PSYC3002 Lecture 4: Social Identity Change PDF

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 4: Social Identity Change Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] Class Representative Evie McEachern (e-mail: [email protected]) Information can also be found on the PSYC3002 Wattle Page If you have any issues...

The Social Psychology of Group Processes & Social Change PSYC3002 Lecture 4: Social Identity Change Dr Charlie Crimston [email protected] Class Representative Evie McEachern (e-mail: [email protected]) Information can also be found on the PSYC3002 Wattle Page If you have any issues or what to communicate any feedback about the course, please get in touch with Evie ☺ 2 THE STORY SO FAR… ▪ What exactly is a group? ▪ Intergroup & intragroup theories ▪ Social identity & self- categorization theories (aka, the social identity approach) TODAY… ▪ Considering the superordinate category ▪ Common ingroup identity ▪ Ingroup projection ▪ Distinctiveness threat ▪ Assimilation vs. multiculturalism ▪ Why do we need to get this right? DEBATING THE SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY ▪ o Making salient a common ingroup identity based upon a superordinate group can reduce in-group favouritism and prejudice. This in-group favouritism reduction is most likely when sub-group identities continue to be recognized and valued instead of ignored. COMMON IN-GROUP IDENTITY MODEL The CIIM proposes that by emphasizing a shared collective identity among members of different subgroups can lead to more positive intergroup relations. Again, some experimental evidence for this in minimal group settings. Stage 1 (form two groups) Two ad hoc groups of 3 people were formed in the laboratory. Each group was given a name and asked to perform the winter survival task. X X X Y Y Y GAERTNER ET AL., 1989, 1990 Stage 2 (experimental manipulation) retain two group categorization (control) X X Y X Y Y OR make everyone feel like one new group (common ingroup condition) Z Z Z Z Z Z Participants then were asked to rate how much they liked the other 5 people in the session. RESULTS ▪ Found more harmonious relations in the superordinate condition than the control condition. ▪ Conclusion? ▪ That the aim of intergroup contact should be to try to eclipse or ignore the (sub)group boundaries (whether they be boundaries based on race, gender, organizational identity etc). DEBATING THE SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY ▪ The pursuit of the reduction of ingroup favouritism through emphasis on the superordinate category relies on the assumption of a shared (subgroup) intergroup understanding of that superordinate category. ▪ Sub-group disagreement over the meaning of the superordinate category = unlikely to lead to the reduction of in-group favouritism. DEBATING THE SUPERORDINATE CATEGORY o If members of one group think that their sub-group best represents the overall superordinate category, then this may maintain sub-group in-group favouritism. Blue countries represent the locations of 93% of studies published in Psychological Science in 2017. Dark blue is the U.S., blue is Anglophone colonies with a European descent majority, light blue is Western Europe. Regions sized by population (Hruschka, 2018) INGROUP PROJECTION ▪ European Australians & European New Zealanders o o Response latency measured to association between nationality and: o European Australians / New Zealanders vs. o First Nation Australians / Maori. Implicit Associates Test (IAT) INGROUP PROJECTION ▪ European Australians & European New Zealanders o European Australians had a relatively strong association between “Australia” and white faces as opposed to Indigenous faces. o However, this effect did not occur at all among New Zealanders. o European New Zealanders did not differ in their association of white and Maori faces to the category “New Zealand”. INGROUP PROJECTION o Maori symbols, culture, and language are much more prominent in New Zealand life than First Nations symbols, cultures and languages are in Australian life. o This is likely to have led the European New Zealanders not to display in-group projection. INGROUP PROJECTION: IN HIRING ▪ University students (Australia) o Independent variable o ANU better than University of Sydney in theory (via mock magazine article) o ANU better than University of Sydney in methods INGROUP PROJECTION: IN HIRING ▪ University students (Australia) o Measure sub-group social identification. o Measure importance of university (sub-group) qualities to profession (superordinate group). o “Do you think methodological skills [theoretical knowledge] are rather unimportant or rather important for psychologists employed in the business area?” o Judge two ANU job candidates who varied on the different dimensions o Who should have the job? Importance of Theory relative to Methods 1.5 In-group good at Theory In-group good at Methods 1 INGROUP PROJECTION: IN HIRING 0.5 0 -0.5 -1 -1.5 Low Sub-Group Identifiers High Sub-Group Identifiers INGROUP PROJECTION: PREJUDICE ▪ School children (Germany) o Ratings of typicality of sub-group in-group (native Germans), sub-group out-group (immigrants), to superordinate group (Germans) o Outcome measures = blatant prejudice, intergroup anxiety, emotions CONSEQUENCES OF INGROUP PROJECTION: PREJUDICE o Degree of sub-group in-group projection significantly predicted: o Blatant prejudice o o Intergroup anxiety o o “Germans and immigrants will never be really comfortable with each other even if they are close friends.” “If you were the only German and you were working with some immigrants, how would you feel?” nervous, comfortable, anxious, awkward etc. Emotions o “In general, what are your feelings towards immigrants?” angry, irritated, annoyed, admiring (reverse scored) INGROUP PROJECTION: CONSENSUS ▪ West and East Germans in unified Germany ▪ In unified Germany, former West Germans: o comprise 75% of the population; o are richer and hold higher status. ▪ Unification was seen more as assimilation of East Germany into West Germany. ▪ Participants given list of attributes to describe sub-group in-group, sub-group out-group and superordinate group. DISSIMILARITY of Sub-Group In-Group to Superordinate Group INGROUP PROJECTION: CONSENSUS 5 West Germans like Germans East Germans like Germans 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 West Germans East Germans INGROUP PROJECTION: CONSENSUS ▪ West and East Germans in unified Germany o Both West and East Germans saw the superordinate group to be more like West Germans than East Germans, but this difference was larger for West Germans. o The general consensus around the social reality tempered the magnitude of in-group projection among East Germans. CAN WE LIMIT INGROUP PROJECTION? o Prejudice may be reduced if people are first provided with a particular image of the superordinate group. CAN WE LIMIT INGROUP PROJECTION? ▪ Two experiments with German students, and Poles as out-group and Europeans as superordinate group. Study 1 o o High vs. low in-group consensus about the nature of the superordinate group. Study 2 o o Simple vs. complex (e.g., diversity) view of the superordinate group. CAN WE LIMIT INGROUP PROJECTION? ▪ Two experiments with German students, and Poles as out-group and Europeans as superordinate group. In-group projection effectively disappeared when: o o there was initially low consensus over the nature of the superordinate group, and o the superordinate group was first portrayed as relatively complex. INGROUP PROJECTION CONCLUSIONS ▪ ▪ Although superordinate categorization may lead to prejudice reduction, it can also have the opposite effect if: o sub-groups differ in their views of the superordinate category, and/or o the nature of the superordinate category is not made clear In-group projection is not automatic, but is affected by social reality and in-group identification (among other things). OTHER SUPERORDINATE ISSUES: DISTINCTIVENESS THREAT Could people react negatively to the blurring of group boundaries that sometimes happens when you impose superordinate groups? According to social identity theory, group members strive to feel distinct from relevant out-groups. This leads to the bold (and rather counter-intuitive) prediction that intergroup biases will increase the more similar the in-group and the out-group become. EVIDENCE FOR DISTINCTIVENESS THREAT … 3 Roccas and Schwartz (1993) made school students feel as though their school was either moderately similar, highly similar, or very highly similar to another school. They found that the amount of in-group bias increased as perceived similarity increased. 2.5 2 ingroup 1.5 bias 1 0.5 0 -0.5 v. high similarity high similarity moderately high similarity ASSIMILATION The CIIM is essentially the social psychological analogue of the political model of assimilation. Underlying philosophies of assimilation ▪ By getting people to focus entirely on their shared superordinate membership, subgroup identities will “melt away” ▪ Ethnic identification is an immature stage of a nation’s development which needs to be overcome ▪ cultural differences create the potential for hostility: i.e., homogenization = harmony Billy Snedden – Minister for Immigration, 1969 “We must have a single culture. If immigration implied multi-culture activities within Australian society, then it was not the type Australia wanted. I am quite determined we should have a monoculture.” MELTING-POT ASSIMILATION Assumption that assimilation will happen naturally through extensive intergroup contact. Eventually old identities will fuse together into a new homogeneous identity e.g., American, Australian “Into the melting pot with you all - God is creating the American!” (Zangwill, 1909) MINORITY GROUP ASSIMILATION Assumption that minority groups (e.g., immigrants, indigenous people) should assimilate to the dominant culture. Assimilation should be encouraged by training or schooling minority ethnic groups to let go of their old identities. “One Nation understands the desire for migrants to maintain their culture in Australia. But the desire Australians have to maintain their culture, history and traditions must take precedence” - One Nation policy on immigration, 1998 1ST CONFERENCE OF STATE AND TERRITORY ABORGINAL PROTECTORS (1937) 1st resolution: “This conference believes that the destiny of the natives of aboriginal origin … lies in their ultimate absorption by the people of the Commonwealth and it recommends that all efforts be directed toward this end.” VOICES FROM THE “STOLEN GENERATION” “y’know, I can remember we used to speak lingo. [In the home] they used to tell us not to talk that language, that it’s the devil’s language. And they’d wash our mouths with soap. We sorta had to sit down with Bible language all the time. So it sorta wiped out all the language that we knew” - South Australian woman taken from her parents with her 3 sisters when the family came into town to collect stores “Aboriginal customs like initiation were not allowed. We could not leave Cherbourg to go to Aboriginal traditional festivals. We could have a corroboree if the Protector issues a permit. I never had a chance to learn about my traditional and customary way of life.” - Queensland woman removed in 1940s “I was definitely not told that I was Aboriginal. What the Sisters told us was that we had to be white. It was drummed into our heads that we were white. It didn’t matter what shade you were. We thought we were white. They said you can’t talk to them coloured people because you’re white. - NSW man removed from home as infant in 1940s VOICES FROM THE “STOLEN GENERATION” “My mum had written letters to us that were never forwarded to us. Early when we were taken she used to go into the State Children’s Department in Townsville with cards and things like that. They were never forwarded on to us.” - Queensland woman removed and fostered at 6 years of age in 1950s “I grew up sadly not knowing one Aboriginal person and the view that was given to me was one of fear towards (my) people. I was told not to have anything to do with them as they were dirty, lived in shabby conditions and, of course, drank to excess. Not once was I told that I was of Aboriginal descent..” - South Australian woman removed at 18 months of age in 1960s “All the teachings that we received from our (foster) family when we were little, that black people were bad … I wanted my skin to be white” - Victorian woman fostered at 10 years of age in 1960s VOICES FROM THE “STOLEN GENERATION” “When I was 14 years old and going to these foster people, I remember the welfare officer sitting down and they were having a cup of tea and talking about how they were hoping our race would die out. And that was fair enough, I was a half-caste and I would automatically live with a white person and get married. Because the system would make sure that no-one would marry an Aborigine person anyhow. And then my children would automatically be fairer, quarter-caste, and then the next generation would be white and we would be bred out. I remember thinking ‘That’s a good idea, because all the Aborigines are poor’.” NSW woman removed as a baby in 1940s PROBLEMS WITH ASSIMILATION ▪ Unrealistic to expect people to let go of their group memberships. ▪ Groups with low status or power risk being appropriated and extinguished. ▪ Forced assimilation can be psychologically painful for members of minority groups … risk that distinctiveness threat will create reactive intergroup bias (Hornsey & Hogg, 2000). PROBLEMS WITH ASSIMILATION ▪ Chandler and Lalonde, 1998 ▪ Highly variable rates of youth suicide among British Columbia’s First Nations: more than half of the province’s bands reported no youth suicides during the 6-year period (1987-1992) covered by this study, while more than 90% of the suicides occurred in less than 10% of the bands. ▪ Suicide rates were related to six markers of “cultural continuity” – community-level variables meant to document the extent to which each of the province’s almost 200 Aboriginal “bands” had taken steps to preserve their cultural past and to secure future control of their civic lives. PROBLEMS WITH ASSIMILATION ▪ Chandler and Lalonde, 1998 ▪ Every community characterized by all six of these protective factors experienced no youth suicides during the 6-year reporting period, whereas those bands in which none of these factors were present suffered suicide rates more than 10 times the national average. MODELS OF CONTACT: THE DUAL IDENTITY MODEL In response, a variant of the common in-group identity model emerged which argues that it’s important to make people aware of what they share at the superordinate level, but people should be allowed to maintain their original subgroup identities as well (the dual identity model). This model is anticipated to minimize distinctiveness threat among subgroup members MULTICULTURALISM (essentially the political analogue of the dual identity model) MULTICULTURALISM ▪ Psychological assumptions: ethnic identity is fundamental to self-concept: “Man is a thinking and sensitive being: severing him from his roots could destroy an aspect of his personality and deprive society of some of the values he can bring to it” (Government of Canada, 1969) ▪ security of identity is a precondition for tolerance – attempts to eclipse valued identities will result in more aggressive intergroup behaviour ▪ difference is not inconsistent with unity (“Unity in diversity”, “Celebration of difference”) ▪ MULTICULTURALISM ▪ “National unity, if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one’s own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. Canadian identity will not be undermined by multiculturalism. Indeed, we believe that cultural pluralism is the very essence of Canadian identity” - Government of Canada, 1971 “A cohesive and united society, not a divided multicultural society, is what is needed” One Nation, 1998 “we have a disease; we vaccinate ourselves against it. Islam is a disease; we need to vaccinate ourselves against that” Pauline Hanson, 2017 DANGEROUS IDEAS DANGEROUS IDEAS DANGEROUS IDEAS ▪ Q1. From a prejudice perspective, why might we want to promote the idea of a superordinate identity? ▪ Q2. How can ingroup projection lead to prejudice and conflict? REVISION QUESTIONS ▪ Q3. Can we limit ingroup projection? ▪ Q4. How can the promotion of a superordinate identity backfire? ▪ Q5. What is distinctiveness threat? ▪ Q6. What is the difference between assimilation and multiculturalism? ▪ Q7. What is the dual identity model trying to achieve? 59 SOME READINGS ▪ Bell, A. C., Eccleston, C. P., Bradberry, L. A., Kidd.,W. C., Mesick, C. C., & Rutchick, A. M., (2022). Ingroup projection in American politics: An obstacle to bipartisanship. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13, 906-915. ▪ Hornsey, M. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subgroup relations: A comparison of mutual intergroup differentiation and common ingroup identity models of prejudice reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 242-256. ▪ Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Funke, F., Brown, R., Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Leyens, J.-P., Demoulin, S., & Maquil, A. (2010). We all live in Germany but…Ingroup projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 985-997. ▪ Wang, Z., Jetten, J., Steffens, N. K., Álvarez, B., Bentley, S. V., Salvador Casara, B. G., Crimston, C. R., Ionescu, O., Krug, H., Selvanathan, H. P., Tanjitpiyanond, P., Wibisono, S., Chen, S., Wang, J., Zhang, X., & Sun, S. (2023). A world together: Global citizen identification as a basis for prosociality in the face of COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 26(1), 71–95. 60 NEXT WEEK: INGROUP BIASES & MISINFORMATION