P&SP Week 8 student-1.pdf

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