Module 9 - Intergroup Behaviour - Combined Powerpoint PDF

Introduction to Intergroup Behaviour & Theoretical Explanations 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  INTERGROUP BEHAVIOUR Any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by the individual’s awareness of, and identification with, different social groups INTERGROUP BEHAVIO...

Introduction to Intergroup Behaviour & Theoretical Explanations 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  INTERGROUP BEHAVIOUR Any perception, cognition, or behaviour that is influenced by the individual’s awareness of, and identification with, different social groups INTERGROUP BEHAVIOUR: THEORIES Relative deprivation Realistic conflict Social identity approach (mini-lecture 9.2a)  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Frustration-aggression hypothesis o Original theory (Dollard, 1939) proposed that: All frustration leads to aggression All aggression is caused by frustration Is this true? “Frustration is neither necessary nor sufficient for aggression”  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Frustration-aggression hypothesis o Reformulated theory (Berkowitz, 1983) Arousal + Aversive negative Fight or flight stimulus emotion (e.g., (e.g., (e.g., fear, frustration, aggression) anger) and pain, heat) cognitions  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Frustration-aggression hypothesis o Reformulated theory (Berkowitz, 1983) Frustration generates aggressive inclinations only to the extent that it produces negative affect Aversive events other than frustration can lead to aggression Likelihood of frustration-induced aggression increases with the presence of situational cues to aggression - E.g., weapons effect – situational cues (e.g., a weapon) that have been associated with aggression in the past might make aggression more likely  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Relative deprivation o The perception that you (or your group) has less than you ought to when compared to similar others (or groups) Involves a comparison Perceive self (or group) at a disadvantage Disadvantage is perceived as unfair o Precondition for intergroup aggression o Research has found relative deprivation can predict support for, and involvement in, aggressive behaviours at the individual and collective levels (Smith et al., 2012)  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Relative deprivation Egoistic relative Fraternalistic deprivation relative Comparison to other deprivation individuals Comparison to other groups  RELATIVE DEPRIVATION Relative deprivation o To understand the link between fraternalistic relative deprivation and competitive intergroup behaviour/social protest, also need to consider: Comparison group – Perception of i.e., injustice - Who is the out-group? distributive and/or procedural Level of identification Practicality and with the group feasibility of collective action  REALISTIC CONFLICT Sherif o Origins of ethnocentrism lie in the nature of intergroup relations Competition over scarce resources Intergroup conflict & ethnocentrism  REALISTIC CONFLICT Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment (1949, 1953, 1954) Phase 1: Free friendship formation Phase 2: Division Emergence of ethnocentrism, but not conflict Phase 3: Competition Intergroup hostility & aggression Phase 4: Integration/superordinate goals Reduction in intergroup hostility  REALISTIC CONFLICT Realistic conflict theory (Sherif, 1966) o Explains intergroup behaviour in terms of the nature of the goal relations between groups Shared goals Mutually exclusive goals Interpersonal Interpersonal Interpersonal relations cooperation a competition a Group Interpersonal formation/solidarit conflict, reduced y solidarity Intergroup Intergroup Intergroup relations cooperation a competition a Intergroup Intergroup harmony conflict, ethnocentrism  REALISTIC CONFLICT Research evidence that competition over scarce resources is linked to intergroup conflict BUT Is intergroup competition necessary? Theoretical Explanations Cont.: Social Identity 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  SOCIAL IDENTITY Minimal group paradigm (Tajfel & colleagues) o Participants: Males aged approximately 14-15 years o Procedure: Told they were assigned to a group based on painting preference (Klee or Kandinsky) – actual random assignment Asked to distribute coins, but not to self Minimal Anonymity of No interaction No future for knowledge group between group the group about group membership members outside the members experiment  SOCIAL IDENTITY Minimal group paradigm (Tajfel & colleagues) 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 Own 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Other o Results: Distributed to benefit own group 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Own 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 Other o Results: Distributed to maximise difference between groups (in favour of own group), at the expense of the overall total for own group  SOCIAL IDENTITY Minimal group paradigm (Tajfel & colleagues) o Why? Self-interest? No Knowledge? No Proximity? No Shared future? No Identification? Yes  SOCIAL IDENTITY Social Identity Self- Theory (SIT; Tajfel, Categorisation 1972; Tajfel & Turner, 1979) Theory (SCT; Turner, 1985) Focus on inter-group Focus on how behaviour individuals are able to act as a group at all Make up the social identity approach  Categorisation SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY: Comparison KEY CONCEPTS Positive social identity  SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY When interacting with others, we tend to see them (and ourselves) as members of particular social categories, or groups Social categorisation: the process of automatically classifying people into categories that we know something about o E.g., based on ethnicity, gender, age, occupation, etc  SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Remember social identity theory’s conception of self from Week 3! Sel f Person Identities al Social Frien Uni Labor Son Introve Englis Identifications of X d of rt Etc h stude support Etc Y nt er Aggravates mother at dinner time, Likes: pubs, always warm beer, unemotion Self-descriptions wants to ality, the borrow the car, baby- Royal sits for family younger brother  SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY As a result of categorisation, we tend to make social comparisons o Comparison of our group (the in-group) to another group our groups (the out-group) Motivation to achieve and maintain a positive social identity means that this comparison process is competitive o A positive social identity is achieved by evaluating the in-group as positively distinct from relevant out-groups  Self-categorisation SELF- CATEGORISATION THEORY: Meta-contrast principle KEY CONCEPTS Depersonalisation  SELF-CATEGORISATION THEORY Self-categorisation: Individuals cognitively group themselves with similar others and contrast this against groups from which they differ  SELF-CATEGORISATION THEORY Categorisation is based on the relative differences within and between groups – i.e., the meta-contrast principle o We categorise people in such a way that: Intra-group (i.e., within group) differences are minimised Inter-group (i.e., between group) differences are maximised  SELF-CATEGORISATION THEORY Categorisation is based on the relative differences within and between groups – i.e., the meta-contrast principle o The prototype (or prototypical position) within a group is the person who best represents this principle – i.e.,: Possess the “typical” characteristics of the group That distinguish the group from other groups o The prototypical position is context-dependent  SELF-CATEGORISATION THEORY What would be the characteristics of a prototypical counselling/psychology student versus an engineering student?  SELF-CATEGORISATION THEORY Once individuals have self-categorised, depersonalisation occurs o Process of self-stereotyping – individuals view their beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, etc, as reflecting those typical of the ingroup o Individual is interchangeable with other members of their group  SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH Social identity processes motivated by: o Self-enhancement Motivation to achieve and maintain a positive social identity o Uncertainty reduction People want to avoid subjective uncertainty about important matters  SOCIAL IDENTITY APPROACH Intergroup behaviour o Group members can employ a range of strategies Individual mobility: change group membership Social creativity: change the elements of the comparative situation Social competition: change the relative status of the groups  SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY Belief System Type of Strategy Specific Tactics to Improve Social Identity Social mobility Society is flexible Attempts to pass and permeable Individual mobility from a lower - to a If not satisfied, higher-status group possible to change groups Comparing the in- group to the out- group on a new dimension Changing the values No cognitive Social creativity assigned to the alternatives attributes of the group Social change Society is not Changing the out- flexible and group to which the permeable in-group is If not satisfied, compared impossible/difficult to change groups Political Cognitive Social competition lobbying, alternatives terrorism, revolution, war, etc Social Identity & Culture 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  SOCIAL IDENTITY: CULTURE Self-categorisation is a general process that can help us to understand cultural similarities/differences Application of group “standards” (or Self-categorisation as norms) regarding a group member beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour  SOCIAL IDENTITY: CULTURE Individualist Collectivist Inter-group comparison Intra-group relationship orientation orientation Real-life groups - ingroup bias is Real-life groups - ingroup bias is less greater Groups based on an arbitrary Groups based on an arbitrary category - ingroup bias is greater category - ingroup bias is less Poor in-group performance - Poor in-group performance - more likely to result in more likely to result in out-group dissociation from the in-group derogation  SOCIAL IDENTITY: CULTURE Bi-cultural identity o Experiencing two cultures simultaneously – integration of the values, traditional systems, and behaviours of: Heritage culture (e.g., Chinese, Greek) AND The dominant national culture (e.g., Australian)  SOCIAL IDENTITY: CULTURE Bi-cultural identity o Biculturalism often conceptualised using the acculturation orientation model (Berry, 1997, 2006) Identification with heritage culture High Low High Integration Assimilation Identification with national culture Low Separation Marginalisation  Participants: o 159 studies examining the association between biculturalism and adjustment SOCIAL IDENTITY: Results: CULTURE o Biculturalism was positively associated with: NGUYEN, A-M. & BENET- MARTINEZ. (2013). Psychological adjustment (e.g., high self-esteem, BICULTURALISM AND low anxiety) ADJUSTMENT: A META- ANALYSIS. JOURNAL OF Sociocultural adjustment (e.g., good academic CROSS-CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY, 44, 122-159. performance, few behavioural problems) o Biculturalism-adjustment association stronger than dominant orientation- adjustment or heritage orientation- adjustment association Collective Behaviour 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR The behaviour of people en masse (e.g., in a crowd, protest, or riot)  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR Theoretical explanations o LeBon’s theory Collective behaviour as pathological o De-individuation Collective behaviour as a loss of socialised individual identity o Emergent norm theory Collective behaviour as conformity to norms that emerge from within the crowd o Social identity approach Collective behaviour as an inter-group phenomenon  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR Le Bon’s theory (1896, 1908) Invincibility Anonymity Irresponsibili ty + + Violent, antisocial, Rapid and uncivilised, Contagion (of unpredictabl instinctive ideas) e shifts in behaviour behaviour + + Primitive and Suggestibilit savage y instincts emerge Process Phenomenolog Behaviour  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR De-individuation o People lose their sense of socialised individual identity and engage in unsocialised behaviour o Factors that contribute de-individuation: Group presence Anonymity Autonomic arousal Diffusion of personal responsibility or consequences Reduction in self-awareness  Participants: o 1352 children trick-or-treating at 27 homes COLLECTIVE in the US BEHAVIOUR: DE- Procedure: INDIVIDUATION o In doorway, table with two bowls Bite-sized candy bars DIENER, E., FRASER, S. C., BEAMAN, A. L., & KELEM, R. Money bowl filled with small coins T. (1976). EFFECTS OF DEINDIVIDUATION VARIABLES o Children told they could take one candy bar ON STEALING AMONG o Conditions HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR- TREATERS. JOURNAL OF Group versus alone PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 33(2), 178-183. Anonymous versus non-anonymous o DV: percent of children that transgressed by taking more than one candy bar, money, or both  Results: COLLECTIVE Alone Group BEHAVIOUR: DE- Anonymous 21.4% 57.2% INDIVIDUATION Non- 7.5% 20.8% anonymous DIENER, E., FRASER, S. C., o More transgressions when in group BEAMAN, A. L., & KELEM, R. T. (1976). EFFECTS OF versus alone DEINDIVIDUATION VARIABLES ON STEALING AMONG o More transgressions when anonymous HALLOWEEN TRICK-OR- versus non-anonymous TREATERS. JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL o The combination of being anonymous in a PSYCHOLOGY, 33(2), 178-183. group produced the most transgressions  Participants: o 1003 US adults who had committed at least COLLECTIVE one act of cyberbullying on social media in BEHAVIOUR: DE- the past year INDIVIDUATION LOWRY, P. B., ZHANG, J., WANG, C., & SIPONEN, M. Procedure: (2016). WHY DO ADULTS ENGAGE IN CYBERBULLYING ON SOCIAL MEDIA? o Self-report survey assessing: INFORMATION SYSTEMS Cyberbullying anonymity RESEARCH, 27(4), 962-986. Cyberbullying frequency A range of other cyberbullying-related variables (e.g., perceived costs, justifications, situational morality)  Results: COLLECTIVE Greater anonymity BEHAVIOUR: DE- INDIVIDUATION LOWRY, P. B., ZHANG, J., WANG, C., & SIPONEN, M. Cyberbullying-related variables (2016). WHY DO ADULTS – e.g., decreased costs, more ENGAGE IN CYBERBULLYING ON SOCIAL MEDIA? justification, less situational INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 27(4), 962-986. morality More frequent cyberbullying COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR De-individuation o Not all studies of de-individuation reveal increases in antisocial/aggressive behaviour E.g., nurses uniforms reduced aggression o Do norms have a role to play?  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR Emergent norm theory (Turner & Killian, 1957) o Crowds have no established norm to regulate behaviour, but rather norms emerge from within the crowd  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR Emergent norm theory (Turner & Killian, 1957) Is this true? Ad hoc collection of individuals; No pre- existent norms Distinctive behaviour perceived as implicit norm Normative influence, creating pressure against non-conformity Inaction interpreted as confirmation of norm; Pressure against non-conformity increases Collective behaviour  COLLECTIVE BEHAVIOUR Social identity approach o Social identity model of de- individuation phenomena (SIDE) (Reicher et al., 1995) o Crowd events often involve intergroup relations o Crowds involve a shift to social identity Self-categorisation produces conformity to context-specific norms of conduct COLLECTIVE Participants: BEHAVIOUR: o 1179 US adults who were members of an SOCIAL online fitness group IDENTITY CHAN, T. K. H., CHEUNG, C. Procedure: M. K., CHEUNG, I. B., XIAO, B., LEE, Z W Y. (2022) o Hypothetical vignette - cyberbullying of a BYSTANDERS JOIN IN new member of the online fitness group CYBERBULLYING ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES. o Self-report survey INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. ADVANCE Anonymity in fitness group ONLINE PUBLICATION Social identification with fitness group Joining in of cyberbullying  Results: COLLECTIVE o Greater anonymity a greater likelihood of BEHAVIOUR: joining in the cyberbullying SOCIAL o Greater social identification a greater IDENTITY likelihood of joining in the cyberbullying CHAN, T. K. H., CHEUNG, C. M. K., CHEUNG, I. B., XIAO, B., LEE, Z W Y. (2022) BYSTANDERS JOIN IN CYBERBULLYING ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES. INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH. ADVANCE ONLINE PUBLICATION Improving Intergroup Relations 2008PSY SOCIAL & CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) From: Paolini et al. (2021). Intergroup contact research in the 21 st century: Lessons learned and forward progress if we remain open. Journal of Social Issues, 77, 11-37. IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o Assumes hostility is fed by unfamiliarity and separation o Bringing members of opposing groups together = improved inter- group relations IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o Optimal conditions: Equal status Shared/mutual goals Inter-group cooperation/interdependence Social & institutional support (norms supportive of equality) “Friendship potential” – repeated informal, interpersonal contact  Participants: IMPROVING o Meta-analysis of 515 studies (N = 250,089; 38 countries INTERGROUP RELATIONS: Results: CONTACT o Inter-group contact typically reduces prejudice (mean r = -.21) PETTIGREW, T. F., & TROPP, o Effects generalise beyond ethnicity (e.g., to L. R. (2006). A META- sexuality, disability) ANALYTIC TEST OF INTERGROUP CONTACT o Appears to be universal – across nations, THEORY. INTERPERSONAL genders, and age groups RELATIONS AND GROUP PROCESSES, 90, 751-783. o Optimal conditions facilitate the effect, but are not necessary conditions o Intergroup friendship is especially important IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o How does it work? Increasing Reducing Increasing knowledge intergroup empathy and about the anxiety perspective outgroup taking IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o Challenges for intragroup contact Contact needs to be positive Shared/superordinate goals - Need to be achieved - If not achieved, outgroup needs to not be blamed for failure Generalisation  CONTACT: GENERALISATION Decategorisation Common ingroup Mutual differentiation (Brewer & Miller, 1984) identity model model (Gaertner & Dovido, 2000) (Hewstone & Brown, 1986) In- Out- In- Out- In- Out- group group group group group group Positive interdependence  CONTACT: GENERALISATION Temporal model (Pettigrew, 1998) Phase 1: Decategorisation (i.e., minimise category salience) Phase 2: Mutual differentiation (i.e., subgroup categories made salience) Phase 3: Development of common ingroup identity  CONTACT: GENERALISATION Integrative theory (Brown & Hewstone, 2005) o Salience of group membership alongside activities that promote interpersonal closeness o Ensuring each group has something valuable to contribute to a common cause Interpersonal Intergroup Common group IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o Challenges for intragroup contact Contact needs to be positive Shared/superordinate goals - Need to be achieved - If not achieved, outgroup needs to not be blamed for failure Generalisation No opportunities for contact  CONTACT: OPPORTUNITIES Many forms of indirect contact Extended Imagined contact contact Knowing about Mental simulation ingroup members of a positive who have outgroup interaction with friends Parasocial outgroup member contact Exposure to the Vicarious outgroup via the E-contact contact media Cooperative online Observing an interaction (e.g., interaction between text-based chat ingroup/outgroup room) members (e.g., via IMPROVING INTERGROUP RELATIONS Intergroup contact - aka the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954) o Challenges for intragroup contact Contact needs to be positive Shared/superordinate goals - Need to be achieved - If not achieved, outgroup needs to not be blamed for failure Generalisation No opportunities for contact Social change/systemic issues  CONTACT: SOCIAL CHANGE Integrating contact-collective action (ICCA) model (Hässler et al., 2021) o Framework for understanding when intergroup contact might increase (or decrease) support for social change o Differentiates paths for disadvantaged and advantaged group members o Contact interventions should: Build a climate of trust Address both commonalities and existing inequalities simultaneously