Class Notes (838,386)
Canada (510,872)
Psychology (3,336)
PSYC 331 (96)
Lecture

Intergroup Taylor and Moghaddam 1-8.doc

70 Pages
203 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYC 331
Professor
Donald Taylor
Semester
Winter

Description
Chapter 1 Collective Identities in Crisis -groups in society that experience social problems + others that show signs of a growing social malaise -problems= massive academic underachievement, family dysfunction, substance misuse, violence + delinquent behavior -applies to aboriginal people, African Americans, certain Hispanic groups, growing number of street kids + those who have traditionally symbolized society’s most privileged group white men. -purpose= acknowledge reality that these groups are confronting, understand that reality + seek possible solution -role as an academic allows direct contact with these group in countries like Canada, US, south Africa + indonesia -canada, quality of life is the envy of the world, magnifies contrast with society’s disadvantaged -contrast makes him lose his scientific detachment + feel emotionally spent -blame seems easy when we contemplate some of the world’s genocides.. Holocaust, killing fields of Cambodia, Rwandan tragedy.. -Apartheid separated black from white.. policy was universally condemned + made south Africa a pariah until government fell in 1994. Intention of privileged white minority seemed clear. When apartheid proponents put their spin on the policy it sounds like what today are judged to be enlightened policies that celebrate cultural diversity + multiculturalism. Countries like US + Canada have notion that cultural minorities shouldn’t be forced to assimilate which may include members of a group living together to provide support + a defence against assimilation. -Apartheid in south Africa: different ethnic groups were segregated not to prevent them from participation or to make them target for discrimination but to allow their cultural identity to flourish. -systematic destruction of aboriginal people in north America: missionaries probably thought they were doing the aboriginals a service by coercing them into Christianity. Deadly germs brought by Europeans were an unintended development. Merchants traded cheap baubles for expensive furs + traded rifles for furs. Made rifles longer to cheat aboriginals out of more furs. Merchants in the new world operated on the age-old principle of get as much as you can for as little as you can -easy to judge the intentions of those from a bygone era when circumstances were different -obvious atrocities aside he does not think he I in any position to judge fairly the motives of others -complexities of persistent disadvantage need to be analyzed, historical perspective must be integrated with an analysis of current reality -may require probing the prejudices of people part + present to serve goal of finding closure of society’s disadvantaged + understanding today’s reality -every case of profound disadvantage is rooted in a lack of understanding -attempting to propose an explanation may be constructive An authors insecurity -defensiveness about writing this book -no need to justify topic -desperate plight of society’s most disadvantaged groups demands attention -2sources of defensiveness… -he’s an academic social psychologist working in a research-oriented department within a faculty of science. Cannot escape the scientific rigor of these norms -certain that his theories, observations + conclusions will often stray from these norms -process of conducting research, scenarios arise + observations are made that have no place in scientific discourse -often these real life personal encounters have a lasting impact -often thought “if only I could recount this anecdote, the point would be clear” -compelled to share his personal observations. Hope they don’t distract from the formal theorizing which is all he has to offer in terms of genuine constructive change -bias that confronts every experimental social psychologist who supplements lab research with extensive work in the field.. develop a liking + respect for the individuals + their culture -feels reticent to write about the devastating social problems -feels more comfortable sharing riches those communities have to offer -2ndsource lies in the balance between right + obligation - He’s a white male who is pretending to have something to say about the experience of others -ideas are partly shaped by members of disadvantaged groups who have directly + indirectly shared experiences + observations -dilemma about the right of a member of 1 culture to analyze another might until recently have been dismissed -notion that only a member of a particular culture has the right to speak of + for that culture seems absurd on the surface -many of the best observations of north American culture come from a different culture -validity may arise because they are removed from the culture -shifted from a resource-based economy to an information-based economy which has made issue of intellectual property a debated subject -if information is a valued resource then the originator of the info must receive credit + retain some ownership of that info.(song, article, scientific breakthrough) -more than 1 debate resolved by concluding that the 1 person to write an idea down in any form would be considered the owner -culture is ultimately information that members of a culture carry in their heads -notion that only members of a culture can claim ownership of vital cultural info is not as absurd as it seems -power of the culture in question may be critical -common for US to provoke cultural comment because of its prominence + influence + they are used to it + don’t often feel culturally threatened. For less powerful cultures issue may be more delicate -new York state university was offering summer courses in minority language + announced that a linguist would be teaching an intro course in an aboriginal language. Several chiefs of the language group insisted that the course not be offered. Rational that the tribe would lose something when white mainstreamers could speak their language. Their code would be broken -6 months after he had been living in the Philippines he had mastered only a few words of Tagalog. A visiting Caucasian north American scholar came + began the lecture in fluent Tagalog. Filipina colleagues reacted negatively to the guest’s use of their language. Speaking less than fluent would have been a sign of respect. Complete fluency made people feel they had been robbed of something -elder once said please put a voice to our pain -wonder if addressing the social problems confronting disadvantaged groups he may be making their problems more salient to themselves 1 + to society more generally -maybe minority groups members who shared with him will feel they have inadvertently contributed to the propagation of a negative image within + outside their community -have seen a community benefit from research process -launching survey of language ability + usage in a remote arctic village. Survey was prompted by a local inuit committee. Questions about appropriate language of instruction for their children. Complexities confronting a small community where indigenous language (innuttitut) was in competition with English + French. Concerned their language would be lost -series of lengthy community meetings where norms dictate that everyone must have a say the research process proved constructive -naiveté as scientists with need for precision prompted fruitful discussions - in answer to the question who should fill out questionnaire he said to be valid they needed a 10% sample. Reply was but how will the voices of the other 900 residents be heard? -everyone over the age of 15 completed a questionnaire. Those who were out hunting had skidoos sent with questionnaires to make sure that everyone contributed Never before or since has he been able to obtain an entire population -survey results showed that among young + in formal job setting mainstream languages of English and French were replacing innuttitut -worries more about raising awareness of a community’s social problems outside the community -stereotypes of certain minorities are already so negative + social problems so pervasive that raising awareness of them explicitly is not likely to alter existing stereotypes -his theoretical perspective is one that holds us all accountable -any one group’s disadvantaged diminishes us all -maybe in our shared diminished state we may find a shared solution Scope of the Volume st -1 glance.. focus is the academic underachievement experienced by aboriginal students -level of underachievement that is so disparate from mainstream norms that aboriginal children mature with little or no hope for themselves or their group -while emphasis will be placed on formal education wider concern is with the familiar, social, economic, political + mental health of those communities that are under siege -education is important because it is a institution that impacts students + adults + is the institution that purports to prepare young people for the future by providing economic, social, political + moral resources to allow them to participate in society -arguments for education hold true for occupational success + social adjustment -aboriginal communities suffer an array of social problems.. poor nutrition, family dysfunction, substance misuse, chronic underemployment + poor mental health -academic underachievement is not unique to aboriginal people just happens to be especially challenging for aboriginals -academic underachievement is equally problematic for an array of inner-city minority groups in north America (African Americans, Mexican Americans, Puerto Ricans) -group who in no sense qualify as a cultural or ethnic group in usual sense = street kids -belief that issues confronting society’s ethnically disadvantaged apply equally to homeless youth which warrants their alleviation -popular conception of street kids is that they are young people who have failed in or been rejected by mainstream society + have replaced mainstream culture with a subculture built largely on peer support -growing underachievement + social malaise plaguing male students in mainstream north America -not to suggest that their circumstances resemble those of society’s most disadvantaged nor that young women are privileged by comparison -inclusion of young mainstream men is because they show early signs of the profile of social problems that beleaguer disadvantaged groups -same processes on a reduced scale are beginning to impact on a group that until recently has been one of society’s privileged groups -he hesitated before naming specific groups fearing minority readers might feel put under a microscope + mainstream readers might dismiss as irrelevant to them -no group will escape analysis + comment -psychological malaise that characterizes some communities can be found making its presence felt in society as a whole Theoretical Framework -attributing any characteristic to an entire group especially when they are not socially desirable is often viewed as odious from the viewpoint of liberal-thinking individualism -individual is the rightful focus of attention + those who characterize entire groups are engaging in discrimination -real question whether group differences are real or imagined -case for not denying the reality of group-based differences is political economist Sowell (1983). African American scholar who addresses issue of African American- white group-based differences. Instead of basing his argument for the reality of group differences on racial groups he begins with an analysis of 2 white groups (early irish + german settlers to east coast of US) st Irish farmers were 1 to arrive + had access to most arable lands but did not perform well German farmers came later + were relegated less desirable resources + flourished through hard work + long-term perspective -had he attempted to make the case for ethnic group-based differences directly ideological barriers would be triggered - mainstream readers would dismiss focus on groups as politically incorrect + disadvantaged group readers don’t want to be reminded of group-based shortcomings -would be a mistake to argue that social groups are homogeneous -individual differences within any group are essential to ensure its survival -for any particular dimension groups are not so different that there is no overlap in the distribution of the individuals within the different groups -even when the average IQ score for one group is different from another it doesn’t mean that all members of 1 group have an IQ that is lower or higher than all members of the other group Means individual members of the 2 groups tend to be concentrated around different IQ scores Overlap in the distribution so that many individual members of the lower group score higher than even the average for the group with the higher average -when groups are judged to be different on a particular dimension what is being suggested is that while there may be an overlap in the distributions of the individuals belonging to different groups, concentration in the distribution of 1 group is different from the concentration in the other -acknowledging the reality of individual differences within groups should not deflect us from deriving explanations that may be associated with shared experiences of virtually all members of a group -if only a few members of a group failed to achieve normal standards there would be no social issue + no theoretical or social link between achievement + group membership -despite examples of individual successes from every disadvantaged group the majority are contributing in varying degrees to the statistics that demoralize the portrait of life for society’s most disadvantaged groups -any groups shared experience arises in the context of by comparison with or because of other societal groups -aim is to derive a theory at intergroup level that will touch the psychological functioning of every severely disadvantaged group member The psychology of self -central psychological construct + process = the self -psychological self will form basis of theoretical analysis -humans stand out as unique in a variety of ways.. capacity for sophistical language + abstract thought + particularly human capacity to reflect on the self -much that is automatic may be screened out at earlier or more primitive level of processing but at some point all experience was processed through the self -self= pivotal human cognitive process that orients individual toward meeting needs -self is experienced at a personal level -feel you are you across time + situations whether alone or acting with your group -healthy self =minimum requirement for effective human functioning -4 key components to the self: personal identity, personal esteem, collective identity + collective esteem -explanatory concept for theory of self is collective identity -that society’s most disadvantaged groups suffer from is an unclear collective identity -concept of collective identity differs from similar concepts such as self-concept + self-esteem in 2 ways Focus of most notions of self is on unique personal qualities of the individual Will argue that identity involves personal + collective elements + collective dimension of identity takes psychological precedence over personal identity -too much attention has been paid to the self-esteem dimension of identity with less appreciation for the definitional or mental blueprint dimension of identity -theoretical challenge is to explain why communities come to be characterized by collective identities that are in crisis which leads to social dysfunction -groups who experience widespread academic underachievement + social problems confront a delicate balancing act involving competing collective identities -disadvantaged groups confront integrating mainstream collective identity or culture + their heritage collective identity or culture -those whose culture is represented by the dominant group in society can never fully appreciate how momentous the juggling act must be -best he can do from privileged position is reflect on minor personal incidents that offer at least some superficial insight -most vivid personal experience with such cultural discontinuity was more symbolic than real Waiting for an otter plane to bring him from 1 arctic community to next village. Feeling like 90s person. Slung over his shoulder was a brand new laptop + inuit lady handed him a 6 month old child + request was to deliver child to his uncle in the next village Contemplated discontinuity of cultures that would have him cradling a computer in 1 arm + trusted with someone’s child in the other Could only imagine what it would be like to negotiate such disparate cultures on daily basis -beyond the enormity of resolving cultural discontinuity problems are exacerbated when there is a large power differential between competing cultures -power differentials of the magnitude referred to here include slavery + colonialism -theorizing that serious social dysfunction arises in groups that have been required to articulate an integrated collective identity in the context of colonialism is not novel -present theory expands current proposals arguing that the integrated collective identity process is made virtually impossible because individual group members have no clearly identified schema for the competing collective identities or cultures they are required to integrate -theories that emphasize difficulties associated with integrating discontinuous cultures presume that there exist 2 clearly defined but incompatible cultures -valueless colonialism is the label to this dual loss of clarity in collective identity nd -identity overload represents 2 process that can disrupt collective identity -identity overload exacerbates the problem of collective identity for disadvantaged groups but its the primary source of disruption in collective identity for street kids + young mainstream men -clearly defined collective identity arises where a culture provides its members with clear reference standards upon which to build a collective identity -when society offers too many alternative standards it confuses + disorients the development of collective identity -aboriginal people have been bombarded with social change so fast that assimilating the info into collective identity is impossible -young mainstream men: society offers so many models in the domain of family, education, career + lifestyle that collective identity is poorly articulated + collective demotivation is the inevitable result -4 key stages to present theory: collective identity, valueless colonialism + identity overload lead to collective dysfunction -disadvantaged groups are required to integrate 2 poorly defined cultures or collective identities differing in power into a coherent collective identity that can serve as a blueprint for living -result if a shared state of demotivation that is characterized by alienation, lethargy, incoherent behavior + a focus on the present not the future Chapter organization A note on style -writing scientific articles requires referencing virtually every assertion that may form the building block of a theory or hypothesis -ensures credit is given to other scientists for providing the base info on which your own theory + research is based + lends credibility to your argument -has become almost impossible the follow a writer’s argument because almost every sentence is interrupted with some reference -essential purpose for referencing is lost -80% of references in a scientific article refer to research that is of little consequence for the writer’s argument CHAPTER 2: THE FREUDIAN LEGACY OF INTERGROUP RESEARCH -Freud’s focus was on within-group dynamics -He extrapolated from the level of intra and interpersonal processes to that of intergroup processes -His analysis was a psychological theory -His model represents and extreme “irrationalist” view of intergroup behavior. -This chapter is about his influence on our thinking about the psychology of intergroup relations His Influence on Scientific Research: Research #1: “Frustration and Aggression” (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mower and Sears, 1939) Research #2: “The Authoritarian Personality” (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, 1950) *Freud influences the concepts used in these researches on intergroup relations. Examples of such concepts are: 1) Displacement 2) Interference 3) Catharsis 4) Goal-directed behaviour -Freud’s ideas of group processes are elaborated in “Group Psychology and The Analysis of The Ego,” 1920 -He venetrates the individual and sees the collective in a negative light. Quotes Sighele (1981)in his “criminal crowd” and Le Bon (1987) and McDougall (1920) in his writings on group processes (specifically on anti-collective tradtion) *The anti-collective theme is evident in recent social research areas such as “risky shift”. Freud’s Model of Group and Intergroup Processes: Freud’s analysis were guided by three questions: 1) What is a group? 2) How does it acquire the capacity for exercising such a decisive influence over the mental life of the individual? 3) What is the nature of the mental change, which it forces on the individual? *These questions present the individual as the target of change (so the victim). The potential influence of the minority partly is neglected. The focus is on the majority influence –> group has the decisive effect on the individual. What is a group? * Freud limited his analysis to groups with leaders only (and was criticized for it). This is problematic/ the theory has shortcomings because of this limiting: • There were cultures in which the concept of the group leader (in modern societies) does not exist (Middleton and Tait, 1958). • If one is interested in the poor, blacks or women, these groups dont have widely endorsed leaders  this point can be countered only in conditions where such groups as blacks do have widely endorsed leaders can they achieve the cohesion and direction necessary for effective group action. * Importance is given to the leader (Freud) considering the social psychological evolution of human societies. -Group as a revival of the primal horde collection of individuals ruled despotically by a powerful male. - The leader differentiates from his followers in terms of needs and motivations. The followers on the other hand need the live of their leaders. while leaders need love no one else and therefore have more power. (or sense of power) *Freud’s assumption here about the characteristics of a group are negative and in accord with Le Bon’s views: -A group tends towards extreme behaviour -Sees kindness as weakeness -Demands strength and violence of its heroes -Is conservative -Traditional -Mistrustful of innovations -Prefer illusions over reality -Capable of high intellectual performance, provided the group is organized in the correct manner. The poor, the black and the women remain sociological rather than psychological groups until they are evolved clearly recognizable leaders  The members of the group identify with the group through this leader in order to become a psychological group. The link between the leaders and her followers is best explained though the concept of identification. Identification has central role in Freudian theory. *Freud on “identification” – earliest form of emotional tie with an object, which is usually another person. -The behavior is almost wholly or party unconscious. -Identification can arise through the perception of a common quality: the more important the common quality, the more important the tie  # of individuals have a shared common quality when they introject the same leader within their egos.  A primary group is defined as “a number of individuals who have put one and the same object in place of their ego ideal and have subsequently identified themselves with one another in their ego.” (Freud, 1921) Ex: Freud describes a situation of a “troop” of females or “groupies”: The groupies identify with one another by means of similar love for the same object (the singer). “Identification” can even evolve in relation to an oppressor: 1. Presented in Beltlelheim’S (1943) research on Jews in Nazi concentration camps. 2. Prisoners showed anti-Semitism (taking on the attitudes of guards) and wore bits of clothing belonging to the guards (symbolic power). Ex #2: Tendency for black children to identify wit hteh white out-group (Milner,1975). *The criterion of similarity plays a key part in Freud’s concept of group. As a characteristic of a group the evolutionary relationship between the leaders and the followers have separate psychologies. (The first needs love and the latter doesn’t) How A Group Influences The Mental Psychologies of The Individuals: In explaining the difference between an individual whi s part of a group and an isolated individual, Freud assumes that the subconscious forces become more effective in the behavior of the individual in the group context: -New characteristics displayed in the group context are the “manifestations” of the unconscious. -Regression to more primitive states (after becoming a group member) -Freud: “the evil” resides in the unconscious as a predisposition”--> His evidence: Le Bon/ human groups as being easily swayed, contradictory, illogical, of low intellectual capacity, and ruled by emotions. *The leader as the source of suggestion in the group (in order to explain the uniform behavior of group members). His analogies here: analyst-patient, hypnotist-patient in psychoanalysis. He takes these two analogies as the model of relations in group. *Freud’s concept of libido in intergroup relations: Libido refers to the energy f those instincts that have to do with all that may be comprised under the word “love”. (Freud does not separate love that involves sexual union from other kinds of love) *Instinctual and emotional *Libidinal ties among group member ad between the leader and his followers. Ex: the Catholic Church (Christ as the leader/believed to love his followers by group members and same goes for the commander -in -chief) and the army (Commander- in-chief as the leader). The important feature of such group is “illusion” (the binding factor). Alike the ties that bind the members of a family to one another as well as to the father (as the leader). These two way libidinal ties (follower- follower and follower-leader): -Show the lack of freedom( valid only for individual members) -Feeling of belonging -Dependence -Responsibility *Together all these lead to conformity and obedience. *The loss of the leader leads to the disappearance of mental ties between the number of individuals in the group bc the establishment of the bond between the members is dependent on the bond between the leaders and the followers  the group panics. -Psychological ambivalence in Freud’s individual psychology: Ex: In marriage or friendship (stable relationships) involves a mixture of aversion (seldom) and love: these two feelings, according to Freud, never appear in isolation from one another. Ex: Freud’s books: The Ego and the Id (1923) Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920) Civilization and its Discontents (Here, Freud extends his concept of psychological ambivalence to the group level (love and seldom hate/follower-follower, follower-leader). *The key difference here (from the one at the individual level so marriage and friendships) is in term of adopted coping strategies with such mixed feelings. At the individual level  feelings of hostility and aversion are repressed. At the group level displaced aggression!/ aggression is redirected towards the out-group and only love-related aspects of libidinal ties tend to remain between group members. As long as these libidinal lies remain, feelings of aversion don’t emerge within the group. Ex: The Catholic Church and displaced aggression: Nonbelievers stand outside the group tie” for they collectively represent a common threat, which in return strengthens their group ties (believers). -The group cohesion and productivity will be decreased if hostile feelings arise within the group. *Decline in religious prosecution does not mean we have become tolerant towards nonbelievers (Freud). Tolerance as an outcome of weakened religious feelings and subsequently weakening of libidinal ties that depend on them hostility shown to out-group/ direct relationship/ strength if the libidinal hes in the group. so its changing ! The Nature of the Mental Change a Group Forces on an Individual : 3 central assumptions when a person join a group 1) a person undergoes mayor mayor psychological changes 2) such changes involve a loss for the the individual in terms of intellectual abilities 3) organization of group in such a way / The individual members can regain what they lost by joining the group. So highly evolved groups are assumed to show the same psychological characteristics similar to individuals increased organization ?? -> continuity/permanence -> ideas guide actions of group members -> specialization division of labour -> increased cohesion -> rivalry 2 important psychological changes : 1) The individual becomes susceptible to outside influence 2) The loss of intellectual abilities but a greater sense of certainty , purpose and feeling of power (individual) • Organisation first and suggestion second are means through which a group can achieve better performance. So the most important difference between an individual as a group member and an isolated one is, the first one comes under the influence of a group leader (evolutionary psychology) Central model to this view : family / parent-child relationship specifically , focus being on the father *Gains as power and security (Church, army have not yet evolved to such level through organization, group members can regain the characteristics they possessed as individuals although major group) The implications of Freud's model : Importance of Freud's model of group psychology in the field of inter-group relations 1) The assumed basis for intergroup hostility 2) The model of intergroup relations adopted 3) The out-group selected as the target of aggression 4) The subgroups that should be the focus of study w/in each group - Freud explains WWII in terms of psychological ambivalence out-group mortality and displaced aggression - Out-group hostility condition for within group harmony for if the aversion / hostility not redirected to an out-group it could turn inward ! - He avoided viewing real conflicts of interests as being the basis of intergroup conflicts _ his model is purely psychological - This model here is reductionist - it tries to extend intra-, interpersonal processes to the the intergroup arena. - This model here is the same as his "hydraulic" model -> he assumes the aggressive energies surface in the form of displaced aggression towards out-groups. later adopted by Dollard (1939) in his formulation of frustration & aggression theory - In "Group Psychology" Freud -> The greater the difference between the groups, the greater will be the hostility between them ( criterion of similarity (also needed for group harmony)) Ex : The Gallic people feel for the German The Aryan feel for the Semite White -> colored (1921) -4th important implication -> the difference social strata / the difference psychology of the ..?? : - The psychology of the leader is viewed as positive, greater personal abilities, charisma and strength - He viewed the followers in negative terms -> (In the future of an illusion) refers to them as lazy & unintelligent greater ethnocentrism - Explores intergroup relations primarily by examining the behavior of the leaders. So in this sense his model of sociological for it deals with the power difference between leaders & followers. The difference in the psychology of the two categories of people is directly linked to their power differences. Freud's influence on Intergroup Theory And Research : -This model is too diffuse to serve as the basis for a social psychology of intergroup relationship - but certain of his insights can be experimentally tested - 2 major pioneering studies : 1) Frustration & Aggression (Dollard 1939) 2) The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno 1950) The research tradition established in these two studies continued the Freudian bias A reductionism (concerned with intra & interpersonal processes) Freud influenced the aggression theory in a major ways 1) Aggression is always a consequence of frustration (Dollard adopts it) Frustration as an outcome of a blocking of a goal response • Frustrating stimulus will produce an instigation to aggress • # of factors can make it difficult to attack the source of frustration (like the frustration being powerful) -> aggression get displaced on an alternative target -> a scapegoat ! 2) The second one is somewhere in there 3) Dollard et al were influenced by Freud work / respect to the characteristics they believed the scapegoat would have scapegoat -> out-group -> the more similar the out-group , the less likely it is to be selected as the target of aggression 4) The fourth and the major way in which frustration-aggression theory has been influenced by travel is in terms of the hydraulic model assumed by Dollard et al  They assume that the energy motivation human behavior will not “fade away” if cannot reach its original goal. Instead, the energy will be redirected along alternative channels: If the frustration stimulus is too powerful to be attacked then the instigation to aggress will be displaced onto a weaker out-group. If the stimulus is weak, then the instigation to aggress will dissipate instead. The occurrance of aggression without fresh instigation decreases when aggression is expressed. -Gurr (1970) was undertaken an extensive interpretation of why rebellions and revolutions occur by relying on frustration-aggression theory. (Key words: social violence and aggression theory).  The research here mainly focused on the behaviour at the individual level and the results were extrapolated to the intergourp level. (Billig, 1976) -The “Authoritarian Personality” (Adorno et al, 1950) also influenced by Freud’s theory.: -WW2 and the threat of facism -Researched the potentially fascistic individual: “one whose structure is such as to render him particularly susceptible to anti-democratic propoganda” (1950) *The Authors were explicit about the direction of their political biase sgave the study and their debt to Freud. *Adorno viewed intergroup attitudes as being determined primarily by personality. His ultimate concern: large scale implications of fascistic personality Main concern: Fascist personality types. -Adorno presented an irrationalist account of human behaviour. Concluded that fascism favours a small group of people and make appeal to emotional needs only and not to irrational self-interest. -It is not material benefits or logical argument that lead a person to support fascism. -Primitive and irrational wishes and fears, on the other hand, do. -Typical authoritarians were presented by Adorno as having suppressed their hostilities toward their parents (so extended his study):  in the case of male participants, the study focused o the respondant’s relationship with father and his history of rebellion against her father. This pattern developed with father is assumed to get transferred to authorities. -Repression of aggressive tendencies against parents seen as a tendency o repress unacceptable tendencies in the self such as fear, weakness, sex impulses, passivity (Adorno ) Repression leads to the growth of an irrational shield against unacceptable aspects of reality. Through mechanism of projection, the unaccepted part of one’s own ego is externalized. Result: the others are seen hostile, instead of one’s own self. (*The study succeeded in making the topic of authoritariansm an important topic in social research./ Criticism on methodological and theoretical bases. ) -The nine traits assumed to be relevant to authoritarianism are: 1)Submissiveness 2)conventionalism 3)aggressiveness 4)a concern with power and thoughness 5)a reliance on superstitious and stereotypes 6)a preoccupation with sex 7)a projection of ones own undesirable traits onto others 8)a lack of introspection 9)destructiveness and cynicism -Altemeyer (1981) redined a new scale of authoritarianism. Only submissiveness and conventionalism and aggressiveness were actually associated. Labelled the right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale (Altemeyer, 1988). Score high on this scale- you were though to be more likely to support a government crackdown on minority groups regardless of the nature of the minority group being targeted. This is presumably to be right-wing authoritarians bc they are thought to be submissive to authority rather than follow any particular ideology. *Altemeyer’s (1981,1988) work represents the most interesting and psychometrically sound work conducted on authoritarianism. IT DOES HAVE IT BIASES (see threat from right-wing rather than left-wing of the political spectrum) Fails to be convincing in his 1988 argument that the best explanation of authoritarianism is provided by social learning theory. Freudian Legacy: -Terrorism and displaced aggression: The implication here is that as terrorists gain access to more powerful weapons, they will select more important scapegoats. Normally, the object of its hostility is the government, scapegoat : very of then the innocent public. -An aspect of Freud’s model that is promising but has not been followed up in intergroup research is his distinction btw the psychology of followers to that of leaders.--> This could provide a point of departure for a structural model of group and intergroup processes. Chapter 3 Reading Notes Realistic Conflict Theory • Realistic Conflict theory is basically an economic theory based on 3 assumptions 1. People are selfish and will try to maximize their own rewards. 2. Conflict is assumed to be the outcome of incompatible group interests. 3. Social psychological aspects of intergroup behavior are determined by the compatibility or incompatibility of group interests. • Real conflicts of interests are the cause of the inter group hostility, and intergroup goals or interests are considered as dependent variable. • It is competition between groups for scarce resources that leads to perpetual and attitudinal biases against the out- group. • Sheriff has been called the most important social psychologist in the history of the field of intergroup research. • In the typical gaming experiment, it is assumed that subjects try to maximize their profits, thus, a selfish model of humankind is adopted. • Conflict is assumed to arise when subjects try to maximize their own rewards at the expense of others that is, real conflicts of interests cause conflicts. • Competing nature of interests is assumed to be the most important factor determining social psychological phenomenon as attitude of parties involved. • However, certain scientist in gaming research like Deautch place more emphasis on the perceptions and interpretations of the conflicting parties and states that the objective of state of affairs does not rigedly determine the presence or absence of conflict and the processes of misperception and biased perception are among those that can lead to conflict escalation. Pioneering work of Muzafer Sherif: • Sherif states that “the appropriate frame of reference for staging intergroup behavior is the functional relations between 2 or more groups which may be negative or positive. • In his experiments, “functional relations” are equivalent to complementary- non complementary group interests. • He defines a Group as “a social unit that consists of a number of individuals who 1.At a given time have role and status relations with one another and 2. Who possess a set of values regulating the attitude and behavior of individual members at least in matters of consequence to them? • He defines Inter-group behavior as “relations between 2 or more groups and their respective members. • In sheriff experiments, the complementary, non-complementary natures of tasks were the independent variables, while social psychological phenomenon such as intergroup attitudes and group identification were the dependent variables. • There are 4 experimental stages in his research 1. Spontaneous interpersonal choices: Friendship choices shift steadily from strictly interpersonal attractions toward in-group exclusiveness, as a part of a group formation and functions. 2. Group Formation: Astatus hierarchy and leadership structure emerges within each group, as well as a kind of group identity and subculture involving nicknames for members, group secrets, symbols, and preferred ways of doing things. 3. Intergroup Conflict: As soon as groups become aware of each other, their competitive spirit seems to stimulate against the out group. 4. Intergroup Cooperation: Subordinate goals are those that have a compelling appeal for mebers of each group but that neither group can achieve without participation of the other. So it creates the cooperation among different groups. Application of the concept of subordinate goals • Industrial conflicts: Blake and his associates applied Sheriff’s ideas in the industrial setting through union management conflict. They selected the subordinate goals as the priority objectives and gave less importance to difference of interests. • International conflict: In International arena it was done by creating mutual dependence, understanding and trust and thereby diminishing the risk of another world war. • Desegregated schools: Arsonson felt that if mutual interdependence could be introduced in classroom environment to replace the competitive atmosphere between students, a cooperative attitude among students generally and racial groups in particular would develop. This was done through “Jigsaw” procedure, in which students worked in small groups in which each member had crucial info about the task in order to complete it. • Gaming research is based on rational thinking being who is motivated to maximize personal gains. • The gaming tradition has influenced research in negotiations and mediation or third party intervention. • There are six areas in which knowledge from mediation research has been applied: 1. Industrial mediation such as areas involving labor and management, 2. Community mediation such as areas involving racial groups, 3. Family and divorce mediation, 4. Public resources and environmental mediation,5. Judicial mediation and 6. Mediation at the international level involving disputes between nation states. Critical Review of RCT: Rct has number of important strengths. 1. RCT is group oriented research and has led to research that deals with genuine group relations and intergroup processes. 2. RCT makes logical sense and conforms to our everyday understanding about why there might be conflict among groups. However RCT tend to have number of weaknesses also. 3. Definition of conflict: there is a problem in defining conflict. On one hand, RC has meant competition for points in experimental setting and on other hand, it meant life and death situation among nations with possibility of atomic war. 4. The assumption that all conflict is bad in all conditions however under certain conditions conflict can have constructive and positive consequences. For example a disadvantaged group facing prejudice from advantaged group might have no option but to do the conflict in order to achieve greater equality. 5. Treatment of minority groups: social psychologists have tended to study intergroup processes such as those concerning conformity and social influence from the perspective of majority. 6. Subjects used in RCT Experiments: They are usually undergraduate students while the persons who participate in the vicious circle of threat and counter threat are national leaders. 7. Lack of concern for open groups: It would be more insightful if the groups are more open rather than closed and they have the option to quit. 8. Neglect of power: The power relations among group members have also a crucial role in the outcome of the goals. 9. Emphasis upon psychological solutions to problems arising out of material conflicts of interests. Chapter 4: Social Identity Theory • -formalized by Tajfel and Turner (1979, 1986) o most important for social psyc research on intergroup relations since 70s • -social identity theory attempts to explain relations between groups from a group perspective o sets it apart from other theories (particularly equity theory and relative deprivation theory) • -focus on process of identity • -theory assumes individuals are motivated to achieve a positive social identity o prompted individuals to make social comparisons between in and out groups – with aim to achieve both POSITIVE and DISTINCT position for the in-group • -the explanation from social identity theory rests on psychological processes: identification, social comparison, psychological distinctiveness • -recently this theory has been elaborated – new formations • -Turner (1990) proposes 2 social identity theories: o original intergroup theory – analysis of intergroup conflict and social change, focuses on individuals need to maintain and enhance positively valued distinctiveness of in-groups compared to out-groups to achieve positive social identity o self-categorization theory – general theory of group processes based on idea that shared social identity depersonalizes individual self- perception and action n • -other developments arising out of social identity: o models of self-regulation in the group o optimal distinctiveness theory o construct of ethnolinguistic vitality • -social identity theory has also strongly influenced recent theoretical developments focusing on minority influence, discrimination • -Bristol School influences evolved out of ideas and personality of Tajfel is seen in other identity work and recent norm-violation model of intergroup relations • The Context of Social Identity Theory • -Tajfel stimulated an ‘European’ social psychology – eager to set up a base that would be distinctive to the reigning American Social psychology • -social identity theory central proposition: people desire to belong to groups that enjoy distinct and positive identities o can help understand how social psyc in Europe developed and why it developed the way it did • -relationship between European and American social psyc is an example of minority-majority relations, Euros having less influence than US researchers in terms of mainstream social psyc o ex: chapter on intergroup relations in Handbook of Social Psychology – pays little attention to European research – surprising because European research is more advanced on intergroup relations • -American social psychologists seldom look beyond their own borders • -European social psyc aimed to define itself as discipline distinct from social psyc of NA and more reflective of European social concerns and intellectual traditions o movement took in 60s – 1 practical outcomes were establishment of European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, European Journal of Social Psyc • -key figure, Henri Tajfel – a number of other helpers to creation of social identity theory: o Doise – University of Geneva • -important European intellectual traditions: concern for evaluating phenomena within the wider social context in which they occur – tendency to view society as forces in conflict rather than in cohesion o attempted to make social psychology truly social o led social psyc to move away from psychology of the nice person to psychology of competing individuals and groups struggling to enhance their own position in the context of changing social conditions • -movement toward European social psyc took shape in 60s when radical political forces were so influential • -Moscovici was a key figure in development of European social psyc explained the interest of social psyc is in problems of society • -2 important features of NA social psyc against European social psyc rebelled were: o tendency to adopt reductionist explanations o adoption of models that describe people as rational and living in cohesion • -concern for studying phenomena within context in which they exist and providing explanations that incorporate qualities of both the part and the whole can be traced directly to Hegel – NA social psychology has tended to be unaffected by it in practice • -European social psychologists aimed to achieve a distinctly different approach by focusing on the individual within the context of broad social change, so that the ‘social’ aspects of social psychology would be given relatively greater importance, and individual and whole could be incorporated into the model developed • -mood of western societies in the late 60’s and sometimes intense intergroup clashes taking place within them is part of the reason for emergence of new approach • -movements of the 60s presented social psychologists a view that showed humans as being neither cohesive, peaceful nor rational – could not be adequately explained by model of humankind offered by NA social psyc theories o European social psychologists felt need to develop concepts that more accurately reflected the discord and conflict present in society – Moscovici said we seek out those different from us, and identify with them • -general concern among a grope of influential social psychologists for a move toward a model of humankind more reflective of harsher realities of life – concerned with change and conflict at intergroup level • -in contrast with focus on individual mobility in NA – movement toward European social psyc placed emphasis on social change involving groups struggling to enhance their position via other groups o NA capitalist ideology that has been viewed as being at least partly responsible for the preoccupation of social psychology with competition and conflict at level of individual – neglect of competition and conflict at level of groups – ethnic groups and social classes • -sequence of how events evolved: set of findings from series of experiments let to formulation of broadly based theory of intergroup relations o theory tries to deal with range of responses that disadvantaged group members might make in trying to improve their individual and group positions • An Outline of Social Identity Theory • Tajfel’s Early Work on Categorization • -much of his work was on cognitive basis of categorization, using nonsocial stimuli – elaborated on continuities of consequences of categorization • Categorization of Nonsocial Stimuli: categorization process has function of organizing in fundamental ways the info we acquire from the environment o People actively select info and simplify the task of processing it by ignoring certain dissimilarities and giving priority to certain similarities between objects (orienting and assisting actions) • -through experiments, Tajfel developed idea that categorization of nonsocial stimuli leads to perceived uniformity within individual categories and distinctiveness between them o one experiment: stimuli were series of 8 lines differed in length by constant ratio – subjects asked to estimate length  lines were labeled A, B or no labels o series of lines presented to subject a number of times successively – subjects became familiar with relationship between labels and lengths of lines •  subjects exaggerated differences in lengths of categories A and B more than those in the control groups – tendency for them to judge the lines within each category to be more similar to one another than did subjects in other conditions • The Categorization of Social Stimuli • -certain outcomes of categorization process are present when stimuli are social and nonsocial o continuities link Tajfel’s work with categorization of nonsocial stimuli and later work on intergroup behavior • -categorization experiments with nonsocial stimuli –subjects don’t relate categories through reference to system of norms and values o but if stimuli used in categorization experiment were social, then subjects would link them through values and norms o also sometimes people identify with certain aspects of the people they are categorizing – and their own statuses become affected by choices they make o ex: concern with racial purity – evident in various societies – Nazi Germany, South Africa • -Pettigrew, Allport and Barnett: innovative experimental method demonstrated this type of behavior in S. Africa • -presented pairs of photos of faces and asked subjects to identify the race of each – o using perceptual phenomenon of binocular rivalry – caused by showing a picture of a difference face to each eye – considerable uncertainty was introduced into task of recognizing race or ethnicity of each face  Afrikaner (dominant group) showed greater caution in placing faces in European category and greater tendency to place faces in extreme group of African rather than neutral group •  rather than risking one of the non-Europeans slopping through and endangering the purity of their own white group –Afrikaners preferred to adopt a strategy of over-exclusion from European group and over-inclusion in African group o Acting to achieve clear cut distinction a possible between their group and others – achieved this using extreme category of African more often • -demonstrates 2 points: o when people are grouping other people, values and norms influence their choice o when the person making choices is identified with one of the groups, their own status is affected by the outcomes of the groupings – when this identification takes place – there is a tendency to try and achieve intergroup distinctiveness • -prejudice behavior of the subjects in the study took place in context rich with social norms and values • -usual conditions for intergroup conflict include 2 groups that are clearly categorized according to some important value dimensions and that have a history of competition and confrontation over some important resources • -minimal group experiments on social categorization and intergroup behavior carried out by Tajfel et al during 60’s and 70’s are simple in design, but complex in the method they adopt for identifying/measuring intergroup bias o designed to isolate social categorization as an independent variable and measure influence on intergroup behavior • -minimal group experiments has 2 distinct parts: st o during 1 part – social categorization takes place on a trivial criterion and unidentified others are placed in either same or different category than the subject o 2nd part – subjects allocate rewards to these others, some who are in the same category as themselves • -Tajfel et al wanted to define an intergroup situation where 2 social categories are created but none of the other conditions usually associated with intergroup conflict are present o truly minimal – no face-to-face interaction between respondents  group membership should be anonymous  criteria for social categorization should not be linked with rewards allocated between groups  rewards should not have any utilitarian value for person making them  respondents should have available a variety of both fair and discriminatory options for allocating rewards  rewards should be meaningful to respondents st • The 1 Minimal Group Experiment o -64 British schoolboys, 14-15 yrs o -2 main parts  1. dot-estimation task – assigned to condition: o neutral: subjects told findings show in dot-estimation tasks some people consistently overestimate the # of dots, others consistently underestimate; these tendencies are unrelated to accuracy o experimental: told some people are consistently more/less accurate at a dot-estimation o -hypothesis: greater in-group favoritism would occur in value condition  2. subjects told that experimenter wanted to use them in different judgment task • -divided into groups on basis of dot estimation performance (actually randomized) –told group membership privately o neutral – old assigned to group on basis of underestimated/overestimated # dots o value – groups formed on basis of dot estimation accuracy • -2nd task required subjects to allocate rewards to in-group and out-group members (rewards and penalties) – real money • -important aspects of allocations by subjects: • 1. on no occasion would subjects be rewarding or penalizing themselves; their choices determined only the outcome of others • 2. they would know only the group identity, and not the personal identity, of individuals they were rewarding • 3. amount of money each person received would depend on how much others had rewarded them • 4. everyone was guaranteed a standard sum of money for taking part in experiment • 5. 3 types of allocation decisions:  subjects were allocating for 2 members of in-group other than themselves  subjects were allocating for 2 members of the out-group • showed no bias and allocated rewards equally  subjects were allocating for a member of the in-group, other than themselves, and a member of the out-group • showed no bias and allocated rewards equally •  when subjects were faced with a choice between an in-group member and an out-group member, they favored the ingroup at the expense of the out- group • -group formation and discriminatory intergroup behavior had developed as a result of social categorization per se, without normal conditions associated with intergroup bias • Extensions of the Basic Minimal Group Findings • -by 70’s there was evidence for social categorization under certain conditions for basis for intergroup discrimination • -explained by emphasizing social categorization and social comparison processes as psychological processes stimulated by divisions to cause discriminatory social relations • -Self vs. Group issues: to what extent subjects in experiments are showing bias toward self-interest rather than a group interest • -studies to test relative importance of self vs. group interests in the minimal group context • -1 experiment subject indicated degree of liking for pictures (determined similarity between participants) o -then subjects awarded money to others:  Cond. 1- control: no mention of groups by experimenters • subjects rewarded themselves and others  Cond. 2 - subjects categorized on basis of similarity (picture preferences) • made choices for themselves and others  Cond. 3 – subjects categorized into 2 groups on basis of similarity • Told they would receive an equal share of the money their in-group received o Found whenever possible, subjects were biased toward themselves – condition 3, self-interest directly related to that of the group, in group favoritism • -also shown with how subjects would like others – if identities revealed showed ingroup favoritism nd • -same trend of bias toward the self – than ingroup, found in 2 experiment (Turner) • -2 ndexperiment – bias modified when subjects 1 allocated money to ingroup and outgroup members then themselves directly o when subjects had a chance acting in group –developed loyalty to the group, would make sacrifices and modify bias toward the self to reward the group o basic self bias persisted • -Turner et al tested hypothesis that subjects would be willing to sacrifice group and personal monetary profit in order to achieve positive group distinctiveness o some degree of sacrifice was made in predicted manner – still trend of bias toward the self • =findings indicate that subjects prefer improving position of self – but strength of bias modified by group loyalty • -present in real work settings: labor union to improve work settings o aiming for rewards influenced by group rather than individual • • Exploring Sociostructural Factors through the Minimal Group Paradigm • • -hallmark of social identity theory and European social psyc is trying to achieve a truly social psychology o concern for sociostructural factors – group power and status – what constitutes a social explanation o social identity theory primarily concerned with groups of unequal power  initial minimal group studies led to theory involved group of equal power st • -1 attempt to build social identity theory developing role of sociostructural factors appeared in ‘ethnolinguistic vitality’ construct of Giles, Bourhis and Taylor – defined vitality: that which makes group likely to behave as distinctive and active collective entity in intergroup situations o vitality shaped by 3 sociostructural factors:  demography, institutional support/control, status o Studies by Ng on groups with unequal power showed group with greater power tend to discriminate more than those with equal or less power – didn’t meet criteria of minimal group paradigm • -Bourhis and Sachdev – used minimal group paradigm to examine role of sociostructural factors in intergroup relations o group power was defined as degree of control a group has over its own fate and that of out-groups, with fate (amount of resources a group is allocated) o extremes of power – created by establishing conditions in which power of ingroup and outgroup ranged from 0-100% control 0 and 30/70% lying between 2 extremes • confirmed Ng’s findings – members of dominant groups discriminate more often than do members of subordinate groups – also found that discrimination by high power groups was more extreme than absolute power groups (more discriminating than no/low power groups) o absolute power more secure in positive and distinct social identity – more willing to allow out-groups to bask in the glow of positive identity • -ex benevolent paternalism: upper class WASP majority in NA who show liberal attitudes toward ethnic minorities – lower-class WASPs are less tolerant of minorities • -2nd series of experiments – Bourhis and Sachdev: used minimal group paradigm to explore relationship between gender and power – stable and unstable intergroup contexts o  it is the position of individuals in the power structure, rather than their dispositional characteristics as males and females that determines intergroup discrimination  importance of sociostructural factors underlined by finding that subordinate and powerless groups will discriminate against dominant groups in unstable intergroup contexts o earlier studies – powerless groups did not discriminate because intergroup context was stable and powerless groups had nothing to gain by discriminating o -demonstrated that instability in social structure brings possibility of change and betterment of minority conditions, in conditions minorities more likely to discriminate and mobilize • • The “Trivial” Basis of Social Categorization in the Minimal Group Paradigm • • -aim of Tajfel et al to minimize the importance of criteria used as basis for social categorization in minimal group paradigm o criteria used basis for social categorization: dot estimation performance, aesthetic preferences  referred to as ‘unimportant’ but must be appreciated that in terms of influence thy have on intergroup behavior, criteria are not trivial – sufficient to evoke strong and consistent ingroup bias • evidence to suggest effect of such criteria can be as powerful as important criteria in the context of the minimal group paradigm • -Moghaddam & Stringer tested hypothesis that there would be NO deference between influences of 2 criteria of different real world importance when each used independently as only criterion for social categorization in same minimal group setting o condition 1- social categorization on basis of dot-estimation task (minimal criterion) o condition 2 – social categorization on basis of participants schoolhouse system (important criterion from perspective of participants) •  while participants in both cond. Were biased toward the in-group, supporting the findings of Tajfel et al; no significant difference between levels of bias shown across conditions – impact of social categorization underlies these findings • -in line with studies suggesting individuals will ascribe importance to what may be in most contexts a trivial phenomenon and exaggerate characteristics of their ingroup or relevant out groups to achieve clearer and more meaningful basis to differentiate between themselves and others • -boundaries of ethnic groups are sometimes objectively blurred – subjectively perceived as distinct and prominent – to preserve status hierarchy o Marquette reports in Ruanda –height differences between 2 major groups emphasized and exaggerated to achieve intergroup differentiation and value connotations  Dominant group (Tutsi) had exaggerated height superiority played role in defining their higher social status o LeVine & Campbell – the boundaries between ethnic groups can be seen as arbitrary and trivial when viewed objectively – ascribed importance in order to play role in interethnic differentiation • -many examples from modern industrial settings – criterion for social categorization might seem trivial for outsiders, but for insiders very important o ex: Soccer might be just a game, but for teams the soccer stadium is highly important – tragic death of British and Italian soccer fans at Brussels • • Four Central Concepts in Social Identity Theory • -generic norm – proposed the presence of a social norm of in-group favoritism subjects perceived to be relevant to minimal group situation o an explanation was of little value once behavior became different that simple in-group favoritism  need for explanatory model to account for complex behavior patterns in minimal group led to evolution of social identity theory • -4 major concepts: • 1. social categorization: segmentation of world to impose an order on environment and provide locus of identification for the self • 2. social identity: part of individual’s self-concept that derives from knowledge of their membership in a social group (value and emotional significance attached to that membership) • 3. social comparison: process through which characteristics of the in group are compared to those of the out-group • 4. psychological group distinctiveness: the
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 331

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit