P&SP Week 8 2024 (Student) PDF

Identifier first line Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 8 Intergroup Processes Said Shafa  General overview perceptio Social  Lecture 8. Intergroup processes Individu n Group...

Identifier first line Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 8 Intergroup Processes Said Shafa  General overview perceptio Social  Lecture 8. Intergroup processes Individu n Group al s Individual Outgro as group up member  Lecture 9. Intragroup processes Individu influenc Social e al Group #21749 15 2  Overview and objectives What is a group? Categorization processes and the creation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ Stereotypes Social Identity Theory and ingroup favouritism From categorization to conflict (‘us’ vs ‘them’) Reducing prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict 3  Group  Social group: Definition: two or more people who share some common characteristic (or goal) that is socially meaningful to themselves or for others  Each of us belongs to a number of different social groups Groups differ in many aspects: – Size – Composition – Homogeneity – Rate of interaction, etc.  What are implications of group membership for the nature 4 and quality of interactions between members of different Setting the cognitive stage: social categorisatio n  Social categorisation  Humans categorise (grouping objects with shared characteristics) for efficient processing  Social categorisation Process of classifying and perceiving people as members of social groups/categories rather than as unique individuals Based on shared group characteristics  This process can be quite efficient and automatic Especially for accessible features such as age, gender, ‘race’ 6 But also status, occupation, sexual orientation and  Self-categorisation  Self-categorisation: Process of seeing oneself as member of a group rather than individual In extreme form: de-individuation  This is more likely when: Accessibility: When we experience direct reminders of group membership – Wearing a University of Melbourne hoody Salience: In the presence of outgroup members – When in the presence of people who don’t belong to our groups Intergroup conflict: When we experience rivalry between groups 7 –  Consequences of social and self categorisation Self-categorisation Me We/Us Interperson Intergroup al Social You categorisation Them 8  Consequences for perceptions of inter and intra-group structure  Category differentiation model (Doise, 1978): Intergroup differentiation Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups) 9  Consequences for perceptions of inter and intra-group structure  Category differentiation model (Doise, 1978): Intergroup differentiation Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups)  ‘Group-ness’ is amplified 10  Outgroup homogeneity  Cross-race identification bias (‘other race’ effect) 70 Platz & Hosch (1988) 60 – Texas convenience % of clerks who correctly identified customers store clerks 50 – Identification of 40 Anglo-American customer customers 30 African-American customer – Increased accuracy for Mexican-American 20 own ingroup vs customer outgroups 10 0 1 2 3 11  Implications of Other-Race Bias  Meta-analytical review (Meissner, & Brigham, 2001) of 74 ORB studies found participants' accuracy of recognising own race relative to other race: – Hits (correctly identifying target): gU =.24; 1.4 times more likely – False alarms (wrongfully identifying target): gU = -.39; 1.56 times more likely – Independent of racial views – Minimally correlated with contact (more contact associated with less ORB) 12  Key take-away  Categorisation: Basic human tendency to classify stimuli into categories (to process information more efficiently and with less effort)  Social categorization: classifying people into groups  Self categorization: classifying one-self into a group  Resulting in “us and them” instead of “me and you”. – Intergroup differentiation – Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups) 13  Other Race Bias: Tendency to distinguish and recognise  Stereotypes  Cognitive consequences of social categorization Stereotype: – Cognitive representation of impressions/expectancies about a social group (probable behaviors, traits, features) – Knowledge of a range of characteristics associated with a group Stereotyping: – Process of viewing an individual in light of a stereotype (applying stereotype about group to all its members)  Stereotype Content Model Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002) More or less universal principles of societal stereotypes about persons/groups. Warmth: How friendly, trustworthy, and well-intended a person/group is perceived to be. Competence: How skilled, capable, and intelligent a person/group is perceived to be. Stereotype content also affects our affective response towards target.  Cultural differences  Structure of stereotype content model established across nations and cultures (individualistic and collectivistic).  Collectivistic cultures tend to not locate reference group in the HC/HW quadrant (Cuddy, et al., 2009).  Because they temper overtly positive evaluations of in- group/reference groups, in line 16 with East Asian norms around  Why we stereotypes?  Need for control – In response to unfamiliarity, initial knowledge considered prototypical – Illusory correlations – Correspondence biases  Need for connectedness – Perceived norms of stereotyping – Socialisation of stereotypical information  Need to value me and mine 17 – Justifying inequalities for self-defensive purposes and to  Stereotyping in pursuit of control  Initial knowledge viewed as prototypical  Illusory correlation Illusory correlation – Perceived association between We know about Ivy League college dropouts Bill Gates and variables which does not exist. Mark Zuckerberg (rare group) – E.g., proportion of group member starting billion-dollar businesses (rare event). We erroneously (low for certain groups like assume these two observations minorities) and prevalence of are related to each other. occurrences (low for rare or Meanwhile, there are many extreme events). more college dropouts we have never heard from, because – When a minority group member dropping out of college is by no does something rare or extreme it means a recipe for business stands out and draws attention. success. 18  Correspondence biases  Stereotyping in pursuit of connectedness  Perceived norms of stereotyping – Embedded in social norms – Passed on and internalised from early age (Crandal & Strangor 2005)  Socialisation strengthens stereotypical information (Thompons, Judd, & Park, 2000) – Learning stereotypical knowledge indirectly – Communicating about stereotypical information 19  Stereotyping in pursuit of valuing me and mine  Justifying inequalities for self-defensive purposes and to maintain status quo – Admitting that the world is unjust can be threatening to self. – Compensatory response of viewing status quo as right and inevitable (just world fallacy; Lerner, 1980) in response to symbolic ego-threat. – Stereotyping is motivated perception to view people as deserving of outcomes they receive in life (system justification; for a review see Van der Toorn & Jost, 2014). – E.g., benevolent sexism (stereotypical views of women as pure, delicate, and in need of care by men) stronger in contexts with high gender inequality (Fiske, et al. 2000). – Common among both high and low status group because 20 protective function of stereotypes can serve both group’s  Activation of stereotypes  Stereotypes can be automatically activated Even the mere presence of a social category cue (e.g., category label, salient category feature) can be enough to activate (make accessible) a range of stereotype content  Implicit Associations Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) Implicit measure of associations between social categories and other concepts – IAT has also been used to measure attitudes (e.g., prejudice and self-esteem) Caree r Man 21  Implicit Associations Test (IAT)  Response-time paradigm Patterns of RTs tell us something about associations between underlying mental representations (here stereotypes)  Categorization task During the task, targets (often words) are placed into categories by pressing one of two response keys Arrangement of categories on screen makes sections of the task more or less difficult Comparing RTs on different sections of the task gives an indication of stereotypes 22  IAT and stereotypes Did you find it easier to respond to the first or second set of pairings? The more closely linked in the mind two concepts are (e.g., man and career), the faster a person will respond when these concepts share a response key (i.e. when categories are on the same side of screen) By measuring the difference in response time between these pairings, one can get a sense of whether, relatively speaking, ‘man’ is more closely linked with ‘family’ vs ‘career,’ than is ‘woman’ (implicit association) 23  IAT Visit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html Race IAT Sexuality IAT Gender-Career IAT Asian IAT 24  Stereotypes  Stereotypes can bias judgments about individuals Change the way that ambiguous behavior is interpreted  Duncan (1976) White American participants witness an ambiguous shove (unclear whether it is aggressive or playful) between confederates of different social categories 25  Stereotypes Stereotype of group to 80% 75% which shover belonged 70% influenced interpretation 60% 50% 42% 40% 30% Aggression was (and 20% 17% perhaps still is) part of 10% the African American 6% stereotype; here it 0% African American pushes White pushes African shapes interpretation of White American the ambiguous shove Violent Playful 26  Stereotypes: spill over into prejudice and discrimination Stereotype: generalised cognitive representations of groups which people form by associating individual members with certain characteristics (beliefs). Prejudice: (positive or) negative evaluations of a social group or its member based on their group membership (attitudes). Discrimination: (positive or) negative behaviour directed toward a social group or its members based on their group membership. 27  Key take-away  Stereotype: Cognitive representation of impressions/expectancies about a social group  Stereotype Content Model: Stereotypes organise around central dimensions of Warmth and Competence.  We stereotype for a range a reasons: – Control: filling wholes in knowledge gap – Belonging: strengthened by socialisation and communication process – Valuing me and mine: for self-protection and status maintenance  Stereotypes shape our judgments about people  Might spill over into – Attitude: Prejudice 28 – Behaviour: Discrimination Time for a short break! 29 Ingroup favouritism 30  Ingroup favouritism  When we perceive people in terms of their group membership Ingroups: groups to which we belong Outgroups: groups to which we don’t belong  We tend to have more favourable attitudes and behaviours towards ingroups than towards outgroups  Ingroup favouritism, ingroup bias, intergroup bias, intergroup discrimination Preference (in attitudes or behaviours) for ingroups over outgroups  Why? 31  Social Identity Theory (SIT)  Why does this happen?  Our selves are composed of personal and group-related (social) aspects/identities  People prefer to have a positive self-concept (valuing me and mine) Positive self-esteem  We are motivated to increase the positivity of our own groups relative to outgroups Thus, ingroup favouritism  Value ‘mine’ (my group) as a way of valuing ‘me’ Self Person Social 32 al  The minimal conditions of us and them thinking Ingroup favouritism occurs under minimal conditions Tajfel et al (1971) – Klee or Kandinsky – Point allocation task – Ingroup favoritism Mere categorisation (based on minimal group conditions) elicited ingroup favoritism 33 From categorization to conflict  Escalation  Categorization lays the groundwork  Other factors escalate to ‘us’ and ‘them’ framing into conflict Competition Threat  Competition  Realistic Conflict Theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972): intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scarce (and thus 40 valued) material resources 35 Intergroup bias (relative liking of 30 ingroup vs outgroup)  Taylor & Moriarty (1987) 25 Two dyads 20 Ingroup Outgroup Problem solving for reward 15 Interdependent vs. competitive 10 with other dyad 5 Other dyad was either same race 0 1 2 (ingroup) or other race (outgroup) 36  Intergroup Threat Integrated Threat Theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1985) Realistic threat: threats to the material well-being of the ingroup, such as their economic benefits, political power, and health Symbolic threat: threats to the ingroup’s system of values Intergroup anxiety: feelings of anxiety people experience during intergroup interactions associated with negative outcomes for the self (embarrassed, rejected, ridiculed) 37  Riek et al (2006)  Meta analysis Aggregated across 95 studies Realistic, symbolic and anxiety positively associated with negative outgroup attitudes 38  Key take-away  Social Identity Theory People have a personal and a shared (social) identity People are motivated to value ingroup over outgroup to enhance social identity This serves to protect and bolster self-esteem and meaning in life  Minimal group paradigm: social categorisation is minimal condition for ingroup favouritism  Intergroup conflict ignited by Realistic Conflict Theory: competition over scares resources Integrated Threat Theory: Different kinds of intergroup threat – Realistic threat 39 – Symbolic threat Reducing prejudice and discrimination  Methods of prejudice reduction  Contact Extended contact Imagined contact  Shared goals (positive interdependence)  Changing categorisation 41  Contact under optimal conditions  The more contact one has with an outgroup, the less prejudice one expresses  Established in labs and field research  Contact is most effective when: equal status, authority sanctioned, absence of competition and… (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006)  How? (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) Knowledge Anxiety* Empathy/perspective taking* 42  Extended contact  Extended contact: knowledge that other ingroup members have outgroup friends can reduce intergroup bias  Wright et al. (1997)  Phase 1: two groups formed (on the basis of “personality”) and labeled blue or green Phase 2: one participant from each group (both actually confederates) chosen to interact – Conditions: Hostile vs Neutral vs Friendly Phase 3: ingroup and outgroup 43 evaluations  Empathy and perspective taking  Outgroup empathy and perspective taking 55 Putting oneself ‘in another’s shoes’ 50 emotionally (empathy) or cognitively (perspective taking) decrease 45 ingroup favoritism 40 Ingroup 35 Galinsky & Moskowitz (2000) Outgroup – Formed groups based on minimal30 group paradigm 25 – Overestimators vs underestimators 20 control perspective taking – Control vs Imagined contact (perspective taking) 44  Taking the perspective of an  Shared goals: The Robber’s Cave (Sherif et al., 1961)  Summer camp 80  Two groups: Eagles and 70 % of outgroup members viewed Rattlers 60  Tournament (i.e., competition) 50 unfavourably Intergroup conflict 40 Eagles 30 Rattlers 20  But then, cooperative 10 interaction 0 Superordinate goals: shared 1 2 goals that can be achieved only if groups work together  Just like contact, many conditions need to be met 45 Valued common goal, equal  Changing categorization  Change the cognitive representation of outgroup members so it is no longer simply us vs. them WE Re-categorization – “Us” and “them” become The super-ordinate “we” Us m – Reduces outgroup bias towards former outgroup (now ingroup) I U U U U U U U De-categorization – All become separate 46 individuals  De-categorisation and re-categorisation  Participants initially form two separate 3 person groups (A and B) and interact within- group. Come up with group names, do tasks.  Next, come together to do a task  Manipulation: Control: retain original two group structure and identity (AAA BBB) De-categorization: separate individuals, with nicknames Gaertner et al., (1989) 47 (XXXXXX)  Key take-away Methods of prejudice reduction  Contact Reducing anxiety and increasing empathy/perspective taking  Creating shared goals: Positive interdependence  Changing categorisation De-categorisation: separate individuals Re-categorisation: overarching category 48  What’s next Week 9  Lecture: Intragroup processes Smith et al. (2015) Chapter 11  Tutorial classes – Debate 1: Self – Debate 2: Prejudice Good luck! 49