P&SP Week 8 Student Notes PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by WonderfulComprehension
The University of Melbourne
Said Shafa
Tags
Summary
This document is a presentation on personality and social psychology for week 8 of a course at The University of Melbourne. It covers intragroup and intergroup processes, including group formation, socialization, and how groups impact individuals. It includes examples such as social facilitation, social loafing, and deindividuation.
Full Transcript
Identifier first line •Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 8 Intragroup and Intergroup Processes Said Shafa Exam • Digital in‐person exam • Closed‐book Canvas Quiz (70 MCQs) • Students need to bring their own device, install Respondus Lock Down browser. • Or register to borr...
Identifier first line •Second line Personality & Social Psychology Week 8 Intragroup and Intergroup Processes Said Shafa Exam • Digital in‐person exam • Closed‐book Canvas Quiz (70 MCQs) • Students need to bring their own device, install Respondus Lock Down browser. • Or register to borrow a fleet device. • Technical support will be available. • More information and practice exam closer to date. 2 General overview Lecture 8a. Intragroup processes Lecture 8b. Intergroup processes influence Individual perception Social Group Individual Social Group Individual as group member Outgroup #2174915 3 Intragroup processes Part 8a Overview and objectives What is a group? Group formation and socialisation Effects of group on individual behaviour 5 What is a group? 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 groups • Groups differ in many aspects: size, composition, homogeneity, rate of interaction, interdependence, etc. • Interdependence: the extent to which each group member’s thoughts, feelings and actions impact the others’ – Task interdependence: Reliant on each other for mastery of material rewards through performance of collective tasks – Social interdependence: Reliant on each other for feelings of connectedness, respect, and acceptance 7 Types of groups Primary or intimacy groups • Family, circle of close friends • Most concern for social interdependence – But can solve problems and tasks together Secondary or task groups • Work teams, committees • Most concern for task interdependence – But social interdependence can influence performance 8 Group formation and socialisation Group formation process Typical (not invariable) stages of efforts to coordinate task and social interdependence Tuckman (1965) • Forming • Storming • Norming • Performing • Adjourning Storming Norming Forming Performing Adjourning 10 Forming • Individuals come together to form a group • Members try to understand the nature of interdependence, group structure (e.g., hierarchy) and group’s goals • Often facilitated by group organiser who can articulate the above 11 Storming Once nominally formed, negotiation occurs around roles and responsibilities This can involve conflict (‘storm’) • Task conflict – different views on content, structure and goals • Relationship conflict – clashing personalities • Process conflict – different views on strategies and tactics Conflict can impact later performance and commitment (de Wit et al., 2012) • Relationship and process conflict decrease performance • Task conflict can increase performance if managed well 12 Norming Once (if) conflict decreases, group norms emerge • Norm: general tendencies of expected behaviour within groups This stage is characterized by consensus, harmony, stability, commitment and cohesion and the development of a group‐related social identity • Disagreements are resolved into consensual norms • Members feel sense of trust and liking • Commitment to group is high 13 Performing Members cooperate to solve problems, make decisions, or produce outputs • Exchange of information • Productive resolution of disagreements • Continued commitment to group goals 14 Adjourning Dissolution of group • Group has fulfilled purpose or was set to end at a particular time • Often marked by period of evaluating work, sharing feelings about group • Dissolution of group can be stressful if commitment made it important identity for members 15 Team performance Development and performance 16 Group socialization: joining preexisting groups What if the group already exists? Group socialization: cognitive, affective and behavioural changes that occur as individuals join and leave groups Moreland and Levine (1988) • Mutual processes – Investigation: potential member seeks information about group; group seeks information about potential member – Socialization: group tries to mold the individual into one of them – a ‘team player’; member acquires and internalizes group knowledge, adopts norms, becomes committed, form identity – Maintenance: now a fully committed member, the individual takes on a specific role within the group 17 Key take-away Group: people who share meaningful characteristic or goal – Primary or intimacy groups: social interdependence – Secondary or task groups: task interdependence Group formation: Forming > Storming > Norming > Performing > Adjourning Group socialization: Investigation > Socialization > Maintenance 18 Effects of the group on the individual Social facilitation Social loafing Deindividuation Social facilitation Social facilitation: increase in the likelihood of highly accessible responses (and decrease in likelihood of less accessible responses), due to the presence of others Triplett (1898) • Presence of other improved task performance Does the presence of others always help? Can it hurt performance? 20 It depends on the task Markus (1978) • Familiar task: putting on and taking off one’s own shoes • Unfamiliar task: dressing and undressing in new, unfamiliar items of clothing • Alone vs. mere presence (present) vs. attentive audience (watched) • How quickly is task performed? • Mere presence and being watched improves performance of familiar actions, but impairs performance of unfamiliar actions 21 Arousal and facilitation of the ‘dominant response’ The presence of others can increase arousal • Evaluation apprehension • Distraction Increased arousal can lead to better performance for well‐ rehearsed, accessible responses (‘dominant responses’), but worse performance novel, complex, inaccessible responses (‘nondominant responses) 22 Social loafing Social loafing: tendency to exert less effort on a task when done in a group than when alone Latane, Williams and Harkins (1979) • Clap or cheer as loudly as possible • Alone or in a group 23 Reducing social loafing Reducing loafing • Change nature of the task – Interesting, involving tasks show less loafing • Increase accountability • Reduce group size • Increase commitment to or identification with group – Cross cultural differences – People from collectivist cultures show less loafing than those from individualist cultures 24 De-individuation: acting like a group member De‐individuation: psychological state in which group or social identity completely dominates personal or individual identity so that group norms become maximally salient • One acts as a prototypical group member (not an individual) Caused by anonymity, wearing uniforms, being in a crowd of group members • By being just one among many similar others Increases accessibility of group norms • Decreases accessibility of personal standards • Can produce negative or positive behavior 25 Acting on the basis of accessible group norms Johnson & Downing (1979): Manipulated norms (positive/ negative) and anonymity • Condition 1: Dressed as KKK or nurses • Condition 2: Outfit did or did not cover face • Asked to deliver shocks in a learning task 26 Acting on the basis of accessible group norms Johnson & Downing (1979): Manipulated norms (positive/ negative) and anonymity • Dressed as KKK or nurses • Some outfits covered faces; other did not • Asked to deliver shocks in a learning task • De‐individuation (anonymity) exacerbates the effects of group norms on behaviour 27 Key take-away Social facilitation: • Increased arousal • Better performance for simple or well‐rehearsed tasks • Worse performance for novel or complex tasks Social loafing: decreased individual effort resulting from group performance Deindividuation: Increased accessibility of group norms override personal choice 28 Other processes and phenomena See first year… • Group polarization • Conformity (Asch) • Obedience (Milgram) • Minority influence (Moscovici) • … And text book • Leadership and power • Conflict 29 30 Intergroup Processes Part 8b 31 Overview and objectives • Categorization processes and the creation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ • Stereotypes • Ingroup favouritism and Social Identity Theory • From categorization to conflict (‘us’ vs ‘them’) • Reducing prejudice, discrimination and intergroup conflict 32 Setting the cognitive stage: social categorisation 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’ • But also status, occupation, sexual orientation and more 34 Self-categorisation Self‐categorisation: • Process of seeing oneself as member of a group • In extreme form: de‐individuation This is likely when: • Accessibility: 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 35 Consequences of social and self categorisation Me Self‐categorisation We/Us Interpersonal Intergroup Social categorisation You Them 36 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 Results in an ‘us’ and ‘them’ context. 37 Consequences for perceptions of inter and intra group structure Category differentiation model (Doise, 1978): • Intergroup differentiation • Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups) 38 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 39 Cross‐race identification bias (‘other race’ effect) • Platz & Hosch (1988) – Texas convenience store clerks – Identification of customers – Increased accuracy for own ingroup vs outgroups % of clerks who correctly identified customers Outgroup homogeneity 70 60 50 40 Anglo‐American customer 30 African‐American customer 20 Mexican‐American customer 10 0 1 2 3 40 Stereotypes Cognitive consequences of social categorization • Stereotype: – Cognitive representation of impressions/expectancies about a social group (probable behaviors, traits, features) (cf. prejudice) – 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) 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) Career Man 42 Implicit Associations Test (IAT) Response‐time paradigm • Patterns of RTs tell us something about 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 43 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) 44 • More in the textbook IAT • Visit: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html • Race IAT • Sexuality IAT • Gender‐Career IAT • Asian IAT 45 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 46 Stereotypes • • Stereotype of group to which shover belonged influenced interpretation Aggression was (and perhaps still is) part of the African American stereotype; here it shapes interpretation of the ambiguous shove 80% 75% 70% 60% 50% 42% 40% 30% 17% 20% 10% 6% 0% 1 2 Series1 Series2 47 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. 48 Key take-away Social categorisation > “us and them” instead of “me and you”. – Intergroup differentiation – Within group homogeneity (especially for outgroups) Cognitive: Stereotype Affective: Prejudice Behavioural: Discrimination Implicit Association Test: Measure of implicit association between categories and concepts/attitudes through reaction times. 49 Ingroup favoritism 50 Ingroup favouritism We tend to have more favourable attitudes and behaviours towards the groups to which we belong than to groups to which we don’t belong • Ingroups: groups to which we belong • Outgroups: groups to which we don’t belong Ingroup favouritism, ingroup bias, intergroup bias, intergroup discrimination • Preference (in attitudes or behaviours) for ingroups over outgroups Why? 51 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 favoritism Value ‘mine’ (my group) as a way of valuing ‘me’ Self Social Personal 52 The minimal conditions of us and them thinking • Ingroup favoritism 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 53 From categorization to conflict Escalation Categorization lays the groundwork Other factors escalate to ‘us’ and ‘them’ framing into conflict • Competition • Threat Competition Taylor & Moriarty (1987) • Two dyads • Problem solving for reward • Interdependent vs. competitive with other dyad • Other dyad was either same race (ingroup) or other race (outgroup) Ingroup favoritism exacerbated under competition Intergroup bias (relative liking of ingroup vs outgroup) Realistic Conflict Theory (LeVine & Campbell, 1972): intergroup hostility arises from competition among groups for scarce (and thus valued) material resources 40 35 30 25 Ingroup 20 Outgroup 15 10 5 0 1 2 56 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) 57 Riek et al (2006) Meta analysis • Aggregated across 95 studies • Realistic, symbolic and anxiety positively associated with negative outgroup attitudes 58 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 – Symbolic threat – Intergroup anxiety 59 Reducing prejudice and discrimination Methods of prejudice reduction Contact • Extended contact • Imagined contact Shared goals (positive interdependence) Changing categorisation 61 Optimal conditions The more contact one has with an outgroup, the less prejudice one expresses Contact is most effective when: equal status, authority sanctioned, absence of competition (Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006) How? (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008) • Knowledge • Anxiety* • Empathy/perspective taking* 62 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 evaluations – traits (e.g., intelligent, confident, inflexible, indifferent) and performance qualities (e.g., communicates effectively, effective problem solver) 63 Shared goals: The Robber’s Cave (Sherif et al., 1961) Summer camp Tournament (i.e., competition) • Intergroup conflict But then, cooperative interaction • Superordinate goals: shared goals that can be achieved only if groups work together Just like contact, many conditions need to be met • Valued common goal, equal status, cooperative norms, repeated interactions, successful % of outgroup members viewed unfavourably Two groups: Eagles and Rattlers 80 70 60 50 40 Eagles 30 Rattlers 20 10 0 1 2 64 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 super‐ ordinate “we” Us Them De‐categorization – All become individuals I U U U U U U U 65 Gaertner et al., (1989) categorization Participants initially form two 3 person groups (A and B) and interact within‐ groups (in spatial proximity) • Come up with group names Next, come together to do a task Manipulation: • Control: retain original two group structure and identity (aaabbb) • Re‐categorization: form one new, superordinate group with new structure and identity (ababab) • De‐categorization: separate individuals, with nicknames (ababab) Evaluations of original ingroup and outgroup members 66 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 67 What’s next Week 9 Lecture • Simon Laham: Attitudes and behaviour • Smith et al. (2015) Chapters 7 and 8 Tutorial classes – Debate 1: Self – Debate 2: Prejudice Good luck! 68