Class Notes (837,186)
Canada (510,155)
Psychology (7,785)
PSYB10H3 (544)
Lecture 4

Lecture 4.docx

16 Pages
Unlock Document

Elizabeth Page- Gould

PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013 INTERGROUP RELATIONS, STEREOTYPING, AND PREJUDICE Intergroup Processes Ingroup: A social group to which you belong Outgroup: A social group to which you do not belong or anybody that does not belong to your ingroup Intergroup Processes: Situations, cognitions, beliefs, and feelings that arise when people from different groups interact with or think about each other (Groups can be religions, races, clubs, schools, really anything) Social Identity Theory Def.: A diffuse but interrelated set of social psychological theories about when and why individuals identify with, and behave as a part of, social groups Assumptions Key Assumption:  We have all have a need for positive self-regard o We don‟t want to feel bad about ourselves. We want to make ourselves feel good How do we achieve this positive self-regard?  Via our own achievements  Via identification with the achievements of the social groups to which we belong Components Main Components of Social Identity Theory: Categorization Def.: People naturally group other social objects into groups; Creates ingroup-outgroup distinction Why do we categorize people into groups?  Old way of thinking: PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013 o Laziness – we didn‟t want to spend too much time thinking about other people because we want to deal with many people.  New way of thinking: o Cognitive miser Cognitive miser perspective: We have a limited cognitive resources that must be conserved  Engage in mental shortcuts (e.g., heuristics)  Applied to group categorization: o Categorize people on the basis of shared features: can be really anything – personality, looks, etc. o Can trivially create “minimal groups”: Ingroups and outgroups formed on trivial, highly context-specific features Minimal Group Paradigm: Creating ingroups and outgroups from the most minimal of conditions Classic examples:  Sandals versus sneakers on 1st day of class  Blue versus yellow t-shirts distributed in the lab Example: Minimal Groups Paradigm Tajfel & Turner (1979) Method: 1. Participants come into lab in groups 2. Asked to estimate the number of dots on a page 3. Randomly assigned to groups: a. “Overestimators” b. “Underestimators” 4. Ask participants to rate each group and allocate study payment to fellow ingroup member or outgroups member Results:  Overestimators viewed Underestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Overestimators  Underestimators viewed Overestimators as less likeable, kind, and effective than Underestimators  Overestimators distributed much less money to Underestimators PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013  Underestimators distributed much less money to Overestimators Identification Def.: The processes of associating the self with certain ingroups  Bolsters self-esteem – if you are proud of a group, being part of it adds to your self-pride  Effects of social identity theory are dependent on identification with the group Can be low or high. You can be part of a group but you don‟t have to necessarily have a high amount of connection with that group. So you may be a woman but that might not be a defining part of your personality. This means that it is low identification. However, if it is a major part of who you are, it is high identification. Comparison Def.: We compare ingroups with outgroups, seeing a favourable bias toward the group to which we belong Ingroup Favouritism: Belief that the ingroup is good across a variety of characteristics and more deserving of good things; Maintains positive status of group (and positive self- regard) Examples:  Remember only the good (and not bad) characteristics of group members  Allocate more resources to ingroup members  Self-serving attributions o Good behaviour by ingroup member: Internal attribution o Bad behaviour by ingroup member: External attribution Once somebody is part of a group, they are more likely to use ingroup favoritism rather outgroup derogation. Outgroup Derogation: Belief that the outgroup is bad across a variety of characteristics and less deserving of good things Examples:  Ultimate Attribution Error: one person‟s behaviour reflects the behaviour of the entire group  Rate outgroup characteristics as less favourable than ingroup characteristics  Allocate less resources to outgroup members PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013  Pay attention to information that confirms stereotypes and ignore stereotype inconsistent information Psychological Distinctiveness Def.: People desire their ingroup to be unique and distinctive from others  See ingroup members as “unique, distinctive” individuals  In the absence of distinctiveness, there is no basis for group-based positive self- regard Realistic Conflict Theory Def.: The theory that limited resources lead to conflict between groups  Result in increased prejudice and discrimination Example: Robber‟s Cave Experiment Sherif et al. (1961) Method: 1. 11-year old boys at camp in Robber‟s Cave National Park 2. Split into two groups: Rattlers & Eagles 3. Stage 1: Only do activities with own group (increases ingroup identity) 4. Stage 2: Engage in competitive sports with prizes for winning team (competing for scarce resources) (Building Intergroup Conflict) End of Stage 2: Competition creates outgroup prejudice:  Boys name-called boys in other group (e.g., sneaky)  Described own group members as brave/friendly  Stole from/raided each other‟s cabins Method: Stage 3: Reduce intergroup conflict Two potential pathways: Allport‟s Contact Hypothesis:  E.g., Arranged lunchtime seating assignments so that boys from each team were intermixed PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013 Introduced Super-ordinate Goals so both groups had to work together to solve a problem  E.g., Got a bus stuck in the mud Results: Stage 3 Allport‟s Contact Hypothesis = No-go  Boys got in food fights and physical fights Super-ordinate Goals = Yes!  Hostility between groups declined  Formation of new friendships with outgroup members Caveat: Ingroup identification was hard to entirely eliminate Group-Based Bias Cognitive Component Stereotyping: Beliefs about the typical characteristics (usually traits) of group members  Schemas used to categorize complex social groups Outgroup homogeneity: seeing outgroup members being more similar to one another Affective Component Prejudice: A hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group of people, based only on their membership in that group Behavioural Component Discrimination: Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group, simply because of his or her membership in that group Stereotyping PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013 Example: Princeton Trilogy Katz & Braly (1933): Phase 1 of “Princeton Trilogy” “Racial Stereotypes of 100 College Students”  In many cases, a high degree of consensus (agreement)  Gave impetus to investigate the nature and content of stereotypes Conclusions:  Stereotypes are generally stable over time  Stereotypes are also contextually bound: can change with current events Stereotype Mechanisms Usually broad and generalized:  “Trait-based” stereotype: very broad  Can also be dependent on context: o IF _________ , THEN ___________ Who Stereotypes? Most people have knowledge of cultural stereotypes Factors affecting stereotype use: PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013  Egalitarian ideologies o Stereotype Activation: Stereotypes are automatically activated. Stereotypes are more available in semantic network. o Non-prejudiced Response: If the person is egalitarian, the controlled process of the stereotype is activated - That person will preconsciously reject stereotypical judgments  Cognitive load: Greater use of cognitive resources o Greater load = More reliance on stereotypes Example: Cognitive Load and Stereotyping Mendoza-Denton et al. (1999) Method: 1. Participants all high in egalitarian ideology 2. Experimental Condition: Cognitive Load or not 3. Rate the aggressiveness of “African Americans” and “Caucasian Americans Meta-Stereotypes Def.: Stereotypes about how outgroup members stereotype the ingroup Consequences of Stereotyping For the Perceiver Good:  Move quickly through social world  Conserve cognitive resources Bad:  Selective encoding:  Make more judgement errors PSYB10 Sept. 30, 2013 For the Target Individual level  Health outcomes  Higher mortality rates, heart attacks, diastolic BP among
More Less

Related notes for PSYB10H3

Log In


Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


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.