Class Notes (834,026)
Canada (508,290)
Psychology (5,208)
PSYCH 3CD3 (124)
Lecture

February 10.docx

3 Pages
103 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSYCH 3CD3
Professor
Jennifer Ostovich
Semester
Winter

Description
Psych 3CD3 Monday, February 10, 2014 Intergroup Relations Testing SIT 1: Social Identity and SE • Zander et al. (1960) o Randomly assigned individuals to one of two groups, however, they made  subjects believe they were part of the groups for a reason o Made one group believe they were more superior to the other group o Those who belonged to a group that they were told was better had higher  self­esteem than those told their group was less superior • Cialdini et al. (1976) on sports team identification and disidentification o Clothing/accessories  Looked at how much school clothing people would wear   Saw a significant increase in the amount of clothing after wins  People were borrowing self­esteem from the winning team by  wearing clothing  Rejecting the badness of a losing team by not wearing the clothing o Language  Language use was manipulated after either a win or loss  Subjects were called at home after big games and were asked  difficult trivia questions about their school  Subjects were given feedback: ‘wow you did better than most  people’, or ‘wow you don’t know anything about your school; you  did worse than more people’, or control­ no feedback was given  Researcher tells the subject they forgot to ask them a question  ‘what happened at the football game this weekend?’  The focus was the language that suggested identification or  disidentification • Cialdini Results o In the success group, there is no significant difference in the proportion of  people saying ‘we won’ or ‘we lost’ o In the control condition, you see a little bit of disidentification (significant  difference) o In the failure condition, significant difference in increase in identification o You need to find some way to feel good about yourself and subjects did  this through identification with winners o Self­esteem is tied up with our social identities Testing SIT 2: Evidence of Ingroup Favouritism • Study on how people feel about their political parties in Britain (1980s) • Researchers found subjects who identified with the political parties and had them  rate their ingroup and all of their outgroups on liking • How much would you want to go out for dinner with a member of a certain  political party? Answer suggests liking or disliking • Subjects like members of their ingroups and would want to go out for dinner with  them • Ratings on a 1­7 scale • Average on prejudice= 5.87; average on going for dinner= 5.85; neutral= 4 • We don’t like our outgroups; score average= under 3 • Prejudice score on average= 2.45; going out for dinner= 3 • People who chose the groups themselves are in favour of their own groups, and  not in favour of the outgroups Testing SIT 3: Intergroup Relations • Do people really use intergroup comparisons in order to achieve positive  distinctiveness? o Tajfel’s (1971) Bristol school boys o Haegar (1993) on spontaneous intergroup comparisons  International attitude survey in Europe  Write down what comes to mind when you thi
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 3CD3

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