Class Notes (836,147)
Canada (509,656)
Psychology (3,518)
PSY322H1 (18)
Lecture 10

Lecture 10.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

Alison Chasteen

Lecture 10: Review:  Macrae and Bodenhausen model  Wyer et al. (2000): motivation and the cognitive resources to do it!  Devine  Kawakami et al.  Correll et al. (2007) – police officers and community Contact Hypothesis: 1) Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment: 3 phases 1. Formation of group identity  Kept groups separate, promoted group cohesion 2. Intergroup behaviour  Sports competitions,  Antagonism happens soon after  Stereotypes and negative biases happens  Soon after the two groups does not even want to eat together anymore 3. Facilitating Inter-group Cohesion  Having fun contact, mere contact was not successful  Common goal: get both groups to contribute equal amounts of money to watch a movie, purposely left out essential things from each group to force both groups to pool together to complete their tasks.  Mutual interdependence  Inter-group bias went down dramatically  Results: Increase in inter-group friendship after co-operation 2) Allport (1954) 4 key criteria: 1. Equal status members 2. Work towards a common goal 3. Inter-group co-operation 4. A legitimate authority’s support  Amir’s additions: favourable climate, intimate contact  Pettigrew: friendship potential  Intergenerational Contact: Effects on Age Group Attitudes 3) Hewstone et al (2005):  How does a relationship characterized y frequent contact with an out-group member affect attitudes to the out-group as a whole?  Personal relationships with frequent contact  attitude change  Predictions: 1. Contact should only influence attitude when group salience is high 2. High group salience category means memberships are salient 3. Can include close out-group ID in self in high salience only! You see that person as an out-group member and thus you would apply whatever properties to that out- group.  Participants: Undergraduates  Measures: DV age group attitudes 1. Contact with grandparents 2. Frequency of contact (never to almost daily) 3. Quality of contact (How well they get along? Emotionally close) 4. Group salience (awareness of age difference)  Results: High frequency grandparent’s interaction ONLY! 1. When young adults have low salience of group memberships, it does not have any effect on attitude s towards older adults no matter what the quality of contact. 2. When young adults have high quality and have high salience towards out-group they have much more positive attitudes towards older adults.  Needs to be 1)frequent contact 2)groups memberships need to be salient 3) High quality  The better the contact quality, the better the perspective taking and the more positive the group attitude towards older people  2 other mediators other than perspective taking are anxiety and accommodation Models of Inter-group contact: 1) Personalization Model  Individual interactions  Decategorization  this person is not stereotypical of that group, thus the group must not be like that!  Opposite to the grandparents study, you want to view the person with low salience.  One-on-one interactions  Limitations: Although individual interactions might improve, that does not prove generalization towards the whole group. Re-fencing? 2) Mutual Inter-group differentiation model  Hewstone  Salient group memberships opposite to the personalization model  Common goal  Limitations: High salience means that the person would always think that the in-group and out-gr
More Less

Related notes for PSY322H1

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.