Textbook Notes (368,878)
Canada (162,229)
Psychology (3,337)
PSYC 2310 (266)
Chapter 10

PSYC 2310 Chapter 10 Notes.docx

8 Pages
Unlock Document

PSYC 2310
Jeffrey Yen

Chapter 10 Intergroup Relations Intergroup relations: the way in which people in groups perceive, think about, feel about, and act toward people in other groups  Important: collective behaviour of people in a crowd  Each individual’s motivation and goals in being part of the crowd, presence of other people’s motivations and goals, presence of others who oppose them, cues in the environment, individual’s perception of injustice  how they behave in crowd  Le Bon: act instinctively and become irrational; destructive, pathological, and should be controlled  Three characteristics: Anonymity, suggestibility, contagion  McDougall: crowds as violent, impulsive, suggestible, and emotional  Le Bon and McDougall: group “collective”mind making people less responsible and act based on instinct, become less intelligent, more violent; negative perception of crowds  Allport: rejected the idea of a group mind; “individual in the crowd behaves just as he would behave alone only more so”; crowds can be destructive and harmful Deindividuation  Cannot be understood by studying individuals  Zimbardo: large groups= less likely to follow normal rules of behavious, sense of diffusion of individual responsibilities; anonymity is a social circumstance that leads to the psychological state of deindividuation  Deindividuation: one loses this awareness of oneself as a distinct individual and feels less compelled to follow normal rules of behaviour  More likely to occur in group setting, contributes to tendency of engaging in highly destructive actions Anonymity  Each individual is less distinguishable (uniforms, face covered)  Precursor to deindividuation  Example: Stanford Prison experiment  Can facilitate aggression  Cues in social environment are important in increasing or decreasing aggressive behaviour (like anonymity  Johnson and Downing: deindividuation does not always increase antisocial behaviour; positive cues of deindividuation increases prosocial behaviour; anonymity =less self- conscious, more responsive to social cues, especially if they promote prosocial behaviour Accountability  Whether a person expects to be held responsible for his or her actions  Less likely to be identified, feel less accountable, more uninhibited  Size of group increaseslevel of violence increases Decrease in self-awareness  Leads to deindividuation  Less of a sense of themselves as distinct individuals  Decrease in self-awareness leads people to be less focused on matching their behaviour to their normal standards  willingness to engage in less normal behaviour when self-awareness is low  anonymity, deindividuation , decreased self-awareness are overlapping constructs  Le Bon: regress to a more primitive state  Allport: become selfish grasping individual that they really are underneath the veneer of social constraints  Alternative view: less aware of your individual identity you become more aware of a group, or social, identity Social Identity Theory  People in a crowd do not lose their identity in some way but instead assume a new social identity as a member of a particular group  Adopt a stronger social identity, change of identity rather than loss of identity  Although both groups were exposed to the same environment, their group membership determine the behaviour and other social behaviour  Group memberships are salient, group goal and group identity that regulate behaviour  Group is not in isolation, there is a second group even if it is not physically present  Brown: to understand what goes on inside a crowd, important to examine crowds from an intergroup perspective; Social identity theory explains this  Social Identity Theory: each person strives to enhance his or her self-esteem, which is composed of both personal and social identity  Affiliate with successful groups as a way to increase our own feelings of self-worth  People favour their in-groups over their outgroups in order to enhance their self-esteem  Threats to one’s self-esteem increase the need for in-group favouritism  Groups is threatened, people feel bad about themselves  more in-group favouritism and more likely to derogate outgroup members  In-group favouritism and outgroup degradation more common is status in group is threatened, status of individual within a group is threatened and if the group is small Status within the group  Marginal status more likely to derogate outgroup members especially in the presence of in-group members  Identity is threatened  act in hostile way to increase their own feelings of self-worth  Feminist women represent a threat to male dominance and social stauts and therefore threatened men’s group-based self-esteem Group Size  Smaller= greater loyalty to it  Minority groups = greater group loyalty than majority groups Dynamics of Group Behaviour Based on the Ratio of Males and Females in a group  Moss Kanter: 4 types of proportions for group composition: uniform group (all one gender), skewed group (few token members), tilted group (majority and minority), balanced group (equal amounts)  Kanter: three perceptual phenomena: visibility, polarization, assimilation  Visibility is high, contend with a greater degree of attention  Polarization: tendency for the dominant group to notice thier own commonalities with others in their group and differences in the minority group  Assimilation: process of perceiving or misperceiving the token women’s characteristics to be more like a category characterization than they actually are; more likely to discriminate  Both gender and group size can moderate the perceived variability of the other group members  Diverse work settings, perception of group variability are affected by the relative sizes of the majority and minority  Biases resulted from group proportion How does intergroup conflict develop? Realistic conflict theory  Direct competition for limited resources  Realistic conflict theory: animosity between different groups results from individuals’ self-interest motives in terms of competitions for jobs, land, and power  Shifting people’s group memberships can help overcome negative intergroup relations  Sherif: role of competition in creating and reducing conflict between groups  Sherif stages of realistic conflict theory: 1) formation of groups 2) intergroup conflict 3) intergroup cooperation  Shamir and Shikaki: two groups both consider the violent behaviour of the other side to be terrorism, while simultaneously seeing the violent behaviour of thier own side as justified (ex. Conflict in Isreal)  Mirror-image perception: each group sees its own behaviour as caused by the same factor (the actions of the other side) Relative Deprivation Theory  Relative Deprivation: the discontent that is caused by the belief that one fares poorly compared to people in other groups, offers another explanation for group conflict  Derived from realistic conflict theory and frustration-aggression theory  Emphasizes a group’s perception of its circumstances  Perception that one has less than one is entitled to  Difference between the person or group’s perception of reality and their expectation of what should be, this expectation often caused by comparison with other people or groups  Even in absence of absolute or realistic deprivation (one’s basic welfare needs are unmet  Brown: “people are discontented not necessarily because they are hungry or poor, but because they are hungrier or poorer than they believe they should be”  formed by comparison with others; basis for intergroup conflict and group protest  Davis: 3 preconditions for relative deprivation to happen: not possessing X, wanting X, and feeling entitled to X  Crosby: expanded on Davis; model with more specific preconditions  1)feeling of discontent to be experiences, a person must be aware that someone else has X, 2)person must want X (X has to be valued), 3) feeling entitled to have X, 4) feeling that X is attainable (difficulty in obtaining X will lead to relative deprivation, 5) not feeling personally responsible for the lack of X  Runciman: relationship between relative deprivation and intergroup relations; 1) Fraternalistic relative deprivation (comparing groups), associated with intergroup attitudes and conflict; best predictor of negative attitudes 2) Egoistic relative deprivation (comparing within the group)  Relative deprivation = more negative attitudes toward outgroup members, as do participants who believe they’re more advantaged than others  Negative attitudes toward another group can be used to justify the preferential treatment of one’s own group How can intergroup conflict be resolved?  Applies to intragroup conflicts too Increased intergroup contact  Informal contact with people from different backgrounds can reduce prejudice and is associated with more positive feelings  People who know an in-group member who has an out-group friend and those who observe an in-group-out-group fri
More Less

Related notes for PSYC 2310

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.