maybe you run five studies and you find the effect once or twice. But you publish those two studies and you ignore the three that didn’t work or, you might say, find a an effect in a particular setting. So, uh, a lot of of psych research is done, uh, from the from the States, Like, there’s a whole lot of universities in the states massive population a a huge number of published studies. And, you know, that’s part of the bias in, uh, in psych and in science. More broadly, uh, come from the the US with, uh, uh, people from the US. It’s studying the these effects on a particular culture, and normally, you know, just, uh, first year students in in the States, so there could be an effect that you find in a particular setting and you might say, Hey, this is how people, uh, behave we this is this is what people do And is it you have to test that in in broader context. You can’t just test it in one. Say, this is this is how people are. So I think you had a situation where maybe conducting studies, talk a bit more time and there was less transparency. So we had these classic effects that we realised may not be true. So this this really, uh, changed things, uh, for the field, it led to something called Open Science, which is a a really good thing, essentially just increased transparency. So before you conduct a study, you publish what you’re gonna do on the Internet, and you say this is what I’m gonna do. This is what I think will happen That that so it’s out there. You can’t change your mind. At that point, you can’t say, Oh, I found this effect. Uh, and I you know, that’s really always what I was what I was hoping to find. No. Cos you said you were gonna look for something else. So, uh, it means that your predictions, your methods are out there and you have to follow through with that. It also means you can’t hide studies in a drawer which I think you probably used to happen quite a bit. Now you didn’t find the effect. Oh, let’s just try again. Cos I’m I’m so confident that this is a thing. OK, there, mu. There must have been some reason why I didn’t find it. I’ll just run the study again. Oh, look, I found it this time. Great. And it also means that, uh, the data that we collect is normally published online too. So anyone can come along and say, Oh, let’s let’s run the analysis that you said you that you ran and and make sure that it’s all up to speed. So this is a This is a good thing. Um, and you know, part of the reason why a lot of these studies were maybe hidden away that didn’t work is because there’s a lot of pressure to publish, and there’s a lot of pressure to publish significant findings that doesn’t lead to good outcomes. That means people are motivated to be less transparent, So things have changed Um and this is this is a good thing. And you know, when you, uh if you go on to do research and honours or or elsewhere, chances are you know, you’ll follow these open science uh, practises. And that’s a That’s a positive thing, OK, limitations of frustration, aggression. So there are pretty obvious limitations to it. Um, the main one, I think, is that it’s difficult to predict who the target of that aggression will be. Uh, it it doesn’t really provide any explanation of who the the out group is gonna be. That’s gonna be the target of prejudice or aggression. So Miller argued that scapegoats tended to be not too similar, but not too dissimilar, which is incredibly vague. Uh, and you also don’t have to look too far to find examples of frustration that don’t lead to aggression or aggression. That, uh, isn’t the the result of some sort of frustration. So there’s certainly not this automatic link that was, uh, initially proposed. Those things don’t always go together, So it’s perhaps not surprising that, uh, there were mixed findings in the lab that followed. OK, let’s have a break. Uh, let’s come back at 10 a.m. Any questions? Come talk to me. OK, let’s jump back in. So we’re not done with, uh, frustration? Aggression as a concept just yet. So a few years later, Berkowitz, uh, refined the approach, so he he said, this is interesting, but there are some things we can do better, uh, this time, uh, he specified things a little more, uh, allowed for more concrete and targeted, uh, predictions. Uh, so first up, he refined the initial cause, arguing that, uh, frustration was a subjective experience, and that was really crucial. And it wasn’t, you know, necessarily caused by some sort of goal interference. Uh, so he concluded that the important thing was not actual deprivation, but the perception that one has been deprived. That was really, really crucial. So the perception that one is missing out or being taken advantage of or that they exist within some sort of unjust system. And to the extent that people perceive that, that’s their experience. That’s what’s important. Uh, second, he argued that the scapegoats are unlikely to just be completely chosen at random, which, of course, makes sense. Um, so it it he said that, uh, it’s likely that the scapegoat would have some sort of, uh, history, uh, with the group. So some, uh, history of conflict, Um, but not necessarily conflict. Uh, maybe they’re faced with some sort of competition over resources, maybe long-standing religious, uh, differences. They’re not saying that, you know, the the scapegoat had done something to warrant, uh, that sort of aggression. But just there was some history there that made it more likely for us to predict who it was going to be. And he also broadened the definition of an aversive experience. So really, anything that puts a collection of people on edge, right, So it’s not necessarily some sort of goal interference. Uh, it could be something, uh, like, uh, some sort of collective pain, some sort of extreme heat or cold overcrowding, something, uh, that puts people on edge. And that could potentially build up over time and lead to some form of, uh, aggression. So, uh, the approach definitely increased in popularity following the reformulation, and there was some additional evidence to to back it up. So yeah, a bunch of evidence essentially supported the idea that context is important. Um, and that frustration as a result of goal interference wasn’t necessarily the only, uh, cause. So a bunch of, uh, experimental studies. I supported the idea that subjective thoughts were really crucial. And the socio historical context involved, uh, was also important in driving the amount and the direction of that aggression. So that that you know, that that’s, uh, not unsurprising. Um, that that those things influenced the direction and the amount. Uh, and there was a bunch of field evidence, uh, so people noticed that riots were more likely to occur during, uh, warmer months. So the we can think of the, uh, riots in L A in the eighties of the London riots in 2011. Um, and that evidence can be quite appealing. We can say, Oh, look, you know, riots are more likely to to happen when it’s hot. Um, it’s, you know, it’s fun to find that sort of evidence, but, uh, that’s obviously not conclusive. There’s much more going on in those situations than just It was a hot day. And that’s why people hit the streets. Um, so yeah, still some limitations to frustra frustration and aggression theory. Um, first and foremost, it puts forward the idea that aggression is always irrational and spontaneous. Uh, and in some instances, that just may not be the case there, maybe long-standing reasons why people are frustrated. They may have been oppressed for a a long period of time. So the release of that frustration, or that the the build up of that frustration is easy to understand And the aggression, uh, is also, uh, in in that in certain situations, it might make sense. So think of the Ferguson, uh, riots in the states a few years ago. Uh, the black lives matter, movement and protests, uh, first nation deaths in custody protests. So these II, I don’t think many people would classify these as irrational responses. OK, people hit the streets and engaged in protest, and, uh, aggression spilled out for particular reasons. It wasn’t irrational, and it wasn’t necessarily spontaneous. It’s not the best explanation for collective behaviour. So it it does a pretty good job of explaining at the individual level why someone may feel a sense of frustration and then act out in an aggressive way. But it’s not as good as it’s not as good at explaining collective movements. Uh, it it doesn’t take into consideration social norms, so frustration and aggression are usually not socially acceptable. Maybe some situations. Some cultures where they’re more acceptable than others. Um, but yeah, we often don’t feel like we’re allowed to, uh, express them. So social norms are important in understanding how we channel that frustration and aggression. And this theory doesn’t take those norms into account whatsoever. Uh, and it shouldn’t just look at negative Integra behaviour. Aggressive Integra behaviour. Uh, it doesn’t really explain. Uh, when groups get together to work towards some sort of positive outcome, and it it doesn’t, uh, uh, trade in into that sort of territory whatsoever. It’s all about the negative Intergroup interactions. OK, questions about frustration, aggression. Mhm. Ah, it’s an expansion of it. Yeah, I it’s it’s the same general ideas. I mean, he may have considered a AAA separate theory. I’m not sure I wouldn’t Probably not very many. So, uh, I mean, this is another issue with the history of of the psychology. Uh, the vast majority of academics conducting studies would have been men would have been white men. Uh, and a lot of the participants were young men as well. Yeah, so yeah, Maybe that’s that’s part of the reason why effects were found. Maybe, uh, if it was just Y young men in certain situations, maybe some sort of aggressive outcome was was more likely. That’s possible. Do you buy it as an explanation for real world conflict? Yeah, and yeah, I mean, there’s there’s whole areas of psychology that that look at collective movements, collective action and and how that comes about. And yeah, this really doesn’t get into how that happens. It it Maybe that, you know, a bunch of, uh, people happen to feel this frustrating experience at the same time, and that led to some collective movement. But how? How does that happen? It doesn’t really get into that. So you may the maybe elements of the theory that you think that kind of makes sense. That’s quite intuitive. Uh, and there may be elements where you think, Well, that’s that. That’s a bit of a stretch, and that’s good. I want you to to think about that stuff, OK, I don’t care whether you love this theory or or hate this theory. It’s just all I want you to do is think about Does it actually make sense what elements make sense. And what do you think? Uh, is complete rubbish, OK, relative deprivation. Uh, it’s certainly related to frustra frustration. Uh, aggression. Uh, it’s really the the idea that interpersonal and intergroup aggression can often be explained by the, uh, the difference between what I have and what I think I’m entitled to. OK, so, uh, I might, uh, be working a particularly labour, uh, intensive job. And at the end of the week, I might walk away with a pretty lousy, uh, income. OK, so, you know, you’ve worked really hard. Uh, what you get in in return might be, uh, not what you think you’re entitled to Based on the effort that you put in, Uh, you might, uh, live in an unfair tax system. OK, where you, uh, are are putting in. Or maybe you don’t earn as much as as some other people. And you feel like too much of of, uh, what’s, uh, you you There’s too much of your money that’s being, uh, removed. So, essentially, I think I deserve more, and I’m not getting it. It could be, uh, services in a society that you’re entitled to. OK, maybe that you live in a society. Uh, that doesn’t have basic rights like healthcare. And you may think that’s something I’m entitled to. Why aren’t I getting that? That could, in this, uh, situation lead to that sense of loss. Uh, maybe, um, at at uni, you may work really hard and think that you, you know, should have got a particular grade. And maybe the grade you get is not as high as you thought. That’s frustrating. OK, so that that kind of idea so the outcome is is still the same According to this, uh, theory, aggression is then taken out on vulnerable groups. Uh, who once again, are a a scapegoat. That’s the most likely outcome. So one of the classic, uh, studies, uh, showing evidence for this apparently, uh, was published in 1940 by Hovland and Sears. Uh, I think I mentioned this last week. I’m I’m never gonna ask you to say, hey, what year was this paper published? Who were the authors of this paper? I. I don’t care if you recall who the the authors were or what year it was published. It’s not important. Um, So they, uh, reported a strong correlation between falling cotton prices in certain US states and the rise of lynchings of black Americans. So they argued, cotton prices dropped. Cotton farmers were not receiving, uh, the same amount of money that they thought they were entitled to. Or maybe they were used to, uh, and then that anger was then taken out on a vulnerable group. That’s the idea. So I think I intuitively it’s compelling. It’s, uh, horrifying. Um, potentially evidence of of this this relationship. But oh, and before I get to that, I just noticed this, Uh, this was, uh, attached to the paper, a note that said received at the editorial office on November 15th 1939 and published immediately. Uh, and I just thought that was cute. Um, like, did they not send it out for peer review? They were just like, this is amazing. We’re gonna publish it straight away. Um, I think it was a different, different time. Um, because yeah, I mean, yeah, when people used to send papers in to get published, they would mail it in, and that could take weeks and months to arrive. Uh, at you know, the journal or a particular editor, and then the editor will say, Alright, I’m gonna send this out to to, uh, people who I or three people who I want to review this so they would get paper versions and they’d send it out and then wait for them to write their responses. And this would just take a long time. I never experienced this just to be clear, but I know of people who who did This is the process, Uh, when they started out that they actually submitted papers for publication. Um, but yeah, at the same time, it’s it’s possible this was just received and they thought, This is great. Let’s publish it straight away. I’m not sure exactly what that means. Anyway, Um, so more recent, uh, analysis of this original data of or essentially the original idea really failed to provide robust evidence for this link. OK, so it turns out, potentially the, uh, original methodology was quite fishy. You know, this maybe a common theme that we’re hearing. So there were, uh, 20 examples of relative deprivation that they found in that original study. Uh, and only one instance was, uh, lower cotton prices actually tied to increased lynchings the one in 20 Uh, so a whole bunch of of times where this effect wasn’t actually there. So maybe that these other instances weren’t actually reported. No, I’m I’m I’m not sure. Um, but yeah. And and, you know, that’s as we spoke about before. That’s also a problem with, uh, when we get into the idea of replication and how robust findings are. If you run 10 studies and only find the infection one or two, then that’s not a very robust effect. Uh, so, yeah, they didn’t actually find this link in most of the years that the original paper looked at it. Um, also the original study, uh, so looked at this over 20 years, Uh, at a period ending in 1929. What else may have been going on at the time to influence things? Anybody. So this, uh, started in, uh, 19 09 a few years later, the first World War that’s gonna potentially influence the amount of resources that are available. Um, and, uh, and by the time of 1929 we’re talking about the great de Depression, which is gonna influence things as well. This is something that you should control for and they didn’t control for it. Right? So this is important to note broader context. Because these things, uh I mean, when you examine these things in a in A lab, a very controlled setting, that’s a really good thing. But for the most part, because it means you can really isolate effects that you wanna, uh, you wanna look at. But then, you know, there maybe other things that impact this in the real world. And it’s important to take those things into consideration or acknowledge when other things might be going on. But maybe explain your effects. Um, so, yeah, as with many theories, the evidence is not always really there to back it up. Um, of course, sometimes they did. They did find the evidence in 1965. Uh, there was a measure of relative deprivation that was, it was put together. So essentially, it was the extent to which people valued their past, present and future life compared to their ideal life. OK, so, essentially, to what extent does your current life past life, future life match up with what you really want it to be, Uh, And using this, they found uh, cross cultural evidence of a link between, uh, relative deprivation and civil unrest in 13 countries. That’s obviously a very good thing I spoke about before. You don’t just want to find an effect in one particular, uh, cultural context. If we’re saying this is something that applies to human beings more broadly, you want to test it in M in multiple cultures. So you wanna conduct a CR A cross cultural study? Ideally, uh, so that’s, you know, that’s always more solid evidence for a particular claim. Uh, and they found some evidence for it. Uh, looking at the the black power movement in the 19 sixties and seventies, there was definitely some evidence for it. Uh, a strength of relative deprivation is that the theory, uh, describes the existence of, uh, being deprived or perceived, uh, feeling of of deprivation at both the individual and the group level. So egoistic relative deprivation refers to a sense that you have less than you are entitled to, uh, relative to what, uh, your own aspirations might be or to what other people around you might have. And there’s also fraternal or collective relative deprivation. So the sense that your group has less that it’s entitled to relative to what other groups have. So this was a a AAA real strength. It’s been really considered. Do I, as an individual feel like I’m missing out and I don’t really have what I I I’m entitled to And collectively do I feel like my group is missing out relative to what other groups have. So it included both of these levels and research. Uh, then showed that these were important, uh, things to look at and important things to consider separately. So this is data from 1972 a survey of 1000 white voters in the US. Uh, and they essentially were in different conditions based on, uh, what they reported. Uh uh, it’s in terms of how they felt in terms of Yes. I’m very satisfied with my life. Yes. On an individual level, I feel like I’ve been deprived, uh, or I feel deprived on a collective group level, or I feel, uh, deprived of both the individual and collective level. Uh, so they measured, uh, prejudice. So this was 1972 to give you an example of what? The kind of things they asked, Uh, they asked, Would you object if a family member would want to bring a black friend home for dinner? Or would you mind if a black family with about the same income and education would move in next door? OK, in 1972. Um, and they found, uh, that, uh, really, uh, prejudice was most intense when people felt on an individual and a collective level that they were being deprived. And they also found that this sense of collective this group based sense of we’re missing out was much more important than just on that individual level. So that’s that effect of being in in a group. And collectively, we are being oppressed. We’re missing out. That was really powerful, but it got even more powerful. It was, damn it. I’m being oppressed. Uh, I’m missing out, uh, myself and my group is as well. If those two perceptions went together, it led to the most prejudice. Uh, so this sense of deprivation, um, it has also been associated with other consequences. So this is correlational evidence, uh, from Canada back in the 19 eighties. Uh, so they found that, uh, the collective sense of deprivation relative to uh, the individual level was a much stronger predictor of the drive, uh, for Quebec to separate from Canada. So in increased, uh, nationalism in this in this sample? Um, so, uh, I I can’t remember. I imagine the, uh, individual level. It still would have predicted it may have still predicted. Uh, but the collective level was a much stronger predictor and looked at the at them simultaneously. And I imagine, uh I don’t know if there’s any research on this, but you might find similar things in Scotland. If you know, uh, talked about Scottish nationalism and the, uh, extent to which people wanted to, uh, wanted Scotland to move away from the UK. You’d probably see similar things. Uh, this is from an Australian study in the 19 eighties that looked at deprivation among sacked workers. So if, uh, this sense of deprivation just occurred on an individual level, this was associated with some pretty negative outcomes. So higher stress people were more stressed, more depressed. But if this sense of loss was shared at the collective level, the sense that no, collectively we have have been deprived. We have been screwed over. This led to collective action. So this sense to come together to actually do something about it, Uh, so you can argue that that was potentially a positive outcome. If it was just felt, uh, at the individual level, that, uh, was associated with some pretty clearly negative outcomes at the collective level, this could be a positive thing. Historically, though, that’s not usually how it goes that maybe an example of a positive, uh, consequence of perceived collective deprivation. Yeah, unfortunately, we’ve got plenty of examples throughout history of of it, leading to very negative outcomes. So examples of collective deprivation being used to really justify the inhumane treatment of of our groups and often done for political gain. Uh, so following the first World War, um, and the great, uh, depression, The German economy was in absolute ruin. It was really fertile ground for for Hitler to rise to power. Uh, using a minority group as a scapegoat, which he he did quite effectively. Uh, we saw similar things, uh, in in terms of the treatment the violent treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. We saw this, uh, with Trump in 2016. We saw it with Trump in 2020 no doubt we’ll see it again with Trump in 2024 the various vulnerable groups really made the scapegoat for economic struggles that were happening at the time. Um, and even when faced with a collective threat, like, uh, COVID-19, uh, there’s a lot of research that that showed, unfortunately, a great deal of racism towards vulnerable groups, minority groups, particularly Asian Australians. Uh, for example, um, any others? Any other examples of this you can think of historically? I mean, these are the the bo that came to mind, uh, for me, uh, initially, um, but it’s a really common tactic. Um, especially in certain, uh, areas of the political sphere. Uh, when times are tough, you target a specific art group, and that, uh, unfortunately, historically is very effective. OK, so limitations of relative, uh, deprivation theory. So it it at times you could see it might be a a pretty useful theoretical framework. It, uh, it kind of makes sense in certain situations. There is, uh, some, uh, support for it, uh, for sure, but it still has its limitations. Um, So how do we really explain real world examples of when the exact opposite thing plays out to what this theory would predict. Uh, so when groups of people So this is, uh, uh, an example, Um from I think it’s over 10 years ago. Now, uh, so in, uh, Greece at the time, facing substantial hardships over a long period of time. Uh, and there was a lot of kindness and compassion being shown to vulnerable groups. So refugees that needed assistance at the time, large numbers of refugees that as a as a society, Greece decided that they would help that this this case of substantial hardships. And still we saw the opposite of what relative, uh, deprivation, uh, would predict. And of course, so often we see examples of prejudice towards vulnerable groups among people who aren’t deprived at all. Now we like we did talk about perceived sense of, of, of, of loss, of missing out. It’s possible. Even really wealthy people at times feel like they’re being deprived. But it’s probably less likely among people who are quite wealthy that they will have this perception that they don’t have what they think they’re entitled to. It’s probably more common among people who are not as wealthy. So this is data uh, from Switzerland from about 10 years ago showing, uh that some of the wealthiest areas of the country, uh, were the least supportive of voting for more open immigration policies and that there was a fairly nice linear relationship there. OK, questions about relative deprivation. Why might we We see this this sort of effect. They’ve got people who are actually quite wealthy. They don’t face the same threats as as as, uh, some certain people in society, and yet they still show this out. Group hostility. Yeah, right. Sure. So, I mean, the there’s a pie, and I’ve got certain access to the pie at the at the moment. I don’t wanna lose any of that. So the the perception that this is a a zero sum game Yeah, Yeah. Did you have a Yeah. To stay on top? Yeah. So this, uh, very much touches on this, uh, a concept called fear of falling where, yes, people could be, uh, quite well off. They could have a certain position. Um, but that Yeah, there’s the fear that they may lose that privilege status in society. And we’ll talk a bit more about that in the coming weeks. any other ideas? Does this make sense to people as in as an explanation for conflict? Yeah, Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there are other, uh, potential explanations, so yeah, wealth, uh, is likely to increase as people age. Um, so, yeah, among the wealthier elements of society, chances are if we looked at the average age relative, the rest of the the population, it’s gonna be higher. But yeah, there could be potentially other reasons. Maybe people haven’t interacted with our groups as much. But we also know that, you know, when we’re looking at the relationship, uh, between prejudice and age, that’s positive. And that’s a That’s a fairly robust finding that we’re talking about older generations more likely to have prejudice attitudes towards various out groups. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So not all reactions, uh, to, you know, when experiencing frustration, acting out in an aggressive way, they are not always the same. Uh uh. I mean, and obviously this is, uh, probably a subjective judgement, but there could be instances where you can say that’s justified. And in other situations, you might say that’s ridiculous. So absolutely not. All reactions are the same, and it doesn’t really get into those. Those differences, OK, realistic conflict. We’re getting close to the end. Who remembers realistic conflict? Yeah. Bastia! The boys camp? Yeah. Was it covered in second year? But you are sick of realistic conflict. I’ll go through it pretty quickly. I’m sure a lot of you have heard of it before. Uh, so, essentially, Sharif, Uh, I, I think at the time I think it was the fifties. Maybe, uh, essentially, uh, he he said that the situation is crucial. We can’t examine these things without considering the situation that people find themselves in. He said intergroup aggression is caused primarily by competition for scarce resources. You put people in the situation where they have to compete for things that they want and those resources are limited and groups other groups. The presence of other groups is perceived to be extremely threatening and prejudice and injury conflict will result. Now, just to be clear when I say other groups are threatening, I’m saying the perception that other groups are threatening, not that that’s a legitimate threat. OK, but just the perception that other groups are threatening, so yeah, the boys camp, uh, studies. Um, so about 70 years ago, it was a a few of them that they did. Um, yeah. So, essentially, from this perspective, stereotypes and prejudice have the origins and relationships between groups. The idea that that kids would arrive at camp and start doing camping, things that kids do at camp, and then they’re separated into two competing groups. And essentially, what the researchers wanted to know was, once they’re in the situation of two groups competing, how long would it take for things to get nasty for the the kids to turn on each other and to get really aggressive? So, yeah, phase one was just normal camp, uh, activities. And, uh, initial friendships were formed. Kids may have already come in with, uh, friendships that they that they had prior to camp, and then they were split into these two competing tribes, and that was a A across those friendship lines that had been formed the third phase. Uh, they were, uh, asked to engage in a series of competitive activities. Uh, for a really valued prize. I think it was most commonly a pocket knife, uh, that they really wanted, uh, at the time, Uh, and they found that groups really quickly became aggressive. They really quickly showed intolerance towards the other group prejudice towards the other group. Uh, one year it got so out of hand and dangerous that they had to call it off, uh, and send the boys home. Um, and then phase four was really about OK, how do we resolve this? How do we get this conflict? Uh, to to reduce. And for them to play nice with each other again. They tried quite a few things. Uh, a lot of shared experiences, like a movie night. Or they would have their meals together, uh, or they would light some fireworks, you know, some positive shared experiences. And none of them worked. They, uh most of the time they actually backfired, and it just increased the extent to which the groups, uh, were engaged in conflict. So the only thing that worked was when they had to work together towards some S sort of super ordinate task. OK, so there’s some sort of collective goal that they had to the two groups had to work together to achieve. If they didn’t, they weren’t going to achieve the goal. So there was a a food truck that broke down and both groups had to get involved to to push it to to camp or something like that. Uh, and then they got food. There’s something that they they actually wanted. If they worked together to achieve it, that helped to reduce tensions and only that sort of activity. Um, but when they had to name, uh, their friends at the end of of camp, 90% of the names that, uh, the kids said, were the friendships that formed after they had split into groups and started competing. So not the original friendships that they formed when they first came to camp, not friendships that they had prior to camp. It was the friendships that formed when they were competing with each other. That’s what that’s what really mattered. So, you know, you could argue that this experience had AAA lasting impact. So it was from these set of studies that realistic, uh, group conflict theory emerged so that the the studies came first and they used the theory to really explain what was happening. So group conflicts, negative stereotypes, prejudice, hate all that stuff emerge in response to competition valuable and scarce resources. So when you have mutually exclusive goals that’s gonna create this. This tension and the only way to overcome it was to work together. What a super ordinate task. Um, now, of course, there are some limitations to this approach as well. Uh, mainly it kind of lacks of analy an analysis of the psychological processes involved. It was very descriptive rather than explanatory. We, you know, we put people in this situation, and this is what happens. And it was a very fairly reliable effect. Um, but it doesn’t really go into detail about what’s going on in people’s heads. What are the psychological mechanisms involved here when they first arrive at camp? What’s going on when they’re then split into groups? What’s going on there? What? Actually, what what what actually changes in terms of their processes, Their thinking and their attitudes doesn’t really get into that. But it certainly did highlight the importance of belonging within a particular group identifying with a particular group. So to read very much your attention, uh, to that, to to the point at the end of the the study. As I said when they worked together to achieve that super ordinate goal, tensions reduced Still, the boys identified their friendships that emerged in competition as the most important. Those are the ones they valued the most. Uh, so this sense of belonging within a particular group, I’m in this group. You’re in that one. The sense of us versus them that emerged Sharif and others since have argued, is absolutely crucial in explaining intergroup interactions and intergroup conflict. Uh, so yeah, when confronted with an external threat all faced with, you know, the opportunity to work towards some super ordinate task to achieve something, we want, uh, this that can create a sense of weakness. Yeah, it can be a positive thing. So this sense of us versus them can reduce, and this sense of we can can emerge. I promise. I’ll stop saying we, um though, but often what we know is that the underlying group memberships and identities and rivalries remain under the surface, even though we can get positive outcomes when faced with these sorts of external threats or opportunities for collective gain, these original subgroup identities, uh, still remain there under the surface. Uh, and this is when the sense, uh, we we start getting into the concept of social identity theory and and that really emerged A at this point, um, this was really the launching pattern. We’ll talk about that, uh, next week, uh, before that just to loop things back to the work on social interdependence. So, as I said, we know that, like social and psychological factors can influence the choices people make and the motivations they that they have. You know the extent to which they want to be competitive or they wanna work together. Uh, so we call these cognitive transformations, these can lead to different outcomes and motivations. And, uh, what, uh, research found is that creating a sense of in group versus out group identity can change the way we interact with people and people that were initially, uh, strangers. You put that frame of in group or out group that I immediately changes how people interact and behave. So they found, uh, in these in these studies, when they introduced, uh, in group versus out group, Uh uh, components. Then things immediately changed. People were much more likely to want to work together with members of their in group. Even if those groups were just formed on the spot. They are much more likely to want to be competitive when it was in an intergroup situation. Uh, so, yeah, you’ll you’ll talk about this, uh, in your labs and Yeah, this is where, uh, social it interdependence and social identity really start to to merge and blur. And yeah, we’ll talk about that next week. Um, here are some revision questions for you, so I’ll do this at the end of each lecture. The the point of these is to really get you thinking, uh, in in a particular way about the content. OK, so the these aren’t, you know, multiple choice, uh, necessarily, uh, questions or questions that would have multiple choice answers, but really designed to To get you thinking about the content in a critical way. So I’ll put these at the end of each, uh, lecture. Hopefully, you find them useful. Uh, there are some, uh, readings. Uh, so, uh, I, um the the readings went up quite late this week. I’m sorry about that. Sometimes I don’t decide on which readings I’m gonna put up until after I’ve actually finalised the lecture content, But I’ll I’ll try to get them up a bit earlier. So those are the three for this week. Uh so next week, as I said, we’ll get into social identity and yeah, alright, Have fun in your labs. Hope they go. Well, if you’ve got any questions, come talk to me and I’ll see you next week.